It is a burgeoning protest, one spurred by anger that seems to keep growing. And like any action borne of anger, it has the potential to wreak havoc on society, to become a volatile mix of arrogance and self-righteousness. That is why we cannot dismiss nor ignore the frustrations emanating from the “Occupy Wall Street” encampment in Lower Manhattan or the other demonstrations sprouting up around this country. For those demonstrations are battles in the war over the heart and soul of this country, the possible beginning of an American Autumn.
Some time ago, I wrote about the growing disconnect that is occurring in this country, the manner in which our political leaders – and many of us – have lost sight of what America is and what America should be. Too often, the policy decisions coming out of Washington have divided this country: One seemingly for the rich, another seemingly for the rest of us. The result has been a palatable discontent with a world that views any shift from the conservative orthodoxy as treasonous.
That discontent was not borne with the Tea Party, though the Republicans and the Tea Party gave face to it during midterm elections in which the GOP seized the U.S. House of Representatives and several state legislatures across the country. Instead, it was borne from a crumbling economy in which the working- and middle-classes saw their modest wealth slip away, and the people who robbed America of its stability rewarded with bailouts, some of which were used to pay exorbitant bonuses.
Now, as we head into a new election season we have witnessed what anger can do to a nation, especially when that anger is accompanied by demagoguery and stridency. Washington – and some state legislatures – has been paralyzed, unable to do the people’s work, unwilling to help the millions devastated by the greed and recklessness that dominated the last decade. Jobs are needed in this country, yet Washington cannot pass a jobs bill. The infrastructure needs repairing, yet Washington wants to cut such spending.
“Occupy Wall Street” can – and should – be the pushback against the flag draped conservatism that tears at the heart of our nation and threatens to destroy its soul.
A cursory glance at “Occupy Wall Street” shows the disenchanted, the disillusioned, the disaffected, people Republicans have assailed as jealous of the wealthy, as soldiers to class warfare. But if we look beneath the surface we see a cross-section of society: students and teachers; parents and children; the employed and unemployed; the elderly and young; homeowners and renters; artists and business people; citizens and foreigners. All are of different races and political attitudes.
Just a few months ago, many may have been apathetic. They no longer are because the issues we face are not Democratic, Republican, black, white, Asian, or Hispanic. They are man-made ills that plague all of us. That is why this is a fight for the soul of America, a battle to determine if we will be a callous, vengeful, and barbarous nation, or if we will be a caring, forgiving, and civilized nation. Xenophobia and brutish ignorance have made us a suspicious people who no longer strive for what is the best in us.
Three years ago, we seemed to be reaching for all that is good. In 2008, many young people – some once apathetic toward the political system – voted for Barack Obama. Those young men and women became engaged in the life of our country after spending part of their lives decrying the corruptness of the political system, refusing to vote or even read about Washington for fear it might taint. A year ago, the Tea Party forced some of the most absurd amateurs into our lives and into the national arena.
We have come to understand what happens when we allow extremists to take our country from us. Now, we must decide – each in our own way – how we will regain control of our collective destiny, to reassert our belief that America is more than platitudes about exceptionalism. That is what some of the people are doing at “Occupy Wall Street,” seeking to force America to be America again, pushing her to open her arms and heart to her children.
That’s why we must support them, and why we must help them to understand that protesting Wall Street is not the end. It is only the beginning. Wall Street is not the sole problem that we face. Draconian immigration laws in such states as Alabama and Arizona are forcing immigrants to cower in fear of being detained, regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally. Farmers who once brought Mexican laborers in to harvest crops under the country's H-2A farm visa program are discovering that farm jobs being held for Americans are going unfilled because many of the unemployed find the work to back breaking.
The New York Times recently reported that John Harold, a 72-year-old farmer in Olathe, Colo., decided to hire fewer Mexican workers this year in an effort to save jobs for unemployed Americans in his community. "It didn't take me six hours to realize I'd made a heck of a mistake," Harold said, explaining that many of the local workers started the $10.50 an hour jobs at 6 a.m. and quit by noon.
Another farmer, 49-year-old Kerry Mattics, had the same experience. "It's not an easy job," Mattics said. "It's outside, so if it's wet, you're wet, and if it's hot, you're hot...They wanted that $10.50 an hour without doing very much. I know people with college degrees, working for the school system and only making 11 bucks."
There are even more without jobs, and they are occupying Wall Street to show their displeasure. One such person is Jon Reiner, a former marketing executive and father of two boys. Reiner says he has been laid off three times in five years. He also says he has sent out 2,000 resumes, according to MSNBC.
“You were a member of the middle class, you were at a point in your life where you thought you’d be at the zenith of your career or upward trajectory, and all of a sudden you find yourself marginalized,” the 49-year-old said. “The term that I’ve begun to use is unemployable.
“What this rally – this organization you know – represents is to try to give voice to the have nots, who are a huge part of this society, and who no longer have the means or the opportunity to contribute,” he added.
Indeed, the protests that began with a few on Wall Street has to be carried to the ballot box, where both major parties and independents should have to vie for votes through policies that help the majority of Americans, not policies that seek revenge or to divide. “Occupy Wall Street” is an early salvo in a long war, one that with discipline, patience, and honor can accomplish as much – if not more – as the Arab Spring.
The time is ripe for us to harvest an American Autumn.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
Setting the Tone for a Presidential Narrative
After more than half a year of pugnacious Republicans bellowing about what they will not accept, it was refreshing to hear President Barack Obama go on the offensive in his speech before a joint session of Congress Thursday night. Now we have to see if he will maintain his assertiveness.
The President’s speech outlining the American Jobs Act contained the passion and no, nonsense tone that was missing from the White House and the Democrat Party. For too long, the GOP and its “tear down the government” minions were allowed to dictate the narrative coming out of Washington. In doing so, they created a false debt crisis that wasted precious time that could have and should have been spent on improving the American economy. And during that time, Obama and his party seemed content to allow the petulant children run amok through our nation’s Capitol.
But Thursday night the President stood firm, outlining a jobs package that should help to ease some of the pain cutting across our nation. Of course, the proposed jobs act will not solve all of our ills. Anyone who believes that it will is delusional. It can, however, be a driving force in restoring confidence in our national economy. Because of the dysfunction that is being passed off as political discourse, too many business leaders and consumers doubt our ability to throw off this economic malaise.
It does not matter that businesses are sitting on more than $1 trillion in cash; taxes for corporations are at an all-time low with some companies paying little or no taxes; interest rates are well below anything we might have expected; the stock market, though volatile at times, is strong; and profits are high at many companies. There remains a disbelief about how we govern ourselves, and whether we will work together to move this nation forward.
That is why it was important for the President to speak to the heart of America, and it is even more important for Obama and the adults in Washington to be steadfast in seeking solutions to our nation's woes.
“No single individual built America on their own,” Obama said. “We built it together. We have been, and always will be, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; a nation with responsibilities to ourselves and with responsibilities to one another.”
While that declaration was a reminder of what it means to be an American, Obama's speech was an important call to action, an admonition that the problems we face are man-made, and, therefore, can and must be fixed by man.
The United States has been at its strongest when government, academia, labor, and business have worked together. The four did not have to always agree, nor did they have to be warm and fuzzy with each other. They just needed to respect what each brought to the table. When they did America emerged as a superpower, an exceptional example of not only what can be, but what should be. It is through that paradigm that America will again emerge strong.
If we rebuild the infrastructure we will create jobs that will provide people with disposable income, as well as upgrade the transportation system. If we invest in updating the electrical grid we not only create a better energy network, but we increase the potential for even more jobs. If we invest in research we can provide an environment that encourages new industry. If we revamp the business and personal tax codes, as well as set reasonable regulations on energy and the environment, we can give businesses the confidence that actions taken now will not be reversed after the fact. And if we increase the amount of money spent in the short-term, we can create the demand that leads to long-term development and job growth in the private sector.
“We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union, founder of the Republican Party,” the President told us Thursday night. “But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future – a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad, launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges.”
Indeed, it is that kind of vision that we need now, not the myopic view of the world that permeates our national debates. We have allowed our eyes to become jaundiced, and in doing so we can no longer see what makes America great. It is not proclamations made by self-described patriots or damnations issued by political provocateurs. It is the willingness and the ability of Americans to come together to build, to fight for what is right, to put the nation above ourselves, to recognize that ideology, while a subtext in our story, is not the story.
“Ask yourselves – where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, our airports?” Obama asked Congress. “What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the G.I. Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance?
“How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip?” he continued. “What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?”
The answers to those questions may be too terrifying to ponder.
The President’s speech outlining the American Jobs Act contained the passion and no, nonsense tone that was missing from the White House and the Democrat Party. For too long, the GOP and its “tear down the government” minions were allowed to dictate the narrative coming out of Washington. In doing so, they created a false debt crisis that wasted precious time that could have and should have been spent on improving the American economy. And during that time, Obama and his party seemed content to allow the petulant children run amok through our nation’s Capitol.
But Thursday night the President stood firm, outlining a jobs package that should help to ease some of the pain cutting across our nation. Of course, the proposed jobs act will not solve all of our ills. Anyone who believes that it will is delusional. It can, however, be a driving force in restoring confidence in our national economy. Because of the dysfunction that is being passed off as political discourse, too many business leaders and consumers doubt our ability to throw off this economic malaise.
It does not matter that businesses are sitting on more than $1 trillion in cash; taxes for corporations are at an all-time low with some companies paying little or no taxes; interest rates are well below anything we might have expected; the stock market, though volatile at times, is strong; and profits are high at many companies. There remains a disbelief about how we govern ourselves, and whether we will work together to move this nation forward.
That is why it was important for the President to speak to the heart of America, and it is even more important for Obama and the adults in Washington to be steadfast in seeking solutions to our nation's woes.
“No single individual built America on their own,” Obama said. “We built it together. We have been, and always will be, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; a nation with responsibilities to ourselves and with responsibilities to one another.”
While that declaration was a reminder of what it means to be an American, Obama's speech was an important call to action, an admonition that the problems we face are man-made, and, therefore, can and must be fixed by man.
The United States has been at its strongest when government, academia, labor, and business have worked together. The four did not have to always agree, nor did they have to be warm and fuzzy with each other. They just needed to respect what each brought to the table. When they did America emerged as a superpower, an exceptional example of not only what can be, but what should be. It is through that paradigm that America will again emerge strong.
