Last night, Senator Kerry stomped all over the hapless Boy-King. In at least one way, the debate was a paradigm for the campaign as a whole. Senator Kerry started off wobbly, meandering from minor point to minor point. The President? Looking strong, sounding strong,, in command. But then…
Senator Kerry started to settle down a bit, and before long (say, after the first 10-15 minutes), found his prosecutorial voice. The President, on the other hand, soon was revealed to have memorized only about 5 minutes of material, so that he quickly seemed oddly repetitive. Soon, Bush fell back to his dis-engaged mode, where he had a hard time following the conversation, and seemed to forget at times even where he was on his own script. Long, awkward pauses. Trying to remember where he was going and coming up with something that didn’t really fit.
By the last 30 minutes, Kerry was rolling, landing solid punch after solid punch. Bush, reeling, out of material, utterly unable to respond coherently.
OK, on to the insta-nalysis.
Bush seemed to be running for President of Springfield High Student Council. He was repeating his straw man arguments as though he were accusing his opponent of being in favor of more homework, while his own view was that homework was bad. Very bad. (“I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently.” “I know Bin Laden attacked us. I know that.” “Whew. That's a loaded question.” “And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium.” “So I went to the United Nations. I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I decided to go there myself.” “Actually, you forgot Poland.”
Bush’s logic was the perfect expression of a fascist authoritarian regime. Once the President decides to send the troops into battle, there is no choice but to leave them there, presumably forever if the mission isn’t accomplished. The last time we heard this was from the people that brought us the Viet Nam war, when those who believed that the war was a good idea accused those who disagreed of undermining the troop’s morale. The truth is, those with their hands on the levers of government only gave up in Viet Nam when the troops joined the populace in rejecting the validity of the mission, whether because they disagreed with the mission (creating a free and democratic South Viet Nam) or simply thought it was an un-accomplishable mission (pushing string). The same thing is going on now: Iraq was a foolish engagement, our mission there is misguided, and we will not succeed in creating a free and democratic Iraq by going it alone.
Kerry was terribly presidential. Bush, not so much. Senator Kerry was in command, and showed his raw power and strength. When accused, for like the 49th time, of being weak, inconsistent, inconstant, waffling, irresolute, a wilter, even, Kerry brushed off this nonsense easily. “I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life.” Flip-flopper no more.
The terrible burden of doubt flew from the shoulders of Kerry’s supporters to those of Bush’s in a mere 90 minutes. Coming in, Dems worried that if they didn’t get a big win, they’d be in trouble. Repubs worried that Bush could flub it, but if he just stayed on script they’d all be enjoying some fine Randy Travis tunes in D.C. come January 20. By the time the thing was done, the Kerry camp was beginning to think they might be able to get Bruce for the Inauguration. The Bush camp was clearly troubled by their guy’s miserable performance, and by Kerry’s unwillingness to accept the labels Bush tried to tag on him (flip-flopper, weak). Kerry’s guys were psyched that their guy got the job done, “big time,” and that the President seemed so un-Presidential. Kerry’s camp comes out thinking they’ve got a chance to win, Bush’s camp comes out worried they’ve got a chance to lose.
Cripes but Bush came off like an idiot. He seemed to have no ability to discuss the issues in any way other than to speak off the script. “What you like a cookie, Mr. President.” “Jim, the trouble with my opponent is that he thinks we can send mixed messages, and I know you can’t.” “But what about the cookie, Mr. President?” “It’s just not what a commander in chief does, Jim.”
All in all, I’m feeling heartened that my counter-attach theory (below) is panning out. If this was a sporting contest, like say football or baseball, I’m liking the chances of the team trailing slightly and with a lot to prove against a complacent, smug and under-talented bunch of thugs.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Bush Smackdown!
"Overture, curtain, lights! This is it. The night of nights. No more rehearsing or nursing a part. We know every part by heart!"
In the big ring tonight, Smirking Chimp-Boy vs. The Sen-a-torrr! History awaits the impact of tonight’s debate on the race for the White House. Will it be an utterly-predictable snooze-fest, full of over-rehearsed blurbs devoid of meaning?
Yes.
Will it be the electorate-moving mega-event the Kerry campaign hopes for?
No.
Will it help Kerry on his road to the Presidency?
Absolutely. I believe that Kerry, consciously or not, is pursuing a counter-attack strategy. The basic idea is to let the President make the first thrust, and when he’s shown his hand, counter-attack. It is a powerful strategy, allowing the defender the chance to husband their resources while the other side expends much of their resources and energy in an ultimately unsuccessful parry. The defender lives to fight another day, and now has a comparative advantage: plenty of resources left, while the opponent is depleted. If the counterattack is strong and well-timed, it can be the death blow. A solid performance tonight can be the first drop in a drip-drip-drip strategy of building momentum through Election Day.
At least that’s what I’m hoping. It certainly explains Senator Kerry’s history as a “strong finisher” as well as a prosecutor. A prosecutor must put on a strong prima facie case, but victory lies in being able to discredit the various excuses and defenses that the defendant raises. As the excuses and defenses are discredited, the prima facie case becomes all the stronger. I suspect that is what is happening here.
The President has now spent his attack capital. Kerry is a flip-flopper, irresolute, soft, etc. He has not had any other campaign. If (when!?) Kerry refutes these claims, the President is cooked. The refutation will not only serve to elevate Kerry, but will show the President to be a liar – a belief for which there is already a considerable foundation laid. Most voters are aware that the President stands accused of misleading us into war. If Kerry can show that the flip-flopper charge is bogus, more people will buy into the “frame” of President as untrustworthy. Plus, they’ll have a solid basis to think that Kerry will be a resolute president.
I continue to be optimistic about this race, since I think the exposure of voters to any kind of facts inevitably helps Senator Kerry and hurts President Bush. In truth, in reality, Kerry is a far superior choice to be President than Bush. (As was Gore.) The President’s ability to obfuscate reality by creating a series of diversions ought to be weakened by his having done so and been caught out on it with the Swift Boat deal. As the election nears, the Media will have a harder and harder time pretending that the actual issues facing the electorate are secondary to things such as “tan-gate,” this morning’s newest diversion (Did John Kerry Visit a Tanning Salon?”).
In the end, of course, we’ll get the President we deserve. If too many of us insist on living in a fantasy world, we’ll get a fantastically bad president. If enough of us wake up and smell the coffee, we’ll get a competent guy who’s actually committed to helping the American people and humanity in general.
And, win or lose on November 2, the days of the fascist-Repubs are about done. Americans have come too far to let these petty thieves take away our liberty. A new day is dawning, and whether it’s President Bush or President Kerry, the Rise of The Progressives has begun and shall not end for a generation.
Besides, even if Bush wins, having him around for 4 more years to torture will be fun. Why, the indictments alone will be worth it.
In the big ring tonight, Smirking Chimp-Boy vs. The Sen-a-torrr! History awaits the impact of tonight’s debate on the race for the White House. Will it be an utterly-predictable snooze-fest, full of over-rehearsed blurbs devoid of meaning?
Yes.
Will it be the electorate-moving mega-event the Kerry campaign hopes for?
No.
Will it help Kerry on his road to the Presidency?
Absolutely. I believe that Kerry, consciously or not, is pursuing a counter-attack strategy. The basic idea is to let the President make the first thrust, and when he’s shown his hand, counter-attack. It is a powerful strategy, allowing the defender the chance to husband their resources while the other side expends much of their resources and energy in an ultimately unsuccessful parry. The defender lives to fight another day, and now has a comparative advantage: plenty of resources left, while the opponent is depleted. If the counterattack is strong and well-timed, it can be the death blow. A solid performance tonight can be the first drop in a drip-drip-drip strategy of building momentum through Election Day.
At least that’s what I’m hoping. It certainly explains Senator Kerry’s history as a “strong finisher” as well as a prosecutor. A prosecutor must put on a strong prima facie case, but victory lies in being able to discredit the various excuses and defenses that the defendant raises. As the excuses and defenses are discredited, the prima facie case becomes all the stronger. I suspect that is what is happening here.
The President has now spent his attack capital. Kerry is a flip-flopper, irresolute, soft, etc. He has not had any other campaign. If (when!?) Kerry refutes these claims, the President is cooked. The refutation will not only serve to elevate Kerry, but will show the President to be a liar – a belief for which there is already a considerable foundation laid. Most voters are aware that the President stands accused of misleading us into war. If Kerry can show that the flip-flopper charge is bogus, more people will buy into the “frame” of President as untrustworthy. Plus, they’ll have a solid basis to think that Kerry will be a resolute president.
I continue to be optimistic about this race, since I think the exposure of voters to any kind of facts inevitably helps Senator Kerry and hurts President Bush. In truth, in reality, Kerry is a far superior choice to be President than Bush. (As was Gore.) The President’s ability to obfuscate reality by creating a series of diversions ought to be weakened by his having done so and been caught out on it with the Swift Boat deal. As the election nears, the Media will have a harder and harder time pretending that the actual issues facing the electorate are secondary to things such as “tan-gate,” this morning’s newest diversion (Did John Kerry Visit a Tanning Salon?”).
In the end, of course, we’ll get the President we deserve. If too many of us insist on living in a fantasy world, we’ll get a fantastically bad president. If enough of us wake up and smell the coffee, we’ll get a competent guy who’s actually committed to helping the American people and humanity in general.
And, win or lose on November 2, the days of the fascist-Repubs are about done. Americans have come too far to let these petty thieves take away our liberty. A new day is dawning, and whether it’s President Bush or President Kerry, the Rise of The Progressives has begun and shall not end for a generation.
Besides, even if Bush wins, having him around for 4 more years to torture will be fun. Why, the indictments alone will be worth it.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
This is What I'm Talking About
Over at the American Prospect blog Tapped, there is the following observation today:
"It seems clear that the most important and difficult long-term task facing liberals -- and, really, anyone else interested in returning even the slightest semblance of sanity to American policymaking -- is to begin the work of reversing thirty years of conservative tax revolt dogma."
