Steamd

It’s been a while since I last did a blog post. Much has happened and a lot has been gelling in my mind. There’s been a lot on the political front, so much that I felt I should take the time to draw it all in, research everything, and write a highly constructive entry rather than just regurgitating my initial gut reaction. That’s pretty much what I’ve been aiming to do with every new blog post I write. Granted, I can’t get away with avoiding any emotional reactions but I can at least stay as constructive as I possibly can and not ignore the facts. Lots of writing to come, but for now let’s talk about something I’ve been thinking about this week:

I regularly watch Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. Bill Moyers is among some of the greatest journalists of our time. His factual, non-biased approach usually leads to some highly thought-provoking pieces that reveal many answers and often lead to more questions. I had the privilege of meeting Bill back when I was in school. It was around the time when his book, Genesis: A Living Conversation, came out. I told him that I looked forward to reading it, for which he replied, “Please do…and when you’re done, let other read it and talk about it with them”. He encourages others to engage in conversation about many of the topics he reports about. That one little take-away says a lot about the man and as such I gained a lot of respect for him. Since it was a book signing, I asked him to sign his book for me. He signed it as “For Jeff - a kindred spirit. Bill Moyers”. 

Last week, I watched an excellent story on Bill Moyers Journal entitled Rage on the Radio. I highly encourage everyone to watch the video and/or read the transcript of the program (the video is also available on iTunes). The program details the nature of “Shock Jock” media and what kind of message that personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage are spreading. The message it seems is one filled with lies, hatred and intolerance.

Due to our First Amendment rights, I would never encourage any program to be forced off the air. However, I would ask that personalities that do engage in conversations of hatred and intolerance think about their message, the lies, and the consequences of them. There are consequences, a fact that we can not ignore, some of which even lead to hate crimes.

Case point, one of the talking points in Bill’s piece was about a man by name of Jim David Adkisson who shot and killed two adults and wounded seven others at a church in Knoxville, Tennessee?  The reason? According to reports on both MSNBC and CNN, Adkisson did it because he was frustrated with not being able to find a job, was on the verge of losing his food stamps, and blamed Liberals for it. Since he couldn’t attack any known Liberal political figures, he attacked a church with known Liberal teachings instead. According to his affidavit, Adkisson felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. The question is though: Where did he learn this?

… police found in Adkisson’s apartment, books by popular right-wing talk-radio personalities who berate and denigrate liberals. One of the books police found in Adkisson’s apartment was Michael Savage’s “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. In it, Savage calls liberals “the enemy within our country;” “an enemy more dangerous than Hitler”; “traitors” who are “dangerous to your survival” and who “should be placed in a straightjacket”. Like Adkisson, Savage accuses liberals of “[tying] the hands of our military”.

Now, I’ve talked about Ann Coulter a number of times on my blog. A couple of days ago, Ann posted a new blog post called Obama: Lucifer Is My Homeboy.  Like many other posts made by Coulter, the title alone is controversial and hateful enough. Now, I’m not going to go into too much detail here, rather I would encourage readers to read it and decide for themselves.

In her post, Ann talks about how a nutty Al Gore inverted a Christian parable into something nearly satanic, about Democrats attacking Sarah Palin for being a Christian, while comparing Obama to Jesus Christ, and about what the Pledge of Allegiance is really all about and what all this ”under God” stuff really means. In a nutshell, she is saying that if you are a Democrat and/or a Liberal then you are not a true Christian. Doesn’t matter that Barack Obama is a devout Christian. Doesn’t matter that his running mate, Joe Biden, is a devote Catholic. Nor does it matter that no one in the Obama campaign, not one person, has attacked Sarah Palin on her religious beliefs. Doesn’t matter. All that matters is that she and others hate all Liberals no matter what. So, basically, if you are Liberal, don’t have a pro-life stance, and don’t believe in God the same way she and other right-wing neo-Conservatives do then you are the devil incarnate and you will be hated and scorned. So I guess love your enemy and turn the other cheek doesn’t mean anything to Ann and her devote followers. If this isn’t a message of hate and intolerance then I don’t know what is.

For all intents and purposes, Ann Coulter is inline with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and other right-wing extremists in her message. As such, she is just as responsible for the actions of Jim David Adkisson as Michael Savage. Although it wasn’t Michael Savage or Ann Coulter that pulled the trigger, their words have power and those words encouraged Adkisson and many others to think a certain way.

Back in April, Ann compared one of Barack Obama’s books to Mein Kampf.  The irony is that by this association she inadvertently associated herself with Hitler. Why? Think about it. Hitler spread a message of hate and intolerance by singling out Jews, calling them “traitors”, deeming them as dangerous to the country and suggested that they all be locked up. What do you think that Ann and other right-wing whack jobs have been talking about? That Liberals are to be hated, that they are dangerous and are bad for the country.

Folks, this kind of message is poisonous and just bad news all over. For anyone to presume that their religion is more correct and that everyone else is wrong is bad enough. But to go even further and deliberately denounce a group of people based on their political beliefs with a message of sheer hatred and intolerance, that’s just madness. Jesus Christ was about love and tolerance, not hatred, intolerance and lies. This kind of message is a distortion of what it means to be a true Christian. True Christians don’t lie. True Christians don’t hate. And true Christians are tolerant of others that may not share their beliefs.

So I challenge Ann Coulter with this question: What would you say and how would you defend your message to the people whose lives were change by Jim David Adkisson, a man who listened to others like you who have a similar message?

I’ve been a frequent visitor of HumanEvents.com for some time now. I visit this site and many others that have viewpoints that differ from my own simply because I want to get an idea of what people are thinking. Many of the articles and blog posts on this site are from a far-right, neo-conservative point of view…and they certainly don’t apologize for it. I pick on many of the writers on this site simply because I feel they represent what is truly wrong with politics today. It always seems like they are so good at preaching about conservatism and yet I always feel like they don’t know what being conservative truly means in politics.

Now, I have never outright proclaimed to be a member of any political party. Truth be told, I really don’t believe in political parties. I think they cause more problems simply because it causes Americans to choose sides. Problem is that you rarely hear of there being more than just two sides. It’s always Republicans vs Democrats, liberals vs conservatives, left vs right, and so on. Rarely do you hear much about the middle and nor do you hear about the third side: the truth. Yes, there are politicians that do speak the truth but many times this truth ends up being masked and muddied up in the form of dirty politics, which is but one of the problems with American politics today. 

Take a post made by D.R. Tucker called Hard To Swallow. D.R. seems to feel that August 17, 1998 was the day conservatism began to die in America. This was the day that President Clinton admitted to having a sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky. D.R. goes on to say that only a third of the American people strongly supported the impeachment and removal of Clinton from office, that somehow so many Americans bought the story that Clinton was a victim of a political witch-hunt by prudish right-wing Republicans. Personally I think it was just because the whole story was embarrassing and the greater American public was tired of hearing about it. Seriously, can you imagine the history books if he was impeached? He damn near was. After all, a vote was called on by Congress. Clinton would go down in history as the only President to ever have been impeached for lying about getting a blow job!

D.R. goes on to quote the writings of Paul Weyrich, a conservative activist, about the reason why politics started to fail after that, the thought being that too many conservatives assumed that most Americans shared their point of view and thus didn’t result in an adoption of their agenda:

The reason, I think, is that politics itself has failed. And politics has failed because of the collapse of the culture. The culture we are living in becomes an ever-wider sewer. In truth, I think we are caught up in a cultural collapse of historic proportions, a collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics.

D.R.’s quotes continue further with another statement from Weyrich that says the U.S. is becoming too ideological: 

The ideology of Political Correctness, which openly calls for the destruction of our traditional culture, has so gripped the body politic, has so gripped our institutions, that it is even affecting the Church. It has completely taken over the academic community. It is now pervasive in the entertainment industry, and it threatens to control literally every aspect of our lives…Let me be perfectly frank about it. If there really were a moral majority out there, Bill Clinton would have been driven out of office months ago. It is not only the lack of political will on the part of Republicans, although that is part of the problem. More powerful is the fact that what Americans would have found absolutely intolerable only a few years ago, a majority now not only tolerates but celebrates. Americans have adopted, in large measure, the MTV culture that we so valiantly opposed just a few years ago, and it has permeated the thinking of all but those who have separated themselves from the contemporary culture…I believe that we probably have lost the culture war. That doesn’t mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isn’t going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important.

Let me get this straight. You mean to tell me that the reason politics in America is so screwed up is because of a lack of a moral majority? It makes no sense whatsoever to say that conservatism is failing because so many people in the country lack morals and thus do not vote for conservative candidates. It’s a ridiculous notion simply because conservatism does not equal a moral majority. That’s not what conservatism in politics is about. It’s not about religion. It’s not about family values. Conservatism in politics can not and should not be compared to the moral fiber of our nation. Anyone who does that simply doesn’t know what it truly means to be conservative.

Where Mr. Tucker gets it truly wrong is when he starts talking about Barack Obama and tries to compare him to Clinton:

If Barack Obama wins with a majority of the vote, it will complete the political and cultural alteration that began ten years ago. In 1998, Americans didn’t care about Clinton’s lies and licentiousness because the economy was doing well; in 2008, Americans seemingly don’t care about Obama’s dishonesty and double-dealing because he promises to restore the economy to the (perceived) health of the Clinton years. 1998 was the first indication that Americans valued certain things above “traditional morality”; 2008 could be the most significant indication of the same.

Ridiculous. The idea that just because Obama is a Democrat that somehow he’ll end up just like Clinton is just that: ridiculous. How is it exactly that Obama is dishonest and double-dealing the American public? Personally, I don’t see it. And as much as I would like to say the same about McCain, I’m afraid I can’t. I gave McCain a fair shot but, unfortunately, all he did was prove to me that he can’t be honest and can’t seem to talk about things without bullshitting the American public. That’s something I have not seen or heard from Obama.

And this whole notion that Obama will continue to lead people down a road of immorality is equally ridiculous. Obama has shown that he truly cares about family values. Isn’t that what neo-conservatives are always preaching about? Has anyone even looked at how Obama is with his wife and kids? He’s a damn good father if you ask me. And he appears to be teaching his kids some good values. If that isn’t a sign of someone who is moral then I don’t know what to tell you.

If we were a truly conservative country, a candidate like Obama would have been regarded as a fringe, Dennis Kucinich-style nutcase instead of a serious candidate for the Presidency. It can be argued that Obama figured out something that the right was too shortsighted to recognize: that America is not in any tangible way a conservative or center-right nation, that no one ideology truly dominates the country, and that due to America’s lack of commitment to any one ideology, someone who can market himself effectively has a chance to become President regardless of his ideology. Obama’s speeches may be content-free, but they are always well-delivered and he always looks good delivering them—which may be all he needs in a country that values image above ideology.

If anything, Obama has proven that trying to stick to a single ideology doesn’t work. This is a country that was founded on opposing viewpoint, multiple cultures, multiple religions, and diversification all over the place. To assume that you can stick to just one ideology, that of a far right-wing conservative point of view, and assume that everyone will follow is crazy. Our government must be more than that. It must remain flexible to accommodate the views and beliefs of all Americans; not just a select group. 

Weyrich was right: America doesn’t really place a premium on conservative, traditionalist values. Sadly, America places a premium on glamour, beauty, articulate voices, clean-cut images. Like Clinton, Obama understands this shallow, soulless aspect of America, and he knows how to play to those who worship empty images. Like Clinton, this new master of illusion will exploit America’s love of the superficial to make his next overseas “Presidential” trip official.

Obama is more than just someone who looks good and gives a good speech. He’s a man of the utmost integrity and, above all, he’s highly intelligent. I’m amazed at how many people can so easily dismiss him as being someone who merely is playing the American people like a violin. Intelligence it seems is a trait only shown by those who are arrogant, even more so when its from someone like Obama. Personally, I find it gratifying to know that there is at least one Presidential candidate who is extremely intelligent and, above all, really knows what the Constitution says. 

Conservatism didn’t die because of Clinton. In fact, conservatism isn’t really dead yet. What happened was that so-called conservatives within the Republican party morphed the party into the exact opposite of what the Republican party was supposed to be about. Yes, there is such a thing as having traditional conservative values in politics…but it’s just not about ones religious and/or moral beliefs. There’s a reason why our forefathers asked for a separations of church and state in the Constitution. It’s so that the individual rights of all people of all religions have representation within our government. For the people, by the people. What part of that do neo-conservatives not understand?

When the primaries began for the Presidential election, I tried to go into it with an open mind and look at each of the possible Presidential candidates without any political bias. However, I quickly discovered that there has been something about the Republican party that I simply didn’t like. Granted, I already had a disdain for the likes of President Bush and most of his administration, but there was something else. Something I couldn’t quite put my finger on until now.

Recently, I watched an episode of Bill Moyers Journal where Bill interviewed former Republican congressman Mickey Edwards and Ross Douthat, senior editor at The Atlantic. During the interview, it was Mickey Edwards that said a few things that really illustrated how I felt:

Republicans used to believe in a certain set of basic principles about divided powers, limited government. What happened is with the Bush presidency, we have become the exact opposite of what we used to stand for. So we may win elections but we are now standing for…an all-powerful presidency..limits on public civil liberties…So we’ve changed everything we believed in order to win elections.

Over the last seven years or so, little by little, it seemed that many of the civil liberties we take for granted were being taken away from us. For all intents and purposes our Constitution was stomped on and wasn’t treated with the respect and purpose that it deserved. History tells us that when once something like this happens that it’s difficult to reverse the damage.

Justice Kennedy said…in the Guantanamo case…the Constitution is not something to be set aside when it’s convenient.

And we have this tendency to do it. Every year as we do things like this, we lose a little more of our system of separated powers and checks and balances. And I’m not as sanguine as you are about the fact that we can go back to what the constitutional system was, which is how we protect our liberties.

It is this very thing that I was looking for out of the Republican candidates. Did they believe in the Constitution? Did they believe in protecting our liberties? Or was the false notion of protecting the security of our nation more important?

In essence, the very things I thought the Republican party stood for was being stripped away. I thought, “Surely these new Republican candidates would strive to regenerate it.” Unfortunately, that didn’t appear to be the case. About the only candidate that seemed to reflect true Republican values was Ron Paul, but even he wasn’t a perfect reflection of the party. The primaries came and went and the choice was narrowed down to a candidate that seemed to be closer to President Bush rather than a candidate who truly represented the party. How did that happen?

The problem is that the American people are being fed a different message about what the Republican party is really all about. They are being told that the Republican party is about true conservative values, traditional family values, preserving those values, and making the right choices to protect our freedom from enemies abroad. But is this really the Republican party? Is it a requirement that you be a member of the conservative movement to be considered a Republican? And is the definition of conservatism even accurate?

Many people when they think of conservative government, they automatically assume small government or simply less government. They also assume that being a conservative means that you are a part of the moral Right. However, Edwards said something that really puts it all in perspective:

Well, first of all, you know, I don’t think the rationale of the conservatism is small government. It’s limited government, but that doesn’t necessarily mean small. It means that there are areas that you cannot take government into. There are there are areas where the rights of the people are paramount. So…in the old system..before America, you had rulers and their subjects, right?

And the rulers told their subjects what to do. And our idea was…we’re going to be citizens, not subjects. And we’re going to tell the government what to do. And there are areas where the government’s not permitted to go. But within those areas the government can act. It - nothing that says it has to be a tiny government if the people themselves are willing to pay the taxes and to support certain activities for the government and it’s within the Constitution, that’s fine.

This is, to me, what the true definition of conservatisim really is in politics. It simply means a way of government that doesn’t go in places where it shouldn’t. It’s about protecting the individual and stepping in when individual rights are being effected. I feel that conservatism has more to do with the government seeking proper regulation and oversight rather than telling the people what to do.

The problem is that true conservatism has been taken over by neo-conservatives within the Republican party ranks in thanks to what Arianna Huffington calls the lunatic fringe:

The Right has been taken over… by the Neo-conservatives who have been wanting to invade Iraq for years. And as the result the Right of the Ronald Reagan era is no longer the Right. It’s now the Right of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly…They’ve hijacked America by hijacking public policy.

Folks like Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity of Fox News have done little for the Republican party and conservative movement other than showing its shortcomings. They have a tendency to twist, stretch, and distort the truth and outright lie in an effort to make themselves seem more right. And the sad thing is that doing so creates the form of hypocrisy that they are critiquing. Doesn’t make any sense to me.

Is the lunatic fringe the new face of the Republican party? If so, why aren’t there any true Republican denouncing the attitudes of these so-called members of the media. It’s a radical departure at best from what the Republican party used to be. I just don’t understand why so many people who claim themselves to be Republican and/or conservative find this to be perfectly acceptable.

Unlike the lunatic fringe, I firmly believe that having a particular political belief (conservative, liberal, or somewhere in-between) does not automatically mean you are part of a specific political party. I believe that regardless of whether you have liberal or conservative beliefs you can be a part of any political party. Liberals can be Republicans and conservatives can be Democrats and vice versa. In short, labels should mean nothing.

It boils down to this: Regardless of one’s political beliefs, anyone can have family values, have faith in one’s religion, and/or be patriotic. Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, liberal, or conservative, it simply doesn’t matter. Being one or the other doesn’t automatically mean that a person thinks any more or any less of their country. It simply means that they have a slightly different way of looking at it that you do from a purely political perspective.

Last I checked we’re all Americans here. Everyone is entitled to one’s beliefs and opinions. It’s given to us by the Constitution. To take it for granted and allow any political system to tell you otherwise would be the very disaster our forefathers fought to keep from happening. Don’t forget that when deciding how you will vote in this election.