The GOP Assault on Social Security!

Republicans want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social safety net programs. 

What's Going On Here?

We are in one of the most exciting times in the history of our nation regarding Social Security and other social programs. We are back to a very blunt difference between the two parties. These differences are more divided than we have seen in generations. 

Trump who vowed on the campaign trail not to cut these programs has joined forces with the GOP  traditionalist by proposing significant cuts to social security, Medicaid and Medicare. All of these programs contribute to retirement security or disability security of people who receive social security. 

For example, Medicaid pays 65% of all nursing home cost.[See Source]  Social safety net programs are vital for our nation's seniors many who are poor. Besides, these cuts we have Trump falling in line with the standard GOP assault on retirement security and the security of disabled people. The exact opposite position he took while running for office.

6 Times Donald Trump Promised Not to Cut Medicare

OnThe Flip Side

Now we have something going on we haven't seen in a generation. Which are appropriate hearings in the House, in this case, a Social Security Subcommittee on expanding Social Security? There are a couple of proposals to do that, and the recent hearings were on representative John Larson's (D-CT) proposal to extend social security benefits. Now it's not the most left of the recommendations out there, but it has enormous support, and it does increase benefits.[See Source]

Its got more than 200 co-sponsors meaning it's well on the way to passage before it even gets put up for a vote. The recent hearings to this writer say as much as anything else the crossing of a symbolic barrier. Because as far as the House of Public Discourse knows it hasn't been since Social Security expanded in several ways in the 1950s that we've had the House of Representatives holding serious hearings about expanding Social Security.[See Source]

Dwight D. Eisenhower

In the 1950s, Social Security was very much part of the political landscape. At the time, President Eisenhower a Republican boasting in 1956 in the Republican Party platform that Social Security benefits should expand or increase to ten million people. [See Source]  So what you had was a consensus in support of expanding the program. What our research has discovered is a majority consensus again in favor of expanding Social Security. 

What About Medicare and Medicaid?

In the case of Medicare for all its support for it has almost become an affirmation of moral values for a society. Also, the aid of a specific policy because of it words like access are words that some of us have come to view with particular concern and healthy skepticism. 

Access to something you can't afford for example isn't accessing at all. " We the People" can debate the specifics of the " Medicare for All" bill put together by representatives; however, in the House of Public Discourse, we think it's excellent and compelling.

But the underlying values behind it are that its costs should not be a factor in getting the medical care you need that medical care is a right. In the same fashion, people are now saying it is a shame when someone dies because they feel they can't afford a  co-payment for prescribed medicines they need to control a severe illness. 

Trump wants to cut administrative budgets.

In doing so, whenever someone who is on Disability case is challenged or upon appeal, there will not be enough personnel to prosecute the claims. People could have their benefits cut off, and it is another way and draconian one 1984 way of demonizing the people who these benefits are supposed to be here when we need them. 

Just another way for Republicans including Trump to depreciate people who do need this help and make them seem like the other. Isn't it comical that the Republicans have always complained about intrusive government want to impose such a kind of police state activity on our own lives?

Bernie Sanders DESTROYS Trump's 2020 Budget

Written By: Johnny Hill

The Tea Party Has Sucked The "Soul Out Of The GOP"

The Tea Party Has Sucked The Soul Out Of The GOP!

The Tea Party has a major hold on the Republican Party. Let’s take a moment to close our eyes and think of a cigar smoke-filled room in a local Georgetown bar. The time is early November in the year 2008. Inside this room are some of the most influential members of the Republican Party with many of their deep-pocketed supporters. Then comes the historic proclamation for the first time in the history of these United States: a person of color by the name of Barack Obama is declared the winner of the presidential election. What happens next has been widely reported and from the perfect vision of hindsight, the only word that was spoken was short and sweet and to the point, “Obstructionism”.

Regardless of its harmful effects, the Republicans, led by the radicalized Tea Party faction began what was a full-scale attempt to block every legislative initiative put forth by this President. Even if it were policies, that were at some time prior supported by the Republican Party. In short, if Obama was for it,  they were against it. Within this struggle, the main pushback from the GOP was over the Affordable Care Act, which at some point was coined Obamacare. To many,this was an offensive racial slur itself.

