Tea Party of the Jersey Shore

I recently read an editorial in a local newspaper entitled "Frank Pallone's Tyranny" by one Ernesto Cullari of the Tea Party. It isn't very good, and is full of the usual Tea-Party lies such as the existence of foreign-controlled unions, democrats who are part of a conspiracy to squash the Constitution in the name of Big Government and descriptions of the kind, paternalism of huge American corporations.

It attempts to cast fear and suspicion on Congressman Frank Pallone's activities in Washington by zeroing in on one bill, H.R. 5175 (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act-an earful of a title!). Yet his rather uneloquent attempt to derail the New Jersey Democrat's bid for re-election not only fails, but it actually self-incriminates the Tea Party of the very undemocratic goals he wished to pin on the Congressman.

H.R 5175 is a bill drafted in response to an extremely controversial Supreme Court decision in January 2010. The Court's decision in Citizen's United vs Federal Election Commission overturned the prohibition on campaign spending on corporations and unions. In other words, Exxon-Mobil can spend as much as it wants on a candidate that will preserve or advance its interests. H.R. 5175 reimposes the restrictions on the corporations but not the unions, and this is the reason why Mr. Cullari is hurling his Lipton's at Pallone's campaign.

While it is true that unions do not have perfect track records, dismissing the bill on the grounds that it does not hold unions to the same standards as corporations is remarkably unreasonable. Who's campaign contributions would you rather restrict, Wal-Mart's or the AFL-CIO, AIG or the Change to Win Federation? I'd say that in terms of helping the Americans living on the ground, Unions have a better history. American rage has all-too-often been rightly directed towards the large and overbearing corporations. Just the fact that the bill doesn't include unions doesn't invalidate the need to restrict corporations.

Yet Mr. Cullari in his editorial points out that "all-American corporations like Pepsi" would be prevented from funding elections while unions will not. Yet the debate about the unions aside, do "all-American" multi-national corporations like Pepsi or Coca-Cola deserve to spend limitless amounts of money on campaigns? How can this be good for the average American who depends on unions to prevent abuse from corporations such as these? He notes that labor unions are foreign-influenced, but what about BP? This bill will protect the American public from truly foreign-influenced companies such as BP (short for British Petroleum). Upon not-so-deep digging into the quasi-logic of Cullari's editorial, his true agenda comes clear.

A bill such as H.R. 5175 overwhelmingly helps the American worker. Siding with the CEOs of corporations on issues such as this one serves as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party leaders are really not for the average American. They are just using the rage of ordinary Americans to push their agenda. This to me is the scariest aspect of the Tea Party Movement. Not the latent racism, not the homophobia, not the unwillingness to compromise, not the inability to accurately learn from history, but rather the adherents' willingness to let the leadership mold and distort them into supporting monsters that are bigger than the issues just mentioned. Overwhelming corporate influence of the United States government is a truly horrifying specter because it can steamroll everything. Corporations, if gone unchecked, do not care about rights, the environment, families and most human beings in general. They could usher in tyranny just as effectively as any dictator.

By using Pallone's support of H.R. 5175, Cullari exposes the true consequences of a Tea Party that is given real power come November. It really is a movement that supports corporate "rights" (interest is more accurate) over the needs of the citizens. This makes his own words against Pallone actually more relevant to himself and the Tea Party Movement, "if left unaddressed, will leave a lasting scar on your legacy that will take you, your family and our Republic years and perhaps a generation to recover from."

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.

If I Could Turn Back Time...

"Every place that we ever knew was just a time we held on to."

The main problem with revival movements like the Tea Party and Christian Fundamentalism is their ultimately self-defeating objective of returning to a past time.

The yearning, often desperation, to turn back the clock is an unfortunate temptation of individuals and cultures. People look to the past in constructing their future. They try to recreate childhood memories, breathe life into long-dead relationships and remake times that they perceive to be happier-- all ultimately in vain. Whole societies put significant amounts of energies into returning to simple and perceived holier times. Leaders seize power or are elected on the premise that they will turn the society back to better times--again all in vain.

The problem with trying to returning to a past way of life is that it never works. In fact, for all intents and purposes it is utterly impossible. Civilizations have marched to their ruin in their attempts to march into their more glorious past. The chief lesson to extract from these societies, whether it is one of the plethora of states who have tried to relive the glories of Rome, Sassanian Persia or the American Great Awakenings, is that the attempts do not work.

They fail because each era in history, indeed each event, is a product of a complex, but completely unique, cause-effect relationship. The variables involved to create the Boston Tea Party took a while to gestate and still those background factors are a product of still more variables that came before. Historians and amateurs aren't even aware of the existence of some of these variables, and it is up to future scholars to uncover them.

Since a movement cannot possibly reconstruct the institutions, perspectives, and idiosyncrasies of earlier times, the most the movement can achieve is a recreation based on the memory of the past. One cannot bring back a past way of life, but only relive a specific interpretation of that past. The lessons of yesteryear should be cherished, but we should not pursue reliving the events that brought us to those conclusions. There is also something erroneously emotional about yearning to relive the past.

The emotion of nostalgia is truly a glossy lens by which to view the past. Those Americans who call for a radical return for the ideals espoused during the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers ignore the surrounding realities of why these events existed in the first place. The compromise, intrigue and sacrifice that went into both events simply do not live up to the glossy memory that some modern-day Americans assign to them.

That is due to the fact that they are making ignorant assumptions about the past fueled by their nostalgia. Great pangs of nostalgia tends to put past ways of life on a pedestal that it does not deserve. Are they chasing the past for concrete, logical reasons, or are they simply chasing the past in order to alleviate their negative emotions towards the present?

What these American conservative activists really mean when they say that they wish to return to the nation's founding ideals is this, "we are so frustrated by life now that we want to change things to reflect a time when it was better." Their analysis of the past is colored by their emotional reactions to the present. This is especially true for Christian Fundamentalists, and dangerously so.

Since, calling for a society to turn back the clock cannot truly be done, are revival movements the healthiest way to address the problems of the present? Human existence is a culmination of temporal cause-effect relationships that are in a constant state of flux. If this linear reality is true, then what advantage is there in trying to exist in the past?

Restoring (Dis)Honor

I must write more about the inherently false assumptions of "restoration" movements such as the Tea Party. Yet for the moment this excerpt from Aldous Huxley's Island sums up my general opinion of the Tea Party (or at least what it threatens to become):

"...And then the faces of the assorted listeners. Huge, idiot faces, blankly receptive. Faces of the wide-eyed sleepwalkers. Faces of young, Nordic angels rapt in the Beatific Vision. Faces of the baroque saints going into ecstasy. Faces of the lovers on the brink of orgasm. One Folk, One Realm, One Leader. Union with the unity of an insect swarm. Knowledgeless understanding of nonsense and diabolism. And then the newsreel camera had cut back to the serried ranks, the swastikas, the brass bands, the yelling hypnotist on the rostrum. And here once again, in the glare of his inner light, was the brown insect-like column, marching endlessly to the tunes of this rococo horror-music. Onward Nazi soldiers, onward Christian soldiers, onward Marxists and Muslims, onward every chosen People, every Crusader and Holy War-maker. Onward into misery, into all wickedness, into death!"

Doesn't literature just do it better sometimes?

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!