“The American people voted for a ‘divided’ government, but they did not vote for a ‘dysfunctional’ government.” President Obama

A fickle and fair weather electorate who call themselves ‘Independents’ rolled the dice and placed their bets in November 2010.  When you enter the ballot box clinging to catchy sound bites and tempting promises during the worst recession in 80 years, you are no more than minions of the spin masters.  Anonymous Corporate donors funneled millions into a fear campaign that targeted a center ill-informed on the issues, and sealed the fate on ‘reason’ in Washington.

Just as the ancient unsuspecting citizens of Troy opened their city gates to receive the notorious ‘Trojan Horse’ that held the demise of their thriving metropolis, in the 2010 mid-term elections, credulous Independent voters opened the gates of Capitol Hill to receive the Tea Party!

Coming off the heels of sweeping losses in the 2008 elections, and no longer having a credible fiscal track record with which to sell themselves to the American people, conservatives instead, brilliantly went about building a ‘Trojan Horse’ to present to the voters in 2010.  And in November, they were led back into government offices all across the country on a red carpet laid out by Independents, riding the “promise of American jobs”.

‘And just like the historical fate of Troy, once inside the city gates, they quickly stripped away their guise of the promise of American prosperity, and swiftly began the business of ripping apart the social fabric of the entire 20th Century.’

The 20th century was devoted to equal and civil rights; social justice and education; fair pay and the labor movement; infrastructure and public safety; environmental stewardship and the protection of our natural resources.  The strides that were made can be appreciated only if one knows anything about our history and the unspeakable suffrages of life for the average citizen in the dark ages of 19th   century America.  My grandmother was born in Los Angeles California in 1910. When she passed of old age in 2006, her life had spanned the century that chronicled the history of how this country became the most powerful nation on Earth.

That kind of power, however, also created unfathomable wealth, and for those fortunate enough by station or foresight to be well positioned during the dawn of our world power and blooming purchasing power, it was like winning the lottery. The broad National socialistic policies enacted during the 20th century that created the most prosperous middle class in history, in turn created the richest companies and industries on the planet today in energy, banking and investment, manufacturing, textiles, construction, transportation, retail and food.  The wealth of these companies and industries continues to be inherited and passed from generation to generation.

‘The top 2% of Americans making 50% of the wealth in this country are the benefactors of the once symbiotic relationship between the American business class and the American working social class.’

This ‘symbiotic’ relationship began to unravel in the 1970’s under Nixon. American consumption began to flat line.  I’m not an economist, but the general ‘gist’ of the situation was that although the population had mushroomed since WWII, America’s purchasing power was in decline.  Massive infrastructure projects had already peaked by the 1950’s which slowed construction and manufacturing.  A modern consumption based economy had created a massive advertising industry which in turn created saturated markets, which in turn slowed innovation.  The booming economy of the 40’s and 50’s had expanded our youth population placing heavier demands on public education, nutrition and housing, and strides in  medicine meant more people were living well into their retirement years placing heavier demands on entitlement programs.

‘This is where the current great divide between Democrats and Republicans began to take shape.’

Democrats instinctively looked to the proven policies of public ‘investment’ to revitalize our economy.  We embarked on the space program, renewable energy and new research in technology and science.  We were first to recognize that our growing population was placing an unprecedented burden on our environment, affecting the quality of our air, our water, our food, our land and our wild life, and that those industries with the most grievous assaults should be held accountable.  We were first to recognize a direct correlation between poverty, poor nutrition and illiteracy, and delinquency, drug use, crime and unemployment; so we doubled down on our investment in education and prevention.  We recognized that a growing population meant greater diversity of thought, lifestyle and religion, and strove to protect the civil liberties of all Americans.

‘Democrats have always seen this country as “One Nation under God”, regardless of income or status.  We have also expected those who have benefited the greatest from our Democracy to have the greatest interest in preserving it.’

Most economists would agree that after such an unsurpassed growth spurt as we experienced in the mid 20th century, an inevitable ‘lull’ in growth would follow – a point in time where supply will saturate demand;  when profits may be flat, and in fact, may depend on further investment, or new strategies that align with new economic realities within the markets.  The Republican Party that emerged from this time in our history, however, was not satisfied with profit ‘lulls’.  After decades of mushrooming bottom lines, anything less was unacceptable, regardless of the state of the once booming economy that afforded it.

While Democrats were asking the Plutocrats to put something back into an ailing economy that up to then had buoyed their phenomenal wealth, the corporate elite had already turned a deaf ear.  Frantic to maintain the ever increasing profit margins of the past, if they couldn’t ‘make more’ money, they could ‘keep more’ of the money they made.

‘President Reagan ushered in the modern day Republican.  He gave the plutocrats a voice on Capitol Hill – legislative leverage in a society up to then primarily Democratic – yes that dirty word that symbolized equal opportunity and was the bedrock for the richest economy on Earth.’

In the 1980′s, the Federal government set out making drastic cuts in public funding to give a 25% tax cut to the few Americans already making the most money in our society, originating the ‘homeless’ phenomenon. The business community set out cutting costs at every level to increase bottom lines; wages and benefits.  Backed by Federal administrative support, they began fighting the costs of regulations in safety, pollution and quality controls.  They began bucking the unions and worker rights.  And of course, ‘tax cuts’ became the core of their Party platform.  Ultimately they began looking elsewhere for new ‘emerging’ markets – overseas – finally free from the stifling financial, moral and ethical obligations to the country and the people that buttressed their wealth in the first place so many decades before. Profits became more important in this country than people!

 ‘By the turn of the century, the New Republicans had successfully and brilliantly spun the pursuit of unlimited wealth into the “pursuit of happiness”; corporate and personal greed into “small business job creators”; civic apathy into “liberty and personal freedoms”; and responsible regulation and reasonable taxation into “job killing socialism”.’

 As a true blue blooded liberal, I’m having a hard time keeping my head from spinning from the dizzying pace at which the new Right has managed to convince the American people that the ‘wants’ of 2% of our population are more important than the ‘needs’ of the other 98%, AND that I’m somehow ‘un-American’ if I don’t fall in line with that premise?  If someone as dedicated to the crucial issues facing our nation in the new millennium as myself can find herself knock-kneed in this massive spin zone of hypocrisy, than our nations ‘Independents’ stand little chance of keeping a sure and confident footing in this political environment.

Liberals are falling all over themselves in the blogosphere to pin the blame for this sorry state of affairs the United States finds itself, and if you’re reading my article I don’t need to go into details.  But they are missing the mark.  The finger pointers equally foam at the mouth at the Tea Party and our President – neither of which are the root cause of our troubles.  The self-named ‘tea party’ is a faction of this nation that has been around since our independence.  The power and influence they are wielding on Capitol Hill today was afforded them by the Republican establishment and empowered to them by Independent voters.

My four part expose’ of the tea party movement studied their mainstream rise in politics as symptomatic of a core existential movement in this country.  The Republican establishment took the tea party under their wing much like sheriff Nottingham ‘yoked’ the strength of the barbaric Celts in their war against Robin Hood and his merry men in Sherwood Forest.  Ironically, the story of Robin Hood is applicable to our modern politics.

‘Don’t let the establishment Right fool you!  They knew full well how they would use the tea party in DC – as the pit bulls in the ring.  Once they locked on they would not let go until the end.  Whether the tea party knows it or not, they are the hired thugs of Boehner, Cantor and McConnell and funded by none other than the super-rich and the corporate elite.’

While the establishment Right deserves an Oscar for their performance during the debt ceiling debates for their role as “the damsels in distress at the hands of a ruthless tea party”, the only true victims of the intransigent irresponsible ideologues known as the tea party are the American people, but the ONLY ones ‘blindsided’ by their agenda are Independent swing voters who drank the cool aid of the promise of “American jobs” all the way to the voting booth.  While the establishment Right and the progressive Left both knew exactly what was going down during the mid-term elections,  like a scene from “The Happening”, swing voters unwittingly caused their (and our) own demise on that fateful day in November 2010.

The other finger is pointed to President Obama.  Barack Obama is a Democrat, but my friends, he is one man.  He is our President, but the office does not make all things possible (as Republicans have been very successful proving true).  Legislatively, the office has become really no more than “Master and Cheerleader”, because if he could pass his own legislative agenda, he certainly would have done so!  So if not the President, than who can push an agenda that finally benefits ALL Americans and not just the fortunate few?

‘The fact is, Barack Obama is President of the United States and a Democrat – my point is that if just maybe the American people and the Democratic Party had his back, he could use his office more effectively!’

How can anyone hold the entire Republican party and their tea party minions accountable on the Right, while only holding one man accountable on the Left.  I contend that the entire Democratic Party, and the 98% of American people who could benefit from Democratic policies, have SOME responsibility here.  We have the numbers, and we have the President to represent them – it’s on us to represent this President!  These times require ALL to get involved.  The Right has galvanized their espousal with nothing more than empty Pollyanna promises and wishful thinking, but even when we’ve got history and proven policy to back our case, and a Democratic President to boot, we still cannot seem to galvanize our own Party, and educate the American electorate of what is really going to help them, and what is really going to hurt them.  Asking just one man to fulfill this task on our behalf is quite frankly cowardice!

