The answer to that question in one word: Intolerance.
First, let me describe what had to happen for the 2009/10 Tea Party Movement to be effective, also in one word: Tolerance.
If you believe some of the people we hear on the TV shows or write the news, you would think that those people who identify themselves as members of the Tea Party are mentally-challenged zombies who hate anyone who is different than them.
Who actually showed up at those rallies, challenged their politicians at town-hall meetings and did all that Grass-roots Activismy stuff? Mostly folks who had never been politically active before. Lots of retirees, blue-collar workers, mixed-in with professionals and regular folk. There were many different religions, creeds and sects represented. The masses were overwhelmingly white, but every race was represented. You had Independents, Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians all there and you couldn't tell which were which, unless you asked them.
What allowed this diverse amalgam of Americans to come together was the shock of seeing Big Government expand out of control in a few big leaps, instead of the gradual metastasis (that they were irritated by but became accustomed to) over many decades.
Organized Right-wingers couldn't have done this. No church, No political party, The Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority would have ever created the groundswell.
The reason why is: the Tea Party was not a Social Conservative movement. It was all about our country's fiscal irresponsibility and how we've strayed from the Constitutional restrains on government and how our economy sucks now, when it doesn't have to!
You didn't see many signs or hear much about Abortion, Gay Marriage, the War on Drugs, Don't Ask Don't Tell or any of the Social Issues. Those issues are what keeps constitution-loving people separated. If somebody wanted to design some tool to destroy our country they couldn't do better than the politicization of social issues. It's perfect for inflaming passions. It's radioactive to discuss in mixed company. Those who are personally touched by the issues come away with entirely different views and those views frequently turn 180 degrees in the same person as they continue to deal with them. Diabolically Genius!
The wisdom of those who engaged in organizing the many regional Tea Party groups, to leave the social issues out of it, is admirable and enlightened.
My fear is that the Social Conservatives are going to fracture the movement. They are easy to bait, it's like calling Marty McFly a "chicken", they can't help themselves. If the Progressives want to get their opponents to turn on each other they just play the Social Issue Card and the moralists jump to action, forgetting the Big Picture.
My view on all social issues is this: If your parenting skills, your family culture, your church, synagogue, mosque, whatever or wherever it is that teaches values to your children is such a failure and so dysfunctional that you feel that government needs to determine what is moral and right or wrong personal behavior,
I suggest you should straighten yourself out before you go looking to the heavy-hand of Big Brother to step in.
If everybody would just mind their own damn business and quit trying to control others, most of these social issues would quit being issues at all. The fallout and backlash to government imposed social moralizing is the source of most of our country's problems: Hundreds of thousands of drug-related crimes would never happen in the first place, abortions would become rare, you'd be able to enjoy a night of television without the writers shoving the gay agenda, the drugs-are-funny agenda, the pro-life agenda, the pro-choice agenda or whatever is the "hip & cool" subject of the season into every plot-line on every show.
You may notice that Steve and Gary have a different living arrangement than others on the street, but you know that they are not threatening you and your family, so you don't let it distract you from enjoying your own life. Ol' Joe can't keep a job due to his alcohol addiction, besides a private intervention, he's left unmolested, he's not breaking any laws, unless he's behind the wheel. But that seemingly functional dude around the corner got caught growing pot in his basement, do we really need to waste $100,000's on showing him the folly of his ways. No, leave him the hell alone.
Live & Let Live is such an easy concept, but the compulsion to control the personal choices of others is so strong that we will let it destroy our republic and hand it over to those that want even more control.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
What If ...? I'm just askin'!
First let me set up the background for why I'm eventually going to ask the big "What If?" question:
In this era of Globalization it seems that everyone assumes that for any country to be prosperous they must be involved in international trade. Let's call that assumption #1.
The second assumption (let's call this part, #2a) is that there is a cap on the amount of the total wealth of all nations combined. Assumption #2b is that there must be a balance of trade between each trading partner, otherwise one party would deplete the wealth of others.
So, here's the the question:
What if, for some reason, tomorrow, there was no other country but us? As I ask this question, I'm using a laptop computer built of components manufactured in Asia. And eating a banana from a Central American country. I had pineapple on my pizza last night which I'm sure didn't come from Hawai'i (Go tour the Dole Plantation on O'ahu, then you'll see why I'm doubting).
We won WWII, because we could support our campaign abroad and, with shared sacrifice, maintain our families at home, while our enemies could not. The Soviet Union crumbled because their Cold War military expenses decimated their limited economy. Since we've become a country that is a net importer and have sent our manufacturing jobs elsewhere, I doubt we could repeat those successes again.
