The Greatest Generation

I wrote this back in June of 2009 under the title of Why Are We So Afraid of This Recession? In honor of Pearl Harbor Day, I'm renaming it, but the sentiment remains the same.

Why are we so afraid of this recession?


I’ve been contemplating the Great Depression a lot lately. With the constant recession coverage and frequent comparisons to the Great Depression, it’s hard not to. We’re told that the world will come to a screeching halt if we don’t bail out this bank or that auto manufacturer or Krispy Kreme Donuts (Sorry, Shipleys; Krispy Kreme has been deemed “too important to fail,” but you were just out of the running.) Crud… I think I just ruined my contemplative mood.

Anyway, with all that thinking about the Great Depression, my mind is drawn to memories of my grandfather. My grandfather was the quintessential Depression kid. I don’t remember if he ever said they were “poor,” but he had a fondness for saying that they were “hard-working people,” by which he meant they had to work hard just to have enough to get by. He could make anything from nothing. He could take the broken-est things and re-make them into something new and wonderful. He was a man of God. And he wasn’t afraid of a fight.

I on the other hand am the quintessential child of the 70’s. Pampered from birth, my greatest hardships in childhood were peer pressure, wishing I was more popular in Jr. High, and my great despair that my mother wouldn’t buy me Guess jeans. To this day, I have only owned one pair of Guess jeans, and I think they came from a thrift store. There I go ruining the mood again…

As I think about our current recession, I wonder what it must have been like for those folks back then. Life had been pretty good through the 20’s. Most folks had their needs met, and many had great abundance. Then came 1929. What must it have felt like for parents who had planned to give their children the best of everything to suddenly worry about providing them with the basic necessities of life? What would it have been like for the children? And whatever did happen to those kids?

I’ll tell you what happened to them – they became our Greatest Generation. Today, we think that the key to ensuring our children’s success is to provide them with every opportunity and advantage possible. And yet, this generation of poverty, of need, of despair became the heroes and heroines of the entire world in their adulthood. How can this be?

I believe that their greatness was forged in that defining event of their childhoods – the Great Depression. I believe that out of hardship comes character, like gold refined in fire.

From hardship comes innovation. The American soldier of World War II was known not for his training or equipment or financial backing, but for his ability to innovate on the battlefield.

Hardship produces a work ethic like no other. The Greatest Generation worked. The prosperity of the American economy during the last sixty years rests on their backs. 

Compassion is born in hardship. I remember hearing my grandfather telling stories of his service in Italy when the little children were starving for food. He and many of his fellow hungry soldiers gave part or all of their rations to those children. No ambassador or elected official traveling abroad and shaking hands can impart foreign relations like that.

From hardship comes a willingness to stand up for what is right. After all, when you’ve got nothing to lose, why not stand on principle? I wonder if we have too much to lose today. When standing up or speaking out poses a threat to our comfortable lifestyles, fear often intervenes to keep our mouths closed. My grandfather wasn't afraid of a fight - and he was proud for having stood up when a fight was called for.

And finally, hardship puts you on your knees. No generation can be great without an utter dependence on the mercy and providence of God.

So really, why are we so afraid of this recession? Do I wish for financial hardship to come upon my family? Absolutely not. I am doing everything in my power NOT to participate in this recession! Do I want my children to suffer poverty? There isn’t a negative that’s powerful enough to convey my feelings on that.

But if the worst case scenario did indeed occur, what would be the effect? I would like to think that in dark financial times, my pampered generation would be able to pull it together at least enough to participate in raising the next Great Generation. So bring it! I’m not looking for a fight, but if one comes to me, I’ve got enough of my grandfather running through my veins that I’m up for the challenge.

What's with the Scott Brown Hate?

For the purpose of this post, you can replace Scott Brown's name with any other Republican who doesn't vote in lock step with your personal definition of the GOP platform.

I don't get the vitriol against Scott Brown, and more specifically toward those who support / supported him as Senator from MA.

Let me first set the baseline for my position. I think that Republican "infighting" at this point in time is a good thing. You can go back and read my very first ever political blog post if you want proof. It was this issue of fighting to own the mandate of 11-02-10 that inspired me to begin political blogging. I believe that we can and must provide the direction for the party in the few short months before primary season for 2012 begins.

