The start of a mid-term election year. The start of Obama’s second year. The second year of my second term as chair of the Democratic club. Much at stake.
***
Former long-time Florence resident and Democratic Club member Wilbur Patterson once wrote, “I believe politics is too important to leave only to those who can afford to control the process. Because the Democratic Party comes closest to being ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people,’ I am glad to call myself a Democrat.”
We who advocate equal opportunity and protection for all are now compelled to fight like heck to secure what our Constitution founders intended.
We are a hair’s width from being governed by a vast corporatocracy that is sociopathic in nature, exploitive in purpose, and ruthless in execution. Examples: Health care insurance companies, credit card companies, Exxon-Mobil, West Virginia coal companies, Blackwater, Halliburton, Goldman Sachs. Enough?
We have an opposition party that has evolved into an entity that exhibits no morals, no honesty, no integrity, and no allegiance to anything other than achieving its unprincipled quest for unlimited power and serving inexorably the interests of viral capitalism.
The election of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party majority in Congress was supposed to reverse the ills that the Bush administration and preceding administrations after 1980 had wrought. The president and the Democratic Congress did legislate the beneficial stimulus package. On all other major issues, they haven’t delivered. We know the reasons: Republican obstructionism, too many Republican-minded senators claiming to be Democrats, a president that speaks extremely well but refuses to accept that Republican politicians have stone hearts.
If the Senate Democrats do not pass a strong public option health care bill through budgetary reconciliation and Obama does not morph into Harry Truman within the next 30 days, there is going to be hell to pay. Why? We are the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. “Of the people, … for the people,” we do not quit.
Printed February 24, 2010, in the Siuslaw News
***
My letter generated the following.
***
A recent letter, “For the People” (Feb. 24), raised a few questions in my mind. The author of the letter referred to his alliance to the Democratic party and states his reasoning for such is that it is a party “of the people, for the people.”
The first question that came to mind was who is he including in his definition of “of the people, for the people”? Does this include “people” who have an opinion different than his?
He wrote about business and “an opposition party” that he claims “exhibits no morals, no honesty, no integrity.” In all due respect the targeted individuals in my view are “people” as well as those who share the author’s views. In fact it is business that employs “the people” and supplies the funding through taxes that pay for the current government programs, and it would be on the backs of business to support “all the major issues they haven’t delivered” in government programs that he is demanding.
A simple truth is that only business is capable of raising revenue and that includes the revenue that pays for government. It would seem to me the very same people he discredits are the only avenue to achieve his goals.
An honest view of our current state in America is we have been on an unsustainable path for a very long time with entitlement programs and out-of-control spending.
As we continue down this path of borrowing money from foreign countries and pretending the problem does not exist, we are placing the financial burden on “the people” of the next generation. In my view this is immoral and dishonest and any politician that supports such behavior is lacking integrity. These are the same words the author used to describe what he referred to as “the opposition party.”
I don’t care which party you hold an alliance to, it is time to expect more from our elected officials to act in the best interests for our country; and in the mean time belittling others who have a difference of opinion achieves nothing. Let us seek solutions to our dismal financial situation through fiscal obedience before it is too late so our children and our children’s children can call themselves “the people” of this great country.
Bill Specht
Printed March 10, 2010, in the Siuslaw News
***
Here was my response to Specht’s letter.
***
Bill Specht (letters, March 10) took exception to my Feb. 24 letter, which criticized both large corporations for exploiting the American public and the Republican Party for its deceptive, unprincipled support of said corporations.
Objecting apparently to my belief that the Democratic Party comes closest to being “of the people” and “for the people,” Mr. Specht wanted to know if by “people” I meant exclusively those who agree with me. The answer is “no.” Goldman Sachs, Exxon-Mobil, Anthem Blue Cross, Halliburton, et al. don’t care a fig about tea partiers, libertarians, conservatives, small business people, moderates, liberals, anybody lacking substantial power or authority.
Mr. Specht wrote at length about the interconnectedness of employers, employees, and the generation of tax revenue necessary to fund government programs, as if I, and, you the reader, need a lesson in macro-economics. Democrats are not anti-business. We respect anybody willing to challenge the perilous unknown to attempt to achieve his dreams. However, …
Henry Ford famously said that he wanted his workers paid enough to be able to buy his automobiles. Over the last 30 years, as worker productivity has steadily increased and CEO compensation has sky-rocketed, employee wages have stagnated – by design, not by accident.
Deregulated capitalism, in the pursuit of greed, has now cut us to the quick.
