Let me admit up front that I have not followed the life or career of Ron Paul closely. In fact, I know virtually nothing of his personal life. My knowledge is limited to listening to him, to a respectable degree, during the Republican Presidential nominating process in 2008, and reading some commentary about his ideas. I found him, or really his rhetoric, compelling when contrasted to the other politicians vying for the nomination. I think it was the clarity of his arguments and his commitment to them that set him apart from the rest, who engaged in the usual political pragmatism of jockeying back and forth to maximize appeal. Paul’s semi-Libertarian position reminded me of my youth; the way an odd change in weather will make one recall a place in the past.
As I said, I know nothing of Ron Paul’s history, but I strongly suspect that he named his son “Rand” (born 1963) because to name him “Ayn” (pronounced Anne) wouldn’t work (for obvious reasons).
During the last two years of college I was an energetic adherent of something called Objectivism, sticking to me for a brief period. It was coined by author/philosopher Ayn Rand (O’Connor), 1905-1982, a successful novelist who became in the 1960s the guru of an intellectual form of Individualism. She applied basic principles of philosophy (defining human behavior) to explain both the reasons for prosperity within a Capitalist society and other reasons why a broader success for Capitalism has remained elusive. Her use of logic, as with Ron Paul to a degree, was a major part of what made her writings so persuasive. She attracted a large, college age baby boomer crowd and some heavy hitters (Alan Greenspan, for example, was one of her co-writers on essay compilations).
Her thoughts and writings, however, never went main stream…not really. Although her near worship of the “individual” certainly resonated with the American patriotic psyche (Ronald Reagan was a confessed admirer), I would suggest that she failed to appeal to the general American populous primarily because of the only commonality she had with Karl Marx – that religion was the opiate of the People (Marx’s words). Ayn Rand was hard on established religion, especially Christianity, and afforded no compromises, as I recall. She exalted reason as the only valid epistemology (the acquisition of knowledge) and that egoism (self-interest) was the sole course for human salvation. I’m afraid that just wasn’t going to cut it with your basic Christian Conservative. Oh but what strange bedfellows the clouds of dissent create, especially when they perceive a common enemy.
Rand Paul is, by any reasonable gauge, the first bona fide (Republican) Tea Party candidate. Like his father he is an articulate, thoughtful, and accomplished overachiever. Apart from his father, however, he now carries with his candidacy a new level of Libertarianism that is more closely allied with his (I assume) namesake. That’s not to say that even a decent sub-set of Tea Partiers have any knowledge of Objectivism, let alone an understanding of it. It does suggest that the anti “collective”, anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-tax, anti-controls, throw the bums out movement has at least some of its roots in a philosophy which would make a Baptist congregation howl to the rafters. Such a violation of intrinsic spirituality would have little meaning to the Tea Party crowd however, no matter how it was explained, as long as their leaders remain focused on the devil before them – Obama.
Rand Paul was recently interviewed by George Stephanopoulos and asked questions regarding (Paul’s) statements relating to Civil Rights laws. Paul did not answer the question. Like a good politician he evaded the question by simply stating he’s never advocated any change to existing law. He chose not to defend his published line of reasoning to a wider audience (you sometimes wonder why politicians even bother to accept interviews).
I understand his line of reasoning, of which he would not comment. It is Objectivist 101; if you allow people the freedom to make individual choices with private funds, ultimately and eventually practical self-interest will have them do what is most beneficial for the society as a whole. For example: if the owner of a private restaurant doesn’t want to serve African-Americans…no, let’s say blue-eyed people, then his loss of business will ultimately force him to change as he would realize he was acting against his own best interest. The stupid anti-blue-eyed restaurants would eventually go out of business. It’s logical, makes sense…sort of. It did to me in 1972. However, if you substitute African-American for blue-eyed, something doesn’t pass the sniff test.
There were legitimate concerns with the new year of 2009. The Bush Administration with the support of a Democratic Congress had completed the first TARP spending bill, but without adequate restriction on how the Bush Administration was going to spend it, and began work on a second bill at the end of 2008. The addition of massive debt to the out of control spending and revenue reductions in the Bush years was breath taking. There was every justification for overt protest, if nothing else but to provide adequate explanation and accountability.
The Tea Party protests, however, specifically focused on President Obama as, supposedly, the agent for what they saw happening. They began in earnest February 2009, less than a month after Obama’s inauguration, obviously in the works earlier. President Obama hadn’t even completed his cabinet let alone instituted policy or signed major legislation at that point. He was nearly a year away from presenting his first budget. It was the election itself that sparked the organizing that led to the first “protest”. Nothing would have defused it; not instant prosperity, not cheap health care, not budget surpluses, not the Taliban converting to Christianity, not the second coming of Christ…nothing - except the election of John McCain. The real reason for the movement was the fear of lost identity, that the external identity of being “independent”, white, Christian, and American was perceived as being gravely threatened. The awareness of their own humanity was and is currently not on the radar.
Rand Paul has found himself a leader in a movement for which logic holds little weight. His leadership is nearly an oxymoron. It is a movement which exemplifies the very reason why Objectivism lost much of its appeal to its early, now aging, educated followers. People just aren’t the chemical, cause and effect androids that compliment the logic one finds in such variant philosophies as Ayn Rand’s or Karl Marx. Without regard to positive ideas that exist in both viewpoints, people are vulnerable to the weakness of their own egos. It is the reason we have laws. As Rand Paul runs for Congress and tries, as his father, to articulate some logical Libertarian viewpoint, he’ll discover that it will hardly garner the support of those not at the Tea Party, nor those swimming in orange-pekoe. Ultimately, if he thinks he can win with a right-wing plurality, he’ll have to do just one thing – bash Obama. No logic necessary.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
If I Were King - Proclamation I
Preamble
There are two things that are initially repelling to most who would read the title If I Were King. First is the egotistic nature of the statement. Well…this is a blog, and any expression; spoken, written, drawn, sculpted, spray painted on cinderblock, tattooed over pectoral muscles, or whatever inextricably includes the ego - can’t help that.
The second disturbing aspect is the King thing. In our national desire to raise the concept of Democracy to that of a theology we have come to look suspiciously at other means of social order as heretical, which is a little odd considering the comedy our representative Democracy stages for us almost daily. The fact is, a generationally determined Monarchy is potentially a better, more efficient, more responsive form of government, and less blind to inequities. It just has that one pesky problem of getting really bad monarchs, which may happen more often than not. There’s not much to be done about a squirrely succession.
So, would I make a good king? No, I’d probably make a lousy king. But occasionally I believe I have a good or fun idea, and how I wish I could make it happen by proclamation instead of the perhaps greater fantasy of it coming to pass within the context of a society that believes it can be run by consensus.
Therefore, as your Sovereign, I hereby proclaim that:
I - All prescription drug advertisements shall be banned from television and radio. Doesn’t that sound good? We don’t need the information, the doctors do. All it does is raise drug costs and a bunch of other nasty stuff (see www.CAPDA.blogspot.com ).
II - All new cars sold in this country will not have analogue speedometers reading above 100mph. Speedometer inflation is both absurd and insulting - and probably promotes speeding. My little 4 cylinder Elantra’s speedometer reads up to 140mph! It couldn’t go that fast if I drove it off a cliff. Do they really believe I feel more powerful with a number like that?
III – That every male in the country upon reaching the age of 18 be required to do 2 years of “service”. Although you’ve heard that before, this service would only necessitate that they live for those two years in the house of a family who has just sent their own 18 year old son off. However, that family would have to be of an ethnic origin (European American, African American, Latin American, or Native American) different than their own. During those two years they would either work and/or attend a community college. Women could participate on a voluntary basis, because when it comes to social acceptance, quite frankly, today’s young women have their shit together and men don’t.
IV – There will, once again, be a national speed limit of 55mph. Jimmy Carter was right. 55 because no one is willing to drive the speed limit and cars hit their maximum aerodynamic efficiency somewhere between 60 and 65mph. The savings in national fuel consumption would be astronomical. The loss of 67 minutes on a drive between Richmond and New York can easily be made up by the elimination of one mindless reality program and/or the healthy consumption of Metamucil. The decline in highway fatalities would be just a bonus.
V - Social Security will simply become taxable income (instead of partially, as it is now). Furthermore, at gross incomes exceeding $80,000 Social Security will be taxed at a progressively higher rate than other income, so when a person’s total income reaches $140,000 Social Security will be taxed at 100%, i.e., those individuals will receive no Social Security. It is beyond reason that our current form of social welfare for the elderly and disabled is routinely paid out to wealthy individuals. The illusion that this is some kind of paid-in annuity strikes at the heart of why we are the largest debtor nation in the history of mankind.
VI - All push lawn mowers with grass catchers shall be banned. Only mulching mowers will be sold. This decree is intended to give psychological help to those unfortunates who believe that the few minutes of momentary bliss they receive from a spotless lawn is worth the weighted down mower, the endless stopping and dumping of the bags, the pilings of grass clippings in the backyard (or worse - plastic bags), the green fingernails, and the higher original cost.
VII – All television stations and networks shall not sell more than 20 minutes of commercial airtime advertising one political candidate over that sold to another (in any given market). It wouldn’t matter who buys the ad, but the candidates campaign would have right of first refusal. A candidate would be defined as one who is currently projected to receive at least 25% of the popular vote. Further, all commercial airtime purchased by political candidates must be a minimum of 2 minutes in duration for Presidential and Senatorial candidates and 1 minute for all others. The net result would be that there would be equal exposure or a popular minority candidate could stop the use of television commercials – a medium where 15 second political sound bites appeal to that part of the brain which handles such activities as nose picking and making imitation fart sounds. Maybe we would actually learn something from what was broadcast or find better means of learning about all the candidates. Hell, in Britain they don’t allow political TV ads at all, which errs on the side of common sense.
VIII – That 5% of all gross television ad revenues be paid over to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Call it a tax if you’d like, but for a society not to fund a media source, especially news, which is free from a corporate profit interest, is like a theft of understanding. Further, having funding within a government budget can allow politicians the same kind of leverage. Upper management and the board of the CPB would be replaced if average viewer/listenership fell below a pre-determined level for 3 successive quarters – letting the people vote on the content with their TV remotes.