If we rebuild the infrastructure we will create jobs that will provide people with disposable income, as well as upgrade the transportation system. If we invest in updating the electrical grid we not only create a better energy network, but we increase the potential for even more jobs. If we invest in research we can provide an environment that encourages new industry. If we revamp the business and personal tax codes, as well as set reasonable regulations on energy and the environment, we can give businesses the confidence that actions taken now will not be reversed after the fact. And if we increase the amount of money spent in the short-term, we can create the demand that leads to long-term development and job growth in the private sector.
“We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union, founder of the Republican Party,” the President told us Thursday night. “But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future – a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad, launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges.”
Indeed, it is that kind of vision that we need now, not the myopic view of the world that permeates our national debates. We have allowed our eyes to become jaundiced, and in doing so we can no longer see what makes America great. It is not proclamations made by self-described patriots or damnations issued by political provocateurs. It is the willingness and the ability of Americans to come together to build, to fight for what is right, to put the nation above ourselves, to recognize that ideology, while a subtext in our story, is not the story.
“Ask yourselves – where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, our airports?” Obama asked Congress. “What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the G.I. Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance?
“How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip?” he continued. “What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?”
The answers to those questions may be too terrifying to ponder.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Obama's "Backdoor War" Nears Success
The news came as a surprise, and as a welcomed relief: Rebel forces had made their way into Tripoli, the capital of Libya, and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s 42-year grip on power appeared to be dissolving with astonishing speed.
Indeed, after six months of war in which rebels, who began as peaceful protesters, took up arms against one of the world's most tyrannical leaders, it was with a certain amount of trepidation that the news reached us. One never knows what the man who President Ronald Reagan called a "mad dog" will do. Even as rebels claim to control 95 percent of Tripoli and two of Quaddafi's sons are reported to be in rebel custody, there remains a realistic fear that Quaddafi and his supporters could begin attacking civilians.
As of Monday morning, tank battalions and snipers loyal to Quaddafi were taking a last stand against rebel forces near Quaddafi’s fortified compound, according to International news reports. Quaddafi, who had been urging civilians to take up arms against the rebel “rats,” was nowhere to be found. He did broadcast a statement saying he was in the city and would be “with you until the end.”
The rebels and those civilians seemed to feel that that end was near. "Gadhafi is finished. Now we are free," one rebel, named Abdullah, told a Reuters reporter over the sound of gunfire and shelling, as his group consolidated its position to the west of the city center.
The 69-year-old Quaddafi has been a cancer on the world for more than four decades, sponsoring terrorism at home and abroad. After the Arab Spring led to the ouster of leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, the resistance mounted in Libya was a welcome sign. Yet, unlike Tunisia and Egypt, the protests for freedom and human dignity in Libya turned bloody with Quaddafi slaughtering his own people to maintain control.
The uprising, led by dissidents in the east of Libya, was indeed wrought with problems. More important, though, it was peopled by those who had the most to gain -- and loose -- from Quaddafi's ouster.
"This is a dream come true, something we have all been waiting for," a 19-year-old Libyan woman told CNN Sunday night. "I can talk on the phone without being scared someone is coming to get me."
Indeed fear permeated Libya, where finding the truth was difficult to say the least. Libya is a country that lacks the national institutions that can grow without a cult figure. Now, its people, like those in other Arab and North African nations in this year of change, must learn to depend on themselves and not some seemingly omnipotent leader.
According to The New York Times, the rebel leadership group, the National Transitional Council, issued a mass text message saying: “We congratulate the Libyan people for the fall of Muammar Qaddafi and call on the Libyan people to go into the street to protect the public property. Long live free Libya.”
As is customary with him, President Barack Obama, said in a controlled statement Sunday night that Qaddafi and his inner circle had “to recognize that their rule has come to an end.” He also called on Qaddafi “to relinquish power once and for all,” and he urged the National Transitional Council to avoid civilian casualties and protect state institutions as it took control of the country.
“Tonight, the momentum against the Qaddafi regime has reached a tipping point,” the President said. “Tripoli is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant. The Qaddafi regime is showing signs of collapsing. The people of Libya are showing that the universal pursuit of dignity and freedom is far stronger than the iron fist of a dictator.”
Now that the people of Libya have shown their mettle, the United States must now show its support so that it can help the rebels win the peace. Lest we forget, it was Obama who pushed NATO to oversee bombing raids in support of the rebels, a move that led Republicans to attack the President for his "backdoor war."
The people of Libya feel that they have gained "the freedom that we all deserve," one young woman told CNN Sunday night. "I think we have proved that we are smarter than him (Quaddafi) at the end of the day."
"We are now different people," the young woman added. "And it's not even the end yet."
That's why America and NATO have to take the next step and help Libya become the nation that it can be.
Indeed, after six months of war in which rebels, who began as peaceful protesters, took up arms against one of the world's most tyrannical leaders, it was with a certain amount of trepidation that the news reached us. One never knows what the man who President Ronald Reagan called a "mad dog" will do. Even as rebels claim to control 95 percent of Tripoli and two of Quaddafi's sons are reported to be in rebel custody, there remains a realistic fear that Quaddafi and his supporters could begin attacking civilians.
As of Monday morning, tank battalions and snipers loyal to Quaddafi were taking a last stand against rebel forces near Quaddafi’s fortified compound, according to International news reports. Quaddafi, who had been urging civilians to take up arms against the rebel “rats,” was nowhere to be found. He did broadcast a statement saying he was in the city and would be “with you until the end.”
The rebels and those civilians seemed to feel that that end was near. "Gadhafi is finished. Now we are free," one rebel, named Abdullah, told a Reuters reporter over the sound of gunfire and shelling, as his group consolidated its position to the west of the city center.
The 69-year-old Quaddafi has been a cancer on the world for more than four decades, sponsoring terrorism at home and abroad. After the Arab Spring led to the ouster of leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, the resistance mounted in Libya was a welcome sign. Yet, unlike Tunisia and Egypt, the protests for freedom and human dignity in Libya turned bloody with Quaddafi slaughtering his own people to maintain control.
The uprising, led by dissidents in the east of Libya, was indeed wrought with problems. More important, though, it was peopled by those who had the most to gain -- and loose -- from Quaddafi's ouster.
"This is a dream come true, something we have all been waiting for," a 19-year-old Libyan woman told CNN Sunday night. "I can talk on the phone without being scared someone is coming to get me."
Indeed fear permeated Libya, where finding the truth was difficult to say the least. Libya is a country that lacks the national institutions that can grow without a cult figure. Now, its people, like those in other Arab and North African nations in this year of change, must learn to depend on themselves and not some seemingly omnipotent leader.
According to The New York Times, the rebel leadership group, the National Transitional Council, issued a mass text message saying: “We congratulate the Libyan people for the fall of Muammar Qaddafi and call on the Libyan people to go into the street to protect the public property. Long live free Libya.”
As is customary with him, President Barack Obama, said in a controlled statement Sunday night that Qaddafi and his inner circle had “to recognize that their rule has come to an end.” He also called on Qaddafi “to relinquish power once and for all,” and he urged the National Transitional Council to avoid civilian casualties and protect state institutions as it took control of the country.
“Tonight, the momentum against the Qaddafi regime has reached a tipping point,” the President said. “Tripoli is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant. The Qaddafi regime is showing signs of collapsing. The people of Libya are showing that the universal pursuit of dignity and freedom is far stronger than the iron fist of a dictator.”
Now that the people of Libya have shown their mettle, the United States must now show its support so that it can help the rebels win the peace. Lest we forget, it was Obama who pushed NATO to oversee bombing raids in support of the rebels, a move that led Republicans to attack the President for his "backdoor war."
The people of Libya feel that they have gained "the freedom that we all deserve," one young woman told CNN Sunday night. "I think we have proved that we are smarter than him (Quaddafi) at the end of the day."
"We are now different people," the young woman added. "And it's not even the end yet."
That's why America and NATO have to take the next step and help Libya become the nation that it can be.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The Pandemic of Foot-in-Mouth Disease
Politicians have always been susceptible to foot-in-mouth disease, but we appear to have reached a pandemic since Barack Obama became President. Nearly every day, some Republican, or one of the party’s erstwhile supporters, comes down with the disease. Instead of seeking treatment for the affliction, each compounds it by claiming that the illness was misdiagnosed by others.
For example, Mark Halperin was infected on national television, making a scatological reference to the President. He later offered an unctuous apology. In Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the disease manifested itself when he proclaimed:
“Everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors, and so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.”
When told that only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work involves abortions, Kyl proclaimed that his statement was not meant to be taken as fact.
Halperin and Kyl are not the only ones. There have been countless other instances in which Republicans have either used racially charged language only to claim it wasn’t meant to be racial, or have made blatantly false statements only to claim the statements were not meant to be taken as facts. The most recent example of this is Rep. Doug Lamborn, a conservative Colorado Republican. Last Friday, Lamborn went on the radio and proclaimed that working with President Obama would be “like touching tar baby.”
“I don’t even want to have to be associated with him,” Lamborn said in an interview on the Caplis and Silverman radio show on KHOW 630 AM in Denver. “It’s like touching a tar baby, and you get it – you know, you’re stuck, and you’re part of the problem now, and you can’t get away. I don’t want that to happen to us, but if it does, or not, he’ll still get – properly so – the blame, because his policies, for four years, will have failed the American people.”
The “us” Lamborn is talking about are Republicans. The person who will be blamed for the problems is of course Obama.
Lamborn’s comment raised the ire of numerous people, including the heads of the local NAACP, the Urban League of the Pikes Peak Region, and the El Paso County Democratic Party. Each decried his comments as racist because the phrase "tar baby" has been used to denigrate black people.
“The world already views (El Paso County) as ultra conservative, ultra-right-wing, Tea-Party-loving, gay bashing, an epicenter of hate,” Rosemary Harris Lytle, president of the Colorado Springs chapter of the NAACP told The Gazette newspaper. “With two vitriolic words, our own Congressman again sealed our fate.”
Lamborn’s people denied his comments were racial in nature. Instead, they said the reference was made because working with Obama created a sticky situation, a quagmire. The dictionary does indeed define tar baby as “a situation, problem, or the like, that is almost impossible to solve or to break away from.” But if Lamborn only meant to suggests a sticky situation, then why use a term that could so easily be seen as racially derogatory? Why not just say quagmire? Why liken the President, instead of the situation, to tar baby as was the case when the fallout from the Iran-Contra affair was dubbed George H.W. Bush's tar baby?
The reason, I believe, is simple: He knew what he was saying (“and you get it”), and he knew that he could cite the folktale “Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby” for cover. Lamborn also may have made a Freudian slip, giving away more about how he and the Republican Party view the President.
Allow me to elaborate in a conspiratorial way: Brer Fox (the GOP) hates Brer Rabbit (Obama), so Brer Fox creates a tar baby (the debt ceiling crisis) in order to trap Brer Rabbit and destroy him. Why? The answer may be as simple as Brer Rabbit is to sassy, to uppity for Brer Fox. Brer Rabbit eventually was able to trick Brer Fox, who threw Brer Rabbit into the briar patch. Brer Rabbit, sullied by the tar baby (debt ceiling debate), was able to escape.
With the debt ceiling debate over for now we have irrefutable proof that the role of the GOP (Brer Fox) is to destroy Obama (Brer Rabbit) by any means necessary. Now Obama has to figure out how he will deal with the GOP from this day forward. No longer can he look to them to make compromises that are good for the country. He has to understand that from now on, he must seek the support of his party faithful and any moderates on the other side of the aisle.
While many Republicans, especially those buoyed by the Tea Party, see their roles as burning down the house that is the federal government, polls show that many supporters of the Tea Party (57 percent in some polls) seek compromise. They supported the Tea Party not because they wanted to destroy the government or Obama, but rather because they wanted a government that would work, that would no longer follow the status quo.
Instead, those people helped to create more dysfunction than ever. And now it is up to Obama to remind them of that mistake so it can be corrected in 2012.
For example, Mark Halperin was infected on national television, making a scatological reference to the President. He later offered an unctuous apology. In Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the disease manifested itself when he proclaimed:
“Everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors, and so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.”
When told that only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work involves abortions, Kyl proclaimed that his statement was not meant to be taken as fact.
Halperin and Kyl are not the only ones. There have been countless other instances in which Republicans have either used racially charged language only to claim it wasn’t meant to be racial, or have made blatantly false statements only to claim the statements were not meant to be taken as facts. The most recent example of this is Rep. Doug Lamborn, a conservative Colorado Republican. Last Friday, Lamborn went on the radio and proclaimed that working with President Obama would be “like touching tar baby.”
“I don’t even want to have to be associated with him,” Lamborn said in an interview on the Caplis and Silverman radio show on KHOW 630 AM in Denver. “It’s like touching a tar baby, and you get it – you know, you’re stuck, and you’re part of the problem now, and you can’t get away. I don’t want that to happen to us, but if it does, or not, he’ll still get – properly so – the blame, because his policies, for four years, will have failed the American people.”
The “us” Lamborn is talking about are Republicans. The person who will be blamed for the problems is of course Obama.
Lamborn’s comment raised the ire of numerous people, including the heads of the local NAACP, the Urban League of the Pikes Peak Region, and the El Paso County Democratic Party. Each decried his comments as racist because the phrase "tar baby" has been used to denigrate black people.
“The world already views (El Paso County) as ultra conservative, ultra-right-wing, Tea-Party-loving, gay bashing, an epicenter of hate,” Rosemary Harris Lytle, president of the Colorado Springs chapter of the NAACP told The Gazette newspaper. “With two vitriolic words, our own Congressman again sealed our fate.”
Lamborn’s people denied his comments were racial in nature. Instead, they said the reference was made because working with Obama created a sticky situation, a quagmire. The dictionary does indeed define tar baby as “a situation, problem, or the like, that is almost impossible to solve or to break away from.” But if Lamborn only meant to suggests a sticky situation, then why use a term that could so easily be seen as racially derogatory? Why not just say quagmire? Why liken the President, instead of the situation, to tar baby as was the case when the fallout from the Iran-Contra affair was dubbed George H.W. Bush's tar baby?
The reason, I believe, is simple: He knew what he was saying (“and you get it”), and he knew that he could cite the folktale “Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby” for cover. Lamborn also may have made a Freudian slip, giving away more about how he and the Republican Party view the President.
Allow me to elaborate in a conspiratorial way: Brer Fox (the GOP) hates Brer Rabbit (Obama), so Brer Fox creates a tar baby (the debt ceiling crisis) in order to trap Brer Rabbit and destroy him. Why? The answer may be as simple as Brer Rabbit is to sassy, to uppity for Brer Fox. Brer Rabbit eventually was able to trick Brer Fox, who threw Brer Rabbit into the briar patch. Brer Rabbit, sullied by the tar baby (debt ceiling debate), was able to escape.
With the debt ceiling debate over for now we have irrefutable proof that the role of the GOP (Brer Fox) is to destroy Obama (Brer Rabbit) by any means necessary. Now Obama has to figure out how he will deal with the GOP from this day forward. No longer can he look to them to make compromises that are good for the country. He has to understand that from now on, he must seek the support of his party faithful and any moderates on the other side of the aisle.
While many Republicans, especially those buoyed by the Tea Party, see their roles as burning down the house that is the federal government, polls show that many supporters of the Tea Party (57 percent in some polls) seek compromise. They supported the Tea Party not because they wanted to destroy the government or Obama, but rather because they wanted a government that would work, that would no longer follow the status quo.
Instead, those people helped to create more dysfunction than ever. And now it is up to Obama to remind them of that mistake so it can be corrected in 2012.
Friday, July 22, 2011
The Summer of Our Disconnect, II
The dueling news briefings from President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner Friday night shows just how out of touch we have become in this country. Despite the widespread belief that the government must deal with the deficit, taxes, and the debt ceiling, Washington has again fallen short of what needs to be done. And the reasons have little to do with the economy, and more to do with the political stridency that engulfs our nation.
Indeed, when the Tea Party began its push to oust Democrats and moderate Republicans from Congress its members screamed about a new "revolution" sweeping across our nation. Now, it is time for the people who believe in this country, who want Washington to work toward the betterment of society to stand up and begin that revolution by declaring -- as the President did last week -- "enough is enough."
Since the debt talks began, the White House has offered several plans to cut the deficit. But Republicans, who ran on the promise that they would cut the deficit, have continued to walk away from the negotiating table. One must ask why? When we do, we have to realize that the efforts of the GOP are not to fix America, but to block Obama.
In doing so, they have shown that they are incapable of reaching a compromise, which they have made a dirty word in American politics. The arrogance of the GOP freshmen class has put the nation in danger. Even if one argues against raising the tax rate, it is hard for anyone seeking true deficit reduction to argue against changing a federal tax code that allows such corporations as GE to pay little or no taxes on multi-billion profits.
Indeed, The New York Times recently published an article in which it looked at subsidies contained in the federal budget. Based on government and private studies, $1.8 trillion could be saved by eliminating those subsidies, which about $1.6 million a year for farmers to store peanuts and cotton in Georgia while waiting for price increases. It also includes $200 million for small and rural airports around the country some of which have no more than three flights a day. Another $100 million in tax breaks is given to owners of Nascar race tracks.
When George W. Bush tried to remove the farm storage subsidy he met with opposition from Republicans and Democrats, some of whom also have not been willing to compromise. President Obama has also tried to get rid of the subsidy. He failed both times. What we see is a basic philosophy that says, "We must cut the budget as long as it does not mean cutting a program I pushed."
For instance, in an another recent article The Times noted that several freshmen Republican lawmakers have been pushing government sponsored projects that they campaigned against during the last election. Such hypocrisy is rampant in Washington, as if how we refer to a program changes its meaning. In the new Congress, earmarks are not earmarks because the terminology has been changed.
That is why it is time for moderates and independents to take over the revolution that the Tea Party claims it started. No longer can they sit on the sidelines shaking their heads in disgust. Compromise is not a dirty word, it is the foundation of democracy.
"We've shown ourselves willing to step up on something the Republicans ran on," President Obama said at his news briefing where he scolded Boehner for walking away from the negotiating table yet again.
And of course, Boehner, in his own briefing, placed blame on the President, saying he will no longer negotiate with the White House. As House Speaker he has that right. But failure to negotiate with the President on a national deficit shows a total disconnect on the part of the GOP, and a total disregard for what many Americans want -- a government that works.
Indeed, when the Tea Party began its push to oust Democrats and moderate Republicans from Congress its members screamed about a new "revolution" sweeping across our nation. Now, it is time for the people who believe in this country, who want Washington to work toward the betterment of society to stand up and begin that revolution by declaring -- as the President did last week -- "enough is enough."
Since the debt talks began, the White House has offered several plans to cut the deficit. But Republicans, who ran on the promise that they would cut the deficit, have continued to walk away from the negotiating table. One must ask why? When we do, we have to realize that the efforts of the GOP are not to fix America, but to block Obama.
In doing so, they have shown that they are incapable of reaching a compromise, which they have made a dirty word in American politics. The arrogance of the GOP freshmen class has put the nation in danger. Even if one argues against raising the tax rate, it is hard for anyone seeking true deficit reduction to argue against changing a federal tax code that allows such corporations as GE to pay little or no taxes on multi-billion profits.
Indeed, The New York Times recently published an article in which it looked at subsidies contained in the federal budget. Based on government and private studies, $1.8 trillion could be saved by eliminating those subsidies, which about $1.6 million a year for farmers to store peanuts and cotton in Georgia while waiting for price increases. It also includes $200 million for small and rural airports around the country some of which have no more than three flights a day. Another $100 million in tax breaks is given to owners of Nascar race tracks.
When George W. Bush tried to remove the farm storage subsidy he met with opposition from Republicans and Democrats, some of whom also have not been willing to compromise. President Obama has also tried to get rid of the subsidy. He failed both times. What we see is a basic philosophy that says, "We must cut the budget as long as it does not mean cutting a program I pushed."
For instance, in an another recent article The Times noted that several freshmen Republican lawmakers have been pushing government sponsored projects that they campaigned against during the last election. Such hypocrisy is rampant in Washington, as if how we refer to a program changes its meaning. In the new Congress, earmarks are not earmarks because the terminology has been changed.
That is why it is time for moderates and independents to take over the revolution that the Tea Party claims it started. No longer can they sit on the sidelines shaking their heads in disgust. Compromise is not a dirty word, it is the foundation of democracy.
"We've shown ourselves willing to step up on something the Republicans ran on," President Obama said at his news briefing where he scolded Boehner for walking away from the negotiating table yet again.
And of course, Boehner, in his own briefing, placed blame on the President, saying he will no longer negotiate with the White House. As House Speaker he has that right. But failure to negotiate with the President on a national deficit shows a total disconnect on the part of the GOP, and a total disregard for what many Americans want -- a government that works.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The Summer of Our Disconnect
President Barack Obama is correct: Enough is enough. We must end the stridency that drives our actions, and find new ways of working together to create the America that will allow all of us to thrive. If we do not then we are doomed to continuously repeat the failures that strangle our society.
Even before the debate over reducing the national debt and raising the debt ceiling began, the President repeatedly extended a hand to the Republican Party in an effort to bring about bipartisanship. He has even sought to present himself as the mature centrist in the room.
But Republicans and their leaders have continuously balked at any efforts of bipartisanship, basically proclaiming that being the party of “No!” when they were in the minority wasn’t good enough. They had to be the party of “Hell no!” Now that Republicans are in the majority in the House of Representatives and hung over from last year’s mid-term election, they have become even more petulant in their efforts to make Obama a one-term President.
The result is too many people have become like one note musicians, playing the same sorry tune day after day, week after week, month after month.
That is why it is time for the mature adult in the room to deal with the whiny children. The Republicans have shown more than anything that reason and doing what is right for the nation is beyond their grasp.
Now, the nation faces a possible debt crisis, one so real that China, which carries a large portion of the U.S. debt, urged national leaders to come up with a solution. While one could easily argue that the current debate is just the usual political brinksmanship, it would be wrong to do so. The battle in Washington is a larger version of the bizarre nature of politics in America today. With the nation still reeling from the Great Recession, people are angry, and from that anger come extremism. That has led to a failure to deal with some of the nation’s most pressing issues, including stimulating the economy in an effort to create more jobs.
Just look at the maliciousness that permeates America and invades our political discourse. People who disagree with the President have been unable to debate the issues without using scatological references. To say that such references are just part of the messiness that is democracy is to negate the true nature of what is before us, particularly when such references come from the people who are employed to inform us, as was the case in Mark Halperin’s inappropriate reference to Obama.
But it is not just the lack of erudition from pundits that should concern us. In Minnesota, for example, the state government has been shut down for several weeks because the Democratic governor and the Republican-led legislature cannot come to a budget agreement. Instead of dealing with the fiscal issues facing that state – a projected $5 billion deficit bequeathed by former Gov. Tim Pawlenty – elected officials there are bogged down in such hot-button issues as public-school vouchers, stem-cell research, and abortion.
Moralism has trumped efforts to deal with the state’s nearly 7 percent unemployment rate or its budget deficit. According to Walter Shapiro, a correspondent for The New Republic, “the state’s politics are probably even more polarized than those on Capitol Hill.” State Sen. John Marty, a veteran liberal Democrat, told Shapiro: “Eight years ago we had just one Michele Bachmann in the Minnesota senate. Now, we have maybe twenty or forty.”
Things are not that much better in Wisconsin, where recall efforts are underway to remove nine state senators – six Republicans and three Democrats -- stemming from the legislative battle earlier this year when Democrats fled the state to avoid a budget vote. The acrimony in that state is so intense that Republicans fielded “fake Democrats” to force primaries in several districts. The real Democrats won earlier this week and are set to meet their Republican opponents.
A similar effort to undue the last election is underway in Michigan, where Democrats upset at Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and members of his party are circulating recall petitions. The Michigan Education Association, a teachers’ union, has joined the battle because of legislation that weakens the state’s teacher tenure law.
It does not stop there. In Alabama, Scott Beason, a 41-year-old Republican state senator, has so polarized people there that even members of his own party have railed against him. During a corruption investigation during which he wore a concealed recording device, Beason, a conservative, was overheard disparaging his fellow Republicans and calling black people “aborigines.”
In addition, Beason has put his political agenda ahead of what is important for various parts of the state. His contesting of a budget plan to help Jefferson County, the home of Birmingham, resulted in layoffs of a quarter of the county’s workforce; courthouse closings; delayed maintenance on county roads and bridges; and a cut in the workweek for the sheriff’s office.
Beason says he’s standing up for what he believes in, even if it means parts of his state must fall. The same seems to be happening in Washington, where Republicans have decided that their individual beliefs trump societal needs. It is the most dramatic disconnect within the political system in some time.
Even before the debate over reducing the national debt and raising the debt ceiling began, the President repeatedly extended a hand to the Republican Party in an effort to bring about bipartisanship. He has even sought to present himself as the mature centrist in the room.
But Republicans and their leaders have continuously balked at any efforts of bipartisanship, basically proclaiming that being the party of “No!” when they were in the minority wasn’t good enough. They had to be the party of “Hell no!” Now that Republicans are in the majority in the House of Representatives and hung over from last year’s mid-term election, they have become even more petulant in their efforts to make Obama a one-term President.
The result is too many people have become like one note musicians, playing the same sorry tune day after day, week after week, month after month.
That is why it is time for the mature adult in the room to deal with the whiny children. The Republicans have shown more than anything that reason and doing what is right for the nation is beyond their grasp.
Now, the nation faces a possible debt crisis, one so real that China, which carries a large portion of the U.S. debt, urged national leaders to come up with a solution. While one could easily argue that the current debate is just the usual political brinksmanship, it would be wrong to do so. The battle in Washington is a larger version of the bizarre nature of politics in America today. With the nation still reeling from the Great Recession, people are angry, and from that anger come extremism. That has led to a failure to deal with some of the nation’s most pressing issues, including stimulating the economy in an effort to create more jobs.
Just look at the maliciousness that permeates America and invades our political discourse. People who disagree with the President have been unable to debate the issues without using scatological references. To say that such references are just part of the messiness that is democracy is to negate the true nature of what is before us, particularly when such references come from the people who are employed to inform us, as was the case in Mark Halperin’s inappropriate reference to Obama.
But it is not just the lack of erudition from pundits that should concern us. In Minnesota, for example, the state government has been shut down for several weeks because the Democratic governor and the Republican-led legislature cannot come to a budget agreement. Instead of dealing with the fiscal issues facing that state – a projected $5 billion deficit bequeathed by former Gov. Tim Pawlenty – elected officials there are bogged down in such hot-button issues as public-school vouchers, stem-cell research, and abortion.
Moralism has trumped efforts to deal with the state’s nearly 7 percent unemployment rate or its budget deficit. According to Walter Shapiro, a correspondent for The New Republic, “the state’s politics are probably even more polarized than those on Capitol Hill.” State Sen. John Marty, a veteran liberal Democrat, told Shapiro: “Eight years ago we had just one Michele Bachmann in the Minnesota senate. Now, we have maybe twenty or forty.”
Things are not that much better in Wisconsin, where recall efforts are underway to remove nine state senators – six Republicans and three Democrats -- stemming from the legislative battle earlier this year when Democrats fled the state to avoid a budget vote. The acrimony in that state is so intense that Republicans fielded “fake Democrats” to force primaries in several districts. The real Democrats won earlier this week and are set to meet their Republican opponents.
A similar effort to undue the last election is underway in Michigan, where Democrats upset at Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and members of his party are circulating recall petitions. The Michigan Education Association, a teachers’ union, has joined the battle because of legislation that weakens the state’s teacher tenure law.
It does not stop there. In Alabama, Scott Beason, a 41-year-old Republican state senator, has so polarized people there that even members of his own party have railed against him. During a corruption investigation during which he wore a concealed recording device, Beason, a conservative, was overheard disparaging his fellow Republicans and calling black people “aborigines.”
In addition, Beason has put his political agenda ahead of what is important for various parts of the state. His contesting of a budget plan to help Jefferson County, the home of Birmingham, resulted in layoffs of a quarter of the county’s workforce; courthouse closings; delayed maintenance on county roads and bridges; and a cut in the workweek for the sheriff’s office.
Beason says he’s standing up for what he believes in, even if it means parts of his state must fall. The same seems to be happening in Washington, where Republicans have decided that their individual beliefs trump societal needs. It is the most dramatic disconnect within the political system in some time.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Our Don Quixote Moment
There is so much going on in this country that it is often hard to make sense of it all. From battles over education, to budget debates, to Wall Street bonuses, to banking reform, to assaults on collective bargaining, to corporate propaganda disguised as grass-roots advocacy, to tax cuts for the wealthy, to cuts to the safety net, to multi-billion dollar corporations paying little or no taxes. It just seems to be out of control and beyond belief, as if ignorance, anger, greed, and self-indulgence trump everything that occurs in this land.
Just look around the nation. Vindictive proposals are being peddled as fiscal restraint; fingers of blame are being pointed across the country, from right to left, and back again. And so few people are capable of engaging in honest and fair discussions that it is almost impossible to distinguish the truth from the lies.
The problems are most evident in the Congressional budget debate in Washington. Last year, during the midterm elections, Republicans declared that the Democratic controlled House and Senate should not pass a budget for the current fiscal year because of an anticipated change in power. Senate Republicans in the 111th Congress even blocked any budget deal with filibusters, and Democrats seeking re-election were more than willing to allow them.
Now, we are faced with a possible government shutdown, with the Republicans, who are seeking excessive cuts that cannot and should not pass, claiming it’s the Democrats fault, and vice versa. Meanwhile, the ignorant among us scream that the government should be shut down, as if sending 800,000 government workers home for a week or two will resolve the systemic problems that plague the government.
We know that making major cuts in the budget at this time would further slow the nascent economic recovery. Yet, Republicans and Tea Party operatives seek to slash every program for the sake of slashing. Retrenchment now, when confidence is beginning to build, would set back efforts to pull the nation out of its financial funk. That does not seem to matter to too many people, including those in Congress.
Instead of creating a workable solution to our economic problems, they rage and bellow against liberal policies, greedy unions, Socialism, and high tax rates for companies that actually may not even have to pay taxes because of numerous loopholes.
The same is being played out on local levels across the nation. There is no need to recount the assaults on collective bargaining rights for public employees in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Florida. They have been discussed ad nauseam. Nor is it necessary to detail the extensive cuts that various governments have proposed to education and social services programs, while giving tax breaks to businesses and the well-to-do.
There is such a disconnect in this country that honest and sincere debate is almost unheard of. Instead, everything is the fault of liberalism and socialism.
For example, The Detroit News ran two columns recently. One column, by Daniel Howes, tried to make sense of Detroit, asking whether the city is headed for further decline or revival. The second column, by Laura Berman, detailed how home vacancies had increased in the well-to-do communities of Oakland County, MI.
According to some of The News’ readers, at least those that are most vocal, the problem in Detroit and Oakland County were caused by liberals and socialism. It doesn’t matter that the economic meltdown began under President George W. Bush, who can be confused for many things, neither of which is liberal or socialist.
Missing from the debate about Detroit and Oakland County were the words greed, misguided optimism, economic crisis, hysteria, and the relation each has to the other.
It was greed that prompted lenders to provide money to anyone who asked, regardless of whether they could pay it back. Some lenders even went so far as to fudge numbers to make home loans. Who cared if the loans were paid back? The money was made by bundling the loans early, and passing the risk on to someone else.
Then, of course, there was the misguided optimism that the housing bubble would never burst, or if it did it would burst so far down the line that it would not matter to most people. That optimism was shattered by the very real economic crisis that saw a booming Wall Street pressed hard against a struggling Main Street.
As Wall Street struggled the hysteria set in. It’s the fat cats who caused the problems, critics screamed until the lobbyists and public relations firms turned everyone’s attention to other culprits. It’s the government, others said, particularly the public sector unions whose members have fat pensions and health packages. Actually, its teachers. It's all a liberal and socialist plot.
The result is we have become a country of Don Quixotes, lost in our delusions, unable to see the world for what it really is. Peasants are now princesses, buffoons are great thinkers, and the most honored are the most dishonorable.
It’s becoming harder and harder to make sense of it all.
Just look around the nation. Vindictive proposals are being peddled as fiscal restraint; fingers of blame are being pointed across the country, from right to left, and back again. And so few people are capable of engaging in honest and fair discussions that it is almost impossible to distinguish the truth from the lies.
The problems are most evident in the Congressional budget debate in Washington. Last year, during the midterm elections, Republicans declared that the Democratic controlled House and Senate should not pass a budget for the current fiscal year because of an anticipated change in power. Senate Republicans in the 111th Congress even blocked any budget deal with filibusters, and Democrats seeking re-election were more than willing to allow them.
Now, we are faced with a possible government shutdown, with the Republicans, who are seeking excessive cuts that cannot and should not pass, claiming it’s the Democrats fault, and vice versa. Meanwhile, the ignorant among us scream that the government should be shut down, as if sending 800,000 government workers home for a week or two will resolve the systemic problems that plague the government.
We know that making major cuts in the budget at this time would further slow the nascent economic recovery. Yet, Republicans and Tea Party operatives seek to slash every program for the sake of slashing. Retrenchment now, when confidence is beginning to build, would set back efforts to pull the nation out of its financial funk. That does not seem to matter to too many people, including those in Congress.
Instead of creating a workable solution to our economic problems, they rage and bellow against liberal policies, greedy unions, Socialism, and high tax rates for companies that actually may not even have to pay taxes because of numerous loopholes.
The same is being played out on local levels across the nation. There is no need to recount the assaults on collective bargaining rights for public employees in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Florida. They have been discussed ad nauseam. Nor is it necessary to detail the extensive cuts that various governments have proposed to education and social services programs, while giving tax breaks to businesses and the well-to-do.
There is such a disconnect in this country that honest and sincere debate is almost unheard of. Instead, everything is the fault of liberalism and socialism.
For example, The Detroit News ran two columns recently. One column, by Daniel Howes, tried to make sense of Detroit, asking whether the city is headed for further decline or revival. The second column, by Laura Berman, detailed how home vacancies had increased in the well-to-do communities of Oakland County, MI.
According to some of The News’ readers, at least those that are most vocal, the problem in Detroit and Oakland County were caused by liberals and socialism. It doesn’t matter that the economic meltdown began under President George W. Bush, who can be confused for many things, neither of which is liberal or socialist.
Missing from the debate about Detroit and Oakland County were the words greed, misguided optimism, economic crisis, hysteria, and the relation each has to the other.
It was greed that prompted lenders to provide money to anyone who asked, regardless of whether they could pay it back. Some lenders even went so far as to fudge numbers to make home loans. Who cared if the loans were paid back? The money was made by bundling the loans early, and passing the risk on to someone else.
Then, of course, there was the misguided optimism that the housing bubble would never burst, or if it did it would burst so far down the line that it would not matter to most people. That optimism was shattered by the very real economic crisis that saw a booming Wall Street pressed hard against a struggling Main Street.
As Wall Street struggled the hysteria set in. It’s the fat cats who caused the problems, critics screamed until the lobbyists and public relations firms turned everyone’s attention to other culprits. It’s the government, others said, particularly the public sector unions whose members have fat pensions and health packages. Actually, its teachers. It's all a liberal and socialist plot.
The result is we have become a country of Don Quixotes, lost in our delusions, unable to see the world for what it really is. Peasants are now princesses, buffoons are great thinkers, and the most honored are the most dishonorable.
It’s becoming harder and harder to make sense of it all.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Making Education Flexible
Across the country, the education debate rages. The problem is it rages over the wrong things. Instead of the conversation being dominated by what is going on in the classroom, we are arguing the merits of unions and collective bargaining rights; the costs of pensions and health insurance premiums.
Meanwhile, the children of America slip further into the educational abyss, sinking into a muck that slows their entry into college and the job market. I have already written about how Michigan found that many of its graduates in the Class of 2010 were ill prepared to begin college level courses, or lacked the job readiness skills needed to enter the workforce. (The Not-So-Proficient Graduate, Feb. 22, 2011). In that post, I also mentioned the graduation rates for four-year and two-year institutions across the country, as well as the percentage of students who needed remediation on entry to the state of Washington’s community colleges and technical schools.
The statistics mentioned in that article speak to the fact that students across the country are not being properly prepared for adult life. It is not an urban problem or a suburban problem. Yet, we make the argument an urban versus suburban; union versus non-union; inexperienced teacher versus experienced teacher; charter school versus public school; tenure versus non-tenure. The list goes on and on.
Luckily, not everyone is distracted by the noise. Instead, many are seeking solutions to the problems that plague education. While those educators use different programs and different ideas to lift students from the educational morass, they share some common traits -- flexibility and freedom in the classroom.
In western Massachusetts, for example, a high school allowed eight students to create their own school within a school. The students, two of whom were at-risk of dropping out, decided to split their September-to-January term into two halves, according to a March 14 Op-ed piece by Susan Engel in the New York Times (Let Kids Rule the School).
The students, aged 15 to 17, developed their own curriculum under the watchful eyes of their guidance counselor and several teachers who provided advice. The students were responsible for monitoring one another's work and giving feedback. They also wrote evaluations for each other.
According to Engel, the students became not only learners, but teachers. And they excelled, with one of the students who had considered dropping out changing his mind. Another student who had failed all of his previous math courses ended up spending three weeks teaching his fellow students about probability.
The upshot, Engel concluded, was that the students were more engaged and invested in their educations.
Other schools that have given teachers -- and even students -- greater flexibility have also seen transformative results.
In Oakland, Calif., a third-grade teacher at a public school there began writing a children's novel. Each time the teacher finished a new chapter, he shared it with his students, who offered critiques.
"It really has gotten them excited about writing," the teacher, Joe Imwalle, told Grace Rubenstein of The New York Times. "Seeing their teacher try to do it brings writing closer to home. It bridges the gap between published novels they see in the library and the idea that they come from a person and a process."
How important is flexibility in the classroom?
So much so that flexibility in developing academic plans is a major concern for operators who may want to help Robert Bobb, the emergency financial manager in Detroit, convert 41 failing public schools into charter schools.
Todd Ziebarth, vice president of state advocacy for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools in Washington, told the Detroit News that charter school operators will want to know if "they have the flexibility to innovate."
Too often teachers are micro-managed by principals, who are micro-managed by school board officials, so much so that every last minute of the school day is directed from somewhere up high with little deviation to accommodate student needs.
During a recent conversation with a friend who operates two private schools for special needs students, my friend detailed a promotional film his school was making. According to that friend, a teacher with decades of experience in the classroom was asked why he continued to teach at the school.
"Because I have the freedom to do what I think is necessary," the teacher said.
And that is the rub. Teachers often find themselves victim to what Engel says has dogged public school reform efforts.
"We have tried making the school day longer and blanketing students with standardized tests," she wrote in that March 14 Op-ed piece. "But perhaps children don't need another reform imposed on them. Instead, they need to be the authors of their own education."
The only way students can become authors of their own educations is to give teachers -- and them -- flexibility and freedom in the classroom.
Meanwhile, the children of America slip further into the educational abyss, sinking into a muck that slows their entry into college and the job market. I have already written about how Michigan found that many of its graduates in the Class of 2010 were ill prepared to begin college level courses, or lacked the job readiness skills needed to enter the workforce. (The Not-So-Proficient Graduate, Feb. 22, 2011). In that post, I also mentioned the graduation rates for four-year and two-year institutions across the country, as well as the percentage of students who needed remediation on entry to the state of Washington’s community colleges and technical schools.
The statistics mentioned in that article speak to the fact that students across the country are not being properly prepared for adult life. It is not an urban problem or a suburban problem. Yet, we make the argument an urban versus suburban; union versus non-union; inexperienced teacher versus experienced teacher; charter school versus public school; tenure versus non-tenure. The list goes on and on.
Luckily, not everyone is distracted by the noise. Instead, many are seeking solutions to the problems that plague education. While those educators use different programs and different ideas to lift students from the educational morass, they share some common traits -- flexibility and freedom in the classroom.
In western Massachusetts, for example, a high school allowed eight students to create their own school within a school. The students, two of whom were at-risk of dropping out, decided to split their September-to-January term into two halves, according to a March 14 Op-ed piece by Susan Engel in the New York Times (Let Kids Rule the School).
The students, aged 15 to 17, developed their own curriculum under the watchful eyes of their guidance counselor and several teachers who provided advice. The students were responsible for monitoring one another's work and giving feedback. They also wrote evaluations for each other.
According to Engel, the students became not only learners, but teachers. And they excelled, with one of the students who had considered dropping out changing his mind. Another student who had failed all of his previous math courses ended up spending three weeks teaching his fellow students about probability.
The upshot, Engel concluded, was that the students were more engaged and invested in their educations.
Other schools that have given teachers -- and even students -- greater flexibility have also seen transformative results.
In Oakland, Calif., a third-grade teacher at a public school there began writing a children's novel. Each time the teacher finished a new chapter, he shared it with his students, who offered critiques.
"It really has gotten them excited about writing," the teacher, Joe Imwalle, told Grace Rubenstein of The New York Times. "Seeing their teacher try to do it brings writing closer to home. It bridges the gap between published novels they see in the library and the idea that they come from a person and a process."
How important is flexibility in the classroom?
So much so that flexibility in developing academic plans is a major concern for operators who may want to help Robert Bobb, the emergency financial manager in Detroit, convert 41 failing public schools into charter schools.
Todd Ziebarth, vice president of state advocacy for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools in Washington, told the Detroit News that charter school operators will want to know if "they have the flexibility to innovate."
Too often teachers are micro-managed by principals, who are micro-managed by school board officials, so much so that every last minute of the school day is directed from somewhere up high with little deviation to accommodate student needs.
During a recent conversation with a friend who operates two private schools for special needs students, my friend detailed a promotional film his school was making. According to that friend, a teacher with decades of experience in the classroom was asked why he continued to teach at the school.
"Because I have the freedom to do what I think is necessary," the teacher said.
And that is the rub. Teachers often find themselves victim to what Engel says has dogged public school reform efforts.
"We have tried making the school day longer and blanketing students with standardized tests," she wrote in that March 14 Op-ed piece. "But perhaps children don't need another reform imposed on them. Instead, they need to be the authors of their own education."
The only way students can become authors of their own educations is to give teachers -- and them -- flexibility and freedom in the classroom.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
What's Going On
We seem to be channeling Marvin Gaye these days. Two quick examples:
Atherton, Calif.: A school teacher rattles a table to get the attention of his eighth-grade math students. One girl is so startled, she pulls out her cell phone and calls 911. The police arrive to find a calm classroom. Nonetheless, the teacher is placed on leave because the police were called to the school.
Texas: A Republican member of the state House introduces immigration legislation that would make it illegal to hire "unauthorized aliens." Anyone caught doing so can be punished by two years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The legislator offering up the bill is backed by the Tea Party, but don't label her as one of those raving, heartless, lunatics usually associated with the party. Rep. Debbie Riddle's law will not apply to people who hire "unauthorized aliens" to do household chores. Why? Rep. Aaron Pena, another Republican, told Yahoo News: "When it comes to household employees or yard workers it is extremely common for Texans to hire people who are likely undocumented workers. It is so common it is overlooked." Riddle says the distinction between job categories is needed because if not "a large segment of the Texas population" would end up in prison if the bill became law.
Oh, make me wanna holler and throw up both my hands. Yea, it makes me wanna holler and throw up both my hands. Ow!
Atherton, Calif.: A school teacher rattles a table to get the attention of his eighth-grade math students. One girl is so startled, she pulls out her cell phone and calls 911. The police arrive to find a calm classroom. Nonetheless, the teacher is placed on leave because the police were called to the school.
Texas: A Republican member of the state House introduces immigration legislation that would make it illegal to hire "unauthorized aliens." Anyone caught doing so can be punished by two years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The legislator offering up the bill is backed by the Tea Party, but don't label her as one of those raving, heartless, lunatics usually associated with the party. Rep. Debbie Riddle's law will not apply to people who hire "unauthorized aliens" to do household chores. Why? Rep. Aaron Pena, another Republican, told Yahoo News: "When it comes to household employees or yard workers it is extremely common for Texans to hire people who are likely undocumented workers. It is so common it is overlooked." Riddle says the distinction between job categories is needed because if not "a large segment of the Texas population" would end up in prison if the bill became law.
Oh, make me wanna holler and throw up both my hands. Yea, it makes me wanna holler and throw up both my hands. Ow!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
The New Macho
It's easy to be a curmudgeon, a complainer, a whiner, to live in a world where everything is horrible, and niceties are the stuff of wimps. You disagree? Then how does one explain Glenn Beck and Andy Cohen?
Beck, the Fox News darling who spends his time attacking anything progressive, decided to take on Detroit, berating the city as being worse than Hiroshima after the atomic bomb. Cohen, the senior vice president of original programming and development at Bravo, decided to make cultural points by directing smarmy comments at the fifth grade students from Public School 22 on Staten Island.
That Beck would attack Detroit is no surprise. Whenever national conservative commentators have nothing of worth to say they trot out Detroit or some other Midwestern city, usually one led by an African-American, for ridicule and scorn. But for Cohen to denigrate a bunch of school children who were invited to sing "Over the Rainbow" at the end of the Oscar telecast is just cheap even for someone who is a master of cheap programming.
Cohen's comments came on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show. The host, Willie Geist, asked Cohen what was his "lowlight of the night" Sunday. Cohen quickly turned to the kids from Staten Island, saying their appearance was inappropriate for the Oscars. Wrong time, wrong place, Cohen lamented.
While the song and the student's performance were schlocky at best, a sentimental tug at the heart, they were what Hollywood is. Criticizing little children for singing at an Oscar's telecast is even low for him. I'm quite sure that other people can pick even greater "lowlights": the virtual Bob Hope; Billy Crystal; the boring speeches; the tacky dance scenes; the contrived music video using clips from the Best Picture nominees; the telecast itself. Any of those could have easily been cited as lowlights.
Not for Cohen, though. Instead, he decided that the performance of 10 and 11 year olds were the lowest lowlight of the evening. Why? What was the point of lambasting the children's appearance? What is gained by doing so?
The same can be said of Beck. Detroit is always the subject of ridicule, so much so that the comments have become old hat. Yes, Chrysler and General Motors were insular and poorly run companies that got bailouts. Yet, neither created the financial meltdown that sent America spiraling into an economic abyss. Many of the people who were at the forefront of that disaster continue to operate on Wall Street after receiving bailouts, and are quickly trying to return to their old habits.
Yet, there is little criticism of those entities. Attacking Detroit allows one to attack unions and the American auto industry, both of which have been convenient whipping boys. Too attack children is to say one is above sentimentality. Neither adds to the dialogue that needs to exist in this country.
Both, of course, are easy to do when you have nothing of worth to say and a lot of time in which to say it. Apparently being nasty and appealing to the worst within us is the most favorable fashion trend, the new macho look for America.
Beck, the Fox News darling who spends his time attacking anything progressive, decided to take on Detroit, berating the city as being worse than Hiroshima after the atomic bomb. Cohen, the senior vice president of original programming and development at Bravo, decided to make cultural points by directing smarmy comments at the fifth grade students from Public School 22 on Staten Island.
That Beck would attack Detroit is no surprise. Whenever national conservative commentators have nothing of worth to say they trot out Detroit or some other Midwestern city, usually one led by an African-American, for ridicule and scorn. But for Cohen to denigrate a bunch of school children who were invited to sing "Over the Rainbow" at the end of the Oscar telecast is just cheap even for someone who is a master of cheap programming.
Cohen's comments came on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show. The host, Willie Geist, asked Cohen what was his "lowlight of the night" Sunday. Cohen quickly turned to the kids from Staten Island, saying their appearance was inappropriate for the Oscars. Wrong time, wrong place, Cohen lamented.
While the song and the student's performance were schlocky at best, a sentimental tug at the heart, they were what Hollywood is. Criticizing little children for singing at an Oscar's telecast is even low for him. I'm quite sure that other people can pick even greater "lowlights": the virtual Bob Hope; Billy Crystal; the boring speeches; the tacky dance scenes; the contrived music video using clips from the Best Picture nominees; the telecast itself. Any of those could have easily been cited as lowlights.
Not for Cohen, though. Instead, he decided that the performance of 10 and 11 year olds were the lowest lowlight of the evening. Why? What was the point of lambasting the children's appearance? What is gained by doing so?
The same can be said of Beck. Detroit is always the subject of ridicule, so much so that the comments have become old hat. Yes, Chrysler and General Motors were insular and poorly run companies that got bailouts. Yet, neither created the financial meltdown that sent America spiraling into an economic abyss. Many of the people who were at the forefront of that disaster continue to operate on Wall Street after receiving bailouts, and are quickly trying to return to their old habits.
Yet, there is little criticism of those entities. Attacking Detroit allows one to attack unions and the American auto industry, both of which have been convenient whipping boys. Too attack children is to say one is above sentimentality. Neither adds to the dialogue that needs to exist in this country.
Both, of course, are easy to do when you have nothing of worth to say and a lot of time in which to say it. Apparently being nasty and appealing to the worst within us is the most favorable fashion trend, the new macho look for America.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Not-So-Proficient Graduates
School districts across the country are quick to point out recent increases in the percentage of students graduating high school, a sign of the good work they are doing. Yet, if we look beneath the surface of those statistics we find some startling news: While more students are graduating with high school diplomas, few students are leaving high school with the skills needed to enter college or the job market.
The results are most striking in Michigan, where a recent study found that the statewide high school graduation rate was 76 percent for the class of 2010. It would seem that such an increase would be worth lauding, except the same study found that statewide only 49 percent of students who graduated in 2010 were proficient in math; 60 percent were proficient in reading; and 56 percent were proficient in science.
In Detroit, for example, one high school had an 89 percent graduation rate in 2010, but a year earlier only 6.4 percent of those students were considered proficient in math and just 10.5 percent were proficient in science based on state administered tests. It was the same in suburban schools. At one suburban high school, 93.2 percent of students graduated in 2010: Only 26.9 percent were proficient in math though. It was not much different for another suburban school where 94.1 percent of students graduated, and only 19.6 percent were proficient in science.
The study by the Michigan Education Department raises serious questions about the quality of education in that state. More important, it raises startling questions about education across the nation. Michigan is not alone in its dismal results. Other states have discovered that their high school graduates often lack the basic skills needed to enter college or the job market.
The result is that in 2008 graduation rates for students who took six years to complete their studies at four year colleges ran from a high of 69.1 percent in Massachusetts to a low of 22.1 percent in Alaska, according to a ranking by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. The results were more horrendous for students who completed associates degrees in three years: The high was 60 percent in Wyoming, and the low was 9 percent in Delaware.
It doesn’t stop there.
In Washington, for example, 56 percent of students who entered community or technical colleges in that state in 2006 needed remediation. The need for remediation crossed racial lines: 56 percent of Asians; 59 percent of African-Americans; 61 percent of Latinos; 52 percent of Native Americans; and 50 percent of whites.
The nationwide results lead one to ask: What exactly are we teaching our high school students, and have we decided that when it comes to high school graduates quantity is more important that quality?
Both questions are important. As the political winds shift in this country, we find ourselves reinventing the wheel and looking for excuses or someone to blame for the failures of our educational system. In Michigan, some school leaders blamed what amounted to student apathy for the dismal results. Others pointed the finger at teachers and their unions. Still more cited the standardized testing wave washing across the nation.
Regardless of who or what is to blame, students are leaving our nation’s schools without the critical thinking and problem solving skills needed for successful lives. Students with strong critical thinking and problem solving skills have the best chance of performing well on any standardized tests and in completing tasks on the job. In addition, the lack of proficiency suggests that we are not attacking the problem from all angles. While all students should indeed have the right to attend college, not all students should.
For years, school districts have made vocational education the unwanted step child of the academic process. Yet, statistics show that vocational education students are often better prepared for the job market, and those who later attend college graduate at a higher rate than students who enter college right after high school or who go to community colleges. In addition, while students do balk at learning things if they cannot see a direct link to their daily lives, it should not stop teachers from pushing concepts, processes and ideas that enhance student skill sets. (Recently, one of my GED students questioned why he needed to learn math concepts -- until I showed him how triangulation could be used to pinpoint from where a cell phone call was made or how the Pythagorean Theory might be used to determine the path of a projectile.)
So what are we to do?
Increasing funding to schools and paying teachers better is not the sole answer. We have been putting money into poor performing schools for decades, and the results are pretty much the same. Rewriting standardized tests also is not the solution. Each new test only seems to create a bonanza for test-taking tutors. Criticizing teachers and unions does not change the culture of the classroom. In too many districts, principals concerned with standardized test results so micro-manage classrooms that teachers are left with little flexibility to adjust lessons and curriculum to students’ needs.
Michigan in general and Detroit in particular offer good examples of the problems we face. The emergency financial manager in Detroit announced recently that the 2010 graduation rate increased to 62.27 percent, up from 59.65 percent in 2009. (The rate was 58.22 percent in 2008 and 58.42 percent in 2007.)
But few of those students can read, write or even complete basic mathematical problems. And that means they will not be able to help themselves or society in the future.
The results are most striking in Michigan, where a recent study found that the statewide high school graduation rate was 76 percent for the class of 2010. It would seem that such an increase would be worth lauding, except the same study found that statewide only 49 percent of students who graduated in 2010 were proficient in math; 60 percent were proficient in reading; and 56 percent were proficient in science.
In Detroit, for example, one high school had an 89 percent graduation rate in 2010, but a year earlier only 6.4 percent of those students were considered proficient in math and just 10.5 percent were proficient in science based on state administered tests. It was the same in suburban schools. At one suburban high school, 93.2 percent of students graduated in 2010: Only 26.9 percent were proficient in math though. It was not much different for another suburban school where 94.1 percent of students graduated, and only 19.6 percent were proficient in science.
The study by the Michigan Education Department raises serious questions about the quality of education in that state. More important, it raises startling questions about education across the nation. Michigan is not alone in its dismal results. Other states have discovered that their high school graduates often lack the basic skills needed to enter college or the job market.
The result is that in 2008 graduation rates for students who took six years to complete their studies at four year colleges ran from a high of 69.1 percent in Massachusetts to a low of 22.1 percent in Alaska, according to a ranking by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. The results were more horrendous for students who completed associates degrees in three years: The high was 60 percent in Wyoming, and the low was 9 percent in Delaware.
It doesn’t stop there.
In Washington, for example, 56 percent of students who entered community or technical colleges in that state in 2006 needed remediation. The need for remediation crossed racial lines: 56 percent of Asians; 59 percent of African-Americans; 61 percent of Latinos; 52 percent of Native Americans; and 50 percent of whites.
The nationwide results lead one to ask: What exactly are we teaching our high school students, and have we decided that when it comes to high school graduates quantity is more important that quality?
Both questions are important. As the political winds shift in this country, we find ourselves reinventing the wheel and looking for excuses or someone to blame for the failures of our educational system. In Michigan, some school leaders blamed what amounted to student apathy for the dismal results. Others pointed the finger at teachers and their unions. Still more cited the standardized testing wave washing across the nation.
Regardless of who or what is to blame, students are leaving our nation’s schools without the critical thinking and problem solving skills needed for successful lives. Students with strong critical thinking and problem solving skills have the best chance of performing well on any standardized tests and in completing tasks on the job. In addition, the lack of proficiency suggests that we are not attacking the problem from all angles. While all students should indeed have the right to attend college, not all students should.
For years, school districts have made vocational education the unwanted step child of the academic process. Yet, statistics show that vocational education students are often better prepared for the job market, and those who later attend college graduate at a higher rate than students who enter college right after high school or who go to community colleges. In addition, while students do balk at learning things if they cannot see a direct link to their daily lives, it should not stop teachers from pushing concepts, processes and ideas that enhance student skill sets. (Recently, one of my GED students questioned why he needed to learn math concepts -- until I showed him how triangulation could be used to pinpoint from where a cell phone call was made or how the Pythagorean Theory might be used to determine the path of a projectile.)
So what are we to do?
Increasing funding to schools and paying teachers better is not the sole answer. We have been putting money into poor performing schools for decades, and the results are pretty much the same. Rewriting standardized tests also is not the solution. Each new test only seems to create a bonanza for test-taking tutors. Criticizing teachers and unions does not change the culture of the classroom. In too many districts, principals concerned with standardized test results so micro-manage classrooms that teachers are left with little flexibility to adjust lessons and curriculum to students’ needs.
Michigan in general and Detroit in particular offer good examples of the problems we face. The emergency financial manager in Detroit announced recently that the 2010 graduation rate increased to 62.27 percent, up from 59.65 percent in 2009. (The rate was 58.22 percent in 2008 and 58.42 percent in 2007.)
But few of those students can read, write or even complete basic mathematical problems. And that means they will not be able to help themselves or society in the future.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Diasppearing in Wisconsin
Is Wisconsin in the First or Third World?
It's hard to tell by the recent action in Madison, the state's capitol. The idea that an entire party would disappear from a chamber of the state legislature in an effort to block legislation sounds like something out of a banana republic.
Parliament is in session. The opposition does not like the government's action. The opposition party walks out or resigns en masse.
It just happened in Bahrain, where the opposition party representing Shiite Muslims decided to quit Parliament over the Sunni government's crackdown on pro-democracy Shiite protesters. One can understand the actions of the Shiite leaders in light of the killings and beatings at the hands of government thugs. It is a life-and-death situation.
But in Wisconsin? In the heart of America? In a state that was once seen as progressive? Is this the new democracy?
Don't get me wrong. The legislation offered by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is indeed onerous, an attempt to cloak anti-union sentiments in fiscal responsibility. It must be defeated. However, hiding from one's responsibility, which Senate Democrats are doing, seems a childish way of doing the state's business.
Wisconsin, like many other states, has a major deficit. To balance the budget, the state's Republican lawmakers decided to ask state workers to assume a greater share of pension and health care costs. Such a request seems reasonable considering government workers in Wisconsin contribute less than what workers in other states contribute.
The problem is Wisconsin's anticipated budget gap for the next fiscal year -- an estimated $137 million -- was self-inflicted, created by Republican efforts to reward their supporters. According to one fiscal group, Wisconsin recently approved $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. If not for that tax give away the state would have a surplus, the fiscal group concluded.
According to Republicans, the problem isn't the tax cuts. No. It's the fact that government workers, including teachers, can negotiate benefits beyond their base wages. The Republicans want to eliminate collective bargaining rights for state workers, limit contracts to one year, and drop pension and health care from bargaining.
If the goal is to reduce the state's share of benefit costs then reopen contracts and seek concessions. Unions, corporations and governments have been doing it successfully for years. However, taking away collective bargaining rights strike at one of the things that has made this country great.
While unions have become big business in many industries, the lack of collective bargaining units will return us to the days of when workers were at the mercy of employers. Yes, some employers sought to pay workers well in an effort to keep unions out. Even more did the opposite, paying low wages, firing anyone who missed work, and threatening those who sought any semblance of dignity in the workplace.
Apparently the Republican majority in Wisconsin wants to return to those days, when employers could remove employees without cause, when workers too sick to work were fired. They are not alone. The anger that swept Republicans into power in several state houses and the U.S. House of Representatives is being vented in legislatures where social issues are being spun as fiscal sanity.
It sounds like the kind of thing Third World youth are fighting against.
It's hard to tell by the recent action in Madison, the state's capitol. The idea that an entire party would disappear from a chamber of the state legislature in an effort to block legislation sounds like something out of a banana republic.
Parliament is in session. The opposition does not like the government's action. The opposition party walks out or resigns en masse.
It just happened in Bahrain, where the opposition party representing Shiite Muslims decided to quit Parliament over the Sunni government's crackdown on pro-democracy Shiite protesters. One can understand the actions of the Shiite leaders in light of the killings and beatings at the hands of government thugs. It is a life-and-death situation.
But in Wisconsin? In the heart of America? In a state that was once seen as progressive? Is this the new democracy?
Don't get me wrong. The legislation offered by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is indeed onerous, an attempt to cloak anti-union sentiments in fiscal responsibility. It must be defeated. However, hiding from one's responsibility, which Senate Democrats are doing, seems a childish way of doing the state's business.
Wisconsin, like many other states, has a major deficit. To balance the budget, the state's Republican lawmakers decided to ask state workers to assume a greater share of pension and health care costs. Such a request seems reasonable considering government workers in Wisconsin contribute less than what workers in other states contribute.
The problem is Wisconsin's anticipated budget gap for the next fiscal year -- an estimated $137 million -- was self-inflicted, created by Republican efforts to reward their supporters. According to one fiscal group, Wisconsin recently approved $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. If not for that tax give away the state would have a surplus, the fiscal group concluded.
According to Republicans, the problem isn't the tax cuts. No. It's the fact that government workers, including teachers, can negotiate benefits beyond their base wages. The Republicans want to eliminate collective bargaining rights for state workers, limit contracts to one year, and drop pension and health care from bargaining.
If the goal is to reduce the state's share of benefit costs then reopen contracts and seek concessions. Unions, corporations and governments have been doing it successfully for years. However, taking away collective bargaining rights strike at one of the things that has made this country great.
While unions have become big business in many industries, the lack of collective bargaining units will return us to the days of when workers were at the mercy of employers. Yes, some employers sought to pay workers well in an effort to keep unions out. Even more did the opposite, paying low wages, firing anyone who missed work, and threatening those who sought any semblance of dignity in the workplace.
Apparently the Republican majority in Wisconsin wants to return to those days, when employers could remove employees without cause, when workers too sick to work were fired. They are not alone. The anger that swept Republicans into power in several state houses and the U.S. House of Representatives is being vented in legislatures where social issues are being spun as fiscal sanity.
It sounds like the kind of thing Third World youth are fighting against.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Poetry of Democracy
There is a saying in politics: "You campaign in poetry, but govern in prose." Our nation's foreign policy seems to follow that maxim. America poetically campaigns for the spread of democracy around the world, but uses a stilted prose when it comes to supporting democratic movements. The popular uprisings roiling the Middle East and North Africa are good examples. Because when it comes to many of those Arab countries, the democratic principles and concepts we so loudly proclaim as basic to human existence become too complicated and convoluted to implement.
For years, our presidents have spoken forcefully about the need to introduce western-style democracy to the Arab world, especially in those nations we oppose. Yet, when our "friends" find themselves pushed against the wall by people yearning for freedom, we become mute: our voices constricted, our principles diluted. And when that occurs, we find ourselves and our policies out of step with reality.
Just a little less than three months ago, the people of Tunisia set the Arab world on end, taking to the streets in protest against a corrupt and stifling government. The Tunisians were not asking for an Islamic Republic or seeking to install a communist regime, they were simply looking for the kind of dignity and rights we so often take for granted. The fervor that sent Tunisia's president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, packing erupted in Egypt, eventually leading to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.
Since then, the movement has spread across the Arab world, igniting protests in Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, and other countries. Each country has responded differently, with leaders of Iran's Islamic Republic calling for the execution of opposition leaders, and Bahrain's royal family sending what amounts to mercenaries to crackdown on protesters. (Bahrain's Sunni minority so distrusts its Shiite majority that it has brought in Sunni Muslims from such countries as Pakistan and made them police. Those police are now cracking down on demonstrators, creating the Arab world's equivalent of Hessian soldiers.)
In the aftermath of these broad-based protests -- many of which crossed religious, ethnic, economic and educational lines -- our government issued constrained statements of support, particularly in countries where our friends were brutalizing their own people. We saved our most poetic democratic cries for those regimes we abhor. The result has been an uneven and crackling voice that at times seems to embarrass more than it informs.
America's tepid response is somewhat understandable. Too often we have reacted wrongly to the dynamics of the Arab world. The result is that we have become the Evil Empire to too many people there. To avoid such labels, we halfheartedly enter the dialogue. But we cannot allow our fear of Islamic extremists, nor our desire to be seen as not meddling in the politics of other nations, to keep us from standing by the principles we so loudly extol.
We are at the crossroads, where the youth of North Africa and the Middle East seem to be yelling for our support, pleading desperately for a chance to be a part of the world. We can help the protesters accomplish their dreams by showing our allies that they are empowered when they empower their people. Or we can withdraw and hope that the democratic movements sweeping that part of the world are not hijacked by extremists.
We don't have to do much to accomplish our goal of spreading democracy. The current generation has already shown that the Internet and social networking are viable organizing tools. Making such tools available to more of the world will help further the principles of freedom. And once those tools are available we can bring about change by not waging ideological war against a particular regime, but by opening new marketplaces for ideas.
For when ideas are accessed, great things can happen. Just look at Gene Sharp, a former professor living in Boston. Sharp is the author of “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats that is available in more than 20 languages. According to The New York Times, leaders of the nascent democratic movements of the Arab world have adopted his tome as their road map to freedom. As a result, dictators seem to revile him as much as they do the United States government.
For years, our presidents have spoken forcefully about the need to introduce western-style democracy to the Arab world, especially in those nations we oppose. Yet, when our "friends" find themselves pushed against the wall by people yearning for freedom, we become mute: our voices constricted, our principles diluted. And when that occurs, we find ourselves and our policies out of step with reality.
Just a little less than three months ago, the people of Tunisia set the Arab world on end, taking to the streets in protest against a corrupt and stifling government. The Tunisians were not asking for an Islamic Republic or seeking to install a communist regime, they were simply looking for the kind of dignity and rights we so often take for granted. The fervor that sent Tunisia's president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, packing erupted in Egypt, eventually leading to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.
Since then, the movement has spread across the Arab world, igniting protests in Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, and other countries. Each country has responded differently, with leaders of Iran's Islamic Republic calling for the execution of opposition leaders, and Bahrain's royal family sending what amounts to mercenaries to crackdown on protesters. (Bahrain's Sunni minority so distrusts its Shiite majority that it has brought in Sunni Muslims from such countries as Pakistan and made them police. Those police are now cracking down on demonstrators, creating the Arab world's equivalent of Hessian soldiers.)
In the aftermath of these broad-based protests -- many of which crossed religious, ethnic, economic and educational lines -- our government issued constrained statements of support, particularly in countries where our friends were brutalizing their own people. We saved our most poetic democratic cries for those regimes we abhor. The result has been an uneven and crackling voice that at times seems to embarrass more than it informs.
America's tepid response is somewhat understandable. Too often we have reacted wrongly to the dynamics of the Arab world. The result is that we have become the Evil Empire to too many people there. To avoid such labels, we halfheartedly enter the dialogue. But we cannot allow our fear of Islamic extremists, nor our desire to be seen as not meddling in the politics of other nations, to keep us from standing by the principles we so loudly extol.
We are at the crossroads, where the youth of North Africa and the Middle East seem to be yelling for our support, pleading desperately for a chance to be a part of the world. We can help the protesters accomplish their dreams by showing our allies that they are empowered when they empower their people. Or we can withdraw and hope that the democratic movements sweeping that part of the world are not hijacked by extremists.
We don't have to do much to accomplish our goal of spreading democracy. The current generation has already shown that the Internet and social networking are viable organizing tools. Making such tools available to more of the world will help further the principles of freedom. And once those tools are available we can bring about change by not waging ideological war against a particular regime, but by opening new marketplaces for ideas.
For when ideas are accessed, great things can happen. Just look at Gene Sharp, a former professor living in Boston. Sharp is the author of “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats that is available in more than 20 languages. According to The New York Times, leaders of the nascent democratic movements of the Arab world have adopted his tome as their road map to freedom. As a result, dictators seem to revile him as much as they do the United States government.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
America Eats More Than Its Young
It did not take long for the conservative apologists and Republicans to get on their soap boxes after the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Saturday in Tucson. While many expressed outrage at the shootings of Giffords and 19 other people -- what else could they do -- they also unleashed a torrent of comments denying that their over-the-top rhetoric may have contributed to the attack.
Indeed, it may turn out that Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the murders of six bystanders and the wounding of 14 others, acted alone, driven more by a distorted sense of reality stemming from mental illness than anything else. But to say that his deranged state is the sole cause is to deny the damage done by the vitriol that currently passes for political discourse, as well as the tendency of the right to label anyone who disagrees as a conspirator working for the downfall of America.
By now everyone has heard about how Jesse Kelly, the Republican who challenged Giffords in the Eighth Congressional District race, held a "targeting victory" fund-raiser in which he invited contributors to shoot an M-16 with him. That summer event, which has been reported in The New York Times and other media outlets, was simply a pre-cursor to the paranoid, anti-establishment, us-against-them rhetoric that followed.
“These people who think they are better than us, they look down on us every single day and tell us what kind of health care to buy,” Kelly told his supporters during a rally in October in which he attacked President Barack Obama's health care plan. “And if you dare to stand up to the government they call us a mob. We’re about to show them what a mob looks like.”
The problem is that, true to his word, Kelly and others like him have repeatedly shown us what a mob looks like. And the faces in those mobs are quite often the same. While one could reasonably argue that there is nothing wrong with directing a people's anger to benefit a political cause, those who choose to stoke that anger through lies, paramilitary metaphors and ridiculous conspiracy theories cannot abdicate responsibility for the aftermath.
Too often, those who engage in wrongheaded and hateful speech complain about society trying to stop them from telling the truth. They attribute criticism of their speech to political correctness. Being PC -- or even civil for that matter -- is not the issue here.
When one uses hostile and violent words in a community where anger runs high, then there will be dire consequences. Sarah Palin's placing a rifle scope over Giffords district and telling her Tea Party supporters to "reload" creates an atmosphere in which people are given the impression that violence is acceptable. The same is true of Sharron Angle's comment about "Second Amendment" remedies.
Add to that the number of ludicrous conspiracy theories -- the President is not an American, but is part of a global plot to take over the U.S., etc. -- and the possiblity that an unstable individual might seek violent retribution increases.
For many, the concerns over the current political rhetoric go beyond whether Loughner was influenced by one set of thoughts or individuals. It goes to the heart of what kind of nation we seek to be. Shall we be a nation that believes in the ideas of open and free debate, where issues are hashed out in public? Or will we prefer to stifle discussions through threats, intimidation, lies and violence?
More important, will we be a country where citizens demand more of their leaders, regardless of political stripe, or a people who seek out the angriest words in an effort to reinforce our darkest and most dangerous thoughts?
The ball rests most surely in the courts of Republican lawmakers who have spent the last two years doing all they could to regain legislative power regardless of the damage to the national psyche.
Indeed, it may turn out that Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the murders of six bystanders and the wounding of 14 others, acted alone, driven more by a distorted sense of reality stemming from mental illness than anything else. But to say that his deranged state is the sole cause is to deny the damage done by the vitriol that currently passes for political discourse, as well as the tendency of the right to label anyone who disagrees as a conspirator working for the downfall of America.
By now everyone has heard about how Jesse Kelly, the Republican who challenged Giffords in the Eighth Congressional District race, held a "targeting victory" fund-raiser in which he invited contributors to shoot an M-16 with him. That summer event, which has been reported in The New York Times and other media outlets, was simply a pre-cursor to the paranoid, anti-establishment, us-against-them rhetoric that followed.
“These people who think they are better than us, they look down on us every single day and tell us what kind of health care to buy,” Kelly told his supporters during a rally in October in which he attacked President Barack Obama's health care plan. “And if you dare to stand up to the government they call us a mob. We’re about to show them what a mob looks like.”
The problem is that, true to his word, Kelly and others like him have repeatedly shown us what a mob looks like. And the faces in those mobs are quite often the same. While one could reasonably argue that there is nothing wrong with directing a people's anger to benefit a political cause, those who choose to stoke that anger through lies, paramilitary metaphors and ridiculous conspiracy theories cannot abdicate responsibility for the aftermath.
Too often, those who engage in wrongheaded and hateful speech complain about society trying to stop them from telling the truth. They attribute criticism of their speech to political correctness. Being PC -- or even civil for that matter -- is not the issue here.
When one uses hostile and violent words in a community where anger runs high, then there will be dire consequences. Sarah Palin's placing a rifle scope over Giffords district and telling her Tea Party supporters to "reload" creates an atmosphere in which people are given the impression that violence is acceptable. The same is true of Sharron Angle's comment about "Second Amendment" remedies.
Add to that the number of ludicrous conspiracy theories -- the President is not an American, but is part of a global plot to take over the U.S., etc. -- and the possiblity that an unstable individual might seek violent retribution increases.
For many, the concerns over the current political rhetoric go beyond whether Loughner was influenced by one set of thoughts or individuals. It goes to the heart of what kind of nation we seek to be. Shall we be a nation that believes in the ideas of open and free debate, where issues are hashed out in public? Or will we prefer to stifle discussions through threats, intimidation, lies and violence?
More important, will we be a country where citizens demand more of their leaders, regardless of political stripe, or a people who seek out the angriest words in an effort to reinforce our darkest and most dangerous thoughts?
The ball rests most surely in the courts of Republican lawmakers who have spent the last two years doing all they could to regain legislative power regardless of the damage to the national psyche.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)