What's Right & Wrong About The Tea Party, Part 2

...continued from Part 1.

Just as I can pile on my personal beefs with many aspects of Democratic Party/liberal ideology, I can do the same with Republican Party/Conservative mantra…more so because of its self-crafted perception that it’s the party of all things unquestionably moral, patriotic, and good (and while yes, I’m very much an adherent of morality in policy, I draw the line at sanctimony). Take for example the phenomenon of the Tea Party movement making headlines almost daily for the last year or so.
It has been self-billed as a movement of “ordinary Americans” who are concerned about the welfare of the country’s future, mostly as it relates to the federal government’s current fiscal policies. And based on these surface perceptions, I listed in the first part of this posting what was admirable about the movement. But given what I have seen in the media, what has actually come from the mouths of the movement’s organizers and supporters, and how those within the movement portray their cause, there is just as much to dislike about the Tea Party movement. Among what is wrong with (i.e., questionable) the Tea Party is

· …the timing of the “movement’s” current activist activities. In a world where timing is everything, this calls into question whether the movement is truly a grassroots mobilization of ordinary Americans against out-of-control government spending, or just another ideological vehicle for one of the two major political parties to gain (or regain) control of Washington (and by extension become patsies of interests who desire a more business first, people-be-damned Free Market at-any-costs atmosphere). Yes, the Tea Party movement has been around for a few years, but it was given a shot in the arm in recent times by its support of former presidential candidate Ron Paul’s failed bid for the 2008 Republican Party nomination. Paul’s populist beliefs struck a resonate chord with many conservative Americans, who gave tepid opposition to President George Bush’s plan to help bailout Wall Street financial institutions (TARP loans) to stave off a wholesale financial meltdown, but has given opposition with both barrels to President Obama’s policy of continuing TARP loans and extending loans (ie., bailouts) to America’s failing auto industry. More to the point, this organized opposition to Obama’s policy proposals was gaining steam even before he took office. So to say that “runaway government spending” is the movement’s motivation can be looked at—cynically so—as being an ostensive opportunity for what many on the Conservative Right in general, and the movement in particular to irrationally view and/or paint the Obama Adminstration as a “threat” to American Free Market values in the form of being a harbinger of a “Socialist form of government” (via his drive to reform health care insurance to cover more
Americans).

· …how the Tea Party misrepresents and allows itself to be misrepresented. Many within the movement assert that runaway government spending and exorbitant taxes are the reason for its activism and opposition to the current administration’s policies. Furthermore, they declare that they are against and will work to unseat any elected official (mostly at the federal level) whose voting record adds to government spending. But again, timing and perception are everything. With the extremely rare exception, most of those whom the movement oppose for re-election are Democrats and/or Liberals, so one has to ask where was the movement’s current level of organization and opposition when the previous administration’s policies ran the national deficit up from $5.7 trillion to some $10 trillion under a Republican-controlled White House and Congress for the previous 8 years?
In addition to seeming to represent more of an effort to influence partisan party politics rather than a true representative grassroots efforts, the movement’s overall message of being “Taxed Enough Already” (its acronym) seems to be at odds with reality. A highly-publicized recent CBS/New York Times poll indicated that most Americans consider the current income tax level they pay to be fair, regardless of political persuasion or income level (www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002487-503544.html).
The poll was criticized in some conservative circles—predictably so since the Tea Party seems to represent their ideological views—as being inaccurate since most other research indicates that between 45% and 48% of Americans don’t even pay income taxes when refunds and various tax credits are factored in. A valid point under most other circumstances, but what the criticism fails to acknowledge is that the poll included many professed Tea Party supporters, whom were “oversampled…and then weighted back to their proper proportion in the poll. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for both all adults and Tea Party supporters.” What’s more is that “forty-five percent of self-identified "Tea Partiers" make less than $50,000 per year, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll.

Click on graphic to enlarge (Courtesy CBS News/New York Times)

Similarly, 50% of the total population makes less than $50,000 in the same poll. Based on reason alone, it seems safe to assume that if about half the country avoids federal income taxes, a similar percentage of the Tea Party movement doesn’t pay taxes as well, even as they protest about their tax “burden.”


To Be Concluded...

Read More

What's Right & Wrong About The Tea Party, Part 1

So where do I begin? I suppose the first thing I should say is that although I can sit and wax venomous about what I don’t like about members of the Democrats (as well as the Party itself), suffice it to say that there is much about both established parties and their respective policies that simply is too ideologically-grounded rather than what’s practical and needed by the American people (e.g., affordable universal health care coverage/reform was needed, as is an end to anti-life policies such as abortion and the death penalty).
One of the policies that the American people have needed for far too long is fiscal responsibility, both personal and among our various levels of government; simply put Americans lack financial discipline. More to the point, our representative levels of government both share and reflect our irresponsibility as a people in our inability to craft, spend, and oversee budgets related to our year-to-year spending of income. And in regards to government budgets, that income is the taxes which you and I pay.
Can the federal government do better in regards to the way in which it spends our tax dollars? Absolutely. But at the same time, the government that we pay taxes into has a moral obligation—capitalist ideology notwithstanding—to help those who by the designs of Fate cannot fully assist themselves to the best of their abilities. No, I do not mean that government should throw money at the poor to perpetuate a cycle of impoverished thinking and living. What I mean is that some things like medical care should not be a marketable commodity but a human right, and if necessary, one which government should assist in providing for if it has the resources, and the people are forced to realize that the Free Market is not able to create conditions conducive to universal affordability.
On the other, in a capitalist society such as ours, the same survival-of-the-fittest dynamic of the Free Market should be allowed to weed out business models which clearly do not work, especially if there are ample market signs pointing to the need for certain businesses to restructure or perish, such as with the bailouts of the automobile industry of late. With all that having been said, I’d like to go on record as saying that in principle, the Tea Party (an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already”) movement is right in its opposition to government overspending. But not being one to take things at face value, it’s simply not enough for me or anyone with an inquiring mind to agree with something; even in principle, its requisite that research and objective reasoning be a foundation for arriving at a conclusion. As such, I can start by saying what’s right with the Tea Party.
• The Tea Party is the expression of the basic rights we have as Americans—the rights to assemble, to speak freely, to associate, and to influence the political process.
• The Tea Party is inherently right in that our government(s) is/are not engaging in responsible spending of our tax dollars.
• On the surface, the Tea Party is expressing a pragmatic concern for the future of America.
• Rank-and-file members of the Tea Party believe in the justness of their cause, and are willing to protest as a testament to this belief.
But as with any effort to look beyond the surface of any belief system, cause, or organization, there are explanations, facts, and quantifications that compel scrutiny. As a preview, take note of the following piece about the Tea Party movement on a recent airing of Headline News’ Joy Behar Show.






To Be Continued...

Read More

The New Health Care Bill...A Cautious Congratulations

In the last 2 weeks, 2 events of great personal interest occurred. First, I was fortunate enough to have finally qualified for health care insurance from my current employer after nearly a decade of going without it. Second, the likelihood that most currently uninsured Americans will soon share my good fortune in regards to access to affordable health care insurance has increased after the U.S House of Representatives passed the Senate’s version of President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act 2 Sundays ago; the president subsequently signed the bill into law the following Tuesday after its Congressional passing.
Because of my own experiences of having to go without healthcare coverage due to its inaffordability, the latter event marked a coming to pass of a policy which I have personally felt to be a societal necessity ever since I, as a 6th grader in the 1970s, remember asking one of my favorite teachers, “Why can’t poor people go to the hospital for free?”
While Americans—both poor and well-to-do alike—may not get free healthcare as a result of the bill, we will get the next best thing…the right (notice I didn’t say “opportunity”) to affordable healthcare, as well as holding traditional private insurance providers more accountable when they treat their policy holders like red-headed stepchildren. Among the heretofore unknown benefits of the new law include:

-Adult children of insured parents are now able to stay on their parents’ policies until they are 26 years of age, helping to reduce the number of college students without coverage.

