I've been thinking recently about wisdom. In particular, I've been thinking about where it has gone in our society.
The wisest people I know are most often the ones who speak the least. And in this is perhaps a conflict between wisdom and our society. We TALK all the time. TALK radio is an entertainment juggernaut, with both hosts and callers scrambling to put their thoughts out there to a wider world. The entire Web 2.0 phenomenon, with its every-user-a-contributor ideals, is saturated in the pursuit to speak and be heard. The 24/7 news outlets talk until there is not a shred of news left in their "news."
I think that there are tremendous benefits in these. Technology has allowed even the least among us to have a voice. In a world where ruling powers have almost unlimited capability to do anything they wish, the ability to shout to shine a light on injustice and protect the innocent is precious.
I just wonder if all this talk, talk, talk, scream, shout, argue, debate is hampering our capacity for true discernment and wisdom. And yet we desperately need those who can spread the message of freedom - and by definition, talking is necessary to do that.
I do recognize that even as I type this, I am engaging in the practice that concerns me. Although it is highly unlikely, considering my readership, that anyone will ever see this... ;-) I am just mulling the question - in all of the noise, what quiet wisdom are we missing? And is it that wisdom that could save our country?
I don't know. I'll hush now.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Friday, August 5, 2011
Why the S&P Downgraded Us - From the Horse's Mouth
Because I have liberal friends who are blaming this downgrade on the Tea Party (to quote: "S & P Downgrades US status from AAA to AA+. THANKS TEA PARTY.") -these quotes from the S&P statement. To be fair, I acknowledge that S&P also considers increasing revenue as a possible positive. But the overwhelming theme is CUT. SPENDING. NOW.
“The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.”
“We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.”
“We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.”
“We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.”
“Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures.”
“In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.”
“We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future.”
“Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow.”
“Our revised downside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating--features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur.”
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Today's Reading of the Constitution
As I watched the reading of our governing document on the tiny C-SPAN window on my computer alongside the rapidly scrolling columns of Tweetdeck, I had the sense that we were, collectively, part of something historic. My heart pounded as we neared my favorite sections of this beloved document. I waited with anticipation to find out who would have the honor of reading those passages. It was as if we were reopening, after a long absence, the wisdom of ages long past.
(I know that's a little overly dramatic, but I watched Prince Caspian last night, and I still had the soundtrack playing in my head... And you know powerful music makes anything more gripping.)
But as we together listened to and commented on the reading of the Constitution, I was struck by the parallel to the story of young king Josiah in the book of Second Kings. Josiah was only eight years old when he ascended the throne. He was from a line of generations upon generations of evil kings, and yet, the Bible says, "he walked in all the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left." In the eighteenth year of his reign, which puts him at the age of twenty-six, one of his scribes accidentally happens upon the Book of the Law in the Temple. The scribe read the book before the king.
Can you envision that moment? This nation, this people, had been in open disobedience and defiance of their governing document, the Book of the Law for so many years that it had actually been lost. The words of the Law had become foreign to the very government it was intended to direct.
When he heard the reading of the Book, King Josiah tore his clothes, a sign of sorrow for his nation. Then, he gathered "all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the Lord."
I felt this today as our elected representatives read the words of our governing document in the presence of all the people, both small and great. Granted the analogy is limited, given that the Constitution was written by fallible human beings, and the Book was written by the infallible hand of God. But I felt it just the same.
But here's the most important part of the story. And may we follow with similar actions.
"Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statues, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant." (emphasis mine)
I'll end the story there. Because I prefer it to be a happily-ever-after story... You can read on to see the choices the Israelites make after that momentous day. I'm going to pray that we don't make the same mistakes after this day.
(I know that's a little overly dramatic, but I watched Prince Caspian last night, and I still had the soundtrack playing in my head... And you know powerful music makes anything more gripping.)
But as we together listened to and commented on the reading of the Constitution, I was struck by the parallel to the story of young king Josiah in the book of Second Kings. Josiah was only eight years old when he ascended the throne. He was from a line of generations upon generations of evil kings, and yet, the Bible says, "he walked in all the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left." In the eighteenth year of his reign, which puts him at the age of twenty-six, one of his scribes accidentally happens upon the Book of the Law in the Temple. The scribe read the book before the king.
Can you envision that moment? This nation, this people, had been in open disobedience and defiance of their governing document, the Book of the Law for so many years that it had actually been lost. The words of the Law had become foreign to the very government it was intended to direct.
When he heard the reading of the Book, King Josiah tore his clothes, a sign of sorrow for his nation. Then, he gathered "all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the Lord."
I felt this today as our elected representatives read the words of our governing document in the presence of all the people, both small and great. Granted the analogy is limited, given that the Constitution was written by fallible human beings, and the Book was written by the infallible hand of God. But I felt it just the same.
But here's the most important part of the story. And may we follow with similar actions.
"Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statues, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant." (emphasis mine)
I'll end the story there. Because I prefer it to be a happily-ever-after story... You can read on to see the choices the Israelites make after that momentous day. I'm going to pray that we don't make the same mistakes after this day.
Monday, January 3, 2011
What I Like About Twitter
Wow - I'm on a roll. This makes THREE blog posts today! One might say I'm making up for lack of quality with quantity, but only if one wasn't very nice... Apparently, I can go weeks without anything whatsoever to say, and then be hit with a flurry of thoughts that I just have to write down.
Earlier today I tweeted: "#thingsiloveabouttwitter: By the time my FB friends realize there's an issue, my argumts are alrdy tight from debating on Twitter weeks ago."
That statement does contain a bit of hyperbole. I do have informed friends on Facebook. Also, the statement applies not only to Facebook, but to my larger social sphere. But the concept is true.
On Twitter, we're hashing things out in real time. We debate, argue, sometimes scream and get red in the face. No matter the outcome, we generally leave the argument with a concise statement of our respective opinions ready to be delivered in as diplomatic a manner as possible when the larger world gets in on the discussion. We've already heard the counter arguments, debunked the fallacies, and recognized the valid ones by adjusting our positions as needed.
I didn't have this before Twitter. I had a few political friends, but they fell into two very distinct camps: Those who agreed with me to the closest degree possible, and those who disagreed with me to the furthest degree possible. Discussions with those two groups rarely helped me mold a concise and diplomatic statement. With my like-minded friends, we discussed from the perspective of similar world views and with shared vocabulary. With my nemesises (nemesi? I have got to look that up...), I was in no way concerned about diplomacy. Discrediting my opponent was the main objective. Twitter gave me a group of people with whom I shared basic values, but with whom I didn't necessarily share opinions on the means to our objectives. This group of people has been invaluable. So I guess I should add "#thingsiloveabouttwitter: All those folks who will engage with me on the issues and not unfollow me when we scream and get red in the face at each other." But I guess that's more than 140 characters, isn't it?
Earlier today I tweeted: "#thingsiloveabouttwitter: By the time my FB friends realize there's an issue, my argumts are alrdy tight from debating on Twitter weeks ago."
That statement does contain a bit of hyperbole. I do have informed friends on Facebook. Also, the statement applies not only to Facebook, but to my larger social sphere. But the concept is true.
On Twitter, we're hashing things out in real time. We debate, argue, sometimes scream and get red in the face. No matter the outcome, we generally leave the argument with a concise statement of our respective opinions ready to be delivered in as diplomatic a manner as possible when the larger world gets in on the discussion. We've already heard the counter arguments, debunked the fallacies, and recognized the valid ones by adjusting our positions as needed.
I didn't have this before Twitter. I had a few political friends, but they fell into two very distinct camps: Those who agreed with me to the closest degree possible, and those who disagreed with me to the furthest degree possible. Discussions with those two groups rarely helped me mold a concise and diplomatic statement. With my like-minded friends, we discussed from the perspective of similar world views and with shared vocabulary. With my nemesises (nemesi? I have got to look that up...), I was in no way concerned about diplomacy. Discrediting my opponent was the main objective. Twitter gave me a group of people with whom I shared basic values, but with whom I didn't necessarily share opinions on the means to our objectives. This group of people has been invaluable. So I guess I should add "#thingsiloveabouttwitter: All those folks who will engage with me on the issues and not unfollow me when we scream and get red in the face at each other." But I guess that's more than 140 characters, isn't it?
Earmarks
First off, let me pat myself on the back for TWO blog posts in one day! If you wonder why this is a big deal, take a second to go back and read I'm Not a Blogger, my very first political blog post.
Second, I do recognize that the earmark moratorium is old news. But I'm in a Facebook conversation with a fellow conservative about earmarks, and I'd like to put my thoughts on the issue in one place.
So - here's the argument given by many well-meaning conservatives on the issue of earmarks:
Earmarks may be a small thing, in terms of percentage of the big budget picture, but they are the only funding decisions that can be made by a single legislator. Simply refuse the earmarks. It's the number one test of whether a legislator is serious about cutting funding. It may be a small part of the spending problem, but if a legislator won't step up to the plate in the one area over which he or she has ultimate control, how can we take them at their word to cut other, bigger spending?
Speaking of taking legislators at their word, this is JUST the opportunity liberals are looking for to cast conservatives as hypocrites. And they'd be right. A candidate who runs on a platform of fiscal responsibility and then requests earmarks should be run out of office at the first opportunity.
I know. I know... It's not the way things have been done historically in Washington. And I have given some old school legislators a pass on their past actions. But in the current political and economic climate, there simply is no excuse. So regarding those legislators from my state - Roger Wicker, one of the biggest earmarkers, is still okay in my book, because he "saw the light" and signed the pledge for the earmark moratorium. I'll hold him to that pledge. Thad Cochran, the KING of earmarkers, on the other hand, tenaciously clings to the old ways, refusing to let go of earmarks. Sorry, Thad, you have to go.
The long and the short of it is this: We have to get a handle on spending in Washington. Big things have to be cut. Little things have to be cut. Everything has to be cut! It's not going to be fun. Some of your pet projects are going to have to be cut. It's going to hurt. But it won't hurt as much as the impending economic collapse that irresponsible spending will bring. Just ask Greece. And Ireland. (And in a few months, Spain and Portugal).
Folks, Dave Ramsey is right. For families AND countries. You can't go very long spending more than you make. If you're in financial distress as a family, you have to sit down and see where you can cut. You can downsize your home (a big thing). You can sell the financed car (a medium sized thing). And you can stop going out to eat (a little thing). If you're going to survive the crisis, you may have to do all three. But the very least you can do is the little thing. We all know families who are in financial trouble, but who still frequent fancy restaurants and wear the latest clothing. Do you think they're serious about getting out of debt if they can't even tackle the little things? Take that to the national stage. Do you think our legislators are serious about getting us out of debt if they can't even tackle earmarks?
I don't.
Second, I do recognize that the earmark moratorium is old news. But I'm in a Facebook conversation with a fellow conservative about earmarks, and I'd like to put my thoughts on the issue in one place.
So - here's the argument given by many well-meaning conservatives on the issue of earmarks:
It's just a little bit of money, in comparison with the overall budget. And if Congress doesn't spend the money, the President gets to spend it. It's better to have the consensus of the legislative procedure spending the money than one person.I'm going to assume that since the one typically using this argument calls him or herself a conservative, that they are in agreement that we should deal with Washington's spending problem. I know in the case of the discussion with my friend on Facebook, that is the case, since she said such. Here's the deal. If a candidate runs on the promise that they are going to DC to cut spending, then by gum, they should cut spending, as much as is in their individual and collective power!!!
Earmarks may be a small thing, in terms of percentage of the big budget picture, but they are the only funding decisions that can be made by a single legislator. Simply refuse the earmarks. It's the number one test of whether a legislator is serious about cutting funding. It may be a small part of the spending problem, but if a legislator won't step up to the plate in the one area over which he or she has ultimate control, how can we take them at their word to cut other, bigger spending?
Speaking of taking legislators at their word, this is JUST the opportunity liberals are looking for to cast conservatives as hypocrites. And they'd be right. A candidate who runs on a platform of fiscal responsibility and then requests earmarks should be run out of office at the first opportunity.
I know. I know... It's not the way things have been done historically in Washington. And I have given some old school legislators a pass on their past actions. But in the current political and economic climate, there simply is no excuse. So regarding those legislators from my state - Roger Wicker, one of the biggest earmarkers, is still okay in my book, because he "saw the light" and signed the pledge for the earmark moratorium. I'll hold him to that pledge. Thad Cochran, the KING of earmarkers, on the other hand, tenaciously clings to the old ways, refusing to let go of earmarks. Sorry, Thad, you have to go.
The long and the short of it is this: We have to get a handle on spending in Washington. Big things have to be cut. Little things have to be cut. Everything has to be cut! It's not going to be fun. Some of your pet projects are going to have to be cut. It's going to hurt. But it won't hurt as much as the impending economic collapse that irresponsible spending will bring. Just ask Greece. And Ireland. (And in a few months, Spain and Portugal).
Folks, Dave Ramsey is right. For families AND countries. You can't go very long spending more than you make. If you're in financial distress as a family, you have to sit down and see where you can cut. You can downsize your home (a big thing). You can sell the financed car (a medium sized thing). And you can stop going out to eat (a little thing). If you're going to survive the crisis, you may have to do all three. But the very least you can do is the little thing. We all know families who are in financial trouble, but who still frequent fancy restaurants and wear the latest clothing. Do you think they're serious about getting out of debt if they can't even tackle the little things? Take that to the national stage. Do you think our legislators are serious about getting us out of debt if they can't even tackle earmarks?
I don't.
January Is Here - And I'm Afraid
Okay, folks. January is here. We take the reins in the House and enough Senate seats to at least put a stop to the garbage that's been flowing out of Washington during the lame duck session. Sounds good, right?
I hope so.
And I'm afraid. I'm afraid that our newly elected conservatives won't follow through. I'm afraid they'll arrive in D.C. and be schooled in how Washington really works. I'm afraid they'll accept the assertion that they have to do things the way things have always been done to get anything done. I'm afraid that the universal rule that if you do the same things, you'll keep getting the same results will apply in its full force. I'm afraid that I'll become disillusioned with our governmental process (or at least the current perversion of our governmental process). I'm afraid that will force me to go third party next time around. I'm afraid that I'll turn into one of those cranky malcontents who believes it's finally time to take up arms against our own government. Or worse, I'm afraid I'll get so sick of all the mess that I'll join the ranks of those who have sworn off politics altogether. I am afraid that I'll actually enjoy my apathy.
So that's it folks. I'm afraid. The GOP holds my future in its hands. I'm waiting with bated breath.
I hope so.
And I'm afraid. I'm afraid that our newly elected conservatives won't follow through. I'm afraid they'll arrive in D.C. and be schooled in how Washington really works. I'm afraid they'll accept the assertion that they have to do things the way things have always been done to get anything done. I'm afraid that the universal rule that if you do the same things, you'll keep getting the same results will apply in its full force. I'm afraid that I'll become disillusioned with our governmental process (or at least the current perversion of our governmental process). I'm afraid that will force me to go third party next time around. I'm afraid that I'll turn into one of those cranky malcontents who believes it's finally time to take up arms against our own government. Or worse, I'm afraid I'll get so sick of all the mess that I'll join the ranks of those who have sworn off politics altogether. I am afraid that I'll actually enjoy my apathy.
So that's it folks. I'm afraid. The GOP holds my future in its hands. I'm waiting with bated breath.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
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.
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.
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?
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)