Putting the public back in the Republican Party

Right to Left: Robert (my father), and uncles Bill, and Phil in uniform during WWII

 Being good Midwestern Republicans

Both my parents voted Republican in each election as long as I can remember. It was a long history of Republican support, but I wonder how they would feel about the Republican Party these days.

They didn't seem to like FDR personally though they lived most of their early voting lives during the Great Depression and WWII. In later life my father commented that Harry Truman's Presidency was under-appreciated and under-valued. But it's doubtful that he actually voted for him.

My parents "liked" Ike during the 1950s.  I know they voted for Nixon in every election though I imagine they were ultimately disappointed. 

From what I understand, they were "okay" with Ronald Reagan, but I know they didn't think he was a particularly good actor, and I know they didn't think actors should be in politics.  After all, how can you tell if an actor is telling you the truth?

I'm pretty sure they voted for George H.W. Bush, and my mother probably supported George W. after the death of my father. 

More importantly than their voting record, my parents believed in the value of hard work. They believed that people were generally good. But they also believed at everyone needed to look after themselves and their families.

They went to church most every Sunday and were active in their congregation and in civic activities.  They weren't "joiners" or particularly "social", but had a small circle of close friends and respected professional relationships.  Considering that my father was on the road a lot, was an executive of a manufacturing company, the president of his industry association, etc., and that my mother was raising five children, today I find it surprising that they had any social life at all.

They were just good Midwestern Indiana Republicans.

Never ever talk about Politics

I can remember as a child going to the polling station in Michigan City once with my mother.  She showed me the levers of Democracy behind that heavy velvet-like curtain. But she never told me how she was going to vote. She never EVER talked politics. Nor did my father. If a political discussion erupted at the dinner table, they quickly changed the subject.  A person's political beliefs were personal beliefs. 

Politics, in the mindset of my parents, was not a pretty profession.  It wasn't "dirty", but just wasn't pretty.  I don't think they had grand visions about Democracy, but they had an abiding belief that basic fairness was an essential component of the Republican Party they supported. 

They probably would not have voted for Obama in 2008, but they would have embraced his message for the need for change during the financial crisis.  They weren't fans of big government - believing that the best decisions are made nearest the point of action. 

But they did, in fact, believe in Public Service.

My mother worked in an organization called Service League for many years.  My father was an official of his church. They regularly contributed to charities and local service organizations. 

They had a clear personal understanding of what one's behavior should be in public, and politics wasn't a part of that.

During their lives the tradition of Republican Party seemed their natural affiliation. It fit their understanding of who they were, where their traditions connected, and where their future was headed.  You could be a Republican in public, but you couldn't expose your deeply held beliefs in that arena.  Those beliefs may have animated your Republicanism, but not your public persona.

All the elements of the Republican Party my parents subscribed to now seem long gone.

The 47 Percent  

Mitt Romney has said that the 47 percent of Americans:

who pay no income taxes are people who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

He also said:

My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

During the Vietnam War I once asked my father what he thought the US should do. I was astounded by his answer.

"I think we should load up planes with food and doctors and engineers," he said. "Most of those people are just hungry. They have no hope. We need to give them what they need to find hope."

This morning I mentally contrasted this statement of a good Indiana Republican with Mitt's remarks.

I don't think he would recognize the Republican Party of Mitt Romney, nor the beliefs (whatever they might be) of the Tea Party Movement.

Putting the Public back in Republicanism

Maybe Ideology is the difference between a person with "a heart of gold", and a person with a heart made entirely of gold.

My parents grew up during the Depression. They helped to win a world war.  They supported the public institutions and the workers who did the day-to-day tasks that made institutions worth while.  They supported the troops and the veterans of wars.  They supported the values that maintained the public in our republic.

The Republican Party -- as represented by Congress and the Senate and the Mitt Romney campaign and the Tea Party factions -- has transformed what it means to be a Republican.

I'm guessing that - were my parents still alive today -- they could not support the goals or the candidates that are represented by this party of the 1%.  I'm guessing they would long for the days when the word Public had real meaning in the Republican Party. 

"If I were King of the Forest" and Romney had Won in 2008

Mitt Romney is now the 2012 Republican nominee for President. Throughout his campaign for this honor he has repeatedly said he is the better candidate.

But Romney also ran in 2008 - the year Obama was elected President.  A lot has happened since then.  So let's look what the world would have looked like, had Romney successfully followed his dream to the Presidency back in 2008.

Romney's Financial Crisis and the Recession 

Stock Market Collapse

• Romney - like Obama - would have inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. 
• The crisis threatened the total collapse of large financial institutions, and downturns in stock markets around the world.
• The housing market plummeted, resulting in loss of value estimated in the trillions of dollars.
• Key businesses were without liquidity, resulting in plant closures, loss of productivity, and massive layoffs.
• Without work, thousands of workers were forced into bankruptcy.
• Evictions and mortgage foreclosures left people without homes and devastated the housing market.

