Monday, November 30, 2009
SOCIALISM, POPULISM, AND DEMOCRACY
Politicians, pundits, and demagogues in our country today are prone to the over-use and incorrect use of terms like “socialist” as an attack adjective or name-calling noun. Their followers can be worse. Some know better and don’t care. Others are just ignorant. Politicians and pundits use that term to score political points with an audience that often doesn’t know any better.
In the political realm “communist” has a dark connotation, similar to “Bolshevik,” meaning an extreme form of economic and political system where productive property is centrally held and managed by a dictatorial government. Today this term is inappropriate, incorrect, does not apply, and should be excluded from our current political dialogue. Too bad it is not.
“Socialist” is a bit more difficult to define. Traditionally it refers to the ownership or common rights of the people (as a society), perhaps as opposed to exploitive private and corporate property rights. It has normally been applied to areas such as the national park system, the highway system, law enforcement, food and drug standards, the postal system, or sometimes to ownership of natural resources. It may cover government ownership of utility systems and public transportation, including railroads. It also covers other government services to the population, including the elderly, widows and orphans, the sick, and the needy. What is there about “socialist,” in this latter context, do we not like?
“Socialist” as a concept is difficult to separate from “we, the people.” It is intertwined with populism and democracy itself. Was Lincoln actually speaking as a “socialist” when he talked of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people?”
We think not in the way critics of government use the term today, but affirmative in the generic meaning of the term.
Lincoln was speaking of democracy, where governmental power initiates with the people, is conducted by the people, and for the benefit of people. That is pure Athenian democracy. Our popular slogan “power to the people” has roughly the same connotation.
Our historic founding documents in America were not prepared hastily, nor in an unthinking, whimsical fashion. These were not written by dunces, nor by ignorant, revolutionary, ordinary backwoods farmer-colonists.
Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were skillfully drafted in a manner much as might be demanded in a scholarly community of persons well acquainted with philosophy and logic. In some ways these resemble the logical style of drafting an academic thesis, a legal brief, or a position paper, and in others the logic is similar to philosophy or the proof process learned in plane geometry.
The reference points of our founding fathers were in the philosophic writings of philosophers who guided the British in establishing the rights of the people and limits upon the power of the crown. They studied the works of French philosophers undergirding the revolution of the French people against that monarchy.
Consider these early words of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
A supporter of the restoration of the British crown after the rule of Cromwell and a tutor of the future Charles II in French exile, Thomas Hobbes considered anarchy the worst of conditions. He wrote in C.1660 that governments are formed for the common good of the people to prevent anarchy, saying that the people give up many of their individual rights for the common good through government, which could be a monarchy.
John Locke in C.1670 wrote in disagreement with Hobbes, emphasizing individual rights of the people. He wrote that government existed to protect the life, liberty, and property of (individual) people, and that certain rights remained inherent with the people – including the power of the people to restrain or replace their government. He was not popular with the new king.
Thomas Jefferson was a devotee of John Locke, drawing many of his ideas from that source. Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” derived from Locke’s view that indeed all persons were born with equal innate abilities, as well as rights, which could be developed through education and training. Locke is known for his “tabla rasa” theory, meaning that the minds of youth are “like unto wax tablets upon which the stylus of experience engraves” to make them whatever they are.
Jefferson, too, was an ardent advocate of public education and a founder of the University of Virginia. He said that the survival of democracy depended upon an educated citizenry.
Rousseau’s “Social Contract” in 1762 followed his “State of Nature,” in which he reasoned that man is born inherently good, only to be corrupted by the society of which he is a part. That view, different from prevailing religious thought, was followed by the “Social Contract” in which he held that all power resided in the people, and that the people contract with government to offer certain kinds of services with limited authority derived from this contract. He stressed “the common will.”
If we now look at the Preamble of the Constitution, we will see further evidence of its philosophic background and foundations:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity …..”
Again, one may readily see in these words of our founding fathers the philosophic tenets of their learned and intellectual European forebears. The forming of the Constitution is clearly the drawing up of a “social contract,” as per the thoughts of Locke and Rousseau, just as the rebellion of the people against George III of England had been so justified.
Abraham Lincoln, something of a scholar himself, joined these others with his immortal “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Today false prophets abound, perverting the writings and the thinking of our “founding fathers” in such ways as to advance their own ideas and agenda of social and economic conservatism. They have become extreme and demagogic is so doing. These people are offensive to the truth.
