Out Of Tune Quartet (Guest Voice)
Mar 15th, 2009 | 22 responses
Out Of Tune Quartet
by Marc Pascal
The Governors of South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas have decided to reject some of the federal stimulus funds, particularly those geared towards increasing unemployment compensation and the numbers of people who are eligible. In Arizona, the Republican Governor and the Republican-controlled legislature have maintained their sanity and will push for all the federal stimulus money available while they deal with a systemically broken state government and tax system.
While most Democrats and many independents hold different opinions concerning what is rational and compassionate economic policy, there probably is a need to maintain some national opposition to the President and the Democratic Congress since the remaining Republicans in Congress are so ineffective and clueless. These 4 states can be testing grounds for an alternative response to this severe recession. They need the flexibility to “do their own thing.” These politicians may pay at the 2010 elections and beyond, but it’s their choice.
At least they provide endless fodder for pundits and comedians.
The unemployed in these 4 Southern states are the ones who will be hurt the most over the next 2 years. Unfortunately there are many people looking for work but are trapped by a house they cannot sell, or they simply do not have enough money to actually move elsewhere. There may be some comfort for these trapped people in knowing that so many others are losing their jobs across the nation and in every sector of the economy, and will likely do so for the next 18 months. However, staying put in a dying region of the country is not the best solution for unemployed individuals and their families.
The core of the Republican Party is now found in and around these 4 former Confederate states – geographically, culturally and politically. This country’s intense partisanship didn’t end with the election of President Obama – it has merely intensified. The minority is now a very angry and vocal group, sometimes screaming absolute nonsense and making completely untrue claims. They probably need to throw this tantrum and exorcise their demons. How long this process will take is anyone’s guess.
After the debacle of the 1932 election in the middle of the depression, it took 20 years for the Republican Party to elect a President in 1952. It is very debatable if the rabid extreme that controls the party would find the moderate President Eisenhower satisfactory today. He had the vision to warn us in 1960 of the dangers of the “Military Industrial Complex.” The victorious commanding General of AlliedForces in Europe during World War II might not recognize the Republican Party of today.
Demographically, the American electorate probably moved past the party of conservative, rich, old white guys and their shrinking minions in 2006. Even smart moderate Republicans leaders in Utah, Florida, and elsewhere are shifting economically, politically and culturally away from the party’s increasingly exclusionary, reactionary, and lunatic base. When your party’s entire political philosophy is dictated by conservative radio and television entertainers that never have to campaign for office, then proposing practical and moderate economic and political positions is not a high priority.
Does the American electorate have the patience and wisdom to know that we are in such a huge mess that it will take years to turn things around? Will it suddenly throw a temper-tantrum because immediate results are not produced by November 2010? Will there be any viable alternatives offered to the current democratic policies in 2010? What unusual events will transpire during the next 20 months that will again significantly alter the economic, political, cultural, environmental, and international situation?
After the Nazis took power in Germany during the Great Depression of the 1930’s, they started to repeat many falsehoods frequently and long enough until enough people ended up believing them. Then that country and millions across Europe had to pay the ultimate price for such rabid and misdirected hatred.
Today in this country, public opinion is made in part by our 24/7 media circus. It is no help that some of the prominent financial swindlers on Wall Street during this recession have been Jews. The Nazis falsely blamed Jews for the depression almost 80 years ago. On the political right in the U.S., there are some closet bigots whose long-time dislike of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Gays, Immigrants, Liberals, Jews and a whole litany of other new “traitors” has been simmering just below the surface.
My biggest fears center on the following: Often people who are out of power and who have lost control over their thoughts and emotions are prone to do crazy and dangerous things. There are some on the extreme right who have amassed arsenals of private guns — and if the flames are fanned one of them could start using them against fellow citizens and elected officials with whom he/she disagrees. On top of that, unemployed people often have way too much time on their hands and they might start following their darkest impulses. Finally, those who think they have little to lose and no control over anything in their lives may do anything rash in a fit of rage.
I hope the entertainers and commentators in our 24/7 media circus pursue civility and moderation, and do not foolishly add fuel to some of the insane fires smoldering in this country. Too often the voices who espouse the most outlandish and extreme positions get the most media and public attention. I understand there is a First Amendment to be respected, but falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not protected speech.
Everyone needs to “vent” their frustrations and anger from time to time. We just have to know when to stop the poisonous vitriol in our public discourse and thereby all work to prevent senseless and misdirected violence from erupting against our fellow human beings.
Marc Pascal obtained his undergraduate and graduate degrees in music, business and law (B.A., J.D. & M.B.A) over 15 years ago from a respected university in Ohio. Between 1986 and 1998, he served for several years as the in-house counsel for 2 large public corporations, and he also periodically practiced law in Cleveland, OH. Between 1991 and 2006, he started and managed 4 different new business ventures in the Midwest with various friends, all of which were a lot more fun. Since 2006, he has been an independent management and business consultant serving various private enterprises in the Phoenix area. He resides there with his spouse of 11 years and their young son. He regularly guest posts, comments and blogs on TMV in order to exorcise his demons since his consulting business has shrunk considerably during the past 3 months.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
22 Responses to “Out Of Tune Quartet (Guest Voice)”
Do you know why they are refusing the money? Here's a great article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/art…
I, for one, am regretting ever hoping there could be change.
“My biggest fears center on the following: Often people who are out of power and who have lost control over their thoughts and emotions are prone to do crazy and dangerous things. There are some on the extreme right who have amassed arsenals of private guns — and if the flames are fanned one of them could start using them against fellow citizens and elected officials with whom he/she disagrees. On top of that, unemployed people often have way too much time on their hands and they might start following their darkest impulses. Finally, those who think they have little to lose and no control over anything in their lives may do anything rash in a fit of rage.”
And if there is an increase in gun violence I hope that whoever proposes gun control laws does so reasonably and any debate is reasonable. Highly unlikely, though. I'm all for gun ownership, but we need sensible laws and regulations. We only allow people with driver's licenses to drive cars, and if they want to drive a motorcycle, then a different license is required. And if they want to drive an 18 wheeler a different license is required for that. I think the same sort of principles can be applied to gun owners. We should revamp the existing gun permit/license process. Perhaps, like a driver's license, have a test (and interview) for applicants. Someone who wants to own a handgun would have a different (and easier) application process than someone at the other end of the spectrum who wants to own an AK-47.
Guns were developed for killing things and why we do not treat and regulate them as such is beyond me.
OK, here is an even better question – is the Stimulus Bill even Constitutional:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/art…
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/03/even-economi…
Some very, very interesting points are raised in the Chicago Tribune article (to steal and excerpt from TVC):
“If state law does not give the state legislature the right to bypass the governor, how can Congress just change that law? Where does Congress get the power to change a state constitution? . . .
The two main sources of power that might justify subsection (b) are Congress' power over interstate commerce and its power to tax and spend. The commerce power does not support this law. The commerce power is very broad indeed, but there are limits. One important one is that Congress can only use the commerce power to subject the states to “generally applicable” law. For example, if Congress sets the minimum wage at $7 an hour for all workers in interstate commerce, that law can include state workers in interstate commerce. But subsection (b) is not “generally applicable.” By its very nature it only governs states.
The second main source of federal power is the spending power, allowing Congress to bribe the states to take certain actions. . . .
The spending clause does not work here. Congress is not telling a state, “You must change your state constitution before we will give you a dime.” Instead, Congress is simply telling the state, “We have changed your state constitution so that we give more power to the state legislature, without any pesky interference from the governor.”
I find the Nazi comparison interesting, especially in light of the fact that the Nazi party took over in the midst of an economic crisis. other a:
aspects of their approach;:
1) Reliance on a messianic leader
2) suppression of political opposition
3) increasing control of media
4) nationalization of key industries
5) demonization of the merchant class
6) surrounding leader with closed group of radicals
Who does this sound like? The new administration. Yes, i know, I'm a radical right wing ” Repub”. But I'm not- I simply don't like big govt and believe it to be detrimental to freedom in human life. After all, haven't ALL of the greatest disasters in human history been perpetrated by strong, centrally controlled govt? Seems to me we're sowing the seeds of our own destruction, not from those out of power, but from those in power. Show me proof of a single “massed arsenal” other than that owned by the govt.. Do you really fear armed insurrection? More likely just increased criminal violence because of our collapsing economy and the administration's class divisiveness. and then of course martial law?
And finally, the author's sideswipe at the ” confederate states” is pure horse manure- if this is in fact a regional difference, it has nothing to do with the Civil War, nor anything left from it.. We're way beyond those issues.
This may be one of the silliest articles I've read on RCP. The author jumps from state governors refusing money to Nazism to talk radio. Aren't the questions currently being debated within the country 1) whether the Obama government is acting effectively toward the economic crisis or instead exacerbating it, and 2) whether or not his mandate includes substantially remaking US society and culture via government mandate?
Please remember that 46% of the american population voted against this administration. The notion that they represent out of power crazies who might take ” rash action in a rage” is at best insulting. What in the dickens are you talking about? I deem it much more likely that the previous poster got it right – that we're at much more risk of rights curtailment from an increasingly more powerful federal government that seems to know no bounds to its appetite for changing through government fiat. My sense is that if that continues we will reap the double whirlwinds of economic catastrophe and civil dissension.
Do you really believe that this administration is pursuing ” civility and moderation”? I refer you to Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and, of course, that former tax cheat and now head of the IRS,, Timmy Geithner. And if it's fiscal irresponsibilty you want, how about free condoms, mag/lev trains from Disneyland to Vegas, and millions to that icon of propriety, ACORN.
In closing, what state would you prefer these rebel states emulate- California? Gnarly, dude.
In Texas a group of legislators is trying to put together a veto-proof bill making the changes so that the unemployment funds can be accepted. So how is this changing our state constitution? Calm down ladies.
Somehow an opinion piece by an activist political conservative who writes for publications such as the American Spectator just doesn't persuade me that much. Reading the piece his opinion is just as likely to come from his political leanings as his scholarship.
backtrack
your raging paranoia is showing. It never fails to amaze me how the extreme right rails against the imagined slights to the rule law by Obama, but you consistently failed to show any gumption toward Bush as he dismantled parts of the Bill of Rights.
As far as your “theory of Nazism” and Obama, you got the wrong guy
Consider that Jewish carpenter
1) Reliance on a messianic leader – That would be Jesus
2) suppression of political opposition – See the council of Nicene
3) increasing control of media – The new testament was written on by devotees only.
4) nationalization of key industries – Jesus has nationalized as many businesses as Obama has, that would be none, Nada, zilch.
5) demonization of the merchant class – Jesus did throw the money-changers out, didn't he?
6) surrounding leader with closed group of radicals – how many disciples were there?
Why are you attacking the basis of Christine faith?
Hemm, I don't agree with the Nazi comparison but that was one of the most absurd comments I've seen. Jesus actually is believed to be the Messiah by Christians and that um, sort of makes it different to follow him as the Messiah than it is to follow a secular leader in that manner.
CS
When faced with an absurd, tin-foil conspiracy theory pile of intellectual junk like I was responding to, employing an analogy that totally demonstrates the absurdity of the premise is within the bounds of good taste.
If you find my comparison offensive, why aren't you giving backtrack a piece of your mind because he employs such shoddy intellectual attacks? If Jesus can be tarred with this level of BS, how offended are people that support Obama?
I used Jesus as an example as someone we can all agree is not a Nazi. That is the best example to prove the point I know.
Lastly, I obviously meant no offense to believers in Jesus' divinity, but the world contains hundreds of millions of people who do not believe He was the Messiah. Your response is fair and understandable from your point of view, but intellectually, it is just your belief. and no, you don't know what I believe about the subject of the carpenter.
I wasn't taking offense, just pointing out that your comparison is illogical. The whole point of portraying political movements as Messianical and using that as criticism is that mortal humans aren't Messiahs.
And since you asked me to 'give Backtrack a piece of my mind', I'll state my opinion of what he/she said but it's probably not going to satisfy you.
I do think the Nazi comparison is offensive, and in no way, shape, or form do I believe that Obama should be characterized as a Hitler.
But I do think there are elements of the political cult mentality that have fed into Obama's popularity, which can be dangerous nonetheless. Fortunately many of the more intellectual supporters of Obama have been willing to criticize him when warranted, but many of his supporters do not and I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that he's a fallible human being and should be held accountable instead of always assuming he knows best.
Then I submit that SOME people believe he was the messiah, hardly a reason to find the comparison inaccurate. Belief in that does not make it objective fact. Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhist readers who not make the criticism you have. Conversely, had I used Mohamed, Gautama, (or anyone else you don't have in the center of your belief system) would not have engendered your response. Analogies do not have to fit just your perspective to be intellectually correct.
CS
I don't know anyone who has stated that Obama always knows best or that he is some kind of Messianic leader. That's only coming from the Right whose objectivity is well known. I thought Obama was a left wing communist with black panther ties who wanted to overthrow the whitey! Criticism from the Right is addressed according to the intellectual rigor with which they are presented.
Due to unspecified masses of unidentified people, your concern for Obama is exactly what. That he may get a big head? That people are attracted to someone who strives for transparency in government? What is you list of Obama failings. I know I've got my list.
