Are we to jettison that which makes us great?
The essential issues: What is the essence of America? Are we are to surrender that which makes us a country worthy of our ideals in an effort to preserve the empty shell that remains?
In recent weeks, protests have been heard against the construction of a Muslim 13-story mosque and community center to be built near the site of the World Trade Center in New York. Admittedly, the WTC site is unique in American consciences; nonetheless, Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke eloquently defending the project as a symbol of America’s religious tolerance. There have been two other proposed mosque locations in New York City, each of which has been the subject of protest. The protests in New York have been echoed elsewhere and from sources who have adopted the anti-Muslim theme as a political force of the Right, along with anti-immigration fervor and an evangelical view of an attack on Christianity.
In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting. In late June, in Temecula, California, members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a nearby vacant lot. In Sheboygan, Wisconsin, a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor. All in all, there have been more than a half-dozen contested Muslim houses of worship within the last four months. The most recent is far from the allegedly “hallowed ground” of “Ground Zero”. Now we can add Florence, Kentucky to the list of controversial Islamic construction projects.
At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. In all of the recent conflicts, however, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law. These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether Muslims are to be allowed the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, whether Islam is a religion at all.
It is absurd to consider all Muslims terrorists because of al Qaeda, the Taliban or the evil individuals who act on their twisted ideas. It would be equally absurd to treat all Jews as assassins or terrorists because a fanatic Zionist extremist motivated by religious zeal, Yigdal Amir, shot and killed Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. We don’t blame all Americans of German ethnicity for the horrors of the Nazi regime. We have made Toyota and Nissan the most popular automobiles in the world, notwithstanding the “day of Infamy”. Yet we are quick to class all Muslims as unworthy of First Amendment protection; freedom of religion is fine as long as it is an approved faith.
Perhaps what we need is a refresher civics course. If a Muslim (or Christian or Jew or Atheist, for that matter) breaks the law, arrest him or her and, upon conviction, toss the individual in jail. But we do not deny any citizen the right to pray, or not to pray, based on that citizen’s faith. We don’t restrict peaceful and sincere religious assembly based on the criminal behavior of individual members of the particular faith. We do not prevent the construction of Catholic churches because of Catholic criminals and murders; we do not restrict Jewish synagogues because of Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, “Bugsy” Siegel, Meyer Lansky or other notorious members of Murder, Inc.
Even those Americans who acknowledge, perhaps grudgingly, that Muslims have First Amendment rights to have their mosque wherever local land-use regulations permit, assert that sensitivity to the feelings of others would overcome that right.
The Constitution was not designed to protect the sensitivities of our citizens. Even if every single person in Manhattan, or New York or even the United States, felt offended it would not matter. The Constitution is not aimed at making people feel better nor is it designed to pander to bigots, either.
There is another consequence of this prejudice at this time. With regard to Muslims, in particular, this program has consequences beyond the obvious disregard of the American ideal of religious tolerance; it poses a heightened threat to our national security. As I write, United States armed forces are engaged in efforts to win “the hearts and minds” of decent people living in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world. How helpful is it to the Taliban for American politicians to identify all Muslims with terrorism? How helpful to the theocratic leaders of Iran who justify their hard line with the insistence that the United States is obsessively anti-Muslim?
The baser instincts of the electorate have been targeted and manipulated by politicians forever; this is not news. In the past, the populace has been intentionally frightened by suggestions that “they” are different and bent on destroying our country. Who are “They”? Liberals, Communists, Immigrants, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, take your pick! Today’s threat that will make us vote for the agitator is Muslim.
There is a delicious irony in that the right-wing opponents, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, for example, delight in professing to hold the Constitution precious and honor every word. Freedom of religion to them demands prayer in public schools, religious displays on public grounds, the teaching that the world is 10,000 years old, anything but secularism.
It turns out that religion only extends to their brand of Christianity.
I read a letter in the newspaper today suggesting that in most, if not all, Muslim countries, Christian or Jewish Houses of Worship are not allowed or are limited. Other countries have restricted construction or expansion of mosques. Therefore, the author states, we should act accordingly.
That misses the point. We’re different and that difference is that which makes us great. It is the difference that justifies our very existence as a nation. And if our freedoms and values are those of the Saudi family or that of Iran, then what is the ideal of America?
