The Empty Chair

So, most of you have heard about the odd performance piece Clint Eastwood put on at the Republican National Convention, where he cross examined an imaginary President Obama signified by an empty chair. I like Clint, even if I don't agree with his politics and, as Bill Maher pointed out the other night, he went up there with no prompter and a chair and he got good responses from the audience, so you gotta give him credit for stepping out there. But it wasn't till I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this weekend that I realized the significance of Eastwood's conversation with the empty chair. A significance that is obviously lost on the Republicans themselves.

As Jon Stewart put it, "Eastwood finally revealed the cognitive dissonance that is the beating heart and soul and fiction of [the Republican] party.   . . . I could never wrap my head around why the world and the President, that the Republicans describe bears so little resemblance to the world and the President that I experience. And now I know why. There is a President Obama that only Republicans can see. And while the President, the rest of us see has issues, apparently this President, invisible to many, is bent on our wholesale destruction." This theory is startlingly true. And it's been true since the campaign began. No, let's be honest, it's been true since January 20th, 2009. The GOP has based the majority of its attacks, not on the actual policies President Obama has championed or put into place, but instead, they have continually referred to a mythical, alternate reality version of Obama. Always exaggerating anything he said or did, and shockingly, often telling outright lies!

I can't even count the number of 'scandals' pushed, and often generated from thin air by Fox News and other GOP leaning sources that were completely untrue. And I mean proven false by objective investigation. But Republicans, and especially Fox News, know one very important thing about Americans and the media. They know that a salacious lie told today will be remembered, even if it's completely debunked tomorrow. Get your version out there first and proclaim it loudly and repeatedly. Then even if irrefutable proof arises later, you simply let it go without comment and your viewers and supporters will never even notice. Any proof offered later will be considered liberal propaganda. It's simple, and it works.

Look, I have a number of issues with Obama and his policies. I'm ticked off that the Gitmo gulag is still in operation. I'm ticked that we have made it OK to execute Americans via drone with little oversight. I'm ticked that we are still expected to be in Afghanistan for years to come, when we really aren't doing any lasting good and really don't have any control over the stability of the Karzai government. I'm pissed that the Bush tax cuts are still in place and continuing to feed the deficit. That's just what comes immediately to mind. Though even some of those items bear the fingerprints of the GOP. My point is that I can understand reasoned disagreement with the policies of this President. What I cannot understand is how much time is spent by Conservatives ranting and raving about policies Obama never proposed or on intentional misinterpretations of policies that actually were implemented. If we can't even agree on the basic facts, then how can we ever agree on anything else?

As an American, you must decide this November who you will support for President. I'm not asking that you blindly vote to reelect Barack Obama. But I do ask that you base your voting decision on facts. Not sound bites. Not some off the cuff remarks by Mike Huckabee or Sean Hannity. Not some unconfirmed headline you read on the Drudge Report. Not a Crossroads GPS funded attack ad. Base it on facts, that is all I ask. Wanna know the details on past and current fiscal policies and how they affect the deficit now and in the future? Actually go to the official sites and find the info! Don't pull it from breitbart.com! Visit the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is the non-partisan organization that is relied on by both parties for 'scoring' legislation. You want to hear some level-headed analysis of a Supreme Court ruling? Don't wait for Nancy Grace to enlighten you, go to the SCOTUS Blog, where experienced law scholars parse through the dense rulings and discuss the repercussions without adding partisan spin. Hear about a scandal that sounds shocking? Then investigate it through non partisan sources, or at least across a wide swath of sources, to see if maybe the reason it's so shocking is because it's made up! Vote for who you think is best for America, going forward. Just make sure you're basing your decision on factual information and not single sourced from a partisan pundit with an axe to grind.

Vague & Vacuous

I was out running errands the other day and while on the way back to my car I noticed a political bumper sticker. It was for some candidate for Congress, but what grabbed my attention was the tagline.

"Less Government. More Prosperity."

My first thought was that it was obviously a Republican. My second was that this was just the kind of stupid drivel that we've come to expect from our elections. Fourth grade level, useless bullet points that grab voters' attention, yet are absolutely without substance.

"Less Government" is one of those lines that is a conservative staple. It fits the narrative that the government, especially the federal government, is only good at wasting money. Like most catchy political phrases, it strikes its target audience as clear and concise, yet is actually uselessly vague. What the hell does that phrase even mean, anyway? What do you want less of? It's real easy to moan about the evils of government and how bad it is, but when you start to really pin things down, it becomes surprisingly complicated. Well, we can't get rid of the military. If nothing else, it's one of the few categories where America still holds the top spot! Not to mention that it's undeniable that we all "support the troops." Not enough to take care of them when they come home, sometimes badly wounded, or to stop sending them off for deployment after deployment in locations most Americans couldn't care less about, but we'll elbow each other in the ribs to buy them a beer! And, of course, politicians can't call for a reduction without risking being labeled as weak. So the Pentagon is safe.