Thus, to understand fully the words of our forefathers, it is helpful to look at the history of political thought undergirding them. Some are entirely too quick to attack critically as “socialist,” with a bad connotation, the words, the ideas, and the agenda of political figures of our day. If judged by these imposed standards, then our founding fathers were clearly “socialists” also – especially in the etymological sense of that term.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
In the political realm “communist” has a dark connotation, similar to “Bolshevik,” meaning an extreme form of economic and political system where productive property is centrally held and managed by a dictatorial government. Today this term is inappropriate, incorrect, does not apply, and should be excluded from our current political dialogue. Too bad it is not.
“Socialist” is a bit more difficult to define. Traditionally it refers to the ownership or common rights of the people (as a society), perhaps as opposed to exploitive private and corporate property rights. It has normally been applied to areas such as the national park system, the highway system, law enforcement, food and drug standards, the postal system, or sometimes to ownership of natural resources. It may cover government ownership of utility systems and public transportation, including railroads. It also covers other government services to the population, including the elderly, widows and orphans, the sick, and the needy. What is there about “socialist,” in this latter context, do we not like?
“Socialist” as a concept is difficult to separate from “we, the people.” It is intertwined with populism and democracy itself. Was Lincoln actually speaking as a “socialist” when he talked of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people?”
We think not in the way critics of government use the term today, but affirmative in the generic meaning of the term.
Lincoln was speaking of democracy, where governmental power initiates with the people, is conducted by the people, and for the benefit of people. That is pure Athenian democracy. Our popular slogan “power to the people” has roughly the same connotation.
Our historic founding documents in America were not prepared hastily, nor in an unthinking, whimsical fashion. These were not written by dunces, nor by ignorant, revolutionary, ordinary backwoods farmer-colonists.
Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were skillfully drafted in a manner much as might be demanded in a scholarly community of persons well acquainted with philosophy and logic. In some ways these resemble the logical style of drafting an academic thesis, a legal brief, or a position paper, and in others the logic is similar to philosophy or the proof process learned in plane geometry.
The reference points of our founding fathers were in the philosophic writings of philosophers who guided the British in establishing the rights of the people and limits upon the power of the crown. They studied the works of French philosophers undergirding the revolution of the French people against that monarchy.
Consider these early words of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
A supporter of the restoration of the British crown after the rule of Cromwell and a tutor of the future Charles II in French exile, Thomas Hobbes considered anarchy the worst of conditions. He wrote in C.1660 that governments are formed for the common good of the people to prevent anarchy, saying that the people give up many of their individual rights for the common good through government, which could be a monarchy.
John Locke in C.1670 wrote in disagreement with Hobbes, emphasizing individual rights of the people. He wrote that government existed to protect the life, liberty, and property of (individual) people, and that certain rights remained inherent with the people – including the power of the people to restrain or replace their government. He was not popular with the new king.
Thomas Jefferson was a devotee of John Locke, drawing many of his ideas from that source. Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” derived from Locke’s view that indeed all persons were born with equal innate abilities, as well as rights, which could be developed through education and training. Locke is known for his “tabla rasa” theory, meaning that the minds of youth are “like unto wax tablets upon which the stylus of experience engraves” to make them whatever they are.
Jefferson, too, was an ardent advocate of public education and a founder of the University of Virginia. He said that the survival of democracy depended upon an educated citizenry.
Rousseau’s “Social Contract” in 1762 followed his “State of Nature,” in which he reasoned that man is born inherently good, only to be corrupted by the society of which he is a part. That view, different from prevailing religious thought, was followed by the “Social Contract” in which he held that all power resided in the people, and that the people contract with government to offer certain kinds of services with limited authority derived from this contract. He stressed “the common will.”
If we now look at the Preamble of the Constitution, we will see further evidence of its philosophic background and foundations:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity …..”
Again, one may readily see in these words of our founding fathers the philosophic tenets of their learned and intellectual European forebears. The forming of the Constitution is clearly the drawing up of a “social contract,” as per the thoughts of Locke and Rousseau, just as the rebellion of the people against George III of England had been so justified.
Abraham Lincoln, something of a scholar himself, joined these others with his immortal “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Today false prophets abound, perverting the writings and the thinking of our “founding fathers” in such ways as to advance their own ideas and agenda of social and economic conservatism. They have become extreme and demagogic is so doing. These people are offensive to the truth.
