The title of this post is taken from George Orwell's novel, 1984. Specifically, these were the slogans that were displayed on the Ministry of Truth building. I'm not suggesting that Orwell was prescient or that our society resembles the dystopian nightmare laid out in that book, but I can't resist commenting on how these words are important to the book 1984, the year 1984 is so important to conservative Republicans, and how these words from the book express the right wing philosophy.
The movement conservatives who currently dominate Republican politics look upon the "Reagan Revolution" with unparalleled reverence. 1984 is perhaps the most celebrated year in terms of Reagan's presidency. In that year he was reelected President with a 49 state landslide. Although purely coincidental, it's still amusing that these slogans from the book 1984 would capture the essence of political thought for right wing Republicans who cherish Reagan and 1984.
War is peace is the most obvious. At one time, conservative Republicans were opposed to foreign entanglements and simply wanted to be left alone to make money, but now Neo-conservatives love war, despise diplomacy, and can scarcely fathom the concept of peace without a body count. Whether it's war abroad or more guns at home, actual or threatened bloodshed is their only path to tranquility.
Ignorance is strength has also become a doctrine for the far right. They routinely spurn science, nuanced thought, and anything that challenges their preferred orthodoxy, in favor of a mindless adherence to a party line teeming with misinformation, unchallenged erroneous assumptions, and wishful thinking. This willful ignorance is the reason such a disturbing number of Republicans believe that President Obama is a Muslim or was born overseas or that Glenn Beck is worth listening to as he weaves his tapestry of nutty conspiracy theories. The right has built a great deal of its strength because the ignorant masses in their ranks mindlessly repeat what they hear rather than doing 45 seconds of research, and I'm not even counting the religious right.
The third contradiction, freedom is slavery is perhaps the most troubling. The right wing's confusion between freedom and slavery is central to their agenda, and it will harm society for generations if we don't push back now. When the almighty overlords completely subjugate the masses, most people would call this slavery. The political right calls it their freedom agenda. Whenever there's a conflict between powerful forces and average citizens, the answer for conservatives is to strip whatever power the little guy has in order to make an already uphill fight unwinnable. If a battalion of machine gunners fought some poor schmuck armed with a rock, conservatives would correct this imbalance by taking away the guy's rock.
If workers have some leverage against powerful corporations or governments, eliminate their bargaining power, as they're trying to do in Wisconsin. If we pass laws that protect consumers against abusive and corrupt practices in the financial world, gut the enforcement mechanism, as they're now trying to do in Congress. For years, the only suggestion Republicans made to combat skyrocketing health care costs was to limit an injured person's right to seek redress through the courts. A little guy going up against a giant hospital corporation and an insurance company wasn't unfair enough for them; they had to give the mighty an artificial advantage to supplement the natural dominance they already had. After all, a court case involves lawyers against lawyers and an impartial judge and jury. Such a fair system is intolerable because justice is anathema to the right.
By freedom, conservatives mean the freedom of the few to enslave the many, and we need to stop them. Being rich and powerful has always had its advantages and we don't need to sweeten the deal for those at the top. Moreover, most Republicans will be hurt by their own agenda. Yes, A few will score big and be thankful that we discarded our former national greatness in order to further tip the scales in their favor, but most conservatives are, metaphorically speaking, Titanic passengers who have been too blinded by greed and ignorance to see their self-destructive stupidity in supporting the iceberg. The rest of us mustn't be so foolish.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Mourning in America
In his first inaugural address, Ronald Reagan said, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He was referring specifically to the rising debt through deficit spending, but in a general sense he was also expressing his desire to reduce the government even if we had sufficient tax revenues to balance the budget. Although he spent a number of years as the head of government at both the state and federal level, Reagan openly expressed his contempt for government. He's also famous for saying, "The nine most terrifying word in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Remarkably, Reagan was somehow able to preach the Gospel of anti-governmentalism while simultaneously convincing people that happy days were here again. His sunny optimism was infectious even as he conveyed the disturbing message that our freely and fairly elected government, of which he was the leader, was plaguing us like a disease. It takes someone with Reagan's skills to convince people that a central institution of our society was destroying us but we could still rejoice because, as his reelection campaign trumpeted, "It's morning in America." Alas, the conservative Republicans who have followed in his footsteps have mastered the hatred of government but they lack Reagan's jovial nature that allowed him to work with people of all stripes. This has become a serious problem.
Even with all of his charm, Reagan failed miserably in his effort to reduce government and rein in the debt. On the contrary, the national debt skyrocketed under his administration and we went from being the largest creditor nation on earth to the largest debtor nation. He presided over huge tax code changes, steadily increasing government spending and, despite all of his bluster about reducing government, no peacetime president before him was anywhere near as reckless with the ballooning debt as he was. His conservative Republican successors, both named George Bush also did their damage, although George H.W. Bush did far less harm than his son. Democrat Bill Clinton did a much better job as illustrated here and here. You may also find this interesting.
We shouldn't be surprised that Reagan proved to be a complete hypocrite when it came to controlling the debt. Running this country is hard and I can't imagine anyone with such disdain for government being particularly good at governing. Likewise, I wouldn't expect Pope Benedict XVI to be an effective head of Planned Parenthood, and PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wouldn't be the go-to person to run a meat packing plant. Reagan is also to blame for much greater problems than just runaway debt. Ronald Reagan is the father of modern governmental irresponsibility. He and his ideological followers did damage that will likely be measured in decades because they not only left us with severe problems, they largely gutted our ability to create solutions. They conditioned the public to believe that we shouldn't have to sacrifice; we should have all the bloated military spending and other pet projects we want, and if any responsible grownup comes along suggesting that we need to raise revenue to pay for the shiny new toys we buy ourselves, he or she must be ferociously condemned as a communist hell-bent on America's destruction.
Like it or not, we need a strong public sector. While Reagan harmed the institution of government, those who claim to be his disciples are far worse. The GOP should change its logo from the elephant to the Trojan horse because conservatives now seek entry into elected office in order to wreak havoc, not as the people's representatives they purport to be, but as saboteurs. They campaign their way into government's inner sanctum in order to smother government with a pillow.
For the past 30 years, the very rich have done extremely well while the rest of the country has struggled. As Warren Buffett said, the richest Americans have seen their wealth take off like a rocket ship while lower income workers have been on a treadmill. This is the sad legacy of Reaganomics, which is clearly not the trickle down system it was alleged to be, but instead a siphon up system where the broadly shared prosperity that once typified American society has been replaced by increased struggle for the many so that the few can live like sultans. Somehow the character flaw of outsized greed became a virtue consonant with Reagan's philosophy that the poor had too much and the rich had too little.
Today, on the centennial of Reagan's birth, we should resolve to put the American dream back within the grasp of most Americans and stop sacrificing it on the altar of wretched excess.
Remarkably, Reagan was somehow able to preach the Gospel of anti-governmentalism while simultaneously convincing people that happy days were here again. His sunny optimism was infectious even as he conveyed the disturbing message that our freely and fairly elected government, of which he was the leader, was plaguing us like a disease. It takes someone with Reagan's skills to convince people that a central institution of our society was destroying us but we could still rejoice because, as his reelection campaign trumpeted, "It's morning in America." Alas, the conservative Republicans who have followed in his footsteps have mastered the hatred of government but they lack Reagan's jovial nature that allowed him to work with people of all stripes. This has become a serious problem.
Even with all of his charm, Reagan failed miserably in his effort to reduce government and rein in the debt. On the contrary, the national debt skyrocketed under his administration and we went from being the largest creditor nation on earth to the largest debtor nation. He presided over huge tax code changes, steadily increasing government spending and, despite all of his bluster about reducing government, no peacetime president before him was anywhere near as reckless with the ballooning debt as he was. His conservative Republican successors, both named George Bush also did their damage, although George H.W. Bush did far less harm than his son. Democrat Bill Clinton did a much better job as illustrated here and here. You may also find this interesting.
We shouldn't be surprised that Reagan proved to be a complete hypocrite when it came to controlling the debt. Running this country is hard and I can't imagine anyone with such disdain for government being particularly good at governing. Likewise, I wouldn't expect Pope Benedict XVI to be an effective head of Planned Parenthood, and PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wouldn't be the go-to person to run a meat packing plant. Reagan is also to blame for much greater problems than just runaway debt. Ronald Reagan is the father of modern governmental irresponsibility. He and his ideological followers did damage that will likely be measured in decades because they not only left us with severe problems, they largely gutted our ability to create solutions. They conditioned the public to believe that we shouldn't have to sacrifice; we should have all the bloated military spending and other pet projects we want, and if any responsible grownup comes along suggesting that we need to raise revenue to pay for the shiny new toys we buy ourselves, he or she must be ferociously condemned as a communist hell-bent on America's destruction.
Like it or not, we need a strong public sector. While Reagan harmed the institution of government, those who claim to be his disciples are far worse. The GOP should change its logo from the elephant to the Trojan horse because conservatives now seek entry into elected office in order to wreak havoc, not as the people's representatives they purport to be, but as saboteurs. They campaign their way into government's inner sanctum in order to smother government with a pillow.