-Insurance companies will now be prohibited from dropping (canceling your policy) if you become ill.

-Children (and by 2014, adults) will be prohibited from denying health care coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

-Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to cap coverage on expensive care due to long- lasting illnesses.



Watch CBS News Videos Online

(for more details on what policy changes are in the new health care bill, and how the new law may affect you, click on the following links):
1. “Health Care: How You Will Affected By Reform Changes” http://www.ajc.com/news/health-care/health-care-how-will-409705.html
2. “Ten Ways The New Healthcare Bill May Affect You.” http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/109178/10-ways-the-new-healthcare-bill-may-affect-you?mod=family-love_money
3. New Healthcare Bill Pro And Cons: It Expands Benefits Now, Cuts Them Later.” http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/Donald-Marron/2010/0322/New-healthcare-bill-pros-and-cons-It-expands-benefits-now-cuts-them-later


Aside from the immediate and tangible benefits of the new healthcare bill, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that the economic result of the new legislation will yield a reduction in the nation’s budget deficit to the tune of some $140 billion over the next 10 years.
But as is often in the world of politics and ideology, people will find a way to disagree with even the most well-meaning of policies. In the last few weeks, the offices of both Republican and Democratic Congressmen have been vandalized (even shot at), anti-tax-n-spend activists have been making waves using red-baiting and other rhetoric-based tactics, and media-savvy Free Market ideologues have attacked the new bill as the start of Americas decline into a socialist dictatorship. Those who supported the bill’s passing in Congress have been slandered with racial and homophobic epithets. Even before the bill became law, there were dozens of raucous public forums on the proposed policy, some resulting in arrests and innuendoes of threats by those who saw the bill as akin to a threat to personal liberties. The rest of the Free World must be scratching its collective heads trying to understand why such a laudable policy change, especially with so many people benefiting from it, would yield so much animus and animosity.
It’s hard to say. In a country where people believed (and many still do) in a conspiracy of an impending One-World-Government heralded by the arrival of a massive fleet of unmarked United Nations helicopters, people can justify just about any position, even as it relates to something as positive as universal affordability in health care coverage. Most of the rhetoric against the new bill is anecdotal and/or ideologically based…nothing substantive against the mechanics of the bill itself. Ostensibly, opponents of the policy like to cite the new law’s requirement that all Americans be mandated to purchase insurance as an intrusion on personal and/or civil liberties. But is this requirement any more of an “intrusion” than the policy in nearly all 50 states that people be mandated to purchase automobile insurance? Are we so trapped in a particular way of thinking that we cannot see that many of the unfounded fears about aspects of the new healthcare law have been a part of either state or federal law for decades? Well, the new law is here and still, America is the bastion of Free Market opportunity that it has always been; the sky has not fallen, and socialism is not the economic model for business.
Have we devolved so much as a society that we would rather focus on fear of the unknown rather than brave new frontiers in policy? People who are so fear-bound need to get over themselves. God does not tell anyone to hate President Obama for his sponsorship of the new law any more than He tells anyone that the new bill is work of the Devil (or a socialist-leaning cabal within the government). As I have often said before, Americans emote too much and reason too little, and that is something that has to change for the betterment of the country.

Read More

A Response To An E-mail

One of the best things about writing a regular online feature is that I get to share my views and observations with the rest of the world, while at the same time becoming enlightened to the perspectives that others may have on the same topics. A case in point is the e-mail I received a couple of weeks ago that I am just now able to answer.
As I read the e-mail, I considered the possibility that others may have similar questions and/or concerned about my postings and my particular perspectives on political and social issues. As a consequence, I decided to respond to the e-mail publicly in order to both clarify why I write regularly (or irregularly as the case may be), and where my ideological perspectives lay (while assuming that the author did/does not want his/her name revealed).

