A newspaper writer in Pittsburgh commented a few weeks ago that those who opposed Trump took him literally but not seriously while those who supported his candidacy took him seriously but not literally.
Today we see they were both wrong. Trump is as serious as a heart attack (I choose that metaphor purposefully) and that is precisely because of his plans... plans that will likely be unimpeded since he'll have a Republican congress and, at least theoretically, a partisan judiciary.
11 million people deported... imagine what that does to our economy. And then imagine what that does to the places to which they are sent.
The ACA repealed... Perhaps as many as 20 million people who had been uninsured, who got insurance under the ACA, now uninsured again. 45,000 annual deaths in the US due to lack of insurance before the ACA and we'll be back there again. I have a very good chance of being one of them... more in a later post.
Fundamental threats to the freedom of the press and to the civilized transfer of the political process ("lock her up," or worse, "execute her").
Trade agreements torn up.
Social safety net shredded and replaced with privatized schemes.
Bigotry being enshrined under the cloak of religious freedom
Any desire to address the biggest issue we face today - climate change - in a substantive way is simply discarded.
People of color and LGBTQ folk being completely disenfranchised.
No checks or balances.
Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
fundamentalism and the voting booth
I know about fundamentalists. I'm a Baptist pastor and if any groups is known for harboring fundamentalists it is us. (It isn't fair or accurate to label all Baptists as fundamentalists... duh look at me... but there is something about this movement that at least allows room for them to develop).
This post is not about religious fundamentalists and their politics (though it may be). Instead it is about a new brand of political fundamentalists.
Back when Gore vs. Bush happened and Ralph Nader stuck his head into the fray, he spoke at my church in upstate NY. As I remember it, one of the things Nader said was that voters should choose a candidate purely from their ideas. If the candidate had no chance of winning... irrelevant. Idealogical purity was/is the only criteria. When pressed whether his candidacy might cause Bush to win, Nader refused to even consider any culpability. Indeed, when after the election Nader was presented with the numbers... if only 30% of those who had voted for him in Florida had gone for Gore, the questions that eventually took the election to the SCOTUS would never have materialized and Gore would have been the clear winner, Nader basically responded that had the Dems presented a better candidate, that would not have been an issue. Of course, if everyone voted simply on ideological purity, nobody would ever get enough votes to be elected. Had the Dems presented Nader, Bush still would have won and likely by a much, much wider margin.
This year, we're presented with an interesting political quandary. Neither of the major candidates is generating a lot of love from their prospective parties. I can't tell you how many leftist folk I've encountered who have said that it doesn't matter that HRC and Bernie come out the same on about 93% of the issues... it is the other 7% that they cannot abide by and so will never vote for HRC. (OK the percentages were pulled out of thin air, but HRC and Bernie aren't very far apart on most issues.) It is easier for me to understand a real conservative saying that he/she would never vote for Trump as at best he has been amazingly inconsistent regarding his stand on just about everything other than the size of his... hands. On that side of the isle I'm fascinated at the number of folk who are willing to overlook basically everything about him in order to vote Republican.
So the question is at what point does one step away from fundamentalism... and ideological purity? Anyone who knows me knows that I was a Bernie supporter although he was not my perfect candidate. I've long ago abandoned any semblance of political fundamentalism as my perfect candidate wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of ever getting elected so I have long wrestled with the questions of incremental change and the possibility of winning vs. losing because I backed a horse without a chance and getting nothing I hope for.
This post is not about religious fundamentalists and their politics (though it may be). Instead it is about a new brand of political fundamentalists.
Back when Gore vs. Bush happened and Ralph Nader stuck his head into the fray, he spoke at my church in upstate NY. As I remember it, one of the things Nader said was that voters should choose a candidate purely from their ideas. If the candidate had no chance of winning... irrelevant. Idealogical purity was/is the only criteria. When pressed whether his candidacy might cause Bush to win, Nader refused to even consider any culpability. Indeed, when after the election Nader was presented with the numbers... if only 30% of those who had voted for him in Florida had gone for Gore, the questions that eventually took the election to the SCOTUS would never have materialized and Gore would have been the clear winner, Nader basically responded that had the Dems presented a better candidate, that would not have been an issue. Of course, if everyone voted simply on ideological purity, nobody would ever get enough votes to be elected. Had the Dems presented Nader, Bush still would have won and likely by a much, much wider margin.
This year, we're presented with an interesting political quandary. Neither of the major candidates is generating a lot of love from their prospective parties. I can't tell you how many leftist folk I've encountered who have said that it doesn't matter that HRC and Bernie come out the same on about 93% of the issues... it is the other 7% that they cannot abide by and so will never vote for HRC. (OK the percentages were pulled out of thin air, but HRC and Bernie aren't very far apart on most issues.) It is easier for me to understand a real conservative saying that he/she would never vote for Trump as at best he has been amazingly inconsistent regarding his stand on just about everything other than the size of his... hands. On that side of the isle I'm fascinated at the number of folk who are willing to overlook basically everything about him in order to vote Republican.
So the question is at what point does one step away from fundamentalism... and ideological purity? Anyone who knows me knows that I was a Bernie supporter although he was not my perfect candidate. I've long ago abandoned any semblance of political fundamentalism as my perfect candidate wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of ever getting elected so I have long wrestled with the questions of incremental change and the possibility of winning vs. losing because I backed a horse without a chance and getting nothing I hope for.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
An Economic Problem
I listened to most of the Republican debate last night and I have to wonder what universe they're living in... for that matter, a similar question can be raised with the Dems.
Again and again, I heard how they were going to rebuild a growth economy that would provide good, well paying jobs for Americans. Regardless of how I feel about their tactics, the truth is I don't think that is a possibility right now.
Let's imagine the very best possible outcomes... a bunch of these big multi-national companies decide to come back to the US and build big modern factories... The fact is that those factories will hire some folk, but not nearly the number that a similar factory would have hired 50 years ago. Automation is the word. Robots and computers would be doing the work that Tom, Bill, John, Jean, and Sally did in the 50's. Bob might still have a job making sure things are going well but the productivity of the individual worker is way higher which basically means that fewer flesh and blood employees are needed to produce even more goods. As time goes on, there will likely be fewer of these jobs in the factories with more and more of the work becoming automated. Even if those few workers did get higher pay (which in today's economy they do not), because of increased productivity, the lions share of income goes up the ladder to those who own the capital. Labor doesn't count as capital and besides, there are scores of folk who would love to leave the fast food job for a chance at a position that pays closer to a living wage. Of course we still need folk to design and program the robots... but those aren't blue collar jobs that pay well.
We could use serious work on infrastructure which does require skilled labor and just plain labor... but that requires bigger government and nobody is really talking about the kind of government commitment required to rebuild crumbling roads and bridges all across the country.
Which leaves us service jobs which have grown. The Obama presidency produced significantly more jobs that previous Republican administrations but the observation is correct, many are not jobs that provide a living wage. The reality is that fewer of those service jobs will be needed in the near future. Retail has rapidly shifted to the internet, putting scores of retail clerks out of jobs and moving those tasks to large distribution centers where much of the work can be automated and even that which is not requires radically fewer workers than your local Macys. Think of it, there is no real reason that McDonalds really needs more than one or two people. Virtually everything done at a fast food restaurant could be automated. You could punch your order into a ouch screen, swipe your card, and wait for a series of computerized robots to provide you with a custom made burger without the possibility that someone overlooked your order or put extra pickles on when you had clearly stated none. It won't be long until it is less expensive for a new franchise to do just that vs. hiring real people who make mistakes, get sick, and get weekly paychecks.
So much work can be centralized. More and more Universities are moving to online classes where a video of a professor who died a decade ago can continue to "educate" students while, yes, computers can grade the papers. Surgeons can use robots across the globe to perform surgeries and my insurance is rewarding customers who use online physicians. Multi-site churches use star preachers and show the sermon on a big screen while volunteer musicians lead the worship. One of our local wine tasting rooms has a bank of spigots on a wall with a touch pad, a description of each wine, and a card reader. When you arrive, you receive a card with a computer chip to use at the pouring stations. You then choose the wine you want to taste, slide your card, push the size of the taste, and hold your glass under the spigot where you receive exactly the pour you ordered. At the end of your tastings you hand the card to the one person (not really required) who places the card in another reader that then tells you your bill... which as likely as not, you pay with a debit card swiped through another card reader. The few places where real people are required - wait staff at a high end restaurant, a real pourer at the wine tasting room, artisan crafts, personal care givers for the elderly, etc. - are luxuries. We simply need fewer people to do more work... and as the technology improves, we will need fewer yet. There simply are not and will not be enough jobs out there. And some of the work that does require real people, such as music, art, literature, is becoming devalued by the current means of distribution (digital via the internet) and those folk are less able to make a living at their work.
What all of that adds up to is that the current direction of our economy does not bode well for those without significant capital in the short term and for just about anyone in the long term (owning an automated factory doesn't do much for your bank account if there is no customer base to purchase your goods).
It really does feel to me as if we're headed to a choice between a future that looks like Star Trek The Next Generation where people spend their time doing things that bring meaning to their lives or a world like Blade Runner or The Hunger Games where the vast majority of folk live in dangerous and depressing places, just on the edge while a few reap whatever rewards there might be and live behind walls in gated, protected areas.
Now, I'll get a bit political... those who argue for smaller government push us towards a world like the latter. That is certainly the world their current patron saint - Ayn Rand - would have advocate (think of the places in the world with "small government" like Somalia and tell me you'd really rather live there). Even the more left leaning, worker centered views of some Democrats like Bernie Sanders just holds off that new world for a few short years. As a society we will have to make decisions and a radical rethink of the way our economy needs to be shaped is necessary if we want to avoid that future.
Again and again, I heard how they were going to rebuild a growth economy that would provide good, well paying jobs for Americans. Regardless of how I feel about their tactics, the truth is I don't think that is a possibility right now.