My concern is that instead of employing checks and balances, some people seem to think that Obama is such an extraordinary man in extraordinary times that they are more willing to overlook the differences between his rhetoric and his actions (signing statements were a sign that Bush was usurping executive power that the Constitution doesn't grant, yet Obama has already used the same power; the Bush administration was also criticized for claiming certain priveleges of the Executive branch to shield from Congressional oversight, yet Obama already tried to shift the census to the White House instead of the cabinet post which is answerable to Congress; Obama's rhetoric sounds great on transparency but he's yet to hold to his promises about posting bills for review before he signs them…those are just a few examples off the top of my head.)
I'm simply saying that the idea that one man is a good or just or honorable man shouldn't tempt us to neglect oversight. The founders set up our system of checks and balances precisely for that reason.
You're still missing my point, but I suspect many readers will have gotten it. I'm not claiming that everyone should accept that Jesus is the Messiah- I'm just pointing out that our following of Jesus is based on that and most intelligent Christians would never follow a political leader in the same manner because we know that human beings are flawed. And that's why Jesus himself didn't make himself out to be a political leader- his kingdom is of the next world, not this one.
CS
Ok, let's recap for clarity.
backtrack submitted a set of criteria by which to judge Obama as a Nazi.
I responded by demonstrating that that set of criteria is so completely nonsensical, that by applying that criteria to Jesus, even He is found to be a Nazi.
You responded that my analogy was absurd. The reason you stated for this evaluation was that “Jesus actually is believed to be the Messiah by Christians and that um, sort of makes it different.”
The supposition of trackback was that to be a Nazi, one have a messianic leader.
I responded that your belief does not make the analogy logically incorrect. Messianic leaders do not have to be the messiah to be messianic leaders.
you responded “The whole point of portraying political movements as Messianical and using that as criticism is that mortal humans aren't Messiahs.” We agree entirely. I was telling trackback to knock it off as his criteria is complete BS if its logical net catches Jesus too.
And then you state “most intelligent Christians would never follow a political leader in the same manner because we know that human beings are flawed.” By submitting that you would not follow Obama as a messianic leader, you infer that trackbacks criteria has some validity. “most intelligent Christians would never follow a political leader in the same manner because we know that human beings are flawed.” The only person who said he was messianic was trackback and the extreme Right. You've told me why you wouldn't follow Obama like he was a messiah, don't fall into the trap of seeing others as falling in behind Obama just because they don't hold your same beliefs.
This is exactly the dibolical nature of trackback's attack. Unless you attack the premise of his argument's criteria, you allow for the inference that there are people who follow him according to that criteria. His entry is a lie of whole cloth, and using Jesus to demonstrate that through analogy is not absurd.
I don't have a problem with you pointing out your rationale for criticizing backtrack's Nazi comparison. I'll try once more to explain my point and then I'll have to leave it and hope that it's more clear to other people then it is to you.
I'm simply pointing out that when a group is criticized for being a Messianic cult in the political context- those people usually don't literally believe that their leader is God. They are being criticized in the hopes that they'll realize that they may be attributing such high standing to their leader that they're liable to see past his flaws and believe that whatever is deemed to be in that leaders interest is by default the same as what is in the society's best interest.
So the logical flaw I was pointing to in your comment is that you can't then apply that rationale to people who literally do believe they're following God, not a man. You are free to disagree with them on that, of course, but it's comparing apples to oranges when you try to apply the same rationale as a political movement.
CS
And your repose demonstrates that you accept the criteria that backtrack put forth. Chalk one up for the GOP, they succeeded in the real purpose of the thrown bomb. Some of Obama/s followers are ignorant rabble that don't even know the fallacy of their belief that Obama is messianic. You don't have to swallow the whole lie to be poisoned by the underlying fallacy.
What if people just like what he's trying to do after years where everybody felt scared and hopeless?
HemmD – “the world contains hundreds of millions of people who do not believe He was the Messiah.”
Billions, actually. A majority, in fact, and by a wide margin, too.
What criteria set forth by backtrack did I agree with, specifically? I've explained some of the areas where I see Obama supporters not holding him accountable, and when I've discussed some of these issues with some of those supporters the rationale is often that they trust Obama (they don't have the same degree of concern about his use of power as they did with Bush because they believe he'll use the power wisely.)
I base my opinions on my own observations, not anyone else's propaganda- and since I've already explained the basis of my opinion, I have a hard time believing that you're being anything but disingenuous in pretending that I must have come to this conclusion by listening to someone else instead of thinking for myself.
superdrupermegapuper54321…
superdrupermegapuper54321…