GAMAY, Roots of the Republican Right

For those bemused by the string of circus acts parading through the Republican nomination process, here’s your primer.

While the Republicans vie for the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the Gipper would disapprove of much of what they propose. He was not the fountainhead of Republican orthodoxy. The actual source of modern “conservatism” is William F. Buckley Jr. Sixty years ago, 26-year-old Buckley, recalling his term at Yale, authored God and Man at Yale. GAMAY, as it came to be known, essentially laid out the doctrine of modern Republican politics.

Buckley had two bones to pick with his alma mater:

First, in politics, Yale professors were teaching the Keynesian model of economics. As a laisey faire advocate, Buckley had no truck for government meddling in economic affairs. Surely the market would rein in industrialists and protect us from corporate and executive greed (as we’ve seen in the last few years?). Regulation and fiscal policies pursued by devious politicians would only bring distortion to pure market forces. Buckley advocated “individualism” to combat the looming menace of “collectivism,” the sure path to socialism, which he associated with “communist” regimes of Stalin and Mao Tse-tung.

Secondly, he was outraged over the academic, secular tilt of Yale’s religion department. By and large, the professors in theology at Yale, some of whom were ordained ministers, taught academic religious theory, instead of proselytizing the Christian faith to young, absorbent minds.

Buckley argued that academic freedom was a myth, and it was the responsibility of the University to lead its students down the path of [Buckley’s] choosing. “I believe,” he stated, “that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.”

The Cold War was raging, as well as a hot war in Korea, and McCarthyism had spread its tentacles across our vision of freedom. Still these forces did not directly affect Mr. Buckley, and he seemed to be unconcerned with issues of freedom. These parochial views clearly defy the vision of “intellectual,” which we normally ascribe to this erudite and articulate gentleman.

Buckley conflated Christianity and economics into the focus of our goodly struggle against an evil, Godless empire. It was good verses evil. Even scholarly, John Maynard Keynes would lead us down the path to perdition.

And who would argue with this doctrine? Who could argue with it? There was no logic behind it---then, nor is there now. This is sentiment, a rationality based on emotion and faith. But this sentiment has imbued the modern Republican Party with the almost mindless fervor that is required to lock out reasonable dialogue. Sentiment trumps logic, or facts, because it's backed by the force of emotion. They don't discuss matters of politics because they're not dealing with what they "think;" it's a matter of what they believe. "Facts" or science have no bearing. When speaking derisively of the "intellectual elite" they're talking of non-believers, thinkers!

This anti-intellectual approach leads directly to the bombast of demagogues like Rush Limbaugh. It leads to sensational titles to widely-selling books from people like Ann Coulter: “Treason,” “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Demonic,” and “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America.” It also leads many on the right to make the irrational connection between Republican conservatism and Christianity.

You wonder why actual conservatives such as Jon Huntsman and (even) Mitt Romney can’t breach the walls of Republican legitimacy. They don’t speak with fervor and righteousness. And when they try, they don’t get it right. They sound phony. The Republican base demands chords of crusade.

So the next time you slip into a “discussion” with a Republican, keep in mind that you’re speaking to his heart, not his head. If you’re not speaking his language, he won’t be listening.

American Normalicy

by C. A. Jones

It isn't surprising that Mitt Romney played the "American Exceptionalism" card in his first major foreign-policy address. What was startling, given Romney's image for moderation, was that he credited God for that exceptionalism.

"This century must be an American century," Romney said. "In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. God did not create this country to be a nation of followers."

This takes the invocation of the Deity a step further than George W. Bush's much-criticized 2003 State of the Union address, in which he said, "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity." Bush's line is actually anti-chauvinistic, whereas Romney is claiming a divine blessing for his assertion that "We're No. 1." Well, God is an American, right?

Has the United States always been an exceptionally free and virtuous nation? (Are you kidding me??) If you have to ask the question, you are already well on the road to unpatriotic perdition—or so every Republican about to run for president seems to think. “Don’t kid yourself with the lie,” Rick Santorum recently told a group of college Republicans. “America is exceptional, and Americans are concerned that there are a group of people in Washington who don’t believe that any more.” Mike Huckabee gives the same indictment a quasi-spiritual spin: “To deny American exceptionalism,” he told Politico last August, “is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation.” In his new book, Mitt Romney adds a messianic note: “Billions of people today live in freedom, or have the hope of freedom who otherwise would have lived in despair, if not for the greatness of the United States.”

Romney, the Robbinsense projected winner of the Republican nomination, further states: “I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world.” It is noteworthy that there is zero Biblical citation to support such a claim. This, by default, comes from a “de facto,” “third testament” of The Bible, which only people like Republicans seem to grasp. Or maybe this would be straight from the writings of Joe Smith (LDS founder), who claimed to have “found” ancient writings, and who also happened to be an American. Well people always find reasons to believe that they are the chosen. But Romney goes on to state that those who don’t subscribe to his Third Testament are ready to “wave the white flag of surrender.” As such, they would be presumed to be unpatriotic. Sorry, Mitt, but a true patriot, is NOT in denial as to the transgressions of his loved ones, including his country; he assumes responsibility for their faults and errors. We expect, we demand this of our president!

God’s chosen are not bound by the rules of other mortals; certainly they need never admit error: “I will never, ever apologize for America,” he goes on. “When America is strong, the world is safer.” Vietnam notwithstanding, even a peek at world history since the fall of the “Iron Curtain” makes a mockery of this statement. This is precisely the dangerous attitude in a president that has launched three wars in the last decade!

The issue of Romney’s Christianity (as a Mormon) is moot. The significance here is that he openly subscribes to “faith-based” statesmanship. And virtually no prominent Republican will gainsay these assertions.

You can see, there is no “logic” or rational argument being forwarded here. This is pure “sentiment,” a notion to be taken on faith…faith, the issue that drives religion. We’re not supposed to operate our government on this element of human frailty, much less our country.

Today in a poll conducted by The Hill, 69% of Americans believe we are in decline. Yet even President Obama, in response to the drumbeat, is reluctant to buck the sentiment in an election cycle. He posits that “the 21^st Century will be another American century.”

Growing up in the ‘50s, politicians didn’t make pronouncements like this. There was no need to. We were that country, and the whole world knew it. Now this sentiment is central to the essence of the Republican Party, and its campaign buzz. The reason they trumpet this cause is that it is no longer true. But they will say it over and over again. We are bludgeoned by oh so many lies, leading us to irrational wars, irrational election decisions, over and over again, because they know that if they repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.

