Respect Rights

The freedoms of speech, expression and assembly are very basic in the United States.

They give most if us the liberty to come and go, presumably without fear.  They also prevent police or anyone else from challenging us without cause.

Demonstrations are a way of challenging aspects if the system we may not like.  In many parts of the country, demonstrations ate rare.  In the District of Columbia, they happen everyday.

I have always made my living watching the world, and in the more than 40 years I have done that, I have learned many things.  One of the most memorable is that the causes that send people out into the streets are endless.

I do not have to agree with your cause, and how you express your views, but I respect your right to do it.  Sit-ins, blockades, marches and other forms of protests each have their legitimacy.  That includes things like flag burning, passionate, same sex kisses on the streets, banner-sized photos of aborted fetuses and  wearing hoodies on the floor of the House of Representatives.  

Congress has its rules, and all members know how violations of those rules are handled.  Dress code infractions can lead to removal. Every member of Congress learns that during their orientation. But sometimes actions are taken for the record or as a matter of principle.

Demonstrations are about symbolism.  Arrests go on the record as a commitment to a cause.  Being escorted from the chamber of the House turns up in the congressional record. There are a whole list of symbolic misdemeanor charges and nominal sanctions that can apply to those who cross the line from support to civil disobedience or violations of rules.

Bobby Rush made his point.  His penalty is inconsequential.   Some may condemn his method, but it is likely it was a hit with his constituents. 


In the rest of the country, it is easy to see demonstrations and the necessary security they require as being wastes of the taxpayers' money. In Washington, D.C., it is part of the fabric of America.


This time it is about the tragic loss of a child, last time it was about the cause of the day.

Short List

Let's see, can I say what I think needs to be said in a few short lines?

Presidential wannabes are on the stump selling their vision of an America that once existed:

Women were wives or worked toward being wives and let their husbands and fathers make most decisions.

Racial and ethnic minorities knew "their place" and understood that if they stepped beyond it, no one would be there to keep the punishing rabble away.

The handicapped and disabled sold pencils, made mops, and accepted that because they were different, their needs could not be accommodated.

Those "other religions" were just not something we had to deal with in this country, because we weren't like that.

And people who lived "like that" just kept it quiet and acted like the rest of us when they came around decent people.

The candidates may promise to put "America back the way it was,"  but the genie is out of the bottle.

Making America better is not stepping back to any of the above.

There, less than 200 words.

Enough!

I was in my late 30s when I finally stopped being an automatically suspicious person. Still, my instincts tell me that the best way to encounter armed authorities, particularly after dark is with my driver's side window down and my hands  firmly gripping the steering wheel at 10 and two.

The Trayvon Martin case saddens me, angers me, and troubles me.  A 17-year-old child, dressed like anybody's 12 to 22 year-old child walks toward his house through a subdivision where his parents pay taxes and a mortgage wound up dead.

The 9-1-1 tapes are chilling. You hear a young boy screaming in terror. He is 140 pounds, with a soda and some candy in his pockets and he is walking home. Someone decided he looked like he was up to something and despite appeals from a 9-1-1 operator, chose to go after him in an S-U-V.

This citizen watchman not only decided to confront this child, but felt somehow he had authority to try and grab him, hold him and detain him not far from the presumed safety of his parents home.

We have to assume a struggle took place. Any of us who are parents would expect our children to run from danger in the interest of their survival., When he couldn't get away, he begged the darkness for help. Perhaps he tried in vain to protect himself with defensive maneuvers, even as his child's voice wailed out in terror.

If you have not heard the 9-1-1 tapes from this sordid, sick incident. I encourage you to listen: Trayvon Martin 9-1-1 Call



 They are the sounds of distant witnesses who at least had the human decency to call police. They are also the tragic screams of anybody's child. If you listen you may hear the utterances of disbelief from a boy who could not understand why walking home became the final seconds of his too short life.

Some would try to desensitize a mother's pain by suggesting that this is just another case of street violence. While it is true that young people are die everyday in our cities and some of our suburbs, there are no indications that this was about drugs, or girls or labeled shoes or jewelry or leather jackets or gang violence.

This was not a domey, or a case of "Addidas Up," as i have heard law enforcement officers describe incidents of domestic violence or neighborhood beefs repeatedly over the years.

This was just a kid, headed home, who allegedly ran into the wrong wannabe vigilante. Neighborhood watch people simply watch, they do not drive up as judges, juries and executioners and blow away their neighbors' children.

We have allowed ourselves to be desensitized to so much of the violence and other problems occurring in our own backyards. If our hearts become cold to any parents' pain, then who are we? Could we meet our God with such apathy for the worth of the living and claim for a moment we lived our lives for good?

Too Many Witnesses

Have you noticed that the only presidential candidate really talking about making the nation better is the incumbent?

While there is an awful lot of nonstop campaigning for the Republican nomination going on, the men seeking the nod all like to blather on and on about "taking our country back," or "returning the nation to what the founding fathers intended," or in some way or another "restoring the freedoms we have lost."

But, really, there are too many witnesses who know firsthand about the shortcomings of the past to want that as a future for their children and grandchildren. I am not talking about slavery, sweat shops or child labor.

Those are all documented historic facts reflecting conditions in the United States that were sanctioned as official policy for decades or centuries. Yet, most of the victims of those systems are gone.

I'm talking about protective covenants in housing; glass ceilings and discrimination in hiring, promotions and other personnel matters, funding inequities in education and health care; discretionary law enforcement in cases of rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence and other crimes; racial profiling, lending and finance and the provision of basic services for socially, physically, or economically disadvantaged populations.
 
There are still millions of people alive who can speak first-hand of such injustices.

The founding fathers had the wisdom to ensure that an independent judiciary would have the final say on all constitutional matters.  Federal judges, and by extension, the Supreme Court have the right and the obligation to periodically reexamine laws and issues to determine whether, based upon reason and the times, certain aspects of American life warrant institutional review, revocation or change.

The problem is that freedom and equality have not always meant the same thing in this country. I've written before about property rights, voting rights, and human rights. People are entitled to all of these things whether they agree with you politically, morally, socially or not.

Religious freedom is not just for Christians, Jews and Muslims, it's also for Buddhists, Wiccans and Satanists.  Local standards and majority customs cannot define who can participate nor can any group force any individual to keep their own beliefs silent in the interests of not offending the majority.

Public education is not just for the gifted, the average and the able-bodied. It is something that is supposed to be universally offered and provided. Yet, more times than not, the courts or advocates have to fight tooth and nail to make sure that some children have access to the programs and services they need.

Women are still fighting for the right to maintain control over when and if they become pregnant, even as some would deny them the choice of whether to become parents.  We are taught that women have the right to say no and expect it to mean no. Now, some politicians are saying "I don't think so." 

Equal access in the job market remains a real challenge for many.  Growing numbers of men and women have learned during the Great Recession that the playing field is not level, and age, race, body type, sexual orientation and other factors can mean the difference between getting or keeping a job, and waiting for calls that never come.

Those who would seek to reign in courts, deregulate business, and limit the rights of the small to challenge the mighty do not offer a free and equal world. Instead they offer an America stripped of many of the protections that have gradually shifted us toward being a nation of greater universal freedoms.

They also promise their would be supporters a future they envision that those who have ever lived with the indignity of exclusion simply cannot allow. If justice is not blind, it is good to have laws and courts to offer her guidance.

 

A More Perfect Union

Before the American Revolution people on the colonies would speak of the rights of Englishmen.

The great leap the founding fathers were willing to make with the U.S. Constitution was support of a paternalistic system that did not deem property as the great legitamizer for voting and other privileges.

Germans, Scots, some French, free Africans and varied people of mixed races gained their rights by helping to create this nation.

Still, it took more than a century for women to constitutionally evolve to full personhood. It has taken twice as long for various ethnic, racial, religious and immigrant minorities to approach that status, and for many, it remains an elusive goal.

You do not hear many people who appreciate egalitarian ideals talking about class struggles, reigning in the courts, or restrictions of hard fought and hard won rights.  People who remember being ignored, structurally underserved, and socially subordinated to the privileged do not look back on those times fondly.

The Irish rose out of their service in the Civil War. Women gained theirs through suffrage movements over 50 years, and grew it through liberating actions of the 20th Century. Italians and various Eastern Europeans emerged from  two World Wars with a bit more of it. Jews gained it through horror, hardship and determination.

Negros who became African-Americans and then just black, native Americans from Florida to Texas and New York to Alaska, Asian and Latin American immigrants and the disabled are still fighting for the incremental gains that lead to it. As are those of  those of nontraditional sexual orientations.

I'm talking about the basic right to be an American. It represents full citizenship .The total sum of rights and privileges that add up to no one attempting to limit your opportunities based upon bigotry, professed gender superiority, or other absurd traditions.

If what once was, conceptually represents something unfair, that should never be resurrected.

I cannot imagine my daughters or granddaughters living under the system my mother or grandmothers were forced to accept.  I do not want any of my young people, male or female,  to work in an economy where standing is determined by color, familial relationships or social association.

I won't embrace a time when contraception availability was a political or religious choice decided almost exclusively by men.

So-called social conservatives often speak of returning the nation to how it once was.  What they seem to desire is a vision of America where the will of a fortunate few is foisted on the many.

America's freedoms continue to evolve. Looking backward to a romanticized past does not mean more freedoms for all. Instead, it is a false hopes that somehow, conforming to the visions of a privileged few.

Anyone who thinks back to the pain of those who had to fight for rights and basic freedoms cannot possibly embrace that vision. America moves ahead and gets better as it evolves, those who long for the past want something that is not good for the rest of us.

Policies and  laws limiting any of us, deprive each and every one of us.That is the true and real threat to our freedoms and our democracy. It is not about returning America to anything it once was, it is really about a future no freedom loving person in their rational mind could ever truly want for themselves or for anyone else.

One Dangerous World

War, terrorism, political famines, acts of God and random crimes. We live in a very dangerous world.

But even if we have to be on guard, most of us still try to live.

No one can know when they could get caught up in events where their very survival will be on the line.

You can drive defensively ans still be involved in a crash; you can eyeball all 150 people who board a crowded train car and still become a victim of collateral damage when and if something happens; you cannot make a storm change course by the force of your will.

But you can decide to live without fear.

For most of my young life I knew governments, the United States, the Soviet Union and others, could blow up the world.

Today the talk about limited nuclear war. Some extremely well armed countries are dealing with internal strife that could spiral into civil wars.

Who ultimately will control their weapons or keep up with their technology is anybody's guess.

We live in a very dangerous world, and while I may think about it, I am much too busy living life to worry about all the possibilities. 

Perhaps we will be here to see tomorrow, but maybe not.

What Exactly Do They Mean

There are huge differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

Fiscal conservatives often whine about domestic spending.  Public education, taxpayer supported health care, job training and economic development are generally bad ideas.

Social conservatives talk a lot about freedoms even as they try to force their views on the rest of us.

They want to peek inside your doctor's office and dictate what services you can get.  They want to put certain material into the classrooms and revise textbooks to eliminate realities they find objectionable.  They want to look into your bedroom and tell you who and how to love. 

Some of those desires may seem peculiar or invasive, even to people who live really dull lives.  But social conservatives are scary for other reasons.

All this talk about returning America to the values that the founding fathers intended. They draw their loudest applause when they talk about restoring, not creating, freedoms we've enjoyed in the past. They contend these things were never intended by the founding fathers.


They insist they love the U.S. Constitution, yet they object or condemn some of its most wonderful tenets.  They consider the role of the federal judiciary, by its very mandate, charged with interpreting the constitutionality of federal laws, reactionary and warranting restrictions and greater controls.


The question numerous pieces of legislation designed to ensure constitutional protections for all parties, both citizen and visitor. And they lament actions taken by Congress and affirmed by majorities of the legislatures of the states which alter the laws of the land and grow our Constitution as a living document.

When they talk about returning the nation to some unidentified past, what do they they really mean? Could it be they want a time when most if not all supervisors and people of power were white and male?

Are they seeking a time when women of any color or nationality had no real power and even their rights to property were based upon the whims of their fathers or husbands? Do they long for a time when immigrants, documented or not, were subject to exploitation and had few opportunities to seek relief in the courts?


Perhaps they wish to return to those times when law abiding people of varied backgrounds could be denied their franchise or dispossessed because of their race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, physical impairment or sexual orientation?


The danger here is that no one ever really explains what they mean when people considered the most promising conservative politicians start waxing nostalgically about the values of the past.  That's scary!

Opportunity in America is far less exclusive than it was even a few short years, and definitely a couple of decades ago. What may be the good old days for some seems like a return to a past with limited choices for a heck of a lot of Americans.

Out of Touch with Our Times

If you've grown up in a world of Pell Grants, student loans, veterans' benefits and getting shots from public health clinics, it tends to impact your world view.

People who have dealt with the hard realities of layoffs, unemployment, no health insurance and paychecks that don't stretch between pay days have reason to be very concerned about their survival.

The older ones know the younger ones are trying to make it in a world where the rules have been dramatically changed.

