10/19/13
Over the last week, as we were approaching reaching the Debt Limit with both sides talking past each other, I had a rising sense of frustration, a need to do something about it. Since my Congressional district had just been remapped to be represented by a key Republican, Darrell Issa, who was, while not a member, talking the Tea Party line, I realized that this district was somewhat divided; and given the drop in his party's approval over the shutdown, pressure from moderates could make him shift his position. First I tried to get a local columnist whom I knew to contact him, which he would not do; then I decided to do it myself since I had the emails of several hundred locals. Working late into the night I sent out the first email to the list with the Representative's contact information, suggesting that he be told that he could have a press conference the next day to shift to a moderate stand. While it was mostly due to political changes, he did do exactly what I had suggested, and ultimately voted for the stopgap extension.
Yet, after a day of feeling satisfied by my effort, I soon realized that nothing had changed, that the conflict between the two parties had not even begun to be addressed, and that we were only a few months away from a replay of this standoff, once again with dire consequences staring us in the face.
Since the process of writing an essay is fluid, meaning that that when I start down a path, I do some on-line verification of my premise before proceeding. I was going to use Ted Cruz as another example of fundamentalist, actually Christian dominionist, which provides some of the motivation of the tea party. In my searching, I came across this article, Ted Cruz: “I believe in the Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers to be dependent on him”
There was a photo of him speaking in the Senate, of a size defining a video clip, which I assumed was of the material quoted below:
Over the last week, as we were approaching reaching the Debt Limit with both sides talking past each other, I had a rising sense of frustration, a need to do something about it. Since my Congressional district had just been remapped to be represented by a key Republican, Darrell Issa, who was, while not a member, talking the Tea Party line, I realized that this district was somewhat divided; and given the drop in his party's approval over the shutdown, pressure from moderates could make him shift his position. First I tried to get a local columnist whom I knew to contact him, which he would not do; then I decided to do it myself since I had the emails of several hundred locals. Working late into the night I sent out the first email to the list with the Representative's contact information, suggesting that he be told that he could have a press conference the next day to shift to a moderate stand. While it was mostly due to political changes, he did do exactly what I had suggested, and ultimately voted for the stopgap extension.
Yet, after a day of feeling satisfied by my effort, I soon realized that nothing had changed, that the conflict between the two parties had not even begun to be addressed, and that we were only a few months away from a replay of this standoff, once again with dire consequences staring us in the face.
Since the process of writing an essay is fluid, meaning that that when I start down a path, I do some on-line verification of my premise before proceeding. I was going to use Ted Cruz as another example of fundamentalist, actually Christian dominionist, which provides some of the motivation of the tea party. In my searching, I came across this article, Ted Cruz: “I believe in the Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers to be dependent on him”
There was a photo of him speaking in the Senate, of a size defining a video clip, which I assumed was of the material quoted below:
“What
we have here is our core values as Americans and Christians slipping
away into this facade where we should take care of our poor, sick, and
disabled,” said Cruz in hour 19 of his filibuster. “It is disheartening
to know that the nation our forefathers built is no longer of importance
to our president and his Democratic counterparts. Not only that, we are
falling away from core Christian values. I don’t know about you, but I
believe in the Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers
to be dependent on him. He didn’t walk around all willy nilly just
passing out free healthcare to those who were sick, or food to those who
were hungry, or clothes to those in need. No, he said get up, brush
yourself off, go into town and get a job, and as he hung on the cross he
said,”I died so that I may live in eternity with my Father. If you want
to join us you can die for yourself and your own sins. What do I look
like, your savior or something?” That’s the Jesus I want to see brought
back into our core values as a nation. That’s why we need to repeal
Obamacare.”
The article continued, "Both Republicans and Democrats are in utter shock and disbelief at
these remarks and pretty much almost everyone sans some Tea Party
Republicans are distancing themselves from Cruz. Political pundits and
Christian academics don’t even know what to say. However, what they do
know, is that Senator Ted Cruz most certainly does not appear to be a
Christian with the proper knowledge of the Bible."
My
reaction was that this was a slip-up by a fatigued Cruz, not unlike Candidate
Romney's being caught saying that the 47% of Americans who will never
vote for him wanted government to be responsible for among other things
providing them with "food." While most Americans do not advocate that
government provide all things to all people, most do want it to prevent
starvation. Romney actually spoke those words, so it was not out of the question that
Cruz had re-interpreted Christian theology to create a different
Christ, who even as he was dying, in his heart was a Tea Party
conservative.
