Tuesday, January 29, 2008
STATE OF THE UNION 2008
It is the day after President Bush’s last state of the union message to Congress. Even though we should be glad that this is his last, some of us are not feeling so well.
Some of us still feel a little nauseous. We find his smirks repugnant. We find his manner offensive. We have heard most of his ideas before, over and over. We listen dutifully, but then we become agitated as we reason behind the words.
Sometimes our conscience bothers us a little for feeling about this president the way we do. We know that these feelings are not good for our nation. “Can we not moderate these in some way?” we ask ourselves.
During the last few years, 60% of our people polled said that the nation is heading in the wrong direction. That proportion has grown now to 68%, or to “3 out of 4,” depending on which poll interpretation. Mr. President, the people do NOT believe that the state of the union is good.
But we feel bad about the division in our country. We wish it were not so. The reasons were obvious during the president’s speech. He called for cooperation, and then a moment later scolded his opposition for not doing his bidding. He made provocative threats of vetoes if they what he did not like.
This president has never learned that there are two legitimate parties, thinking only of his and the disloyal opposition. He has never learned that there are supposed to be three branches of government. He thinks he has gained control of the Supreme Court, and he refuses to accept that he does not now control Congress.
Republicans hated President Bill Clinton. Some of us now understand a little about how they might have felt, although we have never experienced the vituperative intensity they apparently felt.
We have not resorted to the venom of well publicized character attacks and lies, both volunteer and paid. We have not subjected this president to impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors in the conduct of his office, even though he may well have deserved that. We have not suborned admittedly libelous publications about him.
This president’s personal and private behavior has not been made the subject of court inquiry. Even his public, business, and military records were quickly lost or sealed off from examination. Alleged criminal activities in this administration have been covered up by stonewalling, lost files, lost e-mails, and now deliberately destroyed video tapes.
No person and no family have been as thoroughly vetted as the Clintons, both in the courts and in the public media. Strangely, when the former president suggested last week that the media should look at all democrat candidates with equal scrutiny, he was suddenly made out to be a racist by them.
There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton is the best qualified candidate for the presidency on the democrat ticket. She represents the mainstream, moderate democrats. She has practical ideas and practical proposals.
On the other hand, Barrack Obama is a wonderfully inspirational candidate. He represents the more liberal sector of the party. He brings youth and idealism to the political altar. The endorsement of the Kennedy family was meaningful, although perhaps not all that helpful.
It would be nice to have less divisive rancor and less vindictive political behavior in our nation. Fairness in media treatment would be nice. This election, both republican and democrat, does not offer much promise, however.
One can only cringe at the thought of how dirty the general election may be.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Some of us still feel a little nauseous. We find his smirks repugnant. We find his manner offensive. We have heard most of his ideas before, over and over. We listen dutifully, but then we become agitated as we reason behind the words.
Sometimes our conscience bothers us a little for feeling about this president the way we do. We know that these feelings are not good for our nation. “Can we not moderate these in some way?” we ask ourselves.
During the last few years, 60% of our people polled said that the nation is heading in the wrong direction. That proportion has grown now to 68%, or to “3 out of 4,” depending on which poll interpretation. Mr. President, the people do NOT believe that the state of the union is good.
But we feel bad about the division in our country. We wish it were not so. The reasons were obvious during the president’s speech. He called for cooperation, and then a moment later scolded his opposition for not doing his bidding. He made provocative threats of vetoes if they what he did not like.
This president has never learned that there are two legitimate parties, thinking only of his and the disloyal opposition. He has never learned that there are supposed to be three branches of government. He thinks he has gained control of the Supreme Court, and he refuses to accept that he does not now control Congress.
Republicans hated President Bill Clinton. Some of us now understand a little about how they might have felt, although we have never experienced the vituperative intensity they apparently felt.
We have not resorted to the venom of well publicized character attacks and lies, both volunteer and paid. We have not subjected this president to impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors in the conduct of his office, even though he may well have deserved that. We have not suborned admittedly libelous publications about him.
