I know the system is close to broken. We’ve been subjected to negative ads because candidates believe–unfortunately, with much justification–that they cannot be elected unless they “define” their opponents. Districts have been gerrymandered. In Indiana, Republicans have worked to make it more difficult for people–especially poor people–to cast a vote. There are numerous flaws we can point to–or use as an excuse not to participate.
If we use those flaws as an excuse, however, we’re complicit. We’ll never fix what’s broken unless we participate in the political system, and the absolute minimum participation is through exercise of our franchise.
He traced the social change that has elevated “capable, hardworking, high IQ” people into positions of power and authority–the quintessentially American belief in rewarding talent rather than social class–and he notes that it is precisely these “high IQ” people, at least in the financial arena, who have taken us off the economic cliff. He attributes the problem to “pride”–the belief entertained by many successful “self-made” people that they are invincible, that the rules that apply to others don’t really apply to them.
Douthat says that the rest of us have responded to that arrogance by embracing ignorance. (Hint: this is probably not a good idea.) And he attributes the current Republican primary field to that rejection of meritorious arrogance. He says the field can be attributed to “a revolt against the ruling class that our meritocracy has forged, and a search for outsiders with thinner resumes but better instincts.”
As Douthout points out, it won’t do America any good to “replace the arrogant with the ignorant, the overconfident with the incompetent.”
It may be time to redefine “merit” to include self-awareness, and to recognize that “intelligence” is more than IQ points. A bit of humility is the beginning of wisdom–and what America desperately needs right now is less self-assurance and bluster, and a lot more wisdom.
Many years ago, when Chicago’s Second City was the source of then-scandalous satire, I attended a performance. This was during the Cold War (I’m old), and I still recall one skit titled “Kill a Commie for Christ”–a take-off on a widespread attitude of the times.
The more things change….Well, you know the rest of that saying.
In the Great State of Michigan, the state legislature has passed what one State Senator has condemned as the “License to Bully” bill.
The fact that school kids get bullied every day in our nation’s schools and elsewhere–and that gay youngsters are by far the most frequent target–is well-known. Over the past decade, the courts have ruled that the all-too-common “boys will be boys” dismissal of such behavior by school administrators will subject their schools to liability, and many state legislators have introduced bills to clarify the schools’ obligations to provide a safe environment for all students.
In the Michigan State Senate, the GOP amended a bill that would both have prohibited bullying and provided school districts with tools to combat it. They stripped out reporting and similar requirements, and provided an exception for bullying “based upon moral convictions.”
One appalled Senator described the language as providing a “roadmap” for bullying.
This too-clever-by-half strategy was clearly aimed at allowing the continued torment of gay children, but it’s hard not to wonder how these “moral” legislators would feel about children who suddenly demonstrated a “moral conviction” that their Christian schoolmates were evil. (As one of two Jewish students in my elementary school, I know what it’s like to be surrounded by Christian children whose parents had instilled in them a “moral conviction” that I had personally killed Christ.)
It’s obviously very difficult for mean-spirited people who are in the majority to comprehend that the tables might turn when they are no longer dominant. It is evidently impossible for such people to demonstrate empathy or compassion for anyone who doesn’t belong to their own cramped moral universe.
I have officially become one of those cranky old people who bemoan the passage of the “good old days.” Which is sad, since the good old days weren’t all that good.
Most of all, I miss the Republican Party I was a part of–a party that didn’t have an embarrassing slate of kooks for Presidential candidates, a party that had a platform rather than a religiously-held extremist ideology. It was genuinely pro-business, pro-family and pro-good-government.
How times–and definitions–have changed!
In Congress, the GOP has again defeated President Obama’s proposal to create jobs by repairing America’s deteriorating infrastructure. The party I used to belong to would have sponsored such a measure. Indiana’s two Senators participated in the Senate filibuster–something I would have expected of Dan Coats, but that constitutes one more shameful effort by Dick Lugar to ingratiate himself with the crazies who detest him for the sin of previously being thoughtful. But the GOP did offer an alternative to the President’s bill–they reaffirmed that America’s national motto is “In God We Trust.” Not that anyone had suggested otherwise.
A pro-business party understands that economic prosperity depends upon the creation of jobs that allow people to purchase goods from businesses. Whether they trust God or not, most businesses depend upon a well-maintained infrastructure, and a calm social order. Republicans used to understand that.
They also used to understand that responsible economic policies were the best way to be “pro family.” Today, we have the embarrassing spectacle of Rep. Joe Walsh, first-term Tea Partier, getting a “Pro Family” award from the Family Research Council, despite the fact that he owes over 100,000 in back child support for his own children. But he was “pro family” because he voted to repeal healthcare, defund Planned Parenthood and uphold DOMA. Words fail.
Good government? When I was in City Hall, in a Republican Administration, the party put a premium on professionalism and careful analysis. The people I worked with would never have been guilty of the gross incompetence that led to the Litebox blunder. They would never have relinquished control of the city’s parking infrastructure for 50 years, in order to enrich a well-connected vendor at taxpayer expense. (And the Mayor I worked for–who really wasn’t a “politician”- would never have stooped to accusing an opponent of responsibility for an increase in rapes that occurred during the time she served as Deputy Mayor for Economic Development.)
There was plenty wrong when I was politically active. The administration I served was far from perfect, and Republican politicians weren’t saints. But next to what we have today, they sure look good. I miss them–and America desperately needs them back.
I’ve made no secret of my opinion that Greg Ballard has been an unfortunate mayor–a nice enough guy who assumed office mostly because the incumbent ran a terrible campaign, and whose total lack of background and understanding of what the job requires has allowed him to be “managed” by insiders who’ve been making out like bandits.
He may win re-election (although I wouldn’t bet any real money on that possibility), but I have to wonder about his campaign’s decision to hit Melina Kennedy for decisions made by Bart Peterson. I’ve seen several ads now that essentially say “When she was Deputy Mayor, X happened and X was bad. She was responsible for X. Vote Ballard.”
Granted, in the Ballard Administration the current Deputy Mayor (who actually can define “urban” and “governance”) has been the prime mover of policy, but in most administrations, Deputy Mayors take their marching orders from the guy who won the election. They may be consulted–especially in matters where they have expertise–but they certainly don’t set policy.When I was in City Hall, the two Deputy Mayors disagreed with decisions made by the Mayor on several occasions. They communicated their opinions to the Mayor, and (appropriately) supported his policies publicly.
Deputy Mayors are assigned specific areas and tasked with implementing policy in those areas. If they do a poor job, it is certainly fair to criticize that performance, but trying to blame them for things their boss decided–or worse, for things that “happened” while their boss was in office, as they do in one of these commercials–is just silly.
Wouldn’t you expect that the people airing these campaign ads know that? Wouldn’t you think they’d expect voters to understand it?
Obviously, the folks doing Ballard’s ads don’t think we know that. They also don’t think we understand that tax rates–which Ballard’s ads tell us have “gone down during the Ballard Administration”–are determined by the Indiana General Assembly, and not by the Mayor, who deserves neither praise nor blame for the coincidence.
Granted, I am biased in this race, and further granted, I follow all these issues for a living and as a result, I’m probably more familiar with the way government works than most folks. But I find it difficult to believe that most voters don’t understand who calls the shots in an administration, and I find these ads offensive–not because they are negative (both candidates have run very negative ads), but because they assume that we voters are too stupid to know who does what.
Maybe they’re right. In which case, we are really in trouble.