With the election of Barack Obama, we saw the emergence of a so-called grassroots movement known as the Tea Party. This group attack President Obama claiming he was not born in the USA. He was a Muslim. Obama was Hitler reincarnated. These Tea Party radicals claimed Obama was the " Anti-Christ."

Fast forward, the time is early November 2012. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land.  And, after much compromise and litigation to the highest court of the land, and, more importantly put to the people of this nation, Barack Obama was re-elected President of these United States. With the Republican party now being called the “party of ‘no,'” drastic action was in order. This point has not been widely reported, but many have suggested that these same aforementioned Republican adherents gathered once again. The order of the day from this gathering became very clear get rid of Obamacare or shut the government down.

Stupid Is As Stupid Votes Buy Here $43.99 Free Shipping

“Tea Party Republicans and their rich supporters have sucked the last bit of soul from the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln, turning them first delusional, then rabid, with the aid of conservative mouthpieces like Fox News and "multi-millionaire fabulous’" Rush Limbaugh."[Bill Moyers]

Moyers added:

“At least let's name this for what it is sabotage of the democratic process. Secession by another means, and let's be clear about where such reckless ambition leads. As surely as night must follow day, the alternative to democracy is worse. When the president refused to buckle to their extortion, they threw their tantrum. Like the die-hards of the racist South a century and a half ago, who would destroy the Union before giving up their slaves, so would these people burn the place down, sink the ship of state, and sow economic chaos to get their way.”

We heard all kinds of terms during the shutdown sabotage, hostage, terrorism, ransom, “gun held to our heads,” and yes, finally, sedition. However, there is one term that comes to this writers mind radicalization. First, what is radicalization? Radicalization simply means to make radical. The measures the extreme right took to defund Obamacare to the point of a government shutdown is the very essence of radicalization. To call what happened "Sedition" may fall a bit short, in that the keyword for there to be sedition is " A force." With that said, however, there has been a force not of violent radicalization least not yet but one of ideologically based violence. Ideologically Based Violence is the planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs. With many News outlets spewing misinformation and the onslaught of social media one of the chief concerns is that this type of ideology can bring one to violence and give birth to homegrown terrorist organizations that many have labeled the current Tea Party.

In keeping with Mr. Moyers’ sentiments. The Tea Party has “sucked the soul from the GOP,” everything I have written here and then some should give us pause to ask just what does that mean over and beyond shutting down the government. Many are concerned that this radicalization that we see that has mostly for now been more of the ideological nature. Evolve to a more violent radicalization that would empower homegrown terrorist groups. Who would, in fact, use violence and threat of violence, which does involve force that would then constitute sedition. Let’s all give the energy of thought that cooler heads will prevail and that we don’t see this type of behavior from our citizens.

Progressive Radio Host David Pakman Filed The Following Report One Year Ago.

Leave Your Authoritarianism At The Church House Please!

What is Authoritarianism? 

Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal. In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships posed the biggest threats to democracies, and eventually lost to them in wars both hot and cold. But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I,m going to present the case in this book that the greatest threat to American democracy today arises from a militant authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the nation.[See Source]  

Do you remember back in grade school when the teacher would leave the room and before she did she would ask who wants to take names? I remember hands going up left and right. These type people want to be a tyrant for just once in their lives. In a democracy, the only way we allow for tyrants is if we allow them. Moreover, if we follow them. Right Wing Authoritarian Follower---Is a condition in the human mind. This condition has been around as long as  man himself. The authoritarian follower conforms to the  perceived norms of the authority who has him under their control. 

To Bow Without Question Of One's Culture?

If you have been a person staying abreast of these issues or just learning of them now, please these people are real as real can get. 

Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and Conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both.Anyone who has watched or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice-versa)knows that opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound[See Source]

Authoritarian followers usually support the  established authorities in their  society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders." "Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
Customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians.

Robert  Altemeyer

So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have. Conservative political views. Instead, he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Right-wing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey

I think it fair to say the War Protester Hippies were right in their  protest, and their positions were held valid as well. The collective human voice made a difference.  The Nixon Crowd[Authoritarians] were calling these people radical protesters a bunch of " loud mouths" showing off their ignorance. The Ted Cruz Crowd [Tea Party] would have woman promise to obey their husband at the altar. Our country needs Ted Cruz, this mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy every sinful and liberal viewpoint which is ruining America. I can hear it already. 

