Word came in a hurriedly written e-mail from the editor of the Greene County Dailies: “After careful review of the newspapers we making some major changes to its content, therefore we have decided to discontinuing your column at this time…” I did not mind the grammatical problems with the notice. I assumed that as a new editor working for a new publisher she was in a hurry and didn’t proofread what she had written. I did mind that after seven years as the sole liberal voice of a newspaper in rock-solid Republican Greene County of Southwestern Ohio, my voice was being extinguished.
After spending most of my 60 years living in the Northeast, I had come out here from Connecticut to be with my college sweetheart. I had settled in Xenia, a friendly place surrounded by farms, where baseball caps, pickup trucks, and deep conservative beliefs predominate.
The intrepid publisher of the local paper was impressed with some of my letters to the editor and, knowing that I had written columns for papers in the East, said that the paper would gladly print my columns. He might have regretted this decision, even though he told everybody that I was the best writer he had. I started out writing in support of the rights to abortion and same-sex marriage. The publisher told me that he was getting lots of telephone calls complaining about me. I think that the readers had never seen anything in the local paper like my columns.
Things turned really ugly when I wrote a series of articles about evolution and the pseudo-science called “Intelligent Design.” Angry letters poured into the paper. As the volume of calls to the editor increased, the invective against me became more virulent. My columns in support of Barack Obama and against John McCain incensed people. I was told that the editor decided not to come in on the days my columns appeared because of the avalanche of complaining calls.
I discovered that many of the most hostile letters came from people in the extreme right-wing. The local leader of the John Birch Society excoriated me. When I wrote an article against guns, one writer opined that they might have to use their Second Amendment rights against me. Friends told me to watch my back. One writer, who objected to my column against militias and the Ku Klux Klan, said that I had “defiled” myself. A surprisingly large number of the letters were illiterate in tone and syntax.
The anger reached its zenith when I wrote a column making-fun of the Tea Parties. In my opening line I quoted from Alice in Wonderland: “`At any rate I'll never go there again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. `It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!’ ” I went on to compare Neil Cavuto of Fox News to the Dormouse, Sean Hannity to the March Hare, and Newt Gingrich to the Mad Hatter. The locals were furious!
People would often come-up to me at Kiwanis picnics, look furtively around, and whisper that they agreed with everything I wrote. But in seven years of writing columns, there was not one single letter supporting me. People were simply afraid of the ostracism they would experience if they came out in open support of this dirty, pinko, liberal writer.
Well, the kids will not be exposed to my subversive opinions anymore. Secure in the knowledge that they will no longer be challenged to critical thought, the people around here can sit-back and revert to their old ideas and comfortable prejudices.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Conservatism--A Default Position
Conservatism is fundamentally a default position. It is the bedrock belief of millions of people in rural and small-town America who never lived in a big city, never went to college, never traveled abroad, and almost never even knew a liberal. It is the original default belief of the great mass of ordinary Americans.
People rarely become conservative. They start-out conservative. One almost never hears about somebody coming from a liberal family, going off to college, and coming back a conservative. One frequently hears the opposite. Young people go to college, are exposed to mind-opening ideas and bright fellow students, and come back with liberal thoughts that drive their conservative parents crazy. It happened to me.
For this reason, I believe that conservatism is not really a political philosophy. It is the absence of philosophy. It is the failure to imagine a better world, the failure to desire change, the unwillingness to examine one’s prejudices and limitations. Men like Edmund Burke did not propose any new way of thinking. They simply spoke-out against movements and ideas that altered the status quo. Burke’s greatest work was his critique of the French Revolution.
It is true that there has developed a group of so-called conservative intellectuals, men like William F. Buckley and George Will. But these people do not expound some new philosophy. They simply justify the regressive, recalcitrant, and reactionary positions created in response to the ideas developed by liberals. This is best exemplified by today’s Republicans in Congress. They have no program or plan. Their only position is one of opposition to virtually everything proposed by the liberal Democrats and the President.
This explains why conservatism is so popular with so many people. One of the two great political parties in America is built on conservatism, and frequently, as now, the more conservative the politicians of that party are the more popular they are. People are conservative because they do not like ideas that upset their picture of the world and how it should be. One example is the issue of same-sex marriage.
Most people over 50 years of age grew up in a world where marriage was solely between a man and a woman. That was the default position. Nobody ever questioned it. The majority of people believed that homosexuals were deviant people whom one avoided. Nobody spoke about homosexuals except to make jokes about them. It was unimaginable that such people would actually want to get married to one another. Suddenly, people saw on television that gays wanted to get married. It was a tearing-apart of the fabric of the cosmos, a violent challenge to all that is normal and accepted. It made conservatives deeply uncomfortable. Although they tried to think-up practical reasons why same-sex marriage would somehow harm the establishment of heterosexual marriage, their real opposition was simply based on the shocking newness of the idea. They felt that it was making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage. They also believed that same-sex marriage would somehow legitimatize homosexuality which they had always been led to consider a moral deviation and a sin.
Liberalism is always a process of new thought. Liberals refuse to accept the old ways of thinking. They are the iconoclasts who question all of the old values, old beliefs, old religions, and old mores of society. True Liberalism is never a default philosophy. It is always an intellectual exploration and adventure. For this reason, it is mostly the philosophy of educated people, urban people, and broad-minded people. Because liberals support the rights of the poor, blue collar workers, union members, minorities, and immigrants, these people agree with the politics of liberals. But such people are, for the most part, acting out of self-interest, not on the basis of political ideology.
Conservative opposition to governmental programs to help the poor is not based on some carefully crafted ideology. It is based on reaction to the duty of paying taxes and upon animus toward poor people. It also has a strong racial or ethnic basis. Conservatives prefer all of the old ways of doing things, such as confining charity to private giving. There is no philosophy behind this way of thinking. Similarly, there is no theological thinking behind the fact that conservatives support religion and wish to see prayer in schools and religious images in public places. It is simply that they wish to retain the traditional way of permeating public life with religion as opposed to liberals’ preference for separating church and state.
People rarely become conservative. They start-out conservative. One almost never hears about somebody coming from a liberal family, going off to college, and coming back a conservative. One frequently hears the opposite. Young people go to college, are exposed to mind-opening ideas and bright fellow students, and come back with liberal thoughts that drive their conservative parents crazy. It happened to me.
For this reason, I believe that conservatism is not really a political philosophy. It is the absence of philosophy. It is the failure to imagine a better world, the failure to desire change, the unwillingness to examine one’s prejudices and limitations. Men like Edmund Burke did not propose any new way of thinking. They simply spoke-out against movements and ideas that altered the status quo. Burke’s greatest work was his critique of the French Revolution.
It is true that there has developed a group of so-called conservative intellectuals, men like William F. Buckley and George Will. But these people do not expound some new philosophy. They simply justify the regressive, recalcitrant, and reactionary positions created in response to the ideas developed by liberals. This is best exemplified by today’s Republicans in Congress. They have no program or plan. Their only position is one of opposition to virtually everything proposed by the liberal Democrats and the President.
This explains why conservatism is so popular with so many people. One of the two great political parties in America is built on conservatism, and frequently, as now, the more conservative the politicians of that party are the more popular they are. People are conservative because they do not like ideas that upset their picture of the world and how it should be. One example is the issue of same-sex marriage.
Most people over 50 years of age grew up in a world where marriage was solely between a man and a woman. That was the default position. Nobody ever questioned it. The majority of people believed that homosexuals were deviant people whom one avoided. Nobody spoke about homosexuals except to make jokes about them. It was unimaginable that such people would actually want to get married to one another. Suddenly, people saw on television that gays wanted to get married. It was a tearing-apart of the fabric of the cosmos, a violent challenge to all that is normal and accepted. It made conservatives deeply uncomfortable. Although they tried to think-up practical reasons why same-sex marriage would somehow harm the establishment of heterosexual marriage, their real opposition was simply based on the shocking newness of the idea. They felt that it was making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage. They also believed that same-sex marriage would somehow legitimatize homosexuality which they had always been led to consider a moral deviation and a sin.
Liberalism is always a process of new thought. Liberals refuse to accept the old ways of thinking. They are the iconoclasts who question all of the old values, old beliefs, old religions, and old mores of society. True Liberalism is never a default philosophy. It is always an intellectual exploration and adventure. For this reason, it is mostly the philosophy of educated people, urban people, and broad-minded people. Because liberals support the rights of the poor, blue collar workers, union members, minorities, and immigrants, these people agree with the politics of liberals. But such people are, for the most part, acting out of self-interest, not on the basis of political ideology.
Conservative opposition to governmental programs to help the poor is not based on some carefully crafted ideology. It is based on reaction to the duty of paying taxes and upon animus toward poor people. It also has a strong racial or ethnic basis. Conservatives prefer all of the old ways of doing things, such as confining charity to private giving. There is no philosophy behind this way of thinking. Similarly, there is no theological thinking behind the fact that conservatives support religion and wish to see prayer in schools and religious images in public places. It is simply that they wish to retain the traditional way of permeating public life with religion as opposed to liberals’ preference for separating church and state.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Budget Reconciliation and Health Care Reform
Despite the assumption by Republicans that they represent a majority of the American people, the Democrats hold a majority of the seats in Congress. Up until now, buoyed by the lavish spending of health insurance companies, the Senate Republicans have been able to stall health care reform. Lately, however, there has been a shift in the polls. The public is increasingly indicating support for health care reform and for President Obama.
One major distortion spread by the Republicans is that the bill will vastly increase budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office has ruled, however, that the Senate bill will actually reduce budget deficits. This is because the bill is essentially a budget bill. Due to Republican recalcitrance, the Democrats are now forced to use a procedure designed specifically for budget matters. It is called “Budget Reconciliation.” Now that they’ve passed a health care reform bill, the Senate Democrats plan to use budget reconciliation to pass the final changes to the bill.
Republicans threaten that if the Democrats use budget reconciliation to pass the health care reform bill it will be “all-out war.” I would like to know what they consider their wall-to-wall obstruction, distortion, and filibustering to be if not all-out war against President Obama and the Democrats.
Budget reconciliation is a legislative process of the Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit. Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a treating a bill as a reconciliation bill. His objection will then be ruled upon by the Presiding Officer, who is officially the Vice President. The Presiding Officer customarily rules on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, but need not follow that advice. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling of the Presiding Officer. Once the presiding officer rules that a bill is a budget reconciliation matter, the bill cannot be filibustered and requires only 51 votes of the full senate, or a majority of those present, to pass.
In case you question whether the health care reform bill is a budget measure, consider the fact that there are a large number of provisions in the bill dealing with revenue. There are several provisions imposing additional taxes on high-income individuals and couples, including Section 1905, which increases the Medicare tax on wages of individuals making in excess of $200,000 and married couples making over $250,000. There is an excise tax on voluntary cosmetic procedures, an increase in the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming an itemized deduction on medical costs, and a tax on the health insurance industry. These and other taxes will not only cover the cost of health care reform, but will actually reduce the overall deficit.
It is with ill grace that the Republicans object to the use of budget reconciliation to pass bills affecting the budget. They made repeated use of it when they were in power. Republicans used it to pass the 1996 Welfare Reform bill. They used it to pass the Jobs Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, in which Bush cut taxes for the rich and helped abolish the surpluses created during the Clinton years. Those tax cuts were strongly opposed by the Democrats, and by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates. Another reconciliation bill by the Republicans was the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which slowed the growth in spending for Medicare and Medicaid, and changed formulas for student loans and other programs.
President Obama tried to change the environment in Washington and to work with the Republicans. He honestly believed that the relationship between the parties was far too poisonous and that this was bad for the country. The Republicans decided to rebuff his every effort. Now the Democrats have to act alone.
One major distortion spread by the Republicans is that the bill will vastly increase budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office has ruled, however, that the Senate bill will actually reduce budget deficits. This is because the bill is essentially a budget bill. Due to Republican recalcitrance, the Democrats are now forced to use a procedure designed specifically for budget matters. It is called “Budget Reconciliation.” Now that they’ve passed a health care reform bill, the Senate Democrats plan to use budget reconciliation to pass the final changes to the bill.
Republicans threaten that if the Democrats use budget reconciliation to pass the health care reform bill it will be “all-out war.” I would like to know what they consider their wall-to-wall obstruction, distortion, and filibustering to be if not all-out war against President Obama and the Democrats.
Budget reconciliation is a legislative process of the Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit. Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a treating a bill as a reconciliation bill. His objection will then be ruled upon by the Presiding Officer, who is officially the Vice President. The Presiding Officer customarily rules on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, but need not follow that advice. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling of the Presiding Officer. Once the presiding officer rules that a bill is a budget reconciliation matter, the bill cannot be filibustered and requires only 51 votes of the full senate, or a majority of those present, to pass.
In case you question whether the health care reform bill is a budget measure, consider the fact that there are a large number of provisions in the bill dealing with revenue. There are several provisions imposing additional taxes on high-income individuals and couples, including Section 1905, which increases the Medicare tax on wages of individuals making in excess of $200,000 and married couples making over $250,000. There is an excise tax on voluntary cosmetic procedures, an increase in the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming an itemized deduction on medical costs, and a tax on the health insurance industry. These and other taxes will not only cover the cost of health care reform, but will actually reduce the overall deficit.
It is with ill grace that the Republicans object to the use of budget reconciliation to pass bills affecting the budget. They made repeated use of it when they were in power. Republicans used it to pass the 1996 Welfare Reform bill. They used it to pass the Jobs Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, in which Bush cut taxes for the rich and helped abolish the surpluses created during the Clinton years. Those tax cuts were strongly opposed by the Democrats, and by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates. Another reconciliation bill by the Republicans was the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which slowed the growth in spending for Medicare and Medicaid, and changed formulas for student loans and other programs.
President Obama tried to change the environment in Washington and to work with the Republicans. He honestly believed that the relationship between the parties was far too poisonous and that this was bad for the country. The Republicans decided to rebuff his every effort. Now the Democrats have to act alone.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Senate Needs to Change Rules
The U.S. Senate needs to change its rules. Although I have been critical of the abuse by Republicans of the filibuster, I can understand the protection it provides to a political minority. But recently, we have been treated to examples of how the tyranny of a solitary senator can gum-up the works of government.
Two weeks ago, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky single-handedly blocked a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits, along with Cobra health benefits, for over a million-and-a-half people. Bunning’s maneuver also, among other things, halted construction work across the country and cut Medicare payments to doctors.
Because of Republican filibusters, the spending bills needed to fund these essential programs were put-off until they were about to expire. It became necessary for the Democrats to use expedited procedures to continue the programs. Bunning’s objections denied the Senate the “unanimous consent” that Senate rules require for expedited procedures. Finally last week, under pressure from fellow Republicans, Bunning relented.
Bunning, who is retiring, has long been considered a loose cannon and a thorn in the side of the Republicans in Congress. Bunning’s frequent absences from important senate votes and numerous loony statements have led some to question his sanity. He attacked fellow Kentuckian, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, accusing him of being responsible for lost GOP seats in Congress. When Bunning learned that Republicans would not support his reelection bid, he threatened to resign and let the Democratic governor of Kentucky name his replacement.
This is the problem. One nutty senator has the power to block legislation, even bipartisan legislation, simply by refusing to agree to unanimous consent for the frequently used expedited procedures. The act of halting legislation has not, however, been confined to head-cases like Bunning. Lone senators routinely put holds on legislation and presidential appointments. Perhaps the most egregious case is the recent act of Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama.
Shelby placed a hold on all of President Obama’s nominees in an apparent protest over earmarks. This stopped Senate approval of 70 appointees nominated by the President, including a critical top Defense Department position overseeing deployments to the war in Afghanistan.
Shelby did not act on the basis of any conservative political principle or because he opposed the appointees. His objections were more basic. He believed that he wasn’t getting the amount of pork he deserved. He was frustrated over the Pentagon’s bidding process for air-to-air refueling tankers, which could lead to jobs in Mobile, Alabama. He was also “deeply concerned” that the Administration had not released funds already appropriated for a Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center to be built in Alabama.
As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Shelby has built his career on steering earmarks to Alabama. He finally released his hold on most of the appointments. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "If you needed one example of what's wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold-up 70 qualified individuals to make government better because he didn't get his earmarks."
Senator Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) exercised his own form of protest by holding-up the nomination of the man nominated by President Obama to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). You would think that after the attempt to blow-up an airliner on Christmas day, appointment of an administrator for the TSA would be of paramount importance. Not to one demented senator. DeMint did not express any specific opposition to the nominee, a former FBI special agent and counterterrorism expert. He claimed that he needed further testimony to clarify the nominee’s stand on unionizing the TSA.
The Senate needs to change this strange rule that gives a single stubborn senator the power to bring the Senate and the government of the United States to its knees.
Two weeks ago, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky single-handedly blocked a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits, along with Cobra health benefits, for over a million-and-a-half people. Bunning’s maneuver also, among other things, halted construction work across the country and cut Medicare payments to doctors.
Because of Republican filibusters, the spending bills needed to fund these essential programs were put-off until they were about to expire. It became necessary for the Democrats to use expedited procedures to continue the programs. Bunning’s objections denied the Senate the “unanimous consent” that Senate rules require for expedited procedures. Finally last week, under pressure from fellow Republicans, Bunning relented.
Bunning, who is retiring, has long been considered a loose cannon and a thorn in the side of the Republicans in Congress. Bunning’s frequent absences from important senate votes and numerous loony statements have led some to question his sanity. He attacked fellow Kentuckian, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, accusing him of being responsible for lost GOP seats in Congress. When Bunning learned that Republicans would not support his reelection bid, he threatened to resign and let the Democratic governor of Kentucky name his replacement.
This is the problem. One nutty senator has the power to block legislation, even bipartisan legislation, simply by refusing to agree to unanimous consent for the frequently used expedited procedures. The act of halting legislation has not, however, been confined to head-cases like Bunning. Lone senators routinely put holds on legislation and presidential appointments. Perhaps the most egregious case is the recent act of Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama.
Shelby placed a hold on all of President Obama’s nominees in an apparent protest over earmarks. This stopped Senate approval of 70 appointees nominated by the President, including a critical top Defense Department position overseeing deployments to the war in Afghanistan.
Shelby did not act on the basis of any conservative political principle or because he opposed the appointees. His objections were more basic. He believed that he wasn’t getting the amount of pork he deserved. He was frustrated over the Pentagon’s bidding process for air-to-air refueling tankers, which could lead to jobs in Mobile, Alabama. He was also “deeply concerned” that the Administration had not released funds already appropriated for a Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center to be built in Alabama.
As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Shelby has built his career on steering earmarks to Alabama. He finally released his hold on most of the appointments. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "If you needed one example of what's wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold-up 70 qualified individuals to make government better because he didn't get his earmarks."
Senator Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) exercised his own form of protest by holding-up the nomination of the man nominated by President Obama to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). You would think that after the attempt to blow-up an airliner on Christmas day, appointment of an administrator for the TSA would be of paramount importance. Not to one demented senator. DeMint did not express any specific opposition to the nominee, a former FBI special agent and counterterrorism expert. He claimed that he needed further testimony to clarify the nominee’s stand on unionizing the TSA.
The Senate needs to change this strange rule that gives a single stubborn senator the power to bring the Senate and the government of the United States to its knees.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
A Crack in Republican Obstruction
You would think that the public would be on to the Republican program of total obstruction in Congress, but it isn’t. The Republicans have decided to oppose, and in the Senate, filibuster, every single initiative of the Obama Administration regardless of the merits of the initiative and regardless of whether the initiative would benefit the American people and help the economy. The Republican leadership has speculated that the result of all-out opposition to Democratic legislation would make it look like President Obama and the Democrats are accomplishing nothing. They have assumed that this would lead to public disillusionment with the President and a renewed support for the Republicans. They have been right. The results of recent elections seem to reflect a belief on the part of the public that Democrats are ineffective and that the President does not have what it takes to improve the economy and relieve unemployment.
Of course, this policy of the Republicans is the product of profound cynicism. They do not care if millions of people go on being unemployed, uninsured, without housing, shelter, or food. They do not care if our states and localities are without sufficient money to fund education, health care, construction, programs for the homeless, and many other urgently needed projects. All they care about is winning-back Congress and defeating President Obama in 2012. This is very sad. A once proud party has become the party of despair.
There may, however, be a crack in the monolithic unity of the Republican Party. Recently, the Republicans were able to elect one of their own, Senator Scott Brown, to the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. There was much rejoicing by Republicans at this coup, and much predicting that the Democrats were on the decline. But there was also a little fact that Republicans ignored. Their handsome new senator is also a fairly liberal Republican. This will not sit well with the Tea Party types who were instrumental in his election. Apparently, he supports freedom of choice on abortion, says same-sex marriage is “settled law” in Massachusetts, and is independent of the lock-step thinking imposed by Republican congressional leadership on Republican members.
The crack in the Republican front first appeared in a vote on the $15 billion job-creation measure put forward by Democrats. Senator Scott Brown was the first member of his party to cast his vote for overcoming the Republican filibuster on the measure. He was followed by Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Christopher Bond of Missouri, all of whom voted after it became evident that the Democrats would prevail. Nevertheless, 29 Republican senators voted against the bill.
You would have thought that such legislation, in this time of wretched, desperate unemployment, would have garnered 100 votes in the Senate. You would have thought that every senator would have compassion for the plight of the unemployed. You would have thought such empathy would have overcome all political considerations. And you would have been wrong. Nevertheless, there are some Republican senators who are willing to risk their future with the Republican Party and buck the demands of Republican leadership. One of them is Scott Brown. Our senator, George Voinovich, who is retiring, appears to be another.
There are now pending some items of legislation critical to this nation. More help is needed to improve the economy and overcome unemployment. Health care reform is essential for the future of American business and of the American people. Climate change legislation is essential for the future of the planet. The question is whether some Republicans will step up to the plate and put the interests of their country first, or whether they will revert to the nay-saying culture that is tearing us apart.
Of course, this policy of the Republicans is the product of profound cynicism. They do not care if millions of people go on being unemployed, uninsured, without housing, shelter, or food. They do not care if our states and localities are without sufficient money to fund education, health care, construction, programs for the homeless, and many other urgently needed projects. All they care about is winning-back Congress and defeating President Obama in 2012. This is very sad. A once proud party has become the party of despair.
There may, however, be a crack in the monolithic unity of the Republican Party. Recently, the Republicans were able to elect one of their own, Senator Scott Brown, to the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. There was much rejoicing by Republicans at this coup, and much predicting that the Democrats were on the decline. But there was also a little fact that Republicans ignored. Their handsome new senator is also a fairly liberal Republican. This will not sit well with the Tea Party types who were instrumental in his election. Apparently, he supports freedom of choice on abortion, says same-sex marriage is “settled law” in Massachusetts, and is independent of the lock-step thinking imposed by Republican congressional leadership on Republican members.
The crack in the Republican front first appeared in a vote on the $15 billion job-creation measure put forward by Democrats. Senator Scott Brown was the first member of his party to cast his vote for overcoming the Republican filibuster on the measure. He was followed by Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Christopher Bond of Missouri, all of whom voted after it became evident that the Democrats would prevail. Nevertheless, 29 Republican senators voted against the bill.
You would have thought that such legislation, in this time of wretched, desperate unemployment, would have garnered 100 votes in the Senate. You would have thought that every senator would have compassion for the plight of the unemployed. You would have thought such empathy would have overcome all political considerations. And you would have been wrong. Nevertheless, there are some Republican senators who are willing to risk their future with the Republican Party and buck the demands of Republican leadership. One of them is Scott Brown. Our senator, George Voinovich, who is retiring, appears to be another.
There are now pending some items of legislation critical to this nation. More help is needed to improve the economy and overcome unemployment. Health care reform is essential for the future of American business and of the American people. Climate change legislation is essential for the future of the planet. The question is whether some Republicans will step up to the plate and put the interests of their country first, or whether they will revert to the nay-saying culture that is tearing us apart.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tea Parties and Militias
Last May I noted the resurgence of the militia movement and the generous contribution they are making to the paranoia, fear, and stupidity of modern-day political dialogue. Now, it seems that militia types and their ideological allies have been inviting themselves to the Tea Parties.
The Tea Party movement represents a spectrum of ideas that runs from little old Republican ladies who enjoy tea cakes along with their politics to militia members who enjoy blasting effigies of President Obama with their AK47s. The resurgence of the militias and their crashing of the Tea Parties is a matter of some concern to civil rights organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
According to a recent report by the SPLC: “The situation has many authorities worried. Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters and a range of other activists of the radical right are cross-pollinating and may even be coalescing" (under the Tea Party banner).
In the 1990s, when the last liberal Democratic president was in office, the militias thrived. These groups were under the impression that the federal government was planning a socialistic take-over of America. Their bogyman was a mythical “Black Helicopter” that was supposedly conducting surveillance of and preparing for war against the gun-toting patriots of America. The militias’ activities culminated in the bombing by two militia members, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City--killing 168 innocent adults and children.
Now, with liberals back in power, the militias, and organizations sharing their beliefs, are on the rise. The SPLC report noted that in Pensacola, Fla., a militia spokesman told a gathering of antigovernment “Patriots” that the federal government had set-up 1,000 internment camps across the country and was storing 30,000 guillotines and a half-million caskets in Atlanta. He averred that they are there for the day the government finally declares martial law and moves-in to round-up or kill American dissenters.
Outside Atlanta, a so-called "American Grand Jury" issued an "indictment" of President Obama for fraud and treason because, the panel concluded, he wasn't born in the United States and is illegally occupying the office of president. Other sham "grand juries" around the country have followed suit.
There is a new element to this second wave of militia revival. According to the SPLC report: “One big difference from the militia movement of the 1990s is that the face of the federal government — the enemy that almost all parts of the extreme right see as the primary threat to freedom — is now black. And the fact that the president is an African American has injected a strong racial element into even those parts of the radical right, like the militias, that in the past were not primarily motivated by race hate. Contributing to the racial animus have been fears on the far right about the consequences of Latino immigration.”
