I've asked the question in several places why the Moderate movements isn't getting more press coverage, even though the majority of voters now state they don't align with the extreme voices in the major parties. If the centrist view -- or at least the non-extreme view -- is beginning to catch on among rank-and-file voters, why isn't there more coverage?
After extensive consideration, the answer may be Reality TV There is a reason why reality television shows don't ever show rational, emotionally healthy behaving like civilized adults: because ratings would plummet. We've all read the stories about how show-runners try to stir up emotions and goad participants into tirades and difficult situations, then edit out anything that doesn't bring a dramatic climax and/or fist-fight.
This is not to say that reality TV is necessarily to blame, but is definitely an indicator of our current situation.
There is a little-known reality cooking show called Top Chef Master, which -- in its first couple of seasons, at least -- featured mature, experienced chefs. It was one of the very few shows I watched, because the show featured grown-ups collaborating and competing at the same time, helping each other out, and communicating with professionalism and courtesy. It was thoroughly refreshing.
Having cut the cord a couple of years ago, interest in TV in general has been lost for me. Looking for the show online, its not on the network's main menu anymore. Meanwhile, there are still 8.. EIGHT Real Housewives shows. While I don't watch much TV anymore, I read extensively from a variety of news sites, and from the growing number of moderate opinion sites, from which I get my media information, and hence draw these conclusions.
The 24-hour cable news industry is dominated by the need for viewership. That's why Trump gets exponential coverage on cable news compared to Sanders. Like him or hate him, Trump gets viewers, and the cable news networks know it. So when imagining Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow, or especially any Fox News parrot, trying to interview a Moderate advocate, one can hear the sound of thousands of remotes clicking..
The fact is, moderate and centrist dialogue isn't good for ratings, because to really get to the heart of any centrist-moderate-independent policy issue requires details, facts, data, explanation, depth, and most of all, t-i-m-e, with absolutely no taglines or slogans. We don't use three-syllable slogans to outline our views -- "tax and spend," "cut and run," etc. -- which doesn't translate into the riveting TV that networks strive for. Most cable news segments are just a couple of minutes, and even the Sunday morning news shows have to offer some draw, despite the lowered volume of the dialogue.
Imagine a moderate-centrist "McLaughlin Group" type of show, where someone says, in a civil tone, "I'm not sure I agree with that view, and I ask your indulgence to explain why." Would this show ever, e-v-e-r get air time?
Most voters seem to want easy options and solutions. Don't burden them with too many policy options for any particular issue, and by all means do not attempt to discuss the full range of issues a President, or Senator, or Congressional Representative really has to deal with.
Take foreign policy for example. Most voters don't want to consider that maintaining good relations with other nations, even our closest partners, is incredibly complex, requiring depth of knowledge, ability to discern nuance, cultural sensitivity, firm grasp of international law -- and numerous other areas of understanding. The current batch of GOP presidential candidates want to say, "All we need to do is __________." This is simplistic approaching idiocy, but these types of statements resonate with the people they are attempting to attract.
They are simple, they are black and white, they are "us versus them." And too many voters want that. But there is hope. There is a growing number of internet content dedicated to moderate-centrist politics and dialogue. There are a growing number of Twitter tweeters sharing articles and updates. And there is growing data showing more voters are leaving the two major parties and seeking an alternative.
This blog discussed before the need for a centrist party, but also of the difficulty of attempting to meld a huge number of disparate, but respectful, viewpoints into a single party platform. I've suggested we might need a charismatic and eloquent voice to lead the movement. Upon further review, I'm not sure anymore. I like that we are so diverse in opinion, and can share differing views. But then again, I don't watch reality TV.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Monday, December 28, 2015
Can a Centrist Movement be Unified?
As the year winds down, 2015 seemed to be the Year of the Extreme, at least to me. Extremist views seem to have become the norm, with inflammatory rhetoric and outright lies becoming not just accepted but embraced by candidates' supporters, and this is not just limited to GOP candidates. Bernie and Hillary both have had their share of fact-checked statements discredited.
While I would love to see 2016 become the year that logic, reason, data, facts, and truth return to our political culture and dialogue, you and I know that possibility is slim, if existent at all. Supporters for both Trump and Cruz -- they are the best examples -- take everything their candidates say as gospel truth, and criticize the critics who dare to question their candidates' statements. It doesn't matter how outside the realm of probability that statement is, or how far removed from confirmation with actual data, if someone disagrees, its because they are a part of the "establishment." (The rise of the low-information voter will be a subject of future writings.)
To me, we need a united movement of Centrists, but I honestly wonder if that is even possible, for the following reasons:
1. From my observations and own experience, Centrists tend to adopt their political opinions completely independently, and not because the same statement is repeated ad nauseum over various broadcast and cable media.
2. People who don't feel the need to belong to any group will likely not need to join this one, either. Being able to act and think independently takes a certain measure of self-worth and self-identification. This issue could be our Achilles' heel.
