Conservatives like to joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. The audience can fill in the specifics of the mugger as they choose. It could be a homeless guy, a welfare receipient, a gay or a particularly aggressive feminist. Any class of people that as a "bleeding heart" liberal one was inclined to throw tax payer money at until reality set it. It might be an immigrant of an affirmative action employee or, more recently, a receipient of unemployment insurance. The conservative has seen the light and deals with the world as he finds it.The mugger is never imagined to be a banker, hedge fund manager, health insurance representative or member of the Chamber of Commerce. Muggers come from the underclass, the objects of bleeding heart largess.
John McCain was mugged but his is a variation of that old joke. The one time maverick who railled against the first Bush tax cuts as a giveaway to the rich and championed an immigration bill with that hated liberal Ted Kennedy and even signed on to a finance reform bill which sought to limit the role of money in elections has been mugged not from the pathetic left but the realists of the right. His is a story of a Frankenstein's monster.
Once described by a conservative commentator as neither a republican nor a conservative, McCain attempted to win back the disgrunteled right by a bold stroke in 2008. He chose as his vice-presidential running mate an obscure governor of Alaska whom he described as an expert on energy policy. The choice energized the right. He soon found his campaign dominated by the charismatic running mate who drew larger and more enthusiastic crowds than he could muster. After the defeat which some believe might have been worse without the governor of Alaska's mobilization of the Christian Right (others argue that she lost more independents than she gained on the Right), McCain has been reduced to a footnote to the rise of Sarah Palin.
He now fights for air time in the media by railing against the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint chiefs and their recommendation for repeal of the Don't Ask Don't tell Policy endorsed by a Pentagon study whose findings he once said he would endorse. His is a pathetic story whose final chapter has yet to be written. Should Palin choose to run in 2012 he will be forced to either endorse his mugger whom he thought could serve as President in 2008 or an opponent whom he rejected as a running mate...A Romney or a Huckabee.
It would be easy to dismiss him as a typical political opportunist who lacks principles above which ro rise.
More accurate I belive is the story of a politician who belives he deserves a better fate than thus far afforded him but will not yet conceed to his creation, Sarah Palin, the mantle of political leader of his party!
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Patrioitism and the Business Community
While the patriot party has had little difficulty in accusing the Obama administration of Socialism and disregard for the public interest it has been silent on the responsibilities of the business community for the economic recession which engulfs the country. There have been plenty of opportunities to remind Wall Street and the Banking community of its national responsibilities.
In a news conference in 1962 John Kennedy had no reservations about invoking patriotism to chastise decisions made in the private business community. In May 1962 he began a famous news conference with the following observations:
"In this hour in our nation's history, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking Reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end, and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam...the Americn poeple will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contemp for the interests of 185 million Americans."
There have been numerous opportunities for bolth the Bush Administration as well as Obama's to remind the hedge fund managers, banks and insurance companies of their responsibilities as patriots for the well being of their fellow citizens.
While the Bush-Chaney administration might be forgiven for giving the corporate executives a pass on practices which have crippled the economy there is much less excuse for Obama. His silence on the relationship of business profit taking, bonuses and outright dishonesty to the larger national interest in a time of two wars is unfathomable. Who, one might ask, has done greater damage to the country? Obama's rather succesful attempt to rescue the automotive industry (GM seems to be doing quite well, thank you) or those who practice predatory lending, derivative minipulaltions and reception of obscene bonuses for failure?
The answser seems fairly clear. A "socialist" bails out wall street and banks and is condemned by the patiot party and the very receipients of his policy's largess. Neither Kenndy nor Truman and FDR before them would have been so generous to the real culprits of America's ecominic woes.
In a news conference in 1962 John Kennedy had no reservations about invoking patriotism to chastise decisions made in the private business community. In May 1962 he began a famous news conference with the following observations:
"In this hour in our nation's history, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking Reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end, and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam...the Americn poeple will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contemp for the interests of 185 million Americans."
There have been numerous opportunities for bolth the Bush Administration as well as Obama's to remind the hedge fund managers, banks and insurance companies of their responsibilities as patriots for the well being of their fellow citizens.
While the Bush-Chaney administration might be forgiven for giving the corporate executives a pass on practices which have crippled the economy there is much less excuse for Obama. His silence on the relationship of business profit taking, bonuses and outright dishonesty to the larger national interest in a time of two wars is unfathomable. Who, one might ask, has done greater damage to the country? Obama's rather succesful attempt to rescue the automotive industry (GM seems to be doing quite well, thank you) or those who practice predatory lending, derivative minipulaltions and reception of obscene bonuses for failure?
The answser seems fairly clear. A "socialist" bails out wall street and banks and is condemned by the patiot party and the very receipients of his policy's largess. Neither Kenndy nor Truman and FDR before them would have been so generous to the real culprits of America's ecominic woes.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Party of Patriots
In 1960, the soon to be elected first Catholic President appeared before a convention of Protestant ministers to assure them that he was not an agent of the Vatican. The fact that he was a decorated war hero or that the first two medal of honor winners in WWII had been Roman Catholic was not sufficient to assure the self appointed gate keepers of American Protestant patriotism that a Catholic could serve as President. For Catholics watching this spectacle the experience was a humiliating one.
President Obama has suffered a similar indignity. Putting aside the nonsense of the birther movement that questions his citizenship (a movement that encompasses some 18% of Republican voters) or the equally nonsensical view that he has Muslim sympathies or is, himself, a Muslim ( a more significant 38% of Republican voters), Obama has been subject to a barrage of accustions regarding his "Americanism." His Health care reform has been labeled "socialist." As has his financial reform legislation. This is a familiar theme for patriotic opponents. One is reminded of the charges of Socialism and Bolshavism leveled at FDR's Social Security legislation in the 30s. (What is it about these Harvard educated presidents?) Even a "good ol boy" of the South like Lyndon Johnson was charged with Socialist tendencies when he passed the Medicare Bill.
This latter charge disappeared from view when another Southerner GW Bush proposed and passed the largest extension of Medicare Benefits. It seems only Democrats aree Socialists or Communists or un-American.
It is fair to say that the Republican Party has captured the language of Patriotism over the past eighty years and used it with mixed results in its oppositon to democratic candidates and policies. The Republican Vice Presidential candidate in 2008 repeated a popular refrain in speech after speech that Obama hangs around with "terrorists." Obama got 62 million votes in winning the election. One can only imagine what patriots would have said had he been president for nine months when a devasting 9-11 like attack took place. The country rallied around President Bush after 9/11 but it is doubtful a similar show of unity would have been granted Obama.
The problem with such consistent use of Patriotism to hammer political opponents is that it invites the charge of insincerity and, in fact, cheapens the genuine virtues of patriotism, A similar case can be made about the language of Christianity but more about this later.
President Obama has suffered a similar indignity. Putting aside the nonsense of the birther movement that questions his citizenship (a movement that encompasses some 18% of Republican voters) or the equally nonsensical view that he has Muslim sympathies or is, himself, a Muslim ( a more significant 38% of Republican voters), Obama has been subject to a barrage of accustions regarding his "Americanism." His Health care reform has been labeled "socialist." As has his financial reform legislation. This is a familiar theme for patriotic opponents. One is reminded of the charges of Socialism and Bolshavism leveled at FDR's Social Security legislation in the 30s. (What is it about these Harvard educated presidents?) Even a "good ol boy" of the South like Lyndon Johnson was charged with Socialist tendencies when he passed the Medicare Bill.
This latter charge disappeared from view when another Southerner GW Bush proposed and passed the largest extension of Medicare Benefits. It seems only Democrats aree Socialists or Communists or un-American.
It is fair to say that the Republican Party has captured the language of Patriotism over the past eighty years and used it with mixed results in its oppositon to democratic candidates and policies. The Republican Vice Presidential candidate in 2008 repeated a popular refrain in speech after speech that Obama hangs around with "terrorists." Obama got 62 million votes in winning the election. One can only imagine what patriots would have said had he been president for nine months when a devasting 9-11 like attack took place. The country rallied around President Bush after 9/11 but it is doubtful a similar show of unity would have been granted Obama.
The problem with such consistent use of Patriotism to hammer political opponents is that it invites the charge of insincerity and, in fact, cheapens the genuine virtues of patriotism, A similar case can be made about the language of Christianity but more about this later.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Toxic Patriotism
As we try to dissect the various strains of patriotism it is important to note it's toxic qualities. Such uses of patriotism as a political weapon are most visible during periods of war. Dissent from policy decisions regarding the waging of war frequently invite the use of patriotism to discredit otherwise serious discourse.
In recent American history both the Vietnam and second Iraq war are vivid examples. Critics of both were charged with betraying the brave troops waging the wars and underming the national unity war demands. In both cases as the wars became increasingly unpopular toxic patriotic arguments diminished. By 1968 and the Tet offensive, the American public began to doubt the wisdom of the war and its eventual outcome. By 1975 and the decision to disengage and effectively admit the war was a lost cause the use of patriotism as a political weapon had all but disappeared.
A similar trajectory could be found in the Iraq war. Early protests against the invasion of the Iraq were greeted as betrayal of the nobility of the cause and its warriors. By 2005, the mounting casualties and the instability of the regime for which Americans were dying led to a gradual disillusionment with the war, its rationale and its outcome. By 2006 the antiwar sentiment had harden to the degree that an anti-war party seized control of Congress and the Commander in Chief's popularity plummeted. In 2008, a President was elected who pledged to end the committment to Iraq.
In both cases the uses of patriotism to discredit opponents, while intense and an impediment to meaningful discourse was realitvely short lived. The original Afghanistan invasion was more or less spared this fate as little opposition was to be found. Its immediate success in ousting the Taliban and its sponsorship of those who attacked America also served to eliminate dissent and therefore the need to employ the toxic form of patriotism which Vietnam and Iraq engendered.
There is also a domestic version of toxic patriotism with a longer history but more of this later.
In recent American history both the Vietnam and second Iraq war are vivid examples. Critics of both were charged with betraying the brave troops waging the wars and underming the national unity war demands. In both cases as the wars became increasingly unpopular toxic patriotic arguments diminished. By 1968 and the Tet offensive, the American public began to doubt the wisdom of the war and its eventual outcome. By 1975 and the decision to disengage and effectively admit the war was a lost cause the use of patriotism as a political weapon had all but disappeared.
A similar trajectory could be found in the Iraq war. Early protests against the invasion of the Iraq were greeted as betrayal of the nobility of the cause and its warriors. By 2005, the mounting casualties and the instability of the regime for which Americans were dying led to a gradual disillusionment with the war, its rationale and its outcome. By 2006 the antiwar sentiment had harden to the degree that an anti-war party seized control of Congress and the Commander in Chief's popularity plummeted. In 2008, a President was elected who pledged to end the committment to Iraq.
In both cases the uses of patriotism to discredit opponents, while intense and an impediment to meaningful discourse was realitvely short lived. The original Afghanistan invasion was more or less spared this fate as little opposition was to be found. Its immediate success in ousting the Taliban and its sponsorship of those who attacked America also served to eliminate dissent and therefore the need to employ the toxic form of patriotism which Vietnam and Iraq engendered.
There is also a domestic version of toxic patriotism with a longer history but more of this later.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Patriotism Revisited
One of the unforeseen consequences of an all volunteer army is that patriotism has become a rather easy and comfortable value to display. Often it involves no more than a flag pin on one's lapel and a bumper sticker proclaiming that one "supports the troops." Of course, for those with loved ones in the military patriotism remains a difficult and often conflicting emotion. They suffer separation and doubt about their loved one's fate. They sometimes doubt the cause for which their sons, daughters and spouses are in harm's way. They worry endlessly but love their country and the community which surrounds them and nourishes them in their moments of fear and tragedy.
For the rest of us, the wars which set the context for our patriotism are often viewed as a spectator sport which illicit less emotional engagement than Dancing With the Stars and American Idol. It helps that the wars are financed on a credit card and allows us to insist upon tax relief while lamenting a growing deficit. There is a problem with these conflicting objectives but there is a patriotic response to this conundrum. But more about this later...In the meantime it will suffice to begin a discussion of the various meanings of patriotism available to citizens in a country engaged in two wars.
For the rest of us, the wars which set the context for our patriotism are often viewed as a spectator sport which illicit less emotional engagement than Dancing With the Stars and American Idol. It helps that the wars are financed on a credit card and allows us to insist upon tax relief while lamenting a growing deficit. There is a problem with these conflicting objectives but there is a patriotic response to this conundrum. But more about this later...In the meantime it will suffice to begin a discussion of the various meanings of patriotism available to citizens in a country engaged in two wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)