Democrats: I'll Resume My Donations When You Resume Fighting Republican Trickery?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Democrats: I'll Resume My Donations When You Resume Fighting Republican Trickery?

The one factor that contributed most to the downfall of the Democratic Party during the seventies and eighties was allowing conservative Republicans to seize control of the political rhetoric. The Democrats simply sat back and allowed themselves, their constituency and their agenda to be redefined in the eyes of the American people by conservative "spin doctors" without rebuttal. As a direct result, they've allowed the term "liberal" to become a bad word in the political lexicon.

When you consider how methodically the conservatives went about mounting their assault on the liberal agenda you can't help but recognize that it was a stroke of genius. Ironically, the conservatives took the Democratic Party's strength and made it a political liability. First they took the party's penchant for being concern with the plight of the downtrodden and coined phrases such as "bleeding heart liberals" and "tax and spend Democrats." They then played on the frustration of the middle class by tying civil rights legislation, welfare, and crime into one neat bundle as the source of middle class woes; then they attributed all of these problems to what they called the Democrat's tendency to be " bleeding heart liberals". Once the connection was made between minorities, welfare, crime, and the liberal agenda, it was just a matter of repeatedly hammering the message home.

In addition, conservatives used such tactics as spitting out the word "liberal" as though they were saying rapist. In this way they not only implanted a negative attitude toward liberalism in the mind of the voter, but it was said in such a way that the implication was made that it went without saying that all the negative stereotyping of liberalism was true. In other words, their attitude seems to suggest, "I could substantiate what I'm saying about liberals, but I don't think it's necessary since we all know what they're like." And in the election that spawned the "Republican revolution" the voters said, yes, we do.

Through these strategies conservatives accomplished three goals with one ingenious stroke -- they defined minorities as slovenly criminals, they define liberal Democrats as "soft on crime", and they allowed themselves the freedom to place these thoughts in the American psyche without having to substantiate their facts. Moreover, they accomplish all this in every sound bite, and without seeming to be racist, with the use of just one word, "liberal." In fact, conservatives have been so thorough in their disparagement of liberalism that at this point the word "liberal" is treated like vulgarity, and simply referred to as "the L word."

One would think that Democrats would be up in arms in defense of their liberal tradition. It would seem that they would be falling all over one another in an attempt to debate this issue. But instead, these people are falling over one another trying to put distance between themselves and the liberal tradition. Where are their backbones? Where is that one Democrat willing to say, wait a minute! Read your history! It was the "bleeding heart liberal" policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that brought this country back from the brink of disaster.

*******

In 1921 -- eight years before the great depression -- Republicans took over the helm of this nation for 12 years. During that time there were three Republican administrations, the first of which was the administration of Warren G. Harding. History remembers Harding's administration for one thing more than anything other -- scandal. It was during Harding's presidency that the Teapot Dome Scandal erupted. His administration was considered the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States -- until Nixon's, then Reagan's, and finally Bush's.

Next, in 1923, came Calvin Coolidge, the president that Ronald Reagan is said to have most admired. Coolidge's policies of large tax cuts, allowing business a free-rein, and his encouragement of stock speculation contributed greatly to the impending stock market crash and the great depression that was to come.

Then in 1929 Herbert Hoover came to power. During his administration the stock market crashed, starting the great depression. In spite of the fact that by 1933 the unemployment rate was at 33.3% with 16 million people out of work, the Republican, Hoover, just sat, thinking that the economy would eventually rejuvenate itself. During Hoover's administration 15,000 WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding that they be paid what they were owed by the government. Hoover responded by calling in federal troops to throw these ex-servicemen off government property.

Finally in 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a liberal democrat, was elected overwhelmingly. He immediately surrounded himself with a group of the finest minds in the country, including Columbia professors Adolph A. Berle, Jr., Rexford G. Tugwell, and Raymond Moley, known at the time as the "Brain Trust." After assembling these men and others he went about the business of developing a" New Deal" for the working class people of this country.

The New Deal had two components -- one to help the economy to recover from the effects of the great depression, and a second component to give relief to the American people and to insure that they were never be placed in a position of total destitution again. To help heal the economy Roosevelt created programs that regulated business, controlled inflation, and brought about price stabilization; to bring relief to the people he signed The National Labor Relations Act which guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining, and he created the Social Security Administration to guarantee workers some sort of income once they became too old to work. He also signed the Fair Labor Standards Act which protected workers rights and set a minimum wage for workers.

