Political Delusion

Neo-Partisan mindset - Bogus journalism

This writing is in response to a younger friend who gave a belated critique of my Tea Parties Essay. Read full account at Responses to the Tea Parties essay. In brief his charges are: *left’s obsession with Glenn Beck, Rush, FOX News and the Tea Party; *progressivism is a disease; *Keynesian economics system needs to be put to bed; *democratic party looks at government as god; *ideals of the Democratic party almost go against everything I know as good for America; *Democratic Party is not the same as it was 30-40 years ago; *left is far more dangerous than the right -union and mob style tactics of social activists are the racist and bigots; *federal government as the solution to everyday problems takes away simple pleasures and freedom- the slippery slope; *demonizing capitalism, the rich and calling Republicans racist; *President Obama and left wing of the Democratic Party-- seeing now the Tea Party winning in the past election now they (Democrats ) want to compromise, slip to the middle/moderate their tones now- all a big game in politics of deceit, lies and spin.

Following is my response to these charges. A few points are postscript. Skipping the initial pleasantry exchange with my friend, and with some modification to protect anonymity, I continue with an expansion of the overall response:

You are right about the Democrat party being a different party from many years ago. Thankfully, it was the party that led “refudiation” (rejection) of continued discrimination and segregation in its official-64-civil-rights legislation. President Lyndon Johnson said, “We have lost the South for the next fifty years.” Meanwhile, Jesse Helms, a rising star, TV-news editorialist skillfully capitalized on unsavory social, ethnic strife in an era ripe for political gain. Through subtle and more than subtle at times, the racial messages of the modern-day granddaddy of political negativism was framing and minting the demeaning, frightful “liberal” word. Thus, with the shameful projection of the stigmatized “liberal label,” Jessecrats by the thousands fled the Democratic Party.

Now, no one, I hope, is accusing Republicans of being racist (certainly not me) but there is/were elements of racism within the tea party movement. If not, “why do politicians such as Palin and commentators such as Glenn Beck insist that African Americans go blank on their own history - as blank as apparently Palin and Beck are themselves?” The tea party, a populist movement, defined as populist: (adj.) “is appealing to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people; (n.) (Government, Politics & Diplomacy), a person, especially a politician, who appeals to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people” By definition the movement would not exclude prejudicial encounter of various nature. One clear example: the tea party’s rejection of Bob Inglis, the conservation Republican U. S. House member from SC, on the grounds he refused to call President Obama (in a notorious defamation of Obama’s heritage) “a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator.”

Now it’s interesting - no mention Republican Party being a different party. Currently in the throes of the tea party, it’s a point that hardly could be overlooked for it goes to the core of my essay, The Tea Parties. Precisely, it is the limbaughbecks and smaller spinners, such as Mark Levin, in their aggregate 24/7 rhetoric, that perpetrate lies and misinformation. (And they get paid very well: Rush Limbaugh ranks first with $58.7 million in annual income—or 34 times Murrow’s 1952 salary, adjusted for inflation. Fox hosts Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly trail with $33 million, $22 million, and $20 million, respectively. The closest liberal commentator is Jon Stewart, who collects a combined $15 million as host of The Daily Show and head of Busboy Productions. The highest-paid politician is former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who raked in $14 million this year, mainly from her books ($11 million) and her Fox contract, and also from paid speeches.)

A latest example of fraudulent journalism: Thomas Friedman writes about Too Good to Check: Cooper then showed the following snippets (AC360 News): Rush Limbaugh talking about Obama’s trip: “In two days from now, he’ll be in India at $200 million a day.” Then Glenn Beck, on his radio show, saying: “Have you ever seen the president, ever seen the president go over for a vacation where you needed 34 warships, $2 billion — $2 billion, 34 warships. We are sending — he’s traveling with 3,000 people.” In Beck’s rendition, the president’s official state visit to India became “a vacation” accompanied by one-tenth of the U.S. Navy. Ditto the conservative radio talk-show host Michael Savage. He said, “$200 million? $200 million each day on security and other aspects of this incredible royalist visit; 3,000 people, including Secret Service agents.” Ted Koppel says in the death of truthful, real news: “We celebrate truth as a virtue, but only in the abstract. What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.” These are real dangers for our Republic, not exclusively but mostly by those who led and promoted the tea parties. “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Mark Twain

And to the point of scurrilous rhetoric the latest from the Fox News President, Roger Ails: “They [NPR executives] are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism." It has been reported that there is currently inside talk, concerns, by the more realist reporters at Fox News about the accumulative effect Beck and other maligning spinners have in tainting the dubious “Fair and Balanced” slogan.

Zev Chafets, author of “Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One” on May 19th wrote: “Rush Limbaugh came along after the age of Ronald Reagan. He has never really had a Republican presidential candidate to his ideological satisfaction. But if the party sweeps this November under the banner of Real Conservatism, Mr. Obama will find himself facing two years of “no” in Washington and, very likely, a Limbaugh-approved opponent in 2012.” If Limbaugh is not the party’s top strategist and de facto boss, it is obvious Republican leadership continues the Limbaugh playbook. In that intransigent, ideological formula there will be no compromise, only gridlock. (Or the default: "no taxes," the road of no return.) Most certainly this raucous hyper-partisanship is bred and kept alive by the right’s extremist media-leaders.

Where is the ‘dignity of man” in all this? Tireless, repetitive messages, irresponsible of factuality, become “conventional wisdom” to the less adroit listener or reader. Many ingest these deceitful messages, spun 24/7, for “the adrenaline of political enchantment.” Therein is a problem for many who become obsessed with “an end” justified by “any means.” These self-absorbed embroilments, over several years of right-wing media, have precipitously expanded the fringe, unwittingly captivating many good people. On the left, MSN increases the left-fringe with some programming that mocks, belittles people; to my knowledge outright-fraudulent journalism has not been documented. All news networks, however, make mistakes.

A culture of “debased vernacular” seems to have become society’s norm. Raised in a different era, it is this erosion of civil respectability that is an affront to my and many people’s sensibility. It is so unseemly of a Christian or anyone who may strive to live by the Golden Rule. Not only does disrespectfulness on the internet in Anonymity Breed Contempt, its flagrancy on the open-air-waves inflame disdain in private quarters waiting to explode. This has gone far beyond Reagan’s admonition, “Never speak ill of a fellow republican.”

“Only virtuous citizens, as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Adams agreed – and as Tocqueville later confirmed – were capable of exercising freedom responsibly,” wrote Kloppenberg in Reading Obama. Might we ask, in a nation destitute of journalistic principles and people more than ready to believe what confirms their prejudicial persuasions, in absence of fact, where are those “virtuous citizens” in the broad swath of society?

We can’t control “free speech” nor should we attempt; we can control the animus of our callous hearts and our vitriolic tongues – in favor of respectability and the Golden Rule. We can be more vigilant to discern truth – to speak against what we know is not true. We may never achieve highest-moral-ground, though our inner-light-consciousness should beckon empathy of fellowman.

Progressivism a disease! I may be a very sick man. But there again you get into exaggerations, the definition, of what it means to the person speaking the “word”. (A word can have a different meaning for different people.) You may denigrate the word, demonize the man, to give corrupt connotations and lump everyone on the left into that category, but that doesn’t help solve the country’s problems. (Right-wing obsession, I’m not over- boiled; I have too-many-other interest to spend much time on it, but I do find it curiously astounding at times.) I have grave concern as these demeaning forces harden our citizenry’s polarization, paralyzing democracy. Many moderate Republicans share the same unease. They have said as much, sometimes in a guarded way. I agree with one of my favorite Republicans, former Senator Chuck Hagel, who said, “I refuse to reduce politics to the lowest common denominator.” (His book of 2008, America: Our next Chapter, gives a sobering perspective of our country’s state of affairs.)

If our congress and the Republican party needed a shakeup, does the tea party have the stuff to “get it right” for our country? Thomas Friedman says, we’ve Got to Get This Right, referring to what many of the American people understand: “that we are facing a really serious moment.” “But we have to get this moment right. We don’t get a do-over. If we fail to come together and invest, spend and cut really wisely, we’re heading for a fall — and if America becomes weak, your kids won’t just grow up in a different country, they will grow up in a different world.”

May the tea-party congresspersons, along with all our legislatures, prove they have the right stuff! If proven fiscally responsible in the collection of taxes and disbursement thereof, we can be “progressively conservative” (that’s not an oxymoron) for the things that have made our country great over many years; the things of Eisenhower’s “Interstate Road system” and Nixon’s “environmental progressivism,” among other responsible programs America did excel. Cautiously progressive, “getting it right” on these, including education, healthcare, energy, immigration and defense, government must develop the right public policy and have an accountable role in each of these areas. To be successful, however, will require leaders with high standards, ethicalness, and be determined to make hard decisions regardless of political cost.

Will cuts be necessary? Major cuts? Absolutely! As important, on the other side of the ledger, someone must add to the credits-column! And that seems to be an insurmountable-political problem. This challenge can be solved if only those in responsible positions of leadership were to let go of the powerful, some being the superrich. Obviously, help will have to come from the super-rich. The top richest 1% took 23.5% (2007 latest figure) of national income. The last time the top 1% held this concentration of income was 1928. (Source: Aftershock) Middle class will be able to help in future, not only by accepting more cuts but tightening the belt to pay down the red figures. In getting all this done, the difficulty is the dependency on the “political donor class” to get elected – reelected - reelected. For the most part, they rule this nation on tax and economic policy. (Read David Cay Johnston’s books, Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch.) As Warren Buffett says, “There is a ‘class war,’ and we are winning.” Even though Buffett has said the tax structure is unfair. Now Buffett speaks up on the importance of government’s role in the bailout. In his Times op-ed, Pretty Good for Government Work: “Only one counterforce was available, and that was you, Uncle Sam. Yes, you are often clumsy, even inept. But when businesses and people worldwide race to get liquid, you are the only party with the resources to take the other side of the transaction. And when our citizens are losing trust by the hour in institutions they once revered, only you can restore calm.”

Reagan Republicans such as David Stockman, Reagan’s Budget Director instrumentive of supply-side economics, is calling to task Republicans for their seemingly irrevocable stance on “no taxes.” (To listen: go CNN, search “GPS Podcast” and select Nov. 28th recording; Stockman begins at 21-minute progression) Bruce Bartlett and other Reagan Republicans are affirming his sentiments. He also admonished President Obama to stand firm on no extension of tax cuts for the rich. Commensurately, he is saying that Democrats made a mistake in the bailouts and stimulus. He could be right, but I suspect by most convincingly verifiable accounts, had bailouts not prevailed, it would have precipitated the “The Big-Hit.” (Apparently that’s Buffett belief). At the least it postponed an inevitable economic downfall the likes of few now living have seen; a big-hit of an even more traumatic economic downfall that inevitably will come if the fiscal problem is not dealt with in the near future.

Therefore, government has an unavoidable, essential role, more particularly in these austere times; it is not a time for the government to be excessively regressive. Short of getting it right, we are in for the “big hit” at some point.

All that said the question remains: Just what would a Majority Republican Party and a Republican president have done, on election in 2008 with a collapsing economy in tailspin? Was President George Bush’s initiation of TARP any indication? Could the Republicans, given the responsibility, along with you, have not been convinced by the majority-Keynesian economist that stimulus was necessary? (It has been reported that China as a percent of GDP put 8-times as much stimulus into their economy, of course with no financial burden.) When the federal house is burned down, with no insurance, drastic measures necessarily ensue for a second and even third mortgage, regardless of the party in power. Burning down the house, for which we all must accept some responsibility, was a primary reason for 2008’s change of the guard. Would the “socialist label” unceasingly have been projected on a Republican president and administration, which already had proven most socialistic by its unpaid-senior-pharmaceuticals and carelessness in fiscal matters? The very negligence that put our nation in an untenable situation for recovery! Nevertheless, now more importantly, along with the tea party and its ownership (maybe quasi- we’ll see) of Republican Party, in coalescence with a few Democrats, what will they do now?

History is not necessarily my forte; however, I’m not oblivious to what happened in last century. What I remember very well of the last thirty years is chronicled in Fareed Zakaria’s The Republican Revolution: Real This Time?: “These are not political statements. They are mathematical ones, and it is on understanding math, not politics, that the third Republican revolution now rests.” And so it is, now the hard work begins.

Best wishes to all new congresspersons, and I pray all our legislators will have the fortitude to work together and get it right for our country. Can common cause, common ground, common sense triumph over neo-partisan’s preoccupation with politics?

I would be interested in your ideas on other topics.

Respectfully,
Cornell

PS
For the record, I am as pro-capitalist and free-enterprise as any person, for I have worked at it all my life. While working forty-one years for private corporation and a public corporation, UGI and APU Propane (AmeriGas), I entertained several times the idea of owning my own business, coming close on a couple of occasions. Yes, I’m all for CAPITALISM that plays by moral and ethical rules; I’m not for large corporate malfeasance, i.e. Enron, Tyco types or CEOs who get 400 x salary of avg. worker while losing money ---- or corporations that set up phony headquarters in the Cayman Islands to evade U. S. taxes ----- or “to big to fail’ banks’ speculation in derivatives and other casino-type risk putting the world economy in peril.

The slippery slope of liberty As David Hall wrote on Thanksgiving Day, “the colonists hungered to re-create the ethics of love and mutual obligation spelled out in the New Testament. Church members pledged to respect the common good and to care for one another. Celebrating the liberty they had gained by coming to the New World, they echoed St. Paul's assertion that true liberty was inseparable from the obligation to serve others.” Those words may be the greater essence of the “slippery slope of liberty” you speak of.

On Ground-Zero Mosque (And it’s more than a Mosque!), initially I was of two minds, but the more I heard and read from both sides I came to side with constitutionality, which in fact all religions should be protected as long as they are not subversive. Senator Orin Hatch, not a left winger, apparently in his support is a conscientious-right moderate. It was the right wing that made it a political issue, after early on before the election the right expressed no problem. I would not be in favor of any government tax subsidy for its construction as has been reported applied recently.

“Who are the elite?” Bob Etheridge may be the elite, along with all the other office holders who go for reelection time and again. In talking with some of my friends I’ve said, “I think Bob would do well to go ahead and concede.” Yes, it’s time to move on. (Written before he actually conceded)

Social Justice

In response to The Tea Parties essay I posted last week, as expected, I received several responses. All were positive except for one. I’ve posted some of these responses, writers of which will remain anonymous, at Responses to The Tea Parties essay. No doubt, I speak for many, and my friend who sent a “serious critique” speaks for many. This is the vast, deep, wide political-chasm and in fact, a religious-chasm. I couldn’t agree more with my friend, “These are hard sayings.” And, even after much in-depth thought and study, I question myself, as it should be. However, of the many differences my friend points out, I was astounded by one statement in particular my friend made about “social justice.”

I meant no personal animadversion to anyone; only that each of us may put a brighter light on the mirror that truly reflects into our own souls. Sometimes to do that it requires looking back into the dim roots of our past, necessarily, that we may clearly remember “who’s we are” to enable us to come to the “civility table.”

My purpose in part, of the Tea Party essay (Certainly not to win political converts or tell people how to vote, but to open our blinds to the sunlight of man’s dignified humanity.) was to illustrate, in a more or less personal way with slight levity, just how absurdly and ludicrously the political process has become. But further that there is a political-proxy viral-campaign being waged, either discreetly or conspicuously, implicating some good people, undisturbed in a complicit denial or silence. "The fact is, my friends, that a wrong has no rights, except the right to die— and die at once." (Ignatius Donnelly, politician, reformer and author)

My friend says, “You denounce Glenn Beck for advising listeners to run from a church which preaches or practices social justice. What is social justice? It is, if anything, an ill-defined political concept on which politicians can hang whatever ideas they can convince others to accept. It is like "tolerance" which is high-sounding but empty in practice. Social justice is not a theological concept, much less a Christian concept. I do not accept that it was the principle message of MLK, Jr. Wasn't his message Biblical? We are all brothers and neighbors in the same way that Jesus used the words. Social justice carries with it the burden of such political ideas as “income equality.” (“Income equality”; rather, more to the point, “equal opportunity.” I’ll address that later. David Cay Johnston in his book, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System makes critical points on this, and I doubt any of it is about anyone on this list (no offense if otherwise); it’s about being duped by the super-rich, top 2 %.)

The word “justice” with all of its synonyms: fairness, honesty, integrity, impartiality, evenhandedness, fair dealing, and righteousness, can hardly be used without it pointing back a social condition, matters affecting human welfare, the condition of humankind. Therefore, the word “justice” becomes almost integrally locked with the word “social.”
An attempt to deny a Christian-truth about social justice, I believe, for many people will be perceived of political derivation. Maybe we should again listen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I have a Dream Speech. Yes, I believe his primary message was “social justice,” irrevocably biblically founded.

Whatever Beck is he’s a pathetic case. In a current interview, Being Glenn Beck: He is fragile, on the edge. There is no template for him or for where he is headed. “I have not prepared my whole life to be here,” Beck told me from his plush couch, his face turning bright pink. “I prepared my whole life to be in a back alley.” I expected him to cry, but he did not.

After actually hearing Glenn Beck make the demeaning “social justice” statement, and I now having researched “social justice,” I should not have been so surprised to find that there is a “social justice” denial of it being a biblical precept. This website supports the political-right view on several political/religious issues: What does the Bible say about social justice? An excerpt: “However, the Christian notion of social justice is different from the contemporary notion of social justice that we see being promoted today. The biblical commands and exhortations for caring for the poor are more individual than societal. In other words, each Christian is encouraged to do what he can to help the “least of these.” The basis for such biblical commands is found in the second of the greatest commandments—love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39). Today’s notion of social justice employs a more “top down” approach. The government, through taxation and other means, redistributes wealth from those who have it to those who don’t. This doesn’t encourage giving from the heart out of love, but rather resentment toward the government from those who feel their hard-earned wealth is being taken.”

So goes Glenn Beck’s refrain; it is the fear of the Reagan “welfare queen” who will drain all of government’s resources, hard-earned wealth collected from society. The term “social Justice” can’t be let to stand as a constructive expression; the very word “social” must be squashed and denigrated, given the connotation of “one and the same” as socialist, along with all the other political bugaboo words.

The foremost meaning of “social justice” refers to the concept of a society in which justice is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society. (It’s equality of justice, civil and human rights under the law and equality of opportunity.) Stop right there! That is the biblical message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Otherwise, social justice has a much broader definition. You will find endless websites promoting “biblical social justice”: e.g., Bible Verses about SJ, THE BIBLE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE. Dr. King’s last speech helps to illustrate social justice as defined in this context as a biblical imperative: 1968 - Martin Luther King's Prophetic Last speech - Remember. Or, in his 1963 speech: “In other words, I'm about convinced now that there is need for a new organization in our world. The International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment--men and women who will be as maladjusted as the prophet Amos. Who in the midst of the injustices of his day could cry out in words that echo across the centuries, "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." As maladjusted as Abraham Lincoln who had the vision to see that this nation would not survive half-slave and half-free. As maladjusted as Thomas Jefferson who in the midst of an age amazingly adjusted to slavery would scratch across the pages of history words lifted to cosmic proportions, "We know these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights" that among these are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As maladjusted as Jesus of Nazareth who could say to the men and women of his day, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you. Pray for them that despitefully use you." Through such maladjustment, I believe that we will be able to emerge from the bleak and desolate midnight of man's inhumanity to man into the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice. My faith is that somehow this problem will be solved.”

Perhaps Glenn Beck, a Mormon convert from Catholic, could learn more from his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ lessons. His Lincoln journey, bringing together many social conservatives to reinvigorate the “culture wars” will no doubt reignite the hot-button issues and aggravate political forces that further divide societal groups, making polarization even more acute.

To belittle social justice, is a degradation of Mother Theresa’s social ministry; it does not acknowledge the inspiration and orientation of the most well-known Christian hymn, Amazing Grace, and its author, John Newton, a converted slave-ship captain; it is to diminish biblical social-justice influence of William Wilberforce, in his Christian conversional experience, to play Briton Parliament’s major role in abolition of slavery. It is to deny that the very essence of William Booth’s founding of the Salvation Army was “biblical social justice” at the very heart of Christianity. And so on --- in America’s history ---- it was our country’s churches that once fought off abolition, but in a longsuffering struggle of “social justice” won the final-slavery-abolishment. Social Justice!

Bill Moyers, journalist and public commentator: “Charity is commendable; everyone should be charitable. But justice aims to create a social order in which if individuals choose not to be charitable, people will not go hungry, unschooled, or sick without care. Charity depends on the vicissitudes of whim and personal wealth; justice depends on commitment instead of circumstance. Faith-based charity provides crumbs from the table; faith-based justice offers a place at the table.” The two working together, some would say, completes our biblical “Christian social justice” command.

Our United Methodist Church upholds the broader definition of social justice in its UMCOR (United Methodist Committee on Relief) and The General Board of Church and Society. Our Faith in Action is the church’s “Christian social justice” ministry. The UMC has a long history to the social commitment. (See PDF file attached.) Social justice is inclusive of our discipleship! A copy of The Poverty and Justice Bible has just been released through the American Bible Society (ABS). Throughout its pages, more than 2,000 verses are highlighted that refer to the topics of social justice and poverty.

Perhaps I and some of my Christian brothers’ differences are more of FAITH than politics: A) A faith more rooted in Orthopraxis; faith in action through ethics and social justice. B) A faith more firmly rooted in Orthodoxy; a faith built more on creedal professional beliefs and social-conservative codes. A legitimate question for each of us: Does religion sway our politics or our politics influence our religion?

As traditional-Christian denominations continue to decline, there may be some evidence that a faith more attuned to Orthopraxis may be helping to breathe new life into church. In some of the fast-growing-mega churches, a spiritual, younger generation may be putting-to-practice social justice more so as a Christian mandate. Should this be a concern of many mainline Protestant churches on the decline?

In these “hard saying,” let us pray that in our differences we can learn from each other.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verily God will not change the condition of a people until they change themselves" (Qur'an 13:11); “‘God is always good’ but in reality God is as good as we are GOOD for God, and as Christians expressed through our relationship with Christ, our interpretation of biblical scripture or lack thereof, ironically, good or evil may be evoked.” Cornell Cox---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Methodist Social Creed
We believe in God, Creator of the world; and in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of creation. We believe in the Holy Spirit, through whom we acknowledge God’s gifts, and we repent of our sin in misusing these gifts to idolatrous ends.

We affirm the natural world as God’s handiwork and dedicate ourselves to its preservation, enhancement, and faithful use by humankind.
We joyfully receive for ourselves and others the blessings of community, sexuality, marriage, and the family.
We commit ourselves to the rights of men, women, children, youths, young adults, the aging, and people with disabilities; to improvement of the quality of life; and to the rights and dignity of all persons.
We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress.
We dedicate ourselves to peace throughout the world, to the rule of justice and law among nations, and to individual freedom for all people of the world.
We believe in the present and final triumph of God’s Word in human affairs and gladly accept our commission to manifest the life of the gospel in the world. Amen.
The 2008 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church.

Responses to The Tea Parties essay

The following comments were in response to my posting: The Tea Parties
Latest response:
I just got the time to read the whole article. I am always fascinated with the lefts obsession with Glenn Beck, Rush, FOX News and the Tea Party.
I am history major as you know and I am thoroughly convinced progressivism is a disease that needs to be cured or at least the Keynesian economics system needs to be put to bed. It simply does not work. Problem is the left/liberals/progressives/socialist/communist/democratic party looks at government as god. No accountability, no winners or losers just lower the standard/bar for excellence. I grew up in a family with a long list of Democrats, as my father said the Democratic Part left him not the other way around, the ideals of the Democratic party almost go against everything I know as good for America. I respect your opinion and know you have life experience that have molded your view in the ideals of the democratic party because it is generational- Democratic Party is not the same as it was 30-40 years ago. I do not follow the Republican party mantra\ dogma either. Both political parties have their warts and I will condemned stupid Republicans as fast as I would a Democrat. In my opinion and historically the left is far more dangerous than the right -union and mob style tactics of social activists are the racist and bigots. We can spar back and forth on that statement and neither will win that debate. The bottom line, the elite political classes of both parties are the true enemy of democracy. They both feed on power-- look no farther than Bob Etheridge, I personally known him and supported him-- wants to hold on power no matter what- wasting money on hand recount is just dumb-you cannot seriously defend his actions and statements. I believe in the symbolism of Cincinnatis- step down and move on. The agenda of Democrats is to patronage all of us into looking at the federal government as the solution to everyday problems which in turns takes away simple pleasures and freedom- the slippery slope as we say. Another point is demonizing capitalism, the rich and calling Republicans racist is getting old and I believe the American people are now seeing the true agenda of President Obama and left wing of the Democratic Party-- seeing now the Tea Party winning in the past election now they( Democrats ) want to compromise, slip to the middle/moderate their tones now- all a big game in politics of deceit, lies and spin. That is why we need liberals/ moderates and conservatives to keep each other in check and to read and listen to other media perspectives. I listen/watch to MSNBC, NPR , FOX and CNN and read news articles posted by NY Times/Washington Post and etc when I have time. I look at the different spins on the simplest of truths and sometimes just laugh--- I just do not believe all I read and hear as well-- truth is somewhere in the middle.

