Cultural Heroine

Last week, president Obama made a trip to Ohio, jetting in on Air Force One to start up a “man of the people” bus tour in the state.

One of his supporters was celebrated by the press as she tearfully thanked him for passing the Affordable Care Act.  The story had broad cultural appeal, as it emphasized the emotional and personal impact of the president’s health care law.

The context of the story was also newsworthy.  Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit wondered if Ms. Miller was a “plant.”  Did the Obama campaign deploy her as a press darling for the Sandusky visit?  To the press, she came across as a thoughtful, caring individual who uplifts our culture.

But there is another side to Stephanie Miller.  While Ms. Miller doesn’t Tweet very often, she (@obamasbestfan) keeps a Twitter page of her feelings for Republicans:

Our culture celebrates this person as sympathetic, and broadcasts that characterization at ThinkProgress, Politico, the Democratic Underground, and the various media.

But the side of Stephanie that borders on the uncivil, and is an interesting part of her story, is not conveyed by our culture.

In America, she is a heroine.

The fact that she hates Republicans is just not that important.

UPDATE 7/7/2012:
Apparently Ms. Miller has deleted her Twitter page.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Intrigue!

Egypt is worth watching.

Mohamed Morsi was elected president of Egypt last week, and his ascension to power was not without controversy.  Talk about your cognitive dissonance!

Try putting these facts into a coherent context:

--Dr. Morsi represents the Muslim Brotherhood.  He also has a PhD in rocket science from the University of Southern California.

--Mohamed Morsi grew up in a village in Egypt and married a woman from Cairo.  Neither came from positions of power or wealth.

--Dr. Morsi served for a year in the Egyptian military – in a chemical warfare unit.

--Dr. Morsi’s wife, Najla Mahmoud, is his first cousin.  They have four sons and a daughter.  Mrs. Morsi enjoys wearing the hijab and traditional muslim dress.

--Hillary Clinton will meet with Dr. Morsi in Cairo on July 14.  Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin (married to former Representative Anthony Weiner) shares a common link with Dr. Morsi: Their mothers are members of the Muslim Sisterhood!

Cue the characterizations.

There is plenty of material on hand.  Mohamed Morsi is perceived as either a dupe of the Muslim Brotherhood, working to release convicted terrorists, or a moderate reformer working for the betterment of the Egyptian people.

What will be fascinating is the unfolding character traits of Mohamed Morsi.  The graphic at the top of this post is a Venn diagram of the relationship between authoritarianism, politics and religion.  All are in play in Egypt, and all will impact the writing of the Egyptian constitution.

Will Dr. Morsi be influenced by our American constitution and set up separation of powers, checks and balances and the rule of law?  Or will he succumb to the siren of authoritarianism and use the political forces of the military along with the religious intensity of the Muslim Brotherhood to bring about another despotic state?  Will Egypt end up looking like Iran, Israel, or Iraq?

This is definitely worth watching.

UPDATE 11/23/2012:
Prime Minister Morsi has issued a decree giving himself broad powers as the guardian of Egypt's revolution.  The New York Times reports that Mr. Morsi requires powers over the judiciary to "protect the transition to a constitutional democracy."  It appears we are watching another instance of Authoritarianism being necessary for "the greater good."

UPDATE 1/15/2013:
The New York Times gives us background on a 2010 interview with Mr. Morsi. This does not look good.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Why Do They Hate Us?

Matthew “Matty” Hart

After the 2001 attacks on America, articles appeared in the popular press posing the question, “Why do they hate us?”  The idea was to try to understand the mindset that led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 individuals on American soil.

Much was written about American foreign policy transgressions and the arrogance of American ideals, but the reasoning is much simpler:

They hate us because they are taught to hate.

The behavior pattern points to Political-Religious Movements, in which people are brought together through common ideals and energized by a common hatred.  In the case of the Islamic Political-Religious Movement, the ideals are based on the Koran, and the hate is directed at Christians and Jews.

The religious component of the movement does not require hate.  That is brought to us by the political leaders who see this increasing the power and authority of the movement.

(It is sad to note that throughout history, when a political organization becomes a political-religious movement or a religious organization becomes a political-religious movement, great human suffering follows.)

The actions of a few activists at a White House gathering last week focus our attention on the transformation of the Democratic Party.  It has become a political-religious movement, with hatred for Republicans as its central tenet.

Our culture sees no problem with this, other than the use of the word “hate.” That terminology is construed as a bit too stern; perhaps uncivil.  When Republican women are disparaged, it is name-calling, not hate.  When Republicans are subjected to dehumanization, it is just a game, not hate.  Republican dhimmitude is simply a fact of life.

And now, indignities to Republican presidents are right and natural, and suitable for Facebook.  The behaviors are justifiable acts of defiance.

Still, Republicans should be concerned with that question, “Why do they hate us?”

We ignore it at our peril.

UPDATE 6/26/2012:
This is just sad. (h/t Glenn Reynolds)

UPDATE 7/10/2012:
Deroy Murdock, writing at National Review Online provides some data on the level of federal expenditure on AIDS research during the Reagan years.  Click on the hotlink under the photo of Matty Hart (above) for a different take.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Authoritarianism Rising

Authoritarianism is on the rise.

The current turmoil in Syria shows what’s at stake: If people don’t submit to authority, they die.

Nonetheless, people are drawn to authoritarianism.  It is an overwhelmingly preferred state of human organization.  Systems modeled on a representative republic (such as America with its Constitution) are few and far between.

The allure of authoritarianism is that authoritarians are never wrong.  My earlier post on Maureen Dowd illustrates the point.  Ms. Dowd does not believe Al Gore lost Florida in 2004.  It just depends on how the vote is counted.  Similarly, Bill Clinton believes he never lied.  It just depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Coming back to the Syrian insurrection, a little over a year ago, Hillary Clinton characterized Bashar al-Assad as a reformer.  Since then, more than 10,000 Syrian citizens have been killed as President al-Assad attempts to hold onto power.

Most people see the Assad regime as authoritarian, with death being the main giveaway.  Extreme authoritarians, from Pol Pot in Cambodia to Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, relish the power that comes from being able to order the deaths of those who oppose them.

Think about that ultimate level of power: Never being wrong and being able to kill with impunity.  Those are the rewards of authoritarianism, and they are seductive.

An Islamic authoritarian can publish a fatwa calling for the death of a particular political or cultural figure.  People around the world accept it as an appropriate use of authoritarian power.  We are conditioned to keep our outrage in check.

The United States, as a representative republic, has constraints on authoritarian behaviors.  Our Constitution sets up checks and balances along with a separation of powers between governmental bodies to discourage concentration of power.  Even so, the authoritarian allure is there.

Our president has used the Democratic Party to weaken the Rule of Law and personally tends to a Kill List.  Those actions are remarkably authoritarian in scope and intent.

The 2012 election is shaping up to be a referendum on Authoritarianism versus the U. S. Constitution.  That should be a good reason to get out and vote!

UPDATE 6/16/2012:
John Yoo has a Ricochet post that looks at the POTUS decision this week to avoid enforcement of United States law as it applies to immigration.  It's an obvious weakening of one of our founding principles (the Rule of Law).

Authoritarians or the Constitution: Which will Americans choose?

UPDATE 6/17/2012:
Linked by Chris Smith at The Other McCain.  Smitty celebrates today with new legitimacy thanks to the World's Youngest Blogger.  Happy Father's Day, Smitty!

UPDATE 7/10/2012:
Tom Junod, writing for Esquire, has an article on "The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama."  More people are beginning to take notice of the authoritarianism of our president.

UPDATE 10/6/2012:
If authoritarians are never wrong, then Mitt Romney is to be commended for admitting "I said something that was just completely wrong."  Vive la différence!

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Incongruity

Dev Patel in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

This weekend, my wife and I saw a film starring Judi Dench that is something of a Slumdog Millionaire tailored for an older audience.  If you are in that “over sixty” crowd, this movie is for you.

The plot features Dev Patel working to create a magical experience for guests of a rundown hotel in Jaipur, India.  The street scenes and characters make this a delightful experience, and Dev Patel is the consummate promoter of positivism.  He makes you feel welcome!

I use this vantage point to contrast the welcome shown in the city of Jaipur with that displayed in the American city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Last week, Mitt Romney came to West Philadelphia to highlight problems in education for the upcoming presidential election.  He was met by a street protest organized by the Democratic Party.  The protest was designed to showcase how inappropriate it is for a Republican to make an appearance in Philadelphia.

Keep in mind that “City of Brotherly Love” is the nickname for Philadelphia.  Surprisingly, that sentiment does not apply to those of us who are Republicans.

While the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were both conceived in Philadelphia, the spirit of these documents seems to have been lost.  If you are a Republican, Mayor Michael Nutter lets you know you are not welcome in Philadelphia.

Are you struck by the incongruity?

How about Chicago?  You might remember the iconic poem by Carl Sandburg.  It is a defiant piece of work that epitomizes the resilience of a people and a city.  Contrast that with our current picture of Chicago.

Does anything seem incongruous?

Here in Colorado, we’ve got a Congressman in a bit of political hot water over a statement characterizing president Obama as not having the true feelings of an American.  The point is that president Obama, as head of the Democratic Party, sees Chicago and Philadelphia through the eyes of Bill Ayers and Michael Nutter, not from the perspectives of Carl Sandburg and Benjamin Franklin.

Which is the right direction?  Is it more important to honor our American heritage or to extend the power and authority of the Democratic Party?

In November, we will get to decide.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Sinister Intent

Ann Romney, wife of presidential candidate Mitt Romney

There is an elephant in the room, and it is time to take note.

Mitt Romney is being characterized this week by The Washington Post as a vicious high school bully.  It is in similar vein to George W. Bush being characterized by Kanye West as a person who doesn’t care about black people.  It’s also like Dan Rather characterizing Mr. Bush as a person who shirks responsibility and flies with the Texas Air National Guard rather than enlisting for a tour of duty in Viet Nam.

The common theme is that Republicans are not good people.  They have Sinister Intent.

Kanye West knows it.  Dan Rather knows it.  They are helpfully showing us that Republicans don’t want to do what’s best for us.

And there’s more:

Here in Colorado, Secretary of State Scott Gessler wants to deny people the right to vote.  On the national scene, Mitt Romney wants to give tax favors to his rich friends.  Ann Romney wants to force her ideas on us, and she has never worked a day in her life!

These characterizations gain traction because Americans know that Republicans have Sinister Intent.  Dan Rather may not have found exactly the right documents, but he was trying to point out the truth.

This is extraordinary!

Because I am a Republican, it is understood that I want our drinking water to be unsafe.  I want the economy to “tank.”  I want to bring harm to our school children.

Unbelievable!

Yet the characterizations are believable because our culture reinforces them.  In America, Republicans are known to have Sinister Intent, and this personal shortcoming is only absolved by a change in political party affiliation.

And remarkably, Americans never directly acknowledge the Republican Sinister Intent.  We just know it.

The pachyderm metaphor is apt.

Republican candidates face an uphill battle in getting elected to public office.  Think how difficult it is to defend “intent.”  If someone accuses you of wanting to do bad things, how do you effectively counter that?

We are going to find a barrage of political ads confronting us over the next six months.  Watch the anti-Romney ads to see how they reinforce “what Mr. Romney wants to do.”  It is his intent that will be attacked, and those attacks, sadly, will resonate.

UPDATE: 5/16/2012:
The third week of May begins with a political ad that tell us Mitt Romney wants to hurt people, while Ann Romney wants to be like Hitler and Stalin.  The accusations are strong - maybe over the top - and yet millions of Americans quietly agree, "Yes, that's what Republicans intend to do."

UPDATE: 5/19/2012:
Jason Riley has a column in the weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal.  It is an interview with Abigail Thernstrom, vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.  Mrs. Thernstrom offers this observation on a comment by Attorney General Eric Holder: "...they're suggesting that inside the breast of every white is a willingness to kill a Trayvon Martin."

The "they" being referenced is the black leadership of America, and "they" appear to see Sinister Intent in every white.

For all you political junkies out there, keep in mind that in America, if you have dark skin tone, the odds are ten to one that you are not a Republican.  The black leadership in America might be rhetorically talking about "every white" but they grant special exemption to anyone who is not a Republican.

Did you catch a glimpse of the elephant we spoke about at the top of this post?

UPDATE 7/9/2012:
Here is Mitt Romney wanting to take your job away and Mitt Romney wanting to harm women.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Authoritarian Invective

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd (photo by Fred R. Conrad)

Look up the definition of the word “invective.” You will find that it refers to the use of insulting and abusive words.

One of the themes reinforced by the Democratic Party is that “Republicans are bad people.” In her column earlier this week, Ms. Dowd pushes this theme through characterizations of Republicans as sinister, de-humanized beings who are bent on the destruction of America.

She is writing about the Supreme Court of the United States, but her article points out that it is the Republicans on the court who are the problem:

--“This court…is well on its way to becoming the most divisive in modern American history.”

--“It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution.”

--“It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes.”

--“…its reasoning on the most important decisions affecting Americans seems shaped more by a political handbook than a legal brief.”

--“If [Antonin Scalia is] so brilliant, why is he drawing a risible parallel between buying health care and buying broccoli?”

--“In 2000, the Republican majority put aside its professed disdain of judicial activism and helped to purloin the election for W., who went on to heedlessly invade Iraq and callously ignore Katrina.”

--Republicans are “…self-interested sugar daddies and wealthy cronies overwhelming the democratic process.”

--“John Roberts Jr.’s benign beige façade is deceiving; he’s a crimson partisan.”

--“Scalia voted to bypass that little thing called democracy and crown W. president…”

--“[Clarence Thomas] lied his way onto the court…”

--“[Conservative justices have] already been playing Twister, turning precedents into pretzels to achieve their political objective.”

Ms. Dowd sees Republicans on the Supreme Court as risible hacks. They act callously and with disdain, using their façade to hide their lies. Maureen Dowd is teaching us “the right and natural way” to think about Republicans.

Try to set aside all the invective for a moment and look at her remarks from an Authoritarian perspective. One of the hallmarks of authoritarians is that they know they are never wrong.

Maureen Dowd knows that Al Gore won Florida in 2004. She knows that George Bush’s military surge in Iraq was a failure. She knows that the Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not divisive. She knows that it is our current Supreme Court that is “becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.”

If you look at the Supreme Court of 1857, you will find it packed with members of the Democratic Party, and declaring (according to a PBS review) "that all blacks – slaves as well as free – were not and could never become citizens of the United States."

Maureen Dowd finds this decision of the Supreme Court not sufficiently divisive? How does she characterize the American Civil War?

Ms. Dowd, as it turns out, is a perfect example of an authoritarian figure telling us how we must think and what we must believe. Apparently Kristin Martin is listening.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom