Reality Check: There is no Liberal equivalent to the Tea Party!

Anyone who tells you there is a progressive equivalent to the Tea Party is either outright lying to you or is a well-intentioned idiot. There is none. There isn't a single group in Washington that literally was advocating to destroy the US economy by defaulting, in part because of their obstinate belief that it wouldn't happen. That's what happens when you deny reality, and when you are so uninterested in things like facts that you are willing to deny what is both blaringly obvious and potentially disastrous.

Bill Maher did a 'new rule' about this on his show which illustrated very clearly why there ISN'T a group like that. If there WAS there would be a vocal and obstinate portion of the Democratic party that would be staunchly attaching amendments to every piece of legislation that would repeal DOMA. There would be staunch supporters of public funding for reproductive services like those provided by Planned Parenthood, including abortions. There would be a refusal to give in on things like repealing tax cuts for the super rich and corporations, slashing funding on programs truly necessary or poor and working poor Americans, and the policy moves that have been disastrous to education. They would have refused to budge on a real publicly funded universal health care program, and we would have a sparkling new infrastructure that included all the green technology available.

None of that has happened.

The fact is that the Democratic party has become a watered down version of the moderate Republicans of past decades. They've become Bob Dole. They've failed in the messaging war to both uplift and educate the American public in a way that encourages middle and working class people to be engaged in the political process AS WELL AS make voting decisions that truly represent progress on issues that affect them. There is nothing like that. Even people who would have just been considered moderates in past decades are now being branded as ultra-liberal. If THAT were true, Denice Kucinech would be a hell of a lot more influential in his party than he is.

The reality is that the current incarnation of political system has reverted back to the pre-FDR era where corporations dictate the outcomes of elections and then their interests control politicians in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Until we begin restricting the flow of unlimited funds from corporate interests, we won't have a government interested in truly effective reforms. We won't have a Democratic party that even recognizes policies that benefit the middle and working classes or that promote a growing economy.

Morality, America and the Hypocrisy of Exceptionalism

We have a problem in America with morality. It's not just because of moral relativism, or what conservatives like to call 'secular humanism' which is their catch phrase for 'socialism'. We have become a morally bankrupt country. I say this as a person who is a reformed Catholic, but who spent my entire childhood and adolescence indoctrinated in the teachings of Christ. I was never a WWJD kid, nor was my family ever conservative in their religious beliefs or practices. In fact, the Christ I was raised to believe in was a loving and forgiving God who befriended the leper and prostitute, was humble in the face of poverty and preached the the values of charity and compassion to all. Also, as far as I know the ordination process for Catholic priests involve vows of Charity and Humility as well as Chastity and Obedience.

All of that translates into a firm believe in the dignity and equality of all people. Those are inalienable rights, aren't they, that all 'men' are created equal? And just as our country has lauded itself on its freedom and equality it has practiced horrible acts of degradation against people who were 'other' or different. This is a problem that's been pervasive in our society and still saturates every level of citizenry. I'm not just talking about slavery, and overt and institutionalized racism. I'm also talking about the subjugation of women, the oppression of ethnic and religious groups, and the demonetization and vilification of sexual minorities and the differently abled. This system of oppression and discrimination only becomes more complicated when considering the structures of political and economic power and their interaction with those minority groups. Add to that the regional cultural differences in all of those things and you have a overwhelming matrix of complexities in social interaction and in our understanding and advancement of civil rights and freedoms.

Perhaps always there has also been an underlying opposition force that is an anathema to those fundamental ideals we have enshrined in the Declaration of Freedom, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. That oppositional force might vaguely be understood as the thirst for power. That thirst is greater in those who already have some, thus leading them to seek more and requires them to control more and more of the political and social system in order to acquire it. In itself this could be defined in part as hubris, certainly it is antithetical to the teachings of compassion, charity and humility embodied in the Christ story. None of us are immune to that thirst, even if it comes from a place of absolute altruism and hope, because especially for those who seek some kind of political recognition or some ability to fulfill the American purpose of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, true freedom and equality seem so far away without power.

Politics is, of course, about power. I think those who are entrenched in politics, especially those with the expectation of significant gains or losses, lose perspective on the consequences of their actions and of the quality of their actions. Those with a lot to gain or lose, or those who have invested significant resources in the pursuit of a political outcome, the more desperate they get to achieve their end the more likely they are to compromise or outright disavow their supposed principles and beliefs. Hypocrisy is among the most common embodiments of this. It is perhaps one of the most insidious symptoms of the pursuit of power and results in the spread of lies, untruths and the inspiration of cruelty.

The problem of Hypocrisy has become so pervasive in our social and political discourse that there are large groups of people who cannot recognize it even when it is pointedly exposed across our diverse media outlets. There is a large minority in this country who are so indoctrinated in the belief of their own righteousness and who have gone so far in shaping their worldview to justify their own hypocrisy that they refuse to acknowledge or believe it when confronted in the most truthful and thorough way. Those who practice hypocrisy and most often are conscious of it at least in some small way, but their desire for power and their own hubris prevent them from correcting it. In fact many of those who regularly practice hypocrisy and the spreading of falsehoods and untruth have no interest in correcting those errors and merely plow forward continuing those practices.

What are the results of hypocrisy and lies in the pursuit of power? A political system and social situation where those too self-assured of their own righteousness select out those things most comfortable to their self-righteousness and ego, which don't challenge their world view and absolute determination to excuse their own core failings. They create, promote and support organizations and commercial entities that encourage and propagate untruths and which represent provable and irrefutable falsehoods as fact. They believe stories and arguments based on fictitious evidence and outright lies even when they contradict their own supposed values while excusing and justifying that belief through even more hypocrisy and lies. They allow their better judgment and their sense of compassion for fellow human beings to be overridden by the atmosphere of fear and intolerance created for them by those in control of power and who seek to acquire more.

The Tea Party is an example of all of this. The Tea Party, at least in theory, is a libertarian collection of individual groups around the country who represent themselves as 'grass-roots' and as concerned singularly with taxation and the role of the federal government in our society. In reality this 'movement' is a propaganda machine of several small and very well funded organizations commandeered by elements of the radical Christian Coalition and Christian right which we saw rise to power during the 1980's and 90's. While chest thumping about taxation, the size of government and its spending habits those same candidates and leaders were reaching out to their core social conservative base with the same regressive messages and policy positions we've seen over and over again. They won because they were able to weave fiction after fiction of a government out of control, politicians too concerned with power and unconcerned with the will of their constituents, and of a black socialist consumed with destroying America. So much of that is exemplified by the slogan 'It's Time To Take Our Country Back'. Take it back from whom? Who has stolen it?

While polling data from multiple polls illustrated the racial and religious/ideological position of the Tea Party, it also illustrated that the majority of Americans were most concerned about the economy and jobs. Not debt, but jobs. Republicans wove the fiction that somehow out of control spending and too much regulation were choking businesses, hampering the creation of new businesses and killing jobs. That lie is apparent to anyone who can access the internet and read. The true culprit in preventing the expansion of small businesses were the banks who wouldn't give out business loans or lines of credit so businesses could expand. These were the same banks whose blind greed lead them to create instruments for tremendous profit at high risk. The same banks who then were bailed out by the government, and taxpayer, with little oversight or accountability and vastly loosened regulation only to continue the risky practices and hoarding of wealth. Not one of the executives responsible for the creation of the instruments and subsequent crash of our economy has been held criminally responsible.