This president’s personal and private behavior has not been made the subject of court inquiry. Even his public, business, and military records were quickly lost or sealed off from examination. Alleged criminal activities in this administration have been covered up by stonewalling, lost files, lost e-mails, and now deliberately destroyed video tapes.
No person and no family have been as thoroughly vetted as the Clintons, both in the courts and in the public media. Strangely, when the former president suggested last week that the media should look at all democrat candidates with equal scrutiny, he was suddenly made out to be a racist by them.
There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton is the best qualified candidate for the presidency on the democrat ticket. She represents the mainstream, moderate democrats. She has practical ideas and practical proposals.
On the other hand, Barrack Obama is a wonderfully inspirational candidate. He represents the more liberal sector of the party. He brings youth and idealism to the political altar. The endorsement of the Kennedy family was meaningful, although perhaps not all that helpful.
It would be nice to have less divisive rancor and less vindictive political behavior in our nation. Fairness in media treatment would be nice. This election, both republican and democrat, does not offer much promise, however.
One can only cringe at the thought of how dirty the general election may be.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
MAYBE JIMMY CARTER WAS RIGHT
Maybe President Jimmy Carter was right when he made the famous “malaise” speech in the late 1970’s during a period of energy crisis and problems with OPEC. Some of us still remember the lines at gas stations and the limits on purchases during those years.
Carter called for decreased consumption of energy. He imposed lower speed limits nationally. He pressed for increased mileage requirements on vehicles made in, or imported into, the United States. Ethanol blends were popularized temporarily.
Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House and installed a wood stove to set an example. He turned down the thermostats, he donned his famous tan sweater, and he demanded that public buildings lower their thermostats.
The much praised President Reagan, who followed the much maligned Carter, finished the deregulating of domestic oil prices and drilling. He engineered the abolishment of the “windfall profits” taxes on oil companies, and cut other taxes as well, starting the spiraling budget deficit. His dealings with OPEC allowed the escalation of oil prices and imports and set the stage for years of huge profits for domestic oil interests.
He also took off the solar panels, turned up the thermostats, and let vehicle standards lapse.
But he is much praised by some business economists because domestic oil production went up, imports went down temporarily, and the price of oil then dipped temporarily. Never mind that it later took off for new highs, eventually reaching the recent record prices.
When gas prices went up, suddenly there was plenty of oil. The pickup truck and SUV market thrived, and people loved big, luxury vehicles. And, we drove them at uneconomical speeds on unnecessary trips.
Nevertheless, we are back again to Carter’s recommendations after thirty years, and we are in serious economic straits. Oil imports have contributed heavily to the export of our currency and our nation’s capital.
The foolishness of our trade, tax, and borrowing policies has further compromised our economic strength in the world. The unnecessary Iraq War has drained our resources and increased our borrowing.
Citizens appear to have followed the urging of the country’s president to step up and buy, buy, buy. They have bought and consumed until their money ran out, and then they went into debt with credit cards and for housing loans they cannot pay.
China and the Arabs own much of our debt, and now they appear to be stepping in to fill our needs for capital and to buy up certain of our major capital infrastructure businesses. Strangely enough, the U.S. treasury has new limits on citizens’ buying of E bonds and I bonds at $5,000 per year.
Our nation, as well as a majority of its citizens, is in debt up to its eyeballs. Our economy is in malaise. Values of our pension plans and 401K’s are plummeting. The net worth of investors is sinking.
Our leadership proposes what economists call “lollipop” booster plans. Most candidates for president make similar calls. It is almost as though no one wants to recognize publicly the causes of our problems or move to take real corrective actions to stop the bleeding of our jobs and our capital.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Carter called for decreased consumption of energy. He imposed lower speed limits nationally. He pressed for increased mileage requirements on vehicles made in, or imported into, the United States. Ethanol blends were popularized temporarily.
Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House and installed a wood stove to set an example. He turned down the thermostats, he donned his famous tan sweater, and he demanded that public buildings lower their thermostats.
