If ever there was a case for the national news and entertainment media putting the cart before the horse, it is the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.
Never before has the American media literally drooled over a candidate as story fodder the way it has over the junior Illinois senator about to be sworn in as President No. 44.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why, either.
Barack Obama is not white and he’s a liberal—two of the chief reasons why he is getting so much undue attention. Bottom line.
Had Hillary Clinton been elected president instead, she would be receiving the same kind of treatment because she is a woman and a liberal. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the only attention Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would have attracted as vice-president is the same attention she got during the campaign: Everything tabloid and nothing serious. And we all know why. She’s a white conservative Christian. The fact that she would have been the first female vice-president might make an interesting sidebar.
But that’s neither here nor there. The election is over and it does no good to think about what might have been. It is what it is, to quote a phrase.
I am not so much troubled over the attention Obama has received as our nation’s first black president as I am with how the press has been canonizing the man as a national hero, a saint and, dare I say, a savior before he has even been sworn in and had a chance to do anything.
The Thanksgiving turkey barely cooled out of the oven when the major alphabet networks began to pawn off commemorative DVDs covering Obama’s life and his historic election to the public. There is also a commemorative coin graced by the President-elect’s visage.
Barack Obama is being treated by the press like the No. 1 NFL draft pick. He’s been anointed and corpulently hyped before having even put on the uniform or taken the field. Heck, he was anointed and hyped before he even wrapped up his party’s nomination. Kind of like the Heisman Trophy winner leading the field of draft contenders.
Historically, though, No. 1 draft picks have a poor track record of living up to the hype heaped on them and the expectations placed on their shoulders by others.
The President-elect has an awful lot of promises to fulfill: Not just his promises, mind you, but all of the hope and promise that his campaign generated over the past two years. And if he doesn’t deliver, that’s going to be all right, because he’ll get a free pass by a press corps that has all but enshrined him into the presidential hall of fame.
If things go bad during the Obama administration, the media will simply blame everything on Bush, a tactic that has seemed quite popular over the past few years. Nothing will be Obama’s fault and he will be treated like the favored son in a family. That’s because he is.
He can do no wrong in the eyes of the media that succeeded in carving a larger than life image out of an ordinary man and a common Chicago-style politician, who, once upon a time, flashed a multi-billion dollar smile toward the cameras.
And for the press, it was love at first sight.
The Obama presidency will be a match made in Washington: A president who relishes in the attention and a press corps that longs to lavish him with it.
To tell you the truth, I’m actually anxious for Obama’s tenure to start, because there’s nothing like a media orgy to show just how biased objective journalism can be. Get ready for blatant subjectivity on the part of the press as it swoons over Obama like legions of Elvis fans have done over the King.
Of course, media bias is nothing new. Conservatives have been aware of the questionable objectivity of the national press since the days of Kennedy Camelot bliss. It only got worse during Watergate, Reagan and the Clintonian White House. The Kennedys were loved (and still are), Nixon hated (and still hated), Reagan made fun of (and still roasted) and Clinton treated like a rock star (and still is).
Bush has been vilified (and probably will be indefinitely) and new President-elect Obama is being worshipped (and will continue to be into memoriam long after his time).
I don’t think I would have as much of a problem over Obama’s historic presidency if not for all of the obvious media bias in his favor. I saw it on the faces and heard it in the voices of virtually every commentator on nearly every channel during election night. They were, to quote Ebenezer Scrooge, “giddy as a schoolboy” over Obama.
Never before had the election of a president caused such a stir of emotions among members of the objective press, which has always beat its own drum with regard to neutrality. This is because the media is neither objective nor neutral. It has just been successful creating that illusion.
The truth is the national media tends to be left-wing in its political views, so it naturally favors left-wing politics and politicians. Obama’s liberalism is the big draw for the press, and his election is akin to pulling up triples on a slot machine. The fact that his skin is not white, though, is like striking gold, because now, the press can build him up without appearing biased toward his left-wing views. All the media has to do is focus on his skin color and repeat over and over the historical significance of America’s first black president.
But a savvy conservative knows that the media would not be making such a big deal about an historic first if a conservative republican like Palin, J.C. Watts, Ward Connelly, Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes had been elected president instead. A conservative republican certainly wouldn’t be memorialized on a collector’s coin or canonized in a movie. Rather, he or she would end up like Thomas, forever linked to a sexual harassment scandal that was invented for the sole purpose of denying him senate confirmation to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, because the liberals did not like the idea of a republican conservative with other than white skin in a position of power. It took away their thunder and, frankly, tainted their credibility over claims that the Republican Party consisted exclusively of racist, white country club types. Although Thomas was exonerated of any wrongdoing with Anita Hill, his accuser, the negative impression still exists in the media today.
The same can be said for Sarah Palin, the Alaska governor who, quite literally, came out of the wilderness to be placed on the national republican presidential ticket. Instead of lauded as a woman running for vice-president of the United States, she was painted as boorish, shallow and, frankly, stupid—all because of a single, nervous interview she gave to a second-rate morning show host-turned news anchor. One interview.
One interview and Sarah Palin was dismissed as quickly as a back-up quarterback throwing an interception on his first pass of a ballgame.
Had that been Barack Obama—God forbid—all we would have heard from the mainstream press was that he is inexperienced giving national interviews. He’s not used to it. We ought to cut him some slack.
No, had the next President of the United States been a conservative republican, skin color or gender would not be enough of an excuse for anything. But for Obama, it can excuse anything short of pressing the red button to start World War III.
The media’s royal treatment of Obama is setting a dangerous precedent. He is being placed on a pedestal where no American really belongs. The President of the United States, after all, is not a ruler, but a representative of the people. He is elected by the people and, thus, duly represents them before Congress, the armed forces and before other nations of the world. But the way Obama is being touted, he could ostensibly place a crown on his head and not one member of the press corps would say a word ill of it.
In fact, they would probably kill one another over being the first to write the story about it. To heck with the republic and the Constitution. If the story sounds better with Obama as king, then so be it. The story—and not the truth—is really the only thing that matters to the media. After all, there's money in a story; but not in the truth.
And that, sadly, is the truth.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Much ado about nothing
There has been a lot of chatter over President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009. The loudest voices are coming from the gay community, which has painted the pastor as a homophobic hate-monger because of his opposition to gay marriage. Not only do they regard Pastor Warren as the devil incarnate, but many of them are souring in their support of the President-elect.
Not to worry. Barack Obama’s invitation to Pastor Warren is nothing more than good public relations—extending the proverbial olive branch to the conservative Christian right, whose support Obama largely did not receive in the election. In fact, one might argue that the President-elect is already thinking four years ahead to the next election. If he hopes to gain support from conservatives, then he will need a feather in his cap. The Pastor Warren invocation is a feather.
The invitation has nothing to do at all with Obama’s political views. If he thought his re-election was already assured without conservatives, he wouldn’t even bother with the olive branch.
Make no mistake: This is a politically motivated and calculated move, and not the betrayal that homosexuals claim it to be.
As far as Christian conservatives are concerned, the invitation to Pastor Warren is a feeble attempt, at best, to woo them into the fold of Obama faithful. Just because the President-elect has invited Pastor Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration ceremony does not mean the former has had a sudden change of heart and is moving to the right of the political aisle. He is neither becoming conservative, nor will he govern that way.
Besides, Pastor Warren isn’t a complete political conservative, either. He tends to be more socially progressive—meaning leftist, left-wing, liberal—and he appears to have bought into environmentalism, in particular man-made global warming propaganda. As such, he isn’t exactly the poster boy for conservatism.
For the gay community to react with alarm and consternation toward the President-elect for Warren’s invitation is unwarranted and, frankly, out of line. It isn’t as though Pastor Warren was chosen for a Cabinet position and will be involved in forming public policy in the Obama Administration. He’s just going to deliver the inaugural prayer, for Heaven’s sake!
For what it’s worth, I applaud President-elect Obama for having the courage to extend the invitation, knowing full well the fury it would cause within the gay community. He could easily have chosen a more liberal and “enlightened” cleric with softened views toward homosexuality. But he didn’t, and for that, I give him kudos—even if it was politically driven.
Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, I would go even further to say that I appreciate the President-elect’s gesture as an effort to include Christian conservatives in his inauguration.
But that isn’t the way gays see this. To them, Pastor Warren’s mere presence at the inauguration is betrayal of the lowliest kind. It might as well be heresy.
So get over it already.
If homosexuals can’t handle having a Christian conservative present at inauguration; if they can’t tolerate any person who disagrees with their lifestyle; and if they have to resort to scare tactics, fear-mongering and intimidation to confront their opponents, then that just goes to show how open-minded, tolerant and embracing they really are.
Just as a good liberal should be: Open-minded to their views only.
Last I heard, though, Pastor Warren is not in favor of denying Constitutional rights to homosexuals. These are rights they already have and share with the rest of us by virtue of the Bill of Rights. He’s not propagating violence against gays, he doesn’t condemn them, and he doesn’t blame them for the problems of the world.
In fact, he’s committed to fighting against HIV-AIDS, a disease that has infected a large segment of the gay community.
But the mere fact that Pastor Warren does not condone homosexuality automatically places him on the black list.
Truth be told, the gay community is so uptight, so paranoid and so fearful of their opposition that it literally pains them to have to see the faces or hear the voices of anyone who disagrees with them. If you are not 100 percent on board with the gay agenda, then you are part of the problem and nothing more than a right-wing parasite that needs to be silenced. Any opposition—any at all—is tantamount to bigotry and hate-speech, as far as the gay community is concerned.
But there’s good news for gays: A cure for christoconservatophobia does exist. I believe folks on the left call it “tolerance.” They should try practicing it.
On the other hand, they could always give themselves enemas. That is a guaranteed cure for whatever is stuck up their craws.
Not to worry. Barack Obama’s invitation to Pastor Warren is nothing more than good public relations—extending the proverbial olive branch to the conservative Christian right, whose support Obama largely did not receive in the election. In fact, one might argue that the President-elect is already thinking four years ahead to the next election. If he hopes to gain support from conservatives, then he will need a feather in his cap. The Pastor Warren invocation is a feather.
The invitation has nothing to do at all with Obama’s political views. If he thought his re-election was already assured without conservatives, he wouldn’t even bother with the olive branch.
Make no mistake: This is a politically motivated and calculated move, and not the betrayal that homosexuals claim it to be.
As far as Christian conservatives are concerned, the invitation to Pastor Warren is a feeble attempt, at best, to woo them into the fold of Obama faithful. Just because the President-elect has invited Pastor Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration ceremony does not mean the former has had a sudden change of heart and is moving to the right of the political aisle. He is neither becoming conservative, nor will he govern that way.
Besides, Pastor Warren isn’t a complete political conservative, either. He tends to be more socially progressive—meaning leftist, left-wing, liberal—and he appears to have bought into environmentalism, in particular man-made global warming propaganda. As such, he isn’t exactly the poster boy for conservatism.
For the gay community to react with alarm and consternation toward the President-elect for Warren’s invitation is unwarranted and, frankly, out of line. It isn’t as though Pastor Warren was chosen for a Cabinet position and will be involved in forming public policy in the Obama Administration. He’s just going to deliver the inaugural prayer, for Heaven’s sake!
For what it’s worth, I applaud President-elect Obama for having the courage to extend the invitation, knowing full well the fury it would cause within the gay community. He could easily have chosen a more liberal and “enlightened” cleric with softened views toward homosexuality. But he didn’t, and for that, I give him kudos—even if it was politically driven.
Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, I would go even further to say that I appreciate the President-elect’s gesture as an effort to include Christian conservatives in his inauguration.
But that isn’t the way gays see this. To them, Pastor Warren’s mere presence at the inauguration is betrayal of the lowliest kind. It might as well be heresy.
So get over it already.
If homosexuals can’t handle having a Christian conservative present at inauguration; if they can’t tolerate any person who disagrees with their lifestyle; and if they have to resort to scare tactics, fear-mongering and intimidation to confront their opponents, then that just goes to show how open-minded, tolerant and embracing they really are.
Just as a good liberal should be: Open-minded to their views only.
Last I heard, though, Pastor Warren is not in favor of denying Constitutional rights to homosexuals. These are rights they already have and share with the rest of us by virtue of the Bill of Rights. He’s not propagating violence against gays, he doesn’t condemn them, and he doesn’t blame them for the problems of the world.
In fact, he’s committed to fighting against HIV-AIDS, a disease that has infected a large segment of the gay community.
But the mere fact that Pastor Warren does not condone homosexuality automatically places him on the black list.
Truth be told, the gay community is so uptight, so paranoid and so fearful of their opposition that it literally pains them to have to see the faces or hear the voices of anyone who disagrees with them. If you are not 100 percent on board with the gay agenda, then you are part of the problem and nothing more than a right-wing parasite that needs to be silenced. Any opposition—any at all—is tantamount to bigotry and hate-speech, as far as the gay community is concerned.
But there’s good news for gays: A cure for christoconservatophobia does exist. I believe folks on the left call it “tolerance.” They should try practicing it.
On the other hand, they could always give themselves enemas. That is a guaranteed cure for whatever is stuck up their craws.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Don’t live in the past, be the past
Philosopher George Santayana once advised, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Unbeknownst to me, I took his advice to heart in my youth. I was in the seventh grade when I developed a great interest in the subject of history. Of course, at that age, I was not aware that the content I found so fascinating had a lesson behind it.
But by the time I graduated from high school, I was reciting the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address in my head, not so much because I found these subjects fascinating, but rather because I understood there was a purpose behind them. They stood for something. They had meaning to me and to the world around me then, and they still do today.
I have come to rely a great deal on history to reinforce my points of view, to give me comfort in uncertain times and to remind me that there is still work to be done.
Anyone who reads my posts can see that I invoke a lot of history in my writing. Consequently, I have been accused by other bloggers of living in the past. Unfortunately, they see only that I write about the past and not that I am trying to apply the past to the present.
The truth is I live very much in the present. I have a great understanding of the issues of the day and I have sound opinions on most of them. I recognize the challenges we are facing today as well as those ahead of us. I see where we have made mistakes and where we continue to make them.
I am much more three-dimensional than my critics give me credit for, because I invoke the past to help me through the present and to prepare me for the future.
But if living in the past means reflecting on what was, then I am guilty as charged, because I do this a lot.
When people today look to the government to solve their problems, I want to tell them, “No, solve your own problems. That’s what our ancestors did.”
To which I am usually rebuked with something like this: “But we live in an entirely different time, with different needs, different issues and in a different culture. Our ancestors did things on their own because they had to in order to survive. We don’t.”
Admittedly, this is a good rebuttal. However, it misses the point entirely. Based on the past, and the history of what has already happened, I am convinced that the human spirit transcends the variables of changing times. Because the Wright Brothers successfully flew the Kitty Hawk when nobody else believed they could; because Henry Ford produced automobiles for the common man when others thought it would put him out of business; because Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, phonograph and motion picture (among many other inventions crucial to the present) when no one said he would; and because President Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union when all seemed lost, I believe that a person facing today’s problems can persevere because of the remarkable buoyancy of the human spirit.
Human strengths and weaknesses tend to be consistently the same regardless of time period, culture, issues or needs. There has been wickedness and righteousness, avarice and charity, foolishness and wisdom, ruthlessness and kindness, corruption and honesty, evil and good, defeat and victory, and tragedy and triumph existing in one form or another throughout the history of human civilizations. These traits don’t change just because the times do.
All that changes are our perceptions and points of view.
And this is precisely why I am so passionate about history. I can see where the good and bad of past human experiences can be applied to the present and in the future. Because of this, I believe we can overcome our personal, individual obstacles just as those before us did. We can rectify our mistakes and move on. We can do what has been done before. We can duplicate the successes and failures of the past. And we can achieve great things today just as great things were achieved yesterday.
I don’t want to end up like my critics, who would dismiss history as only a subject of study, and do not regard it as the object lesson that it is. History is not something merely to read about. It is a skill and a discipline designed to be absorbed because of the lessons within that can be applied to the here and now.
Those who see history as a marker having been passed tend to make decisions based on their perceptions. They fail to see history as a guide for either how to or how not to do something. Instead, they act on perception rather than prescription. Not too much unlike winging a recipe instead of following it to the letter; or estimating the amount of medicine needed as opposed to following the prescription or directions. Winging it might seem like more fun, but more mistakes are bound to be made this way. There’s a reason why prescriptions and directions exist; because of mistakes that were made in the past.
Without more than a little regard for history one is bound to make more mistakes, because precedents would otherwise be ignored. If we don’t learn from our mistakes, then we are liable to repeat them. That is the essence of Santayana’s sage advice and the reason why I try to follow it so religiously.
But just because I use history as a benchmark does not mean I live in the past. There is a big difference between living in the past and being the past. The latter requires that we live in the present and be acutely aware of what’s going on around us. Being the past also means regarding history enough to learn the lessons that are there to teach us.
Being the past means that I try to learn from history, so I can avoid making the same mistakes twice and steer clear of those mistakes that others before me made. Being the past means recognizing that what had once been done before can be done again; that there are parallels to human behavior throughout history, regardless of the changes of time; and that what we do or don’t do today because of what we learn from history can have a profound impact on our future.
Being the past means being a whole, three-dimensional person who understands the relationship between past, present and future. It is unhealthy—and unwise—to be too much one way or another.
Thanks to history and my reverence for it, I have a compass to guide me through life’s murky quagmire. It won’t keep me from making mistakes or poor decisions, but it is there for me to use any time and any where, regardless of whether or not I have the wisdom to use it.
Unbeknownst to me, I took his advice to heart in my youth. I was in the seventh grade when I developed a great interest in the subject of history. Of course, at that age, I was not aware that the content I found so fascinating had a lesson behind it.
But by the time I graduated from high school, I was reciting the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address in my head, not so much because I found these subjects fascinating, but rather because I understood there was a purpose behind them. They stood for something. They had meaning to me and to the world around me then, and they still do today.
I have come to rely a great deal on history to reinforce my points of view, to give me comfort in uncertain times and to remind me that there is still work to be done.
Anyone who reads my posts can see that I invoke a lot of history in my writing. Consequently, I have been accused by other bloggers of living in the past. Unfortunately, they see only that I write about the past and not that I am trying to apply the past to the present.
