politics

Pre-Election Rant-A-Day 6: The Spin Cycle

/ J. Thorp / 2 Comments

Blogger’s Note: Been too good a day today for much of a rant. But for consistency’s sake…

I got another mailing from a candidate today, and two voicemails. Same thing as yesterday, basically. Yesterday was this: a political mailing featuring a lovely smiling woman who received an A from the NRA, and a frowning, shouting woman who received an F from the NRA. Brendan saw it, and was amused when I pointed out that, apparently, beautiful happy people support gun rights, and ugly mean people don’t.

Bren looked at the two photos and quickly added, “Plus, if you don’t support gun rights, you’re black and white.”

We live in a solidly Republican district. Bachmann’s district. Emmer’s district. So yesterday we also got a mailing from our perennial Democratic candidate for state Senate. Interesting: She was pictured in blaze orange, shooting a pump shotgun. She highlighted her high school, including the word “Archbishop” in big bold letters. And nowhere did it mention that she’s a Democrat.

Photoshop and soundbites, instead of clarity and ideas. This stuff must work on some voters, but I’ve done PR and marketing work. These days, the spin makes me nauseous.

Pre-Election Rant-A-Day 5: Stop Yelling and Say Something!

/ J. Thorp / 1 Comment

Blogger’s Note: The Rant-A-Day blitzkrieg continues. Check the past few days to see what’s got me going.

I have a hard time voting. I love the concept. I love the sense of civic duty, the solemnity of the retiree election judges. I love having voted, and watching the returns roll in. But I’m a visceral guy — I trust my gut, and it doesn’t respond well to well-oiled answers and million-dollar smiles. So the voting booth often feels like a trap.

If you’ve been reading these rants, you may be thinking that I lean to the right, politically speaking. That’s true enough — although I voted for candidates from four different political parties in the 2008 election, I’m getting progressively more conservative (see what I did there?). My good friend Jinglebob, whose Dennis Ranch blog is to the right of here (literally and politically), once told me, “If you’re not liberal when you’re young, you’ve got no passion…and if you’re not conservative when you get older, you’ve got no sense.”

Not long after that, another friend described me as an “old soul.” There you have it. Storm’s comin’…feel it in my knees…

So yeah, I lean right. The only thing that keeps me from tipping over completely is that it seems like too many Republicans have forgotten that there is a conservative intellectual tradition* that is deeper than the handful of talking points they’ve memorized, and actually could be employed to change minds and solve problems. (Yes, that’s right: you can be a conservative intellectual; they just don’t give you a talk show.) The folks on the Left like to describe the Democrats as the Party of Ideas and the Republicans as the Party of No. I think they’re half right on both counts — I see the two as the Party of Bad Ideas and the Party of No Ideas. I often disagree with our Democratic candidates’ approach to issues, but the Republicans rarely get specific enough for me to make an informed judgment about their approach.

I guess I’m supposed to trust that we’re like-minded, provided the candidates are minded at all.

And this year in Minnesota, politicians and newspapers of all stripes are endorsing the Independence Party candidate, who, according to the Dems, is a once and future Republican in disguise, and according to the Republicans, is only Right relatively speaking, insofar as he is right of the Left. He seems completely rational, has a balanced approach to every issue, and appears to be personally principled and professionally pragmatic. Perfectly positioned to appeal to the thinking public.

I can’t stand that: Where do you stand, sir? Right here in the middle. What’s your opinion? Well, I can see both sides. We should do this AND that.

Peachy. Except everybody can’t be right and everybody can’t win all the time. Too much compromise is the same as “It’s all good.”

Where are the lines you won’t cross?

I am a conservative, and a Christian, but not a “Christian Conservative” as it is popularly understood. I am a Catholic, but what does that mean, come Election Day? Does it make me a “one-issue” voter? I suppose it would, if I were a one-issue Catholic. What most people — many Catholics, even — don’t understand or have forgotten is that the Catholic Church also has a rich intellectual tradition, rooted in philosophy, and history, and (dare I say?) science — a tradition that, once understood, suggests new ways of thinking, new solutions to problems, and even new responsibilities for believers, both in their public and private lives.** We like to wear our various faiths like badges of honor, and point to those on the outside as the problem — but in truth, our beliefs make demands primarily of us. And the same holds true of the candidates.

My point? It’s easy to spout off. The donkeys bray; the elephants trumpet; and no one moves an inch. I lean right, and further every day, but my vote’s not guaranteed. I do my homework as best I can. I’ll vote third-party to have a clear conscience.

So stop shouting — I can hear you even with my hearing aid turned down. I know what you’re saying. Now tell me what you’re thinking. AR-TIC-U-LATE something. Let me in on the plan. If you need my vote, convince me. And if you don’t need me, stop junking up my mailbox with oversize postcards that say the same thing as last week.

Now get off my lawn.

—

* As a teen, I lived 5 miles or so from a big old mansion in the tiny village of Mecosta, Michigan. Rumor was that an eccentic old writer lived in that house. When Jodi and I bought our first house in Mecosta after we married, we lived just a few blocks from the mansion, and the old writer’s widow invited us to dinner. Russell Kirk: Father of American conservatism, with a little Gothic fiction on the side. And I left town and went to Yale…

** Kirk was Catholic.

Pre-Election Rant-A-Day 4: Who Will Take Care Of Us?

/ J. Thorp / 2 Comments

Blogger’s Note: The “Rant-A-Day” format enables all the cluttered, curmudgeonly, pre-election grumbling in my head to come out in a more-or-less orderly fashion. You can look at the past few posts if you want to see from whence this came.

I thought about answering the title question with, “We will!” and calling it a night, but that didn’t seem to qualify as a rant. So here’s tonight’s attempt…

In the early days of the recent global economic meltdown, when the news was all about subprime mortgages and ripple effect of the collapsing housing market, a friend said, “It really makes you wonder…people are losing their homes, now their jobs. Isn’t that what government’s supposed to do — protect us from stuff like this?”

I sympathize with the idea that the government could perhaps have done more. I think it’s crazy that banks could write loans that the borrowers had almost no chance of ever paying off, and even crazier that companies can bundle things like (forgive me if I’ve completely misunderstood, but even my misunderstanding underscores the problem) possible future earnings, then buy and sell those bundles like they represent something that actually exists. But we are people, after all: crazy ideas are our specialty.

On the flip side: we are also adults (well, most of us), and we have a responsibility to be informed consumers and cautious in our business dealings. I’m sure many people in the housing collapse were victims, taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders — but I’m sure many others willfully distorted their ability to pay in order to secure a bigger loan. I’m sure some didn’t take the time to understand their mortgages, some were naively optimistic, and some just signed where they said sign. Government can put up guardrails and warning signs, or even patrol the edge of the cliff — but what if we chose to ignore them? What if we jump?

Who will take care of us?

I was in a meeting not long ago in which a colleague I don’t really know except by sight was pontificating about the need for higher-paid employees like her (and especially like her bosses) needed to give some of their salary back to protect lower-paid employees from potential pay cuts. She suggested that all who made more than $XX,000 per year should take a deeper cut in pay so that “less fortunate” workers — those who made less than $XX,000 could afford to buy groceries and pay for childcare. “They need our help!” she opined, accusing the administration of not caring about “social justice” and imploring her colleagues to help her take care of us — to act for the greater good.

For whose greater good? I thought. She likely didn’t know she was talking about me — the “working class” were generally underrepresented in the meeting — but I was struck by the paternalism in her remarks and the condescension in her tone. I wanted to stand and say, “Do I look like a victim to you?” — to explain that my wife and I are doing fine raising four kids on my salary, thankyouverymuch, and if we need someone’s help, we’ll ask. I wanted to ask her why it is that in my church, the lower-income parishioners are more likely to give, and give more, than the wealthy. I wanted to say I’d rather go hungry than have her define my “greater good.”

I don’t want to outsource my better life. I don’t want someone to take care of me and my family. Events like the economic collapse or the attacks on 9/11 can shake us to our very core because they effect us profoundly, yet seem so far beyond our control. But why, when these things happen and we wonder who will take care of us, would we cede what little control we have and trust unknown others to act on our behalf?

The government should absolutely make and enforce laws that protect our inheritance — life, liberty, and opportunity — and prosecute wrongdoing when and where it happens. But beyond that, it should expect us to act in our best interests, individually and as a society; it should step aside, and watch us reach out to our neighbors to raise them up, too. The “privileged,” if they want to be of use, should actually lend a hand, firsthand — if a colleague is struggling to get by, see what you can do to help. Throwing money at a problem is easy and feels good, but the last thing we need is a bunch MORE like-minded people with money and influence pooling their resources because they’ve decided they know what’s best for us.

General Douglas MacArthur once said, “There is no security on this earth; there is only opportunity.” There are no guarantees; only possibilities. Who will take care of us? We will. We are not victims.

Pre-Election Rant-A-Day 3: The Wrong Kind of Better

/ J. Thorp / Leave a comment

Blogger’s Note: I’ve had a terribly long and curmudgeonly blog post brewing in my head for months, and no time to write it. So I’ve settled on the “Rant-A-Day” format. The first Pre-Election Rant-A-Day is here. Number two is here. To recap: “It’s All Good” (aka “Go Along to Get Along”) kills democracy, and you can’t legislate happiness. Okay. Where are we today?

“[It’s] The Economy, Stupid.”
— James Carville

These rants began to take shape in my head a few months ago or so, after I posted a status to my Facebook page that got people talking. From August 11 at 8:31 a.m.: Jim Thorp wonders: If parents today feel as though, for the first time, their children may not have a better life than they had — maybe we’ve been seeking the wrong sort of “better” all along?”

What is this better we’ve been after? In my day-job, I write a great deal about economic growth and quality of life and human capital, and to a point, I believe we need to turn the economy around, lift folks out of poverty, and generally make life better for everyone. I mean, it sounds good. It makes sense. So why does my heart rebel?

Maybe it’s because, deep down, I agree with this guy (any excuse to use this clip; I picked this version on this site because the site was obscenity-free). In case you choose not to watch a very funny video clip (or in case they pull it at some point), permit me to quote: “When I read things like, ‘The foundations of capitalism are shattering,’ I’m like, maybe we need that, maybe we need some time where we’re walking around with a donkey with clanging on the sides…because everything is amazing right now, and nobody’s happy.”

We could use some perspective. We could count a blessing or two, and be content.

I’ve talked with my parents about their childhoods, and I know I am a generation removed from poverty. I’ve talked with friends who can’t find work — I know that edge is closer than we think. I also know my solidly middle-class five-figure salary puts me in the top quarter of earners in the U.S., and way ahead of most of the rest of the world. I know people making 10 times what I make, raising half as many kids, who look at me and shake their heads: poor stiff. I also know how comfortable our existence is. We’ve got too many bills, but we’re paying them. I’m in debt to my ears, for a modest house, yes, that has lost much of its value — but also for a million little things I used to think we needed so my kids could have a so-called better life. I know that if my family finances collapse because of reckless spending, it’s my own fault, and I know with each minivan load of stuff that goes to the church garage sale, or friends with new babies, or Goodwill, our lives improve, if for no other reason than we’re letting go. Even the kids are happier. They don’t miss it.

I remember when I got accepted to Yale — what a burden it was at first, to think that thousands of other students were trying to get in, and I applied almost on a dare, and got in. I didn’t even know if I wanted to go — I’d never thought seriously about it — and now I had the golden ticket. Leave Remus, Michigan, for a school of presidents.

I was scared.

I remember my dad pulling me aside after a day or so, and saying, “I just want you to know, you don’t have to go to Yale if you don’t want to. You don’t have to go to college at all. If you decide you want to stay here and work in the shop, that’s fine with me. Whatever you do, I just want you to be happy.”

Sure he wanted a better life for me, but that wasn’t measured in dollars or degrees. He had already given me a better life by being home for dinner, pulling me out of school to take me hunting and fishing, insisting that I work hard and well and contribute to the family, not drinking or smoking, and teaching me to say I love you (and even to cry like a man, on occasion). He sacrificed for his family. He gave me more than he got as a kid, but it wasn’t more stuff. It was more of himself.

My fellow freshmen at Yale thought I was nuts when I said I wanted to be a high-school biology teacher. They rolled their eyes when I shrugged and said I came East for an education, not a job. (Hear that? That’s the sound of a squeaking halo.) They were incredulous when I came back from Wall Drug engaged.

We used to want these things: to serve others, to better ourselves, to love and be loved. Financial independence used to mean “owe nothing to any man,” as St. Paul said his letter to the Romans; now it means a strong credit score and purchasing power.

On the radio yesterday, a prospective voter wondered aloud why his legislative candidates were obsessing over which president, Bush or Obama, was to blame for the economy, while Americans are dying in two wars. Where in this economic engine (and myriad other car analogies) do we, as people, live and move and have our being?

It’s not the economy. It never was. The economic collapse is a symptom of a world so suffering-averse that it would rather sell out its children than sacrifice its lifestyle.

We vote our pocketbooks and consume ourselves.

Pre-Election Rant-A-Day 2: The Pursuit of Happiness

/ J. Thorp / Leave a comment

Blogger’s Note: I’ve been absent a long time, partly because I’ve been crazy busy this fall, and partly because I’ve had a terribly long and curmudgeonly blog post brewing in my head for months, and no time to write it. So I’ve settled on the “Rant-A-Day” format. My intention is to post a portion of the aforementioned terribly long and curmudgeonly blog post, in rant form, each day until the election, at which point (hopefully) they amount to something. The first Pre-Election Rant-A-Day is here.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

— The Declaration of Independence

Notice that the Founding Fathers didn’t simply say happiness, but the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not a right. Happiness is not something the government can secure and guarantee for its citizens, because A) many of us have vastly different and very personal definitions of the word, and B) true happiness requires hard internal work.

No, we are not guaranteed happiness, only the pursuit of it — the opportunity to run it down, grasp it with both hands, and hold on to it if we can. Opportunity makes sense as an inalienable right — in fact, you might consider those first two inalienable rights as the necessary components for the third:

Life + Liberty = Opportunity

In other words (broadly speaking), if you are alive and free to act according to your own inclinations, you have opportunity — including the opportunity to define happiness for yourself and pursue it. Whether or not you actually achieve happiness depends primarily on your definition of happiness and the effort you put into it.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple. “Life,” for example, might be taken from you altogether, or complicated by physical, mental, or emotional circumstances that limit the opportunities available to you. And personal liberty must necessarily be limited at the point that it begins to infringe on the liberty of others. As a result, the opportunities available to pursue happiness may differ from person to person. In some cases, this will appear not to be fair.

“It’s not fair.” Three MORE insidious words that could be our downfall.

Harkening back to yesterday’s rant: if I can’t take credit for the blessings I was given as a boy (a cohesive family, a rural middle-class upbringing, and a solid education) because these things came about more or less independently of me &#151 or if the criminal in jail cannot be held responsible for his broken home, bad neighborhood, etc. &#151 then both he and I are left with our choices. How did we play the hand we were dealt?

Maybe life isn’t fair, insofar as we can’t all be right, all win the race, all have exactly the same opportunities and likelihood of success. But we are all free to make the best of what we’re given. What else is there? None of us knows what tomorrow holds. How can we ensure happiness for all &#151 or make anyone happy &#151 other than giving people a chance to stand on their own two feet? To fall and fall and rise again?

The pursuit is ours &#151 the race is ours to run &#151 which is why, when French students shut down a city to protest changes to an entitlement they haven’t earned, I thank God I live here and not there…until I hear the chants outside: We demand more jobs for more people with better pay and higher benefits, but don’t raise revenue and don’t cut costs or services. More accountability. Less administration. No one should struggle. No one should prosper.

Bulldoze the mountains to fill the valleys. How’s the view now?

Life, liberty, and opportunity. This is our inheritance. We should settle for nothing less, but we are entitled to nothing more, unless we earn it. Booker T. Washington once said, “Few things help an individual more than to place responsibility upon him and to let him know that you trust him.” Did you catch that? Responsibility is a self-affirming, confidence-boosting gift. It’s the optimistic expectation that you’ll take what you’ve been given and make something of it. It’s forward-looking, hopeful &#151 and in a free society, fair.

Blogger’s Post-Script: This is not to say that we should not lift up those around us who need a hand &#151 but that is another rant entirely.