Truer words ain't been spoken in some time. I think I know the secret path to reversing this idiocy. The core concept is value. Governmental value. The root cause of the public's fear of taxes is the completely erroneous belief that money paid to the government as taxes is money just plain wasted, thrown down the drain. This perception is strongly re-inforced by the way most people are introduced to the tax system: when kids or young adults get that first real paycheck, they see the list of all the various deductions, Fed, FICA, NYS DIS/SU, etc. And they can easily see just how much of what they thought they'd get ("Let's see, 40 hours, $10 an hour, ought otbe about $400 bucks...") goes to taxes.
So we make a big deal out of clearly explaining to people -- generally no less than every two weeks -- that their labor is the primary economic engine of some distant and unconnected thing called The Government. (Apart from keeping score of this grating math, I suspect there is not much other purpose to the bi-weekly distribution of reports of deposits that people get in lieu of paychecks these days).
What we almost never do is the other side of the very same ledger: when people receive government benefits, there is almost no effort made to document in dollars and cents just what people have received. For example, no one receives a statement at the end of every month saying that the federal government has provided national security services costing $38.75. No report from the state of New York saying that the cost of providing the various subway and bus rides, use of the roadways, and other transportation infrastructure comes to $14.21. Nothing from the City of New York (I can't help capitalizing that one!) saying police, fire, sewage, garbage and caring for our young people and providing them with a modest education cost $9.52.
And therein, folks, lies the problem. There is a carefully calibrated system of making sure you knowjust how much you're paying in. And there is almost no system to ensure that you are aare of how much you're taking out. To get Americans back on the bandwagon in terms of adequate public spending (and I can't believe that we haven't fallen way behind the rest of our well-to-do peers), our leaders must begin to help Americans see the value of the government services they receive. Like this: "Like clean air? Clean water? How about pure, unadulterated meat? What about the fact that in our nation, children are not allowed to work in factories. Or that you can rest assured that businesses you interact with meet minimum standards of fair-dealing? If you like these things, then pay your taxes!" I suspect that if most Americans knew the actual cost to them on a monthly basis, of various programs, they'd be more than happy to pay. (Kind of like thinking, "I can't really afford that new plasma TV at $3000, but for just $64 a month, why hell! Why not!") What if we asked Americans if it would be worth it to them to double the number of teachers in our schools, and double the pay of the top half of those teachers? If the answer was, "just $38.56 a year," I think nearly everyone would jump at it. "If you gave up your Starbucks for just one month, we could afford to send every deserving child to the best school they could get into on merit -- all schools would have needs-blind admission." I think that's an easy sell, and the way out of the idiotic tax neurosis the Repubs have sold so well to so many. Most people complain about their taxes, but the truth is that government services are a good value, and that the government is an apparopriate vehicle for us to advance the quality of our citizens lives and ultimately the lives of our fellow humans around the world.
There. Now we've got that sorted.
"It seems clear that the most important and difficult long-term task facing liberals -- and, really, anyone else interested in returning even the slightest semblance of sanity to American policymaking -- is to begin the work of reversing thirty years of conservative tax revolt dogma."
Truer words ain't been spoken in some time. I think I know the secret path to reversing this idiocy. The core concept is value. Governmental value. The root cause of the public's fear of taxes is the completely erroneous belief that money paid to the government as taxes is money just plain wasted, thrown down the drain. This perception is strongly re-inforced by the way most people are introduced to the tax system: when kids or young adults get that first real paycheck, they see the list of all the various deductions, Fed, FICA, NYS DIS/SU, etc. And they can easily see just how much of what they thought they'd get ("Let's see, 40 hours, $10 an hour, ought otbe about $400 bucks...") goes to taxes.
So we make a big deal out of clearly explaining to people -- generally no less than every two weeks -- that their labor is the primary economic engine of some distant and unconnected thing called The Government. (Apart from keeping score of this grating math, I suspect there is not much other purpose to the bi-weekly distribution of reports of deposits that people get in lieu of paychecks these days).
What we almost never do is the other side of the very same ledger: when people receive government benefits, there is almost no effort made to document in dollars and cents just what people have received. For example, no one receives a statement at the end of every month saying that the federal government has provided national security services costing $38.75. No report from the state of New York saying that the cost of providing the various subway and bus rides, use of the roadways, and other transportation infrastructure comes to $14.21. Nothing from the City of New York (I can't help capitalizing that one!) saying police, fire, sewage, garbage and caring for our young people and providing them with a modest education cost $9.52.
And therein, folks, lies the problem. There is a carefully calibrated system of making sure you knowjust how much you're paying in. And there is almost no system to ensure that you are aare of how much you're taking out. To get Americans back on the bandwagon in terms of adequate public spending (and I can't believe that we haven't fallen way behind the rest of our well-to-do peers), our leaders must begin to help Americans see the value of the government services they receive. Like this: "Like clean air? Clean water? How about pure, unadulterated meat? What about the fact that in our nation, children are not allowed to work in factories. Or that you can rest assured that businesses you interact with meet minimum standards of fair-dealing? If you like these things, then pay your taxes!" I suspect that if most Americans knew the actual cost to them on a monthly basis, of various programs, they'd be more than happy to pay. (Kind of like thinking, "I can't really afford that new plasma TV at $3000, but for just $64 a month, why hell! Why not!") What if we asked Americans if it would be worth it to them to double the number of teachers in our schools, and double the pay of the top half of those teachers? If the answer was, "just $38.56 a year," I think nearly everyone would jump at it. "If you gave up your Starbucks for just one month, we could afford to send every deserving child to the best school they could get into on merit -- all schools would have needs-blind admission." I think that's an easy sell, and the way out of the idiotic tax neurosis the Repubs have sold so well to so many. Most people complain about their taxes, but the truth is that government services are a good value, and that the government is an apparopriate vehicle for us to advance the quality of our citizens lives and ultimately the lives of our fellow humans around the world.
There. Now we've got that sorted.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Here's someone else's post -- and my response
Over on AirAmerica Radio, I saw this post which struck me as penetrating and worthwhile:
"'m going absolutely insane considering the idea that there is even a remote possibility that Bush may actually win another term as President (if that is even what you can call him). I have done a lot of thinking about how this could possibly be the situation we find ourselves in. The only conclusion I can reach is that it's the fault of the citizens. Of course you can point fingers at the media, at the lying liars, and the absolute circumvention of good-faith political discourse. However, if the people do not go the extra mile and look past the propaganda, the fault falls on their shoulders. Here are all the offenders that I can think of, feel free to add to this list.Overly "Macho" MenFor some reason, many men have decided that the macho thing to do is support Bush. This insane "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" mentality that many men adopt in order to prove some self percieved testosterone quota has been met meshes perfectly with Bush's unwavering dedication to war.Religious FanaticsOverly religious people believe that their beliefs are more important than the United States. They believe that the constitution should be subserviant to the bible, even when the two are in contradiction. Bush caters to these people at every turn. I know he isn't one of them completely because war profiteering isn't exactly a Christian activity (although that fact hasn't stopped them in the past).Irrationally Frightened PeopleWe live in a post-9/11 world. Obviously, 2004 comes after 2001. However, when Bush and his supporters bring that fact up time and time again, they are really saying "be afraid, be very afraid". The idea that terrorists didn't exist before 9/11 is a crazy one, and the expectation that attacks will hit the United States with voracious frequency is completely counter-intuitive. Yet that is the exact assertion planted when "post-9/11 world" is uttered before some rediculous comment. Unfortunately this preface to a statement, to many people, gives the statement a visceral response. These people believe that Bush has somehow thwarted all kinds of attacks because reality doesn't fit their expectations. They believe Bush will keep us safe, even though every single act on his part proves otherwise.Greedy PeopleSome people refer to this group as "fiscal conservatives". They would gladly do away with many important social programs just to save fifty bucks in taxes. These people only see the ® next to Bush's name and assume that their interest in "small government" will be met. They are duped into thinking that it's true because, at the expense of the security of the United States' economy, Bush gives them tax cuts that we cannot afford. They don't understand that, in the long run, they will wish they could give that money back when they realize what they have lost is worth a lot more than fifty dollars. These people also don't realize that the republican spending platform far exceeds the democrats.Out-Of-Control "Nationalists"The insane idea that blindly supporting the president is a prerequisite to being an American is an extremely dangerous proposition. One man deciding what an entire nation does without question is called a dictatorship. The people guilty of this un-American American Nationalism are the ones who say "screw the UN". They are the same ones who feel unilateralism, for any reason, is preferable. These are the people who claim that not supporting the war is somehow an inslut to the troops. They also claim that pointing out any flaw in the United States or its actions is an indicator that you hate America. These people love Bush because he loves to tell the rest of the world to shove it.Stupid PeopleTo a certain extent this is an umbrella for the other groups, however, there are plenty of people that don't fit into the other categories that still fit into this category. These morons can't see past the propaganda of Republican pundits. They believe the answer to the question "Why shouldn't we hold Bush accountable" is "because Kerry is a Flip Flopper". Logic eludes these people at every turn. For some reason the facts are lightly dealt with after the conclusion is drawn, and in dealing with the facts, they pick and choose which ones to look at depending on whether or not the information fits the conclusion they have already reached. Unfortunately, stupid people are the majority in both the United States and the rest of the world.-This is my first post, thanks for bearing with me.. I look forward to some discourse based in reason and fact (for a change). "
From a poster called richbleak, I believe.
Here's my reply:Re: Richbleak’s thoughtful post:
I have been struggling with the same questions, and have long thought the “blame-Bush/blame-the-media” story line allows our fellow citizens off the hook far too easily. The truth is about half of us approve of Mr. Bush – did in 2000, and do now. I think your breakdown touches on the main strains of Bush support, though I’m sure people could and will quibble with some details.
Americans have a long and shameful history of embracing the sort of public madness which is currently raging across our land. From the very beginning, fanatical zealotry has been a persistent strain in our nation’s history. Breaking it generally requires two things: 1) a sort of fanaticism-fatigue, where expending so much energy on something so abstract and irrelevant seems less and less worthwhile to more and more people; and 2) a catalytic event/leader. The current election cycle seems to me to demonstrate increasing fatigue. We nearly had a catalyst in Howard Dean’s mad dash for true progressivism. Whether or not John Kerry’s run for the WH will be catalytic will turn on whether he wins.
