Opinions and Letters

The Truth About the Conservative Mind: Why Reactionaries from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin Have Fought Real Liberty

From:  The Chronicle of Higher Education / By Corey Robin

Conservatism is a reaction to democratic movements, like OWS, that challenge the authority of elites.

It's been a rotten few months for the nation's wealthiest 1 percent. From the senatorial candidacy of Elizabeth Warren to Occupy Wall Street, economic elites have faced a concerted attack on their riches and power, their arrogant and unaccountable ways. And you can hear it in their voices, or at least the voices of their spokesmen. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor declared, "I, for one, am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country." Mitt Romney told an audience in Florida that "I think it's dangerous—this class warfare." So rattled is George Will that he's been forced to pull out a playbook from an older time. All but calling Warren a Communist, he accused the Oklahoma-born scholarship kid of believing that the government "is entitled to socialize—i.e., conscript—whatever portion" of an individual's property "it considers its share... When the conservative looks upon a democratic movement from below, this is what he sees: a terrible disturbance in the private life of power. "The real object" of the French Revolution, Burke told Parliament in 1790, is "to break all those connexions, natural and civil, that regulate and hold together the community by a chain of subordination; to raise soldiers against their officers; servants against their masters; tradesmen against their customers; artificers against their employers; tenants against their landlords; curates against their bishops; and children against their parents." Nothing to the Jacobins, he declared at the end of his life, was worthy "of the name of the publick virtue, unless it indicates violence on the private."

Read the whole article HERE

RE: Bain’s gain, town’s loss

These people in South Carolina, whose town has been destroyed by Bain’s looting practices, say, “well that’s Capitalism.” Is it?  Rather, should it be?

Yes, this country was built on capitalism. With the industrial revolution came people who made huge amounts of money from, for example, the railroads. They built their empires on the backs of those who worked for them, with no regard to any reward to those whose daily work made their fortunes possible. Through the ensuing years, some of those workers, with the help of Unions, and with the realization of ethical business owners that they did not do this all themselves, developed into the middle class. These were people who didn’t own the business, but who took pride in their companies and in their work.

Now we are moving backwards. Is what Bain did to the businesses they bought, destroyed, and took millions from legal? Clearly, yes. Is it ethical? Clearly, No. This election is not about socialism vs. capitalism. It is about whether we will accept this unethical form of capitalism practiced by Bain and companies like Bain. Should someone like Mitt Romney, who inherited a fortune ,  who increased that fortune at the expense of those who worked for the businesses his company destroyed,  who oversaw sending any remaining jobs overseas, and who now says that those who are not wealthy like him are simply jealous, be elected President of the United States? 

Most people in this country believe it to be and ethical country. Few people in this country want to destroy capitalism. Most of us want an ethical form of capitalism where those who work are rewarded fairly and are able to take pride in a job well done. No one should be allowed to make millions of dollars the way Bain and like companies had been allowed to do. We must tell Mitt Romney that we are not jealous of him. Rather, we hold his unethical behavior in distain.

Mary Lou Ambrose, club Secretary, Belleair Bluffs

 

Do You Remember?

 

President wins this one

Why is anyone surprised that the supercommittee failed? Clearly, every Republican signed the pledge not to raise any taxes, any time, under any circumstances. Clearly, no Democrat on the committee could agree to a result without tax increases for the rich. Therefore, the committee was stalemated before it began to meet. What really surprises me is that the Republicans agreed to the backup legislation which gets rid of the Bush tax plan and enacts cuts in the bloated military budget, but no cuts in Medicare or Social Security.

The result is that the president won this round and refuses to back down. He has said he will veto any attempt by Republicans to renege on the agreement they negotiated.

President Dwight Eisenhower would have approved. He warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He also presided over an exceptional economy in which the rich paid as much as 90 percent tax.

Mary Louise Ambrose, Club Member,  Belleair Bluffs

Published in the St. Pete Times on Saturday, November 26

Cain calls claims 'bogus': Poor crisis management

I find it interesting that the "family values" party that came after Bill Clinton with such disdain is making excuses for Herman Cain.

However, regardless of the final outcome of the sexual harassment charges, a troubling aspect of this matter has been overlooked. POLITICO uncovered this matter. Before publication, they gave the Cain camp 10 days' notice that the story was going public. After 10 days, during which time the story could have been vetted and a rational response could have been prepared, Cain had no idea how to respond.
He knew nothing; then he knew something; then he did not know these women; then he admitted knowing them but the payments to the women were not "settlements" but "agreements"; then it all became a Democratic "conspiracy" to keep a businessman out of the White House.

Herman Cain wants to be president, but he cannot respond to a story with 10 days' notice. How would he react to a threat to the United States? How would he handle a crisis of any type?

Take notice, voters.

Mary Louise Ambrose, Belleair Bluffs

(Club Secretary)

This was published in the Nov 9 edition of the St. Pete Times.

Republican Party Not the Champion of Life

It’s seemed obvious for some time that the current version of the ultra conservative movement that has taken over the Republican party resists the notion that we are a society that is willing to share the risks of life with our fellow countrymen.  The recent Republican debates brought that fact home to much of the rest of the country.

An important confirmation for me came two years ago when an official of the local Republican Party, told me he would let a woman receiving welfare die before he would approve of his taxes being used to buy her food.  While he wasn’t the first to express opposition to  various safety net programs his was certainly the most graphic.  He and I still talk about our family, business, sports and other topics but we don’t discuss politics. 

Recently , the nation got some insight into just how virulent similar opinions have become in the Tea Party strain of the ultra conservative movement.  It was first visible on September 7^th  at the Republican Presidential Debate hosted by the Reagan Library, NBC News and Politico.  An even more revealing view came on September 12^th at the CNN, Tea Party Presidential debate.  If you haven’t seen the two most compelling exchanges click on the links at the end of this document for your personal view.

In a question to Ron Paul, Wolf Blitzer set up a scenario where a person without deep pockets or health insurance needed intensive medical care over a long period of time and Paul was asked who should pay for that care.   He initially gave the standard, we are responsible for our own actions, response when Blitzer asked the follow on question.  “Are you saying that society should just let him die?”  Paul said “No.” but the crowd said yes.  Later, Rick Perry told a reporter that he was surprised by that response because the Republican Party is the “party of life”.

It’s interesting to watch just how narrow the ultra conservative concept of “party of life” has become.  It is, after all, an extension of the old Moral Majority movement headed by Pat Robertson in the early 80’s given new strength through the advent of the internet and Fox “News”.

That genesis is evident when the legislation passed by Republican / conservative state legislatures as well as the federal House Of Representatives are examined.  Far more bills restricting a woman’s healthcare choices during pregnancy and segregating those with non-heterosexual lifestyle choices have been enacted than matters affecting economic conditions.

When they have dealt with economic matters it has most often been in ways that limits our government, which is another way of saying “us”, from providing support of any kind to those who may need it.  Insistence on personal financial responsibility was a factor in the Moral Majority platform but not to the extent it is in this iteration.  Limiting worker rights and removing support for the medium to long term unemployed has been a prominent addition to their agenda.

It seems clear that massive financial support for ultra conservative activity has come from corporate America.  Seven of the top ten political PACs supporting this movement are funded significantly by business interest.  That accounts for the emphasis in limiting union activity and eliminating legislation protecting the environment as well as corporate oversight by the various levels of government.  It also accounts for the intense movement to deny assistance to those in need because that assistance requires tax money.  That explains why that audience was willing to let the sick man die and my Republican friend was willing to let the poor woman starve. 

 It does not account for the cheers and applause given when Bryan Williams of NBC News pointed out that 234 people have been executed during the time Rick Perry has been governor of Texas.  That was a special response.  It is not at all clear that it is cheaper to put someone to death versus incarceration for life.  It also ignores the increasing evidence that some convictions can no longer be supported by the information presented at trial. 

Some folks will argue that the death penalty may be a deterrent to some crimes but there is no argument that can be made in support of applauding its more frequent use.  We should accept the fact that we have chosen to take someone’s life through legal means with solemn reverence and not with applause.

The conservative / Republican movement may be the champion of a number of causes.  The evidence on display here does not support the claim that it is the champion of life.

Kyle Quattlebaum

Rep. Bill Young's Record on Senior Citizens

I read with skepticism the advertisement purchased in the St. Petersburg Times on August 30 by a health care industry trade group thanking Rep. Bill Young for allegedly “Standing up for Florida’s Seniors.”

Unfortunately, the actual record shows that Bill Young has again and again betrayed Florida’s seniors, most recently and obviously by endorsing and voting for the Ryan Plan.  This plan, put forward by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, would have destroyed Medicare as we know it and torn giant holes in the social safety net for seniors.  According to the figures of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would have forced seniors in 2022 to pay $6,500 more per year than under Medicare for their health care – and by 2030, it would have forced them to pay $11,500 more per year.  Very few senior citizens could afford such extreme cost increases.  Seniors’ health would be devastated as a result.  Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and the Ryan Plan has not become law.  Nonetheless, Rep. Young continues to push for it, even though Mark Sharpe, the Republican congressional candidate in District 11, has sensibly refused to endorse it.  

Although he himself is a senior citizen, Rep. Young has shown a shocking disregard for the health of his numerous senior citizen constituents.  We’ll not be misled by advertisements paid for by his industry trade group friends.  We’ll look at his actual record and vote accordingly.

 

Richard Piper

Largo

You Have Been Branded

You know what it’s like talking to someone at their front door about your candidate.  A significant percentage of the time you’re rebuffed with the statement “don’t bother me with your bleeding heart liberal stuff!” just before the door closes.  They don’t always say “stuff”.  You know that’s not what you are but that is your brand. 

 

It took decades to happen but Democrats are routinely branded as big government loving, anti business “bleeding hearts” that want to tax and spend in order to re-distribute wealth to the undeserving lower income groups of our population.  None of that is true but, again, it is our brand.

 

We have to change that image.  We have to begin building a brand that reflects our true identity as the realists of our republic who speak for working, consuming Americans. We understand that our economic system is driven by encouraging entrepreneurial activity that will create increasing income for investors and workers alike. 

 

We also understand that the worker and consumer focus of our capitalist system has shifted to emphasize the investor side of the capitalist equation over the last 30 years or so.  That shift has accelerated during this century.  Those promoting this investor or wall street driven capitalist system should be branded as such in speeches, communiqués and personal contacts.

 

What would best serve our country is a return to our consumer driven capitalist system.  That system provides for good paying jobs with fair labor practices, a clean, sustainable environment, protection from lost wages, affordable healthcare and housing, good schools and redress from fraudulent practices in the market place.  It offers support and a path up for even the most struggling members of our society.  We will all benefit from a return to a consumer driven capitalist system.

 

We have let investors with great wealth and influence gain the upper hand by not offering a clear, understandable alternative to their message.  We should take pride in our drive to re-establish a capitalist system that provides the benefits we all seek.  We should be proud to be consumer driven capitalists and we should present our ideas within that framework.

 

Kyle Quattlebaum

End Corporate Rule; Legalize Democrary - move to amend

<

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.