You never know what we'll churn up in cleaning a stall
The more I listen, the more I perceive the Tea Party agenda is ultimately an attack on democracy in America. Unlike the Founding Fathers, they have no respect for the necessity of government.
And a position of no compromise is the essence of tyrannical dictatorship.
What’s left would be brutal and cruel. Especially, for many of them, without their Social Security, in the aftermath.
And they’re afraid of socialism as an attack on the nation and its values? Think again.
That’s what the big red headline said on the large card we got in the mail. The headline was underscored by the line, “Are you safer now than you were just one year ago?”
Before answering, note that the lines were accompanied by a large photo of masked men waving Arabic flags from a parade of pickup trucks. No way to tell where the photo was taken, by the way – it could have been from the movement that toppled dictators across northern Africa for all we know.
The mailing, from the self-proclaimed Conservative Solutions Project, is attempting to restore excessive national security measures many conservatives successfully clamored to remove. And now? They want it back. Or some of them do. Or maybe a group of retired intelligence officers, now living in Florida, are trying to stir something up.
The text on the back includes the misleading statement, “Conservatives know that we can never preserve the American Dream if we can not first preserve our National Security.” No, that’s a pathway to dictatorship and its police-state terror. Wasn’t that what both Iraq wars were supposed to obliterate?
The American Dream rests on civil liberties and economic opportunity. That’s what needs to be protected, first and foremost.
What truly annoys me about this bombastic mailing is its blatant fear-mongering. I can answer that I don’t feel safer than I did a year ago, but it’s not because of the 2015 USA Freedom Act. It’s because too many nutty Americans are carrying guns they can obtain all too easily, and attempts to limit that keep getting rolled back. I’m concerned that some kid stealing quarters out of unlocked cars in our generally quiet neighborhood is going to get blasted away by a self-appointed vigilante walking his dog in the night. Or that the bullet will fly off to unintended mischief.
Look, I’m not against gun ownership – I’ve lived in rural areas where hunting puts food on the table. But let’s get real. How many of the 12,413 firearm deaths so far this year involve national security issues, anyway? How many of the 312 mass shooting incidents? How many of the 650 children and 2,452 teens killed? (These statistics do not include suicides — 21,175 in 2013). Talk all you want about radicalized Muslims, they’re not the big problem.
So, to the political groups, let’s just say this. Don’t play the “safer than a year ago” card unless you have some concrete proposals for dealing with rampant gun violence in this country. Something that makes sense without undermining our trust.
As Donald Trump escalates his outrage factor, is anyone wondering about his insurance policies? Whether the companies that insure his properties and life are looking for escape clauses? Just in case things heat up even more?
Comments on earlier posts regarding the emerging U.S. presidential race have touched on a topic that ought to be more sharply examined: just what qualities are needed in a good leader?
I’ve seen charts executive head-hunting firms use for corporate hires, which see different quality requirements to match a company’s situation. A small, fast-growing firm, for example, needs a much different kind of person than does a behemoth in a shrinking market. The compensation packages can vary widely, too, especially when considering the likely tenure of the hire. Somebody hired to shake things up might be expected to have a short and stormy span at the helm, unlike a more comforting presence for a smoothly functioning organization.
That said, back to political leadership. What qualities would you list as essential?
The ability to recognize talent and draw out others into a common cause has been suggested. Vision, compassion, intelligence, integrity, willingness to listen to critical perspectives and weight alternative actions are others. And then?
Maybe we’ve been overlooking the most obvious all along. What would you name?
I’ve long been perplexed by some banks’ claims about credit-card business, especially after seeing their approaches to gullible college students and rates that can approach 20 percent a year if you’re not careful or get in a jam.
Those of you who have older kids or grandkids can share those worries.
That’s even before wondering about the vice presidents or higher-up executives who approve what seem to be high-risk strategies – and then come to the public for relief. You know, handouts, 20 percent annual rates, and protection from bankruptcy filings by average people. Or should we say Real People unlike the corporations?
A recent experience of trying to close an account with one of them was especially trying. In the end, I’m not sure who closed whom except that the clock was still ticking on the interest – on the consumer, of course.
And then less than a month later, I’m getting solicitations to open another account with them – “We’ve matched you with this exclusive offer,” as one proclaims.
No thanks. And by the way, the same day’s mail included one that would give me money back on the transactions. It’s not 20 percent, but it’s in my direction.
From my perspective, that one has some credibility.
Gee, and we haven’t even touched on the retailers’ complaints here. Let’s just say they have my sympathy.
As the say, politics makes strange bedfellows. Still, hearing this one floated around remains startling:
A Trump-Carson ticket?
As one wag retorted, it’s the demeaned and the devout.
Well, you could see it as one attempt to cover all the bases.
Even in the face of the outrages over the corrupting clout of the superrich investment in partisan politics, a fresh insight can prove haunting. And let’s not dignify that as “donations.” That’s my reaction to a passage from David Cole’s review of Burt Neuborne’s new book, Madison’s Music: On Reading the First Amendment.
It’s not just at the highest levels, either. When the infusion of cash hits smaller races, the whole system gets bought.
As Cole’s “Free Speech, Big Money, Bad Elections” (New York Review of Books, November 5) points out:
… increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering has ensured that many elected offices are sinecures for one of the two major parties. In the House of Representatives, only about forty seats, or less than 10 percent of the chamber, are filled in genuinely contested general elections. The results can be perverse.
I happen to live in one of those seats that’s become contested, after decades of being a Republican stronghold. Cole, however, presses his case that many of the general elections are rigged in favor of one side or another:
In North Carolina in 2012, the popular vote for House members was 51 percent Democratic and 49 percent Republican. Yet North Carolina’s delegation to the House consisted of nine Republicans and four Democrats. North Carolina’s state legislature had packed Democratic voters into four districts, ensuring that Republicans would win the other nine. …
So who’s really representing the people? And who are the winning officeholders really representing? It’s not just North Carolina, either, as Cole notes:
Democrats received more than half of the House votes in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in 2012, and did not get a majority of House seats in any of them. In what sense can such outcomes be called democratic?
Considering the low turnout rates in general elections – a consequence, as Cole details, of a sense of futility for many would-be voters or outright obstacles put in their path – an observer can wonder how much of the public the winners really do represent. That is, if 49 percent of a 40 percent turnout can win 247 seats in the House (this is a theoretical model, mind you), one could argue that the majority of the House of Representatives represents just 20 percent of the public. And if the Freedom Caucus, about 20 percent of that party, insists on dictating its ideology on the rest of the nation, that could be a mere 4 percent trying to run the country. In some places, that would be considered a coup.
Yes, I know the numbers wouldn’t all fall that neatly in one direction or the other. But it’s scary, all the same.
Henry Kissinger once admitted that the realities of being Secretary of State overturned his expectations of the position. Before taking office, he saw the role as akin to being Zeus on Mount Olympus – the divine expanse of time and perspective to make wise decisions of long-lasting statesmanship. Instead, in the turmoil of relentless global crises, what he encountered was more like being an NFL quarterback on a Sunday afternoon in autumn. You had to do something fast and hope for the best before you got clobbered. Talk about high pressure? Lives were often at stake.
That insight comes back to my mind each round of presidential primaries where I live. Remember, the State Department is only one Cabinet position reporting to the White House. And it’s puny compared to the Pentagon.
Whoever wins in November 2016 will have to be able to find people who can fill these positions, and then find the time to manage their work. How can anyone possibly touch base with them even once a week, much less act with sufficient knowledge? Well, a quarterback has both the rest of the team and the coaches – plus a week to prepare and a lot of time on the sidelines, if his defense is doing its job. Not so the President, with rounds of dinners and photo ops and having to make public announcements on seemingly every news development as it happens …
I’ve seen reports on the time demands on the Chief Executive and how many of our recent examples have lived with no more than four hours of sleep a night. That’s inhuman. Period. Here’s one point where those arguing for smaller government could build their case. I’m listening.
When the most populous states try to butt up in the presidential primary scheduling, they actually lose much of their potential power. They should be holding back, as the last line of correction, in case the field goes haywire. Whatever happened to Favorite Son nominations, anyway? The placeholders who could wheel and deal at the convention?
Instead, we’re faced with what happens when it’s all Big Money and Slick Packaging.
Just as we need a rudder to steady the course, something has to be at the back end of the boat.
Those suspicious of small-state influence in the early stages of the American presidential race should also be alarmed by the disproportionate clout of the biggest states in the final count. I’m talking about the Electoral College, which has – even in modern times – given the presidency to the second-place winner in the popular vote, possibly even played into fraudulent results. Think of the George W. Bush “victories,” for starters.
For a starker perspective, consider that it’s theoretically possible for a tad over 25 percent of the American voters to elect a president. All it takes is 50 percent of the ballots, plus one vote, in each of the 11 states that hold 50 percent of the Electoral Votes. Yes, that’s 11 states in total: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey.
The only thing that’s spared us so far is that these states haven’t lined up together and seem unlikely to so in the near future. But I still find the possibility scary.
Jnana's Red Barn 