The ‘pit-bulls’ that were rolled into Washington DC in the Trojan Horse of American prosperity will eventually turn on each other – that’s what pit-bulls do.  The American people are missing the opportunity of nearly half a century to capitalize on the extreme instability of the ‘secret weapon’ of the establishment Right, if we don’t gather our ‘tribes’ now and get behind our own secret weapon – an incumbent Democratic President!

‘The Democratic platform is as complicated and wide-ranging as Democrats themselves.  The Republicans have been so successful over the last 40 years because their message is simplistic.  If liberals cannot find the simplicity within their complexity, the American people will continue to have no choice than to drink the roadside cool aid so freely offered by the Right on a hot day.’

Power requires courage.  We need to ask the same from ourselves that we ask of our President. Call, write or email your representatives about your heartfelt concerns for this country.  Do the same to all members of our Congress and our Senate.  Talk to you neighbors, your friends, your family.  If we are really in the right, then our arguments should be heard.  Get involved in the political action committees in your communities.  Gather like-minded individuals to brainstorm and volunteer your time.  If 98% of the American people are not able to do more than blog, than how can we blame one man for not being able to do more than give national speeches!

Listening to the far right can leave you feeling dizzy and confused.  But that’s why we call them the Spin Masters.

Keep these ‘definitions’ tucked in your pocket to refer to whenever you’re watching your favorite cable news or having that heated discussion around the water cooler, and you just might be able to make ‘sense’ out of the ‘non-sense’.

The American People = Conservatives and the top 2%

Voters = Lobbyists and Corporate Donors

American Values = Intolerance

Patriotism = Exceptionalism

Personal Freedoms = Only according to the Bible

Right to Life = IF you are a Fetus or Caucasian

Free Speech = Conservative Speech

2^nd Amendment Rights = Local Militia 

Elitist = Educated

Tyranny = Democratic President

Grass Roots = Corporate Sponsorship

Compromise = no translation

The Environment = Domestic oil reserves

Free Market = No Laws

Private Sector = Top 2%

Small Business = Top 2%

Small Government = No legislation EXCEPT on abortion and gay rights

Big Government = Any legislation OTHER than abortion and gay rights

Bi-Partisan = Agreeing with Republicans

Partisan = Not Agreeing with Republicans

Cut Taxes = F*%@ the Middle Class

Cut Spending = F*%@ the Middle Class

Create Jobs = In China, India, Saudi Arabia…..

Job Creators = In China, India, Saudi Arabia….

Tax Reform = No Federal Government

Immigration Reform = A bigger wall

National Security = Military Industrial Complex

Environment Protection = Foreign oil dependence

Green Energy = no translation

Barack Obama = The Anti-Christ

Rush Limbaugh = Intelligent

Sarah Palin = serious

Michelle Bachman = Presidential

Fox News = Journalism

‘Take our Country back’ = To the 19^th century

Voting ‘NO’ on raising the Debt Ceiling  = Fulfilling the prophecy of the Book of Revelation

President Obama admonishes Congress and calls for an end to the political pomposity in debt ceiling negotiations and to ‘GET-r-DONE’!

The frustration we heard from the President at the White House press conference last week must be just the tip of the iceberg of the vexation this administration has to be feeling as the dead line on the national debt ceiling looms on the horizon with no clear path to resolution in sight. 

‘Like a virtual “countdown to Armageddon”, the asteroid is fast approaching, while the people of Earth, incapable of agreeing on how stop it, are simply running out the clock spinning their wheels and spinning the truth in denial.’

The November 2010 elections which resulted in the huge gain of Republicans in the House was, among other things, obviously a moratorium of the status quo in Washington D.C., with such a large swath of the newly elected 112^th congress having had little or no previous experience in public service.  The upside; a perspective free from entrenched political dogmata. 

The downside; this congress could be one of the most politically inexperienced in our government’s history, and in the attempt to give Washington a thought transfusion, the voters  failed to account for entrenched ‘personal ideology’. These newbies came to Washington with their holier-than-thou attitude, bloated by their self-importance, completely clueless to the forest around them because they cannot see beyond the trees in front of them.

Aside from the fact this congress has not passed one bill that would create the ‘jobs’ their districts so desperately need (which I’ll address), in the most precarious time in this country since the 1930’s, the 112^th congress immediately set about enacting a so-called “work” schedule of one week on – one week off, calling these staggered seven day furloughs “constituent weeks”.

With the enormous challenges facing the United States in the new millennium, this congress has the blind naivety to believe our country can be governed from an IPad.  Two of it’s newest members actually believed they could be sworn in to office by raising their hand with their fellow members on a T.V. Monitor from a lounge on Capitol Hill!

‘This new congress, raised on Game Boys and X Box, seems to view the world as a one dimensional interactive video game!  

‘News Flash’…. THIS game isn’t going to keep starting over until we figure out how to get to the next level!!’

But this is the attitude this congress is projecting.  The ‘cost and consequence of inaction’ does not seem to register in the brains of these civil servants fresh off the boat of what Patheos.com contributing editor, Timothy Dalrymple, calls a “Libertarian impulse”.   Inaction in the face of a dire threat is sheer apathy.  One’s personal choice to stare down an oncoming train without regard to the imminent impact may be dangerous and unequivocal irrationality, but it is one’s personal choice just the same.  However, when one has tied another to that same track with equal disregard for that individual’s fate, this is sociopathic.

Apathy… ‘indifference; unconcern; nonchalance; detachment; disregard’. Today lawmakers are actually claiming that not raising the Debt Ceiling will have no “real” ill effects on the American economy, let alone the global economy. It’s all a “liberal” conspiracy. These are the same people zealously claiming after twelve years that ‘trickle down economics’ actually creates jobs – and the train won’t hit me while I stand on the track in its wake; and the tooth fairy will pay my bills if I pull a tooth every night and place it under my pillow!

‘Every congress in history has raised the debt ceiling!  Our last President and his congress raised the debt ceiling - seven times – without incident!’

But my fellow Americans, our last President was a white Texas Republican with a long family history in big oil, and who gave 2% of the richest Americans a 3% tax cut – $83,000.00 per 1 million to be exact.  “Raise the Debt ceiling again?  Sure Mr. Prez, whatever you say.  Anything else we can do for ya Mr. Prez?  Triple the deficit?  Sure Mr. Prez, whatever you say”.   Anything else we can do for ya Mr. Prez?”

The apathy toward the disastrous economical effects of not raising the debt ceiling on an economy still struggling through recovery is quasi expected from a Junior congress, but when the congressional leadership is leading their charge, something is amiss!  These Senior members have voted literally dozens of times supporting the same policies they are now willing to risk national security to vote no.

‘Senior Senators Schumer and Durbin are FINALLY speaking their conscience when they conveyed their concern that the Republican leadership is acting so contrary to their prior voting record on economic policy, that one has to wonder if their intent isn’t to sabotage the American economy to impute the Obama Presidency.’

Which brings me back to, “Mr. President, where are the jobs?”  The nationwide Republican mantra of the 2010 mid-term elections still rings clear in my memory! This ‘message’ to the American people won Republicans the biggest Party overturn in the House in several decades, and dozens of Gubernatorial and state House wins across the country.

But what has the 112^th congress actually done since November?  No more than 18 laws have been passed, with not one having anything to do with the economy or jobs.  Three of these laws were to rename a couple Federal buildings and a post office.  One appointed some new Board members to the Smithsonian. 

They’ve passed many bills – mere acts of thespian politics.  In the six months since they and a new House Speaker were elected, they’ve focused on banning abortion; de-funding Planned Parenthood and Public Radio; and de-funding Health Care Reform and Medicare – knowing full well these Bills would all die in the Senate – where the ‘real lawmakers’ earn our taxpayer dollars.  “Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?”

‘Historians have recently noted that the 112^th is the most non-productive congress in 60 years.  At least they’ve made the history books.’

When the President called the Republicans on their flagrant disincentive to honor the credit of the United States and move on to the issue of America’s unemployment, as any credible American President would, their response was unfortunate but predictable scornful malice. 

Republicans said the President should be “ashamed of himself” (He is ashamed – of his congress).  They said he spoke as a “third world leader” (what America is becoming under their policies).  They said he should “take a valium” (what unemployed Americans are taking for depression).   It seems the Republicans really do have the pulse of the American people!

‘My challenge to you America, is contact every member of congress and tell them what you think about their politics of obstruction.  Ask them if they’re re-election is more important than the country they serve.  Tell them what they should be “ashamed” of.  Tell them that a third world country is an “oligarch”.  Tell them you’d rather go to work than “take a valium”.’

Please go to my link “Contact Congress” to email members of the House and the Senate to voice your opinion as an American citizen, and ask them to do the job to which they were elected.

Part IV… The Tea Party and the Rise of Public Bigotry and Xenophobia

The ‘leaves’ of the Tea Party Family Tree are the  ‘fringe element’ of their movement:  those whose image of ‘patriotism’ has a  specific color or lifestyle, and who’ve been energized by ‘the call to arms’ by the new Republican ‘Tea’ Party.   In this segment, I will close my Tea Party Series by studying the correlation between the paralleled rise of the Tea Party and the alarming rise in not only public displays of extreme xenophobia but also blatant avowals of bigotry from the public and private sector previously considered antediluvian in the public discourse.

“If some participate in the Tea Party with racist motives, perhaps because they loathe the thought of an African-American President, would this make the movement racist? Again, the answer is no. Any protest against President Obama…..will provide an occasion for racists who seek to oppose Obama for any reason whatsoever.” Timothy Dalrymple (Harvard Theologian Doctorate; Stanford and Princeton Alumni and Tea Party advocate introduced in part one) 

‘I agree that the Tea Party movement itself may not be a “racist” movement, but it has become an avenue for those within our fringe society to infiltrate public discourse without appropriate consequence.’

 “The charge that the Tea Party is racist is a perfect object lesson in liberal misinterpretation of conservatives. It is, of all the charges leveled against the Tea Party movement, the most inflammatory and the most politically damaging. Yet the accusation says more about the accusers than the accused.”

“…liberals never needed to see the Tea Partiers carrying “witch doctor” signs. They saw a group of largely white conservatives who listened to country music and talk radio. The belief that the Tea Party is racist followed as a matter of course.

“Liberals, in other words, were always going to believe that a movement dominated by white conservatives is racist.” (But) “If you were not already inclined to consider Tea Partiers racist, you would not find the evidence compelling.” Timothy Dalrymple

‘Although I empathize with Dalrymple that an entire movement should not be characterized by a small percentage of its members, his failure to understand or empathize with why this is happening, once again, demonstrates a complete denial (or ignorance) of our history.’

Our American history is riddled with the scars of the battle for equal rights and civil liberties.  The struggle for the equality of ALL Americans has been an arduous and daunting commitment against generations of entrenched dogmata.  To say that most Americans may be ‘hyper sensitive’ to issues of racial bias and ethnic bigotry would not be untrue!  Any educated American who is not aware of this fact is, frankly, naïve!

In body or at least in ideology, the majority of conservatives reside in Middle America.   I wonder how many people know that until the Civil Rights Act was passed by LBJ, the Southern states were overwhelmingly Democratic.  Even after a decade of the aggressive and monumental development efforts of FDR, the South still suffered from widespread poverty.  Democratic policies were more in line with the needs of the people of the South. (Even today, recent census statistics report Southern rural regions to have a higher poverty average than all other rural regions combined).  But after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law, he is on record saying, “Gentlemen, we just lost the South for the next 50 years”.  Our wise President was right about one thing, the Democrats lost the South, and even though they would benefit more from Democratic policies, they simply cannot tolerate Democratic principles.

‘I cannot say for certain that losing the South after the Civil Rights Act under President Johnson, is parallel to the rise of a primarily white conservative, libertarian ‘states rights’ movement under President Obama, but I can say with absolute certainty – I’m not the only one raising an eyebrow.’

If this movement is being ill-characterized by those who may have hijacked their cause, it cannot be blamed on an American majority all too familiar with an inequitable establishment.  In light of our history, it’s the Tea Party’s own lack of foresight and complete disregard for America’s reaction to the ‘nature’ of the imagery and verbal attacks against Obama and his Presidency, that gives liberals just cause to be concerned, and question the true motivation and agenda of the Tea Party.

The leaders of this movement have an obligation and a responsibility to the American people to set the tone and the record straight on what they are buttressing for this country.  Unfortunately for them, it has not been the fringe of their Party, but their own chosen leaders who have contributed the strongest justification for our pause. 

‘If these are the words and actions of the leaders of the Tea Party, elected (or paid) to publicly represent and advocate their interests, then what might the ‘extreme fringe element’ be promoting amongst themselves, veiled from public scrutiny?’

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an organization that has been tracking the level, and defending the victims of hate crimes in this country since the Civil Rights movement.  According to a report in 2010, there are over 300 ‘extreme anti-immigration’ groups in America – up 55% since 2008.  There are also over 360 ‘patriot militia’ groups in this country – up 244% since 2008 - all adulating neo-conservative ideologies and philosophy! 

The fact is, the public displays of racial bias and xenophobia we see at the Tea Party rallies and hear on the airwaves are the result of the venal rhetoric that Tea Party leaders are themselves purporting, and the venal rhetoric that Tea Party leaders are themselves purporting, is the result of the public displays of racial bias and xenophobia we see at the Tea Party rallies and hear on the airwaves. 

‘The politicians are capitalizing on the trepidation of the fringe element, which just serves to sanction their trepidation and further justify their public displays.’

‘All the while, an “extreme” fringe element inconspicuously takes their cues from what they are beholding with an emboldened sense that their preferential ideologies are gaining momentum.’

Dalrymple continues to contend that the only reason we’re all having this discussion is not because we are witnessing an alarming volte-face taking place in this country, but it’s all the result of a media bias focusing exclusively on the worst exemplars within his party, that “liberal reporters are attracted to displays of conservative idiocy like flies to honey.”  But I would submit that ‘conservative reporters’ turning a completely blind eye to this “idiocy” is sending the wrong message – silence can be seen as acquiescence.

Dalrymple also recurrently refers to public education as a root cause behind the deft between ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ perspectives:

“What I propose… is the Theory of the Missing Motive. Since the education establishment has failed to convey a thorough and unprejudiced perspective on differing political points of view, even highly educated liberals possess a cartoonish, easily-dismissed image of American conservative thought.

Liberals are….alienated from core conservative values. Liberals are trained to believe that many of the traditional American ideals and values that conservatives inherit in their families and churches are cruel and imperialistic, and implicitly racist, sexist, and classist. They are trained, for instance, not to be motivated by patriotism and American exceptionalism, but by an ideal of world citizenship and parity.”

‘First, It is not held to our public educators to teach “differing political points of view”, whether conservative or liberal.’

Our public educators are charged with teaching the facts of history!  Nothing taught in our public schools is being made up, imagined or manipulated – it is simply the facts of the critical events and individuals that chronicle our history. When ‘conservative thought’ does reveal itself in historical context, more often, it has been revealed as the impetus’ behind tenures of liberal remedy, rather than paradigms of national prosperity.

 If the facts of history focus more on ‘liberal’ examples, it is only because the most significant strides in our history have been due to primarily ‘liberal’ policy.  It is not personal!  It is not political!  It is our history!  Are conservatives really suggesting that because factual history happens to expose a less favorable account of “conservative thought”, our public educators ought to in tandem with actual history, hypothesize, imagine or contemplate a different history just to appease the conservative point of view?

 ‘The motive behind the Tea Party, ‘conservative’, efforts to de-fund the Department of Education is now quite clear.  To foist their conservative agenda for America on to our youth, they want to privatize, in order to politicize, education.’

His statement that “liberals are trained” as if public Education is nothing more than federally funded ‘dog training’ is a prime example of how far removed from the ‘American’ experience the Republican Party has become.  Liberals are not the ones “alienated”!  And what “traditional American ideals and values” would ANY American consider “cruel and imperialistic, and implicitly racist, sexist, and classist?” Unless by “traditional’, he is referring to the extermination of the true aboriginal Americans, or witch burnings, or the slave trade, or the inequality of women, or slave wages, or inhumane housing conditions, or children being forced to work; then  no American I know would ever use “American ideals and values” in the same sentence with such a description!

But most disturbing is his allegation that liberals “are trained… not to be motivated by patriotism and American exceptionalism, but by an ideal of world citizenship and parity.”  This statement, perhaps more than anything else, reveals the elemental dissonance between liberals and the ‘new’ Republican Tea Party, and the one statement that illustrates WHY racial bias and xenophobia is conjectured by anyone who is not in the Tea Party, or the new ‘conservative’.

Any individual that believes that an American is not ‘patriotic’ simply because they have the breadth of vision to recognize that their ancestry did not begin at Plymouth Rock is quite frankly a fool!’

My own grandmother was born in Los Angeles in 1910, less than two generations after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  She passed in 2006.  How far back do you suppose she and millions of other Americans can claim ‘American’ born ancestors? America is only ‘exceptional’ because of the myriad of human beings who came to our shores from every country on this planet; countries that have been in existence thousands of years before the North American continent we call home was even discovered by the Spaniard, Christopher Columbus; beginning with our Founding Fathers, ostracized from England, and the French who fought alongside them for our freedom. They forged a new way of life – a new country – for ALL who dared venture our shores, and dared to dream the American dream – of freedom and equality.

 Lady Liberty welcomes them to this day, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door”. 

AMERICAN “EXCEPTIONALISM” IS THE EPITOME OF “WORLD CITIZENSHIP AND PARITY”!  IT IS WHAT WE HAVE “TRADTIONALLY” STOOD FOR AND FOUGHT FOR!  IT IS WHO WE ARE “TRADITIONALLY”, AS AMERICANS!

 Please go to my new link, “Republican Faith Chat” for a prime, yet regretfull, example of how the ‘fringe’ element of this country has been emboldened to take their racist views into the realm of politics, cloaked in so-called religion and patriotism.

Part III…The Social Justice of an Existential Tea Party Democracy

 If a wall exists between liberals and far right Tea Party neo-cons, the social justice argument is the mortar that fastens the bricks.  That social justice is a myth is their ideological ground zero – the ‘trunk’ of the Tea Party Family Tree.  In a ‘true’ (Tea Party) democracy there is no such thing as ‘social justice’.  Their Christian duty – the prominent spiritual platform of the movement – may have a role in social charity, but is in no way a social ‘responsibility’.

“…To resent a tax hike (or the prospect of one) is not to neglect the needy, and to wish to retain control over the funds one has secured in order to care for one’s family is not necessarily selfish.”  “Conservatives would prefer that care for the needy remain as local and personal as possible.”  “Just because conservatives have a different vision of the just society does not mean that they do not care to bring justice to the poor and needy.” Timothy Dalrymple (Harvard Theologian Doctorate; Stanford and Princeton Alumni and Tea Party advocate introduced in part one)

 In just these three statements above depicting the conservative perspective, Dalrymple makes reference to the “poor” and/or “needy” three different times.  In other words, according to the Tea Party, anyone who may benefit from policies and programs that would typically fall into the category of ‘social justice’ are in fact, “poor and needy”.  Not only is this conclusion inaccurate, but it is a harmful spin tool used to hamstring our legislature and block commonsense public policy. 

‘The Tea Party has successfully spun social justice into “welfare”!’

 But the principles of Social justice are seen in every aspect of public American life.  In sports competition the rules of engagement are designed to ensure all participants begin with an equal advantage. From renters in a ghetto to owners in a gated community, zoning and housing laws are equally enforced and not predicated on individual status and achievement.  Traffic laws are not enforced by the cost of your car.  Paramedics don’t base their effort to save your life on your income.  Every individual accused of a crime will be afforded a lawyer to represent them.  One business will not be allowed to become so big that it has an unfair control over its market – a monopoly.  Emergency 911 doesn’t screen calls based on the area code.  The sick and the elderly will never be allowed to wither away in our streets simply because they can’t afford health care.

 All of these and more are tenets of social justice, paid for and enforced by public funds, and are accepted by the left and right alike as reasonable rights of human ‘equality’ that foster communities where people and families can work, live and prosper – no argument there. So when does social justice become welfare?  Where does the divide between acceptable public safety and equality, and a ‘welfare state’ begin?

 ‘Evidently the social justice of public safety and equality does NOT include basic nourishment, shelter and literacy.’

Income level does not determine the speed limit on a quiet suburban street, yet it will determine whether an elderly man dies alone of malnutrition in an apartment building.  Income level does not determine whether I can run a dog fighting ring out of my basement, yet it will determine whether a young girl suffers from exposure living on the streets.  Income level does not determine whether a steel worker can have a three martini lunch, yet it will determine whether a bright young man will be the first one in his family to go to college, and break the cycle of poverty.

 If the argument is between ‘public’ obligation and ‘private’ responsibility, than exactly what is the distinction?  Is our safety a ‘public’ obligation while outside our home, and a ‘private’ responsibility while inside our home?  How can we dutifully protect our children in the public parks against violent predators just to leave them to peril in their homes in the face of hunger?  Do our children have a private responsibility?  How can we strive to keep an elderly woman safe walking down a city street on Sunday afternoon, just to be indifferent to her wellbeing that evening in her home during subzero temperatures?

 ‘Parents, guardians and caregivers who have the resources to provide a safe home environment and do not, are prosecuted for neglect, but who is neglectful when there simply are no resources available?  Is that really a failure of private responsibility, or a failure of public obligation?’

“Equal opportunity in cases where ‘incidental inequalities’ appear” is the bedrock of social justice! The few Americans who hold most of its wealth are NOT the result of prodigy! Their fortunes are the result of cultivated heritage.  Success and opportunity are passed on from generation to generation.  But what is the legacy for the rest of the American people?   The vast majority in this country begin their life at ‘scratch’, or little more. With little or no life savings or net worth, a severe economic downturn can be financially catastrophic for this demographic.  This is “incidental inequality”. 

 ‘The Tea Party and the far right hold that government investment in its citizens is “un-American” and that those of ill fortune must instead beg upon the charity of their neighbors to improve their fortunes and “change their stars”.’

 “Jobless Joe is more accountable to use the money he is given wisely, and to strive to become self-sufficient as swiftly as possible, when he receives that money from the members of the church down the street.”  Timothy Dalrymple

This is the historical criticism of “social justice” – that the term “justice” is not objective, therefore cannot be held to any set standard or base line.  Personally, I would think that basic nutrition, shelter and education are basic human rights in an advanced democracy, therefore a base line of “common sense”.  To the existential mind however, even common sense is subjective.  To the existentialist, one’s fate is not held to collective consideration.  To the existentialist, there is no ‘collective’, there is simply a ‘collection of individual fate and existence’.

 ‘Only in an Oligarch or Monarchy, are the future prospects of its citizens pre-determined by the demographic into that which they are born; creating a toxic relationship where the survival needs of one class are only met in return for the service or labor needs of the other, and only to the extent that is  deemed sufficient.’

 I’ve explained in previous articles of my Tea Party Series why I’ve chosen Timothy Dalrymple as the ‘base line’ for my counter arguments to the Tea Party.  One of my reasons is that he is a Doctoral Theologian – a man of religious substance.  This is important, because although not all Tea Party advocates consider themselves “religious”, the majority do use religion as an actual basis for their support of Tea Party philosophy; mainly Christianity.

 While my main concern would be that the Tea Party is a ‘political’ movement working to affect public policy through the parameters set by their personal faith, Dalrymple is particularly sensitive to accusations that the Tea Party is NOT a Christian movement.  Tea Party critics assert that Christianity is based on compassion and empathy, and that social justice IS indeed a “Christian” concept  (concepts in opposition to Tea Party principles).

 Social Justice (in religion) Wikipedia Encyclopedia

 Even after his callous “Jobless Joe” comment, Dalrymple states, “What separates religious progressives from the religious conservatives that participate in Tea Party rallies is not compassion but ideology.”

“For many religious progressives, “social justice” has eclipsed the old God in whom they no longer quite believe. The hope of a socially just world has not complemented and enriched (as it should) but impoverished and occluded their hope of eternity with God. Thus, for them, social justice is the final refuge of the transcendent, the one pure act that remains in a tarnished world, the last vision with the power to stir the graying embers of their religious devotion.” Timothy Dalrymple

Of everything I have read from Dalrymple, his statement above was the most disturbing to me.  What he is expecting his readers to swallow is that those of us who champion social justice, do so only because we have somehow lost our faith in an almighty God – that we have traded an ‘eternal’ relationship with God in heaven for an ‘Earthly’ existence that can only find God’s grace through economic equality.  To this I can only respond;

‘If “the old God” is a reference to the ‘Old Testament’, than he is spot on! But The New Testament brought the new God, the Christ, into our human hearts, and He gave us the principal of “Love thy neighbor as thyself”.’

Unfortunately, Dalrymple’s position is a prime example of the existential root of even the religious proponents of the Tea Party – the notion that one’s station in life is the physical manifestation of each man’s spiritual contract with God, and to interfere with this ethereal contract in the name of God’s grace is to deny the existence of the Higher Power of an almighty God, and to renounce our faith in His plan for us.

This notion that “personal responsibility” extends to even circumstances completely out of our control, and that if we as a society recognize our moral obligation to the wellbeing of our fellow-man, we are simply shrouding our loss of faith in a Higher Power, is absolutely absurd! 

‘Equally absurd is the notion that we reduce our national debt and keep our budget balanced by eradicating the resources that our most incidentally precarious citizens rely upon just to stay in the game, while simultaneously sheltering the compounding resources our most incidentally fortunate citizens have continued to enjoy.’

Such is the conservative definition of social justice.  From the liberal perspective however, this is nothing more than a national ‘pyramid scheme’.  Only those who get in the game early will ever achieve significant wealth, while those who get in the game late become the perpetual ‘down line’ of those at the top.  Pyramid schemes in business are illegal, but its structure is the basis of conservative socio-economics.  

Finally, Dalrymple contends that the lack of public support for conservative principles is not only a simple case of misunderstanding, but that public education is the culprit of misinformation:

“Since liberals control the American education establishment, and nearly all of the major news organizations, conservatives generally are better educated in liberal ways of thinking than liberals are in conservative ways of thinking. How many of us, in high school or college, heard thorough, eloquent, and charitable defenses of conservative theories of society, economy, and government? The faculties at major universities and the staffs at major news organizations are overwhelmingly liberal. This has not served our country well. Liberals in general get their views of “conservatism” second-hand through liberal caricatures, and this has made them better able to demonize conservatives than understand them.”

For such an educated man, I am always surprised by his shortsightedness.  The history of this country has only liberal “statist” policies to credit for turning the darkest hours of our country into our brightest moments.  Our interstate infrastructure and development , and the strongest middle class the world has ever seen that coined the phrase, “the American Dream”, is a direct result of liberal “social justice”.  On the other hand, historically it has been an ‘unbridled private sector’ that has threatened the strength of our union again and again.

‘Our educators are charged with teaching the facts of history, not ideological hypothesis.  The fact that our American history is based on liberal policies may infuriate conservatives, but it doesn’t change historical fact.’

 Shall our educators teach the facts of the civil war, or teach a conservative ‘scenario’ where the South had won?  Shall our educators teach the facts of the Great Depression, or leave out what caused it and what ended it, simply to paint a more favorable picture of conservative policies? Shall our educators teach the facts of the Civil Rights movement, the Equal Rights movement, the Labor movement and the Environmental movement, or should they just skip the 20^th century and go straight to the Reagan years – in all fairness to conservatives?  As for the financial collapse of 2007 – well these facts were taught in the living rooms of American homes.  Should the media have spun these current events so that going forward in history, the conservative position would appear more auspicious to our youth?

 ‘Would it “serve our country well” to teach our children that the cost of their toys defines their self-worth?  That ‘sharing’ is a bad thing?  That their wants come before their family’s needs?  That if their best friend’s father has lost his job and cannot find work, he is simply lazy and wants a free ride? Is this what ‘conservatives’ teach their children?’