Hi:
The reason I am contacting you about your blog is because I read a comment you left on the Detroit Free Press’s website regarding Washington’s connection to special interests and how it makes the average American citizen irrelevant to the political and voting process. After reading your comments, I traced your profile to your blog and started to read a few of your past postings.
First, let me say that I consider myself very much an active political conservative. And although you portray yourself as “nonpartisan,” I sense a decidedly leftist bent to your beliefs.
As an example I noticed that you seem to attack Republicans far more than Democrats, and Conservatives more than Liberals. Why is this? I believe in the free market, but not government interference with individual liberty. I believe in God and the power of prayer, and I believe that this country was founded on Christian principles. I also believe in closing our borders, promoting individual responsibility, and the power of hard work to change the lives of Americans for the better, and not government spending or mandates imposed on us by dictatorial public officials.
Please help me to understand where you stand.

P.S In spite of my questions, I find myself agreeing with many of the things your write about, especially as they relate to corruption of the political process because of the money-backed influence of special interests.

I concede that this is not an easy response for me to make convincingly given that most individuals tend to allow their passions, their emotions, and previously-held ideological beliefs to override their ability to reason. I on the other hand—at the risk of being labeled arrogant or elitist—believe that in order to see problems and prepare ourselves to make the necessary changes in order to make society better for all, we must treat our hearts like the enemy. In other words, the only way we can even consider objective analysis of a social or political problem is to leave our personal beliefs as well (especially so) our feelings at the doorstep of reason. Such personality influences such as emotions and ideological dogmas tend to cloud judgment, impair critical thinking, and most of all tends to lead to legislative gridlock in our states and nation’s capitals; this is how I tend approach my postings and my own observations, as I feel that Americans emote too much and reason too little.
In so much as your observations that I tend to have a bias in favor of left-of-center thinking, that may not entirely be a figment of your imagination; I am a former registered Democrat and born-again free-thinker. As such, many of the things that I believe have their basis in a mentality based on what’s in the best interests of all concerned. Overall though, I find way too much wrong with the policies of both Democrats and Republicans alike. To sum up my reservations with these particular established political parties, I find that Democrats are too liberal with regards to many social policies, while I find Republicans far too self-righteous and sanctimonious…and both way too hypocritical in many areas of their stated views on public policy vs. their actions.
I believe in pragmatic social and political policies, not policies which cater to a particular section of the voting electorate, reinforces some narrow-minded dogmatic thinking, or is based on someone’s interpretation of religious principle; I myself an agnostic, and believe that the doctrines of a particular religious tradition has no place in public policy.
Take for example the issue of gun control. Despite the reality of the lunatic fringe, I feel that it is the right of every legal and law-abiding citizen to own a weapon for personal protection. Laws to the contrary only empower criminals, who outnumber the police in many areas of the country. As a matter of reality, the police cannot be everywhere, and in most cases the nature of crimes committed tends to force most officers of the law into the role of post-activity investigators, not agents of prevention. It simply makes no legitimate sense to limit gun ownership and/or possession by those who rely on peace officers who cannot prevent most criminal activity to protect them.
I also don’t believe promoting unfounded fears that our children will somehow be ravaged by the failure to impose laws of questionable effectiveness. The best example I can cite are the no drug zones in and around our public schools. In order to get these ridiculous “exclusion” zones erected and enacted into law, those who promoted the idea played on the fears of the public that our children’s futures would be endangered and the public, which predictably bought into the propaganda, acquiesced. The only thing that have resulted from these zones are mass criticism, mandatory sentencing of non-violent first-time, even more overstuffed jails/prisons, and created discrepancies between urban and suburban schools “no drug zones” (where by the way, drug use is just as prevalent than in many urban areas). The upshot is that imposition of these “no drug/drug-free” zones tends to create a “no drug” area so large that the only end result is an overtaxed judiciary in many areas, and no higher level of safety for children in these areas given that most drug use/purchasing does not occur anywhere near a public school…and even if one happens to occur in said area, the location is usually incidental to schools. Simply out, its unnerving how people are quick to invoke the mantra of protecting our children in craft laws which simply fail to do just that.
If you opt to be a regular reader of my postings, you may take note that my observations tend to come with proposed ideas for policy solutions. Both my observations and proposed solutions may or may not utilize ideas from across the political spectrum; that they may be notions promoted by a particular political group of establish political ideology is incidental, as I like base solutions on the needs of people, not to validate someone’s ideological beliefs. Sometimes, I may op to think outside the spectrum, such as my belief that people should be either licensed or meet some tangible qualifications to bare and raise children. Yes, I freely acknowledge that this seems beyond the pale, but considering how both our children and our parents are turning out, its hardly too much of a social imposition. On any given day in any state in the union, you can see the results of bad parenting. Just pick up a newspaper or turn on any local or national news broadcasts. Social service organizations, government institutions, and local judiciaries are overwhelmed with trying to undo the effects of parents who simply take the time to procreate, but not raise children…and the children who often go bad because of it. I have often made the statement that its insane that you need a license to drive a automobile, to install plumbing, or to even cut hair…but anyone can legally have a child, including those who are little more than children themselves.
Anyway, I hope that I have answered your question(s) about my blog. I invite anyone to feel free to write my blog if they have questions, of just wish to sound off…unlike others, I don’t censor.

Read More

What's On My Mind?

As an avid news-junkie and reader of online blogs representing every ideological point along the political spectrum, I have found that the problem with writing blogs is that the more popular among them (i.e., those with a large regular following) do nothing more than validate the already deeply-ingrained ideological beliefs of those who subscribe to them. In other words, most people who subscribe to online political blogs live under the self-imposed delusion that keeping oneself abreast of current social and/or political trends, while adhering strictly to a particular ideological bent, is the same as being well-read or well-informed. Blogs, and by extension, news websites and television programs are read, watched, and/or viewed not with an open mind to the possibility that one may gain a greater understanding of what affects us, but a source of ammunition for future arguments in favor of one’s own political and/or social beliefs.
The result is that we create an ethos whereby people cannot see reality beyond the prisms of their own tightly-held beliefs. Unfortunately for most of us, we adopt a yin-yang perspective of reality that forces most of us to believe that the only two life forms in the known universe are political and social conservatives and liberals. In rarer but equally unrealistic instances, some of us go along with a multi-polar perspective of socio-political issues; we align ourselves with Libertarians, Federalists, Green- and Tea Partiers, etc. What happens is that adherents of a particular socio-political bent create a rubric in their minds of how things should be, and form their perceptions of reality around their beliefs, as opposed to allowing reality to form their perceptions. In simple terms, it’s simply hard for most people to see or think past either their emotions or their ideological beliefs; we all want to be right all the time, even though deep down we know we simply cannot be.
The situation is somewhat analogous in both function and properties to adhering to a particular religious belief system. Believers believe unquestionably that their particular belief is the One Great Truth while others are simply “wrong” or even “stupid” for embracing their beliefs. In the world of political and social ideology, the tactics—for want of a better term—that are often used to get one particular group of ideological loyalists to look better than those who hold opposing beliefs are often purposefully misleading. It’s pretty hard to ignore the example provided by last week’s Tea Party convention in Nashville.
During the Tea Party’s convention, former vice-presidential turned Republican activist Sarah Palin criticized the Obama Administration’s decision to charge the Nigerian suspect in the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airplane in Detroit under federal criminal statues as opposed to treating the terror suspect as an “enemy combatant,” which according to the former Alaskan governor “puts the country at grave risk.” In Palin’s words,

that's not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. They know we're
at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief and not a professor
of law standing at the lectern.

Former vice-presidential contender Sarah Palin at last weeks Tea Party convention in Nashville, TN, giving the keynote address.

But oddly enough, Richard Reed, the would-be “shoe-bomber” who similarly attempted to ignite a bomb on an in-flight airplane over the Atlantic Ocean back in 2001 was ultimately charged under federal law for that act of attempted terrorism. In fact, in spite of the high profile cases of terrorists and would-be terrorists captured during President Bush’s two terms, just as many of them were charged under federal criminal statues as under the current Obama Administration’s policies; reality is perceived quite differently when you take away the political spin.
In addition, the propensity to either view and/or maintain the integrity of one’s particular socio-political ideology over observing reality in terms of objectivity tends to create more double standards in policy and practice. Take last month’s racially insensitive remarks by Democratic Senator Harry Reid in regards to President Obama’s election. About the ultimate Democratic nomination of then-candidate Obama,

"He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' "

Most Democratic and traditional Civil Rights leaders, although momentarily but lightly admonishing Reid for his insensitivity, treated the episode as a simple faux paux made during a less-than-candid moment in the senator’s professional life. But conservatives who have often made equally sensitive remarks have been called to the proverbial carpet for engaging in the same actions, with some instances resulting in harsh censorship or even expulsion from a coveted position of power (remember Texas Congressman Trent Lott?). Now granted, conservatives in the Republican Party are more vulnerable to this double standard given the lack of as many high-profile minority members active within the Party, which contributes to the perception of the Republicans as an “all (or mostly) ‘white’” political party. However, this example reveals that liberals are far more willing to overlook instances of racial insensitivity within their ranks than conservatives or other political groups (and it should be noted however that I do not include racially controversial remarks made by media shills for conservative principles, since individuals like Glenn Beck of Fox News and syndicated conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh rountinely make offensive and/or insensitive remarks as media stunts to inflate their ratings).
As for my dedication to viewing reality through an objective lens, its has cost me personally in terms of the loss of subscribers to my blog, as well as not having received a paid position as a regular writer for an online magazine (which I choose not to name), all because I refuse to be a part of the insanity of ideological partisanship. My belief is that no particular ideological school of thought has a monopoly on truth and facts.
As I conclude my thoughts, I am reminded of the philosophies of the legendary martial artist and philosopher Bruce Lee, who said that in order to be a master, one’s mind (and body) must be like water. In order to see truth, and peceive the reality of things one’s mind and thoughts muct be willing to move over, under, and around obstacles (to thinking). And perhaps no larger obstacles impede our ability to ascertain what is really happing around us than our own beliefs and emotions. As someone once told me, “don’t believe everything you think.”

Read More

Big Money + “Free Speech” = Less Democracy

One of the great ironies in an otherwise unfathomable universe is that events often occur in a way that serendipitously substantiates truth. Take for example yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision. In a 5-4 ruling, the high court in all but perspective rewrote campaign finance law, striking down a federal law that prohibited Big Money contribution to political candidates either directly or by [the] financial backing of campaign ads.
In the equating of such practices by the high court in terms free speech, proponents cheered the decision, hailing it as a victory which promotes the free exchange of opposing thoughts in the free market of ideas. The funny thing though is that most times, political partisans are rarely ever interested in anything in the way of “opposing ideas,” unless such ideas give them a Boogey Man to oppose during election cycles.
However, such “free speech” is yet another stab in the heart of the democratic process as we, the unconnected citizens, are forced to sit back and watch as Big Money contributions influence public policy through the innuendo of [the] reciprocity for donations to, and support of candidates for public office.
In yesterday’s posting (“Why the Republican Party is Better than the Democratic Party”), I lauded the Republicans for their ability to ostensibly take the moral high ground in politics by defining and framing political arguments—especially in political campaigns—which is why they are so successful in winning elections (but they are only as good at governing as the Democrats). If yesterday’s ruling has done anything, it has proven this point in spades. Without batting an eye, the conservative wing of the high court eloquently stated the logic of its position, totally ignoring the fact that they engaged in the same “judicial activism”—making law from the bench—they often accuse liberals of engaging in whenever one is nominated for a potential position, especially within the federal judiciary. And predictably, the ideologically impotent Democrats have failed to shine a light on this double-standard.
Outside of political partisanship, it’s a little difficult to understand the math behind the high court’s thinking; the everyday average citizen is supposed to benefit from giving Big Money donors more of a “say” in the political process? You’ll pardon me if I get up from my desk and walk out of class right about now.

Read More

Why The Republican Party Is Better Than The Democratic Party (...or, "My BS Is Better Than Yours.")

Republican Scott Brown’s Senatorial victory in yesterday’s special election in Massachusetts—a state that can arguably be called the most reliably Democratic-leaning out of the 50—is a testament to why the Republicans are better than the Democrats. Not in the ideological sense or as a governing entity, but as winners of elections; in terms of governing they are every bit as prone to corruption, excess, and incompetence as the Democrats…with a little more in the way self-righteousness. Simply put, the Republican Party in America is far better at packaging and selling their “product” than the Democrats.


Republican Senator-Elect Scott Brown

Take the for example a chief issue that Brown rode into the Senate on, that of government spending…or rather overspending. A simple fact of electoral politics is if you say something often enough, people will begin to believe it. To this effect, since the election of President Obama last year, Republicans (and/or other conservatives) have been exemplary in shaping and mobilizing public opinion against Obama’s stated centerpiece policy of health care reform, a policy that Americans knew full-well that they were voting for when they unanimously elected him and a majority of Democrats to office last election. Somewhere, Republican strategists got the brainchild to focus on the costly amount needed to cover a majority of Americans with affordable health care. And just like that, one of them got a flash of inspiration; Eureka! Since our policies were not appealing enough to win power, let’s slander their policy proposals by focusing on how much it will the American people!
So, Republicans successfully managed to mobilize enough conservative activists in the form of the “regular every day Americans” who made up the crowds of Tea-Partiers, tax-protestors, and other anti-Democratic ideologues who shouted “overspending” to the heavens so often that many other Americans seized on the phrase and started to actuallybelieve it (in much the same way that Republicans actually believe that these "protesters" represented all Americans). And these individuals have been quite convincing with their babies, grandmothers, and dogs in-tow at high-profile anti-government spending allies. They have managed to convince the population at large that their view was a consensus shared by most. Take note though that the government spending on the war in Iraq—a war that should have never been fought to begin with and which has run up a tab of about $400 billion—was never mentioned during these protests. Nor did anyone grill these individuals on whether or not it was all “government overspending” that was at issue, or spending that they didn’t agree with? When Republicans and other associated activists “complain” that “the government is spending too much of my tax dollars,” do they mean just potential spending on the health care revamp proposals and government-sponsored bailouts, or do they include the tax dollars that their representatives bring back to their home districts in the form of pet pork barrel projects? Yes, there is the remote possibility that they managed to tap into some underlying discontent within the American electorate on this issue, but such “discontent” was hardly present during the elections of last year when the intentions of the Democrats were clearly telegraphed.
Now, ignoring the fact that when (not “if”) the Republicans re-take Congress (or a large chunk of it), are we to believe that irresponsible government spending will piously and suddenly come to a screeching halt? If the cycle of history is any indication, Republicans will behave themselves for a brief period of time once they retake power, “returning to their core values” of frugality with regards to government spending. After a time, when the ever-present trait of short-term memory of the American people comes into play, they will be off to the races, matching the Democrats’ penchant for power-tripping, corruption, and ignoring the will of the American people…just what they are saying that the Democrats’ rise to power in the last year has resulted in.
But such success should come as no surprise to the Republican Party, which is quite adept at turning a phrase of a policy aim to either make it seem more appealing and fair, or to paint it in the most negative of lights. For every instance of labeling an unpopular policy such as the federal estate tax a “death tax,” there is the successful promotion (and belief) in “death panels” as “proposed” by their opponents.
In a consumer-driven economy such as America, the Republican Party is the political party that is best able to successfully brand, package, and market both itself and those running for public office under its banner as what Americans want. But such a delusion is nothing more than a means and illustration for how some groups are able to perpetuate the regime of the ruling political class over those who allow their interests to be defined and manipulated by the ideologically-bound.

Read More