3. The range of opinions within this broad circle will likely diverge much farther than anything either of the major parties will see. This would cause the construction of any kind of a political platform to require significant discussion, lively debate, and in the end, compromise. That, in turn, requires us to reveal if we can truly act according to our words.
4. There are more Centrists emerging within the parties, and data shows this. But, I believe, those voters would prefer to remain under that canopy, even if others are moving that canopy further in a particular direction. Maybe they don't see a need for a middle canopy, or they just aren't ready yet to step out into the bright sun of a million ideas to help construct something new in the Center.
5. Lastly, I believe this effort requires some kind of a unifying voice, theme, or charismatic representative, willing to be hit with all the verbal punches that would ensue. Ted Cruz, for example, calls us the "mushy middle," although he may have been referring to Donald Trump's beltline, or his own. There will certainly be far worse insults hurled at us should these efforts appear on the national media radar.
While I initially saw some light at the end of the tunnel with better-known efforts such as "No Labels" and the Bipartisan Policy Center, upon further review, I'm less enthusiastic. These organizations actually have funding and have been able to draw some notable former legislators to their non-partisan events, but it seems disingenuous since, while in office, these legislators were as partisan as anyone else. Having since retired, or been beaten, they suddenly believe in crossing the aisle to shake hands? I doubt it. I'm fine seeing someone like Jon Huntsman participate, but people like Trent Lott and Eric Cantor cause these efforts to lose credibility, in my view.
This needs to be a grassroots effort, an a-c-t-u-a-l grassroots effort, not just one called that by well-funded organizations. I know you're out there, I see you on Twitter every day. We're like the many cars jammed on a freeway, all heading in the same general direction. It would be so much faster if we all just got on a train together or rented a few buses, and we would get where we want so much faster. But we like having our own car, where we can pick the music, and can choose on our own if we want to change lanes or stop and get some coffee.
I once had a journalism professor in college state very clearly to never use the words, "the time has come for..." in any kind of editorial piece, because, one could easily argue, the time has come for just about anything. And up until now, I have adhered to that instruction. However...
The time has come for us to come together and get in this fight. We need to raise awareness and let people know that we are here; that we don't like what the parties are offering; that we believe inflammatory rhetoric and demagoguery are not constructive towards creating sound policy that benefits all Americans; that sound policy only results from research, data, and a thorough sifting of facts from lies.
I consider it a fight, one that will be ugly. You have encountered some of the internet trolls already, who are incapable of having a rational discussion on issues, but are well-armed with ridiculous words like "libtard." And heaven help anyone who becomes a target on cable news or AM radio.
But if we don't engage collectively, then are we just confirming what the critics say?
While I would love to see 2016 become the year that logic, reason, data, facts, and truth return to our political culture and dialogue, you and I know that possibility is slim, if existent at all. Supporters for both Trump and Cruz -- they are the best examples -- take everything their candidates say as gospel truth, and criticize the critics who dare to question their candidates' statements. It doesn't matter how outside the realm of probability that statement is, or how far removed from confirmation with actual data, if someone disagrees, its because they are a part of the "establishment." (The rise of the low-information voter will be a subject of future writings.)
To me, we need a united movement of Centrists, but I honestly wonder if that is even possible, for the following reasons:
1. From my observations and own experience, Centrists tend to adopt their political opinions completely independently, and not because the same statement is repeated ad nauseum over various broadcast and cable media.
2. People who don't feel the need to belong to any group will likely not need to join this one, either. Being able to act and think independently takes a certain measure of self-worth and self-identification. This issue could be our Achilles' heel.
3. The range of opinions within this broad circle will likely diverge much farther than anything either of the major parties will see. This would cause the construction of any kind of a political platform to require significant discussion, lively debate, and in the end, compromise. That, in turn, requires us to reveal if we can truly act according to our words.
5. Lastly, I believe this effort requires some kind of a unifying voice, theme, or charismatic representative, willing to be hit with all the verbal punches that would ensue. Ted Cruz, for example, calls us the "mushy middle," although he may have been referring to Donald Trump's beltline, or his own. There will certainly be far worse insults hurled at us should these efforts appear on the national media radar.
While I initially saw some light at the end of the tunnel with better-known efforts such as "No Labels" and the Bipartisan Policy Center, upon further review, I'm less enthusiastic. These organizations actually have funding and have been able to draw some notable former legislators to their non-partisan events, but it seems disingenuous since, while in office, these legislators were as partisan as anyone else. Having since retired, or been beaten, they suddenly believe in crossing the aisle to shake hands? I doubt it. I'm fine seeing someone like Jon Huntsman participate, but people like Trent Lott and Eric Cantor cause these efforts to lose credibility, in my view.
This needs to be a grassroots effort, an a-c-t-u-a-l grassroots effort, not just one called that by well-funded organizations. I know you're out there, I see you on Twitter every day. We're like the many cars jammed on a freeway, all heading in the same general direction. It would be so much faster if we all just got on a train together or rented a few buses, and we would get where we want so much faster. But we like having our own car, where we can pick the music, and can choose on our own if we want to change lanes or stop and get some coffee.
I once had a journalism professor in college state very clearly to never use the words, "the time has come for..." in any kind of editorial piece, because, one could easily argue, the time has come for just about anything. And up until now, I have adhered to that instruction. However...
The time has come for us to come together and get in this fight. We need to raise awareness and let people know that we are here; that we don't like what the parties are offering; that we believe inflammatory rhetoric and demagoguery are not constructive towards creating sound policy that benefits all Americans; that sound policy only results from research, data, and a thorough sifting of facts from lies.
I consider it a fight, one that will be ugly. You have encountered some of the internet trolls already, who are incapable of having a rational discussion on issues, but are well-armed with ridiculous words like "libtard." And heaven help anyone who becomes a target on cable news or AM radio.
But if we don't engage collectively, then are we just confirming what the critics say?
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Trump
I just have to get this off my chest. Trump is a narcissist. The most sociopathic narcissist I have ever been made aware of.. and I know some real a-holes. He desperately craves attention and validation, and when criticized throws it back with insults and degradation. I'm actually entertained with he calls someone a "no-class dummy." Is it really classy to call anyone that?
The Twitter-verse has already and exhaustively completed the diagnosis of Trump Narcissist Personality Disorder, so don't need to do into detail here. But do any of his followers not want details when if comes to policy? It apparently is enough for him to say things like, "the Blacks like me." "The Jews like me." "The evangelicals like me."
... or to say "ban all Muslims." Or "shut down the internet." Really?
I'm not ever sure he really believes any of the things he's advocated for during this campaign. I wonder if his NPD simply makes him say these things that resonate so deeply with his audience.
The real concern for me about the Trump movement is the following that has developed around him. Demographic analysis shows that the bulk of those followers -- I call them "followers," not voters -- are low-income, less-educated, white males, the same group, other that whites over 50, that rallies after Fox News and listen to their AM radio propagandists. Reports indicate shouts of "white power" at Trump rallies. That should explain it all.
I've never quite understood why low-income whites were always such a vehement, vocal faction of the Republican Party. It's painfully obvious the GOP cares nothing about the situation of the blue-collar class, regardless of race. But this group has unfortunately fallen for the underlying themes of GOP messages, the "if you aren't with us, you must not really love America," trope.
Numerous articles in the left-center web media discuss how the GOP has created this Frankenstein themselves, and this is just chickens coming home to roost. I tend to agree, but am still puzzled as to what this Trump following really believes will make 'Mair'cuh great again.
My hasty, somewhat bigoted conclusion is that this group of white males, who didn't necessarily finish, much less start, college, see non-whites as a threat. They view their economic situation as a direct impact of "those people" coming here to take their jobs.
My response to that viewpoint would be to explain that as the economy has grown and evolved over the last 30 years, education and vocational training has gained in importance, and there are still many good-paying jobs available for those who have training and education. This, of course, could be backed up with data.
I tend to think simpler people seek a simpler explanation of the world, which Trump easily delivers. So the next time he calls anyone a "no-class dummy," accuracy would dictate he target his own audience.
The Twitter-verse has already and exhaustively completed the diagnosis of Trump Narcissist Personality Disorder, so don't need to do into detail here. But do any of his followers not want details when if comes to policy? It apparently is enough for him to say things like, "the Blacks like me." "The Jews like me." "The evangelicals like me."
... or to say "ban all Muslims." Or "shut down the internet." Really?
I'm not ever sure he really believes any of the things he's advocated for during this campaign. I wonder if his NPD simply makes him say these things that resonate so deeply with his audience.
The real concern for me about the Trump movement is the following that has developed around him. Demographic analysis shows that the bulk of those followers -- I call them "followers," not voters -- are low-income, less-educated, white males, the same group, other that whites over 50, that rallies after Fox News and listen to their AM radio propagandists. Reports indicate shouts of "white power" at Trump rallies. That should explain it all.
I've never quite understood why low-income whites were always such a vehement, vocal faction of the Republican Party. It's painfully obvious the GOP cares nothing about the situation of the blue-collar class, regardless of race. But this group has unfortunately fallen for the underlying themes of GOP messages, the "if you aren't with us, you must not really love America," trope.
Numerous articles in the left-center web media discuss how the GOP has created this Frankenstein themselves, and this is just chickens coming home to roost. I tend to agree, but am still puzzled as to what this Trump following really believes will make 'Mair'cuh great again.
My hasty, somewhat bigoted conclusion is that this group of white males, who didn't necessarily finish, much less start, college, see non-whites as a threat. They view their economic situation as a direct impact of "those people" coming here to take their jobs.