 If conservatives feel that the merits of their policies are being overlooked, than those merits must be analogous to much more than a system set up to reward a minute percentage of individuals and industries for their single-minded focus on nothing more than obtaining massive amounts of money!  

 Their policies need to consider that the majority of Americans are average people who measure the meaning of their success by much more than the size of their bank balances, and who want their children to grow up in a world where the government does not quantify the value or contribution of its citizens by their net worth. These people are the real backbone of the promise of the American dream!

‘If I could for a moment, ‘envision’ our founding fathers in 2011 America, I believe they would be appalled by the oligarch of corporate America and appalled by those handful of American citizens who have benefited from decades if not generations of astronomical profits – not for their success through capitalism – but for the millions of average American citizens, young, old and fit alike, who are at this moment, suffering dearly in the face of their greed and indifference!’

Go to “It’s a Tea Party…Come on In” Category for Part IV

Part II…Existentialist Demagoguery of Federal Revenue and Investment

 After the landslide victory election of our 44^th President in 2008, a national far right movement to disrepute and demean our federal government began to swell at a rate and ferocity the likes we have not seen since the Civil War.  This anti-government ‘spin campaign’ has been alarmingly successful in enabling existential separatism to spread and take root in the American consciousness.

 The first half of my Tea Party Series Part II focused on the historical role of government in American history, and how primordial existential principles have been in perpetual opposition to the statist policies that fostered this nation even as we fought against these divergent forces that today, call themself the Tea Party.  This second half goes further than looking at why and what government has historically done to advance the United States, but how.

‘Government relies on the elementary utility of collecting revenue to make the necessary investments for the advancement of nation and citizenry (Tea Party code for “tax and spend”).’

“On the conservative way of seeing things… Tea Partyers sincerely believe that taking more and more money away from society’s most productive citizens… and giving more and more through government distribution, fostering a culture of dependency… is poisonous to our national character and economy…”

“Conservatives…. resent it when a distant bureaucracy extracts their money in order to distribute public funds.”  “This is not to deny that government services are needed, but it is to refute the notion that “taxed enough already” is a slogan of economic narcissism.”

“…government intervention and taxation can reach an extreme point where it no longer serves but undermines the public good. Tea Party supporters believe that we have passed that point in a headlong sprint.”   Timothy Dalrymple  (Harvard Theologian Doctorate and a Stanford and Princeton Alumni and Tea Party advocate introduced in part one)

‘There’s no argument that taxes are undoubtedly the least popular aspect of citizenship, but those with even rudimentary understanding acknowledge that reasonable and responsible taxation is an essential and fundamental tool of advanced civilization governance.’

‘In light of the above rationale for taxation, now Dalrymples Demagoguery reads like a childish rant against eating his vegetables, washing behind his ears and brushing his teeth – a “you can’t make me” attitude.  ‘I’d like to know where these people were during U.S. History class – home schooled?’

He claims the U.S. government is “taking more and more” and “reaching an extreme point”.  That’s simply a lie!  Taxation is the lowest since the 1950’s.  During President Clinton taxes were the lowest since the 1960’s.  Sadly, but not surprisingly, he describes the wealthy as “society’s most productive citizens”.  He and the far right share the truly small-minded perception that work ethic, dedication and acumen are only measured in annual incomes and net worth. 

The simple truth is, most of the wealth in this country was achieved generations ago, and passed on through inheritance. The Koch brothers and Donald Trump for example, are not more “productive” than the rest of us simply because they were born into money.  It takes money to make money, and the more you have, the more you make! Silver spoon in mouth does not a productive man make, just a fortunate one.

‘Very few people in this country today built their wealth from scratch!  Those who did understand firsthand the American social tenets that buttress ‘equal opportunity’ and abet the reality of the American dream.’

Our American history attests that sound and solid U.S. Government function and oversight has actually underwrote American prosperity and indemnified our world power, not hindered it!   It also upholds that taxation is not only normal and necessary for an advanced civilization, but (especially in the context of the current debate), more than reasonable! Then why does the far right idolize an often fallible and inherently narcissistic private sector with such vigor?

‘Supposedly, the far right has had a sudden stroke of conscience when it comes to our National debt and the deficit!…’

“Liberals cannot imagine that Tea Partyers are really motivated by concern for their country, and by frustration with a White House hemorrhaging red ink and a government less concerned to represent the interests of the citizenry than to pay off the special interests that fund their campaigns.”

“…the deficit spending of the Obama administration is vastly greater than what we witnessed during the Bush years. Even in the midst of the financial meltdown, the Bush administration sought one-time expenditures, and many conservatives were convinced that extraordinary measures might be necessary. This does not begin to compare with the Obama budget plans…”

“It is entirely natural that those who grumbled and protested when Bush overspent would shout and march when a new administration presides over the most immense expansion of federal power and bureaucracy that this country has seen for generations.” Timothy Dalrymple                                                                                                                                                                                        

Well we’ve seen how “Tea Partiers…motivated by concern for their country” translates in their voting record on Capitol Hill on issues of women’s health, the environment, the unemployed, children and the elderly, the sick and disabled, education, air safety, food safety, work safety, and disaster response to name just a few – their “concern” is coming in loud and clear! 

As for the “interests of citizenry” vs. “the special interests”, the top lobbyists in Washington represent automatic assault weapons (NRA), the very lucrative non-renewable fossil fuel industry (Big Oil), and big business interests including environmental polluters and job outsourcers (corporate donors).

‘Which Party do you suppose benefits more from “special interests”? And which White House set the bar on “hemorrhaging red ink”?’

Reagan raised the deficit by 186%.  Clinton brought that back down and gave us a “surplus” (a term almost extinct today).  Then Bush Jr. came in and not only erased it, but rose it three times over with not one vetoed spending bill in eight years, two unfunded wars, an unfunded Medicare prescription plan and a ten year “provisional” tax cut for the top 3% income earners to boot!   Higher spending and less revenue; do the math!  Trickle-down economics has not created jobs, and it exasperated our debt.  Our 41^st President, Bush Sr., called it “voodoo economics”, and that cost him base support for re-election.

‘The factors that created the largest deficit in our history were already in place and at the point of no return long before the Presidential election. The financial collapse of 2008 was the inexorable end zone.’

To brand the drastic emergency measures taken to stave off a global 2^nd Great Depression as “vast deficit spending” is reckless and irresponsible partisan rhetoric. To demonize our leaders who were charged with the burden to respond and then blame those leaders for the current state of our national debt instead of those who created the circumstances that caused it, is sickening blind partisan ambition, and frankly preposterous and deceitful.  

‘Those who claim a return to policies that created our deficit and two Great Depressions, will somehow have a different outcome this time, are simply not of sound mind!’

‘Spending’ can be needless frivolous waste, or it can be a smart investment in equity or future gains.  Borrowing and ‘debt’ can be unwarranted imprudence, or it can be a beneficial tool in managing financial obligations and cash flow.  The question is NOT whether government is too big or too small, the question IS “what does work and what doesn’t”?  History confirms the private sector has no public concern. 

‘The life blood of the American economy is spewing from a bleeding artery while the Tea Party is arguing over who’s towel to use for the tourniquet.’

Ask yourself, with the largest deficit and worst economy in nearly a century, how it can be conceivable to continue to use billions of taxpayer dollars to 1) subsidize the richest industries on the planet; 2) fund a war machine defense budget larger than all the countries on Earth combined; 3) incentivize taking American jobs of out of America; and 4) gift 2% of the population already earning 50% of American income with the lowest tax rates in over fifty years? (feeding the oligarchs)

Then ask yourself how it can be conceivable to instead, lower the deficit by slashing funds for education, health care, environmental protection, renewable energy, national disaster response, national revenue collection, public protection, oversight of our global financial markets, and the restoration of an archaic and deteriorating infrastructure? (starving you, me and our communities)

Far right conservatives LOVE to spend money – our money, on themselves!  They demagogue a federal government collecting national fixed rates of revenue (our taxes) to invest back into the American people (you, me and our communities), but they relish in collecting unlimited profits (our money) to build their own personal wealth (the oligarchs).  Both collect revenue and spend.  Only one recognizes the proper benefactors of the process! 

‘The modern day hero of the far right, Ronald Reagan, memorably stated, “Government is not the answer to our Nation’s problems.  Government IS the problem!” ‘

Modern day class warfare was born within this 40-year-old mantra of the conservative movement epitomized today by the Tea Party.  Ironically the man who coined the phrase famously played cowboy rolls during his film career, and indeed, after twenty years of Republican leadership our country is denigrating into the ‘wild west’.  The demonized sheriff and his deputies (our government) desperately attempt to keep the peace, often outnumbered by glorified outlaws who live by their own rules at the expense of the greater community (far right neo-cons).  Those with the biggest and fasted gun have the last word in any conflict (corporate America and the top 2%), while the rest of the community are held hostage to their venal demands (98% of the American people).

‘The wild west ultimately consumed itself because autonomous personal freedom inevitably degrades to wanton singular aims. The destabilization of any society begins with civic indifference.’

‘A strong and stable democratic society functions in consort with elected representatives to thrive and succeed.

You cannot state that a government of the people, by the people and for the people is “the problem” without inferring that we, the American people, are “the problem” – Really? 

Go to “It’s a Tea Party…Come on In” Category for Part III; IV

 Are reasonable and serious Americans and legislators finally ready to concur that not only is President Barack Obama an American, but a patriot and a formidable Commander and Chief?