For the past 30 years, the very rich have done extremely well while the rest of the country has struggled. As Warren Buffett said, the richest Americans have seen their wealth take off like a rocket ship while lower income workers have been on a treadmill. This is the sad legacy of Reaganomics, which is clearly not the trickle down system it was alleged to be, but instead a siphon up system where the broadly shared prosperity that once typified American society has been replaced by increased struggle for the many so that the few can live like sultans. Somehow the character flaw of outsized greed became a virtue consonant with Reagan's philosophy that the poor had too much and the rich had too little.
Today, on the centennial of Reagan's birth, we should resolve to put the American dream back within the grasp of most Americans and stop sacrificing it on the altar of wretched excess.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Palin 2012: God's Gift to Obama
Last month, after nearly two months of post-election wrangling, Tea Party candidate Joe Miller's final attempt to have the courts overturn the will of Alaska's voters was rebuffed and the last death rattle of his Senate campaign finally fell silent. Sarah Palin had backed Joe Miller, and his defeat was a blow to her reputation as a kingmaker, particularly since this happened in her own backyard and at the hands of the voters who had once elected her. Also, while this defeat on its own may be a bitter pill for Palin to swallow, the broader narrative may be devastating to her.
Combining this loss with those of Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware we can perhaps connect the dots and draw certain inferences. In Delaware, Republican Mike Castle looked like a shoo-in to pick up a seat but the party didn't nominate him, and in Nevada, as I pointed out in a post this summer, Republicans could have easily ousted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid with any credible candidate, but instead they chose Sharron Angle. The common thread in all of these cases is the limitation of anger and resentment. While the most radical faction of the Tea Party may cast enough votes to foist an embarrassing candidate on the Republican Party, the general electorate is still unwilling to select a candidate who is clearly unqualified for the position he or she seeks. Unless the public reverses this trend and develops an appetite for manifestly unqualified candidates, Sarah Palin will never win another election.
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today he could use Sarah Palin as "Exhibit A" in support of his words, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." These days she seems unable to open her mouth without her stock plummeting. She has a rabid base of hardcore supporters who tend to show up at Tea Party rallies ranting, raving and wielding cardboard signs of misspelled hate speech, but there aren't enough of these fanatics to help her win a general election. The ranks of those who hold a favorable view of Palin keep dwindling while the ranks of those who view her unfavorably continue to swell.
More importantly, to the extent Palin continues to be such a force in the Republican Party as 2012 approaches, President Obama benefits mightily. Look at the two speeches given on the same day in the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy. When the nation needed a leader, President Obama showed us what a leader looks like. Sarah Palin by contrast revealed her true character as a petty, self-absorbed opportunist who lacks enough presidential timber to build a matchstick. The unavoidable comparison of these two speeches sent public opinion of these two people in opposite directions. It became hard to picture Sarah Palin as a great president of the Miley Cyrus Fan Club let alone the United States of America. Palin's apologists say that she had to come out and defend herself as she did because she was the target of unfair accusations, and President Obama had the luxury of being above the fray. This is so absurd that it's hard not to laugh out loud. Yes, Palin had some stones unfairly cast her way, but for every such pebble directed at her, President Obama has had an entire quarry of rocks thrown at him by, among others, Sarah Palin herself.
Palin could be an unwitting blessing to Barack Obama's reelection in a number of ways. The dream scenario would be her running as a third party, perhaps Tea Party, candidate, which would give neither her nor the Republican nominee a prayer of winning. Failing that, if she goes deep into primary season beating up on fellow Republicans, the damage could provide the margin of victory for a second Obama administration. Also, if she seeks the nomination and is roundly rejected by the voters who know she can't win a general election, this could strip the all-important enthusiasm factor from the far right fringe of the party, which is her base and an increasingly important voting bloc for the Republicans. Finally, if she just continues sucking all the oxygen from the room, diverting attention away from serious men and women who seek the Republican nomination, she does her party a disservice and gives President Obama a great gift.
Combining this loss with those of Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware we can perhaps connect the dots and draw certain inferences. In Delaware, Republican Mike Castle looked like a shoo-in to pick up a seat but the party didn't nominate him, and in Nevada, as I pointed out in a post this summer, Republicans could have easily ousted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid with any credible candidate, but instead they chose Sharron Angle. The common thread in all of these cases is the limitation of anger and resentment. While the most radical faction of the Tea Party may cast enough votes to foist an embarrassing candidate on the Republican Party, the general electorate is still unwilling to select a candidate who is clearly unqualified for the position he or she seeks. Unless the public reverses this trend and develops an appetite for manifestly unqualified candidates, Sarah Palin will never win another election.