Ted Cruz , Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else!

There is a never-ending search for the " Holy Grail." When do you follow man's law or GOD'S Law? How do you contain the noisy rabble-rousers who are trying to create doubt in people's minds? I will tell you this Atheist and others who have rebelled against organized religion are no doubt every bit as good virtuous as those who attend church regularly. 

In closing the first of many reports regarding this issue when put to study the only way this country can get through some of this drama brought on by the haphazard Republicans is not to do the Authoritarian Follower Way, which revisits the traditional bombs away mentality. And, more importantly, tries to silence the troublemakers telling WE THE PEOPLE what a BAD idea this return would be for America.Leave Your Authoritarianism At The Church House Please!

Don't Vote Don't Bitch, Why Americans Fail To Vote!

Two-Thirds Say Special Interests Control Elections.

 Why do so many registered voters in America fail to vote? In California, a survey was conducted by the California Voter Foundation.[CVF] In a statewide study attitudes on infrequent voters and citizens eligible but unregistered was undertaken. This study was one of the first to shed light on the voter apathy in America.

Voting Takes To Long And I Hate Standing In Long Lines.

Is it not ironic how people will camp overnight to buy a pair of Jordon's or a new IPhone but to exercise one right to vote is too cumbersome.  These same people will not wait 30 minutes to express their vote for prospective government leaders. Does it take to long to vote? What is too long? Based on the House of Public Discourse research into this question revealed this is more an excuse than a reality. [See Article ] 

Just Don't Have The Time.  

The CVF study found that 28% of  "once an awhile." voters and 23% of qualified unregistered voters  claimed they were just too busy to engage in the voting process. CVF President Kim Alexander elaborates,

Kim Alexander

“This tells us that many Californians may benefit from more information about the time-saving advantages of early voting and voting by absentee ballot,” Alexander said. Voter registration forms are available in post offices, libraries and DMV offices."[See Source]

Alexander went on to say that the finding of the CVF study could assist campaigns trying to reach sometimes and no-time voters alike. There is a national opinion that our political process has been overwhelmed by special interest. This perception right or wrong has led to a major barrier regarding voter turn-outs.

Moreover, many participants in this study expressed the view that politicians are corrupt and don't care or speak to their needs. What was a bit jolting for this writer is that these same groups of non-voters to the tune of 93% acknowledged that voting was important.

“Civic duty and self-expression provide strong incentives to get potential voters to the polls, despite pervasive cynicism about the influence of special interests,” said Alexander.

The report also indicated that a friend and more so family dictate and influenced  how many infrequent voters decide their choice.[See Article] Not the daily newspaper, cable news, or political ads.  The family indoctrination more than any other factor was a major reason in determining how a person votes to the tune of 68%. The CVF study also brought to light that door to door political campaigning had little to no effect on these non-voters. 51% of non-voters stated that they grew up in families where politics was seldom discussed. 

Non-Voters are young, single, less educated and likely to be of a minority.[See Source]

• 40% of non-voters are under the age of 30.
• Infrequent voters are much more likely to be married than nonvoters, with 50 percent of infrequent voters married compared to only 34 percent of nonvoters.
• 76% of nonvoters have less than a college degree, compared to 61 percent of infrequent voters and 50 percent of frequent voters.
• Among nonvoters, 54 percent are white or Caucasian compared to 60 percent of infrequent voters and 70 percent of frequent voters.

In closing, fresh off a historic low voter participation election in 2014. Where some agencies report 75% of registered Democratic voters failed to cast a ballot one who did vote could make a point, don't vote, don't bitch. When the Republican legislation starts to unravel Obamacare, and millions lose their health coverage don't bitch. When Republicans and the aforementioned special interest groups reduce welfare, and other social safety net programs don't bitch. When the vulture capitalist does away with regulatory safeguards to our environment don't bitch. When Republicans cut the taxes of the wealthy off the backs of the middle-class, don't bitch. When right-wing radical extremist Christian zealots dumb down our education by denying scientific facts don't bitch. When Republicans cut your medicare, and social security benefits don't bitch. When the right-wing military industrial complex pushes for wars around the globe and your son and daughters and grandchildren are killed and wounded by the thousands don't bitch. Lastly, when the Republican Party's economic policies drives this country back into the ditch bank, it was in the last time they held power if you did not vote which is  your only real  means of meaningful direct protest to these issues don't bitch. [Source: Johnny Hill, Author of House of Public Discourse]

The Christian Right Returns To Its Racist Past

The Religious Right Has Tried for Years To Lose Its Racist Image.