I also believe that if you clearly communicate your wishes to your elected officials, and they fail to follow through, you have the right, even the responsibility to hold them accountable through your words, your financial contributions (or lack thereof), and your vote. If you don't, you are either un-American or just plain lazy.

I write the previous two paragraphs to highlight the fact that we SHOULD be having this discussion. The remainder of this post will highlight the fact that we may have a style problem in our discussion.

So on the Scott Brown issue, first a couple of questions to my fellow uberconservatives (I'm thinking this should be our new label. UberCons. I like it. RINOs vs. UberCons...)

1. Did you really think that Scott Brown was our kind of conservative? If you did, I can understand your extreme disappointment. I certainly did not. He did not claim to be. And in fact, other than driving that red pick-up truck, he bears little resemblance to my idea of a "real" conservative. I knew that going in. You should have too.

2. Do you really think that MA Republican voters will nominate a more conservative candidate than Scott Brown? I mean, it's MA... Not to disparage any MA UberCons out there. You keep at it! You are a voice in the wilderness, and I support you! If you manage to get a "real" conservative in a position to win the nomination next time around, let me know, and I will be on board!!!

3. Do you really think that the Democrat alternative was better than what we got in Scott Brown? If you do, I might have to start a counter-witch hunt against you...

The fact is, the Scott Brown election was historic and tide-turning. It came at the perfect time prior to the 2010 primaries. First off, it showed Republicans that anything was possible. If we could put a Republican in that seat, the "Kennedy seat," we could put a Republican in any seat. It lit a fire among conservatives who had begun to think that all was lost in U.S. politics. It illustrated the idea that people all over the country could have an impact in elections many states away. The adage says, "All politics is local." This election, having united conservatives all over the country, presented an addendum, "But no politics is only local." In my personal experience, I have always sat by and watched elections in other states, but never thought that I could have an impact, since I wasn't a resident of those states. The Scott Brown election taught me otherwise. Since that time, I have been more involved in promoting conservative candidates in other states.

I would argue that no matter how Scott Brown votes on anything during his entire tenure, the process of his election changed the outcome of the 2010 elections. By teaching us that anything was possible, and that we could work together across state lines, his election fueled the fire of the Tea Party movement, prompting previously disengaged voters to active involvement.

That said, Scott Brown does have votes to make, and he should be held accountable for them. We should be vocal about letting him know what we think of his votes. And we should engage in the fight for the future of the Republican party. Now is the time, and we must not shrink from the fight.

However, the style of the fight is lacking, in my opinion. Calling one another names (ahem... RINOs) and excommunicating those who would otherwise vote with us is a losing strategy. FOR THE RECORD, this same type of mud has been slung in the other direction in the not-too-distant past, but I won't go into that now... I'll share a personal story about in-house name calling. In my House race this last time, there was an independent candidate who was vying for the position. I assume he would have liked to convince me to vote for him, since that's kind of duh Campaigning101. I began a discussion with him on Twitter. During the course of the conversation, I pointed out a fallacy in one of his arguments. He called me a liberal. Those who have known me for more than 10 minutes can guess whose vote he didn't get. He could have argued with me on the issues and stood a chance of changing my position. But once he called me a liberal it was all over. We're doing the same when we call fellow Republicans RINOs.

Do I think we should do away with the term RINO? Nah, probably not. There are those for whom the shoe fits. Case in point, if the GOP ever serves up some garbage like John McCain for another Presidential candidate, I will NOT, under any circumstances, vote for him or her. I have made my solemn vow in writing to every GOP elected official who represents me, and I am a woman of my word. It's the widespread application of the moniker that is at fault. How about a moratorium on the use of the label for the next few months while we hash out the direction for the new and improved (or back to the basics) Republican party?

Making Claim to the Mandate

Overheard on Capitol Hill on 11-03-10, "Wow. That was... something. Those crazy voters must have been sending us a message. Wonder what it could have been..." And so the fight to claim the mandate began.

In the last week or so, the argument of which issues are “Tea Party Issues” has come back to the surface, as two different groups released letters to Congress detailing their respective lists of acceptable Tea Party issues. One group asserts that the November elections were a mandate on fiscal issues and nothing else. The other group details a list of six items, including both fiscal and social matters as “Tea Party Issues.”

Each group included in its letter an assertion that goes something like this: “I am the Tea Party, and I believe these things. Therefore, these (fill in the blank) issues are ‘Tea Party Issues,’ and we expect you to deliver.”

I’m pretty sure I disagree with both groups. Here’s my thought process for what it’s worth:

When the Tea Party came on my radar, I first learned of it by its acronym TEA – Taxed Enough Already. That, along with the homage to the original Tea Party leads me to believe that this movement is about fiscal conservatism only. However, I challenge the assertion that our elected leaders should focus on fiscal issues to the exclusion of all else – or even with higher priority than all else.

I am strongly conservative on both fiscal and conservative issues. My fiscal conservativism is apparent by my support of the Tea Party movement. However, you can take it on good authority that I am also very conservative on social issues as well. In fact, pick a social issue, any social issue. Now imagine the most conservative position you can think of. You’re probably in the neighborhood… And I am not by any means, willing to compromise my positions on those issues for the sake of unity on fiscal issues. A prime example is my position on the unborn. Despite the fact that an unborn human is dependent on another person for nurture and protection, he or she is still a human being, endowed with the same rights as a “breathing person.” I will never knowingly vote for a candidate who believes it is acceptable to violate those rights.

Do I have a right to bring this position into the Tea Party? Tough question. It is part of who I am, so I bring it with me wherever I go. But do I have a right to say, “I am the Tea Party, and I believe this thing. Therefore, this issue is a ‘Tea Party Issue.’”? I’m coming down on the side of no.

Do you remember the early days of the Tea Party when the mantra was, “We are people from a variety of different political backgrounds who are united on the issues of fiscal responsibility and limited government”? At its ideal, I understood this to mean that I could stand side-by-side with a pro-choicer with the full recognition that we did not agree on the issue of abortion, and still yell at our out-of-control government that enough was enough. I was yelling at my Republican representatives, and she was likely yelling at her Democrat representatives, but our message on this one issue was united.

Since that time, the message has morphed in two different directions: (1) The Tea Party reflects both fiscal and social conservative positions. And (2) The Tea Party reflects only fiscal conservative positions, and all else is to be put aside. Both groups are wrong. In my opinion, the Tea Party movement reflects only fiscal conservative positions, AND we as individuals must hold true to our positions on social issues when we choose our candidates. Each voter must develop his or her own voting algorithm. I will tell you that mine tends to lend greater weight to social issues than fiscal issues, but that doesn’t make me any more or less “Tea Party” than the next person.

So who gets to claim the mandate? Me. You. EVERY VOTER must lay claim to the mandate and hold it with tenacity. Call every elected official who represents you and tell them why YOU voted the way you voted. For me, fiscal issues will be a part of that, and social issues will also be a part of that. I expect my representatives to deliver on all of those issues, or I will be seeking a different candidate next time around.

Duke It Out, Conservatives! It's Good for Us!

Twitter’s been fun for the last few nights… The raging debate-which-shall-not-be-named has brought out passions on many sides of the issue. The “purists” have accused the “RINOs” of being RINOs, and the “RINOs” have accused the “purists” of being purists. But I won’t elevate the name-calling by calling the names (RINOS/purists). Oh. Wait. (Edit note: delete this paragraph)

At times, the debate-which-shall-not-be-named has been reasoned; at other times, it has gotten ugly. The latter has led many to express exasperation that we are even having the debate. Countless tweets of this type have zipped through my All Friends Column: “I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony. I’d like to buy the world a Coke, and keep it company.” Or “Can’t we all just get along, man?” 

Banish the thought! These words are for hippies. Variations on the theme include, “We just finished the election. Can’t we just enjoy it for a minute before going at one another’s throats?” I would argue that this is the very time, indeed the ONLY time that it’s REALLY beneficial to throw all our cards on the table and hash out the issues within the GOP. 

We just finished the general election, where we all “played nice” with each other for our joint benefit. We buried our hatchets and worked together to support the most conservative candidates in races across the country, which in most cases, was the GOP primary winner, despite our individual differences and pet issues. But we have been cooped up together in the big tent for far too long. It’s time to air it out. (I may never forgive myself for using the big tent analogy, but you know it’s the only way to get those RINOs to pay attention… The tent analogy will be the subject of a future blog post – if I ever write another blog post…)

These discussions MUST occur within the GOP to help determine the direction of the party as we go forward. Every so often, our party undergoes a major shift in focus – usually back to the right. The adjustments toward the center are generally more incremental and under-the-radar. This has been one of those big-shift years. In the last occurrence, 1994, we allowed the POLITICIANS to determine what the voters’ mandate must have been. Super-dumb, amazingly idiotic, incredibly foolish move. In case you wondered, my thesaurus ran out of antonyms for “smart.” In our defense, we didn’t have Twitter in 1994, so it was tough to have these debates on a nationwide scale. So the Washington elites (Yes, I said it!) got together and decided what we, the voters must have meant. They kept their focus for about two and a half minutes before succumbing to the wheeling and dealing of Capitol Hill. This time, it will be different. It MUST be different. But for us to take the reins in this country, we have to be able to clearly define our position. The best way to do that is to talk it out (or fight it out) with fellow conservatives. I imagine that the pubs, churches, and town halls of Boston, Philadelphia, and New York sounded much like the last few nights of Twitter as the citizens hashed out the founding of our country.

There is a time for everything, and this is the time for this discussion. For months our audience has been with outsiders – new voters, disengaged voters, disillusioned voters. And our message has been overwhelmingly positive and unified. Now is the time for conversation AMONG INSIDERS (Please don’t take that “insiders” to mean anything akin to “Washington insiders” or other purist slur against RINOs. I simply mean those who are inside the Republican Party, as evidenced by generally voting for GOP candidates.) We must take control of our message to our newly-elected leaders. And the time to develop this message is short. We have a brief window between November 2 and the run-up to the 2012 election. Soon we’ll find ourselves in a position of having to “play nice” once again, and debates like these will be much more difficult to have.

Do we have to agree on everything? Gee, I hope not! Unless of course, you all want to agree with ME on everything… But by raising these debates, we begin to form an understanding of the things that we do agree on. And in an ideal world, we will recognize that everybody doesn’t agree with us on every issue, and we will get the heck over it. Or we will realize that we can’t get the heck over it. And that’s a person’s right as well… We must continue to voice our opinions without fear, listen to the opinions of others with some semblance of decorum, defend our own position skillfully, and reach common ground when possible. This is HEALTHY for the GOP. Engage in the debate with gusto, and don’t let anybody shame you out of it. Remember, no election was ever won with smug (the main weapon of the shamers).

One very interesting observation about the last few nights of infighting among conservatives on Twitter: In all but ONE isolated case, I left the argument with a greater respect for and sense of solidarity with the person on the other side of the debate. Did we solve our disagreements? Most of the time, no. But at least on my end, I left with the knowledge that my “opponent” was a real person, who really cared about our country, who really valued conservative ideals, who simply had a different approach to the process. There are things we’ll never agree on. And I’m not planning to compromise my views on those things any time soon, nor should they. In almost every case, we each had an opportunity to hone our words to more clearly reflect our positions, a skill that will be advantageous as we go into the 2012 primary and general election seasons, when we will need a tight message to share with the outsiders.

I'm Not a Blogger

I’m not a blogger. I will go ahead and admit defeat in advance. I will not be regularly updating. I will not be doing research. I will not write witty, pithy, insightful prose. In fact, I do not even know what “pithy” means. Okay, I lied. I just Googled “pithy,” so I now know what it means.

I do not like blogging. I have two other blogs which have not been updated in over a year. Sad. True. Yadda. Yadda. To be a read-worthy blogger, you must work. Hard. You must research your subject. You must understand the different sides of the issue. You must write diplomatically and without overuse of hyperbole, at the risk of being accused as a conspiracy theorist. I do not like blogging.

I do like Twitter. But sometimes 140 characters simply will not suffice. My tweets do not require 72 hours of intense research, battle-tested insight into the political process, or encyclopedic knowledge of every player within the beltway. When I tweet, I just say what I think. And what I think matters every bit as much as the opinion of a political industry professional in DC. It’s the beauty of our system of government, ain’t it? Twitter allows me to express what I think BETWEEN ballots cast. I do like Twitter.

So, you can think of this blog as an extension of my Twitter stream. I’ll only post to it when I have something to say that takes more than 140 characters, or if I have something to say that I may want to refer to in the future.