With his New Deal in place Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this "bleeding heart liberal", not only led this country out of the worst, Republican generated, crisis that this country has ever faced, but went on to lead the free world in victory over Hitler in WWII. He then ushered in the most sustained prosperity that the world has ever known.

One would think that conservatives would have seen the light, but their passion to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes seems to supersede all logic. Therefore, from the moment that the New Deal went into place, conservatives have been determined to dismantle it. The closest they've come to succeeding started during the Reagan administration with Supply-Side Economics, or, "Reaganomics" -- and the battle is currently raging in Washington D.C. as we speak.

Supply- Side Economics was a scheme hatch by U.S.C. economist Arthur Laffer and the Reagan crowd which was supposed to cut the deficit and balance the budget. The theory behind Reaganomics was ostensibly, if you cut taxes for business and people in the upper tax brackets, and then deregulated business of such nuisances as safety regulations and environmental safeguards, the beneficiaries would invest their savings into creating new jobs. In that way the money would eventually "trickle down" to the rest of us. The resulting broadened tax base would not only help to bring down the deficit, but also subsidize the tremendously high defense budget. When the plan was first floated, even George Bush, Reagan's vice president to be, called it "voodoo economics."

Reaganomics, for the most part, sought to undo many of the safeguards put into place during the Roosevelt era and create a business environment similar to that which was in place during the Coolidge Administration. What actually took place, however, was even more like the Coolidge era than planed.

 Instead of taking the money and investing it into creating new jobs, the money was used in wild schemes and stock market speculation. One of these schemes, the leveraged buy out, involved buying up large companies with borrowed funds secured by the company's assets, then paying off the loan by selling off the assets of the purchased company. This practice cost the citizens of this country its industrial base. In addition, the bottom fell out of the stock market. On Monday, October 19, 1987 the Dow-Jones Average fell 508.32 points. It was the greatest one-day decline since 1914 - 15 years before the Great Depression.

And what about Ronald Reagan's promise to balance the budget and lower the deficit? By the time he left office he was not only the most prolific spender of any president, but he also added more to the deficit than all of the other presidents from George Washington to his own administration combined. And what does the Republican Party propose to do about that? One of the Republican proposals was their "contract with America," a capitol gains tax cut -- for the rich.

Due to the continued freewheeling fiscal policies of conservative Republicans, between 1986 and 1989, spanning the presidencies of Reagan and Bush Sr., the FSLIC had to pay off all the depositors of 296 institutions with assets of over $125 billion.

Then in 1988 Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $1.3 billion. It was headed by Neil Bush, brother of George W. The investigation alleged that he was guilty of "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." The issue was eventually settled out of court with Bush paying a mere $50,000 settlement.

Then there was the Lincoln Savings and loan scandal in 1987, involving John McCain. The scandal was very similar to the one that is currently playing out on Wall Street. He was one of a group of senators dubbed "The Keating Five" involved in a scandal by the same name.

In 1976 Charles Keating moved to Arizona to run the American Continental Corporation. In 1984, shortly after the Reagan era push to deregulate the savings and loan community, Keating bought Lincoln Savings and Loan and began to engage in highly risky investments with the depositors' savings. In 1989 the parent company, which Keating headed, went bankrupt, and it resulted in over 21,000 investors losing their life savings. Most of the investors were elderly, and the loss amounted to about 285 million dollars.

After having received over a million dollars from Keating in illegal campaign contributions, gifts, free trips, and other gratuities, the Keating Five--Senators John Glenn, Don Riegle, Dennis DeConini, Alan Cranston, and Sen. John McCain--attempted to intervene in the investigation into Keating's activities by the regulators. Later, they were admonished to varying degrees by the senate for attempting to influence regulators on Keating's behalf. Charles Keating ended up being convicted for fraud, racketeering and conspiracy, for which he received 10 years by the state court, and a 12 year sentence in federal court. After spending four and a half years in prison, his convictions were overturned. But prior to being retried, he pled guilty to a number of felonies in return for a sentence of time served.

Then came the George W. Bush administration that caused close to a million people to die uselessly in an illegal war in Iraq, robbed the American people blind, whose fumbling ignited the longest war in American history in Afghanistan, and whose greed came very close to sending the nation into yet another depression.

Now, after all of their repeated efforts to deplete the national treasury, they're unanimously voting against every piece of legislation that the Democrats propose to repair the damage they created, and to bring relief to the American people. Then they have the audacity to claim that they're doing it because they're concerned about deficit spending.

They're against affordable health care for American families; they're against any kind of spending to put Americans back to work, and they're against extending unemployment insurance to relieve the burden of America's unemployed. What's particularly telling, however, is they're also against any kind of strong legislation to prevent the financial community (them) from being able to rob the American people in the future.

The fact is, what they really want is to maintain the status quo, and make damn sure that the American people suffer until the 2012 elections so they'll have a chance to regain power and raid the treasury again. That's their one and only agenda - period.

History is clear. The conservative Republicans don't mind spending money, they just don't want to spend it on those who need it -- us. Remember, they're the party of Alexander Hamilton, one of this country's founding fathers who believed that only those who owned property should even be allowed to vote. He also said:

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government." Debates of the Federalist Convention (May 14-September 17, 1787).

So, let's set the record straight. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that "bleeding heart liberal", not only brought the nation back from the Great Depression and saved the world from Hitler during his life, but his "New Deal" for the American people gave us the greatest prosperity we've ever known, and allowed him to reach back from the grave to save the nation from Ronald Reagan 50 years after his death.

That isn't to say that the liberal Democratic philosophy corners the market on what is in the best interest of the nation -- it is clear that both parties have had illustrious moments in the past -- but rather, this is one of those defining issues in American politics that determines whether this is to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or a government where the citizens or nothing more than disposable resources for big business.

In the past the Democratic Party has always been there to draw a line in the sand on this issue, but in recent history the liberal philosophy has been distorted to the point that even Democrats are distancing themselves from their own political philosophy.

But what makes America great, are those dramatic moments in American politics when that one individual has the courage to put everything on the line to defend, protect, and save the American people from disaster. And the annals of modern American history will clearly show that during those moments, it was a "bleeding heart liberal" that stepped up to the plate. First FDR, then Bill Clinton, and now Barack Hussein Obama.

Thus, future historians will record that there is nothing more honorable in American politics than a bleeding heart . . .  because their hearts bleed for America.

Now if we can just find a few.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Mr. President: By Refusing to Look Back, you're Jeopardizing What Lies Before Us

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Mr. President: By Refusing to Look Back, You're Jeopardizing What Lies Before Us

I undoubtedly have neither the information nor wisdom to question the vast majority of your presidential decisions. But it takes neither classified information, nor wisdom, to question your decision to "move forward and not look back" regarding the Bush administration's actions leading this nation into the Iraq War, and the alleged war crimes committed thereafter.

During your inauguration you swore that to the best of your ability you would act to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, your decision to circumvent the rule of law in response to the Bush administration's actions leading up to and during the War in Iraq does everything but that. Your position in this matter is diametrically opposed to one of the fundamental principles of this nation - that no one is above the law.

This is not a partisan issue, Mr. President. The concept of equal rights under the law (which also means equal consequences for the violating the law ) is both central to the United States Constitution, and a fundamental cornerstone of the American ideal. Without that concept - the concept that no man is above the law - America is no longer America. So by choosing to ignore that ideal, you're not only in violation of your oath of office, but you're striking a much more devastating blow against America than Al Qaeda could ever manage.

And I'm not speculating here. We've already seen the negative consequences of setting such a precedent. Hundreds of thousands of people have died just because we failed to hold Richard Nixon accountable for Watergate.

Had Richard Nixon been held accountable and sent to jail for Watergate, chances are Ronald Reagan wouldn't have embarked upon Iran/contra. And if Reagan had been impeached then imprisoned for his actions during the Iran/Contra episode - including flooding the inner cities of this nation with drugs (an action the Black community is still suffering from) - Bush and his cohorts would have been placed on notice that ANYONE who circumvents the laws of this land will face heavy consequences.

Thus, had Bush and Cheney known that America stood united and unequivocal in that stance, the War in Iraq probably never would have happened, which in turn would have saved the lives of thousands of American troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

One would think, Mr. President, that you would be particularly sensitive to the importance of adhering to the rule of law. While I'm in total agreement with your position that you were elected to be the president of ALL the people, there was no way you could avoid bringing the experience of the African American collective into the White House with you. That experience should inform you, in a very personal way, of the negative consequences of ignoring the rule of law.

Let me make it clear that I'm not one who subscribes to the belief that because you're a Black president that you owe Black people any more than you owe any other American. In fact, my article immediately prior to this one is in direct opposition to Tavis Smiley's position in that regard. I view Tavis Smiley's position as both self-serving and shortsighted, because the corollary of his position is that all of the White presidents who follow you owe a special alliance to White people, and as I see it, that is exactly the position that the civil rights movement was established to oppose.

But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bring the knowledge and wisdom of the Black experience to bear as you carry out your job as chief executive. And part of that experience should be the wisdom to understand that this nation's failure to strictly adhere to the rule of law led directly to the lynching of Black people and the bombing of Black churches in the South. It also led to Jim Crow, rules that distorted the law of the land and were specifically designed to circumvent the law's intent.

So I sincerely hope that you will consider the historic symbolism of your position in this matter. After all of the hardships that Black people have gone through as a direct result of this nation's penchant to ignore the rule of law "for the better good," regardless to what you accomplish on behalf of this nation as president, future historians will look back upon the first Black President of the United States taking a position to ignore the law and "not look back" on the unjust murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and thousands of American citizens, as grossly unconscionable, and a dark mark upon your presidency.

But even if you can live with that, current events clearly demonstrate that the slippery slope in which the nation has slid over the past thirty years is becoming even more steep as this column is being written. Who would have thought just a mere thirty years ago that the validity of war crimes, torture, and the blatant invasion of privacy of the American people would even be a subject for debate in this country? And who would have thought that a Vice President of the United States would be under a cloud for revealing the identity of a CIA agent, or that a corporation that he formerly headed would be guilty of providing American troops with contaminated water for profit?

And further, who would have thought a mere thirty years ago that American troops would be sent into an unnecessary war without the equipment necessary to sustain their lives, then when wounded, made to pay for the equipment that had to be cut from their body and left on the field of battle? And who would believe that this nation would then force those brave troops to pay for their own meals while lying in the hospital recuperating from their wounds in the nation's defense?

Yet, now you say let us, "not look back?" Oh no, I don't think so. I don't think that once the American people come out of the shock of the past ten years they're going to let that fly. They already sense that there's something terribly wrong with our government; they're just currently in shocked disbelief - but they'll be coming out of that shocked disbelief somewhere around the 2012 election.

In my opinion you're one of the best presidents that we've ever had in many ways, but there's only one chink in your armor - you seem to be unwilling to confront the GOP in an aggressive and forthright manner. Ordinarily that might be considered less than important, but in the current political environment it is just as serious a shortcoming as if you were reluctant to confront Al Qaeda.

The GOP leadership is a much more serious threat to the American way than Al Qaeda can ever be. While Al Qaeda is undoubtedly a physical threat to the American people, the GOP is attacking America's soul. They're attempting to alter what America is as a nation - and you're failure to address that issue is so counter- intuitive to your political base, who, after all, voted for change, that many are beginning to wonder if you're not part of the problem.

In short, Mr. President, we don't give a damn about the appearance of bipartisanship. In this case, to be bipartisan means, "Ok, let's comprise and just destroy America a little bit." You're political base - which includes Democrats, Independents, and Republicans - are not interested in that. We're looking to you to defend the American way of life, by any means necessary - period.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Healthcare: There was a 3 a.m. Call to the White House, and No One Answered

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Healthcare: There was a 3 a.m. Call to the White House, and No One Answered

President Obama is in trouble. How do I know? Because as one of his biggest supporters, even I'm beginning to wonder if I got too caught up in the hype. While I'm still excited over the historic significance of his presidency, the gathering threat that he may be remembered as an ineffectual kiss-up to the Republican Party is beginning to tarnish its luster.

That should come as very bad news to the president, because if a supporter of my unfettered loyalty has begun to wonder about him, that means that tens of millions of others are thinking along the same lines. And based on his atrocious handling of both the Republican Party and the healthcare debate, he only has himself to blame.