With the emergence of the Tea Party and its overtly racist attitudes, one can't help but be reminded of another so-called Christian organization the KKK. Over the years, the Christian Right has tried to wash itself clean from its racist past. In  his 1996 Book titled Active Faith, conservative Christian activist  Ralph Reed, Jr admitted that Christian conservatives had been on the wrong side of the civil rights movement.

“The white evangelical church carries a shameful legacy of racism and the historical baggage of indifference to the most central struggle for social justice in this century, a legacy that is only now being wiped clean by the sanctifying work of repentance and racial reconciliation,” [Ralph Reed,Jr] 

"Racial Reconciliation" has become a buzz word for the Christian Right. 

During the Bush, Jr years, factions of the anti-gay and anti-racism were co-mingled in a weird way. In 2006, at the Greater Exodus Baptist Church.  An African-American church in Philadelphia leaders of the religious right invoked the words of Martin Luther King, Jr and Rosa Parks on behalf of gay-marriage bans and Bush judicial nominees.[See Article] All this played into the Bush compassionate conservative narrative that he ran on in 2000. According to an article in Progressive Values. Org what a difference an election makes.

'Even if you believed that compassionate conservatism was always a bit of a con, it’s amazing to see how quickly it has vanished, and how fast an older style of reaction, one more explicitly rooted in racial grievance, has reasserted itself.'

"Today’s grassroots right is by all appearances as socially conservative as ever, but its tone and its rhetoric are profoundly different than they were even a year ago. For the last 15 years, the right-wing populism has been substantially electrified by sexual anxiety. Now it’s charged with racial anxiety."

 No sooner than Democrats took office the anti-government, and religious right screwballs began their demagoguery. However, with the recent explosion of GOP sex scandals and other scandals the right has had to take a break from their incessant moralizing. To compensate, we have seen the right-wing politicians and pundits, and their media echo chambers shift gears to a relatively new term, " Producerism."

What is Producerism?

According to the article, 

"Producerism sees society as divided between productive workers — laborers, small businessmen and the like — and the parasites who live off them. Those parasites exist at both the top and the bottom of the social hierarchy — they are both financiers and welfare bums — and their larceny is enabled by the government they control."

This shift in gears plays well with the personality traits of the racist right-wing wing extremist and religious zealots.  The article when on to point out that during economic distressed times when people have a sense of " getting screwed," these sentiments of  racism and anti-Semitic are embolden.  So, the occasion of having our first black president elected to office has given these factions a green-light to flood our existence with this tomfoolery. 

"It’s not, after all, as if the Christian right was something completely removed from the old racist right — rather, as Reed acknowledged all those years ago, they were initially deeply intertwined." [badattitudes.com] 

Tony Perkins, before he immersed himself in homophobic interracial amity once paid Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list.[Source: The Return Of The Repressed] In 2004, David Barton, president of the Texas GOP at that time  spoke at an event featuring white preachers and ministry workers dropping to their knees before their black brethren to plead for forgiveness.[Source:The Return Of The Repressed] Barton, years earlier was a keynote speaker at a Christian identity movement. At this event, Barton was on narrative of this movements mantra that. " blacks are sub-human, ' mud-people." The bottom line as blacks have become more politically active. And a force in the electorate. The factions on the right like this so-called Christian Right front have had to change their tune of racism and bigotry towards gays and lesbians and immigrants. But, the old truism, " you can't teach an old dog new tricks," is a valid one in that with the election of a black president these deep-seated prejudices have festered once again. Hence, in this writer's view the Christian Right has returned to its racist past.