I alternate, basically based on the last thing I read, between being absolutely convinced that this current cycle of public hysteria is breaking like a wave, and will soon seem as silly and shameful as McCarthyism, or alternately being absolutely convinced that we are in fact trudging inexorably down the same path that Germany and Italy went down in the 30’s, and that the insipient fascism we’re seeing has a strong enough hold that we’re all doomed and had better move to remote New Zealand ASAP.
For many, trying to influence which of these visions comes to pass involved political activism. I know it does for me. But it also requires us to remember that our deluded fellow citizens aren’t truly all that different from the rest of us, and that what unites is can be stronger than what divides us. I come from red-state country, have family there, and still visit often. I talk with people who support Bush and can be categorized as overly macho, religious fanatics, irrationally frightened, greedy, nationalists and/or stupid. It seems to me that what these folks have in common is fear. Machismo is an outward response to in inner insecurity, no? And, when I hear religious fanatics explicating their elaborate theories at length, the thought I cannot stop having is that these people are desperately trying to convince themselves, not anyone else. To want so badly to believe in these palpably unbelievable stories shows, to me, enormous fear. I think greed is just greed in some cases, but when I hear middle-class people talk about politics, it is mostly fear that the liberal democrats are going to take what little they have in the form of high taxes. I could go on, but I think most thoughtful people will agree that Bush supporters are powerfully driven by fear. The best way to win them over is not to attack them, or make fun of them, but to support them, embrace them, help them understand that the path out of fear is not hatred, as the Bushes say, but is through hope and love, as the Democrats say. Republican thought plays a valid and useful role in our system when it is the voice of caution, the reminder that people sometimes behave badly, and the keeper of our worst fears. Similarly, Democrats are the party of change, progress, hope and the future – keeper of our fondest hopes and desires. The fair interplay of these forces produces appropriate change over time. We shall see, soon enough, whether this balance is to be restored, or whether the forces of evil have even more triumphs in store. But the best way I can see to effect the outcome is to recognize that those on the right are not so different from those on the left, that in most respects we really do agree on most things, and that like it or not, we are certainly stuck with each other so the best course is to make the best of our common strengths and interests.
I see a lot of hate and vitriol on liberal sites, and I can certainly understand the frustration. I am of course not immune from it. But it is not the way to move things forward.
Thoughts, anyone?
"'m going absolutely insane considering the idea that there is even a remote possibility that Bush may actually win another term as President (if that is even what you can call him). I have done a lot of thinking about how this could possibly be the situation we find ourselves in. The only conclusion I can reach is that it's the fault of the citizens. Of course you can point fingers at the media, at the lying liars, and the absolute circumvention of good-faith political discourse. However, if the people do not go the extra mile and look past the propaganda, the fault falls on their shoulders. Here are all the offenders that I can think of, feel free to add to this list.Overly "Macho" MenFor some reason, many men have decided that the macho thing to do is support Bush. This insane "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" mentality that many men adopt in order to prove some self percieved testosterone quota has been met meshes perfectly with Bush's unwavering dedication to war.Religious FanaticsOverly religious people believe that their beliefs are more important than the United States. They believe that the constitution should be subserviant to the bible, even when the two are in contradiction. Bush caters to these people at every turn. I know he isn't one of them completely because war profiteering isn't exactly a Christian activity (although that fact hasn't stopped them in the past).Irrationally Frightened PeopleWe live in a post-9/11 world. Obviously, 2004 comes after 2001. However, when Bush and his supporters bring that fact up time and time again, they are really saying "be afraid, be very afraid". The idea that terrorists didn't exist before 9/11 is a crazy one, and the expectation that attacks will hit the United States with voracious frequency is completely counter-intuitive. Yet that is the exact assertion planted when "post-9/11 world" is uttered before some rediculous comment. Unfortunately this preface to a statement, to many people, gives the statement a visceral response. These people believe that Bush has somehow thwarted all kinds of attacks because reality doesn't fit their expectations. They believe Bush will keep us safe, even though every single act on his part proves otherwise.Greedy PeopleSome people refer to this group as "fiscal conservatives". They would gladly do away with many important social programs just to save fifty bucks in taxes. These people only see the ® next to Bush's name and assume that their interest in "small government" will be met. They are duped into thinking that it's true because, at the expense of the security of the United States' economy, Bush gives them tax cuts that we cannot afford. They don't understand that, in the long run, they will wish they could give that money back when they realize what they have lost is worth a lot more than fifty dollars. These people also don't realize that the republican spending platform far exceeds the democrats.Out-Of-Control "Nationalists"The insane idea that blindly supporting the president is a prerequisite to being an American is an extremely dangerous proposition. One man deciding what an entire nation does without question is called a dictatorship. The people guilty of this un-American American Nationalism are the ones who say "screw the UN". They are the same ones who feel unilateralism, for any reason, is preferable. These are the people who claim that not supporting the war is somehow an inslut to the troops. They also claim that pointing out any flaw in the United States or its actions is an indicator that you hate America. These people love Bush because he loves to tell the rest of the world to shove it.Stupid PeopleTo a certain extent this is an umbrella for the other groups, however, there are plenty of people that don't fit into the other categories that still fit into this category. These morons can't see past the propaganda of Republican pundits. They believe the answer to the question "Why shouldn't we hold Bush accountable" is "because Kerry is a Flip Flopper". Logic eludes these people at every turn. For some reason the facts are lightly dealt with after the conclusion is drawn, and in dealing with the facts, they pick and choose which ones to look at depending on whether or not the information fits the conclusion they have already reached. Unfortunately, stupid people are the majority in both the United States and the rest of the world.-This is my first post, thanks for bearing with me.. I look forward to some discourse based in reason and fact (for a change). "
From a poster called richbleak, I believe.
Here's my reply:Re: Richbleak’s thoughtful post:
I have been struggling with the same questions, and have long thought the “blame-Bush/blame-the-media” story line allows our fellow citizens off the hook far too easily. The truth is about half of us approve of Mr. Bush – did in 2000, and do now. I think your breakdown touches on the main strains of Bush support, though I’m sure people could and will quibble with some details.
Americans have a long and shameful history of embracing the sort of public madness which is currently raging across our land. From the very beginning, fanatical zealotry has been a persistent strain in our nation’s history. Breaking it generally requires two things: 1) a sort of fanaticism-fatigue, where expending so much energy on something so abstract and irrelevant seems less and less worthwhile to more and more people; and 2) a catalytic event/leader. The current election cycle seems to me to demonstrate increasing fatigue. We nearly had a catalyst in Howard Dean’s mad dash for true progressivism. Whether or not John Kerry’s run for the WH will be catalytic will turn on whether he wins.
I alternate, basically based on the last thing I read, between being absolutely convinced that this current cycle of public hysteria is breaking like a wave, and will soon seem as silly and shameful as McCarthyism, or alternately being absolutely convinced that we are in fact trudging inexorably down the same path that Germany and Italy went down in the 30’s, and that the insipient fascism we’re seeing has a strong enough hold that we’re all doomed and had better move to remote New Zealand ASAP.
For many, trying to influence which of these visions comes to pass involved political activism. I know it does for me. But it also requires us to remember that our deluded fellow citizens aren’t truly all that different from the rest of us, and that what unites is can be stronger than what divides us. I come from red-state country, have family there, and still visit often. I talk with people who support Bush and can be categorized as overly macho, religious fanatics, irrationally frightened, greedy, nationalists and/or stupid. It seems to me that what these folks have in common is fear. Machismo is an outward response to in inner insecurity, no? And, when I hear religious fanatics explicating their elaborate theories at length, the thought I cannot stop having is that these people are desperately trying to convince themselves, not anyone else. To want so badly to believe in these palpably unbelievable stories shows, to me, enormous fear. I think greed is just greed in some cases, but when I hear middle-class people talk about politics, it is mostly fear that the liberal democrats are going to take what little they have in the form of high taxes. I could go on, but I think most thoughtful people will agree that Bush supporters are powerfully driven by fear. The best way to win them over is not to attack them, or make fun of them, but to support them, embrace them, help them understand that the path out of fear is not hatred, as the Bushes say, but is through hope and love, as the Democrats say. Republican thought plays a valid and useful role in our system when it is the voice of caution, the reminder that people sometimes behave badly, and the keeper of our worst fears. Similarly, Democrats are the party of change, progress, hope and the future – keeper of our fondest hopes and desires. The fair interplay of these forces produces appropriate change over time. We shall see, soon enough, whether this balance is to be restored, or whether the forces of evil have even more triumphs in store. But the best way I can see to effect the outcome is to recognize that those on the right are not so different from those on the left, that in most respects we really do agree on most things, and that like it or not, we are certainly stuck with each other so the best course is to make the best of our common strengths and interests.
I see a lot of hate and vitriol on liberal sites, and I can certainly understand the frustration. I am of course not immune from it. But it is not the way to move things forward.
Thoughts, anyone?
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Just a Thought
I didn't want to lose this thought. A compelling and thorough debunking of much of the radical right can be constructed by introducing the concept of accountability. Almost every idea these guys have ever had has turned out to be wrong. (Truthfully, in theory conservatives' job is to be wrong: the proper role of conservatives is to point out all the dangers that might arise from a given proposed course of action. When they are right (which of course happens), we don't proceed. But when we proceed against their opinions, they are almost always wrong. For example, Republicans were dead certain that the 1993 budget was going to lead to a stock market failure, a tremendous loss of jobs, business failures, and if I remember correctly, a plague of locusts.
This is the idea behind my suggestion that the problem with the anti-gay constitutional amendment is not just that it's pure evil, but that procedurally, we should take first things first. I believe it was the current president's father who was pretty sure, along with most of his republican friends, that if we didn't pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit falg burning, our society would decay into the lowest kind of moral debasement. So, first things first: flag burning, then gay people.
A crazy person is running, with the full support of the republican party, for senate in Oklahoma, primarily on the platform that there is a gay agenda that is sweeping its way into every nook and cranny of our society: "That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today," hw says. Let's hold this clown accountable and see what happens as that agenda is in fact spread across the entire nation, and we all agree that hating people because of their sexual orientation is immoral and must end.
Kind of like the republicans who thought if we provided medical care to those too poor to obtain it otherwise, that millions would quit their jobs to get the free care. I could go on....feel free to add your own.