In the real world, it's not enough to have good ideas and the eloquence to express them, one must also have the backbone to wield power in order to bring those ideas to fruition - that's the reason for seeking power in the first place. But the president doesn't seem to have the capacity to do that - wield power, that is. He seems to yearn for a utopia in America where everybody is holding hands singing Kumbaya. We need a little realism here - make that, a lot of realism.

The president seems to harbor this burning desire to be loved by everyone. If that's all he wanted he should have become an entertainer instead of a politician. In politics, the people are looking for a father figure who is fair, but also bad enough to protect them from harm, and President Obama is not demonstrating that capacity. In fact, from what he's shown so far, he seems to be more adept at taking the coward's way out. Everyone knows the type - the kind of guy that's always running up to the bullies trying to become their best friend so they won't get beat up.

No one wants a president like that, no matter how much they like him. The people want someone that makes them feel secure and protected. Sure, Obama is very intellectual and contemplative, but you can't think your way out of an ass wiping when a bully's determined to do it - I know that for a fact, because I've tried it with very little success.

The irony of Obama's presidency is that if he fails in his first term - and if he continues the way he is, he will - it's not going to be because he wasn't cultured enough, or intellectual enough, but because he's not ghetto enough. Just turn on your television and try to find a show without someone being busted in the head. You can't do it, because Americans respect people who are willing to fight for what they believe in.

If he had just a little more ghetto in him he would have thrown Lieberman to the wolves thirty seconds after he took the oath of office. If he'd done that, the other Liebercrats who are currently blocking healthcare reform would have had second thoughts about the consequences of bucking his initiatives. Americans don't want to be led by Jimmy Stewart; they want John Wayne, a benevolent bully.

The people want the kind of president who's willing to tell congress what he wants, draw a line in the sand, then make it clear to every legislator that they buck the will of the American people at their own peril - then setup a special task force in the White House dedicated to nothing but educating the people with facts and figures about the self-serving motives of the legislators trying to circumvent their will.

Why shouldn't the people know about the connection that Joe Lieberman and his wife have with the insurance industry? Provide the people with that information, then let him go before the cameras and try to look sincere. If the White House had that kind of operation, Liebercrats and Republicans alike would have to check their closets before they decided to buck the president.

But instead, Obama's acting like that Black cop that we in the Black community know so well - the one who's so sensitive about being accused of coddling Black people that he goes out of his way to be more insensitive than his colleagues. That's exactly what Obama is doing to his base. He's so fixated on appeasing the Republican base that he seems to be totally ignoring his own. As a result, he's turning a blind eye to why he was voted into office in the first place.

But what's so unfathomable is that as intelligent as Barack Obama is, he seems to be forgetting that, unlike that Black cop, he has to come back to the community to be reelected - and if he doesn't spend the next three years undoing the damage that he's done to his image, never mind the possibility of losing to a Republican, he may even lose the right to run again in the primaries.

The president seems to working under the assumption that being an aggressive advocate for the people is bad politics, so he's adopted a strategy of trying to win by not losing. That explains why he's pointedly avoided specifically identifying what he wants in a healthcare bill. He seems to feel that by drawing a line in the sand, every element of the bill that's shot down thereafter constitutes a personal lost to him.

The fact is, that's true, but that's what's called having the courage of your convictions. That's why you fight, and fight hard. But he seems to have adopted a strategy of if I don't fight, I won't have to bear the embarrassment of losing, which by definition, fails the people who elected him.

This is not the time to indulge in political vanity - save that for the next election season. This is where the rubber meets the road. Now's the time to put all the pretty rhetoric aside and fight for the people who believed in him, and gave him their vote in the belief that he would fight to protect their interest. But I'm very sorry to say, that he's failing to do that, to the sincere disappoint of millions. He promised "a change that we can believe in," but what we're getting is the same old status quo that we thought we voted out of fashion - politicians first, then the people . . . maybe.

Mr. President, I have never dreaded writing any article more than I have this one. All of my instincts are screaming for me to hang in there with you, but the facts won't allow it. Every time I go to write a sentence trying to justify you're actions, I think about an email that I received from a young lady regarding my column. She simply said, "I really hope you're researching the stuff you say in your column, because I don't know much about politics, so I rely on you for my information." So while I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt, Mr. President, my first loyalty must be to people like that young lady.