On the Ground Zero Mosque- I truly believe it is a victory mosque and the left is falling or is just blinded or is frighten into submission in the radical Islamic agenda. No problem with mosque built somewhere else and if the left-wing /so call media would report on the Greek Orthodox Church at ground zero with all it's permit problems and try to help it as well. One religion got a free ride over another- which is wrong.

I did not get to Social Justice, Healthcare and immigration.

Thanks, ( )
------------------------------
Cornell, you are my bother in Christ and a friend. What I am about to write is in my view objective and not personal. I offer these thoughts with respect.The tea parties threaten both Republicans and Democrats. They may benefit the GOP this time but it would be foolish to take comfort in short term gains. Obama had the right campaign idea, Change, but he has failed to instigate change in the business of governance. His stimulus was pork distribution. The health care bill was business as usual political trade offs and exaggerations. Before Obama, the Bush administration cut taxes but then overspent. The tax cuts actually increased revenues as designed but the money was wasted and the deficit soared.The clear result of the past two administrations is that people have lost faith in government. The reason that the tea party candidates are winning is that they are not business as usual. They are not being elected because they are perceived as good leaders but because they are anti-establishment. For these reasons, both parties are afraid. The GOP is trying to cozy up hope for some advantage and the Dems are in full attack. Your essay is a perfect example of the attack. You use words like extremism, "hysteria of unfounded doubt, hate, and fear."I would argue that the doubt is hardly unfounded nor is it hysterical. And where is the evidence for "hate?" The issue is spending. It is not irrational to fear the debt and the spending and therefore to doubt leaders who tell us that it is not a problem. The level of debt and the rate of spending is a problem which will not go away. The economic recovery, such as it is, is telling us that. The politicians of both parties are beholden to special interest groups whose objective is to gain from the US Treasury either money or advantage so that they can get or keep more money. No problem with this as long as the effect is positive for the entire country. But that is part of the controversy.There are many opinions you express with which I disagree. One example: You denounce Glenn Beck for advising listeners to run from a church which preaches or practices social justice. What is social justice? It is, if anything, an ill-defined political concept on which politicians can hang whatever ideas they can convince others to accept. It is like "tolerance" which is high-sounding but empty in practice. Social justice is not a theological concept, much less a Christian concept. I do not accept that it was the principle message of MLK,Jr. Wasn't his message Biblical? We are all brothers and neighbors in the same way that Jesus used the words.Social justice carries with it the burden of such political ideas as "income equality." You provide a chart "Who saw the most income growth?" The problem with such data is that it is accurate for "statistical groupings" such as the pie chart illustrates. I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. However, they are very misleading. The US Treasury tracks income by individual as well as by group which results in a very different result. For example. The income of individuals who were in the bottom 20% in 1996 rose by 91% by 2005. The income of those in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 and those in the top 5 & 1% actually declined. The clear implication is that the US economy is still full of opportunity. Here is the hard saying I must tell you, Cornell. I thought that your objective in your writing was to lower the voices. Yet, you are exceptionally critical of Limbaugh and Beck, Palin and Gingrich, etc. But aren't you following suite? Read your essay again. The clear meaning is that conservatives are wrong and mean-spirited. Your occasional sop to the right is not very convincing. Your essay, I hate to say, is one long rant against the right. I would just ask you what your purpose is. What are you trying to accomplish? Who is your audience? Just as Glenn Beck will win no converts from the left, nor will you, dear friend, win any from the right.

-------------------------------------

Hello Cornell:

This was a well thought out article you wrote. Thank you, it forced me to think of some things I had just let go by. I am printing a copy that I will be able to think on in sections later. You are a most thoughtful and caring individual----keep up the work!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Good article, Cornell. The antics and scare techniques of the Tea Parties are dangerous, at best. It is a spiritual truth that we get what we think about, for thoughts are things (energy). The negative energy pouring from Tea Party advocates and many Republicans in general, in their haste to denounce President Obama and the Democrats is shameful, and deeply concerning to me.

Keep on writing!
--------------------------------------------------
Oh my brother, thank you for putting into words what I feel and think,however I am unable to so eloquently put those thoughts and feeling into speech and writing. In whatever way I can, I am with you...fear isdangerous when organized against the highest good of godly morals andethics. Like the people of Israel who quickly built themselves anIdol/Image to worship. (of course the "Back to Egypt Group). They wereafraid/scared because they thought they had lost their leader; that isMoses. Alike you and I know what happened because of this one act thatdeveloped into Idolatry and destruction of corrupt political andreligious leaders. The "Tea Partiers" are developed by fear rootage thathas been known in history as Civil Disorder and Anarchy (Think this isthe right word) Like Hitler the Tea Partiers are building on prejudices,fear and lies/distorted truth. What then came out of a Hitler Mentality?Thank you for your best work based in Biblical Truth: "do justice, lovekindess and walk humbly with God" The prophet Micah teaches that if weconfess our disobedience to God/rejection of God and turn back to God wecan change our future!Well that's enough from someone who doesn't understand much,right on brother.
------------------------------------------------------
Cornell,
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis and summary of today's well financed misrepresentation of the facts behind the struggle that the Congress is having to do progressive things for America in its most trying time.
Cornell, you are to be congratulated for putting this "thought paper together" and to share it with us.
My own rational is to read everything I can to attempt to see where we will end up.
Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, but it is better than all the rest".
Or "Nobody ever said Democracy is efficient".
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congressmen are all doing whatever is necessary to be reelected.
As Lauch Faircloth said, as Secretary of Commerce in the '70's, as he introduced a Federal official at a business conference in Raleigh, "Now, there is one who is really in the public trough".
My own opinion is that we will get what we deserve in the Mid Term Elections. That's Democracy, though it is being effected by large amounts of money, but like a pendulum. It goes back and forth, but comes back to the middle.
It is unfortunate, but in my opinion, the voices versus Obama are basically motivated by racism, though many do not want that label.
Additionally, I think that if we did not have programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, we would have Revolution.
So, I will vote for Bob Etheridge and Elaine Marshall and take what comes after.
What goes around comes around.
Again, thanks.
Your friend,

The Tea Parties

An essay on the boiling pot; in the absence of shame and courage; a nation in distress

A couple years ago as I waited in the hall at my church a longtime acquaintance came by. On our cordial greetings, I noted he carried a book. Inquisitively, I asked, what are you reading. No audible response. Catching up with him as he stopped to talk to someone, I asked again, thinking in church, he’s probably reading a devotional or some spiritual publication. Seemly reluctantly, he flashed the cover. Don’t remember the exact title, but as I remember three words were in it: Stupid, Idiot, and Liberals.
It is the Limbaughnites and Beckanites who have imposed a projection of the “angry liberals” brand, whereas the right is, at least, equal or even more disposed to anger, in this ubiquitously polarized nation. Thus, enters the tea party. The deep-seated anger turns to frustration. And when frustrations can’t find a way to rationally vent, some minds turn to irrationality and extremism. That’s a part of what this composition is about, (It’s not about welcomed critical debate; it’s about incendiary, destructive demagoguery.) including over-the-top disingenuousness, hypocrisy, and to the point of the right’s monopolist market of an intractable, viral politic that years ago became endemic in national politics without regard to ethic. The tea party, a birthright of the hard-right, exhibits these rudimentary elements unswerving of the movement. I would be remiss not to recognize some of these unbecoming characteristics in the left as well, but it has not become the party’s modus-operandi. At least not yet!
The almost flagrancy of the hard-right promotions, sometime subtle but many times overt, has become inescapable. Last spring when I carried my wife Jane to have her eye’s retina checked prior to cataract surgery, at Raleigh’s Southern Eye Associates office, I became dismayed. Being prepared to stay a full afternoon as advised and after reading all my magazines and other materials, I had been sitting waiting in front of the TV tuned to Fox’s promotional coverage of the tea party --- all afternoon. Nearing afternoon’s end, all others had left, I decided to turn the channel. I did but it automatically came back to the Fox News channel every time. (It’s their right of course, and I’m not opposed to occasionally watching some programs on Fox, but a full afternoon of Roger Ailes’ political agenda?)
A dear friend of mine, in my “Civil Discourse Group”, attended at least one tea-party event. When I shared a couple of articles with the group, investigative reports that showed big-money backing of the tea party, he rightfully took exception, as for his part. However, he further expressed concerns: (condensed) How the heck are we going to pay for all of Obama's ideas and still be America? My friend has traveled many countries and not seen freedoms we have; our government insures individual freedom through inherent belief in dignity of the individual; we should read the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, a government adheres to its founding documents; we are drifting dangerously into a European and socialist model that will take our initiatives and ambition away; He has seen this before his own eyes, and no billionaire has told him this.
I sense a lot of fear and anxiety in these feelings. What is it that drives the disquieting fears and raw emotions that obviously is one of the motivating factors for many of the tea-party following? Nicholas Kristof, gives some response to just that in this article: America’s History of Fear. When fear turns to widespread extremism it must be denounced by more rational level heads. Bridge-builders must prevail who will counter those who spread hysteria of unfounded doubt, hate, and fear that undermines the bridge’s integrity. It’s their job wherever extremism invades and undermines the civil society, whether the moderate Muslim or the moderate-middle-of-the-road citizen of our nation, to have the guts to speak up.
Thus, I begin my response: (By no means does this full response apply to my dear friend; it more broadly applies to the full range of political, contentious strife.)
My honorable friend, you are an independent-thinker and your actions and efforts in thoughts of concern, care, and correction for our country are as noble as mine or others. Many of those who attend tea party events demonstrate the same admiral concern, as apparently evidenced by the weekend of Glenn Beck’s journey at the Hallowed Lincoln Memorial. But let’s step back and try for a little reality check, otherwise known as TRUTH.
Most reasonable, sane people, I believe, uphold the same ideals and constitutional security for our country’s citizens. This should always be our common ground. However, we have different approaches as to what’s best to maintain the principles of our founding fathers that will endure for future generations.
I understand most of the concerns you have expressed, including free-school meals, liberal giveaways. I’ve heard the stories first hand, but these are puny peanuts compared to what’s being siphoned off in so many other ways, much by the rich. All administrations need to bear down on these abuses, whether by law or implementation of the program.
The debt is a big concern! But where was the outrage when in the previous administration the debt doubled as many Republicans said it’s of no concern, including Vice-President Cheney. I know there was 9/11 and two wars to run up the debt when for the first time in the history of our nation taxes were cut during war time. But still a Republican President and Republican Congress found a way to accommodate seniors with meds with pharmaceuticals being the beneficiary, in one of the largest unpaid for social programs ever. Rightly so, I’m guessing this is a part of the tea-party’s justifiable impulsion. I am prone to agree with how another friend of ours describes the tea party: “The tea party movement (whatever it is) is a fragmented protest in the best tradition of American grassroots freedom. Because they are fragmented generalizations do not help understanding. The main message seems to be the increase size of grovernment and the great spending which occurs under both parties. This is perhaps the central issue in politics today.” Whatever the tea party is, it is reaction by some with prejudices and overt racisms or racial overtones.
We can’t deny the derelict, dilapidated, inherited economy (blame many but not Democrat Presidents on debt to this point) given over to this administration without being vilely disingenuous or hypocritical.
*You might not approve of Bush/Obama TARP, but you have to know that bank failures were about to be one of the greatest financial catastrophes this world had ever seen. It was a time in history, two years ago - Sept. 2008, when Republicans and Democrats made our government actually work to stave off a galloping crisis. As Fareed Zakaria says, the fractional-cost of the $700B, was a small price to pay for avoiding another Great Depression, of a potential 25% unemployment. (However, sadly, since then the squawkers have created such a distorted reality that no politician want to claim its success.) You have to know it was large-banks’ failures that uniquely define this longsuffering protracted recovery beyond a normal recession. ---------------- *You might not agree that it was right to bail out the American auto industry, but you have to know that this industry was on the brink to cost many thousands if not millions of jobs around the country and world. ----------- *You might not agree with Keynesian economics, stimulus, but you have to know that this economy was headed deep, deep south fast. ------------- *You might not agree that stimulus (Or you might agree in that much of the stimulus bill was tax cuts.) has been effective, but you have to know that if not for stimulus many more people would be without jobs and that it continues to keep people employed, many in education. ----------------- *You may not agree with Bank-Regulation Reformation, but you have to know that most of all it was big-banking recklessness and abuses over a long period that brought a financial debacle; it’s this that economies must be protected from future financial hazards. --------------- *You might not agree that basic, reasonable-health benefits is an important issue for the wellbeing of a free society as many continued to lose their health coverage, but you must know that Universal Healthcare was a platform promise by President Obama, a priority by many of the majority vote, and you must know it is a law that hospitals are mandated to give care, regardless of a citizens economic status. You must know that a more efficient, reliable administrative instrument, such as the Cleveland Clinic uses must be broadly devised for health-cost control and amenable healthcare. You must know of all the myths generated about Obamacare. --------------------- *We will agree that deficits do matter, but you have to know that seven Republicans (with Obama’s acquiesces) participated in crafting a bill for a “deficit commission” but reneged when cornered by Grover Norquist, the anti-tax hawk, who suggested that tax reformation (or new taxes) would be required to balance the budget.
We would agree that our nation’s defense and security is an imperative, but any fiscally responsible person might question our overreaction to 9/11: “The amount of money spent on intelligence has risen by 250 percent, to $75 billion (and that’s the public number, which is a gross underestimate). That’s more than the rest of the world spends put together.” And that’s in addition to U. S. Defense cost that already is equal to the combined spent by all other countries around the world. You have to know that it is the extreme right that continues the ballyhoo: from neo-Dick and Liz Cheney to right-wing news pundits and numerous articles, including many published on Christian-right websites that continue to stir the flames of fear and doubt that no Muslim can be trusted. Obama is not protecting our nation! These same extremist forces, so blatantly disingenuous and hypocritical, would not provide the “tax dollar” to pay defense of the dire consequences they forecast.
We would agree that to “restore honor to our nation” is a noble calling, but we must know that Glenn Beck, to be a credible spokesman, needs first to work on restoring his honor. It’s as scandalous as it gets when he advises church members to run from any church that preaches or practices social justice, which actually was the principle message of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Maybe his inflections, change in course, was about repentance, being accountable to a higher calling. If that’s it, more power to the cause. Only time will tell. But without prejudging, I highly suspect, in view of the stage backdrop with David Barton of WallBuilders, it was: may I suggest, a political rally wrapped in religious piety. Barton is a Republican Party activist and self-proclaimed historian for the purpose of "educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country." In his view there is no separation of church and state; his constitution would bind our nation to a certain fundamentalist-religious identity, when in fact our founder’s ancestry came to this country seeking the religious freedoms now guaranteed in our constitution.
Now you know of the unknown spirit speaking to Beck which he must have misinterpreted. For surely on the hallowed ground of old Abe Lincoln and for miles around it was the deist founding fathers of our nation speaking in disgust: including Thomas Jefferson who took scissors to the Gospels, removing the chaff and leaving only the nuggets, composed his own Gospel. And, surprisingly this of all places, a right-wing-religious website: God, the gospel, and Glenn Beck: “Rather than cultivating a Christian vision of justice and the common good (which would have, by necessity, been nuanced enough to put us sometimes at odds with our political allies), we've relied on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads. We've tolerated heresy and buffoonery in our leadership as long as with it there is sufficient political "conservatism" and a sufficient commercial venue to sell our books and products.”
It was two different articles I shared with my “Civil Discourse” group that initiated this writing: Covert Operations and The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party . In the first, Jane Mayer of the New Yorker uncovers covert operations of the Koch brothers. My preface in part to the group: “I've known the "Koch" name for many years, because over the years I've purchased some of their petroleum products. However, I did not know of their radical-self-serving ideology or that they are third richest U. S. individuals only behind Buffet and Gates.
It is the money behind the raucous forces that drives a radical-extremist- libertarian agenda; it's not the traditional, gentleman Conservative-Republican Party. These strident forces with overt racism and anti-government slurs fit perfect Beck, Limbaugh-type agendas. Koch's initiatives explain also Mort Zuckerman (remember "Obama's Done Everything Wrong"), Governor Pataki, and don't leave out Dick Armey (Why other than money would he be leading a tea party?). To quote from the investigative, Covert Operations article: The Republican campaign consultant said of the family’s political activities, “To call them under the radar is an understatement. They are underground!” Another former Koch adviser said, “They’re smart. This right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves.” Rob Stein, a Democratic political strategist who has studied the conservative movement’s finances, said that the Kochs are “at the epicenter of the anti-Obama movement. But it’s not just about Obama. They would have done the same to Hillary Clinton. They did the same with Bill Clinton. They are out to destroy progressivism.”
In the second article, Frank Rich expands the understanding of what’s behind the tea party: “The Koch brothers’ father, Fred, was among the select group chosen to serve on the Birch Society’s top governing body. In a recorded 1963 speech that survives in a University of Michigan archive, he can be heard warning of “a takeover” of America in which Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the president is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.” That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today.”
Is this the mold from which the slogan “Take back our country,” the mantra immediately assailed against this administration? Arrogantly, take back from whom, a new president had just been elected as the economy tanked. (It’s like we all dug a deep hole together, half the group shoved the other half in the hole and have been shoveling dirt on them ever since.) “The conservative movement has spent the last 20 months sowing hysteria about President Obama's agenda. The most respectable Republicans call the president a socialist, a radical, a threat to freedom. The less respectable Republicans, many of them highly influential, call him an alien, a sympathizer of radical Islam, a conscious enemy of the United States who is trying to wreck the economy. Obama is a dangerous figure, he cannot be compromised with, and the fight against him is a twilight struggle to save the last vestiges of the Republic.”
We can pretend that this hyped-up rallying, playing on many people’s prejudices, casting doubt, fear, and hate is harmless. (And I’m not referring my dear friend and many more that follower tea parties.) But in a pluralistic society, the melting pot, it is not only obnoxious and dangerous, it undermines a basic value and violates one of the civil tenets we thought we had mostly won, one that tugs at the very roots of civility.
We may agree or disagree that the ilks of Beck and Limbaugh when at their worst, throwing red meat to the base, are destructive, but we must know they are irresponsible, inflammatory, and beyond powerful reproach by any of their party affiliates. They carry the narrative (the prevailing message that in some places seems to have been won) and banner for the likes of many tea partiers and/or disgruntled bigots.
We may agree or not that the Koch brothers’ right-wing-radical-libertarian ideology and their wealthy undercover influence is of no injury to the American government and its free-enterprise system, but we must know that their monetary-under-the-radar manipulatives negate government policy that would set our country on a corrected course to sustainable, renewable energy and continuing the United States Environmental Protection Agency which was initiated by President Nixon. We must know Koch’s and Murdock’s schema is to stall or defeat any progression for reordering America’s workforce with technological, innovative, jobs that would slow the use of fossil fuels. Note by this chart from a Washington Post blog that energy’s research, the smallest amount of all, and much of that goes to developing new fossil fuel sources. That’s why we so desperately need a renewable-energy bill.
We may agree or disagree that the rampant email rumors in the hundreds of lies, false accusation, promoting conspiracies, such as claiming the illegitimacy of our President’s citizenship, are not harmful ---- but we must know those that claims such as “Obama was not born in America, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: to believe any of these requires suspending some of our critical--thinking faculties and succumbing instead to the kind of irrationality that drives the logically minded crazy.” We must know that it is our moral duty not to pass these false rumors and half truths but in fact to counter them when received. Nicholas Kristof writes, Is This America? with regard to the false emails being circulated: “Or there’s the e-mail I received the other day from a relative, declaring: “President Obama has directed the United States Postal Service to remember and honor the Eid Muslim holiday season with a new commemorative 44 cent first class holiday postage stamp.” In fact, it was President Bush’s administration that first issued the Eid stamp in 2001 and that issued new versions after that.
Lee Atwater, political strategist and consultant in the Reagan and Bush I Presidencies and political mentor and close friend to Karl Rove and the epitome of dirty politics during the 80s, compares mildly to the ugly, despicable politics of his legacy-party of today.
The many subtle (or overt) messages supported by Koch’s breed of underground operatives, perpetuated by the right-wing media’s bombardment of scurrilous rhetoric, driving the under currents of fear and doubt, has cast a cloud over our nation. A friend says, so what! The Kocks bankrolling the right; the left is bankrolled by big money. Yes, that’s true. It’s long been known that George Soros backs MoveOn.Org. The point is that it’s well known and there is not a hidden agenda to subvert the government. Soros, the 80th richest person in the world, also does not promote policy that would preclude him from paying taxes, dismantle government, or flee his responsibility to society for the great privilege he has to make money in America. In this regard, he is of the spirit of Buffet and Gates even though more politically involved.
The concerns/fears of America becoming a “socialist country” are exaggerated. Certainly, for the purpose of a political wedge, the fact that it’s one of the bugaboos used with Communist, Marist, Fascist and don’t forget the frightful liberal to make you very afraid. We in fact already have social programs which need to be made more equitable, such as healthcare, and made more efficient. But you can’t legitimately pin the socialist-liberal label on Obama without suspending some critical-thinking faculties. He’s made no one happy, left or right, a testament to his center-leadership in one of the most alienated societies ever. Of course, the obstructionist in their false narrative painted him otherwise, and has barred real-reformations needed on many issues. Anything slightly to the left of the tea party’s chanting is made to be extremely liberal.
Just what would a tea party representative have done and what will they do once in office? What’s their platform? Taxes and deficits, maybe, are the crux issues of tea partiers. Ezra Klein writes: “But at the end of the day, eliminating runaway deficits means one - actually, a few - of the following things: Tax hikes, Medicare cuts, Social Security cuts and military spending cuts. Which do the tea parties favor? Actually, let me rephrase: Which will they insist on? That's the hard stuff. That's when we'll see whether the tea parties are really something new in American politics, or just more of the same weak brew.”
If the right’s answer on everything continues to be “no taxes/cut taxes” and those who have had the privilege of getting rich continue to dodge their patriotic duty, we the people of government will surrender to a chaotic society. (It is the extremist view to excessively cut programs, but few say what, except some of the tea partiers openly advocate closing departments of government: Education, EPA, Housing, Energy; abolishment of Medicare and privatizing Social Security.) The top’s growth in income will continue to increase disproportionally to the middle and lower class, and thereby no one has money to make the top richer. In 2007 the super-rich grew even richer, the imbalance grew ever worse. The top 1% of all U. S. earners took home nearly a quarter of all income. Between 2000 and 2008 only 2% of all American workers, only those with postgraduate degree such as doctors, lawyers and MBAs, saw gains in their “mean real money income.” (The Great Reset by Richard Florida) And this chart from Washington Post shows breakdown of who saw the most income growth, 1979 to 2007.
It is understandable large corporation must show good returns for their shareholders; therefore, the largest expenses must be cut first: The axing of workers by the millions is where we are today. But many top executives continue Stuffing Their Pockets. The average CEO’s pay in 1980s was 40 times the average worker’s pay. Today it’s over 400 times! Now I’m not against the rich man; I love him just like I love the pauper. But money, tax cuts, solely as a motivator, for the upper echelon or the lowest worker, to ensure a vibrant economy is a misnomer. If that were true, we would not have many dedicated employees in our society that continue to go beyond the call of duty, in some cases enduring the workload of those laid off. In the case of the 400x average worker, “greed” is fittingly descriptive. Forbes magazine reported in 2004, the federal corporate tax rate was less than 10%. Corporate tax evasions are widespread, much of it by stretching legality of an unfair tax-law, according to former Senator Bryon Dorgan. It’s been reported that overall taxes are the lowest since 1950s. The main point: only people who make money are able to pay taxes; everyone, however, has a stake in the economy, from the bottom-up either by sheer sweat-equity or cash dollars to put something back into American’s well-being safety-net; put something back on the wood pile, whether through volunteerism, charitable contributions, and yes to support a more effective government. And that undergirding must be by all privileged to live and work in the freedoms of this nation, including those having the opportunity to amass enormous wealth. (It is an observation by some of us: seemingly those least able to give back are those who support the less fortunate most.) I am reminded of what the son of a local downtown clothing merchant once told me, quoting his dad: Mr. Huntley said, “Without all the poor people that trade with me I would not make money.”
Newt Gingrich, the gaga boy with all his craziness, trying to become relevant as a presidential candidate, seems to be somewhat emblematic movement of the tea party. “Gingrich was excoriated by right-wing bloggers, who said he had lost all credibility and didn't support true conservatism. He's since made amends by attacking President Obama's "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" a term he picked up from an irresponsible article in Forbes which has now been widely denounced by some on the right as irresponsible journalism. Newt’s irrationality and that of many tea-party adherents seems mindless, because their consequential offenses, their anathema to taxes/fair taxing and disdain for government, naively or prejudicially mount the Koch’s and hard-right ideology crusades, which, I believe, they’ll learn works against their own interest, not an abolishment of government but a more effective and accountable government.
The right has let itself (Capitulation to Rush, Glenn and their ilk; the right’s politicians catering to, mimicking their screenplay.) be “turned on its head” causing many of the older, highly respected senators to retreat to the quite shadows of the Capitol. The old voices of wisdom such as Lugar and Hatch and most all of the other Republican moderate voices, including Collins and Snowe of Maine, have been relegated to the backseats of a mysterious political progeny. No doubt the extreme right’s shenanigans have been an embarrassment to many ladies and gentlemen, highly ethical Republicans.
Do give Republican Senator Orrin Hatch an award for being “The Most Courageous.” Against all odds, he seems to be saying “enough is enough”: For he has broken ranks with Republicans and is supporting the “Ground Zero mosque.”
After all, the tea party’s battle-of-frustrations and mysteriousness is not in ambiguity to any diligent free -thinker. Just think back to when our president was elected, immediately the right set the narrative and the mantra “Take back our country.” Think of all the “NOs” and John Boehner’s “Hell No.” Think of all the Limbaughnites and Beckanites and their multiple chanters around the country. Think of the Lee Atwater bequest (Even though, at least, he was repentant on deathbed.), Karl Rove, Roger Ailes, Fox tea-party promotions, and now we are thinking of the Koch brothers and their under-the-radar deconstruction of anything progressive. And if you are thinking unethical, you are probably on a more-sound moral-ground and wise mind!
When Bob Inglis, a 93% conservative rated Republican U. S. House of Representative member from S. C., was defeated by a tea party candidate, in this interview, Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty: And when he thinks about what lies ahead for his party and GOP House leaders, he can't help but chuckle. With Boehner and others chasing after the tea party, he says, "that's going to be the dog that catches the car." He quickly adds: "And the Democrats, if they go into the minority, are going to have an enjoyable couple of years watching that dog deal with the car it's caught."
In these austere times, conservatism should be our guide, i.e. “progressive conservatism” as opposed to “regressive conservatism.” By any measure what the tea party is conferring could not in the traditional definition be called conservatism; it is radical opposition to anything pragmatic. “What’s distinctive about the Tea Party is its anarchist streak—its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.”
Many candidates may get elected on this anti-everything-everybody wigwag-strategy. But they’re in for an enormous disappointment if they think they can effect a quick-turnaround of this economy. (I doubt that’s their goal.) For according to Richard Florida who compares the current economic downfall to the depressions of 1870s and 1930s, we are now in an era of “The Great Reset”: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity. Inadequately expressed, our dilemma is to find the best answers for a reordering of innovative jobs in a geographical fix, effected by where and how we live, by new-high-speed-rail systems and/or transportation systems that increases connectivity and proximity to thriving markets. Economic geography “is that a good way to get rich (or make a good living) is to be near other rich places; remoteness is costly.” This will not come quickly or easily. It may be an evolvement of twenty, thirty years or longer. Some of Generation Y and Generation X, our youngest generations, may comprehend this seismic shift and be reassessing their values predicated on this premise. My young, 26-year-old, married grandson lives in London, has no automobile, most of the time rides his bike six miles to work, and yet makes an excellent salary with BofA. These youthful age groups, in their vision, are ahead of the upper-middle age and an older generation, mostly male and mostly white tea partiers who are in the fearful throes of “losing something.” Their suspicions are stirred by the limbaughbecks!
To sum it all up as Jim Wallis, Christian writer and political activist, reminds us of what Mohandas Gandhi warned against decades ago, the seven social sins: politics without principle; wealth without work; commerce without morality; pleasure without conscience; education without character; science without humanity; worship without sacrifice. So as our nation is scourged by many of these social sins, some of which have become rife of our nation’s social fabric, so goes our nation into the future. Can that be corrected?
Now, I yield to those who revel on the perilous waves of Limbaugh, Beck, and other trumped-up negative air-waves, who for the most part are the creators of tea party, to extract whatever good or honor may residually lie within. And, I’ll have my eyes open to be flashed a book cover-title, When Darkness Turns to Light, which will be written about those who followed the antics of limbaughbecks, some innocently down a dark terrifying dead-end road. In the meantime, whatever our political persuasions, let us reclaim our ethical mores, attuned to the better angel of our soul, as we are the voice of reason, respect, and goodwill for all people. Let us never despair that man can’t be and do better!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“‘God is always good’ but in reality God is as good as we are GOOD for God, and as Christians expressed through our relationship with Christ, our interpretation of Biblical scripture or lack thereof, ironically, good or evil may be evoked.” Cornell Cox; Verily God will not change the condition of a people until they change themselves" (Qur'an 13:11).

Saying no to the "Parties of No"

On a wet-snow-covered day , yet very pleasant afternoon, recently, I visited with my cousin Ken Cox. He showed me his renovations around his old home place and a new airplane hanger, Ruby’s Place, lovingly named in memory of his mother. There his two pristine Cessnas were waiting for a fair-day’s flight.
On this visit, I was reminded of one of the great disparities within families which parallels what’s happening in Washington DC between opposition Parties. Ken and another Cox cousin, Lynn, have much in common; each is a retired commercial airlines pilot. Yet they are so far apart on politics, respectively Left and Right. Not that they would be polarized beyond civil conversation; however, they without a doubt represent the boundary of political opposites.
I believe my two cousins, in their backgrounds, similar raisings, faiths, family and careers, have much on which to find common ground. Likewise, Washington DC, with just a little effort, could find solid footing to work together on many crucial issues facing our Nation, notwithstanding many legitimate differences. It’s “the effort” that possibility seems being proven by South Carolina’s Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. In Healing America –Part II I mentioned Graham as “a politician trying to display some sense of decency who mustered courage to refute and admonish those who spew the venomous verbiage of ill-will, hate and fear-mongering falsehoods toward our president.”
Of recent my estimation of Senator Graham continues to grow even more substantially.
Thomas Friedman writes How the G. O. P. Goes Green: Graham says, “I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. ... From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people. You can have a legitimate dispute about how to solve immigration, but when you start focusing on the last names of people the demographics will pass you by.” “Cap-and-trade as we know it is dead, but the issue of cleaning up the air and energy independence should not die — and you will never have energy independence without pricing carbon,” Graham argues. “The technology doesn’t make sense until you price carbon. Nuclear power is a bet on cleaner air. Wind and solar is a bet on cleaner air. You make those bets assuming that cleaning the air will become more profitable than leaving the air dirty, and the only way it will be so is if the government puts some sticks on the table — not just carrots. The future economy of America and the jobs of the future are going to be tied to cleaning up the air, and in the process of cleaning up the air this country becomes energy independent and our national security is greatly enhanced.” “The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers need to tell my colleagues it is O.K. to price carbon, if you do it smartly,” he says. “We can’t be a nation that always tries and fails,” Graham concludes. “We have to eventually get some hard problem right.”
From the Wall Street Journal on closing Guantanamo Prison: Graham say, it is “the pragmatic thing to do in the overall war [on terror]. It’s an image problem for the United States and a practical problem, having a jail where presidents don’t want to send anyone. But a solution has got to be bipartisan. There’s no way the Democratic Party is going to walk off a political cliff here without Republican support, nor should they.” In addition, Graham , along with Kenneth Starr and others, has rebuked Liz Cheney’s outlandish accusations of the Department of Justice choosing defense attorneys for terror detainees.
After failing to find common ground on anything in a meeting with 30 tea partiers, Graham comments to Newsweek, Learning to Love Lindsey: "At times, elements of the base have a mentality that 'I can't win if the other guy gets anything,?" Graham laments. "It's not enough that you agree with them on the issue. You have to hate the other side."
We Cox boys don’t hate anybody. We have some different views, but our roots and commonalities lift us to common ground. Graham has regained the common-ground message, i.e. try to work together where possible, a most important lesson for our congress from both sides of the aisle.
Graham’s praxis is in stark contrast to his fellow SC Senator, Jim DeMint, another anomaly . It will be interesting to see which of these two sides win out come election time in South Carolina. Indeed, for the south, which of these contrasting views win out? Will our nation go forward or continue taking steps back?
While Graham has been harshly critical at times about this administration, he has come to a new reality over the last several months. He returned to his roots, his raising, and recovered his gentleman status. And, that’s the lesson and test for our country and all its citizens.

Black and White - and all that might!

Nothing raises the ire and emotions of many people more than a discussion around politics and religion. Eleven weeks ago at an appointment with my barber I was made gravely aware of this fact. In our normal casual conversation, knowing of my barber’s political per­suasion, I asked him if he planned to visit Governor Sarah Palin on tour in NC and buy her book. He commented on her qualifications and her high moral Christian character. Sitting in the chair of my barber, of over forty years, he asked, "Are you ready to admit your regrets of voting for President Obama?" No. "Do you realize that out of all of the men who sit in this chair 95% of them have the opposite view of you; can you see anything wrong with that?" I felt under attack. As he was shaving around my ears I could sense the quiver of his hands and voice, so I thought I best be quite. So goes the political atmospherics! (My re­sponse to my barber was to purchase a copy of Palin’s book, Going Rogue, a gift to him. He’s still serving the 5%.)
This experience weighted heavy on my mind, so the next day I decided to enlist some friends I knew to be opposite of my political affiliation in the advancement of “civil dis­course”: six people, 2 Independents and 4 Republicans, one of which is a brother and another a brother-in-law. I respect and hold in high regard all these persons: four of which I usually see and speak with weekly, if not twice, at church and/or Rotary and the others ir­regularly speak and visit in their homes. After all my blog, in part, from the beginning was to encourage others to engage in introspective, honest, respectful, dialogue on issues that will affect our lives - our children's future.
The latest offering I received from the civil-debate-group mailing of “the six” was an article, written by Morten Zuckerman, forwarded from my brother-in-law. A friend had forwarded it to him with the comment “Looks like a classic case of buyer's remorse to me.” (If you read all the responses to this article, you’re seeing it’s an example, Right and Left, of the deca­dent, accusatory rhetoric that has taken over our citizenry.)
Zuckerman’s “He’s Done Everything Wrong” may be all truth based on his perspective. (Al­though, he left out accomplishments and has possibly prematurely judged an outcome.) On the other hand, given a different viewpoint, President Obama may also have “done every­thing right.” Paradoxically by this point of view, needless to say under most difficult cir­cumstances, could the outcome have been different? Probably only marginal! Witness: push back from the Right’s “everything will be a NO” even perhaps decided before he was inaugurated. “Take back our country.” On the other side, Democrats kowtowed to big-money lobbyist (include Republicans also) on the crucial health-care initiative. You name it, on almost everything nothing could be done right in the eyes of the Left or the Right. Obama’s diligence through a hurricane of rhetoric for whatever worthwhile accomplish­ments has not been in a complete vacuum. It has been an effort consistent as conveyed through a campaign for those who voted for change, including the vote of 12% of Republicans who continue to find themselves Party disenfranchised.
The onus, of course, is on Democratic leadership to hurdle their self-imposed impediments, if necessarily only within their own ranks, quickly to move forward a course-correction ---- if that’s possible. If not, it’ll be their “Waterloo” as Jim DeMint would have it, not necessarily Obama’s Waterloo.
The Atlantic’s current magazine has an article, The Honeymooners, which shows the first-year-begin-to-end-approval ratings (only on magazine’s hard copy) of all the presidents since Truman. Even with what most would consider the most challenging first year of a presidency, all the things handed to him, Obama rating is comparable to some others: In percentages, Obama 68:47 (begin:end); Bush 57:84; Clinton 58:54; Bush-1 51:80; Reagan 51:49; Carter 66:52; Ford 71:45; Nixon 59:63; Johnson 78:70; Kennedy 72:79; Eisenhower 68:71; Truman 87:51 And Obama’s personal likeable numbers remain high.
So don’t despair yet; Obama may succeed in spite of immense odds, even with the ir­repres­sible extreme Right’s vitriolic betting, impetuous crusades (i.e. right-wing’s 24/7 media where everything is framed in the negative) to insure his failure. Unfortunately, it is the negative that sells; “talking heads,” paid high-dollar contracts, saying anything out­rageous to compete for higher ratings. The sport of politics --- void of sportsmanship!
Obstructionist from Right and Left not only ran off the tract; they destructed the rails. It will be a sad day if “our country” fails along with “his failure,” and that’s a frightening thought to think that’s where we may be headed. Many Americans over the years have become a greedy, impatient breed that expects too much, too quickly. (Zuckerman’s problem?) And when we don’t get exactly what we want, we find scapegoats to belittle, denigrate, demo­ralize, disparage, dehumanize, and we come “bearing false witness” to stick unbecoming labels on some dedicated leaders (and citizens). A proliferation of politically-fabricated-false-email rumors augment incitement of culture wars: opposing-hot-button issues aggra­vated by strident political forces, ensuring endemic polarization. Political gridlock is guaran­teed! That’s where we will remain unless something changes, and that for the most part is out of Obama’s control. It can only change when “We The People” strive for higher moral and ethical codes. That’s where we “individually” and as a so called “Christians Nation,” have so wretchedly failed. Can this personal-character assassination be reversed? Not until the vo­ciferous, scurrilous rhetoric is reduced to “fact and truth.”
A brother and a friend, teasingly I suppose, have suggested that my writings are too politi­cally inclined. Frankly, I take no particular pleasure in politics, but Politics and Faith-respon­sibility are inseparable; their coming together calls for “a truth revelation” that too often has been elusive, evaded, scourged or hidden. As I once discussed with my Christian friend, now deceased, the emotional issues where Politics and Faith meet, while hard for many of us to discuss, must be a conversation “face to face.” Because, by grace, brother to brother, sister to sister, that’s where a better government and society begin. If you and I can’t cour­teously speak, openly and honestly, to these difficult issues, who will?
By these tough words some may question my own commitment to civil discourse; necessar­ily with humility we must face the cold fact of truth that’s painful for all of us.
In the malfunctioning of a stalled government, it was a commendable good-faith-civil-dis­course initiative in the President’s recently separate meetings with Republicans and Democrats. However, you might correctly imagine, the edited clips of cable-news outlets gave biased or incomplete information, Left or Right, depending on the channel viewed. This is where many divisive, extreme spectrums originate, often propagated in a spurious and subtle manner. (Charles Blow says, “A study published in The Economic Journal during the summer of 2008 found that voters preferred extreme political positions to moderate ones.) An unedited, full conversation of the president/congress meetings may be seen here: DemandQuestionTime.com. Some people are calling for a continuation of this debate-for­mat.
Listening respectfully to each other would be welcomed again, most assuredly by pro­gres­sives, in the spirit of “true conservatism,” some may call Reaganist style or as pre­scribed by the founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke: “The task of states­men was to main­tain equilibrium between ‘the two principles of conservatism and correc­tion.’ To govern was to engage in perpetual compromise – ‘sometimes between good and evil, and some­times between evil and evil.’ (Inserted: ‘evil’ used as a relative term) In such a scheme there is no useful place for the either/or of ideological purism.” Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post wrote what this might look like within current proposals: The myth of Washington bipartisanship and the art of true compromise. In these principals there is no “black” or “white” but a “gray” where most of the time the truth/resolution may be found – somewhere in the middle.
Seeing Gray Where Faith & Politics Meet is the current study book of a group in our Centenary United Methodist Church. Adam Hamilton, senior pastor of The United Methodist of The Resurrection, adapted this study from his book, Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White: Thoughts on Religion, Morality and Politics. Hamilton brings to critical fo­cus our responsibility as Christians to practice scriptures in a way Jesus teaches; those are the Christians that will “stop being the wedge that divides our nation, and starts acting in­stead as bridge builders and peacemakers that bring an end to the culture wars.” Hamilton says, “Christianity’s next reformation will be led by people who are able to see gray in a world of black and white.” So it will be with our nation: Whether in Christianity’s Fundamentalism or Liberalism beliefs, being conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, Right or left, individually, we must be the difference in-between black and white, conceding our unrelenting, mighty certitude. The boiling pot of rhetoric will be cooled, and the quivering emotional state of man will be calmed.