This is the idea behind my suggestion that the problem with the anti-gay constitutional amendment is not just that it's pure evil, but that procedurally, we should take first things first. I believe it was the current president's father who was pretty sure, along with most of his republican friends, that if we didn't pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit falg burning, our society would decay into the lowest kind of moral debasement. So, first things first: flag burning, then gay people.
A crazy person is running, with the full support of the republican party, for senate in Oklahoma, primarily on the platform that there is a gay agenda that is sweeping its way into every nook and cranny of our society: "That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today," hw says. Let's hold this clown accountable and see what happens as that agenda is in fact spread across the entire nation, and we all agree that hating people because of their sexual orientation is immoral and must end.
Kind of like the republicans who thought if we provided medical care to those too poor to obtain it otherwise, that millions would quit their jobs to get the free care. I could go on....feel free to add your own.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Post du Jour
Yet another day, yet another post.
A quick auto-bio note:
My mother dropped me off for 1st Grade and a cried like a baby. I had been in both 4-year-old and 5-year-old (as we called them) kindergarten, and still cried like the world had ended. I recall that after about 30 seconds I was fine. My first grade teacher, Mrs. Bassett (no relation that I know of), was not especially warm or nurturing, but she was a good Moravian woman who loved us children as best she knew how, and was able to get us excited about reading, math, and of course, lunch.
On the political front, not much news, but still have an idea for a good Kerry ad. The basic idea is to create a political ad using the strategies and production values of Madison Avenue, a la the famous anti-health care reform ad, “Harry & Louise.” We open on a shot of an old pick-up high-tailin’ it down a dusty road in some canyon out West. (We hear a twang or two of 100% Genuine Country Music under it, introducing). We cut to a shot from a camera mounted on the side and in front of the driver, clearly capturing both driver and passenger. These are proto-typical “good ol’ boys,” wearing cowboy hats, mustaches, with a gunrack.clearly visible.
Driver: “So. We’re s’posed to vote fer Bush.
Passenger: Uh-huh.
[Pause.] Cut to shot of the truck arriving at old-fashioned gas station.
Shot of door opening, Driver exiting.
D: Well, I ain’t gonna.
P: What’re you gonna do, vote for Kerry?
D: Yep.
P: Never thought I’d see the day old Sam Hillers would vote for a Dem-o-crat.
D: Uh-hmm.
P: John Kerry?
D: Yep. He’ll be all right. You’ll see.
Cut and open on Kerry/Edwards 04 w/ legal VO.
I think that’s pretty much there, though I’m sure someone with Actual Talent could improve it a lot.
The larger point is that we need to stop producing commercials that argue our way in, and start producing spots that let us connect to prospective voters emotionally. In my spot, I’m trying to burnish Kerry with some of that Good Ol’ Marlboro Man strength. Trucks, cowboy hats, few words – they add up to traditional American strength. The point is to give voters permission to think that Kerry’ll do “all right. You’ll see.”
I’m sure if we could round up some folks with actual talent, we could think of more and better ideas that would allow voters to connect with Kerry on a more emotional level. How about something like this:
Open on a shot of Kerry in a busy kitchen with his family. We’re moving pots, cleaning dishes, etc. John comes over to the camera and says:JK: Hi. The best times are the ones I spend with my family, even though it can get pretty crazy. But I wanted to remind you that the issues I’m fighting for – families, healthcare, education, our security – are really important to all of us. So don’t forget, this November 2, take the time to get out and vote. Whether you’re someone who never misses a chance to cast a ballot, or a first timer or someone who just doesn’t think it matters, do all of us a favor and get out to vote. If you’d like help learning where to vote, or need any special assistance with transportation or anything else, call 1800THEVOTE.”
Daughter: Come on, Dad, we’re going to cut the cake.
Cut to KE04 and legal VO.
Obviously, the point of this one is to set up Kerry in a warm and family-oriented environment, and to show how much confidence he has in his candidacy. No need to beg for people to vote for him – just get out and vote. Maybe this is too cute, but I’d love to try it and see. I think in the hands of a sympathetic director, this could be great. Of course, the other challenge is that neither JK nor his family are professional actors. But maybe they could pull it off nonetheless.
That’s it for now.
A quick auto-bio note:
My mother dropped me off for 1st Grade and a cried like a baby. I had been in both 4-year-old and 5-year-old (as we called them) kindergarten, and still cried like the world had ended. I recall that after about 30 seconds I was fine. My first grade teacher, Mrs. Bassett (no relation that I know of), was not especially warm or nurturing, but she was a good Moravian woman who loved us children as best she knew how, and was able to get us excited about reading, math, and of course, lunch.
On the political front, not much news, but still have an idea for a good Kerry ad. The basic idea is to create a political ad using the strategies and production values of Madison Avenue, a la the famous anti-health care reform ad, “Harry & Louise.” We open on a shot of an old pick-up high-tailin’ it down a dusty road in some canyon out West. (We hear a twang or two of 100% Genuine Country Music under it, introducing). We cut to a shot from a camera mounted on the side and in front of the driver, clearly capturing both driver and passenger. These are proto-typical “good ol’ boys,” wearing cowboy hats, mustaches, with a gunrack.clearly visible.
Driver: “So. We’re s’posed to vote fer Bush.
Passenger: Uh-huh.
[Pause.] Cut to shot of the truck arriving at old-fashioned gas station.
Shot of door opening, Driver exiting.
D: Well, I ain’t gonna.
P: What’re you gonna do, vote for Kerry?
D: Yep.
P: Never thought I’d see the day old Sam Hillers would vote for a Dem-o-crat.
D: Uh-hmm.
P: John Kerry?
D: Yep. He’ll be all right. You’ll see.
Cut and open on Kerry/Edwards 04 w/ legal VO.
I think that’s pretty much there, though I’m sure someone with Actual Talent could improve it a lot.
The larger point is that we need to stop producing commercials that argue our way in, and start producing spots that let us connect to prospective voters emotionally. In my spot, I’m trying to burnish Kerry with some of that Good Ol’ Marlboro Man strength. Trucks, cowboy hats, few words – they add up to traditional American strength. The point is to give voters permission to think that Kerry’ll do “all right. You’ll see.”
I’m sure if we could round up some folks with actual talent, we could think of more and better ideas that would allow voters to connect with Kerry on a more emotional level. How about something like this:
Open on a shot of Kerry in a busy kitchen with his family. We’re moving pots, cleaning dishes, etc. John comes over to the camera and says:JK: Hi. The best times are the ones I spend with my family, even though it can get pretty crazy. But I wanted to remind you that the issues I’m fighting for – families, healthcare, education, our security – are really important to all of us. So don’t forget, this November 2, take the time to get out and vote. Whether you’re someone who never misses a chance to cast a ballot, or a first timer or someone who just doesn’t think it matters, do all of us a favor and get out to vote. If you’d like help learning where to vote, or need any special assistance with transportation or anything else, call 1800THEVOTE.”
Daughter: Come on, Dad, we’re going to cut the cake.
Cut to KE04 and legal VO.
Obviously, the point of this one is to set up Kerry in a warm and family-oriented environment, and to show how much confidence he has in his candidacy. No need to beg for people to vote for him – just get out and vote. Maybe this is too cute, but I’d love to try it and see. I think in the hands of a sympathetic director, this could be great. Of course, the other challenge is that neither JK nor his family are professional actors. But maybe they could pull it off nonetheless.
That’s it for now.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Where Have You Been?!?!
OK, so I’ll be getting like a C+ in blogging, what with the infrequent updates and all. Maybe there’ll be extra points for excessive verbosity.
Maybe not. OK, probably not.
Any hoo, back to the keys.
It’s a couple of days after Labor Day, and the race for the White House (or perhaps we should call it, more aptly, “The Race to Prevent The End of Civilization As We Know It,” or more positively, “The Race to Save the World From a US Fascist Dictator”), is on full bore. Most recently, the “Vice President” laid it out to the American people pretty straight: Vote for Kerry and you’ll probably get blown up by terrorists. That should simplify things for many of my fellow voters. Bush=Life, Kerry=Death. E-Z.
This past August 22, my dear beloved mother passed away, succumbing to the liver disease she had been struggling with for some time. The medicos all say it isn’t painful, but she thought it was – at least that’s what she said, and I for one believed her. I know in her final weeks, when she was not conscious and increasingly unable to ingest any food, she didn’t seem to be all that comfortable. I wonder what those final weeks were like for her. I can only pray that they were sleep-like, full of wonderful thoughts and dreams. And now, I can only pray that she is re-united with her beloved family members who had gone before her – her parents, grandparents, uncles, cousins, aunts – even the unborn child we lost to miscarriage. (I can’t help thinking of my mother united with a spirit in the after-life who will be perpetually a baby – truly, my mother’s idea of heaven. She loved babies.)
Meantime, perhaps provoked by the shock of the loss, but clearly predating it, my impulses to somehow re-invent myself and my life are raging. Let’s move to France. Let’s buy a business. Let’s move to the country. Something. Anything. More than ever, I’m feeling the urge to cut my losses and get a fresh hand from the dealer. Who know where it will lead? Given the realities of family life, the commitments to our community, etc., I suspect it will all lead absolutely nowhere. Maybe end up with a useless overpriced red sports car. Who knows. Or, perhaps we’ll end up in Alaska! Or France!
So, here’s a paragraph for the autobiography:
I was born in 1960, but my earliest memories are about 1964. I can remember receiving at my 4th Birthday party a pair of yellow plastic cups that you turned upside down, each one strung through with a length of plastic tubing to be used as handles, so that you could walk on them and be about three inches higher. Neat.
I can certainly remember my 4-year-old kindergarten teachers, Mrs. Krauss and Mrs. Stone. Krauss was the jovial vaguely German one, Stone a bit more reserved, perhaps even a bit stern. We had great fun, played with big green wooden blocks and did plenty of finger painting. Thus began an academic career that would ultimately lead to a J.D. degree, and include decreasing levels of blocks and finger-painting, to the point where there were virtually no blocks nor finger-painting in law school. (Hard to see why anyone would attend law school given these kinds of deficiencies.)
More early memories later…
Maybe not. OK, probably not.
Any hoo, back to the keys.