So, you need to man up, Mr. President, as we say in the 'hood. You're looking weak and indecisive: You're allowing people from your own party to thumb their noses at you, you're putting thirty thousand of our troops in harms way in order to chase one hundred Eastside Crips in Afghanistan, and you're fighting to pass a healthcare bill that forces the public to by in, but without a public option. That, in essence, constitutes paying a windfall ransom to the insurance industry in order to protect your image.

But you still have time to change your course of action. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. The Republicans are not going to like you regardless to what you do, but by deciding to go for broke in defense of the American people you might still have time to salvage your image in the eyes of your base.

But your window of opportunity is very narrow indeed. At the rate your image has declined in this first year since you took office, if you don't do something fast - and I mean very fast - by this time next year you're gonna be typecasted as a weak and ineffectual president, both at home and abroad. At that point you'll be no more than a caretaker for the next two years until you can be voted out of office. Because believe me, none of your base, including myself, is going to support having a president kiss up to the Republicans for another four years.

Mr. President, I'm convinced that you're a good, intelligent, and well-meaning man so I'm still pulling for you. But what I've related to you here is what many of us call, the actual factuals.


Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

The Filibuster: A Platform for Prima Donnas to Obstruct Democracy

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE The Filibuster: A Platform for Prima Donnas to Obstruct Democracy It's time to get rid of the filibuster in the United States Senate. The filibuster is a senate rule where if there is less than sixty votes on any issue, any one senator can hold up the people's business by blocking the issue from coming to a vote before the full senate. The movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," with Jimmy Stewart, portrays the practice in its most charitable light. There, Jimmy Stewart's character uses the filibuster to prevent legislation from being enacted against the people by a corrupt political machine. But in reality, the filibuster is virtually always used to obstruct legislation beneficial to the people in favor of a corrupt or malevolent status quo. In 1957 Sen. Strum Thurmond (Sen., S.C.) filibustered to obstruct the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Then in 1964 a group of Southern senators mounted a filibuster in an attempt to obstruct a vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which included anti lynching legislation. And just recently Sen. Joe Lieberman threatened to filibuster to prevent healthcare legislation from coming to a vote in order to protect the greed of the insurance industry - and that was in spite of the fact that a full 68% of the people who voted him into office stood firmly in favor of healthcare reform. The filibuster is symbolic of the many ways that Americans are being manipulated by the encroachment of an increasingly insidious class system. Thus, the time has long since past for the American people to rediscover the necessity of keeping tight reins on governmental power. It is absolutely incumbent upon us to strip individual politicians of the tools to hold badly needed legislation hostage for their own personal interest. Not only is it undemocratic to allow one senator to override the will of the people and the majority of the senate, but recent history has clearly demonstrated that politicians are much too self-serving, irresponsible, and corrupt to be vested with such tremendous power. In an article in Slate.com, it was pointed out that Joe Lieberman's opposition to healthcare reform came only one day after the insurance lobby released a report attacking it. Slate also pointed out that Lieberman's home state of "Connecticut is home to 72 insurance companies, including Aetna, a major player in the health-insurance industry whose PAC and employees have this year given Lieberman $65,200." As a result, Lieberman didn't blink an eye before throwing his constituents under the bus. So while Joe Lieberman didn't follow through with his threat to filibuster healthcare legislation, it certainly wasn't because he prayed over the issue and suddenly found God. Lieberman didn't follow through with his threat for the very same reason that seems to generally motivate his machinations - self-interest. First, he wants to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee in the senate, which the Democrats allowed him to keep even after he turned on them in the 2008 election. And secondly, the pressure for him to fall into line became much too intense for his cowardly heart to take. His threat to filibuster the legislation was designed to pull other Democrats onboard, but when he failed to do so, he lacked the character to stand alone. President Eisenhower pointed out in his speech on the military/industrial complex that "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together [emphasis added]." That also applies to every other area of American governance. But due to the under funding and concerted attack on our educational system, we're rapidly losing that essential characteristic, which is absolutely necessary to maintain the viable democracy that was established by this nation's founders. Over the years America has become increasingly hostile toward education and the pursuit of knowledge in general. In fact, many of our politicians have started to actively demonize education in much the same way that they demonized the term "liberal" in the sixties. The educated members of our society are now often referred to as "elitist." The hostility of our politicians toward education stems from the fact that the demagoguery of control and manipulation cannot thrive in a knowledgeable society. A knowledgeable society would immediately recognize that one man should not be able to obstruct public policy. So they've mounted a brutal attack on our educational system by trying to starve it to death. Those who are entrusted with the nation's most valuable asset - the intellectual development of our nation's youth - are denigrated, paid like paupers, and relegated to among the lowest tiers of our society, when they should be at the top. And while other countries are guaranteeing a higher education to all who are qualified, the children of the poor and middle class in the United States are being arrested for demonstrating against college tuition being raised far beyond their ability to pay. This is not by accident. Our educational system is being purposely undermined so the American people can be easily trained, like Pavlov's dog, to respond to emotional cues rather than rational thought. In that way, corporate manipulators like Joe Lieberman, Fox News, and the Republican Party are left to define, for the people, what's in their best interest. It allows the likes of Rush Limbaugh or a Glen Beck to instruct them in when it's appropriate to become outraged. That leaves the nation in a very precarious position, because now, instead of loving America, and American ideals, the people have been conditioned to vest their love and loyalty in individuals. We currently see the effect of that in the people's response to Sarah Palin on the right, and President Obama on the left. While certaintly not equating the president with Sarah Palin, the point is, many people have confused their love for individuals with patriotism, and the character of that "patriotism" is determined by the character of the individual. That's extremely dangerous, especially since these people lack the education to reflect back on WWII. The problem is, in order for American citizens to truly love America, they have to know what it is about America that's worth loving. But due to the attack on our educational system, we've spawned a generation of Americans who know absolutely nothing about American traditions, nor ideals. That's why they so easily accept torture, and the invasion of privacy as though it's business as usual. That's also why they so casually accept the fact that there's a class of people who are obviously above the law. That's what they see in American life, and they have no other frame of reference or educational background to inform them that having a class above the law is un-American. As a result, we have a constant chipping away of American values. While part of President Eisenhower's warning was "make no assumptions," those of us who do have a knowledge of American ideals have made the false assumption that a knowledge of America's traditions are so fundamental that it's common to all Americans. But the fact is, it's not. There's a large segment of our population who don't know what it means to be an American. Thus, it's not necessary for corporate controllers to take away our rights, we've become so ignorant as a people that we're fighting one another to give them away - and don't make the mistake of thinking that applies to only the least of us. Our military personnel all get a crash course in what it means to be an American, but what of the corporate and political class? The politicians tell us that we're at war. That used to mean that the entire country pulled together to sacrificed equally to defeat the enemy. But how many sons and daughters of the political or corporate class have died in this war? That's right - not one. Yeah, I know. We have a volunteer army. But if America is in such a life and death struggle, why aren't the rich and political class urging their children to volunteer in the name of patriotism? I'll tell you why - because the pride of the founding fathers has become so remote that the rich and powerful now see patriotism as pedestrian. These people have learned from their parents - Dick Cheney, for example - that the pride of patriotism is nothing more than a tool to manipulate the masses. Why isn't the super-patriotic Liz Cheney driving a truck in Iraq? The simple answer is, because she sees it as beneath her station. She feels that there are "little people" to do that sort of thing. Her job is to be a cheerleader. Thus, we've become the victims of our own ignorance, and it's time to set that straight before it's too late. And the only way that we can restore ourselves as "we the people," is by reasserting ourselves over the lofty and arrogant by stripping then of their political power. And the very first step in that process should be regaining control of congress, and stripping these prima donnas of the right to filibuster the will of the American people. 　 Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com   Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Why is President Obama Losing Momentum in the Polls?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Why is President Obama Losing Momentum in the Polls? President Obama is beginning to lose the politically essential enthusiasm of many independent voters. The primary reason for that is that he seems to be deviating from the message that got their support in the first place. During his campaign, candidate Obama promised "A Change that We Can Believe in," but now, President Obama's vain attempt to appease the GOP is only serving to water down the very change that he promised, and America expected. We embraced Obama because we understood that many of the problems in this country was a direct result of the logjam caused by the endless feuding between the far left and right fringes of American politics. We had the sense that Obama wasn't a partisan player, so middle America rose up, put race aside, and selected him as a refreshing change. And as president, Obama is indeed a refreshing change in that he's neither liberal nor is he conservative. He's a pragmatist, so unlike most, his thinking is not distorted by a one-size-fit-all, pre-chewed and regurgitated ideology. He assesses every issue on its own merit, and he bases his decisions on what he believes is in the best interest of America as a whole. But ironically, it is that very pragmatism that's currently undermining his efforts. Political pragmatism has led President Obama to mistakenly believe that the best way to resolve the nation's problems is through reaching out in bipartisanship to the Republican Party. That sounds good in theory, but it can only work if the Republican Party is acting in good faith, which it isn't. The Republicans have no interest in bipartisanship - especially if it means helping to resolve America's problems. Their only interest is in undermining Obama's presidency, serving their corporate contributors, and stoking the flame of division among the social fringies in the Palin\Limbaugh wing of the party. Clear evidence of that is apparent in Sen. Jim DeMint's (R, S.C.) comment indicating that if they can block healthcare reform it will break Obama - never giving a thought to the negative impact that would have on the families of millions of jobless Americans. So the president's good will is being used against him, and based on the latest polls, with increasing effectiveness. The Republicans are using his attempt at bipartisanship to water down his initiatives to point where they're close to meaningless, then voting against them anyway after he's compromised in an attempt to accommodate them. The president's accommodating nature is allowing Republican nihilists to have their cake and eat it too. First, they're sabotaging his bills with so many amendments that they're rendering them ineffective. Then, if the initiative is effective, they claim that the only reason it worked was due to their amendments. But if it's ineffective, they tell the American people, "See, we told you he didn't know what he's doing." As a result, the polls show that many Democrats and independents are becoming increasingly weary with what's beginning to look like Obama's incessant catering to the whims of the right. Many of the president's supporters are now openly saying, we might as well have a Republican in office if he's going to give them everything they want. And it's becoming harder to argue that point with each day that passes. In spite of the fact the every member of the administration has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, the Obama administration is doing a better job of protecting Bush and Cheney from accountability than they did for themselves, and it's absolutely unconscionable. The Bush/Cheney regime mounted a blatant assault on the United States Constitution, caused the death and injury of thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and they committed war crimes so heinous that they have all but destroyed the reputation of the United States throughout the world - and all for the purpose of political and financial gain. So why are they walking around with impunity? While one might argue that the president fully intends to address this issue, along with the matter of sexual bigotry within the military, his economic stimulus and healthcare reform is under attack, so it's simply impractical to also alienate the Bush apologists and homophobes at this time. I don't think that argument stands up. The class of people who represent the homophobes and Bush apologists are going to be hostile to the president's initiatives regardless to what action he takes, or fail to take. So by failing to promptly address the mandate that got him elected, he stands to lose his base of support without gaining a thing. And further, if the GOP were kept busy trying to protect the Bush/Cheney legacy, they wouldn't have the time to distort the president's healthcare reform at their leisure. But most importantly, President Obama is a constitutional scholar, so he should know better than anyone that it's not up to him whether or not these men are held accountable. Their accountability is dictated by the rule of law, and either a nation believes in the rule of law, or it doesn't. Thus, by turning his back on his responsibility in this matter, Obama is setting a precedent that tells the world, and posterity, that in America the powerful are above the law, and the rule of law is secondary to political pragmatism. By taking this position he's placing the future of this nation in serious jeopardy. If Richard Nixon had gone to jail for Watergate, and Ronald Reagan had joined him for his excesses during the Iran/Contra affair and flooding our inner cities with drugs in order to finance it, the Bush administration wouldn't have dared to engage in the criminal activity that they engaged in. The only reason Bush and Cheney felt free to mount an assault on our constitution is because a precedent had been set with Nixon and Reagan that the powerful was above the law. Now, with President Obama talking about "looking forward," that precedent threatens to be set in stone. If that becomes the case, what can we expect from the next generation of demagogues? So it's understandable that the polls are beginning to show that many Democratic and independent voters are beginning to question the president's approach to this matter. It's nothing close to a change that we can believe in. As they see it, it is one thing to be a nice guy, but it is something altogether different to completely ignore the rule of law - even in an attempt to be pragmatic. As Neville Chamberland learned after his warm and fuzzy moment with Adolf Hitler - it never pays to kiss a snake.  Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content