A 21st Century Reality Check Regarding the 18th Century

Wistful reflection is a mighty force; it can turn The Great Depression into The Good Ol' Days or the 18th Century into the halcyon days of power to the people, unlike today when pointy-headed elitists are enslaving us by straying from our founders’ ideals. I don’t know whether to laugh, cry or scream as I watch Tea Partiers not only pine for these days but argue that anyone who doesn’t is historically ignorant. Before I explore this I want to state clearly that I have tremendous admiration for the architects of our democratic republic. I do, however, believe that a society should endeavor to perfect itself over time. I won’t presume to speak for our Founding Fathers, but I suspect they would agree. My quarrel is not with our nation’s founders but with my contemporaries who think we’ve veered dangerously off course ever since powdered wigs went out of vogue.

I first want to clear up the misconception that the Constitution was designed to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. On the contrary, it was drafted in order to increase the power of the federal government. Before the Constitution was ratified, the U.S. was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which created a central government that was far too weak. While the delegates to the Constitutional Convention feared a central government that was too powerful and they did seek to limit its intrusiveness, they understood above all that we needed to make the federal government stronger if we were to survive as a nation.

Federalists who were pushing for this Constitution with greater power vested in the national government were essentially in campaign mode trying to persuade those who feared central authority that it wouldn’t be so bad. I’m not suggesting that the authors of the Federalist Papers weren’t legitimately interested in small government, but that circumstances compelled them to spend an inordinate amount of time stressing limited government in order to gain the requisite support for a new constitution which, as a matter of necessity, created a more powerful federal government.

We campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Idealized visions are great but they tend to fall apart once exposed to reality. It’s unfair and meaningless to compare person A’s campaign promises to person B’s administration because the latter involves actually dealing with the real world. For example, with the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson gave us one of the world’s great masterpieces. In that document he points to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. That’s terrific except Jefferson was a slave owner. In this regard, Jefferson’s actions repudiate his own eloquent words. Such is the nature of the conflict between the very tidy theoretical world and the messier, far more complex real world.

At our nation’s inception, many Founding Fathers supported slavery and feared a powerful government. We see their preferences reflected in the early days of the republic. We also see an elitist form of very limited democracy. Only rich (land owning) white males had any political franchise at all. They could vote for Representatives, but for Senator or President, they could only vote for those who vote for these elected officials. Women, Blacks, Native Americans and Whites who didn’t own land had no say whatsoever.

As circumstances change we need to adapt. I’m willing to bet that Microsoft didn’t have an employee handbook when it was run out of someone’s garage. So what? We can endlessly debate the appropriate size and reach of government and still come no closer to a definitive answer than if we were debating whether green or purple is the prettier color. Hamilton, Jay and Madison were brilliant men, but luckily we’re not bound to follow in perpetuity whatever they imagined in the 18th Century. Through Constitutional amendment, reasonable if controversial interpretation, or changes regarding matters on which the Constitution is silent, we’re no longer bound by some of the less enlightened 18th Century conventions and therefore not condemned to live in a country without a truly free and democratic society.

Decency and Humanity Lie in Ashes

When chastised for his biased editing of the British Gazette, Winston Churchill quipped, "I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire." This was a great laugh line because the entire English speaking world understood that everyone would be on the side of the heroic firefighters who save people's homes and against the fires that destroy them. Sadly however, this week it's no longer as funny since some right wingers in this country have allied themselves with the flames, applauding a decision in rural Olbion County, Tennessee ordering firefighters to stand idly by and allow a home to burn to the ground because the homeowner didn't pay a $75 dollar fee.

The residents not only lost all of their earthly possessions, but their three dogs and a cat were also burned alive in the blaze. For those of you who aren't animal lovers, I ask you this, what if these pets were children instead? Should we let them die for fear that otherwise people may feel less compelled to pay the $75 fee, or should our basic humanity dictate that a bare minimum level of decency must be maintained, even in the face of a possible revenue decline, which can then be addressed? The homeowner offered to pay the fee, and both he and his neighbor offered to pay the firefighters whatever it cost to put out the fire, but they were told it was too late at that point.

I want to discuss two related though very different groups of people. First, there are those who support the fiscal decision to offer or refuse basic public safety resources like a fire department based on an opt-in fee. They philosophically prefer small, a la carte government and this "pay-to-spray" policy represents such an ideology put into practice. The other group is comprised of those who take delight in this family's tragedy. I want to discuss the second group first.

Glenn Beck and his sidekick spent some time on the radio show not only supporting the decision that forbade the firefighters to extinguish the fire, but also mocking the victim over and over. Beck's point, when he could interrupt his lackey's salting the wounds of the now homeless family, was that if we show any human decency and come to the aid of those who failed to pay the $75, they would be sponging off their neighbors. The one and only thing that both Beck and his co-host blurted out in perfect unison was that if the firefighters had put out the fire, "NO ONE" would play the $75. This speaks volumes about Glenn Beck. In his mind, unless people are allowed to suffer the most gut-wrenching, heartbreaking consequences, 100% of the people will be dishonorable 100% of the time. Luckily, as usual, he's wrong. Most people who expect to receive services pay the required fees whether or not it's possible that they could get away with gaming the system. While we all know this, we need to understand that someone whose entire life revolves around spreading fear and hatred is incapable of seeing humankind's better nature. Of course Beck would never have empathy for the victim because, as he said on national television, empathy leads to genocide. Don't ask me to explain; I can't untangle the twisted and tortured mind of Glenn Beck.

As far as the more tepid supporters of this sad event are concerned, I have to ask you, is this is really the world in which you want to live? First of all, this is a sufficiently obvious pubic good that it should never be considered a luxury item people choose to buy. Even if you somehow reject the notion of fire prevention as part of the public weal, there are any number of better schemes to keep revenues in line with costs than refusing to save the life of someone who failed to pay a small fee. Also, let's consider human error. If you dislike the public sector so much that you would make fire protection a free market option, you very likely believe the government is inept and that clerical errors will abound. If you're right, should the people who live at #145 and paid their fee be left to lose their home or worse because a clerk erroneously posted their payment to #154? Come on, people, we're better than this.

The Fundamental Problem of Fundamentalism

Nine years ago today we watched in horror as a series of carefully planned attacks were carried out against innocent victims who had no idea they would be targets of such savagery. It's hard for most people to imagine how anyone can be so inhuman as to deliberately cause maximum suffering and loss of innocent life. Perversely though not surprisingly, this was yet another atrocity done in the name of God, or as Muslims call Him, Allah. Speaking of God, one of His self-appointed press secretaries down in Florida dominated the news this week, as we paid far too much attention to this inconsequential flyspeck of a man who overextended his 15 minutes of fame by threatening to make a big show of burning the Koran. This would have served no purpose whatsoever except to inject a booster shot of hatred into a few already hate-poisoned souls.

Religion has enriched humanity by inspiring charity, compassion and other virtues, but religious fundamentalism and fanaticism have led to some horrendous things. Right now Muslims may be more likely than others to commit acts of terror explicitly in the name of their faith, but we should not, by any stretch of the imagination, conclude that the Koran is a book of violence while the Bible is a book of peace. Both of these sacred texts can be horrifying if read a certain way. We see in our Bible, particularly the Old Testament, a prime example of the God as bogeyman paradigm, a ghost story designed to terrify the masses and cow them into submission. You needn't go through the Bible with a fine-tooth comb to see some very disturbing things. Let's just look at a couple of the Bible's greatest hits, the Ten Commandments and the great flood/Noah's Ark.

There are variations of the Ten Commandments but in every case the first several involve playing to the ego of a needy and insecure God who even admits He's jealous and will punish descendants of those who reject Him to the third and fourth generation (Deut. 5:9). The Bible thus paints God as not only petty but also savagely vindictive, attacking generation after generation of innocent victims if someone in their lineage wouldn't invite Him to sit at the cool kids' table. The Bible also orders us to commit acts of heinous brutality if the Ten Commandments are violated. If anyone fails to speak of God with awe and reverence he is guilty of blasphemy and we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Lev. 24:13-16). People are also to be killed for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and the punishment for being a disobedient son? Yup, we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Deut 21:18-21).

The tale of Noah's Ark shows our God at his most bloodthirsty. He got angry and decided he would spare eight people (one couple, their three sons and their wives) and the bare minimum number of creatures necessary for repopulation, then He would drown every other living thing. God's sociopathic overreaction makes Vlad the Impaler look like the Dalai Lama, yet we would condemn the whole of Islam as brutally savage based on a news story about one jagoff blowing up a pizzeria.

I'm not insulting God. I would be if and only if I believed the Bible to be a direct dictation from God to an infallible stenographer, which I most assuredly do not. For one thing the story of Noah's Ark doesn't pass the laugh test. Rain falling at a rate that would cover the mountains in a few weeks would sink the USS Nimitz let alone a wooden boat laden with elephants, hippos, etc. Plus, though Bible defenders try to explain this away, a great many of the animals aboard this floating food chain would not be on the passenger list so much as the menu. Somebody just made it up. If you seek spiritual enlightenment to be the best person you can be I applaud you, but don't adopt fanaticism; nothing good comes of it no matter what Moses claims the talking shrubbery told him.

Fighting the Wrong "Elites"

The American political landscape is littered with examples of one group pitted against another. One such divide is what some on the right call the "culture war." As they frame it, this is a battle between salt of the earth "real" Americans who believe in traditional values, and their opponents, referred to as "liberal elites," whose views are more progressive, and who tend to live on either coast, especially in large metropolitan areas. For about the last forty-five years, the rivalry between these two factions has had very important electoral implications, raising the significance of this debate beyond just competing schools of thought in the marketplace of ideas.

Without rehashing the entire history that got us here, Nixon's southern strategy, the Reagan coalition and so forth, suffice it to say that millions of Americans felt the country had changed too much too fast and Republicans masterfully capitalized on the disquiet that swept through the South and other rural areas, changing the political map ever since. The defection of these traditional "values voters" to the Republican party has sparked debate over whether or not they're well served by that move. Some believe these people have been hoodwinked by clever political operatives who convince them they'll benefit by backing candidates who stand on their side on wedge issues such as abortion and gay rights.

That's precisely what historian and author Thomas Frank argues in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas? His central thesis is that these people were snookered by a classic bait and switch. Lure the voters by firing them up over some hot button social issues and have them vote you into office. Once elected, do nothing about these issues. Instead, use your position to greatly enhance the wealth and power of the privileged few, often to the detriment of those you suckered into voting for you against their own interest. In other words, market yourself as the party of Hallelujah, though you're actually the party of Halliburton. Dr. Frank's book is controversial, and there has been some rebuttal, but I'm not interested in whether or not his analysis is perfect; I'm interested in examining the consequences and wisdom of the choices we make. I'm second to none in my desire to see small town America take on the "elites", but the battle should be against the right elite.

The real elite are the select few at the very top of the economic ladder who have done exceedingly well in the last 30 years while the rest of the country has not. The richest 1% of the population holds as much wealth as the bottom 95% combined, and in this country money in many ways equals power. I would love to see the middle class fight to prevent its further erosion rather than siding with the very rich and abetting their efforts to control an even bigger share of the pie. Instead, too many people continue to harm themselves and others by injudiciously backing people who don't care about them.

Nobody wants to pay taxes but everybody wants the road paved. We all want to give the least and get the most, but what separates the privileged few from everyone else is that they have the power to make their wishes reality unless people stand up to them. Right now our economy is being held hostage. We're supposedly doomed unless we placate the richest Americans because decision makers are hamstrung, not knowing if the top tax rate will return to where it was during the Clinton years. Really? Well, if you lack the business acumen to handle uncertainty in this uncertain world, your $24 million pay is overinflated by at least $23.95 million and your shareholders would like it back please.

Before making its own mistakes, the labor movement taught us that if we stand together we can create a society of broadly shared prosperity that became the envy of the world. History has also taught us that polarization of wealth is a recipe for disaster. It will be a glorious day when "real" Americans take on the real "elites."

Some Gave All Most Gave None

Wars call for broadly shared sacrifice. During WWII sixteen million Americans served in the armed forces; at maximum troop strength, about eight million served at once. More importantly, everyone on the home front sacrificed as well. That's what a country a war looks like even if that war isn't being fought on home soil. Civilians rationed goods because the military came first while they risked their lives defending everyone else. No one's life was unaffected by the war.

Our wars got smaller after WWII, but the Korean and Vietnam wars still had the draft so families from a broad cross section of America were asked to put their loved ones in harm's way. This is no longer the case. We haven't had a military draft since 1973, but we've sent troops to fight in conflicts large and small in the '80's, 90's, 00's and now 10's. We're increasingly asking a small few to bear what should be borne by the many. I don't want to muddy this discussion with a fiscal policy debate, but bellowing "We're a country at war!" and "Lower my taxes!" in the same breath would have been unthinkable anywhere in the world at any time in history except the United States in the 21st Century. The simultaneous belief that we're at war but shouldn't be inconvenienced by taxes, a draft or anything else betrays a troubling mindset I'll discuss in a moment, but first I want to talk about the heroic men and women who have served our country.

Whether through the old Billy Ray Cyrus song or some other source, you've probably heard the saying, "All gave some; some gave all" in reference to our war veterans. These words remind us that we owe these heroes more than we could ever repay. They have earned our support and our eternal gratitude. However, the quote only refers to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and those who paid a different price but served just as honorably. If we expand the circle to describe our entire "country at war" right now we should say, "Some gave all; most gave none."

Our military personnel put their lives on the line every day without question or hesitation. That's the code of the warrior and they view their incredible selflessness as nothing more that doing their duty. Even those who sustain severe, debilitating injuries often want to go back to their units and continue the fight! Let me repeat, we owe a debt to these heroes that is far too large to ever repay. Since the troops think only of duty and honor without regard to their own safety, we must be unwavering in our commitment to only place them in the mortal danger when absolutely necessary. To do otherwise is to hold this supreme sacrifice cheap, which would be an abomination that defies words.

While we would never deliberately treat our fighting men and women so recklessly, there's a danger to citizens clamoring for war while they have no skin in the game. People love to imperiously say, "off with their heads!" any time someone in the world displeases them, and unless those urges are tempered by the horrific reality of war, it's far too easy to violate our sacred covenant with the military by effectively regarding these precious young lives as cannon fodder.

Last month the nation closely watched the saga of Lindsay Lohan but few noticed that we also lost 65 troops in Afghanistan, which is our worst monthly loss to date. More than half of the fallen will never see a 25th birthday. We've now been in Afghanistan for nearly nine years and it's time to reevaluate the mission and what we can expect to gain in exchange for this loss of life. Supporting our troops means advocating for them because they'll never say no to risking their lives for their country. We owe them our real support, not just the token effort of slapping a $5 ribbon-shaped magnet on a $30,000 SUV.

From "I Have a Dream" to "I Have a Delusion"

What a difference 47 years can make. On this date in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his immortal "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. That address helped inspire a nation to finally take on the difficult task of abolishing a deeply ingrained system of oppression and injustice. As such, it was a transformative event in the annals of American history. Today, 47 years later, right wing broadcaster Glenn Beck is holding a rally on the same site. I want to discuss some of the similarities and some of the differences between Martin Luther King and Glenn Beck.

First, with respect to the similarities, both men always seemed to make a lot of angry white people angrier, King because he threatened the unjust white stranglehold on power and Beck because deliberately provoking white fear and anger is how he makes his living. While his broadcasts may also happen to contain other elements, his principal objective is to fan the flames of wild-eyed paranoia. Removing this from Glenn Beck's show is like taking the guitar away from Jimi Hendrix.

Another similarity is that Dr. King, as a visionary, could see things that didn't yet exist such as a far more just society. One of Glenn Beck's most prominent characteristics is his unusual tendency to see things that don't exist such as secret FEMA concentration camps or how empathy leads to genocide. The former example was so wacky that Beck ultimately had to go on the air and admit these camps didn't exist. You know something is nuts if it's too far out there for Glenn Beck! That's like being too fast to be a sprinter or too beautiful to be a model -- it's hard to even fathom the concept.

With respect to differences, Dr. King always took the high road and spoke from and to the better side of human nature no matter what horrific examples of man's inhumanity to man he encountered. Martin Luther King encouraged his followers to reject bitter emotions and embrace the nobler Christian ideals of charity and compassion as they struggled to make the world a better place. Glenn Beck does the exact opposite, doing everything in his power to bring out the worst in people. Although this clip is just a piece of comedy, Lewis Black's "Glenn Back Has Nazi Tourette's" illustrates how Glenn Beck can liken anything, no matter how innocuous, to Nazism. He uses Nazi Germany because this is the most hideous nightmare the masses can easily picture. By constantly comparing whatever he dislikes to the most terrifying evil he can conjure up, he achieves his goal of injecting the maximum amount of fear and hatred into the hearts and minds of his audience.