The much praised President Reagan, who followed the much maligned Carter, finished the deregulating of domestic oil prices and drilling. He engineered the abolishment of the “windfall profits” taxes on oil companies, and cut other taxes as well, starting the spiraling budget deficit. His dealings with OPEC allowed the escalation of oil prices and imports and set the stage for years of huge profits for domestic oil interests.
He also took off the solar panels, turned up the thermostats, and let vehicle standards lapse.
But he is much praised by some business economists because domestic oil production went up, imports went down temporarily, and the price of oil then dipped temporarily. Never mind that it later took off for new highs, eventually reaching the recent record prices.
When gas prices went up, suddenly there was plenty of oil. The pickup truck and SUV market thrived, and people loved big, luxury vehicles. And, we drove them at uneconomical speeds on unnecessary trips.
Nevertheless, we are back again to Carter’s recommendations after thirty years, and we are in serious economic straits. Oil imports have contributed heavily to the export of our currency and our nation’s capital.
The foolishness of our trade, tax, and borrowing policies has further compromised our economic strength in the world. The unnecessary Iraq War has drained our resources and increased our borrowing.
Citizens appear to have followed the urging of the country’s president to step up and buy, buy, buy. They have bought and consumed until their money ran out, and then they went into debt with credit cards and for housing loans they cannot pay.
China and the Arabs own much of our debt, and now they appear to be stepping in to fill our needs for capital and to buy up certain of our major capital infrastructure businesses. Strangely enough, the U.S. treasury has new limits on citizens’ buying of E bonds and I bonds at $5,000 per year.
Our nation, as well as a majority of its citizens, is in debt up to its eyeballs. Our economy is in malaise. Values of our pension plans and 401K’s are plummeting. The net worth of investors is sinking.
Our leadership proposes what economists call “lollipop” booster plans. Most candidates for president make similar calls. It is almost as though no one wants to recognize publicly the causes of our problems or move to take real corrective actions to stop the bleeding of our jobs and our capital.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
HAS ANYONE SEEN JOE?
One might think that the specter of Senator Joe McCarthy had long departed the political and social scene in America. Not so.
The memory of the marauding scion of the reactionary right, whose sword of righteousness dripped “red” with the blood of suspected communist sympathizers in the early 1950’s, is still vivid in the minds of the freedom-loving elders in this country. His wanton path of human desolation continues to be relevant for all those who study America’s history for threats to personal freedom.
Some seniors still remember McCarthy’s scorched earth forays into the arts and entertainment world in search of “pinkos.” He ruined many in government service with wantonly wild allegations. He saw communists in every corner, including our military services.
It was not our brave general, President Eisenhower, who put a rein on Joe McCarthy. The senate itself did so, after alleged snubbing of his former aide (Private Schein) led to irresponsible accusations against the army brass and civilian leaders.
We well remember the senate committee hearings, aired gavel to gavel by major networks, as the drama played out. The elderly, dignified, and brilliant army defense lawyer, Joseph A. Welch, uttered those famous words, “Sir, have you no shame?” And downhill it went for bellicose Joe McCarthy.
But the spirit of Joe McCarthy still lives. It lurks in the shadows of the security lines at airports, in the secluded rooms where government eavesdroppers listen attentively to citizen phone calls, in the prison labyrinth of Guantanamo, and in our vicarious torture chambers abroad. It thrives in the festering political corruption of the justice department.
It is not now the communists, but fear still motivates us to accept violations of our freedoms.
Some of our presidential candidates are harbingers of fear. We have been in a time-tube of presidentially articulated and inspired constraints, threats, and fear for more than six years already. Why should we accept any new administration that promises continued harassment by fear?
There are always those who would frighten others into submission in order to gain power. Some readily trade freedom for security. Our freedoms were not lightly gained, and they should not be so readily given up.
With so much of what we see, hear, and read bought by advertising, paid punditry, or through ownership of the media streams, we must be guarded in acceptance of any purported truths not rationally supported. The internet is rampant with deliberately devised missives with tainted facts and biased information. Websites can be trusted only as far as one can cautiously reason.
The spirit of Joe McCarthy is still with us. It will lie to you. It will exaggerate threats. It thrives on innuendo and half-truths. It lives on rumor and gossip. It couches its destructive agenda in positive terms, like “fair” and “reform.”
It lies about taxes, and about economics. It lies about the sad condition of the nation’s fiscal affairs and proper remediation. It has little to do with moral or family values, nor with Bible teachings. Too many of its proponents are hypocrites.
There is little truth and no shame in these latter day political prophets of McCarthyism. They are motivated by power, and they gain power through loss of our freedoms.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The memory of the marauding scion of the reactionary right, whose sword of righteousness dripped “red” with the blood of suspected communist sympathizers in the early 1950’s, is still vivid in the minds of the freedom-loving elders in this country. His wanton path of human desolation continues to be relevant for all those who study America’s history for threats to personal freedom.
Some seniors still remember McCarthy’s scorched earth forays into the arts and entertainment world in search of “pinkos.” He ruined many in government service with wantonly wild allegations. He saw communists in every corner, including our military services.
It was not our brave general, President Eisenhower, who put a rein on Joe McCarthy. The senate itself did so, after alleged snubbing of his former aide (Private Schein) led to irresponsible accusations against the army brass and civilian leaders.
We well remember the senate committee hearings, aired gavel to gavel by major networks, as the drama played out. The elderly, dignified, and brilliant army defense lawyer, Joseph A. Welch, uttered those famous words, “Sir, have you no shame?” And downhill it went for bellicose Joe McCarthy.
But the spirit of Joe McCarthy still lives. It lurks in the shadows of the security lines at airports, in the secluded rooms where government eavesdroppers listen attentively to citizen phone calls, in the prison labyrinth of Guantanamo, and in our vicarious torture chambers abroad. It thrives in the festering political corruption of the justice department.
It is not now the communists, but fear still motivates us to accept violations of our freedoms.
Some of our presidential candidates are harbingers of fear. We have been in a time-tube of presidentially articulated and inspired constraints, threats, and fear for more than six years already. Why should we accept any new administration that promises continued harassment by fear?
There are always those who would frighten others into submission in order to gain power. Some readily trade freedom for security. Our freedoms were not lightly gained, and they should not be so readily given up.
With so much of what we see, hear, and read bought by advertising, paid punditry, or through ownership of the media streams, we must be guarded in acceptance of any purported truths not rationally supported. The internet is rampant with deliberately devised missives with tainted facts and biased information. Websites can be trusted only as far as one can cautiously reason.
The spirit of Joe McCarthy is still with us. It will lie to you. It will exaggerate threats. It thrives on innuendo and half-truths. It lives on rumor and gossip. It couches its destructive agenda in positive terms, like “fair” and “reform.”
It lies about taxes, and about economics. It lies about the sad condition of the nation’s fiscal affairs and proper remediation. It has little to do with moral or family values, nor with Bible teachings. Too many of its proponents are hypocrites.
There is little truth and no shame in these latter day political prophets of McCarthyism. They are motivated by power, and they gain power through loss of our freedoms.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, January 07, 2008
CAMPAIGN BRIEFS
As if we had not all had enough of pundits giving their opinions about candidates, the Militant Moderate is about to add his current impressions in brief about the major candidates contending for the right to serve as our president.
This writer thinks that the presidency is such an important position in our country that few, if any, are really qualified to fill it, and therefore we should be extremely cautious as to whom we let into the finals of the contest. It may well come down to which candidate has the fewer strikes against him/her, and which has better odds of serving us than doing us harm.
Mitt Romney
He has a nice appearance and nice manner. His positions are all over the board, and now he is playing out his arch-conservative role. There seems little depth, and mostly just political pragmatism in his convivial style. He might be less dangerous than some, if one ignores his own comments and looks at his record. He supports Bush, but how sincerely? He is iffy.