How about those fascists at the EPA or FDA, with their fixation on keeping our food, air and water at least reasonably safe? I think we can all agree that we need less testing of new drugs or regulations on what chemicals can be dumped in our rivers, right? Anyone? Okay, hmmm. I got it, Medicare! Do we really want to waste money on healthcare for the elderly? They've been here a while, isn't it time to spend on ourselves instead? Okay, maybe not. National Park Service, maybe? They're all just tree hugging socialists, anyway. Then again, it might be nice to have a few areas that can't be used for mining, shopping malls or another Marriott. I guess "less government" isn't so clear a dictate when looked at in detail.

What about "More Prosperity"? Now that is something we can agree on, eh? Hell, yes! I demand more prosperity! It's time we marched out there and let our politicians know that we won't stand for the current level of prosperity any longer. They just need to fix that. You know, just . . . you know, get out there and . . .  fix it! How? Uh, well . . . (crickets chirp happily in the distance). To be blunt, "more prosperity" is about as ignorant as McCain's "Country First" slogan from '08. As if anyone ever called for country second or less prosperity! Slogans like this should be taken almost as seriously as those ads for magic diet pills that melt the fat right off while you watch TV. And yet, there they are, plastered everywhere as if they were universal truths.

But what is so infuriating is that empty platitudes like these actually seem to work! Come on people, wake up. Our political system has degenerated to the point where our politicians are beginning to feel comfortable uttering easily disprovable, bald faced lies on national television. Not just exaggerating or stretching things, but actually declaring in bold language the political equivalent of 2+2=5! And they get uproarious applause. Why? Because they are telling their supporters exactly what they want to hear. And politicians have learned that reinforcing our own prejudices, misconceptions and fears is way easier and more effective than telling the truth.  The truth can be inconvenient and data has an annoying habit of not fitting a canned narrative, but lies fit every single time.

Much of the blame for this state of affairs lays at the feet of the media. In the olden days of TV news, it was just the three major networks and their news departments were not there to make money. Actually they weren't expected to be profitable. They were more in the way of a public service. Now we have news and comment oozing out of every TV, newspaper, computer, tablet and phone without end, but it's all about selling ad space. It's all about entertainment and making the viewers feel better about themselves so they'll buy more product. Each political party picks their preferred outlets and pundits, then ignores everyone else. A grand echo chamber, where nobody is asked tough questions because everyone involved is on the same team. If not politically so, then at least they are teamed up in feeding their viewers acceptable ideas that won't upset them. Instead of pointing out the facts, allowing us to decide based on objective data, it's about keeping the viewers happy and thus the sponsors happy. We can't even agree on the basic facts any more, so I can't imagine how we can ever work together to solve the very real and pressing problems we face.

The bottom line is that we aren't really as far apart as it usually seems. If we could dispense with the easy slogans and let go of our reflexive hatred, I think Americans of all views could make this work. But we are not just fighting our own habitual responses. It's also a struggle against all the forces out there that benefit from the conflict. The media that is trying to sell ad space. Those in positions of influence who are more focused on their own personal or business success rather than the overall success of the nation. And also the politicians whose overriding concern is reelection and keeping their donors happy. What's the solution? Question those you support as well as those you oppose. Listen to both sides, even when you don't want to. If someone you like says something that seems at all odd, look into it. Even if you generally trust a certain source of information, that doesn't mean they are always right or that they don't have an agenda. The one way we can pull out of this partisan nose-dive is for people on both sides to call out the lunacy in their own party. Stupid is still stupid, no matter who says it or what channel it's on.

Partisan

Over the years, as I've posted opinion pieces and commented on various online articles, I have often been chided for being 'partisan'. That got me thinking about what it really means to be 'partisan'. Well, the best place to start when debating terminology is, of course, a dictionary. This is the primary definition of 'Partisan', according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

"a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance."

Now the first part of that is pretty light-weight and would apply to any political preference. So I'm assuming that we're more focused on the second part. That's the real issue. Not that you have an opinion, but whether that opinion is supported and rational. Do you consider other views or do you cleve to your own despite all evidence?