My response to that viewpoint would be to explain that as the economy has grown and evolved over the last 30 years, education and vocational training has gained in importance, and there are still many good-paying jobs available for those who have training and education. This, of course, could be backed up with data.
I tend to think simpler people seek a simpler explanation of the world, which Trump easily delivers. So the next time he calls anyone a "no-class dummy," accuracy would dictate he target his own audience.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Biblical Bases for Political Viewpoints... and My Own.
While most of my views and posts focus more on economic issues, I couldn't help but chime in on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In order to offer a basis, perhaps it may help to elaborate on some of my religious views, as it seems the basis for the opposition to the issue is based on religious grounds.
I am an agnostic... an inquisitive, deistic agnostic. That is to say, I don't know if the God depicted in the Holy Bible is real, or if the Bible itself is "true." I seriously doubt it is. I believe the Bible was manufactured from a wide variety of documents, letters, and written narratives that were cherry-picked by the Council of Nicea. I believe the Church that emerged after the death of Jesus quickly morphed into an organization more concerned with maintaining, and gaining, power and wealth from its followers than the sanctification of followers' souls.
Since college I have read a great amount of history of the ancient worlds, including the Stone-Bronze-Iron Ages, Greece, Rome, the Dark Ages, etc. This study has come partially under the light of answering questions about the Bible, the same questions my numerous Sunday School teachers couldn't answer. But it also came as a result of general curiosity. I've always wondered what happened and who lived before us. But I've also dabbled in other social sciences such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, as well as a little into the physical and life sciences.
As a result, I've discovered that science makes much more sense as to the various religions do. I have, in truth, my own theory on the origin of religion in human history, though I'm sure I'm not the first to have conceived it. It is this: humans have always been an inquisitive species, and we have always wondered where we came from, how we got here, and why we're here. So it seems natural and rational to perceive early religions being created to begin answering those questions. One need only recall their own childhood, or being a parent to a young child, and asking the many questions inquisitive young children ask.
After reading Hitchens' "God is Not Great." I learned its an idea well-developed. Hitchens takes the point further; since we created religion to explain the world to us before science, now that we have science to explain the world, we don't need religion anymore. And I tend to agree.
I imagine it starting like this: a small tribe of early humans are sitting around a campfire one starry night. A child asks what those tiny lights are in the sky. No parent, especially a father, wants to look stupid or ignorant to their child, so a parent, most likely the father, was willing to make up something. If the parent was clever, they would create a fable that would entice the child to behave and obey. "Those lights are the spirits of all the people who lived before us... including my parents, their parents, and their parents' parents. And they are all looking down upon me and you. So you better always do as we say, but they are always watching y-o-u."
Not just a plausible theory, but in my view, an allegory of religion in general. Because of what I've read from so many different subjects, I'm led to conclude the Bible is not a history book, not a logical explanation of the Universe, and barely a comprehensible morality document.
I do, however, believe the words of Jesus are a more consistent moral doctrine, and simpler to absorb and follow. Sparing all the quotes and passages, I'll just summarize Jesus' teaching as: "Be good to each other." Simple as that. Don't just be good to the people around you, or the ones you like more, but, as Jesus did, those most in need. Help heal the sick. Help feed the hungry. Just "be good to each other."
Where my agnosticism crystallizes is in the question: Is/was there some kind of a Creator? While I do not believe the God as depicted in the Bible is real, I do believe there are an infinite number of possibilities of some kind of a being that drives the Universe. Maybe it's just energy, maybe there is some logic and order to this seemingly random space, or maybe there is not. To me, to extrapolate that because the God of the Bible isn't real there is can be no higher power of any kind is a leap I'm not willing to take. A sharper mind like Dawkins or Hitchens would be able to skewer this viewpoint, and one day I may work to develop the idea further, but for now I'm okay with that view as is.
All that said, I take issue with the people who say homosexuality, and hence gay marriage, is wrong because the Bible says so. The Bible also says it is not only right to have slaves but its also okay to beat them when they get out of line. The Bible describes the eating of pork as a sin as much as it refers to homosexuality, or other "immorality" as a sin. The Bible also says divorce is akin to adultery.
Therefore, I will conclude that the people who truly believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so, also own slaves, have never divorced, and especially never had sex before marriage, and never, ever eat pork.
There's a much greater discussion to be had another day on the impact of the Religious Right on contemporary American politics, but I promise you, we will have it soon.
I am an agnostic... an inquisitive, deistic agnostic. That is to say, I don't know if the God depicted in the Holy Bible is real, or if the Bible itself is "true." I seriously doubt it is. I believe the Bible was manufactured from a wide variety of documents, letters, and written narratives that were cherry-picked by the Council of Nicea. I believe the Church that emerged after the death of Jesus quickly morphed into an organization more concerned with maintaining, and gaining, power and wealth from its followers than the sanctification of followers' souls.
