Forgive me for the salacious headline. The Twitterverse won't read any further, so you gotta stick and move these days. Nonetheless, WTF is a Republican?
No really.
In the post-mortem of Tuesday's election, the Ed Gillespie story is as telling as any story there is. Gillespie was never known as an alt-right Republican prior to being pegged for Virginia's governor race but left looking more alt-right than Trump himself. While we may never really know if Gillespie was more of a victim of his embrace of Trump or of his disdain towards him since the race he ran seemed to involve a fair dose of both, we know the exit poll data and it isn't positive for the GOP.
While Trump himself criticized Gillespie for not being Trumpian enough and losing as a result, I am left to wonder what sign should we look towards as it relates to identity politics if we hope to consider the Republican candidate in 2018 and moving forward? This is not a question for the Republicans that vote (R) because that is all they know to do. I'm referring to those (R)'s that really appreciate their new-found access to healthcare and don't really wish to risk their lives on a party loyalty line.
As it turns out, most of the people around the nation were inspired on Tuesday by the need to save their own healthcare against the wiles of the (R)'s who are destroying it only because they don't really know what else to do. If you predict healthcare's implosion, sometimes you must also be willing to pour a little gas on the sparks to speed things along. Despite Trump's slashing of the budget to market ACA enrollment, record numbers of Americans are enrolling anyway.
Now the (R)'s are trying like crazy to scratch the back of rich people while making average Americans think it is their back being scratched. Two things that can no longer be confused is the feeling of a political back rubbing or the efficacy of a bill not scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). America never knew what those letters meant prior to the Trumpian takeover. Now, they don't stop to listen to your idea until the CBO can delineate what is in it for them.
It is not impossible to imagine the GOP accomplishing some form of a tax bill, but it is close to impossible to see it achieving anything substantive for average Americans. Trickle down never really has fulfilled its promise, and ObamaCare is more hopeful than whatever existed before. The best I can tell, the GOP is mostly stuck with the idea of building a wall because even a ban on assault weapons is supported by the majority of America, gun owners included.
In fact, doing something about our broken immigration system has had majority appeal in America from way back when Eric Cantor was still the Speaker of the House. The Obama era push and catastrophic weather events have most Americans waiting on a far-reaching infrastructure bill that seems to need a huge wave of collapsed bridge deaths to finally get approved for some odd reason.
By virtue of identity, the only elements that uniquely come to mind when thinking of today's Republican party are titled tax plans, Muslim hatred, "blood and soil" and tiki torches. I know a lot of really good people who still consider themselves Republican have never considered marching with a tiki torch and are upset that they are now being connected to such evil, hatred and our twit of a president. Yet, what else is there to help us identify a modern day Republican?
What the Twitter-in Chief has made abundantly clear is that the GOP has lost its way enough to be easily taken over by a twit. Surprisingly, plenty of twit love remains despite enduring a highly embattled presidency, but it seems there was not enough to have made a difference this past Tuesday.
The best I can tell, the GOP will soon need to adopt progressive policies as their own in order to offer ideas that reasonable people consider reasonable. Walls and rolling back healthcare, and tax cuts for rich people and unresolved immigration questions, and climate denial or broken accords and partnerships, or LGBTQ bans, Muslim bans but repeal of the ban on the mentally ill getting guns, is simply not reasonable anymore.
When Trump tried to tell us that he is surprisingly good at uniting people all while functionally dividing the entire GOP, we should not have been so surprised. Actually, he chose to preface his statement with how surprised we are going to be in his ability to unite people, so never mind. Feel free to be as surprised as you'd like as Trump proceeds to expose US- to US.
Speaking of pledges, did you see the Hitler pledge to Trump?
After stealing Florida from Marco Rubio and forcing him to bow out of the race, Donald Trump has each of his remaining Republican opponent's fighting just to keep him from the delegate count (1273) that would force them to finally stop giving Hillary so much general election ammunition against the entire party. Soon, they all must choose to either endorse no one, or endorse Trump while trying not to look like Chris Christie does while doing it.
I would love to completely focus on those television ads to come from Hillary, with those supporters of Trump's doing that hail Hitler pledge, but why bother?
Although modern Republicans behave like Democrats by no longer promoting trickle down economics or any economic idea beyond eliminating most regulatory agencies- and by not caring much about deficits anymore- none of that matters because voting for a Democrat is unreasonable to those raised staunchly against such an thing.
There is something ingrained inside of the political DNA of many American voters raised to disregard the bleeding heart intentions of the left, and to only see the futility of the liberal nature. Moreover, many Republicans have been taught that party trumps candidate for reasons of sustained strength. The concept proves valuable for state and local elections, but the party rejected it as well as their own internal autopsy report from the first presidential election defeat by Obama when they allowed the Tea Party and the Libertarian fractures to weaken their bone structure by pushing their own ideologies to the forefront of a party with few binding ideas.