By that reasoning, which you are free to dispute, I don't believe I am partisan, as a general rule. Sure I rail against conservative policies and Republicans, but I do so because I disagree with the point in question, not simply because they are conservatives and Republicans. It doesn't mean I mindlessly support Democrats and liberals on all issues. The truth is, the reason I'm usually in opposition to conservative positions is simple; they don't make sense. It's not that I dream Democratic dreams, or that I have a man-crush on President Obama. It's that conservative policies are so often focused on effect instead of effectiveness.

For example, I do not support gay rights because I'm in thrall to the Gay Liberation Front! I support it because it is right and just to do so. Because, while I respect anyone's right to be personally grossed out by the idea of homosexuality, I will never accept the view that a gay individual is any less of a person or citizen than anyone else simply because of who they are attracted to.

I don't support every Democratic or liberal idea, but I do find myself on that side of more arguments than not. Doesn't make me partisan, just means I have opinions that are more liberal than conservative. But the important distinction is that I take each issue as it comes and then make a decision based on the information and what makes sense to me. I don't do it because Rachel Maddow tells me to, though I will value the insight I get from her opinion because she has earned my trust and respect. Others have not. Yes I have a lot to say about certain people and the noxious drivel they produce, but that's not because they are the 'other side', it's because they are wrong. Or at least they continually champion ideas that don't make sense to me.

What inspires my most frustrated rants are ideas or policies that do not seem to follow any logical thread. Or put another way, it's like someone declaring triumphantly that their equation equals 100, yet no matter how many times I look at the numbers, they only add up to 83. A great example is the financial collapse. I am amazed when I stumble upon people who will declare with absolute sincerity that the root of the problem was government interference and how the banks were forced to give out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. Huh? Sure it fits a certain preconceived notion about 'big government', but it makes no sense! There were no Congressional or Presidential orders issued to the banks demanding they grant $500K mortgages to couples earning $20K a year. It never happened. It's a figment of their imaginations. Not to mention that the financial industry has tremendous lobbying power, and they would never let something like that pass in the first place. No matter how often or loudly some individuals proclaim it to be true, it just doesn't add up. Unfortunately that won't stop them from continuing to declare it as fact.

This, to me, is what being partisan is all about. Standing by a notion despite all evidence against it. Championing a theory that is unsupported by the facts. In short, someone "exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance" to a political party or popular theory simply because it fits the narrative you are comfortable with. Look, sometimes the facts are just against you. Sometimes no matter how much you wish they proved your side right, they just don't. When that happens, you step back and re-evaluate.

The Tough Questions

As you may have noticed from previous posts, I've been very frustrated politically over the last year. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the media is letting us down. Not that it doesn't give ample air time to various viewpoints, as it surely does. But it seems to me that with only a few exceptions, much of the time pundits and political figures spend in the media spotlight is merely  to spout thinly veiled propaganda. I don't include formal speeches and news conferences, as those are clearly the showplaces of the most naked of propaganda. I'm speaking of talk shows and interviews.

I've watched a good deal of TV news and opinion shows, or snippets thereof and it infuriates me to watch a guest spout off a long string of what they claim are indisputable facts and yet the interviewer will simply nod or offer up an opportunity for the guest to elaborate without ever challenging any of their claims. I've watched Senators confidently assert 'facts' that are demonstrably false. I don't mean that I disagree with their interpretation of policy. I mean straight up, no gray area, easily refuted lies. And this happens all the time. This isn't journalism, it's Public Relations. For example, I've watched Republican Senators and Representatives smile confidently and dismiss the various health reform bills as an unacceptable 'Government takeover of healthcare" and I keep waiting for the host to lean in and politely interrupt. I want to hear them ask exactly what part of the bill constitutes a takeover of healthcare? But they never do! This is where the media can make a difference. It's where they can help cut through the misinformation and the far too numerous lies. But far too often the moderators are little more than game show hosts.  So guests are allowed to come on and make blatantly misleading statements or lies with the tacit approval of the host. What's the point of this? It's just a media provided lectern from which guests can proclaim the sky is red to millions of people without contradiction. I don't expect the hosts to fact check everything on the fly, but when these whoppers come rolling out I'd like to see something!

Also, we've entered into an era where many media outlets have turned to an echo chamber style of journalism. You'll have a host who will interview almost exclusively politicians and pundits of the same political bent as they are. While you will occasionally get some decent analysis out of these, you rarely get anything particularly insightful. The guests are generally there just to provide backing for the host's views. What would make these much more interesting would be to see more liberals on Fox and more conservatives on MSNBC, for example. Of course, I have no idea if the main reason for much of this is due to guests refusing to come on a show that might actually press them on issues. This is certainly a likely reason, as I've heard Rachel Maddow note on several occasions that they have tried to get this person or that to come on the show but they've never accepted. In other words, they refused so they wouldn't have to answer a bunch of inconvenient questions.

Now you can say that some of this comes from the guest's demands for a friendly platform, therefore what can be done? Well, if the majority of news and opinion shows stopped providing unhindered propaganda time for guests, that would be a start. If these people stopped having this plethora of outlets vying to give out free air time, they would have to deal with a more adversarial format if they wanted to get their views broadcast. I bet if this was the norm rather than the exception, there would be a bit more truth mixed in with the self serving blather. This could only be a good thing.

The Year of Us & Them

It's been a long year politically, no matter what side of the aisle you prefer. It seems like every single issue became a sharply divided fight. That in itself may not have been exceptional in our nation's history, but it was more than just partisan wrangling. I have to wonder how long it's been since Congress has exhibited gridlock of this level. I've certainly seen times when there were nasty political fights, but I don't recall another time where things had devolved to this level of stupid.

I know it seems that I am looking at things through Democrat glasses. I'll admit there is a bias that I am fully aware of, but this is not simply a case of a liberal viewpoint. What makes this last year different is the way the Republicans have chosen to approach the Obama Presidency. Not by pushing their own bills, but simply to sit in the stands and vote 'No' on pretty much every vote. No engagement or discussion. They just vote 'No' on any legislation proposed by Democrats and especially anything supported by the President. Then they run outside and make speeches for the cameras and blogs, decrying the partisanship of the process and how Democrats are ignoring the will of the people. It would be a losing strategy if not for how easily the American public can be baited and tricked into impatience and outrage. As the old saying goes, you get the government you deserve in a democracy. This is how the Bush Administration managed two terms. They masterfully wielded the 'fear' card to diffuse any public backlash that might arise from the careful trimming of civil liberties and massive military expenditures.

I have to give the Republicans credit for their ability to hold together in a solid phalanx on any issue. It's this ability that has always scared the hell out of me about the party. The Democrats have always been more fractious and prone to inner discord. I'd say it's more 'free thinking'. But the Republicans have this 'Children of the Corn' ability to band together as if they are all of a single political mind. I often wonder how they manage to force their more moderate members to follow along. Perhaps simply by threatening their re-election campaigns? Maybe they're threatening their children? I don't know, but whatever it is, it's certainly effective. The synchronized voting wouldn't be so worrying if confined to the occasional issue, as in the past. But when used across the entire Congressional term, that's when things have gone over the edge. What that tells me is that the choreographed voting has nothing to do with individual beliefs or considerations and everything to do with what they are told to do. This should be unacceptable from either party. It invalidates the whole idea of campaigning for office. Since all Republicans are functionally identical, why should anyone care what their name is or what they supposedly stand for? All we would need to know is if they can read, write and follow instructions. No active intellect required. Certainly simplifies voting.

Government is more than the competition between a couple of static political platforms! I remember issues in the past that tended to polarize Congress, yet even then you would see the odd Dem or Republican cross the aisle to vote their conscience.  But this last Congress has become nothing more than a schoolyard at recess. One side is so defensive about being the smaller group and so worried that the other side might do something that is popular that they're sulking in the corner and refusing to let anyone play. I have never been so disgusted with my government as I am now. And it's not because the Republicans won't rubber-stamp Obama's policies the way they did for Bush. It's because they won't even engage in the discussion. They spend more energy talking to the camera, Tweeting and posting inane comments on Facebook than they do in any kind of conversation with Democrats. They have taken the filibuster to heights undreamed of in the previous history of our nation. After holding fairly steady for decades, the number of attempts to block even the introduction of legislation has DOUBLED in the current session of Congress, and this session is far from over yet. In other words, the minority party has fought every single action by the majority party from day one. This is far beyond policy disagreements. This can only be a concerted effort to stop anything the President proposes. Not because it's questionable policy, but as overall political gamesmanship to make Obama and the Dems look ineffectual. Admittedly the Democrats are scarily good at this on their own. Put simply, Republicans have shown quite clearly that the needs of the Nation take a back seat to the needs of the party. The Republicans are too busy trying to discredit the majority party to notice that the building is on fire. This cannot continue.

The icing on this cyanide laced cake is that so many Americans don't seem to see or even care. We have historically looked to the government, right or wrong, for leadership in tough times. When things are at their worst we tend to follow anyone who speaks with authority. So without thinking things through, Americans have essentially ceded control to the loudest cry. Currently that is the Republican party. Even though it's a whiny, self serving screed. Yet the American public follows along the way they are told; they get angry at what they are told they should be angry about. Over and over they are manipulated with sound bites and corporate sponsored misinformation campaigns. Verifiable lies are allowed to not just sit unchallenged but are made the centerpiece of supposed legitimate arguments. Death Panels? Lie. Government takeover of healthcare? Lie. No terrorist attacks under Bush? Lie. None under Bush after 9/11? Lie. Obama as a Socialist fanatic? Lie. The Democrats ignoring Republicans? Lie! The list is seemingly endless. We Americans are currently getting the government we deserve. Oh yes, indeedy. A dysfunctional mess that accomplishes little other than filling the airwaves with noise. We voted in Obama by a solid majority, because we knew things had to change, only to then become furious that the new Administration is actually changing things! Oddly enough, you can't have change without change. And even if a bad decision is made, it's not the end of the country, as the 'Tea Bag' fringe dwellers like to claim. America is not a Faberge egg. We won't shatter if jostled. We elected President Obama and the Democratic majority to alter the course of the previous 8 years and deal with an economic crisis. We MUST let them try to do that. Not without some counterbalance, certainly. But we can't expect them to accomplish anything with half the government sitting in the dark, fingers in their ears yelling, "Lalalalalalalala, I can't hear you!"

If you really care what happens to America and our world policies, pay attention. Don't assume everything your favorite pundit says is the absolute, unadulterated truth. Think about it yourself and see if it makes sense. I like Keith Olbermann, but I am well aware that he does occasionally drift across the line, though I think it's from frustration rather than malice. What scares me is that listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck don't seem to have the same realization. Beck practically lives in the fringe and Limbaugh has become so enamored of his own voice and the adulation of his fans that he doesn't appear to filter himself anymore. He actually says everything that crosses the transom of his mind without ever thinking it through. His comments after the Haitian earthquake are an excellent example of this. If an issue is of interest read different views, and really think about what they are saying and if it actually makes sense or is just self serving noise. It is probably best to try and avoid the noisemakers on the fringe though. They exist primarily as self promotion machines and are rarely more substantive than a WWF Wrestling event.

Most importantly, write your Senators and Congressional representatives. Email, Postal and phone calls. Democrats AND Republicans. Every one who represents you. Tell them what you think. Tell them what you want. Tell them what you don't like. Be reasoned and direct in what you think, but avoid emotional rants that might get you dropped into the wing-nut category. I know it's easy to just sit back and not get involved, but that is what many in Congress want. As long as you say nothing, they can presume to decide on your behalf in any way they see fit. Demand that they do their jobs and work with all the other children in DC to do what America needs and not what is politically advantageous for them or their sponsors. Because they will keep doing what's in their best interests until they feel it's in their best interests to change!

Below are links to find your Senators and Representatives. Everyone has two Senators and a Representative who directly represents them. Write to ALL of them. Write often on any issue you care about. They are supposed to be representing you, not their own interests or those of their largest donors. Make your voice heard!!

Contact the Congress
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Contact Congress Page

Policy and Impatience

I just read a very interesting and thoughtful article in the online edition of Foreign Policy magazine. The article, titled 'The Carter Syndrome', focuses on how US Presidents often approach policy through four schools of thought:

"In general, U.S. presidents see the world through the eyes of four giants: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Hamiltonians share the first Treasury secretary's belief that a strong national government and a strong military should pursue a realist global policy and that the government can and should promote economic development and the interests of American business at home and abroad. Wilsonians agree with Hamiltonians on the need for a global foreign policy, but see the promotion of democracy and human rights as the core elements of American grand strategy. Jeffersonians dissent from this globalist consensus; they want the United States to minimize its commitments and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state. Jacksonians are today's Fox News watchers. They are populists suspicious of Hamiltonian business links, Wilsonian do-gooding, and Jeffersonian weakness."


Full article available Here.

I think this article only underscores the need for a balanced, common sense approach to American policy. None of these schools of thought are workable alone. All suffer from, at their most pure level, an idealism that is unworkable in the real world. Certainly the Bush years, where Jacksonian absolutism held sway, did not solve much yet cost greatly. What is needed, in my opinion, is a core of the Jeffersonian but infused with elements of the others. After all, it's pure common sense that America cannot stop all evil or decree democracy to all the nations of the world. We can't force our ideals on those who resist without becoming that which we have always claimed that we stand against.

Obama is in an extremely difficult situation, as often happens when there is a major change in leadership after 8 years. Part of the challenge is the American people themselves. Conservatives want only a continuation, at least for the most part, of the policies of the Bush years. Liberals want a complete reversal of those policies. Both sides expect everything they ask for, now, or they are furious. As with most things, the truth is in the middle somewhere. The Liberals must accept that Obama cannot simply sign a stack of Executive Orders and whisk away all signs of the Bush years. And Conservatives must accept that the Bush doctrine is inherently flawed and did little in eight years to solve our problems. But none of this is going to happen quickly. America needs to be the one thing it's always been very bad at; we need to be patient.

I do believe that Obama is trying very hard to find that common sense path out of the forest. But since he can't just wrench it all into line with his preferences in one fell swoop, he has to make changes here and there with an eye to the long term rather than tomorrow's headlines. And every policy initiative carries a political cost that he cannot ignore, any more than any other President in our history. And it's these political costs that I believe are the most damaging. Or more accurately, it's the need to weigh them so carefully. I suspect that there are many policies that, given free reign, Obama would change tomorrow. But for every Presidential action, there is an amplified political reaction. Just look at the healthcare reform agenda. It has taken the better part of a year just to get disparate House and Senate bills passed. It still remains to be seen if these two, very different bills can be merged into anything useable. This single agenda item has cost Obama huge amounts of time, energy and intense negotiation and it's not over yet. And just as striking, it may not end up very close to what he actually wanted in the first place. And we still have, in no particular order, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', security threats, Iran, North Korea, the list goes on. And these are all issues that seem to have few moderates. We seem to be in an era when everything is a partisan war. Obama has to step carefully and pick his fights. He cannot risk too many battles at once without the risk of losing them all.

The irony to it all is that no matter what he does, the Right will scream in horror that he's moving too fast and the Left will roar in frustration that he's moving too slow. Americans, in my opinion, need to step back and take a few breaths before agonizing over what Obama has or has not done. In many cases it's obvious why he's made the decisions he has. Doesn't mean I agree with them all, but I can at least see why he has made them. Americans have to control this emotional knee-jerk reactionist tendency. We must all use our brains and see that there is more to policy issues than simple slogans and sound bites. I think what many just don't understand, is that being President is much more about doing what you Can do rather than what you Want to do.

Middle Ground

Those who know me and have had any kind of political or social discussion with me will attest to the fact that I consider myself a Centrist. If you really want to put a party name to it, I'd say I'm a Conservative Democrat. But as is usually the case with political views, the more you try to align someone under a standard party label, the less accurate it is. I tend to see some good ideas from most of the various points on the political spectrum. From Republican to Libertarian, Green and Democrat.

This is what frustrates me so much. Every one of these factions, which is of course splintered into moderates and extremists among its own members, claims to know the truth. They boldly state that they have the answers to all the country's woes. But every one of them is wrong. The answers to most issues are not contained within a single ideology. Especially the really contentious ones. This is something few seem willing to understand. Partly it's a human tendency to look for absolutes. And partly it's an underlying need to compete with another group to see who's better or smarter. And since humans generally want to belong to a group of like minded individuals, we end up with these clots of people, each person reinforcing the other's feelings of absolute certainty. I can tell you, there are few things more detrimental to intelligent, reasoned problem solving than a sense of 'absolute certainty'.

In fact, that sense of certainty is the antithesis of reason. There are rarely absolutes in this world, aside from some basic moral codes of conduct. Even some of those are less absolute than we like to think. We all agree that killing another human being is wrong. Yet we do it all the time, institutionally, in wars and capital punishment. So even that's not entirely black and white. So why do we seem to think that one, ironclad political philosophy will serve to solve all of our problems? Socrates is quoted as saying, "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." I would modify it slightly and say that true knowledge is when you realize that you don't have all the answers. I truly believe that the most important skill anyone can learn in life is to be able to step outside yourself, intellectually, and look at things from another point of view. Call it a reality check, if you like.

Without this kind of reality check, it's very easy to become so entombed in our own opinions that we just assume that every other viewpoint is wrong. Once you've walled yourself so deeply in this certainty, you become intellectually dead. All you end up doing is spinning around in tighter and tighter circles, blocking out more and more of the outside world.  Then add to that the effects of listening to pundits and assorted personalities who mirror your own opinions. It becomes harder and harder to even consider other ideas. This is how a society stagnates.

If America is going to find the answers to healthcare reform, financial policy and the myriad of other problems we are now facing we all have to venture out of our personal bunkers and talk to each other!  Then we work together and not against each other. Everyone, from every extreme, has to stop assuming that their 'side' is the answer. Because I'm telling you, not one of these political parties or social movements hold all the answers. Not one. We like to talk about America as a 'melting pot', but someone must have turned the heat down, because we have started to congeal into large, disparate clots. We are at our best when we work together, when all these diverse viewpoints come together for a common goal. It's only then that we benefit from ideas that we, ourselves, would never have thought of. Conversely we are at our worst when we pull back into like minded enclaves, each claiming a monopoly on good ideas. I'm sick to death of this 'I'm right, everyone else is wrong' blather from the politicians to the cashier at the local Target. None of us is right about everything! And even those who are wrong about one issue, aren't necessarily wrong about everything else!

Take a moment and really, honestly listen to those you disagree with sometimes. Most  Liberals are NOT neo-socialist nut jobs! Step back from your own opinion occasionally and think about it from the other side to see if it really makes sense or if you're riding a wave of pure, knuckle-headed emotion. Because sometimes you'll be surprised to find that you're spewing cross-eyed-badger-spit rather than the insightful political commentary you thought. Don't assume someone is an idiot just because they are a Democrat or a Republican. I guarantee you that there are nut-jobs in every group! Stop using labels like 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' like insults.They denote a political viewpoint, not an indication of intelligence. Once you start hurling insults and derogatory comments, everyone goes on the defensive. When that happens, all meaningful discourse stops and any chance of actually learning anything ends. There are a lot of really smart people out there and not all of them occupy your political orbit. Doesn't make their ideas any less valid or any less likely to be right.

What a Difference Eight Months Makes

It's amazing how things have changed since the last Presidential election. And I'm not talking about health care reform or financial policy. I'm talking about politics, pure and simple. Repeatedly over the last 8 months I have watched as conservatives have made hair-pin changes of heart that would give any driver whiplash. Not in their core political beliefs, but in what is acceptable and what isn't when it comes to the President. 

Last night a news story caught my eye as I skimmed across Yahoo's front page. It was about a planned speech by President Obama, directed at students. According to Obama, in an interview last month with an 11 year old student reporter:

"I'm going to be making a big speech to young people all across the country about the importance of education; about the importance of staying in school; how we want to improve our education system and why it’s so important for the country. So I hope everybody tunes in."

I'm thinking that it sounds like an interesting idea. An authority figure like the President talking directly to kids. Treating them like real people to reinforce the importance of education for them and for the country. I'd say it's a win-win idea. But oddly, the conservatives seem to see it as some liberal, 'activist' attempt to mind control our youth. Below is an excerpt from a statement by Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. Though he's far from the only person to ooze from the woodwork with words of lunacy, his press release is truly impressive.

"The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates." 

"President Obama has turned to American's children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American's youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves." 

You can find the full press release here and it would be funny if the guy wasn't serious: 

http://www.rpof.org/article.php?id=754 

There are so many things wrong with this single Press Release that I have difficulty deciding where to start. Since when does listening to a speech obligate you to agree with the speaker? Is he claiming that kids are so docile and easily lead that they'll believe anything they are told by an authority figure? If it was that easy, then parents wouldn't have any problem at all with keeping their kids in line. In the 'Real World' kids are pretty skeptical when adults tell them things. They're also a lot smarter than Mr. Greer apparently gives them credit. And what is this babble about spreading liberal lies?! I keep forgetting that if you don't agree with a policy then it's obviously a 'Lie'. Sounds so much more dastardly that way. I saw nothing in the description of the speech that indicated Obama was going to try and sell health care reform or financial bailout proposals. You know why? Because it would make no sense to preach these things to students. They aren't the ones who will decide these issues. Mr. Greer is either an idiot or is desperate to get his name onto the national stage as a 'Conservative Bastion' for future political benefit. Since he's gotten this far in his career, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just crass self promotion.

What really gets under my skin about this whole thing? If this had happened 12 mos ago, and it was G.W. Bush doing the speechifyin', these same people would be beside themselves with praise about what a 'historic' occasion this is and how this shows the President reaching out to kids and speaking to them with respect. But the Republican party is incapable of passing up a chance to turn anything Obama says or does into some Democratic plot. As if the Democratic Party was organized and unified enough to manage such a thing!

It's just another example of how quickly what was praise worthy when their man was in power suddenly becomes despicable when the political tide changes. The hypocrisy I've seen on display from conservatives since January is truly awe inspiring. Many, especially conservatives, like to look down on The Daily Show as just fake news. But what they really hate about the program is that it projects their hypocrisy and petty concerns on the wall for all to see. They can't stand to have their own words brought back to haunt them. That's what The Daily Show excels at. Digging up the week, month or year old tape that clearly shows how this person has perjured themselves over and over in the public arena. It's not the fake segments that people love the most. It's the real video clips that clearly display how shallow, arrogant and condescending so many of our elected leaders are. 

Their recent election losses have backed the Republicans into a political corner and they are biting, scratching and yowling at anything they perceive as a threat. And just like a cornered animal, doesn't matter if the threat is real or not, anything that isn't 'them' is treated as an enemy. Unfortunately, many Americans who support the Republican party seem incapable or unwilling to parse through the drek. If it comes from 'their' party, then it must be true. Doesn't matter if it's coherent or logical. All that matters is if it's officially sanctioned by their party. It's sad, but unfortunately true.

Note:
The video of the President's speech to Students
Text of speech to Students

Deafening Ignorance

I'm a big fan of the First Amendment. Free speech is certainly one of our core values. So I am all for other viewpoints. Doesn't matter if I agree or not. If someone has a thoughtful comment to make, I am open to listening to it. Note the operative word there. Thoughtful. That's something I don't hear a lot of lately. Instead I hear a lot of yelling and screeching that contains no substance whatsoever.

This trend has gone ballistic over the last eight months. Take the Town Hall meetings. Might as well just stop bothering, from what I've seen. We have people bringing weapons to them, just to show everyone that they are legally allowed to do so. As if a Town Hall meeting on health reform is going to magically repeal the Second Amendment when they aren't looking. Then, it's not unusual to see those same individuals stand up and scream nonsense at the speakers about "wanting their country back" and "I'm scared of Obama." So in one fell swoop they have not only shown that they are too ignorant to actually discuss the issues, but may also be too unstable to be carrying around firearms.

I know that I'm no expert on health care reform, but I also know that getting all your info from a commercial, sponsored by one side of the debate is stupid. This also goes for relying solely on the opinion of one of the popular 'Pundits'. Most of these loud mouthed, know-it-alls, really know very little. If you're relying on Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for your unbiased information about what healthcare reform does and does not address, then I dearly hope that you don't operate any heavy machinery. Doesn't matter if you agree with his general political outlook. That doesn't make him an expert. The only thing these individuals or those like them, on either side of the isle, are 'experts' at is their own, narrow opinion. And their 'opinion' is generally that more people should be listening to them.

And this goes for both sides of the debate. I hear a whole lot of talking points and catchy statements, but very little intelligent discussion. These are complicated issues that cannot be explained by some ex-Governor's offhand Facebook posts. I know it's easier to let other people think for you, but if you are going to get involved in the discussion, then do us all the courtesy of not pretending you know more than you do. There is nothing wrong with saying, 'Hey, what exactly does that term mean? How exactly are you proposing this be put into effect." And so on. But screaming, 'Obama scares me!' at the top of your lungs? I don't want to hear it. Not because I'm a devout Obama worshiper, but because it's the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from a 4th grader. You are an adult and should be able to control yourself enough to put a coherent thought together without resorting to grade school antics. Have some self respect, please.

And another thing. For the love of all that's good in the world, stop comparing everyone you don't like to Adolph Hitler!!!! It's enough to make my temples throb. First off, it is almost always a stupid and inappropriate comparison. Secondly, it makes you look and sound like an idiot. Same with the posters festooned with the iconic little black mustache. What this actually shows, is that you are too ignorant of history to do more than grab one of the only 'bad' historical figures you've ever heard of. Get the idea that this bothers me? Oh yes! It drives me insane. First you call Obama a Socialist, then you say he's Hitler-like or that the health reform reminds you of Nazi programs in the '30's. I don't think I'm wrong when I say that most of those who are throwing around these statements have little understanding of the terms, beyond what some pundit told them. Does anyone else watch the History Channel or read books? If you don't know the truth, don't scream it at the top of your lungs. It makes you look ignorant and does nothing to advance your agenda. Assuming you actually have one.

Look, if you have a grievance or concern, please step up and make it. But don't squander your opportunity, and everyone else's, by these infantile antics. You will sway nobody with outbursts like that. I'm sure it's very good for your ego to have a few other nut-jobs join in with your chant, but shouldn't this be more important than that?

Though, sadly, maybe that's all these individuals want. To stop any discussion on the subject. They see their narrow little world and damned if they'll let anyone change it, even to help the nation as a whole. It's that fear of change that opponents always play on. If they scare people enough with lies and half truths, then there's no need to do anything so silly as to actually discuss it. And therein lies the big truth of these campaigns. It's easier just to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater than it is to explain to the patrons the reasons why exiting the theater might be beneficial to them. And American's respond to nothing so eagerly as 'Fear'.