The U. S. Attorney General has requested and, accordingly, will probably see an early decision by the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Conservative challengers to its constitutionality have been pressing the issue as well for an early decision by the Court.
A decision prior to the election by the Supreme Court upholding the Law would place the issue of repeal squarely at the top of the Republican 2012 election agenda. Given the almost total misunderstanding of the American people about the law and the lack of time for education, the Republicans may well achieve their goal of winning in 2012.
On the other hand, a decision of the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2012 holding the law or a critical element of the law unconstitutional would be a benefit to the President. He could then face the electorate honestly claiming to have tried to better their lives albeit with a slightly inappropriate approach and promise to correct the effort.
I assume therefore that the administration expects or at least hopes for a holding of unconstitutionality.
In any event, the fact that the Republicans orchestrated and acceded to the lies and distortions at the core of America's lack of faith in the law will not help the President. The fact that the Republican administration of George Bush created the breeding fields for those who nearly destroyed our economy will not help the President. The facts that Republicans in Congress purposely both created major delays and built legislative impasses to economic recovery will not help the President.
Why not? Because there are too many American people who are too easily manipulated, disinterested in learning facts about important issues, selfish and self-centered, disorganized, short-memoried and lacking the deep pockets of Republican backers interested only in maintaining existing financial/economic paradigms without oversight.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Useless Candidates = Useless Party
The question has been asked:"Why are the Republican presidential candidates so useless?" http://www.economist.com/node/21530979?fsrc=nlw%7Cedh%7C09-29-11%7Ceditors_highlights
I suggest that the answer lies in the absence of substance at the core of a Republican Party. The Republican Party, as presently constituted and self-defined, offers nothing but redundant rhetoric to the American people. For almost three years, the elected officials of the Republican Party, nationally and regionally, have fostered fear and a perverse adhering to ideology. Acceding to Right Wing fanaticism (itself paid for and promoted by corporate self-interest) the Party has foregone rational examination of its own identity. These candidates pander and rant on with tautological rhetoric now decomposing. To propagandize lies and distortions successfully to a citizenry does not validate the lies and distortions. Republican candidates see the success of such propaganda and point vigorously only to what they see as the flotsam of the current administration and on each others' resumes. At least a few of the candidates may recognize the isolation the Party has created for itself. It cannot produce a candidate with the courage to hold up a mirror. The Republican Party cannot produce a voice with the promise desired by and in the best interests of the new silent majority.
I suggest that the answer lies in the absence of substance at the core of a Republican Party. The Republican Party, as presently constituted and self-defined, offers nothing but redundant rhetoric to the American people. For almost three years, the elected officials of the Republican Party, nationally and regionally, have fostered fear and a perverse adhering to ideology. Acceding to Right Wing fanaticism (itself paid for and promoted by corporate self-interest) the Party has foregone rational examination of its own identity. These candidates pander and rant on with tautological rhetoric now decomposing. To propagandize lies and distortions successfully to a citizenry does not validate the lies and distortions. Republican candidates see the success of such propaganda and point vigorously only to what they see as the flotsam of the current administration and on each others' resumes. At least a few of the candidates may recognize the isolation the Party has created for itself. It cannot produce a candidate with the courage to hold up a mirror. The Republican Party cannot produce a voice with the promise desired by and in the best interests of the new silent majority.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
You See Surrender. I See Necessity.
A friend presents two articles in which he finds "subdued towel-tossing" on the left. I suggest that he continues to see only what you wants to see.
I respond: The "Obama captained ship," you surely must recognize, has a crucial portion of its crew, over which the "captain" has no control, intent on insuring that the ship makes no progress.
Your labeling of an "embedded towel-signal" in a Friedman note that lambastes the Republican intransigence is merely a recognition of a personal crying towel for one disappointed writer of opinion. Friedman is obviously disappointed with the President's strategy not aligning with what he had "argued [was] the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the G.O.P. has become....." (my emphasis). While defending his proffered tactic Friedman firmly reasserts his belief in the substance of the President's stance on issues. "[W]e cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education, immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would understand thatt you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which are precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with its brutal ups and downs." So, despite his tactic not being employed as he would like it he keeps the faith. "My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?src=me&ref=general
I respond: The "Obama captained ship," you surely must recognize, has a crucial portion of its crew, over which the "captain" has no control, intent on insuring that the ship makes no progress.
Your labeling of an "embedded towel-signal" in a Friedman note that lambastes the Republican intransigence is merely a recognition of a personal crying towel for one disappointed writer of opinion. Friedman is obviously disappointed with the President's strategy not aligning with what he had "argued [was] the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the G.O.P. has become....." (my emphasis). While defending his proffered tactic Friedman firmly reasserts his belief in the substance of the President's stance on issues. "[W]e cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education, immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would understand thatt you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which are precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with its brutal ups and downs." So, despite his tactic not being employed as he would like it he keeps the faith. "My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?src=me&ref=general
And while Friedman acknowledges the validity of the President's proposals for "jobs," Brooks tearfully finds it "a campaign marker, not a jobs bill." Again, my friend, you see what you want in reading this as "subdued towel-tossing." Brooks decries the tactics or "governing style," as he puts it , and not the substance of the President's policies. "The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too.... So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach....The White House has decided to wage the campaign as fighting liberals. I guess I understand the choice, but I still believe in the governing style Obama talked about in 2008. I may be the last one." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?src=me&ref=general
He is not. Brooks believes in what the President would be if there existed a political arena in which there could be a true contest of ideas and issues. I do as well. Brooks wants, as most intellectually engaged willing to subdue ideology, a grand solution that will be embraced joyously by a waiting populace. It ain't going to happen. Even in the best of political worlds such a construct would and should require congressional deliberation toward consensus.
But, what alternatives are available with a Congress intransigent on the most rational solutions to just keep the government functioning to protect its citizens. In this crucible, only surrender or confrontation will engage the masses. If our nation was composed of citizens who were all educated and engaged in the important issues of our time such as "serious tax reform and entitlement reform," rational political discourse could result in decisions for the common good. The engaged citizenry today are a combination of those unemployed and struggling, those wanting a Leviathan premised on faith and doctrine, the established holders and direct beneficiaries of capital, and assorted special interest (conservative and progressive) groups. Neither individually nor collectively do they speak for or represent the majority of citizens. Most will not comprehend (look at medical reform) nor react politically to an ultimate solution that necessarily will project events well into and beyond their personal future.
The greater number of citizens, unfortunately, will engage politically as they do socially with a discourse of confrontation on simple issues easily understood and fostered. The Right having recognized this has engaged a defined "ideology" as boogieman: "socialism." The Right has selectively challenged segments of the working class to eliminate unions. The Right has skirmished on the brink of a Class War. "The White House" seeks to survive and continue. Regrettably, the Right has chosen the battlefield on low ground. Attempts by the White House and moderate/rational Republicans to maneuver off this ground have failed so the "silent majority" must be recruited and the "engaged" engaged where they are found.
He is not. Brooks believes in what the President would be if there existed a political arena in which there could be a true contest of ideas and issues. I do as well. Brooks wants, as most intellectually engaged willing to subdue ideology, a grand solution that will be embraced joyously by a waiting populace. It ain't going to happen. Even in the best of political worlds such a construct would and should require congressional deliberation toward consensus.
But, what alternatives are available with a Congress intransigent on the most rational solutions to just keep the government functioning to protect its citizens. In this crucible, only surrender or confrontation will engage the masses. If our nation was composed of citizens who were all educated and engaged in the important issues of our time such as "serious tax reform and entitlement reform," rational political discourse could result in decisions for the common good. The engaged citizenry today are a combination of those unemployed and struggling, those wanting a Leviathan premised on faith and doctrine, the established holders and direct beneficiaries of capital, and assorted special interest (conservative and progressive) groups. Neither individually nor collectively do they speak for or represent the majority of citizens. Most will not comprehend (look at medical reform) nor react politically to an ultimate solution that necessarily will project events well into and beyond their personal future.
The greater number of citizens, unfortunately, will engage politically as they do socially with a discourse of confrontation on simple issues easily understood and fostered. The Right having recognized this has engaged a defined "ideology" as boogieman: "socialism." The Right has selectively challenged segments of the working class to eliminate unions. The Right has skirmished on the brink of a Class War. "The White House" seeks to survive and continue. Regrettably, the Right has chosen the battlefield on low ground. Attempts by the White House and moderate/rational Republicans to maneuver off this ground have failed so the "silent majority" must be recruited and the "engaged" engaged where they are found.
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Resilience in Place of Fear
NEW YORK --- After a decade of war with al-Qaida the potential for another devastating terrorist assault "remains very real," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday following a somber visit to ground zero of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
It seems clear that the Secretary of Defense has an obligation to promote the military successes and responsibilities in preparing for the inevitable and imminent budget conflicts in Congress. However, it is imperative in that effort that he not bolster the fear-mongering that unnecessarily pervades national discourse. Reasoned debate in Washington among politicians and implementers of policy is essential. However, there is an obligation among them to present a balanced perspective to citizens. Prof. Zelikow, former Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, summarized what Americans should be brought to understand and believe in, is our "resilience" as individuals, families and a nation. Of course, vigilance is imperative but, in the context of our successes, particularly against al-Qaida, and our established counter structures, terrorism need not be on the Top Ten list of a citizen's personal concerns. So "Cool it." Mr. SecDef.
It seems clear that the Secretary of Defense has an obligation to promote the military successes and responsibilities in preparing for the inevitable and imminent budget conflicts in Congress. However, it is imperative in that effort that he not bolster the fear-mongering that unnecessarily pervades national discourse. Reasoned debate in Washington among politicians and implementers of policy is essential. However, there is an obligation among them to present a balanced perspective to citizens. Prof. Zelikow, former Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, summarized what Americans should be brought to understand and believe in, is our "resilience" as individuals, families and a nation. Of course, vigilance is imperative but, in the context of our successes, particularly against al-Qaida, and our established counter structures, terrorism need not be on the Top Ten list of a citizen's personal concerns. So "Cool it." Mr. SecDef.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)