President Biden, Storming Washington, and What Kind of America Do We Want?

The Republicans have lost two important seats in Georgia and as a result, will lose control of the Senate. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell will now be the Senate minority leader. Democrats are already in control of the House. Trump has held off conceding the election, though it's clear that Biden is the victor. Trump is expected to concede, but doesn't have to say that Biden won "fair and square". That's because it appears that he didn't. But there's a bigger story being played out here.

Americans have had mounting doubt about the legitimacy of elections going back to at least George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 (remember "dangling chads"?).  Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016 sparked another round and launched a nearly four year investigation into alleged Russian collusion and a rigged election, amplified by the media, which was at least partially complicit.

 Ultimately, it was proven that not only was there no Russian collusion, but that the whole story was  concocted by the Clinton-Obama camp to discredit Trump (which also goes to show the extent those in power will go to keep power. I dare say they will go much further); an opening salvo to destroy Trump's credibility.

Now, with the 2020 election over, we're being told that China this time was directed involved in the election results by the Right.  We're told that the voting machines were rigged; that fake ballots were used; that the dead rose from their graves and somehow voted for the Democrats; that the vote counts stopped as soon as the Democrats had enough votes to win. Meanwhile, the victors, the Democrats, are telling us that the election went just fine. That our elections can't be rigged unlike the results in 2016.

Is any of it true? To be honest, I don't know. I've seen a lot of footage which reputedly shows illegal vote counting in process. I've read numerous articles about the reliability of some of the voting machines. We know the "Russian collusion" of 2016 was a hoax at taxpayer expense.

Frankly, I see no reason to think the claim of Chinese involvement is anything but utter garbage. Why would Russia or China try to destable the country when we are quite able and willing to do it to ourselves? It's just something else to cause us to doubt the legitimacy of our electoral system.

But here's the real issue. Americans, especially on the Right, have long believed that the we're losing our freedoms and I agree, although perhaps not to the extent that they do. We are certainly not a Constitutional or democratic Republic any longer. We are a defacto Corporatocracy, controlled by an small group of Oligarchs. We are a surveillance state which is just one major crisis away from becoming an all out police state.

We no longer feel we have a say in what's going on (academic studies conclude that's pretty much the case. Congress and the Presidency follows the dictates of the 1% and a relatively few very powerful global corporations). Therefore, we feel threatened. We have come to believe that we have only two arrows in our Constitutional quiver---the ballot or the bullet.

If we can no longer trust the ballot, the only remaining option is a revolt. Could it happen? Yes, it's certainly possible. However, with the tools of the surveillance state already in place, it would be hard to pull off. I don't think, however, that we are expected to pull it off. Historically speaking, the larger and more complex a society is, the more difficult it is to topple.

The best examples of successful overthrows of governments are the so-called "Rainbow Revolutions" of Eastern Europe; the "Pots and Pans" revolution of Iceland; and, of course, the Second Revolution in Russia following Gorbachev. The uprisings during the "Arab Spring" are another great example.  Even the recent pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, while apparently unsuccessful due primarily to the COVID outbreak, merit close study as does the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989 in China.

These were sustained protests aimed at key government centers. They were largely non-violent since the State is always looking for an excuse to declare martial law and call out the National Guard or military. The protests sought to disrupt not just the operation of government, but the personal lives of those in power; to make it nearly impossible to function or for them to go or do anything.

They are also disregarded the official media which serves the interests of the Status Quo. The media's job is to divide the opposition into as many factions as possible in order to render it impotent. That includes manufacturing events to pit the various groups against each other (which the media has already been doing for awhile now). It is to discredit or vilify the opposition and its leaders.

The State will do everything possible to disrupt and infiltrate the opposition that they can. In the U.S. they've been doing that going back to at least the 1920's they infiltrated the KKK, Odd Fellows, the Socialist Party of America, unions, and other groups. During the 60's and 70's, it was the anti-war movement, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Black Panthers, the Civil Rights Movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Women's Liberation Movement, and so forth.

They threatened and attempted to blackmail MLK, Malcolm X,  Cesar Chavez of the National Farm Workers Association among others. Wonder whatever happened to activist unionism? Wonder no more.  It was "defanged" like all the other groups which posed a threat to the Status Quo. Heck, more recently they did it within Occupy Movement and the Tea Party.  The singular goal of the Status Quo is to maintain or expand the power and control of the Status Quo.   

Naturally, I'm not proposing anything. I am, however, saying that when people no longer have faith in the government; that when they no longer believe their vote counts, then the State leaves no option for the people they will, like a cornered animal, strike out, be it Left, Right, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, or whatever. I'm sure those in power are keenly aware of this, just as I'm equally sure they are prepared for such an action by the people.