In the action films of the ‘50s, the sheriff, Gary Cooper or John Wayne, was a normal person, with the courage to stand up for the weak and prevail against odds. This was accepted as a metaphor for our country. After our prestige and integrity were destroyed in Vietnam, Rambo emerged to signify our national will. Our new heroes were pumped up with artificial muscles and bristling with overwhelming firepower, like our pumped-up military. Rambo was a creature of American defeat.

The politicians who trumpet this cause are stand-ins for Rambo. Our government seduces us with: “Support Our Troops” to distract us from looking closely at the wars being waged in our names. When we had real wars and normal, conscripted Americans fighting them, our sons and neighbors, we were not distanced from the fighting. The “professional fighting force” gives us separation from war. Our politicians no longer ask us to pay for wars…more separation. They can wage their economic and political battles in a vacuum, away from our surveillance.

Today our heroes return from war to a country that has lost its nerve, lost its spirit, lost its prestige, and has no jobs to offer them. Does anyone wish to take on a rational discussion of American Exceptionalism?

C. A. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer

Founder, O Ship of State

by Jackson Dave

The ship of state is a famous and oft-cited metaphor put forth by Plato in book VI of the Republic. It likens the governance of a city-state to the command of a naval vessel - and ultimately argues that the only men fit to be captain of this ship are philosopher kings, benevolent men with absolute power who have access to the Form of the Good. The origins of the metaphor can be traced back to the lyric poet Alcaeus and it is found in Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes before Plato.

It’s difficult to find fulfillment of this promise in our list of presidential aspirants. Meanwhile, our ship founders while the government fiddles. How did we get here?

At the close of World War II The United States of America was not only the envy, but the pride of the world. Virtually all countries looked here with admiration, and for most, gratitude. In less than four years, for the second time in a generation we had extracted the world from the jaws of horrific war. We were in the course of rebuilding allies and vanquished foes, through The Marshal Plan. We were the economic and manufacturing engine of the world. We were (in the eyes of the world) a beacon of freedom.

The course of history shows that great empires, through corruption and greed, swallow their own hubris and sink into decline and despair.

In the ’60s our ship of state hit hit its first, post-war iceberg. Both our self esteem and international prestige were challenged by the Vietnam fiasco. Sponsored by our own State Department, under the hand of no less august proctor than Dean Acheson, this war was a vestige of antebellum, European colonialism. Vietnam was a “pushover pawn” to fight the supposed threat of communism. A succession of five presidents could not find the courage and wisdom to put an end to the carnage and disgrace.

In the ‘70s Toto pulled the curtain back to expose a vulnerable giant. Our own president announced to the world that we could not satisfy our thirst for energy. We discarded him in order to maintain course. Middle East oil was inexpensive, and kept so by our bristling military might, and we wallowed in the politics and drama of that dysfunctional region. Our balance of payments dropped below the red line. The world watched as we were again humiliated by foes and friends alike (Iran, Hussein in Iraq, Israel).

The ‘80s, “Morning in America,” saw our government lead the charge on our own economic health as “Reaganomics” led to a spiral of debt. In the international sphere we sponsored another major proxy war; this time Afghanistan stood in (for us) against the Soviet Union, instead of Vietnam standing in for the Soviet Union against us. Meanwhile, we promoted and supplied both sides of a terrible war between Iran and Iraq in a misbegotten effort to control that region and keep the oil flowing. We provided chemical weapons to our friend, Saddam Hussein, who later used them against his own people to retain power. International disgrace was intensified by illegal arms deals and meddling in Latin America. For the first time, the United States of America became a debtor nation, beholden to the world not only for energy, but for our economic stability.

The ‘90s brought a brief plateau in our decline. Military expenditures were cut back and our economy prospered. But on the political front, chaos struck as an ambitious congressman (Newt Gingrich) saw an opening for power from below. Taking a page from the playbook of “Tailgunner Joe” (McCarthy) he trumpeted his “Contract with America” as a cure for evils he invented. Our political climate turned from backroom cooperation to personal attack and intransigence. This kind of impasse had not been seen since the nineteenth century. The “contract” was really a manifesto of political war, leading one of our major parties, believing its own rhetoric, to no longer tolerate being out of power.

At the dawn of the new century we hit two more icebergs. Re-implementation of “Reaganomics,” brought exploding deficits. This coupled with financial deregulation led to an economic disaster which has spread over the world. Meanwhile, our jobs have been shipped overseas and our manufacturing base has disappeared. International meddling, which finally resulted in an attack on our shores, led a reckless president to seek his personal legacy by unleashing our military colossus against any country he didn’t like. In the face of government lies that we didn’t want to see through, we stood back and allowed him to do it. We prefer war to truth, so long as we (think we) don’t have to pay for it, and my kid doesn’t have to fight.

In 2012 we find our ship of state taking on water as we navigate the next century. Almost everyone believes that we have the resources to repair the ship and sail on to prosperity. Our crew has the equipment and experience to repair the hull. Our captain is a capable and honest leader.

But the first officer, with a sizable faction behind him, wants to take over the ship and the drums of mutiny ring out. The problem is that the ship can probably reach the next port, and most of us will be getting off there…we don’t care enough about the ship or our descendants, who will be sailing on, to take action. The first officer, rather than showing us how capable his faction is at repairing the ship, has adopted the strategy of blocking all efforts to plug the holes. (While the lower decks are awash, the mutinous faction has quarters on the upper decks!) He hopes the passengers will blame the captain. But while recent history clearly shows that when in command, the first officer will continue on through ice-infested waters, it's clear to most that he is brazenly threatening to allow the ship to sink if not promoted to captain.

The question remains: “How high does the water have to get before we passengers remove the first officer from the chain of command and take charge, as we did on United flight 93, bound for the capital?” It’s no mere co-incidence that the same party that supports the mutinous first officer seems to do all it can to sabotage an educational system that might teach our children what’s been happening to them.

Jackson Dave in a Robbinsense staff writer

Social Disconnect

Dear Senator Boxer:

To remind you of what occurred in Afghanistan last week, President Hamid Karzai pardoned Guinaz, a 19-year-old woman, victim of rape, who has been incarcerated since “her crime” and has borne the child of the rapist while in prison. The victim was imprisoned, not the rapist, because she had sex out of wedlock. Meanwhile, the condition of the pardon is that both Guinez and her attacker agree to marry---each other.

The separation in social mores between this society and ours cannot be described in a short letter. Yet we expend our national treasure in prestige, lives and wealth to support this government against attack from its own people. You may contest that the Taliban would treat its women even more harshly; but that is their affair, Ma’am, not ours. The responsibility for THIS government is ours. We have no more legitimate authority over the progress or process of this society than we had authority over the Vietnamese people, 50 years ago, while we proceeded to destroy their country. These people will transform their society on their schedule, not on ours.

You, my government, tell us our mission is succeeding, as you told us 50 years ago that the struggle in Vietnam was succeeding. Our proposed success lies merely in driving our “enemies” under ground---awaiting our departure. In the meantime, large numbers of those who collude with the proxy government that we have put in place are executed for their treason. This is madness.

Your other excuse for our commitment, that we confront terror on their soil, is equally lame. Our military presence in that part of the world incites their passionate, selfless commitment to attack us. Our military presence there also drives Iran toward the nuclear option, which is their only assurance that we will not attack them. After we depart, they will return to squabbling among themselves.

I beg you: Stop this insanity. Bring all of our troops home immediately. We have plenty of egregious problems to address here at home. Our national treasure will be much more effective in the form of goodwill and war reparations.

Totaler Krieg from the Reps

"But for the new GOP, compromise of any kind defeats their central purpose, which is political totaler krieg. This party's entire reason for being is conflict and aggression. There is no underlying patriotic instinct to find middle ground with the rest of us, because the party doesn't have a vision for society that includes anyone outside the tent."

You may have read that Boulder had recently become overrun with squirrels. They ate everything: flowers, fruit, vegetables. Multiplying exponentially, finally Mother Nature finally stepped in and mercifully gave us a dose of bubonic plague which wiped practically all of them out. That may be our only hope with Republicanism. There seems to be little that can be done to out-maneuver the Koch-Topus even when they are kept out of power. So we'll have to ride out their grip on us like the way you'd ride out a bout of meningitis or the plague and watch nature take its course. For some reason 'Blade Runner' keeps popping up in my mind.

Bill Jellick is a Robbinsense correspondent

9/11, the Anniversary

by C. A. Jones

On the 10th anniversary of 9/11 we look back in horror at the events of that day. We find the nation obsessed by vivid memories seared into our collective imagination. These are images which the media have utilized for ten years to hold our attention. They have kept this alive, vibrant, horrific.

The airwaves are filled with perspective and remembrances. The newspapers and news magazines deliver retrospective. Television, of course, fills the screen with images---the horror, the heroism, the drama. This salves our national ego, our sensitivity.

In an interview on the National Geographic channel last week, George W. Bush spoke of the incident, the defining moment of his eight-year tenure, in terms of history: “….a day eventually to be marked on calendars like Pearl Harbor Day: a day never to be forgotten by the people who lived through it.”

But on December 7, 1951, there was scant mention of “Pearl Harbor Day” in the news. Television, having not yet reckoned “news” as entertainment, was not geared up to cover that kind of perspective. The L. A. Times, under Norman Chandler, made no reference to the event in the first section. In the second section: "This is the day on which innumerable Americans ... will be tempted to go about boring other Americans to death with their reminiscences of where they were and exactly how they heard the news…" Norman was a staunch Republican.

Likewise, there was no front section article in the New York Times. In an editorial: “The meaning of Pearl Harbor.…since Dec. 7, 1941, it has not been possible for us to deny our historic mission in modern history — resisting aggression.”

Life (magazine) did not run a story on the anniversary, but Time did. It reported that "for the foreseeable future, Japan is solidly encamped with the free world," and "the U.S. must recognize that full and equal partnership is the only basis for mutual, long-term friendship…”

Well, we’ve never considered “Dubya” to be an acute student of history.

So what’s this about? Briefly, in 1951 we were back at war---against Communism in Korea. Japan was our ally, and we had a new enemy. Our political and commercial overlords wanted to focus our attention on a different front. But in 2011, we are still engaged in the fallout from 9/11. Our government and industry want us focused on that threat… These images keep us afraid… They energize and validate our campaign of hatred, fear and war against “militant Islam.”

To sort this out, you gotta ask Ole Charley (Jones).

In 1996, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States of America. We arrogantly shrugged this off as The Mouse That Roared, and went about our business.

Bin Laden, from a long, typically rambling and tedious declaration:

“…the inability of the regime to protect the country, and allowing the enemy of the Ummal, the American crusader forces, to occupy the land for the longest of years….these forces became the main cause of our disastrous condition, particularly in the economical aspect of it due to the unjustified, heavy spending on these forces. As a result of the policy imposed on the country, especially in the field of oil industry…expensive deals were imposed on the country to purchase arms…”

Get the picture? His war was not about religion; it was about economics, politics. 9/11 was never about “militant Islam.” 9/11 was about our foreign policy.

Bin Laden told us that our nation, our lives, would never be the same. Does this sound familiar? For the last month the media have swamped us with images, and the message: Our lives are not and will never be the same. Who won this war? Bin Laden is dead. Has his death changed anything?

This is about politics! Our Republican leaders invoke nostrums of religious “truth” to manipulate us: Gays, abortion, family values, etc. Are those their religious truths? No, my friends; those are their political truths. These clever demagogues have no interest in Christianity; they use their conveniently slanted rendition of Christianity to motivate their foot soldiers: our great, meticulously-washed middle class of unsophisticated voters.

By the same token, while the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks spewed out prayers and slogans of religious piety and fervor, religion was not the motivating factor for the authors of 9/11. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri were motivated by social outrage generated by our abusive and colonial foreign policies and by the political exigencies of driving us out of their lands. This had nothing to do with “infidels,” per se. They used the religious zeal of their followers, their foot soldiers, to motivate them to their deaths, the same as our unscrupulous political leaders use it to manipulate us.

The message of 9/11, my friends, in 2011 as well as 2001, is that we must force our government to change its foreign policies. We must demand that our government stop treating the world like we own it and can use it according to our political whims. (See Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins.)

Yesterday we mourned again the loss of 3000 innocent lives in the 9/11 attacks. Not once during these solemn ceremonies was mentioned the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Arab lands over the succeeding ten years at the hands of our military response. At very least ninety percent of those people were “innocents,” who at worst were caught up in the sweep of destiny and compelled to join the effort to drive us off.