Consequently, bewildered Republicans, angry Independents who still vote Republican along with those aforementioned fractures, have given in to the eventuality of Trump as a Republican in name only over the alternative of Hillary the Democrat, a Communist in Bernie Sanders (something Republicans called Democrats long before Bernie openly embraced the Socialist label btw), or not voting at all and functionally handing the election to either one.
I would love to hate Trump for recognizing that some people will never consider liberalism- even over a megalomaniac- and for noticing how left leaning independents don't vote enough to have ingrained beliefs one way or the other, but I can't. Trump has drafted lots of former dem's into his cause, and is exposing America to the fact that fence straddling dem's who thought electing Obama meant 40 acres and a mule for everybody, and are still angry enough with Obama's right leaning presidency to cross over too. Trump also knows that Republicans don't care THAT much about policy or positions as long as you can win for a party they've sworn an allegiance to from birth. Because of losing to Obama, Republicans would rather trust a life long liberal donor in Trump than their own party faithful anymore.
Didn't you hear it too? That statement from Trump came eerily close to being a policy position- which means it was probably a knee jerk response- so Trump doesn't repeat it anymore, but he certainly said it.
Trump's position that Mexico would build the wall was also nothing more than a counter puncher's approach to the question of funding the thing. Even if you hate his answer, you can't say he isn't ready for a fight, or that he doesn't stay on his toes ready to knock out potential objections before they rise. Politician's have always promised the world without any concern of how to harness the moon first, because details aren't necessarily their duty.
Trump is quickly adjusting to this demand for details that is an aspect of a political campaign, and nothing like business or war where surprising your opponent is helpful for victory. In a presidential battle, the most important detail is that your so called opponents are every voting citizen in this nation who quickly become your only hope for victory too.
The Trumpians might be concerned that too many American corporations are starting to do business in Mexico, but they won't even follow that thought to it's natural conclusion which is, people who can find work at home don't need to migrate elsewhere for it. If someone tells you that Mexican's still prefer to come here because of welfare and jobs, don't believe them since no illegal immigrant is eligible for any benefit except emergency medical assistance if needed. Assuming American corporations have been perfectly happy with offsetting jobs into countries like China, Mexico was a no-brainer alternative to our immigration problem and our Asian trade imbalance as well.
Trump could easily offer to exchange a fair pathway into (or back into) America for a wall of Mexico's building, which might not be a bad way to sell the deal to Democrats or to Republican supporters who got interested in Trump because of his wall promise. What Trump is exposing us to is that republicanism is bound by an every man for himself business negotiation mindset in which the goal is to get the best deal possible for yourself. There's no doubt in my mind that if Republicans are considering the necessity of higher wages for millions who rarely vote for them, there has to be something in it for them.
While Trump took victory laps after winning Florida and knocking out Rubio, he was surprisingly humble enough to admit that the rich are indeed going to have to get a lot richer for any of you regulars to have your wage hopes realized. He declared this with apologies realizing that he is already extremely rich, so promising that he'll get richer first wasn't easy to admit.
Powerfully rich people and those who long to be them, don't seek more power and riches for some altruistic promise to share with the poor. Their commitment is to the promise that getting richer and more powerful beats the hell out of any alternative. Besides, who would reasonably set an agenda for sharing power and wealth except people who don't already have it?
Food stamps, ObamaCare, college tuition assistance? If most middle class families can't qualify for social assistance, all social assistance becomes means tested wastes of time to people with money, power and influence. Welfare is only worthy of salvaging or expanding in the eyes of citizens who consider it reasonable that every one of us will pay for the health and well being of the other, be that directly or indirectly.
It is fairly reasonable to believe that every one of us is already paying for the ignorance and sickness of the other, yet people in America work with contagious illnesses all the time, as if their bills give them an immunity to spreading germs. Aside from the rare few, WE all complain about people working sick, yet everyone does it, because we are rugged individuals who don't need anybody to help us get by in life (cough, cough).
Trump and his rugged individualistic supporters didn't cause sick workers who feel pressured to make bills, and not public health, their greater priority. The Trumpians might also be among those rare Americans who never needed some really great coach, teacher, professor, parent/s, neighbor who watched your kids, or all of the above in order to be who they are today. Sometimes, ruggedly individualistic Republicans make me wonder if only Democrats do the daycare hustle or have kids that don't leave home after college due to the economy, so they support Bernie because they need a job.
Is segregation in politics part of a Republican creed or just a reflection of our other segregation issues? Do parents of children from both parties work to indoctrinate their offspring or is this just a Republican thing?
Trump is exposing America to the ingrained problems of both parties and of the system as a whole that allows for the party elite to continually manipulate the rest of us into a corner of their choosing. Currently, congressional Republicans appear to be compromised from a lack of ideology, so they survive on a steady diet of American segregation and gerrymandering. Hillary, on the other hand, has to promise a continuation of the right leaning agenda's of Obama and Bill while grafting the populist mission of Bernie Sanders into her plan at the same time.
Populism versus Capitalism
Populism is entirely contradictory to capitalism because capitalism isn't a way of life, it is the economy of life, and no civilization functions without some system of exchange and profit. Conversely, populism is not an economic system but a means of disrupting and redistributing one; sometimes for the good, but there simply aren't enough great functioning examples of populism/socialism to brag about. Sorry Bernie.
You Can't Win The Deal Without Making One First
Capitalistic efforts like NAFTA or the TPP are Bernie's greatest contempt and key differentiation from Obama, Trump and Hillary, though Hillary has expressed some "reservations" with the TPP too. Trade deals, past present and future, are also the reason that Bernie likely loses my support and the support of Obama who needs a capable successor to his tenure. Trade is simply a necessity of our world, and one that my Socialist brother Bernie will never be in a position of strength to handle while standing against it philosophically.
Trump won't really talk a lot about the TPP much because he is running so that he can dive head first into this deal, that deal and every deal in between. If Trump gets his way, he'll be going TPP all over that entire world and beyond if possible. The author of "The Art of the Deal" can't possibly be against our dealing in foreign lands. In fact, he's certain that he can be the reason WE finish out on top of these deals instead of feeling like the biggest loser with every trade pact we make.
But deal he will.
Anyone who is still unclear that Trump is all for every deal that he can engage in is unclear about Trump. When he says we'll get sick of winning, it's because he'll never get sick of dealing, whether it's negotiating to convince Republicans to vote for him regardless of what he truly espouses (or because of it), Trump even has a fix for angry voters who quit voting,which just so happens to be the same fix for those who got tired of supporting the losing team.
Trump has all of US trapped inside of a rare, life sized art exhibit called "Exposition"- masterfully exposing the harsh truth of who we are as a nation of voters and how miserably we respond to the duty of leading and governing ourselves.
By virtue of the overriding sickness of ignorance, we've never taught ourselves enough details about our electoral process of selecting a president to know if we approve of it or not. Trump is exposing to both his supporters and detractors, things WE never had reason to care about much before he made us learn and care about.
For example:
Did you know that each party has the power to rewrite the rules at the convention so that it benefits the needs of the party. In other words, if the Republicans decide to broker their convention exclusive of Mitt Romney, who currently isn't running and needs to win 8 states to qualify as a potential nominee, they can simply rewrite those rules to allow Romney to overtake the convention and be the party nominee regardless of all the voting on behalf of other people.
In addition, while they are fighting to keep him from winning enough delegates, Trump could actually reach the delegate threshold and still be forced into a brokered convention because the parties write the rules as needed.
The Democrats can do this too, but their use of uncommitted superdelegates is their personal technique for avoiding the risk of entering the convention with a candidate who doesn't have a great chance to win In essence, they've done their brokering on the front side by soliciting superdelegates that can do the party's bidding without voters recognizing their impact.
Trump's presence in this presidential race has exposed more aspects of our fractured republic than many of us were willing to recognize. Whether we are talking race, immigration or the manner of choosing a president, WE've got real problems.
I would like to take Trump to task for his assault on these Constitutionally designed party protections called delegates, but I can't. He has single-handily exposed the absolutely undemocratic aspects of the very Constitution that WE hold near and dear, while simultaneously exposing the differences of emotions each of us feel when we talk about the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution itself.
Is the Constitution a divinely crafted guide from our founding father's and political elders, or is it the sanctioned way in which we allowed for "White Only" drinking faucets?
It is both.
Our Constitution has fully sanctioned our organized failures as a society, while offering both the light and a pathway towards correcting them.
Through the sturdy flexibility that the Constitution insures, Colorado and a couple of other states stopped giving citizens felony convictions and immense legal and life hurdles for small amounts of weed possession, even while weed still continues to make felons out of recreational and medical marijuana users all across the nation. It took a similar state by state rejection of Constitutional standards to kill the Prohibition of alcohol and bend the Constitution back towards the will of the people, even if our will towards alcohol green lighted one of America's most deadly addiction problems.
Trump doesn't talk a lot about confronting addiction problems or dealing with inner city policing issues with Constitutional measures, but he might start IF he wins the GOP nomination and enters a general election versus Hillary who virtually locked up her party's nomination with a Super Tuesday sweep (3/15/16) including the big boys, Florida, Ohio and Illinois. As a salesman, Trump is willing to do what every good salesman does to close a deal, and right now, feigning moderation is just not part of the negotiation.
Like any expert salesman, Trump is a master at reflective listening and leaving those he encounters with this odd sense of feeling heard and understood. What Trump won't have to do is actually make good on his promise to make US great again because the great he's promising involves things being more great for US and less great for Trump and the one percent. In reality, Obama has already done the part of making the rich richer, so more of the same won't impress anyone. If Obama the redistributor could force open America's economic flood gates but can't force the poor people faucet to trickle even as the rich are getting richer, there is simply something wrong with the pipes.
Just call him sucker punch Sam. He doesn't deserve a real name.
As president, there will always be limitations to what a can be done to actually impact greatness because every move demands a long wait while the ship makes the turn. As president, Trump won't be free to hire a whole lot of Mexicans anymore like he always brags about doing. even as those who support him express frustration from jobs lost to Mexico and its immigrants. He can encourage diversity, but he could not insure the diversity of Trump inc. or any corporation until after he serves in office.
If elected president, Trump will be able to finally ignore the angry people that he's basically using to usher himself into the final stages of this race. That won't fix stagnant wages, or clear him of our fear that he'll preside as a Democrat even while he competes under the banner of Republican. But once elected, he can track as far left as he wants and just call it as right as he chooses. Essentially, president Trump would be free to govern as he pleases and then spin every decision he makes as he see's fit, since spin and marketing are is his top two skill sets.
Policy agenda nuggets that mistakenly slips from Donald's wealthy lips glistens of third term Obama except with a southern fence. He'll finish off what Obama started with ISIS. He'll humanely bring the Mexican's back after finding and deporting them.(??) He'll take care of people who need better wages and fix universal health care with something better than ObamaCare. (????) And he'll be a uniting force like we Hoped Obama could be, except for banning Muslim's from entering America until he can figure out what the hell is going on with Islamic terror.
All of this on the notion that he, unlike any president before him, is uniquely tough enough to make people do as he demands. Instead of firing them like he did for years on television, he's throwing them out of his rally's and inciting his crowd to do his violent bidding by expressing what he would do if only he could.
Trump feeds off of this narcissistic exploitation of vulnerable people, and no one is more vulnerable than the angry. He who angers you owns you- but he who can incite your existing anger has the power to evoke immature rage on command. Trump has placed a segment of America's angry and afraid on a chain like a ravenous dog. Some are actually immature enough to sneak a bite at departing rally protester's while the rest are prepared to blame the victims for getting too close. As one united coalition, the Trumpian's are answering the clarion call of their leader to get tough, play dumb and make America great by any means necessary- and Trump will clean up your legal mess if necessary.
How adults can be groomed to be more loyal to party than country is answered in the children they raise. From a very early age, right wing offspring are given an image of liberalism attached with fear and loathing, not an endearing Republican theme that becomes their unified mantra of party loyalty. As the Republican party becomes increasingly segmented, the various options of which way to go are slowly pulling the party to its death. Add a little populism spewing from every presidential candidates voice, and the only distinct ideas become that crazy Muslim ban and the Trumpian wall.
Trump has even exposed the fact that every politician is trying to figure out our preferences just to sale us a bill of goods exactly like the other candidates, only better.
Will Republicans alter the Constitution so that it mirrors their love of Christ and hate of abortion and gays, or do they love guns and freedom more and decide to leave people alone so that people will do the same for them? If Obama and every other modern president have had no problem creating policies to make the rich get richer, why can't either party find a way to make America's wealth trickle down- and which party actually deserves another chance to finally make it happen?
If either party had an easy answer to issue of wealth disparity, they would have used it a long time ago. Now, Trump has exposed this failure from both sides of the two-party political conspiracy forcing both sides to join together in figuring a simple method to stop Trump and start opening pathways to wealth before America fixes this electoral college hustle and gives Trump a try.
ObamaCare created him. Well not directly but indirectly with all of the constant promises from republicans that kept telling us all how horrible it was for America and how much they promised....promised to rid America of the mistake the first chance that they got. To date, while popular in consumption, ObamaCare still does not poll well in popularity which is primarily due to the smear campaign that republicans used to help them win a majority in both houses of congress during the last election.
Republicans have not won much against Obama during his presidency, so the past election victory represented a milestone opportunity to stick it to the man who had stuck it to them so many times before. Since winning that election, Obama has stuck it to republicans more than ever before with an assist from the Supreme Court who decided that language created for ObamaCare was not intentionally designed to dismantle it at the same time.
Those who sold their republican constituents a bill of goods relative to dismantling ObamaCare had to know that they would be asked for a respectable alternative that has yet to be suggested. Republicans point to a number of bills that died in the House and Senate designed to repeal and/or replace ObamaCare, but none of these bills would ever gain the support of a wide swath of congress who remained hesitant to incorporate universal health care prior to the election of Barack Obama, and still remain afraid of the blood they will bear if somehow paying for a healthy America goes bust.
Has the ObamaCare scare turned in the favor of Obama?
The only reason America realized the impossible dream of universal health care is because the president who signed it into law chose a plan crafted and proven by republicans themselves. If America had endless possibilities to the trials that challenge our social conscience and direction we would pick them like wild flowers in the field. Universal health care, like all socialized measures, took so long because it needed to for the sake of proper considerations and trial runs like Mitt Romney and Massachusetts offered with their version of the same system we all use now. Romney knew at the time of his running for the presidency that RomneyCare needed a couple of basic tweaks in order to operate more smoothly but he couldn't offer them up freely in fear of supporting the cause of Obama.
Those basic tweaks are still required yet on a national scale now since RomneyCare got gobbled up by ObamaCare and federal inefficiency. The benefit is guaranteed solvency at the state level thanks to federal support. The detriment is everything we expected from the insurance industry who currently operates with embedded financial protections and old behaviors that have caused them to game the system instead of trusting that more customers is better in the long run than milking the few you have. Competition will eventually drive these scammers away from the market place, but probably not without a little support from congress, possibly with the threat of, or an actual single payer health care system to correct old insurance habits.
Whatever the fix, the fix must happen to ObamaCare because it is a proven model that lives. Any real replacement requires transition and further change towards something that is frankly unknown. What remains is a pretty good idea created by republicans who have allowed a democrat president to steal it away from them. Obama would hardly care if republicans reminded us who created ObamaCare or fight the claim since he's not up for re-election anyway, though his legacy is tied to the future solvency of his signature health care legislation. My approach (are you listening Jeb Bush) would be to reclaim it as a republican ideology that was implemented poorly by a democrat who stole the idea in the first place.
Is the Trump craze being lead
primarily by angry white men?
In fact, that is exactly what it is. Furthermore, the lack of repeal or attack against it at all is the singular reason why republicans are pissed off enough to actually be voting for Donald Trump. In reality, only the angry republicans are holding up Trump right now and his polling shows that he must capture a wider segment of republican voters to even continue on his primary path, which is likely the reason for his third party considerations. Currently, he has sucked up the air that was supposed to be breathed by Rand Paul and Chris Christie, notorious blowhards who are sucking wind with the rise of Trump.
Republicans could really help themselves by pissing off Trump just enough to hasten that third party move he's considering, and then move to recapture the health care law that they created in the first place. Until they do that, the Obamacare scare that they also created will continue to haunt only one side of this fight.
Electing Barack Obama not only represented the beginning of Hope and Change, it allowed America an opportunity to ease long standing guilt. The White House of only white men gave race critics plenty of room to complain. When president Obama moved his family in to the White House, he ushered in a term called post-racial America; an America where race no longer is the limiting stigma that it used to be. The America that asks, "how did Oprah and Obama happen if America is so racist"? Whether you chuckle at the very notion of post-racial America, or you believe that we can never move on until we simply move on, America is constantly making a topic out of matters of race while simultaneously running from any genuine conversation about it. The truth about the Obama presidency is that Obama has closely followed Clinton's moderate, to right leaning policies, so it seems reasonable to expect that republicans could find as much common ground with this President as they did with Bill. Shunning the single payer option for a Federal version of RomneyCare is as right leaning as is the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), Obama's NAFTA equivalent. To many black people (including me), going through life answering to the name "Barry" instead of Barack is a sign of Barack's propensity towards anglo assimilation instead of the black power persona given to him via connections to Jeremiah Wright or My Brothers Keeper. Barack Hussein Obama, who has family roots from Kenya, was always going to have a hard time bridging the racial divide in America. I have a hunch that Barry Obama, the Harvard Graduate who deports more Mexican's than Bush ever dreamed of, might have been received in a different way by those still hung up on his skin tone. During the Bush year's, the KKK was dying into a marginalized group. Under Obama they are alive and kicking and a group that is back on the move. The fear that white America is becoming a minority speaks to the ear of many white Americans, even if extremism isn't how they express this concern. As Black America evolves politically, we remain largely unified on the idea that we have yet to reach the place that Martin Luther King Jr. had dreamed of for America. Even Herman Cain, once seen as a republican front runner for the presidency, cried racism when seedy stories from his past curtailed his run at the white house. For every moment that we feel progressed as a nation relative to matters of discrimination, we are constantly taken back by stories of voter suppression and of states who've flipped their "white only" signs around in order to write the words "heterosexual's only" Not every apparent racial debate is naturally divided along racial lines. Voter suppression, immigration, entitlement reform (which now includes the ACA) are all matters of public policy that do not differentiate on racial lines but have been primarily drawn on lines of social status (the givers versus the takers). Yet, when you separate the masses and look at the faces, race can not be ignored as an obvious element within these stories too. Nancy Pelosi says that immigration reform would have already been signed if the said immigrants were Irish. The difference of course has much to do with the opened border we share with Mexico versus Ireland, but many people would say that Pelosi is right. Race has conspired against America from the day that it was allowed to be a dividing line between its citizens. Yes Mitch McConnell. The opposing party to a seated president has always fought the good fight of legislative give and take. Never have they done it using kamikaze warfare. To educated observers, the end game of this republican power play will resemble that of Jim Jones during the Jonestown massacre. It is virtually impossible to explain away your "true motives" when your end game seems to disregard your own safety. Wallowing in the mud just to get a little of it on your enemy might be a way to cloud the waters on Obama's legacy, but at what cost.? Republican's have always opposed Democrat policy,...... just not like this. Are they truly attacking the left, or are they left with no other explanations for their intense focus on the failure of America's first brother? If it is fair to say that the race of Barack Obama has conspired to grind politics (immigration, ACA repair, entitlement reform) to a halt, then it is probably fair to say that race remains our number one issue.
While no one wishes to be labeled a complainer, only unresolved complainers get offended by the label. (I am personally a classism complainer )No matter how right you think you might be,the challenge is to find a way to address issues that matter to you without sounding like a complainer, even when complaining is your only recourse.Martin Luther King Jr. complained about the nature of this nation and his complaining got him memorialized. Yet, even Dr. King saw the lines between poverty and color blur as he pressed towards a better America for blacks, who's primary challenge was the impact of racism (poverty) and not simply the viciousness of hate.
There are black people who will falsely tell you that minorities can not be racist' (by definition) because racism is an act of powerful people against weaker ones. Whether the crime is racism or bigotry, there are plenty of examples of how we all let stereotypes of race taint our image of the world, leading to our abuse towards the people in it. As a result, we all expand racism and classism in our own way. In effect, no one cares to address something that everybody practices. With as much as we discussed these things in grade school, why is America still full of racial stereotypes?
The easy answer is that we forgot the lessons we learned. We limited our conversation to those mandatory classes, and forgot to reinforce that, while stereotypes are generally true, they are viciously dangerous to employ. Our teachers always told us that there are no stupid question because they knew that the height of human ignorance is a question unasked. By asking questions about geometry we indirectly master the language of the craft. Race is no different. Without a healthy conversation surrounding race, we do not have the strength of vocabulary needed to further the discussion. In the absence of the proper words for discussions of race, most of us mess up when seeking to learn about others. Eventually we came up with a term called political correctness (which means the other guy is simply way too sensitive) and refuse to go down that road ever again. Political correctness has been the fuel to the growth of racial division, but now it is high tide. We must link arms and test these waters for change. Change is necessary because we take way too much comfort in our stereotypes. Absent of our stereotypes, we are forced to do the work it takes to get to know people independent of their persona, which is largely driven by race and class.
When it comes to genuine discussion, our reluctance to "go there" as it relates to race is because it is a sensitive scab that just doesn't heal quickly. Some say that our problem is that we won't leave the scab alone long enough for it to fully heal and fall away. Some believe that in time, racial division might heal itself because technology has joined people together in a way that removes the ignorance, and thus the fear that we have towards one another. Unfortunately, this method of racial progress demands the death of several generations of ignorant people who continue to proliferate racial division by breeding the same fear that was bred into them.
President Barack Obama has been extremely aware of the presence of the racial extreme's in America. Obama needed a significant turnout from his base, so he has tried to be as cool a black man as he knows to be without being a President of just the black people. As a result, he has offended many of those who voted for him to represent their unheard voices, while simultaneously offending those who generally oppose cool black guys.
It is hard to ever say that 'the time is now' to have this discussion because it is not easy to get any one of the races to embrace their role towards change. What is an obvious reality is that the Obama family forces everyone (even other blacks) to see black people in a different light. Before the Obama's, it has been nearly impossible for America to see any black man as smart and passionate and articulate enough to outshine the white guys who have dominated the white house. Now that the Obama family has come along, the world has an opportunity to see black Americans in a much less monolithic way. We are more than entertainers.
It is also very hard to gain an understanding about someone else when you start with too many preconceived notions (stereotypes). Every action that a person does when cast beneath the shadow of a stereotype is darkened by that shadow. Even your positive traits can be rationalized away by someone who generally see’s you in a negative light. Whites and blacks and all races do this to each other; holding securely to our stereotypes until we meet someone who forcefully snatches them from our grip by defying them all, and then we simply count them as an exception to the rule as we continue to discriminate against the rest.
Obama has shattered many stereotypes of black people, but he has not removed common questions. Barack Obama has unsettled dust that had long since found a comfortable resting place. He has been a steroid to the leadership journey that other black leaders started years ago. Sometimes, their is a legitimate curiosity as to what a black man might do in the face of leadership. Other times, people just want to see what your hair actually feels like. In the end, we haven't given enough black leaders a fair chance to know what the data will show, and we haven't given enough white people a chance to touch our hair. One day we might finally discover that black leaders succeed and fail just the same as others. One day we might realize that the only true difference does lie in the skin tone and hair texture.
The Obama’s are cool and smart and composed and charismatic and black. They are the Huxtables who made it to the very top of the mountain. They make many people have to observe and rethink their impressions of all blacks because if there is one family like this, there has to be two. Most importantly, while they help us to accept that we have come a long way, they remind us daily of how far we have yet to go. Especially with matters of race. When is the right time to stage an intervention? The time is ripe for this debate that we have long since tip-toed around.We are more polarized than ever because those who are most benefited by divisions of race and class are afraid of what happens when these institutions fall.The KKK was able to thrive for years by feeding off of the contrived fear that had been developed against blacks and Jews.As that fear dissipated, so did their power base. Racism and racist organizations survive from fear. Fear is a funny thing because the less man fears God, the more likely we are to become fearful of one another stifling the quality of our conversation. In my mind, racism grows because it continues to be fertilized by fear and watered by ignorance.
When race is implicated as a contributor or an impediment to social class, minorities develop class envy breeding a widespread inclination for unhealthy consumerism (keeping up with the Joneses) that only increases the class divide. Classism is the ugly institution that feeds off of our pursuit to afford an unhealthy version of the American Dream. Classism thrives from our inability to define the dream for ourselves and not succumb to a force fed dreamlike illusion. In the end, classism wins if it convinces anyone of us that what I lack is directly related to what you have. When you then associate this same notion to skin color, you create a destructive convergence which some are describing as the most intense polarization of modern history.
We first allowed fear to polarize us, but now we are letting the fear of our dying familiarity (aka stereotypes) overwhelm the fear of impending change. Our stereotypes are not only easy and familiar to us all, they keep us safe from the unknown and the uncomfortable. Every black man you once feared isn't necessarily your opponent anymore. Some of them are like Herman Cain and a few are like Spike Lee who both moved away from city folks when their money elevated their class, but are probably similarly stereotyped by the suburbanites who they call neighbors. Racism may not be gone, but it finds a way to temper itself when confronted by wealth. For people without money, racism seems the same as it ever was. For those who have money, racism is a taboo topic that most will shun within every environment that money controls. A person's color might influence our initial impression, but a keenly purchased watch or pair of shoes can offer a sufficient head fake. Thanks to black conservatism, electing a black president and nice watches and shoes, racism is no longer painted on the face of America even if it remains in our bloodline.
So is racism a legitimate problem worthy of a legitimate conversation, or is the alleged abuse of Barack (because he's a brother) much to do about nothing?....and what do black people's hair actually feel like? Who know's because we just won't 'go there. In order to get a check up, you have to be willing to visit the doctor. When it comes to getting a checkup on racism, America has yet to make the appointment. What I know for certain is this. When you seek to find common ground, you quickly discover how easy it is for any two people moving towards each other to close the gap between them. My hope is for the death of fear and the hope of change wherein lies the conversations of a brighter tomorrow.
When the healthcare.gov roll out got botched, the republican party saw some daylight.
https://www.healthcare.gov/
The second term election of Barack Obama was a signature achievement alone. Republicans may not have put as much support into Romney as was needed for victory, but they certainly staked all of their hope on him winning. When he didn't win, the disappointment became bitterness rather quickly.
Nothing like a botched roll out to sweeten sour puss conservatives. The opposition against ObamaCare was virtually silent prior to the roll out, and suddenly the passions peaked once again. Websites that don't work well are certainly a cause for controversy, but they are also fixable, and the fervor for an ObamaCare repeal has died with increased enrollment.
Chicken Little has declared the sky to be falling for so long that he has now lost his audience. If you need a new audience to listen to you fight the Affordable Care Act, you create an alter ego to the Affordable Care Act. Enter, stage right, the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, Empowerment Act (nicknamed CARE). The PCAREA (nicknamed care?) is a peculiar solution to the ACA because it does many of the same things, but eliminates the mandates and many protections of the ACA. It is also a failed attempt to create a cool acronym.
After reading about the plan, I found a few elements that could be cherry picked into the ACA, but the general idea feels like ObamaCare light with the feel of repeal. My real hunch is that republicans will not push this agenda forward to repeal the ACA, they will push it forward to silence the critics (some from their own camp) who say they do not have a formal plan.
Up until now, if you asked a republican for an alternative to ObamaCare they would simply say, 'there are a lot of ideas out there to consider'. What they failed to accept is that a lot of ideas is code for none worth speaking about. Until you can refer to a specific plan, and offer up details that represent a difference, then you sound like you are arguing for the sake of argument.
Now republicans can say "we CARE too". Disregard that the Patient choice affordability responsibility empowerment Act requires you ignore the patient and the act to create the CARE. This kind of CARE is not like healthcare. It is like political care which only cures soundbites and polling numbers.
If you would actually like healthcare, sign up at healthcare.gov while you still can.
I love to smile inside at times when I think about the years of my early adulthood when I was raising babies and trying to find my way. At the time, my very dear friend was raising his own babies, so we often spent time together raising our babies and exploring the joy of beer.
We were close, close friends from middle school, so our influence on each other is immense. I can recall how he came to be deeply involved with unions. As a politically charged young person, I found myself standing outside of a grocery store during a strike and I jumped right in with the workers to fight the good fight. At the time, I don't think my friend cared much about stuff like that but he joined me anyway. As we departed I explained to him what I believed about unions then, and what I believe about them now. Unions dictate work standards for everyone, even those who do not pay the cost for their existence.
Unions rose out of a natural reaction to capitalism run amok. A great example of the importance of unions is our current insurance debate. The reason that 85% of the insurance market is employer based insurance is not because employers are so considerate of people, but because companies who did not have unions ran the risk of becoming unionized if they did not move to meet union level standards. They still do.
As a result of unions in this country, every company tries to stay ahead of employee dissent that could result in a unionization effort. The rise of unions and the cost of having them does not and did not destroy companies, it just forced them to see the cost of doing business in a broader perspective. This broader perspective allows 85% of America to currently work for a company that subsidizes each employee in order to pay for the current socialized health insurance program called group insurance.
If companies can justify paying this expense right now (it will go away in 2015 for most ), do you think it will be hard to pay for increased wages when this expense goes away? Companies take any expense, increased supply cost, increased wages or whatever and treat it like all expenses; as a cost of doing business. That's it.
Most socialism is just a cost of doing business that we disperse among the masses to ease the pain. Sometimes we call it taxes, other times we call it fee's, but in the end whether its paid out in the form of group insurance or military spending, or food stamps, it is socialism nonetheless.
Socialism demands pragmatism. Group insurance is pragmatic. Generally American socialism is not pragmatic but reactionary and therefore expensive as hell. As a result of American socialism, the forces of capitalism and competition have learned to lurk for opportunity to consume the crumbs and waste from this reactionary beast. The big crumbs fall from military and healthcare socialism. Other forms of socialism nip at the edges of our wasteful government but don't consume nearly as much as the big two.
Military waste abroad will be consumed by private security firms and other corporations (have you heard about camp leatherneck). The rest needs to go away to deal with our deficit a bit. Since war is such a major industry in this world, the military has become an example of socialism and capitalism playing twister. Good luck unraveling those two lovers. Before the ACA, that's what was happening in healthcare.
In the end, socialism and capitalism are like a husband and wife. Both compete for power even though they already know who is the boss............s/he is.
Let's be clear. There are plenty of liberals who simply do not see president Barack Obama as liberal enough. They are correct.
Barack Obama is a pragmatist. Paul Ryan is also and the reality of political pragmatism is that it does not behold itself well to the party line. The dynamic of balanced power is unique, because there is always an opposing force against any political movement. Even in the redest of red states or bluest of blue states you will find a divided legislature. Why does this happen if not by design.
As Barack Obama was handed the white house and a majority in both houses, liberals did the happy dance. When he only achieved RomneyCare2.0 along the way, they frowned and wondered if they chose the right brother.
Barack Obama is a democrat, but he's not a bleeding heart liberal and republicans need to recognize every opportunity they have to resurrect their fractured image. Dumping the ACA is probably not a winning plan. Fixing it, or creating the illusion of a fix could very well be the holy grail to capturing the soon to be vacant white house. If Barack Obama is truly interested in working with congress to fix the ACA, then the first congressman of either party to jump at this opportunity might position themselves well for 2016. Chris Wallace of Fox Sunday Night suggested this to his panel recently and watched as they all stumbled at the idea of working with Barack Obama on anything. But he might be on to something.
Repealing and replacing is not a great idea because it will be more disruptive than what we already have. Selling insurance across state lines is a simple adjustment that could take a year to enact, but would satisfy conservatives who simply wish to feel a part of this law. Differences between the economies of each state makes this an actuary table nightmare, but not impossible to develop.
The real challenge for conservatives is to hear the Wallace suggestion of working with Obama and not damaging a brain cell (does not compute, does not compute). This idea is so simple its brilliant, but republican rancor makes it unrealistic at the same time. Republicans seem happy to keep hurting themselves while aiming to attack Obama.
By virtue of identity, the only elements that uniquely come to mind when thinking of today's Republican party are titled tax plans, Muslim hatred, "blood and soil" and tiki torches. I know a lot of really good people who still consider themselves Republican have never considered marching with a tiki torch and are upset that they are now being connected to such evil, hatred and our twit of a president. Yet, what else is there to help us identify a modern day Republican?