Thus, to understand fully the words of our forefathers, it is helpful to look at the history of political thought undergirding them. Some are entirely too quick to attack critically as “socialist,” with a bad connotation, the words, the ideas, and the agenda of political figures of our day. If judged by these imposed standards, then our founding fathers were clearly “socialists” also – especially in the etymological sense of that term.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Saturday, November 21, 2009
YOU LIE!
Several times I have been subjected to a currently running television commercial which tells me to call Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe and thank them for their good work protecting seniors in Washington. It tells me how they are looking after my interests, and they are preventing harmful cuts in Medicare. If I were not so nauseated, I would jump to my feet and shout, “You lie! You lie!”
One always feels strong resentment at outright falsehoods told in a bold-face manner, just as if they were true. But further, one’s ire is aroused with the question provoked, “Who do these people think I am? They are insulting me! Do they think I am an imbecile? Do they think I am too dumb to know the truth? Do they really think they can get away with this without be called out?” That outrage is even more offensive than being told a bare-faced lie.
These are the same people who wanted to privatize Social Security. Remember?
Seniors are receiving no Social Security cost of living increase this year, although everyone is well aware that everything touched is costing more – with the temporary exception of gasoline (not our big item). In spite of all this, Medicare insurance premiums are going up $25 a month in January.
A bill to halt that $25 premium increase passed the House overwhelmingly. But Senator Coburn put a hold on the bill to keep it from even being considered by the Senate. Don’t ask me why the Senate has such a dumb rule that allows a single narrow-minded, stubborn Senator to thwart the will of the entire Congress, but they do.
Senator Coburn is taking advantage of that rule to block the consideration of the bill postponing any Medicare insurance premium increase in a year when retirees receive no COLA. Although it passed the House with bi-partisan support, Senator Coburn, in his infinite wisdom and sense of self-importance, is stopping this bill to help seniors.
This is the same Coburn they are now telling seniors to call and thank for taking care of our interests.
Senator Coburn, with his sense of omnipotence, has also taken it upon himself to block Senate consideration of an appropriation for Veterans’ health care. This is the same guy who voted to increase deficits to pay for the war in Iraq and the armaments to fight it, but he says the country cannot now afford to provide proper medical treatment for its returning soldiers because of deficits.
Oklahoma’s two senators have been consistently the butt of Capitol jokes, and our state constantly suffers that stigma of ridicule nationally. Why do we keep sending such people to Washington to represent us? Are we too ignorant to know what we have? Are we are just too partisan to care?
Senator Coburn is mixed in deeply with the “C-Street gang.” At first glance this appears to be just a bunch of congressmen sharing a very large rooming house with a common area. It is located very close to the Capitol. Then it appears that the basis of this rooming house association is that all are fundamentalist Christians. Then it emerges that this place is called a “church,” and so identified for tax purposes.
This “church” has had a book written about it. It is the center of several investigations by news media. It appears from reports that this “church” may be similar to a “cult.” It seems also to be something of a religious fraternity, similar to college -- except for grown people. It is also something of a “secret society.”
They are supposed to be a “brotherhood” of religious, mostly republican, senators and congressmen where they help solve one another’s problems – like getting one out of an adulterous scandal involving Mr. Coburn being the go-between in a payoff. (He first denied this, but later admitted it.) Republican congressional miscreants are counseled in secret in this house under a code of silence. It does not matter that such silence may conceal unethical, or even illegal, conduct in violation of House or Senate rules, as is said to be the case.
This “C-Street House” is part of much larger “church” or cult headed by mysterious figures and governed by mysterious rules. It has been alleged also to be a “political machine” composed of residents and non-residents as well, all ultra-conservative fundamentalists with an agenda. This group is said to have its own priorities. Their agenda is to advance their ideas and religious beliefs through Congress, not accountable to any other religious or secular body. It is said that this fraternal “loyalty” is to be above all others. If so, this is a bit scary.
“C-Street” has just this week lost its property tax-exempt status in Washington, D.C. The goings-on there and the conduct of its occupants, including Senator Coburn, are under investigation by Congress and by other federal authorities. There is inquiry being made as to the entity to which room “rents” were paid, and whether such amounts have been claimed as “contributions.”