IX – There will be a Value Added Tax on oil to gasoline intended to bring the price up to at least $4 per gallon. This would both reduce debt and find a strike price which will curb consumption and stimulate innovation. If consumption does not flatten or decline, the rate of tax will increase. There would be no VAT on diesel fuel, which would reduce the impact on the trucking business. One half of revenues would be applied to transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges etc), which would be mostly transferred to the States. There will be an annual windfall profits tax on energy companies. All new roads and fuel efficient cars will be named after me.
X – That all cable, satellite, and fiber optic television companies shall provide a new Sarah Palin Channel. This channel will broadcast nothing but Sarah Palin interviews and speeches in an endless loop. I hope by doing such, devoted fans will actually begin to see what this woman is saying. Every two hours there will be 10 minutes of an old 1950s Howdy-Doody broadcast inserted. The channel shall remain in effect until it is determined that polled Republican viewers can finally no longer tell the difference between Palin and Buffalo Bob.
There are two things that are initially repelling to most who would read the title If I Were King. First is the egotistic nature of the statement. Well…this is a blog, and any expression; spoken, written, drawn, sculpted, spray painted on cinderblock, tattooed over pectoral muscles, or whatever inextricably includes the ego - can’t help that.
The second disturbing aspect is the King thing. In our national desire to raise the concept of Democracy to that of a theology we have come to look suspiciously at other means of social order as heretical, which is a little odd considering the comedy our representative Democracy stages for us almost daily. The fact is, a generationally determined Monarchy is potentially a better, more efficient, more responsive form of government, and less blind to inequities. It just has that one pesky problem of getting really bad monarchs, which may happen more often than not. There’s not much to be done about a squirrely succession.
So, would I make a good king? No, I’d probably make a lousy king. But occasionally I believe I have a good or fun idea, and how I wish I could make it happen by proclamation instead of the perhaps greater fantasy of it coming to pass within the context of a society that believes it can be run by consensus.
Therefore, as your Sovereign, I hereby proclaim that:
I - All prescription drug advertisements shall be banned from television and radio. Doesn’t that sound good? We don’t need the information, the doctors do. All it does is raise drug costs and a bunch of other nasty stuff (see www.CAPDA.blogspot.com ).
II - All new cars sold in this country will not have analogue speedometers reading above 100mph. Speedometer inflation is both absurd and insulting - and probably promotes speeding. My little 4 cylinder Elantra’s speedometer reads up to 140mph! It couldn’t go that fast if I drove it off a cliff. Do they really believe I feel more powerful with a number like that?
III – That every male in the country upon reaching the age of 18 be required to do 2 years of “service”. Although you’ve heard that before, this service would only necessitate that they live for those two years in the house of a family who has just sent their own 18 year old son off. However, that family would have to be of an ethnic origin (European American, African American, Latin American, or Native American) different than their own. During those two years they would either work and/or attend a community college. Women could participate on a voluntary basis, because when it comes to social acceptance, quite frankly, today’s young women have their shit together and men don’t.
IV – There will, once again, be a national speed limit of 55mph. Jimmy Carter was right. 55 because no one is willing to drive the speed limit and cars hit their maximum aerodynamic efficiency somewhere between 60 and 65mph. The savings in national fuel consumption would be astronomical. The loss of 67 minutes on a drive between Richmond and New York can easily be made up by the elimination of one mindless reality program and/or the healthy consumption of Metamucil. The decline in highway fatalities would be just a bonus.
V - Social Security will simply become taxable income (instead of partially, as it is now). Furthermore, at gross incomes exceeding $80,000 Social Security will be taxed at a progressively higher rate than other income, so when a person’s total income reaches $140,000 Social Security will be taxed at 100%, i.e., those individuals will receive no Social Security. It is beyond reason that our current form of social welfare for the elderly and disabled is routinely paid out to wealthy individuals. The illusion that this is some kind of paid-in annuity strikes at the heart of why we are the largest debtor nation in the history of mankind.
VI - All push lawn mowers with grass catchers shall be banned. Only mulching mowers will be sold. This decree is intended to give psychological help to those unfortunates who believe that the few minutes of momentary bliss they receive from a spotless lawn is worth the weighted down mower, the endless stopping and dumping of the bags, the pilings of grass clippings in the backyard (or worse - plastic bags), the green fingernails, and the higher original cost.
VII – All television stations and networks shall not sell more than 20 minutes of commercial airtime advertising one political candidate over that sold to another (in any given market). It wouldn’t matter who buys the ad, but the candidates campaign would have right of first refusal. A candidate would be defined as one who is currently projected to receive at least 25% of the popular vote. Further, all commercial airtime purchased by political candidates must be a minimum of 2 minutes in duration for Presidential and Senatorial candidates and 1 minute for all others. The net result would be that there would be equal exposure or a popular minority candidate could stop the use of television commercials – a medium where 15 second political sound bites appeal to that part of the brain which handles such activities as nose picking and making imitation fart sounds. Maybe we would actually learn something from what was broadcast or find better means of learning about all the candidates. Hell, in Britain they don’t allow political TV ads at all, which errs on the side of common sense.
VIII – That 5% of all gross television ad revenues be paid over to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Call it a tax if you’d like, but for a society not to fund a media source, especially news, which is free from a corporate profit interest, is like a theft of understanding. Further, having funding within a government budget can allow politicians the same kind of leverage. Upper management and the board of the CPB would be replaced if average viewer/listenership fell below a pre-determined level for 3 successive quarters – letting the people vote on the content with their TV remotes.
IX – There will be a Value Added Tax on oil to gasoline intended to bring the price up to at least $4 per gallon. This would both reduce debt and find a strike price which will curb consumption and stimulate innovation. If consumption does not flatten or decline, the rate of tax will increase. There would be no VAT on diesel fuel, which would reduce the impact on the trucking business. One half of revenues would be applied to transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges etc), which would be mostly transferred to the States. There will be an annual windfall profits tax on energy companies. All new roads and fuel efficient cars will be named after me.
X – That all cable, satellite, and fiber optic television companies shall provide a new Sarah Palin Channel. This channel will broadcast nothing but Sarah Palin interviews and speeches in an endless loop. I hope by doing such, devoted fans will actually begin to see what this woman is saying. Every two hours there will be 10 minutes of an old 1950s Howdy-Doody broadcast inserted. The channel shall remain in effect until it is determined that polled Republican viewers can finally no longer tell the difference between Palin and Buffalo Bob.
Friday, April 23, 2010
My Enemy...My Friend
This morning I watched my wife Jan go to the cupboard and take out her daily vitamin and calcium pills from their bottles, as she does each morning. I, who had snagged from CVS freebie plastic pill containers with seven handy little compartments, asked her why she doesn’t use one of them. “That way you’d only have to take your pill bottles out once a week instead of once a day”. She looked at me incredulously and said: “…why would I want to do that? I’m perfectly fine and content with doing it the way I’m doing it.” I grumbled something about efficiency and cleverly omitted the fact that I use the container to help remind me to take my damned pills – something for which her methodical abilities require no assistance.
Of course, she was right. What is the point of making a change when no change is necessary? It made me wonder if my almost evangelistic belief that there is always a better way of doing things (if one just looks hard enough) may be self-defeating. One might suggest such is the origin of the phrase don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The desire for change, in and of itself, has no explicit value. Only the value of the actual proposed change can be judged. To those who might disagree, pointing out the individuals who have championed or actually developed the many technological advancements we enjoy, I would suggest that it was dissatisfaction with the status quo that was probably the greater motivator…and doubtless money as well.
Still, I wonder. Is a desire for change per se a necessary attribute allowing us to successfully adapt? Perhaps so. There is change swirling about us continually - tied to events, tied to time, or tied to mystery for example. How do we react when what makes us content doesn’t seem consistent with the environment that surrounds us? Isn’t it a common reaction to blame “the world” or one of its many components as the cause of why this or that just isn’t the same? In spending a career working with “seniors” (say 70 and up) I noticed that those who most acutely felt the stresses of age were those to whom felt their lives abandoned. They felt they had lived a lifetime only to find that what was comfortable, what was dependable, and what had shaped trust was not clearly identifiable in the world around them. The anguish that assumption creates is a tragic consequence for individuals in the last period of their lives.
Maybe there is contentment itself in recognizing and appreciating the impermanence of all things? Some years ago I developed an infection in my sinuses and ears. For unfortunate reasons I was unable to get to a doctor, so I stuck out the illness. For about three days I lost most of my hearing. I got a kick out of driving my old pickup truck, as the low murmur of its normally ruckus engine sounded like a Mercedes-Benz E Class. When my hearing came back it also brought an unwelcomed enemy – tinnitus or ringing in the ears. I have it to this day.
At first I tried to read whatever I could about tinnitus. I wasn’t encourage to see that one, there was no cure for it, and two, some people are driven half (or entirely) mad by the condition. To consider a noise over which you have no control one could understand such a reaction. Mine is primarily in my left ear and frequently when it is quiet outside (as in the evening) or if that ear is covered the noise can sound like a relentless high-pitched car horn. However, I did find some good information, although I had to modify it for my own purposes. I found I could conquer the ringing, not by trying to overcome it, but rather by listening to it...and accepting it. This change that had taken place in my life was okay…in fact it was better than okay. It helped me to step out of the possible chains inflexibility can cause in any of us. Now at night when I lay with the left side of my head on the pillow I attentively marvel at the volume of the ringing, but when I’m through listening it essentially goes away. It has become my friend and I'm better for it. If I didn’t have the desire to embrace change could I have done this, or would I be pounding my head against a wall? I’m not sure.
I read from the internet an explanation about the baby/bath water saying. It suggested that the origin was from centuries before when an entire family would take their weekly or monthly bath in the same bath water. The baby, it said, was normally the last to be bathed and by that time you could just imagine what the water looked like. It was joked (back then) that the mother could lose the baby in the muck. I like the explanation, true or not. But it does make me think that unless we can adapt, we may be cleaning with the same water too long and lose that which is dear. Maybe a love of change helps.
Of course, she was right. What is the point of making a change when no change is necessary? It made me wonder if my almost evangelistic belief that there is always a better way of doing things (if one just looks hard enough) may be self-defeating. One might suggest such is the origin of the phrase don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The desire for change, in and of itself, has no explicit value. Only the value of the actual proposed change can be judged. To those who might disagree, pointing out the individuals who have championed or actually developed the many technological advancements we enjoy, I would suggest that it was dissatisfaction with the status quo that was probably the greater motivator…and doubtless money as well.
Still, I wonder. Is a desire for change per se a necessary attribute allowing us to successfully adapt? Perhaps so. There is change swirling about us continually - tied to events, tied to time, or tied to mystery for example. How do we react when what makes us content doesn’t seem consistent with the environment that surrounds us? Isn’t it a common reaction to blame “the world” or one of its many components as the cause of why this or that just isn’t the same? In spending a career working with “seniors” (say 70 and up) I noticed that those who most acutely felt the stresses of age were those to whom felt their lives abandoned. They felt they had lived a lifetime only to find that what was comfortable, what was dependable, and what had shaped trust was not clearly identifiable in the world around them. The anguish that assumption creates is a tragic consequence for individuals in the last period of their lives.
Maybe there is contentment itself in recognizing and appreciating the impermanence of all things? Some years ago I developed an infection in my sinuses and ears. For unfortunate reasons I was unable to get to a doctor, so I stuck out the illness. For about three days I lost most of my hearing. I got a kick out of driving my old pickup truck, as the low murmur of its normally ruckus engine sounded like a Mercedes-Benz E Class. When my hearing came back it also brought an unwelcomed enemy – tinnitus or ringing in the ears. I have it to this day.
At first I tried to read whatever I could about tinnitus. I wasn’t encourage to see that one, there was no cure for it, and two, some people are driven half (or entirely) mad by the condition. To consider a noise over which you have no control one could understand such a reaction. Mine is primarily in my left ear and frequently when it is quiet outside (as in the evening) or if that ear is covered the noise can sound like a relentless high-pitched car horn. However, I did find some good information, although I had to modify it for my own purposes. I found I could conquer the ringing, not by trying to overcome it, but rather by listening to it...and accepting it. This change that had taken place in my life was okay…in fact it was better than okay. It helped me to step out of the possible chains inflexibility can cause in any of us. Now at night when I lay with the left side of my head on the pillow I attentively marvel at the volume of the ringing, but when I’m through listening it essentially goes away. It has become my friend and I'm better for it. If I didn’t have the desire to embrace change could I have done this, or would I be pounding my head against a wall? I’m not sure.
I read from the internet an explanation about the baby/bath water saying. It suggested that the origin was from centuries before when an entire family would take their weekly or monthly bath in the same bath water. The baby, it said, was normally the last to be bathed and by that time you could just imagine what the water looked like. It was joked (back then) that the mother could lose the baby in the muck. I like the explanation, true or not. But it does make me think that unless we can adapt, we may be cleaning with the same water too long and lose that which is dear. Maybe a love of change helps.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The New Racism?
One afternoon recently I asked a thoughtful friend, a self-proclaimed Conservative, sympathetic with the “Tea Party” events and energetically opposed to the recent Health Reform Law, if he thought racism played a part in the “spirited” opposition to the Obama Administration. He reflected that pockets of racism will likely always exist, but he emphatically believed it was not part of the current vocal Conservative activism. Further, he felt for sure that (I paraphrase) claims of racism were merely a way for Liberal big government types to undermine the issues addressed by the “Tea Party” and similar Obama opponents. I’m confident his view is typical.
The possibility of racism as a motivation for popular political or social action is difficult to swallow. It cuts at the very heart of a trend over the past 60 years where “Jim Crow” laws were not only eliminated from the books, but overtly discounted as socially acceptable. A byproduct of the election of Obama seemed to be putting a period at the end of that chapter of Americana, suggesting we had turned a new page. Here I’m not wondering that an old chapter has probably ended, but rather what exactly is the new chapter beginning?
Aside from the lunatic fringe of the Christian Conservative Right (a fringe I might add that is notably large and uncomfortably armed), one doesn’t see blatant demonstrations of racism surfacing in public by mainstream Conservative activists, regardless of their own racial uniformity. I haven’t seen it at any rate, and I would accept that for most, like my friend, it doesn’t manifest in private as well. Still, the possibility of prejudice is ever so slightly alluded to by official Administration supporters, a bit like TV weather reporters trying to suggest that a 10% chance of rain is something to be concerned about, and on the street, well… many anti-Tea Party types and African-Americans uniformly see racism as a staple of Conservative protest.
Is it not possible that these Obama Administration supporters in their zeal to discount the issues raised by Conservative activists hang onto the actions of the lunatic fringe (name calling, spitting, voicemail threats & so on) and extrapolate it out to include all Conservatives? After all, the issues raised are real by any centrist (or liberal) standard, primarily focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of lawmakers. It’s hard to see how racism is a motivation in the opposition of red ink.
Still, simple observation makes me irresistibly feel something else is going on. The issues raised by Conservative activists are hardly new to this decade. Sure, given his rhetorical skills, George W. Bush’s elections in 2000 and 2004 were like full employment acts for comedians everywhere (he got his lumps), but the massive literal and shadow debt produced by his reductions of income and unbridled expenses (much of it without Congressional oversight) didn’t spark even an ember of protest from Conservatives. Further, although he and his Lord Vader (Cheney) may have been despised by those few who actually felt the sacrifice of their foreign adventures, Bush was not that I recall vilified in the way Obama has been. An 88 year old grandmother I know, who occasionally can be confused as to the days of the week, is convinced that Obama is the new Hitler, because he “speaks so well”. She reflects the banners that show up everywhere at Conservative rallies. Another otherwise ordinary, college educated public employee shared with me his real suspicions that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I don’t believe these views are atypical.
Where has this come from? Obama’s political pragmatism has been a major disappointment to many of his supporters who had shouted yes we can in 2008 to fiscal and political change, but it should have reverberated as a relief to Conservatives, or at least dampened their vitriolic enthusiasm. Just the opposite seems to have occurred. Not even the renewed stature Obama has brought America internationally (a source of pride for me) has explicitly resonated an iota with Conservatives. The almost junkyard dog attacks on what was essentially a health care insurance reform bill, with an intended benefit for almost everyone except those wealthy enough to be self-insured, was like a beacon shinning on something perhaps new and different.
Isn’t it also possible that Obama by his stature, his position, and his race has touched on something that is difficult for a large portion of white America to accept at a gut level? As human beings we have the challenge of recognizing our humanity while simultaneously engaged in establishing our identities…and mostly we fail. We fail because our identities are usually false, based on constructs that are superficial or illusionary. They include such things as possessions, physical appearance, organizations, intelligence, nationalities, relationships, handicaps, religions, and (oh yeah) race - to name just a few. The need to want or be right as to any of these is a powerful motivator. Identifying with race is a problem for both blacks and whites. It’s almost silly to think that it doesn’t play a role here. However, is it racism as we have known it?
White Americans prior to the middle of the 20th century were comfortable with that aspect of their identities as “white” (which they never thought of as “white”) because historically non-whites were considered inferior by a variety of external standards (including laws). That concept was debunked in the last 60 years, but perhaps only intellectually and legally. Now, however, something new, something undeniably tangible has occurred much sooner than almost anyone might have predicted. Too many white Americans are negatively faced with a realization that a black man is not only more intelligent, more refined, and of higher station than they are, but is also their leader and superior. That reality cannot be rationalized away as it might for any other non-white. It undermines the core of the construct of how they view themselves, even though being white really has nothing to do with who they are or that being black has anything to do with who Obama is. If Obama were just seen as man, not as a black man, it’s hard for me to believe that the rancorous attacks would be the same. It is not that those individuals would necessarily be in agreement with the Obama Administration, they just simply would not feel so personally threatened.
This may not be racism by traditional definitions, but a cancer is a cancer whether the symptoms are obvious or not. I’d call it selfism (for lack of something cleverer) since it exists on a plain where laws or ethics cannot govern, and of which the individual is frankly unaware.
The possibility of racism as a motivation for popular political or social action is difficult to swallow. It cuts at the very heart of a trend over the past 60 years where “Jim Crow” laws were not only eliminated from the books, but overtly discounted as socially acceptable. A byproduct of the election of Obama seemed to be putting a period at the end of that chapter of Americana, suggesting we had turned a new page. Here I’m not wondering that an old chapter has probably ended, but rather what exactly is the new chapter beginning?
Aside from the lunatic fringe of the Christian Conservative Right (a fringe I might add that is notably large and uncomfortably armed), one doesn’t see blatant demonstrations of racism surfacing in public by mainstream Conservative activists, regardless of their own racial uniformity. I haven’t seen it at any rate, and I would accept that for most, like my friend, it doesn’t manifest in private as well. Still, the possibility of prejudice is ever so slightly alluded to by official Administration supporters, a bit like TV weather reporters trying to suggest that a 10% chance of rain is something to be concerned about, and on the street, well… many anti-Tea Party types and African-Americans uniformly see racism as a staple of Conservative protest.
Is it not possible that these Obama Administration supporters in their zeal to discount the issues raised by Conservative activists hang onto the actions of the lunatic fringe (name calling, spitting, voicemail threats & so on) and extrapolate it out to include all Conservatives? After all, the issues raised are real by any centrist (or liberal) standard, primarily focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of lawmakers. It’s hard to see how racism is a motivation in the opposition of red ink.
Still, simple observation makes me irresistibly feel something else is going on. The issues raised by Conservative activists are hardly new to this decade. Sure, given his rhetorical skills, George W. Bush’s elections in 2000 and 2004 were like full employment acts for comedians everywhere (he got his lumps), but the massive literal and shadow debt produced by his reductions of income and unbridled expenses (much of it without Congressional oversight) didn’t spark even an ember of protest from Conservatives. Further, although he and his Lord Vader (Cheney) may have been despised by those few who actually felt the sacrifice of their foreign adventures, Bush was not that I recall vilified in the way Obama has been. An 88 year old grandmother I know, who occasionally can be confused as to the days of the week, is convinced that Obama is the new Hitler, because he “speaks so well”. She reflects the banners that show up everywhere at Conservative rallies. Another otherwise ordinary, college educated public employee shared with me his real suspicions that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I don’t believe these views are atypical.
Where has this come from? Obama’s political pragmatism has been a major disappointment to many of his supporters who had shouted yes we can in 2008 to fiscal and political change, but it should have reverberated as a relief to Conservatives, or at least dampened their vitriolic enthusiasm. Just the opposite seems to have occurred. Not even the renewed stature Obama has brought America internationally (a source of pride for me) has explicitly resonated an iota with Conservatives. The almost junkyard dog attacks on what was essentially a health care insurance reform bill, with an intended benefit for almost everyone except those wealthy enough to be self-insured, was like a beacon shinning on something perhaps new and different.