Since college I have read a great amount of history of the ancient worlds, including the Stone-Bronze-Iron Ages, Greece, Rome, the Dark Ages, etc. This study has come partially under the light of answering questions about the Bible, the same questions my numerous Sunday School teachers couldn't answer. But it also came as a result of general curiosity. I've always wondered what happened and who lived before us. But I've also dabbled in other social sciences such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, as well as a little into the physical and life sciences.
As a result, I've discovered that science makes much more sense as to the various religions do. I have, in truth, my own theory on the origin of religion in human history, though I'm sure I'm not the first to have conceived it. It is this: humans have always been an inquisitive species, and we have always wondered where we came from, how we got here, and why we're here. So it seems natural and rational to perceive early religions being created to begin answering those questions. One need only recall their own childhood, or being a parent to a young child, and asking the many questions inquisitive young children ask.
After reading Hitchens' "God is Not Great." I learned its an idea well-developed. Hitchens takes the point further; since we created religion to explain the world to us before science, now that we have science to explain the world, we don't need religion anymore. And I tend to agree.
I imagine it starting like this: a small tribe of early humans are sitting around a campfire one starry night. A child asks what those tiny lights are in the sky. No parent, especially a father, wants to look stupid or ignorant to their child, so a parent, most likely the father, was willing to make up something. If the parent was clever, they would create a fable that would entice the child to behave and obey. "Those lights are the spirits of all the people who lived before us... including my parents, their parents, and their parents' parents. And they are all looking down upon me and you. So you better always do as we say, but they are always watching y-o-u."
Not just a plausible theory, but in my view, an allegory of religion in general. Because of what I've read from so many different subjects, I'm led to conclude the Bible is not a history book, not a logical explanation of the Universe, and barely a comprehensible morality document.
I do, however, believe the words of Jesus are a more consistent moral doctrine, and simpler to absorb and follow. Sparing all the quotes and passages, I'll just summarize Jesus' teaching as: "Be good to each other." Simple as that. Don't just be good to the people around you, or the ones you like more, but, as Jesus did, those most in need. Help heal the sick. Help feed the hungry. Just "be good to each other."
Where my agnosticism crystallizes is in the question: Is/was there some kind of a Creator? While I do not believe the God as depicted in the Bible is real, I do believe there are an infinite number of possibilities of some kind of a being that drives the Universe. Maybe it's just energy, maybe there is some logic and order to this seemingly random space, or maybe there is not. To me, to extrapolate that because the God of the Bible isn't real there is can be no higher power of any kind is a leap I'm not willing to take. A sharper mind like Dawkins or Hitchens would be able to skewer this viewpoint, and one day I may work to develop the idea further, but for now I'm okay with that view as is.
All that said, I take issue with the people who say homosexuality, and hence gay marriage, is wrong because the Bible says so. The Bible also says it is not only right to have slaves but its also okay to beat them when they get out of line. The Bible describes the eating of pork as a sin as much as it refers to homosexuality, or other "immorality" as a sin. The Bible also says divorce is akin to adultery.
Therefore, I will conclude that the people who truly believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so, also own slaves, have never divorced, and especially never had sex before marriage, and never, ever eat pork.
There's a much greater discussion to be had another day on the impact of the Religious Right on contemporary American politics, but I promise you, we will have it soon.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
No Better Time to Unite our Centrists
The shutdown is over -- for now -- but we know it won't be the last time, not for this Congress. It has become a tired cliche, but the Republican Party did take our federal government, and our nation, hostage. The broader problem is, a portion of that party had no preference whatsoever whether the ransom was met, or the hostage killed. This is a level of extremism that I know is abhorrent to most Americans... at least, I HOPE it is.
I've put this call out to some of you before, and so I have decided I will continue -- albeit politely and rationally -- to do so until the needle gets budged. Here it is: We need to start stitching our collective tents together to cover the growing number of voters who, I sincerely believe, are ready to change parties if there were a centrist alternative.
We not only would be able to offer a place for voters who see things as we do, but we could also offer cover for policymakers who agree with us. Moderate Republicans are not only being targeted in primaries by the Tea Party, but even conservatives are now, if they are as far to the extreme as TP groups want.
I was reading this morning these groups actually have the nerve to call themselves "real Americans," and while completely offended, I realized this is the kind of partisan propaganda that we have seen expanding for a few decades now. No party has a monopoly on patriotism in this nation, and any group who call themselves "real Americans" don't understand the Real America, they only grasp their own narrow, myopic viewpoint,
Someone in the middle of a crowd can scan 360 degrees and see everything and everyone around them. Anyone standing toward the outer boundary cannot see the whole picture. So they have to shout louder to be heard by the other far side, and that's exactly what members of extreme groups are literally doing in public and on the airwaves.