This article received 22,000 facebook "share"s, so was probably read by hundreds of thousands of people, mostly liberals who were further enraged that
conservative Republicans revere Cruz and his goals. Only because I
read deep into the comments section did I discover that this article was a fake, that Cruz did not say these words or anything like it. This was written as satire, as legally it is.
Yet, when misrepresentation is seen as the actual words by the vast majority of readers, is it still really satire? The owners of this web site knew pretty soon that this was taken as a real quote, which is not the way real satire works, as the humor, and the effectiveness, is in the realization by the reader of the message's absurdity. Yet the website did not add clarification so that to this day the many links expand those who believe these are the actual words of this Senator, further justifying his views being marginalized.
What this article did achieve is raising the disapproval of the Tea Party agenda even more among most American, yet it does so by a device that is not unlike that used against Barack Obama, such as the accusations of his being in his heart a Muslim, or a socialist, and or an atheist. Details never matter when the opposition has become a mortal enemy, only being judged on whether a given action further advances the goal of vanquishing the foe. This article would be seen as the actual quotes of Cruz on the Democratic site "Dailykos. com" where I have a couple hundred essays stored. I discontinued writing there when they made a rule, subject to the worst punishment of banishment the "posting of Republican talking points." They do not prohibit Democratic talking points, which is based not only on their political orientation, but that such things do not exist.
A large proportion of Americans have tuned out of politics, dismissing the entire enterprise as hopeless with words such as, "A pox on both your houses." The rest have joined one or another of the sides, if not by formal registration with a party, by an identification with either the left or right, even if they also retain a large dose of contempt for both political parties.
What this article did achieve is raising the disapproval of the Tea Party agenda even more among most American, yet it does so by a device that is not unlike that used against Barack Obama, such as the accusations of his being in his heart a Muslim, or a socialist, and or an atheist. Details never matter when the opposition has become a mortal enemy, only being judged on whether a given action further advances the goal of vanquishing the foe. This article would be seen as the actual quotes of Cruz on the Democratic site "Dailykos. com" where I have a couple hundred essays stored. I discontinued writing there when they made a rule, subject to the worst punishment of banishment the "posting of Republican talking points." They do not prohibit Democratic talking points, which is based not only on their political orientation, but that such things do not exist.
A large proportion of Americans have tuned out of politics, dismissing the entire enterprise as hopeless with words such as, "A pox on both your houses." The rest have joined one or another of the sides, if not by formal registration with a party, by an identification with either the left or right, even if they also retain a large dose of contempt for both political parties.
We have developed, in our national
legislature as well as our broader culture, a division that is so deep
that it defies being transcended. It is not a matter of finding less
acrimonious rules of engagement, the elimination of angry words or
increasing social interaction between the two sides, but it is a
manifestation of something much more profound that few have acknowledge
exists. Just as in 1860, the conflict between those who wanted to
continue to use their "sub-human productive resources" that they owned
without hindrance and those who saw such a system as an abomination was
beyond a negotiated resolution, we have similar conflicts at this time.
The differences in language then, such as the preceding term for
African
slaves, reflected a deep difference in self interest. ; so too our current language is reflective of deep differences in values that will not be resolved by discussion, no matter who civil. Yet, debasement of language can make a reasoned compromise, even if only a compromise for the common good, impossible.
In fact, wars of words are prone to escalation, as the inclusion of the
uncertain "affordability" of the healthcare law of 2010 to be an
affirmation of this in its very name, lead to the alternative,
Obamacare, which while reluctantly embraced by the President, turned
this law into a personification of one individual, whose actions like every President's, is an object of partisan hatred. This linguistic war, a version of propaganda or it's current term, "framing," turns a potential discussion of the many complex elements of this law into an exchange of epithets, supported by repetitive soundbites that only have a passing resemblance to actual discourse.
