The Trouble With Politics

Politics, in the larger sense, is how people get along with other people. We talk, we trade, we compromise; we sell each other things and swap stories; we interact, and at the end of the day, we sleep and get ready to do it again. It is, definitionally, about government, true enough; but it is also about simple human interaction to accomplish given purposes and goals. With that latter sense in mind, politics can also be defined as "the art of the possible."

Frankly, there is nothing wrong with politics in the United States. The interactions are still functioning, people are still talking (often too much and on the wrong subjects), and we hold elections as regular as clockwork. Politics, we have.

What we don't have is a clear differentiation between elections and governing. Getting elected, to far too many people, is simply the prerequisite to getting re-elected, and that quest begins before new legislators take office and continues until they retire or are shown the door.

Here's the problem: getting elected is not the job. Getting elected is getting hired to DO the job.

We have always had legislators who understood the difference, ranging from the great antebellum Senators who kept the Union together until the lunatics blew it asunder to the brilliant 20th Century Congresses that gave us everything from Social Security to the Interstate Highway system, on through to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is safe to say that there were differences of opinion throughout that were in diametrical opposition, one to another. But they served in wars together and experienced life outside of Congress; this let them see the other guy as someone who honestly thought about things differently - not as the enemy, or as evil.

They knew that compromise was not a bad thing. It gives the best deal to the most people, and if you do not get everything you want, at least everyone gets something...and you can always try again next time when you have more votes or better arguments.

These days, compromise is seen as surrender. But without compromise, without a willingness to listen, actually LISTEN to the other opinion (which, against the odds, might be closer to the truth than yours is), the work simply doesn't get done very often or very well.

Obamacare is a case in point: it passed through a procedural trick on a virtual straight line party vote. There was no minority party buy in, even though there were and are items in the ACA that both sides agree needed to be enacted. The lack of buy in provoked a sustained response that is eager to rescind it, defund it, or use it to defeat Democrats in elections - the latter being the most effective. The thing the Democrats forgot is that having the votes simply meant that something could get enacted; the point was to get the best bill possible, bringing both parties on board. Many Republicans, particularly in the Senate, wanted to pass a health care bill, and bringing them in, even if it made the bill less comprehensive, would have lent the legislation legitimacy. Instead, the ADA ended up looking partisan, and it was.

The times are too fraught with peril to put up with ballot mice. We need legislators. We need our leaders to emulate men like Henry Clay, Thomas B. Reed, Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill and Everett Dirksen, not people like Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. We need people who are willing to govern and make the damn deal.

In short, we need statesmen. We need men and women of character and honor. But mostly, we need them all to do the jobs we hired them to do.

Or we need to fire the lot of them and give some other people a shot.

A Life In Full...

Bobby Brooks Farmer – 1931-2013

A man is defined as much by what he does as who he is. All throughout America, exceptional men live in relative obscurity, known to friends and family and not, perhaps, to the communities at large. They live lives of enormous integrity, in their work, their churches, and their homes, taking care of the people who depend upon them and the towns they live within. They are aldermen and councilmen, elders and deacons, businessmen, professionals, husbands, and fathers. As much as anyone anywhere, they are the glue of our society. They manned the ships and planes and infantry brigades during times of war, and built, then rebuilt, the country they continued to serve. This is the sort of man that Bobby Brooks Farmer was, and that was the sort of life he led.

Bob Farmer was born July 19, 1931 in Benton, KY, and died August 25, 2013, age 82, at his home in Murfreesboro, TN. He was preceded in death by his parents, Sam L. Farmer and Reba Darnall Farmer and one brother, Sam H. Farmer. He is survived by his wife of 62 years, Marlene Emerine Farmer, and his children Jeff Farmer (Linda/ Jill, Brett, Micah & Sarah), Julia Farmer, John Farmer (Margaret/ Joshua, Ethan & Anna), and Jamie Oneida (Dene/ Sarah, Andi & Brittni). He is also survived by his brother Solon W. Farmer (Frances) and his sister-in-law Royalyn Lawrence (Dan), all from Benton, and his nephew Mark Phillips (Ann/ Colton) of Collierville, TN.

Bob graduated Benton High in 1949, was married in 1951, and then joined the Navy that same year, serving as an Electronics Technician during the Korean War aboard the USS Hornet as well as mainland assignments in Memphis, California and Florida.

Subsequent to his discharge in 1955, he attended Murray State studying pre-Pharmacy, and graduated pharmacy school at Memphis in 1959. After working for five years in Maryville, TN, and 13 years as half-owner of Martin’s Drug Store on the square at Murfreesboro, Bob was employed at the Murfreesboro VA Hospital, retiring from CMOP (Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy) in 2012 after 53 years as a pharmacist.

Bob loved sports, having played baseball and basketball as a youth. As an adult, he avidly followed the University of Kentucky basketball program, but his greatest joy was attending the countless games played by his sons and daughters, and then his grandsons and granddaughters.

He was a member of the First Baptist Church in Murfreesboro, and served as a deacon, an usher, and taught Sunday School for many years. Donations may be sent to the First Baptist Church library in lieu of flowers. Services will be held Saturday, August 31 at the Woodfin Funeral Chapel on Lascassas Pike in Murfreesboro.

The Inconvenient Paradox of DOMA and Prop 8

During the hearings for DOMA and Prop 8 this week at the Supreme Court, one of the more interesting problems of bringing both cases in such close proximity arose but was carefully ignored by everyone other than the Chief Justice. He posed Solicitor General Donald Verrilli a couple of questions during the DOMA session that had to do with the extent of federalism and the power of the states within their own spheres. The questions were a bit elliptical and the meaning a bit less than clear, but the substance is this:

You want us to overrule DOMA on the basis of federalism, that the Federal Government should not take a stand on marriage as such, but leave it to the discretion of the states and then simply recognize the status of individuals according to how the state characterizes them (married, same sex committed couples, domestic partners, etc). States that do not recognize other arrangements than traditional marriage would not be forced to reciprocity by the federal government. AND you want us to assert federal Constitutional supremacy over the California State Constitution, which was, in fact, legitimately amended by a legally mandated process to disallow gay marriage solely within the boundaries of that state.

Essentially, what he said was this: we are moving at cross purposes here. Either the federal government has supremacy power over the states when dealing with questions of rights and how they may be exercised, or it does not. If it does, then DOMA has to stand for the basis for overruling Prop 8, federal civil rights supremacy, to be legitimate. If DOMA, on the other hand, is a federal overreach into the rights of the states, then the decision of the California Supreme Court should be reversed, as California law was followed to enact Prop 8 and the federal government should have no say in the matter.

Obviously, this is not how the cases are going to play out. But it does explain why several of the justices seem very open to either dismissing the Prop 8 case as improvidently granted, or finding another way to affirm the state Supreme Court. If the case is DIGed, the District Court's ruling stands (probably suggesting that the Prop 8 backers had no standing to represent the amendment in court), and Prop 8 is dead. If it is dismissed, likewise; the result stands at the state Supreme Court level.

So, what I expect is some sort of straddle, where DOMA is overruled and Prop 8 is disposed of administratively. But let's be clear: even if DOMA is affirmed and Prop 8 is reversed, civil momentum is on the side of gay marriage. Even without a one-size-fits-all-states Roe v. Wade sort of ruling (something the Court is anxious to avoid), we are looking at a fundamental change in how marriage is viewed, both legally and culturally. It is only a matter of time.

Independence Day

Freedom is hard work. I think we forget that. I know we forget that.

Most of us know nothing about what it is to yearn for freedom. Pray for it. Fight for it. On our televisions, we see people in places all around the world protesting in their streets. Seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Their families. Their neighbors and friends.

And then we go to our local Starbucks and order another latte, and maybe a bagel. We drive home in our own car to our own house, and our streets are clear. There are no troops. There are no protesters. There is no civil unrest.

We are safe.

We don’t know what freedom feels like to someone who has never had it. We can’t know. We just can’t. Even our military, our soldiers who have served in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea, really don’t understand what it feels like, because they were raised here. But they have seen the yearning at close proximity. And they have been there, supporting the cause. And they understand the cost that must be paid.

The last generation of Americans who really understood was that which fought for civil rights from World War II though to the 1960s. Thurgood Marshall. Medgar Evers. Martin Luther King, Jr. Jackie Robinson. Rosa Parks. So many, many others. They understood the price. They paid it. They earned their freedoms. And in earning their freedoms, they secured ours as well.

For most of us, though, those of us who either did not serve or those (like me) who served in peacetime, freedom is a given. We take it for granted. It is like the air we breathe. And in those circumstances where freedom is not perfect, where discrimination exists or bigotry continues, we have recourse. We can sue. We can protest. We can organize.

In New York State, gay Americans now have the right to marry. It is a continuing step towards a perfect freedom; but it is not freedom itself. Freedom itself was the recognition that there was disparity of treatment under law, and the ability to affect change. Without freedom, the subject never could have been raised, much less addressed. Not only would there be no right to marry, there would have been no discussion allowed. The subject would be settled. Closed.

Our debt to those who fought for our freedoms and spent their lives and fortunes is immense. We cannot hope to repay them. But what we can do is nurture the gift they gave us. Use it. Avail ourselves of its protections. And NEVER allow anyone – not government, not our fellow citizens, not nearby or distant states – to take it, abridge it, or deny our use of it under any circumstances or for any purpose.

Freedom is hard work. Please, today and into the future, remember that.

And remember the people who gave it to us.

People Are Basically Conservative

I have come to the conclusion that nearly everyone is conservative. In fact, I estimate that upwards of 80% of humanity looks at change with a certain amount of wariness, if not outright suspicion.

Keep in mind, however, that conservatism as such is not and cannot be tied to a particular party or ideology. It is about resistance to change, whatever that change might happen to be.

Most people grow up in circumstances where they largely take on the politics of their parents, live in the same towns and share the same life experiences. It is a stable mindset, and when new points of view are encountered, they often are looked upon as either troubling or wrong; more particularly, they are looked upon as dangerous.

Many other individuals, particularly those people whose parents (and, perhaps, whose parent’s parents) grew up and attended college, get exposed to another variety of conservatism altogether, which, I grant, will appear to be counter-intuitive. When they go to college, they encounter the liberal academic mindset, which is stable and largely unchallenged at the university level. College professors and administrators primarily vote Democratic, and they are often ideologically to the left in that party. Whether one accepts this datum or not, what happens is that students, fresh from their parent’s houses and their high school experiences, encounter an academia that has a pervasive left wing point of view. It is not a strident point of view, nor is it rigorously enforced; it is simply subtext for the most part, but it does have an effect societally as more and more people attend college. This academic subculture, through prolonged and general exposure, became the primary culture that greater and greater numbers of our children experience, and as such, it is the general attitude towards society that most college educated professionals adopt and adhere to. It is their “normal.” They grew up with it, their friends share it, and they are comfortable with the world as they know it.

The news media as a whole is very much a part of this subculture, and the basic premises and predilections of news professionals are reflected in their coverage, both in what they choose to emphasize and what they choose not to report at all. So, too, the entertainment industry by and large shares these same premises, and what it projects onto the television screens of its viewers reflects the world as they see it.

So as these young professionals transit from college into industry, government, or, most pointedly, the media, they find that the people they meet there mostly share the same attitudes and expectations of behavior. Once accepted, this perspective is resistant to change, as such, because opposing points of view are generally not encountered (and those they do encounter appear to be unfounded, antithetical to logic, or just wrong).

This easy acceptance of perspective is why so many “educated” people look curiously at Republicans and other people on the right wing of the political spectrum and wonder what the hell is wrong with them. Why do they think as they do, vote as they do? Think the things they do. Don’t they understand that they are looking at the world incorrectly? It is at this point that one of two things occurs to them; people who are ideologically to the right, being incorrect in their point of view, have only two excuses for not sharing the appropriate view of the world: they are either stupid (and don’t get it) or evil (they understand it, but deny it for venal reasons of their own).

In part, this dichotomy of attitudes leads to an interesting dualism of perspective: a great deal of America looks at The New York Times and sees a left wing newspaper while another great deal of America looks at it as middle of the road, common sense reporting. Common sense is, in large part, defined by what you commonly encounter. And if you share the same sorts of education at college and the same suppositions about how politics work, the Times' news coverage will strike you as sensible, even centrist, while Fox News' coverage will strike you as hopelessly biased and to the right wing ideologically.

What things look like truly depends upon where you are looking from.

Think back to the Reagan Revolution; why was it called a “revolution” at all, except for the fact that it proposed to change the status quo? Reaganites were interested in profound societal transformation, and they had no interest in keeping things as they were, or, indeed, as they ever were. They were advocating profound changes in social, economic, and foreign policies, which is why the Democratic Party at the time viewed them, and the president, as dangerous, and why referring to people who are ideologically right as “conservative” is often highly fallacious. In that time, under those circumstances, those on the left who were unwilling to see the system in place change to accommodate those new right wing views were, by definition, conservative, i.e., resistant to change.

This is also why, if one uses the the government of the old Soviet Union as an example, one is struck by evidence of both “change” and “conservative” politics. Change politics focused on freedoms of various kinds, while conservative individuals were often hard line Communist true believers, unwilling to allow the proletariat any freedoms not envisioned by Marxism/Leninism. Within that left-right construct, the far left was conservative in that it did not countenance enhanced freedoms for anyone, and were, in fact, referred to as “conservative hardliners,” which was, specifically, the truth. It’s also true that the sorts of reforms the “change” politicians wanted there, i.e., property rights, sound money, a freer, market economy, were positions more closely associated in the right wing of American politics than otherwise.

Basically, change of whatever kind, in whichever direction, is usually opposed by conservative thought that prefers things as they are to how they might become. And most people anywhere in whatever walk of life, profession or avocation, want the world to make sense and continue to do so for as long as they care to pay attention. They do not want change. Change is the enemy. It is also, however, inevitable.

Now, it is also true that there is a strain of American thought called Progressivism, these days more closely associated with the left, but heretofore more closely associated with freer markets and individual rights. Progressivism, in this incarnation, advocates a move towards more government control and administration of, well, everything from labor relations and corporate administration to how one lives one’s life within the society, including what you can eat, where you can live, what you can drive, and how you can practice your religion. It isn’t conservatism, but it isn’t the sort of thing most Americans favor, either.

Also not conservative in nature are the Libertarians, who favor a government hands-off policy towards most things government has it hands IN these days, including corporate administration, labor relations, etc, etc.

Finally, there are some freethinkers on both sides of the spectrum who look at things as they exist and allow themselves to let their thoughts travel where they will, largely free of ideology, and search, pragmatically, for the solutions to our problems that might very well work and have broad support. These people are more commonly called troublemakers, and are largely ignored by everyone noted above (when they aren’t misrepresented in the press or shouted down in public debate).

Ultimately, as conservative as most people, most Americans, tend to be, we are arriving at a juncture in our history where conservatism isn’t going to save us, or even keep us from slipping farther into the abyss. The political gestalt at present is intent upon doing the same things that got us into this mess in the first place, and conservatism at this point would simply freeze that into stone. What we need now is a willingness to let business succeed and fail on its own merit, unprotected by government and unhindered, to the largest degree possible, by regulations. “Too big to fail” did not work for us, and crony capitalism, where ties with regulators and Congress pay off huge for businesses unable or unwilling to make it on their own, is something we can no longer afford.

It is time to clean house, but more importantly, it is time to listen – actually listen – to what some of the other voices in this society have to say.

It could save us all.

I Married a Guy a Few Weeks Ago

I married a guy a few weeks ago. Of course, I didn't get married to him. And I didn't marry him to another guy, because that's illegal. I married him to a lovely young woman and I'm sure they'll live happily ever after. But maybe not quite as happily as they would if they lived in a country where they could be free to make their own choices and guide their own lives.

And that is exactly what's important in the debate about same-sex marriage, and it's also the point that is always missed. I'm tired of hearing about what your brand of God thinks about gay marriage, or whether it's biological or a choice, or whether you're comfortable explaining the birds and the bees to your kids, or if it makes you feel icky inside. That's all well and good, but it's got nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal. That's the point, and that's what's at stake in this debate. The line between opinion and law. That's what's important about gay marriage for the vast majority of us who are not gay.

I happen to think that there is no rational reason why anyone should eat a Big Mac, but I'm not going to tell you that you can't do it and impose a fat tax on you when you get flabby. I wear a helmet every time I ride my motorcycle, but I don't need any cops to go after my wallet "for my own good" if I don't. And to be completely honest, yes, I think gay marriage is a little icky myself. When I think about it, I get the same feeling I get when I think about my parents getting it on. But that's not a valid reason for it to be against the law. I understand why some people don't like it. What I don't understand is why they think it's any of their damn business.

There is a reason why the phrases, "land of the free" and "home of the brave" go together. If you really feel like you need to be kept safe from the gays, then maybe this isn't the country for you. I lived in a Communist country for a while. There were officially no gays there. It might be more your speed. Me? I'll take my chances here with the big macs, and the gays.

Why NPR is sheltered, stupid, and contra common sense.

When did we become a nation of pussies?

When did "freedom of speech" give way to "obligation not to say mean things that might hurt someone's feelings?"

When did we decide that a "wrong" opinion is every bit as bad as a "wrong" action, and in some instances worse?

Juan Williams was fired from his job at NPR, ostensibly because of a decidedly nuanced comment about concern at sharing a plane with self-identified Muslims wearing burkhas and robes. He followed that by noting that those we need to fear are specific groups of Muslims who advocate terror, and he further noted that we have to be careful about putting all Muslims in the same categories. This, apparently, was a firing offense.

Williams is a fair-minded, respected liberal journalist who tries to understand the world from all sides before he writes or comments about it. I have found myself in diametrical opposition to his viewpoints on numerous occasions, but I respect his opinions because he knows why he came to the conclusions he reached; he reasoned through his opinions. He does not merely accept prevailing received wisdom. In short, he is an honest journalist. But that, apparently, was not enough to save his job. One nuanced comment about Muslims while appearing on Fox News with Bill O'Reilly later, and he is shown the door...

Um. Yeah. Just a sec. About Fox News...

NPR hates them. NPR believes that Fox News is opinion disguised as news, and, as such, is a Bad Thing. They insist that Fox is Republican territory, whereas NPR is an unbiased presentation of news and opinion.

But here is the thing: even if we entirely accept that point of view, which I decidedly do not, if NPR was really concerned about having unbiased news reach people that are not their natural constituency, why would they NOT want to have their commentators appear on Fox to provide some balance? Why would they NOT want to "infect" Fox with the truth, daily, if possible?

Because that ain't what this is about. NPR is "elite" opinion received. If you want to know what people who graduated from the Ivy League think, go to NPR. If you want to hear the same received wisdom that runs through the editorial pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, et al, listen to NPR.

And elite opinion doesn't want a thing to do with anyone who watches Fox News, except to look down on them.

But here is the thing: even on the "opinion" shows, Fox brings on commentators who contrast the opinions of the hosts. There is some effort expended to provide some balance of opinion.

Unlike NPR.

There, you get liberal doctrine untainted by conservatism. Elite opinion unmixed with...that icky other stuff. It is sheltered opinion disguised as comprehensive. ANd while there is much good work on NPR, too often it fails to come to grips with what is actually happening in America...as opposed to what is happening in Eastern Seaboard, Blue State America.

There is a difference.

What NPR finally admitted, in a back door sense, was that Williams was consorting with the enemy. The true firing offense was that he appeared on Fox at all.

NPR's loss. Fox News' gain. And it will probably work out better for Williams, too, in the long run.

The only losers are the 26.5 million listeners of NPR who won't hear a thing that makes them uncomfortable. It's all good. Go back to sleep, untroubled by thoughts of THOSE people. You know: the OTHER 280,000,000 living here in the US.