Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Reduction of the dream...

About fifteen years ago, I was talking with an old friend of mine who was joking that he hadn’t really done anything he had expected to do by that time in his life. At one point in the conversation, he looked up and, smiling at me, said something that I clearly remember even so many years later: “All of my dreams have come true… only on a drastically smaller scale than I would have ever dreamed possible.” At the time I first heard this little bit of self-deprecation, I had to laugh at the irony in the conflict between the dreary resignation it held and the hope and happiness in the idea of his achievement of his dreams.

During last night’s State of the Union address, a portion of President Obama speech reminded me this conversation but in a way that was much more ominous. At one port of his address, after talking about some of the opportunities of which his grandparents were able to take advantage, President Obama stated the following:

“The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. Whats at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them. “

When I heard this statement, I had to rewind the speech and listen to it again to be sure that I had heard him properly. On my second listen it turned out that I had. In only two short paragraphs, it appears that the President has defined an American promise quite different from the one I learned as a child.

One of the first non-fiction books I can remember having an impact on me as a child was The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. In this book, Franklin describes a life that began in poverty and ended with him becoming one of the most notable people the country has ever produced. Franklin notes a life that began in poverty and ended in wealth and notoriety. He notes his successes, his failures, and his philosophies in ways that have inspired generations. Franklin’s life and successes inspired James Harper of HarperCollins publishing to leave his farm life and start one of the largest publishing companies in America. Thomas Mellon, after reading Franklin’s Autobiography was able to see the possibilities the country held and left his farm to found one of the largest banks in the United States. Mellon once said that “[f]or so poor and friendless a boy to be able to become a merchant or a professional man had before seemed an impossibility; but here was Franklin, poorer than myself, who by industry, thrift and frugality had become learned and wise, and elevated to wealth and fame. Mellon went on to say that he realized that he “had will and energy equal to the occasion, and could exercise the same degree of industry and perseverance…. After that I was more industrious when at school, and more constant than ever in reading and study during leisure hours. I regard the reading of Franklin’s autobiography as the turning point of my life.”

I remember that the stories noted in Franklin’s Autobiography were used as parables of how we too could succeed. While there would obviously be hurdles, if we worked hard enough, America was a place that promised that there were no limits to what you could achieve. It was a place of hope and a place of dreams.

Obama’s vision of America is quite different. Obama states a very specific promise for those who work hard in the country he now governs. Unlike the America where Franklin became wealthy through hard work, Obama’s America offers to those who “work hard”, not the ability to become wealthy and powerful in the world; but, rather Obama’s America offers us the chance to do “well enough.” How well is enough to our President? He defines this quite specifically as the ability to “raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.” True wealth from hard work is apparently no longer an option in Obama’s America; rather, it is a very specific standard of living that President Obama feels is the acceptable reward.

What’s more, Obama seems to think that this limitation on reward is somehow a restoration of something that has been lost when he says that we need to “restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share." I do not seem to remember a time when our economy gave “a fair shot” to anyone. Those who succeed do not do so because they are given anything; is the act of taking a shot that leads someone to succeed. I am not even sure how one can measure someone’s fair share if we really live in a society that allows those who work hard to achieve whatever they can.

The reduction of the American dream to the one that our President expressed is a sad day for America. I fear for my children’s future in a world where they are dictated their acceptable levels of success in such specific terms. I dread the day when they realize that they have achieved this new American Dream and become aware that it is truly on a drastically smaller scale than they were capable of achieving.

I can only agree with one part of what the President said here. Whats at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values. The problem is that these are not “American values” either.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

SC debate shows Gingrich to be the only viable candidate the Republicans have.

Last night’s debate from Columbia, SC clearly showed the capabilities of each of the GOP candidates for President. Let us look at each of them here.

Perry: Here is a candidate who decided to start Obama’s campaign early. Attack and demonize the wealthy. Call for Romney to release tax records. Be certain that you are little more than an empty suit.

Santorum: Here is a candidate who is out of his league. Santorum wants to come across as informed but attacks only part of Gingrich’s plan for Social Security and ignoring the part that pays for it. Santorum then goes on to attack it again after being corrected only to end up with his nose firmly placed in the corner by Gingrich once again. Santorum also wants to paint all attacks against him as left wing or lies and hypocrisy even when some are entirely correct by his own admission [Voting rights for convicted felons]. Screams “Stop it” to Romney like he is a six year old in a fight with a 3 year old over a stuffed animal when he feels that he is being wronged.

Paul: Comes across strong on local policy but foreign policy continues to be a problem. Believes that the American Military endlessly bombs other countries, which leads them to hate and attack us. [Provided no proof of said “endless bombings.”] Believes a good foreign policy is “Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want them to do to us.” Paul seems to believe that when people get “upset” with the US over fictional ongoing bombings it leads to flying two planes into the towers of the Trade Center. [I would hate to see what they do when they get mad.]

Romney: Here is a candidate who wants to live in the middle of the road. His obviously practiced answers say very little and give him wiggle room to back out [like he did on his answer about releasing his taxes:

“ROMNEY: You know, I looked at what has been done in campaigns in the past with Senator McCain and President George W. Bush and others. They have tended to release tax records in April or tax season. I hadn’t planned on releasing tax records because the law requires us to release all of our assets, all the things we own. That I have already released. It’s a pretty full disclosure. But, you know, if that’s been the tradition and I’m not opposed to doing that, time will tell. But I anticipate that most likely I am going to get asked to do that around the April time period and I’ll keep that open… I think I’ve heard enough from folks saying, look, let’s see your tax records. I have nothing in them that suggests there’s any problem and I’m happy to do so. I sort of feel like we are showing a lot of exposure at this point. And if I become our nominee, and what’s happened in history is people have released them in about April of the coming year and that’s probably what I would do.”]

This answer could have won him the Dancing with the Stars GOP candidate special. If he had said either Yes or No here at least he would have taken a stand. He actually answered this with a “probably”. His answer was direct on his Super PAC criticism and with the amount of time he had to come up with an answer to this I would have been shocked if it wasn’t. He was surprisingly weak with his answer to the Bain Capital attacks which is worrisome when you consider that Obama can continue on this.

Gingrich: Gingrich is the obvious winner of the SC debate and clearly the only person on the stage who can roll with questions and answer them from a position of clear ideology and knowledge. Gingrich easily took to school each of the other candidates [at least those with any real shot—Perry was not really mentioned by him at all] from Romney’s failure to even suggest that his Super PAC should stop with the inaccurate ads, to Paul’s likening Chinese dissidents to terrorists, and on to Santorum’s uninformed weak arguments about his plan for social security. Gingrich’s public spanking of Juan Williams after his gotcha race-baiting question was also a preview of what to expect from him in his answers to similar questions that are sure to arise during any debates with Obama.

There is little doubt here that Gingrich is the only viable candidate in this field. If we do not see him as the candidate, it will be a tragedy.