Today is a federal holiday with the rather absurd and confusing dual name of Constitution Day and Citizenship Day. The purpose of this holiday isn’t entirely clear, but the date is significant as the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States on September 17, 1787. That is certainly an historical event worth pondering.
The Constitution defined what it means to be a citizen. Two centuries later, it’s worth asking ourselves a few relevant questions, such as, “What does a good ‘citizen’ of the United States do?”
Does a good citizen vote?
In recent decades, the largest turnout of eligible voters for national elections has been about 60%. That means at least 40% habitually choose not to exercise their most basic right and responsibility to participate in national decision making.
Is a good citizen well informed?
As of July, according to Politico.com, nearly 60% of the members of one of the two major political parties weren’t sure if the current president was born in the United States. (Some were deluded by one of many rampant conspiracy theories, and others may have forgotten that Hawaii is a state.) Besides this and similar trivial matters so dear to the national media, there are much more serious issues on which a very large number of Americans are either ignorant or misinformed—from the meaning of “socialism” to the causes of global climate change.
Does a good citizen bargain in good faith about issues important for the health of the country?
Ask Max Baucus, who stood alone yesterday as he delivered the conclusions of the long-awaited “bipartisan” health reform proposal produced by the so-called “Gang of Six.” It’s abundantly clear to most observers—although perhaps not to Senator Baucus himself--that he’s spent several months of this life presiding over a very public charade, enacted to appease the 40% of the Senate who want to preserve the status quo and will go to any lengths to oppose constructive change.
It seems that on many possible measures of good citizenship, the best we can do as a nation is a feeble 60%. On this day, perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider what we can do to improve those numbers.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Progressive and Proud
Thanks to decades of successful right-wing propaganda, the word “liberal” has become so laden with negative connotations that no one in America can claim it any more without apology. Sometime within the past two years or so, I remember being amazed to see a bumper sticker on the back of a sedan that said, “Liberal and Proud of It.” I stared in admiration at the ordinary-looking woman—a middle-class housewife, perhaps—who got out of that car and headed into the store. In mainstream America these days, it takes guts to advertise something so politically incorrect.
It’s the nature of language to evolve. I recently tried rereading Games People Play, which was something of a cult classic when it first came out forty years ago. It’s so full of masculine pronouns, stereotypes, and antiquated attitudes that it’s almost impossible for a modern reader to absorb its meaning without being distracted by the language. It’s like walking into a house and trying not to notice the orange shag rugs and avocado-colored appliances. So it is with the word “liberal,” which can no longer be uttered without either squirming or sneering. (Think Sarah Palen enunciating the equally abused word “socialist.”)
So those of us who believe that making the world a better place is a worthwhile purpose for one’s life, and who believe that government should have a place in that endeavor, can no longer call ourselves “liberal.” And perhaps that’s just as well, because the world is a very different place than it was back in the days when Kennedy was president and it was sexy to be “liberal.” For one thing, the stakes are higher.
The difference between liberals and conservatives used to be more or less a matter of what kind of lens one chose to use with which to view the world. Liberals were focused on the individual—on what was good and fair for the individual human being. Conservatives were concerned about the macrocosm—what was good for impersonal, collective entities, such as banks, businesses, and the Republican Party. There were plenty of people on the conservative side of most arguments who seemed to have a good moral compass—who sincerely believed that what was good for the nation was good for the individual.
That’s all changed now. Those of us who might have been “liberal” during the Kennedy era are no longer starry-eyed and idealistic. The spectrum of what used to be called “conservatism” has diminished to the point that the word has become synonymous with radical, right-wing extremism. “Conservative” now means willfully believing in lies, such as “death panels” and the notion that rapid and dramatic global climate change is just part of the earth’s natural cycle. It means being cynical, negative, and willing to shout down the opposition any time a member of that opposition seems to be making good sense.
The word “progressive” is the up-and-coming way to describe the “other side” these days—those of us who are focused on making positive changes in the world. The progressive attitude is the polar opposite of the “just say no” philosophy of the GOP (General Opposition Party), who are struggling mightily to preserve a status quo that, among other things, made the very rich even richer and duped the poor into believing that Wall Street and big business had their best interests in mind.
It’s the nature of language to evolve. I recently tried rereading Games People Play, which was something of a cult classic when it first came out forty years ago. It’s so full of masculine pronouns, stereotypes, and antiquated attitudes that it’s almost impossible for a modern reader to absorb its meaning without being distracted by the language. It’s like walking into a house and trying not to notice the orange shag rugs and avocado-colored appliances. So it is with the word “liberal,” which can no longer be uttered without either squirming or sneering. (Think Sarah Palen enunciating the equally abused word “socialist.”)
So those of us who believe that making the world a better place is a worthwhile purpose for one’s life, and who believe that government should have a place in that endeavor, can no longer call ourselves “liberal.” And perhaps that’s just as well, because the world is a very different place than it was back in the days when Kennedy was president and it was sexy to be “liberal.” For one thing, the stakes are higher.
The difference between liberals and conservatives used to be more or less a matter of what kind of lens one chose to use with which to view the world. Liberals were focused on the individual—on what was good and fair for the individual human being. Conservatives were concerned about the macrocosm—what was good for impersonal, collective entities, such as banks, businesses, and the Republican Party. There were plenty of people on the conservative side of most arguments who seemed to have a good moral compass—who sincerely believed that what was good for the nation was good for the individual.
That’s all changed now. Those of us who might have been “liberal” during the Kennedy era are no longer starry-eyed and idealistic. The spectrum of what used to be called “conservatism” has diminished to the point that the word has become synonymous with radical, right-wing extremism. “Conservative” now means willfully believing in lies, such as “death panels” and the notion that rapid and dramatic global climate change is just part of the earth’s natural cycle. It means being cynical, negative, and willing to shout down the opposition any time a member of that opposition seems to be making good sense.
The word “progressive” is the up-and-coming way to describe the “other side” these days—those of us who are focused on making positive changes in the world. The progressive attitude is the polar opposite of the “just say no” philosophy of the GOP (General Opposition Party), who are struggling mightily to preserve a status quo that, among other things, made the very rich even richer and duped the poor into believing that Wall Street and big business had their best interests in mind.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Class Warfare, Circa 2009
This weekend has been a study in contrasts. Friday’s news was filled with inspiring stories related to President Obama’s call for National Day of Service in memory of those who lost so much—their lives, their loved ones, their sense of security—on September 11, 2001. On every news channel (with the possible exception of Fox—I didn’t check that one), there were vignettes about positive, cheerful, compassionate people doing things in service of others—lighting candles to defeat a little of the darkness in the world.
Then on Saturday, there were images of the National Mall in Washington, D.C., filling up with cynical, angry, hostile people in response to the rallying cries of Glenn Beck and others who use bitter rhetoric to whip certain segments of the population into paroxysms of raw, unmitigated rage. With the masses teaming in front of the Capitol Building and the Washington Monument in the background, I was reminded at one point of the crowds storming the Bastille during the French Revolution. No heads are being lopped off in 21st Century America, of course, but there are those who wouldn’t mind if they were.
Like similar “tea parties” elsewhere, Saturday’s gathering in Washington was a “just say no” event composed of few misguided “fiscal conservatives,” a few paid agitators bused in by their companies, and a whole lot of rudderless people who are just generally pissed off. Among those interviewed by the media, some were anti-Democratic, many were anti-government, most were anti-taxes, and a few were anti-war. Clearly, “tea-party” organizers—conservative extremists and special interest groups of various stripes—hope to use the power of angst to foment change in their favor. But at this point, it’s hard to say where, if anywhere, all this may lead.
There was a time when the tension between the left and right in America was all about money. But it’s not anymore. Wall Street has lost its way. From the nearly fatal refusal of American car companies to make fuel-efficient cars instead of SUVs to the 2008 melt-down of the entire financial system, the wheelers and dealers have been off the mark. They’ve lost credibility, along with the political party that represented their interests so well for so long.
Now it’s all about power. And the big winners right now aren’t Obama and the Democrats, who inherited a wide range of problems they’re working hard—against all obstacles—to fix. The big winners are the conservative pundits—the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters—who are enjoying high ratings, six-figure book deals, and the adulation of the marginalized masses who see themselves as having nowhere else to go.
Then on Saturday, there were images of the National Mall in Washington, D.C., filling up with cynical, angry, hostile people in response to the rallying cries of Glenn Beck and others who use bitter rhetoric to whip certain segments of the population into paroxysms of raw, unmitigated rage. With the masses teaming in front of the Capitol Building and the Washington Monument in the background, I was reminded at one point of the crowds storming the Bastille during the French Revolution. No heads are being lopped off in 21st Century America, of course, but there are those who wouldn’t mind if they were.
Like similar “tea parties” elsewhere, Saturday’s gathering in Washington was a “just say no” event composed of few misguided “fiscal conservatives,” a few paid agitators bused in by their companies, and a whole lot of rudderless people who are just generally pissed off. Among those interviewed by the media, some were anti-Democratic, many were anti-government, most were anti-taxes, and a few were anti-war. Clearly, “tea-party” organizers—conservative extremists and special interest groups of various stripes—hope to use the power of angst to foment change in their favor. But at this point, it’s hard to say where, if anywhere, all this may lead.
There was a time when the tension between the left and right in America was all about money. But it’s not anymore. Wall Street has lost its way. From the nearly fatal refusal of American car companies to make fuel-efficient cars instead of SUVs to the 2008 melt-down of the entire financial system, the wheelers and dealers have been off the mark. They’ve lost credibility, along with the political party that represented their interests so well for so long.
Now it’s all about power. And the big winners right now aren’t Obama and the Democrats, who inherited a wide range of problems they’re working hard—against all obstacles—to fix. The big winners are the conservative pundits—the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters—who are enjoying high ratings, six-figure book deals, and the adulation of the marginalized masses who see themselves as having nowhere else to go.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
South Carolina Must Be Very Proud
The nation has been hugely entertained in recent months by the antics of South Carolina Governor Mark Sandford, who abandoned its business, on the pretext of taking a long nature walk, to visit his mistress in Argentina. He lied about it, and when that didn’t work, he defended his actions with a maudlin speech about how much in love he was—as if that had anything to do with his commitments and responsibility to the citizens of his state.
Such “logic” must work in South Carolina, though, at least to some extent. The man is still governor.
Then there’s Senator Jim DeMint, who might earn at least a couple of points for honesty. He’s the right-winger that declared that he and his cronies would “break Obama” over the issue of health care. With over 16% of the citizens of his state entirely uninsured and a child poverty rate that exceeds 20%, DeMint didn’t hesitate to tell the world where his priorities lay: in “winning” at political gamesmanship, while his people lose out on good health, prosperity, and security.
And now there’s Representative Joe Wilson, who emerged from obscurity last night to go down in history as the hysterical extremist who heckled the president of the United States during a joint session of Congress. In all fairness, it must be said that the apparent poverty of ideas on his side of the so-called health care “debate” must make it very difficult to listen to a lot of reasonable, constructive, and practical ideas from the other side. But just as on a playground, frustration is no excuse for infantile behavior.
These are not the kind of people I’ve met when I’ve been in the South. However, it seems clear that many more of the gracious, hard-working, reasonable, and responsible citizens of South Carolina and other Southern states need to get themselves out the door on voting day.
Such “logic” must work in South Carolina, though, at least to some extent. The man is still governor.
Then there’s Senator Jim DeMint, who might earn at least a couple of points for honesty. He’s the right-winger that declared that he and his cronies would “break Obama” over the issue of health care. With over 16% of the citizens of his state entirely uninsured and a child poverty rate that exceeds 20%, DeMint didn’t hesitate to tell the world where his priorities lay: in “winning” at political gamesmanship, while his people lose out on good health, prosperity, and security.
And now there’s Representative Joe Wilson, who emerged from obscurity last night to go down in history as the hysterical extremist who heckled the president of the United States during a joint session of Congress. In all fairness, it must be said that the apparent poverty of ideas on his side of the so-called health care “debate” must make it very difficult to listen to a lot of reasonable, constructive, and practical ideas from the other side. But just as on a playground, frustration is no excuse for infantile behavior.
These are not the kind of people I’ve met when I’ve been in the South. However, it seems clear that many more of the gracious, hard-working, reasonable, and responsible citizens of South Carolina and other Southern states need to get themselves out the door on voting day.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
"That Is One Classy Lady"
Those were the words of my husband upon hearing Laura Bush's comments on Obama's then-upcoming speech to American school children. "There's a place for the president of the United States to talk to school children," she said. Then she added, "It's really important for everyone to respect the president of the United States."
A year ago, I was in a classroom when I heard Mrs. Bush's own comments broadcast over the intercom; like the president did today, she encouraged students to work hard and stay in school. Students can't hear that often enough from successful adults. No one groused about it's being a political ploy, despite the fact that a hotly contested presidential election was just two months away.
When he was informed about the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, George Bush was meeting with a group of second graders. I don't recall hearing any fuss then--no Democratic parents pulled their children out of the classroom, fearing that Bush would somehow infect them with his diabolical "Republicanism."
Now an ardent Obama supporter, my husband is a former life-long Republican--from back in the days when the "GO" in "GOP" stood for something other than "General Opposition." The paranoia, negativism, and general hysteria of today's right-wingers leaves him cold, as it does so many Americans who well remember when there was such a thing as a "moderate" Republican.
It seems that America's children have survived the anticipated onslaught of leftist propaganda from the president today, in which he encouraged them to work hard and prosper. Or will we hear tomorrow on FOX News that the president somehow planted subliminal messages that will hatch in the brains of our nation's children and turn them into socialist automatons. . . ?
Stay tuned!
A year ago, I was in a classroom when I heard Mrs. Bush's own comments broadcast over the intercom; like the president did today, she encouraged students to work hard and stay in school. Students can't hear that often enough from successful adults. No one groused about it's being a political ploy, despite the fact that a hotly contested presidential election was just two months away.
When he was informed about the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, George Bush was meeting with a group of second graders. I don't recall hearing any fuss then--no Democratic parents pulled their children out of the classroom, fearing that Bush would somehow infect them with his diabolical "Republicanism."
Now an ardent Obama supporter, my husband is a former life-long Republican--from back in the days when the "GO" in "GOP" stood for something other than "General Opposition." The paranoia, negativism, and general hysteria of today's right-wingers leaves him cold, as it does so many Americans who well remember when there was such a thing as a "moderate" Republican.
It seems that America's children have survived the anticipated onslaught of leftist propaganda from the president today, in which he encouraged them to work hard and prosper. Or will we hear tomorrow on FOX News that the president somehow planted subliminal messages that will hatch in the brains of our nation's children and turn them into socialist automatons. . . ?
Stay tuned!
Friday, August 21, 2009
Happy Birthday, Hawaii!
Happy 50th anniversary to Hawaii, the 50th state--birth place of the 44th president, who was born there just over 48 years ago.
The Real Threat of Domestic Terrorism
Tom Ridge, first Director of the Office of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, has just published a book entitled The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege . . . And How We Can Be Safe Again. In it, he charges that the Bush Administration—well aware that the president’s approval ratings rose significantly during times of perceived threats—manipulated the use of terror alerts for political gain.
Of course, it’s Ridge’s book, and he manages to make himself look somewhat innocent—if not faintly heroic—as one who resisted pressure from on high to raise the alert level for no valid reason on the eve of the 2004 elections.
Naturally, other officials of the previous administration deny these allegations by a former Republican Congressman, governor, and cabinet member. Ridge’s story, however, is entirely keeping with what we know about the win-at-any-cost philosophy of the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration.
To manipulate and control people through fear is terrorism. While psychological terror tactics are different in kind and degree from the use of snipers and bombs, I submit that morally, they fall into the same category. This kind of psychological warfare has been a major weapon in the arsenal of the GOP (General Opposition Party) for decades. In recent months, we’ve seen many examples—from Sarah Palin ranting about “socialism” on the campaign trail to Senators alleging that “health reform” would lead to selective murder of the elderly and infirm.
The so-called public servants who use such incendiary language are well aware that a healthy percentage of the American public is gullible and naïve enough to believe outrageous lies. There are those who shrug off blatant fear-mongering as “just politics.” In politics as elsewhere, they say, it’s “buyer beware"—“fool me once” and all that.
However, deliberately using lies, no matter how absurd, to stir up public outrage is anything but harmless. Anger is a secondary emotion, following closely on the heels of fear, and those stoking the rage of the ignorant—people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and certain extremists in Congress—endanger us all by doing so.
Igniting political bonfires to create distraction (the idiotic "Birther" movement comes to mind here), halts progress by gumming up the essential work of the government. (Any lack of progress, of course, can be blamed on the Democrats, especially when Democrats are in power.) Beyond that, however, is the actual body count.
Victims of atrocities committed by right-wing extremists—from the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City to murder of a security guard at the Holocaust museum—are just as dead or traumatized as victims of Al Qaeda. For months, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which keeps track of such things, has been warning about an escalation of activity among right-wing militia groups and potentially violent extremists.
It's past time for every citizen capable of rational thought--regardless of political affiliation--to turn off FOX News and wing-nut radio and quit pretending that ends justify the means. If conservatives can't put forth ideas that stand on their own merit--regarding health care reform or any other topic worth discussing--then they need to shut up.
Someone--and the rest of us are that "someone"--needs to tell them to do that. Rather than meeting one outrageous lie after another with a plain and honest statement of the truth--an Obama strategy that hasn't been working too well lately--we need to work toward ending the kind of political correctness the prevents us from calling a spade a spade.
Of course, it’s Ridge’s book, and he manages to make himself look somewhat innocent—if not faintly heroic—as one who resisted pressure from on high to raise the alert level for no valid reason on the eve of the 2004 elections.
Naturally, other officials of the previous administration deny these allegations by a former Republican Congressman, governor, and cabinet member. Ridge’s story, however, is entirely keeping with what we know about the win-at-any-cost philosophy of the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration.
To manipulate and control people through fear is terrorism. While psychological terror tactics are different in kind and degree from the use of snipers and bombs, I submit that morally, they fall into the same category. This kind of psychological warfare has been a major weapon in the arsenal of the GOP (General Opposition Party) for decades. In recent months, we’ve seen many examples—from Sarah Palin ranting about “socialism” on the campaign trail to Senators alleging that “health reform” would lead to selective murder of the elderly and infirm.
The so-called public servants who use such incendiary language are well aware that a healthy percentage of the American public is gullible and naïve enough to believe outrageous lies. There are those who shrug off blatant fear-mongering as “just politics.” In politics as elsewhere, they say, it’s “buyer beware"—“fool me once” and all that.
However, deliberately using lies, no matter how absurd, to stir up public outrage is anything but harmless. Anger is a secondary emotion, following closely on the heels of fear, and those stoking the rage of the ignorant—people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and certain extremists in Congress—endanger us all by doing so.
Igniting political bonfires to create distraction (the idiotic "Birther" movement comes to mind here), halts progress by gumming up the essential work of the government. (Any lack of progress, of course, can be blamed on the Democrats, especially when Democrats are in power.) Beyond that, however, is the actual body count.
Victims of atrocities committed by right-wing extremists—from the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City to murder of a security guard at the Holocaust museum—are just as dead or traumatized as victims of Al Qaeda. For months, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which keeps track of such things, has been warning about an escalation of activity among right-wing militia groups and potentially violent extremists.
It's past time for every citizen capable of rational thought--regardless of political affiliation--to turn off FOX News and wing-nut radio and quit pretending that ends justify the means. If conservatives can't put forth ideas that stand on their own merit--regarding health care reform or any other topic worth discussing--then they need to shut up.
Someone--and the rest of us are that "someone"--needs to tell them to do that. Rather than meeting one outrageous lie after another with a plain and honest statement of the truth--an Obama strategy that hasn't been working too well lately--we need to work toward ending the kind of political correctness the prevents us from calling a spade a spade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