Had Romney been elected, instead of Barack Obama:

• Banks would not have received financing from the U.S. Government to enable them to withstand the crises.(No more BofA, etc. Our savings would have been lost, and the U.S. Govt would have been on the hook for the insurance. But bank execs would have still received their bonuses).
• The automotive industry in the U.S. - representing approximately 4% of the GDP - would have been lost, along with approximately 2% of employment in the US. (No more GM, Chrysler, and probably Ford - if we could afford to buy a car, it would have been built somewhere else.)
• The housing market would have continued to lose value as the number of foreclosures accelerated. (If you were paying on a mortgage to finance your home, the chances of foreclosure would have skyrocketed as the lenders called in loans to cover their losses.)
• If you were lucky enough to have a job, your taxes would have increased as Romney's tax cuts would have been targeted to only the upper 2%. 
• If you were unlucky and had no job, your unemployment checks would have run out after only three or four months.
• Social Security would have been wiped out as Romney's plan was to privatize it and tie it to stock market investments.
• Your Medicare would be wiped out, because Romney's plan was to tie payments to the rate of growth of the US economy - or the rate of collapse as the economy failed.
• Your net worth - all that you own and all the money that you had saved - would be substantially less.
• Your children would not be able to afford to attend college, as higher education's ability to borrow would have been curtailed as a result of the loss of the financial sector, resulting in a failure of colleges and universities to fund their programs.

These are just some of the financial events that might have occurred had Mitt Romney succeeded in his quest for the Presidency in 2008.  They are imagined based upon Romney's own statements in the midst of the financial meltdown, and up to and including his performance as a candidate in 2012.

But let's not dwell on merely on the economics.  Let's look at Romney's foreign policy promises and declarations:

Romney's 2008 Foreign Policy (Some questions...)

• Where would Osama Bin Laden be today had Romney been elected in 2008?
• How many U.S. citizens be fighting in Iraq had Mitt followed his plans?
• Would we be withdrawing from Afghanistan if Mitt's policies been followed?
• What about Iran? Would we have troops fighting there?
• How about the revolution in Egypt? How about Libya?  Would we be setting up to fight in Syria right now?
• China? How would we be engaged in China?

There are a lot of questions - the answers to which most of us can only guess. Why? Because Romney's current stance on Foreign Policy is a mysterious mix of former Bush policies and muttered proclamations aimed at pacifying the Republican's Right-Wing. These policies are more than Neo-Conservative; they are truly Crypto-Conservative.  

Parsing the Image of Romney

There's no question that Romney sincerely believes today - as he did in 2008 - in his ability to "Turn the Country Around".  Today he's capitalizing on the incredibly difficult state of the economy and playing on the dissatisfaction of the electorate. 

He wants the electorate to equate the catastrophe's of the financial collapse with Obama's leadership.  He is ignoring Foreign Policy, as though this topic is not of concern to us.

And yet, had all of Obama's efforts been successful, it's doubtful that it would have made any difference to Romney at all.  Romney's agenda has always been simply to get elected.
But not to lead.
To rule.

Re-Post: Trussed to a Gun. When Size Isn't Everything!

Note: This is a post from more than two years ago. After the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords and the death of so many bystanders, I am wondering when we'll start to look at the right to stay alive as importantly as we seem to take the right to carry guns to political rallies. Now, once again, we're confronted by a massacre - this time by a person in a movie theatre in Aurora, Co.  I'm re-posting it because I still don't understand.

From an article in American Handgunner:

Since I carry a gun with me nearly all the time, I’m always looking at the options available with an eye toward balancing firepower and conceal-abiitly. For the last couple of years I’ve been trading off between a SW 340PD and a Springfield Armory subcompact XD in 9mm. I consider the little titanium J Frame SW a “must have” carry gun, and I have it with me whenever the need for concealability outweighs my perceived need for firepower. Not that the Federal 147-grain .38 +P loads lack sufficient power, the limitation of five rounds could be a drawback in a fight with six adversaries. In some situations, all I can conceivably carry is the little 11-ounce five-shot revolver. But, sometimes I need to carry more gun, even in a concealed carry situation, so I’ve been opting to carry the XD with 10 + 1 rounds of 147-grain Federal HST ammo. As compact guns go, I think it is a great balance between size and having enough rounds.

Who are these people? If I met them on the street, would I recognize them?

Is their paranoia so incredibly strong that they actually believe they are going to be confronted by six or more adversaries on some dark street? And if they actually live in a world where this kind of potential confrontation is likely, where exactly is it? Truly, I'd like to know.

Or are they simply responding to the product placement of guns that permeates our media in the U.S.?

I'm trying to figure it out. Are these people really under some kind of threat, or are they merely sensitively responding to the signals that are beamed from our culture?

Let me acknowledge that I've never been robbed at gun or knife-point; never felt threatened in a way that made me wish I had a gun. So, I acknowledge that my experience-level is slight. Yet my query is an honest one. Do we live, within the U.S., in a climate of danger so egregious that we must arm ourselves with concealed weapons all the time?

And if this is not reality, what should we do to help the people who feel so threatened that they say "Since I carry a gun with me almost all the time...."?

According to an article by Fareed Zakaria entitled "Time to face facts on gun control" the US has the most heavily armed citizenry in the world. We have 5% of the world's population, but 50% of the world's guns.  Our military budget in 2010, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, represented 42% of the entire world's expenditure on arms.  The pattern here is pretty obvious: We're addicted to guns!

Yet, the gun lobby would make us believe that the only way to be safe is to arm EVERYONE.  

When I consider that option, I think of the tragedies that cycle through our society, and our representative's inability to confront the issue squarely.  

In the article from American Handgunner, the author says "Since I carry a gun with me almost all the time, I’m always looking at the options available with an eye toward balancing firepower and conceal-ability."  The Aurora Colorado event is a celebration of this psychology. 

My continual question is "Why?"