The meaning of 9/11 lies within us…not in some exotic, foreign land. We will never heal our ailing social, economic and political society until we disengage our military forces and stop blaming others. We must allow those people to live their own lives, to seek their destiny, while we seek ours.

Many of us thought we had elected an "enlightened” man to the Presidency in 2008. Yet he has not fulfilled his “promise” to change the disastrous policies that are leading us to decline and ruin. These wars continue, even intensify. We may cut off the head of Islamic militarism, but we cannot destroy the roots, or the body. These forces thrive as our military efforts fertilize our own destruction. This was Mr. Bin Laden’s plan. We fulfill his dream, his life’s work.

C. A. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer

The Bin Laden Raid

by C. A. Jones

Congratulations to President Obama on a daring and successful raid upon what turned out to be the headquarters of Osama bin Laden. In this country and abroad there is relief at the dispatch of a renowned terrorist. The president has been duly rewarded by plaudits, pundits and polls. Republicans, with their thunder stolen, are in confused disarray.

Is this, however, good? Is the threat vanquished, or is the many-headed hydra of international terrorism moving to reappear?

In the face of seemingly universal approval at home and abroad, the editorial staff at Robbinsense is ambivalent, but we have bemused consensus.

The United States of America has been struggling with a persistent disease for many scores of years. This insidious disease, like a narcotic, seems to make us feel good until we break out in a cold sweat, with eruptions of rage, violence, trauma, a festering sore. It remains hidden while migrating below the surface and leads to insanity.

The latest significant eruption within our borders occurred on 9/11/01 in New York, leaving a gaping pock on the land. While the sore has healed, we are burdened by PTSD and fear of recurrence. Has the killing of Osama bin Laden cured our trauma? We think not; bin Laden will be replaced by another zealot, filled with hatred and driven by revenge. Our ship of state is the mighty eagle, too cumbersome to strike at a swarm of robins, pecking in flight…she must attack from a vantage point.

For a persistent cold, your doctor may prescribe drugs, likely a placebo, to ease your symptoms while your cold runs its course. Colds are that way. But with a serious disease do we ask our doctor to treat our symptoms, or do we look for a cure?

Osama bin Laden, friends, was a symptom of our disease. We can salve our wounds by killing him, or his successor, but this is no more significant than taking an analgesic to cure a runny nose. It sates blood-lust and generates political capital. In a sense, bin Laden was a palliative, a distraction, an evil face that our leaders used to avert us from facing the true demon: the motivation for 9/11.

Our disease is a collective mental disorder; it’s the notion of “American Exceptionalism.” See June, 2009. AE is the idea that our nation is not constrained by the rules of international conduct which govern other nations. AE is perpetrated by our own unscrupulous leaders who want to pursue ill-conceived, political objectives; it is ignored by our “liberal” press because our press is not liberal; it’s accepted and applauded by us because it’s fun to think we’re special and it’s a convenient excuse to hide from responsibility for the misdeeds of our government. AE is so pervasive in our culture that a raid such as this in Pakistan doesn’t even raise eyebrows. AE is so “accepted” that a significant group of our (Republican) presidential hopefuls raise it as campaign strategy---claiming its legitimacy, that is!

For Republican presidential candidates the phrase American Exceptionalism has taken on almost talismanic qualities. Newt Gingrich’s new book is titled, A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters. “American (sic.) the Exceptional” is the title of a chapter in Sarah Palin’s book America by Heart.

And woe be to those who take issue with the phrase. 2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee declares, “To deny American Exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation.” 2012 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney insists, “The reorientation away from a celebration of American Exceptionalism is misguided and bankrupt.”

This is Sarah Palin’s opinion? Mike, Mitt: you want on board with that? Who are we that these candidates think they can extol as virtue that which infects our culture to the core?

You might say, “Yes, but OBL was a really bad guy---a terrorist, an international criminal. Ok, but our government harbors such people in this country. We know of one living openly in Texas with a record of international crime, torture, terrorism, with the blood on his hands of 100 times more innocents than OBL could imagine. Would it be ok if one of our “allies” launched a paramilitary attack on our soil to remove this menace? We say, “No.” If you agree, then how can we claim that the raid in Pakistan is ok?

Our action in Pakistan, a sovereign nation, a “presumed ally,” is an expression of American Exceptionalism. AE is the disease that invites OBL and all of his successors to wage war on us, at home and abroad.

We need leadership in the political sphere to pull us back from the abyss. We need leaders who will take us into the heart of the international community as a constructive and respectful neighbor.

Given the scope and success of his raid, we applaud President Obama for his dignified bearing in the wake of the attack. We cringe at even the thought of the speech that President Bush would have delivered, filled with smirks, snickers and bravado. But with political capital in hand, we ask the president now for good leadership. There is clearly no hope from the other side of the aisle.

C. A. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer.

"Conversation" on the Budget

In response to this column:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/apr/10/paulson-applauding-courage-with-clarity/#comments

Mr. Paulson,

I was intrigued by your Monday column (in The Star) regarding the budget deficit. You quoted Thomas Paine(!): “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” You omitted: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it” (1777). Paine believed and preached that those of means should sacrifice in proportion to their wealth. “Patriotism” to Mr. Paine meant putting the collective good before private profit.

Obviously you agree, however, with Congressman Ryan that the budget would best be balanced by cutting services to our most needy, instead of taxing those who skim the richest cream off the top of our economy, paying little and often no taxes at all. Either of these measures could accomplish your objective, sir.

Obviously the groups that you and Mr. Ryan have targeted happen to have the least political clout, and contribute the least to the Republican Party.

I’ve looked over your website, finding a long list of impressive credentials that sadly don’t match the persuasiveness of your column. But I couldn’t find any articles from prior to 2008. In particular I was searching for any essay from eight years ago when President Bush was taking our budget from $250 Billion surplus into mountains of debt, that called him to task for budgetary recklessness. Mr. Bush did this during a period of relative economic expansion and prosperity. Please forward to me any column from that period: 2002 through 2006 (before the run-up for election), criticizing Mr. Bush. This would serve to get me on board with the sincerity of your crusade. Absent that, sir your column is vapid, partisan dribble.

