“Today we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life. –John F. Kennedy
Newsflash: There’s a recession on.
You’ve heard? Really? That’s odd. I haven’t read about it anywhere—that’s why I felt compelled to write this article.
Oh, THAT recession? No, no. Of course I’ve heard about the economic recession. I was talking about America’s democratic recession.
Slowly, but surely, we are losing our liberties in this country and the saddest part is not that they are being taken from us but that we’re giving them away. Americans are being duped into believing all is well when, in fact, we’re slowly poisoning ourselves.
Most of us are hard on smokers. They have the audacity to sue the tobacco companies when everyone—and I mean everyone– knows smoking will kill you. It’s not that smoking “may” kill you. It’s that smoking “will” kill you. (Unless you cheat lung cancer by serendipitously falling victim to death by misadventure or an unfortunate encounter with gravity.)
My judgmental attitude knows one limitation: if someone started smoking in the 1940s or 1950s and heard the radio ads in which doctors said smoking was ok, then perhaps their habit started under false pretenses and I’m able to muster a modicum of sympathy.
Click here for an example.
We’re being told the same garbage today by our politicians–Democrats and Republicans alike—about how to address America’s troubles. “Four out of five federal legislators say Washington has all the answers to your problems.”
There should be a warning on the sleeve of every Congressman’s suit: WARNING: MAY CAUSE THE DEMISE OF THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE.
Like the more publicized economic recession, our democratic recession is happening because we have taken a detrimental and prolonged hiatus from making sufficient investments in maintaining our liberty.
Over the last few decades Americans began to spend more than they saved. We took economic growth for granted and placed our trust in ever increasing stock and real estate values creating artificial economic security based on risky collateral.
Likewise, we have taken America’s freedoms for granted. We have allowed our liberties to be slowly usurped by a federal government that arrogantly believes it can solve America’s woes and sees precious little evidence in the behavior of its citizens to believe that the people can solve their own problems.
South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has recently written a book called SAVING FREEDOM in which he writes, “Many Americans want out of this abusive marriage with the federal government. And they are willing to fight and sacrifice to end their dependence on empty political promises.” Oh that I believed that. Most Americans will tell you that they want smaller government, but heaven forbid government shrinks THEIR programs.
If we were genuinely outraged and felt truly threatened, as we are and do with regards to the American economy, we would evaluate the preponderance of liberty in lives (or lack thereof) the way we have scrutinized our budgets. Many Americans have looked at their finances and been shocked to see $80 a month spent at Starbucks, $120 a month for lunches, $150 a month in foodstuffs yet uneaten in the pantry. Americans have weeded the chaff from our expenditures and discovered fiscal discipline. Our covetous nature got the best of prudent fiscal policy and today we are doing what must be done to save our homes and retirement funds and college savings accounts.
It has taken an enormously painful recession to rock us from or fiscal torpor and force introspection. What will an equally painful democratic recession look like? What events will have to transpire before we feel that our freedoms are as threatened as we feel our finances are today? Where is the tipping point in public perception?
Ronald Reagan, in his speech endorsing Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential campaign, said that “….this is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives better for us than we can plan them ourselves.”
America’s problem is that it’s easier to work around the impediments the federal government puts in our way. Changing the system is unbelievably difficult, nay impossible, for the single citizen. It is far easier to simply make small, incremental adjustments to our own lives and habits in order to accomplish what we want to accomplish in spite of governmental intrusion.
But for the frog in the frying pan the water is nearly boiling. Incrementally, the American experiment in government by the people and for the people is being slowly eroded.
I don’t believe there is a single Congressman, Senator or Executive Branch employee who is actively pursuing the demise of this country. They are first stuck in a position in which their self interest is achieved by giving the people what they want; and second they are left with few alternatives, save to expand the federal government, because there is scant evidence that the people will do for themselves.
The American belief in small government doesn’t presuppose that there isn’t work to be done; rather it presupposes that the work that needs doing shouldn’t be done by the federal government. Where are the citizens stepping forward to tell Washington, “We don’t need your help, we can do it ourselves?” Instead we look for one new government program after another to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves.
We blame the government for its socialist trends, but we elected our representatives. How many of these politicians are in serious jeopardy of not being re-elected? Re-election rewards their behavior. We keep saying “no” but our actions in the voting booth don’t substantiate that message.
We are giving back the liberties our forefathers fought to provide and maintain. Will it take a significant and blatant attack on American Democracy to allow us to see clearly the weakening of our Constitution?
We will not see clearly until a leader emerges who MAKES us see. Culture change requires a change from leadership. Without leaders who are willing to demonstrate self-sacrifice and who can champion a return to America’s core values I doubt we will be able to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve America’s heritage.
I’m not one who believes that Ronald Reagan did no wrong and was the embodiment of conservatism. I believe that he, like so many others, ran exciting, liberating campaigns espousing all that is good about America but who capitulated to the pragmatic concerns of the office and relinquished the authority that elected him in the first place (see George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign as well).
However, Reagan provided a neat summary (albeit in 1964) of where we are today. “Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor’s fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can’t socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he’ll eat you last.”
Columbus Day
How did you spend your Columbus Day? I had no luck talking my family into caroling through the neighborhood singing traditional Italian sailing songs of Indian oppression. Sigh.
MNF: Jon Gruden
I like what Jon Gruden is doing on Monday Night Football tonight. Sure it's only the first night, but I like his perspective, his input and his delivery. Let's see if it lasts.
House Resolution 204
Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can.
Just when you thought your Congress wasn't doing anything. When you thought them inept, embroiled in bureaucracy and piddly partisan politics, they came together--424 to nothing. That's right. Zip. Nada. Nothing. No dissents. No food for thought. Just unanimity.
What, pray tell, could bring about such consensus? What could cause bitter enemies to set aside their rancor and think of the country first and not their own selfish interests?
I give you House Resolution 204. Introduced March 3. Passed May 13. Sponsored by Republican Michael Simpson from Idaho.
Doesn't he have a lovely smile?
The full text is here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/ billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-204.
But let me summarize. Our Congress is, Congratulating the American Dental Association for its 150th year of working to improve the public's oral health and promoting dentistry, supporting initiatives to improve access to oral health care services for all Americans, and emphasizing the benefits of prevention of disease through support of community prevention initiatives and promotion of good oral hygiene."
Isn't change good?
The Lasting Effect of Sarah Palin
I, for one, have been wondering about the LASTING effect of Sarah Palin.
Would she have any lasting effect on the American political landscape or would she just be the political equivalent of Max Headroom?
Ms. Palin was probably beginning to think, based on her speaking slot at CPAC, that she was losing all her momentum. Au contraire. I have noticed a new trend in men's fashion eye wear that I hope Ms. Palin will be happy about.
Given the fickle nature of fashion, I seriously doubt that this is the kind of thing the GOP can turn into increased voter turnout or use to create crossover appeal with democrats. But given the state of the GOP today, they should be happy with any influence on American lives, no matter how trivial.
DUPLICITY
Just a fun thing to look for. I recently went to see Duplicity starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. I enjoyed the movie but what I enjoyed most was the portrayal of two rival CEOs, the heads of Companies Burkett and Randall and Equikrom being fashioned in the likeness of Cosmo Spacely—Spacely Sprockets
and Henry Cogswell—Cogswell Cogs.
The Duplicity CEOs were played by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson.
As for the movie, let the memory of your childhood guide your prognostications.
Joe Biden: Oh Dear, What a Mess
For thinking people, I can't imagine any favorable response to Joe Biden's acceptance speech Wednesday night. First off, compared with the quality of speech making skills, former President Bill Clinton and Senator Clinton are clearly the cream of the crop. President Clinton's speech, like his wife's, was a flawlessly delivered effort and deserves much praise in that regard. If you make public appearances, tape and dissect these efforts. Joe Biden stumbled through his speech like an amputee in quicksand by comparison.
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. Hillary’s DNC Speech
You've got to give credit where credit is due: Hillary Clinton is an excellent orator. She DELIVERED that speech extremely well. James Carville seemed ready to serve papers on his wife Mary and propose immediately to the NY Senator. Gushing though he was, Mr. Carville was dead on. Hillary Clinton can give a speech and she made those who preceded her look amateurish.
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.FREEDOM and LIBERTY
Bert Hornbeck had an interesting blog recently. In it he noted that, “Free” is a very important word, and “freedom” is very different from “liberty.” The immediate root of “liberty” is the Latin LIBER—which also gives us “libido” and “libation.” “Libido” has to do with desire; “libations” are outpourings, from the Greek.[ii] “Liberty” is a do-my-own-thing word; it has nothing to do with the idea of society. “Free,” however, is a friendly word—literally, historically. “Friend” comes into English from the Germanic FREI, which means dear, or beloved. “Free,” remarkably enough, comes into English at about the same time—in perhaps the eighth century—from exactly the same root. The understanding in both “friend” and “free” is what we call love: the relation of self with what self holds dear. As “friend” becomes “free,” it makes the idea of freedom social. It says that you can’t be free by yourself.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.National Democratic Do-over
If the Democrats were acting rationally as Democrats, the super delegates would quit dancing for the man and look seriously at Hillary Clinton at this point.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.Obama’s Global Poverty Act
It might be too strong to say "All things" global bother me, but it's not far from the truth. Obama's support of this bill is indicative of my major concern of his candidacy.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.Talk of a Declining Obama Campaign
For all the talk of the demise of the GOP, this campaign seems more and more to foretell the demise of the Democrats.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.Cynical on Cyrus
Miley Cyrus is apparently now "embarrassed" about her Annie Liebovitz. photo in the upcoming Vanity Fair.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.The Democrats Jimmy Carter Problem
To extrapolate from Carter's experience, an intelligent Democratic candidate might surmise that meetings with despots around the world is a bad idea, at home and abroad.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?Faustian Economics by Wendell Berry
If you are not a subscriber to Haper's Magazine, I highly recommend you venture out to the book store of your choice and pick up a copy of the May issue so you can read Wendell Berry's excellent article "Faustian Economics" which is no where near as boring as the title would imply (sorry WB).
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
Drexel Kleber
-
-
No Comments Yet