The truth is I live very much in the present. I have a great understanding of the issues of the day and I have sound opinions on most of them. I recognize the challenges we are facing today as well as those ahead of us. I see where we have made mistakes and where we continue to make them.
I am much more three-dimensional than my critics give me credit for, because I invoke the past to help me through the present and to prepare me for the future.
But if living in the past means reflecting on what was, then I am guilty as charged, because I do this a lot.
When people today look to the government to solve their problems, I want to tell them, “No, solve your own problems. That’s what our ancestors did.”
To which I am usually rebuked with something like this: “But we live in an entirely different time, with different needs, different issues and in a different culture. Our ancestors did things on their own because they had to in order to survive. We don’t.”
Admittedly, this is a good rebuttal. However, it misses the point entirely. Based on the past, and the history of what has already happened, I am convinced that the human spirit transcends the variables of changing times. Because the Wright Brothers successfully flew the Kitty Hawk when nobody else believed they could; because Henry Ford produced automobiles for the common man when others thought it would put him out of business; because Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, phonograph and motion picture (among many other inventions crucial to the present) when no one said he would; and because President Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union when all seemed lost, I believe that a person facing today’s problems can persevere because of the remarkable buoyancy of the human spirit.
Human strengths and weaknesses tend to be consistently the same regardless of time period, culture, issues or needs. There has been wickedness and righteousness, avarice and charity, foolishness and wisdom, ruthlessness and kindness, corruption and honesty, evil and good, defeat and victory, and tragedy and triumph existing in one form or another throughout the history of human civilizations. These traits don’t change just because the times do.
All that changes are our perceptions and points of view.
And this is precisely why I am so passionate about history. I can see where the good and bad of past human experiences can be applied to the present and in the future. Because of this, I believe we can overcome our personal, individual obstacles just as those before us did. We can rectify our mistakes and move on. We can do what has been done before. We can duplicate the successes and failures of the past. And we can achieve great things today just as great things were achieved yesterday.
I don’t want to end up like my critics, who would dismiss history as only a subject of study, and do not regard it as the object lesson that it is. History is not something merely to read about. It is a skill and a discipline designed to be absorbed because of the lessons within that can be applied to the here and now.
Those who see history as a marker having been passed tend to make decisions based on their perceptions. They fail to see history as a guide for either how to or how not to do something. Instead, they act on perception rather than prescription. Not too much unlike winging a recipe instead of following it to the letter; or estimating the amount of medicine needed as opposed to following the prescription or directions. Winging it might seem like more fun, but more mistakes are bound to be made this way. There’s a reason why prescriptions and directions exist; because of mistakes that were made in the past.
Without more than a little regard for history one is bound to make more mistakes, because precedents would otherwise be ignored. If we don’t learn from our mistakes, then we are liable to repeat them. That is the essence of Santayana’s sage advice and the reason why I try to follow it so religiously.
But just because I use history as a benchmark does not mean I live in the past. There is a big difference between living in the past and being the past. The latter requires that we live in the present and be acutely aware of what’s going on around us. Being the past also means regarding history enough to learn the lessons that are there to teach us.
Being the past means that I try to learn from history, so I can avoid making the same mistakes twice and steer clear of those mistakes that others before me made. Being the past means recognizing that what had once been done before can be done again; that there are parallels to human behavior throughout history, regardless of the changes of time; and that what we do or don’t do today because of what we learn from history can have a profound impact on our future.
Being the past means being a whole, three-dimensional person who understands the relationship between past, present and future. It is unhealthy—and unwise—to be too much one way or another.
Thanks to history and my reverence for it, I have a compass to guide me through life’s murky quagmire. It won’t keep me from making mistakes or poor decisions, but it is there for me to use any time and any where, regardless of whether or not I have the wisdom to use it.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Czars belong in Russia, not Washington
Now that Congress appears well on its way toward approving a $15 billion bailout of the Big Three American automakers—GM, Ford and Chrysler—industry leaders are raising concerns about the amount of government oversight that the legislature is proposing.
A little late, aren’t we?
I mean, shouldn’t the Big Three have thought about this before begging on their hands and knees for cash?
What did they expect? That the federal government would simply give them the money without strings attached? Come on, guys, even the financial institutions bailed out earlier weren’t given the money unconditionally. There will be a sizable amount of oversight within the financial industry, too, as a result of Uncle Sam investing himself into the business.
Such will also be the case with the automobile industry. If Uncle is going to give them money, he is going to invest it and not simply loan it or give it away to charity. The investment is that the government will make more money on the backs of the industries and companies it agrees to bail out because it will retain its leverage over them.
Don’t think for a minute that Congress is going to give the financial power back to those entities that have lost theirs once the crisis is over. No. Expect Uncle Sam to keep his hands wherever he is allowed to grab.
Since the Big Three have seen fit to ultimately sell themselves to the government, then they can expect to remain owned by the government indefinitely. This is simply because there is more money to be gained from ownership and profit-sharing than taxation.
The oversight being considered by Congress will likely include a committee headed by what some are calling a “Car Czar.”
Officially, he or she will be the eyes and ears of Congress in the boardrooms of the Big Three. This “Car Czar” shall be the person that the American auto industry reports to under the terms of its loan agreement with Uncle Sam. Kind of like the enforcer to a bookie or a loan shark.
In reality, the “Car Czar” is going to be yet another in a long line of useless career bureaucrats whose jobs are legitimized and justified by other career bureaucrats.
Frankly, oversight is really just a sugar-coated and water-downed term for “control.” Why else would the head of this oversight be called a “czar” if the purpose was not control?
In Russian, the term “tsar” means Caesar, which is the namesake of ancient Rome’s first Dictator-For-Life. And the Roman Caesars that followed in succession did not maintain their power with oversight. They did it with control. And that is precisely what the U.S. government has in mind for the auto, financial and any other industries that it ends up bailing out of the recession.
Make no mistake about it. We’ve seen the last of free-enterprise capitalism in the financial and automobile industries. These will now become permanent wards of the state, so to speak, forced to produce for the good of the state instead of choosing to produce for the good of the consumer.
All I am waiting for now is a line in front of the Capitol—a line of other industries, corporations, companies, businesses, entities and even local and state governments all waiting with their hands out, trying to get a piece of the bailout pie.
There is just one question on my mind regarding this: How is the United States government going to pay for everyone that has their hands out?
Taxpayer and sovereignty beware.
A little late, aren’t we?
I mean, shouldn’t the Big Three have thought about this before begging on their hands and knees for cash?
What did they expect? That the federal government would simply give them the money without strings attached? Come on, guys, even the financial institutions bailed out earlier weren’t given the money unconditionally. There will be a sizable amount of oversight within the financial industry, too, as a result of Uncle Sam investing himself into the business.
Such will also be the case with the automobile industry. If Uncle is going to give them money, he is going to invest it and not simply loan it or give it away to charity. The investment is that the government will make more money on the backs of the industries and companies it agrees to bail out because it will retain its leverage over them.
Don’t think for a minute that Congress is going to give the financial power back to those entities that have lost theirs once the crisis is over. No. Expect Uncle Sam to keep his hands wherever he is allowed to grab.
Since the Big Three have seen fit to ultimately sell themselves to the government, then they can expect to remain owned by the government indefinitely. This is simply because there is more money to be gained from ownership and profit-sharing than taxation.
The oversight being considered by Congress will likely include a committee headed by what some are calling a “Car Czar.”
Officially, he or she will be the eyes and ears of Congress in the boardrooms of the Big Three. This “Car Czar” shall be the person that the American auto industry reports to under the terms of its loan agreement with Uncle Sam. Kind of like the enforcer to a bookie or a loan shark.
In reality, the “Car Czar” is going to be yet another in a long line of useless career bureaucrats whose jobs are legitimized and justified by other career bureaucrats.
Frankly, oversight is really just a sugar-coated and water-downed term for “control.” Why else would the head of this oversight be called a “czar” if the purpose was not control?
In Russian, the term “tsar” means Caesar, which is the namesake of ancient Rome’s first Dictator-For-Life. And the Roman Caesars that followed in succession did not maintain their power with oversight. They did it with control. And that is precisely what the U.S. government has in mind for the auto, financial and any other industries that it ends up bailing out of the recession.
Make no mistake about it. We’ve seen the last of free-enterprise capitalism in the financial and automobile industries. These will now become permanent wards of the state, so to speak, forced to produce for the good of the state instead of choosing to produce for the good of the consumer.
All I am waiting for now is a line in front of the Capitol—a line of other industries, corporations, companies, businesses, entities and even local and state governments all waiting with their hands out, trying to get a piece of the bailout pie.
There is just one question on my mind regarding this: How is the United States government going to pay for everyone that has their hands out?
Taxpayer and sovereignty beware.
The Juice ain’t loose any more
That the number thirteen is unlucky may be just a superstition to many, but to O.J. Simpson it is reality. Precisely thirteen years after the Hall of Fame professional football player and celebrity was acquitted for the 1994 murders of his ex-wife Nicole Browne Simpson and her lover, Ronald Goldman, he was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to prison. The event that precipitated his adjudication happened to occur also on September 13, 2007. If The Juice doesn’t loathe the number thirteen now, he probably will in nine years when he’s eligible for parole. The whole thing might become eerily ironic if his parole is denied until after his thirteenth year in the cooler.
There are a few ways to look at this irony: either as a coincidence, bad karma, poetic justice or a combination of the three. I think most people are as convinced that Simpson’s conviction and sentence is justice being served as they are of his guilt in the 1994 double murder case.
And what reasonable person would argue with that?
This is a man who beat his ex-wife on multiple occasions, including at least once to a bloody pulp. He also fled from authorities before he could be arrested and booked for the murders. Heck, the blood left all over the crime scene, in and around Simpson’s now-infamous white Ford Bronco, and even at his own house should have been more than enough DNA evidence to implicate him beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, without going over the particulars of the trial and the case as has already been done ad nauseum, we know that legal technicalities and threats of racial backlash ultimately acquitted The Juice and handed him his freedom.
Unfortunately, ineptness within the Los Angeles Police Department overshadowed Simpson’s evident guilt and turned what ought to have been a slam-dunk case of a man with a violent streak finally snapping into a courtroom farce complete with shenanigans that would have embarrassed even the Keystone Cops.
The tragedy in the aftermath of the Simpson acquittal was that the lives of Nicole Browne Simpson and Ronald Goldman became vested in controversy long after their violent deaths instead of being allowed to rest in peace, because the work of justice remained unfinished.
Until now, that is.
Justice has caught up with their killer. The only tragedy now is that O.J. Simpson isn’t going to serve the time he really deserves, in my opinion.
Had this been any other ordinary person committing armed robbery, the sentence would probably have been 25 years to life in prison. But this is O.J. Simpson we are talking about; not Joe Six Pack. He’s being let off rather easy in my opinion because of who and what he is. O.J. Simpson is a black man, whose race has been a factor in far too many injustices in this country and it’s high time, by gosh, to tip the balance in the other direction for a change, right?
Such was the motivation behind his murder acquittal. Let’s be honest about it. There were a lot of minority voices crying foul and inciting others to protest what they perceived to be just another racist lynching. As such, certain voices threatened to duplicate the 1992 race riots that literally set Los Angeles on fire. Because of race, and the threat of revenge, an evident killer was set free.
Frankly, I think this lingered on the minds of the jurists and the judge who handed down the conviction and passed sentence, respectively. They wanted to avoid touching off a powder keg, so they gave O.J. another break.
The other part of this is simply that The Juice is a celebrity, and our culture has been conditioned to put such a person on a pedestal—even with regard to crimes and punishment. We don’t want to be too harsh on him now and appear as though we were being vindictive in our envy, do we?
The bottom line is that O.J. Simpson beat the system once, but he pressed his luck once too many. And this time, as luck would have it, his had run out—with the number thirteen no less. As the old adage goes, “Fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.”
In the thirteen years since his murder acquittal, The Juice obviously hasn’t learned much about second chances, remorse and how to put them to good use. I doubt in his arrogance and narcissism that he has ever cared to. The violence coursing through his veins on the night of June 12, 1994 returned on September 13, 2007. Instead of a knife, he pulled a gun. The men who were robbed ought to thank their lucky stars that they were not added to Simpson’s body count.
But one thing that concerns me is how in the heck O.J. will be able to search for his ex-wife’s killer while sitting in a prison cell? His pursuit of clues on golf courses around the country proved to be an abject failure. I mean, come on, you don’t really think he was looking for his ball in the tall grass, do you?
If O.J. Simpson is really serious about searching tirelessly for his ex-wife’s killer as he proclaimed shortly after his acquittal, then why doesn’t he just procure a mirror from the prison commissary and look into it.
Not only will his search end, but it will also be just beginning.
There are a few ways to look at this irony: either as a coincidence, bad karma, poetic justice or a combination of the three. I think most people are as convinced that Simpson’s conviction and sentence is justice being served as they are of his guilt in the 1994 double murder case.
And what reasonable person would argue with that?
This is a man who beat his ex-wife on multiple occasions, including at least once to a bloody pulp. He also fled from authorities before he could be arrested and booked for the murders. Heck, the blood left all over the crime scene, in and around Simpson’s now-infamous white Ford Bronco, and even at his own house should have been more than enough DNA evidence to implicate him beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, without going over the particulars of the trial and the case as has already been done ad nauseum, we know that legal technicalities and threats of racial backlash ultimately acquitted The Juice and handed him his freedom.
Unfortunately, ineptness within the Los Angeles Police Department overshadowed Simpson’s evident guilt and turned what ought to have been a slam-dunk case of a man with a violent streak finally snapping into a courtroom farce complete with shenanigans that would have embarrassed even the Keystone Cops.
The tragedy in the aftermath of the Simpson acquittal was that the lives of Nicole Browne Simpson and Ronald Goldman became vested in controversy long after their violent deaths instead of being allowed to rest in peace, because the work of justice remained unfinished.
Until now, that is.
Justice has caught up with their killer. The only tragedy now is that O.J. Simpson isn’t going to serve the time he really deserves, in my opinion.
Had this been any other ordinary person committing armed robbery, the sentence would probably have been 25 years to life in prison. But this is O.J. Simpson we are talking about; not Joe Six Pack. He’s being let off rather easy in my opinion because of who and what he is. O.J. Simpson is a black man, whose race has been a factor in far too many injustices in this country and it’s high time, by gosh, to tip the balance in the other direction for a change, right?
Such was the motivation behind his murder acquittal. Let’s be honest about it. There were a lot of minority voices crying foul and inciting others to protest what they perceived to be just another racist lynching. As such, certain voices threatened to duplicate the 1992 race riots that literally set Los Angeles on fire. Because of race, and the threat of revenge, an evident killer was set free.
Frankly, I think this lingered on the minds of the jurists and the judge who handed down the conviction and passed sentence, respectively. They wanted to avoid touching off a powder keg, so they gave O.J. another break.
The other part of this is simply that The Juice is a celebrity, and our culture has been conditioned to put such a person on a pedestal—even with regard to crimes and punishment. We don’t want to be too harsh on him now and appear as though we were being vindictive in our envy, do we?
The bottom line is that O.J. Simpson beat the system once, but he pressed his luck once too many. And this time, as luck would have it, his had run out—with the number thirteen no less. As the old adage goes, “Fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.”
In the thirteen years since his murder acquittal, The Juice obviously hasn’t learned much about second chances, remorse and how to put them to good use. I doubt in his arrogance and narcissism that he has ever cared to. The violence coursing through his veins on the night of June 12, 1994 returned on September 13, 2007. Instead of a knife, he pulled a gun. The men who were robbed ought to thank their lucky stars that they were not added to Simpson’s body count.
But one thing that concerns me is how in the heck O.J. will be able to search for his ex-wife’s killer while sitting in a prison cell? His pursuit of clues on golf courses around the country proved to be an abject failure. I mean, come on, you don’t really think he was looking for his ball in the tall grass, do you?
If O.J. Simpson is really serious about searching tirelessly for his ex-wife’s killer as he proclaimed shortly after his acquittal, then why doesn’t he just procure a mirror from the prison commissary and look into it.
Not only will his search end, but it will also be just beginning.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Too little, too late
Many of us who opposed Barack Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States did so because we did not want to turn America into a socialist country. Yours truly included.
Unfortunately, our grievances with socialism have been too little, too late. The United States of America has gradually gone all but socialist in its infrastructure and operations since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal came into being 75 years ago.
Today America is a republican democracy in name and presentation only. The dynamics and mechanics of the federal government clearly function as socialism.
Washington, D.C., runs everything that the individual states are capable of and ought to be handling independently. At least that’s how our republican democracy used to and is supposed to work.
Just look at the infrastructure of the federal government today. It dictates policy on every imaginable industry and element of society: From education to health care, insurance to banking, housing to human services, food safety to agriculture, from labor to the environment, consumer protection, and so on. All of these used to be managed by the states. The federal government merely served as the intermediary in disputes.
Not any more.
Now the United States government dictates and enforces everything. And the states, once a collection of independent governments under the same constitutional law of the land, have become subjects to one centralized power. All fifty of them, in fact, stand in line with their hands out, waiting for their stipends—also known as subsidies. Not unlike the lines of people in Moscow waiting to get their daily rations under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.
But this is only half of the story.
The U.S. government has taken another giant step backward toward official socialism by bailing out the financial industry. Our esteemed leaders have said that such action was necessary to avoid collapse and catastrophe. But the consequence has been that now other industries are lining up with their hands out. Heck, even individual states, counties and municipalities have resorted to begging from Uncle Sam to give them money.
If this trend continues, then the federal government will have invested itself into every major American industry and company therein. It will effectively become the majority stakeholder and have the right to make decisions autonomously.
Can you see just how close we are coming to being state-run and state-owned? Dangerously close.
And frankly, the longer this recession lasts, the closer we will continue to get. It may only be a matter of time before the federal government is the end all, be all of American business and industry. If or when that day comes, then we might as well hold a funeral service for free market capitalism and republican democracy and bury them permanently, because there will be no turning back at that point. Once the state has control of the money it will also have all the power.
One thing that is as sure as death and taxes is that once Uncle Sam gets his sticky fingers into something, he never, ever lets go. In fact, he keeps grabbing for more. FDR’s New Deal is a perfect example. President Roosevelt intended his reforms to be only temporary, short-term solutions meant to address immediate problems. Once the economy stabilized and the Depression declared over, then the New Deal programs were supposed to go away and America would return back to normal.