As for Mr. Specht’s call for “fiscal obedience” to protect our children and grandchildren, I offer this distinction. There is a major difference between what must be done now (federal and state job stimulation – which the GOP opposes) and what the Bush administration did which never should have happened: large tax cuts for the rich, an out-of-control defense budget, the military adventurism of two wars (which have killed thousands of our children). Republican officials that now accuse Democrats of “fiscal irresponsibility” deserve to be called out.
Printed March 20, 2010, in the Siuslaw News
***
I also clashed with a socialism-Is-terrible writer. He wrote first, responding to a letter written by a friend of mine, Alice Shapiro.
***
In response to Alice Shapiro’s “bring it on” with regard to socialism (letters, March 4) I would point out the word “theory” in her listed definition.
Want fact and truth? Hard work coupled with persistence, patience and proper harmonious relationships with co-workers, employees and employers always has proven a way to prosperity and success here in this great country. Unfortunately that success is threatened when the great thinkers and hard workers are forced to give large percentages of their income to the lazy, incompetent and unwilling leeches who refuse to work and prefer a free ride.
With as much discontent as Shapiro obviously has, maybe she should move to a socialist country and live happily ever after.
Patrick Roelle
Reedsport
Printed March 8, 2010, in the Register-Guard
***
Here are excerpts of an article written about the Republican Party’s use of the term “socialism.” I consider myself a Democratic Socialist.
***
How much political power does one word hold? We like to think of the media and politicians as messengers of unbiased facts. But the state of the political game today proves otherwise. Reporters play on the fears of their audience much like a jungle cat toys with its prey. One of the most powerful words in their arsenal is one that connotes images of dictators, of corruption and of oppression. It is a word that we have seen no shortage of in recent American political campaigns — the “S” word.
Socialism.
Political scientists Toff and Kim explain how calculated word usage (or the lack thereof) among politicians and the American media proves to be a meaningful insight into their partisan intentions. In the case of the “S” word, these intentions are generally negative and appearing with startling frequency in American politics. In Toff and Kim’s 2013 Twitter analysis of politicians and media personnel, they found 42 instances of the word “socialism,” with the large majority of usage coming from Republicans.
Why does this matter? Well, if we consider what “socialism” is, a doctrine that calls for public rather than private control of property and natural resources, it’s obvious that the United States’ gigantic private economic sector is anything but socialist. Ranked in the top ten countries worldwide for economic competitiveness, the United States’ success rests on high private investment and productivity.
Nonetheless, Obama has been accused of being a socialist, and strangely enough, even a more radical communist. However, in different rankings of political ideology based on congressional voting record, fundraising and public issue statements, Obama isn’t even on the farthest left on the spectrum, let alone venturing into socialist territory. …
…
By socialism I do not mean a regime modeled after Cuba or China. I do not believe in the eradication of private property or the suppression of free will that Republicans are quick to associate with socialism. I mean a belief in a type of democratic socialism that would decrease the influence of money in politics and foster government action to deal with the severe income inequalities — not to nationalize businesses or control the economy. … (Trujillo 1-2)
Work cited:
Trujillo, Aimee. “Socialism, Rhetoric and American Politics.” The Stanford Daily, January 12, 2015. Net. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/01/12/socialism-rhetoric-and-american-politics/
***
Here is my response to Patrick’s Roelle’s letter.
***
Every morning Patrick Roelle (letters, March 8) must down a 32-ounce serving of GOP Kool-Aid.
He who works hard in harmony with his co-workers and employers prospers, Mr. Roelle declares. Keep the great capitalistic engine running; protect the rich; you will be rewarded. Ah yes, the American Dream.
Why then are so many Americans these days in such dire straits?
Are these Americans all, using Mr. Roelle’s words, “lazy, incompetent and unwilling leeches who refuse to work and prefer a free ride”?
Government’s core purpose is to defend its citizens and promote their common good. That entails protecting them from viral corporate exploitation while providing them the level playing field upon which talent and perseverance (and luck) might frequently lead to something.
The less-government, low-taxation crowd (of whom Mr. Roelle must be a member) wants to keep it otherwise. “No, we must not have Medicare-for-All type health care [which is not currently being proposed]. That would be Socialism!” shout the know-nothing morning imbibers of the GOP hallucinatory elixir.
Wrong. Nations are at their best when they combine the strength of regulated capitalism with the protections of targeted socialism. America is way behind being its best. Most of us need to understand that selfishness is societally counterproductive and that any political party that justifies it needs to be punished.
Printed March 10, 2010, in the Register-Guard
No comments:
Post a Comment