Tags: Constitution, far right, Michael Bloomberg, Mosque protest, Muslims, religious freedom, religious prejudice, Samuel Morse, tea parties. tax protests, World Trade Center
Reactions to my postings on a number of websites in which I take positions that are admittedly to the left of center are, often, argumentative. Many of my immediate family’s views are far more to the right than mine and we have spirited conversations which I find stimulating and literally exciting. On the other hand, I read a substantial number of posted comments from people who will not vote because of (a) disgust over negative campaign advertisements, (b) displeasure with all candidates and (c) just plain disgust with what they perceive to be the direction in which the country is moving.
Notwithstanding this attitude, every one of us will be casting a ballot in local, state and congressional elections this year and the presidential election in 2012; for some of us, we will vote through a proxy, a person whose views may be counter to our interests and, indeed, whose views may well be abhorrent. But our “representative” will cast our vote and it’s perfectly legal.
First, some boring statistics. In the 2008 presidential election, the total number of citizens of the United States, over the age of 18, and otherwise eligible to vote, was 231.2 million people. The total actual number voting was approximately 132.6 million, or about 56.8 %. In Florida, again according to the U.S. Census, the total eligible number of voters was 11.6 million people; 66.8 % actually voted, about 7.6 million people. In the case of the country as a whole, then, almost 80 million people delegated their vote to others; in Florida, almost four million eligible voters chose to have others vote in their stead.
The aim of most career politicians is to get elected or re-elected. If some have a desire to do good, in addition to doing well, that is a rarity and one for which we should be grateful. How does the candidate plan on success? He or she must “energize the base” and hope that no one else shows up! In Florida, a “red” state, the base is, predominately, white, conservative, Protestant, and blindly anti-tax; the “base” get their news from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and the gang at Fox cable news. Glenn Beck is a favored source of the “truth”. They blast opponents with name calling. In years past, the charge was that he or she was “a Commie”; now the epithet is “liberal”.
Years ago, the roles and base principles of the major political parties were clear. Republicans believed that government activity with respect to individuals or businesses should be at a minimum, even if the involvement had the purest of motives, e.g., welfare or charity. Government, especially the federal government, was limited to waging war, getting the mail delivered and not much else. Regulation of businesses or the banking giants was felt to be unnecessary and, worse, a drag on the economy.
Democrats, on the other hand, believed the federal government had a significant role in bettering the lives and conditions of the people. Democrats were in favor of ready intervention in individuals’ lives, to promote welfare, abolish child labor, and regulate food supplies, medicines, transportation and a myriad of other things. A Democrat had no problem in limiting the individual actions of a person or corporation – whenever the public good was involved.
Now things have certainly changed! The Republican candidates for office outdo themselves in promoting the imposition of personal moral beliefs on the rest of us.
The result is that, for example, in Hillsborough County, Florida, Commissioners keep themselves busy regulating the amount of overhead lighting in adult-use establishments and taking principled stands against civil unions for gays, gay pride activities and dirty books in the schools.
And the crowd goes wild.
Meanwhile the county infrastructure is crumbling, there is a dearth of teachers, and, on the state level, children are lost in and to the foster care system because no one will accept increased taxes to pay for more workers.
It is a fact of life that the conservative right is virtually monolithic. Its adherents will “get out the vote” and support those candidates who will pander to them. It is also a fact of life that liberals, in general, are always willing to see three sides to the same side! They take “broadminded” to the extreme. Liberals, then, are less likely to unify and protest, less likely to put unified pressure on the candidates. The most strident voice is the one noticed, and this voice, for better or worse, is that of the conservative right.
In all fairness, it should be noted that in coming years, the strident voice could come from the wacky left. (See what I mean about trying to see all viewpoints?)
The presidential election in 2004 was decided by fewer than 600 Florida voters and perhaps 60.000 in Ohio. In Florida, four million people gave their vote to the Republican far right base by default. Perhaps, if more of these eligible voters had taken the time and trouble to vote, we might not have had an invasion of Iraq, a record making deficit, world-wide distrust of the United States, the alienation of friendly international relationships, and so on and on.
So when one says that he or she will not vote and has not voted, remind the speaker that a vote was cast on his or her behalf and if the result makes one unhappy, shame on them.
Tags: 2000 election, 2004 election, 2010 election, 2012 election, elections, far right, Florida, GOP policies, liberals, Ohio, talk radio, us economy, voting
The Essence of Liberalism
One of the primary epithets in this and other recent election cycles is “Liberal”. I am an unabashed liberal, or “progressive” if one prefers. Moreover, I believe that most thinking Americans are basically “liberal” – even if the term has been vilified by the Right.
The traditional role of the conservative movement in the United States has been to put a brake on liberal-progressive proposals and action. At the start of the twentieth century, movements were promoted by liberal activists to grant suffrage to women, control business abuses, regulate various industries (food processors, drug manufacturers), eliminate laws and practices that perpetuated second class citizenship for blacks and the introduction of other programs that were considered at the time to be “radical”.
The conservatives constituted a “loyal opposition” and acted to delay implementation of some of these “reforms” until the people had had a chance to reflect. These delays allowed the reforms to moderate and avoid the radicalism found in other countries. It is the nation’s loss that the present conservative Republican Party has chosen to abdicate that role in favor negative obstructionism for its own sake.
Current Republican-conservatism has lost whatever relevancy it once enjoyed. Its remaining popularity is due to its ability to frame issues in such a way that slogans replace principles, sound bites take the place of reason. Liberals have allowed this to occur by not forcibly articulating their positions.
We live in a world of clichés, sound bites and catch phrases that threaten introspection and intelligent conversation. There are no calm, reasoned debates in our national discourse. The prevalent spate of negative campaigning is illustrative. Ask a conservative what the biggest problem in America is today, and the answer is likely to be taxation, a sexualized culture, lack of respect for authority, insufficient church-going or big government running amok. Moreover, the same conservative would state the cause of all of these problems could be summed up in one word: Liberalism.
Beginning in the early 1990s, Republicans attempted and, to a substantial degree have succeeded, to define “liberalism” in a distorted image. Instead of arguing against liberal beliefs, Republicans have adopted a policy of speaking only in sound bites, slogans, bumper sticker stuff: belief in equal rights for all Americans is redefined as “special rights for homosexuals”, a belief in the rights of those accused of crimes is now “soft on crime”, a belief in freedom of religion is portrayed as “hatred of Christians”, and questioning the success or failure of our foreign policy toward Iraq, Iran or North Korea is simplified as “cut and run”. If one supports providing adequate public services, he or she is a “tax and spend liberal”. This has the dual effect of making an opponent a cartoon-like character and, at the same time, avoids addressing difficult issues. Rather than state what the candidate will do or stands for, the opponent is accused of being a slave to “special interests” (whatever that means), or with a secret agenda to raise taxes, increase insurance premiums, double telephone and utility bills and kill puppies and kittens and Grandma.
Liberal-progressives have, for too long, allowed the Republican right to frame the issues in the debate. This put Liberals always on the defensive. It is time to re-assert all of the human values that are the cornerstone of liberalism and that, deep down, are the principles of America.
Liberalism begins with a view of the obligations of society and government, to address human and social needs. When we lived in small isolated communities, our neighbors and local churches pitched in to help; everyone knew each other. In today’s world, each individual is unable to address homelessness or child or elder abuse, or the unavailability of medical care as it may apply to a specific person. Government is the primary and necessary mechanism by which society fulfills its obligations. The needs are too great and wide-spread to be met by individuals, private non-governmental entities, such as church or secular charities and organizations.
Hubert Humphrey expressed his (and my) personal view of how governments are to be viewed and judged,
“The test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
What does a Liberal believe in? That is a tough question, because every self-professed (self-confessed?) Liberal has individual and sometimes differing ideas of that which defines him or her. Moreover the inability of a Liberal to assert inflexible positions makes it difficult to characterize views.
I do not like to keep quoting others, but Garrison Keillor, expressed his views on the essence of liberalism:
“We don’t let people lie in the ditch and drive past and pretend not to see them dying. Here . . . if your neighbor’s car won’t start, you put on your parka and get the jumper cables out and deliver the Sacred Spark that starts their car. Everybody knows this. The logical extension of this spirit is social welfare and the myriad government programs with long dry names all very uninteresting to you until you suddenly need one and then you turn into a Democrat.”
Liberals do not necessarily have a uniform set of beliefs suitable to be condensed into a ten-second sound bite. We do not go for slogans or categorical statements. Our weakness is the lack of absolute certainty that characterizes the far right. Essentially there are, however, core principles that are accepted.
Government has the obligation to preserve and protect an individual’s rights to speak freely, worship as he or she may wish or not to worship if that is the choice. There are limits to these rights where they might infringe on the equally protected rights or the safety of another but those limits are to be defined strictly. If my “choice” is to worship with deadly snakes that is my prerogative; if I insist that a child handle deadly snakes that is another story.
Rights of individuals should not be limited by the religious views of the majority. Every child is entitled to a public education in a public-funded school. Religious doctrine should not be taught and, certainly, not to the exclusion of secular instruction. If you insist your child be taught the Bible is literally true in all respects, then your child needs to attend a non-public school. If you want your child to be free to offer public prayers whenever the urge strikes, or if you wish the teacher or school official to publicly pray, your child belongs in a religious school. The prayer that is acceptable or commonplace to you may be offensive to another. For example, a Christian prays through and in the name of Jesus; to a Jew or Muslim, this is anathema.
Private behaviors should not be limited or denied based on others’ concepts of morality or religious precepts. For example, abortion is a personal decision to be made by a woman, with consultation if she so decides, with clergy, the father or anyone else she chooses. It is not to be determined by government or outside interest groups.
Government cannot be homophobic. An individual’s sexual orientation should not impact rights under the law. Should marriage or civil unions between those of the same gender be prohibited? If you remove the religious or biblical arguments that are suggested, it is difficult to argue against those rights. Is marriage solely for procreation? Then refuse a marriage license to women who have had a hysterectomy or who are in their 60’s. If the intent is to strengthen the principle of marriage, then how does one explain a 50% divorce rate? If we are that concerned about the importance and sanctity of marriage, stop glamorizing celebrities who have baby after baby sans marriage.
Having rights in a vacuum is interesting but worthless unless government enforces those rights. An individual has the right to equal treatment under the law regardless of race, color of skin, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference or any other characteristics. The people who need this protection, for the most part, are those in the minority, those whose beliefs or lawful behavior offend the majority. After all, the majority needs no special protection; the person who needs protection stands on the street corner spouting radical and unpopular views.
Each of us has an obligation to help the weak and oppressed. In a complex world, that obligation on individual members of society is undertaken by Government in our stead. The poor, homeless, weak, defenseless among us need protection and special care. Government, at its best, provides that care and protection. For example, laws prohibiting child labor, regulations for safety in nursing homes, prohibitions against child, spousal or elder abuse are all examples of society protecting those in need of such protection. Government should be there to alleviate loss caused by natural disasters, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes. A number of individuals cannot support themselves because of being unqualified for employment because of physical or mental infirmity. Government should protect those individuals by providing education, therapy, job training or sustenance.
Sometimes, government has no role and should butt out. Some choices made by individuals may not be consistent with the choices made by others. For example, I may choose to go to a strip bar or an “X-Rated” establishment. I may act in a manner others consider immoral. So long as my choices, as an adult, do not cause harm or take advantage of another, especially a person weaker than I or a child, I should not be restricted by Government. (There is a difference between government restrictions and those of a non-governmental entity; if my employer, private organization to which I belong or my wife objects to my behavior, action may be swift and unpleasant – but that is a private matter.) When government over-steps its role and interferes with personal decisions, chaos results.
Liberalism is not monolithic. We all have personal views on a number of topics. This lack of solidarity is a weakness in confronting the far-right conservative. The latter is so darn certain of everything.
What must liberals do?
First and foremost, we must stop being defensive. We must not allow conservatives to frame the debate. We must present our views forcibly and coherently in every forum possible. Our candidates should reject a negative view of liberalism and not allow conservative candidates to use slogans to avoid issues. We must challenge, challenge and challenge again efforts to demonize liberals. And we must keep our minds open to other views.
That’s what a liberal does.
Tags: conservatives, elections, far right, GOP, GOP policies, liberals
The bills have to get paid. Period. And wishful thinking and pandering politicians are not helpful.
The other day Joan, my wife of over a half-century and I went to the supermarket. (I am usually not allowed to assist with the shopping because of an addiction to the olives at the antipasto bar, at prices which Joan finds excessive. But that’s another story.) We filled our basket with stuff that I needed (beer, potato chips) and items that were for my wife enjoyment (laundry soap, cleaning supplies). At the checkout, I swiped my debit card and we then left the store with the groceries, laundry supplies and such for which we had paid.
When we arrived home there were bills for our cable, telephone and electric service in the mailbox. I went to computer and sent out payments to Bright House and Tampa Electric in the amounts each had requested. While I may have been unhappy about the supermarket tab and these bills and the amounts to be paid, I accepted that, if I wanted services, I would be expected to pay for them.
The various candidates for office and politicians generally, all promise that my taxes will not increase or will be reduced. The very word “tax” is made a dirty word and something evil. They proclaim they will never raise taxes with the same fervor as when they denounce child abuse and pornography. Only the “other guy”, the “tax and spend liberal”, for the most part, wants to increase your taxes. And, if taxes or fees must be raised, the old slogan applies, “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me; tax that guy behind the tree.”
The Republicans, again, primarily, suggest that all manner of things can be fixed – unemployment, an economy stressed and depressed to a painful level, teen promiscuity, acne and hurricane damage – if only evil taxes could be reduced or possibly eliminated! The anti-tax rhetoric is a great campaign position but is not a basis for governing.
Mark Sharpe, a Republican Hillsborough County Commissioner, a man I consider extremely intelligent and utterly honest, ran for Federal office years ago on a platform that adopted the sound-bite anti-tax slogan: taxes are, by their nature, a burden on the economy and individuals; all taxes are to be reduced, without regard to the consequences. Any deficit would be made up, he said, by “eliminating waste”. When confronted by a request that he identify the specific “waste” to be uncovered and abolished, he resorted to cliché and a vague statement that waste and fraud are “out there’. He was in “campaign mode”. He was not prepared to govern and lost the election. I volunteered for Mr. Sharpe, notwithstanding my disagreement with some of his political positions, because of my admiration for his character.
Hillsborough County, like much of Florida is burdened with traffic problems, crumbling roads, inadequate street lighting, overcrowded schools – the list can go on and on. We have, as a result of a poor national economy and systematic tax rebates and decreases, a serious budget shortfall, and overall reduced government services. The same scenario is found throughout the country. The only way to cure these and other deficiencies is to increase taxes and I long for a politician who will be honest enough to say so.
Commissioner Sharpe has taken a step that is politically dangerous. He has shed his campaign mode and is determined to govern. (It is a pity that to so many office holders the switch is impossible.) The Commissioner has recognized that our county and region is in dire need for a comprehensive transportation system, buses, light rail, high-speed intercity rail, all integrated into a master development plan.
This ambitions and necessary program will require a modest increase to our sales tax. [I’ll leave for another day the question of why Florida relies on a regressive sales tax for its revenue.] The Commissioner is seeking to have the additional sales tax voted upon by the people. It should be approved but the constant “taxes are evil” mantra may make that approval problematic.
Taxes represent the cost for services that society demands and that I, personally, want. If I accept paying the supermarket chain, the cable company and the others for services and products rendered, how is this different from my paying for police protection, firefighters, emergency medical services, highways, street lighting, libraries, schools and the plethora of other government services I want and need?
I want and need government employees to teach our children, make certain that our food supply is healthy, check on the safety and efficacy of medicines, regulate all sorts of professions and, in general, protect my family from danger. Our national experience with the BP Deepwater explosion and resultant damage should teach us the need for active government regulation. And it’s not free. Even Conservatives want a strong military and all of the bells and whistles that go with the weapons used by our troops.
Are there anecdotal stories of government employees being inefficient, wasteful or even crooked? Certainly. But to object to all taxes until all government operations are free from waste and human failings is just an excuse to avoid meeting responsibilities as a citizen to pay for services. It is setting up a straw man to avoid responsibilities. As long as governmental services are provided by humans, human frailties will surface.
For the most part, from my experience as a state employee (retired), nearly all rank and file governmental employees are honest, overworked, under-paid and under-appreciated. The newspapers are chock full of articles about fraud in the higher echelons of government. In any population, doctors, attorneys, clergy and so forth, there are the venal, the crooked; this shouldn’t tar the universe. And their existence should not be an excuse for our shirking or duty as participants in society.
Tags: Florida, GOP policies, Hillsborough County, liberals, Mark Sharpe, sales tax, tea parties. tax protests, vote on increase sales tax
A primer on the filibuster.
First, a definition: A filibuster is a delaying tactic that is a part of the rules of the United States Senate. According to etymologists it is a word that comes from the Spanish filibustero meaning “freebooter” or “pirate.” The origin seems to be that a person who filibusters is plundering the time and focus of a deliberative body, like a legislature. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing or prohibiting a filibuster, other than the authority given to each of the two Legislative bodies to establish its rules of procedure.
A very brief explanation of how the procedure works to delay legislation in the Senate, the House of Representatives having rejected the procedure in the early nineteenth century, is that a proposed piece of legislation, supported by a majority of the Senate is held up by unrelated and unlimited “debate” and a vote on the merits is prevented. In order to prevent perpetual deadlock, the Senate allows a cloture vote, a vote to end debate and force the issue to a vote. Over the years, the number of votes required for cloture has been modified, but the result hasn’t changed. A minority of legislators is able to deny the duly elected majority the opportunity to pass laws that reflect the wishes of the electorate.
There is danger in this tactic and Alexander Hamilton, one of the ”founding fathers” so admired by the far Right, wrote in the 1787 Federalist Papers that anything other than majority rule is harmful.
…[I]ts real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. … If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And … then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.
In theory, the filibuster can be used to prevent legislation that is supported by a majority and, indeed, the public at large, but is threatening to the country or simply wrong. Some 70 years or so, the motion picture Mr. Smith Goes to Washington had James Stewart speaking non-stop against graft-ridden proposed legislation and false accusations about his honesty until he faints from exhaustion. (At the end, the bad guys repent and all is well.) Unfortunately, however, most filibusters are for less noble causes.
In the 1930’s, the filibuster was a common device by Republicans to contest many New Deal proposals by Franklin Roosevelt including an ill-advised and wrong attempt (in my opinion) to expand the Supreme Court. Thirty years later, southern Democrats used the filibuster to prevent or defeat many civil rights laws. Both parties have used the filibuster or threat of one to thwart judicial nominations made by a president of the other party.
As the country becomes more and more polarized, less willing to compromise, legislative action is less and less effective.
Regardless of one’s opinion of the right or wrong of the positions of those previous filibuster participants, it must be conceded that their motives were open and sincere. The object was directed at specific legislation deemed –by them– to be against the country’s or society’s interests.
It’s different now.
The threats of filibuster by Republicans against every proposal by President Obama are not based on the merits of any particular Bill. The specific legislation is not even considered; it is enough if any proposal of the president be rejected.
For example, the Senate has been holding off a vote on extending unemployment benefits by threat of a filibuster. They are taking these steps for reasons having nothing to do with the extension itself. Approximately 2 million people will have benefits denied, benefits that are meager but vital for literal survival. The economy would be infused with the money received by the unemployed. Passage of the extension would be a win-win proposition; people would be provided basic money to pay the rent or mortgage, feed their children, make the car payment. At the same time, merchants would have customers for their goods. Economists estimate that for every $1.00 provided by unemployment benefits, the nation’s economy is stimulated by $1.90! Would there be an increase in the national debt? Certainly, but in a time of recession, the amount of debt is irrelevant. And, in any case, the Party who had been in control of the Executive and Congress and took the country from a huge budget surplus to a massive deficit is hardly a group to accuse Democrats of being spendthrifts!
In any event, whereas Democrats, hoping for retaining Congressional control, might wish to take dramatic steps to improve the economy, Republicans are using every tool at their disposal to prevent that. The GOP is causing Americans economic pain for short-term political gain; we’re not going to see much in the way of economy-improving legislation in the months ahead.
Harry Reid: “They think the worse the economy is come November, the better they’re going to do election wise.”
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): “If [the GOP] can stop the recovery from occurring, if they can create as much pain as possible, people will be angry and will not vote at all or will vote against those in the majority.”
Back to the filibuster. Remember who is using it and for what purpose. The Republicans are deliberately obstructing the electorate’s repudiation of the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush (43) regime. The emasculation of government regulation and its replacement with reliance upon banking and other giant corporations to regulate themselves has led to the financial collapse from which are slowly recovering, the abuses of big-pharma and the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.
Is this what you want?
Tags: budget deficit, civil rights laws, cloture, Democrats, far right, filibuster, GOP policies, Mr Smith Goes to Washington, New Deal, obama, stimulus, unemployment compensation, us economy, US Senate
