The Cowards or the Bullies?

Someone noted that in November we have a choice between a "party of cowards and a party of bullies." That assessment accurately describes the current political environment.

Since President Obama's inauguration, the Democrat's popularity has been steadily declining. It is clear now that the economic stimulus was not big enough and that top economic advisers underestimated the troubled state of the economy. While the idea that health care reform was passed is certainly a political milestone, in reality the reform has not sat well with constituents.

The Democrats have alienated their core supporters and their overall platforms in their quest to hold on to power. In this bid, they mistakenly reached out to Republicans. It is true that the Democrat majority was fundamentally fragile, but to reach out to a party that has been blatantly obstructionist is simply foolish.

Add to these lackluster accomplishments, a dire economic situation. Despite what the economists claim, many Americans are living in a depression. Once thriving areas of the nation are struggling to stave off financial ruin and there is no end in sight.

In every step of the political process, the democrats have proven to be cowards. They do not even have the backbones to pursue their special interests through to completion, let alone work for the country's interest in general. By all counts they do not deserve to be voted back in office and they do not deserve their majorities. It remains to be seen whether they still deserve the presidency.

Yet only viable political alternative has degenerated into a legion of bullies. The Republicans continue to point the finger to place blame for the economic situation when they caused it. Whereas the Democrats have mismanaged the problem, the Republicans are responsible for starting it. And their only suggestions are ruinous ones: great austerity measures and a return to a non-existent America of yesteryear.

Because the true power of the party now lies in the enraged Tea Party Movement and the reviving Christian Right, elected Republicans are now even more at their mercy. The nonsensical behavior of both groups speaks for itself and offers a truly terrifying prospect of a Republican Party in great positions of power.

The sheer amount of bullying and scapegoating of the Right, while frustrating, is typical of right-wing behavior in uncertain times, yet much of the American voting populace has been perceptive to their rhetoric. Despite this, the effect of the Republican party's fear-mongering has made them a political force to be feared. At this point in the game, the Republicans have more political energy than the Democrats because of the highly emotional nature of their core, and that advantage should not be understated.

So the outlook of the mid-term elections is grim indeed no matter who wins, the Cowards or the Bullies.

But If I had to choose, I'd rather be a friend to a coward than a bully simply because the coward at least offers the possibility of listing to my ideas whereas the bully would just steamroll them.

Mea Culpa...Ego Operor Non Reputo Sic!

It came out today that Ken Hehlman, well, came out. Coming out ought to be a joyous occasion like any other fundamental assertion of the self. Often it is, but not when the likes of Ken Hehlman publicly states that he's gay.

This homosexual was the chairman of the Republican National Committee. This queer was George W. Bush's re-election campaign manager. The election of 2004 will forever be remembered by gays as when the Republican Party used the prospect of increased rights for gays to scare the Religious Right into tipping the balance that gave Bush the presidency again. He was Bush's Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.

In short, he was at one point one of the most influential people in the United States, not to mention among the most powerful Republicans of the time. One could even argue that he was the homosexual in the most unique position to try to make tomorrow better than today. Here is what he did with his power:

1) I already mentioned his role in the election of 2004, a great setback for gay rights and civil rights in general.

2) He pressed not one, but TWO, constitutional amendment to explicitly deny gays the right to marry.

3)Helped develop the strategy where George Bush threatened to veto any hate crime bill-this one is surely the most sinister use of his influence.

4) Going back to the 2004, he developed the "72 hour strategy." Specifically appealing to homophobic churches in the preceding days to election day to scare them into voting Republican.

He is even worse than the religious radicals who come out or are caught in a compromising position because his position gave him real influence over the top executives of our nation.
So he is a collaborator, and an incredibly damaging one. There is a lot of suffering the Gay Community is yet to endure while it fights to dismantle the homophobic climate he helped to sustain. He must be chastised, no censured by any homosexual who cares about civil rights and healthy living. There must be no accommodation for collaborators who are not contrite.

Is he contrite? This is the closest thing he made to an apology:

"I can’t change the fact that I wasn’t in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally...What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn’t always heard. I didn’t do this in the gay community at all"

To those who are inclined to doubt his sincerity, he added that “If they can’t offer support, at least offer understanding.”

I do not understand, stating your regrets is no act of contrition. How convenient for him to not be "in this place" when he was chairman of the RNC, a position that had real influence. Now that he is defanged, he comes out. Nothing other than enmity is appropriate between this individual and the Gay Community. I do not understand.

He claims that he will start fighting for marraige equality, and has donated money to the cause in various states. Yet until he publicly and loudly apologizes for his past action, holds himself accountable for the damage and heartache he caused the LGBT Community for years and notes just how much he was in error. Then, and only then, will his quaint charitable actions have any substance and meaning. Even the future St. Paul had to apologize to the Christian Community for persecuting them before they welcomed him as one of their own.

Thus far have his statements been a true mea culpa...I don't think so!

I, Anarchy

Politics among nations is radically different from politics within a democracy like the United States. The difference is almost like night and day due to one reason: anarchy.

In a democracy, we have a social structure designed to keep the peace. When we have disputes, we have a judicial system, and when the individuals of this judicial system make decisions, we have police officers to enforce the decisions. In some cases the police are called on to prevent individuals or groups from harming each other.

In a democracy, we respect the rule-of-law. We have a complex system of government that (more or less) responds to the needs of the people, and the people use this government to lobby for change. Things get done, and things get done peacefully. Our society has an economy based on competition, supply and demand. This economy mostly allows Americans to meet all their material needs and then some, without having to fight one another for these material things.

All these mechanisms in place in a democratic society, designed to promote peace and prosperity, simply do not exist on the international scene because there is no higher authority than national governments.

When nations have disputes there is no definitive international judicial system that can settle the fight. There is no international police force that can prevent states from resorting to violence. There is also no international government that can pass laws and address problems peacefully. Organizations such as the United Nations have no binding power, just look at the United States’ 2003 invasion of Iraq over the UN’s disapproval. “International Law” as we call it, is little more than commonly agreed upon codes-of-conduct that can be broken at any time. In fact, they are broken all the time. In short, the nations of the world are in a state of anarchy.

This is an indisputable fact. Accepting this truth is the beginning of understanding why international activities work as they do.