It’s a couple of days after Labor Day, and the race for the White House (or perhaps we should call it, more aptly, “The Race to Prevent The End of Civilization As We Know It,” or more positively, “The Race to Save the World From a US Fascist Dictator”), is on full bore. Most recently, the “Vice President” laid it out to the American people pretty straight: Vote for Kerry and you’ll probably get blown up by terrorists. That should simplify things for many of my fellow voters. Bush=Life, Kerry=Death. E-Z.
This past August 22, my dear beloved mother passed away, succumbing to the liver disease she had been struggling with for some time. The medicos all say it isn’t painful, but she thought it was – at least that’s what she said, and I for one believed her. I know in her final weeks, when she was not conscious and increasingly unable to ingest any food, she didn’t seem to be all that comfortable. I wonder what those final weeks were like for her. I can only pray that they were sleep-like, full of wonderful thoughts and dreams. And now, I can only pray that she is re-united with her beloved family members who had gone before her – her parents, grandparents, uncles, cousins, aunts – even the unborn child we lost to miscarriage. (I can’t help thinking of my mother united with a spirit in the after-life who will be perpetually a baby – truly, my mother’s idea of heaven. She loved babies.)
Meantime, perhaps provoked by the shock of the loss, but clearly predating it, my impulses to somehow re-invent myself and my life are raging. Let’s move to France. Let’s buy a business. Let’s move to the country. Something. Anything. More than ever, I’m feeling the urge to cut my losses and get a fresh hand from the dealer. Who know where it will lead? Given the realities of family life, the commitments to our community, etc., I suspect it will all lead absolutely nowhere. Maybe end up with a useless overpriced red sports car. Who knows. Or, perhaps we’ll end up in Alaska! Or France!
So, here’s a paragraph for the autobiography:
I was born in 1960, but my earliest memories are about 1964. I can remember receiving at my 4th Birthday party a pair of yellow plastic cups that you turned upside down, each one strung through with a length of plastic tubing to be used as handles, so that you could walk on them and be about three inches higher. Neat.
I can certainly remember my 4-year-old kindergarten teachers, Mrs. Krauss and Mrs. Stone. Krauss was the jovial vaguely German one, Stone a bit more reserved, perhaps even a bit stern. We had great fun, played with big green wooden blocks and did plenty of finger painting. Thus began an academic career that would ultimately lead to a J.D. degree, and include decreasing levels of blocks and finger-painting, to the point where there were virtually no blocks nor finger-painting in law school. (Hard to see why anyone would attend law school given these kinds of deficiencies.)
More early memories later…
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Just read Garrison Keillor’s e-mail interview with David Talbot in Salon, who expresses the thought that he is writing highly partison polemics against the right these days because he feels the country is “slipping away.” Great words for a thought I have all the time: it’s starting to feel like the mid-1930’s in Germany here: we can see Very Bad Things occurring, brought on by the calculated actions of Very bad People, and yet we seem nearly powerless to do stop it.
Except we’re not. We could vote the bastards out. This exact moment, I’d like to think Senator Kerry will eke out a narrow win. But the big picture indicators aren’t so clear. Economy is improving. Iraq will be better off. Nader is on the ballot in enough states to force Kerry to win big if he’s gonna win at all. And finally, the cause for greatest alarm: 45% of my fellow Americans think George Bush is a wonderful leader.
Certainly some of the blame can be laid at the feet of our lazy, inept and foolish media. But theie ultimate goal is to sell soap. If Americans flocked to cable news channels where all they did all day long was discuss ways we could improve the lives of our fellow citizens, there’d by a dozen such channels. Old Ben Franklin was right in this as in so many things: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” We now face the exact danger the good Doctor warned us of. Will we Americans be able to reclaim our heritage of freedom? I think we will, but it’ll be a close thing.
Perhaps it will teach us that we must be constantly on guard against the inherent dangers of a free and democratic society.
I wonder if we aren’t reaping some of the rewards of our inattention (and in the case of some antii-taxers, all out war) on quality public education. Our press corps is so poorly educated that they do not seem to recognize any of the fundamental truths of the political process. They seem totally unaware of their complicity in bringing about the downfall of democracy—remembering that democracy is not a partison concept, but a national one. Again, as old BF put it, “It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
Indeed, those who would be the masters of our unfree society are actively campaigning against free speech. Anyone who dares to gainsay their lies and foolishness is shouted down as a pariah, a fringe lunatic who should be ignored. Once more, Ben Franklin: “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Aye, Dr. Franklin, aye.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” America remains at its heart a virtuous nation. But that virtue is under attack by those whose interests in threatens. It is not virtuous to abandon civil institutions like government, schools and libraries in favor of corporations. When I see the members of the US Olympic team mumble through or ignore altogether the words of the US national anthem, I wonder if their children will remember when Olympians were members of nations first, corporate sponsors second. Or will they stand on the platform to receive their gold medal, while the FedEx anthem plays, or the Nike theme song?
My friend Ray likes to think that corporations shouldn’t be treated like second class citizens because, after all, they are comprised of inddividuals: shareholders, employees, customers, vendors, etc. And of course, corporations are composed of such people. But a corporation is by legal definition an entity designed and solely dedicated to the diverting of wealth from all its constituents to its shareholders. It is a model that has many virtues since it allows many people to exchange their commodity (labor, capital, etc.) for a commodity they value more highly (money, power, etc.) But ultimately, the model is just that: a model. It is a means to an end. When we lose sight of that end, we begin to lose ourselves. And boy, have we started to lose sight of the end.
The goal is not to amass more toys than the other kids. The goal is to have as many of us as possible have the greatest number of toys possible. And if that means limiting the number of toys any one person can have so that there is enough to go around, so be it. The slight dimunition in initiative caused by the limit is regrettable and its effects should be minimized. But the limit is not to be avoided for that reason.
Just like helping people in need: helping people in need will no doubt entail problems of people either feigning need when it does not in truth exist, or of motivating some to seek out need knowing that it will be addressed by others’ generosity. Real problems indeed – problems that should be addressed with real care. But not problems sufficiently vexing to forbid the helping of others, or to make that help so niggardly and stingy that it is nearly no help at all. We are a virtuous people – mostly, still. How can we let the moneyed interests convince us not to use our own money to help our brothers and sisters who need it? How have we let them convince us that the best way to help others is solely by helping ourselves. Self-indulgence is not virtue, and those that ask us to celebrate it appeal to our worst selves. Those that ask us to lend a selfless helping hand to our neighbors see the virtue in us. We should thank and celebrate them.
Except we’re not. We could vote the bastards out. This exact moment, I’d like to think Senator Kerry will eke out a narrow win. But the big picture indicators aren’t so clear. Economy is improving. Iraq will be better off. Nader is on the ballot in enough states to force Kerry to win big if he’s gonna win at all. And finally, the cause for greatest alarm: 45% of my fellow Americans think George Bush is a wonderful leader.
Certainly some of the blame can be laid at the feet of our lazy, inept and foolish media. But theie ultimate goal is to sell soap. If Americans flocked to cable news channels where all they did all day long was discuss ways we could improve the lives of our fellow citizens, there’d by a dozen such channels. Old Ben Franklin was right in this as in so many things: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” We now face the exact danger the good Doctor warned us of. Will we Americans be able to reclaim our heritage of freedom? I think we will, but it’ll be a close thing.
Perhaps it will teach us that we must be constantly on guard against the inherent dangers of a free and democratic society.
I wonder if we aren’t reaping some of the rewards of our inattention (and in the case of some antii-taxers, all out war) on quality public education. Our press corps is so poorly educated that they do not seem to recognize any of the fundamental truths of the political process. They seem totally unaware of their complicity in bringing about the downfall of democracy—remembering that democracy is not a partison concept, but a national one. Again, as old BF put it, “It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
Indeed, those who would be the masters of our unfree society are actively campaigning against free speech. Anyone who dares to gainsay their lies and foolishness is shouted down as a pariah, a fringe lunatic who should be ignored. Once more, Ben Franklin: “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Aye, Dr. Franklin, aye.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” America remains at its heart a virtuous nation. But that virtue is under attack by those whose interests in threatens. It is not virtuous to abandon civil institutions like government, schools and libraries in favor of corporations. When I see the members of the US Olympic team mumble through or ignore altogether the words of the US national anthem, I wonder if their children will remember when Olympians were members of nations first, corporate sponsors second. Or will they stand on the platform to receive their gold medal, while the FedEx anthem plays, or the Nike theme song?
My friend Ray likes to think that corporations shouldn’t be treated like second class citizens because, after all, they are comprised of inddividuals: shareholders, employees, customers, vendors, etc. And of course, corporations are composed of such people. But a corporation is by legal definition an entity designed and solely dedicated to the diverting of wealth from all its constituents to its shareholders. It is a model that has many virtues since it allows many people to exchange their commodity (labor, capital, etc.) for a commodity they value more highly (money, power, etc.) But ultimately, the model is just that: a model. It is a means to an end. When we lose sight of that end, we begin to lose ourselves. And boy, have we started to lose sight of the end.
The goal is not to amass more toys than the other kids. The goal is to have as many of us as possible have the greatest number of toys possible. And if that means limiting the number of toys any one person can have so that there is enough to go around, so be it. The slight dimunition in initiative caused by the limit is regrettable and its effects should be minimized. But the limit is not to be avoided for that reason.
Just like helping people in need: helping people in need will no doubt entail problems of people either feigning need when it does not in truth exist, or of motivating some to seek out need knowing that it will be addressed by others’ generosity. Real problems indeed – problems that should be addressed with real care. But not problems sufficiently vexing to forbid the helping of others, or to make that help so niggardly and stingy that it is nearly no help at all. We are a virtuous people – mostly, still. How can we let the moneyed interests convince us not to use our own money to help our brothers and sisters who need it? How have we let them convince us that the best way to help others is solely by helping ourselves. Self-indulgence is not virtue, and those that ask us to celebrate it appeal to our worst selves. Those that ask us to lend a selfless helping hand to our neighbors see the virtue in us. We should thank and celebrate them.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Auto-Bio Update
"I was born of a poor black sharecropper in rural Mississippi in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and three."
That's how a proper auto-biography should start, it seems to me, and should slowly and inexorably build to something like, "And that's why I've devoted the last years of my life to working with my foundation to stamp out child poverty once and for all."