This racial hatred has popped-up in Tea Party gatherings where demonstrators have waived racist signs and posters showing President Obama as a witch doctor and saying things like “Obama’s plan--white slavery” and “Save white America from Obama.”
Needless to say, these militia groups, and those affiliated with them, are not in competition with MENSA for the best minds available. These groups are made-up of the most ignorant elements of white America. These are mostly losers whose resentment stems from the fact that they have achieved nothing in society while the leaders in this country are mostly intelligent, well-educated, sophisticated, elite individuals who look down on the militia types.
One hopes that the little old ladies and other Republican guests at the Tea Parties will look-around and be aware of the party crashers from the far-right who would rather slurp from the mug of conspiracy than sip from the teacup of sanity.
The Tea Party movement represents a spectrum of ideas that runs from little old Republican ladies who enjoy tea cakes along with their politics to militia members who enjoy blasting effigies of President Obama with their AK47s. The resurgence of the militias and their crashing of the Tea Parties is a matter of some concern to civil rights organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
According to a recent report by the SPLC: “The situation has many authorities worried. Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters and a range of other activists of the radical right are cross-pollinating and may even be coalescing" (under the Tea Party banner).
In the 1990s, when the last liberal Democratic president was in office, the militias thrived. These groups were under the impression that the federal government was planning a socialistic take-over of America. Their bogyman was a mythical “Black Helicopter” that was supposedly conducting surveillance of and preparing for war against the gun-toting patriots of America. The militias’ activities culminated in the bombing by two militia members, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City--killing 168 innocent adults and children.
Now, with liberals back in power, the militias, and organizations sharing their beliefs, are on the rise. The SPLC report noted that in Pensacola, Fla., a militia spokesman told a gathering of antigovernment “Patriots” that the federal government had set-up 1,000 internment camps across the country and was storing 30,000 guillotines and a half-million caskets in Atlanta. He averred that they are there for the day the government finally declares martial law and moves-in to round-up or kill American dissenters.
Outside Atlanta, a so-called "American Grand Jury" issued an "indictment" of President Obama for fraud and treason because, the panel concluded, he wasn't born in the United States and is illegally occupying the office of president. Other sham "grand juries" around the country have followed suit.
There is a new element to this second wave of militia revival. According to the SPLC report: “One big difference from the militia movement of the 1990s is that the face of the federal government — the enemy that almost all parts of the extreme right see as the primary threat to freedom — is now black. And the fact that the president is an African American has injected a strong racial element into even those parts of the radical right, like the militias, that in the past were not primarily motivated by race hate. Contributing to the racial animus have been fears on the far right about the consequences of Latino immigration.”
This racial hatred has popped-up in Tea Party gatherings where demonstrators have waived racist signs and posters showing President Obama as a witch doctor and saying things like “Obama’s plan--white slavery” and “Save white America from Obama.”
Needless to say, these militia groups, and those affiliated with them, are not in competition with MENSA for the best minds available. These groups are made-up of the most ignorant elements of white America. These are mostly losers whose resentment stems from the fact that they have achieved nothing in society while the leaders in this country are mostly intelligent, well-educated, sophisticated, elite individuals who look down on the militia types.
One hopes that the little old ladies and other Republican guests at the Tea Parties will look-around and be aware of the party crashers from the far-right who would rather slurp from the mug of conspiracy than sip from the teacup of sanity.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Republicans and the Census
Republicans have always portrayed themselves as paragons of patriotism and devoted supporters of the Constitution. It has, therefore, been something of an anomaly to find that they dislike one of the fundamental principles of our nation—democracy. The idea behind true democracy is that every adult citizen in a nation has the right to vote regardless of his or her race, wealth, occupation, origin, education, religion, or political opinion.
Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution provides for a nationwide census every ten years in order to enumerate the population. The results are used to allocate Congressional seats (congressional apportionment), electoral votes, and the funding of governmental programs. Republicans are, at the very least, suspicious of, if not down right hostile to the census.
If the census counted only white, Anglo-Saxon, financially stable, Christian citizens, Republicans would have no problem with it. Unfortunately for them, it also counts minorities, immigrants, the poor, non-Christians, and the homeless. Many Republicans would prefer that these types were not even part of the American population, and feel strongly that they should not be considered part of the electorate. They are aware that many of these people have been overlooked and undercounted in past censuses and that a preponderance of these people tend to vote for Democrats. For that reason, they oppose any efforts to make the census more thorough and accurate.
Now, it seems, Republican leaders are making efforts to sabotage the census before it even gets started. Republicans are sending-out a fundraising form that looks a lot like the official census form. Census officials are afraid that the Republican mailings could make some Americans think that they are responding to the official census and therefore be less likely to respond to the real thing.
House Minority gasbag John Boehner sent out a fundraising mailing which says that recipients were specially chosen to receive "the enclosed CENSUS DOCUMENT containing your 2010 Census of America's Republican Leadership." Copies of the Republican mailings look very much like official census forms. In the upper right hand side of the document I have seen, in large bold capital letters, it says “2010 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CENSUS.” Then below, in tiny lower case letters it says: “Commissioned by the Republican Party.” The rest of the form looks like an official federal government form. It is very different from the usual fundraising type of letter sent-out by political parties.
The similarity of this form to official government census forms is no coincidence. The clear purpose of this deceptive and dishonest mailing is to confuse voters and lower the response to the official census mailings. Republicans seem to think that the fewer the number of people who answer the census, the better it is for them.
A former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, said in a letter sent to RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele that she received a mailer called the "2010 Congressional District Census." It was delivered in an envelope marked with the words, "Do Not Destroy, Official Document." She said that the mailer is "blatantly attempting to interfere with the United States’ 2010 Census of the Population….The design of the mailing envelope and its enclosure is clearly intended to confuse recipients and, in doing so, affect response to the nation’s 23rd decennial census."
Why do Republicans feel it necessary to engage in such deceptive and misleading activity? Is it because they do not trust the strength of their political arguments? Is it because they do not trust the majority of the American people to make the right decisions? They have relied on falsehoods and scare tactics in an attempt to defeat the health care reform bills. Why can’t they let truth prevail and let Democracy do its work?
Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution provides for a nationwide census every ten years in order to enumerate the population. The results are used to allocate Congressional seats (congressional apportionment), electoral votes, and the funding of governmental programs. Republicans are, at the very least, suspicious of, if not down right hostile to the census.
If the census counted only white, Anglo-Saxon, financially stable, Christian citizens, Republicans would have no problem with it. Unfortunately for them, it also counts minorities, immigrants, the poor, non-Christians, and the homeless. Many Republicans would prefer that these types were not even part of the American population, and feel strongly that they should not be considered part of the electorate. They are aware that many of these people have been overlooked and undercounted in past censuses and that a preponderance of these people tend to vote for Democrats. For that reason, they oppose any efforts to make the census more thorough and accurate.
Now, it seems, Republican leaders are making efforts to sabotage the census before it even gets started. Republicans are sending-out a fundraising form that looks a lot like the official census form. Census officials are afraid that the Republican mailings could make some Americans think that they are responding to the official census and therefore be less likely to respond to the real thing.
House Minority gasbag John Boehner sent out a fundraising mailing which says that recipients were specially chosen to receive "the enclosed CENSUS DOCUMENT containing your 2010 Census of America's Republican Leadership." Copies of the Republican mailings look very much like official census forms. In the upper right hand side of the document I have seen, in large bold capital letters, it says “2010 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CENSUS.” Then below, in tiny lower case letters it says: “Commissioned by the Republican Party.” The rest of the form looks like an official federal government form. It is very different from the usual fundraising type of letter sent-out by political parties.
The similarity of this form to official government census forms is no coincidence. The clear purpose of this deceptive and dishonest mailing is to confuse voters and lower the response to the official census mailings. Republicans seem to think that the fewer the number of people who answer the census, the better it is for them.
A former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, said in a letter sent to RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele that she received a mailer called the "2010 Congressional District Census." It was delivered in an envelope marked with the words, "Do Not Destroy, Official Document." She said that the mailer is "blatantly attempting to interfere with the United States’ 2010 Census of the Population….The design of the mailing envelope and its enclosure is clearly intended to confuse recipients and, in doing so, affect response to the nation’s 23rd decennial census."
Why do Republicans feel it necessary to engage in such deceptive and misleading activity? Is it because they do not trust the strength of their political arguments? Is it because they do not trust the majority of the American people to make the right decisions? They have relied on falsehoods and scare tactics in an attempt to defeat the health care reform bills. Why can’t they let truth prevail and let Democracy do its work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