Let's imagine the very best possible outcomes... a bunch of these big multi-national companies decide to come back to the US and build big modern factories... The fact is that those factories will hire some folk, but not nearly the number that a similar factory would have hired 50 years ago. Automation is the word. Robots and computers would be doing the work that Tom, Bill, John, Jean, and Sally did in the 50's. Bob might still have a job making sure things are going well but the productivity of the individual worker is way higher which basically means that fewer flesh and blood employees are needed to produce even more goods. As time goes on, there will likely be fewer of these jobs in the factories with more and more of the work becoming automated. Even if those few workers did get higher pay (which in today's economy they do not), because of increased productivity, the lions share of income goes up the ladder to those who own the capital. Labor doesn't count as capital and besides, there are scores of folk who would love to leave the fast food job for a chance at a position that pays closer to a living wage. Of course we still need folk to design and program the robots... but those aren't blue collar jobs that pay well.
We could use serious work on infrastructure which does require skilled labor and just plain labor... but that requires bigger government and nobody is really talking about the kind of government commitment required to rebuild crumbling roads and bridges all across the country.
Which leaves us service jobs which have grown. The Obama presidency produced significantly more jobs that previous Republican administrations but the observation is correct, many are not jobs that provide a living wage. The reality is that fewer of those service jobs will be needed in the near future. Retail has rapidly shifted to the internet, putting scores of retail clerks out of jobs and moving those tasks to large distribution centers where much of the work can be automated and even that which is not requires radically fewer workers than your local Macys. Think of it, there is no real reason that McDonalds really needs more than one or two people. Virtually everything done at a fast food restaurant could be automated. You could punch your order into a ouch screen, swipe your card, and wait for a series of computerized robots to provide you with a custom made burger without the possibility that someone overlooked your order or put extra pickles on when you had clearly stated none. It won't be long until it is less expensive for a new franchise to do just that vs. hiring real people who make mistakes, get sick, and get weekly paychecks.
So much work can be centralized. More and more Universities are moving to online classes where a video of a professor who died a decade ago can continue to "educate" students while, yes, computers can grade the papers. Surgeons can use robots across the globe to perform surgeries and my insurance is rewarding customers who use online physicians. Multi-site churches use star preachers and show the sermon on a big screen while volunteer musicians lead the worship. One of our local wine tasting rooms has a bank of spigots on a wall with a touch pad, a description of each wine, and a card reader. When you arrive, you receive a card with a computer chip to use at the pouring stations. You then choose the wine you want to taste, slide your card, push the size of the taste, and hold your glass under the spigot where you receive exactly the pour you ordered. At the end of your tastings you hand the card to the one person (not really required) who places the card in another reader that then tells you your bill... which as likely as not, you pay with a debit card swiped through another card reader. The few places where real people are required - wait staff at a high end restaurant, a real pourer at the wine tasting room, artisan crafts, personal care givers for the elderly, etc. - are luxuries. We simply need fewer people to do more work... and as the technology improves, we will need fewer yet. There simply are not and will not be enough jobs out there. And some of the work that does require real people, such as music, art, literature, is becoming devalued by the current means of distribution (digital via the internet) and those folk are less able to make a living at their work.
What all of that adds up to is that the current direction of our economy does not bode well for those without significant capital in the short term and for just about anyone in the long term (owning an automated factory doesn't do much for your bank account if there is no customer base to purchase your goods).
It really does feel to me as if we're headed to a choice between a future that looks like Star Trek The Next Generation where people spend their time doing things that bring meaning to their lives or a world like Blade Runner or The Hunger Games where the vast majority of folk live in dangerous and depressing places, just on the edge while a few reap whatever rewards there might be and live behind walls in gated, protected areas.
Now, I'll get a bit political... those who argue for smaller government push us towards a world like the latter. That is certainly the world their current patron saint - Ayn Rand - would have advocate (think of the places in the world with "small government" like Somalia and tell me you'd really rather live there). Even the more left leaning, worker centered views of some Democrats like Bernie Sanders just holds off that new world for a few short years. As a society we will have to make decisions and a radical rethink of the way our economy needs to be shaped is necessary if we want to avoid that future.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
What the Republicans Are Doing
It has been interesting watching the media cover the ongoing political mess. Fox News has refused to call it a government "shut down," preferring instead a government "slimdown." As has been noted by some, words are important and the one who controls the language, controls the debate. On October 10 at a press conference, press secretary Carney used the word "ransom" which was rejected by the press corp as being too provocative. The Republicans have repeatedly slammed the president for "refusing to negotiate" while the president has refused to allow the economy to be held "hostage." All the while, the media has implied more or less equal blame for the mess we're facing.
At this point, it is important to clarify what has actually happened. A law was passed (the ACA). That law was judged constitutional by a very conservative SCOTUS. The electorate re-elected the president, running on the basis of that law and even a majority of voters in House races voted Democratic, all endorsing the law. Republicans, largely because of gerrymandered districts held the House majority. Some 41 times, the tried to repeal the ACA, failing every single time. It should be noted that laws get repealed and modified all of the time... through the legislative process or via the courts. Neither worked for the Republicans so they decided to do an end run, holding first the budget hostage and then the full faith and credit of the United States. Make no mistake, when the Republicans in the House were unable to repeal Obamacare via the normal means, they decided to threaten severe damage to the economy of the country and indeed the world. Give them what they want, what they could not get by normal means, or they would destroy everything.
Perhaps "ransom" is too provocative... but terrorism is an accurate description. Here's one definition I found for that word... other definitions were all similar. "The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
At this point, it is important to clarify what has actually happened. A law was passed (the ACA). That law was judged constitutional by a very conservative SCOTUS. The electorate re-elected the president, running on the basis of that law and even a majority of voters in House races voted Democratic, all endorsing the law. Republicans, largely because of gerrymandered districts held the House majority. Some 41 times, the tried to repeal the ACA, failing every single time. It should be noted that laws get repealed and modified all of the time... through the legislative process or via the courts. Neither worked for the Republicans so they decided to do an end run, holding first the budget hostage and then the full faith and credit of the United States. Make no mistake, when the Republicans in the House were unable to repeal Obamacare via the normal means, they decided to threaten severe damage to the economy of the country and indeed the world. Give them what they want, what they could not get by normal means, or they would destroy everything.
Perhaps "ransom" is too provocative... but terrorism is an accurate description. Here's one definition I found for that word... other definitions were all similar. "The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Welcome to Crazy Town
I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or move to another country when I think about the current political mess in Washington. We have Tea Party folk willing to shut down the government because all of the normal ways of changing a law are out of their reach. So, to defund the ACA, which they are afraid will succeed, they are willing to directly hurt thousands of Americans and add one more drain on a still very fragile economy. Of course, they are willing to fund parts piecemeal - fund the WWII Memorial in DC but forget the EPA and the FDA... you get the picture. While FOX News calls it a government "slimdown," the reality is that it is being felt throughout the economy and is impacting the lives of all Americans, though clearly some much more than others.
And then comes the debt ceiling. I have to say that I don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of the debt ceiling. I do understand that if it is not increased, that the US government cannot pay all of its bills. That would be devastating to the economy of the US and the world. I also understand that even the threat of a default ripples through the skittish economy as Wall Street reacts to the slightest insecurity in the financial system. The last time they threatened to breach the debt ceiling (2011), the Dow dropped 2000 points and the US credit rating was impacted. A 2000 point drop is a serious hit on investments, people's 401Ks, retirement plans, etc. and that is just the impact on the US market. Because much of the world's markets rely on US Treasury bills as the safest investment in the world, a hiccup there is felt everywhere. Already the worldwide market seems to be reacting to the possibility of a default.
Here's the scary part... there are Republicans who are saying that a default wouldn't be a big deal, They are irresponsible. Every economist is saying that at best it would be an economic catastrophe. At worst, it would plunge us into a worldwide depression that would make the Great Depression look like a Tea Party (excuse the pun). Of course, these are the same folk who ignore the clear scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and caused by human activity, dismiss the clear scientific consensus that evolution is the way we got here, and even question whether children should be taught science and the humanities. Why would they listen to economists?
There is a worse group. They are seeing breaching the debt ceiling as the best strategy to destroy the government they hate. They believe it would be catastrophic but that would provide the easiest cover to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, the FDA, public education, and virtually all of the other parts of government that help secure the common good. They want to destroy the US government as it exists. If the first group of Republicans are irresponsible, those in this group are treasonous.
I almost want to believe those folk are truly crazy. I feel sympathy for people with mental illness. I know it is not their fault and that they need treatment. If those Republicans are not crazy, the other options are not good. You could say they are stupid... or you could say they are very, very badly misled... or you could conclude they are evil. I like crazy better. Maybe with some thorazine they'd be OK. Why we've allowed the inmates to run the asylum is another question... addressed in the next paragraph.
There is a third group of Republicans, possibly the most despicable of all. They are the more moderate Republicans who see the other two and are afraid to stand against either. They are afraid they will be Tea Partied in the next primary and will lose their power and position so they acquiesce to the crazies and allow them to set the agenda and chart the course even though they know it is insane. They are motivated by self-preservation and lust for power, not by the best interests of their constituents or for the nation as a whole. They are not crazy. They are despicable.
I have said before that I believe in a two party system. Actually, I think we need more viable parties to represent a broader spectrum of views at the tables of power. I think decisions are best made when reasonable people of a variety of understandings struggle together to make compromises that work. I see nobody acting reasonably on the Republican side. Literally, nobody. I think they all need to be voted out of office so that another coalition of folk who truly represent conservative values and understandings can come to the table and wrestle responsibly. Let the far right come to the table as well... but do not allow the tail to wag the dog any longer. (FWIW, I'd like to see the Democrats split into multiple parties so that the true liberals get a voice at the table as well.)
And then comes the debt ceiling. I have to say that I don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of the debt ceiling. I do understand that if it is not increased, that the US government cannot pay all of its bills. That would be devastating to the economy of the US and the world. I also understand that even the threat of a default ripples through the skittish economy as Wall Street reacts to the slightest insecurity in the financial system. The last time they threatened to breach the debt ceiling (2011), the Dow dropped 2000 points and the US credit rating was impacted. A 2000 point drop is a serious hit on investments, people's 401Ks, retirement plans, etc. and that is just the impact on the US market. Because much of the world's markets rely on US Treasury bills as the safest investment in the world, a hiccup there is felt everywhere. Already the worldwide market seems to be reacting to the possibility of a default.
Here's the scary part... there are Republicans who are saying that a default wouldn't be a big deal, They are irresponsible. Every economist is saying that at best it would be an economic catastrophe. At worst, it would plunge us into a worldwide depression that would make the Great Depression look like a Tea Party (excuse the pun). Of course, these are the same folk who ignore the clear scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and caused by human activity, dismiss the clear scientific consensus that evolution is the way we got here, and even question whether children should be taught science and the humanities. Why would they listen to economists?
There is a worse group. They are seeing breaching the debt ceiling as the best strategy to destroy the government they hate. They believe it would be catastrophic but that would provide the easiest cover to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, the FDA, public education, and virtually all of the other parts of government that help secure the common good. They want to destroy the US government as it exists. If the first group of Republicans are irresponsible, those in this group are treasonous.
I almost want to believe those folk are truly crazy. I feel sympathy for people with mental illness. I know it is not their fault and that they need treatment. If those Republicans are not crazy, the other options are not good. You could say they are stupid... or you could say they are very, very badly misled... or you could conclude they are evil. I like crazy better. Maybe with some thorazine they'd be OK. Why we've allowed the inmates to run the asylum is another question... addressed in the next paragraph.
There is a third group of Republicans, possibly the most despicable of all. They are the more moderate Republicans who see the other two and are afraid to stand against either. They are afraid they will be Tea Partied in the next primary and will lose their power and position so they acquiesce to the crazies and allow them to set the agenda and chart the course even though they know it is insane. They are motivated by self-preservation and lust for power, not by the best interests of their constituents or for the nation as a whole. They are not crazy. They are despicable.
I have said before that I believe in a two party system. Actually, I think we need more viable parties to represent a broader spectrum of views at the tables of power. I think decisions are best made when reasonable people of a variety of understandings struggle together to make compromises that work. I see nobody acting reasonably on the Republican side. Literally, nobody. I think they all need to be voted out of office so that another coalition of folk who truly represent conservative values and understandings can come to the table and wrestle responsibly. Let the far right come to the table as well... but do not allow the tail to wag the dog any longer. (FWIW, I'd like to see the Democrats split into multiple parties so that the true liberals get a voice at the table as well.)
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
"It's Not My Country Anymore"
I've heard that said by a number of my very conservative friends. I guess they have to decide that. Clearly it is not the same country anymore. Romney won a near historic percentage of the white vote and still lost the election. It isn't a country controlled by white folk anymore. More women were elected to the senate than ever before and one state - New Hampshire - has elected women to all of their leadership positions. It is not a country run exclusively by men anymore. Billionaires spent incredible amounts of money trying to buy the election Sheldon Adelson personally funded 6 campaigns with huge amounts of money and they all lost. Yes, money still talks, but it is no longer the deciding factor and the plutocracy doesn't have free reign anymore.
It is a different country than the one I knew as a child in the 50's and 60's. I embrace it. I'm excited by that. I believe this new country embodies the hopes and dreams implicit in the experiment called the United States. Still, it is different and my conservative friends need to make a decision whether they are part of this new expression of the United States. Should they decide to withdraw... that's OK, but they cannot call themselves patriots. They may say, "Obama is not my president," but if they do, they are also saying they are no longer part of this country.
For the Republicans, it will mean they need to re-evaluate and decide on new directions or they will be relegated to being a small regional party with less and less national voice. At least for a while, they will still have the power of obstruction, but their positive voice will become more and more marginal as the demographics continue to change. You can decide whether they are racist or not, but this election clearly was about race and their party is clearly identified racially. A majority of white people voted for Romney. Everyone else voted for Obama. Obama won. It is a new America.
It is a different country than the one I knew as a child in the 50's and 60's. I embrace it. I'm excited by that. I believe this new country embodies the hopes and dreams implicit in the experiment called the United States. Still, it is different and my conservative friends need to make a decision whether they are part of this new expression of the United States. Should they decide to withdraw... that's OK, but they cannot call themselves patriots. They may say, "Obama is not my president," but if they do, they are also saying they are no longer part of this country.
For the Republicans, it will mean they need to re-evaluate and decide on new directions or they will be relegated to being a small regional party with less and less national voice. At least for a while, they will still have the power of obstruction, but their positive voice will become more and more marginal as the demographics continue to change. You can decide whether they are racist or not, but this election clearly was about race and their party is clearly identified racially. A majority of white people voted for Romney. Everyone else voted for Obama. Obama won. It is a new America.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
protecting America
Yesterday morning I was having breakfast with my friend Ben and we got talking about where we were and what we were doing when the first plane hit the towers some eleven years ago. This led to a discussion about the mythologies of the Republican Party, in particular the line "Bush kept us safe..." to which Ben responded, "except that one time." The reality is that one of the largest attacks on US soil happened under his watch.
Shortly after the event, there were stories that claimed the Bush administration had intelligence which had been ignored which may have enabled them to stop the attacks. An op-ed in yesterday's New York Times indicated that the degree of negligence was greater than previously reported. Of course, the right wing talk radio world has become apoplectic, yelling that liberals are blaming Bush for 9/11.
Yet, they give Bush praise for no attacks on his watch... other than the one, the only one since Pearl Harbor... but that doesn't count. It does count. And worse than that, while there may not have been another attack on US soil after that, the reality is that the Bush administration's policies destroyed any sense of security that we had as a people. They played on our fears. They curtailed our rights. And perhaps worst of all, they destroyed our economy by rushing into two unnecessary wars which consumed incredible resources while at the same time cutting taxes. They presided over the destruction of our economy, in large degree the results of their policy choices. Losing one's job, one's home, one's future is anything but being "safe."
The Republicans want us to forget all of that. They want to go back to the same economic policies that got us into this mess. They are rattling sabres at Iran and threatening yet another protracted and expensive war while at the same time talking about more tax cuts. They say that after creating one of the largest messes the country has ever experienced, because a Democratic administration has not cleaned it all up in four years while dealing with a congress that was/is of the least interested in actually solving problems of any congress ever, we should allow them back into power.
Was Bush responsible for 9/11? No. Could he have stopped it? Maybe. Are the Republicans responsible for what happened afterwards which led to one of the largest recessions we've known and the slowest recovery, the loss of more lives than have been counted, and the virtual destruction of two countries on top of allowling ours to go down the toilet? Absolutely.
So, if you want to protect America and to help keep it safe, do not vote for the party that has been working to destroy it since 9/11.
Shortly after the event, there were stories that claimed the Bush administration had intelligence which had been ignored which may have enabled them to stop the attacks. An op-ed in yesterday's New York Times indicated that the degree of negligence was greater than previously reported. Of course, the right wing talk radio world has become apoplectic, yelling that liberals are blaming Bush for 9/11.
Yet, they give Bush praise for no attacks on his watch... other than the one, the only one since Pearl Harbor... but that doesn't count. It does count. And worse than that, while there may not have been another attack on US soil after that, the reality is that the Bush administration's policies destroyed any sense of security that we had as a people. They played on our fears. They curtailed our rights. And perhaps worst of all, they destroyed our economy by rushing into two unnecessary wars which consumed incredible resources while at the same time cutting taxes. They presided over the destruction of our economy, in large degree the results of their policy choices. Losing one's job, one's home, one's future is anything but being "safe."
The Republicans want us to forget all of that. They want to go back to the same economic policies that got us into this mess. They are rattling sabres at Iran and threatening yet another protracted and expensive war while at the same time talking about more tax cuts. They say that after creating one of the largest messes the country has ever experienced, because a Democratic administration has not cleaned it all up in four years while dealing with a congress that was/is of the least interested in actually solving problems of any congress ever, we should allow them back into power.
Was Bush responsible for 9/11? No. Could he have stopped it? Maybe. Are the Republicans responsible for what happened afterwards which led to one of the largest recessions we've known and the slowest recovery, the loss of more lives than have been counted, and the virtual destruction of two countries on top of allowling ours to go down the toilet? Absolutely.
So, if you want to protect America and to help keep it safe, do not vote for the party that has been working to destroy it since 9/11.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
why I won't vote for any of the Republicans
OK... anyone who knows me knows that there is a simple answer - BECAUSE THEY'RE REPUBLICANS! There are clearly some Republican stands that do not work for me. In my estimation, they are all too quick to throw the poor under the bus and to shred the little safety net we have. As a party, they have focused on what I think is the wrong issue when they talk about the deficit while what we really need are jobs. Yes, yes, yes, the Dems are not much better, but they are a little better. So here are a few of my reasons with each of the four remaining candidates.
Newt... character counts. He has none. We can look at his hypocrisy as he claims to be a "family values" candidate while having done more to sully marriage than anyone I have ever known, read, or read of. And while involved in despicable behavior, he had the nerve to condemn Bill Clinton for similar acts. I know he says it was not about the sexual acts but about lying to congress, but when the moderator of the South Carolina debate asked about his behavior with his 2nd wife, he said it was despicable to ask such questions in the midst of a presidential campaign. Evidently it was fine to ask such questions of a sitting president?! He claims to have changed. People do change. I don't believe him. His mean-spiritedness through the debates shows that he is the same old Newt. There are those who talk of him as having "big thoughts" and "great ideas." When his big thoughts and great ideas include essentially doing away with child labor laws, they sound like terrible ideas and small thoughts to me.
Rick Santorum... I respect a person living their faith and bringing it to play in their politics. Every single political view that I hold is impacted by my understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to follow him. That said, Santorum's understanding of what it means to be a Christian is, in significant places, diametrically opposed to mine. And while I believe one can act ofor public policy changes based on his or her faith, public policy can never find its sole or even primary justification in anyone's faith. To believe that birth control should be outlawed is so far outside of the mainstream and so far outside of anything that is positive for our country that I can't imagine him being president. Add to that gender views that take us back at least a century. I guess I expect more from him since he calls himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic. When he completely dismisses the rest of the "pro-life" views of his church without a blink, I wonder how much of his political views really are based in faith.
Mitt... First, running a government is not the same as running a business and anyone who thinks it is or should be, doesn't understand government. Add to that the fact that his role in business was to purchase weak companies, strip them of anything of value, and essentially throw the rest away. Even if business and government were analogous, that is not how I want to see government run. That he is so incredibly rich that he doesn't have to work, makes more in a week off of investments that I do in a decade from work, and seems to see nothing wrong in paying a lower percentage of taxes than the vast majority of the 99% makes me wonder whether he really gets it. It also seems that he wants this job too bad. He seems to switch his views depending on what he thinks will get him elected... perhaps not an unusual trait for a politician but still one that I won't vote for if I can help it and it just seems too obvious with him. I do respect that he gives a much larger percentage of his income to charities than any other politician I know of.
Ron Paul... he's the one that really scares me. I don't think the Republican establishment would allow him to win, but I think he is the candidate who would be most able to beat Obama. Paul's commitment to reduce the role of the military and to end our empire is very attractive to me and to many liberals. His commitment to enforce the parts of the constitution that protect individuals from the powers of the state likewise is attractive. His libertarian views regarding drugs also are attractive to many liberals. His consistency is a wonderful thing in the days of politicians reading polls and changing their views like their ties. He could strip off many liberal voters who are disenchanted by Obama's militaristic bent or who drank the Koolaid that he is a socialist and expected him to act like one. He isn't and he hasn't! At the same time, I think that many Republicans who find those views distasteful would still vote for him just to vote against Obama. I think he might gain far more than he would lose. The parts that I don't like about Ron Paul scare me more than the parts I do like entice me... he is commitment to shredding the safety net for the poor, doing away with government involvement in ensuring safe food, water, air, and drugs. He does not believe government has a role providing an adequate education for all or providing foreign aid that can make a difference in saving the lives of literally millions overseas. Those views are more than I can take. Add his racist statements of the past and he is completely off my list too.
When I listen to what each of them envisions for the country, for the world, and look at the stands and characteristics they bring to the table, none are the kind of leader that I believe we need in this difficult time. None bring the kind of vision of the future I want to see implemented.
So that leaves me with Obama. Folk who know me also know that I've never been a huge fan of Obama. During the Democratic primary I described him to my friends as a centrist and looking at his work in office, that is exactly what he has been... and I'm anything but a centrist politically. I'm not thrilled... but I like him much, much, much better than any of the above. I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate even if there was one I loved because I'd be too afraid one of the above might win.
So, given the choices, for me, it's Obama 2012.
Newt... character counts. He has none. We can look at his hypocrisy as he claims to be a "family values" candidate while having done more to sully marriage than anyone I have ever known, read, or read of. And while involved in despicable behavior, he had the nerve to condemn Bill Clinton for similar acts. I know he says it was not about the sexual acts but about lying to congress, but when the moderator of the South Carolina debate asked about his behavior with his 2nd wife, he said it was despicable to ask such questions in the midst of a presidential campaign. Evidently it was fine to ask such questions of a sitting president?! He claims to have changed. People do change. I don't believe him. His mean-spiritedness through the debates shows that he is the same old Newt. There are those who talk of him as having "big thoughts" and "great ideas." When his big thoughts and great ideas include essentially doing away with child labor laws, they sound like terrible ideas and small thoughts to me.
Rick Santorum... I respect a person living their faith and bringing it to play in their politics. Every single political view that I hold is impacted by my understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to follow him. That said, Santorum's understanding of what it means to be a Christian is, in significant places, diametrically opposed to mine. And while I believe one can act ofor public policy changes based on his or her faith, public policy can never find its sole or even primary justification in anyone's faith. To believe that birth control should be outlawed is so far outside of the mainstream and so far outside of anything that is positive for our country that I can't imagine him being president. Add to that gender views that take us back at least a century. I guess I expect more from him since he calls himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic. When he completely dismisses the rest of the "pro-life" views of his church without a blink, I wonder how much of his political views really are based in faith.
Mitt... First, running a government is not the same as running a business and anyone who thinks it is or should be, doesn't understand government. Add to that the fact that his role in business was to purchase weak companies, strip them of anything of value, and essentially throw the rest away. Even if business and government were analogous, that is not how I want to see government run. That he is so incredibly rich that he doesn't have to work, makes more in a week off of investments that I do in a decade from work, and seems to see nothing wrong in paying a lower percentage of taxes than the vast majority of the 99% makes me wonder whether he really gets it. It also seems that he wants this job too bad. He seems to switch his views depending on what he thinks will get him elected... perhaps not an unusual trait for a politician but still one that I won't vote for if I can help it and it just seems too obvious with him. I do respect that he gives a much larger percentage of his income to charities than any other politician I know of.
Ron Paul... he's the one that really scares me. I don't think the Republican establishment would allow him to win, but I think he is the candidate who would be most able to beat Obama. Paul's commitment to reduce the role of the military and to end our empire is very attractive to me and to many liberals. His commitment to enforce the parts of the constitution that protect individuals from the powers of the state likewise is attractive. His libertarian views regarding drugs also are attractive to many liberals. His consistency is a wonderful thing in the days of politicians reading polls and changing their views like their ties. He could strip off many liberal voters who are disenchanted by Obama's militaristic bent or who drank the Koolaid that he is a socialist and expected him to act like one. He isn't and he hasn't! At the same time, I think that many Republicans who find those views distasteful would still vote for him just to vote against Obama. I think he might gain far more than he would lose. The parts that I don't like about Ron Paul scare me more than the parts I do like entice me... he is commitment to shredding the safety net for the poor, doing away with government involvement in ensuring safe food, water, air, and drugs. He does not believe government has a role providing an adequate education for all or providing foreign aid that can make a difference in saving the lives of literally millions overseas. Those views are more than I can take. Add his racist statements of the past and he is completely off my list too.
When I listen to what each of them envisions for the country, for the world, and look at the stands and characteristics they bring to the table, none are the kind of leader that I believe we need in this difficult time. None bring the kind of vision of the future I want to see implemented.
So that leaves me with Obama. Folk who know me also know that I've never been a huge fan of Obama. During the Democratic primary I described him to my friends as a centrist and looking at his work in office, that is exactly what he has been... and I'm anything but a centrist politically. I'm not thrilled... but I like him much, much, much better than any of the above. I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate even if there was one I loved because I'd be too afraid one of the above might win.
So, given the choices, for me, it's Obama 2012.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
conflation
Let me address each... I am pro-God... but it really does depend on what god you're talking about. If we're talking about the God revealed in Jesus, then, I'm right with you. If we're talking about the god worshiped in some national religion that equates God with capitalism, war, and most of all the USA, then I'm definitely not "pro-god."
I am pro-life, but I have to say that I cringe when I say that. All too often the term actually means "pro unborn babies and once their born they're on their own." If you really want to use that term, you need to use it as the Roman Catholic hierarchy professes to use it - anti abortion, anti-war, anti capital punishment, pro affirmative action (in the broadest sense). Then, you can really say you're pro-life. If you are against all f the programs that support poor children, for raising funding of the military industrial complex... well, you get the direction... and you aren't pro-life, you're pro unborn babies and once they're actually born, they're on their own.
Pro - gun? Frankly, I don't believe the 2nd amendment has anything to say in today's world and should be repealed (like that would ever happen). The real question though is what does this mean to these folk? Are they saying they have the right to have a gun to shoot intruders (see pro-life)? To stand up against a repressive government? Good luck using that 440 deer rifle against a fuel air bomb dropped from a jet... or are they just saying they can spend their own money any way they please and that they have some machismo issue that requires owning something that can kill from 100's of yards away? Or maybe it has to do with the aesthetics and engineering of some weapons and the deisre to own something beautiful or with historical import? I don't know, but do any of those ideas really measure up to needing a constitutional amendment?
Pro-country... I'm pro the USA. I believe it is the best idea that anyone has had for a political arrangement. I believe we really can still be the city on a hill if we truly embrace the best of the dreams that gave shape to this country. At the same time, I am not a tribalist. If there is something to be learned from another country, then one who truly loves this country will learn it. If this country does something that flies in the face of all of its stated ideals, then one who truly loves it will call it out. Truly loving the country cannot ever mean turning a blind eye to its failings. The most important parts of my religious tradition tell me that those failings have to do with treatment of the poor and vulnerable. Being pro-country means to me, standing up to make life better for them.
Anti-Obama? Go for it. That is part of the genius of our system. You can be against the president for any reason you like, even stupid ones, racist ones, selfish ones, and uninformed ones. And there are good ones too. Still, if you go to the website for the PAC that produced that little graphic, they are complaining about a lack of leadership... but proposing no leader. Somehow, I think they've dropped the ball. They want your money to dispose of one poor leader to put who in? Trust them... yeah right.
And finally, all of these ideas are conflated with being a Republican. I'm sure there are Republicans who hold only the very best of values and vote that way because their conscience leads them in that direction. Like me, when I vote Democratic, many of them hold their noses because the Republican party endorses some ideas that they feel are important while ignoring some they also think important... and they make what they perceive as the better of two bad options. I sort of understand that. Still, I cannot but see how the basic orientations of the Republican Party do stand in direct opposition to my understanding of what it means to follow Jesus. Indeed, of the five statements, only two seem to fit, for me, with the Republican platform - pro-gun and anti-Obama.
for a little smile, here is a cartoon from the naked pastor blog (one of my favorites) that relates to the poster and the way that I experience the Republican party although it clearly is not meant for them alone (it is likely aimed at factions within the Church) and calls me to look more carefully at myself both from a faith standpoint and in regards to my politics as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
