Political Change

Political change is never easy.  Sometimes there are so-called velvet revolutions where the people in power weigh the risks and simply decide to get out of the way. 

But more times than not, there are demonstrations and protests, followed by riot, terrorist attacks, assassinations and then ultimately, full blown rebellions, revolutions or civil wars.  Add sectarian violence to the mix and you have the chaos that most often brings about significant change. 

A year ago, we had the Arab Spring.  While some longtime leaders fled or accepted house arrest, others fought on, only to face retribution sparked by the anger of their persecuted subjects. 

No one knows how things will play out in Syria.  Bashar Assad is not his father, even if he uses the same tactics.  Whether he can quell a restive population and avoid ouster remains to be seen. 

What other Arab countries are willing to do for the people could influence the outcome, but it could also come down to how many Arab fighters from more than a score of nations opt to join the fray. 
 
In Iran, the Persians in power have their own problems.  Besides a young population weary of the stifling rules of the ayatollahs, there are also outside pressures designed to destabilize the aging regime.The Islamic Revolution was a long time ago, and even still, there are a lot of Iranians inside the country and abroad who wouldn't mind a good dose of western culture. 

In the emirates and kingdoms, there are calls for democracy, women's rights and economic opportunities.  The ruling powerful are rich, but many of the people do not share in the oil and mineral wealth of their countries and are facing high prices and shortages of basic goods. 

When you think about the early years of any nation created or rebuilt following political upheavals the images are the same. Struggle, euphoria, thoughtful efforts at lawmaking, disastisfaction, disillusionment, conflict, destruction, and reconstruction.

In Western Asia, there are nations in varied states of getting there. With so many outcomes now uncertain watchingm waiting and deciding later who to help makes an awful lot of sense.    

Gradual Shakeout

We already know the Democratic presidential candidate will run on his record.     

 The Great Recession ended under his watch, and despite congressional gridlock, the nation's economy is slowly turning around.

Whether the incumbent is opposed by Mitt or Newt, we will hear loads of promises about job creation, lower taxes and increased opportunity. The problem with that is neither has a track record of making that happen.

Selling off the assets of floundering companies may create limited profits, but it does not put people back to work.Instead, people with jobs are declared surplus, and the machines they used to run to turn out products are shipped abroad for use in sweat shops.

Deregulation that makes outsourcing easier takes away the incentives for domestic growth as quickly as raising taxes.  Contract workers cost about one-third less than permanent staffers and have none of the protections of employees.

Luckily, private sector job creation  is up, and first time unemployment claims are down. All the negative ads and campaign talking points in the world cannot change reality.

Consider the Foundations of Your Beliefs

I believe most people are predisposed to be good, social and caring. I don't think it is a naive point of view, because I understand that if people are led to believe that certain outlooks are acceptable, they will adopt that point of view.

When you teach a child, you repeat what you want them to learn again and again, and over time, they repeat it to you. Then you reinforce the image or action with words that best represent the concept and the meaning is imprinted.

This is what has been going on since Nov. 4, 2008. "If we never refer to 'him' as President Obama, he will never really be president."

There are people in this country who have dealt with the last election as though it were a bad dream. They want to believe that since Jan. 20, 2009, there has been no one in the White House and no one running the United States.

This is the fiction that has made it so easy for people named Wilson, Sensenbrenner and Brewer to get headlines over the past few years. Their actions have left lasting impressions, constantly reinforced by angry pundits, writers and in conversations held beyond the earshot or those warranting language that was "politically correct."

One thing Ihave learned in more than 40 years of being in the news business: Headlines make Page One and last forever.  Apologies are buried somewhere beyond page three and never receive the same attention.

I also know that for decades, no one confronting  a sitting president at any event ever got within fingerpointing distance of the leader of the Free World. These types of sad activities will forever change the nature of the U.S. Presidency.

By talking about the physique of the First Lady or suggesting for a moment that Brewer “felt a little bit threatened, if you will, in the attitude that he had,” is to play up to the basest stereotypes of the past.

This is likely to be significant as we head into the election cycle of 2012. Already, Newt Gringrich has been admonished for rattling the sensibilities of our Cubano cousins. I have said in recent days that the basest natures of "Willie Horton racism" will play out in the months ahead.

What I can tell you is that many people have been desensitized to racism and classism since 2008. They have been conditioned to believe that finger pointing, blaming and labeling is natural, normal and acceptable. Perhaps reminding them of what they are willing to accept as truth, could jar them back to reality.

Anger, distrust and resentment have become so ingrained that they are considered, normal and natural.Even as their parents came around to the inequity of those concepts as they existed in the past, perhaps they need to be reminded of the unfairness of it all. Should we have to fight the battles of the last generation again, simply because we are silent?

Inside, if the people accepting all of this believe in Jesus, and the fundamental truth that God created all men equal, can they really believe that anything like this could ever be acts of Christian kindness?

Perhaps there is more than the souls of political parties hanging here in the balance.

All About Jobs

The first ten years of the 21st Century will be remembered as the Decade of the Deep Hole.

After closing out the Clinton era with surpluses, huge job gains and solid consumer confidence, we hit some big bumps.  Besides two long wars and an unbridaled, irrational spending spree for domestic security, there were policy decisions made to neglect the cities, deregulate business and force the poor to find jobs with limited preparation.  Promises from corporate leaders to create jobs at home never happened.

Many of the offshore jobs they provided collapsed when Americans stopped spending and a worldwide recession took hold.  TARP was suggested and passed as a "Hail Mary" play by leaders who noticed the problems much too late.

The remnants of the 20th Century economy were dashed against the rocks.  Sears, Kmart, Pontiac, Merrill Lynch and dozens of other familiar brands either shrank dramatically or disappeared.

My conservative friends often tell me that government cannot create private sector jobs.  But when you think about it, government contracts in the last decade creates and sustained a whole lot of private sector companies.

It would be simplistic and perhaps unfair to blame the world's problems on Bush 43.  Presidents have power, but they are often at the mercy of world events.  President Obama took charge of a sick economy in a troubled world, but I can say "I am better off now than I was four years ago."  That's one question we won't likely hear asked by the opposition this election cycle.
 
The big issue during Campaign 2012 will be jobs: Getting them and keeping them.

Anyone who openly campaigns by saying they "like to fire people" makes me a little more than nervous.  It says to me that they believe in a world where investors have money and power, and workers and families don't matter.

I am all for change, but I think positive change should create opportunities.  We are now in decade two of the 21st Century.  Most of the TARP money has been paid back, more jobs are being created, and Congress is now in full blown campaign mode.

the one hand, we have a president who inherited the playbook mandated by TARP and made the best of it.  He is working against a recalcitrant Congress to offer leadership during a period of unproductive gridlock.

On the other hand you have six guys who have yet to outline any really better ideas.  Besides the guy who sees value in job elimination, there's the primary architect of 1990s welfare reform that never seemed to accomplish his stated goals.

There's another guy who wants to talk about welfare as those it is a "black thing," there's a guy from Utah who appears to be running because he looks presidential. And then there are my friends from Texas.

One has always been a little quirky but when he starts appealing to more than the fringe it stops being a laughing matter.  The other is a governor who doesn't seem to know the difference between a good job in the oil patch and spatula flipping at Whataburger. I think the difference is probably about 35 grand a year.

Let the campaign continue. America is watching, and some Americans are waiting for jobs.

TV: It's Like an Education

Is it just me, or does Newt Gingrich's pragmatic style remind anyone else of Pat Buchanan in the run up to the 1996 campaign?

Say anything with enough conviction and years of too much exposure on a cable news show and you will sound more authoritative than most ordinary politicians.

We'll have to wait and see if GOP voters find much substance in his style.

Greed: Is it a Bad Word?

12/13/

The frontrunners are calling each other greedy. Is it interesting, curious, or just truth in campaigning?