In a recent tweet, I asked "If Sotomayor talks like a racist, does that mean she is a racist? Maybe she was just trying to make herself feel important." It's hard to develop an argument in 140 characters. The question my tweet raised is - what does racism have to do with self worth?
The direct answer is that building self worth at the expense of members of a different race is not necessarily racism. But it can be a precursor of racist ideology. Here's how:
We often think of racism as a purely hateful concept. A racist is someone who hates others simply because of the color of their skin. That is, a racist is a person with no goodness in him or her. We often see no reason for this type of racism except for unadulterated evil. Many people see a racist as the devil incarnate.
But we may believe that racism can be learned. The skin-head and the black panther learn racism from the actions of others. Therefore, we can forgive the racist; but we must teach ways to resist this type of evil.
Tribalism is the belief that people who are genetically related to one's self are somehow superior to all other people. It is not racist, and is more an excuse for racism than a valid reason. Many non-racists think that their genotype is superior to others, including Sotomayor (who apparently extends this feeling to her phenotype.) Real racism starts with egotism. It is an attempt to justify the tribalistic feelings that you are somehow inherently better than those other kinds of people.
Sotomayor's quote (that a wise latina woman makes better judgments than a white man) is not racist. But if not racist, then what is it? I take my cue from commentators who suggest Sotomayor was making a statement designed to receive positive reviews from her fellow lawyers. And if she truly was playing to her audience, then I figure she was seeking validation from her peers to make herself feel important.
It's been said that the most important thing we can learn from the Sotomayor flap is that nobody likes to be called a racist. It's just as wrong for the liberals to yell racist as for the conservatives to do so. Of course if one side's definition of racist is so loose as to include any hint of racism, then it is only fair that the other side should use the same criteria...
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Fascism and Post-Modern Liberalism
The other day I posted on Twitter that so-called liberals in 2009 are very similar to 1940 fascists. Replies to the tweet suggested that I was confusing liberals with conservatives. My answer is: yes, I am. From a perspective of economics, there is almost no difference between liberals and conservatives. But had I tweeted about a parallel between conservatives and fascists, no one would have said a thing. So for you who clamored for clarification, here's a defense of the tweet.
Fascism. Favors an authoritarian government. Totalitarian in scope. The government controls and owns the means of production and the supply of money. A usual example of fascism is Hitler’s Germany and Franco’s Italy. Fascism favors charismatic leaders like Hitler and Franco. Fascism is a populist movement; that is fascist organizers don’t come to power through armed insurrection but by appealing to the common people’s distrust of privileged elites. Hitler was effective at building a strong industrial base in post WWI Germany - he used the industrial magnates to end capitalism and free markets in favor of state controlled industries. Franco also poured a lot of the national wealth into manufacturing.
Classical Liberalism. The definition of liberalism has changed over the years. A good example of American liberalism before 1960 is Adam Smith, the father of capitalist economics. He advanced the idea of the “unseen hand” of progress in the free markets. Smith advocated against a form of statism that was prevalent in the 18’th century – the domination of the economy by kings and nobility. He was considered liberal because his teachings about free markets were leading away from statism. We still use the classic definitions of liberalism in words like “liberal arts”, where liberal simply means open minded.
Post-Modern Liberalism. Even before conservatives abandoned free markets, liberals discarded personal freedom in favor of egalitarianism. Liberalism seems to believe that the unseen hand of free markets oppresses the less powerful. Where Smith noted that self-interest can benefit everybody, post-modern liberalism uses the pejorative term greed. Proponents of post-modern liberalism favor governmental control over the economy as a way to bring fairness to all people. Liberalism supports populist, charismatic leaders. We have recently found that the acknowledged liberals in the current federal administration want the government to control the means of production – by purchasing controlling shares in companies, by denying companies the right to reward their employees, and even by refusing to allow some banks to pay back loans advanced by the federal government.
Defining recent political movements is risky. One can only look at the policies of the people who call themselves liberal or conservative, and think that they are speaking for the majority of like-minded people. Many observers may base their definitions not on economic programs but on the stated intentions of the self-defined conservatives and liberals. Liberalism has been successful in portraying itself as favoring fairness. Liberalism (classical and post-modern) is a strong proponent of all people being equal. Hitler spoke of fairness. We are loathe to believe that he was honest - from our perspective he seems to have favored enslavement of the people to the government and industries. We want to view the intentions of liberalism and fascism as opposite. But if we have no evidence but the stated intentions of the two groups, they are indeed very similar.
When one looks through the lens of economics, he may see that fascism and liberalism both favor big government at the expense of personal liberties. Both strive to control the means of production through the government and both think that government is better than free markets at creating a strong economy.
Conservatism can be just as fascist as liberalism. Conservatism is a political philosophy that means to conserve something. For most of the twentieth century, that something was classical liberalism. Now it increasingly becomes big goverment. Conservatives and liberals tend to agree on the size of government, they disagree only on what kinds of social programs should be implemented.
Just about everybody claims to favor fairness. It used to be that conservatives believed that fairness comes when people take control of their own destiny, and that government will usually make things worse. They still pay lip-service to that tenet, even while looking for creative ways to control the private lives of the citizens. Liberals unashamedly think that fairness comes through an outside agency like the government, and that independent people will be victimized by the powerful. Each side denies any noble intentions of the other. True believers often think that the people with whom they disagree are simply lying to build populist support.
Lets touch on whether fascism is more like conservatism than liberalism. Like liberals, fascists did not want to conserve anything, but tried to remake their countries in new ways. But conservatism is indeed the new liberalism, and it is difficult to compare political movements that are seventy years apart other than to say that fascism was a type of liberalism in its day. Which movements favor or deny personal liberties like free speech? A liberal once bemoaned to me the coming Iraq war by stating that the Bush administration should not be sounding the drum beat of war; in this, he opposed the exercise of free speech. But there are numerous examples of conservative and of liberal audiences shouting down a public speaker with whom they disagreed. And so, both seem somewhat opposed to free speech, like the fascists (if book burnings are an indication of their disdain of free speech.)
I’ll conclude with a Hitlerism (can’t remember the exact quote). He said that if through your own words, someone sees something good about your political opponents, then you have failed your cause. Both conservatives and liberals in America have taken this to heart. Each camp intently portrays its opponents as loathsome oafs. This attitude is repugnant. But it segues back to the main point, which now I modify to state: today's conservatives and liberals are both much like 1940's fascists.
I tire of these peas in a pod. It's time to try something different.
Fascism. Favors an authoritarian government. Totalitarian in scope. The government controls and owns the means of production and the supply of money. A usual example of fascism is Hitler’s Germany and Franco’s Italy. Fascism favors charismatic leaders like Hitler and Franco. Fascism is a populist movement; that is fascist organizers don’t come to power through armed insurrection but by appealing to the common people’s distrust of privileged elites. Hitler was effective at building a strong industrial base in post WWI Germany - he used the industrial magnates to end capitalism and free markets in favor of state controlled industries. Franco also poured a lot of the national wealth into manufacturing.
Classical Liberalism. The definition of liberalism has changed over the years. A good example of American liberalism before 1960 is Adam Smith, the father of capitalist economics. He advanced the idea of the “unseen hand” of progress in the free markets. Smith advocated against a form of statism that was prevalent in the 18’th century – the domination of the economy by kings and nobility. He was considered liberal because his teachings about free markets were leading away from statism. We still use the classic definitions of liberalism in words like “liberal arts”, where liberal simply means open minded.
Post-Modern Liberalism. Even before conservatives abandoned free markets, liberals discarded personal freedom in favor of egalitarianism. Liberalism seems to believe that the unseen hand of free markets oppresses the less powerful. Where Smith noted that self-interest can benefit everybody, post-modern liberalism uses the pejorative term greed. Proponents of post-modern liberalism favor governmental control over the economy as a way to bring fairness to all people. Liberalism supports populist, charismatic leaders. We have recently found that the acknowledged liberals in the current federal administration want the government to control the means of production – by purchasing controlling shares in companies, by denying companies the right to reward their employees, and even by refusing to allow some banks to pay back loans advanced by the federal government.
Defining recent political movements is risky. One can only look at the policies of the people who call themselves liberal or conservative, and think that they are speaking for the majority of like-minded people. Many observers may base their definitions not on economic programs but on the stated intentions of the self-defined conservatives and liberals. Liberalism has been successful in portraying itself as favoring fairness. Liberalism (classical and post-modern) is a strong proponent of all people being equal. Hitler spoke of fairness. We are loathe to believe that he was honest - from our perspective he seems to have favored enslavement of the people to the government and industries. We want to view the intentions of liberalism and fascism as opposite. But if we have no evidence but the stated intentions of the two groups, they are indeed very similar.
When one looks through the lens of economics, he may see that fascism and liberalism both favor big government at the expense of personal liberties. Both strive to control the means of production through the government and both think that government is better than free markets at creating a strong economy.
Conservatism can be just as fascist as liberalism. Conservatism is a political philosophy that means to conserve something. For most of the twentieth century, that something was classical liberalism. Now it increasingly becomes big goverment.
Just about everybody claims to favor fairness. It used to be that conservatives believed that fairness comes when people take control of their own destiny, and that government will usually make things worse. They still pay lip-service to that tenet, even while looking for creative ways to control the private lives of the citizens. Liberals unashamedly think that fairness comes through an outside agency like the government, and that independent people will be victimized by the powerful. Each side denies any noble intentions of the other. True believers often think that the people with whom they disagree are simply lying to build populist support.
Lets touch on whether fascism is more like conservatism than liberalism. Like liberals, fascists did not want to conserve anything, but tried to remake their countries in new ways. But conservatism is indeed the new liberalism, and it is difficult to compare political movements that are seventy years apart other than to say that fascism was a type of liberalism in its day. Which movements favor or deny personal liberties like free speech? A liberal once bemoaned to me the coming Iraq war by stating that the Bush administration should not be sounding the drum beat of war; in this, he opposed the exercise of free speech. But there are numerous examples of conservative and of liberal audiences shouting down a public speaker with whom they disagreed. And so, both seem somewhat opposed to free speech, like the fascists (if book burnings are an indication of their disdain of free speech.)
I’ll conclude with a Hitlerism (can’t remember the exact quote). He said that if through your own words, someone sees something good about your political opponents, then you have failed your cause. Both conservatives and liberals in America have taken this to heart. Each camp intently portrays its opponents as loathsome oafs. This attitude is repugnant. But it segues back to the main point, which now I modify to state: today's conservatives and liberals are both much like 1940's fascists.
I tire of these peas in a pod. It's time to try something different.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tea Party Thoughts
Not since my (then) young daughter brought me a cookie had I participated in a tea party. The get-together that attracted me was held on tax day in Jefferson City. For those of you who missed a lot of the fourth grade, Jefferson City is the state capitol of Missouri. It has the requisite stately capitol building, which was an ideal setting for the rally. About fifty people showed up - not bad for a small burg. Networking was the order of the day - we had a fine time standing in the warm sunshine and talking to each other. No one orated, no one chanted, no news hounds covered the rally; according to politics-as-usual, it was a non-event.
Lo and behold, some people at the tea party had heard of a similar event held the day before at the same location. Quite a few had read that the tax day rally was slated for 11:00. Still others (including a couple of state reps who claimed to have been invited to speak) said the rally was on for 3:00 that afternoon. Those of us who arrived at noon had learned that time on the internet. The more suspicious folks in the crowd decided that the misinformation was a Democratic party ploy to limit the size of the crowd. Maybe so, but the real problem seemed to be that no person or agency was in charge of organizing the tea party.
Of course, people at the rally were not the only conspiracy theorists that day. Several prominent Democrats claim that the tea party movement is being led by the Republican party. Welll. If so, no wonder the Republicans blew the last election.
Hopefully, the 3:00 tea party went well. Not being a nominee to the Obama cabinet, I had to go home and put my taxes in the mail. And so alas, the later tea party had to go on without me.
A very nice lady from Macon (Missouri) offered me a small poster board and use of a magic marker. So my proud sign said "NO MORE WASTE-ULUS". That may have been a little obscure, but I heard a high school girl explaining to her younger brother that the so-called economic stimulus package is full of waste and ineffeciencies. So I felt good about the sign, and of course was proud of the young lady's keen insight into politics.
There were a lot of signs, but no great memorable ones. There was the typical "Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot" - this guy got plenty of pictures taken, but I had to explain to some folks that this was a slam against Obama. (Doesn't that sign trot out in one form or another for every president?) Lots of signs said "Taxed Enough Already". And there was a smattering of other messages. But there were no signs with fancy graphics, and no evidence that any group was sponsoring the event.
One guy had a video camera. He drifted around the party, offering to record what people had to say about taxes. He didn't ask me. I'm an old guy with a graying pony-tail, and I don't fit the homeland-security definition of wild-eyed conservative. Perhaps that makes me a poor example for trying to convince conservatives that they need to support the tea party movement. But could be the cameraman was looking for red-necks that could scare liberals about the horrors of tea parties. If so, they absolutely didn't want any spokesman with whom liberals can find the least commonality; and they definitely wouldn't want me.
If you are thinking about going to a tea party, please consider this. The tea party movement appeals to a lot of people, maybe someday the majority of American citizens. The parties of the Democrats and Republicans both fear tea parties for the same reason - we bring together people who oppose both Republican social engineering and Democratic socialism. The American political system works best with two major parties: the social luddites and socialists are afraid that they will have to band together to oppose us. Such a union is not as strange as you might think - both factions love to spend lots of money on big government. And that's where we differ with them. Lots of people differ with them. Let's accept the best of the major parties, and leave the rest to the politics of yore. We can't afford to reject any Democrat or Republican - he or she stands to be a vital member of the American Tea party.
Lo and behold, some people at the tea party had heard of a similar event held the day before at the same location. Quite a few had read that the tax day rally was slated for 11:00. Still others (including a couple of state reps who claimed to have been invited to speak) said the rally was on for 3:00 that afternoon. Those of us who arrived at noon had learned that time on the internet. The more suspicious folks in the crowd decided that the misinformation was a Democratic party ploy to limit the size of the crowd. Maybe so, but the real problem seemed to be that no person or agency was in charge of organizing the tea party.
Of course, people at the rally were not the only conspiracy theorists that day. Several prominent Democrats claim that the tea party movement is being led by the Republican party. Welll. If so, no wonder the Republicans blew the last election.
Hopefully, the 3:00 tea party went well. Not being a nominee to the Obama cabinet, I had to go home and put my taxes in the mail. And so alas, the later tea party had to go on without me.
A very nice lady from Macon (Missouri) offered me a small poster board and use of a magic marker. So my proud sign said "NO MORE WASTE-ULUS". That may have been a little obscure, but I heard a high school girl explaining to her younger brother that the so-called economic stimulus package is full of waste and ineffeciencies. So I felt good about the sign, and of course was proud of the young lady's keen insight into politics.
There were a lot of signs, but no great memorable ones. There was the typical "Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot" - this guy got plenty of pictures taken, but I had to explain to some folks that this was a slam against Obama. (Doesn't that sign trot out in one form or another for every president?) Lots of signs said "Taxed Enough Already". And there was a smattering of other messages. But there were no signs with fancy graphics, and no evidence that any group was sponsoring the event.
One guy had a video camera. He drifted around the party, offering to record what people had to say about taxes. He didn't ask me. I'm an old guy with a graying pony-tail, and I don't fit the homeland-security definition of wild-eyed conservative. Perhaps that makes me a poor example for trying to convince conservatives that they need to support the tea party movement. But could be the cameraman was looking for red-necks that could scare liberals about the horrors of tea parties. If so, they absolutely didn't want any spokesman with whom liberals can find the least commonality; and they definitely wouldn't want me.
If you are thinking about going to a tea party, please consider this. The tea party movement appeals to a lot of people, maybe someday the majority of American citizens. The parties of the Democrats and Republicans both fear tea parties for the same reason - we bring together people who oppose both Republican social engineering and Democratic socialism. The American political system works best with two major parties: the social luddites and socialists are afraid that they will have to band together to oppose us. Such a union is not as strange as you might think - both factions love to spend lots of money on big government. And that's where we differ with them. Lots of people differ with them. Let's accept the best of the major parties, and leave the rest to the politics of yore. We can't afford to reject any Democrat or Republican - he or she stands to be a vital member of the American Tea party.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Bible Verses Vs. Bible Stories
Looking at individual Bible verses is a dangerous thing to do. A lot of people take a single verse out of the Bible and make assumptions about what it means. Others lift a verse out of context in an attempt to prove that which they already believe is right. Either way, their exegeses are often flawed. Jesus told stories; he didn't speak in disconnected, numbered statements. We miss Jesus’ message if we ignore the context of a story. And the same applies to all the writers of the Bible – they are telling the stories of humans seeking God, not trying to bore us with a bunch of little numbers stuck in the middle of the text.
Here are a couple of verses that many people uncritically accept as stand-alone statements. And one that most people reject because they don’t take into account what it means in the total story. They are taken from the Holy Bible, the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18.
Verse 18 says that whatever we “bind” or “loose” on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. It looks like this means that God will rubber-stamp our decisions. Maybe the Pope uses this verse to explain how he can be inerrant in matters of doctrine (perhaps he justifies this tenet in some other way.) But usually only the insane think we can make decisions for God.
Verse 19 says that whatever a couple of Christians agree about on earth is how God will make it happen in heaven. The religious establishment tries to convince us that only the important holy people (the bishops and mega-church preachers and such) can make the kinds of decisions that God wants. Most of the rest of us think that if two or more people pray the same prayer, then God is obligated to honor the request.
Verse 20 says that if two or three people are gathered in the name of God, then God will be there also. We often use this as a throw-away line. Have you ever been to a church meeting where only one other person shows up? We usually shrug and say, “well, wherever two are gathered…” Surely if God was there, a lot of people would have shown up.
You’ve probably already realized that these three verses make more sense together than does any verse by itself. Let’s look at more context of the verses. The whole story Jesus was telling is about resolving conflicts or reconciling two members of a church. It is from Matthew 18: 15-20 of the Holy Bible (New Revised Standard Version):
In context, within verse 19 Jesus states that a group of Christians (even two or three) can make a decision to pass judgment on another Christian. They don’t have to be the grand poobah or any other high muckety-muck of a church. But they do have to be united in trying to find what God wants. And they may find that either, neither or both of the aggrieved parties are in the wrong.
And verse 20 promises that God will be present when we are trying to reconcile people to each other. We can pretty well figure that no person or group can discern the will of God unless God is leading them. And if we follow Jesus’ guidelines, then God’s Spirit will be there, showing us how to bring people together. Perhaps God is present every time we get together for worship, or music practice, or church building maintenance, or whatever; but that’s not what Jesus is saying in the verse.
The part of verse 17 about treating someone like a tax collector needs to be read in context with the preceding paragraph (verses 10 through 14). God doesn’t want to lose anyone. God does want a Christian to repent of the things that he has done wrong. And so, there can’t be any situation in which God would want us to treat another Christian in such a way that it would hinder his rejection of sin. Indeed, going back yet another paragraph (verses 5 through 9), we see that Jesus harshly criticizes anyone who causes another person to sin. Making a pariah of someone may not cause him to sin, but perhaps it will; this is another place we're going to need God's guidance.
This brings us to verse 18. In context with the rest of the story, bind or loose means to form or sever a tie between a person and a church. The church must bring people to God. But it is not a contradiction that God would allow us to loose anyone that God does not want to lose. It is Jesus' way of telling us that God doesn’t reject someone just because his church casts him away. The verse must be important - Jesus uses his "Truly I tell you" words to start it out. So this bears repeating: the church is one means of God's saving grace, but we have no right to think that we can ever remove anyone from the grace of God.
Here are a couple of verses that many people uncritically accept as stand-alone statements. And one that most people reject because they don’t take into account what it means in the total story. They are taken from the Holy Bible, the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18.
Verse 18 says that whatever we “bind” or “loose” on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. It looks like this means that God will rubber-stamp our decisions. Maybe the Pope uses this verse to explain how he can be inerrant in matters of doctrine (perhaps he justifies this tenet in some other way.) But usually only the insane think we can make decisions for God.
Verse 19 says that whatever a couple of Christians agree about on earth is how God will make it happen in heaven. The religious establishment tries to convince us that only the important holy people (the bishops and mega-church preachers and such) can make the kinds of decisions that God wants. Most of the rest of us think that if two or more people pray the same prayer, then God is obligated to honor the request.
Verse 20 says that if two or three people are gathered in the name of God, then God will be there also. We often use this as a throw-away line. Have you ever been to a church meeting where only one other person shows up? We usually shrug and say, “well, wherever two are gathered…” Surely if God was there, a lot of people would have shown up.
You’ve probably already realized that these three verses make more sense together than does any verse by itself. Let’s look at more context of the verses. The whole story Jesus was telling is about resolving conflicts or reconciling two members of a church. It is from Matthew 18: 15-20 of the Holy Bible (New Revised Standard Version):
‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’
In context, within verse 19 Jesus states that a group of Christians (even two or three) can make a decision to pass judgment on another Christian. They don’t have to be the grand poobah or any other high muckety-muck of a church. But they do have to be united in trying to find what God wants. And they may find that either, neither or both of the aggrieved parties are in the wrong.
And verse 20 promises that God will be present when we are trying to reconcile people to each other. We can pretty well figure that no person or group can discern the will of God unless God is leading them. And if we follow Jesus’ guidelines, then God’s Spirit will be there, showing us how to bring people together. Perhaps God is present every time we get together for worship, or music practice, or church building maintenance, or whatever; but that’s not what Jesus is saying in the verse.
The part of verse 17 about treating someone like a tax collector needs to be read in context with the preceding paragraph (verses 10 through 14). God doesn’t want to lose anyone. God does want a Christian to repent of the things that he has done wrong. And so, there can’t be any situation in which God would want us to treat another Christian in such a way that it would hinder his rejection of sin. Indeed, going back yet another paragraph (verses 5 through 9), we see that Jesus harshly criticizes anyone who causes another person to sin. Making a pariah of someone may not cause him to sin, but perhaps it will; this is another place we're going to need God's guidance.
This brings us to verse 18. In context with the rest of the story, bind or loose means to form or sever a tie between a person and a church. The church must bring people to God. But it is not a contradiction that God would allow us to loose anyone that God does not want to lose. It is Jesus' way of telling us that God doesn’t reject someone just because his church casts him away. The verse must be important - Jesus uses his "Truly I tell you" words to start it out. So this bears repeating: the church is one means of God's saving grace, but we have no right to think that we can ever remove anyone from the grace of God.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama Runs GM
Did Obama fire the General Motors chairman? It’s a little more complicated than that.
The GM bailout severely curtailed the power of the corporation. In most times, a bailout would also have damaged the employee’s union. But the United Auto Workers refused to negotiate with the government. This made it look like the union thought GM was not in serious trouble. And GM looked like they were going after some easy money.
If GM really was close to bankruptcy, the government should have made it plain that both company and employees were getting the benefit. That is, they should have waited until the UAW was willing to make as many concessions as did the company. The upshot of the ill-timed bailout is that GM lost power which the UAW gained, and the government lost credibility.
The union now has the power to fire the chairman and probably the entire board of directors. They also have a huge amount of influence over President Obama. If the UAW says fire the chairman, Obama has just enough power to save face by acting like he did the firing.
Though Obama fired the GM chairman, the UAW pulled his strings.
The GM bailout severely curtailed the power of the corporation. In most times, a bailout would also have damaged the employee’s union. But the United Auto Workers refused to negotiate with the government. This made it look like the union thought GM was not in serious trouble. And GM looked like they were going after some easy money.
If GM really was close to bankruptcy, the government should have made it plain that both company and employees were getting the benefit. That is, they should have waited until the UAW was willing to make as many concessions as did the company. The upshot of the ill-timed bailout is that GM lost power which the UAW gained, and the government lost credibility.
The union now has the power to fire the chairman and probably the entire board of directors. They also have a huge amount of influence over President Obama. If the UAW says fire the chairman, Obama has just enough power to save face by acting like he did the firing.
Though Obama fired the GM chairman, the UAW pulled his strings.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Signs of a Failing Presidency
A letter to President Obama:
I see a monumental crisis for our country. The headlines will read, “President Resigns.” The television news will broadcast 24/7 as the historic events unfold. Mock coffins will be dragged through the streets as for a funeral. You will have given up the office of president of the United States of America.
Politicians and pundits will wonder how they could have missed seeing the tell-tales. Steve Kroft will rue that he berated you for being punch drunk when he should have given sympathy to a man in deep distress. Jay Leno will publicly apologize for encouraging a joke about handicapped people. The White House social secretary will regret allowing you to choose a specious gift for the British prime minister. The secretary of state will ask forgiveness for not assigning an aide to check your diplomatic mail. Many people in the print and broadcast media will search for answers as to why they failed to delve into the life of the man they supported for president. And people all around the country will seek absolution for having allowed a political neophyte to take on the challenges of the highest elective office in the nation.
But in all the places where somebody should have stepped up and helped, you alone are to blame. The office of president is too big for one person to fulfill by himself. You thought that if able to be elected president, then presidential expertise would follow. When things became chaotic, you could have saved yourself by delegating a few of the details of office. But instead of looking for good people to staff the Treasury Department, you let policy-making positions set idle. Instead of looking for qualified nominees for his cabinet, you supported people who don’t pay their taxes. Instead of trusting your adviser’s opinions on matters of state, you thought politicking is what the people of the country most want.
What a sad time of crisis in America. But Mr. Obama, it’s not too late. You’ve got to get help to change your policies for the country, to manage the demands of the presidency, and to put your emotional life back into order. Time is short. If you don’t make changes soon, the only thing worse than resigning will be to stay on.
I see a monumental crisis for our country. The headlines will read, “President Resigns.” The television news will broadcast 24/7 as the historic events unfold. Mock coffins will be dragged through the streets as for a funeral. You will have given up the office of president of the United States of America.
Politicians and pundits will wonder how they could have missed seeing the tell-tales. Steve Kroft will rue that he berated you for being punch drunk when he should have given sympathy to a man in deep distress. Jay Leno will publicly apologize for encouraging a joke about handicapped people. The White House social secretary will regret allowing you to choose a specious gift for the British prime minister. The secretary of state will ask forgiveness for not assigning an aide to check your diplomatic mail. Many people in the print and broadcast media will search for answers as to why they failed to delve into the life of the man they supported for president. And people all around the country will seek absolution for having allowed a political neophyte to take on the challenges of the highest elective office in the nation.
But in all the places where somebody should have stepped up and helped, you alone are to blame. The office of president is too big for one person to fulfill by himself. You thought that if able to be elected president, then presidential expertise would follow. When things became chaotic, you could have saved yourself by delegating a few of the details of office. But instead of looking for good people to staff the Treasury Department, you let policy-making positions set idle. Instead of looking for qualified nominees for his cabinet, you supported people who don’t pay their taxes. Instead of trusting your adviser’s opinions on matters of state, you thought politicking is what the people of the country most want.
What a sad time of crisis in America. But Mr. Obama, it’s not too late. You’ve got to get help to change your policies for the country, to manage the demands of the presidency, and to put your emotional life back into order. Time is short. If you don’t make changes soon, the only thing worse than resigning will be to stay on.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Blago and Rolo
to the tune of Frankie and Johnny
Blago and Rolo were buddies,
Tight as two scoundrels can be.
Blago and Rolo were cronies,
In political society.
Rubbed each other’s backs
Scratched each other’s itch.
Blago one day went on E-Bay,
Listed a fine senate seat.
Rolo tried negotiations
To get a deal that couldn’t be beat.
Rolo had a plan
To get to Washington.
Rolo then went to the feds,
They tapped Blago’s telephone,
Blago thought Obama had done it,
To pick a senator of his own.
Rolo was the man;
Blago’s time was short.
So Blago appointed old Rolo,
It gave the Democrats fits,
Harry Reid said he’d never allow it
But now that crafty Rolo sits
On the Senate floor.
Blago’s out on his butt.
Then Blago discovered that Rolo
Wasn’t going to pay what he thought,
So Blago decided a lesson
Really needed to be taught.
And the FBI,
Got new evidence.
The story may not yet be ended,
They’re still making lots of noise.
Don’t ever try to cheat your old buddy,
Especially in Illinois.
There's no honor 'mongst thieves,
Now their time is gone.
Blago and Rolo were buddies,
Tight as two scoundrels can be.
Blago and Rolo were cronies,
In political society.
Rubbed each other’s backs
Scratched each other’s itch.
Blago one day went on E-Bay,
Listed a fine senate seat.
Rolo tried negotiations
To get a deal that couldn’t be beat.
Rolo had a plan
To get to Washington.
Rolo then went to the feds,
They tapped Blago’s telephone,
Blago thought Obama had done it,
To pick a senator of his own.
Rolo was the man;
Blago’s time was short.
So Blago appointed old Rolo,
It gave the Democrats fits,
Harry Reid said he’d never allow it
But now that crafty Rolo sits
On the Senate floor.
Blago’s out on his butt.
Then Blago discovered that Rolo
Wasn’t going to pay what he thought,
So Blago decided a lesson
Really needed to be taught.
And the FBI,
Got new evidence.
The story may not yet be ended,
They’re still making lots of noise.
Don’t ever try to cheat your old buddy,
Especially in Illinois.
There's no honor 'mongst thieves,
Now their time is gone.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Libertarianism and the Usual Political Dichotomy
Last fall my daughter Kelley, who fashions herself a libertarian, was making an argument that liberals were close to being libertarians. Her position was a trifle disingenuous – she had made up her mind to support Obama and was trying to justify that decision. I responded to her that liberaltarianism may be valid in respect to social issues, but is a pure oxymoron it terms of economics.
My opinion on social liberalism has been changing. For instance, many liberals were shocked by the fact that Sarah Palin refused an abortion even after she knew that her fetus was going to be born severely handicapped. Apparently liberals are joining conservatives in denying personal decisions. Both sides seem to prefer that the government handles abortion choices, they just disagree on what form that interference should take. And they are both wrong - though the practice of mandated abortions seems more heinous than that of denied abortions.
Anyway, my mind isn’t totally made up about social liberalism. Liberals may yet see the light of personal freedom, just as conservatives are beginning to question the plethora of counter-effective rules they have imposed on businesses. A small, limited government in support of a mostly free economy is a good thing; each generation just has to decide where the line limiting governmental powers should be drawn. Anarchism and fascism are both bad ideas.
Part of my response to Kelley's argument is that fascism lives at the point on the circle where ultra-liberalism and far right conservatism become one. Isn’t it interesting that President Obama is borrowing money from future generations so he can give it to big business? It's just like Adolph Hitler - who in a rush to merge government and big business, sold Germany's future to fund his power grabs. Obama has every right to think that his ideas should have a bipartisan following in the U.S. government. Democrats like government and Republicans like big business. And hey, that same attitude worked out pretty successfully for several years for George W. Bush.
Yep ... Bush and Obama - the same guy doing the same things.
My opinion on social liberalism has been changing. For instance, many liberals were shocked by the fact that Sarah Palin refused an abortion even after she knew that her fetus was going to be born severely handicapped. Apparently liberals are joining conservatives in denying personal decisions. Both sides seem to prefer that the government handles abortion choices, they just disagree on what form that interference should take. And they are both wrong - though the practice of mandated abortions seems more heinous than that of denied abortions.
Anyway, my mind isn’t totally made up about social liberalism. Liberals may yet see the light of personal freedom, just as conservatives are beginning to question the plethora of counter-effective rules they have imposed on businesses. A small, limited government in support of a mostly free economy is a good thing; each generation just has to decide where the line limiting governmental powers should be drawn. Anarchism and fascism are both bad ideas.
Part of my response to Kelley's argument is that fascism lives at the point on the circle where ultra-liberalism and far right conservatism become one. Isn’t it interesting that President Obama is borrowing money from future generations so he can give it to big business? It's just like Adolph Hitler - who in a rush to merge government and big business, sold Germany's future to fund his power grabs. Obama has every right to think that his ideas should have a bipartisan following in the U.S. government. Democrats like government and Republicans like big business. And hey, that same attitude worked out pretty successfully for several years for George W. Bush.
Yep ... Bush and Obama - the same guy doing the same things.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Ballad of the Capitol Hillbillies
(with apologies to Flatt and Scruggs)
Let me tell a little story ‘bout a man called O;
A tax-cheat loving senator from south-side Chicago.
Didn’t know the issues, mostly cast his vote “present”,
But America misunderstood, and made him President.
POTUS, that is.
Commander in thief.
The pig kahuna.
Well, the next thing you know, they’ve anointed him “the One”,
His campaign bus drops him off in downtown Washington;
Acorn and the netroots say, “Robin Hood’s who O should be”,
So he steals from our grandkids and goes on a spending spree.
Porkulus, that is.
Bail-outs,
Corruption.
“The Capitol Hillbillies”
(Banjo interlude)
For four years we must suffer through the O and all his kin;
They fooled us once but we won’t e’er be duped by them again.
We’ll work our butts off to make amends for their profligacy;
And next time, vote for someone who won’t ruin the economy.
Turn things aright, that is.
Who is John Galt?
We can heal Congress in 2010, y’hear.
Let me tell a little story ‘bout a man called O;
A tax-cheat loving senator from south-side Chicago.
Didn’t know the issues, mostly cast his vote “present”,
But America misunderstood, and made him President.
POTUS, that is.
Commander in thief.
The pig kahuna.
Well, the next thing you know, they’ve anointed him “the One”,
His campaign bus drops him off in downtown Washington;
Acorn and the netroots say, “Robin Hood’s who O should be”,
So he steals from our grandkids and goes on a spending spree.
Porkulus, that is.
Bail-outs,
Corruption.
“The Capitol Hillbillies”
(Banjo interlude)
For four years we must suffer through the O and all his kin;
They fooled us once but we won’t e’er be duped by them again.
We’ll work our butts off to make amends for their profligacy;
And next time, vote for someone who won’t ruin the economy.
Turn things aright, that is.
Who is John Galt?
We can heal Congress in 2010, y’hear.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)