Your (Republican) Party engages its base by telling gullible people what the want to hear, then manipulates it with lies and fear. It’s small wonder that the GOP is so hostile to decent public education in this country---it depends upon public ignorance...speaking of which, where did you get your degrees?

Sincerely, Mark Robbins

Mark--

Thanks for writing. I'm sure you speak for many in this country who have legitimate concerns about Republicans in Washington. Yes, I have written many times that Republicans have not always lived up to what they preached. I have criticized Bush and his administration many times for out-spending Democrats when they are supposed to believe in smaller government. Yes, they earned being defeated in the last election. They lost their base. They have been given another chance, and, if they are not successful in walking the principles they espouse, they will invite a third party.

I'm interested in your assessment of Ryan's budget. Are you serious in saying that the wealthy don't pay their fair share? All of the data that the government can provide indicates that the wealthy, the top quintile of Americans, pays the vast majority of taxes, and would continue to pay most of the taxes under Ryan's plan. Even with a flat tax, they would pay more of the taxes.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm

Now, granted some of the wealthiest Americans pay no income tax because they are paid no income. Warren Buffett just lives on his wealth and takes no income.

Yes, there are some businesses that pay no taxes--GE, Obama's pet being one.

Ryan wants to do away with deductions, lower the income tax rates, and INCREASE federal revenue. When you stimulate the economy by lowering taxes, you get more income (sic) Kenney, Reagan, Bush...all knew this and used it to increase revenue and help the economy and jobs grow. I share your anger in people not paying taxes and expecting others to pay their share. It's time we make taxes simpler and fairer. There is a chronic poor in America. Past "Bootstrap studies" indicate that over a 15-17 year time span only 5% remain poor. They need help. Not sure where you get the idea that the poorest of poor will not be helped. It's the people who aren't poor but get services--that goes for businesses too big to fail and people who are kept on unemployment for years. I agree with Reagan that a government's success should be measured by how many people no longer need government support than by how many receive it.

Obama said it right the other night. There is a key choice--bigger government or smaller government. The deficit will soon bankrupt our country. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. I'm not sure how you plan on dealing with that. I compliment Ryan for doing just that. I sure hope you read his plan.

We face tough choices. To keep trying to make a small segment of wealthy Americans pay more and more will result in what's happening already--they will get out of the game or take their game to other countries. Poor people don't hire anyone.

As to schools, UCLA, Fuller Seminary, Fuller Graduate School of Psychology. By the way, I'm more of a conservative than I am a Republican. They are the viable choice I have, and I'm often disappointed. America lives with some necessary tensions. How do I care, truly care, about helping the unfortunate in our midst without making them dependent? How do I fairly make citizens pay their "fair share?" What should a government do and what should individuals do for themselves? As Dennis Prager loves to say, the bigger the government the smaller the individual. I agree with that assessment. Give me freedom any day. I also believe that the best charity is local--we should care for our neighbors ourselves, not elect politicians who will take from others to do our caring.

You deserve a thoughtful reply.

Terry Paulson

Thank you, Mr. Paulson, for your most courteous reply. I must say I could not find your circumspection within the (Star) column.

For MY solutions, I look deeper than the income tax. You spoke of the rich paying “their share,” and of a flat-tax. Income tax is our only “progressive” tax---and even that, of course, is only on paper. We have a regressive tax system. Sales taxes, use fees, property taxes (or their counter-part, rent) are all wildly regressive; the income tax is the only vehicle in place to try to rectify that imbalance. When you advocate a flat (income) tax, you propose that the poor will pour an even greater share--percentage--of their income into taxes. I assume you’re aware of this; and even though it’s hidden from our political dialogue, you can’t blow it by me.

We enjoy, at times, looking back on the prosperity and relative tranquility of the Eisenhower years (except for disgusting civil-rights issues.) The country seemed to work; in fact we were the industrial engine of the world, admired by all. You and I are old enough to recall that marginal income taxes were in the 80% range for the wealthy, and our middle class was robust and prosperous. Democracy thrived---under Republican leadership. We had a healthy distribution of wealth across class lines. You and I had every reason to believe that our lives would be good and prosperous. I went on to graduate from UCLA, as you did, in ’67, paying around $650/semester for a fabulous education.

Oh, life is good, now, if you’ve got it! I retired in ’03, and live on savings and remnants of a terminated pension plan. Considering all that this country GAVE me on the road to prosperity, and generally over-compensated in my career, I paid ridiculously low income taxes.

Now the rich complain about marginal rates of 25 to 30%. The Bush tax cuts were absurd and are the primary cause of our budget dilemma. Actually I don’t really hear the “rich” complaining about their taxes---it’s the Republican Party that makes all the noise. This is their primary handle. “Flat tax” is bogus. Furthermore, with all the leverage that the wealthy have on investments, it’s unconscionable to contend that they should pay less on capital gains than a working man on the job. The “death tax” issue is absurd. 90% of wealthy people gain their wealth from manipulating our economic and tax systems---they draw their wealth from society and should be happy to return it when they die. If they give it to their kids, it messes the kids up. The statistics on third generation hand-downs are appalling. Our democracy is threatened by the wild disparity in income between the rich and the rest. The middle class is disappearing and draped in despair from dismal prospects for the future.

You state: “When you stimulate the economy by lowering taxes, you get more income (sic) Kenney, Reagan, Bush...all knew this and used it to increase revenue and help the economy and jobs grow.” I’m afraid, Mr. Paulson, that this canard is---and has been shown time and again to be--completely untrue. I expect to see this in your columns, but I’m surprised that you’ve dropped it on me. President Reagan gave us “credit card prosperity”, while President Bush used it to give us “bubble” prosperity, three wars, skyrocketing debt and a shocking zero increase in employment.

I have looked into the Ryan plan, and find it ingenuous and equally laughable.

MY solutions are pretty simple. Start by eliminating the Bush tax cuts. Simplify the tax codes, to eliminate almost all deductions except for personal exemptions and charity. End farm subsidies; end subsidies to industry. All of this amounts to “welfare for the rich”, of which we don’t hear the Republicans complaining. Our disgusting, bloated “defense” budget could, and should be cut by about a half-a TRILLION dollars a year. We have seen over and over that this is a euphemism, as reckless adventurers like George W. Bush use our might for offensive objectives. A significant portion of our “defense” budget goes into the Middle East---keeping the oil flowing. This is a glaring subsidy for the petroleum industry. That portion of the defense budget should be covered by taxes on petroleum---gas at the pump, which could be phased in over 5 to 8 years. Mortgage interest deduction should be ended, or reduced to cover only the first $60,000. As it is, poor people subsidize housing for the rich. They also do this by spreading out the cost of police and fire protection, which is concentrated in wealthy neighborhoods.

