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.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)