Historiography
(a word meaning the interpretation of actual events, which is
"history") has a way of sorting such past events into moral categories
that were never so clear when they were occurring. At the time before
WWII, for instance, the debate over U.S. intervention was intense, and
even those who were against fascism could make a decision,
looking at the communist alternative, not to oppose it. Another aspect
of this very same phenomenon is that before the clarification of actually being
at war, every discussion or analysis of the issues becomes a proxy for
war-like engagement. Put another way, on December 6th 1941, America was
at war with itself, two days latter "we," an instantly united people were at war with the axis
forces. The United States is at this time in such a pre- Pearl Harbor internecine conflict,
where the ordnance is language-as-propaganda, rather than deadly
weapons The collateral damage is real; even quantifiable during the recent shutting down of government. The catastrophic damage that
many fear if the United States actually defaulted should be put in context, as it reflects an ideological difference that approaches in intensity that felt by the two sides of the cold war. Then the policy of Mutually Assured
Destruction was a reflection of how strongly the people on the two sides
embraced their own, and rejected the other's, core ideologies. Like our standoff between political parties last week, mutual nuclear destruction never was triggered. In some way, the cold war may have been the inadvertent cause of a decades long stimulus program that allowed our economy to thrive. The current war of words across our internal political divide, may also be great for the radio industry and certain TV channels, but like the potential cost of the cold war had it turned hot, we must look at what this escalated war of words is costing us now, and would cost if we drifted into actually defaulting, the overhanging threat that is comparable to MAD. .
This
article is written to make a case,
not for one side of the cultural-politcal divide or the other, but for a
new way of engagement. It would not be one that would be more polite or
even less emotionally hurtful, but one that will be honest, even
brutally so. The current mode of our national discourse is failing us, the example
of the Cruz "satire" only being the least of it, as the media survives
on simplistic transformation of the great issues of our day into
entertainment, defined by quick laughs, or stoking the target audience's
rage; with serious analysis that develops a possible inter-partisan
dialog absolutely excluded. This type of metaphorical war, unlike
military wars, lacks the capacity to be visualized by the movement of front lines displayed on maps The
casualties of this war do not lend themselves to quantification, nor does the military costs or loss of productivity. This
partisan warfare has become a part of our culture, available to be tapped by those
such as the website that printed the Cruz satire to gain advertising
revenue, the same way that Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart does and increasingly the New York Times, without
any acknowledgement of the damage done to our political culture.
We
are deluded by the historiography that allows us to think that the
words first made popular by Martin Luther King, Jr, are invariably true that,
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards
justice." This deludes us into believing that our own views, those of
our group, represents such an arc-- Ted Cruz actually did compare his personal crusade against the ACA as being like those who courageous men who stood up against Hitler. History shows a different reality, that any moment of time is only part of the long secession of events that are variations of Hegel's "thesis and antithesis" reflected in long cycles of prosperity and deprivation, liberation
and enslavement and enlightenment and suppression that will inevitably has been humanity's destiny. Accepting harsh reality, need not be enervating, but will moderate the true believer's enthusiasm that can be too easily become homicidal hatred towards those who block their moral crusade.
My earliest memory was the dropping of the Atomic bomb, which was to lead to the world divided with both sides having thermonuclear Armageddon at their fingertips. The leaders of each side during this cold war, while convinced that the arc of justice was defined by their ideology, yet, and this is vital, also had an understanding that this ferver had to be subordinated to the higher imperative of survival. "Better red than dead" was matched with "better capitalist than dead" and so we survived that high risk half century to be alive to make it to the unimagined possibilities of this time. The danger now is the descent of this country into a war that we can't even see, can't even grasp, that could lead to tragedy.
The tragedy will not come from the apocalypse of an exchange of thermonuclear weapons, as this need not any longer occur. The world of my childhood was somewhat self sustaining, as countries were more self sufficient, communications were by written words on paper, with financial investments memorialized in documents that were available for inspection. For a country to become bankrupted, it would have to engage in overt actions that, for this country, would require decisions of multiple branches of government. It would be impossible for a minority of elected officials to cause catastrophic harm. Given the implementation of the policies popularized by John Meynard keynes, successful advanced countries all engage in deficit spending, especially during slow economic growth. Without much contemplation of the potential abuse, it became customary to require an act of congress, which was designed to allow a minority of either of the two houses or the President to demand a super majority, to validate payment for expenses that had already been made. In the recent impasse, 35% of the single lower house, against the will of the Senate and the President, were able to bring us to the brink of unknown economic harm.
My earliest memory was the dropping of the Atomic bomb, which was to lead to the world divided with both sides having thermonuclear Armageddon at their fingertips. The leaders of each side during this cold war, while convinced that the arc of justice was defined by their ideology, yet, and this is vital, also had an understanding that this ferver had to be subordinated to the higher imperative of survival. "Better red than dead" was matched with "better capitalist than dead" and so we survived that high risk half century to be alive to make it to the unimagined possibilities of this time. The danger now is the descent of this country into a war that we can't even see, can't even grasp, that could lead to tragedy.
The tragedy will not come from the apocalypse of an exchange of thermonuclear weapons, as this need not any longer occur. The world of my childhood was somewhat self sustaining, as countries were more self sufficient, communications were by written words on paper, with financial investments memorialized in documents that were available for inspection. For a country to become bankrupted, it would have to engage in overt actions that, for this country, would require decisions of multiple branches of government. It would be impossible for a minority of elected officials to cause catastrophic harm. Given the implementation of the policies popularized by John Meynard keynes, successful advanced countries all engage in deficit spending, especially during slow economic growth. Without much contemplation of the potential abuse, it became customary to require an act of congress, which was designed to allow a minority of either of the two houses or the President to demand a super majority, to validate payment for expenses that had already been made. In the recent impasse, 35% of the single lower house, against the will of the Senate and the President, were able to bring us to the brink of unknown economic harm.
I make the assertion that what divides us, what underlies the rage of this minority,
are not misunderstandings, but the most fundamental of differences that
are almost have become too "shocking" to articulate, yet the greater danger is if we
do not do so. While it may follow at this point that I should say
exactly what these differences are, and having defined the problem, give examples along with the solution; I will not do that for the very reason that I wrote this essay, that such statements, to the degree that they can be quoted in isolation, make one subject to the the most extreme sanctions- personal vilification or even given one's position, punishment for hate speech. The challenge is to attempt to change
the mode of discourse, to sensitize readers to the vital need of a common language that will not be designed to
advance one political side or the other, but rather the goal of real
engagement. It must also be an idiom that allows expressions of what we consider the worst aspects of individuals their identity groups. How do we criminalize hate speech, when hated of others is a part of what it is to be human. In reality, we have not prevented words of contempt for target groups, but only consigned them to venues of like minded people, where they can flourish with uncontested approval by kindred minds.
In the halls of Congress this takes on a different tone, as every word is on the record. On the floor there are parallel speeches, broadcast to the country, but each addressed to a separate partisan group. While at one level the elected officials may know that this is for home consumption, but those getting excerpts from their favored media are never told of the need for accommodating those of differing interests. In the absence of real dialogue, sound bites become reality, words of not accepting "abject surrender" spoken by the Republican leader become internalized, and have an effect when such a surrender does take place. The hatred builds and festers on both sides, and the public never understands how a moral hero such as Abraham Lincoln could have been murdered by one who felt in his heart that he was killing a tyrant--a tone of hatred that is gathering in Washington for our current hold
of that office.
For me, accepting this state of affairs is more depressing than making an effort to get others to join to demand a different type of politics. If it fails, then so be it, as I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I tried within my own individual limits. I have tried to start a group of citizens who will make certain demands on our local Congressman to change the focus of the committee that he leads to personal attacks on the president to actual evaluation of the ACA, it's promises and its realities. This must be well on its way before the next budget showdown that will occur in a few short months. Representative democracy has its limits, but inherent in these vulnerabilities to be responsive to the will of uninformed masses or the interests of great wealth, is the possibility of individual citizens becoming a coherent force that challenges both of these forces.
It is to this hope of nurturing such citizen activity that this essay was written.
----------------------------
In the halls of Congress this takes on a different tone, as every word is on the record. On the floor there are parallel speeches, broadcast to the country, but each addressed to a separate partisan group. While at one level the elected officials may know that this is for home consumption, but those getting excerpts from their favored media are never told of the need for accommodating those of differing interests. In the absence of real dialogue, sound bites become reality, words of not accepting "abject surrender" spoken by the Republican leader become internalized, and have an effect when such a surrender does take place. The hatred builds and festers on both sides, and the public never understands how a moral hero such as Abraham Lincoln could have been murdered by one who felt in his heart that he was killing a tyrant--a tone of hatred that is gathering in Washington for our current hold
of that office.
For me, accepting this state of affairs is more depressing than making an effort to get others to join to demand a different type of politics. If it fails, then so be it, as I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I tried within my own individual limits. I have tried to start a group of citizens who will make certain demands on our local Congressman to change the focus of the committee that he leads to personal attacks on the president to actual evaluation of the ACA, it's promises and its realities. This must be well on its way before the next budget showdown that will occur in a few short months. Representative democracy has its limits, but inherent in these vulnerabilities to be responsive to the will of uninformed masses or the interests of great wealth, is the possibility of individual citizens becoming a coherent force that challenges both of these forces.
It is to this hope of nurturing such citizen activity that this essay was written.
----------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment pending approval