My auto-biography isn't going to quite fit that mold. More of a, "I watched a great deal of TV as a kid, mostly Pop-Eye, Hercules and Mighty Mouse, and on Saturdays quite a bit of Bugs Bunny." And building in essentially random lurches to something like, "And so, as the end of my days approach, I cherish fondly my 15 year plaque for continuous service in the Deli/Appetizer Department, and look forward hopefully to the grandkid getting out of the joint and into a halfway house, hopefully for good this time."
So I'm a bit daunted by the prospect, and have more or less resolved to start work on my little tale in whatever random bits seem to pop onto the keyboard.
Like when I was 14 or so and went to Montreal with Rickety Basket, and we drank and (I at least) made out with a girl.
That's how a proper auto-biography should start, it seems to me, and should slowly and inexorably build to something like, "And that's why I've devoted the last years of my life to working with my foundation to stamp out child poverty once and for all."
My auto-biography isn't going to quite fit that mold. More of a, "I watched a great deal of TV as a kid, mostly Pop-Eye, Hercules and Mighty Mouse, and on Saturdays quite a bit of Bugs Bunny." And building in essentially random lurches to something like, "And so, as the end of my days approach, I cherish fondly my 15 year plaque for continuous service in the Deli/Appetizer Department, and look forward hopefully to the grandkid getting out of the joint and into a halfway house, hopefully for good this time."
So I'm a bit daunted by the prospect, and have more or less resolved to start work on my little tale in whatever random bits seem to pop onto the keyboard.
Like when I was 14 or so and went to Montreal with Rickety Basket, and we drank and (I at least) made out with a girl.
Fahreheit 911
Just saw Michael Moore's movie. Very impressive.
I was expecting a loose, wallowing, sloppy mess, similar to some of his previous work. Instead, I was treated to a much tighter, much less self-indulgent, much more patient and thoughtful work. Kudos to MM, and Hazzah! for the Republic.
Amongst my reactions:
- Rather than being shocked or disappointed at the Preznit's failure to act once told of the attack on WTC, I found myself feeling sorry for him. He seemed to be clearly disengaged from the reading with the kids activity. Instead, he seemed aware that he should be thinking Serious Thoughts and perhaps Doing Something. I mentioned this to Kathleen who pointed out that those were exactly the reasons she found it so damning. Had he stayed engaged with the kids, or not shown any understanding of what he was told, then he'd be aloof, neglectful. Rather, he was perfectly aware of the potential gravity of the news, and rather than deciding on a course of action (even if that course was to continue the reading activity), he seemed palpably unsure what to do. Probably the right view.
- Intense anger at the crappy lives we subject far too many of our countrymen to. Notably the gaggle of young black men who are ripe targets for the Marine recruiters, who seemed so bright, so thoughtful -- in short, so capable of contributing to society, yet likely destined not to realize anything like their true potential. Also true of Lila Liscomb, who's been abused horribly by the economic tumult in her region, and whose grief over the pointless loss of her son would touch the hardest heart.
- Strong sense that, contrary to the Conventional Wisdom, this film can and will change people's minds. There's developed a strand of CV that says the film is largely preaching to the choir, and that few marginal voters and no Bush supporters would have their minds changed. Crap. I don't see how one could absorb the information in this film and not come away with the sense that the Preznit lied us into Iraq, and that we are failing miserably in the basic blocking and tackling of so-called "homeland defense."
- An overwhelming desire to do something so that the young black guys (ripe pickin's for the Marine recruiters), Lila Liscomb, and hell, all those poor soldiers in Iraq, even those two dumb bastards trolling the parking lot at the down-market mall -- all of them-- could hold jobs that gave them both adequate income as well as real respect and dignity. Do Something like start a business that could grow large enough to make a real difference.
Double dare any comments on this one...
I was expecting a loose, wallowing, sloppy mess, similar to some of his previous work. Instead, I was treated to a much tighter, much less self-indulgent, much more patient and thoughtful work. Kudos to MM, and Hazzah! for the Republic.
Amongst my reactions:
- Rather than being shocked or disappointed at the Preznit's failure to act once told of the attack on WTC, I found myself feeling sorry for him. He seemed to be clearly disengaged from the reading with the kids activity. Instead, he seemed aware that he should be thinking Serious Thoughts and perhaps Doing Something. I mentioned this to Kathleen who pointed out that those were exactly the reasons she found it so damning. Had he stayed engaged with the kids, or not shown any understanding of what he was told, then he'd be aloof, neglectful. Rather, he was perfectly aware of the potential gravity of the news, and rather than deciding on a course of action (even if that course was to continue the reading activity), he seemed palpably unsure what to do. Probably the right view.
- Intense anger at the crappy lives we subject far too many of our countrymen to. Notably the gaggle of young black men who are ripe targets for the Marine recruiters, who seemed so bright, so thoughtful -- in short, so capable of contributing to society, yet likely destined not to realize anything like their true potential. Also true of Lila Liscomb, who's been abused horribly by the economic tumult in her region, and whose grief over the pointless loss of her son would touch the hardest heart.
- Strong sense that, contrary to the Conventional Wisdom, this film can and will change people's minds. There's developed a strand of CV that says the film is largely preaching to the choir, and that few marginal voters and no Bush supporters would have their minds changed. Crap. I don't see how one could absorb the information in this film and not come away with the sense that the Preznit lied us into Iraq, and that we are failing miserably in the basic blocking and tackling of so-called "homeland defense."
- An overwhelming desire to do something so that the young black guys (ripe pickin's for the Marine recruiters), Lila Liscomb, and hell, all those poor soldiers in Iraq, even those two dumb bastards trolling the parking lot at the down-market mall -- all of them-- could hold jobs that gave them both adequate income as well as real respect and dignity. Do Something like start a business that could grow large enough to make a real difference.
Double dare any comments on this one...
Personal
I'm resolving to spend at least some time every day writing, so I might as well do it here.
I'm a bit worried about my work appearing in public, but somehow or other that seems to be part of what's compelling me to do it.
I heard that dreadful Fleetwood Mac song "Don't Stop Dreamin' 'Bout Tomorrow" on the radio yesterday. I am also reading Bill Clinton's auto-biography. Together, a Clintonian interlude in my thinking.
Clinton's book is thoroughly enjoyable -- so far. I'm about half way through, and he's toying with running in '92. He's a wonderful writer, and has led an interesting life. In the spirit of his own philosophy (as reflected in that damn Fleetwood Mac song), I'm looking forward to the next volume.
I'd like to start writing my own auto-biography, and it occurs to me that my impulse to do so is in fact forward looking rather than historical (thanks, Bill.) I'm about at the mid-point of my reasonable life expectancy, and taking the time to do a summary will of course be helpful to my own efforts that great things lay ahead (some pretty great things are in the past, after all). But I'm thinking of it more as a note to the "generations a-comin.'" My own mother lies unconscious, unlikely to survive more than a few more days or weeks. My father is in OK shape, but the effects of aging have left him more or less bed-ridden and unable to care for himself. (A woman at his old-folks-home, Kirkland Village, has evidently completed a biography of him as a labor of love.) So thoughts of mortality, of the finite nature of the life, are heavy in the air, and are no doubt afflicting my own psyche. Hence, the thought about the mid-life auto-biography.
Stay tuned. With God's grace, more tomorrow.
I'm a bit worried about my work appearing in public, but somehow or other that seems to be part of what's compelling me to do it.
I heard that dreadful Fleetwood Mac song "Don't Stop Dreamin' 'Bout Tomorrow" on the radio yesterday. I am also reading Bill Clinton's auto-biography. Together, a Clintonian interlude in my thinking.
Clinton's book is thoroughly enjoyable -- so far. I'm about half way through, and he's toying with running in '92. He's a wonderful writer, and has led an interesting life. In the spirit of his own philosophy (as reflected in that damn Fleetwood Mac song), I'm looking forward to the next volume.
I'd like to start writing my own auto-biography, and it occurs to me that my impulse to do so is in fact forward looking rather than historical (thanks, Bill.) I'm about at the mid-point of my reasonable life expectancy, and taking the time to do a summary will of course be helpful to my own efforts that great things lay ahead (some pretty great things are in the past, after all). But I'm thinking of it more as a note to the "generations a-comin.'" My own mother lies unconscious, unlikely to survive more than a few more days or weeks. My father is in OK shape, but the effects of aging have left him more or less bed-ridden and unable to care for himself. (A woman at his old-folks-home, Kirkland Village, has evidently completed a biography of him as a labor of love.) So thoughts of mortality, of the finite nature of the life, are heavy in the air, and are no doubt afflicting my own psyche. Hence, the thought about the mid-life auto-biography.
Stay tuned. With God's grace, more tomorrow.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Who to be Really Mad At...
Is it the idiot Preznit? Well, he is a poor politician and an even poorer policy-maker, but no, he's not at the top of the list. Why, he and his people and just taking advantage of the way the game's played (sort of like the Yankees).
So, it must be the evil corrupt press, right? No! Evil and corrupt, yes. Probably even lazy and a bit stupid. But the press' problem is not that they are biased in favor of conservative (though their coverage undeniably is). The main problem is that they are scared -- part of a burgeoning trend toward cowqardice in our society, which I believe is linked to the corporatization not just of journalism, but of our society as a whole.
The press' problem is that a) they are scared of getting yelled at by crazy right wingers and b) they have only one real goal: selling soap. If Americans lined up for liberal propaganda coming from their news, why, that's what they'd be selling. And you know what, that might just be happening. Air America seems to have better and better advertising on their air. Maybe there is money to be made pandering to the left.
Meantime, the crux of the press' problem is that they do not disclose their own biases. Fox News, on the other hand, pretty clear who they're rooting for. But so-called mainstream journos do not disclose their own biases in favor of the liberals. So, when a conservative says something foolish and outlandish, it's covered as "controversial," or "hard-hitting." Were a liberal to do the same thing, it'd be "insane," or "nutty." How can they be so different? Because the unspoken premise of the mainstream is that the liberals are the good guys, and are held to a higher standard. Dems are supposed to be normal, sensible, reasoned, scrupulously correct. Repubs, on the other hand, are the Snidely Whiplashes, and are supposed to be liars, self-serving, vitriolic rich bastards.
So, thus, the press.
But that's not who to really be mad at...
The folsk that deserve the highest level of opprobium, based on their highest level of responsibility, is the approximately one-half of our fellow citizens who think that Bush is not an idiot, and that the conservatives have really gotten things going in the right way. Conservatives have a valuable role to play in our system, but the current crop (dating back to poor old Ronald Reagan), is not playing their part. These guys are interested in power for power's sake, and for no other ends. And their ambition and lack of caring is so naked, that for so many voters to miss it is an act of intentional self-delusion. The right-wing's agenda is no secret.
The good news is, like McCarthy-ism, when this things falls, it will fall quickly and completely. Our society will resume its progressive ways, inexorably -- the only question is when. One of these days, perhpas even before the election, eenough Americans are going to wake up and say, hey, wait a minute -- why isn't the government -- my government, our government -- making more of a difference in my life and in the lives of my fellow voters? When that day comes, we start the next chapter.
Comment, if you dare!
So, it must be the evil corrupt press, right? No! Evil and corrupt, yes. Probably even lazy and a bit stupid. But the press' problem is not that they are biased in favor of conservative (though their coverage undeniably is). The main problem is that they are scared -- part of a burgeoning trend toward cowqardice in our society, which I believe is linked to the corporatization not just of journalism, but of our society as a whole.
The press' problem is that a) they are scared of getting yelled at by crazy right wingers and b) they have only one real goal: selling soap. If Americans lined up for liberal propaganda coming from their news, why, that's what they'd be selling. And you know what, that might just be happening. Air America seems to have better and better advertising on their air. Maybe there is money to be made pandering to the left.
Meantime, the crux of the press' problem is that they do not disclose their own biases. Fox News, on the other hand, pretty clear who they're rooting for. But so-called mainstream journos do not disclose their own biases in favor of the liberals. So, when a conservative says something foolish and outlandish, it's covered as "controversial," or "hard-hitting." Were a liberal to do the same thing, it'd be "insane," or "nutty." How can they be so different? Because the unspoken premise of the mainstream is that the liberals are the good guys, and are held to a higher standard. Dems are supposed to be normal, sensible, reasoned, scrupulously correct. Repubs, on the other hand, are the Snidely Whiplashes, and are supposed to be liars, self-serving, vitriolic rich bastards.
So, thus, the press.
But that's not who to really be mad at...
The folsk that deserve the highest level of opprobium, based on their highest level of responsibility, is the approximately one-half of our fellow citizens who think that Bush is not an idiot, and that the conservatives have really gotten things going in the right way. Conservatives have a valuable role to play in our system, but the current crop (dating back to poor old Ronald Reagan), is not playing their part. These guys are interested in power for power's sake, and for no other ends. And their ambition and lack of caring is so naked, that for so many voters to miss it is an act of intentional self-delusion. The right-wing's agenda is no secret.
The good news is, like McCarthy-ism, when this things falls, it will fall quickly and completely. Our society will resume its progressive ways, inexorably -- the only question is when. One of these days, perhpas even before the election, eenough Americans are going to wake up and say, hey, wait a minute -- why isn't the government -- my government, our government -- making more of a difference in my life and in the lives of my fellow voters? When that day comes, we start the next chapter.
Comment, if you dare!
Hang on a minute...
The Senate yesterday debated the merits of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. As obivously ludicrous and fundamentally mean-spirited as this is, I prefer to tweak this latest "Hey-Look-Over-There-At-That-Shiny-Thing" tactic on precedural grounds.
I recall that during the 1992 campaign, just about the most important thing we could do to save our society and protect our children from an amoral, caotic future was to amend the constitution...to outlaw flag burning.
I don't believe such an amendment has been adopted yet.
So my favorite retort to the RNC idiots on gay marriage is, "first things first." Let's get the whole flag-burning problem squared away, then turn to gay marriage.
I recall that during the 1992 campaign, just about the most important thing we could do to save our society and protect our children from an amoral, caotic future was to amend the constitution...to outlaw flag burning.
I don't believe such an amendment has been adopted yet.
So my favorite retort to the RNC idiots on gay marriage is, "first things first." Let's get the whole flag-burning problem squared away, then turn to gay marriage.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Talk of the Day
Today's political chatter is all about Bill Clinton's Big Book. The reviews are so far pretty predictable -- complaints mostly that the book is too long (who remembers the Emperor of Austria in Amadeus complaining that Mozart's brilliant work was very good except that it had "too many notes"). Some complain that it is not self-flagellating enough, or that it spends too much time on policy, or that it is rambling and unfocused.
Haven't read it myself. My guess is that none of this is true. First, it is likely neither too long nor too short -- just right. Secondly, it is probably just self-flagellating enough. Third, it probably spends just enough time on policy, and finally it is likely neither rambling nor unfocused.
I'm guessing that the book is in fact very good -- engaging, thoughtful, entertaining, etc. I'm still not sure why the mainstream press has such a hard time with this, other than it would reveal their 8 years of Clinton bashing as the unjustifiable smear that it largely was.
Meantime, Bush lies regularly and often (as did Reagan), and somehow his moral fitness to hold office isn't a question. (This proving it was about the sex). Even the President's own betrayal of voters (promising to clamp down on factory emissions or mercury levels, for example, or providing real prescription drug benefits to seniors) is not seen as far worse than President Clinton's betrayal of his marriage vows.
Down still remains up, but there is an undeniable, inexorable growth in the forces of goodness and light. Day by day, the cracks in the moribund facade of the Republican Right grow, and the day when it all comes tumbling down nears. Will it arrive in time for the election in November? Hard to say. No matter what, the tide has turned and the Day of the Progressives is on the way.
The question is, will that day come in time to avert the disaster that is growing in the Muslim world, which President Bush seems intent on precipitating? Let's hope so.
And let's hope that history proves out the greatness of President Kerry.
There. Now it's your turn.
Today's political chatter is all about Bill Clinton's Big Book. The reviews are so far pretty predictable -- complaints mostly that the book is too long (who remembers the Emperor of Austria in Amadeus complaining that Mozart's brilliant work was very good except that it had "too many notes"). Some complain that it is not self-flagellating enough, or that it spends too much time on policy, or that it is rambling and unfocused.
Haven't read it myself. My guess is that none of this is true. First, it is likely neither too long nor too short -- just right. Secondly, it is probably just self-flagellating enough. Third, it probably spends just enough time on policy, and finally it is likely neither rambling nor unfocused.
I'm guessing that the book is in fact very good -- engaging, thoughtful, entertaining, etc. I'm still not sure why the mainstream press has such a hard time with this, other than it would reveal their 8 years of Clinton bashing as the unjustifiable smear that it largely was.
Meantime, Bush lies regularly and often (as did Reagan), and somehow his moral fitness to hold office isn't a question. (This proving it was about the sex). Even the President's own betrayal of voters (promising to clamp down on factory emissions or mercury levels, for example, or providing real prescription drug benefits to seniors) is not seen as far worse than President Clinton's betrayal of his marriage vows.
Down still remains up, but there is an undeniable, inexorable growth in the forces of goodness and light. Day by day, the cracks in the moribund facade of the Republican Right grow, and the day when it all comes tumbling down nears. Will it arrive in time for the election in November? Hard to say. No matter what, the tide has turned and the Day of the Progressives is on the way.
The question is, will that day come in time to avert the disaster that is growing in the Muslim world, which President Bush seems intent on precipitating? Let's hope so.
And let's hope that history proves out the greatness of President Kerry.
There. Now it's your turn.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Ronald Reagan
The nation mourns the loss of a two-term, popular President. Which is as it should be.
For me, the big lesson about the nation's reaction to the death of President Reagan (which was rather similar to the reaction to his presidency -- gushing, fawning by and large, with a signifincant slice of bilous outrage) is that people react to the person, not to the message. As a conservative, Reagan was only so-so. Big tax increases, larger government, odd foreign adventures, etc. But his rhetoric, and indeed his whole personality, was conservative, and since people liked him, they accepte his message.
I'm sure there are other, probably generational/demographic, forces that underlie Reagan's success. But his agreeable, likable persona is a key reason why he is remembered so fondly, even though he should be one of our least popular presidents based on his policies.
All of which makes me nervous about John Kerry. Haven't seen enough yet to know whether or not he's a likable guy. Nor has Bush shown enough negative traits to turn off enough people. No matter how you cut it, something like 40-45% of all Americans continue to support the President, even though (again) by any reasonable measure his presidency has been a disaster. I think for many of his supporters, it's hard to get past his genial, downhome, plain-speaking, authentic manner.
I continue to worry that our side needs to do a much better job of reaching out to "red-state" repubs and helping them see why we reject so much of the republican credo, and why ours is not only far less scary than they;ve been led to believe, but is actually preferable to what they've got.
And, I think we'll need a "gipper" of our own to do that, and I don't think Senator Kerry is that guy. (I suspect if he loses to Bush he'll become a figure much like Barry Goldwater -- someone on whose shoulders the next generation of pregressives stands).
Post away!
For me, the big lesson about the nation's reaction to the death of President Reagan (which was rather similar to the reaction to his presidency -- gushing, fawning by and large, with a signifincant slice of bilous outrage) is that people react to the person, not to the message. As a conservative, Reagan was only so-so. Big tax increases, larger government, odd foreign adventures, etc. But his rhetoric, and indeed his whole personality, was conservative, and since people liked him, they accepte his message.
I'm sure there are other, probably generational/demographic, forces that underlie Reagan's success. But his agreeable, likable persona is a key reason why he is remembered so fondly, even though he should be one of our least popular presidents based on his policies.
All of which makes me nervous about John Kerry. Haven't seen enough yet to know whether or not he's a likable guy. Nor has Bush shown enough negative traits to turn off enough people. No matter how you cut it, something like 40-45% of all Americans continue to support the President, even though (again) by any reasonable measure his presidency has been a disaster. I think for many of his supporters, it's hard to get past his genial, downhome, plain-speaking, authentic manner.
I continue to worry that our side needs to do a much better job of reaching out to "red-state" repubs and helping them see why we reject so much of the republican credo, and why ours is not only far less scary than they;ve been led to believe, but is actually preferable to what they've got.
And, I think we'll need a "gipper" of our own to do that, and I don't think Senator Kerry is that guy. (I suspect if he loses to Bush he'll become a figure much like Barry Goldwater -- someone on whose shoulders the next generation of pregressives stands).
Post away!
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Welcome to What To Think
Welcome to the first posting on "What To Think." The mission of this blog is to declare in plain terms what you should think. The focus will be largely on matters political, but may wonder off into other areas should I develop the sense that people need to be told What To Think about other topics.
I pretend no special knowledge, skills, background, insight or even intellgence. I am just exactly dumb enough to think that these deficits are no bar to being able to divine and explain The Truth. So, pretty dumb.
Opening thought for the day:
The liberal critique of the conservative movement is now well-defined and in high dudgeon. If liberals are to avoid the same pitfalls as the conservatives (whose entire point of view is a critique of the left), we must move the discussion onto why liberals are better for most Americans.
It's great to have a liberal attack machine that is starting to compete with the well-oiled machine of the right. But we must start to talk about things that we will do in office that will meaningfully improve the lives of most voters.
I believe that liberals' future lies in focusing on the value of government services. All voters value clean air, pure water, etc. All voters value national security and law and order. All voters value adequate investments in infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.). All voters value quality education.
The way to capture the necessary portion of voters who now support the bad guys (repubs) is to help them see that the things they value most -- environment, security, infrastructure, education -- are best promoted by the dems. The repubs have no credibility on these issues.
To those that say that the repubs will simply continue to lie to voters about their positions and accomplishments I can only say, there has never been a time in our history when the truth didn't prevail. When the "greatest generation" stood on the brink of annihilation in 1941, they didn't see how they could win. All they had was faith -- faith that the righteous will prevail. So too am I consoled by the same faith.
Americans are not a petty, smug or arrogant group. On the contrary, we are large-minded, generous to a fault, humble. We live in a free and open democratic system, and we will have a government that reflects our will. It may take a bit of patience tog et there, but we will get there. In fact, we are already well on our way.
Here are some basic principles.
1. The government is not the problem. It is not a foreign entity that has landed here from another planet. It is the instrument through which we take universal action as a nation. It is exactly the kind of government we want. It can be effective or not, large or small, dedicated or indifferent, but we are not without ability to shape and control it. Just as repubs are fond of saying when dems bash corporations, "hey, companies are just collections of people," so too are governments just collections of people.
2. The government provides significant value. Taxes are by and large a good deal. Government services benefit each of us in numerous ways each and every day. All those services cost money. For what we pay, we get decent value. The debate should be around how to get the best value, not how to get no value. Money paid in taxes is not wasted. Much of it goes to worthy causes.
3. We deserve a society that takes better care of its needy. My experience is that under republican rule, recipients of government services are too often made to feel that the government is doing them a favor they don't really deserve. When I see how schools are build using cheap designs, cheap materials, etc., the message I see us sending is, "we don't really care enough about school children to spend a decent sum on them." When I see a welfare center that looks like a waiting room at a bus depot, the message I see us sending welfare recipients is, "you have failed and we can hardly stand to support you at a subsistence level."
Wouldn't we really prefer school buildings that said, "Welcome leaders of tomorrow! Enter the temple of knowledge!" (When I look at older schools, this seems closer to the message we used to send.) Or welfare offices that said, "Worry not. We will help you get back to the life you deserve."
4. Our government must weigh the interests of all its citizens, not just those who have access to capital and power. Minimum working conditions should provide a life of dignity to those at the bottom rung -- even if it means those who own businesses must make a little less. Men and women who choose to work in public service, like the military, should earn a living wage, even if people could be found to do the work for less. (I think of the NYPD -- most of whom could use a raise, but don't get it for fear that the taxpayers won't fund it. You know what -- most taxpayers would never miss the extra 3 cents a week they'd pay so that civil servants could do a little better.)
5. Truth matters. Just getting up and saying things because they advance your position without regard to their truth or falsity is simply not acceptable. There is a line -- which can be hard to draw -- between spinning and lying. But draw it we must, or else we end up with things like "John McCain is against breast cancer research," or "Ronald Reagan saved our economy by cutting our taxes." Or that global warming is just a theory, or that evolution is just as legitimate as the Bible. Our society needs mechanisms to talk about issues. When truth is irrelevant, we damage those mechanisms.
6. There is more that unites us than divides us. As a nation, we are in many ways quite homogeneous. We should focus on the common values we broadly share, and de-emphasize the areas where we strongly disagree and are fractitious. The debate around abortion is of course important to our society; however, it ought not to drown out discussion of other importnat things like economic justice, racial inequality and the need for quality education.
7. Those with more means should pay more than those with less. Progressive taxation is a simple issue of fundamental fairness. Rich people can afford to pay a larger portion of their incomes to support necessary government services than poor or middle class people can.
8. Our future lies in strengthening our ties to the other humans on the planet. Americans are a great and wonderful people. So too are the Armenians, Brazilians, and Indonesians. The Koreans, Mexicans and Swedes. The Peruvians, French and Vietnamese. And on and on. One day in the not-too-distant future, the idea of nationhood will be more like city-hood today. One can hardly imagine the good citizens of Houston rising up in arms against the evi-doers of Dallas. Someday, we'll think like that about Americans and Russians, Chinese and Indians, even Iraqis and Iranians.
Well, that should get things started. Fire away.
I pretend no special knowledge, skills, background, insight or even intellgence. I am just exactly dumb enough to think that these deficits are no bar to being able to divine and explain The Truth. So, pretty dumb.
Opening thought for the day:
The liberal critique of the conservative movement is now well-defined and in high dudgeon. If liberals are to avoid the same pitfalls as the conservatives (whose entire point of view is a critique of the left), we must move the discussion onto why liberals are better for most Americans.
It's great to have a liberal attack machine that is starting to compete with the well-oiled machine of the right. But we must start to talk about things that we will do in office that will meaningfully improve the lives of most voters.
I believe that liberals' future lies in focusing on the value of government services. All voters value clean air, pure water, etc. All voters value national security and law and order. All voters value adequate investments in infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.). All voters value quality education.
The way to capture the necessary portion of voters who now support the bad guys (repubs) is to help them see that the things they value most -- environment, security, infrastructure, education -- are best promoted by the dems. The repubs have no credibility on these issues.
To those that say that the repubs will simply continue to lie to voters about their positions and accomplishments I can only say, there has never been a time in our history when the truth didn't prevail. When the "greatest generation" stood on the brink of annihilation in 1941, they didn't see how they could win. All they had was faith -- faith that the righteous will prevail. So too am I consoled by the same faith.
Americans are not a petty, smug or arrogant group. On the contrary, we are large-minded, generous to a fault, humble. We live in a free and open democratic system, and we will have a government that reflects our will. It may take a bit of patience tog et there, but we will get there. In fact, we are already well on our way.
Here are some basic principles.
1. The government is not the problem. It is not a foreign entity that has landed here from another planet. It is the instrument through which we take universal action as a nation. It is exactly the kind of government we want. It can be effective or not, large or small, dedicated or indifferent, but we are not without ability to shape and control it. Just as repubs are fond of saying when dems bash corporations, "hey, companies are just collections of people," so too are governments just collections of people.
2. The government provides significant value. Taxes are by and large a good deal. Government services benefit each of us in numerous ways each and every day. All those services cost money. For what we pay, we get decent value. The debate should be around how to get the best value, not how to get no value. Money paid in taxes is not wasted. Much of it goes to worthy causes.
3. We deserve a society that takes better care of its needy. My experience is that under republican rule, recipients of government services are too often made to feel that the government is doing them a favor they don't really deserve. When I see how schools are build using cheap designs, cheap materials, etc., the message I see us sending is, "we don't really care enough about school children to spend a decent sum on them." When I see a welfare center that looks like a waiting room at a bus depot, the message I see us sending welfare recipients is, "you have failed and we can hardly stand to support you at a subsistence level."
Wouldn't we really prefer school buildings that said, "Welcome leaders of tomorrow! Enter the temple of knowledge!" (When I look at older schools, this seems closer to the message we used to send.) Or welfare offices that said, "Worry not. We will help you get back to the life you deserve."
4. Our government must weigh the interests of all its citizens, not just those who have access to capital and power. Minimum working conditions should provide a life of dignity to those at the bottom rung -- even if it means those who own businesses must make a little less. Men and women who choose to work in public service, like the military, should earn a living wage, even if people could be found to do the work for less. (I think of the NYPD -- most of whom could use a raise, but don't get it for fear that the taxpayers won't fund it. You know what -- most taxpayers would never miss the extra 3 cents a week they'd pay so that civil servants could do a little better.)
5. Truth matters. Just getting up and saying things because they advance your position without regard to their truth or falsity is simply not acceptable. There is a line -- which can be hard to draw -- between spinning and lying. But draw it we must, or else we end up with things like "John McCain is against breast cancer research," or "Ronald Reagan saved our economy by cutting our taxes." Or that global warming is just a theory, or that evolution is just as legitimate as the Bible. Our society needs mechanisms to talk about issues. When truth is irrelevant, we damage those mechanisms.
6. There is more that unites us than divides us. As a nation, we are in many ways quite homogeneous. We should focus on the common values we broadly share, and de-emphasize the areas where we strongly disagree and are fractitious. The debate around abortion is of course important to our society; however, it ought not to drown out discussion of other importnat things like economic justice, racial inequality and the need for quality education.
7. Those with more means should pay more than those with less. Progressive taxation is a simple issue of fundamental fairness. Rich people can afford to pay a larger portion of their incomes to support necessary government services than poor or middle class people can.
8. Our future lies in strengthening our ties to the other humans on the planet. Americans are a great and wonderful people. So too are the Armenians, Brazilians, and Indonesians. The Koreans, Mexicans and Swedes. The Peruvians, French and Vietnamese. And on and on. One day in the not-too-distant future, the idea of nationhood will be more like city-hood today. One can hardly imagine the good citizens of Houston rising up in arms against the evi-doers of Dallas. Someday, we'll think like that about Americans and Russians, Chinese and Indians, even Iraqis and Iranians.
Well, that should get things started. Fire away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)