Senator Coburn has been tainted by all this, regardless of any personal “do-gooder” intentions he may have had or how much he protests innocence. His “holier-than-thou” approach to government and politics, at the expense of such groups as seniors and veterans, will not work any longer. He dropped his crown.
Since he is no longer any better than the rest of us, he should quit “playing God” in the Senate and blocking legislation needed by millions. And, let’s get those false commercials off the air, so that I can rest from shouting to my television, “You lie! You lie!”
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
One always feels strong resentment at outright falsehoods told in a bold-face manner, just as if they were true. But further, one’s ire is aroused with the question provoked, “Who do these people think I am? They are insulting me! Do they think I am an imbecile? Do they think I am too dumb to know the truth? Do they really think they can get away with this without be called out?” That outrage is even more offensive than being told a bare-faced lie.
These are the same people who wanted to privatize Social Security. Remember?
Seniors are receiving no Social Security cost of living increase this year, although everyone is well aware that everything touched is costing more – with the temporary exception of gasoline (not our big item). In spite of all this, Medicare insurance premiums are going up $25 a month in January.
A bill to halt that $25 premium increase passed the House overwhelmingly. But Senator Coburn put a hold on the bill to keep it from even being considered by the Senate. Don’t ask me why the Senate has such a dumb rule that allows a single narrow-minded, stubborn Senator to thwart the will of the entire Congress, but they do.
Senator Coburn is taking advantage of that rule to block the consideration of the bill postponing any Medicare insurance premium increase in a year when retirees receive no COLA. Although it passed the House with bi-partisan support, Senator Coburn, in his infinite wisdom and sense of self-importance, is stopping this bill to help seniors.
This is the same Coburn they are now telling seniors to call and thank for taking care of our interests.
Senator Coburn, with his sense of omnipotence, has also taken it upon himself to block Senate consideration of an appropriation for Veterans’ health care. This is the same guy who voted to increase deficits to pay for the war in Iraq and the armaments to fight it, but he says the country cannot now afford to provide proper medical treatment for its returning soldiers because of deficits.
Oklahoma’s two senators have been consistently the butt of Capitol jokes, and our state constantly suffers that stigma of ridicule nationally. Why do we keep sending such people to Washington to represent us? Are we too ignorant to know what we have? Are we are just too partisan to care?
Senator Coburn is mixed in deeply with the “C-Street gang.” At first glance this appears to be just a bunch of congressmen sharing a very large rooming house with a common area. It is located very close to the Capitol. Then it appears that the basis of this rooming house association is that all are fundamentalist Christians. Then it emerges that this place is called a “church,” and so identified for tax purposes.
This “church” has had a book written about it. It is the center of several investigations by news media. It appears from reports that this “church” may be similar to a “cult.” It seems also to be something of a religious fraternity, similar to college -- except for grown people. It is also something of a “secret society.”
They are supposed to be a “brotherhood” of religious, mostly republican, senators and congressmen where they help solve one another’s problems – like getting one out of an adulterous scandal involving Mr. Coburn being the go-between in a payoff. (He first denied this, but later admitted it.) Republican congressional miscreants are counseled in secret in this house under a code of silence. It does not matter that such silence may conceal unethical, or even illegal, conduct in violation of House or Senate rules, as is said to be the case.
This “C-Street House” is part of much larger “church” or cult headed by mysterious figures and governed by mysterious rules. It has been alleged also to be a “political machine” composed of residents and non-residents as well, all ultra-conservative fundamentalists with an agenda. This group is said to have its own priorities. Their agenda is to advance their ideas and religious beliefs through Congress, not accountable to any other religious or secular body. It is said that this fraternal “loyalty” is to be above all others. If so, this is a bit scary.
“C-Street” has just this week lost its property tax-exempt status in Washington, D.C. The goings-on there and the conduct of its occupants, including Senator Coburn, are under investigation by Congress and by other federal authorities. There is inquiry being made as to the entity to which room “rents” were paid, and whether such amounts have been claimed as “contributions.”
Senator Coburn has been tainted by all this, regardless of any personal “do-gooder” intentions he may have had or how much he protests innocence. His “holier-than-thou” approach to government and politics, at the expense of such groups as seniors and veterans, will not work any longer. He dropped his crown.
Since he is no longer any better than the rest of us, he should quit “playing God” in the Senate and blocking legislation needed by millions. And, let’s get those false commercials off the air, so that I can rest from shouting to my television, “You lie! You lie!”
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Friday, November 13, 2009
TOO MUCH HATE
There is too much hate, vitriol, and outright hostility in political discourse in America today. Also, there are too many lies and too much deceit. There is too much hyperbole in the rhetoric coming from the right. There are too many signs with hate slogans. There are too many ignorant, artificial linkages of present day proposals with the outrages of Nazi Germany 65 years ago – all with hate connotations.
The misapplications of terms like “red,” “pinko,” “socialist,” and “communist” abound. These are hate code-words. There may not be more than a dozen or so real communists in the entire country, and none are likely in government. “Communist China” is no longer really communist, but rather a capitalistic economy with an autocratic, one-party government. The term “socialist” is rarely used in a technically correct and descriptive fashion, but rather as a political attack word.
It is hard to decide whether it is more scary to think these people are really that ignorant, or if they are simply exercising rhetorical attack hyperbole. Either way it is inappropriate in civilized discourse.
The hypocrisy of those carrying American flags and cheering right wing speakers calling for revolution against their constitutionally and democratically elected government is unbelievable. Party speakers keep using the words “patriotic” and “freedom” amongst calls to become traitors to the democracy they are sworn to serve and protect. Are they too dumb to realize the conflict and offensiveness of their rhetoric, or do they just not care -- if it scores them a political point with their right wing base?
What kind of craziness is there in applauding signs among the rabble saying, “Next time we bring guns”? How can congressional republican leaders speak such vehemently inflammatory language to a rowdy crowd so far out as to be carrying signs with pictures of Hitler’s death camp dead? How about the signs waving down front: “the Red in the White House”?
One would hope that titular leaders of any political party would be a step or two above condoning such uncivil, un-American, and threatening behavior. This kind of over-the-top language has been coming consistently from the likes of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Apparently they are now setting the style for the party leaders, since these have joined the hate speech approach to politics.
When a crazed mob crashes the doors and trample over security personnel and one another at a Christmas sale, Walmart is successfully sued in court for damages for not exercising sufficient precautionary measures. How is it that those who utter inflammatory hate speech in front of angry mobs are not held to account? How is it that the extremists on talk radio and Fox News channel are not held to account for inciting violence? How is it that anti-abortion groups and radical “ministers” are not held responsible when their inflammatory “baby-killing” rhetoric results in murder?
Although the congressional race in upper New York speaks to the contrary for those rabid extremists in the republican party, God help us, and God save America, if this ever really becomes a populist movement embraced by a majority of our people. Although impressive video, a few thousand from the lunatic fringe, bussed into Washington by right wing political activist organizations, with big corporate support, does not a real grass roots movement make.
One would like to dismiss this movement as being from a bunch of “ditto heads” and “right wing kooks,” thus not a serious threat. But since when does free speech include yelling “fire” while standing before a crazy bunch of arsonists with torches in their hands. These are not ordinary, rational people. At best they could be termed “a rabble with a mob mentality.” That kind of a mob cannot be controlled once they are set off.
Do we really think we can continue to inflame passions of suggestible people and not cause violent and irrational behavior? It is easy to see in the results of the rhetorical hyperbole about abortions. Some fools decide they are doing God’s will by going out and shooting doctors down in church.
It is difficult to argue with some republicans. If crossed, they go immediately into a tirade. Everything is emotional to them. Perhaps it is so with some democrats as well. But we should be able to exchange views in a rational and civil way. If we don’t learn to do so, we are headed to national civil strife, violence, and bloodshed.
In commenting that some people are difficult to reason with, this writer is reminded of a conversation with a college dean who taught an adult Sunday School class in a fundamentalist church. He recounted his efforts to have class discussion of some controversial topics and issues. He was frustrated, he said, because one class member insisted on always being right. When cornered and asked for reasons for her views, she always said, “God told me!”
The dean remarked that this threw cold water on his efforts for an open and rational discussion. And, so it does with our discussions of some issues. In other cases, partisans simply resort to name calling. “That is socialist,” they will say – not because it is a correct label, but because of its negative connotation. If anyone believes that, then the discussion is over.
So it is with any discussions about the looming, problematic social and economic shadow of ever-increasing disparity in income and wealth in this country. This festers out there on the edge of the awareness of most people. Waiting to reach a critical level of awareness, it forebodes serious future conflicts and troublesome upheaval. We are headed for certain trouble.
But if one mentions the problem, or looking for avoidance solutions, then the bugaboo of “redistribution of wealth” and “socialism” is brought forward – effectively killing any real consideration. One should not mention that our tax and trade policies the last 25 years have been essentially “class-warfare” on the middle class worker in our society, moving us toward a society of “haves and have-nots” and economic feudalism.
We cannot go on with our rhetorical violence and closed-mindedness, lest it gradually or suddenly descend to actual violence. It is hard to believe that any political leaders actually want this, but it is in their talk. How else can we judge?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The misapplications of terms like “red,” “pinko,” “socialist,” and “communist” abound. These are hate code-words. There may not be more than a dozen or so real communists in the entire country, and none are likely in government. “Communist China” is no longer really communist, but rather a capitalistic economy with an autocratic, one-party government. The term “socialist” is rarely used in a technically correct and descriptive fashion, but rather as a political attack word.
It is hard to decide whether it is more scary to think these people are really that ignorant, or if they are simply exercising rhetorical attack hyperbole. Either way it is inappropriate in civilized discourse.
The hypocrisy of those carrying American flags and cheering right wing speakers calling for revolution against their constitutionally and democratically elected government is unbelievable. Party speakers keep using the words “patriotic” and “freedom” amongst calls to become traitors to the democracy they are sworn to serve and protect. Are they too dumb to realize the conflict and offensiveness of their rhetoric, or do they just not care -- if it scores them a political point with their right wing base?
What kind of craziness is there in applauding signs among the rabble saying, “Next time we bring guns”? How can congressional republican leaders speak such vehemently inflammatory language to a rowdy crowd so far out as to be carrying signs with pictures of Hitler’s death camp dead? How about the signs waving down front: “the Red in the White House”?
One would hope that titular leaders of any political party would be a step or two above condoning such uncivil, un-American, and threatening behavior. This kind of over-the-top language has been coming consistently from the likes of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Apparently they are now setting the style for the party leaders, since these have joined the hate speech approach to politics.
When a crazed mob crashes the doors and trample over security personnel and one another at a Christmas sale, Walmart is successfully sued in court for damages for not exercising sufficient precautionary measures. How is it that those who utter inflammatory hate speech in front of angry mobs are not held to account? How is it that the extremists on talk radio and Fox News channel are not held to account for inciting violence? How is it that anti-abortion groups and radical “ministers” are not held responsible when their inflammatory “baby-killing” rhetoric results in murder?
Although the congressional race in upper New York speaks to the contrary for those rabid extremists in the republican party, God help us, and God save America, if this ever really becomes a populist movement embraced by a majority of our people. Although impressive video, a few thousand from the lunatic fringe, bussed into Washington by right wing political activist organizations, with big corporate support, does not a real grass roots movement make.
One would like to dismiss this movement as being from a bunch of “ditto heads” and “right wing kooks,” thus not a serious threat. But since when does free speech include yelling “fire” while standing before a crazy bunch of arsonists with torches in their hands. These are not ordinary, rational people. At best they could be termed “a rabble with a mob mentality.” That kind of a mob cannot be controlled once they are set off.
Do we really think we can continue to inflame passions of suggestible people and not cause violent and irrational behavior? It is easy to see in the results of the rhetorical hyperbole about abortions. Some fools decide they are doing God’s will by going out and shooting doctors down in church.
It is difficult to argue with some republicans. If crossed, they go immediately into a tirade. Everything is emotional to them. Perhaps it is so with some democrats as well. But we should be able to exchange views in a rational and civil way. If we don’t learn to do so, we are headed to national civil strife, violence, and bloodshed.
In commenting that some people are difficult to reason with, this writer is reminded of a conversation with a college dean who taught an adult Sunday School class in a fundamentalist church. He recounted his efforts to have class discussion of some controversial topics and issues. He was frustrated, he said, because one class member insisted on always being right. When cornered and asked for reasons for her views, she always said, “God told me!”
The dean remarked that this threw cold water on his efforts for an open and rational discussion. And, so it does with our discussions of some issues. In other cases, partisans simply resort to name calling. “That is socialist,” they will say – not because it is a correct label, but because of its negative connotation. If anyone believes that, then the discussion is over.
So it is with any discussions about the looming, problematic social and economic shadow of ever-increasing disparity in income and wealth in this country. This festers out there on the edge of the awareness of most people. Waiting to reach a critical level of awareness, it forebodes serious future conflicts and troublesome upheaval. We are headed for certain trouble.
But if one mentions the problem, or looking for avoidance solutions, then the bugaboo of “redistribution of wealth” and “socialism” is brought forward – effectively killing any real consideration. One should not mention that our tax and trade policies the last 25 years have been essentially “class-warfare” on the middle class worker in our society, moving us toward a society of “haves and have-nots” and economic feudalism.
We cannot go on with our rhetorical violence and closed-mindedness, lest it gradually or suddenly descend to actual violence. It is hard to believe that any political leaders actually want this, but it is in their talk. How else can we judge?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, November 09, 2009
VISIT WITH A KOREAN WAR VETERAN
While undertaking the physically challenging task of pushing a shopping cart through the lengths, depths, and widths of the vast domain of our local Walmart store, this writer sought to separate himself momentarily from his shopper-in-chief and to pause in the relative comfort of a two-person bench.
Already on this bench was an elderly man, dressed in the style of a retired working man or an area farmer, also pausing during his occasional obligatory tour of the consumer delights in Walmart. I said to him, “Do you mind sharing this bench for a minute?”
He answered cheerfully, “No. Sit down and rest yourself for a while. That is what I’m doing.” And, he moved over and shifted his shopping cart for me to sit with my cart in front of me. He then told me, using the common colloquial language of our region, that he was a disabled Korean War veteran. He indicated that touring that store on foot was a bit difficult for him.
He said, “I have permanent injuries to my feet and legs from a bad experience at the Chosen Reservoir.” I indicated that I remembered that event quite well, a fact that seemed to please him greatly. After identifying myself as a World War II veteran, I remarked that I had thought at the time that strategically we were taking quite a risk in marching right on up to the Yalu River and the border of China.
He agreed, saying that, “We were outnumbered there by 600 to 1, and they came in on us there in the dead of winter. We fought and retreated from the Chosen Reservoir through the sleet and snow for a hundred miles. It was 40 degrees below zero. That’s how I got these bad feet and legs.”
I wondered silently why this Korean vet had not obtained one of those battery powered carts that Walmart keeps up front for persons with ambulatory difficulties. Then I realized that he didn’t have one of those carts for the same reason that I did not – pride. There we were, two old guys, too proud to drive one of those electric carts. But we were not too proud to pause for a moment on a bench and rest.
We shared the view that the store should have a lot more benches around throughout the store so people could stop for a few minutes and rest before proceeding on their shopping tour. He remarked to me, “They should have more handicapped parking, too, and other people should stay out of those spaces.” I agreed.
Then he told of running some high school kids out of a handicapped parking spot outside by threatening to turn them in for a $60 fine. Yes, indeed, he was still a scrappy old war veteran.
We then went on to talk of present day geopolitical military strategy and foreign policy for a few moments. I asked him if, as a Korean War veteran, he agreed with keeping 30,000 American troops in and around Seoul, South Korea. He said, “No! We lifted those people up, and we helped them get started. They have come a long way. They can take care of themselves now. We have no business staying there.”
We agreed on that point – we should be bringing our troops home and letting others fight their own battles.
Then my shopper-in-chief returned to get me to proceed with the marathon exploration through the nooks and recesses of a temporarily disordered store to find items for which she had coupons and for other treasures and necessities. He reached out his hand to me as I prepared to leave, and we shook hands with the sincerity of two kindred old souls who had momentarily made contact in the maddening swirl of organized societal life. No names were exchanged, but we became acquainted nevertheless.
I shall remember this man, and the others like him, who went dutifully, although not necessarily willingly, to Korea to fight a war when admittedly they understood little about the geopolitics of containing communism.
I recall also a good friend, who barely escaped death as a belly gunner on a B-17 during a crash landing on return from a mission over Germany. He was called back again for service in Korea. I recall a high school classmate whom I had welcomed as he came into boot camp at the naval training station where I was stationed in 1944. He was called back because he was in the active reserve. A close relative, who had sloshed through the winter mud in the Italian Campaign to victory in 1944, was called back and sent to Korea as a member of the Oklahoma National Guard.
Then I recalled well how I had been given little chance of finishing my first year of teaching in 1949-50, because I was still a member of the U. S. Naval Reserve. But I escaped that experience, probably by having gone to inactive status a year or so earlier.
That old soldier, my partner on the bench at Walmart, deserves a great deal of respect from the rest of us – more than he gets, I’m sure. Few of us still alive have experienced the awful ordeals of war such as that terrible winter retreat from the Chosen Reservoir. But such are the stories of misery, matched only by the stories of heroism, which have come down to us from our past wars.
Those who have actually experienced these life and death dramas of past wars are rapidly departing from our human landscape, some say at the rate of a thousand a day. It was an honor to have shared a few moments with that old Korean vet.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
Already on this bench was an elderly man, dressed in the style of a retired working man or an area farmer, also pausing during his occasional obligatory tour of the consumer delights in Walmart. I said to him, “Do you mind sharing this bench for a minute?”
He answered cheerfully, “No. Sit down and rest yourself for a while. That is what I’m doing.” And, he moved over and shifted his shopping cart for me to sit with my cart in front of me. He then told me, using the common colloquial language of our region, that he was a disabled Korean War veteran. He indicated that touring that store on foot was a bit difficult for him.
He said, “I have permanent injuries to my feet and legs from a bad experience at the Chosen Reservoir.” I indicated that I remembered that event quite well, a fact that seemed to please him greatly. After identifying myself as a World War II veteran, I remarked that I had thought at the time that strategically we were taking quite a risk in marching right on up to the Yalu River and the border of China.
He agreed, saying that, “We were outnumbered there by 600 to 1, and they came in on us there in the dead of winter. We fought and retreated from the Chosen Reservoir through the sleet and snow for a hundred miles. It was 40 degrees below zero. That’s how I got these bad feet and legs.”
I wondered silently why this Korean vet had not obtained one of those battery powered carts that Walmart keeps up front for persons with ambulatory difficulties. Then I realized that he didn’t have one of those carts for the same reason that I did not – pride. There we were, two old guys, too proud to drive one of those electric carts. But we were not too proud to pause for a moment on a bench and rest.
We shared the view that the store should have a lot more benches around throughout the store so people could stop for a few minutes and rest before proceeding on their shopping tour. He remarked to me, “They should have more handicapped parking, too, and other people should stay out of those spaces.” I agreed.
Then he told of running some high school kids out of a handicapped parking spot outside by threatening to turn them in for a $60 fine. Yes, indeed, he was still a scrappy old war veteran.
We then went on to talk of present day geopolitical military strategy and foreign policy for a few moments. I asked him if, as a Korean War veteran, he agreed with keeping 30,000 American troops in and around Seoul, South Korea. He said, “No! We lifted those people up, and we helped them get started. They have come a long way. They can take care of themselves now. We have no business staying there.”
We agreed on that point – we should be bringing our troops home and letting others fight their own battles.
Then my shopper-in-chief returned to get me to proceed with the marathon exploration through the nooks and recesses of a temporarily disordered store to find items for which she had coupons and for other treasures and necessities. He reached out his hand to me as I prepared to leave, and we shook hands with the sincerity of two kindred old souls who had momentarily made contact in the maddening swirl of organized societal life. No names were exchanged, but we became acquainted nevertheless.
I shall remember this man, and the others like him, who went dutifully, although not necessarily willingly, to Korea to fight a war when admittedly they understood little about the geopolitics of containing communism.
I recall also a good friend, who barely escaped death as a belly gunner on a B-17 during a crash landing on return from a mission over Germany. He was called back again for service in Korea. I recall a high school classmate whom I had welcomed as he came into boot camp at the naval training station where I was stationed in 1944. He was called back because he was in the active reserve. A close relative, who had sloshed through the winter mud in the Italian Campaign to victory in 1944, was called back and sent to Korea as a member of the Oklahoma National Guard.
Then I recalled well how I had been given little chance of finishing my first year of teaching in 1949-50, because I was still a member of the U. S. Naval Reserve. But I escaped that experience, probably by having gone to inactive status a year or so earlier.
That old soldier, my partner on the bench at Walmart, deserves a great deal of respect from the rest of us – more than he gets, I’m sure. Few of us still alive have experienced the awful ordeals of war such as that terrible winter retreat from the Chosen Reservoir. But such are the stories of misery, matched only by the stories of heroism, which have come down to us from our past wars.
Those who have actually experienced these life and death dramas of past wars are rapidly departing from our human landscape, some say at the rate of a thousand a day. It was an honor to have shared a few moments with that old Korean vet.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
