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)