The answer to that question could be a “defining moment” for our country.  The nation and the world have been watching while our leaders have been devoting tremendous amounts of time and energy on issues that have absolutely no significance to the challenges facing the United States and the world in the new millennium.  It is as if we had collectively ‘fallen down the rabbit hole’ into a ‘wonderland’ where nothing is what it seems – up is down; in is out; wrong is right; bad is good; and lies are truth.

‘Could the events of 5/1/11 be the proverbial “shot heard round the world” that woke us from our trance and definitively concluded our “silly season” of mass distraction?’

If so, ironically the one man who led out of wonderland was the one man who inadvertently led us into it.  Barack Obama campaigned on bringing our nation together – the Great Uniter.  What he may or may not be aware of, is that although his intent to balance the interests of every American of every social demographic is indeed behind every action and effort he has put forth in office, it is his very existence that has exposed and magnified our personal and national differences in a way that no one or no thing has ever managed to do!

‘In life and body, our President is the literal embodiment of our core personal and social biases, preconceptions, and prejudices.

As a man, he’s been called personally to reconcile the inherent diversity of race, religion, ethnicity, and socio-economic status within his own lineage, parentage, and ultimately his life.

As leader of the free world, he calls upon the American people to reconcile the inherent diversity within our own National lineage, for the sake of our Union.’

Perhaps this personal journey for him was not without pain and difficulty.  If so, this may explain the calm, cool demeanor many mistake for aloof. Seemingly unaffected while the rest of us squabble, kick and punch in defense and attack of personal ideologies, the President patiently goes about the business of addressing the significant National and global issues at hand, as if he may empathize with our struggle, but understands first hand it is a struggle each of one of us must endure if we are to ever put it behind us and move on together as a Nation.

It is President Obama’s quiet resolve that seems to equally infuriate both sides of the aisle the most.  His base demands chest thumping and ‘hoorahs’ when they think they’ve scored a point. His opponents demand to see blood when they think they’ve scored a hit.   His refusal to do neither is his unnerving trademark ability to come across as the “only adult in the room”. 

‘The endless amount of time and resources the right and the left expend defending or attacking him, Barack Obama equally spends tirelessly steering our attention back to what really matters – the American people!’

My Grandmother lived to see the new millennium, but when she was born, our Nation was barely two generations in existence. Our arrogance and grit is part of what makes us uniquely American, but who are we to deny it could also tear us asunder?  Even as of today, the story of our Nation is a mere drop of time in the bucket of history.  The Roman Empire rose and fell in just twice the time of our history.  Germany was five thousand years old by the time it fell into division.  Even the university where Prince William and Kate found love celebrated six hundred years at the time they were wedded – three times the span our Democracy.

‘Given the level of partisanship and self-serving politics we’ve allowed to distract and paralyze our legislature today, whom among us could decree with certainty that our Union will even outlive the Roman Empire, let alone a college campus abroad?’

If the complexity of a historically brilliant and courageous special ops mission that led to one man’s death, and the simplicity of a certificate of one man’s birth, can enlighten us to the folly of our notions, and finally expose those who are serious about solving the problems that threaten the future of our Union and those who are not, then indeed this could be a defining moment, not for Barack Obama’s Presidency, but for the American people.

‘The future of the United States of America depends on the future of the American people.  Only together can the American people set a course for the sustainable future of the United States of America.’

The question is not, “Why didn’t our President provide his long form birth certificate two years ago ‘when asked’? “  The question is, “Why was he asked to do so in the first place?”

 I normally take a very ‘analytical’ and ‘investigative’ approach to the issues I write about.   I guess I aim to dig beneath the obvious to expose the underlying root causes of the issues our nation is facing in the new millennium. 

Most of the time, surface reality is merely symptomatic of much deeper and fundamental realities. True knowledge, is simply multi-faceted understanding, and a firm grip on knowledge empowers one with not only a firm control over ones own path and life choices, but also a firm forbearance for the path and life choices of others.

Other times, however, the surface reality masks no deeper meaning.  What you see is the entire fundamental reality at a glance.  The birther movement is a prime example of just this.

‘It’s not complicated.  It’s not subjective.  It’s not multi-faceted.  The birther movement is nothing more than a brazen contempt for the President of the United States, and an impenitent derision for the office to which we elected him.’

‘So, while the shallow intentions of the birthers themselves are entirely transparent, there are those who either choose to spread their message or refuse to renounce it, for no other reason than to support hidden agenda’s.’

How do you tell a true birther from those acceding their message with a hidden agenda?  With all the challenges Americans are facing together in this new millennium, birthers focus exclusively on Barack Obama.  They have no interest in solving our common problems.  They have no interest in advancing this nation.  They have no interest in the common good of all Americans.  They are intolerant, separatist, purest xenophobes.  ‘Racist’ is the fitting term to sum it up.

 The birthers may be despicable, but at least they are authentic!’

No matter what, honesty is always the best policy.  It is real.  It is concrete.  It is accountable.  Only that which is tangible can be confronted.  But those acceding the birther message with ulterior motives are duplicitous, conniving, manipulative, deceiving, self-serving opportunists.  ‘Fraud’ is the fitting term to sum it up.

‘Those who would con the American people to advance their positions are infinitely more despicable, because they are spineless venal liars!’

It is high time we STOP providing a national media forum for the birthers!  More importantly, it is high time we STOP providing a national media forum for those who fail renounce them, because their motives (and thus their message) simply cannot be trusted!

We have problems to solve!  We have decisions to make!  We have a nation in dire straits!  We have a world in civil upheaval!  Only those with pure intention and concern for the American people and the world in which we exist can be allowed at the ‘grown up table’.  It’s time we get serious and GET REAL!

‘It’s time to starve the beast of mass distraction and let it die!  It’s time to hold our representatives accountable to reality and to their duty to our nation and our people! It’s time the American people let them know that nothing less than an unwavering devotion to the issues at hand will be tolerated by the recipients of their missive.’

‘It’s time to tell them that anything else will and should fall on deaf ears and meet with backs turned!’

Part II The ’Historical’ Purpose of U.S Government Function and Oversight – What has Worked? 

 The self-named Tea Party was born in the far right-wing of Republican politics, where they can use the legislative process to implement public policies and laws that reflect their deeply held personal ideologies.  With existentialism at its root, it passionately aims to decrease government function (size); oversight (regulation); investment (spending); and social safety nets (entitlements).  They can only achieve this by decreasing revenue (taxation). 

 “The Tea Party movement is premised on the conviction that we have gone too far in the statist direction, and that our excesses of government intervention and expenditure have abridged our Constitutional freedoms… and set our economy on the precipice of severe and enduring decline.”  The Tea Party… is precisely the kind of citizen accountability our founders envisioned… the Tea Party movement is a clear example of the governed standing athwart the will of the governors and shouting Stop.” Timothy Dalrymple

I introduced Dalrymple in part one.  He is a Theology scholar of Stanford and Princeton alumnus with a Harvard Doctorate.  He is contributing Editor to Patheos.com.  His Doctoral Thesis’ were premised on Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, recognized as a ‘founder of existentialism’. He is a Tea Party advocate, and one whom I’ve found both credible and equitable to argue for the purposes of my Tea Party Series.

‘The current heated ‘budget debate’ in Congress is really a national debate on the purpose of American government.’

“Tea Party supporters and detractors alike believe that government should be neither too small to discharge its essential functions nor too large to preserve a space for individual rights and liberties. They disagree on where “too small” and “too large” stand upon the spectrum.” Timothy Dalrymple

I would go further that it’s not just a disagreement of “where too small or too large stand upon the spectrum”, but more importantly, what are the “essential functions” of government, and when does the “space for individual rights and liberties” infringe upon the rights and liberties of other individuals who share the space in ones’ community, state or country?  Either way, although personal ideologies may appease constituents and factor into getting elected, when they become the premise behind every policy initiative, a ‘national’ governing body falls into dissent and is rendered sorely ineffective. 

‘We will never solve the serious problems our nation faces in the new millennium by refusing to find any merit whatsoever in the counter-argument, or by holding the process hostage  with “my way or no way” politics.’                       

‘Neither side can legislate by force feeding their ideology down America’s throat.’ 

‘Neither side however, can disavow ‘factual and relevant’ examples of our American history as we debate the issues!’

‘Factual’: Can we really predicate modern public policy supported by ideology that we ‘envision’ from forbearing thoughts or intentions? Who among us can profess to explain how our forefathers, charged with 13 New England States in 1776, would govern 50 states and territories from sea to shining sea and beyond; three hundred million people; a global super power of wealth and might, whose citizens now have origins from every country and faith on Earth, in 2011?  Truth is, the scenario you and I ‘envision’ will be at odds because those ‘visions’ are based on nostalgic feelings – not historical fact!

‘Relevant’: When citing history to set public policy, those examples must not only address the issues at hand, but have relevance in a present-day context. The American Revolution (the birth of our Nation) was undoubtedly our greatest challenge, and it was courageously faced and conquered by our founding fathers in 1776, but how is it relevant to averting a global economic crisis and putting nearly 30 million back to work, in 2011?

‘If a true and just government truly is one “of the people, by the people and for the people”, then indeed our governing body and policies must be contemporaneous with who we ‘are’ as a nation as we continue to evolve through our experience and develop in our understanding of humanity and Country; not with a national caricature painted by ideological wishful thinking or irrelevant nostalgia.’

For over two centuries, we have together as a Nation faced many, many great challenges; global, domestic, economic, and cultural.  With National pride and strong leadership, we overcame these challenges, again and again!  It is these leaders and their strategies that are actually factual and relevant in content and context to the challenges of 2011 America.

‘If we look to actual American history, we learn that it was indeed statist policies that forged the social tenats that pulled our country out of the dark ages of the 19^th  and early 20^th century.’

-Existentialism declared Civil War and threatened to tear apart the fabric of our union.  Under Lincoln, Statism ended the war and saved our Union.

-Existentialism spawned Manifest Destiny and the Great Migration, but it was far-sited progressive statist policies that connected and strengthened our new ‘coast-to-coast’ nation with the railroads, interstate highway systems and energy grids.

 -An unprincipled private sector left to its own means un-checked during the “roaring 20’s” under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, caused our nation to fall into the Great Depression, once again, threatening our National Security.  It was, once again, aggressive statist policies set forth in the New Deal under FDR that lead us out of the Great Depression and to further create the wealthiest middle class on Earth.

 -Statist policies passed by Congress under FDR ended the heinous maltreatment in labor and housing suffered by an entire generation of Americans – young and old – at the hands of an unscrupulous and apathetic private sector during the Immigrant Movement and Industrial Age.

 -Exceptionalism was at the root of the 2^nd World War and threatened life as we know it.  National and World unity saved Planet Earth, and strengthened the world community through the creation of United Nations.

 -The statist GI Bill, passed under FDR less than a year before he died during his 4^th elected term in office, provided, among other things, higher education to hundreds of thousands of veterans, creating an entire generation of professionals and scientists that ushered in the new technology and information age of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.

 -From efforts began by JFK, the most progressive legislation in civil liberties, the Civil Rights Act, was passed and signed into law by LBJ, creating for the first time, a level playing field of equal rights and opportunities for all Americans.  Nearly two centuries of public discrimination, bigotry and xenophobia, although hard-fought, finally suffered a defeat and came to an end.  

 -At the end of Bush Jr.’s 2^nd term in 2008, much like the roaring 20’s, a new private sector let run-amuck along with fantastical tax policies, once again brought the American economy and financial system to its knees, and this time a ‘global’ economy down with it. 

‘This brings us to the present moment in America.  Which path do you suppose history will prove the American people followed this time, the one that continues to lead us into suffering and chaos, or the one that continues to lead us back to prosperity and sanity?’

For lack of time and space to even mention the environment, public and cultural development, and the historic passage of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, above is a mere sampling of how the American people have prospered under strong federal government and leadership, and of the clear and present danger posed when American ‘social’ issues are left to lay bare to the whims of a ‘private’ sector predicated on personal profit.

‘Throughout history, liberal policies have been the impetus behind our most significant national accomplishments.’

‘Far right existentialists have to erase two hundred years of American history to make their case and sell their agenda.’

Over the two hundred and thirty five years since the Declaration of independence, we, the American people, have borne a Federal government devoted to the protection and security of our Union and its citizens.   This goes far beyond the protection and security of our boarders and democratic way of life.  It is the protection and security of our personal freedoms, equal opportunities, civil liberties and basic human rights; the protection and security of the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged among us including our children and our elderly.  It is the protection and security of our lands and infrastructure, and the protection and security of the endeavors of advanced culture and polity.

‘These are “American” issues.  They do not stop and start at state lines!  American issues are federal, not “states rights”!’

From the existential camera eye of the far right self-named Tea Party, a federal government devoted to addressing the national issues of poverty, pollution, illiteracy, civil and equal rights, environmental and natural resource preservation, access to power and energy, child neglect and exploitation, worker safety and exploitation, financial corruption, food safety, road/bridge/damn safety, travel safety, research and science and higher learning is “government intervention” and even socialism. It’s a baseless accusation, because we have history to provide the truth of how government has actually ‘worked’ for this country. 

‘Every time our public policy has focused on personal gain with no conscience for the greater good, we tip the scales and find ourselves in the midst of disjunction, desperately clinging to once unyielding foundations.’

 ’Insanity is doing the same thing, in the same way, and expecting to get a different result!’

 The reason our United States Government has been so successful in such a short span of history, is because of its fierce determination to balance personal freedoms with social responsibilities. Government is not demon spawn nor the Messiah!  Its service to the American people cannot be partial to ideology, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexuality or income level.  It cannot place the value of one social demographic over the value of another.

‘The historical purpose of our United States government is to maintain the national ladder of equal opportunity for ALL Americans who, by inherent fate, are either at the top or on the bottom, climbing up or falling down, or somewhere in between - comfortable right where they are.  The American PEOPLE are the backbone of our country!’

‘The historical purpose of our United States government is to not only defend our country, but also the rights and civil liberties of all Americans, know matter where on the ladder they may be.  ALL Americans may be asked to sacrifice for our democracy!’

 ’The purpose of our United States government is to protect all Americans from those who may unfairly use their good fortune, or ill, to maintain or achieve their prosperity on the backs or at the expense of their fellow American, because  ALL Americans deserve the fair and unbiased right to the pursuit of happiness!’

Go to “It’s a Tea Party…Come on In” Category for Part II (B); III; IV

Will existentialism cripple our American ‘super power’?  I asked this question in the title of my Intro to this 4 part series.  Our super power, our ‘kryptonite’, isn’t our monetary wealth, it’s our wealth of resources; resources of pride in our history, and the strength of our people to overcome bitter challenges; resources of a unity forged and made stronger through the diversity of our people and our lands; resources of ‘uniquely American’ values that promote personal freedoms and equal opportunities.

‘National wealth is not what made America great.  What made America the leader of the free world was its people.  Our American wealth is the result of our National pride, not the reason for it.’

From the American Revolution; Manifest Destiny and the Great Migration; the Civil War; the Immigrant Movement; WWI; the Industrial Revolution; the Great Depression and WWII:

From the Great Rocky Mountains to the Windy City; from the Wine Country to the Motor City; from the Big Island to the Big Apple; from the Blue Ridge Mountains to the Golden Gate; from the Great Plains to the Sprawling Metropolis; from Bourbon Street to Wall Street; from China Town to Motown to Allen Town:

‘It is the uniquely American diversity of our people and our lands coming together under one Flag that has been our “ace in the hole” when facing the challenges of our darkest hours and transforming them into our brightest moments.’

 ’Our ability to recognize, combine and draw upon the strengths of the diverse gifts of our Nation and its people is the kryptonite behind our American Super Power.’

So the question remains, “will existentialism cripple our American Super Power?”  If you know what existentialism is, you know that it’s a stark contrast to the American principles and values that made our Nation great, and why it is the one thing that threatens to unravel the fabric that holds us together.

“The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000  ex·is·ten·tial·ism  A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe; regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one’s acts.

As my mother, an original coffee-house beatnik of the 1960’s, so passionately reminded me, this isn’t the first time America has seen the rise of existentialism.  The scale of intensity of what we are seeing today in our public display and discourse is eerily similar to the cultural revolution of the 1960’s. – but on the flip-side!

‘The conflicts of the 1960’s signified the emergence of the “individual vs. the establishment”. It was, by definition, an “existential movement”.’

The 1960’s saw not only issues of equality and civil  rights in the public and private sector finally being addressed, but issues of civil ‘liberties’ as well; our basic human right to uniquely and individually express ourselves through our clothing (or lack of); our music; our words and our books; our lifestyle; our sexuality; right down to our haircuts.  Long established theories of thought in science; psychology; religion; and philosophy were also being chipped away as an entire generation yearned to ‘break out of the box’ of conventional thought, giving rise to Metaphysics and quantum physics; the increased interest in both humanism and Eastern Philosophy; and the increase of ‘mind expansion’ drugs.

We struggled, fought and persevered through that tumultuous time of our history, and came out on the other side of history with a ‘new establishment’, one that ultimately accepted, respected, and reflected the diversity of color, thought and culture of 20th century Americans.  In fact, the greater part of the 20th century was dedicated to the ‘establishment’ of equal rights and opportunity; freedom of thought, speech, religion and a ‘true’ Separation of Church and State; Social (awareness) Justice;  Labor rights and protection; as well as the protection of our environment and natural resources.  All of these ‘social tenets’ either peaked, or gained momentum, during the cultural revolution of the 1960’s. 

’21st century  America is the “new establishment”, descendant of those, yes, long-haired, free love, hungry for knowledge, peace-loving, soldiers for equal rights and social justice of the 1960’s, and what they fought for.’

 ’New Millennium Republicans are the descendants of the “old establishment” of the 1960’s, now the “new existentialists”.’

‘The “cultural” revolution of the 1960’s, “on the flip-side”, IS  the “political” (Tea Party; neo-con; far right) revolution of the new millennium, and they want to “take their country back”!  Back to…..?’

While I am compelled to empathize with those individuals of the 1960’s who fought for themselves and others to be more than “an anonymous cog in an impersonal social machine”, I am also compelled to question why our fellow Tea Party Americans claim to be feeling this today. 

‘I have to admit, I’m perplexed, which is exactly why I began this in-depth look at what exactly the new Right is up to and about.’

What I’ve found, my personal conclusion, is that the 60’s was indeed a ‘social movement’ based on existential principles - a desperately needed call for modern America to question the ‘established authority’ on boundaries of personal thought, expression and socio-ethnic-economics that limited and inhibited the God given rights of individuals to ‘personally’ thrive and prosper in a Democracy. 

The Tea Party, on the other hand is a ‘political movement’ made up of actual existentialists - It’s a dog eats dog world; winner takes all; survival of the fittest; “Don’t Tread on Me”; We are each an island; I am not my brother’s keeper; ‘equal’ opportunity and social ‘justice’ are subject to personal opinion so whom among us is ‘anointed’ to determine for all, who is ‘equal’ and what is ‘just’?   

‘This is true “existentialism”, and I believe the root of the Tea Party movement!’

Meet Timothy Dalrymple, a Theologian who studied at Stanford, Princeton and received his Doctorate at Harvard.  He is a Christian conservative philosopher and scholar of modern Western religious thought; contributing editor to Patheos.com (a Christian Conservative website) and writes, ”Daily Reflections on Faith and Politics, Church and Culture”.  He also writes about the virtues, and what he considers misconceptions, of the Tea Party.

In reading Dalrymples’ eloquent literary defense of the Tea Party, he comes across as level headed and of sound mind – with no obvious ulterior (political/financial) motives, like those mentioned in my intro, “Will Existentialism Cripple American ‘Super Power’?”  Timothy Dalrymple just may represent ‘the quintessential root’ of the Tea Party movement. He sees the Tea Party movement as made up of ‘ordinary Americans’ whose unification has been forged or forced out of direct opposition to a National “statist” movement, and whose policies, he believes, are the only remedy to “…a dysfunctional political culture that will thrust our country back to the precipice of economic collapse”. 

‘He claims to be disheartened by what he perceives as a “distorted” perception of the Tea Party by liberals, and a misrepresentation of same by the mainstream media.’

“…Tea Partiers would tell you that they are “standing up” against powerful media and political establishments that would mock, slander, and squelch their movement.”

 “Cultured despisers of the movement are perpetrating a collective character assassination the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime. The grass roots, to be sure, are never finely manicured. Popular political movements do not move gracefully. Yet even the most admirable political movements now praised in our history books had their own unsavory elements. Such is the rowdy raw material of democratic progress. If ordinary citizens cannot band together and protest the actions of their government without being slandered as rampaging paranoiacs and selfish, slavering, knuckle-dragging racists, then sooner or later ordinary citizens will no longer band together at all — and our country will be the worse for it.”  Timothy Dalrymple

Without opening that mental scrap book we all carry of the despicable and ridiculous images displayed at those infamous Tea Party rallies of late 2010, notice the noble picture Dalrymple paints of these events.  Never mind the images, what of the defamatory content of the speeches against our government and our President that fed and spurred their fervor?  And those of us appalled by what we saw and heard, we are portrayed as the “cultured despisers” of their ‘movement’?

I sincerely believe Dalrymple when he says he does not agree with “every sentiment expressed on the protest placards or over the microphones”, but are the rest of us really “cultured despisers” simply because we find these things abhorrent?   And what about his perceived purity of the “raw rowdy material of democratic process”, don’t counter-protesters factor into that premise?

Still, Dalrymple could not dispute the bigoted xenophobes attracted to the Tea Party like moths to a flame, and to this he answers, “The human psyche is a complicated wreck, and when millions of people participate in a movement they will do so for a thousand different reasons.” 

‘This argument may support his case, but it also supports ours!’

Dalrymple goes on to explain that “… the problem is not that liberals dislike the principles promoted at Tea Party rallies.  Most do not understand those principles. The problem is that liberals dislike the kind of people who go to Tea Party rallies”.  Really?!  As a liberal, it couldn’t be the ‘principles’ of the Tea Party that I disagree with, because I really “do not understand those principles”.  It must be my reverse-bigoted pre-conceived notions about the folks who attend the rallies…

I grew up on a farm, earned a black belt in Martial Arts, and my favorite firearm is a 22 caliber rifle.  What part of this picture says I don’t like country music and camo pants?   Mr. Dalrymple, the ‘kind’ of people who attend Tea Party rallies are not the problem for majority of Americans, it is the ‘message’ they are sending in ‘intended’ word and imagery.  If the virtues of your Tea Party ‘principles’ are not being understood, it’s because it’s getting lost in the ‘message’, not the messenger.  Could it be that most the people of your own movement don’t understand these principles you speak of?  So what are these ‘principles’?  

‘What is so complicated and profound that the American majority “do not understand”?’

Patheos.com describes Dalrymple as “a Kierkegaard enthusiast”.  Dalrymple himself  writes in his on-line bio, “I consider myself lucky to have stumbled upon so rich a vein of inquiry in Kierkegaard’s thought….I wrote two theses, the first on the ”relationship between Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous and veronymous writings”, and the second on “Kierkegaard’s understanding of suffering and its place in the maturation of the human spirit”. Timothy Dalrymple

               ’ Sounds pretty complicated!  Who is Kierkegaard?’         

“Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003  Kierkegaard (Biographies / Kierkegaard, Søren Aabye (1813-1855) M, Danish, PHILOSOPHY: philosopher, RELIGION: theologian) He rejected organized Christianity and anticipated the existentialists in emphasizing man’s moral responsibility and freedom of choice.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche; (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) was a 19th-century German philosopher.  Nietzsche’s influence remains substantial within and beyond philosophy, notably in existentialism and postmodernism. His style and radical questioning of the value and objectivity of truth have resulted in much commentary and interpretation, mostly in the continental tradition. His key ideas include the death of God, perspectivism, the Übermensch, the eternal recurrence, and the will to power. Central to his philosophy is the idea of “life-affirmation,” which involves an honest questioning of all doctrines that drain life’s expansive energies, however socially prevalent those views might be.”^[2]

Well this explains a lot!  Here we have a highly educated man who has tapped into to the root impulse of the Tea Party, but who is charged with defending others within his ‘movement’ whom may have done so “for a thousand different reasons”.  For I really doubt the general masses of this movement have any idea who Kierkegaard or Nietzsche are, or what existential is.   Reminiscing on a Tea Party Express rally in July 2010 on the Boston Commons, and the exuberant sights and sounds from the participants when he first arrived, Dalrymple writes;

“…a quotation and a question wound together in my mind… from William F. Buckley, that he would rather be governed by the first two thousand people listed in the Boston phone directory than the two thousand who comprise the faculty at Harvard University.  Buckley was not condemning intelligence or intellectual achievement. He was expressing trust in the moral intuitions and pragmatic sensibilities of ordinary Americans…

“…The liberal aristocracy are apt to swoon not over intelligence — which is found just as much in nurses, mechanics, and executives as it is in the halls of academie — but over the appearance of intelligence, advanced degrees and faculty appointments, the trappings of an elite education.  As Buckley understood, a graduate degree is all too often an elaborate exercise in the avoidance of common sense.  

“…Impressionable minds are encouraged to reject the conventions of broader society and conform to the trends and fashions of the illuminati instead, and to cultivate the superior disdain of the learned herd for the unlearned horde.”

“…My trust in the moral intuitions and pragmatic instincts of the thousands who attended the rally that morning is just as strong, if not stronger, than my trust in the insight and expertise of the two thousand intellectuals who sit atop the academic food chain at Harvard University.” Timothy Dalrymple

‘Of course he has a vested interest in the defense of the masses who are defining this movement, and defrocking higher educated individuals is typical Tea Party rhetoric.  But, listen how he describes his own education “in the halls of academie”…’

“…matriculated at Stanford with a full scholarship.  At Stanford, my mentors and favorite professors were Van Harvey, Robert C. Gregg, Lee Yearley and Brent Sockness.  Dr. Harvey suggested that a three-year seminary degree… would best allow me to study the breadth of the history of the church, the depth of its systematic theology, and the tools and languages of biblical study”.

“So I went to Princeton Theological Seminary and found there a company of professors and friends I greatly enjoyed, and from whom I learned much. There I took most of my courses with faculty such as Bruce McCormack, Diogenes Allen, James Loder and Wentzel van Huyssteen”.

“Soon I entered Harvard to study for my doctoral degree…I studied with Ronald Thiemann, Francis Fiorenza and David Lamberth – yet my doctoral supervisor, and eventually my dissertation director, was Sarah Coakley. I owe her a great debt of gratitude and affection.”

‘One of the common threads I’ve noticed within the far right is “hypocrisy”; on government spending; on taxation; on the deficit; on personal freedoms and liberties; and oh yes, on the virtues of higher education.

Does Dalrymple consider himself and his ‘mentors’ as “the learned herd…of the two thousand intellectuals who sit atop the academic food chain”? Would William F. Buckley himself consider Dalrymple’s graduate degrees “…an elaborate exercise in the avoidance of common sense”. Aren’t Stanford, Princeton, and Harvard University “the trappings of an elite education”?

Timothy Dalrymple is no doubt a successful, educated, thoughtful family man.  Unfortunately, when you profess to have authoritative insight into the highly personal and subjective realm of “faith and politics”, and “church and culture”, and the Nation’s reaction to the Tea Party’s rise to power on public policy, and you do it on the internet, you will have people like me dissecting it on every level.

‘Lucky for me, Timothy Dalrymple and his ideology are the ideal template for the kind of serious and substantive debate on far right theory and policy I’ve been looking for.’

Go to “It’s a Tea Party…Come on In” Category for Part II (A & B); III; IV