Isn’t it also possible that Obama by his stature, his position, and his race has touched on something that is difficult for a large portion of white America to accept at a gut level? As human beings we have the challenge of recognizing our humanity while simultaneously engaged in establishing our identities…and mostly we fail. We fail because our identities are usually false, based on constructs that are superficial or illusionary. They include such things as possessions, physical appearance, organizations, intelligence, nationalities, relationships, handicaps, religions, and (oh yeah) race - to name just a few. The need to want or be right as to any of these is a powerful motivator. Identifying with race is a problem for both blacks and whites. It’s almost silly to think that it doesn’t play a role here. However, is it racism as we have known it?
White Americans prior to the middle of the 20th century were comfortable with that aspect of their identities as “white” (which they never thought of as “white”) because historically non-whites were considered inferior by a variety of external standards (including laws). That concept was debunked in the last 60 years, but perhaps only intellectually and legally. Now, however, something new, something undeniably tangible has occurred much sooner than almost anyone might have predicted. Too many white Americans are negatively faced with a realization that a black man is not only more intelligent, more refined, and of higher station than they are, but is also their leader and superior. That reality cannot be rationalized away as it might for any other non-white. It undermines the core of the construct of how they view themselves, even though being white really has nothing to do with who they are or that being black has anything to do with who Obama is. If Obama were just seen as man, not as a black man, it’s hard for me to believe that the rancorous attacks would be the same. It is not that those individuals would necessarily be in agreement with the Obama Administration, they just simply would not feel so personally threatened.
This may not be racism by traditional definitions, but a cancer is a cancer whether the symptoms are obvious or not. I’d call it selfism (for lack of something cleverer) since it exists on a plain where laws or ethics cannot govern, and of which the individual is frankly unaware.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Larry King's Tea Party
As I grumbled over the protracted news coverage of Larry King’s latest divorce, one gram of information sparked my interest. It was reported that King’s current contract with CNN was worth $50 million. Here is a competent interviewer in the very twilight of his career, who (in my opinion) is on cruise mode when compared to the dynamics of his industry, and still he can command an income the equivalent of a lotto bonanza to a middle class American. It’s not that Larry is an icon for humanity, his desire to be cryogenically preserved upon death speaks volumes as to his character, not to mention his eight divorces (one pending). Sure, it’s all show business, but when two hours of Larry King’s often rambling conversation is the equivalent of a provider for a family of four, working full time at a wage above the poverty line... for about 43 years…it gets me thinking.
What is it about the disparity of wealth in our country that the general population doesn’t get? In formal Economics wealth is more simply defined as the claim on resources, or what an individual (or wealth holder generally) can demand from society as a whole. It relates closely to power over other individuals. Inequality of such demand has always, and undoubtedly will always be the case to some degreee. What’s interesting is the trends that have taken place, especially here in the US.
With the founding of the country and the expansion of free enterprise (combined with universal education and representative government) the lack of parity between financial classes (if you will) went on a steady decline, with some minor exceptions, for about 200 years. It is only in the last 30 years, thereabouts, that such class structure did an about face and began to widen dramatically. The reasons are varied and complex, some simply due to demographic changes like massive population increases, many intentionally created. The point of this analysis is not to point fingers necessarily, but rather to look at the results of such disparity and how we as a nation react to it.
POTUS radio has done several man in the street interview sessions at “Tea Party” rallies in various locations. I was impressed that the producers made an honest attempt to circumvent the wacko Theodore Kaczynski types (of which there are many – including those who think writing checks out to Sarah Palin is patriotic) to interview thoughtful individuals who have attempted to reason out their activism. These Tea Party warriors have points which are often grounded in solid dirt, expounding, for example, on the long term consequences of huge budget deficits, incomprehensible national debt, the role of government in business ownership to name a few. However, one theme kept creeping back into the conversations, like the recognition of the boogie man that lives under the bed – taxation. The very concept of taxation is poison in the tea cups of these “activists”, ergo the actual name of the group based on the Colonial tax protest of 1773 (which BTW had nothing to do with assessing tax, rather representation in deciding the use of that tax).
Now let’s not be too confused with their Boston “Indian” counterparts. These 21st century “patriots” love their massive national defense bureaucracy, they like quality universal education, hurricane clean ups, filled potholes, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid (at least for their moms – bless their hearts), food subsidies, suspension bridges, intelligence agencies, crime fighters of every description, 911, attractive roadsides, national parks and on and on. They just don’t want to be taxed - plain and simple. One well thinking person I know put it this way: “I just don’t trust Government” period. Where did this thinking come from, that the funding of our government (which is effectively funding ourselves) wasn’t just a question of the efficient use of accumulated wealth, but an inherent evil or, at best, the propagation of evil. How many of such middle class Tea Party people could honestly identify how their lives were literally less meaningful due to the taxes they have paid. The contradictions are so obvious and pervasive that it nearly defies understanding.
In 2001 George Bush’s first order of business as President presiding over a Republican Congress was to enact enormous tax cuts, followed again in 2003. The CBO projected at that time that such cuts would add $1.2 trillion to the National Debt over the following 10 years (which has come to pass – further they are currently projecting an additional $1.8 trillion deficit if the cuts are extended). This was done before Bush went on a $1.2 trillion (or more) spending spree in the Middle East. The rank and file Tea Partiers don’t have a problem with any of that. Their conclusions remain unchanged, that out of control spending is the culprit (unless it's for something worth while - like killing Saddam Hussain) and that any tax cut is a good cut. But who did these tax cuts go to and who has the interest to leave them in place?
The tax cuts were spread primarily from the middleclass up. However, those who make little income have little to gain by an income based tax cut. The benefit (or lack thereof) to the poor is obvious. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, the more income the more fun at the party. The middle 20% of middle class taxpayers received 8.9% of the cut. That would be 8.9% distributed among about 50 million people. The top 0.2% of income earners received 15.3% of the benefit. The nation’s 257,000 millionaires (at that time - based on income) received an initial $30 billion in benefits. This disparity between the haves and the have-nots just doesn’t resonate with the have-nots (even the have-nots who rally at Tea Party conventions shouting rage at efforts to reverse these disparities as “Obama Socialism” pounding on their doors). Why has this complacency with those of wealth and power, never more obvious since post WWII America, been so inherent in Conservative ethics?
There’s nothing unique about Larry King. He is only one of several million individuals who by fate, ingenuity, or cunning have found themselves economically separated from mainstream America. There is a further gap between our middle class and those who struggle at the bottom of claims on resources (which may include a disproportionate portion of our next generation). The “Contract with America” Conservatism that drives the Republican caucus, the Tea Partiers, the Palins, the Limbaughs, and others has a vitriolic subtext which contains the frightening ability to get people to energetically act against their own self interest. The fight over the recent health care law couldn’t have proved it better. The benefits from such Conservatism has yielded enormous tangible benefits for those seek to retain their claim to resources and illusionary benefits for those who shout on public malls.
The musical 1776 (the life’s passion of composer-lyricist Sherman Edwards to accurately put the struggle of the founding of this country to music) has a song in it called Cool, Cool Considerate Men. It was originally entitled “Cool, Cool Conservative Men” but the producers forced the change so as not to turn away a segment of possible patrons. The song recounts what was occurring both in the Continental Congress of 1776 and the Colonies as a whole – the fight between those who advocated independence and those who wanted reconciliation with Britain. It is sung in the form of a minuet by those who felt reconciliation would protect their wealth and lifestyle. Near the end of the minuet John Rutledge, the Conservative representative from South Carolina, stops the song and asks John Hancock why he supports John Adams in Adam’s quest for independence, since he (Hancock) was “one of us” - a man of property. Hancock says “…fortunately there aren’t enough men of property in America to dictate policy”. Rutledge responds by saying “…but don’t forget that most men would rather protect the possibility of being rich than face the reality of being poor…so they will follow us.”
One could argue that Rutledge’s belief was wrong in his assessment that control over an effort to exact a common good was vested in a select group of people. After all, the Revolution proceeded. Then again, maybe the only thing wrong with the prediction…was his timing.
What is it about the disparity of wealth in our country that the general population doesn’t get? In formal Economics wealth is more simply defined as the claim on resources, or what an individual (or wealth holder generally) can demand from society as a whole. It relates closely to power over other individuals. Inequality of such demand has always, and undoubtedly will always be the case to some degreee. What’s interesting is the trends that have taken place, especially here in the US.
With the founding of the country and the expansion of free enterprise (combined with universal education and representative government) the lack of parity between financial classes (if you will) went on a steady decline, with some minor exceptions, for about 200 years. It is only in the last 30 years, thereabouts, that such class structure did an about face and began to widen dramatically. The reasons are varied and complex, some simply due to demographic changes like massive population increases, many intentionally created. The point of this analysis is not to point fingers necessarily, but rather to look at the results of such disparity and how we as a nation react to it.
POTUS radio has done several man in the street interview sessions at “Tea Party” rallies in various locations. I was impressed that the producers made an honest attempt to circumvent the wacko Theodore Kaczynski types (of which there are many – including those who think writing checks out to Sarah Palin is patriotic) to interview thoughtful individuals who have attempted to reason out their activism. These Tea Party warriors have points which are often grounded in solid dirt, expounding, for example, on the long term consequences of huge budget deficits, incomprehensible national debt, the role of government in business ownership to name a few. However, one theme kept creeping back into the conversations, like the recognition of the boogie man that lives under the bed – taxation. The very concept of taxation is poison in the tea cups of these “activists”, ergo the actual name of the group based on the Colonial tax protest of 1773 (which BTW had nothing to do with assessing tax, rather representation in deciding the use of that tax).
Now let’s not be too confused with their Boston “Indian” counterparts. These 21st century “patriots” love their massive national defense bureaucracy, they like quality universal education, hurricane clean ups, filled potholes, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid (at least for their moms – bless their hearts), food subsidies, suspension bridges, intelligence agencies, crime fighters of every description, 911, attractive roadsides, national parks and on and on. They just don’t want to be taxed - plain and simple. One well thinking person I know put it this way: “I just don’t trust Government” period. Where did this thinking come from, that the funding of our government (which is effectively funding ourselves) wasn’t just a question of the efficient use of accumulated wealth, but an inherent evil or, at best, the propagation of evil. How many of such middle class Tea Party people could honestly identify how their lives were literally less meaningful due to the taxes they have paid. The contradictions are so obvious and pervasive that it nearly defies understanding.
In 2001 George Bush’s first order of business as President presiding over a Republican Congress was to enact enormous tax cuts, followed again in 2003. The CBO projected at that time that such cuts would add $1.2 trillion to the National Debt over the following 10 years (which has come to pass – further they are currently projecting an additional $1.8 trillion deficit if the cuts are extended). This was done before Bush went on a $1.2 trillion (or more) spending spree in the Middle East. The rank and file Tea Partiers don’t have a problem with any of that. Their conclusions remain unchanged, that out of control spending is the culprit (unless it's for something worth while - like killing Saddam Hussain) and that any tax cut is a good cut. But who did these tax cuts go to and who has the interest to leave them in place?
The tax cuts were spread primarily from the middleclass up. However, those who make little income have little to gain by an income based tax cut. The benefit (or lack thereof) to the poor is obvious. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, the more income the more fun at the party. The middle 20% of middle class taxpayers received 8.9% of the cut. That would be 8.9% distributed among about 50 million people. The top 0.2% of income earners received 15.3% of the benefit. The nation’s 257,000 millionaires (at that time - based on income) received an initial $30 billion in benefits. This disparity between the haves and the have-nots just doesn’t resonate with the have-nots (even the have-nots who rally at Tea Party conventions shouting rage at efforts to reverse these disparities as “Obama Socialism” pounding on their doors). Why has this complacency with those of wealth and power, never more obvious since post WWII America, been so inherent in Conservative ethics?
There’s nothing unique about Larry King. He is only one of several million individuals who by fate, ingenuity, or cunning have found themselves economically separated from mainstream America. There is a further gap between our middle class and those who struggle at the bottom of claims on resources (which may include a disproportionate portion of our next generation). The “Contract with America” Conservatism that drives the Republican caucus, the Tea Partiers, the Palins, the Limbaughs, and others has a vitriolic subtext which contains the frightening ability to get people to energetically act against their own self interest. The fight over the recent health care law couldn’t have proved it better. The benefits from such Conservatism has yielded enormous tangible benefits for those seek to retain their claim to resources and illusionary benefits for those who shout on public malls.
The musical 1776 (the life’s passion of composer-lyricist Sherman Edwards to accurately put the struggle of the founding of this country to music) has a song in it called Cool, Cool Considerate Men. It was originally entitled “Cool, Cool Conservative Men” but the producers forced the change so as not to turn away a segment of possible patrons. The song recounts what was occurring both in the Continental Congress of 1776 and the Colonies as a whole – the fight between those who advocated independence and those who wanted reconciliation with Britain. It is sung in the form of a minuet by those who felt reconciliation would protect their wealth and lifestyle. Near the end of the minuet John Rutledge, the Conservative representative from South Carolina, stops the song and asks John Hancock why he supports John Adams in Adam’s quest for independence, since he (Hancock) was “one of us” - a man of property. Hancock says “…fortunately there aren’t enough men of property in America to dictate policy”. Rutledge responds by saying “…but don’t forget that most men would rather protect the possibility of being rich than face the reality of being poor…so they will follow us.”
One could argue that Rutledge’s belief was wrong in his assessment that control over an effort to exact a common good was vested in a select group of people. After all, the Revolution proceeded. Then again, maybe the only thing wrong with the prediction…was his timing.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Genie is Out of the Bottle
On Sunday night I was one of the many millions of people doing something rarely done, watching our Congress in action, live, during and just prior to the House vote on health care. In the course of the “debate” portion (an absurd misnomer for sure), one of the Republican speakers (I don’t recall which) used a 1964 quote from Ronald Reagan, which I found interesting. He used the quote both to inject the name Ronald Reagan, which has deity status with the Conservative Right, and to argue that even in 1964 Reagan was shooting bull’s-eyes on the subject of health care. What Reagan was attacking at that time with his predictions of lost freedom and lost liberty was Medicare. It was Reagan’s first political issue delivered on a national stage which he began to preach in 1961, the same year he was dropped as spokesman for General Electric and changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. In fact, he did little else during those years other than campaign against Medicare, ending with his famous keynote speech at the nomination of Barry Goldwater.
I couldn’t help but wonder how many Republicans in last Sunday's “debate” would openly demonstrate their devotion to Reagan’s “insight” by advocating the dismantling of Medicare (& Medicaid) along with stopping any attempt to make health care realistically available to the general population. John Boehner, the House minority leader and a champion of the if you say a lie with enough conviction and repetition it’s as good as true philosophy, screamed how shameful the House was in not carrying out the “will of the people”. Perhaps he felt the specter of Ronald Reagan behind him breathing sweet sound bites in his ears since Medicare never polled anything close to a 51% majority prior to its adoption into law. Nah…because the fact of the matter is that Reagan ended up as most Republicans are today, as stalwart defenders of Medicare, at least in any public setting.
The true opposition to the newly passed Health Care Reform bill (which is really more accurately a health care insurance reform bill) had little to do with health care. Every politically ambitious Republican I’ve seen interviewed since the passing of the bill is now putting emphasis on the righteousness of Health care reform and the injustice of their plans not being included (the 200 plus Republican articles contained not withstanding). The fact that the Republicans had control of the House for 15 of the past 23 years and never introduced any comprehensive health reform (but did manage to kill reform during 2 of the years they were out of power) makes their postulating a comedy, albeit a dark one. Why would they? They would never never never originate health reform because it would be contrary to the interests of their constituents. Not the duped tea party crowd I assure you, rather those powerful interests that are on the nipple end of our $1.7 trillion transfer of wealth: funds transferred from the health care consumers, taxpayers, and debtors to the for-profit health care industry. Whether you believe it or not, it’s the only thing that makes any sense.
The stark evidence of this could be seen in the days and hours before the vote. With Republican leaders holding signs from the Capital porticos egging protestors below to amplify their rage; protestors who held pictures of Obama portrayed as Hitler (as if fascism played a role?), signs with guns portrayed as a solution to meddling proponents, “activists” hurling homophobic slurs at Congressman Frank, and “patriotic” Americans outside and in the halls of the Capitol Building spitting on and calling out “nigger” to distinguished black Congressmen, including Congressman Lewis. The lunatic fringe that performed such acts may have been only the tip of an iceberg, but it was all the same iceberg. It is the sad result of unleashed profiteering zealots like Limbaugh and Beck, and political leaders like Boehner and Cantor, totally focused on their political ambitions, who have mastered the use of such meaningless generalizations as “government takeover”, “will destroy America”, “Socialism”, “rob you of your freedom”, “enslave your children”, “lose your job”, “lose your coverage”, and this Limbaugh predictive threat (which I think says it all): “lose your right to fish”!! None of it had anything to do with health care reform, let alone health care insurance reform. It only prays on ignorance and it undermines the moral integrity of a nation for the benefit of a small minority.
Ronald Reagan used the following phrase as a mantra in his election and re-election: government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. It resonated because it was combined with a conservative axiom that taxation is fundamentally evil, even if it’s necessary. The Reagan administration and the two Bush Administration then began to dismantle government regulations even as they expanded government and government debt exponentially (note that debt is just deferred taxation). Only in the Clinton “pay as you go” administration was debt accumulation temporarily paused. Republicans will now argue that “government” is the cause of all health care short comings, that “government” (currently with a distorted likeness of Obama) is poised to rob you of your wealth and happiness, and “government” can only be contained by, as Limbaugh announced yesterday, “ridding ourselves of those bastards”. They'll claim this even as they claw and scratch to be elected to (dare I say it)...government.
But on this one the genie is out of the bottle. They can’t go back, any more than they could on Medicare. The greater question is whether those who just succeeded can continue to turn an imperfect but necessary beginning into a workable future, in spite of the distortion and self interest.
I couldn’t help but wonder how many Republicans in last Sunday's “debate” would openly demonstrate their devotion to Reagan’s “insight” by advocating the dismantling of Medicare (& Medicaid) along with stopping any attempt to make health care realistically available to the general population. John Boehner, the House minority leader and a champion of the if you say a lie with enough conviction and repetition it’s as good as true philosophy, screamed how shameful the House was in not carrying out the “will of the people”. Perhaps he felt the specter of Ronald Reagan behind him breathing sweet sound bites in his ears since Medicare never polled anything close to a 51% majority prior to its adoption into law. Nah…because the fact of the matter is that Reagan ended up as most Republicans are today, as stalwart defenders of Medicare, at least in any public setting.
The true opposition to the newly passed Health Care Reform bill (which is really more accurately a health care insurance reform bill) had little to do with health care. Every politically ambitious Republican I’ve seen interviewed since the passing of the bill is now putting emphasis on the righteousness of Health care reform and the injustice of their plans not being included (the 200 plus Republican articles contained not withstanding). The fact that the Republicans had control of the House for 15 of the past 23 years and never introduced any comprehensive health reform (but did manage to kill reform during 2 of the years they were out of power) makes their postulating a comedy, albeit a dark one. Why would they? They would never never never originate health reform because it would be contrary to the interests of their constituents. Not the duped tea party crowd I assure you, rather those powerful interests that are on the nipple end of our $1.7 trillion transfer of wealth: funds transferred from the health care consumers, taxpayers, and debtors to the for-profit health care industry. Whether you believe it or not, it’s the only thing that makes any sense.
The stark evidence of this could be seen in the days and hours before the vote. With Republican leaders holding signs from the Capital porticos egging protestors below to amplify their rage; protestors who held pictures of Obama portrayed as Hitler (as if fascism played a role?), signs with guns portrayed as a solution to meddling proponents, “activists” hurling homophobic slurs at Congressman Frank, and “patriotic” Americans outside and in the halls of the Capitol Building spitting on and calling out “nigger” to distinguished black Congressmen, including Congressman Lewis. The lunatic fringe that performed such acts may have been only the tip of an iceberg, but it was all the same iceberg. It is the sad result of unleashed profiteering zealots like Limbaugh and Beck, and political leaders like Boehner and Cantor, totally focused on their political ambitions, who have mastered the use of such meaningless generalizations as “government takeover”, “will destroy America”, “Socialism”, “rob you of your freedom”, “enslave your children”, “lose your job”, “lose your coverage”, and this Limbaugh predictive threat (which I think says it all): “lose your right to fish”!! None of it had anything to do with health care reform, let alone health care insurance reform. It only prays on ignorance and it undermines the moral integrity of a nation for the benefit of a small minority.