So, what if we played "pretend", a type of War Gaming. The scenario is: We are alone. Do we have the ability to make our own laptop computer, from elemental minerals, through engineering and manufacturing to provide the product to sell to Americans at a price that is affordable?
Can we grow our own bananas in our southern states, or Hawai'i, American Samoa, Guam, US Virgin Islands or any of our territories?
We send our scrap iron to China to be made into new products to be sent back over here, could we mine the minerals and manufacture steel from scratch again if we wanted to?
I'm sure the answer would be, that if we had to, we could supply everything we need to support our American Lifestyle. We don't now because everything would be too expensive in today's global economy. It's impossible to compete with imports where their expense to hire people to do the work is a fraction of our domestic labor costs.
If there were no global-economy would we just not resume making things because it would cost too much? (Hey, I want to eat bananas and pineapple, and this laptop isn't going to last forever.) Or would we look at why it costs too much and adjust whatever is out-of-wack?
Do we have to be exporting more widgets than we have domestic demand for to be a functioning economy or can our wealth just circulate amongst ourselves?
Does a capitalist economy have to constantly "grow" to function? And, if so, does that mean that some countries have to decline so that others can prosper?
I'm not advocating Protectionist measures, simply because I'm told the Smoot-Hawley Act helped cause the 1930's Depression and because everybody important says that protectionism is a bad thing. But shouldn't we take a look at what we're doing and see if there is a way to make sure that we can take care of ourselves, no matter what?
Are our assumptions valid?
Couldn't we pay the average American wage, (which is $20/hr.) to Americans to make our computers, flat-screen TV's, iPods, iPads, running shoes, jackets and just about everything else?
I'm just askin'.
In this era of Globalization it seems that everyone assumes that for any country to be prosperous they must be involved in international trade. Let's call that assumption #1.
The second assumption (let's call this part, #2a) is that there is a cap on the amount of the total wealth of all nations combined. Assumption #2b is that there must be a balance of trade between each trading partner, otherwise one party would deplete the wealth of others.
So, here's the the question:
What if, for some reason, tomorrow, there was no other country but us? As I ask this question, I'm using a laptop computer built of components manufactured in Asia. And eating a banana from a Central American country. I had pineapple on my pizza last night which I'm sure didn't come from Hawai'i (Go tour the Dole Plantation on O'ahu, then you'll see why I'm doubting).
We won WWII, because we could support our campaign abroad and, with shared sacrifice, maintain our families at home, while our enemies could not. The Soviet Union crumbled because their Cold War military expenses decimated their limited economy. Since we've become a country that is a net importer and have sent our manufacturing jobs elsewhere, I doubt we could repeat those successes again.
So, what if we played "pretend", a type of War Gaming. The scenario is: We are alone. Do we have the ability to make our own laptop computer, from elemental minerals, through engineering and manufacturing to provide the product to sell to Americans at a price that is affordable?
Can we grow our own bananas in our southern states, or Hawai'i, American Samoa, Guam, US Virgin Islands or any of our territories?
We send our scrap iron to China to be made into new products to be sent back over here, could we mine the minerals and manufacture steel from scratch again if we wanted to?
I'm sure the answer would be, that if we had to, we could supply everything we need to support our American Lifestyle. We don't now because everything would be too expensive in today's global economy. It's impossible to compete with imports where their expense to hire people to do the work is a fraction of our domestic labor costs.
If there were no global-economy would we just not resume making things because it would cost too much? (Hey, I want to eat bananas and pineapple, and this laptop isn't going to last forever.) Or would we look at why it costs too much and adjust whatever is out-of-wack?
Do we have to be exporting more widgets than we have domestic demand for to be a functioning economy or can our wealth just circulate amongst ourselves?
Does a capitalist economy have to constantly "grow" to function? And, if so, does that mean that some countries have to decline so that others can prosper?
I'm not advocating Protectionist measures, simply because I'm told the Smoot-Hawley Act helped cause the 1930's Depression and because everybody important says that protectionism is a bad thing. But shouldn't we take a look at what we're doing and see if there is a way to make sure that we can take care of ourselves, no matter what?
Are our assumptions valid?
Couldn't we pay the average American wage, (which is $20/hr.) to Americans to make our computers, flat-screen TV's, iPods, iPads, running shoes, jackets and just about everything else?
I'm just askin'.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
My "Take" on the November 2010 Elections... Now What?
It's been over a month since the 2010 General mid-term election and, in general, I think good things happened. Yet, I'm disappointed that so many Americans just "don't get it"! Why do so many of us just view these elections as nothing more serious than a football game or any other contest with devoted Fans? "Yea, go Clippers! The Lakers suck!" or "I'm a Republican, my parents were Republicans and I'll die a Republican".
Really?! Is that all this is? Utes verses Cougars? Bruins verses Trojans? Or worse yet, are we going to repeat 2008 in two years and treat the Presidential Election like it's nothing more than a season of American Idol?
There may have been a time when both the Republicans and the Democrats were devoted fans of the Constitution and the philosophical differences between them were within the boundaries of differing emphasis, interpretation or implementation. It hasn't been that way for a long time. I think the Charismatically Delusional among us have had their way with the Parties for decades.
The Republicans have been co-opted by the Neo-Cons and the Religious Fanatics over the past few decades and are starting to get back to a Constitutional philosophy with the Tea Party movement. I'm thrilled to hear people using the term Libertarian in political discussions. So maybe there is hope for the Right.
Wow! But the Democrats have been supplanted by the Progressives to the point that I'm thinking there may be no way back to their being the party with a liberal view of the role of constitutional government. The Progs won't say it in mixed company, but they'd rather have a Constitutional Convention to rip up our existing Constitution and start over with something that Marx, Mao or Chavez would approve of.
The Republicans still have a lot of cleaning house to do, but they seem to be headed in the right direction. The only hope for the Dems is for the Moderates and Blue-dogs to grow a pair and stand-up for their historic role as defenders of freedom. Most of the Free Market Democrat citizenry jumped ship along with Ronald Reagan to become Republicans. I've given up any hope that a third-party could rise-up, the system just doesn't work that way. The Socialists and Communists of the early 20th century figured that out and realized they'd need to co-opt the existing parties and they knew it was going to take time. They were right and here we are, a hundred years later and now they believe it's time for a century of "progress" to finally bear fruit.
The next Eighteen months are going to be historic, the last two years have been and they were just prologue. Power Grabs and congressional end-runs will abound. The violence will be unbelievable. Class-warfare and racism will run rampant. The disappointed Progressives will panic from fear that the window of opportunity is closing with the 2012 Elections and then the civil unrest will begin. America will resemble the countries we've always considered banana republics, at least for a while.
OK! I'm sorry to bum you out. There will still be televised talent contests and reality shows to watch. Mrs. Obama won't get your In-N-Out Burger outlawed and just think of all the new Sarah Palin jokes you'll hear from late night talk show hosts and the Comedy Channel! See it's not all bad news!
Really?! Is that all this is? Utes verses Cougars? Bruins verses Trojans? Or worse yet, are we going to repeat 2008 in two years and treat the Presidential Election like it's nothing more than a season of American Idol?
There may have been a time when both the Republicans and the Democrats were devoted fans of the Constitution and the philosophical differences between them were within the boundaries of differing emphasis, interpretation or implementation. It hasn't been that way for a long time. I think the Charismatically Delusional among us have had their way with the Parties for decades.
The Republicans have been co-opted by the Neo-Cons and the Religious Fanatics over the past few decades and are starting to get back to a Constitutional philosophy with the Tea Party movement. I'm thrilled to hear people using the term Libertarian in political discussions. So maybe there is hope for the Right.
Wow! But the Democrats have been supplanted by the Progressives to the point that I'm thinking there may be no way back to their being the party with a liberal view of the role of constitutional government. The Progs won't say it in mixed company, but they'd rather have a Constitutional Convention to rip up our existing Constitution and start over with something that Marx, Mao or Chavez would approve of.
The Republicans still have a lot of cleaning house to do, but they seem to be headed in the right direction. The only hope for the Dems is for the Moderates and Blue-dogs to grow a pair and stand-up for their historic role as defenders of freedom. Most of the Free Market Democrat citizenry jumped ship along with Ronald Reagan to become Republicans. I've given up any hope that a third-party could rise-up, the system just doesn't work that way. The Socialists and Communists of the early 20th century figured that out and realized they'd need to co-opt the existing parties and they knew it was going to take time. They were right and here we are, a hundred years later and now they believe it's time for a century of "progress" to finally bear fruit.
The next Eighteen months are going to be historic, the last two years have been and they were just prologue. Power Grabs and congressional end-runs will abound. The violence will be unbelievable. Class-warfare and racism will run rampant. The disappointed Progressives will panic from fear that the window of opportunity is closing with the 2012 Elections and then the civil unrest will begin. America will resemble the countries we've always considered banana republics, at least for a while.
OK! I'm sorry to bum you out. There will still be televised talent contests and reality shows to watch. Mrs. Obama won't get your In-N-Out Burger outlawed and just think of all the new Sarah Palin jokes you'll hear from late night talk show hosts and the Comedy Channel! See it's not all bad news!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