This places an obligation on us, I believe, to link our voices and our efforts. We H-A-V-E to start pushing back, because right now they are the only one's doing the pushing. Whether or not you conclude that the Tea Party and conservative Republicans got anything out of the shutdown, this ransoming is only going to continue unless a voice from the center begins to speak, so voters know there is place for them.
"Compromise" is not a profane word. In fact, it is a concept that is rooted into the very foundations of our nation and government. The Declaration of Independence was unanimously after edits were suggested and approved by opposing viewpoints. As was the Constitution. As was every piece of significant legislation approved by Congress -- and it's arguable every piece of legislation ever approved by that body.
So just what exactly would this new tent look like or consist of? That is for greater political minds to debate and decide. I'm just a rational voter wanting to see rationality, honesty, objectivity, and leadership brought back to our federal government.
I will, however, offer what I believe could be a basis of agreement for this group. Centrists are those voters who choose pragmatism over dogmatism, practicality over ideology. We prefer ideas that work, no matter which party proposes it. We prefer policies that have been proven to be effective. Of course we believe in Freedom, but we also understand that no freedom is absolute, nor does it come without responsibility. We believe in effective, efficient government, and competent, compassionate leadership.
If you agree, then let us begin to get together, as drops of water collect into a puddle.
I've put this call out to some of you before, and so I have decided I will continue -- albeit politely and rationally -- to do so until the needle gets budged. Here it is: We need to start stitching our collective tents together to cover the growing number of voters who, I sincerely believe, are ready to change parties if there were a centrist alternative.
We not only would be able to offer a place for voters who see things as we do, but we could also offer cover for policymakers who agree with us. Moderate Republicans are not only being targeted in primaries by the Tea Party, but even conservatives are now, if they are as far to the extreme as TP groups want.
I was reading this morning these groups actually have the nerve to call themselves "real Americans," and while completely offended, I realized this is the kind of partisan propaganda that we have seen expanding for a few decades now. No party has a monopoly on patriotism in this nation, and any group who call themselves "real Americans" don't understand the Real America, they only grasp their own narrow, myopic viewpoint,
Someone in the middle of a crowd can scan 360 degrees and see everything and everyone around them. Anyone standing toward the outer boundary cannot see the whole picture. So they have to shout louder to be heard by the other far side, and that's exactly what members of extreme groups are literally doing in public and on the airwaves.
This places an obligation on us, I believe, to link our voices and our efforts. We H-A-V-E to start pushing back, because right now they are the only one's doing the pushing. Whether or not you conclude that the Tea Party and conservative Republicans got anything out of the shutdown, this ransoming is only going to continue unless a voice from the center begins to speak, so voters know there is place for them.
"Compromise" is not a profane word. In fact, it is a concept that is rooted into the very foundations of our nation and government. The Declaration of Independence was unanimously after edits were suggested and approved by opposing viewpoints. As was the Constitution. As was every piece of significant legislation approved by Congress -- and it's arguable every piece of legislation ever approved by that body.
So just what exactly would this new tent look like or consist of? That is for greater political minds to debate and decide. I'm just a rational voter wanting to see rationality, honesty, objectivity, and leadership brought back to our federal government.
I will, however, offer what I believe could be a basis of agreement for this group. Centrists are those voters who choose pragmatism over dogmatism, practicality over ideology. We prefer ideas that work, no matter which party proposes it. We prefer policies that have been proven to be effective. Of course we believe in Freedom, but we also understand that no freedom is absolute, nor does it come without responsibility. We believe in effective, efficient government, and competent, compassionate leadership.
If you agree, then let us begin to get together, as drops of water collect into a puddle.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
There's got to be a morning after...
Hey! Guess what happened today?!?! The sun rose. The earth kept spinning on its axis. It wasn't the end of the world as we know it.
We all managed to survive the last four years, and we'll manage to get through the next four. And then, as history indicates, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction, and then MSNBC can go back to whining, while Fox News can go back to their "You lost, deal with it" taglines.
Or wait... I have an idea! How about we all quit shouting "I'm right, you're wrong," and stop thinking that 'compromise' is weakness and means the other side has to agree entirely with what you're saying? How about -- crazy thought, I know -- we actually start working on finding some common f'n ground and building from there. Partisanship does not equal progress. There was a time -- many times, actually -- in this great nation when both parties actually did manage to agree on crucial issues of their day.
Can we all agree that a strong economy means everyone benefits??
Can we all agree that America is and should continue to be 'the' world leader, and lead by example??
Can we all agree that the planet is -- whatever the reason -- really getting hotter??
Can we all agree that freedom means a non-intrusive government but also means individuals respecting the rights of others??
Can we all agree that America still is the Land of Opportunity, but that there is room for improvement and we could make it even better... for all Americans??
Can we all agree that voting in America is not just a right, but also a privilege, and should not only be made easily accessible to all who qualify, but should not require waiting in line longer than it takes to watch all three 'Lord of the Ring' movies?? Director's cuts??
