The Militant Moderate

Unfortunately the current election is not being approached with proper respect for either democratic principles or the ideals which should govern the manner in which election campaigns are conducted. Nationally, the candidate of the party in power has waged his entire election battle by attacking and trying to denigrate his opponent. The challenger offers a theme of change and outlines the essentials of programs designed to accomplish those changes.

One candidate offers vision, and he challenges and inspires voters toward a better life. He urges youth to aspire, and he seeks to provide a path for those aspirations to be reached through education and opportunity. The other candidate screams false allegations and personal accusations irrelevant to the issues and concerns of the people. He vows to continue his party’s past governing style, under which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Under the rule of the party in power science has been scorned, education demeaned, and intelligence and culture scoffed as elitist. The nation has been run into financial bankruptcy at home, and its world reputation ruined. That party candidate rants and raves, but he offers little.

The candidate of the challenging party has inspired millions with his vision of a new and different country, governed by new and different principles and real human values. His vision encompasses a nation at peace, and one respected in the world for its ideals. His vision is one of a population enjoying the opportunity for decent health care and an opportunity for higher education for their youth. He seeks equal treatment under the law, and protection of all rights granted by the nation’s Constitution. He seeks a tax plan which will spread prosperity rather than concentrating it with a few.

One candidate envisions a gentler, kinder, more peaceful nation where citizens come together to ensure prosperity for all. The other offers little other than the subjugation of the middle and lower classes to continued exploitation, aided and abetted by a government that favors the powerful.

Sadly, politics in Oklahoma have reached a new low. The incumbent senator is an embarrassment to the state, yet he is likely to continue on through a business-supported campaign aimed toward the less educated, shallow thinking voters. Most other campaigns of candidates for national office seem similarly conceived, repetitive of time-worn clichés that appeal to that same clientele. What a shame!

The American dream of democracy is a wonderful thing. Every once in a while it blossoms amidst the thorns of greed and special interests. The following poem, written by this author a decade or so ago, offers a tribute to that idealism which Americans can bring to the democratic elective process.


VISION

“Where there is no vision the people perish,”
So the great source of wisdom does foretell.
Vision in their leaders is the people’s wish,
As they seek their inner fears to quell,
And prepare to choose in time-respected way.
Vision, dream, and promise become confused,
Which and whither are most difficult to say,
One after one, aspiring leaders stand refused.

Whoever seeks to lead, a vision must display,
The heads and hearts of followers to sway.
And about the people cast enchanting spell
With volition of vision, kinetic to impel.
Into diverse, fenced minds of men infused,
Into the life blood of this land transfused.
The vision must capture the American dream,
And in the teary eyes of its people gleam.

A leader’s vision touches the hearts of men,
And inspires tired and weary souls to sing,
As they rise to the gloried heights again.
Once more the air has fresh breath of spring,
And men go forth to redeem their self-esteem;
While their blithesome spirits rise on wing.
Heads are held high and dimmed faces beam,
As America pursues its improbable dream.


Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard

Politics make me sick! I am tired of politics! I’ll be glad when this election is over! How often do we hear these expressions lately?

Well, politics do make us sick! In particular, it is the stench that emanates from McCain’s and Palin’s dirty, stinking negative campaign that makes us sick. While we can recall some really bad TV commercials in previous elections, we cannot remember as deceitfully negative and dirty stump speeches coming from the candidates own mouths on the campaign trail.

These republican candidates will apparently do anything and say anything to get elected. Worse, they bundle themselves in the flag and patriotism while practicing their abominations.

What is this about being “pro-America” and “anti-America?” Where is the “real America” and where not? What is this about Obama’s being a socialist because his tax plan rolls back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to 2000 rates? What’s this about “palling around with terrorists?” And, Joe the plumber – what a red herring, and a fake one at that!

One seems to recall a quotation: “The truth is not in them.”

We have seen the republicans during the past eight years try to label dissent as treason. “If you are not for us, you are against us,” republicans have been saying. Then they equate that with being anti-American.

One republican congresswoman is declaring that the democrats in Congress are anti-American. She also says that Obama is anti-American. Palin and McCain declare certain sections of the country to be “pro-American” and others as “anti-American.” What kind of rhetoric is that?

Republican campaign tactics have repeatedly assured that whoever wins a presidential election will have a deeply divided, polarized, antagonistic nation to try to govern. Our country’s almost evenly divided citizens line up hostile to one another.