Those in power will use patriotic sounding words like "our democracy", the "People's representatives" or "doing the People's business". They will tell us that protests against government "aren't who we are". That we are a nation of laws except they fail to mention that there are two sets of laws. One for them and another for everyone else. That speaking up is "Un-American". They will act surprised by any protests or acts of resistance. Perhaps some of it will be actually true. It's so hard to differentiate their lies from the truth anymore. 

Nevertheless, those in Washington are largely out of touch with what the average American endures, let alone those among the working poor or homeless. Anything to tug at our heartstrings so that we back down. Anything to obfuscate the corruption of government and acumination of wealth and power. It's the silk glove covering the mailed fist.

People, regardless of political ideology, race, gender, or religion, must wake up to the fact that this is not "our" country any longer. The ruling Oligarchy has near absolute control of America. One percent controls as much wealth than the bottom 90%. The inequality gap is the widest of any industrialized nation. Our healthcare and educational systems are among the worse. Our social safety net is inadequate at best (we rank toward the bottom when it comes to infant mortality and child poverty).

Most of our well paying manufacturing jobs have been outsourced overseas. We're now largely a low paying service economy.  Unions, once the backbone and voice of the Working Class are mute.  Our infrastructure is crumbling and yet we spend more money on the military that the next ten nations combined, including Russia and China. We are taxed without input. And now, even our supposed national voice---the election process itself---is no longer reliable.

There's an old curse---"may you live in interesting times". I'm sure the next four years will be interesting times without a doubt. The only question is what, if anything, can we do about it? What, if anything can the American People---Left or Right---do restore or rebuild the America we want to live in; that we want our children and grandchildren to live in? The answer is up to you.

 

"The Top 0.1% percent...owns about the same wealth as 90% of America"

U.S. Defense Spending Compared To Other Countries

How Does the United States compare with child well-being?

Addressing Child Poverty: How Does the United States CompareWith Other Nations?

What Has Happened To Political Discourse?

There is something very wrong in America today. It's hard to pin down. It's more than just the "mood" of the nation. It goes much deeper than that. With the past four or perhaps five presidential election cycles, we've the quality of the potential occupant of the White House diminish. We have super wealthy individuals with little connection to ordinary Americans vying for the highest elected office in the land, all the while pretending that they mirror us. Most of us have come to accept the politics, especially at the national level such as this, as rigged. We know that our apathy and short attention spans have resulted in the forfeiture of our democratic republic. We've discovered that those who care more are the very ones we should fear the most, and thus, we've allowed ourselves to become a defacto oligarchy. We've given the illusion of choice by being allowed to pick from wealthy pre-vetted individuals who will tow the line and do as they are instructed, despite their faux-center Right or center-Left campaign rhetoric.

We've elected twice now an individual who normally wouldn't have qualified for even a state governor, let alone a two term president. We've witnessed a befuddled Congress capable of little real change; at least change that would improve the lived the most Americans. Even the Supreme Court has seen fit to ignore its Constitutional boundaries and rewrite legislation. Then there's the ongoing terrorist threat; recruited, trained, armed and supplied by us while at the same time our so-called "leadership" in Washington, as well as various State Houses, have encouraged not just illegal immigration, but accepting "refugees" from the very nations we are militarily engaged at as well. The same sort of individuals who have all but destroyed Europe! We're told by politicians in Washington that "We" should be more accommodating: that "We' should conform and adapt. Really? What happened to the ideal of being American? When did we, as citizens, decided it was ok to forgo learning English, or abiding by our laws, or accepting our values? When did we decide to remove our nation's flag or removing our religion's symbols out of fear that we might "offend" someone? That, nevertheless, is what's happening in the name of "multiculturalism". We are allowing this nation to become small enclaves representing other nations much like some of the failed empires of old did---Rome, Holy Roman Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire just to name three.

Now, something else is happening, which is perhaps even more sinister, though not totally unexpected. We are seeing open and organized attacks in the name of politics. However, these assaults, which are usually violent, seem to be coming from just one side---the Left. These individuals are organized locally (some are bused in). Their aim is to disrupt, harass, intimidate, and physically engage anyone who either is supporting the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, or simply those who want to hear him speak, leaving many bloody and bruised. They have blocked highways, streets, entrances, parking lots while some have thrown glass bottles, eggs, tomatoes, rocks---anything really. They have sneaked into various speaking venues and stormed the stage, shouted down speakers, started fights, and anything else they can to cause chaos. There's been more than few incidents where the police and/or security have been assaulted, cars (including police vehicles) pelted with rocks, overturned and burned. Meanwhile, the media either ignores or downplays these events while attempting to make it look like it's Trump's fault. When his crowds are small, the media claims Trump is losing stream among his supporters when in fact, they most likely don't want to get beaten up! The same goes for his poll numbers. The media likes to point out that Trump is trailing behind Hillary Clinton, the anticipated Democrat nominee, in polls generally conducted a few days after they've reported on violence at a Trump event (which is, of course, slanted against Trump).

So, who are these "protestors" anyway? Well, some---a minority---are actual active supporters of Clinton, however, most are part of various Left wing organizations as well as illegal immigrants, black or Hispanic race oriented groups, LGBT groups, and a few minority oriented gangbangers. As pointed out above, some are bused in, given instructions and signs, and paid. While the specific makeup may vary from protest to protest, the one thing you can be sure of is that these are not random or spontaneous events. The next obvious question would be whether Hillary Clinton is behind these attacks or at least aware of them? In my opinion, I would say yes and no. I don't think Clinton is directly behind these attacks. She can't afford to be; not as a presidential candidate. However, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there is some indirect or loose coordination going on. Campaigns are complex organizations at times; employing dozens or even hundreds in top tier elections. Many things happen without any direct knowledge of the candidate or their immediate staff (a lesson of "plausible denial" learned through Nixon's Watergate fiasco and subsequent adoption of the adage about not employing amateurs). Recent Federal Election Guidelines (thanks in part to the misruling of the Supreme Court's "Citizen's United" matter) have made it possible for groups and organizations to "campaign" or promote a candidate or other issues without the approval of the candidate.

As for the second half of the question, I have absolutely no doubt that Clinton and her campaign staff are fully aware of what's being done in her name. How could she not? It's constantly all over the corporate news and Internet. Yet, despite the mayhem being done allegedly on her behalf, Hillary Clinton has barely acknowledged it publically, nor has she stepped up and directly asked that the violence stop or taken steps to disavow any group or individual involved with these acts (I'm sure that if she does, it will be at best only a tepid reprimand and then, only to the severity of the attacks).

With respect to Donald Trump and the conservatives, they have been remarkably civil and calm. Trump can more than handle any heckler and thus far, those who have attended or attempted to attend a Trump rally, have handled themselves quite well when there has been attempt at disruption. Of course, they have defended themselves, as they should, when physically assaulted and most tend to ignore the verbal harassment directed their way. The police and security too have been impressively restrained despite their patrol cars being vandalized, egged, dinted, and so forth (again, the corporate media has not reported on this aspect very much at all). I am also impressed by the fact that thus far, none of the Far Right groups have responded in kind. I would have thought that they would have been out in force, but no. However, if they did, doubtless that the corporate media would seize on it in order to imply that Trump and/or his supporters are "racists", or "Nazis" or whatever the scary word of the month happens to be.

So, what can we make of this? First, this is a side of America that I hoped I would never see. This is what one saw in early Nazi Germany, just before and after the election of Hitler as Chancellor when the Brownshirts under Ernst Rohm would attack the political opposition in order to breakup meetings, marches, speeches, and so forth. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini used his Blackshirts in a similar fashion during the 1920's just before obtaining power. Of course other dictators and wannabe dictators throughout history and the world have sought to disrupt , dissuade, and demoralize their opponents. Sometimes it fails or has the opposite effect and the people come out in droves to support the other candidate (of course, coups have occasionally followed, and in recent history, with the assistance of the CIA and/or US military. Pinochet is a good example). However, more often than not, many have stayed away from the polls out of fear. I would be surprised to see that here. In the last two presidential elections, there were documented reports of whites being turned away from polls by a black racist group as well as the dead mysteriously coming back to vote (I guess we should start referring to that as "zombie voting").

What we are seeing is yet another example of our decline as a nation. Actions such as the ones described above or what you see on TV or the Internet is, frankly, what we would expect from a third world nation or perhaps even a second tier country. But it's happening here. Hillary Clinton must win this election if for no other reason than to avoid possible criminal proceeding for her actions (or lack thereof) as Secretary of State (whether or not she can actually be prosecuted is another matter). There has already been several investigations undertaken by the US Senate and House as well as by the FBI which would give credence of the seriousness of her actions. Donald Trump seems to represent the last hope of many Constitutional conservatives to preserve something of our Founding Father's intent for our nation. Yet, many of the status quo Republican "leadership" see him as a direct threat to their authority over the party and its dogma (some on the Democrat side feel the same way about Hillary).

Most Americans have abandoned both political parties as being to corrupt, inept, and no longer in touch with the values of ordinary Americans. Neither have shown to represent or act in our interests. The majority of Americans (just over 43%) are now Independent, including the overwhelming majority of the nation's largest voting bloc, the Millennials), and that number is growing rapidly. Democrats remain a factor, though a waning one while the GOP is a distant third. Thanks in part to Bernie Sanders, a slight majority of the Millennials have found a revived interest in democratic socialism while the minority have picked up on libertarianism. The media, which are controlled by the same clique which owns both political parties, continues to act as if Americans have only two political options---Democrat or Republican---while completely ignoring other parties such as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, despite to renewed interest by the Millennials and other turned off Americans. It seems that the only thing keeping the economic and political status quo intact is the lack of a strong viable candidates running as Independents, Green, Libertarian or another third party who are willing to challenge the system. The Oligarchs who now rule America would like to keep that from ever happening, and thus the game will continue until we, as a nation, decide that we don't want to play by their rules any longer.

Perhaps, in the end, the violence being taken on behalf of Hillary Clinton may underscore not just a decline in civil politics or even our decline as a nation, but also point the way out for us as a nation. Perhaps the violence represents a last gasp of the failed status quo to maintain power by inciting the uninformed with bread crumbs. It certainly shows what happens when a nation---any nation---ignores it responsibilities in protecting its liberties and permits an economic and political class to make our decisions for us. I think it's past time that we take back this nation. How about you?


Violence Breaks Out At Trump Rally in San Jose
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-breaks-trump-rally-san-jose-protesters-hurl/story?id=39576437


Violence And Arrests Are Way More Common At Trump Rallies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/violence-arrests-trump_us_56e9d15be4b0b25c91846261


VOX editor suspended for encouraging riots at Trump rallies
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/03/vox-editor-suspended-for-encouraging-riots-at-trump-rallies.html

Is "Hater" the New "Racist"?

As many of you know, I follow a vast menu of news and blog sites on a daily basis; some present a pretty liberal perspective while others extremely conservative in their outlook. Some of these are print media while others are video or radio. As a radical non-partisan centrist, I am looking for commonality of thought and where we diverge. One thing that seems to be popping up increasing is the use of the word "hater". It seems that whenever a conservative makes a comment that a liberal doesn't agree with or seems contradictory to their argument, they almost immediately label the perceived offender as a "hater", and almost as quickly, the conservative begins backtracking as fast as they can while trying to defend (albeit almost apologetically) their remarks. Which brings me to my first observation, has the term "hater" become the new "racist"?

It used to be that someone was a racist if they, for whatever reason, didn't like another race (sometimes equally applied to ethnic groups). Perhaps surprisingly, the term didn't always carry the negative connotation that we think of now. There was actually a time were being a "racist" was something many were actually proud of; it meant they were proud of their own race or particular ethnic group. Since whites were the largest group in America, it was most often attributed them, but it could just as equally be applied to others too. In fact, it's not uncommon to hear its usage in other parts of the world with some sense of pride.
Over time, however, the liberal Left adopted the term for anyone not agreeing with their position on a given social issue. I suppose that this was because most of the social issues were directed toward or referenced specific minority racial groups. Reinforced by the media, the conservatives were put on the defensive every time the term was used. Eventually, however, it's overuse began to numb the public to its intended meaning. The shock has largely lost its awe.

What was needed, therefore, was a new term that was simple and carried an especially negative connotation, and so, it now appears that the word "hater" has become fashionable among the Left. Every time a conservative takes a position against, let's say gay rights, immediately they are labeled a "hater" without much consideration to their original comment or their reason for taking the position they did. From the Left's point of view, a conservative opposes gay rights...ergo...they are a "hater". See? Clean and simple.

Of course, all is fair in love and war, and apparently in political lexicology. During the late 1970's through the early 1990's as you may remember, the term "liberal" was used by the Right (often with the colorfully descriptive "bleeding heart" epitaph generally attached) as a verbal stand in for someone being "anti-American" or "Commie" (again, with colorful epitaphs like "pinko" and "fag" added for emphasis). Liberals were just as quick to verbally back pedal in defense of their position. I recall writing an article for our once great newspaper (March 29, 1998) defending the use of the term "liberal" as being actually a good thing in that it meant open minded and implied a willingness to examine carefully all sides of an issue while conservative meant nothing more than a desire to proceed slowly; that change wasn't always an improvement, not the backwards thinking Neanderthal it does now. Interesting how terms change their meaning over time isn't it?

I think if we're to understand each other, we need to change the tone of the discussion. We need to use less threatening and inflammatory words. Name calling really should be left on the playground don't you think? We need to at least acknowledge the other person's position. It doesn't mean we agree with it, or even that we accept it. What we are doing, however, is acknowledging their right to their opinion (however wrong we believe it is) as part of the political and civil discourse we desperately need in this country---indeed, the world---if we're to get out of this morass. So, let's drop the "hater" label and simply agree to disagree. Who knows, perhaps we'll find out that we may actually agree on the core issues. And if you don't agree, well maybe you're just a fat puddin' head!

The Gale Winds of Change

The gale winds of political change have begun to blow. These winds come every so often. They are born of idealism and anger and when they pass, the political landscape is altered; sometimes beyond recognition. The first of these winds was the Tea Party. Comprised mainly of older, well educated, and mostly conservative remnants of the middle class, they burst on to the scene to protest the government excess, corruption, and the revolving door of the corporate/government complex. They opposed the bailouts of Wall Street and the bank industry and the abandonment of the Middle America. Their mass movement was at first ignored by main street media. After it became apparent that the winds of change were going to be sustained, corporate media jump into action to ridicule the Tea Party as "fringe", "radical", “extremist” and full of the "crazies". The majority of Americans ignored the commercially sponsored organized propaganda from the talking heads of corporate media and pursued their own investigation and discovered a different truth.

Now, another, perhaps most telling wind has begun to blow. This wind calls itself "Occupy Wall Street", and like the Tea Party, it has spun off hundreds like itself. This wind condemns much of what the earlier tempest did---corporate greed, government ineptitude and corruption, destruction of the environment, unfair taxation, and outsourcing of jobs. But the key difference is that this storm brings with it the energy of youth. The Tea Party never contained much of the youth. The "Occupy Movement", if one is to call it that draws its strength from the younger crowd, as well as the unemployed and underemployed blue collar; the working poor; the lower middle class; as well as many others.

Thus far, the corporate media has largely ignored or under reported what's happening in places like San Francisco, Chicago, and, of course, New York City. These protests against governmental, if not societal failure are spreading like wildfire. There are literally hundreds of similar groups springing up across the nation. At its heart, are the failure of both political parties and the capitalist model of economic pillage and imposed serfdom. The "99%" of Americans, who received no government bailout; who received no loans; who received no relief from toxic mortgages and foreclosures. But corporate America did, and the American taxpayers paid for it while Washington listened to their K Street paymasters. We've seen no curbing of illegal immigration. There's been no fence built, yet we've told the federal government to build one dozens if not hundreds of times. We still have to request to hear our own language.

We are seeing the first effects of global climate change. Does it really matter if it’s man made or part of natural cycle? What no one can dispute is that something is happening. The results are the same. We must take steps to alter our societal behavior, if only to slow global warming down. Corporations have done much to stall or derail any serious efforts to create cleaner energy sources like solar or wind. On the other hand, they've given us "feel good" media about all they've done out of a sense of corporate citizenship, so why blame them? Gotta love public relations and clever folks in marketing.

So where does that leave us? We have two distinct groups basically seeking the same goals. One is the Tea Party, who tend to be older, better educated, and slightly more affluent. The other is the Occupy groups, who seem to include more college age students and blue collar individual. Together, they represent what’s left of the middle class, blue collar workers, and lower income individuals. Their object of their combined frustrations is Washington, including both political parties, and the corporate elite who run Washington. Yes, there are differences besides their demographics. The Tea Party is more conservative, though not as extremist as the media portrays. For instance, they would like to see a small federal government. The other appears to be more liberal leaning. They would like to see a more responsible though not necessarily smaller government. But there is common ground and common cause between them. I urge both groups to explore ways to combine, if not coordinate their efforts. I urge you dear reader to plug in to which ever group you feel most comfortable with and work for the change we need to save this country for our children and their children. The time is now.


Check these Out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/occupy-wall-street-protests-new-york_n_989221.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk1%7C100783

http://www.thedailyactivist.com/

http://www.occupytogether.org/

http://www.teaparty.org/about.php

Murder in Oslo

There are days when I have to ask myself, "what's in the water"? In Oslo, Norway, where nothing ever seems to happen, a 32 year old right wingnut by the name of Anders Behring Breivik goes on a bombing and shooting rampage. He's successful with some moderate building damage, but its his systemic hunting down and murdering of at least 90 young adults attending a politically oriented retreat sponsored by Norway's liberal Labour Party on a remote island of Utoeya that causes the most carnage. His explanation was that he was trying to spark a conservative coup or something against "cultural Marxists". He has reportedly said that his actions were largely in response to Norway's extreme open policy to immigration and the large influx of Moslems and Africans.

I guess I can understand his frustration. No one wants to see their culture, language, or religion usurped by any group, but just how does blowing up a building or shooting a bunch of kids in cold blood help his cause? Sure, it's going to bring the world's attention to his cause; the media will examine ad nauseam his childhood, his relationships, his motives, and, of course, the impact (both real and anticipated) of his actions. The media will interview the subjects of his hatred, Moslems, Africans, and other third world immigrants living in Norway and throughout Europe. Much will be made of the socialist policies of the Scandinavian countries, and the all but free social care they receive and the high tax base native (and working) Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians pay for this social safety net. I suspect too there will be some comparison to the Scandinavian socialist polices and Obama's efforts to socialize America's social safety net as well as immigration (both legal and illegal).

But, in the end, what will have been accomplished? Mr. Breivik will be tried amid the glare of cameras, and in the end, sentenced to life in prison since Norway (and the rest of Europe) doesn't believe in the death penalty. He will pay for his fifteen minutes of fame with someone else's pound of flesh. Most people, even those who agree with his cause, will attempt to distance themselves from any conservative groups, and the more liberal groups, such as the Labour Party, may even seen a slight increase in membership or donations as form of sympatric support. And parents will bury their children.

Actions like this seldom have their desired effect. Assassinations rarely alter policies. In America, Timothy McVey, who was 26 years old at the time, attempted the something similar by blowing up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Instead of sparking a civil war or revolution, his actions only sparked revolution at the carnage. McVey's actions were triggered by outraged at the FBI's botched raids at Ruby Ridge in 1992 and Waco in 1993 where a number of innocent individuals were killed (and in some cases, murdered) by FBI and ATF agents. But, in the end, many like minded individuals distanced themselves from anti-government oriented militias and similar groups, while others simply faded into the woodwork. McVey, in many ways, did more harm to his cause than the forces he was fighting ever could. I think Mr. Breivik's action will have the same result for his cause. Cold comfort for the survivors or the families of the dead.

The Road Back: A Roadmap for the GOP

We’ve all heard the pundits say that without fundamental changes, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs. The Right Wing blames the Moderates (and McCain) for not being conservative enough, while the Moderates blame the Right Wing (and Palin) for being out of touch with the American People. Frankly, I’m tired of the “blame game”. Both sides are to blame as far as I’m concerned. What I and millions like me want to know is what can the Republican Party do now, not just to survive, but to win?

The GOP has lost its way. The Republican Party, since Ronald Reagan, oversaw the largest growth in the federal government in our nation’s history (yes, I know this is heresy to some). Instead, it was the Democrats talking about runaway government. The GOP needs to apologize to the American people. Then, they need every current and future candidate to sign a written oath that they will do everything in their power to reduce the size of government and eliminate government waste.

Secondly, the Republican Party forgot who they represent. Historically, the GOP was the party of the middle class (including skilled blue collar workers) and small business. Instead, it became the party of big money. Beginning with Reagan, and continuing under Bush I and Bush II, government cut the reins on business in the hopes that unrestrained capitalism would result in unrestrained economic growth. What happened was corporate greed run amok. Business has repeatedly shown that it can not be trusted to look after the wellbeing of the people on its own. Perhaps it’s not entirely their fault. Capitalism is, after all, about greed which in turn is about self interest. Thus, there is a need for at least some government regulation and monitoring of specific “troubled” industries to ensure management and labor are playing by the same rules and the public (including shareholders) aren’t getting ripped off. Those guilty of stealing millions should receive no less prison time than those stealing a few hundred.

The middle class has always been the backbone of this country. Well, right now that backbone is in serious need of a back brace in the form of permanent tax cuts aimed directly at them. Why not a tax wavier on personal saving accounts to encourage savings and build our own independent safety net? This would also make more money available to banks to loan. How about reinstatement of tax deductions on interest and fees across the board? We need a complete overhaul of the entire tax code. There is no reason in the world our tax structure should be as complicated as it is. Personally, I favor a national consumption tax. You buy it; you pay a tax on it. Corporations who ship jobs overseas should lose any tax deductions. The GOP was once the party of lower taxes. What happened? Let’s see some serious effort to get back on track here.

Speaking of shipping jobs overseas, what about NAFTA? Well, if you’re a large corporation, you’ve got to love it. If you’re a worker, you’ve got to worry about having a job. Remember, NAFTA was pushed over the objections of unions by then President Clinton. Personally, I think it’s proven to be a bust with the plant closures and job losses. I think the way to go is Fair Trade, which protects American jobs. This would be a great issue for the GOP to get behind since it promotes domestic job growth.

Let’s talk about unions and the Republican Party. There is no reason why there should be any animosity between Labor and Republicans. A lot of early labor organizers were Republican (like A. Phillip Randolph). Teddy Roosevelt was a supporter of unions as was Dwight Eisenhower. Frankly, workers can’t exist without management. Management can’t function without employees. It’s a symbiotic relationship. The key is to find a balance between providing a living wage and the company making a decent profit (contrary to popular belief, there isn’t anything wrong with making a profit). Both sides trying to dominate the other will bring the whole house of cards down and everyone loses—the company, the employees, the shareholders, the community, and the country. While we’re on the subject, let’s get back to allowing the rank and file to vote on issues like endorsements and concessions, instead of a few individuals making decisions for them. Labor should be all about democracy.

Let’s talk about minorities. As the last election clearly showed, there are few minorities in the GOP, which is shameful. There is simply no excuse why blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other groups don’t have strong representation within the GOP. Did you know that Martin Luther King Jr, Fredrick Douglass, Mary McLeod Bethune, Rod Paige, JC Watts, Don King, Denzel Washington, Jackie Robinson, Lynn Swain, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Sammy Davis Jr., just to mention a few, are/were black and Republican? Did you know too that the majority of Cuban Americans are Republicans?

Unfortunately, what we saw at the Republicans convention looked like a bowl of vanilla ice cream. The demographics of America are rapidly changing. The Republican Party needs to reflect this if it’s to survive. The Democrats have with stunning success. Hispanics are now the second largest group in America. Blacks are third, but gaining quickly are Asians, who are the by far the single largest global group. The GOP must, at every level, actively and aggressively recruit minorities of every stripe as candidates (such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindel, whose family is from India The GOP needs to recruit and support more minorities, especially women, in leadership roles within the party itself. No more back entrance into the “big tent”.

Key Issues

Illegal immigration is still a key issue in this country with the vast majority of Americans opposed to amnesty and giving any taxpayer based benefits to illegals, yet Congress continues to ignore the American People. Why? Americans strongly favor repealing “natural birthright” laws which give the children of illegals automatic citizenship. Closely related is making English our official national language. These are conservative issues, but where’s the GOP?

America lags behind the world in education. A high school diploma isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on compared to high school graduates from the 1930s or 1950s. We’ve dumbed down our academic requirements in favor of “teaching to the tests”. We’ve done away with subjects, like music and the arts, which make for a well rounded individual in favor of sports. Sorry, but not everyone is going to be the next Michael Jordan or Larry Bird. Schools have become babysitting centers while teachers have all but lost authority over their classrooms. Quality education produces good citizens and employees. This attracts businesses and that pumps taxes into the local economy, which in turn improves the infrastructure like parks, roads, drainage, and pays for more firefighters, EMS, and police officers, which improves the overall quality of community life, which in turns attracts more jobs. Why isn’t the GOP taking the lead on this? Dumbing down education may help a few students “feel good” about themselves, but it does no one any good in the long run.

Most conservatives will agree that the Second Amendment was put there by our Founding Fathers to protect us from government and those who claim to have our “best interests” in mind. While there’s nothing wrong with registering guns to keep them (hopefully) out of the wrong hands, we must oppose every effort to circumvent the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers put their faith in us, the American People, not government, when it came to protecting domestic liberties.

We must invest the needed resources into providing opportunities to our young people. The more opportunities, the less likely they will turn to gangs and crime. We must try to segregate violent offenders from non-violent offenders. We need more effort in rehabilitating non-violent offenders to keep them out of prison. We must reevaluate our drugs laws. Should possession of pot carry a similar sentence as possession of crack or murder? What should our focus be on?

Prisons too need to be changed. We don’t need state of the art gyms (especially weights) in prison. Why would you possibly want bigger stronger criminals? Gone too should be cable TV. Prisons should be required to be as self efficient as possible, including growing as much of their own food as possible. We need to return to the use chain gangs. If the public has to pay for their imprisonment, then they need to earn that money.

Conservatives have long supported the death penalty. In situations where there is irrefutable evidence, the death penalty should be carried out as quickly as possible. I think the appeal process should be shortened, and once exhausted, execution but be carried out within 30 days. As for the method, if we’re talking about murders and rapists, I don’t really care if they suffer for a tenth of a second while a needle is inserted and I don’t think most people do either. As for pedophiles, dress them in pink jumpsuits and put them in the general population (let’s see how they like being the victim for a change).

Speaking of reform, let’s talk about our welfare system for a moment. Everyone needs help from time to time. But if you’re on the public dole, you need to either be looking for a job or getting trained in order to get back to work as quickly as possible. Also, you should not keeping getting money for more having children. If the national average is three, then that’s all you get money for. If you want more, get a job. If not, stop at your local drug store. Welfare should be a temporary hand up not a career option.

National Issues

Addressing national issues, we need to maintain a strong military. However, we don’t need nor can we afford to be the world’s policeman. We must focus on protecting our borders and economic interests. Europe, Japan, and South Korea can look after themselves. We need to close those bases and bring our troops back home. We don’t need any more nukes. We’ve got enough to disintegrate every thing on this planet 10 times over. Instead, let’s focus on maintaining the weapon systems we already have. We must also allow other countries to chose the kind of government they want and stay out of the “nation building” business. As a disclaimer, I do support a strong democratic Israel.

In the name of national security, we need independent energy. We can not depend on other countries (especially those who hate us) for our oil. Let’s focus on developing more fuel efficient cars (without giving Detroit waiver after waiver). Let’s develop solar and wind energy sources. Let’s invest in mass transit systems like trolleys and light rail. At the same time, we must accept the fact that the environment is changing. It doesn’t matter if you believe this a natural event or man made; the result will be the same and we must take steps to protect our communities. Will GOP take the lead on this?

Fading Issues

There are other issues in which the Republican Party has carried the banner which doesn’t have the same importance it once did. Take prayer in school. As we’ve already discussed, people are more concerned about whether or not their children are safe and get a quality education, not if there’s a prayer or not (and whose prayer). Americans are a religious bunch overall. They just believe it’s a private affair and don’t want someone else imposing their beliefs on them or anyone else.

Abortion doesn’t seem to have the same public interest it once did. I suspect that’s simply because there’s simply no realistic way to resolve the issue. Most of us are torn between the protection of an unborn and control over our own bodies. Most Republicans can agree there shouldn’t be late term abortions, and abortions should never be used as a form of birth control. If the woman’s life is in danger, rape, or there is something catastrophically wrong with child, then it should be considered. So, perhaps the emphasis needs to be placed on prevention as much as possible.

Americans have overwhelming rejected gay marriage, but not gays. However, virtually everyone under 30 knows someone who is gay or bisexual, and really doesn’t care. Gays represent a huge section of the voting public. Let’s face it; being gay no longer carries the stigma it once did. Why would a conservative oppose someone who agrees you on most every other conservative issue if the only different was whether or not they’re gay or for that matter, on the issue of gays in general? Not every conservative agrees on every issue.

Conclusion

The Republican Party was once the party of individualism, small government, lower taxes, state’s rights and local control. It used to focus on personal choice and getting government out of our lives as much as possible. It focused on simplifying the tax code and letting Americans keep as much of their money as possible. It was about protecting workers from abusive management and maintaining a balanced playing field. It was about protecting the environment (remember Teddy Roosevelt?) and encouraging innovation. It was about putting America and Americans first. They need to get back to these basics.

The GOP too needs to form “shadow governments” everywhere the Democrats are in charge. They need to find people who can focus on specific issues and use their expertise to show people the differences between the two parties. They need to stop acting like they expect to lose and fight for every seat. Unless the GOP gets back to its roots, which means expanding its base and focusing on issues that matter to average Americans, the Grand Ole Party will go the way of the Whigs. It came into existence as a coalition party. If it is to survive, it may again need to become a coalition party.

Purple American

Everyone once in awhile I come across an article that just really reaches out and grabs me. I recently read one such article, written by Mark Satin on his blog, Radical Middle Newsletter. Mark talked about the fact that we, as Americans, actually have more in common than not. I too believe most Americans share a certain core of collective values, which is why most of us are somewhere in the "no man's land" of the political landscape. That is, the Middle. Some of us are slightly left of the center, while others are slightly right of center. Either way, we share a lot in common with each other despite what the media and some political pundits would have us believe. Both parities, however, have chosen to occupy the extreme sides. It's only during election that the real battle begins, which is the fight for the Center. Each try to convince the Middle of their sincerity, and then after the election is over, retreat to their extremist camp leaving the most of us feeling like a used rag. No wonder there is so much apathy among voters!

Over the last 10 or so years, the Middle has begun to wake up and realize that it has the real power in this country. Not the Far Left. Not the Far Right. What the Middle wants is the creation of a synthesis that represents the best of both parties. If that can't be done within an existing political framework, then it will be done outside of the existing political guidelines through a new political party (and there are a lot of new third party choices out there which simply exemplifies the current level of voter frustration) or through a social political movement along the lines of those rarely seen since the 1960's and '70's. The party which can best accommodate the rising power of the Center will survive. The other will become, at best, a regional has been. or at worse, regulated to the dust bin of history. It's happened before and it will happen again.

So with out further adieu, here's Mark Satin's article. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did:

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_fiorina.htm