If we removed ourselves from the Middle East, most of our international problems would disappear, including, probably the threat of terrorism. Those people have shown the world that they’re prepared to tackle their own problems. “Supervision”, as such, should be tackled by their neighbors (Europe) through the United Nations, as has been done to some extent in the recent crises.

If we want to get serious about our world and the future, we could significantly reduce income taxes and replace the revenue with hefty carbon taxes to accelerate our rehab from an oil dependency which will end one way or another with symptoms of paroxysm and withdrawal. We could legalize drugs, which would empty out our prisons, cut police budgets by probably 50% and shatter the market for drugs which fuels violence, cartels and revolution all over the world. Tax the drugs, like alcohol, to fund free rehab for all, as well as general budgets.

I hope these ideas are specific enough, Mr. Paulson. While relatively simple, they would require great political leadership, and, unfortunately, cooperation among our disgusting legislative branch (whose dysfunction is backed up by an out-of-control, politically partisan Supreme Court!)

You call yourself a conservative, and I see elements of that in your letter. Yet you appear to support, or at least endorse The Republican Party. I (an ex-Republican) can find nothing conservative about that party. They are radicals by almost any standard…unless you call jingoism and gun-happy Bible-thumping “conservative.” I do not believe for one second that the Republican establishment cares one whim about the social agenda that they impose upon society, even encouraging anarchism, as we’ve seen alarmingly in recent assassinations. They use this “social agenda” to manipulate people into supporting their cause---and get them elected. The absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the Republican Party (aside from the election of Sarah Palin or “The Donald”) is repeal of Roe vs. Wade. This would cause a cataclysm of revolt that would break up the Supreme Court and bring the party to an end. You say you endorse “freedom;” how could you possibly balance that with an endorsement of the Republican Party social agenda?

As far as the “too big to fail” scenario, I agree with you completely. The financial services sector is a leach on our society. They contribute nothing, only re-allocating resources from the poor to those who can afford their services. This industry fuels the disintegration of our democracy by bloating the disparity in income that we now see, all the while stealing our money with fat salaries, bonuses and stock options. Our recent financial disaster was caused by the investment houses with the introduction of such instruments as “credit default swaps” and “co-lateralized debt obligations,” which were nothing but smoke and an excuse for these crooks to pile up huge sales commissions. They backed that up by rating “sub-prime” mortgages AAA. If Moodys, Standard and Poors, etc. had rated these instruments correctly as “D”, the bubble would have immediately burst (and their commissions would have evaporated.) It’s a disgrace that the Obama administration hasn’t thrown the whole bunch into jail---forever. Instead, they’re now reaping bigger profits than ever---while the economy staggers.

I recognize that the social safety net poses the threat of turning into a “nanny-state.” And I agree that this is a flawed model. But poor people are looking at some pretty bleak prospects. “The American Dream” is the “possibility” that any of us might be able to lift themselves from poverty to prosperity. Poor kids in our ghettos right now see the drug culture as the only possibility of escape. This is an extremely frightening outlook, (which could be eliminated by my proposal to legalize drugs.) It is still possible for some to escape the yoke of poverty and despair, but “some” is realistically a staggeringly low percentage. Until we make serious investments in quality public education for all, and adjust our economy to produce quality employment in new industries (like energy production, for example), we will be looking down the barrel of social decay and eventual anarchy, which will be well armed by the plentiful supply of guns provided by The Republican Party. Good luck.

Sincerely, Mark Robbins

Mark,

You can have your theories but the numbers don't lie. Lowering taxes increased federal revenue under Reagan. It doubled. Unfortunately, spending went up even further. Reagan fell for a Democrat promise of cutting the budget $3 for every $1 of tax increases he agreed to. He joined them and increased taxes once, and they never made the cuts.

“It would be more accurate to talk about the ‘Gingrich boom’ and the ‘Pelosi collapse,’ than to rant so endlessly about the ‘Clinton boom’ and the ‘Bush collapse.’ Official U.S. government figures show that the two presidents each experienced decisive turning points that shifted the fiscal fate of the nation when voters in midterm elections rejected the party in power. In Clinton's case, the ‘Republican Revolution’ of 1994 saved his floundering presidency and brought about his reputation for savvy financial management. For George W. Bush, however, the 2006 triumph of Pelosi's Democrats (based largely on Iraq war disillusionment) led straight to disaster, turning a president with a solid economic record into a symbol of catastrophic collapse.” Michael Medved, “GOP vs. Dems: Who's Best For the Economy?”

Gingrich Boom

Average unemployment went from 6.5% to and average of 4.77%

The federal deficit average went from 3.35% of GDP to an average of less than zero with surpluses from 1998 to 2001.

Pelosi Collapse

Average unemployment went from 5.29% to and average of 6.57% (Now 9.6%).

The federal deficit average went from 1.91% of GDP to 4.74% in next two years (Now 10.27%).

The Bush tax cuts helped us bounce back from 9/11. YES, Republicans added to the spending problems and deserve some of the blame, but the Pelosi spending and uncertainty killed the economic growth that still languishes.

Ah, good conversation, but not worth continuing. We both (sic) disagree. That makes America what it is...free to find its way with some conflict. Thank God and our founding fathers that we have the freedom to do so.

Enjoy your (sic) President, I have a feeling that he will be a one-term president. Then again, others may prove me wrong. There are enough employees and people dependent on government who will be fooled into voting for the gravy train to continue. But the true taxpayers have had enough. They are MOTIVATED!

Have a good weekend.

Terry

Thanks, Terry.

Looks like you get the last word, although "numbers" are like citing the Bible: "seek and ye shall find." (I suppose these come straight from The Heritage Foundation.) Seems like all we have to do is eliminate taxes altogether and the government would have so much money they couldn't spend it. The bottom line is that most of us believe what we want to believe. I've enjoyed the conversation. Good Luck....Oh, which Republican hopeful do think could 1) get nominated and 2) get elected? ….

MR

Welcome, February, 2011

Welcome, gentle readers, to the twenty-third edition of Robbinsense.