Written By: Johnny Hill

Research By: Roni May

The Politics Of Morality, The Political Divide (Part 2)

freep.com

It goes unspoken that many of today's 'hot-button' issues are related to morality. Abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, tax reduction, health care, and even foreign affairs. In part one, The Politics of Morality (part 1), the aspects of morality discussed were of a personal nature. However, the morality at the center of today's moral discourse is social. Social morality has developed into a set of standards. In the case of abortion-how much should society value life? With stem-cell research- what should be the limits of scientific study? In regards to gay rights, how people should live and to what extent should people's civil rights be associated with the way we live? Health care begs the question, how should public taxes be distributed. The tax debate is centered around on what society rewards and encourages. Lastly, regarding foreign affairs -how should society spread its morals to other societies. [Source: Morality and Political Discourse by Yanpei Chen]

Personal Morality is absolute. 

In general, people tend to agree or disagree with personal morality traits of an individual. In comparison, social morality, in today's moral debates, there is a huge disagreement between people on what should be social norms. People gather themselves in groups and try vehemently to impose their morality on others as being the proper social norm. In America, these disagreements have formulated along political party lines, factions, and demographics. [See Article: Party Identification Has Become the Lens Most People See Through ]

In America's two-party system, these disagreements have tended to lump 'We the People' into opposing sides on just about any issues period, but; especially moral issues.

With the election of America's first person of color to the White House, we have seen no compromise whatsoever. In fact, many citizens in this country feel that the obstruction by the Republican Party has bordered on sedition. [See Article: Tea Party Seditionists Say Default Not So Bad] This environment has led to an " us or them," mentality.

No Moral Issue Can Be Settled To The Satisfactions of All!  

The above truism brings this writers research to the realities of just how conservatives and liberals think. Political thinking is very much cognitive. Thus, Cognitive science plays a role in the evaluation of how these left and right factions of political thought process issues in their brains. One thing is for sure; you can't think without a brain. Cognitive science suggests how our brains are shaped determine very much on how we think. Any idea that you may have that you have learned that you use over and again makes up a part of your mindset [way of thinking] according to many Cognitive scientists and is physically represented in our brains. This fact matters in our way of political thinking enormously. The idea that people have the same rational is absurd. People do not think the same. We all have our own unique conceptual systems of thought. However, there are some universal systems of thought. In terms of morality, there are lots of metaphors. Morality is righteousness. In general, morality is a sense of well-being. Helping people. Being a person of high morals is seen as a person of emotional wealth. For example, a person who tends to help people will have many who feel indebted to them thus emotional wealth. On the flip side, when a person does things to harm others there becomes a sense of making restitution for the wrong-doing so morality can be seen as a form of emotional economics

Forgiveness plays a huge role in morality. Revenge for a wrong done plays a role in morality. Feelings of guilt have a place in the realm of morality. Once again, all this goes to the moral accounting metaphor. Metaphorically speaking, morality has an economic system of accounting that calculates a person's morality. How does all of this relate to politics? In a word, framing. Cognitive thought creates framing [images] in our minds. For example, when you say apple, an image of that fruit appears in your mind. Politically, when you speak of tax relief what frame or image comes to your mind? We all remember when George Bush, Jr took office his first order of business was the Bush tax cuts.[Tax Relief] The first mental image that comes to mind is the word relief. If there is a need for relief, there must be an affliction of some sort. The term relief means that some faction is being harmed by taxes, and the moral thing to do is to provide tax relief for those afflicted. So, because of this harm Bush, Jr political handlers set him up as a hero and anyone trying to stop him are the bad guys. So, when you add text to that metaphorically, what they are saying is " taxation is an affliction."

So, for many in America today when they hear the term 'tax relief' this is the frame that appears in their minds. When they hear this over and over it becomes a part of their physical brain. What happens when this accrues is 'taxation is an affliction,' becomes common sense to the person. Now, with this said, it becomes clear. How media outlets like Fox news, which claims to be fair and balanced, can have two liberals and two conservatives on a discussion panel, but; the host is conservative and can frame the questions with the now known factor that most right- wing authoritarian followers will have in their mindset that 'taxation is an affliction. If you take the other sides terms, if you are opposing it politically, and you take a question that fits their ideology and argue against it you are basically arguing for it cause you will be offending the common sense of the targeted Fox news viewer. Your argument will, in fact, reinforce that ' taxation is an affliction.'