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today he could use Sarah Palin as "Exhibit A" in support of his words, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." These days she seems unable to open her mouth without her stock plummeting. She has a rabid base of hardcore supporters who tend to show up at Tea Party rallies ranting, raving and wielding cardboard signs of misspelled hate speech, but there aren't enough of these fanatics to help her win a general election. The ranks of those who hold a favorable view of Palin keep dwindling while the ranks of those who view her unfavorably continue to swell.
More importantly, to the extent Palin continues to be such a force in the Republican Party as 2012 approaches, President Obama benefits mightily. Look at the two speeches given on the same day in the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy. When the nation needed a leader, President Obama showed us what a leader looks like. Sarah Palin by contrast revealed her true character as a petty, self-absorbed opportunist who lacks enough presidential timber to build a matchstick. The unavoidable comparison of these two speeches sent public opinion of these two people in opposite directions. It became hard to picture Sarah Palin as a great president of the Miley Cyrus Fan Club let alone the United States of America. Palin's apologists say that she had to come out and defend herself as she did because she was the target of unfair accusations, and President Obama had the luxury of being above the fray. This is so absurd that it's hard not to laugh out loud. Yes, Palin had some stones unfairly cast her way, but for every such pebble directed at her, President Obama has had an entire quarry of rocks thrown at him by, among others, Sarah Palin herself.
Palin could be an unwitting blessing to Barack Obama's reelection in a number of ways. The dream scenario would be her running as a third party, perhaps Tea Party, candidate, which would give neither her nor the Republican nominee a prayer of winning. Failing that, if she goes deep into primary season beating up on fellow Republicans, the damage could provide the margin of victory for a second Obama administration. Also, if she seeks the nomination and is roundly rejected by the voters who know she can't win a general election, this could strip the all-important enthusiasm factor from the far right fringe of the party, which is her base and an increasingly important voting bloc for the Republicans. Finally, if she just continues sucking all the oxygen from the room, diverting attention away from serious men and women who seek the Republican nomination, she does her party a disservice and gives President Obama a great gift.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Either Stand by Your Words or Shut the (BLEEP!) Up!
The right wing hate machine just can't seem to help itself. The usual suspects, Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, etc., are simply being themselves, which is to say acting shamefully. Yesterday Sarah Palin released a video in which she lashed out at those who decried the incendiary tone of the hate machine's rhetoric, especially those who suggested it might have influenced Jared Loughner. Since Palin and others were at least partly blamed for this tragedy despite the fact that their vitriol appears to have no causal link, she had the perfect opportunity to take the high road and come out smelling like a rose, but unsurprisingly she chose not to. In her video she said that acts of criminality "begin and end with the criminals." No one else bears any share of the blame. In the very next paragraph, without a trace of irony, she says that because words are not responsible for inciting hatred and violence, people who claim otherwise are reprehensible because their words are responsible for inciting hatred and violence.
Huh?!
Of course in that same sentence she made the great faux pas of referring to the assertions of journalists and pundits as "blood libel", which was very offensive to many in the Jewish community. The stupidity is compounded when you consider that Palin was trying to express either real or feigned concern for Gabby Giffords as she lies in a hospital bed clinging to life, and that Giffords is the first Jewish woman Arizona ever elected to Congress. Palin obviously didn't write the speech herself and since her ignorance is well known, we can excuse her offensiveness since she was in all likelihood completely oblivious. Palin was merely reading aloud. Although she lacks the intellect and eloquence to have written that speech, I have to give her full marks for finding a writer who could capture the Palin essence of petty vindictiveness.
Turning to Glenn Beck, in more theater of the absurd, Beck was outraged that anyone in the media would offer this sort of innuendo, painting someone as contributing to something bad without specific proof. (Hello, Kettle? Yeah, hi, it's the pot. I'm just calling to say you're black.) Every single day Glenn Beck goes on the air and pushes his wild-eyed conspiracy theories, gesticulating wildly as he tries to terrify his audience into believing that anyone to the left of the far, far right is seeking to enslave us all in a country that will be indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. His ranting sounds as though it should be coming from a chronic drooler who has to wear a hockey helmet at all times.
Beck and Limbaugh make their living by spreading fear and hatred every day for the entirety of their broadcasts. They want us to believe that the consequences are apocalyptic if we stray from their brand of arch conservatism, yet they become enraged at the suggestion that they might drive someone over the edge just because they constantly bombard their disciples with their message that left of center America is the Great Satan that must be confronted with the fury of a holy war or we face imminent destruction. Now Beck is out there saying he hates violence and doesn't want anyone harmed. Well, which is it? Were you lying then or are you lying now? If all men are mortal and John is a man then John must be mortal; it's called a syllogism. If anything comparable to Hitler's reign of terror must be stopped by any means at our disposal and the current administration fits that description, then it must be stopped by any means at our disposal. Beck supported preemptive war in Iraq and has foamed at the mouth about appeasement of monstrous regimes, so a claim that he means wait for the voters to replace President Obama is a dog that just won't hunt. So again I ask, Glenn, were you lying then or are you lying now? Either this evil must be stopped by any means if we are to avoid national Armageddon, or the hate speech you use to poison the minds and souls of people with a pervading unease and a great amount of undirected anger is a patent fraud perpetrated by a loathsome fraction of a man who is too cowardly to own up to being the charlatan that he is. If you aren't prepared to defend what you say on your broadcasts then SHUT THE (BLEEP!) UP!
Huh?!
Of course in that same sentence she made the great faux pas of referring to the assertions of journalists and pundits as "blood libel", which was very offensive to many in the Jewish community. The stupidity is compounded when you consider that Palin was trying to express either real or feigned concern for Gabby Giffords as she lies in a hospital bed clinging to life, and that Giffords is the first Jewish woman Arizona ever elected to Congress. Palin obviously didn't write the speech herself and since her ignorance is well known, we can excuse her offensiveness since she was in all likelihood completely oblivious. Palin was merely reading aloud. Although she lacks the intellect and eloquence to have written that speech, I have to give her full marks for finding a writer who could capture the Palin essence of petty vindictiveness.
Turning to Glenn Beck, in more theater of the absurd, Beck was outraged that anyone in the media would offer this sort of innuendo, painting someone as contributing to something bad without specific proof. (Hello, Kettle? Yeah, hi, it's the pot. I'm just calling to say you're black.) Every single day Glenn Beck goes on the air and pushes his wild-eyed conspiracy theories, gesticulating wildly as he tries to terrify his audience into believing that anyone to the left of the far, far right is seeking to enslave us all in a country that will be indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. His ranting sounds as though it should be coming from a chronic drooler who has to wear a hockey helmet at all times.
Beck and Limbaugh make their living by spreading fear and hatred every day for the entirety of their broadcasts. They want us to believe that the consequences are apocalyptic if we stray from their brand of arch conservatism, yet they become enraged at the suggestion that they might drive someone over the edge just because they constantly bombard their disciples with their message that left of center America is the Great Satan that must be confronted with the fury of a holy war or we face imminent destruction. Now Beck is out there saying he hates violence and doesn't want anyone harmed. Well, which is it? Were you lying then or are you lying now? If all men are mortal and John is a man then John must be mortal; it's called a syllogism. If anything comparable to Hitler's reign of terror must be stopped by any means at our disposal and the current administration fits that description, then it must be stopped by any means at our disposal. Beck supported preemptive war in Iraq and has foamed at the mouth about appeasement of monstrous regimes, so a claim that he means wait for the voters to replace President Obama is a dog that just won't hunt. So again I ask, Glenn, were you lying then or are you lying now? Either this evil must be stopped by any means if we are to avoid national Armageddon, or the hate speech you use to poison the minds and souls of people with a pervading unease and a great amount of undirected anger is a patent fraud perpetrated by a loathsome fraction of a man who is too cowardly to own up to being the charlatan that he is. If you aren't prepared to defend what you say on your broadcasts then SHUT THE (BLEEP!) UP!
Saturday, December 11, 2010
And They'll Know We Are Christians by Our...Hate? Wait, That Can't Be Right
The funeral for Elizabeth Edwards will take place this afternoon in Raleigh, North Carolina. Her grown daughter and two preteen children will look on as she's laid to rest beside her son who died at the age of 16. To anyone with even a shred of human decency, this is a heartbreaking scene. It's hard to imagine feeling anything but compassion for this family and an innate desire to somehow ease their suffering. However, I'm sad to say that there are people who don't have a shred of human decency. Enter our very own Star Spangled Taliban, the Westboro Baptist Church. They are sending a contingent of their hate merchants who will be celebrating her death, brandishing signs saying, among other things, "Thank God for breast cancer" and otherwise doing what they can to salt the wounds of the suffering children who have just lost their mother.
The perverse irony is that these sadistic monsters are perpetrating this viciousness in the name of God. There is nothing divine about their inhuman cruelty, and claiming that it's done to worship The Prince of Peace is like honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. by denying blacks the right to sit at the front of a bus. This is apparently lost on people like Fred Phelps. Because religion should and does foster the best elements of humankind, I still find myself unable to make peace with the fact that religious fundamentalism and zealotry are responsible for humanity at its absolute worst. Whether we're talking about al-Qaeda or the Westboro Baptist Church, the depravity of these warped fundamentalists, comes from an abyss of hatred and evil whose depth is difficult if not impossible to plumb.
Luckily, these cretins from the WBC have marginalized themselves by visiting their unique brand of ugliness upon the grieving families of military personnel who gave their lives, generally at a very young age. Otherwise, I fear that they might have wider appeal among religious conservatives in this country. Remember that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson went on television to advance the view that we were deservedly attacked because, among other things, we don't sufficiently subjugate women or mistreat gays and lesbians. Thus, in the view of Robertson, Falwell and the intolerant millions for whom they speak, God apparently lifted His magical force field protecting our country just so innocent masses could be slaughtered as a cautionary tale whose moral is to be more judgmental and intolerant. To his credit, President George W. Bush, himself a conservative Christian, immediately repudiated this filth. We must remember that while Pat Robertson and those like him would be in the fringe of any other advanced society, he is in the mainstream in this country. In 1988 he finished second in the Iowa caucus for the Republican presidential nomination. Eventual nominee and president, George H.W. Bush finished third.
First Amendment protection applies equally to everyone in this country including the wretched, despicable hatemongers from the WBC and I wouldn't want it any other way. They have the right to worship as they choose, to speak freely and to protest, although like all rights certain reasonable restrictions may apply. Freedom of speech is, however, a two-way street and good people must stand up and say in no uncertain terms that what Fred Phelps and his minions do is an unmitigated disgrace, deplorable in the eyes of anyone with a scintilla of decency or Christian charity.
The perverse irony is that these sadistic monsters are perpetrating this viciousness in the name of God. There is nothing divine about their inhuman cruelty, and claiming that it's done to worship The Prince of Peace is like honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. by denying blacks the right to sit at the front of a bus. This is apparently lost on people like Fred Phelps. Because religion should and does foster the best elements of humankind, I still find myself unable to make peace with the fact that religious fundamentalism and zealotry are responsible for humanity at its absolute worst. Whether we're talking about al-Qaeda or the Westboro Baptist Church, the depravity of these warped fundamentalists, comes from an abyss of hatred and evil whose depth is difficult if not impossible to plumb.
Luckily, these cretins from the WBC have marginalized themselves by visiting their unique brand of ugliness upon the grieving families of military personnel who gave their lives, generally at a very young age. Otherwise, I fear that they might have wider appeal among religious conservatives in this country. Remember that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson went on television to advance the view that we were deservedly attacked because, among other things, we don't sufficiently subjugate women or mistreat gays and lesbians. Thus, in the view of Robertson, Falwell and the intolerant millions for whom they speak, God apparently lifted His magical force field protecting our country just so innocent masses could be slaughtered as a cautionary tale whose moral is to be more judgmental and intolerant. To his credit, President George W. Bush, himself a conservative Christian, immediately repudiated this filth. We must remember that while Pat Robertson and those like him would be in the fringe of any other advanced society, he is in the mainstream in this country. In 1988 he finished second in the Iowa caucus for the Republican presidential nomination. Eventual nominee and president, George H.W. Bush finished third.
First Amendment protection applies equally to everyone in this country including the wretched, despicable hatemongers from the WBC and I wouldn't want it any other way. They have the right to worship as they choose, to speak freely and to protest, although like all rights certain reasonable restrictions may apply. Freedom of speech is, however, a two-way street and good people must stand up and say in no uncertain terms that what Fred Phelps and his minions do is an unmitigated disgrace, deplorable in the eyes of anyone with a scintilla of decency or Christian charity.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
One Nation Under...Well, a Lot of Things
When December 7th rolls around each year we're reminded of the attack on Pearl Harbor, which occurred on this date 69 years ago. That event brought us into World War II with a vengeance and provided the opening sentence for a magnificent chapter in not only U.S. history but world history as well. The United States pulled together, sacrificed across the board and did more than anyone thought possible. Let me illustrate the power of our resolve. In the second half of 1940, gearing up for possible entry into WWII, we produced about 3,600 airplanes. By 1944 we were producing nearly 100,000 planes a year. The unified strength of the USA was a force that simply couldn't be matched if we were determined to master a challenge. In 70 years we've had a meteoric rise, but we're headed for a crash landing unless we change course.
We can't afford to sit on our laurels and assume that we'll always be on top because God likes us best. We earned our number one status with sacrifice and dedication not supernatural puppeteering, and we can and will fall hard from that lofty perch if we think that we don't still need to do what's hard. Unless you're willing to be part of the shared sacrifice that will accompany the hard choices facing us, don't bother puffing up your chest and preaching to me about the greatness of our "one nation under God", because right now we're also one nation undereducated, underemployed and underwater on our mortgages. Our peace of mind is under siege, anyone different from us is under suspicion and too many of us are under the delusion that the American way of doing anything is by definition better than what's being done elsewhere. This has fostered the erroneous and destructive belief that we can't learn a thing from others around the world; they should learn from us. Like so many heroes of the Greek tragedies, our fatal flaw could be hubris.
We can't afford to sit on our laurels and assume that we'll always be on top because God likes us best. We earned our number one status with sacrifice and dedication not supernatural puppeteering, and we can and will fall hard from that lofty perch if we think that we don't still need to do what's hard. Unless you're willing to be part of the shared sacrifice that will accompany the hard choices facing us, don't bother puffing up your chest and preaching to me about the greatness of our "one nation under God", because right now we're also one nation undereducated, underemployed and underwater on our mortgages. Our peace of mind is under siege, anyone different from us is under suspicion and too many of us are under the delusion that the American way of doing anything is by definition better than what's being done elsewhere. This has fostered the erroneous and destructive belief that we can't learn a thing from others around the world; they should learn from us. Like so many heroes of the Greek tragedies, our fatal flaw could be hubris.
We're increasingly perceived around the world as incapable of solving our problems. We used to be so adept at doing whatever it took to build a strong and prosperous society that the world could only watch in awe as the 20th Century became the American Century. At the moment, we're less like that impressive force on the global stage and more like a lumbering, bumbling oaf who can lift a ton but can't spell it. We need to take a brutally honest inventory of our shortcomings and somehow find the discipline to right the ship even though it will involve some pain and, dare I say, cooperation. Otherwise, the United States is doomed to become an effete has-been like a character from Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" who lives in the past, basking in the memory of bygone greatness.
We used to rank #1 in college graduation rates; we now rank 12th, and we rank 20th in high school graduation. If we combine that with the fact that we've outsourced so many unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, the picture becomes even more disturbing. If we're not educating our workforce as well as the rest of the industrial or post-industrial nations and we've taken the suitable jobs for the less educated and moved them overseas, I'm not sure how we wake from our current economic nightmare. It certainly seems that right now we're eating our seed corn. The problem of today's overconsumption imperiling our future became disturbingly clear as we watched the wrangling over tax cuts and spending even in the face of ballooning debt. Right now we completely lack the will to be responsible grownups who make the hard choices and sacrifice the way people did 70 years ago when we were en route to unparalleled greatness. I'll explore taxes, spending, politicians and the electorate in another post. For now I'll simply say that like the craven attack on Pearl Harbor 69 years ago today, our greedy, selfish and childish refusal to act in good faith and make sacrifices should also live in infamy.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Greed Over People
If you had any doubt that the Republican Party favored the rich and powerful over everyone else, such doubt can now be safely abandoned. The GOP, which apparently stands for Greed Over People, continues to hold a gun to the head of the American people, playing their role as extortionist for the very rich to perfection. Their plan is to hamper and obstruct any effort to do the people's business unless and until their ransom is paid and the wealthy are given everything on their wish list. At that point, the rest of us can begin negotiating against ourselves regarding tough choices and shared sacrifice as long as the most privileged are insulated from the pain.
Nothing brings this into sharper focus than Republicans' refusal to extend desperately needed unemployment benefits or anything else until we cut taxes for the richest sliver of 1%. This became an inarguable fact after the Democrats already started negotiating against themselves and agreed to lower taxes on everyone whose taxable income fell below $1,000,000 a year and Republicans rejected this as an insufficient sop to the fantastically rich for whom they pimp.
Considering the ability of Republican lawmakers to inflict devastating harm on average Americans, coupled with the heightened airport security of late, perhaps al-Qaeda should funnel its resources into the GOP coffers rather than spending money on suicide vests. Maybe if they did so and it came to light we'd realize what's happening. Unfortunately, since the Senate Minority Leader isn't named Osama bin McConnell most Americans are blind to the fact that we're being kneecapped by these thugs. Indeed, keenly aware of our widespread oblivion, Mitch McConnell was even brazen enough to say, "We need to show the American people that we care more about them and their ability to pay their bills than we do about the special interests' legislative Christmas-list." While I abhor both the complete lack of integrity and the cruel indifference to the suffering of his constituents, it's hard not to marvel at the ability to summon the colossal audacity it takes to make such a statement, which is opposed to the truth by a full 180 degrees.
Republicans are taking the unprecedented step of shutting off needed unemployment benefits at a time of such high unemployment. The average check is less than $300 a week and the entire expense would add much less to the deficit that then unfunded tax cuts for the richest Americans. Nevertheless, Republicans are wiling, perhaps even eager, to to strip away the only safety net that lies between millions of Americans and Dickensian horror. On the other hand, the far more expensive, far less economically valuable tax cuts for the wealthy not only don't have to be paid for, but Republicans have vowed to rain down a firestorm of obstructionism and pain if anyone dares to oppose this most sacred of budget busters. In other words, if the modern American equivalent of Ebenezer Scrooge has his after tax income reduced from 700 times that of Bob Cratchit down to 675 times, Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure that some American homes face the heartbreaking prospect of "an empty chair and a tiny crutch without an owner."
I want to emphasize how much more valuable these unemployment checks are to our economy than the proposed tax cuts for those at the top of the economic ladder. All of the money from the unemployment benefits gets put back into the economy. People using these checks to keep the wolf from the door aren't stashing their money in the Cayman Islands. The same cannot be said for those making $1,000,000 a year. The Republicans' own hue and cry over the failure of the stimulus proves this very point. We tried to pump money into the economy through a program of tax cuts and spending, but the rich and powerful scooped it up and they're now hoarding unprecedented amounts of cash. Any economist would readily affirm that we'd get a greater return on the jobless benefits than on the top bracket tax cuts, but Republicans will continue to carry water for the rich, everyone else be damned.
Nothing brings this into sharper focus than Republicans' refusal to extend desperately needed unemployment benefits or anything else until we cut taxes for the richest sliver of 1%. This became an inarguable fact after the Democrats already started negotiating against themselves and agreed to lower taxes on everyone whose taxable income fell below $1,000,000 a year and Republicans rejected this as an insufficient sop to the fantastically rich for whom they pimp.
Considering the ability of Republican lawmakers to inflict devastating harm on average Americans, coupled with the heightened airport security of late, perhaps al-Qaeda should funnel its resources into the GOP coffers rather than spending money on suicide vests. Maybe if they did so and it came to light we'd realize what's happening. Unfortunately, since the Senate Minority Leader isn't named Osama bin McConnell most Americans are blind to the fact that we're being kneecapped by these thugs. Indeed, keenly aware of our widespread oblivion, Mitch McConnell was even brazen enough to say, "We need to show the American people that we care more about them and their ability to pay their bills than we do about the special interests' legislative Christmas-list." While I abhor both the complete lack of integrity and the cruel indifference to the suffering of his constituents, it's hard not to marvel at the ability to summon the colossal audacity it takes to make such a statement, which is opposed to the truth by a full 180 degrees.
Republicans are taking the unprecedented step of shutting off needed unemployment benefits at a time of such high unemployment. The average check is less than $300 a week and the entire expense would add much less to the deficit that then unfunded tax cuts for the richest Americans. Nevertheless, Republicans are wiling, perhaps even eager, to to strip away the only safety net that lies between millions of Americans and Dickensian horror. On the other hand, the far more expensive, far less economically valuable tax cuts for the wealthy not only don't have to be paid for, but Republicans have vowed to rain down a firestorm of obstructionism and pain if anyone dares to oppose this most sacred of budget busters. In other words, if the modern American equivalent of Ebenezer Scrooge has his after tax income reduced from 700 times that of Bob Cratchit down to 675 times, Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure that some American homes face the heartbreaking prospect of "an empty chair and a tiny crutch without an owner."
I want to emphasize how much more valuable these unemployment checks are to our economy than the proposed tax cuts for those at the top of the economic ladder. All of the money from the unemployment benefits gets put back into the economy. People using these checks to keep the wolf from the door aren't stashing their money in the Cayman Islands. The same cannot be said for those making $1,000,000 a year. The Republicans' own hue and cry over the failure of the stimulus proves this very point. We tried to pump money into the economy through a program of tax cuts and spending, but the rich and powerful scooped it up and they're now hoarding unprecedented amounts of cash. Any economist would readily affirm that we'd get a greater return on the jobless benefits than on the top bracket tax cuts, but Republicans will continue to carry water for the rich, everyone else be damned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)