I HOPE you’ve noticed that we’ve not published for the last three months. The course of events over this period has been so profound that we can barely keep pace.

We’re looking at “a new world order.” Glenn Beck waxes over the grave danger that this presents. Glenn Beck deals in paranoia. The right wing perceives every world event from the perspective of how it relates to us (or to their political movement.) But the world is marching off to a drummer and rhythm that is beyond us. We may be witnessing the most profound international development---in the Middle East, maybe even in the Midwest, since WWII. The true significance of what’s happening in the Middle East is that we are irrelevant. What’s occurring there is occurring in spite of our presence, rendering a decade of squandering lives, treasure and national integrity meaningless. Considering the political forces yapping at his heels, the president has done an admirable job of staying on the sidelines.

Coming to grips with this phenomenon is wildly constructive in our growth and adaptation to this new world order. We believe these developments open a portal through which we might honestly engage in world affairs as a participant, rather than master. Is it clear at last that we don’t understand these people---that we cannot dictate their affairs with diplomacy, money or bullets? They have handed us the victory that we sought. All we have to do is leave them alone!

The real irony is that if we just let them do their own bidding, they will free us! They will free us from wars of political and economic conquest. They will free us from our “war on terror,” which is an illusion anyway. They may even force us into rehab, freeing us from dependency on their oil. We can walk away.

Imagine George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, one day in 1797 walking out onto their plantations and opening the doors to all of their slaves to freedom… How would that have changed our history?

The world scene aside, at home we face enormous hurdles. Our economy---our political order is in chaos. Charlie Jones has stepped forward and taken off the gloves. Are we on the edge? You judge.

Do you live in Southern California? Are you a long-time KCET viewer? Are you dismayed that this station has dropped from the public broadcasting network? We have KOCE, but they don't seem to be on top of their programming. If you're disgruntled, you may wish to tune into this correspondence with their programming department.

Robbinsense will publish periodically as the muse strikes. If you wish to be notified of new posts, contact the publisher; otherwise, just stop in for a pique. If you enjoy an article, please pass our site on to your friends; and don’t hesitate to insert comments---this is a "public forum". (Under “Select Profile” you may select “anonymous” or input your name under “Name/URL”. Leave “URL” blank---unless you have one. If all else fails, send an email to the publisher. Posted comments cannot be altered; they can only be deleted. If you wish to edit a comment, post your corrected comment and notify the publisher by email.)

Happy Reading

The Rise and Fall of Nations

by C. A. Jones

Not exactly a “founding father,” Thomas Paine is considered by many the “patron saint” of American patriotism. His lofty rhetoric was famously inspirational in its day, and still inspires. Beyond stirring the blood of revolutionary ardor, he rallied the fighting spirit of colonists horrified by the grotesque carnage of war. “These are the times that try men’s souls.” “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

By the time Paine was writing The Crisis, it was clear that a sustained ordeal lay before the revolutionaries, opposed not only by the crown but by Tories, “elitists” of the day, who were busy cashing in on the war by over-charging for goods and services. Paine believed that the chief measure of patriotism was willingness to sacrifice “in proportion to means.” “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it” (1777). For those of means, that meant sacrifice in proportion to their wealth. “Patriotism” meant putting the collective good before private profit.

We’ve come a long way. The mantle of “patriot” has been assumed by our right wing. Republicans, buoyed by the “Tea Party,” stand behind flags and lapel pins, demanding freedom from taxes and promoting homeland security from the immigrants that fuel our economy. While calling themselves “patriots”, they spread lies to justify a collective philosophy of greed that brings riches to themselves as the nation wallows in daunting problems. While millions are without homes, jobs, healthcare, decent education for their children, the rich demand excuse from even the most trivial of patriotic sacrifice. “Freedom” to them means preventing the government from placing any restrictions upon their prerogatives to siphon resources up from the lower classes. Balancing the budget for this constituency means financing our endless welfare for the rich programs by cutting welfare for the poor and middle class.

The Republican plan, which ignores the needs of the poor, will deny them the resources necessary for a decent life for themselves and will lead to a rising tide of crime, or anarchy. This will be well-armed by they guns that these same Republicans champion the rabble’s right to amass. Meanwhile, the plan assures that our moneyed class will continue to accumulate staggering fortunes.

In the last fifteen years, and leading into the crash of 2007-08, the “financial services” sector has become our fastest-growing and largest industry. What exactly does this industry do to “earn” its enormous profits? This industry does not generate wealth. It’s not like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, creating things that drive our economy. It produces essentially nothing. These “industrialists” redistribute wealth. While income (adjusted for inflation) over the last 30 years among the bottom half of wage earners has increased by about 11.5%...(that’s less than 0.5% per year), income among these financiers has skyrocketed. Recent stats for California are much more alarming. In any case, these people control vast sums of monetary assets. Individuals and groups within the industry from time to time devise investment instruments such as credit default swaps and co-lateralized debt obligations, which come down to little more than complicated insurance schemes. These people are essentially salesmen, selling portfolios of insurance to back up risky investments. And who stands behind these policies? The public. Our government. The tax payer. Our children and descendants. The public assumes the risk! These financiers agree among themselves to create assets, sell them to each other and naïve investors, including foreigners, generating huge commissions. Then they reward themselves with extravagant salaries and bonuses, fueled by stock options that don’t appear on profit and loss statements. This money, my friends, is all siphoned from the economy.

We chortle and call Robert Rizzo, City manager at Bell (California), a crook… He is minutia in the big picture. Our financial sector has been fleecing this country for decades in the same manner. Government regulatory agencies are supposed to protect us from this kind of thievery, but they have been emasculated---by deregulation of the eighties, by apathy during the boom times of the nineties, then in a conspiracy between government and industry during the bubble times of the last ten years.

But the problem goes far beyond one of neglect. We have one party---half of our government---operating in tandem with these thieves. And this is the essence of the Republican platform. The GOP opposes all efforts to prevent the financial services industry from “doing their thing.” Beyond that, in return for paltry investments into the political system (bribes), they insist that these crooks shouldn’t even have to pay taxes on their booty.