Even more galling, however, is the crass disregard shown by politicians who represent themselves as Christians and whose messaging and political persona advocates 'traditional family values'. These politicians make careers on demonizing and marginalizing whole groups of people. They make money on the fear and prejudices of others by spreading falsehoods and encouraging the un-education of their constituents. Meanwhile these politicians have proven themselves again and again to be unable to stand the scrutiny of their own rhetoric. Even when Democrats do become embroiled in sex scandals they rarely come under as much media examination or suffer as many public consequences as Republicans. This isn't because the media is so biased towards liberals. It is about hypocrisy and lies, and about the desire to retain power. That's why we have Republican senators who are publicly scrutinized for extramarital affairs resulting in bribery and cover-ups, or for patronizing prostitutes. It is why representatives choose to resign rather than suffer the backlash from their online sex activities or sexual misconduct with underage male pages.

Most galling of all, however, are the national leaders who represent themselves as the vanguard of some fictional 'moral majority' about to sweep away the rot of secular humanism, again, codeword for socialism. These people make enormous sums of money speaking on the topic of morality and its role in shaping our core values, on pressing a radical political position that has little to no basis in reality but which draws together the fears and prejudices of people too purposely uneducated about the world around them to be able to make the distinction between truth and untruth. They take advantage of the ignorance of people too willing to justify their own failings in their Christian beliefs and personal values to examine those messages with any sense of justice beyond its application to themselves.

I don't mean to place all the blame on the conservative politicians and pundits, however. Their voter base and those who blindly agree with their lies and aggressively and purposefully ignore their hypocrisy are just as culpable. Many of these people, as far as I can tell, make no effort to investigate the veracity of the lies bile these people spew. They are so convinced of the truth of their own convictions, in their own righteousness and of their own self-concerned worldview that they allow the politicians and pundits to prey upon their legitimate anxieties over the economy and an increasingly complex and dangerous world. They allow themselves to be manipulated and to twist those values we supposedly hold so dear beyond all recognition or rational understanding. They buy into the rhetoric that we are somehow exceptional just because. That American is somehow the freest, greatest and morally purest nation in the world. They pay no attention to the flaws because they need the comfort of that ignorance so badly in order to cope with their own failings and the failings of their beliefs. They then promote candidates and causes that are grievous violations of those 'American values'.

Also to blame are 'liberal' politicians and Democrats for failing to take a greater role in determining the rhetoric of the public discourse. The idea that Republicans could perform such a complete con on the American people as to make 'entitlements' the common nomenclature for Social Security and Medicare is an indictment of their failure. While they may be the party most concerned with the working and middle class, and with the general welfare, failing to sell the message is as big a problem as failing to act on it. It is a problem when the far-right is able to take nearly complete ownership of the words 'patriot' and 'liberty' when they are neither patriotic nor believe in real and genuine and true liberty. When they do not recognize the reality of liberty and the reality of its honest application. This is perhaps an indication of the extent to which hypocrisy and the pursuit of power has taken hold in that party as well.

Ultimately, after all of that, I have this to say: We deserve better, we deserve more, we have the right to to BE more than this. We deserve politicians who don't just listen to the people and run in fear from necessary and important work because of polling. We deserve politicians genuinely willing to make a case for and take action in the interests of all of the American people. We deserve a land where no one is made to feel less than simply because they do not resemble, either in look, belief or relationship, those around them. We deserve a nation where we make honest steps to live up to the commitments we espouse of educating our children and giving everyone the opportunity to achieve, not just because of some quota or affirmative action, but because they work hard, have talent and have earned it. We deserve a nation where compassion and charity towards others aren't just hollow words used in a church, but result in real action and substantive change to the benefit of the poor, the vulnerable, the disabled and the oppressed. We deserve to become the nation we have always wanted to be by the fruits of our own labors, the achievements of our own talent, and the quality of our spirit.

We deserve better, I deserve, you deserve it, and our future deserves it.

When Democracy Breaks Down

As angry as people were in the election of 2010, as disenchanted with the status quo of government and of the entire process, now they are seeing the results of misinformation mixed with apathy and anger. While there are problems with the Democratic party, mostly stemming from the corporate interests that people who watch MSNBC have been hearing about for years, but which became much more prominant and obvious after the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United.

What we see now, however, is the result of that mix of anger. Many people in this country allowed their anger and apathy towards the party in power to override their ability to understand distinctions between Democrat and Republican. Perhaps it isn't just coincidence that we are having this fight now after such a huge economic crisis, as it mirrors the same hard times our country had during the early part of the twentieth century. People became scared about their personal finances and because it is always easier to blame a problem on someone rather than solve the problem they were swayed by the anti-worker and anti-Middle Class interests. Those corporate interests have always opposed unions and workers rights, have always opposed fair wages and benefits, which we take for granted today and only came about because of unions.

We now have so much access to media that the people who are at best misguided in their ideas about the role of the government and of fiscal policy and most cases are much more likely corporate shills cannot hide their heavy handed tactics anymore. They cannot hide their moves and legislative proposals anymore. Technology has seen that we are able to have mass dissemination of information very quickly and dissemination and knowledge in the hands of the working and Middle Class can only spur on the kinds of protests and the kind of workers movement which gave us a Middle Class in the first place.

The differences between the two parties, the distinction that people have been unable to recognize for so long, is now readily apparent. The Republican Party cannot pretend to have any interest in 'Main Street' or the workers of this country. They cannot pretend or hide behind the shield of rhetoric anymore. They are for cutting government programs most Americans rely on every day, such as public schools, and relaxing every law or restriction on their corporate bosses that keep them from making as much money as possible. We see this in Wisconsin, where every single Democrat in the the state senate fled the state and has remained absent for three weeks despite all the threats and consequences. When Democrats stand on principle, it is with workers.

This is not to say that all Democrats are created equal. This is no to say that there isn't serious reform needed in campaign finance law, laws that have been relaxed more and more lately in spite of all the rhetoric from both parties every election cycle to work for reform, and even more so by Citizens United. What's ironic about that name is that it is characteristic of all the major conservative PACs right now. They take names like Americans for Prosperity and parade around PR materials with clip art of crowds in protest, but when the money is traced, when it can be traced, it leads to major corporations and individual billionaires. Even though these are conservative groups, there are enough Dems who seek funding from places like financial investment firms and banks that a false equivalency can be drawn by conservative pundits. There are, however, very different realities in campaign funding for Democrats and that for Republicans. Funding from the supposedly huge money of progressives like George Saros is also very very very different from the funding by the Koch brothers.

Ultimately this union fight in Wisconsin and other states is galvanizing unions, the one major political force that the vast majority of working Americans have to counteract the money of the extremely wealthy, and bringing out the best in the Democratic officials at the state level. The question is will Democrats on the national level, who are embroiled in issues that are pandemic to the entire country as well as the world, pick up on this awakening labor movement and recognize it for what it is: Their BASE? Will they take the opportunity to use this to draw that distinction they couldn't last time? It is so clear in the body of the Wisconsin 14 and their distinction from the Republicans in the Senate who held an illegal committee meeting in an attempt to maneuver the legislation only dealing with union rights through into law even without the Democrats. I think this will bring focus onto those elected officials on the national level who are truly interested in standing up for the base and those who aren't.

This fight is going to return the party, which has gotten so lost in the midst of federal issues, to the core principles it stands for. Then we voters, whatever our typical voting habits, are going to have to turn blinders on to the messaging coming from the Republicans. We are going to have to show them through out vote that we were in fact paying attention.

Michael Moore said something interesting tonight on Rachel Maddow's show, that this country is not broke. This is something that has been said over and over again by progressives, but since those who are unemployed or who are suffering because of the economic disaster are hurting so badly they didn't listen to. We are not broke. We have the most robust and largest economy in the world. The Republican narrative that somehow our government has gotten so large and so unwieldy and so reckless with money is largely untrue. We don't have a spending problem in this country, we have a revenue problem in this country, and the reason why most Middle Class people are hurting and why they were convinced with that garbage about tax cuts is because the wealth is now concentrated at the top. Even the Republicans admit our Middle Class is disappearing. Rather than identifying the real problem, however, the rich people who have been sucking it up and who were responsible for the reckless investments that led to our Recession, they convince most people that somehow those rich people are just simple Americans, that they are in just as much trouble, are suffering just as much, and that they don't deserve to be taxed anymore than the working class.

That's a lie, it's fiction and it's an outright negligent lie. Four hundred Americans now possess as much wealth as fifty percent of this country combined. That accumulation of wealth is staggering, and it came about because the taxes that should have been levied against them, but which weren't because they had already paid for politicians to keep the money flowing in, have steadily been lowered over and over. That money that they have absorbed is the money from the pensions of workers that then disappeared during the Worldcom scandal, during the Berney Maddoff scandal and the tax money we used to bail them out after they caused the economy to collapse. That money isn't going back into the economy like Republicans say it will. It's going into more investments that are safe and high yield so it makes more money. Meanwhile more than ten million people are out of work and another twenty can't find jobs that pay well.

Those tax cuts mean that the top 2%, which owns 80% of the wealth of this country, is the gap that is causing the deficit. There are, of course, spending issues, first among them the two wars we are still involved with. That doesn't mean killing programs so many people rely on. Why Americans didn't recognize that as a consequence of the Republicans becoming the majority I don't know. Maybe people aren't as intelligent as I hope they are. But the end result is that those programs put in place to help the needy and vulnerable, to make sure we have clean water and air and that everyone has access to education, those programs, rather than the defense budget, are what are being cut and it will only make the recession hurt that much more. Meanwhile Eric Cantor stands in front of cameras in his thousand dollar suit and cocky grin telling us we are broke. We are only broke because he and his rich friends didn't want to pay an extra 3% of their yearly income in taxes so that the government could provide services for everyone.

Reality is cold and simple now. Republicans want to privatize everything, want to strip all workers of their rights so they can't object when an employer cuts their benefits or lowers their wages at will, they want us to think that we can't afford basic services and that somehow by cutting taxes on our shrinking wages that we are benefiting. They want us to have private fire services though that service won't happen if we don't pay our yearly dues. They want us to ignore the air pollution giving us headaches and nose bleeds and causing our cancers and just go about our daily lives as though nothing is wrong. They want us to ignore the serious problems in our education system, our failing schools and the warped and backward curriculum self-righteous ultraconservative divorcees running for office tell us is the truth and right and to pretend that somehow we aren't being controlled by their corporate and religious doctrines when they restrict us from having medically necessary treatments and procedures, blocking us from being with the people we love, and putting us in jail for suggesting that somehow there is a better way to live.

THAT is Tea Party America, and we deserve better than that.

Lies Our Leaders Tell Us: Unions Are The Enemy

There is a problem in our country that has been brewing for a while, and it's all wrapped up in things I've talked about before. Corporations have, through their own media outlets and through the politicians they've paid for, convinced us that out lives are better off with lower taxes for all, that lower taxes means more take-home pay while lower corporate taxes stimulates job growth, and that cutting spending on 'unnecessary' programs like schools where teachers are paid disproportionately to the difficulty of their job are the ways to accomplish this miracle of personal savings. We've seen the messages that the Tea Party organizers and Republican law makers have told us, that we deserve to keep more of our hard-earned money, that we should be able to save more of our own money, and that we know how to spend our money better than the government.

The only part of any of that that is true is that we deserve the money we work so hard to make. We don't, however, save anything when taxes are cut because all those frivolous government programs that Republicans are so quick to identify as wasteful help to keep our cost of living down. The fact is that the government spends our money better than most of us do. When so many people were duped into subprime mortgages and spending money on houses they couldn't afford to own, that means that there are a whole lot of people out there who don't know how to invest their money wisely. That's okay, most of us aren't financial geniuses, I am certainly not. That's one reason why those subsidies that go to green energy research, to grants for students, toward investments in future growth, those are all important and those are all things that the Tea Party driven Republicans seek to cut.

But right now probably the biggest fight is over the idea of unions. Politicians tell us that public worker unions are responsible for so much of state deficits across this country. Well, in fact, in Wisconsin, the governor's corporate tax cut is exactly what's caused the deficit in that state. Moreover, cutting collective bargaining rights for workers has no fiscal impact and he's said that himself. Even further, according to Forbes magazine, a conservative publication owned by one-time Republican Presidential Nomination contestant Steve Forbes, Wisconsin state employees actually pay for their entire pension and health benefits themselves, the only thing the taxpayer money is used for is to pay their salaries.

So, the discussion still goes on with conservatives trying to convince the public that somehow public workers' unions are to blame for the fiscal problems of their states. The rhetoric, however, stands firm even as the legitimate conservative press picks it apart with actual facts, since what it is really based on is the 'public employees have such a sweet deal'. People in interviews have actually been saying that, as though the public employees are criminals who are steeling from taxpayers, or that they are somehow corrupt because they are making more than the many unemployed workers in this country.

Their wages haven't changed so much since before the economy melted, though, and neither have their benefits. Most of those union contracts only become problematic when, like now, governments seek to renegotiate so the employees get less. And no, they don't have the only hard jobs in this country, and no they aren't work any more or less than other workers with comparable skills and jobs in comparable industries. So the question isn't why do they have so much and such a sweet deal, the question is, why do so many other people have so much LESS? Why is it that we are settling for fewer and fewer benefits while corporations are posting record profits? Why is it that we are letting them tell us that requiring corporations to pay wages that aren't just decent but that might actually be good along with benefit packages that provide real security for people would kill business and force them to move more jobs overseas when they're not creating jobs to begin with?

Even more than that, why have we as a nation settled for a situation where the average American salary has only seen a 2% growth over the last twenty years for those making less than $250,000 while that growth in income has skyrocketed for those above that line? Why have we allowed ourselves to be convinced that somehow wage adjustments for cost of living equal an actual benefit rather than the bare minimum when factoring inflation into our cost of living? A raise for inflation isn't a raise or a bonus, it's not a reward for hard work.

Unions are the ones who fight for against all those things. They're the ones who helped bring about a set work week so that we aren't expected to slave away for sixty, seventy or eighty hour weeks without any benefits and without overtime. They are the ones who fight for safe work environments and family leave for new parents and for those caring for sick relatives. So why would we fight against unions? How is busting the unions in the public interest when raising tax rates on corporations making billions of dollars in profits every year, who are posting record profits every quarter? And honestly, is anyone implying that teachers have easy jobs? Cause on FOX News they constantly bring up the fact that teachers only work 9 months a year...oh except for all the workshops they have to do to keep up their licenses, the conferences they have to attend, and the fact that every teacher I've ever known has had a second job during the summer and on weekends during the year. Are they really saying that the job of a CEO at a major corporation is harder than the job of a high school teacher in a poor inner city school? Really?

The governor of Wisconsin, along with Republicans across this country, say that state workers should be making their share of the sacrifices. Well...I don't see CEO's of banks losing their jobs, and they're the ones who got us into this mess. I don't see rich people making any sacrifices at all, as Charlie Sheen takes private jets to the Caribbean to party it up with teenage hookers. I don't see Congressmen living at all within the kind of salary that an average American makes. They have money budgeted to them for travel to and from their home district as well as to pay staff and for their office supplies and everything except for their own living expenses while in Washington. So why do Congressmen make more than $150k a year? They're public workers too, and they get government health care and pensions just like the Wisconsin state workers.

But who are the people who have the ability to bring these issues to legislators, who have the political power to be able to make the voices of workers heard? Unions. That's why people unionized to begin with. The only way people who don't have the money of the Koch brothers can make their voices heard in a democracy now dominated by corporate money is by pooling their money and man power, and that's what a union is.

So really, the discussion should be shifted away from why are these workers making so much money and why the rest of us aren't. Why aren't we all in unions? The unions have had such huge power in certain industries, so why aren't all private and public employees unionized? Because corporations know that if they can bust up unions they can pay workers less, cut jobs and benefits without repercussions, and make more money doing it. So why are we fighting the union employees in Wisconsin when we really should be organizing unions for labor people all across this country. The Tea Party, which has been bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and designed by Karl Rove, want to play the 'take our country back' game and point to anyone who thinks people should be paid a fair wage and that poor children shouldn't have to starve because oil companies want a tax break, we the rest of us can play that game too. We want our country back from the corporations that have been convincing people too ignorant or uneducated to recognize that they've been bought into servitude and the politicians that have been their corporate shills.

Surviving Republican

Dear Republican Party:


You have won back the House of Representatives in an election year rife with unrest over the economy and jobs. To do so, however, you activated the farthest reaches of the right wing electorate and by doing so gave legitimacy to a kind of crass disregard for truth and facts that is outright dangerous for this countries future. Even more than that you have given legitimacy to candidates and a movement that actively spurn the value of education and being or becoming educated. You have demonized and marginalized large groups of minority voters, minorities who statistically are fast growing parts of the electorate. All of this in the name of politics.

It would be unwise, however, to believe the rhetoric of your recent victory speeches in saying that this was a referendum on the overall policies or agenda of President Obama. You should also not think that it is somehow a show of support for your own party agenda. While it is politically expedient to posture in front of the media, polls say that more of this country supports the Democratic Party than they do your party, that most people like the individual policies of the president and the Democrats more. What you should take this election as a referendum on is job creation. Tax cuts are nice, and they are important, but without putting people back to work, it doesn't matter to them what their tax rates are. They want a job or want to not fear over keeping their job.

Another mistake would be to waste time talking about 'Obamacare'. If the Democrats had done an effective job selling the message of the legislation to the American people from the beginning, you would never have gained the upper hand in the media. Much of what the bill does is supported by the American people. Of those who do not support the overall legislation there is a significant number who think it did not go far enough. It would be dangerous for your party to mistake the slogans and spin of Rush Limbaugh and FOX News as fact or as the prevailing sentiment of most of the country.

What is also a mistake is not to listen to moderates like Rudy Giuliani. It is time for your party to stop allowing candidates to run racially divisive campaigns. It is time for you to ease up on the social agenda that has dehumanized and degraded gays and lesbians. You have already lost the culture war on those issues. The country is becoming more diverse rather than less and more accepting of LGBT people and their civil rights. You will loose this part of the debate and history is already attesting to that. As Meghan McCain says, if you want to be relevant as a party in the future you have to not alienate massive portions of the electorate in the minority and young voters in order to guarantee the vote of a proportionally smaller group of white heterosexual Christian voters.

So what's the solution? For now, concentrate on the message of fiscal conservatism that was supposedly the hallmark of the Tea Party. If you think you can balance the budget and get the economy going again with conservative policies, do it. Set aside the social agenda many of the arch-conservatives in your party are proposing and really just concentrate on budgets. One of the other things that was consistently of concern to voters was the gridlock in Washington, which means the stalling and partisanship. You cannot complain about partisanship and point fingers if you have an opportunity for true compromise.

Does that give you cover with the Tea Party? For many it would, as fiscal issues is a #1 topic on everyone's mind. What will be more problematic, however, getting nothing done except trying to make Obama a one term president or getting something done that you can actually run on as an accomplishment? The choice is yours, but 2012 is not going to be all about tearing down the Obama agenda and administration, nor will it be all about the Tea Party, which prevails in a midterm but can't hope to rally the entire party for a presidential election. But either way, don't choose the few, choose the many, choose all of us.

The Homosexual Patriot

There was a consistent theme among the campaigns of Tea Party candidates, and within the propaganda of the continuing Tea Party movement, that they are on the side of 'truth' and 'liberty'. Most of us probably remember being taught at young ages that lying is bad, that we are supposed to tell the truth, meaning admit to something we've done. For some this is a religiously informed moral issue, for some it is a matter of developing a firm ethical mindset not dependent on a religious ideology. For most of us, though, we are taught that there is one truth, one reality, one concrete right and wrong.

As we grow up, however, and especially as we educate ourselves about the world around us, we recognize that 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong' are often subjective. On an individual level it is easy to differentiate between the two in terms of one's own actions and behaviors. When we expand our scope of subject to a whole community or even a whole culture, things grow very murky. That is one thing that empirical data and facts are supposed to help clarify. One of the benefits of science, and specifically how it's been applied to social sciences, is that we have quantitative descriptions and results of surveys regarding the impact of our behaviors. These surveys and studies, however, are not entirely faultless, they can be skewed toward a specific answer or research goal, questions and problems designed to find certain outcomes.

This is one reason why we look toward independent groups, groups not tied to, associated with or who financially support political campaigns and ideological groups. We have many organizations like this in this country, some are directly involved in statistical analysis and we see their names most often during an election season as they tabulate polls. The other body we look to for empirical studies and information are to independent universities, either non-religious private schools or even religious private schools known for impartiality, or toward public universities. Even within these bodies are individual researchers and professors looking for specific answers or for answers that reflect their own beliefs. There are, however, standards imposed on them and critical analysis and discussion of their work, including refuting articles and surveys to disprove overtly skewed and partial findings.

Why am I mentioning all of this? Because it becomes very important when looking at political candidates, campaigns and specifically campaign ads. The idea of a campaign ad is to either stress all the good things about a specific candidate or to attack their opponent. The art of an attack ad, as I see it, is to make the opponent look bad and distance them from the electorate, all while making the candidate sponsoring the ad either look good by comparison or attacking in a way that doesn't cause a negative reaction against the sponsoring candidate. We saw this with several ads that had, with some, drastic, impacts on the campaigns and ultimate defeats of certain candidates this year. Jack Conway, for one, ran an attack ad against Rand Paul that included information about activities of Paul during college when he was 19. That ad allowed Paul to inch ahead and ultimately claim a strong victory. Sharon Angles with her ads tying Harry Reid to illegal immigration was another ad that had blow back, or in which there was a negative reaction back on Angles.

Ideally we'd like to think that even though ads stretch the truth or skew the truth, that they do present the truth. Often, and I'd like to say that it happens more often with Republican candidates but I know that's not true, the truth gets so obscured by the message the ad tries to convey or by the spin on the facts presented that the facts actually are misrepresented or are outright lies. Sharon Angles, for example, in her ad tying Harry Reid to illegal immigrants outright lied about portions of legislation he helped sponsor or move forward in the Senate, claiming they did exactly the opposite of what the language really was about. This was part of the way the Tea Party worked, they were responsive only to message and not to facts or reality.

Then enters the National Organization for Marriage and the Iowa elections. This organization along with Focus on the Family, and the seemingly credible in name only Family Research Council, spent millions on a bus tour around the state, including candidates for Iowa legislative positions, all aimed at removing three of that state's Supreme Court justices. The message they tried to promote was that Iowans should have been allowed to vote on same-sex marriage, that the judges were engaging in the worst kind of 'judicial legislating' or 'judicial activism'. That message resonated with voters in a state that has often been mainstream liberals, part of the upper Midwestern Democratic political base arising from the farmer and labor unions and incorporated into the state Democratic parties. In MN, for example, the state party is called the DFL, or the Democratic Farmer Labor party as there used to be, decades ago, a separate Farmer Labor party.

I've written over and over again about the hypocrisy of the Tea Party movement, and of its outright ignorance of both the political process and politics in general. This, however, is less about the Tea Party voters across the country and more about the politics of it all. There is no 'liberty' or 'freedom' while one group of Americans is denied the same rights that are expected and taken for granted by another group of Americans. Also, and many of our founders recognized and remarked on this, the rights of the minority should never be put up to a popular vote. The majority would never choose to advance or protect the rights of the minority. This is what we've seen in a number of states where the issue of same-sex marriage has been put to a vote. This is also why we see political blow back from enough of the Iowan electorate to successfully remove three justices from the state Supreme Court, an act that has never happened in that state's history. The argument by the anti-marriage people is that the citizens have a right to vote on the measure. That somehow by upholding their constitutional responsibilities as interpreters of laws and their constitutionality, the Supreme Court had overstepped their authority and infringed on the rights of state voters.

Just to rehash the historical significance of the same-sex marriage judicial decisions versus the voter rights issue, inter-racial marriage laws existed throughout the country until one case on the matter succeeded through the federal court system and eventually to the Supreme Court, thereby striking down all laws barring inter-racial marriage in this country. If there was to be a popular vote on the matter during the 1950's and 60's when that case was being considered, would the voters have recognized the rights of those individuals? No. How can I tell, because the representatives of those voters in the legislative branch never repealed that law, and in fact had fought all through that period to keep Jim Crow laws and segregation. A similar case happened in the more recent case in which the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy law in Texas after two gay men who had been in the privacy of their home had been arrested and charged with sodomy. That law had remained in place until the court struck it down, and then not long after voted to ban any and all forms of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples both within the state and unions from other states.

So now we get to the crux of this idea of 'truth' that I talked about earlier. We have decades of studies supporting the positive impact of gay civil rights on gay individuals, on their communities and on our society at large. We have multiple studies proving that children raised by gay couples are in no more danger of being molested, turning gay or doing poorly in school as those raised by heterosexuals. In states where gay marriage has already been the law for most of the decade, namely Massachusetts, there has been no significant impact on the marriages of heterosexual people, churches haven't been forced to recognize or perform gay marriages, and people of faith haven't been forced by the state to accept homosexuality in a way contrary to their beliefs. Gay people and the recognition of their human and civil rights are a reality in this country just as they are a reality all around the world. In nations around the globe there is greater tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people and even recognition of their relationships. Some of the nations that already have same-sex marriage are surprising as they are historically and predominantly Catholic. Others that are just as surprising have civil unions, civil partnerships or domestic partnership laws recognizing the rights of LGBT couples.

When groups like the National Organization for Marriage parade around and yell about 'truth' and about 'freedom', they are lying to people. From their perspective the rhetoric they are using is important, is necessary to save their vision of America, and is the truth. What is apparent to anyone not central to that organization or to groups like Focus on the Family is that what is also clear is that what is important to them is hatred. For all of their talk about freedom what they really want is the ability to discriminate and hate with impunity. They want a state that reflects their ideas and beliefs while rejecting anyone who disagrees with them. A state constructed around their ideology would only permit sanctioned behaviors and would punish anyone who didn't fit into their rigid models. What's probably most ironic about these people is that there is a total disregard for policing their own behaviors. While purporting to be Christians they act without charity or compassion, they denigrate and demonize whole groups of people and use dehumanizing language to depict two specific fictional narratives, one a reality in which gay marriage is legal and America descends into complete chaos because of its depravity, the other a fictional tale of America returning to some version of itself that never existed and was never possible in part by prohibiting immoral behaviors.

This is the same ideology that would outlaw abortion, and following the logic of outlawing any non-sanctioned behaviors, then pornography would be illegal, alcohol would be illegal, smoking would be illegal, literature and media, especially the internet and video games, would be censured for anything deemed illicit and for violence. They parade around their own moral behavior and cite examples of the 'truth' as dictated through the research of groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, as well as specifically anti-gay groups like Exodus International. These groups represent their 'facts' as empirical and their opinions as representative of the majority of people in this country, but here is the hard reality - these are political organizations. They fund ads campaigning for ballot initiatives and either for or against specific candidates. They participate in lobbying and campaigning through passing out literature, signing petitions and on-the-ground campaigns, meaning knocking on doors and making phone calls. These are not the activities of departments at a university that puts out studies and surveys. It is not the behavior of independent polling groups.

So what is the 'truth'. As the Senate Majority Leader in Iowa said recently while quoting his daughter in speaking to a group of conservative men denigrating gay people and same-sex marriage, "You've already lost. My generation could care less." That is the problem with all the people who want to prohibit behavior and demonize whole groups of people. As we move forward even fiscal conservatives are socially progressive. That is one of the reasons why Megan McCain is worried about the radical elements of the Tea Party pushing the Republican party into irrelevancy. Our nation was founded on radically progressive ideas that we all should not only have rights, as other nations had those, but that we should be an entirely representative government in which we are governed not just 'by the people' but also 'for the people'. Any act, then, that exercises those 'inalienable' rights is a patriotic act. Anyone who would deny those rights to any one citizen or who would obstruct their pursuit of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is then unpatriotic, and un-American.

Thereby, all people of the LGBT community who live their lives in honesty, whether publicly open or not, and who pursue their own vision of who they are and what they want their lives to be is a patriot. It is a revolutionary act to challenge a norm dictated to us by an inflexible and violently fascist societal regime. When they gain political power or control over us we then must make our voices heard even louder and be that much stronger in our conviction not to be dictated to or to be intimidated into fear. Just as the Tea Party enjoys their right to free speech, so to do we, and while they use rhetoric of fear and divisiveness to demonize us and sway public support against us, so too do we have the power of truth and of reality and honesty. In a time when pundits and political fascists try to pervert our perceptions of reality with untruthful polls and un-factual studies, we have the face of honesty and moderation, we have families and individuals who look just like their neighbors and who work alongside everyone else without disrupting others' lives or their communities. We have family members and close friends who have swayed the opinions and hearts of others through love and inspiring those others to open their minds and hearts to the LGBT community and our civil rights.

For all the rhetoric and slogans and political speeches, it is not the Tea Party who are patriots with their fake activism and their historic costumes. It is the minorities of educated people, intellectuals, a group demonized in every other corrupt regime around the world, of LGBT people living their lives in honesty and with respect, of ethnic and racial minorities who refuse to be shut out of institutions of learning and traditional career fields. We are the patriots, we are what makes America a 'melting pot', a blending of cultures. Without us this would be a very different nation. If America is a place of acceptance of diversity, of freedom and of honesty and compassion, then anyone who would deny others rights they themselves enjoy are the poison that is helping to destroy our country.

Thoughts about the Second Amendment and it's 'Remedies'

The title, obviously, refers to the famous quote by Sharon Angles, a candidate who I hope won't win her campaign to take Harry Reid's seat in the US Senate. She proudly sides herself with the right on the right to bear arms. This brings into play the conservative movement dream wedge issue, one of several they dip into whenever they have tough elections ahead, and that is the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

One of the things that is disturbing about the rhetoric that Angles uses, which allies her with the explicit language used by militia and anti-government paramilitary groups around the country, is the idea that one of the principle reasons for us to be able to own and use weapons as private citizens is to overthrow a 'tyrannical' government. Of course this endears her to the radical fringe that has been a primary source of energy for the Tea Party, but it also brings to the mainstream the perspective of those people who agree with that premise and illustrates exactly how fringe their overall political views are.

As with all the articles and amendments in the US Constitution, the Second Amendment has received review and interpretation by the courts and especially by the Supreme Court. The high court has dealt with a number of aspects of this issue regarding regulation and detailing legal uses of guns. It also has had a handful of landmark cases which set important precedents in the way we interpret constitutional rights as a whole.

I think it is interesting, however, to think about the understanding of warfare and the vision of a civil society that the founders had when designing the Constitution. I think that it is important for us to recognize our necessary participation in shaping our democracy, in determining those who would represent us and in providing a balance through our votes against those who would radically alter our society to all our detriment.

It is important to consider the vision of those founders when we are in a post-nuclear age. A professor of mine in college described the change in the literature and art of the late-Victorian to early modernist periods at the end of the 19th and early 20th century as arising out of the effect industrialization had on the world. In particular, the effect that the horrors of 'modern' warfare had on a whole generation of young people during WWI. That war was famous for millions of miles of trenches, and the development of trench warfare, which would often create 'killing fields' between trench positions where enemy forces could be held in stand still for months.

This modern war also saw mass production of machines that had been developing as weapons during the previous decades and their use across the theater of war. These machines put horrifying and inhuman faces on a world changing far more quickly than people could have imagined. That inhumanity of war-machines and weaponry only continued to develop so that by the time of the Pacific campaigns of WWII, we had developed weapons with the potential to kill millions with a single bomb.

There are also some very important differences between the facts around gun ownership now as then. For one, the standards of weaponry were such that a single-shot rifle was high-tech. Also, at least during the Revolutionary War and sometimes afterward, members of the military were usually required to provide their own arms. Neither of these things are true anymore. We no longer use single-shot guns, and the process of reloading the gun is quick. And while there are weapons that are legal only for members of law enforcement or for those in active military service, the technology of the arms available to the civilian population is remarkable.

That, more than anything, is what gives me problems with the idea of the right to bear arms. Why would someone, for the purposes of home protection or for hunting, need any kind of automatic weapon? If the right to bear arms was intended for and still is of a purpose to provide personal protection, how does an Uzi accomplish that anymore than a simple handgun? Considering the potential for 'accidents', which often means children finding a parent's gun and setting it off, doesn't the state have a vested interest in providing some standards of regulation? If the argument is that a responsible gun owner would teach their children not to handle the weapon or to handle the weapon safely, isn't teaching them how to use the weapon inviting them to use it? One could argue that point all they want but it is a commonly true generality that if you forbid a child something they will want it or do it.

People always seem to want 'freedom', or at least lack of government involvement, until something goes wrong and then they want to know why the government didn't step in. They don't want the government regulating their right to gun ownership, but then when their children are killed by gunfire, especially in the frighteningly frequent episodes of children bringing guns to school and opening fire, or when the same thing happens with adults in the workplace, there is always an outcry for why the shooter was allowed access to a gun.

The most famous school example is of course Columbine, the high school in Colorado where two disturbed teenagers held hostage and killed numerous classmates before killing themselves. There are obviously many other issues revolving around the two youths choosing to take such action, but ultimately the mantra that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people,' is little comfort for the families of the teens killed that day. The fact is that if those two hadn't had access to guns they wouldn't have been able to shoot up the school. Psychological and social issues aside, which of course played a role but were far more complex in trying to address, the simplest and most expedient solution would have been taking away their guns.

So, as a society, we've tried to argue back and forth between what we feel is right and what we feel are our rights. Do we allow private citizens to own weapons that a could be considered military-grade? If we do that, how do we decide what weapons are appropriate for military and law enforcement use but not for civilian use? And then how do we convince people who think that's a decision they should make for themselves that it is actually for all of us to decide? If we are going to argue about whether society should approve of same-sex marriage or on issues of immigration, why can't we insist that we as a society gets to decide on whether or not everyone should have access to automatic firearms?

I was watching tonight/s episode of The Rachel Maddow Show and she stopped by a prominent gun shop in Las Vegas, trying out several automatic weapons. For some the main argument for having automatic weapons is for the purposes of sportsmanship. If a hunter needs to be able to spray multiple rounds a second at an animal, they are a terrible hunter and should be doing target practice and not hunting with an Uzi. And it is a problem, to me, when I see what is basically a quasi-paramilitary culture being promoted or proliferating through gun culture. Are they enthusiasts because they romanticize the idea of owning a gun and being a soldier when for whatever reason they did not enter service themselves?

To me it is simple. If you are a hunter, there are weapons that are appropriate, even with advanced technology, for sportsmanship/hunting purposes. They do not include automatic assault rifles. My family owns hunting rifles, I know people who hunt, and there is nothing wrong with a gun with an easier reload or less jerk back or a better scope or site or with the ability to shoot several rounds in a quick succession. That's not the same as hunting with an Uzi.

I also don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of guns among law enforcement and military personnel. They are trained, and their behavior and psychological situations under some scrutiny so that we have few renegade cops, though the Army's recent standards seems to have led to an increase in number of disturbed people entering service or with criminal assaults and murders among service members. But either way, they are trained and understand the idea of appropriate and inappropriate use of weapons.

Weapons are for killing, pure and simple. While there may be design elements to them that are appealing, I find swords, knives and historical weaponry to be very interesting, and while there is some collectible or aesthetic value to antique firearms, even these were designed for the purpose of harming others and can be of some danger. If we treat weapons with a cavalier attitude, especially if someone with children treat them with such, than we pass that cavalier attitude on to others and help to foster this concept that somehow it is 'safe' to use them. Weapons are never safe, maybe they are safe for the user as they don't backfire, but they are never 'safe'.

Returning to Angles and the idea of 'Second Amendment remedies', it is clear she's talking about violent overthrow of the government, or acts of domestic terrorism like taking out legitimately elected officials. This is a danger to our democracy and is the kind of sponsorship of civil strife you see among many of the nations we consider 'Third World'. That is one reason why the woman and why the conservative Tea Party members are so dangerous.

In a time when anxiety is so high and people are suffering across the country, they scapegoat groups like Latino people and the issue of illegal immigration, or they scapegoat LGBT people and the issue of same-sex marriage, then paint all people who sympathize or are even rational about those groups and issues as 'enemies', using rhetorical devices to identify them as illegitimate like 'socialist' or 'communist', and then describe solutions involving violence, they are fueling the fires of domestic terrorism and civil unrest. They are encouraging those among them who send toxic substances to Congressmen, try to cause an explosion by cutting the gas line at the home of another Congressman's family member, and go armed to political rallies held by the president. All of this has been documented as happening this year.

For the rest of us, who are legitimately upset about the political process, who are afraid of our personal financial situations and those of friends and family, and who see the rhetoric of this election cycle as one more step to total anarchy, it is frightening. Most Americans do not feel the extreme anger of those lashing out with violence. While we sympathize with the sentiments, the vast majority of us choose to exercise our rights through voting, through protest and free speech. We know that if we get worked up that we can yell and shout about the issues important to us. We do not, however, believe in the kind of physical violence that extremists in this country want to promote as normal, rational, understandable, excusable and mainstream.

Our founders fought against a true tyrant, the kind of tyrant that very few in this country could really recognize. They were given no representation and were being drained of revenue by a foreign power that took direct military action to enforce its policies. Those who identify Obama with this type of dictator belittle the efforts of our founders. They also belittle the lives of so many in nations that still suffer under true dictators today, who have no freedom of speech or religion, who cannot gather in protest, and who are not allowed to oppose the government's policies in any way. These people should go and try to live in one of these many other countries to see how bad it really gets. They should suffer under dictators who would imprison, torture or even kill them for their opinions. Then they would have a legitimate understanding of what it means to be an American.

The Paradox of Conservative Populism and Class Warfare

Since the great debates and struggles in Congress to pass health care reform there has been a very vocal and visible conservative opposition to not just health care reform but the entire progressive agenda. The group that galvanized this so effectively was the Tea Party, with their Colonial garb and tea bags and angry slogans. They voiced their opinions by gathering in Washington and using signs that denounced President Obama as a totalitarian dictator, a fascist, a Nazi, a tyrant and a foreigner. They invited the leadership of people like Sarah Palin, who was more than happy to turn her notoriety as a political nobody prior to the 2008 election and her quirky average American-ness into a potent force. Because of the anger and general ignorance of the members of the Tea Party, the message they formed around, protesting taxation and overreach of government, has been subtly and sometimes overtly overtaken and changed to suit the Republican leadership who seized control.

Amidst all the rhetoric about government involvement in the private lives of citizens and their general anger at the lack of representation for their political views by Congress and the White House, there have been many instances of outright contradiction and hypocrisy that is either conveniently ignored or aggressively denied. First is the assertion that the majority of Americans are sympathetic to the message of the Tea Party, namely political revolution against a perceived class of political elites. Second, and this is something that Sarah Palin has always used in her rhetoric, that somehow 'common sense' solutions will stimulate the necessary recovery of our economy, and that if we got the 'elites' out of Washington and put some people with 'common sense' and 'traditional values' into the role of government, then everything would be okay. And third, and this is central to the identification of the 'elites' versus the average/normal American, is the demoniaation of educated people, hence the other part of that title of those dastardly 'educated-elites'.

The rhetorical device of 'educated elites' and class warfare isn't unique to Palin's speeches, and isn't even really unique to this election cycle. Class warfare has been around for as long as there have been struggles to form government and the distinction between economic and political classes. Sometimes this type of political manipulation is done with race, by fusing race, ethnic background and economic status together to form generic profiles of a people on whom to place the blame for the political and economic woes of a given time period. This happened in Germany with the Jews, often a target of adding race to class warfare in Europe. It's happened to the Irish, to the Polish, to the Russians, and often, as we saw in the states of the former Yugoslavia, this has often come to violence and civil war.

One of the key objects of concern that is listed off by those talking about their concerns about the economy and their own financial future is how to send their kids to college, how to educate their children, how to leave their children with a more optimistic future. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetoric when one of the goals, it seems, is to vilify education and those who are educated as being 'out of touch' or somehow diminishing the legitimacy of their policies and legislative efforts while at the same time recognizing the importance of education. Education does more than just give people earning potential, it improves the intellectual capacity and knowledge level of individuals. Education expands an individuals ability to understand the world around them, to be able to think deeper than the vague, provocative slogans some use to try to shape the minds of this country. Even among people who have advanced educations there are political issues so complex that they take years to understand. Our economy is one of those issues.

Unbenounced, perhaps, to people in the Tea Party, this is not the economy of the eighteenth century. The protests at that time were more than just about taxation, but illegal search and seizure, and the lack of due process. When people like Joe Miller argue for legislating strictly by what's written in the original framework and the Constitution, he purposefully ignores the fact that at that time there were no voting rights for women or recognition of citizenship for African Americans. Beyond that, there were, at that time, nothing like the multi-national corporations of today. Even the holding and trading companies of the British Empire at that time pale in comparison to the predatory and consciousless policies of the modern corporation.

Candidates like Christine O'Donnell use explicit class warfare to explain the discrepancies in her education background. She claims she did not get her degree right away because she 'didn't have a trust fund' to pay for school and because she had to pay her student loans back before they'd give her her diploma. Anyone who has gone to college knows how ridiculous that claim is. But by setting up the distinction between her and her opponent, who was Harvard educated and holds advanced degrees, she plays to the element of people who are willing to outright deny the serious allegations of campaign fraud and contradictory statements about political positions and experience level. Even the famous commercial where she denies being a witch, she says 'I'm you.' That effort at populism plays successfully among those who have little understanding of our political system or even care about issues other than acting out on their rage against the political process.

When Sarah Palin plays to the 'average American' element within the Tea Party, she's trying to legitimize her own candidacy for president. She's trying to paint a picture of a government filled with sneering elitists from Boston who went to Harvard, advancing the party message of anger against the government for a variety of reasons that all revolve around their party losing. They're dissatisfied because they didn't want Obama to win, they don't want this country to move forward with a progressive agenda that they feel infringes on their lives by stealing their money and giving it to poor minority people. Surveys of the Tea Party found that the vast majority of them were middle class and middle aged or older. They also were largely educated people, at least with college degrees.

So what about having an advanced education disqualifies you from governing? What about it indicates that you would govern badly? We live in a representative government for a reason, our system was set up for a reason. Even back at the founding of our nation there were geographic and cultural differences that required a diverse representative body. While there is no required level of education in our country, in any other career path there is a meritocracy that favors those with advanced educations. Politicians surround themselves with staffers with advanced education. Even though there is a stereotype of educated people being elitist, is that any more true than stereotypes of black people being uneducated or Jewish people being cheap?

The fact is that when someone like Sarah Palin seeks to legitimize her own possible campaign for the presidency, she does everyone in this country a disservice. Not only does she create an atmosphere that discourages the youth in a segment of society from seeking educations but she also brings that rhetoric to the mainstream through her media exposure. The honest truth is that there are no 'common sense' solutions to our economic troubles. There is no easy answer to how to deal with financial regulations and manage energy policy in a way that promotes private sector job growth. This is not the kitchen table or the household budget for a family in Alaska, this is a matter of dealing with innumerable variables with effects both nationally and locally.

We should want people who are educated and capable in office and running this country. It's not just a matter of having someone who you agree with ideologically. It is also a matter of having someone who doesn't need basic civics lessons to understand the responsibilities of the offices in the Executive Branch, who has a proven ability to manage sensitive and difficult situations like natural disasters and economic crises. Whoever is president should be able to communicate economic policy or discuss issues facing the nation either legislatively or judicially with a sense of command and expertise, providing Americans with the appearance of being a confident leader, if not actually truly being a confident leader. Someone who wasn't just sure of their religious or conservative social positions, but someone who seeks to truly represent all people and not just a small slice of the far-right political fringe.

This isn't Alaska, this isn't the household budget of a Midwestern family, this is a varied and diverse nation with just as diverse of an economy and position in the international community. Anyone who can't proceed with confidence and authority, armed with knowledge and understanding, should not be taken seriously as a candidate. Someone who can't name even important heads of state, who doesn't have even a cursory understanding of other cultures and who can't inspire the confidence of foreign leaders and the potential investors from other nations, should not be seen as anything more than a media side-show.

The Tea Party, The Constitution, Freedom and Liberty

The Tea Party from the very beginning has been outspoken about their interpretations of the Constitution, about the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and about the limits and powers granted to the government. They have all along insisted that what they stand for are the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to them and that they believe the government is infringing upon. One of the constant parts of the rhetoric espoused by Sarah Palin and the rest of the Tea Party celebrities are those freedoms and government infringement and how all citizens have the responsibility to demand that they don't suffer under government infringement by making their voices heard and by voting.

I've already written about how social conservatives and the activists among politicians who created the Christian Coalition and the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress have co-opted the Tea Party. It is such a blaringly obvious hypocrisy that the Tea Party candidates continue to run on slogans invoking liberty, the vision of the founding fathers, and rights guaranteed by the Constitution while at the same time denying and fighting against the rights of many minority and marginalized groups in our country. They preach about freedom of thought and expression and especially about freedom of religion, yet they are some of the most vocal in championing the Islamophobia exhibited in the discussion of the mosque near Ground Zero. They constantly use the phrase 'it's time to take our country back', explicitly state that Obama is foreign and Muslim and deny his legitimacy as a democratically elected official, and describe his administration and the Democratic majorities in Congress as totalitarian and socialist.

We who believe in progressive values of inclusiveness and honesty must acknowledge and tolerate the hateful, bigoted and outright lying rhetoric of those on the political right who advocate and are leaders in the Tea Party. At the same time we do not have to agree with them nor do we have to like what they say. Not only is there mutual agreement between the visible members of the Tea Party with socially conservative groups on issues of abortion and gay rights, but they are funded by far-right fringe elements of the political right and actively support and promote candidates with radically un-American views and dangerous positions and rhetoric.

One example is how they say they're for smaller government, which to them is linked in part to high taxes and the IRS, as though the IRS is the villain because they collect and process taxes. But...they also are instrumental in processing Medicare and Social Security. Both of those programs are socialist programs. Both of them are central benefits that the Tea Party, according to polls, supports and refuses to give up. Still, they support candidates who quietly, and some openly, advocate for abolishing those 'entitlement programs' and privatizing them. That fundamental divorce from reality is of course central to their interpretation of the Constitution and constitutional rights as civil rights. They also support candidates like Sharon Angles who has advocated for abolishing the Department of Education. Well, the Dept of Education is principle in issuing and handling student loans, the student loans that most college students depend on. Christine O'Donnell advocates for local control over curriculum and education. The reason she advocates for that is so that parents can have a chance to enforce their religious beliefs into school curriculum and somehow circumvent the First Amendment.

Keith Olbermann said it best, I think, when he characterized the Tea Party as the 'Something For Nothing' party. They want to cut all taxes but they want the benefits that the government uses those taxes to pay for. They want food to be safe to eat, they want their prescription drugs to be safe and paid for, they want bridges built, emergency services such as police and fire departments to be responsive and well funded. They want hospitals, many of whom benefit from large subsidies from the government either through direct aid in grants or through the benefits of Medicare and Medicaid that offset the costs of the poor they are ethically obligated to treat no matter what. They want all these things yet they want the government to cut the administrative structures critical to funding and supporting and managing these agencies.

They want all the rights guaranteed to all citizens, especially the rights to free speech, freedom of religion and the right to bear arms, yet they only apply them to themselves, somehow limiting the concept of freedom and liberty for all or 'all men are created equal' simply to people who share their skin color and religious or political ideology. To all others they view constitutionally guaranteed rights, civil rights, as 'special rights', and groups that work to guarantee that laws aren't enacted which infringe on those rights, whether they are minority caucuses working to register black and Latino voters or groups working for LGBT rights, as 'special interest groups' advocating for changing the fundamental fabric and vision of what America was meant to be.

Either the Tea Party is truly for freedom, liberty and justice for all citizens of the United States, as well as treating those who are not citizens with compassion and respect, or they are hypocrites and liars whose selfish and bigoted motivations are simply to ensure that they are able to legally discriminate without punishment. Either they believe in the fundamental tenants of the Constitution and the democratic process, or they a group seeking to enforce their religious and political ideology on the rest of the country through political control. Either they are people who truly understand the process and purpose of a democracy or they are a group of angry voters who are willing to ignore all facts and scientific reality by supporting far right fringe candidates whose policies are bad for our society in order to express their outrage that they lost and at the candidates whose political positions they disagree with.

They are not in anyway mainstream, they don't represent the majority opinion in America, they don't represent the intentions or vision of the founders of this country, and they don't really believe in the concepts of freedom and justice.

Conservative Agenda

It's really interesting how much of the rhetoric of the conservative political movements and Tea Party surround the idea of limited size of government, limits on government power, restricting government's involvement in the private business sector and then removing the government's involvement in our private lives and our 'liberty'.

This last bit is a complete falsehood. The conservative politicians and Tea Party movement doesn't want the government out of OUR lives, they want it out of THEIR lives. What this means in some practical terms is that they want to be able to be free to do and say what they please, to believe what they want and to be free to act on those beliefs without any infringement. They want to be able to deny gay people and Muslims the right to rent apartments, they want to be able to fire people for 'lifestyle choices'. They want to be able to say whatever they want wherever they want, including at work, and not be afraid of others being offended or suffer any consequence for hurtful or outright hateful things they say. They want to dictate what is legally acceptable in our society based on THEIR beliefs and not be forced to deal with the 'special interest groups', which really means minority people.

This last is an especially hypocritical part of their rhetoric. They say they want to restore individual liberties and freedoms, which is actually the above, but they want to outlaw all abortion via constitutional amendment, as well as gay marriage. Some visible conservative activists, and leaders in the Tea Party movement, have actually said on television that they think we should outlaw the building of any new mosques in this country. I think that some of them would actually outlaw interracial marriage again if they could.

How do you justify having these above beliefs when you profess the principles of freedom of religion and rights to privacy? They hate it when they are called racists, yet they continually proclaim the illegitimacy of President Barak Obama. They don't do this by using a situation like the Florida recount of 2000 when George W Bush was elected because those 'liberal activist judges' upheld ballots some said were questionable based on the principles of voter rights. No, instead they use language that, though they claim it isn't racially motivated, isn't even subtle in its racial implications, such as saying he's a 'Kenyan tribal anti-colonialist'. They have no problem claiming that that isn't racially motivated or racist language, which is incomprehensible to me.

Some among the conservative candidates running in this year's mid-term elections have even publicly taken the position of being anti-abortion, with no exceptions made for victims of rape or incest. Rachel Maddow claims that this kind of stance on abortion used to be totally off-limits for all but the extreme fringe. Obviously that fringe has taken to the mainstream. The idea that making it illegal for women to have access to reproductive health resources ISN'T a right to privacy issue is ludicrous. If there are any circumstances in which we should absolutely have a right to privacy it is in our most intimate relationships and the right to control our own bodies. While they are claiming the Obama administration is part of a socialist/communist conspiracy to control the minds and bodies of everyone in this country, ironically not recognizing any difference between socialism and communism, they would do EXACTLY that and are completely unapologetic about it.

The same principle of hypocrisy holds true for their stance on gay marriage. While they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, and are free to practice their religion, it is bizarre to think that their values of 'freedom of speech' and individual liberty wouldn't extend to the governments interference in the private relationships of same-sex couples. If they were truly for individual freedom and liberty they would make every effort to ensure that the government doesn't make any laws to restrict the rights of any of its citizenry. And while some conservatives might say that they aren't restricting gay people's rights to marry, they could marry a member of the opposite sex any time they want, no one can deny that this is exclusive of the types of loving relationships gay people do enter into. Those same people who would reinstate sodomy laws if they could share that same sentiment of not seeing any conflict between their stance of individual freedom and being anti-gay marriage.

Ultimately it comes down to this, and I've said it before: the conservative political movement isn't about freedom for all citizens, it's about freedom for themselves and asserting control over everyone else in the country so that theirs is the only system of beliefs and values that are legal in this country. They may rail against the current administration and against progressive politics in general, but when any rational, thinking person thinks through the issues surrounding these social values, they will see that progressives, many of whom are Democrats, some of whom are Independents and moderate Republicans, are the only ones looking to protect the 'liberties' that those in the Tea Party most enjoy and take for granted.