And can we all consider the possibility that there are more than just two solutions to any particular problem we face?? And that maybe -- just maybe -- the best solution out there doesn't come from either party??
I know that a two-sided system was a part of this nation from the very beginning. I know that politics has always been a fierce and passionate debate. I also know that despite those fierce and passionate views on both sides, throughout our history we have managed to still find agreement when it mattered, and lived with the results afterward.
This is a time that requires us to start drinking some ideological decaf in the morning, and replace that allegiance to dogma with some higher-altitude objectivity and policy pragmatism. Things are starting to get a little better based on the numbers, but those numbers don't reveal the problems that still exist.
We still have a skills gap -- at this point one could call it a skills canyon -- in our workforce that is contributing to the high unemployment and lingering poverty. To close it requires adequately preparing our workforce for the technical jobs currently available -- jobs that sit vacant all over the country because employers can't find people with the right skills to fill them. Our schools, including higher education, need a stronger rapport with the business community to adequately identify those needs, and need to amend curricula to address those needs. Our federal government needs to make investments, and make the right policy choices, to build that infrastructure.
Speaking of infrastructure, our transportation, communication, and electrical infrastructure require massive re-investment, as they have been ignored far too long.
Yet, despite that need for investment, we still have a massive federal debt, compounded by massive annual deficits, that will require both sides to commit to long-term strategies, on both the revenue and expenditure sides, and stop kicking the fiscal can down the road.
I will always have hope and faith that America will not just survive, but thrive, and lead the world as it should. But, Folks, can we all just get along??
Thursday, September 20, 2012
All the BS During Election Year
I needed to get a few things off my chest about the election right now. Eventually I'll re-write this to be more fluid, but for right now I beg your indulgence while I spew a few things.
First, and this is in no particular order, I wish to remind the Republican Party that everyone knows this is not the candidate you wanted. For those giving their full-throated support to Gov. Romney, I know it's only because the Republican candidate you actually wanted didn't survive Mitt's mud-slinging during the primary. I know, too, many of you are voting for Romney as part of an "Anyone But Obama" strategy, too. That's your right and your prerogative. So hold your nose while to make your vote, and God bless America.
Now, let's remember this is not the first time a "private" meeting with Romney's funders was publicized and embarrassing to the candidate.
If the running of his campaign is any indication of how he runs a business, or how he would run the White House, I'm not impressed. He thinks he can change Washington from the inside?? He thinks if he were President terrorists will be too afraid to do anything?? He thinks he's that much of an intimidating bad-ass?? Sorry, Mitt, even nerds like me think we could take you in a bar fight.
Does he think the practice of foreign relations, the most difficult task any President faces, is as easy as him barking orders from behind a CEO desk? It's not. It's even more difficult than working with the opposition party. I get the impression the only place he is truly comfortable is behind that desk, because anywhere else he's appeared stressed, uncomfortable, or outright annoyed.
Romney had said in the past that he doesn't care about the poor, and now we know why. He hates them. He considers them lazy, stupid, entitled, and unworthy. In the past, many of the Republicans have given away this underlying assumption that is the foundation to seemingly all Republican policy proposals: that the poor are poor because they deserve it -- they are lazy and/or stupid, and therefore deserve to be poor in the dream they call a capitalist society.
This is also more evidence that clearly what MR is saying in public is what he really thinks, or perhaps what he really plans to do if he makes it into the Oval Office. The joke about Romney being a flip-flopper is tired now, any yet somehow Republicans and Conservatives continue to support him, because the alternative is even worse for them.
Ever wonder why Republicans don't agree with Libertarian philosophy more?? Because Republicans don't r-e-a-l-l-y want a truly capitalist system in place, where competition really is king, and companies survive and fail based on their own merit and quality.
Then, the convention tried desperately to paint Romney as good, decent, human. Numerous examples were tossed out about how he helped a church member in need, or some other inflated tale. Here's the thing. Good and decent people don't just help out the people they like, they help out as many as they can. Jesus helped out with lepers and prostitutes, as I recall.
The person who, with no compunction whatsoever, was willing to go into any business in this country -- really, any business that would've been profitable for him -- close it down, raid the pension fund, fire all the employees, and take millions in profit for himself and this Bain cronies. A good, decent person would so quickly throw workers out onto the street, causing those workers to become the "poor" that he so obviously despises??
And he obviously doesn't understand moderate voters, either. His point that moderate voters are sorry they voted for Obama may be partially true, but his premise is completely false. Moderates knew what they were getting, and they preferred it to the alternative. This is why Romney will not be getting the moderate vote in November, because they know what they are getting. We know the President hasn't always been completely honest. We know he kept C-SPAN cameras out of the health care debate rooms. We know he's launched more drone attacks in 3 years than President Bush did in eight years.
Moderates want substance, and when Romney says, "wait until after the election for details," moderates say "no thank you." Of course, the President has been quite short on details and substance in his stump speeches, but that's another blog. Moderates want to hear on substantial, detailed alternative.
It's not enough to criticize the President for not doing enough. Put some skin in the game, and bring something to the table. And the President is actually telling the truth about one thing: the policies Romney is proposing are truly the same Republican policies that shrank the middle class, widened the income gap, and caused the worst financial and economic meltdown since the Great Depression.
Call them what you want -- Moderates, Swing Voters, Independents -- there is no Moderate Party for a reason: the 20 million or so voters in between both major parties are there because they don't trust either party or their candidates. Moderates don't need a party to tell them how to vote, or a cable new network to tell them that to think. Moderates are better able to come to their own conclusions on issues than their counterparts in either party.
President Obama is a politician, which means he lies often in order to achieve his goals. Mitt Romney is just a terrible person.
First, and this is in no particular order, I wish to remind the Republican Party that everyone knows this is not the candidate you wanted. For those giving their full-throated support to Gov. Romney, I know it's only because the Republican candidate you actually wanted didn't survive Mitt's mud-slinging during the primary. I know, too, many of you are voting for Romney as part of an "Anyone But Obama" strategy, too. That's your right and your prerogative. So hold your nose while to make your vote, and God bless America.
Now, let's remember this is not the first time a "private" meeting with Romney's funders was publicized and embarrassing to the candidate.
If the running of his campaign is any indication of how he runs a business, or how he would run the White House, I'm not impressed. He thinks he can change Washington from the inside?? He thinks if he were President terrorists will be too afraid to do anything?? He thinks he's that much of an intimidating bad-ass?? Sorry, Mitt, even nerds like me think we could take you in a bar fight.
Does he think the practice of foreign relations, the most difficult task any President faces, is as easy as him barking orders from behind a CEO desk? It's not. It's even more difficult than working with the opposition party. I get the impression the only place he is truly comfortable is behind that desk, because anywhere else he's appeared stressed, uncomfortable, or outright annoyed.
Romney had said in the past that he doesn't care about the poor, and now we know why. He hates them. He considers them lazy, stupid, entitled, and unworthy. In the past, many of the Republicans have given away this underlying assumption that is the foundation to seemingly all Republican policy proposals: that the poor are poor because they deserve it -- they are lazy and/or stupid, and therefore deserve to be poor in the dream they call a capitalist society.
This is also more evidence that clearly what MR is saying in public is what he really thinks, or perhaps what he really plans to do if he makes it into the Oval Office. The joke about Romney being a flip-flopper is tired now, any yet somehow Republicans and Conservatives continue to support him, because the alternative is even worse for them.
Ever wonder why Republicans don't agree with Libertarian philosophy more?? Because Republicans don't r-e-a-l-l-y want a truly capitalist system in place, where competition really is king, and companies survive and fail based on their own merit and quality.
Then, the convention tried desperately to paint Romney as good, decent, human. Numerous examples were tossed out about how he helped a church member in need, or some other inflated tale. Here's the thing. Good and decent people don't just help out the people they like, they help out as many as they can. Jesus helped out with lepers and prostitutes, as I recall.
The person who, with no compunction whatsoever, was willing to go into any business in this country -- really, any business that would've been profitable for him -- close it down, raid the pension fund, fire all the employees, and take millions in profit for himself and this Bain cronies. A good, decent person would so quickly throw workers out onto the street, causing those workers to become the "poor" that he so obviously despises??
And he obviously doesn't understand moderate voters, either. His point that moderate voters are sorry they voted for Obama may be partially true, but his premise is completely false. Moderates knew what they were getting, and they preferred it to the alternative. This is why Romney will not be getting the moderate vote in November, because they know what they are getting. We know the President hasn't always been completely honest. We know he kept C-SPAN cameras out of the health care debate rooms. We know he's launched more drone attacks in 3 years than President Bush did in eight years.
Moderates want substance, and when Romney says, "wait until after the election for details," moderates say "no thank you." Of course, the President has been quite short on details and substance in his stump speeches, but that's another blog. Moderates want to hear on substantial, detailed alternative.
It's not enough to criticize the President for not doing enough. Put some skin in the game, and bring something to the table. And the President is actually telling the truth about one thing: the policies Romney is proposing are truly the same Republican policies that shrank the middle class, widened the income gap, and caused the worst financial and economic meltdown since the Great Depression.
Call them what you want -- Moderates, Swing Voters, Independents -- there is no Moderate Party for a reason: the 20 million or so voters in between both major parties are there because they don't trust either party or their candidates. Moderates don't need a party to tell them how to vote, or a cable new network to tell them that to think. Moderates are better able to come to their own conclusions on issues than their counterparts in either party.
President Obama is a politician, which means he lies often in order to achieve his goals. Mitt Romney is just a terrible person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)