Ronald Reagan used the following phrase as a mantra in his election and re-election: government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. It resonated because it was combined with a conservative axiom that taxation is fundamentally evil, even if it’s necessary. The Reagan administration and the two Bush Administration then began to dismantle government regulations even as they expanded government and government debt exponentially (note that debt is just deferred taxation). Only in the Clinton “pay as you go” administration was debt accumulation temporarily paused. Republicans will now argue that “government” is the cause of all health care short comings, that “government” (currently with a distorted likeness of Obama) is poised to rob you of your wealth and happiness, and “government” can only be contained by, as Limbaugh announced yesterday, “ridding ourselves of those bastards”. They'll claim this even as they claw and scratch to be elected to (dare I say it)...government.
But on this one the genie is out of the bottle. They can’t go back, any more than they could on Medicare. The greater question is whether those who just succeeded can continue to turn an imperfect but necessary beginning into a workable future, in spite of the distortion and self interest.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
What is So Special About People Over 65?
One of the great ironies attached to our national health care debate is the avid support that individuals over the age of 65 (seniors) have for the status quo. I don’t mean to suggest that all seniors think alike, even on national issues, but as a group they fall pretty solidly with the Conservative message on health care - that things are better left unchanged instead of embarking onto something as demonic as Government supported health care. Anecdotally, it has been my experience in talking with many seniors that the vast majority do abhor the idea of change, even as many criticize their personal experience within our current system (interestingly, they don’t necessarily fault the System; rather they’re more likely to blame the insensitivities of subsequent generations). The irony, of course, is that they are already active and satisfied recipients of what they argue so vehemently against expanding– Medicare.
Why should they support change? I can’t think of any good reason - even the truth - as long as self interest prevails. They are one of two sets of beneficiaries in our flawed system (the other beneficiaries are those on the receiving end of the $1.7 trillion transfer that takes place every year in the United States). How did this happen? What makes Americans over 65 so special, that their health and well being is somehow more important than say children 16 and under, or pregnant women, or perhaps young adults with multiple sclerosis? Like most things, you have to go back to the beginning:
What we fondly and simply know as Social Security began as our nation was just rising in 1935 out of the first major dip in the Great Depression. After experiencing the inhumanity caused by failed financial systems, the concept was simple; provide a base line of income to a class of citizens who, as a result of age, no longer had the capacity to earn income. Like insurance, the cost would be borne by all working people in order to contain cost, but unlike free market insurance (as with annuities) participation could not be an option. However, in order to pass the legislation with the votes of those who raised the specter of Socialism, the taxes and benefits would be restricted to working Americans. Of course, as it gained in popularity and, therefore, became politically attractive, it began to grow in complexity and benefits. Even as the projected benefits began to outweigh the projected “assets”, and even as the “assets” were in the form of purchased US Debt (Treasuries) during periods of overall deficits (a bit like an individual who puts $1 into savings for every $3 he puts on his credit card), the reality of Social Security became sacrosanct to Conservative politicians (Republican or Democrat). None…I repeat none would openly argue against it today. Why? Because, even with it's flaws, the nation sees it's value. Enter Medicare.
The Social Security Act of 1965 was the first (and really the last) attempt in dealing with the problem of health care in the US. Other major laws since, such as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which included Medicare Advantage, or the Medicare Prescription Drug (et al) Act of 2006 were attempts at fine tuning (often for votes) and whose primary beneficiaries ended up being the Medical Insurance Industry and the Pharmaceutical Industry. The idea of the Medicare law of 1965 (which included state controlled Medicaid for the indigent) was to address the growing need to provide nationally guaranteed health care beginning with those most vulnerable to the costs (those with fixed incomes), and it had a vehicle to use – the Social Security System. It was fought vigorously by Conservatives. Ronald Reagan claimed it would rob us of our freedom, George H.W. Bush, while running for the Senate in 1964, echoed it as “Socialized Medicine”. Those who supported it openly saw it as a first step toward bringing health care to the US in line with what had already happened throughout the world.
In the post WW2 years, the developed democracies, other than the US, figured out that in a new free world, where there was a desperate overall need for health care by people rising from devastation, the overall cost had to be borne by everyone in order to make it work. Universal Health Care, or as often described now as a Single Payer System, either through direct payment or manditory public insurance, became the law of the land in these democracies. This was especially (and interestingly) true of the two nations for which the United States took the primary role in rebuilding, namely Japan and Germany. Only Canada, the other major Western ally whose homeland was physically untouched by war, did not adopt a true single payer system, but they offered public health insurance immediately after the War, which evolved into full universal coverage in 1984. The United States, the great engine of free enterprise, alone chose the road of a for-profit health care system, a system that now costs multiples of what the rest of the world pays and is rife with gross and tragic inequities, discouraging patients and medical providers alike.
Even so, going back to the beginning of that post-war period, such “radical liberals” as Harry Truman saw the need to create the means by which all citizens could have access to health care and that the key to access was cost. They and others understood the obvious, that health care is a commodity that does not fit ordinary economic models. In economic terms, the demand is inelastic; it does not decline when the price increases. Therefore, in the absence of a system which includes everyone, and with an exponentially rising population, they saw that the Government (Federal, State, and Local) would become the de facto payer of last resort, and there was absolutely nothing to restrain costs from rising by those benefiting from that revenue.
The need for Universal Health Coverage was advocated during the Roosevelt administration, but attempting to create law really started during the Truman administration. Truman, for his efforts, was given the honor to sign up as the first participant in the new Medicare program in 1965. The widespread belief at that time was that an expanded version of Medicare provided to the entire American populous was only a matter of time. Of course, few foresaw the huge industry that would balloon as a result of stratospheric revenues, and how that industry would fight to keep that cash flowing. It was aided by tax law which allowed companies providing health insurance benefits to bury the costs (borne by their employees) out of their worker’s sight.
Still, Medicare/Medicaid made it under the wire, and although it is an imperfect public insurance program it pretty much accomplishes what the supporters wanted – universal health coverage for the participants funded through general payroll taxation. What it never did nor could ever do was impact general health care costs, because it controlled less than 15% of all Americans (albeit a larger percentage of cost). Which is why Medicare is now essentially funded through debt. The participants don’t care, they’re not paying, and all in all they’ve been pretty happy with the result; ergo you won’t hear a Republican advocate the dissolution of Medicare - even as they deride the idea of Medicare expanded to the rest of the population as socialistic mania.
There is nothing special about the 36 million Americans over age 65 (74 million by 2050), at least not when it comes to health care. In less than 5 years I will be 65 and be invited under that protective umbrella. If the Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and the financial recipients of the largest transfer of wealth any nation has ever seen succeed in thwarting any changes, then I will be forced to watch my children and grandchildren suffer under this system, even as I benefit. I can’t call that a benefit.
My gut winces a little each time I hear a Republican or Conservative Democratic politician announce that we have “the best health care (system) in the world” as I heard Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) recently said at the March 2010 “Health Summit”, shrouding his obstructionism in patriotism. I feel that way because I know many believe him, just as they believe the rhetorical lie that describes attempts to reform health care as a “government takeover”.
We do not have the best health care system in the world, or even the best health care for that matter (by published international standards), although we pay many times what everyone else does. If we just reduced our per capital spending on health care to that of Germany’s, the second most expensive nation, we would save enough money in ONE YEAR to pay the current health care costs for the 3 billion people in China, India, Russia, and Indonesia for the NEXT FIVE YEARS!!! We do not have the best health care system in the world, but we may have the worst. Why? Because it is a system in which the above statement on cost does not resonate at all with those who, contrary to their own best interest, have been manipulated to oppose health reform, including those contented senior beneficiaries who already enjoy guaranteed health care. In a world where access is inextricably and inversely depended on cost, what kind of vile system is that?
Why should they support change? I can’t think of any good reason - even the truth - as long as self interest prevails. They are one of two sets of beneficiaries in our flawed system (the other beneficiaries are those on the receiving end of the $1.7 trillion transfer that takes place every year in the United States). How did this happen? What makes Americans over 65 so special, that their health and well being is somehow more important than say children 16 and under, or pregnant women, or perhaps young adults with multiple sclerosis? Like most things, you have to go back to the beginning:
What we fondly and simply know as Social Security began as our nation was just rising in 1935 out of the first major dip in the Great Depression. After experiencing the inhumanity caused by failed financial systems, the concept was simple; provide a base line of income to a class of citizens who, as a result of age, no longer had the capacity to earn income. Like insurance, the cost would be borne by all working people in order to contain cost, but unlike free market insurance (as with annuities) participation could not be an option. However, in order to pass the legislation with the votes of those who raised the specter of Socialism, the taxes and benefits would be restricted to working Americans. Of course, as it gained in popularity and, therefore, became politically attractive, it began to grow in complexity and benefits. Even as the projected benefits began to outweigh the projected “assets”, and even as the “assets” were in the form of purchased US Debt (Treasuries) during periods of overall deficits (a bit like an individual who puts $1 into savings for every $3 he puts on his credit card), the reality of Social Security became sacrosanct to Conservative politicians (Republican or Democrat). None…I repeat none would openly argue against it today. Why? Because, even with it's flaws, the nation sees it's value. Enter Medicare.
The Social Security Act of 1965 was the first (and really the last) attempt in dealing with the problem of health care in the US. Other major laws since, such as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which included Medicare Advantage, or the Medicare Prescription Drug (et al) Act of 2006 were attempts at fine tuning (often for votes) and whose primary beneficiaries ended up being the Medical Insurance Industry and the Pharmaceutical Industry. The idea of the Medicare law of 1965 (which included state controlled Medicaid for the indigent) was to address the growing need to provide nationally guaranteed health care beginning with those most vulnerable to the costs (those with fixed incomes), and it had a vehicle to use – the Social Security System. It was fought vigorously by Conservatives. Ronald Reagan claimed it would rob us of our freedom, George H.W. Bush, while running for the Senate in 1964, echoed it as “Socialized Medicine”. Those who supported it openly saw it as a first step toward bringing health care to the US in line with what had already happened throughout the world.