But a great many of the programs established by the New Deal are still in existence today. In fact, they have grown enormously bigger since their inception.
So, I would not expect the fed to simply relinquish control over the industries it bails out when the crisis has passed. Rather, I expect this control to continue and, in fact, metastasize like a cancer.
All of us who have been so vocal against socialism during this last presidential campaign ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We had plenty of chances in the last 75 years to put an end to this procession toward state collectivism. But instead we chose to sit on our thumbs and complain about it.
Consequently, the gradual shift to the left and toward socialism has picked up so much steam that nothing short of an outright revolution can stop it. Now I fear we may be too late to do anything short of declaring open rebellion to halt the final advance.
We know what the Civil War did to this country. God help us if we have given ourselves no other alternative.
Unfortunately, our grievances with socialism have been too little, too late. The United States of America has gradually gone all but socialist in its infrastructure and operations since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal came into being 75 years ago.
Today America is a republican democracy in name and presentation only. The dynamics and mechanics of the federal government clearly function as socialism.
Washington, D.C., runs everything that the individual states are capable of and ought to be handling independently. At least that’s how our republican democracy used to and is supposed to work.
Just look at the infrastructure of the federal government today. It dictates policy on every imaginable industry and element of society: From education to health care, insurance to banking, housing to human services, food safety to agriculture, from labor to the environment, consumer protection, and so on. All of these used to be managed by the states. The federal government merely served as the intermediary in disputes.
Not any more.
Now the United States government dictates and enforces everything. And the states, once a collection of independent governments under the same constitutional law of the land, have become subjects to one centralized power. All fifty of them, in fact, stand in line with their hands out, waiting for their stipends—also known as subsidies. Not unlike the lines of people in Moscow waiting to get their daily rations under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.
But this is only half of the story.
The U.S. government has taken another giant step backward toward official socialism by bailing out the financial industry. Our esteemed leaders have said that such action was necessary to avoid collapse and catastrophe. But the consequence has been that now other industries are lining up with their hands out. Heck, even individual states, counties and municipalities have resorted to begging from Uncle Sam to give them money.
If this trend continues, then the federal government will have invested itself into every major American industry and company therein. It will effectively become the majority stakeholder and have the right to make decisions autonomously.
Can you see just how close we are coming to being state-run and state-owned? Dangerously close.
And frankly, the longer this recession lasts, the closer we will continue to get. It may only be a matter of time before the federal government is the end all, be all of American business and industry. If or when that day comes, then we might as well hold a funeral service for free market capitalism and republican democracy and bury them permanently, because there will be no turning back at that point. Once the state has control of the money it will also have all the power.
One thing that is as sure as death and taxes is that once Uncle Sam gets his sticky fingers into something, he never, ever lets go. In fact, he keeps grabbing for more. FDR’s New Deal is a perfect example. President Roosevelt intended his reforms to be only temporary, short-term solutions meant to address immediate problems. Once the economy stabilized and the Depression declared over, then the New Deal programs were supposed to go away and America would return back to normal.
But a great many of the programs established by the New Deal are still in existence today. In fact, they have grown enormously bigger since their inception.
So, I would not expect the fed to simply relinquish control over the industries it bails out when the crisis has passed. Rather, I expect this control to continue and, in fact, metastasize like a cancer.
All of us who have been so vocal against socialism during this last presidential campaign ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We had plenty of chances in the last 75 years to put an end to this procession toward state collectivism. But instead we chose to sit on our thumbs and complain about it.
Consequently, the gradual shift to the left and toward socialism has picked up so much steam that nothing short of an outright revolution can stop it. Now I fear we may be too late to do anything short of declaring open rebellion to halt the final advance.
We know what the Civil War did to this country. God help us if we have given ourselves no other alternative.
What's wrong with socialism?
Such is the question I’ve heard from many who have jumped on the Barack Obama bandwagon. But rather than ponder the question themselves, they ask it assuming that socialism is really not that bad.
If you are one of these people that accept socialism at face value simply because you follow Obama, then you have my deepest sympathies. I would encourage you to consider the question yourself and decide whether or not it is in America's best interests. I advise against taking any one else's word on it.
Now, what is so bad about socialism? That’s like asking, “What’s wrong with stealing?”
Dyed-in-the-wool leftists would disagree with me on this point, but the fundamental concept of collectivism is the same as stealing. You have something that somebody else wants, but doesn’t have, so they take from you—without your permission—in order to get it. Likewise, you may have more money than somebody else, who wants more, so he turns to the government to get it for him. The government, in turn, dips into your pocket—without your permission—to give more money to the guy who has less than you. As a result, you and the other guy now have the same amount of money and either is better or worse off than the other. This is all done in the name of social justice, fairness, and equity.
The socialist creed, after all, is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” What this means is that the government takes as much as you are able to produce and distributes amongst everyone else to meet their needs.
In the animal world, socialism can be likened to the lives of ants and the bees, whose work is done for the collective good. But they have no individuality, identity and no uniqueness about them. Their ingenuity is borne not out of inventiveness, but rather out of conformity, assignment and the repetitive toiling therewith. Their strength lay in the unison of their work. As long as each does its job, the unit, the colony, the hive is safe and secure.
By contrast, consider the coyote, a scavenger and a rogue, but one of the most adaptable creatures on earth. A true non-conformist and pure opportunist, the coyote may choose to run with the pack or go into business for himself the way an entrepreneur does. While he lacks the safety and security enjoyed by the ants and the bees, he has freedom to choose his role in life: Either as a member of the pack or as a sole proprietor.
Unlike the toiling ants and bees, the coyote is able to make his own way, seek out opportunity, pursue it and reap its rewards.
Life may be feast or famine for him, but at least he has his freedom.
I believe socialism is bad for America because it is the antithesis of freedom, liberty and opportunity, the foundations upon which our nation was established and subsequently flourished. Collectivism runs counter to concepts of “life, liberty and [especially] the pursuit of happiness,” which form the basis for the fundamental rights of man.
How can we pursue our individual happiness if the government takes away the means with which to launch our endeavors? How can we be truly free if the government takes care of our every need? And how can a person really be alive if they are unable to live life on their own terms?
The answer is not socialism, which, simplified, means public-owned and public-run. The term public, of course, refers to government bureaucracy and not the people.
Not as extreme or militant as communism, socialism still awards ultimate, final authority to the government over all matters public and private.
Under a true socialist system, all organizations are run by the government in some way or another; either owned outright and managed directly or invested and maintained through bureaucratic supervision.
This means that the state is the majority stockholder on the Board of Directors of every business, industry, company or corporation, all charities, institutions, leagues, coalitions and other non-profit organizations that generate money, funds, and revenue. The state then collects this revenue and decides how best to distribute it throughout its infrastructure.
The growth, maintenance, persistence and sustainability of any organization within a socialist system is at the sole discretion of the government; meaning that the freedom to invest and expand is prohibited without government consent.
With regard to individuals, a socialist government is involved in everybody’s lives from womb to tomb. From our child care to elder care, from early education to career preparation, from what you earn to what you are allowed to keep, from investments to retirement, from health care to the basic essentials of human need—food, clothing, shelter—the government is there as your provider. You don’t have to worry about the uncertainty and risk that comes with freedom and opportunity, because your safety and security is more important. Ensuring that you have food to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof over your head to sleep under takes priority over the yearnings of the human spirit, the human heart. That is the socialist way.
But it is not the American way.
The United States of America did not grow into the wealthiest, most prosperous and arguably the most successful nation in the history of the world because of socialism. It did so because of the partnership forged between republican democracy and free market capitalism.
These two philosophies go together like meat and potatoes.
Both promote individual freedom because they respect the individual by affording him the liberty to govern and support himself, make his own way, to create and build his own legacy, and invest in others.
All of the good that America has done in the world, all of the charity that she has spread to other nations during her relatively young existence has happened because of freedom, liberty and opportunity.
You can't have any of these virtues under the thumb of government ownership and control, because authoritarian rule naturally shuts them out.
How else could an ordinary person go from a miserable failure to an incomparable success without the opportunity to take the risks that liberty and freedom offer? Sure, there’s uncertainty, even danger. But there’s also a light at the end of the tunnel.
The greatest gifts of American liberty are the freedom to pursue one's dreams, to build the life one could have only before imagined, and to be able to regulate oneself rather than rely on government to do it for him.
It is as much about having the opportunity to fail as it is to succeed, to flounder or flourish instead of being dependent upon a government that strives to ensure the security of mediocre subsistence.
Do you know what the difference between a foreign peasant and a poor American is? Opportunity.
In America, the poor don't have to stay poor. If they choose, they can pull themselves out of poverty simply by pursuing a better life. And they can do this because of opportunity; not government. The poor in other countries don't have opportunities to pursue a higher quality of life for themselves and their families. They are forced instead to accept their lots in life, to toil and spin in poverty from cradle to grave. Meanwhile, those in power, those in government rule over them in comparative luxury.
And therein lay the greatest contradiction, the gravest injustice of socialism, or any authoritarian system of government for that matter. While collectivism promotes fairness, sameness and social justice, it also summarily suppresses the masses from reaching the same level of affluence enjoyed by those in power.
Sound familiar?
We fought a revolution against a hierarchal system, because it rewarded people based on their position in government and society instead of on merit. And it punished those who were not so fortunate as to be a member of the nobility.
By comparison, the government leaders of a socialist society are the nobility. Anyone desiring to join their ranks is met by a very subjective process, with the qualifications of membership resting solely at the discretion of those seated firmly in power.
The likelihood of an ordinary working person being accepted into such an exclusive echelon would be about the same as a pauper becoming a prince.
Not a chance.
At least under free market capitalism and a republican democracy we have the chance because we have opportunity and liberty, both of which judge a man by what he does and not by who he is. The odds of an average person becoming a millionaire are probably comparable to those of a pauper becoming a prince…with one notable exception: Opportunity.
Here, at least, in America we have the opportunity to build castles and kingdoms out of nothing, to cultivate and produce abundance from impoverished soil, to become somebody who once was nobody.
If we give up our current political and economic systems in favor of socialism, then we will forfeit our freedom. It’s as simple as that.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither liberty nor security.”
If after all this you still don’t see anything wrong with socialism, then you may indeed deserve what you get.
If you are one of these people that accept socialism at face value simply because you follow Obama, then you have my deepest sympathies. I would encourage you to consider the question yourself and decide whether or not it is in America's best interests. I advise against taking any one else's word on it.
Now, what is so bad about socialism? That’s like asking, “What’s wrong with stealing?”
Dyed-in-the-wool leftists would disagree with me on this point, but the fundamental concept of collectivism is the same as stealing. You have something that somebody else wants, but doesn’t have, so they take from you—without your permission—in order to get it. Likewise, you may have more money than somebody else, who wants more, so he turns to the government to get it for him. The government, in turn, dips into your pocket—without your permission—to give more money to the guy who has less than you. As a result, you and the other guy now have the same amount of money and either is better or worse off than the other. This is all done in the name of social justice, fairness, and equity.
The socialist creed, after all, is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” What this means is that the government takes as much as you are able to produce and distributes amongst everyone else to meet their needs.
In the animal world, socialism can be likened to the lives of ants and the bees, whose work is done for the collective good. But they have no individuality, identity and no uniqueness about them. Their ingenuity is borne not out of inventiveness, but rather out of conformity, assignment and the repetitive toiling therewith. Their strength lay in the unison of their work. As long as each does its job, the unit, the colony, the hive is safe and secure.
By contrast, consider the coyote, a scavenger and a rogue, but one of the most adaptable creatures on earth. A true non-conformist and pure opportunist, the coyote may choose to run with the pack or go into business for himself the way an entrepreneur does. While he lacks the safety and security enjoyed by the ants and the bees, he has freedom to choose his role in life: Either as a member of the pack or as a sole proprietor.
Unlike the toiling ants and bees, the coyote is able to make his own way, seek out opportunity, pursue it and reap its rewards.
Life may be feast or famine for him, but at least he has his freedom.
I believe socialism is bad for America because it is the antithesis of freedom, liberty and opportunity, the foundations upon which our nation was established and subsequently flourished. Collectivism runs counter to concepts of “life, liberty and [especially] the pursuit of happiness,” which form the basis for the fundamental rights of man.
How can we pursue our individual happiness if the government takes away the means with which to launch our endeavors? How can we be truly free if the government takes care of our every need? And how can a person really be alive if they are unable to live life on their own terms?
The answer is not socialism, which, simplified, means public-owned and public-run. The term public, of course, refers to government bureaucracy and not the people.
Not as extreme or militant as communism, socialism still awards ultimate, final authority to the government over all matters public and private.
Under a true socialist system, all organizations are run by the government in some way or another; either owned outright and managed directly or invested and maintained through bureaucratic supervision.
This means that the state is the majority stockholder on the Board of Directors of every business, industry, company or corporation, all charities, institutions, leagues, coalitions and other non-profit organizations that generate money, funds, and revenue. The state then collects this revenue and decides how best to distribute it throughout its infrastructure.
The growth, maintenance, persistence and sustainability of any organization within a socialist system is at the sole discretion of the government; meaning that the freedom to invest and expand is prohibited without government consent.
With regard to individuals, a socialist government is involved in everybody’s lives from womb to tomb. From our child care to elder care, from early education to career preparation, from what you earn to what you are allowed to keep, from investments to retirement, from health care to the basic essentials of human need—food, clothing, shelter—the government is there as your provider. You don’t have to worry about the uncertainty and risk that comes with freedom and opportunity, because your safety and security is more important. Ensuring that you have food to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof over your head to sleep under takes priority over the yearnings of the human spirit, the human heart. That is the socialist way.
But it is not the American way.
The United States of America did not grow into the wealthiest, most prosperous and arguably the most successful nation in the history of the world because of socialism. It did so because of the partnership forged between republican democracy and free market capitalism.
These two philosophies go together like meat and potatoes.
Both promote individual freedom because they respect the individual by affording him the liberty to govern and support himself, make his own way, to create and build his own legacy, and invest in others.
All of the good that America has done in the world, all of the charity that she has spread to other nations during her relatively young existence has happened because of freedom, liberty and opportunity.
You can't have any of these virtues under the thumb of government ownership and control, because authoritarian rule naturally shuts them out.
How else could an ordinary person go from a miserable failure to an incomparable success without the opportunity to take the risks that liberty and freedom offer? Sure, there’s uncertainty, even danger. But there’s also a light at the end of the tunnel.
The greatest gifts of American liberty are the freedom to pursue one's dreams, to build the life one could have only before imagined, and to be able to regulate oneself rather than rely on government to do it for him.
It is as much about having the opportunity to fail as it is to succeed, to flounder or flourish instead of being dependent upon a government that strives to ensure the security of mediocre subsistence.
Do you know what the difference between a foreign peasant and a poor American is? Opportunity.
In America, the poor don't have to stay poor. If they choose, they can pull themselves out of poverty simply by pursuing a better life. And they can do this because of opportunity; not government. The poor in other countries don't have opportunities to pursue a higher quality of life for themselves and their families. They are forced instead to accept their lots in life, to toil and spin in poverty from cradle to grave. Meanwhile, those in power, those in government rule over them in comparative luxury.
And therein lay the greatest contradiction, the gravest injustice of socialism, or any authoritarian system of government for that matter. While collectivism promotes fairness, sameness and social justice, it also summarily suppresses the masses from reaching the same level of affluence enjoyed by those in power.
Sound familiar?
We fought a revolution against a hierarchal system, because it rewarded people based on their position in government and society instead of on merit. And it punished those who were not so fortunate as to be a member of the nobility.
By comparison, the government leaders of a socialist society are the nobility. Anyone desiring to join their ranks is met by a very subjective process, with the qualifications of membership resting solely at the discretion of those seated firmly in power.
The likelihood of an ordinary working person being accepted into such an exclusive echelon would be about the same as a pauper becoming a prince.
Not a chance.
At least under free market capitalism and a republican democracy we have the chance because we have opportunity and liberty, both of which judge a man by what he does and not by who he is. The odds of an average person becoming a millionaire are probably comparable to those of a pauper becoming a prince…with one notable exception: Opportunity.
Here, at least, in America we have the opportunity to build castles and kingdoms out of nothing, to cultivate and produce abundance from impoverished soil, to become somebody who once was nobody.
If we give up our current political and economic systems in favor of socialism, then we will forfeit our freedom. It’s as simple as that.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither liberty nor security.”
If after all this you still don’t see anything wrong with socialism, then you may indeed deserve what you get.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
You haven’t forgotten, have you?
For some of us, the memory of Sept. 11, 2001 is becoming more distant with each passing year, each passing day. Soon, it may well be regarded as little more than a page in history that can be safely turned.
Sadly, fewer people today care to be reminded of the horrors experienced on that pleasant, otherwise ordinary late summer morning. Due to the natural courses of time, generations and mortality, there were more people six years ago who remembered the terrorist attacks than there were five years ago, four years ago, three, two, one and so forth until, decades later, there will be no one left to personally relate what was seen on the televisions and heard over the radio waves that day, because we the living today will eventually die and cease to exist. And unless we pause to remember those who perished on 9/11/01 at least once a year, the memory of what happened and what was at stake will fade much sooner than you or I will.
A cold, indifferent news media doesn’t see fit to show the images of the terrorist attacks, claiming that it doesn’t want to stir up old vices against Muslims, or remind us of the bitter memories of our losses. And yet, it has no problem showing footage of terror attacks in other countries, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, storming the beaches at Normandy, the assault on Iwo Jima, and various engagements in Vietnam, Korea and the current War on Terror. These images are no less disturbing than those from 9/11/01.
But, alas, the images have been put into storage, never to be reopened again for the benefit of current and succeeding generations.
Out of the shadows of this event have come sinister voices trying to persuade us that what actually happened on 9/11/01 wasn’t really true. Some of these voices are propagating bold-faced lies that Israel and the Jews were responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Others claim that the U.S. government—the White House, in particular—was the mastermind behind the carnage. Filmmaker Michael Moore and his controversial film, “Fahrenheit 911” is a perfect example of these sinister voices.
Now, if we eventually forget what we saw, forget what we heard, and forget the experience of Sept. 11, 2001 altogether, imagine what succeeding generations will come to learn about this event if the sinister voices prevail. Do you want your children’s children’s children to believe what you know to be lies?
Don’t think that will ever happen? Think again.
Already, there are sinister voices undermining history by claiming that the Holocaust did not really happen. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already said so. Fortunately, there are still people alive today who lived through that time and can tell us what really happened. But their numbers are shrinking. And once they are gone, who is to stop another Ahmadinejad from making the same claim? Who will be able to refute the lies if we, too, have forgotten the truth?
The surest way to keep the truth alive is to never forget it—and never let it die with us.
Just as the generations before us have done to preserve the truth of the Holocaust, so must we do to keep the truth of Sept. 11, 2001 from passing away into obscurity and leaving it open for interpretation by those who want others to believe a lie.
The memories may be unpleasant, even painful, but we must do this for the sake of future generations who will have no first-hand knowledge of the attacks and what they mean for the survival of the western world.
So, may I please ask, have you forgotten? More to the point, have you chosen to forget? God help us all if you have.
Sadly, fewer people today care to be reminded of the horrors experienced on that pleasant, otherwise ordinary late summer morning. Due to the natural courses of time, generations and mortality, there were more people six years ago who remembered the terrorist attacks than there were five years ago, four years ago, three, two, one and so forth until, decades later, there will be no one left to personally relate what was seen on the televisions and heard over the radio waves that day, because we the living today will eventually die and cease to exist. And unless we pause to remember those who perished on 9/11/01 at least once a year, the memory of what happened and what was at stake will fade much sooner than you or I will.
A cold, indifferent news media doesn’t see fit to show the images of the terrorist attacks, claiming that it doesn’t want to stir up old vices against Muslims, or remind us of the bitter memories of our losses. And yet, it has no problem showing footage of terror attacks in other countries, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, storming the beaches at Normandy, the assault on Iwo Jima, and various engagements in Vietnam, Korea and the current War on Terror. These images are no less disturbing than those from 9/11/01.
But, alas, the images have been put into storage, never to be reopened again for the benefit of current and succeeding generations.
Out of the shadows of this event have come sinister voices trying to persuade us that what actually happened on 9/11/01 wasn’t really true. Some of these voices are propagating bold-faced lies that Israel and the Jews were responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Others claim that the U.S. government—the White House, in particular—was the mastermind behind the carnage. Filmmaker Michael Moore and his controversial film, “Fahrenheit 911” is a perfect example of these sinister voices.
Now, if we eventually forget what we saw, forget what we heard, and forget the experience of Sept. 11, 2001 altogether, imagine what succeeding generations will come to learn about this event if the sinister voices prevail. Do you want your children’s children’s children to believe what you know to be lies?
Don’t think that will ever happen? Think again.
Already, there are sinister voices undermining history by claiming that the Holocaust did not really happen. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already said so. Fortunately, there are still people alive today who lived through that time and can tell us what really happened. But their numbers are shrinking. And once they are gone, who is to stop another Ahmadinejad from making the same claim? Who will be able to refute the lies if we, too, have forgotten the truth?
The surest way to keep the truth alive is to never forget it—and never let it die with us.
Just as the generations before us have done to preserve the truth of the Holocaust, so must we do to keep the truth of Sept. 11, 2001 from passing away into obscurity and leaving it open for interpretation by those who want others to believe a lie.
The memories may be unpleasant, even painful, but we must do this for the sake of future generations who will have no first-hand knowledge of the attacks and what they mean for the survival of the western world.
So, may I please ask, have you forgotten? More to the point, have you chosen to forget? God help us all if you have.
Republicans need Doctor Laura, not Doctor Phil
In the aftermath of the November 4 general election results, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was interviewed and asked what the Republican Party ought to do now after losing not only the White House, but both Houses of Congresses by even wider margins to essentially make them irrelevant for the next two years.
The governor mused that his party was in need of a “Dr. Phil moment” to reflect on itself.
But I’ll take this a step further and say that the Republican Party doesn’t need Dr. Phil.
It needs Dr. Laura.
The party’s “Dr. Phil moment” should have come after the disastrous 2006 elections, which awarded both Houses of Congress to the Democrats. That loss and the events that precipitated it should have been a wake-up call to Republicans. But instead of waking up, the party simply turned off the alarm and went back to sleep.
At that point, the party’s conservative base had thrown up its hands and declared, “No more Mr. Nice Guy.” Dr. Phil had his moment, but the advice and warnings from conservatives went unheeded. Proof of this was in the presidential nomination of moderate/liberal republican “rhino” Sen. John McCain.
As such, what the Republicans need and deserve now is not a good cry, but rather a punch in the nose.
The Grand Old Party needs someone to get in its face and tell it like it is. Republicans need a “Dr. Laura moment.” Whether conservative republicans have the gumption to hold their party accountable for its losses and responsible for ignoring them is a question that lingers on my mind.
By and large, conservatives have had a habit in the past of shrinking into their shells and politicking from the closet. The emergence and subsequent boon of conservative talk radio was the only effective antidote for getting the right to come out of its shell and out of the closet, so to speak. Because conservatives finally felt they had a voice in the political arena—and especially through the national media—they were emboldened in 1994 when the Republican Revolution and the “Contract with America” took Congress by storm.
And yet, in spite of the conservative tidal wave that swept the Democrats from power for the first time in four decades, the Republican Party still didn’t get it. Within two election cycles, the number of conservative Republicans in the House and Senate had shrunk significantly and were replaced by more moderate—i.e., liberal—party officials. By the time President George W. Bush had taken office, Congress was being run by neo-conservatives, which is really just a kinder, gentler term for “liberal.”
Now we get why the deficit ballooned under the Bush Administration. It wasn’t merely the “War on Terror,” but rather the liberal spending of moderate, neo-con legislative and executive branches. If either one or both had regarded traditional conservatism that won Washington, D.C., back for the Republicans in 1994, we wouldn’t have a deficit in the trillions of dollars and I doubt the democrats would have regained control of Congress in 2006—not to mention 2008.
Alas, a lot of the same conservatives who were emboldened in 1994 have felt betrayed, cheated, forgotten and ignored by the party that is supposed to support, promote and defend the principles of conservatism. Consequently, some have retreated back into the shadows of their closets or shells. Many more simply refuse to vote for the Republican ticket because they have felt let down again by the GOP, preferring instead to let the opposition prevail and take us down the road to ruin where the party might then see the errors of its ways.
But nothing short of a good, old-fashioned butt-kicking will get the Republican Party back on track toward and back in line with its core conservative principles. The greater challenge will be restoring the trust and confidence that conservative voters once had in the Republican Party. With all that has happened in the past decade, though, this seems so far gone that the only way the party can win its core supporters back is to swallow its pride and seek forgiveness, which won’t come right away. The only antidote to heal wounds as deep as these is time.
As Dr. Laura would probably say, eat your humble pie and do the right thing.
Time will tell if the Republican Party has simply strayed from conservatism or is gone for good.
The governor mused that his party was in need of a “Dr. Phil moment” to reflect on itself.
But I’ll take this a step further and say that the Republican Party doesn’t need Dr. Phil.
It needs Dr. Laura.
The party’s “Dr. Phil moment” should have come after the disastrous 2006 elections, which awarded both Houses of Congress to the Democrats. That loss and the events that precipitated it should have been a wake-up call to Republicans. But instead of waking up, the party simply turned off the alarm and went back to sleep.
At that point, the party’s conservative base had thrown up its hands and declared, “No more Mr. Nice Guy.” Dr. Phil had his moment, but the advice and warnings from conservatives went unheeded. Proof of this was in the presidential nomination of moderate/liberal republican “rhino” Sen. John McCain.
As such, what the Republicans need and deserve now is not a good cry, but rather a punch in the nose.
The Grand Old Party needs someone to get in its face and tell it like it is. Republicans need a “Dr. Laura moment.” Whether conservative republicans have the gumption to hold their party accountable for its losses and responsible for ignoring them is a question that lingers on my mind.
By and large, conservatives have had a habit in the past of shrinking into their shells and politicking from the closet. The emergence and subsequent boon of conservative talk radio was the only effective antidote for getting the right to come out of its shell and out of the closet, so to speak. Because conservatives finally felt they had a voice in the political arena—and especially through the national media—they were emboldened in 1994 when the Republican Revolution and the “Contract with America” took Congress by storm.
And yet, in spite of the conservative tidal wave that swept the Democrats from power for the first time in four decades, the Republican Party still didn’t get it. Within two election cycles, the number of conservative Republicans in the House and Senate had shrunk significantly and were replaced by more moderate—i.e., liberal—party officials. By the time President George W. Bush had taken office, Congress was being run by neo-conservatives, which is really just a kinder, gentler term for “liberal.”
Now we get why the deficit ballooned under the Bush Administration. It wasn’t merely the “War on Terror,” but rather the liberal spending of moderate, neo-con legislative and executive branches. If either one or both had regarded traditional conservatism that won Washington, D.C., back for the Republicans in 1994, we wouldn’t have a deficit in the trillions of dollars and I doubt the democrats would have regained control of Congress in 2006—not to mention 2008.
Alas, a lot of the same conservatives who were emboldened in 1994 have felt betrayed, cheated, forgotten and ignored by the party that is supposed to support, promote and defend the principles of conservatism. Consequently, some have retreated back into the shadows of their closets or shells. Many more simply refuse to vote for the Republican ticket because they have felt let down again by the GOP, preferring instead to let the opposition prevail and take us down the road to ruin where the party might then see the errors of its ways.
But nothing short of a good, old-fashioned butt-kicking will get the Republican Party back on track toward and back in line with its core conservative principles. The greater challenge will be restoring the trust and confidence that conservative voters once had in the Republican Party. With all that has happened in the past decade, though, this seems so far gone that the only way the party can win its core supporters back is to swallow its pride and seek forgiveness, which won’t come right away. The only antidote to heal wounds as deep as these is time.
As Dr. Laura would probably say, eat your humble pie and do the right thing.
Time will tell if the Republican Party has simply strayed from conservatism or is gone for good.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Lobbyists: Love them, hate them, deal with them
I'll be the first to admit that I really despise the tactics of Washington lobbyists in general. Money has corrupted the federal government right down to the core. Most lobbying groups wave money in the face of politicians, hoping they'll bite like a fish to a hook. And the vast majority of them do.
To say that our elected leaders are bought and paid for would be an understatement. They are wined, dined, and lavished upon by the lobbyists whose only purpose is to secure support for their cause and/or guarantee a vote on a bill. It is about scratching backs and kissing backsides. Lobbyists do the latter as well as politicians do kissing babies.
But, seriously, what should be done about all this schmoozing? Indeed, what can be done, if anything? I mean, after all, there are a lot of corrupt interest groups who selfishly pursue their own agendas in Washington, D.C. That’s common knowledge, and it frosts us to no end.
But the answer is not regulation, no matter what the McCains and Feingolds have to say about it. What legislation of lobbying really amounts to is the suppression of free speech, which is the people’s right to speak and be heard by their government. It is about Congress not passing laws that abridge our freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which, by the way, is a clause in Article I of the Constitution.
What this means is that lobbies like the National Rifle Association could be prevented from being heard in the halls of Congress. The NRA, which is the foremost advocate of Second Amendment rights in the country, could be silenced. And if we don’t have a group like the NRA standing up for us in Washington, D.C., reminding our lawmakers of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then what is to stop the government from making changes to the Constitution altogether?
What I am talking about is censorship. As much as I do not like many of the special interest groups and lobbyists prowling around my representative’s office, they have that right by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Their form of “speech” is money, and we may not like that. But the fact is that people like you and me give money to these groups to advocate for them.
The surest way to get a politician to act on your behalf is to promise your vote, in much the same way he or she makes promises to get your vote. And the way to do that in Washington, D.C., is through lobbyists and interest groups. This is especially true between elections, when politicians are less likely to take the time to listen to individual grievances.
Lobbyists promise to secure voters for the politician by the next election in exchange for legislative action on behalf of their constituents. They are a voice for people seeking a redress of grievances. Without lobbyists, Congress could essentially ignore the many different grievances people have.
Well, isn’t that what our elected representatives are for, to advocate on our behalf? Yes, in theory. But as large and complex as the federal government has become—a gargantuan public corporation, of sorts—budget matters, bills and committees seem to take up a great deal of legislators’ time. If we let them alone, then they would be more than happy not to legislate, but to rule.
Two examples of where our voices were heard through lobbies: Illegal immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
If it hadn’t been for lobbyists and interest groups opposing illegal immigration, then the infamous Amnesty Bill of 2007 would have become law, granting legal status to millions of people who are living in our country illegally. Wait a minute, you say: Didn’t the amnesty bill get voted down because legislators were flooded with calls from their constituents? Yes, absolutely. But who alerted the people to the dangers of this bill and inspired millions of us to jam the Congressional phone lines? Lobbyists and interest groups, including conservative talk radio, internet bloggers and more.
Talk radio and conservative think-tanks helped to shoot down the proposed Fairness Doctrine before it could be presented before Congress in bill form.
Love them or hate them, lobbyists and lobbying groups serve a purpose to our republican democracy. They act as a voice for people on issues that might not otherwise be heard by our elected representatives. They represent us in person when we are unable to travel to Washington, D.C., ourselves. And, honestly, how many of us can realistically do that every time an issue comes up on which we want our voices heard? This happens every day, and the lobbyists are there every day, advocating for their issues and their constituents.
So, you see, lobbyists and interest groups have their place, even if we don’t like them.
To say that our elected leaders are bought and paid for would be an understatement. They are wined, dined, and lavished upon by the lobbyists whose only purpose is to secure support for their cause and/or guarantee a vote on a bill. It is about scratching backs and kissing backsides. Lobbyists do the latter as well as politicians do kissing babies.
But, seriously, what should be done about all this schmoozing? Indeed, what can be done, if anything? I mean, after all, there are a lot of corrupt interest groups who selfishly pursue their own agendas in Washington, D.C. That’s common knowledge, and it frosts us to no end.
But the answer is not regulation, no matter what the McCains and Feingolds have to say about it. What legislation of lobbying really amounts to is the suppression of free speech, which is the people’s right to speak and be heard by their government. It is about Congress not passing laws that abridge our freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which, by the way, is a clause in Article I of the Constitution.
What this means is that lobbies like the National Rifle Association could be prevented from being heard in the halls of Congress. The NRA, which is the foremost advocate of Second Amendment rights in the country, could be silenced. And if we don’t have a group like the NRA standing up for us in Washington, D.C., reminding our lawmakers of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then what is to stop the government from making changes to the Constitution altogether?
What I am talking about is censorship. As much as I do not like many of the special interest groups and lobbyists prowling around my representative’s office, they have that right by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Their form of “speech” is money, and we may not like that. But the fact is that people like you and me give money to these groups to advocate for them.
The surest way to get a politician to act on your behalf is to promise your vote, in much the same way he or she makes promises to get your vote. And the way to do that in Washington, D.C., is through lobbyists and interest groups. This is especially true between elections, when politicians are less likely to take the time to listen to individual grievances.
Lobbyists promise to secure voters for the politician by the next election in exchange for legislative action on behalf of their constituents. They are a voice for people seeking a redress of grievances. Without lobbyists, Congress could essentially ignore the many different grievances people have.
Well, isn’t that what our elected representatives are for, to advocate on our behalf? Yes, in theory. But as large and complex as the federal government has become—a gargantuan public corporation, of sorts—budget matters, bills and committees seem to take up a great deal of legislators’ time. If we let them alone, then they would be more than happy not to legislate, but to rule.
Two examples of where our voices were heard through lobbies: Illegal immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
If it hadn’t been for lobbyists and interest groups opposing illegal immigration, then the infamous Amnesty Bill of 2007 would have become law, granting legal status to millions of people who are living in our country illegally. Wait a minute, you say: Didn’t the amnesty bill get voted down because legislators were flooded with calls from their constituents? Yes, absolutely. But who alerted the people to the dangers of this bill and inspired millions of us to jam the Congressional phone lines? Lobbyists and interest groups, including conservative talk radio, internet bloggers and more.
Talk radio and conservative think-tanks helped to shoot down the proposed Fairness Doctrine before it could be presented before Congress in bill form.
Love them or hate them, lobbyists and lobbying groups serve a purpose to our republican democracy. They act as a voice for people on issues that might not otherwise be heard by our elected representatives. They represent us in person when we are unable to travel to Washington, D.C., ourselves. And, honestly, how many of us can realistically do that every time an issue comes up on which we want our voices heard? This happens every day, and the lobbyists are there every day, advocating for their issues and their constituents.
So, you see, lobbyists and interest groups have their place, even if we don’t like them.
The more things change…
…the more they stay the same.
Chalk up the President-elect’s first election promise broken.
From the very beginning, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington, D.C. Of course, he never really defined what his brand of change was. But many people believed that part of this promise was to end the cycle of career politicians keeping things the same as they’ve always been in our nation’s capital. And the soon-to-be former junior-senator from Illinois let people believe this by promising to bring fresh, new ideas and faces to the table to foster real, substantive policy reform.
The reality is that President-elect Barack Obama is filling cabinet positions with Beltway veterans who know how the game is played in Washington, D.C., and who are themselves career politicians.
From the attorney general nominee, Eric Holder, who pardoned Clinton Administration political backer Mark Rich, and was involved in the Monica Lewinsky White House probe, and played a key role in the controversial Elian Gonzales deportation; to the next Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, herself a current senior senator and Beltway power-broker; to former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle, D-SD, as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services; to former Clinton Administration staffer and Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff; former Clinton Administration Energy Secretary and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as the probable next Secretary of Commerce; current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is expected to keep his post through at least Obama's first year; and even Vice-President-elect and current Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE, who has carved a comfortable niche for himself in our nation’s capital with 30+ years in the senate and is arguably one of the most powerful and influential politicians in the country.
Exactly where is the change here, Mr. Obama? You are surrounding yourself with people who have made a living dancing the Potomac Two-Step, working the system, and playing the game as it has always been played. If you are not willing to think outside of the box with regard to your cabinet and administrative staff, why should we believe that you will actually change the ways of Washington for the better, as you promised to do early on in your campaign?
In my opinion, the first step toward bringing about real change is not to give the same old Washington, D.C., more power. By Obama's appointments thus far, he is endorsing the exact opposite of change. He is siding with the status quo.
Sounds to me like Obama is more interested in being the party man than the bipartisan agent of change he sold a lot of us on.