All of this said, I watched most of today's event online and I found it pretty inoffensive. Those who said this would be apolitical proved to be right and those of us who said in effect, "yeah, right!" were wrong. I didn't see him, Sarah Palin, or anyone else say anything too obnoxious. Even if they did once or twice and I missed it, that's perfectly acceptable playing to the crowd. Seeing the rally play out as it did was like expecting a Rolling Stones concert to be full of their hits from the last 45 years, only to see them perform nothing but two hours of polkas. For those of you who missed the event altogether, here's the Reader's Digest version: Our soldiers are heroes and God is great. Except that people have differing views on religious matters, this was about as controversial as asserting that Siberia gets nippy in the winter. I expected to see something resembling the Glenn Beck Show and instead I saw an Amway rally or Come to Jesus Revival Meeting.

I hope this saner, more decent Glenn Beck is a sign of things to come.

The Danger Facing the United States of Oz

I feel as though I'm living in the Land of Oz. I see hate merchants without hearts using their "fear and smear" campaign to manipulate people who lack the brains to understand they're being duped, and an opposition refusing to openly condemn these wicked charlatans and exalt our better angels because they don't have the courage. Haters and cowards and dopes, oh my! Haters and cowards and dopes, oh my! We all bear some responsibility for this state of affairs. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me every time you open your mouth, and there's something pathologically wrong with both of us. This trend doesn't require anywhere near 100% participation to do tremendous damage, so the fact that some rise above this doesn't relieve the problem.

The general public bears the most blame, but that doesn't absolve anyone else. The least blameworthy are the "leaders" who should take principled stands but choose to be cautious instead. Yes, they should have integrity and the courage of their convictions, but if we enlist them to fight the good fight, only to crucify them for telling us the unpopular truth, we can hardly fault them for saluting us with one finger. As far as the purveyors of fear and hatred go, yes, they're despicable but we're supporting them. Rush Limbaugh is a wretched persona whose every broadcast is like an upper decker in America's toilet, but we've made him the biggest thing on radio since Fr. Coughlin broadcast his anti-Semitic screeds in the 1930's. We've always had an abundant supply of people who spew ignorance and hatred. Our demand for these shrill voices is what fluctuates, and at the moment we can't get enough. In the infancy of Obama's presidency, RNC chairman Michael Steele learned the peril of speaking the truth about Rush Limbaugh. He conceded that what Rush did was incendiary and ugly. The ensuing firestorm forced Steele to crawl on his hands and knees to kiss Rush's ring. Again, we want people to martyr themselves by speaking the truth, but we should recognize that self-preservation is a hard-wired instinct.

There are real costs to what's happening. We're unable to forge the cooperation we need to address the crises ravaging our lives. I understand that Democrats are in power and Republicans as an opposition party have different ideas. Opposition is healthy, but they're not acting as opponents; they're acting as enemies. Political opponents see things differently and offer different prescriptions to cure our ills. Political enemies are solely interested in their rivals' demise. Right now Republicans seek to destroy this administration. If President Obama says A, Republicans swear that B is the only answer. Had he said B, they would swear that A is the only answer. Lawmakers have a duty to put aside their differences and work for the public good. Deliberately prolonging the suffering of the American people is unconscionable and unforgivable.

The rampant spread of anti-Islamic bigotry is also a potentially catastrophic problem. While difficult to quantify and measure, there's a cost to poisoning our national soul. A recent Pew Research poll showed that 25% of Americans (42% of Republicans) believe local communities should be able to forbid the construction of mosques. Only 47% of Republicans believe that Muslims should have the same right to worship as other faiths! Among the majority of Republicans who would deny 1st Amendment rights to Muslims, I bet most of them scream about Obama not honoring a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. I also bet they don't see their hypocrisy. I'm troubled that as President Obama is increasingly portrayed as the bogeyman, he's also increasingly believed to be Muslim. Among Republicans, 31% say he's a Muslim and only 27% correctly identify him as a Christian.

More importantly, we have military personnel risking their lives in Islamic lands trying to stop terrorism. This is not conventional warfare where we exert force until they say Uncle. Hearts and minds are the central front in this campaign. If we continue to convey the message that Islam itself is our enemy, then we will have done to ourselves what our enemy is incapable of doing -- we will have made our failure an iron-clad guarantee. We're not there yet, but we're taking dangerously idiotic steps in that direction. Effectively telling the Islamic world that the sleazy strip club near "Ground zero" doesn't defile this sacred ground but their house of worship does is a slap in the face that should deeply offend them.

It's not too late for cooler heads to prevail and pull us back from the brink. Let's return to a United States that isn't dominated by hatred and division. That country is my home and, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home..."