In the post WW2 years, the developed democracies, other than the US, figured out that in a new free world, where there was a desperate overall need for health care by people rising from devastation, the overall cost had to be borne by everyone in order to make it work. Universal Health Care, or as often described now as a Single Payer System, either through direct payment or manditory public insurance, became the law of the land in these democracies. This was especially (and interestingly) true of the two nations for which the United States took the primary role in rebuilding, namely Japan and Germany. Only Canada, the other major Western ally whose homeland was physically untouched by war, did not adopt a true single payer system, but they offered public health insurance immediately after the War, which evolved into full universal coverage in 1984. The United States, the great engine of free enterprise, alone chose the road of a for-profit health care system, a system that now costs multiples of what the rest of the world pays and is rife with gross and tragic inequities, discouraging patients and medical providers alike.
Even so, going back to the beginning of that post-war period, such “radical liberals” as Harry Truman saw the need to create the means by which all citizens could have access to health care and that the key to access was cost. They and others understood the obvious, that health care is a commodity that does not fit ordinary economic models. In economic terms, the demand is inelastic; it does not decline when the price increases. Therefore, in the absence of a system which includes everyone, and with an exponentially rising population, they saw that the Government (Federal, State, and Local) would become the de facto payer of last resort, and there was absolutely nothing to restrain costs from rising by those benefiting from that revenue.
The need for Universal Health Coverage was advocated during the Roosevelt administration, but attempting to create law really started during the Truman administration. Truman, for his efforts, was given the honor to sign up as the first participant in the new Medicare program in 1965. The widespread belief at that time was that an expanded version of Medicare provided to the entire American populous was only a matter of time. Of course, few foresaw the huge industry that would balloon as a result of stratospheric revenues, and how that industry would fight to keep that cash flowing. It was aided by tax law which allowed companies providing health insurance benefits to bury the costs (borne by their employees) out of their worker’s sight.
Still, Medicare/Medicaid made it under the wire, and although it is an imperfect public insurance program it pretty much accomplishes what the supporters wanted – universal health coverage for the participants funded through general payroll taxation. What it never did nor could ever do was impact general health care costs, because it controlled less than 15% of all Americans (albeit a larger percentage of cost). Which is why Medicare is now essentially funded through debt. The participants don’t care, they’re not paying, and all in all they’ve been pretty happy with the result; ergo you won’t hear a Republican advocate the dissolution of Medicare - even as they deride the idea of Medicare expanded to the rest of the population as socialistic mania.
There is nothing special about the 36 million Americans over age 65 (74 million by 2050), at least not when it comes to health care. In less than 5 years I will be 65 and be invited under that protective umbrella. If the Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and the financial recipients of the largest transfer of wealth any nation has ever seen succeed in thwarting any changes, then I will be forced to watch my children and grandchildren suffer under this system, even as I benefit. I can’t call that a benefit.
My gut winces a little each time I hear a Republican or Conservative Democratic politician announce that we have “the best health care (system) in the world” as I heard Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) recently said at the March 2010 “Health Summit”, shrouding his obstructionism in patriotism. I feel that way because I know many believe him, just as they believe the rhetorical lie that describes attempts to reform health care as a “government takeover”.
We do not have the best health care system in the world, or even the best health care for that matter (by published international standards), although we pay many times what everyone else does. If we just reduced our per capital spending on health care to that of Germany’s, the second most expensive nation, we would save enough money in ONE YEAR to pay the current health care costs for the 3 billion people in China, India, Russia, and Indonesia for the NEXT FIVE YEARS!!! We do not have the best health care system in the world, but we may have the worst. Why? Because it is a system in which the above statement on cost does not resonate at all with those who, contrary to their own best interest, have been manipulated to oppose health reform, including those contented senior beneficiaries who already enjoy guaranteed health care. In a world where access is inextricably and inversely depended on cost, what kind of vile system is that?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Most Evil Man in America
I know I know…I write a title like that and most everyone can conjure up a quick image of the individual they believe fits the bill - and then may read on with curiosity to see why their choice isn’t the same as mine. Besides, the word evil itself is more closely aligned with comics or soap operas than real life. If I were to let my first image surface it would, of course, be Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of American politics. With the news of Cheney’s most recent coronary I had an immediate picture in my head of Lucifer sitting in his fiery office, leaning back in a smoking overstuffed desk chair, and on the phone saying “…okay Dick, this is the fifth one I’ve bailed you out on. Now you either start a new war or I’ll be out of town when the Man hits you with the sixth.” But to really determine who most exemplifies the personification of villainy in America one must really define what evil is.
If evil were merely a relative concept, then for those who see Dick Cheney as a John Wayne understudy, he is hardly evil. They are right…but then, is anyone wrong? Despite the distain I harbor for Cheney (by the boatload), I actually think he is no more evil than most anyone else’s oxen you feel deserves to be gored. That’s because evil is not relative. Cheney participates in our national drama through his own self interest and lust for recognition in a manner which reflects his constituency. If he wasn’t feeding off public attitude Cheney would fall off our collective radar like a bronze medal winner. But is that evil? I think not. Maybe one might find what he does appalling, perhaps maniacal, or maybe even criminal…but not evil. He really doesn’t create opinion, he merely uses it.
Evil should not be misconstrued with its fruit. When one is told to think of an apple tree they naturally envision the apple itself and not the nature or description of the tree which bears it. There is a pervasive evil which has been growing in our country for long enough now that I, for one, have to concentrate back a while to realize that it didn’t always exist in my lifetime. It is an imbalance in the collective identity of our nation, which has permitted us to hate ourselves.
So who do I believe is the most evil man in America, and why? I give that honor to Rush Limbaugh III. Seriously…I consider the master of Conservative talk radio to be the dean, the linchpin, the standard by which a considerable handful of mostly conservative and some liberal commentators/entertainers/writers have watered the tree of divisiveness in our country, without which its fruit might not have found itself on practically every kitchen table in America. His influence has been extraordinary, or even greater than extraordinary based on Limbaugh’s own swagger. You have to go back to when it started, which some might find was not so long ago.
To say Limbaugh is smart would be a debate unto itself. I for one give the word “smart” a colloquial meaning which includes positive ethics. However, there is no doubt that Limbaugh has innate abilities that make him uniquely qualified for the roll he fell upon. His intelligence is validated by his pedigree. Father, siblings, grandfather, uncle, cousins are all jurists of note. A giggle of irony escapes me when I think that they are now all known primarily as the relative of Rush the radio guy. Rush III was an anomaly to the group. He was a bad student, his mother quoted to say “he flunked everything”. He managed his way into a lesser know state university in time to drop out almost immediately. He had to have been a black spot on the family refrigerator.
To his credit he focused early on a career in radio working a standard circuit of DJ jobs around the country and apparently, along the way, discovered his talent for glibness. I suspect that Limbaugh, a man with an ego the size of Montana, also discovered that in his chosen venue he could compete with his accomplished and certified family members at their own conservative game. Good luck, Rush. I’d guess that ultimately all his money, his influence, and his buffoonery never allowed him into the inner circle of Conservative lawyers and judges that is his family tree - just a guess, consistent with prescription drug abuse, and lawyers generally.
By the late 80’s his style of commentary had hit a cord. Freed by the repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (after being law for 38 years) he was one of the first to exploit bias as a form of entertainment. However, the use of a target as a means of gathering listenership had not yet gelled. During the administration of George HW Bush the Republicans had their problems even as they still rode the Reagan tsunami. His attraction was more his style and comedy which he intermixed with home spun commentary, a counter to the likes of Howard Stern. Although his reach through the number of participating stations was significant, his market was still not that large and actually pulled from a wider political segment which enjoyed his antics and clowning.
It was the election of Bill Clinton that changed everything. It was the 9/11 for Rush and the true beginning of his crafting the vilification of anyone not Conservative. As his listeners, comprised primarily of disappointed Conservative Republicans, began to expand exponentially, he saw the writing on the wall (and bank statement). The tone of his commentary notably changed. He was now selling fear wrapped in patriotism and he sold it well. So well in fact that for many today he has made the Clinton years of prosperity, surpluses, growth, and security a time of national shame, and the Bush years of preemptive war, terror, lost civil rights, political stagnation, colossal deficits, and near economic collapse a period of national pride. Can it get any more bizarre?
In the process of making himself a household name he also made a couple hundred million dollars, by some accounts. He certainly became in less than 15 years one of the richest men in America, simply by talking on a microphone. Incredibly, polling after the last presidential election also had him named as the Conservative Republican standard bearer, over everyone else…in America!!
His financial and influential success did not go unnoticed by others in the field. Such “commentators” as Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity jumped aboard the H&F (Hate & Fear) Gravy Train. They saw that by making “Liberals” the true enemies of “patriotic” America they could tap the kind of enthusiasm usually engendered by invasions. No wonder Sarah Palin recently got on board. Mark Levin, who renamed Liberals “Statists” because he thought the word “liberal” sounded too much like “liberty”, wrote the following in his best selling ($$) book Liberty and Tyranny:
"The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for liberty and all the good that flows from it. The Statist does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits to society from the individual pursuits of tens of millions of others. The Statist rejects the Founder's idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered liberty, for one rooted in unpredictability, irrationality and, ultimately, tyranny." pp15
That kind of wholesale categorizing of people is the kind of dehumanization that can be found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf and his description of the Jews. That was a best seller too.
So just what is the Evil that I associate so closely with Rush Limbaugh and his disciples? It is what now pervades our nation, but more importantly our individual neighborhoods and even families. It is the new distain that we have for each other without the necessity of recognizing our humanity.
I remember hearing a Catholic priest once say in a lecture that if Satin could do only one thing to solidify his malevolence throughout mankind he would make us hate our bodies. He was suggesting that self deprecation of that which is the most basic and natural to us in this life was the surest way to abandon that which we revere in God. Rush has given this a socialogical twist.
As a nation and a society we have, since inception, had ideological conflict which has manifested itself into periods of tragedy and suffering. Students of the Civil War could successfully argue that period as the most obvious and poignant. At each such time there has been an imbalance caused by the demands of ideology requiring a dehumanization of those who don’t agree, essentially managing to get us to hate ourselves. Within the current health care debate there is so much hate that people virtually cannot see the problem to the point that they will actively work against their own self interest. Could anything make the devil smile more?
We are experiencing a civil war right now…and it is obvious. It began with people like Rush Limbaugh and has spread to the far left end of the spectrum in a vain attempt to create balance. It is aggravated by the nature of our political system which has currently become a manic struggle for power without substance and job security for its participants. This chapter in our history was made possible by a new age of communication, a new message of hate and fear, and was brought to you by the embodiment of the most evil man in America – Rush Limbaugh.
If evil were merely a relative concept, then for those who see Dick Cheney as a John Wayne understudy, he is hardly evil. They are right…but then, is anyone wrong? Despite the distain I harbor for Cheney (by the boatload), I actually think he is no more evil than most anyone else’s oxen you feel deserves to be gored. That’s because evil is not relative. Cheney participates in our national drama through his own self interest and lust for recognition in a manner which reflects his constituency. If he wasn’t feeding off public attitude Cheney would fall off our collective radar like a bronze medal winner. But is that evil? I think not. Maybe one might find what he does appalling, perhaps maniacal, or maybe even criminal…but not evil. He really doesn’t create opinion, he merely uses it.
Evil should not be misconstrued with its fruit. When one is told to think of an apple tree they naturally envision the apple itself and not the nature or description of the tree which bears it. There is a pervasive evil which has been growing in our country for long enough now that I, for one, have to concentrate back a while to realize that it didn’t always exist in my lifetime. It is an imbalance in the collective identity of our nation, which has permitted us to hate ourselves.
So who do I believe is the most evil man in America, and why? I give that honor to Rush Limbaugh III. Seriously…I consider the master of Conservative talk radio to be the dean, the linchpin, the standard by which a considerable handful of mostly conservative and some liberal commentators/entertainers/writers have watered the tree of divisiveness in our country, without which its fruit might not have found itself on practically every kitchen table in America. His influence has been extraordinary, or even greater than extraordinary based on Limbaugh’s own swagger. You have to go back to when it started, which some might find was not so long ago.
To say Limbaugh is smart would be a debate unto itself. I for one give the word “smart” a colloquial meaning which includes positive ethics. However, there is no doubt that Limbaugh has innate abilities that make him uniquely qualified for the roll he fell upon. His intelligence is validated by his pedigree. Father, siblings, grandfather, uncle, cousins are all jurists of note. A giggle of irony escapes me when I think that they are now all known primarily as the relative of Rush the radio guy. Rush III was an anomaly to the group. He was a bad student, his mother quoted to say “he flunked everything”. He managed his way into a lesser know state university in time to drop out almost immediately. He had to have been a black spot on the family refrigerator.
To his credit he focused early on a career in radio working a standard circuit of DJ jobs around the country and apparently, along the way, discovered his talent for glibness. I suspect that Limbaugh, a man with an ego the size of Montana, also discovered that in his chosen venue he could compete with his accomplished and certified family members at their own conservative game. Good luck, Rush. I’d guess that ultimately all his money, his influence, and his buffoonery never allowed him into the inner circle of Conservative lawyers and judges that is his family tree - just a guess, consistent with prescription drug abuse, and lawyers generally.
By the late 80’s his style of commentary had hit a cord. Freed by the repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (after being law for 38 years) he was one of the first to exploit bias as a form of entertainment. However, the use of a target as a means of gathering listenership had not yet gelled. During the administration of George HW Bush the Republicans had their problems even as they still rode the Reagan tsunami. His attraction was more his style and comedy which he intermixed with home spun commentary, a counter to the likes of Howard Stern. Although his reach through the number of participating stations was significant, his market was still not that large and actually pulled from a wider political segment which enjoyed his antics and clowning.
It was the election of Bill Clinton that changed everything. It was the 9/11 for Rush and the true beginning of his crafting the vilification of anyone not Conservative. As his listeners, comprised primarily of disappointed Conservative Republicans, began to expand exponentially, he saw the writing on the wall (and bank statement). The tone of his commentary notably changed. He was now selling fear wrapped in patriotism and he sold it well. So well in fact that for many today he has made the Clinton years of prosperity, surpluses, growth, and security a time of national shame, and the Bush years of preemptive war, terror, lost civil rights, political stagnation, colossal deficits, and near economic collapse a period of national pride. Can it get any more bizarre?
In the process of making himself a household name he also made a couple hundred million dollars, by some accounts. He certainly became in less than 15 years one of the richest men in America, simply by talking on a microphone. Incredibly, polling after the last presidential election also had him named as the Conservative Republican standard bearer, over everyone else…in America!!
His financial and influential success did not go unnoticed by others in the field. Such “commentators” as Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity jumped aboard the H&F (Hate & Fear) Gravy Train. They saw that by making “Liberals” the true enemies of “patriotic” America they could tap the kind of enthusiasm usually engendered by invasions. No wonder Sarah Palin recently got on board. Mark Levin, who renamed Liberals “Statists” because he thought the word “liberal” sounded too much like “liberty”, wrote the following in his best selling ($$) book Liberty and Tyranny:
"The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for liberty and all the good that flows from it. The Statist does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits to society from the individual pursuits of tens of millions of others. The Statist rejects the Founder's idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered liberty, for one rooted in unpredictability, irrationality and, ultimately, tyranny." pp15
That kind of wholesale categorizing of people is the kind of dehumanization that can be found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf and his description of the Jews. That was a best seller too.
So just what is the Evil that I associate so closely with Rush Limbaugh and his disciples? It is what now pervades our nation, but more importantly our individual neighborhoods and even families. It is the new distain that we have for each other without the necessity of recognizing our humanity.
I remember hearing a Catholic priest once say in a lecture that if Satin could do only one thing to solidify his malevolence throughout mankind he would make us hate our bodies. He was suggesting that self deprecation of that which is the most basic and natural to us in this life was the surest way to abandon that which we revere in God. Rush has given this a socialogical twist.
As a nation and a society we have, since inception, had ideological conflict which has manifested itself into periods of tragedy and suffering. Students of the Civil War could successfully argue that period as the most obvious and poignant. At each such time there has been an imbalance caused by the demands of ideology requiring a dehumanization of those who don’t agree, essentially managing to get us to hate ourselves. Within the current health care debate there is so much hate that people virtually cannot see the problem to the point that they will actively work against their own self interest. Could anything make the devil smile more?
We are experiencing a civil war right now…and it is obvious. It began with people like Rush Limbaugh and has spread to the far left end of the spectrum in a vain attempt to create balance. It is aggravated by the nature of our political system which has currently become a manic struggle for power without substance and job security for its participants. This chapter in our history was made possible by a new age of communication, a new message of hate and fear, and was brought to you by the embodiment of the most evil man in America – Rush Limbaugh.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Healthcare: No Relief in Sight
Please see my article of August 26, 2008 written during the Presidential election. It's just as relevant with today's debate...perhaps more.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Ignoring the Obvious
I am appalled, astounded, and generally peeved at the recent coverage over the latest Palin pronouncement; her resigning as Alaska’s governor. It’s as if stating the obvious was somehow too risky for primetime. The endless babble over whether or not Sarah Palin ruined her chances to run for the Presidency is below the accuracy of lunatic repartee, let alone intellectual discourse. I guess that means it’s just perfect for national news.
Sarah Palin was a small town mayor who parlayed a couple of smart political moves and an attractive presentation into winning the governorship of a state that’s hardly known for conventional judgment. She was picked out of obscurity by John McCain in an insane and inane move to bolster his candidacy, a move that failed badly. She never was, is not, and never will be an even remotely viable candidate for national office. To include her name in the same context as "national office" is disinformation for marketing purposes that only belongs with the other entertainment celebrity news at the grocery store checkout counter.
However, to steal a phrase from A Coal Miner’s Daughter; the lady may be dumb…but she’s not stupid. I think she knows she’s not Vice-Presidential (let alone Presidential) timber, and to her credit she’s seems to have figured out she’s not Governor material either. She knows that remaining in office as the Governor of Alaska carries risks with it that could easily undermine her maximizing her potential, much like a football star might realize that spending two more years at the college gridiron might forever end his chances for making it big in the pros with one crushing tackle. Whether it is some bonehead scandal or an incompetent administration, she runs the potential of undermining the unique credibility she has with her fans. At the very least, finishing out her term as governor could use up precious time, and possibly leave her as an historical (and hysterical) blip in the American past.
In all likelihood she has seen how Rush Limbaugh has a reported worth of $400 million and is often described as the number one influence of what remains of the Republican Party. This former beauty contestant, turned local sportscaster, turned media starlet has probably seen that niche and fashions herself nestling into it. She couldn’t be more correct. She may want to sell the idea that she is in it for God, truth, justice, and the American way (good grief, even Rush Limbaugh touts that as his objective) and she may be delusional enough to believe that such is a half-truth, but the reality is that she wants what many of national fame have tasted: money and power. You can't fault her much for that. The beauty is that she’ll be able to do it right from her broadcast booth in Wasilla. She may end up owning more of Alaska than anyone other than Exxon-Mobil.
Sarah Palin was a small town mayor who parlayed a couple of smart political moves and an attractive presentation into winning the governorship of a state that’s hardly known for conventional judgment. She was picked out of obscurity by John McCain in an insane and inane move to bolster his candidacy, a move that failed badly. She never was, is not, and never will be an even remotely viable candidate for national office. To include her name in the same context as "national office" is disinformation for marketing purposes that only belongs with the other entertainment celebrity news at the grocery store checkout counter.
However, to steal a phrase from A Coal Miner’s Daughter; the lady may be dumb…but she’s not stupid. I think she knows she’s not Vice-Presidential (let alone Presidential) timber, and to her credit she’s seems to have figured out she’s not Governor material either. She knows that remaining in office as the Governor of Alaska carries risks with it that could easily undermine her maximizing her potential, much like a football star might realize that spending two more years at the college gridiron might forever end his chances for making it big in the pros with one crushing tackle. Whether it is some bonehead scandal or an incompetent administration, she runs the potential of undermining the unique credibility she has with her fans. At the very least, finishing out her term as governor could use up precious time, and possibly leave her as an historical (and hysterical) blip in the American past.
In all likelihood she has seen how Rush Limbaugh has a reported worth of $400 million and is often described as the number one influence of what remains of the Republican Party. This former beauty contestant, turned local sportscaster, turned media starlet has probably seen that niche and fashions herself nestling into it. She couldn’t be more correct. She may want to sell the idea that she is in it for God, truth, justice, and the American way (good grief, even Rush Limbaugh touts that as his objective) and she may be delusional enough to believe that such is a half-truth, but the reality is that she wants what many of national fame have tasted: money and power. You can't fault her much for that. The beauty is that she’ll be able to do it right from her broadcast booth in Wasilla. She may end up owning more of Alaska than anyone other than Exxon-Mobil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