Rudy Guilliani
His manner and facial expressions turn many of us off. He does not seem as “American” as others. He rides the memories of his 9/ll photo-ops, trying to project the image of protector against terrorism. There is a bit of the demagogue about him. He has no humanistic record other than on abortion and immigration, and he has recanted those. He is too conjugally tainted for the religious base. He supports Bush, and seems just as stubborn.
John McCain
A lot of independents and some democrats have liked John McCain in the past, but his positions on the Iraq War and his support of Bush have turned some of those against him. He has lost lots of respect. Conservatives don’t like his position on immigration or campaign finance reform. Still, McCain is a lot like the rest of us, and seems like a regular guy, albeit with flaws. He might well be the safest candidate from his party for America.
Mike Huckaby
An “aw-shucks” Baptist minister and Arkansas governor, Huckabee relates well to a certain clientele -- some might say evangelicals and red-necks. But he does indeed appear to be a personable fellow with a good sense of humor. Other than his total inexperience in national and international affairs, the influence of right-wing religious zealots which accompany him, and his crazy tax plan, he might be considered. One wonders what other crazy ideas lurk unseen. He supports Bush. Do we need another president who thinks God speaks to him?
Barak Obama
Obama is a highly intelligent, highly inspirational, but inexperienced young man. He has a galvanizing charisma from the rostrum. Were he seasoned in government and world affairs, he might be unbeatable. Certainly, the country needs a leader who can inspire, after the fashion of John F. Kennedy. There might be some uneasiness about a black civil rights lawyer in the presidency. Oprah tended to bring a racial consciousness that had normally been ignored in the campaign. But he’s a good prospect.
John Edwards
Edwards has been around in politics, if not in actual governance. His consumer trial lawyer background scares some in business, but appeals to common people. He is a populist, appealing to grassroots, working class people. He has struck a responsive chord with a theme of corporate greed and corruption of government by money and lobbyists. He remains a good prospect.
Hillary Clinton
Although considered by some to be lacking in the likeability factor, Hillary is the most qualified to become president. Most of her positions are solid and logically developed. Wisely she avoids being trapped in some positions, such as specifics on Social Security, which would antagonize large blocs of voters. She is a middle, mainstream democrat. The wide desire for “change” works against any established candidate. She is known factor, and the country would be safe in her hands.
Bill Richardson is not really a major contender. The loss of other well qualified candidates such as Joe Biden and Chris Dodd is regrettable. Although more knowledgeable and more seasoned than others, they were seen as “old guard.”
People are unhappy with the government we have had, and they want a change. Properly or not, it seems that voters blame Bush, incumbent republicans, and incumbent democrats (in that order) for not straightening out the mess in this country.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
This writer thinks that the presidency is such an important position in our country that few, if any, are really qualified to fill it, and therefore we should be extremely cautious as to whom we let into the finals of the contest. It may well come down to which candidate has the fewer strikes against him/her, and which has better odds of serving us than doing us harm.
Mitt Romney
He has a nice appearance and nice manner. His positions are all over the board, and now he is playing out his arch-conservative role. There seems little depth, and mostly just political pragmatism in his convivial style. He might be less dangerous than some, if one ignores his own comments and looks at his record. He supports Bush, but how sincerely? He is iffy.
Rudy Guilliani
His manner and facial expressions turn many of us off. He does not seem as “American” as others. He rides the memories of his 9/ll photo-ops, trying to project the image of protector against terrorism. There is a bit of the demagogue about him. He has no humanistic record other than on abortion and immigration, and he has recanted those. He is too conjugally tainted for the religious base. He supports Bush, and seems just as stubborn.
John McCain
A lot of independents and some democrats have liked John McCain in the past, but his positions on the Iraq War and his support of Bush have turned some of those against him. He has lost lots of respect. Conservatives don’t like his position on immigration or campaign finance reform. Still, McCain is a lot like the rest of us, and seems like a regular guy, albeit with flaws. He might well be the safest candidate from his party for America.
Mike Huckaby
An “aw-shucks” Baptist minister and Arkansas governor, Huckabee relates well to a certain clientele -- some might say evangelicals and red-necks. But he does indeed appear to be a personable fellow with a good sense of humor. Other than his total inexperience in national and international affairs, the influence of right-wing religious zealots which accompany him, and his crazy tax plan, he might be considered. One wonders what other crazy ideas lurk unseen. He supports Bush. Do we need another president who thinks God speaks to him?
Barak Obama
Obama is a highly intelligent, highly inspirational, but inexperienced young man. He has a galvanizing charisma from the rostrum. Were he seasoned in government and world affairs, he might be unbeatable. Certainly, the country needs a leader who can inspire, after the fashion of John F. Kennedy. There might be some uneasiness about a black civil rights lawyer in the presidency. Oprah tended to bring a racial consciousness that had normally been ignored in the campaign. But he’s a good prospect.
John Edwards
Edwards has been around in politics, if not in actual governance. His consumer trial lawyer background scares some in business, but appeals to common people. He is a populist, appealing to grassroots, working class people. He has struck a responsive chord with a theme of corporate greed and corruption of government by money and lobbyists. He remains a good prospect.
Hillary Clinton
Although considered by some to be lacking in the likeability factor, Hillary is the most qualified to become president. Most of her positions are solid and logically developed. Wisely she avoids being trapped in some positions, such as specifics on Social Security, which would antagonize large blocs of voters. She is a middle, mainstream democrat. The wide desire for “change” works against any established candidate. She is known factor, and the country would be safe in her hands.
Bill Richardson is not really a major contender. The loss of other well qualified candidates such as Joe Biden and Chris Dodd is regrettable. Although more knowledgeable and more seasoned than others, they were seen as “old guard.”
People are unhappy with the government we have had, and they want a change. Properly or not, it seems that voters blame Bush, incumbent republicans, and incumbent democrats (in that order) for not straightening out the mess in this country.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
PUZZLING POSITIONS
Our newspaper tells us of an imminent meeting at the University of Oklahoma of national luminaries of both parties. Attendees appear to be largely conservative democrats or republicans who have deviated publicly from their party’s baseline.
The purpose of this meeting is said to be that of fostering cooperation and reducing friction between our major parties. The purported goal is pressuring the parties toward a bi-partisan approach. Perhaps this pressure is from the threat of an independent candidate.
Well, good luck!
Pledges of cooperation between the president and democratic leaders made after the 2006 election have been largely ignored. The rigid petulance of the president on major issues spelled doom to any spirit of cooperation. In trying to do what they had promised in the election, the provocative challenges made by democrats confirmed the divide. Republicans in congress have lined up to support their president and block actions.
One might well conclude that America is divided, which is true. But the majority of Americans are also frustrated and angry. They are angry that their government is not working.
The major republican candidates for president are quietly supporting the positions of the Bush administration. They support the Iraq War, tax cuts for the wealthy, status quo private profit on health and drugs, borrowing to spend, and other policies and proposals of the Bush administration.
This is a riddle to many. Why would republican candidates be quietly supporting the unpopular and ruinous policies of an unpopular Bush administration? Why then are they running negative on issues such as immigration, as if their man were not already in charge? Why are they talking about religion instead of the nation’s problems?
The answer to the riddle may be simple. These candidates are appealing to the republican base, because this is a primary election. While Bush’s approval ratings may be down around 30% in the country, his approval ratings with republicans are around 70%.
This suggests that there is indeed a great divide between republicans and democrats. It is almost as though the two live and function in parallel universes. For democrats the blind loyalty of the republican rank and file in the face of bad experience seems unfathomable.
While one hesitates to acknowledge hopelessness, the reconciliation of republicans and democrats seems impossible.
Republicans who actually believe that the Bush tax cuts for the rich was good for America will be hard to convince different. Those who believe in the wisdom and necessity of the Iraq War, with the sacrifice of lives and huge debt, will be hard to reach.
Democrats who believe that corporate greed has corrupted the economic system and the political process with money and lobbyists will be hard to reconcile. Those in the middle and working classes, who are aware of research showing a loss in share of income to the wealthy, will be hard to reconcile with those who believe that is okay. Those fretting over the price of gasoline will find it hard to reconcile with oil company tax breaks.
Republicans who do not believe in any universal health plan at all, and instead believe that our status quo health care system should remain forever private, a for-profit domain for providers and insurance companies, will be hard to reconcile with democrats who are concerned about the millions of uninsured (1 in 5 Oklahomans) and under-insured left out.
Some democrats seem obsessively concerned about the agendas of various subgroups. Other democrats seem concerned with political correctness. Some democrats and republicans put single issues above the party agenda.
It is our wish that a working middle ground will emerge without an independent candidate. There should be some basic philosophic premise upon which all could agree.
Maybe it could start if we defined again the basic purpose of government. The Preamble to our Constitution says it is to serve the welfare of the people. Perhaps that is a place to start.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The purpose of this meeting is said to be that of fostering cooperation and reducing friction between our major parties. The purported goal is pressuring the parties toward a bi-partisan approach. Perhaps this pressure is from the threat of an independent candidate.
Well, good luck!
Pledges of cooperation between the president and democratic leaders made after the 2006 election have been largely ignored. The rigid petulance of the president on major issues spelled doom to any spirit of cooperation. In trying to do what they had promised in the election, the provocative challenges made by democrats confirmed the divide. Republicans in congress have lined up to support their president and block actions.
One might well conclude that America is divided, which is true. But the majority of Americans are also frustrated and angry. They are angry that their government is not working.
The major republican candidates for president are quietly supporting the positions of the Bush administration. They support the Iraq War, tax cuts for the wealthy, status quo private profit on health and drugs, borrowing to spend, and other policies and proposals of the Bush administration.
This is a riddle to many. Why would republican candidates be quietly supporting the unpopular and ruinous policies of an unpopular Bush administration? Why then are they running negative on issues such as immigration, as if their man were not already in charge? Why are they talking about religion instead of the nation’s problems?
The answer to the riddle may be simple. These candidates are appealing to the republican base, because this is a primary election. While Bush’s approval ratings may be down around 30% in the country, his approval ratings with republicans are around 70%.
This suggests that there is indeed a great divide between republicans and democrats. It is almost as though the two live and function in parallel universes. For democrats the blind loyalty of the republican rank and file in the face of bad experience seems unfathomable.
While one hesitates to acknowledge hopelessness, the reconciliation of republicans and democrats seems impossible.
Republicans who actually believe that the Bush tax cuts for the rich was good for America will be hard to convince different. Those who believe in the wisdom and necessity of the Iraq War, with the sacrifice of lives and huge debt, will be hard to reach.
Democrats who believe that corporate greed has corrupted the economic system and the political process with money and lobbyists will be hard to reconcile. Those in the middle and working classes, who are aware of research showing a loss in share of income to the wealthy, will be hard to reconcile with those who believe that is okay. Those fretting over the price of gasoline will find it hard to reconcile with oil company tax breaks.
Republicans who do not believe in any universal health plan at all, and instead believe that our status quo health care system should remain forever private, a for-profit domain for providers and insurance companies, will be hard to reconcile with democrats who are concerned about the millions of uninsured (1 in 5 Oklahomans) and under-insured left out.
Some democrats seem obsessively concerned about the agendas of various subgroups. Other democrats seem concerned with political correctness. Some democrats and republicans put single issues above the party agenda.
It is our wish that a working middle ground will emerge without an independent candidate. There should be some basic philosophic premise upon which all could agree.
Maybe it could start if we defined again the basic purpose of government. The Preamble to our Constitution says it is to serve the welfare of the people. Perhaps that is a place to start.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