Do you think this is an exaggeration, or the problem is confined to the financial sector? Our entire economy is riddled with such schemes. For example, the endless drug ads that foul our airwaves every night are for drugs, most of which don’t work. “Even a glance at medical journals shows that once heralded studies keep falling by the wayside.” Pharmaceutical companies now have the enormous resource of the “human genome,” available for research. By taking an active agent and sort of scatter-shooting at the genome in a laboratory they can find positive results somewhere. Oh sometimes they may have to invent a disease, but hey, that works for us. If they can work some test results to show efficacy, then the government gives the manufacturer fast-track approval. Advertising produces demand for these expensive, new drugs. But when subsequent, control-based studies prove a drug to be ineffective, which they usually do, it takes two years longer to get it removed from the market than it took to get it approved in the first place! During these several years, the drug companies continue to pilfer money from our healthcare system, driving up health costs. We could save $200 Billion annually from expensive, ineffective drugs by spending $50 Million on manufacturing placebos in a variety of colors and shapes, which would work just as well. Government should protect us from such schemes but it has been put to sleep by politicians, party to the conspiracy.

The vitality of a nation, friends, lies in the partnership between informed citizens, willing to make an honest contribution to society (patriots) and good government. We now have a significant, controlling faction in the government which uses lies and deceit to get out its message. Through its propaganda arm, Fox News, the GOP leads a campaign of misinformation that sabotages our system. It renders effective political integration of the public impossible. It uses our ignorance, naiveté and anger to manipulate us. The Republicans have forsaken “the people” on behalf of the moneyed elite which fuels the propaganda campaign that keeps them in power. And the health of our society has gone into freefall.

They’ve taken over our judiciary (see Bush vs. Gore, Citizens United). The Republicans have scuttled our legislative process with filibuster. And now we have recently rewarded their treachery by returning them to legislative majority! Republicans used the political strength of unions as rationale for Citizens United. Now we see in Wisconsin that once in power (for two months), they will try to destroy the unions. Two months!

And who are “they?” The GOP’s constituency is an unlikely partnership between an angry middle class that can be mobilized by their clever propaganda and ironically, the moneyed elite that preys off of them. The GOP champions the very concepts which they attack: “family values,” “morality” (whatever that is). They mobilize their angry constituents with fear: “terrorism”, illegal aliens, homosexuals. They pander to us with promises to reduce our taxes while their moneyed elite cheat us blind, depriving us of the income and property that they have promised not to tax! Meanwhile, the rabble has been convinced by the propaganda that “liberals” are responsible for their plight, rather than their own “partners.”

Aside from sabotaging the system from within, the GOP uses a “scorched earth” policy obstructing all legislation proposed by Democrats. It doesn’t matter how sound the policy is, or even if (inconveniently) they used to champion it. The full force of the right-wing propaganda arm is thrown against the legislation, in total disregard for the benefaction of our country. Power is the objective of the Republicans, not effective, public policy.

The current GOP legislative target, “Obamacare,” is a perfect example. In 1993, the Clinton Administration tried to push through comprehensive healthcare reform. Republicans did all they could to derail that effort, in part by proposing two alternate bills. Senator John Chafee (R RI.) introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, co-sponsored by such influential Republicans as Bob Dole, Richard Lugar, Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch. Republicans also proposed the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, supported by Jesse Helms and Trent Lott. Both plans included an “individual mandate,” as does Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. Everyone needs healthcare eventually; the system won’t work if people are allowed to buy in after they contract significant illness. Neither of these bills went anywhere, of course, because the Republicans weren’t serious about the issue; they only wanted to de-rail the Clinton effort. But it tied individual mandate to Republican healthcare thinking.

As recently as June, 2009, Chuck Grassley told Fox News that Republicans favored individual mandate. After all, individual responsibility is a central theme of Republican sloganeering. President Obama, who first opposed this provision, was encouraged to endorse it to enlist bi-partisan support. But once the Democratic bill was on the table, Republicans saw this very issue as the handle to challenge it. It doesn’t matter that it’s rational policy, or even if it’s a bastion of Republican ideology. The CBO has calculated that Obamacare will save the government over $200 Billion over the next ten years. Isn’t that a Republicans priority? Well, no; Republican strategy is to block all legislation coming from Democrats. (When a Democrat does this it’s called “flip-flopping,” and that’s grounds for sending that Democratic offender to political oblivion.)

On the environmental front, the GOP has completely repudiated its heritage of environmental responsibility (Theodore Roosevelt, even Richard Nixon). They are the party of “No,” No to science, No to any kind of restrictions on industry, their wealthy benefactors.

Nature rewards collaboration, my friends. Generally, the waste products of every species provide nutrients that foster other life. Species that don’t co-operate end up extinct. Of some 50 million species on this planet, our greatest transgressor, by far, is man! Republicans tell us that “God” gave us this world to exploit, and that God will keep it healthy. Combine unspeakable arrogance with laughable stupidity and unlimited greed and we have the Republican formula for---disaster. Here again, with lies and clever catch-phrases, they combine greed from the industrial polluters with bitterness and despair of the lower classes who care not about posterity, to muster support.

One half century ago a charismatic president invoked the true challenge for a patriot: “Ask not what your country can do for you---ask instead what you can do for your country.” The nation stood in awe and approved. How far have we descended? The Republican Party panders to us for votes and money. They tell us we need give nothing---that being a good citizen means buying guns and resisting any drive to support your neighbor or your community. It manipulates us with fear and hatred---enemies in our midst: aliens, poor people, liberals! Then they hypocritically plant “fascist” labels on their opponents! Their objective is to keep us so ignorant that we will continue to vote for them…It’s sort of a national invocation of the “Stockholm Syndrome.”

Our next election cycle promises to be one of the most fascinating, if not pivotal in our history. Beyond the fate of the Obama Presidency, we will discover the fate of this circus: The Republican Party.

Throughout history a succession of nations have risen to the pinnacle of power and influence: China, Greece, Rome, Carthage, Spain, Netherlands, Britain… We are only the latest in the line-up. The longevity of these successive empires has grown shorter as the centuries have passed and the pace of civilization and technology has accelerated. There is a familiar course that leads empires to their demise. Arrogance, complacency, laziness, declining industry and the assumption of the inevitability of dominance lie its heart. The mantle is passed on to those people with enough industry and discipline to assume power. For the last 30 years our government has imposed its will by military might. As successive “rogue states” achieve nuclear power, our options dwindle. And as we allow each successive president to continue pouring mountains of resources into weapons instead of education, innovation and research, we doom ourselves to the dustbin of empire.

C. A. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer