The Day After

This is how my world looks the day after the 2012 presidential election. The only difference is that the sun is shining; yesterday was cloudy.

I do not get television reception here, and I don't subscribe to cable, so I missed the up-to-the-second updates on the polls. Instead, I would periodically check online to see how the numbers were adding up for President Barack Obama. So I didn't get that euphoric feeling one gets when news outlets first flash their announcements of the predictive winner. About forty minutes after Fox News called President Obama the predictive winner and Karl Rove argued to wait until more numbers came in, I checked Facebook, where my daughter had posted that now she could finally go to bed and another young friend posted "Obama ++." I sighed with relief.

I spent this historic occasion alone, crocheting, drinking a little wine and, later, hot chocolate, and watching Miss Marple Mysteries on Netflix, with two cats curled at my feet, a perfect picture of womanish old age. Tom, my husband, was at a meeting out-of-state, at a location where he could get no cell phone or internet connection. He has yet to respond to the celebratory message I e-mailed him last night.

Life goes on, as it would have done had Romney won, except that Mitt Romney was unable to move his party away from the lunatic fringe toward a more sane center, and thus all of President Barack Obama's achievements--most notably,  the Affordable Care Act--would have been lost. Now Obama's legacy will remain, and, according to Steve Kornacki, on Salon,  even Mitt Romney will benefit from this election, going down in history as the man who made Obamacare possible with the prior health care system he enacted in Massachusetts that served as the pattern for the Affordable Care Act.  History might well forget that Romney was pressured to disavow his healthcare program in order to maintain support of that radical fringe in his party.

Yes, I voted for Barack Obama, but I also voted against a recalcitrant Republican Party. I voted against obstructionism. I voted against torture.  I voted against all those radicals who showed up at rallies screaming that Barack Obama was a socialist or Hitler or the Anti-Christ. I voted against whoever put up that huge roadside sign along I-12 in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, advertising "Satan as Barack Obama." I voted against hate. I voted against racism. 

I sure hope the Republican Party can see that a lot of people voted against the far-right wing of their party as much as for Barack Obama. But I don't hold out much hope in the short term. No, the Republican Party needs to be cast out into the wilderness for a while, and that would mean losing Congress as well as the White House, and that didn't happen this election cycle. It needs to happen. 

I don't believe in the permanent ascendency of one political party because I think when one party governs for too long, that party loses its edge and falls into corruption. We need at least two parties, and I wish we could have a viable third party. But those parties should put the needs of the country ahead of partisan politics. Sure, they do and should have different views of governing, but they need to hammer out their differences in compromise. In that respect, the Republican Party failed miserably, as its leaders were far more determined to obstruct anything a Democratic president tried to achieve than they were determined to govern. And in their obstructionism, they pandered to racism.

 As Jacob Weisberg says, Mitt Romney lost because he had to cast himself as a right-wing extremist in order to win the nomination of his party.  Romney

had to pass muster with his party’s right-wing base on taxes, immigration, climate change, abortion, and gay rights. Many of his statements on these issues were patently insincere, but that was hardly reassuring. Romney’s very insincerity and flexibility made it improbable that he would stand up to the GOP’s hyper-partisan congressional wing once elected any more than he had during the primaries. [Jacob Weisberg, "Why Mitt Lost," in Slate, 7 November 2012]

I hope that leaders of the Republican Party realize this and do some soul-searching.

Meanwhile, we've got some serious issues to address in the four years ahead, and at the top of the list should be climate change, civil rights, and economic opportunity for those who have suffered the most from the financial crisis.

Why I Won't Vote Republican

In May of this year, I began writing on this blog about why I won't vote Republican. I had intended to carry that explanation through several blog posts, but here I'm keeping my reasons to a list:

• I don't believe in governments' torturing prisoners of war, or any other type of prisoner. Mitt Romney's national advisers are some of the same assholes who advised the Bush administration to torture prisoners.  [See Charlie Savage's article in The New York Times: "Election May Decide When Interrogation Amounts to Torture," 27 September 2012.] While I am not at all happy with how President Obama has continued some of the Bush national security policies, I know that a Republican-led government would not improve on these issues. President Obama has, at least, banned "enhanced interrogation" (torture!) and closed the CIA black sites. A second Democratic presidency will give us the opportunity to argue for re-examining those other issues. In addition, Mitt Romney's foreign policy technique, as illustrated by his visit to Great Britain during the London Olympics, dispels confidence in his ability to represent our country.

•  I don't trust a party that refuses to compromise for the good of the country, that is so focused on gaining power for itself that it is willing to damage or to destroy the lives of its citizens. I have written more about that here: "Reasons not to Vote Republican: Part 1."

• I believe that we are ALL mutually interdependent upon government (which is WE, the people).  This idea so loudly trumpeted by Republicans that citizens are divided between the Makers and the Takers, between those who are dependent upon government and those who are independent Boot-strappers-by-God-built-that-myself-ers is a skewed perception of democracy. As my husband so eloquently puts it: "That whole world view is bullshit!"  (This world view is particularly laughable in that all those titans of finance who imagine themselves "Makers" took a lot--even individuals' life savings--from folks to whom they condescend and just about bankrupted the country. WHY DO PEOPLE NOT REMEMBER THIS?) Public education that provides people with knowledge to become workers and business owners; police forces that maintain law and order; state and interstate highways (subsidized with our taxes) that guarantee national commerce;  a coast guard to protect those waters full of off-shore drilling rigs, commercial fishing boats, and pleasure and sport craft; a huge military complex that provides protection to many U.S. businesses abroad as well as those of us at home--these are just a few things from which we all profit, even the 1%. So, no, I don't support someone who denies this interdependency by disparaging, condescending to, or demonizing those who are so poor they don't pay federal income taxes (though they pay other taxes--state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes). [See David Corn's article in Mother Jones, "Secret Video: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors what He Really Thinks of Obama Voters," 17 September 2012.] And Romney's last minute apology about his categorization of half of the U.S. is not convincing, especially since he double-downed on that statement several times immediately after it became public.

• Along with the condescending attitude toward the poor comes a willingness to deprive the poor of government support in healthcare. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian culture that promoted the idea that one was required to help those less fortunate, and so I don't get all bent out of shape about my taxes' going to welfare programs, such as Medicaid. Though I no longer participate in organized religion (a disaffection that came to a head during the Bush administration, as I witnessed church leaders and their congregations hurrahing torture and a war based on lies), I still believe in the ethic to care for those who cannot care for themselves, and I think government (which means US--corporations, whose wealth depends upon a stable government, and citizens) has a moral obligation to help those in need. One of my grandmothers spent her last years in a nursing home, her care supported by Medicaid. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would gut Medicaid. [See Kevin Drum's comments here: "The Romney-Ryan Plan to Obliterate Medicaid."] Medicaid is not just there for the very poor; it's available for the elderly who live middle-class lives and who find their life's savings destroyed by medical costs as they age. Mitt Romney's statement that the poor can always get medical care in the emergency room is bitterly out-of-touch. President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction in providing healthcare for most Americans and in reducing costs of healthcare. Mitt Romney has promised to repeal what could use some tweaking, not destroying.

•  I am dismayed by the increasing hostility toward science in the Republican Party. From climate change to contraception, Republicans have loudly and vociferously denied scientific research and the consensus of scientists. In the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney criticized over and over President Barack Obama's economic support of green energy, and his running mate, Paul Ryan,

  has consistently voted against government efforts to tackle climate change. Like many House Republicans, he has voted to block efforts by the EPA to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions. He approved an amendment that would bar the Department of Agriculture from studying how best to adapt to a warmer planet. Ryan voted to defund various climate-advisory positions within the White House. He also voted for an amendment, proposed by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), to cut $50 million from funding for ARPA-E, which funds long-shot energy research and development. [Brad Plumer, on Ezra Klein's Wonkblog, 14 August 2012]

  I mean, really.... voting to bar studies and research to determine how we can adapt to a warmer planet? How short-sighted is that!?

• Despite the financial crisis of 2007-2008, created in large part by the high-risk excesses of Wall Street and a corresponding lack of regulation, the Republican platform still calls for minimum regulation of Wall Street. I guess this explains why a CNNMoney Survey found that "[a]n overwhelming majority — 70 percent — of investment strategists and money managers in the survey say a Republican president would be better for the stock market"--even though, "as CNNMoney notes, stocks have historically performed better during Democratic administrations" [Michael Kling, "CNNMoney Survey: Wall Street Wants a Republican in the White House," 6 April 2012.]  See also how Republicans have worked to prevent implementation of the 2010 Dodd-Frank's Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by slashing the budget of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Jack Kemp, "Wall Street and Republicans Team Up to Curb CFTC," Reuters, 7 June 2012.  Or you can read Public Citizen's report of May 2012: "Forgotten Lessons of Deregulation: Rolling Back Dodd-Frank's Derivatives Rules Would Repeat a Mistake that Led to the Financial Crisis."

•  Barack Obama and Joe Biden are not perfect men or perfect leaders, but I am not going to vote for president of this country a man who made millions of dollars saddling companies with debt. You can do a song and dance about that choice of careers all you want, claim that it's all-American in its worship of profit for investors (while workers lose their jobs), but I can't admire it. I'll choose the community organizer, conciliator, post-post partisan, introverted lawyer and current president. Also, as his chameleon performance in the first presidential debate illustrates, Mitt Romney's real beliefs are tough to pin down. Romney governed as a moderate Republican in Massachusetts but became increasingly more conservative on the campaign trail, eschewing even his own Massachusetts healthcare plan. Then, in the debate, he suddenly became moderate again, walking back on claims he had made over and over in the previous months. His running mate? Paul Ryan's world view seems to have been too much influenced by Ayn Rand. And, really, is Paul Ryan vice-presidential material, a heartbeat away from the White House?

•  I support environmental regulations; the Republican party would like to gut the Environmental Protection Agency. [See: David Roberts, "The Environment," in The Washington Monthly; Politico's "Mitt Romney Intensifies EPA Attacks"; and Think Progress' response to the Politico article, "Things Mainstream Reporters Can't Say: Mitt Romney is Lying about the Environmental Protection Agency".] Anyone who lived through the 1960s and 1970s (even I, who was only just old enough to vote in 1976) remembers the ecological damage that our country suffered--acid rain, polluted rivers, chemically-fogged skies, Love Canal, lead gasoline. The Environmental Protection Agency gives government a necessary tool to regulate pollution and to prepare for climate change (if we and our leaders only had the political will to do the latter).

•  I am a strong supporter of public lands; today's Republican Party (no longer the party of Teddy Roosevelt) and Mitt Romney are not so much. [See Timothy Egan's "The Geography of Nope; "Giving Reins to States over Drilling," in The New York Times; "Conservation Update: Romney Energy Plan Would Give Drilling Control on Federal Lands to States," in Field and Stream.]

• I am appalled by the Republican tactics of voter suppression. See Ruth Rosen's piece at George Mason University's History News Network: "Voter Suppression: The Unraveling of American Democracy." Or listen to local voices, such as those of The Plain Dealer's editorial board in Cleveland, Ohio: "Republicans want to limit last-minute early voting, which in 2008 was most heavily used by less-affluent, minority voters." Or listen to the voices of state Republican leaders--links in Timothy Noah's piece: "'47 Percent'--Voter ID Link Proved." See The Atlantic's piece on True the Vote: "The Ballot Cops,"; Common Cause's "Bullies at the Ballot Box"; Justin Levitt's "The Truth About Voter Fraud," on the Brennan Center for Justice website.  Get updates on voter ID laws here: "Voter Identification Requirements," on the website of The National Conference of State Legislatures.

• I support marriage equality. Making it legal for adults of the same sex to marry neither threatens our democracy nor my own (34-year) heterosexual marriage, and it provides legal protection for gays and lesbians who want to raise families, to support one another financially, and to care for one another in sickness and health. Although there may be "a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways," the leaders now on marriage equality are Democrats [Frank Bruni, "The G. O. P.'s Gay Trajectory," The New York Times, 9 June 2012].

•  I believe that abortion should be legal and that the decision to have an abortion be a private matter between a woman, her medical provider, and her own conscience. The Republican Party's platform states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed" and that "the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."  That strongly-worded statement pretty much turns over a pregnant woman's decision making to the federal government. There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or mother's medical condition. Imagine the consequences if such a view became law. 

• I am mightily suspicious of the support of these guys and these guys of the Republican Party. What they expect to gain can only hurt the rest of us democratic, freedom-of-religion types.

•  We had eight years of a disastrous Republican presidency under George W. Bush. Mitt Romney is proposing nothing substantially different from a Bush presidency.  His message contains the same warmongering, regulation cutting, tax cutting mantra that brought us two wars, a horrendous deficit, and a financial crisis that almost blew up the country. As my husband says, "Willard" is just W-2.

What Mitt Romney Really Thinks of Us

Yes, I'm offended that Mitt Romney has this to say about people who support Barack Obama:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. ["Secret Video: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters," David Corn, in Mother Jones, 17 September 2012.]

The guy who wants to be president of these United States believes that half of Americans think they are "victims" and don't "take responsibility and care for their lives." What arrogance.

And he's back to that stupid "no income tax" meme. Hey, Mitt, those same people pay sales taxes, state taxes, and payroll taxes. And guess what? A bunch of the 47% of folks who DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY to pay federal income taxes (the elderly, college students, the poor) are voting for you because they think you support their values and that you're in their corner. What a joke on them.

Note:
See "Why the Poor Pay No Federal Income Tax: A Wee Tutorial," Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, 17 Sept. 2012.

See also, "The 47%: Who They Are, Where They Live, How They Vote, and Why They Matter," Derek Thompson, The Atlantic, 18 Sept. 2012.

Another Death in the "War on Terror"

I am going to vote for Barack Obama for president in November, and I have good reasons to do so. The Democratic ticket more closely represents my ideals, though it isn't perfect. I believe in gay rights; I believe in a woman's right to choose her own birth control and to have low-cost, easy access to methods that prevent pregnancy in the first place. I believe that the wealth gap is widening in our country, that corporations and the rich have too much power. I really think we should have universal healthcare and that the government should be able to negotiate lower drug prices. I believe in a public education that helps its citizens to become critical thinkers. I believe in the separation of church and state. The Republican Party, as it exists today, supports policies that are inimical to  these ideas, and it's largely responsible, through following the rhetorical instructions of people such as Newt Gingrich, in creating the toxic public rhetoric that drives our politics today. In addition, under the presidency of Barack Obama, Republicans have been pig-headedly obstructive in these times of economic crises, putting politics before the good of the country.

That being said, one of my really big disappointments in the Obama administration is its inability to shut down Guantanamo Bay and its continuing many of the war policies of the Bush administration. And I despise the fact that the DOJ hadn't the balls to go after those who approved administration-sanctioned torture in its "war on terror." (How's that working? Has terror disappeared from the face of the earth?) Unfortunately, voting Republican would not create a change here, either. Mitt Romney is being advised by some of the same neo-cons who got us in the war in Iraq with their lies and unbelievable naiveté about how long the war would last, how much the war would cost, and how little the war would impact the very people we were supposed to be liberating. 

My disappointment is magnified by stories such as that of Adnan Latif, who was finally successful this past week in his many attempts to commit suicide in that national disgrace of a prison, Guantanamo Bay. 

Congress, of course, is greatly at fault, too, in abdicating its responsibility to declare war and in allowing the executive branch to accrue more power. And so are we responsible, too, in our silence, in our eager readiness to follow that presidential advice years ago to "go shopping" rather than to deal with the harsh realities of our nation's actions.

Adnan Latif is finally returning home after ten years. . . . in a coffin. I doubt his death has aided the "war on terror." Do you?

The Republican Nominee Depresses Me, Too

Matt Taibbi, in comparing Mitt Romney's address to the NAACP and later to a "friendlier audience" in Montana:

So now this is the message: I tried to reason with the blacks, I really did, but it turns out they just want a free lunch.

How’s that for bridging the racial divide? Time to wake up the Nobel committee in Oslo!

As far as free lunches go, we of course just witnessed the biggest government handout in history, one that Romney himself endorsed. Four and a half trillion dollars in bailout money already disbursed, trillions more still at risk in guarantees and loans, sixteen trillion dollars in emergency lending from the Federal Reserve, two trillion in quantitative easing, etc. etc. All of this money went to Romney’s pals in the Wall Street banks that for years helped Romney take over companies with mountains of borrowed cash. Now, after these banks crashed, executives at those same firms used those public funds to pay themselves massive salaries, which is exactly the opposite of “helping those who need help,” if you’re keeping score.

That set of facts alone made the “free stuff” speech shockingly offensive. But the problem isn’t just that Romney’s wrong, and a hypocrite, and cynically furthering dangerous and irresponsible stereotypes in order to advance some harebrained electoral ploy involving white conservative voters. What makes it gross is the way he did it.

Romney can’t even be mean with any honesty. Even when he’s pandering to viciousness, ignorance and racism, it comes across like a scaly calculation. A guy who feels like he has to take a dump on the N.A.A.C.P. in Houston in order to connect with frustrated white yahoos everywhere else is a guy who has absolutely no social instincts at all. Someone like Jesse Helms at least had a genuine emotional connection with his crazy-mean-stupid audiences. But Mitt Romney has to think his way to the lowest common denominator, which is somehow so much worse. [Matt Taibbi, "Romney's 'Free Stuff' Speech is a New Low," 13 July 2012]

The Haircut

One of the initiation rituals at the small rural high school I attended in Texas in the 1970s was for the senior boys to cut the hair of the freshman boys. As for as I was concerned, it was a stupid ritual, but I was far outnumbered by fellow classmates who thought the ritual was just dandy and a fun thing in which to participate, whether they were seniors or freshmen. The hazing rituals toward freshman girls were less violent--freshman girls were expected to do whatever a senior girl asked them to do, which usually was something servile such as carrying a senior girl's lunch tray. I refused to participate, mainly because I hated being coerced into anything, a trait that I never outgrew, and I really didn't admire the girls who took their power for granted.

 My father, who had also attended the same high school (but I don't think the haircut hazing was in effect there in the late 1940s and early 1950s), was wise in that he knew the activity could lead to unintended and perhaps even tragic consequences. So when my younger-by-six-years brother was an incoming freshman, my father laid down the law: if my brother wanted to have his hair cut by a bunch of marauding senior boys, fine, but the seniors would have to come to our house to do the deed. And so they did, chasing my brother across our property before holding him down for the haircut. The usual plan was to cut part of the hair and leave some of the hair, creating a mohawk or other lopsided design.

There is always an element of meanness to such activities even when done in a so-called spirit of camaraderie, and some of those hazed are going to be treated more roughly than others. Conversely, if you were so beneath contempt that you weren't included in the hazing, that marked you as a loser, too.

Hazing sends a message of power and powerlessness. That's what bullying does, too, and the effects can be lasting. I still remember the names of boys in my class and a grade or two above me who were bullies. I suspect that they are still blustery and bullying types though I hope they are nicer adults than they were teenagers. I also remember the names of the boys who were often the recipients of the bullying, and I hope that their experiences in the small-minded atmosphere of our school have not affected them unduly as adults. But I bet they still remember those bullies' names, too.

When I first read the story of Mitt Romney's leading a group of prep school boys in cutting the hair of a 'nonconformist' classmate, all those high-school memories returned. I certainly believe that our high-school selves reveal something about the person we are to become, but I also believe that people can change. If the hair-cutting incident was an isolated event, then I would just mark it up to the kind of stupid act anyone could do and later regret. We've all done things we regret. And, I, for one, have not forgotten those actions I've regretted.

Mitt Romney, however, whose classmates remember his teasing another "closeted gay student," yelling "Atta girl" when the kid spoke up in class, remembers nothing of these events that other classmates remember well.

Does it matter?

What matters to me is what the man has become, and there is enough to trouble me in the adult Romney than to be worried unduly by the prep school Romney.

What I do know is that if a couple of the guys whom I remember as bullies in high school were running for office, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for them--yeah, thirty-eight years later, the memories retain a residue of bitterness that would require quite a bit of persuasion to overcome.

Reasons not to Vote Republican, Part 2b: Refusing to Disavow Conspiracy Theories

Reason #2b: Refusing to Disavow Paranoia and Conspiracy Theories

I'm going to follow through with my plan to write several posts on why not to vote Republican in 2012 (which translates to why I'm not going to vote Republican, because--haven't you read your neuropsychology?--whose mind am I going to change) although I already feel as if I've fallen down a rabbit hole. But these are the rational posts I'm going to cling to as the Crazy Season hits hurricane force before the election. 

I can't think of a single mainstream Democrat who publicly supported the crazy conspiracy on the far left that President George W. Bush and the American government destroyed the Twin Towers, but I don't have enough fingers to count the mainstream Republicans who have publicly supported the Birthers or who have remained silent in the presence of others who publicly support the Birthers. That anyone believes that Barack Obama's birth certificate is a forgery is a mystery to me, for that belief requires all kinds of mental contortions. Do people really believe that one political party would allow a member of the other political party to become president if that president-elect were not a natural born citizen? Geez.  I personally know people who believe the Birthers, who think that Barack Obama is president illegitimately. (Where were these people when the Supreme Court ordered that the vote recounting be stopped in Florida in 2000? Oh, and by the way, the loser in that election supported the right of George W. Bush to be accepted as president.)

But, hey, refusing to disavow the crazy birthers helps Republicans in the polls. Donald Trump received a bump in the polls when he stepped aboard the Birther Train. In February 2011:

Fifty-one percent of 400 Republican primary voters surveyed nationwide by Public Policy Polling said they ascribe to the controversial birther conspiracy theory — despite the fact that the state of Hawaii has posted Obama’s certificate of live birth.

 Only 28 percent said they think the president was born in the United States — a constitutional requirement to be president. Twenty-one percent said they were “not sure." (Politico, "Poll: 51 percent of GOP primary voters think Obama born abroad.")

In April of last year, the new Republican National Committee chairman, Reince Priebus, was reported in an interview with U. S. News and World Report to repudiate the birthers and their crazy conspiracy, but later, Priebus tweeted that he never said that. As Sahil Kapur states in a blog post on the topic ("RNC chairman denies he ever repudiated 'birthers'"): "[t]hat Priebus felt the need to back away from what US News & World Report depicted as nothing more than a clear repudiation of the birthers is a testament to the influence that the fervent conspiracy theorists have in mainstream Republican circles."

Overlapping the birther crazies are the Obama-should-be-impeached-for-treason crazies and Obama-is-a-Muslim crazies. Mitt Romney is being compared to John McCain because of an incident that happened at a town hall meeting near Cleveland, Ohio, this week.  A woman who stood to ask Romney a question said that Obama "should be tried for treason," for which comment she received a round of applause from the audience. In a similar situation in the last presidential primary, when a woman at a town hall meeting said that she didn't trust Barack Obama because he was "an Arab," John McCain denied her claim civilly, saying that Obama was a "decent family man, citizen." But the current Republican presidential candidate let stand with no comment a claim that our president is "treasonous"--until much later, away from the crazies, when he was questioned by reporters.

Mainstream Republicans are acting in rational self-interest, of course, by not repudiating birtherism and other crazy shit conspiracy theories that have sprung up to try to deny our first black president's right to the office. Those of us who remember the Clinton years remember how well conspiracy theories rallied the far-right base then. But, really, if mainstream Republicans repudiated the conspiracy theories of the far right, would those voters vote the Democratic ticket? Of course not. But they might stay home and stew in their conspiracy juices and not vote at all. 

This is personal for me. Although I am no longer on the crazy list for forwarded political e-mails, I am just tired of hearing people I know spout this stuff. Thank you, Reince and all you other otherwise rational Republicans, for helping destroy whatever respect I once had for some of those I love. But even more importantly, now that you've gotten in bed with conspiracy theorists, you're going to have a difficult time kicking them out of the bedroom if you win the presidential election in 2012. What will you concede to then for their support?

Sick of Politics

In mid-September, my husband and I left for a two-week vacation, with Nova Scotia as our end destination. It was a great trip, in which we saw fossils of ancient trees in the cliffs near Joggins and the Bay of Fundy, watched humpback whales and porpoises up close, drove foggy roads along the Bay of Fundy, hiked in the rain, and viewed the land that my original Acadian ancestor farmed. What would my life be like now, I wondered, if the British hadn't ethnically cleansed the Annapolis Valley and the shores of the Bay of Fundy of French Acadians? What if Abraham Dugas' grandsons had remained instead of finding refuge in the swamps of Louisiana and then, later, the marshes of Anahuac and the Old and Lost Rivers of southeast Texas (where "Dugas" became "Dugat")? What would it be like to be Canadian now instead of American?

During our trip, I tried to stay away from the internet and the nastiness of our political discourse, but then one morning, a Canadian asked us at breakfast a question about our politics, and soon other people at the bed and breakfast were voicing their opinions, especially an ex-patriate from West Texas who had married a Canadian. Our hosts, however, were visibly silent; they were trying to sell their bed and breakfast so that they could spend their winters in Florida and their summers in Nova Scotia, untroubled by testy customers who wanted better views.

I was sick of politics. I just wanted a better view, not from my window but from my heart, a better view of humanity. History was not the place to find it, however. Abraham Dugas had never been compensated for the land confiscated to build a fort at what was then known as Annapolis Royal; his grandchildren were deprived of their cattle, the farmland they had improved, and their homes were burned; his descendants were transported to British colonies where many had to beg and where their daughters were taken away to work in the big houses of Protestants, where their language and their Catholicism were scorned.

Just the politics of kings: the strong taking from the weak. But how is that different from today?

It was the greediness of Wall Street--of banks and CEOs of corporations and financiers and politicians-- that brought our economy and the economy of the world to the brink of disaster, yet corporations continue to profit while laying off workers, politicians continue to cut deals, the banks are bigger, the CEOs who led those bloated financial institutions are not in jail but making more money than ever. So that's not the smoke of burning homes in the distance or of people loaded into ships with only the belongings they can carry, but, really, how different is it?

Mitt Romney can run for the highest office in the land of a democratic republic and tell voters that foreclosures should just be allowed to run their course. So what that people lost their jobs because Wall Street sold toxic derivatives and over-leveraged. So what that those people now can't keep up with their mortgages while looking for other jobs. Let those with money buy up those homes at rock-bottom prices and rent them out.  In other words, let the rich make more money off the losses and grief of the working and middle class. That's Romney's message to the people.

Or how about making federal employees scape goats for the economy? Mitt Romney, whom it is estimated to be worth up to $250 million, shows up at a steel fabrication plant, dressed in jeans and a plaid work shirt,  and tells the workers that government employees are "making a lot more money than we are." I'm married to a government employee, and, with a Ph.d., he still makes less as a government employee than he did working for a private non-profit and less (counting inflation) than he did working for a corporation over ten years ago. I bet you he makes less than some of those working in the steel fabrication plant.

Who does Mitt Romney think he's fooling? This is a man who made his fortune buying sinking corporations, laying off the workers, and re-selling what remained. And he's likely to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

What a joke. On us. The middle-class, the working class.

 Our houses are burning, our wealth confiscated, our voices silenced in a sea of political bullshit.