Soldiering On

I'm content, today, to allow Nicholas D. Kristof to speak for me, in his column from yesterday's New York Times. I think he has it right when he writes of the "President as Pinata." We have been treating all our presidents badly in our recent history. And I'm sure it goes back much further than I'm accounting for. There's always discontent from the other side. It's sad, I think, that in the case of our current president, the discontent from both sides is vitriolic. Much that he has managed to accomplish gets discounted in the rage that he has failed to accomplish everything he promised, and everything we expected of him that he did not promise. Despite which, the man soldiers on.

BLAME

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries)

I made this mistake, this morning, of glancing at the New York Times headline before sitting down to meditate--which pretty much ensured a prolonged battle with futile thoughts before I managed to get the mind settled down. The headline read: "Lawmakers Trade Blame As Deficit Talks Crumble." That this was the predictable outcome was obvious from the start. No surprise there. But what bothers me is the implication of blame on either side.

Our current economic slump, as I understand it, has two proximate causes: the huge tax cuts in the early days of the Bush administration, and two protracted, unfunded wars. Reaching further back, it is the result of several decades of blind adherence to a trickle-down theory of economics which should have been long ago discredited by anyone with a fair and rational mind, but has been adopted as an article of faith by Republican loyalists; and by a program of deregulation that has given increasing responsibility for the fox to guard the financial hen house.

To attribute equal blame for this mess is to ignore history. These are right-wing actions and policies that have brought us to this pitch. It is right-wing intransigence that denies us a fair and rational solution. To address the clearly non-functional tax code is not the only part of the solution, but to refuse adamantly to consider it is to ignore reality in favor of a demonstrably misguided ideology. Yet this is what Republicans are doing. From what I have read and heard, I have reason to believe that Democrats have been prepared to yield ground on matters of profound importance to them--perhaps too readily. But their willingness to compromise has not been matched on the other side.

Blame, then, in my view, is not equally distributed. Both historically and in the present context, it lies heavily on the shoulders of Republicans. Yet one of their apparently successful strategies, mimic'ed in knee-jerk fashion by the media, is to purvey to the American public that there is equal blame on either side.

The Democrats are not faultless, obviously. They participate in an electoral system that requires them, if they wish to retain their seat, to pay heed to the corporate masters and their lobbyists. In the course of these past decades, they have surrendered more and more of the democratic principle for which they are supposed to stand. They have trembled in their boots before their Republican opponents and the moneyed interests they represent, and have yielded mile after mile of the territory they were supposed to occupy on our behalf. The name of the "Occupy" movement is no accident.

So yes, in the long perspective, there is perhaps shared blame for the current impasse. But don't try telling me that the blame is "equal." It's not. The anger and frustration that such thinking inspires is hard to shake when I sit down to meditate. Both reason and emotion get engaged in this internal battle that I know to be unwinnable but find hard to resist. I keep reminding myself to pay attention to the breath, but my rebellious brain is having such great time that it is reluctant to surrender to the wiser mind.

There was a striking difference, on last night's 60 Minutes, between the interviews with Grover Norquist, gatekeeper of the absurd Republican loyalty oath on taxes, and Christine Lagarde, the new head of the International Monetary Fund. Norquist impressed me as small-minded, smug, tendentious, self-important; Lagarde was modest, thoughtful, open-minded, with a broad view not only of the financial crisis but of humanity in general. At the end of her interview she reminded us, gently, that our seemingly great problems recede into insignificance when seen in the greater perspective of life, and death, and love...

New website

Excellent new website inaugurated by the Obama campaign. It's informative, easy to use, upbeat in tone and appearance. "I'm In."

On another note, it's worth taking a look at this article on Newt Gingrich by Jonathan Alter. This man's recent "surge" in the polls reflects the bankruptcy of Republican values and policies. The New York Times chimed in, with an editorial. No doubt this will give Gingrich an opening to rail at the "liberal media."

Vote Obama 2012. Or else!

The Exploding Pipe Dream

I defer today to Charles M. Blow on the New York Times op-ed page. Be sure to take a look at Bottom of the Heap, the chart he links to at the end of his piece. It's a shameful state of affairs that reflects (I'm making a wild guess here) a four-decade long decline in this country's social justice--and the rise in the power and influence of America's wealthiest few. It also reflects our country's increasingly conservative attitudes and the stubborn, wrong-headed belief in an economic system that demonstrably led us into our current crisis and keeps us there. Republicans have shown themselves to be blindly loyal to these false beliefs. All the more reason to vote for Obama in the next election.

IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE...

... to help me with this blog? It needs entries from voices other than my own, and I'm open to any suggestions as to how that might be achieved. I grabbed the URL a few months ago, noticing that it was as yet untaken and thinking that it might become another rallying point for those of us who continue to support the President. Watching the ill-informed, self-serving madness of the current Republican slate of candidates and their absurdly irrelevant and pusillanimous debates, I feel more strongly than ever that the election of any one of them would be a disaster for the country. And yet... I have little faith in the wisdom and discrimination of a significant number of voters, who seem entirely willing to be led by the nose to vote against their own interests. This President needs our support. I respond as I can to appeals for donations, not only from the President but for all Democratic races and causes. But I still feel that's not enough. I'm no millionaire; nor am I a corporation. VO2012 is a way for me to do what I can to support what I believe to be right. I know there are many who agree with me, good writers, who could contribute to this effort. I'd be grateful to hear from them.

Good Marks, Bad Marks.

I take issue this morning with Matt Lauer, of NBC's "Today" show. Not only does he choose to interview that great sage, Donald Trump, about his view on the current Republican candidates for the presidency, he allows to pass without comment Trump's assertion that the Obama presidency has been "a disaster." You would think that an interviewer, confronted with such a blanket condemnation, would pause to ask what he meant by that description. Lauer, however, did not so much as blink, let alone challenge the remark. It was as though the point was inarguable. His meek acceptance of Trump's absurd charge allowed his millions of (equally meek?) viewers to pass over it as an accepted truth. Bad marks for Matt Lauer.

Switching channels, I found myself watching Michelle Obama doing a great job with a military audience, announcing a new program which she and Dr. Jill Biden have spearheaded. Called "Joining Forces," it has brought together American companies, large and small, in the effort to provide employment for returning veterans and their spouses. Following his wife, Obama took the opportunity to once again slam the Republican-led Congress for inaction on his jobs bill. The couple spoke with intelligence, grace, and not a little humor, and with genuine concern for the most severe and pressing of issues the nation faces today. Good marks for them.

BACK TO WORK

Okay, it's time to get back to this blog. It has lain idle for a couple of months, in the doldrums of the summer. Fall, I note, resurfacing, is pretty much doldrums too. In Washington, the same fractious inaction in the US Congress, the same bickering, the same obstinate refusal to even consider or debate what's needed for the country. In the media, an obsession with what's going to happen a year from now.

Meanwhile, President Obama has produced a credible plan for addressing the country's direst problem: not the deficit, but jobs. Nothing will happen to solve the economic crisis without them. I credit him for persisting, despite all obstacles. I'm glad to see him focusing on the problem with appropriate intensity and unsparing criticism of those who seem to embrace inaction as a political strategy. The single issue worthy of Republican attention, it now seems, is to defeat Obama next November.

I watched with incredulity as candidate Rick Perry's wife whined to the media about the ill-treatment of her husband, even while happily joining the chorus of those heaping scornful blame on the President. It would take, she lamented, forty years to undo the damage that Obama has wrought. As I see it, he has only just begun to work on undoing the damage Ronald Reagan wrought--and that was quite a number of years ago. It's my belief that a second term would allow him to continue that work; and, if given at the same time a more powerfully Democratic Congress, to set the country back on the right course.