If a company fills out its staff with contractors or part-time rs, it doesn't need to think about benefits.  That means no unemployment insurance, health care, vacations, paid holidays or workers' compensation coverage. 

Experts say that can save a firm as much as 30 percent of the cost of a permanent full-time employee. A lot of us know good young people who work two and three part-time jobs to feed their families.

We also know good older people who work everyday and should be seeing doctors. Some of them have no benefits so they just ignore aches, pains and chronic conditions.

Some of us remember the taste of government cheese, white label peanut butter and powdered milk.  If those surplus products were part of your diet, you were glad to get them and scraped out the last drab or crumbs.

We now have a guy who wants to lead the nation who says the very poor have a "safety net."  He says he's not concerned about them or the very rich because, "they are doing quite well."

Many of us, down here in the middle, see the poor a lot differently. You know-- the good people who volunteer at food banks or soup kitchens, or have their homes open to family or friends caught up in an economic struggle created by their times.

Moderate, liberal or conservative, we are a huge part of that safety net.  We're also the cheerleaders, motivators and caregivers who often encourage the hardest hit to stay out there and keep pluggin' away to make things better. We are very concerned about the poor!

I can say that and include some conservatives in the mix because I believe many of them are torn. They may absorb a lot of the harsh rhetoric throughout the week, but they show up on an evening or a weekend and make the sandwiches and sort the clothing for the poor with their preachers. Even they will concede that caring for "those with the least among us" are the virtues they believe they should exhibit for righteous redemption.


Politics and religion in this country are so entwined these days that it is often easy to drown out the cries for justice and compassion. Singular issues come to define believers and nonbelievers for political purposes and reaching out to believers often means denying the humanity and moral worth of those who disagree.

 Right now we have one side attempting to sell the idea that all the poor are "those people." It is a way of saying "they are not us." 

A man who wants to be president says he "likes to fire people," and he wins the endorsement of a wealthy clown who fires people for entertainment purposes on a made-for TV-version of "You Screwed Your Life!"


You also have another guy who is third in line to presidency. He says 'let the housing decline run its course and find its on level,' then we will know where the real market is." He cries often, but would he shed a tear for families losing homes and hope in the worst economic downturn since Herbert Hoover?

Many of the conservatives in Congress who come from truly modest means would destroy the very programs they depended on to provide their escapes from classic blue collar, working class roots.

They would deny housing, health care, and educational opportunities to the poor and leave it up to business to make life better. Business does what is profitable, and encouraging human potential is always more costly than watching coldly as the strongest claw their way to the top.

Play to Win

Some people play politics with a deep understanding of the rules.  They know the differences between what is illegal and just fundamentally immoral.

They are more than happy to mobilize an army of lawyers to defend any and all questionable behavior.  They will vote early by the thousands to be available to watch polling places targeted solely because they are strongholds of their political opposition.  The goal here is voter suppression undertaken under the guise of "discouraging fraud."

There are many other techniques used to reduce participation in elections by many who have the most to lose by staying home.  Challenging the benefits of motor voter laws; Repeating the often wrong idea that convicted felons lose their voting rights forever; phoney flyers and leaflets; misleading robo-calls, and outrageous commercials and ads paid for with soft money from distant SuperPacs.

Then there are the legislative measures designed to carve out political advantages thru redistricting. It often takes years to sort these things out, and in the interim, stays often allow elections to take place "to maintain access to full participation" while the matters are resolved.

A friend suggested recently that we consider registering as independents in large numbers so we could choose unelectable candidates in the opposition's primary.  While that is legal, it is also under the heading of dirty tricks.

Richard Nixon manipulated an election 40 years ago.  12 years ago, lawyers found allies in the Florida courts and we wound up with eight years of Bizarre World non-leadership.

In 2012, you can bet that every tactic listed above will be used by candidates and their supporters committed to winning at any costs.

More than one million black men of voting age, perhaps eight percent of the population have been removed from the coting roles due to felony convictions.  What many do not know is that once they serve their time and complete any court ordered supervision, they could be eligible to have their voting rights restored. Challenged by poll watchers and election judges.

I'm very sensitive about voting rights. Perhaps it is because I remember relatives who could not vote because of poll taxes, literacy tests and other games that were totally legal before 1964, and survived out in the countryside into well into the 1970s.

Because I am pushing 60, I expect my generation to show some guidance and leadership on this issue. We remember the fight for voting rights firsthand. many of us went to college or spent time in military service in areas where we could not vote locally. We also know first-hand the dangers of having no political power in places where we have to survive.

So, giving some thought to the dangers of dirty tricks, I've got a few suggestions:

1) Talk often to anyone and everyone above the age of 17 about the importance of being registered to vote in time for the primaries in your state, or at least in time for the general election.

2) Understand the rules for franchise reinstatement in your state, and be able to explain them to any friend, relative, or runnin' dawg of your children or grandchildren's who may have had a fall in the past and may not know they could be eligible to have their voting rights restored.

3) Stick voter registration cards (available in most libraries, every department of motor vehicles office, and at your city hall and county courthouse) in the glove compartment or console of every vehicle you own, pay insurance on, or make the payments for. Ladies, get in the habit of carrying a dozen in your purse and men, stick three or four in your pocket because you never know when someone might need one.

4) Talk about politics as much as you talk about sports, reality T-V shows, the latest jam, or who's got the best deal on purses or hair. If you've got a church family, and your pastor is not active in civic affairs, talk about politics over social dinners. Commit to getting people fired up about local, national and world affairs one at a time, and touch different people each week or month to make a difference.

Even if you know you can count on them to vote for your presidential candidate, tell them who is running for Congress or your state legislative district. Tell them why they deserve your votes and tell them why the other guy could cause problems for their families and your neighborhood.

5) Don't accept the negative: Even if you do not say "all politicians are crooks, they are all crooks." Remember that can become an excuse for tuning out the whole process.

We know and remember so many people who voted for bigots and even campaigned for candidates they knew would do absolutely nothing to make their lives better. They did all of that because they knew there were even worse bigots and insensitive SOBs laying in the cut trying to seize as much power as possible.

Family members we respected cast their ballots holding our hands in the voting booths and never talked about the weaknesses of the people they voted for. They did it out of hope for better futures for us and our children. Many of us have known politicians who are not crooks. Consider the danger of accepting the fallacy that they all are.

6) Volunteer: You don't have to walk, or even show up at a phone bank anymore. Commit to sending a dozen e-mails, pass on an issues paper, or spend a few minutes talking to a grandchild and their friends about the importance of participation. Do any of those things and you can chalk them up to honoring the generations that fought and died to make those things possible. 

A friend says I live and breathe politics. That's not exactly true. For many years I dealt with politics as a trained observer. While people speak about the "liberal media," I can tell you that there are thousands of professionals covering politics every day who check their personal opinions at the door each day before they do their jobs. It is never easy, but their livelihoods depend upon watching and listening and reporting only what they observe without shading it in any direction.

I can tell you that lots of dumb things happen during political campaigns. Still, most newspeople do not go out of their ways to derail anybody's aspirations for high office.  I do not live and breathe politics. I just have a good idea of what can happen when people tune out, or fail to tune in early enough to really make a difference.

The Nation Needs Great Works

"When more and more people are thrown out of work , unemployment results."-- Calvin Coolidge, U.S. President, 1923-1929

 

Those words made headlines in the Roaring Twenties, they were uttered by a committed deregulator in an era when irrational exuberance dominated the mood of investors, large and small.  Did I mention that the quote came shortly before the Wall Street Crash that led to the Great Depression?

(Photo By: Debra Davis-Holly)

I had really good history teachers in school and my love of the subject has helped me during more than 40 years as a journalist. While the technology changes from one era to the next, many of the problems are basically the same.  

Lessons Learned: When you turn the nation's future over to business, you roll the dice with leaders who are only accountable to their major stockholders. If things don't work out, a lot of little people lose out. 

 

Over the next nine months, we will hear a lot about freeing up business to create jobs and put Americans back to work. I'd love to see more jobs and more Americans working, but the people talking about that don't have real track records of creating good, permanent private sector jobs here at home.  

I'm not talking about part-time positions with no benefits, and I am definitely not talking about contract opportunities that pay by the day and leave workers twisting in the wind on taxes, unemployment insurance and healthcare.

 

Yes, lots of people need jobs, but the Great Recession has ended. Banks that were on the ropes are stabilizing and big manufacturing is rebounding. General Motors is once again the number one manufacturer of automobiles,  less than four years after a government bailout. Most of the Troubled Asset Relief Program funds have been paid back, but there's still a lot of work to be done, and much of that work could be projects literally right in your own backyards.

Drive through your community, or most any community in the nation, and you will see the results of bold infrastructure projects begun or completed as a result of public investment with the help of private labor. 

Examples? The interstate Highway System,  most major commercial airports, courthouses, schools, canals, ports, railroads, bridges, tunnels and water and sewage systems.

Photo By: Derrill Holly

When we have not invested in such things, the nation has suffered. When the world economy has stalled, those projects, financed by debt have kept people working and kept the nation moving forward.  They are productive pursuits that reap huge public benefits and tangible results.

Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were builders. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and two guys named Bush were not.  

 

My conservative friends will note that this is a bipartisan list. It includes visionaries who saw value in using the nation's infrastructure needs to put idle people to work. It also includes a number of "stand patters" who saw no need to modernize. One group looked ahead and the other sought savings that now clearly were not reinvested in the nation's future.

There are obviously no guarantees in life, but if business leaders-- you know, the ones throwing all of  that money into Super PACs-- aren't ready to hire Americans for full-time permanent jobs, I just don't see giving them the reins to the future.

By Any Means Necessary

A lot of us are in the habit of carrying voter registration applications around with us.  We give them to people who may not be registered or may have changed residences since the last election.

Maybe we should take the time to talk about things like voter intimidation and other dirty tricks they may encounter when they head to the polls.  Some people take politics that seriously.

They will lie about their opponents and smile while claiming their motivations are for the good of the country.  If people will destroy jobs to make money, blame the problems of the nation on "those people" and repeatedly desert sick wives for younger women, do you think they won't cheat you out of a vote against them?

Caucus results from eight precincts in Iowa are missing and will likely never be found.  Black people are being labeled as the prime recipients of food stamps even though only 22 percent of the recipients are black. 

If a man abandons sick wives, do you think he'll have much problem ignoring sick and suffering strangers? Then, there are the candidates who would use the courts to force their way onto ballots they neglected to qualify for.

Voter registration is only the beginning, voter education is the rest of the story.  When you talk to would be voters, encourage them to join the fight, then let them know there are people out there working everyday to keep them away from the polls.

Where Will the Money Go?

Mitt Romney is filthy rich.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.  But it appears there are huge differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.  One type is preoccupied with tax policy, deregulation and spending as little on the public as possible. The other often wants government to define, restrict or codify its beliefs. 

While so-called liberal Democrats provide the muscle and the people to get their candidates elected, the liberal leadership understands that there is no money without the progressive wing of the party.  Wealthy Republicans have always been able to count on the party to ensure that a relatively moderate speaking candidate survives to carry the party's standard. 

This time, you have Romney seeking the nomination against several remaining candidates that many believe appeal to social conservatives. 

Romney is being branded with the "L" word.  The man believes corporations are people and admits to getting a rush from firing folks. 

Some wealthy Republicans believe he might be good for business.  They are reportedly not too clear about the prospects for candidates who would spend too much time on issues like civil unions, abortion, and creationism. 

When you think about the last ten Republican presidential nominees, win or lose, none of them did much to change national policy on those issues. From Eisenhower through McCain, not much was said or done beyond the lip service to the language in the party platform.

So, how much money will fiscal conservatives be willing to spend on those sideshow issues?  My guess is not very much with any enthusiasm if they think it is bad for business. 

South Carolina may be the battleground for now, but don't look for it to be the final meaningful battle.  Those with the deepest pockets are now fighting for the heart and soul of the Grand Old Party. If Romney cannot pull off a slam dunk, you can bet Republicans with money will try to bring a voice of reason to the nomination fight.

Wait for it, WAIT FOR IT... “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." --Barry Goldwater, July 16, 1964

The preceding quote helped make The Great Society possible.

Lawyers Can't Do Everything

Lawyers have had a role in elections for decades, but ever since the presidential election of 2000, their role has been totally blown out of proportion.

For many years, they have been on hand to help ensure voting rights, for at least ten years, they have been stationed at polling places to discourage voting.  Assertive speech and accusations can chill the participation of some voters who don't particularly trust the legal process.

Now, some candidates who somehow never got around to building basic political organizations, have been trying to use lawyers to force their way onto the ballots in several states.

Even when people traveled by wagon and coach, somehow they managed to build support across the country to give themselves a shot at winning their parties' nominations. 

To circumvent the basics of politics is an insult to those who dedicate their time and resources to the system. Voters show up on election day, policy wonks and party activists move from one election cycle to the next with only a few days off. They are the people who prepare the nation for elections yet to come.

Everything from poll challengers to paid canvassers and court petitions designed to challenge qualification requirements are measures aimed at corrupting the system. It is sad that respect for the process has been tossed on the trash heap.

It's doubtful I will add to this blog this weekend. I will be celebrating the Martin Luther King Holiday weekend. For those of us who are passionate about civil rights, it commemorates something very special.  As I wrote this week in a basic tweet, "Nothing changes a person's mind about #civil_rights protections more quickly than having theirs #violated."

This is something many of my conservative friends don't seem to understand. Many of my other friends are of a generation that still remembers life without basic #equal_protections.

This is what makes the  #MLK_holiday and the memorial on the National Mall so important.

It took court rulings to force the issue of equal protection in commerce and accomodations. Then Congress wrote laws codifying it to remove the ambiguity for the public. And in the intervening years, the people have gradually come to accept the basic fairness of what the law requires.

I will leave challenging the basic nature of conservative ideology for another day, but I will leave you with this thought. 

If the ethos of America is the equal value of each of its people, then why rail against any laws passed with intent to ensure equal protection? Is it not human nature that keeps each man or woman from being measured equally?

The Business of Governing

While you can try to run a nation like a family, you really can't run one like a business.  The motivations are different.

Families take care of each other.  They recognize strengths and weaknesses and act with empathy on behalf of members in need.  They also keep a place for the rowdy and disagreeable even when it's not easy.

 Businesses try to make a profit. Now there's nothing wrong with profits, but often getting there means neglecting the weak and casting off the disagreeable.  Anybody whose ever worked for a company or in an industry forced to change its business model knows the drill.

"We are downsizing... it's a business decision."  One way businesses have prospered in recent years is to absorb struggling firms, sell off what doesn't work, compromise the old pension plan and contract out production.  "We'll keep the brand, but slap the nameplates on something we made overseas."

Running the nation like a business is a scary approach.  Can you imagine selling off Cleveland, or Buffalo, or St. Louis just because aging urban centers are no longer profitable?

Coming out of the Great Depression, people did not have a lot of faith in bankers. They also expected businesses to change.  Very little of the change that followed was voluntary.

Much of the New Deal wound up before the Supreme Court. While everything the president came up with did not work. Those things that did, have worked well for more than sixty years.

I'm not ready to trust a banker. I also do not want to see the country run like a business.  That kind of mandate could lead to some very good people being declared surplus.

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.

Wild Cards

In 2012, grassroots activism could carry American politics into uncharted territory.  It may turn out that Tea Partiers and Occupiers are opposite sides of the same coin.   The question is, does either major party or any candidate really know these people?

Can these very diverse groups, with their smorgasbord of causes, actually deliver the votes they need to bring about the changes they seek? 

When we roll the video on what some are calling the "Age of New Activism" what will the story be?  Will it be one of class struggle or selfish individualism.  Will the nation and its leaders claim that individual rights can exist without guarantees or protections? Will we ignore the role the courts effectively play in balancing the rule of law? 

No revolution was ever decided by moderates.  In this case, we have lots of choices among the radicals.  But I have to wonder, "Who are these people, what do they stand for and what do they really believe."

There Will Be Blood

 

“Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican. Henceforth, if any Republican has a grievance against another, that grievance is not to be bared publicly.” Gaylord Parkinson, Chairman of the California State Republican Party-- 1965 

Six men are running for the Republican presidential nomination. They are now in New Hampshire and looking ahead to South Carolina. 

Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were fond of using variations of the Parkinson quote I  used today. 

Political campaigns used to be civil and even cordial, because politics used to be considered a gentleman's game.

Now, it is a no-holds-barred, free for all between small men with huge egos who are desperate to claw their way up from the bottom.  

The talk on the campaign trail is expected to get nasty, and the ads we are likely to see in the coming weeks may be  filled with charges and counter charges as hopefuls struggle for the spirit of the Grand Old Party. 

Republicans like to call themselves the party of Abe Lincoln. It appears that they are not even the party of Ronald Reagan anymore.

Anal Anger

I urge you to tune in for 15 minutes to the conservative diatribes, character assassinations and spin control orbiting little nuggets of the news. It will give you a reality check and may explain why the most anal, nasty, raisin-hearted individuals you cross paths with always seem angry.

For 1158 days, a cast of assorted characters has been incessantly wailing away at Barack Obama.  They rant about his birth certificate, insult his wife and then apologize, and completely ignore the reality of his lineage.

I won’t say that it is a 24/7 thing. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I would suggest that they take a Sabbath off from time to time.  But for nearly 243,000 hours there have been numerous angry people ranting about the current president and Democrats and independents who disagree with their outlook. 

Someone you work with, or someone you know has been buying into this crap day after day, week after week, and ingesting it hours at a time. They have been hearing from angry voices railing against what they believe is a seditious and conspiratorial threat against everything they hold sacred.

They have been spoon fed and force fed terms like “Utopiast,” “radical left-wing liberal,” “redistributors of wealth,” and other assorted labels that essentially mean “they disagree with us.”

Many of these people have accepted a constant diet of this for upwards of three years. It began when President Obama won election in 2008 and has intensified since then. I have been listening the last few days, and I can say without any doubt that there is not a bare space open and ready to receive a less strident perspective.

There are no comparable voices from a more moderate outlook. Perhaps it is because nobody can sound that angry day after day after day.  It is easy to imagine hearing this for so long and having your body lock up from the adrenaline rush. 

The results are either the most intense headache, or a feeling of fullness so extreme it makes you grind your teeth.

Now think about it? In your life, whether it is at work, or in your personal life, is there someone you know who has just bought into all the partisan labels? Are they so negative that they mutter and parrot all the claims that any American president is so dead-set on destroying the country that they would make it a matter of his national policy?

For them, it’s far too late for a chill pill. They may not even respond to a good laxative. Some of them have not had any ideological relief in nearly four years. They are locked up and bloated with impacted outlooks.

Let’s hope they go soon. If they don’t and things do not go their way Nov. 6, they may well explode. Then, we may ask the remnants of the Tea Party to clean up the mess. 

On to New Hampshire

Well, Michelle Bachman found out that the people of Iowa weren't buying what she's been selling.

Now there are five men running for the Republican nomination. By this time next week we could be down to four. John Huntsman could be the next to go, despite a big newspaper endorsement  from the Boston Globe aimed at boosting his support in the Granite State.

We could see some nastiness in the days ahead. Newt Gingrich will calmly look into the cameras and say it is necessary for the good of the country. If he says it with a straight enough face, he may not come off mean-spirited. Question is, will it sway enough support from Mitt Romney to make any ultimate difference.

Rick Perry is looking beyond New Hampshire to South Carolina. He could limp into the Palmetto State hoping for a boost.

Ron Paul? Look for him to remain the choice of mischief voters. He will continue to glean support from those who find the whole game of presidential politics amusing.

And Rick Santorum? It is a big country. Can his pandering to the conservative wing of the Republican Party be calm enough to woo a consensus? Iowa is over and now he has to pull some numbers in real primaries.

Early primaries can be fun to watch.

On a side note: Getting on the ballot is as grassroots as political gets. While some may hire canvassers to collect signatures for ballot initiatives, should anybody really hire people to gather 10,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot in Virginia or anywhere else?

You set up an organization, you inspire volunteers and you work the streets. Money can't buy happiness. And in the Commonwealth of Virginia it apparently can't buy enough valid petition signatures. Hiring lawyers to  try and override ta 100 year-old process is not going to sit well with some of Virginia's Republican Party Faithful.

I've been saying that it is important to hear what the other side believes, so, on the way home, I have started tuning in for about 15 minutes of conservative talk radio. Gotta see what the angry white male are ranting about tonight. Get to know the opposition well enough and the surprise just won't matter.

Let's Play

Action Gaming


How about we invite everybody we know to play this multimedia electronic game.  Everybody has a shot at battling people they know or total strangers clear across the country. 

We get to follow anyone of several assorted characters as they pursue a great and noble quest.  We get to join them in epic struggles for wondrous prizes that will help them along the way.  We can help plan strategies, raise treasures and recruit allies to great causes. 

We can fight off loud and angry demons, expose deceit and from time to time, join huge crowds in cheering for our champions.  We can also challenge wealthy evil interests whose greed might leave us weak? 

Does that sound like something you've seen your kids play or you've been playing on the game machine or computer?  Is it the kind of thing they play for hours and hours in the middle of the night? 

Well, this is not a game you'll find on the rack at your favorite big box store.  It's actually pretty old.  Some of us have been playing it for years, and at least every four years we get a bunch of new characters added to keep it all interesting. 

The game is called U-S Presidential Politics. The 2012 edition is coming to a state near you very soon.  Now's the time to get in the game.  You can join the fun long before Nov. 6. 

Get in the game as soon as you can and whatever you do, bring along your whole posse.  The future of the free world is at stake, and the outcome could depend on you.