This has happened before. It happened in the past two elections. George W. Bush’s people fought dirty. When he could not defeat Al Gore honestly, it went to the Supreme Court, where the case was decided on a party line vote and not on its merits. Yes, that left many of us hostile.

Bush’s second election was no better. The domination of the airways with anonymously financed advertising from the “Swift-boat” liars attacking distinguished war records turned the tide for Bush. That name has become synonymous with low-down, lying, filthy politics.

But it goes back farther all the way to the Clinton administration. Republicans spent eight years in legal and media harassment of the Clintons. This included bribing witnesses to give false stories to reporters and writers, investigating business dealings that were later cleared, and then trying to prosecute and impeach the president for dumb private, personal conduct.

Clinton never had a closely knit country to govern. Bush squandered a degree of mutual support after 9/ll by conspiring to falsify facts and giving spurious reasons to go into an unnecessary war against a country that had no part in the attack. His whole time has been a disaster.

Republicans have pushed a divisive agenda during these last eight years. Attempts to privatize Social Security come to mind. Tax cuts for the wealthy, particularly on income derived from wealth (dividends, capital gains, and inheritances), have proven divisive -- especially as budget deficits increase and the middle class suffers lost jobs and losses in buying power.

McCain has been as much a loose chicken during this last economic calamity as was Bush during the hours after the strike on the World Trade Center in New York – from continuing to read “My Pet Goat” to flying hither and yon around the country for hours. Who can confidently say McCain is the one to lead the country out of this or any other crisis?

McCain’s campaign has had no focus, except to denigrate Obama. He has no finite proposals on which he can stand bravely and tell middle class people the real truth.

McCain’s choice of a vice president reveals his bad judgment. His desperation attempts to discredit Obama through any and all means, ethical or not, reveal his own character flaws.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Is there no class anymore? This query came from a lady who has been showing class for 61 years to the personal knowledge of this writer. It reflects a question now raised by many in our common generation. It does appear that there is little or no class to be found in many aspects of our lives.

Our television commercials are a good place to start. Does anyone else tire of the ads for erectile dysfunction, women’s hygiene, or laxatives during our lunch or family viewing times? Are we tired of the boorish hamburger ads featuring unsavory characters, unsavory food, and unsavory dialogue? Do we tire of the incessant harangue of pharmaceutical ads, listing side effects in all their shocking nakedness, and costing funds companies should spend on research or in reducing the cost of medicines?

How about class in the styles we see? Are we tired of baggy pants worn so as to show underwear or lack thereof? Are we tired of T-shirts with offensive slogans and wording? What about provocative clothing? Then there is the grungy attire in the public workplace, and the T-shirts and jeans on teachers in the classroom? Legitimately, the question: Does no one now have class?

This year the political advertisements and the political rhetoric from the stump leave much to be desired.

Some scholars and editorial writers have referred to the political strategies of the season as “cultural populism.” Just what is this?

Populism refers to “the people,” of course. Therefore, “cultural populism” must refer to the culture of the people. Well, that sounds like a good thing, but is it? Which people?

Republicans have adopted “cultural populism” in their advertisements and in their stump speeches. Strangely enough, democrats (who consider themselves the “populist” party) have for the most part taken a higher road. In some instances, they are now making a deliberate effort to re-cast their appeal to reach the ordinary blue collar workers.

One should consider that fans of the comic, “the cable guy,” may indeed represent a segment of the worker group. Fans of the vulgar night club comics, now being allowed on cable channels, may represent the tastes of some of us. And, what about the Toby Keith fans? Maybe we shouldn’t even mention Howard Stern fans or those of Don Imus, nor should we mention Rush Limbaugh or Fox News.

Evidently “cultural populism” means appealing to the tastes of these same people in one’s political rhetoric. These are the people of the populist culture in America today. This is that low common denominator within our society. Sad to say, these represent a large voter block in our elections.

In general, “cultural populism” has no class.

We should question political candidates who say that they are just one of us, since that is trying to say they are cultural populists. Anyone self characterized as a “Hockey Mom,” and who runs around with a “Joe Six Pack,” may be acceptable as an associate -- but not as the leader of our country. Our last experiment with “cowboy” style government and diplomacy has not worked out so well.

The appeal of cultural populism may be quite strong to the voters during an election, but it does not work out well in governance during complex times.

One should hasten to declare that elitism, which is the other side of the coin from populism of any sort, should be equally unwelcome. To question appeal of the marketing of products or politicians on the basis of the lowest common denominator in culture is not to imply that anyone is any “better” than somebody else.

Elitism is inappropriate whether on the basis of culture, wealth, education, or intellectual attainment.

Most of our better national leaders of recent decades have been those with class, who had popular appeal without necessarily going there. They have been a cut above the common element among us, and they have demonstrated not only culture but competence.

Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt had class, although they were totally dedicated to changing the terrible conditions of the poor during the Great Depression. There was a great revival of the arts and of intellectual pursuits during the years of JFK and Jackie’s Camelot.

We had an actor who showed class, and he governed in that manner, even though his economic philosophy eventually brought us financial chaos. And, we had a Rhodes Scholar, with humble beginnings and popular appeal, who showed intelligence and class in leading the world and restoring fiscal constraints in government.

None of these were elitists. Although the best in governance must appeal in some way to all of us in order to get elected, it is not necessary for would-be leaders to take their own characteristics or behavior to the level of that lowest common denominator.

On contemplation, most voters recognize that neither they nor their buddies are really ready to lead at the higher echelons of government. Most do not expect their leaders to share their everyday behavior and pastimes. Most expect something higher from their policy makers, executives, and judges.

In short, thoughtful voters expect their leaders to be a cut above the ordinary. They expect them to be competent, knowledgeable, and to have class. God help us if this is not so.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

When it is all said and done, this presidential campaign will likely go down as one of the dirtiest and most negative in history. As any U. S. history scholar will confirm, there have been a lot of dirty campaigns in our past.

Perhaps the first of these was perpetrated by John Adams against Thomas Jefferson. Andrew Jackson suffered insults to himself and his wife, and ended up killing an accuser in a duel. Grover Cleveland was attacked in debate for having fathered an illegitimate child. Some may recall his reply, “My illegitimate son is in Harvard. Where is yours?”

The modern era of dirty politics was ushered in by Richard Nixon. Called “Tricky Dick” for good reason, Nixon’s campaign staff set a pattern for underhanded and unethical campaigns. These were the underpinnings of the Lee Atwater school of smear tactics -- not to be hindered by truth, civility, or ethics. Remember that it was the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate complex that Nixon’s minions targeted for burglary.

George H. W. Bush’s campaign had the guiding hand of Atwater. He was the author of the Willie Horton ads, which blamed Dukakis for a murder committed by a black inmate on humane leave from a state prison. Although Governor Dukakis had nothing to do with the episode, it was portrayed graphically as if it were personally orchestrated by him.

The Jim Inhofe campaign is using a commercial in a similar vein against his opponent, Andrew Rice, in today’s Oklahoma senate campaign. Branding your opponent as soft on crime and gays, or hard on guns, is still a favored republican campaign tactic.

Then came the era of Karl Rove, an acolyte of Lee Atwater. In 2000 he masterminded George W. Bush’s dirty primary campaign against none other than John McCain. At a crucial time in the South Carolina primary, Bush accused McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child. It cost McCain that election, and set Bush on the path to capture the nomination.

Karl Rove also masterminded the dirty campaign against John Kerry, the worst being the privately financed swift-boaters avalanche of TV ads. That was an extremely dirty, smelly, smear tactic.

Rove is still not out of the picture. Even today a professional lobbyist and acolyte of the Rove-Atwater tradition, Rick Davis, is running John McCain’s campaign. Counters report that McCain’s approved ads are running now in excess of 90% negative, while Obama’s are less than 50%.

The McCain camp openly says it is attacking Obama’s “character.” That is, they are attacking the opponent personally rather than proposing constructive ideas for solving the nation’s problems. They have apparently given up winning on merit.

This has been a bad week for McCain/Palin personal negative attacks. They have tried hard to get some mud to stick, but it hasn’t. Negative ads about an opponent’s proposals are one thing, but personal attack ads are another. The McCain camp has been attacking Obama personally, unfortunately stretching truth and using “guilt by association” in the process.

If guilt by association is to be accepted, then McCain and Palin are two of the most guilty. How about the Keating Five and the Alaskan Independence party?

Since McCain is behind now in the race, he is likely to get even more desperate, and the remainder of the campaign may get even dirtier. Observers think so.

“Swift-boat” type ads against Obama are now beginning to emerge, sponsored by private moneyed groups with patriotic sounding names. These are likely to become worse and more frequent, as right-wing billionaire money comes into play.

Fearful of losing not only the presidential election but also seats in the House and Senate, these fringe groups are becoming active.

Remember that it was John McCain’s “Campaign Finance Reform” law that authorized private attack groups to form in anonymity and secrecy and pour money into defeating an opponent without the candidate or his party accepting responsibility. As exemplified by the “Swift-boaters,” these moneyed groups have turned campaigns into latrine pits.

This gives one cause to wonder: “What kind of people support a candidate who engages or suborns such personal mudslinging? Is this the camp of ‘family values,’ God-fearing, and religious folk? Have these people been just grownup schoolyard bullies all the time?

“What kind of candidate incites and condones hate expressions, as practiced this week in republican political rallies? Who among us supports such? Does being a republican require acquiescence to this?”

We might also ask the question: “What do we call those folk who have a slogan ‘country first,’ but engage in unnecessarily hostile, angry, political attack activity which divides that same country?”

We have heard before from a man who promised to “be a uniter and not a divider,” and he led us into eight years as a bitterly fractured nation beset by vicissitudes on all sides. This country has been going in the wrong direction. We need a different style of politics in America, led by a different kind of person.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

As a real debate, the vice-presidential confrontation was little more than a farce, as judged by most competent observers.

It was like amateur night for the winking Hockey Mom and former beauty contestant turned (repeatedly) self-proclaimed maverick. She had been well coached as to how to deliver her party’s talking points, just as those other stage contestants tell us how their mission is to bring peace to the world – a little more complicated perhaps, but of the same character.

While Palin did not fall on her face as some expected, she was strictly an amateur in a professional league. From her manners and her use of cute folksy language, one would have thought she was running for the mayor’s position in some small town in Alaska.

Few of us would sleep well knowing her to be the backup for a cancer survivor president already 72 years of age.

Most of us who call the plumber’s shop expect them to send a technician who goes about his job in a professional manner. We expect the same when we call an air conditioning person or and electrician. We do not want them to send an amateur, or one who is cute and folksy. Why should we expect less of our elected public officials?

The more informed among us do not want a president or vice-president who is not more competent and knowledgeable of the issues and the governing process than we are. The McCain-Palin effort to be seen as “just one of the regular bunch” is not all appealing to this voter. “Just like us” is not a good criterion for a president, or for a would-be successor.

Having been a high school debater, and having served as a judge in several collegiate debate tournaments, Ms. Palin’s incessantly winking, bubbly manner, erroneous facts, and specious arguments all fell short of acceptable standards. Had this event been governed by any normal rules, she would have been disqualified.

As a starter, one does not tell the moderator that one will not answer her questions or rebut the arguments of the opponent, but that she will instead give a prepared argument on some other subject.

One does not say, “May I call you ‘Joe’?” A formal manner of address is expected, such as “my opponent” or “Senator.” She was correctly addressed as “Governor” by her opponent, and never as “Sarah.”

Then, one should not lie or state erroneous facts, giving no authoritative attribution or source or misquoting that source, which the Governor did repeatedly. False claims about matters of record are unwise. Deliberate misinterpretations of past happenings or statements are usually shown up.

One should not mention some feature related to a weak point in one’s case, lest the opponent seize the opportunity to expose that weakness. Palin’s mention of the premium tax credit for workers’ in McCain’s health insurance program was an example.

Biden was able to point out that this came at the expense of cutting health insurance premiums from the employee and employer’s tax sheltered benefits, and putting the employee on his/her own to purchase health insurance. Thus, costs to workers would increase, and some 20 million more would be uninsured.

Biden’s spoke of the futility of their “drill, drill, drill” energy policy, because it would bring too little too late (10 years), he said. She reminded “Joe,” and all of us, that their cutesy slogan was “drill, baby, drill,” but never attempted to refute his facts or logic. This was typical of her evening.

Yes, Governor Sarah Palin was successful in that she did not verbally and intellectually flounder as she has done in her interviews with mainstream reporters. Had there been a tough moderator who held her on the point and forced her to actually debate, it would have been a pitiful sight.

In that format and with that moderator, she was able to get by with the party talking points upon which she had been coached.

To say that Ms. Palin won the debate, or that she even belonged on that stage, is to commit outright, abject sophistry. But then such is not new to that party’s spin artists.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate