"We Know What We Don't Like!"

January 01, 2010 "We Know What We Don't Like!" Six weeks before the 1994 mid-term elections, Congressional Republicans issued a document called the "Contract with America." Based largely on President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union address, the "Contract" consisted of a series of promises; detailed actions the Republicans promised they would enact if they became the majority party in the House of Representatives for the first time in more than 40 years. History records that the GOP did successfully take back both the House and Senate in the 1994 election, and did manage to turn some of those promises into law -- for better or for worse, depending on one's point of view. Precisely what role the "Contract" played in that victory is still a matter of debate. Many argue that its overwhelmingly conservative agenda -- shrinking the size of government, lowering taxes, deregulation, tort, welfare reform, term limits -- struck a resonant chord with American voters, thus proving to be the lynchpin for Republican victory. Others dispute this, noting that Gingrich, DeLay, Armey, Boehner et al did not release the Heritage Foundation-drafted "Contract" until very late in the election cycle. These folks argue that voter anger and resentment over the Clintons' failed health care reform proposals had as much -- if not more -- to do with the historic Republican victory. Regardless of what side of the debate one supports, there is a single undeniable truth before us: that in 1994, Republican conservatives clearly knew what they were against, and were just as clearly capable of articulating both an ideology and a political program -- that which they were intent upon doing. Whether or not one was for or against the "Contract With 1 America" is, for purposes of this op-ed piece, not the point. What is the point is that back in 1994 -- well before the talkmeister revolution -- Republicans, neoconservatives, and libertarians could actually state what they liked. Oh that this were still the case in 2010! Years ago Monty Python did a hilarious three minute sketch in which the Pope (John Cleese) berates Michelangelo (Eric Idle) over "The Last Supper," in whichthe latter has depicted that historic event as having had 28 disciples. After a riotous back-and-forth argument, the Pope jumps down from his thrown and angrily chases Michelangelo off the stage shouting, "I MAY NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT ART, BUT I KNOW WHAT I LIKE!" And, despite the fact that this punch line was around long before Monty Python was created, it remains one of their all-time best routines. [Monty Python: The Pope and Michelangelo] I have to believe that if Cleese, Idle, Chapman, Gilliam, Jones and Palin (Michael, not Sarah) were still in business today, they would come up with a new routine dealing with the current political scene here in America. In this sketch, they would have dead ringers for say, John Boehner, James Imhofe, Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck or Ann Coulter complaining vehemently about virtually any and every aspect of the Democratic agenda. They would go on to proclaim that Barack Obama has never -- and will never -- be right about anything; that he was: Wrong to bow before Japanese Emperor Akihito; Wrong to support cap-and-trade; Wrong to accept the Nobel Peace Prize; Responsible for the Nigerian terrorist on that Christmas Day flight, and Guilty of being "A Communist/Socialist/Fascist/Liberal intellectual elitist." I can further envision the sketch containing a character whose sole purpose is posing a question: "Now that you've all told us what you don't like -- what is so all-fired dangerous about Democrats, liberals, progressives and the like -- what in the world do you want to replace them with? And don't just say 2 'Republicans.' Tell us what you would do -- and how you would deal -- with all the problems and issues you raise with such skillful abandon." Then would come the punch line:"WE MAY NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT GOVERNANCE, BUT WE KNOW WHAT WE DON'T LIKE!" Unlike today's crop of k'vetchers, the Republicans of 1994 had a concrete set of proposals. And whether you loved, liked, were neutral, disliked or abhorred their "Contract with America," at least they were doing more than holding their collective noses and screaming "this stinks!" They staked themselves to specific programs and policy changes under-girded by a reasonably coherent (though to my taste wrong-headed) political philosophy. The truth is, much of what Newt and his acolytes enacted, is responsible for the fix we find ourselves in today. OK. Their political philosophy has been shown to have a lot of flaws. But that's fair game. At least they didn't just sit back and complain. And so I ask the Limbaughs, Imhofes, Ingrahams and Levins of 2010: where is your program? What are you proposing besides tax cuts and ridding America of all government regulation and every Democrat? What is your step-by-step prescription for curing what ails us? I'm waiting . I'm still waiting . Yes indeed, it's easy acting like a clown when you aren't the one responsible for running the circus. ©2010 Kurt F. Stone 3 January 08, 2010 Beware the Swinging Pendulum Although no one is absolutely positive who first noted "The more things change, the more they stay the same," it is more than obvious that he or she hit the nail squarely on the head. (Note: Many ascribe the original -- "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose," to the French Victorian novelist Alphonse Karr.) Without question, time does possess a pendulum-like quality, moving inexorably back and forth betwixt apogee and perigee, heroism and cowardice, patriotism and treachery. Forty years ago -- back when Barack Obama was still in grade school and Bill and Hillary had yet to start dating -- there was this hydra-headed beast known to most of us as "The Establishment." It was this "Establishment" that got us into Vietnam, was responsible for spying on us at anti-war rallies, and pulled virtually every one of society's crucial levers -- all for the sake of profit. It was omniscient, omnipotent and omnivorous. It controlled both government and politics, business and media. Indeed, it was fear and wariness of the "Establishment" that caused many of the then student-left to change the spelling of our native land to A-m-e-r-i-k-a, as if it were some sort of a fascist regime. Being the sons and daughters of parents who went through the Depression and fought in World War II, we certainly got an earful. We, who didn't trust anyone "over the age of thirty," were told in no uncertain terms that America was the greatest nation in the history of the world, and we had precisely two choices: to "love it or leave it." We were also told something to the effect that "If you're young and not a liberal you haven't got a heart; if you're an adult and haven't become more conservative, you haven't got a smart." As 1 leftists and radicals (or so we thought at the time), we believed that the "Establishment" was targeting us for extinction. We thought we were so politically wise and astute. It never dawned on us that although America was by no means perfect, and Richard Nixon did have his plumbers' unit wiretapping thousands of phones, this country -- unlike almost any other on the planet -- both afforded and guaranteed us the opportunity to protest and express pretty much any opinion we might have. It never dawned on us that eventually, the pendulum's arc would change and we would all stand a good chance of it hitting us in the tush. Forty years ago, many of us didn't see it that way. For many, fear and utter distrust of the "Establishment" made clear vision a virtual impossibility. For many, the pendulum had swung way over to the right. I remember Today, the pendulum's arc has gone off in the opposite direction. Today, the roles have been pretty much reversed, and it is the right that is beset by fear. For them, the "Establishment" is made up of liberals, progressives and other "lower life forms." One of the areas in which the pendulum swing is most easily discernible, is in our views on the media. Hardly a broadcast hour goes by without someone angrily charging the "government-controlled media" of failing to inform us of the truth -- of "what's really going on." Egad, what in the world are they talking about? If the government really, truly controlled the media, would Fox News still be in business? Would Glenn Beck, Sean Hannaty, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, et al be permitted to make fortunes by telling outright falsehoods? In an America in which the Obama Administration and the entire left controlled the media, would: Rudy Giuliani be permitted to tell millions that "We had no domestic attacks under President George W. Bush," or Glenn Beck proclaim that Senator Chris Dodd is retiring because "there are a few bars he hasn't hit in Connecticut," or that It wasn't until January 7, 2009, that President Obama "finally noticed" that "we are at war with terrorists," or that George Will and other Fox News Network personalities have repeatedly claimed that "the earth has been cooling ever since 1998," or that 2 Kevin Jennings, President Obama's director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools is "a well-known pervert" with "a penchant for teaching deviant sexual practices to little children." If indeed, America had a "government-controlled" media, none of these stories would be permitted to see the light of day.

Load more