So, what else is new? Obama will simply be doing what many other career-minded politicians have done: Changing addresses, but not directions.
I think he’ll fit right in at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Chalk up the President-elect’s first election promise broken.
From the very beginning, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington, D.C. Of course, he never really defined what his brand of change was. But many people believed that part of this promise was to end the cycle of career politicians keeping things the same as they’ve always been in our nation’s capital. And the soon-to-be former junior-senator from Illinois let people believe this by promising to bring fresh, new ideas and faces to the table to foster real, substantive policy reform.
The reality is that President-elect Barack Obama is filling cabinet positions with Beltway veterans who know how the game is played in Washington, D.C., and who are themselves career politicians.
From the attorney general nominee, Eric Holder, who pardoned Clinton Administration political backer Mark Rich, and was involved in the Monica Lewinsky White House probe, and played a key role in the controversial Elian Gonzales deportation; to the next Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, herself a current senior senator and Beltway power-broker; to former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle, D-SD, as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services; to former Clinton Administration staffer and Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff; former Clinton Administration Energy Secretary and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as the probable next Secretary of Commerce; current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is expected to keep his post through at least Obama's first year; and even Vice-President-elect and current Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE, who has carved a comfortable niche for himself in our nation’s capital with 30+ years in the senate and is arguably one of the most powerful and influential politicians in the country.
Exactly where is the change here, Mr. Obama? You are surrounding yourself with people who have made a living dancing the Potomac Two-Step, working the system, and playing the game as it has always been played. If you are not willing to think outside of the box with regard to your cabinet and administrative staff, why should we believe that you will actually change the ways of Washington for the better, as you promised to do early on in your campaign?
In my opinion, the first step toward bringing about real change is not to give the same old Washington, D.C., more power. By Obama's appointments thus far, he is endorsing the exact opposite of change. He is siding with the status quo.
Sounds to me like Obama is more interested in being the party man than the bipartisan agent of change he sold a lot of us on.
So, what else is new? Obama will simply be doing what many other career-minded politicians have done: Changing addresses, but not directions.
I think he’ll fit right in at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Just give the man a chance
How often have you heard this from people in the weeks after Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States? I don’t know about you, but I’ve been hearing it ad nauseam.
The Obama faithful are calling for an end to divisive politics—notably from the right but conveniently not from the left—arguing that he should be given a chance to prove himself before he is criticized.
Granted, Obama has not done anything yet, even as a junior U.S. Senator. So, how can we possibly criticize him?
That’s easy.
All we have to do is follow the example made by the left, including many of today’s Obama supporters, who began criticizing George W. Bush before he had even secured the Republican nomination in 2000.
Are our memories so short term that we forget how the left was comparing candidate Dubya to his father, Bush XLI, during the primary season? Remember how critical the left was of his speaking abilities and articulation during the general election campaign? He was called everything from a village idiot to a dunce and an illiterate, simply because his speech and word choices were not as sophisticated or as sound as Al Gore’s or the Rhodes Scholar, President Bill Clinton.
And, of course, who could forget the days following election night with the Florida recount. Bush was accused of trying to steal and buy the election. His opposition was trying to argue that because Dubya’s brother, Jeb, was the Governor of Florida at the time, he had influence on the election process, and, in particular, republican Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who eventually invoked state election law to halt the re-re-re-counting of votes already cast. And when Al Gore took the matter to the state supreme court, which ruled in his favor, the matter was referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that Florida election law should prevail and the results of the current re-re-re-count ought to stand.
Because the election did not go in the left’s favor, it threw an absolute fit, claiming that Bush bought off the U.S. Supreme Court, bought off Secretary of State Harris, and summarily stole the election from Al Gore, who should have been the rightful president by virtue of the popular vote.
All of a sudden, the livid left began to demand that the U.S. Constitution be amended and the Electoral College discarded, claiming it was a broken and corrupted system that belonged in another time and had lived out its usefulness. Funny, isn’t it, how nothing was ever said when Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, or with Obama’s victory this year. Not a chirp about the Electoral College.
Nonetheless, all we heard from the left was how Bush was an illegitimate president, selected by the Supreme Court and not the people. I distinctly recall hearing and reading liberal comments that Bush was not their president.
He was written off, dismissed by the left before he was even sworn in to take office.
Strange that the same people who condemned Bush before he ever had a chance are now calling for the rest of us to give Barack Obama the chance that Bush never got.
Let me state on the record that I will give Barack Obama the chance that his side did not give Bush, because I don’t wish to stoop to the same level as the left. But just because I am giving him a chance to preside, govern and lead does not mean I should not continue to be critical of his politics.
In essence, the left is telling the right to shut up and keep its mouth shut during Obama’s tenure in office. That’s what it ultimately wants, and the appeal to give him a chance is really code for “sit down, shut up and hold on.”
Well, I don’t believe in free rides…especially for the President of the United States. He needs to be held to account for his views, his philosophies and his politics with regard to how they will influence and affect his policies for the country. I see little evidence that President-elect Obama is the free-market fiscal and/or social conservative that I am. As such, it is my responsibility as a citizen to petition my government—the executive, legislative and judicial branches—for a redress of grievances.
That along with the freedom of speech and of assembly, are my Constitutional rights, which I intend to exercise to the fullest extent. If this means being critical of my leaders for the views they hold and intend to apply, then the last thing I should do is give a student of Karl Marx, like Barack Obama, a free pass and a chance to turn his philosophies into public policy or law.
So sue me.
I will give Obama the chance to make right where he went wrong with me. But that does not mean I will stand aside and let him do whatever the heck he wants to do. That does not mean I will let liberalism run roughshod over me on its way to reforming this country into its utopian image. And that certainly does not mean I will keep my mouth shut, when I ought to be standing up and speaking out for what I believe in.
If Obama attempts to implement the kind of social and economic reforms that he campaigned on, then I will oppose him, because I did not believe then, I do not believe now and I probably will not believe six months from now that his proposals are the best things for this country.
He shall have my respect as the President of the United States, the respect deserving of the office. He shall have my support when challenged by foreign powers or if threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. He is the President, after all.
But he will not have my cooperation to make the kind of changes he wants to make, because I remain opposed to them.
If that is what the left wants from me and others on the right, then it knows where it can stick it.
The Obama faithful are calling for an end to divisive politics—notably from the right but conveniently not from the left—arguing that he should be given a chance to prove himself before he is criticized.
Granted, Obama has not done anything yet, even as a junior U.S. Senator. So, how can we possibly criticize him?
That’s easy.
All we have to do is follow the example made by the left, including many of today’s Obama supporters, who began criticizing George W. Bush before he had even secured the Republican nomination in 2000.
Are our memories so short term that we forget how the left was comparing candidate Dubya to his father, Bush XLI, during the primary season? Remember how critical the left was of his speaking abilities and articulation during the general election campaign? He was called everything from a village idiot to a dunce and an illiterate, simply because his speech and word choices were not as sophisticated or as sound as Al Gore’s or the Rhodes Scholar, President Bill Clinton.
And, of course, who could forget the days following election night with the Florida recount. Bush was accused of trying to steal and buy the election. His opposition was trying to argue that because Dubya’s brother, Jeb, was the Governor of Florida at the time, he had influence on the election process, and, in particular, republican Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who eventually invoked state election law to halt the re-re-re-counting of votes already cast. And when Al Gore took the matter to the state supreme court, which ruled in his favor, the matter was referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that Florida election law should prevail and the results of the current re-re-re-count ought to stand.
Because the election did not go in the left’s favor, it threw an absolute fit, claiming that Bush bought off the U.S. Supreme Court, bought off Secretary of State Harris, and summarily stole the election from Al Gore, who should have been the rightful president by virtue of the popular vote.
All of a sudden, the livid left began to demand that the U.S. Constitution be amended and the Electoral College discarded, claiming it was a broken and corrupted system that belonged in another time and had lived out its usefulness. Funny, isn’t it, how nothing was ever said when Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, or with Obama’s victory this year. Not a chirp about the Electoral College.
Nonetheless, all we heard from the left was how Bush was an illegitimate president, selected by the Supreme Court and not the people. I distinctly recall hearing and reading liberal comments that Bush was not their president.
He was written off, dismissed by the left before he was even sworn in to take office.
Strange that the same people who condemned Bush before he ever had a chance are now calling for the rest of us to give Barack Obama the chance that Bush never got.
Let me state on the record that I will give Barack Obama the chance that his side did not give Bush, because I don’t wish to stoop to the same level as the left. But just because I am giving him a chance to preside, govern and lead does not mean I should not continue to be critical of his politics.
In essence, the left is telling the right to shut up and keep its mouth shut during Obama’s tenure in office. That’s what it ultimately wants, and the appeal to give him a chance is really code for “sit down, shut up and hold on.”
Well, I don’t believe in free rides…especially for the President of the United States. He needs to be held to account for his views, his philosophies and his politics with regard to how they will influence and affect his policies for the country. I see little evidence that President-elect Obama is the free-market fiscal and/or social conservative that I am. As such, it is my responsibility as a citizen to petition my government—the executive, legislative and judicial branches—for a redress of grievances.
That along with the freedom of speech and of assembly, are my Constitutional rights, which I intend to exercise to the fullest extent. If this means being critical of my leaders for the views they hold and intend to apply, then the last thing I should do is give a student of Karl Marx, like Barack Obama, a free pass and a chance to turn his philosophies into public policy or law.
So sue me.
I will give Obama the chance to make right where he went wrong with me. But that does not mean I will stand aside and let him do whatever the heck he wants to do. That does not mean I will let liberalism run roughshod over me on its way to reforming this country into its utopian image. And that certainly does not mean I will keep my mouth shut, when I ought to be standing up and speaking out for what I believe in.
If Obama attempts to implement the kind of social and economic reforms that he campaigned on, then I will oppose him, because I did not believe then, I do not believe now and I probably will not believe six months from now that his proposals are the best things for this country.
He shall have my respect as the President of the United States, the respect deserving of the office. He shall have my support when challenged by foreign powers or if threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. He is the President, after all.
But he will not have my cooperation to make the kind of changes he wants to make, because I remain opposed to them.
If that is what the left wants from me and others on the right, then it knows where it can stick it.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Rules of Engagement are for war, not politics
After nearly two years of politics and prognostication, the presidential election is over. I, for one, am relieved, in spite of the fact that the guy I voted for did not win.
Admittedly, I don't have much to say about the results, except that I told you so.
I wrote very early on in the primary season, when it looked as though Sen. John McCain was well on his way to wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination, that the senior lawmaker from Arizona would not win the general election.
I said he was too moderate, too much of a compromiser, and evidently more interested in reaching across the aisle to liberal Democrats than standing up for and defending the conservative principles upon which his own party is based. Furthermore, he has had a history of alienating and polarizing the conservative base of the Republican Party.
This election year was no different.
His decision to name Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, although seen as a positive move by conservatives, was politically driven and motivated. Sen. McCain didn't pick Palin because he agreed with her conservative views. He chose her because he understood who the base of his party was and, more importantly, how to court their votes. He recognized that without conservatives he would most assuredly lose the election.
He was right.
Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, he had no intention at all of standing up for and defending conservatives. His concession speech, which was filled with a lot of rhetoric about getting along, cooperating and moving on, is proof enough of this. There was nothing in his speech that really gave conservatives hope, like keeping up the good fight on issues important to them. It was all about McCain trying to maintain his appearance as the good soldier, the voice of reason, the maverick who puts principles above party politics. The senator's entire political career has been built upon this very reputation. What's more, the conservative base of the Republican Party has been acutely aware of this for years, and is the chief reason why so many were understandably upset over his nomination. In fact, enough conservatives likely did not vote the republican ticket in the general election simply because of McCain.
Conservatives wanted someone who would stand up for them and their values, just as Obama was doing for his party's liberal base. They wanted a fighter, not a politician and a compromiser. They wanted someone who would represent them and not the liberal moderates who have infected the Republican Party over the past decade.
What they got was John McCain, who they felt had let them down in the past and would likely do it again.
And they were also right.
Ergo, one major reason why John McCain lost.
In the aftermath of the election, many in the McCain campaign have been quick to point the finger of blame at Gov. Palin rather than at their man. Why? Because Palin is conservative and not the moderate neo-con that McCain has prided himself as being. Palin wasn't willing to play by the campaign's rules of engagement and insisted on doing what she does best: Speak from the heart.
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign has thrown Palin under the bus, and along with her, the conservatives who forced themselves to vote McCain, if for no other reason than because the Alaska governor was on the ticket.
The sad reality is that McCain's loss is neither the fault of Palin nor conservatives, but rather the man himself.
His chivalry, while personally admirable, was destructive to his own campaign.
The first mistake he made was pledging to only use public money for his campaign and then challenging his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, to do the same. Obama, though, recognized that money wins elections and ultimately decided against the public financing pledge...that is, after he had agreed to it. As a result, Obama outspent McCain by an enormous margin. His message reached millions more, and more often, than McCain did because he had the money to spread the word. McCain handcuffed himself with his own McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform measure.
But money aside, McCain had plenty of chances to go on the attack and just plain failed to do so out of a gentlemen's agreement he bound himself to. Unfortunately, he merely assumed and did not insist on the same from Obama, whose campaign set the tone, the agenda and pretty much made the rules that McCain dutifully followed, being the good soldier, the honorable gent and the chivalrous knight that he is.
McCain had plenty of opportunities to jump all over his opponent for backing down at the challenge of a series of unconventional town hall debates, going back on his word to use only public financing for his campaign, inferring that his running mate was a pig with lipstick, and flip-flopping on his view of the troop surge in the Iraq War, among others.
But again, McCain's desire to be seen as the good guy, the nice guy, prevailed and he did not go on the attack. Furthermore, he muzzled Gov. Palin and placed her on a short leash. He did not release the hounds, so to speak, and as a result, the fox got away. Too far away, in fact, for McCain to have any hope of catching him.
The bottom line is that John McCain insisted on playing hardball with a softball. He kept the gloves on and pulled his punches in the name of decency and respect.
He thought that people would vote for him because they would see through Obama's rhetoric, his beguiling speeches and his toothy, photogenic smile. He thought the American people were smart enough to realize that he was the most reasonable, most sensible, and most honorable of the two candidates.
But John McCain thought wrong. He underestimated today's average American voter, who clearly does not vote for honor any more, but rather for results and those who promise them.
Somebody forgot to remind Sen. McCain where nice guys tend to finish...especially in an election.
Admittedly, I don't have much to say about the results, except that I told you so.
I wrote very early on in the primary season, when it looked as though Sen. John McCain was well on his way to wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination, that the senior lawmaker from Arizona would not win the general election.
I said he was too moderate, too much of a compromiser, and evidently more interested in reaching across the aisle to liberal Democrats than standing up for and defending the conservative principles upon which his own party is based. Furthermore, he has had a history of alienating and polarizing the conservative base of the Republican Party.
This election year was no different.
His decision to name Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, although seen as a positive move by conservatives, was politically driven and motivated. Sen. McCain didn't pick Palin because he agreed with her conservative views. He chose her because he understood who the base of his party was and, more importantly, how to court their votes. He recognized that without conservatives he would most assuredly lose the election.
He was right.
Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, he had no intention at all of standing up for and defending conservatives. His concession speech, which was filled with a lot of rhetoric about getting along, cooperating and moving on, is proof enough of this. There was nothing in his speech that really gave conservatives hope, like keeping up the good fight on issues important to them. It was all about McCain trying to maintain his appearance as the good soldier, the voice of reason, the maverick who puts principles above party politics. The senator's entire political career has been built upon this very reputation. What's more, the conservative base of the Republican Party has been acutely aware of this for years, and is the chief reason why so many were understandably upset over his nomination. In fact, enough conservatives likely did not vote the republican ticket in the general election simply because of McCain.
Conservatives wanted someone who would stand up for them and their values, just as Obama was doing for his party's liberal base. They wanted a fighter, not a politician and a compromiser. They wanted someone who would represent them and not the liberal moderates who have infected the Republican Party over the past decade.
What they got was John McCain, who they felt had let them down in the past and would likely do it again.
And they were also right.
Ergo, one major reason why John McCain lost.
In the aftermath of the election, many in the McCain campaign have been quick to point the finger of blame at Gov. Palin rather than at their man. Why? Because Palin is conservative and not the moderate neo-con that McCain has prided himself as being. Palin wasn't willing to play by the campaign's rules of engagement and insisted on doing what she does best: Speak from the heart.
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign has thrown Palin under the bus, and along with her, the conservatives who forced themselves to vote McCain, if for no other reason than because the Alaska governor was on the ticket.
The sad reality is that McCain's loss is neither the fault of Palin nor conservatives, but rather the man himself.
His chivalry, while personally admirable, was destructive to his own campaign.
The first mistake he made was pledging to only use public money for his campaign and then challenging his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, to do the same. Obama, though, recognized that money wins elections and ultimately decided against the public financing pledge...that is, after he had agreed to it. As a result, Obama outspent McCain by an enormous margin. His message reached millions more, and more often, than McCain did because he had the money to spread the word. McCain handcuffed himself with his own McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform measure.
But money aside, McCain had plenty of chances to go on the attack and just plain failed to do so out of a gentlemen's agreement he bound himself to. Unfortunately, he merely assumed and did not insist on the same from Obama, whose campaign set the tone, the agenda and pretty much made the rules that McCain dutifully followed, being the good soldier, the honorable gent and the chivalrous knight that he is.
McCain had plenty of opportunities to jump all over his opponent for backing down at the challenge of a series of unconventional town hall debates, going back on his word to use only public financing for his campaign, inferring that his running mate was a pig with lipstick, and flip-flopping on his view of the troop surge in the Iraq War, among others.
But again, McCain's desire to be seen as the good guy, the nice guy, prevailed and he did not go on the attack. Furthermore, he muzzled Gov. Palin and placed her on a short leash. He did not release the hounds, so to speak, and as a result, the fox got away. Too far away, in fact, for McCain to have any hope of catching him.
The bottom line is that John McCain insisted on playing hardball with a softball. He kept the gloves on and pulled his punches in the name of decency and respect.
He thought that people would vote for him because they would see through Obama's rhetoric, his beguiling speeches and his toothy, photogenic smile. He thought the American people were smart enough to realize that he was the most reasonable, most sensible, and most honorable of the two candidates.
But John McCain thought wrong. He underestimated today's average American voter, who clearly does not vote for honor any more, but rather for results and those who promise them.
Somebody forgot to remind Sen. McCain where nice guys tend to finish...especially in an election.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Why I will vote for John McCain
Let me set the record straight. I’ve been as critical of Sen. John McCain throughout the presidential primary as the democrats are of him now. He has suppressed freedom of speech with campaign finance reform, which has ended up hurting his own party and helping his opponents across the aisle. He has opposed efforts to crack down on illegal immigration and enforce existing laws against unlawful border crossings. He has supported what amounts to amnesty for those residing in the United States illegally and taking advantage of America’s good graces. He has embraced the man-made global climate change propaganda, as well as opposed efforts to drill and produce the vast reserves of petroleum product in ANWAR.
He is a compromiser. He is a self-described federalist, who believes in a strong central government. He’s a moderate and centrist on government spending: You never know what side of the fence he will come down on.
And yet, in spite of the fact that he’s a rhino and not a true pachyderm republican, I find myself daring to support the senior senator from Arizona for president of the United States.
Why? Let me count the ways.
But first, I’ll preface my argument by itemizing the issues most important to me, then comparing them to the two major party candidates.
1. National defense. I believe the first duty of the president of the United States is the same as any other service man or woman: To uphold the United States Constitution and preserve, protect and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the sum of the oath that every member of the armed forces, the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government take upon entering into public service. In fact, the Constitution stipulates the first duty of the president is to serve as commander-in-chief of the military, so having a person in the office either who has military experience or who whole-heartedly supports the military is crucial.
That isn’t to say that every war hero or politician with military experience would make an effective president. Certainly, history is ripe with examples of presidents who were more effective in uniform than in the Oval Office. And some of the most effective presidents have come from as diverse backgrounds as small-town lawyers, orators, authors, inventors and even actors.
But in a time of war, as we have found ourselves in for the past seven years, a president who has the highest regard for the military and endorses a philosophy of a strong national defense is critical to the survival of our country.
2. Life. If freedom can be summed up by “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Bill of Rights, then abortion is the antithesis of freedom and essential liberty. While proponents of the practice maintain that it promotes choice and, therefore, liberty for women, at the same time, it denies choice to unborn children, who have no voice and no advocate on their behalf defending their right to live. Abortion supporters argue that the 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade is constitutional because it upholds the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the peoples’ right to be secure in their persons. However, the pro-abortion lobby overlooks the obvious: That this right ought to reasonably be extended to all living persons, born and unborn. In fact, the Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person shall be “deprived of life” without due process of law. Human infants killed before they have a chance to breath outside of the womb are not given a fair trial and, thus, are denied due process of law before their execution. This is a direct and blatant violation of the Constitution.
3. Taxation. I believe that Americans are unnecessarily burdened with rising taxes in order to pay for unbridled government expansion that the overwhelming majority of Americans have never endorsed. The federal government has grown in spite of the people and despite their representation, which, unfortunately, has made such decisions independent of the people supposed to be represented. And while we may not have taxation without representation, I don’t believe our representatives have been making decisions in the best interests of the people they serve, but rather themselves. Our representatives make tax and spend decisions for the benefit of their own re-election, to feather their own political nests, and not for any benefit to the people. I believe our representatives should be making responsible legislative decisions that are considerate of the people whose money pays for them. Spending should be cut back and taxes reduced to relieve the burden on everyone, not just a few or select groups.
4. Energy. Why have we allowed ourselves to become dependent on other countries to supply our energy needs, when we have the supply right underneath our feet? Why have we allowed our money to benefit foreign nations who hate us, instead of boosting our own economy? Restrictive environmental regulations that put the skids on domestic energy production need to be relaxed or altogether lifted in order for us to function independently from the rest of the world. There is no reason why we should allow ourselves to be led around by a dangling carrot, when we’ve got our own carrots to eat. While I don’t believe our economy can or should exist on fossil fuels alone, I also don’t believe we can just dump petroleum products altogether. The transition from carbon-based to alternative energy sources needs to be gradual. That is why we must drill our own oil and explore alternative energy options at the same time.
Okay, these are the four most important issues to me. When I compare John McCain to Barack Obama, here is what I see:
1. McCain has a history of putting his country before himself, as evidenced by his service in the military and, specifically, the sacrifices he made in service to America during the Vietnam War. McCain will unequivocally support the United States Armed Forces and its current mission in the “War on Terror.” Obama, on the other hand, is willing to negotiate “without preconditions” with terrorist-sponsoring nations. I am convinced that McCain will not allow America to fail during wartime. He will keep her on the offensive, rather than assume defensive posture and wait for the next attack on our soil. By virtue of his service and whole-hearted commitment to the military, McCain is a better fit than Obama to assume the role and take on the responsibility of commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
2. John McCain is anti-abortion; Obama is pro-abortion. Enough said.
3. McCain supports across-the-board tax cuts for everyone, regardless of their income levels or tax brackets, because he knows that relieving the burden of those who employ is just as important as relieving the burden of those who are otherwise employed. Obama, conversely, endorses selective tax breaks for what is termed the “middle” and “working” classes, while raising taxes on the so-called “rich.” What he fails to understand is that by supporting tax increases on those who do the employing, he is harming their ability to employ more people, provide the benefits that working people rely on, and offer products and services at reasonable cost to the average, middle-class consumer. McCain gets this connection, where Obama and his Democratic Party just do not or refuse to.
4. John McCain has come out in support of domestic oil drilling and production, in spite of waffling on ANWAR. But he also understands that there must be a balance struck between the environment and our economy. To be one-sided either way has destructive consequences. McCain at least recognizes the economic and political threats that continued reliance on foreign nations pose, and he is willing to do something about it. Sen. Obama, by contrast, cannot decide whether to support or continue to oppose domestic oil production and the drilling for petroleum on our own soil. He is at odds with his party’s strict environmental voting block and with the blue-collar working class that relies on a strong economy to provide jobs. Without a domestic fuel product, we cannot expect to have a strong economy that grows jobs and creates economic stability for the working class.
By and large, I find myself in agreement with John McCain more than I disagree with him; vice-versa with Barack Obama, who is decidedly more left-wing and socialist for my comfort. I take issue exclusively with Obama’s political philosophies and associated judgment therein; not his skin color, experience, or any other detail of the man.
When I look at the resume of John McCain, I see a man who has all of the faculties necessary to lead the military, make tough and sometimes risky foreign policy decisions, and who is willing to answer the call to duty when the red telephone rings at 3 a.m.
When I regard Barack Obama and his resume, I see a man full of social idealism, charm and fancy rhetoric that beguiles crowds by the thousands. Experience aside, I don’t believe that Obama has the judgment needed to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in a time of war. The record shows that John McCain does.
And that, to me, is the bottom line.
He is a compromiser. He is a self-described federalist, who believes in a strong central government. He’s a moderate and centrist on government spending: You never know what side of the fence he will come down on.
And yet, in spite of the fact that he’s a rhino and not a true pachyderm republican, I find myself daring to support the senior senator from Arizona for president of the United States.
Why? Let me count the ways.
But first, I’ll preface my argument by itemizing the issues most important to me, then comparing them to the two major party candidates.
1. National defense. I believe the first duty of the president of the United States is the same as any other service man or woman: To uphold the United States Constitution and preserve, protect and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the sum of the oath that every member of the armed forces, the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government take upon entering into public service. In fact, the Constitution stipulates the first duty of the president is to serve as commander-in-chief of the military, so having a person in the office either who has military experience or who whole-heartedly supports the military is crucial.
That isn’t to say that every war hero or politician with military experience would make an effective president. Certainly, history is ripe with examples of presidents who were more effective in uniform than in the Oval Office. And some of the most effective presidents have come from as diverse backgrounds as small-town lawyers, orators, authors, inventors and even actors.
But in a time of war, as we have found ourselves in for the past seven years, a president who has the highest regard for the military and endorses a philosophy of a strong national defense is critical to the survival of our country.
2. Life. If freedom can be summed up by “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Bill of Rights, then abortion is the antithesis of freedom and essential liberty. While proponents of the practice maintain that it promotes choice and, therefore, liberty for women, at the same time, it denies choice to unborn children, who have no voice and no advocate on their behalf defending their right to live. Abortion supporters argue that the 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade is constitutional because it upholds the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the peoples’ right to be secure in their persons. However, the pro-abortion lobby overlooks the obvious: That this right ought to reasonably be extended to all living persons, born and unborn. In fact, the Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person shall be “deprived of life” without due process of law. Human infants killed before they have a chance to breath outside of the womb are not given a fair trial and, thus, are denied due process of law before their execution. This is a direct and blatant violation of the Constitution.
3. Taxation. I believe that Americans are unnecessarily burdened with rising taxes in order to pay for unbridled government expansion that the overwhelming majority of Americans have never endorsed. The federal government has grown in spite of the people and despite their representation, which, unfortunately, has made such decisions independent of the people supposed to be represented. And while we may not have taxation without representation, I don’t believe our representatives have been making decisions in the best interests of the people they serve, but rather themselves. Our representatives make tax and spend decisions for the benefit of their own re-election, to feather their own political nests, and not for any benefit to the people. I believe our representatives should be making responsible legislative decisions that are considerate of the people whose money pays for them. Spending should be cut back and taxes reduced to relieve the burden on everyone, not just a few or select groups.
4. Energy. Why have we allowed ourselves to become dependent on other countries to supply our energy needs, when we have the supply right underneath our feet? Why have we allowed our money to benefit foreign nations who hate us, instead of boosting our own economy? Restrictive environmental regulations that put the skids on domestic energy production need to be relaxed or altogether lifted in order for us to function independently from the rest of the world. There is no reason why we should allow ourselves to be led around by a dangling carrot, when we’ve got our own carrots to eat. While I don’t believe our economy can or should exist on fossil fuels alone, I also don’t believe we can just dump petroleum products altogether. The transition from carbon-based to alternative energy sources needs to be gradual. That is why we must drill our own oil and explore alternative energy options at the same time.
Okay, these are the four most important issues to me. When I compare John McCain to Barack Obama, here is what I see:
1. McCain has a history of putting his country before himself, as evidenced by his service in the military and, specifically, the sacrifices he made in service to America during the Vietnam War. McCain will unequivocally support the United States Armed Forces and its current mission in the “War on Terror.” Obama, on the other hand, is willing to negotiate “without preconditions” with terrorist-sponsoring nations. I am convinced that McCain will not allow America to fail during wartime. He will keep her on the offensive, rather than assume defensive posture and wait for the next attack on our soil. By virtue of his service and whole-hearted commitment to the military, McCain is a better fit than Obama to assume the role and take on the responsibility of commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
2. John McCain is anti-abortion; Obama is pro-abortion. Enough said.
3. McCain supports across-the-board tax cuts for everyone, regardless of their income levels or tax brackets, because he knows that relieving the burden of those who employ is just as important as relieving the burden of those who are otherwise employed. Obama, conversely, endorses selective tax breaks for what is termed the “middle” and “working” classes, while raising taxes on the so-called “rich.” What he fails to understand is that by supporting tax increases on those who do the employing, he is harming their ability to employ more people, provide the benefits that working people rely on, and offer products and services at reasonable cost to the average, middle-class consumer. McCain gets this connection, where Obama and his Democratic Party just do not or refuse to.
4. John McCain has come out in support of domestic oil drilling and production, in spite of waffling on ANWAR. But he also understands that there must be a balance struck between the environment and our economy. To be one-sided either way has destructive consequences. McCain at least recognizes the economic and political threats that continued reliance on foreign nations pose, and he is willing to do something about it. Sen. Obama, by contrast, cannot decide whether to support or continue to oppose domestic oil production and the drilling for petroleum on our own soil. He is at odds with his party’s strict environmental voting block and with the blue-collar working class that relies on a strong economy to provide jobs. Without a domestic fuel product, we cannot expect to have a strong economy that grows jobs and creates economic stability for the working class.
By and large, I find myself in agreement with John McCain more than I disagree with him; vice-versa with Barack Obama, who is decidedly more left-wing and socialist for my comfort. I take issue exclusively with Obama’s political philosophies and associated judgment therein; not his skin color, experience, or any other detail of the man.
When I look at the resume of John McCain, I see a man who has all of the faculties necessary to lead the military, make tough and sometimes risky foreign policy decisions, and who is willing to answer the call to duty when the red telephone rings at 3 a.m.
When I regard Barack Obama and his resume, I see a man full of social idealism, charm and fancy rhetoric that beguiles crowds by the thousands. Experience aside, I don’t believe that Obama has the judgment needed to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in a time of war. The record shows that John McCain does.
And that, to me, is the bottom line.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Whatever happened to the warrior spirit?
In 1864, Union Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman summarized his infamous “March to the Sea” through Tennessee and Georgia with the following remark: “War is hell. The more brutal war is, the sooner it will end.”
He applied the same principle to the Indian Wars in the West following the Civil War. Sherman, along with Gens. Phil Sheridan, George Crook and Nelson Miles, among others, endorsed a policy of attrition against the Indian tribes by allowing them to starve into submission. The will to fight among many tribes was too great and strong for the United States Army to simply break in a single battle, or even a long series of them, for that matter. The Civil War and the Confederate resolve had proven this.
So, the Army allowed the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, a primary food source for many Indian tribes in the West, thus effectively cutting off their food supply and forcing them onto reservations where they could eat.
Whether or not one agrees with this tactic is a topic of debate for another time and place. But it is clear that such brutality was, in fact, effective in hastening an end to the Indian Wars.
About eighty years later, a lieutenant general named Douglas MacArthur proposed to invade China as part of a plan to sweep the communists out of Southeast Asia for good. But his commander-in-chief, Harry S. Truman, would have none of it. President Truman held a deep fear of communism—especially the Soviet Union to the north. He feared an invasion of China would provoke communist Russia into nuclear war with the United States. Perhaps President Truman had become gun-shy after having authorized the drop of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the devastating aftermath of which prompted the swift surrender of Imperial Japan and officially ended World War II. Whatever the reason, his reluctance to support MacArthur led to the latter’s dismissal, right in the middle of an American-led offensive that had the communist North Koreans on the run, fleeing across the border into China. MacArthur had argued that relentless pursuit of the enemy and its allies was the surest and shortest means to an end—that being an end to the Korean War.
But as history went, President Truman fired MacArthur, ordered Allied forces to pull back, and allowed the communist army to retake Northern Korea. This move not only made the war drag on longer, but it also bolstered the confidence of the communists and ultimately resulted in a cease-fire that drew the political lines that still exist today. Consequently, Korean families have been separated from each other for more than a half-century.
Truman’s cowardice toward communist nations sent a message to the rest of the world that the United States could be bullied and bluffed into submission, because it was willing to pull its punches. Consequently, we locked horns with communism in a 45-year Cold War.
America did not pull any punches in either World War I or II, both of which resulted in Allied victories. She didn’t do that in Cuba, either, when her Roughriders helped to kick the Spanish in the teeth at San Juan Hill. And the Union was particularly brutal and deliberate in its victory over the Confederacy, especially the final two years under the direction of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and his subordinates, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer et al.
As a result of Grant’s deliberate pursuit, Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s raids throughout the Shenandoah Valley, the tenacious and stubborn Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered little more than a year after Grant assumed command of the Army of the Potomac. Prior to Grant’s appointment, President Lincoln had gone through a half-dozen or more commanders in three years, including four between September 1862 and July 1863. Consequently, the war continued on and Gen. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had built up a head of steam that seemed near impossible to stop. Only the simultaneous victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg kept the Union from summarily losing the war by July 1863. But Gen. Meade’s reluctance to pursue a retreating Lee across the Potomac River dragged the war on and left Lincoln asking what every other American was wondering: How much longer?
Fortunately, Grant was not hesitant the way Meade and McClellan were. He was neither clumsy like Hooker, nor assuming and predictable as Burnside, nor uninspiring as Pope or McDowell. And he certainly wasn’t as arrogant as many of Lincoln’s general staff in Washington, D.C. were.
This same spirit inspired future military commanders like the eccentric Gen. George Patton, who gave German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel all he could handle in North Africa and Italy. Patton’s blood-and-guts style also helped to break the spirit of the German Army at the Battle of Bulge.
The reason why Germany and Japan failed to conquer the world, respectively, was because of brutal warriors such as Patton, MacArthur and other contemporaries of like mind. If not for them, the Second World War could have lasted longer and at much greater expense of lives lost.
Indeed, where would the world be today if the warrior spirit hadn’t existed in at least a few during history’s most pivotal conflicts? More importantly, imagine how much better our world might have been had the warrior spirit not been shackled by the fears of a few.
Perhaps we’d be looking at a unified Korea and democratic Vietnam.
But history is what it is. All we can do is learn from it. God willing.
He applied the same principle to the Indian Wars in the West following the Civil War. Sherman, along with Gens. Phil Sheridan, George Crook and Nelson Miles, among others, endorsed a policy of attrition against the Indian tribes by allowing them to starve into submission. The will to fight among many tribes was too great and strong for the United States Army to simply break in a single battle, or even a long series of them, for that matter. The Civil War and the Confederate resolve had proven this.
So, the Army allowed the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, a primary food source for many Indian tribes in the West, thus effectively cutting off their food supply and forcing them onto reservations where they could eat.
Whether or not one agrees with this tactic is a topic of debate for another time and place. But it is clear that such brutality was, in fact, effective in hastening an end to the Indian Wars.
About eighty years later, a lieutenant general named Douglas MacArthur proposed to invade China as part of a plan to sweep the communists out of Southeast Asia for good. But his commander-in-chief, Harry S. Truman, would have none of it. President Truman held a deep fear of communism—especially the Soviet Union to the north. He feared an invasion of China would provoke communist Russia into nuclear war with the United States. Perhaps President Truman had become gun-shy after having authorized the drop of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the devastating aftermath of which prompted the swift surrender of Imperial Japan and officially ended World War II. Whatever the reason, his reluctance to support MacArthur led to the latter’s dismissal, right in the middle of an American-led offensive that had the communist North Koreans on the run, fleeing across the border into China. MacArthur had argued that relentless pursuit of the enemy and its allies was the surest and shortest means to an end—that being an end to the Korean War.
But as history went, President Truman fired MacArthur, ordered Allied forces to pull back, and allowed the communist army to retake Northern Korea. This move not only made the war drag on longer, but it also bolstered the confidence of the communists and ultimately resulted in a cease-fire that drew the political lines that still exist today. Consequently, Korean families have been separated from each other for more than a half-century.
Truman’s cowardice toward communist nations sent a message to the rest of the world that the United States could be bullied and bluffed into submission, because it was willing to pull its punches. Consequently, we locked horns with communism in a 45-year Cold War.
America did not pull any punches in either World War I or II, both of which resulted in Allied victories. She didn’t do that in Cuba, either, when her Roughriders helped to kick the Spanish in the teeth at San Juan Hill. And the Union was particularly brutal and deliberate in its victory over the Confederacy, especially the final two years under the direction of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and his subordinates, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer et al.
As a result of Grant’s deliberate pursuit, Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s raids throughout the Shenandoah Valley, the tenacious and stubborn Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered little more than a year after Grant assumed command of the Army of the Potomac. Prior to Grant’s appointment, President Lincoln had gone through a half-dozen or more commanders in three years, including four between September 1862 and July 1863. Consequently, the war continued on and Gen. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had built up a head of steam that seemed near impossible to stop. Only the simultaneous victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg kept the Union from summarily losing the war by July 1863. But Gen. Meade’s reluctance to pursue a retreating Lee across the Potomac River dragged the war on and left Lincoln asking what every other American was wondering: How much longer?
Fortunately, Grant was not hesitant the way Meade and McClellan were. He was neither clumsy like Hooker, nor assuming and predictable as Burnside, nor uninspiring as Pope or McDowell. And he certainly wasn’t as arrogant as many of Lincoln’s general staff in Washington, D.C. were.
This same spirit inspired future military commanders like the eccentric Gen. George Patton, who gave German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel all he could handle in North Africa and Italy. Patton’s blood-and-guts style also helped to break the spirit of the German Army at the Battle of Bulge.
The reason why Germany and Japan failed to conquer the world, respectively, was because of brutal warriors such as Patton, MacArthur and other contemporaries of like mind. If not for them, the Second World War could have lasted longer and at much greater expense of lives lost.
Indeed, where would the world be today if the warrior spirit hadn’t existed in at least a few during history’s most pivotal conflicts? More importantly, imagine how much better our world might have been had the warrior spirit not been shackled by the fears of a few.
Perhaps we’d be looking at a unified Korea and democratic Vietnam.
But history is what it is. All we can do is learn from it. God willing.
McCain trumps Obama with an ace
For those of you keeping score, it’s John McCain one, Barack Obama zero.
The Maverick pulled a five-card ace to claim the first hand of the world’s largest poker game. Obama “The Changer,” on the other hand, stumbled with a deuce.
One day after Sen. Obama delivered an historic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colo., Sen. McCain rained on his opponent’s parade by making history for his party. The Maverick named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2008 election, marking the first time that a woman has appeared on a Republican presidential ticket.
The night before, Barack Obama accepted his party’s nomination, becoming the first black American to head a major party ticket in a presidential election. The event had been carefully planned and choreographed to correspond with the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech, something the mainstream press called “ironic" and was anything but.
McCain’s selection, though, couldn’t have been timed better or more brilliantly. The morning after Obama’s night on stage, the media swarmed and swooned over his acceptance speech like bees to honey. That’s when The Maverick lowered the boom.
Suddenly, the press was torn between continued “in-depth” analysis of Obama and McCain’s historic pick for a running mate.
And while McCain gave Obama his moment in the spotlight, he didn’t let him enjoy it for very long. The Maverick’s choice for vice-president sent the “O-camp” a message that he is capable of running stride-for-stride with The Changer, in spite of the latter’s younger, fresher legs.
But McCain’s veep choice is far more than an historic first. It’s good, smart political strategy and also a wise move by the moderate Arizona Senator to shore up the Republican Party’s conservative base. McCain risks losing a significant chunk of conservative voters, who have grown discontented with the senior senator’s rather “progressive” voting record on such issues as illegal immigration, the environment, and big government. Putting traditionally conservative Palin on the ticket as the vice-presidential running mate, though, has effectively reinvigorated what was becoming a very disappointed conservative voting block.
Gov. Palin may also prove to be an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, who have always claimed to be the party of women, minorities and the working class. Palin’s husband is an active member of the Steelworkers Union and a working class guy. Prior to her election as governor, Palin and her family lived as ordinary blue-collar, middle-class people. Her presence on the Republican ticket has the potential to take away some blue-collar labor votes that the Democrats have traditionally counted on. Furthermore, Palin as a woman is one Tuesday away from doing what Sen. Hillary Clinton has only dreamed about her entire adult life: Getting elected to the executive branch of the United States government. Female voters who otherwise wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman may, in fact, be inclined to cast their ballots for McCain-Palin because of the Alaska governor. However shallow it may seem to vote for somebody based on their gender, the fact of the matter is that people do and votes that may have gone to Hillary could wind up in McCain’s bag.
But I don’t think Palin’s candidacy for vice-president will be lauded, praised or celebrated the same way Clinton’s presidential campaign was. This is because the former is an economic and social conservative with pro-life, anti-abortion views. So it is unlikely she will garner much of the feminist vote despite her gender.
Another favorable attribute in Palin’s court is her youth. She is a young, attractive 44 years old. Obama is two years her senior at 46. So, Obamanation can no longer use youth as an advantage for its candidate, since the Republican ticket proves to be even younger.
Moreover, the Democrats cannot claim to be the minority ticket, either, in this election, because Palin, by virtue of her gender, is a political minority.
What Palin’s placement on the Republican ticket has done, ultimately, is steal the thunder from the Democratic Party by taking away its uniqueness and neutralizing its historical significance for voters who shallowly vote on such trivial matters as race and gender. If McCain wins in November, then Palin will be the first woman vice-president in U.S. history. Not at all unlike the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president in American history.
Perhaps more than any other advantage, though, Gov. Palin adds executive experience to the Republican ticket, something that the Democrats do not have either in Obama or his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden.
A new political ad backed by the Obama campaign criticizes Palin for being inexperienced, a charge often leveled at Obama, the junior senator from Illinois. Frankly, I don’t begrudge Obama for his lack of political experience. Sometimes a lack thereof can be a good thing, and often is the difference between somebody who really wants to make a positive difference for his or her country and someone who is simply looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. I personally have little use for career-minded politicians, whose primary objective, it seems, is to win re-election so they can continue feeding out of the generous public trough.
The Obama campaign can decry Gov. Palin all it wants to about the experience factor. But the fact of the matter is Palin has done more for her state as a first-term governor than Obama has done for his state as a first-term senator. She has the executive experience that neither McCain nor Obama nor Biden have. These guys are just senators, after all, who spend much of their time voting on and proposing bills, entertaining and hob-knobbing with lobbyists, and sitting on sub-committees pouring over legal documents or delighting in the interrogation of some new presidential appointee. This is what lawyers do. Executives lead and manage, which is exactly what Gov. Palin has done in Alaska.
Compare Palin’s resume to that of Biden, an old Beltway bird who has feathered his nest on the backs of taxpayers for more than three decades. Biden has a great deal more political experience than Palin, but that experience has turned him into a career politician less concerned about leading and more concerned about his fat federal pension.
Palin represents change in Washington, D.C., more so than Obama, who has built an entire presidential campaign around that verbiage. While Obama talks eloquently about change, Palin is walking proof of it. Her fiscal conservatism is just the kind of change that America needs in Washington, rather than more of the same gratuitous spending habits that politicians from both parties have grown accustomed to.
If Sen. Barack Obama is really the agent of change that his campaign claims him to be, then why in the world would he have picked a long-time Beltway player like Biden, who, near as I can tell, has no intention of changing the way Washington does its business as usual? Biden has benefited greatly from his senatorial service simply by playing the game the way it has always been played. If Obama is change, then his pick of someone who represents the status quo in Washington is the antithesis of his message and an anomaly to the campaign. Obama himself once said that the ways of Washington must change. Well, they haven’t yet and won’t because of people like Biden, who have stayed in power because they kept things the way they were.
What’s more, this is the same Joe Biden, who just months before, went on record as criticizing Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. The Democrat nominee’s own running mate charged him with inexperience. Furthermore, Biden last year made a prejudicial comment about Obama’s race, saying that the Illinois junior senator was a breath of fresh air from the black community because he was bright, clean and articulate.
Unfortunately for Obama, his running mate has already damaged the campaign simply by opening his mouth. If the Democrats hope to win in November, they will have to find a way to keep Biden’s mouth shut—no easy task given the latter’s track record of reckless, half-witted remarks. Anyone familiar with Biden knows that the senior senator from Delaware has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. He talks too much, and that’s a liability for any political campaign.
Where Palin may be a stroke of brilliance for McCain, Biden is likely to be the biggest political gaffe of Obama’s career.
The old senator will probably commandeer and dominate the vice-presidential debates, simply because he’s used to talking over people on sub-committees and at hearings. But Palin should steal the show with her poise, visible inner strength, quiet confidence and a way of personally connecting to the common man that she comes by naturally—something Biden boasts of doing, but his actions and words have betrayed him over the years. It was Sen. Joseph Biden, after all, who smugly and arrogantly remarked to a reporter that his intelligence quotient was considerably higher than that of the journalist interviewing him; not exactly making a connection with the common man there.
Nevertheless, Gov. Palin is likely to upstage the crotchety old lawmaker who has spent way too long in the Beltway for his own or anyone else’s good. And she has to say very little to do so. Her quiet confidence alone puts her head and shoulders above Biden.
This can only prove to make McCain look good and Obama appear as though he made a grievous error in judgment.
The Maverick pulled a five-card ace to claim the first hand of the world’s largest poker game. Obama “The Changer,” on the other hand, stumbled with a deuce.
One day after Sen. Obama delivered an historic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colo., Sen. McCain rained on his opponent’s parade by making history for his party. The Maverick named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2008 election, marking the first time that a woman has appeared on a Republican presidential ticket.
The night before, Barack Obama accepted his party’s nomination, becoming the first black American to head a major party ticket in a presidential election. The event had been carefully planned and choreographed to correspond with the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech, something the mainstream press called “ironic" and was anything but.
McCain’s selection, though, couldn’t have been timed better or more brilliantly. The morning after Obama’s night on stage, the media swarmed and swooned over his acceptance speech like bees to honey. That’s when The Maverick lowered the boom.
Suddenly, the press was torn between continued “in-depth” analysis of Obama and McCain’s historic pick for a running mate.
And while McCain gave Obama his moment in the spotlight, he didn’t let him enjoy it for very long. The Maverick’s choice for vice-president sent the “O-camp” a message that he is capable of running stride-for-stride with The Changer, in spite of the latter’s younger, fresher legs.
But McCain’s veep choice is far more than an historic first. It’s good, smart political strategy and also a wise move by the moderate Arizona Senator to shore up the Republican Party’s conservative base. McCain risks losing a significant chunk of conservative voters, who have grown discontented with the senior senator’s rather “progressive” voting record on such issues as illegal immigration, the environment, and big government. Putting traditionally conservative Palin on the ticket as the vice-presidential running mate, though, has effectively reinvigorated what was becoming a very disappointed conservative voting block.
Gov. Palin may also prove to be an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, who have always claimed to be the party of women, minorities and the working class. Palin’s husband is an active member of the Steelworkers Union and a working class guy. Prior to her election as governor, Palin and her family lived as ordinary blue-collar, middle-class people. Her presence on the Republican ticket has the potential to take away some blue-collar labor votes that the Democrats have traditionally counted on. Furthermore, Palin as a woman is one Tuesday away from doing what Sen. Hillary Clinton has only dreamed about her entire adult life: Getting elected to the executive branch of the United States government. Female voters who otherwise wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman may, in fact, be inclined to cast their ballots for McCain-Palin because of the Alaska governor. However shallow it may seem to vote for somebody based on their gender, the fact of the matter is that people do and votes that may have gone to Hillary could wind up in McCain’s bag.
But I don’t think Palin’s candidacy for vice-president will be lauded, praised or celebrated the same way Clinton’s presidential campaign was. This is because the former is an economic and social conservative with pro-life, anti-abortion views. So it is unlikely she will garner much of the feminist vote despite her gender.
Another favorable attribute in Palin’s court is her youth. She is a young, attractive 44 years old. Obama is two years her senior at 46. So, Obamanation can no longer use youth as an advantage for its candidate, since the Republican ticket proves to be even younger.
Moreover, the Democrats cannot claim to be the minority ticket, either, in this election, because Palin, by virtue of her gender, is a political minority.
What Palin’s placement on the Republican ticket has done, ultimately, is steal the thunder from the Democratic Party by taking away its uniqueness and neutralizing its historical significance for voters who shallowly vote on such trivial matters as race and gender. If McCain wins in November, then Palin will be the first woman vice-president in U.S. history. Not at all unlike the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president in American history.
Perhaps more than any other advantage, though, Gov. Palin adds executive experience to the Republican ticket, something that the Democrats do not have either in Obama or his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden.
A new political ad backed by the Obama campaign criticizes Palin for being inexperienced, a charge often leveled at Obama, the junior senator from Illinois. Frankly, I don’t begrudge Obama for his lack of political experience. Sometimes a lack thereof can be a good thing, and often is the difference between somebody who really wants to make a positive difference for his or her country and someone who is simply looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. I personally have little use for career-minded politicians, whose primary objective, it seems, is to win re-election so they can continue feeding out of the generous public trough.
The Obama campaign can decry Gov. Palin all it wants to about the experience factor. But the fact of the matter is Palin has done more for her state as a first-term governor than Obama has done for his state as a first-term senator. She has the executive experience that neither McCain nor Obama nor Biden have. These guys are just senators, after all, who spend much of their time voting on and proposing bills, entertaining and hob-knobbing with lobbyists, and sitting on sub-committees pouring over legal documents or delighting in the interrogation of some new presidential appointee. This is what lawyers do. Executives lead and manage, which is exactly what Gov. Palin has done in Alaska.
Compare Palin’s resume to that of Biden, an old Beltway bird who has feathered his nest on the backs of taxpayers for more than three decades. Biden has a great deal more political experience than Palin, but that experience has turned him into a career politician less concerned about leading and more concerned about his fat federal pension.
Palin represents change in Washington, D.C., more so than Obama, who has built an entire presidential campaign around that verbiage. While Obama talks eloquently about change, Palin is walking proof of it. Her fiscal conservatism is just the kind of change that America needs in Washington, rather than more of the same gratuitous spending habits that politicians from both parties have grown accustomed to.
If Sen. Barack Obama is really the agent of change that his campaign claims him to be, then why in the world would he have picked a long-time Beltway player like Biden, who, near as I can tell, has no intention of changing the way Washington does its business as usual? Biden has benefited greatly from his senatorial service simply by playing the game the way it has always been played. If Obama is change, then his pick of someone who represents the status quo in Washington is the antithesis of his message and an anomaly to the campaign. Obama himself once said that the ways of Washington must change. Well, they haven’t yet and won’t because of people like Biden, who have stayed in power because they kept things the way they were.
What’s more, this is the same Joe Biden, who just months before, went on record as criticizing Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. The Democrat nominee’s own running mate charged him with inexperience. Furthermore, Biden last year made a prejudicial comment about Obama’s race, saying that the Illinois junior senator was a breath of fresh air from the black community because he was bright, clean and articulate.
Unfortunately for Obama, his running mate has already damaged the campaign simply by opening his mouth. If the Democrats hope to win in November, they will have to find a way to keep Biden’s mouth shut—no easy task given the latter’s track record of reckless, half-witted remarks. Anyone familiar with Biden knows that the senior senator from Delaware has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. He talks too much, and that’s a liability for any political campaign.
Where Palin may be a stroke of brilliance for McCain, Biden is likely to be the biggest political gaffe of Obama’s career.
The old senator will probably commandeer and dominate the vice-presidential debates, simply because he’s used to talking over people on sub-committees and at hearings. But Palin should steal the show with her poise, visible inner strength, quiet confidence and a way of personally connecting to the common man that she comes by naturally—something Biden boasts of doing, but his actions and words have betrayed him over the years. It was Sen. Joseph Biden, after all, who smugly and arrogantly remarked to a reporter that his intelligence quotient was considerably higher than that of the journalist interviewing him; not exactly making a connection with the common man there.
Nevertheless, Gov. Palin is likely to upstage the crotchety old lawmaker who has spent way too long in the Beltway for his own or anyone else’s good. And she has to say very little to do so. Her quiet confidence alone puts her head and shoulders above Biden.
This can only prove to make McCain look good and Obama appear as though he made a grievous error in judgment.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Straight from the heart
I have a lot of contentions with the Kennedy family, too numerous to go into here. But the Special Olympics is certainly not one of them. When it comes to persons with developmental disabilities, Eunice Kennedy Shriver got it right. And for that, she has my respect.
Mrs. Shriver put her money where her mouth was upon establishing what would grow into one of the largest not-for-profit charities in the world.
The Special Olympics has helped millions of physically and mentally handicapped people realize dreams and achieve a measure of success that you and I take for granted every day: self-respect.
Special Olympians face a daily struggle to overcome barriers that the average person does not have. These include, but are not limited to, the ability to live on one's own, to make choices and decisions independent of others, to care for oneself, to go where one pleases and when one pleases without supervision or permission, to pursue a career and profession, obtain an education beyond the high school level, and generally sustain oneself for oneself.
Now, this, of course, is not the lot of all developmentally disabled persons. Some are healthier and less severe than others. Some can work and hold a job. Some can raise a family of their own. Some can and have gone on to great things like college, a professional career, or the realization of special talents and gifts. But, in general, Special Olympians have limitations that normal, healthy individuals do not have.
The Special Olympics gives developmentally disabled persons the opportunity to achieve some measure of success in their lives, be it something as simple as inclusion and obtaining a sense of belonging.
I'll be the first to admit that when I was a kid, I would snicker and laugh at mentally retarded children in my school, because they were very different from me. There was something wrong with them. They weren't normal.
Well, I was partially right. Developmentally disabled people aren't normal; they're special.
Underneath their abnormalities, Special Olympians are human beings with a beating heart and a spirit, which can be seen from the divine spark in each of their eyes. They are deserving of a fundamental measure of respect, and the Special Olympics helps to give that much to them.
I can say from personal experience that developmentally disabled people are some of the most sincere, hard-working and dedicated individuals I've ever met. By and large, they do not manipulate others, because they do not realize that they have this power. They cannot really hate, because they have no understanding of the word and what it means, let alone what it looks like. They are not lazy or underachieving, because by their efforts, the most severe of them can best me any day of the week. They will give you their best without ever having to be asked, because they just want to be accepted, respected and loved.
On the other hand, Special Olympians have a very clear and concise concept of love, because they love unconditionally. They show extraordinary courage, because they don't know cowardice exists. They don't see barriers where we see them: color, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or even disabilities. In fact, many don't see barriers at all, because they have put none up in front of them.
Perhaps therein lies the big picture and the very point Special Olympics makes to the rest of the world: It exists not exclusively to help the disabled, but also for the disabled to help the rest of us see a life without barriers, that anything is possible when you set your mind to it, and the only obstacles we have in life are the ones we set before ourselves. Everything else that follows is just an excuse for not achieving what each of us is capable of.
The Special Olympics is much more than a catalyst for disabled people to set goals and achieve dreams. It is a conduit of knowledge, wherewith the disabled person is able to open the eyes of the non-disabled. When we see the world through the eyes of a child, suddenly everything seems so simple, so clear and a lot less muddled. If we allow ourselves to see the world through the eyes of a developmentally disabled person, many of whom are themselves children trapped in adult bodies, we stop stirring the mud from the bottom of the pool and suddenly see what was there all along: the truth about ourselves and our purpose in life.
The truth is, we are only as limited as the limits we place upon ourselves. And our purpose in life is to live to inspire others.
Special Olympians do this every day. They've done it to me. If you let them, perhaps they can do it to you, too.
Mrs. Shriver put her money where her mouth was upon establishing what would grow into one of the largest not-for-profit charities in the world.
The Special Olympics has helped millions of physically and mentally handicapped people realize dreams and achieve a measure of success that you and I take for granted every day: self-respect.
Special Olympians face a daily struggle to overcome barriers that the average person does not have. These include, but are not limited to, the ability to live on one's own, to make choices and decisions independent of others, to care for oneself, to go where one pleases and when one pleases without supervision or permission, to pursue a career and profession, obtain an education beyond the high school level, and generally sustain oneself for oneself.
Now, this, of course, is not the lot of all developmentally disabled persons. Some are healthier and less severe than others. Some can work and hold a job. Some can raise a family of their own. Some can and have gone on to great things like college, a professional career, or the realization of special talents and gifts. But, in general, Special Olympians have limitations that normal, healthy individuals do not have.
The Special Olympics gives developmentally disabled persons the opportunity to achieve some measure of success in their lives, be it something as simple as inclusion and obtaining a sense of belonging.
I'll be the first to admit that when I was a kid, I would snicker and laugh at mentally retarded children in my school, because they were very different from me. There was something wrong with them. They weren't normal.
Well, I was partially right. Developmentally disabled people aren't normal; they're special.
Underneath their abnormalities, Special Olympians are human beings with a beating heart and a spirit, which can be seen from the divine spark in each of their eyes. They are deserving of a fundamental measure of respect, and the Special Olympics helps to give that much to them.
I can say from personal experience that developmentally disabled people are some of the most sincere, hard-working and dedicated individuals I've ever met. By and large, they do not manipulate others, because they do not realize that they have this power. They cannot really hate, because they have no understanding of the word and what it means, let alone what it looks like. They are not lazy or underachieving, because by their efforts, the most severe of them can best me any day of the week. They will give you their best without ever having to be asked, because they just want to be accepted, respected and loved.
On the other hand, Special Olympians have a very clear and concise concept of love, because they love unconditionally. They show extraordinary courage, because they don't know cowardice exists. They don't see barriers where we see them: color, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or even disabilities. In fact, many don't see barriers at all, because they have put none up in front of them.
Perhaps therein lies the big picture and the very point Special Olympics makes to the rest of the world: It exists not exclusively to help the disabled, but also for the disabled to help the rest of us see a life without barriers, that anything is possible when you set your mind to it, and the only obstacles we have in life are the ones we set before ourselves. Everything else that follows is just an excuse for not achieving what each of us is capable of.
The Special Olympics is much more than a catalyst for disabled people to set goals and achieve dreams. It is a conduit of knowledge, wherewith the disabled person is able to open the eyes of the non-disabled. When we see the world through the eyes of a child, suddenly everything seems so simple, so clear and a lot less muddled. If we allow ourselves to see the world through the eyes of a developmentally disabled person, many of whom are themselves children trapped in adult bodies, we stop stirring the mud from the bottom of the pool and suddenly see what was there all along: the truth about ourselves and our purpose in life.
The truth is, we are only as limited as the limits we place upon ourselves. And our purpose in life is to live to inspire others.
Special Olympians do this every day. They've done it to me. If you let them, perhaps they can do it to you, too.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
A war without end
Enough is enough. The war between the colors has got to end.
If the United States of America is ever going to heal from the wounds of her past, then we need to stop picking at the scabs. Otherwise, the injuries suffered her will become permanent scars.
I fear that they already are.
And we only have ourselves to blame.
The issue of race has been a central topic of debate since the earliest beginnings of our nation. Founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson held universal beliefs about the fundamental rights of men and recognized the suppression of those rights via the racist institution of slavery. Many founders, including slave owners Jefferson and Washington, came to see slavery as a wrong that needed to be righted. They just differed on how that was to be done. Some, like Adams, sought an immediate end to the practice, while others felt a gradual decline in the use of and demand for slave labor was necessary to avoid severe social and economic consequences.
Washington and Jefferson both believed that a sudden stop to slavery would not only cripple the economy of the American South, but would also turn loose thousands of people unprepared to take care of themselves and their families.
This perspective was paternalistic, to be sure, but it was a widely held view of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Unfortunately, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin dramatically changed the dynamics of slavery and set back its end about another 70 years. Had there been no invention that increased the demand for slave labor, then the practice could well have ended a half century before it actually did.
Regardless, racial debates increased as the notion of Civil War became an inevitable reality. Irreconcilable differences between North and South resulted in long-term social consequences that are still felt very strongly today.
During Reconstruction, bitter whites formed supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan to take out their anger and frustrations on former slaves and free blacks. That bitterness wasn’t just confined to the war-torn South, either. Racism spread into the industrialized North, where former slaves and free blacks competed with whites for jobs. Many white workers resented the fact that the black man was competing with them for work.
The sad reality is that black Americans found no more success up north as free men than they had on Southern plantations in bondage. Escaped slaves prior to and during the Civil War discovered that hatred and resentment toward them existed perhaps more so up north as in the south. Likewise, former slaves learned that life as free men had its share of severe consequences formidable to those in bondage.
Since the Civil War, America has made slow, gradual progress toward racial equality, beginning with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, which brought an official end to slavery in the United States. An amendment was later added to the Constitution, giving black men the right to vote and participate in this great republican democracy experiment. Gains toward equality would be painfully slow after that as America recovered from the deep wounds inflicted on her during the Civil War. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1950s that racial equality was looked at seriously and significant strides were made in its name.
But since then, America has been living up to its declarative promises more so than at any other period in her history. We ought to be proud of the lessons learned and accomplishments made toward racial equality, reconciliation and opportunity.
Sadly, though, we aren’t.
At a time when Americans ought to celebrate a coming of age of their nation’s enduring promises, we prefer instead to hold onto old vices, grudges and memories out of guilt and retaliation.
Many whites harbor the guilt of past wrongs inflicted by their ancestors upon others. Likewise, many blacks and other ethnic minorities brood over past wrongs done to their ancestors.
Reliving the past is no way to get beyond it. Yet, people like the Revs. Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson want to keep pounding the nail and turning the screw tighter.
It’s one thing to remember the lessons of the past, but quite another to relive and revive wrongs that ought to be allowed to rest in peace.
Too many minority leaders today aren’t willing to do this, because racial reconciliation and lasting peace will mean an end to their individual power and influence. Who would need the Wrights, Sharptons or Jacksons of the world if people were to let go of their guilt and resentment? No one.
And that is why race continues to be a hot topic today. The so-called voices of the down-trodden need it to be if they are to remain relevant. Otherwise, they fade into history and obscurity.
We ought to be under no illusions: Racism between ethnic groups will always exist.
Racism today cuts across ethnic lines. Because of deep-seeded resentments, minorities have come to hate both the majority as well as one another. In the inner cities, neighborhoods have been divided by race and are often pitted against each other in a power struggle for racial superiority.
Contrary to what many academic sociologists have come to believe, racism is not institutional; meaning that it is a white-only problem, because the white institution is continually regarded as the majority.
Rather, racism is a personal problem that infects the heart and the mind. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racism as (1) “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; and (2) racial prejudice or discrimination.”
The fact that racism is a belief confirms that it is a problem of the human heart that knows no color.
The Black Panthers were a group of racist black crusaders intent on exacting revenge on white society. The Mexican group “La Raza” also seeks retribution against the so-called American “majority” for sins of the past, including the seizure of lands in the American Southwest as a result of the Mexican-American War. Oddly enough, “La Raza” translates into English as “The Race.”
In truth, racism can never be completely extinguished, because it is based upon innate human fear of change, the unknown and of differences. For this reason, we must not ignore history and its lessons.
However, we also must not fall into the trap of pessimism and cynicism by harboring unnecessary guilt, shame, resentment and hatred toward one another for the wrongs of the past.
Some of my ancestors were Southerners, and some may have even owned slaves. But what my ancestors did in their time does not reflect on my time. I’m a different person than they were, and just because there may have been a scarlet letter somewhere on my family tree does not mean I should bear it on my branch. I harbor no guilt for slavery or racism, because I know in my heart that I find slavery offensive and the idea of racial inequality unjust.
Those whites who cling to a guilty conscience in order to liberate themselves from the sins of the past are only fooling themselves. By bearing this guilt, they unnecessarily carry the chains of regret and shame along with them. Consequently, they end up living in deep-seeded misery all their lives, making themselves feel as though they are never truly free, but rather in a constant state of moral probation.
Conversely, ethnic minorities ought to be willing to let go of their grudges held over past mistreatment and injustices. Forcing whites to relive the sins of their fathers only causes resentment in the direction of hatred.
In recent years, certain minority advocacy groups have demanded reparations of the United States government over wrongs done to their ancestors. Not only is this a classic case of people unwilling to let go of the past, but it is also pure, unadulterated greed. Make no mistake: The demand for reparations is nothing more than an effort to get money, as though money will solve our nation’s racial problems. Money is like law: It is tangible, temporary relief that simply coats the wound like an ointment, making us feel better until its soothing effects subside. Then we just coat it again and again.
Unfortunately, all we end up doing is giving ourselves temporary pain relief. But we do nothing to treat the wound and let it heal. Rather, we have picked at it, and now, the wound has become infected.
If we aren’t careful and don’t seek meaningful treatment for our injuries, then the infection will spread to the point where permanent damage can occur.
Should the Wrights, Sharptons and Jacksons have their way, the wounds of America’s decades long race war will end up claiming her life.
If there is ever to be any further progress toward racial reconciliation and a realistic end to the war, then the American people as one need to forgive and forget what has been done. When I say forget, I mean to say that we ought not hold on to bitter memories, but rather let go and move on. This isn’t to suggest that we should ignore history or forget its lessons. But certainly, there can be no forgiveness if at first a person is unwilling to forget and let go of the past.
Whites must be willing to forgive themselves and their ancestors, while minorities must be willing to forgive what had been done to their ancestors.
Without forgiveness, there can be no real, meaningful healing. There can be no peace, no armistice, no end to the war.
If the United States of America is ever going to heal from the wounds of her past, then we need to stop picking at the scabs. Otherwise, the injuries suffered her will become permanent scars.
I fear that they already are.
And we only have ourselves to blame.
The issue of race has been a central topic of debate since the earliest beginnings of our nation. Founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson held universal beliefs about the fundamental rights of men and recognized the suppression of those rights via the racist institution of slavery. Many founders, including slave owners Jefferson and Washington, came to see slavery as a wrong that needed to be righted. They just differed on how that was to be done. Some, like Adams, sought an immediate end to the practice, while others felt a gradual decline in the use of and demand for slave labor was necessary to avoid severe social and economic consequences.
Washington and Jefferson both believed that a sudden stop to slavery would not only cripple the economy of the American South, but would also turn loose thousands of people unprepared to take care of themselves and their families.
This perspective was paternalistic, to be sure, but it was a widely held view of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Unfortunately, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin dramatically changed the dynamics of slavery and set back its end about another 70 years. Had there been no invention that increased the demand for slave labor, then the practice could well have ended a half century before it actually did.
Regardless, racial debates increased as the notion of Civil War became an inevitable reality. Irreconcilable differences between North and South resulted in long-term social consequences that are still felt very strongly today.
During Reconstruction, bitter whites formed supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan to take out their anger and frustrations on former slaves and free blacks. That bitterness wasn’t just confined to the war-torn South, either. Racism spread into the industrialized North, where former slaves and free blacks competed with whites for jobs. Many white workers resented the fact that the black man was competing with them for work.
The sad reality is that black Americans found no more success up north as free men than they had on Southern plantations in bondage. Escaped slaves prior to and during the Civil War discovered that hatred and resentment toward them existed perhaps more so up north as in the south. Likewise, former slaves learned that life as free men had its share of severe consequences formidable to those in bondage.
Since the Civil War, America has made slow, gradual progress toward racial equality, beginning with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, which brought an official end to slavery in the United States. An amendment was later added to the Constitution, giving black men the right to vote and participate in this great republican democracy experiment. Gains toward equality would be painfully slow after that as America recovered from the deep wounds inflicted on her during the Civil War. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1950s that racial equality was looked at seriously and significant strides were made in its name.
But since then, America has been living up to its declarative promises more so than at any other period in her history. We ought to be proud of the lessons learned and accomplishments made toward racial equality, reconciliation and opportunity.
Sadly, though, we aren’t.
At a time when Americans ought to celebrate a coming of age of their nation’s enduring promises, we prefer instead to hold onto old vices, grudges and memories out of guilt and retaliation.
Many whites harbor the guilt of past wrongs inflicted by their ancestors upon others. Likewise, many blacks and other ethnic minorities brood over past wrongs done to their ancestors.
Reliving the past is no way to get beyond it. Yet, people like the Revs. Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson want to keep pounding the nail and turning the screw tighter.
It’s one thing to remember the lessons of the past, but quite another to relive and revive wrongs that ought to be allowed to rest in peace.
Too many minority leaders today aren’t willing to do this, because racial reconciliation and lasting peace will mean an end to their individual power and influence. Who would need the Wrights, Sharptons or Jacksons of the world if people were to let go of their guilt and resentment? No one.
And that is why race continues to be a hot topic today. The so-called voices of the down-trodden need it to be if they are to remain relevant. Otherwise, they fade into history and obscurity.
We ought to be under no illusions: Racism between ethnic groups will always exist.
Racism today cuts across ethnic lines. Because of deep-seeded resentments, minorities have come to hate both the majority as well as one another. In the inner cities, neighborhoods have been divided by race and are often pitted against each other in a power struggle for racial superiority.
Contrary to what many academic sociologists have come to believe, racism is not institutional; meaning that it is a white-only problem, because the white institution is continually regarded as the majority.
Rather, racism is a personal problem that infects the heart and the mind. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racism as (1) “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; and (2) racial prejudice or discrimination.”
The fact that racism is a belief confirms that it is a problem of the human heart that knows no color.
The Black Panthers were a group of racist black crusaders intent on exacting revenge on white society. The Mexican group “La Raza” also seeks retribution against the so-called American “majority” for sins of the past, including the seizure of lands in the American Southwest as a result of the Mexican-American War. Oddly enough, “La Raza” translates into English as “The Race.”
In truth, racism can never be completely extinguished, because it is based upon innate human fear of change, the unknown and of differences. For this reason, we must not ignore history and its lessons.
However, we also must not fall into the trap of pessimism and cynicism by harboring unnecessary guilt, shame, resentment and hatred toward one another for the wrongs of the past.
Some of my ancestors were Southerners, and some may have even owned slaves. But what my ancestors did in their time does not reflect on my time. I’m a different person than they were, and just because there may have been a scarlet letter somewhere on my family tree does not mean I should bear it on my branch. I harbor no guilt for slavery or racism, because I know in my heart that I find slavery offensive and the idea of racial inequality unjust.
Those whites who cling to a guilty conscience in order to liberate themselves from the sins of the past are only fooling themselves. By bearing this guilt, they unnecessarily carry the chains of regret and shame along with them. Consequently, they end up living in deep-seeded misery all their lives, making themselves feel as though they are never truly free, but rather in a constant state of moral probation.
Conversely, ethnic minorities ought to be willing to let go of their grudges held over past mistreatment and injustices. Forcing whites to relive the sins of their fathers only causes resentment in the direction of hatred.
In recent years, certain minority advocacy groups have demanded reparations of the United States government over wrongs done to their ancestors. Not only is this a classic case of people unwilling to let go of the past, but it is also pure, unadulterated greed. Make no mistake: The demand for reparations is nothing more than an effort to get money, as though money will solve our nation’s racial problems. Money is like law: It is tangible, temporary relief that simply coats the wound like an ointment, making us feel better until its soothing effects subside. Then we just coat it again and again.
Unfortunately, all we end up doing is giving ourselves temporary pain relief. But we do nothing to treat the wound and let it heal. Rather, we have picked at it, and now, the wound has become infected.
If we aren’t careful and don’t seek meaningful treatment for our injuries, then the infection will spread to the point where permanent damage can occur.
Should the Wrights, Sharptons and Jacksons have their way, the wounds of America’s decades long race war will end up claiming her life.
If there is ever to be any further progress toward racial reconciliation and a realistic end to the war, then the American people as one need to forgive and forget what has been done. When I say forget, I mean to say that we ought not hold on to bitter memories, but rather let go and move on. This isn’t to suggest that we should ignore history or forget its lessons. But certainly, there can be no forgiveness if at first a person is unwilling to forget and let go of the past.
Whites must be willing to forgive themselves and their ancestors, while minorities must be willing to forgive what had been done to their ancestors.
Without forgiveness, there can be no real, meaningful healing. There can be no peace, no armistice, no end to the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