      In terms of the modern day debate over taxes and how they should be implemented and who should pay what share of them [taxes] I was reminded by George Lakoff book: Moral Politics , of Dan Quayle's acceptance speech at the 1992 Republican convention when speaking about the progressive tax  he made the statement:

Dan Quayle 

      "Why should the best people be punished?"

The first questions are why is this even considered an argument against the progressive income tax. Second, Dan Quayle assumption is that people with the most money are the best people. And, in terms of morality, this is completely false. But, to a person who has been condition on the notion that " taxation is an affliction," will buy it hook, line and sinker, even though, it goes against their own best interest. Why? Cause it plays into their misconception of their common sense. Why do I use the term misconception? Let's look at current events of current common sense discrepancies among right- wing authoritarian followers.

What are right-wing authoritarian followers?  

In general, a conservative person is against abortion and for a flat-tax. As a liberal, I am totally opposite to this position, so I don't get what the two issues have to do with one another. More baffling, why people are for the flat-tax but against environmental regulations. Moreover, why people who are against environmental regulations are overwhelmingly in favor of gun ownership no matter a person's mental capacity. Then, I can't understand why these same people who are for no gun laws whatsoever are for tort reform. Confused? These examples are pretty wholesale among conservatives, but; what do they have to do with one another? This conundrum is a typical example of a Cognitive science problem. What is it that brings these ideas together and unites them for conservatives? What brings these example into some natural order that certain mindsets of people agree in totality? What is it that makes this possible? Liberals ask the questions how can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? How you can be pro- life for a zygote, but; be for cutting aid to starving children and support and create laws that would detain and punish refugees [mostly children] from fleeing oppression. Conservatives claim liberals as irrational for not wanting to put a murder to death and sanctioning abortion. What this boils down to is different world views.

 What is it that defines the different views of the world people have physically embedded in their brains? Why do conservative's talk so much about family values? With all the complex problems we as a society face in these troubled times, why is the main issue for conservatives always family values? Some conservatives see their way of thinking and the grouping of these mindsets as a family of like-minded souls. In practice, however, the reality is that there are many different world views which lead to the conclusion there are many different notions of family. As previously pointed out there are two notions of family.

• Strict father figure family. [Authoritarian]
• Nurturing parent family. [Egalitarian]

Regarding the conservative authoritarian model which has been the model embraced by conservatives throughout the country my research led me to one James Dobson. Dobson has so many people writing for him he requires his own zip code.

Who is James Dobson?   

Dr.James Dobson

   Dr. James Dobson is the Founder and President of Family Talk, a nonprofit organization that produces his radio program, “Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk.” He is the author of more than 30 books dedicated to the preservation of the family, including The New Dare to Discipline; Love for a Lifetime; Life on the Edge; Love Must Be Tough; The New Strong-Willed Child; When God Doesn’t Make Sense;Bringing Up Boys; Marriage Under Fire; Bringing Up Girls; and, most recently, Head Over Heels.


Dr. Dobson is one of those individuals accredited for much of the Republican Party's move to embrace religious factions [Christian Right] into the party fold and his Focus on the Family operation was a huge mechanism in answering the question; why do conservatives always focus on family values. However, ask any liberal and they will tell you flat out that Dobson view of family is distorted.

Case in point.

    

What Dobson has done is use fundamental theology and other doctrines and geared his writings and precepts of the ideal family into conservative ideology. This en-turn creates politics of morality, which causes a political divide cause as we have learned there are many world views, and many notions of  family.  Dobson, and many of the Christian right and the Republican Party claim to have a strict view of morality. It goes like this; it's a gender system of family structure. Daddy is different than mommy. The father must be strict he is the head of the family the authoritarian figure. There is evil out there in the world and it's the father's role to protect the family from it. Because there are winners and losers in this world, the father must be a winner to support the family. In the Dobson model, children are born badly, in the sense as a child if it feels good they want to do it. Children don't know right from wrong, and you need a strict father to teach them right from wrong. The major dilemma here is the various views on how to teach children right from wrong and this dilemma indirectly has caused a political divide in America and morality is the root.

Dr. Dobson model advocates punishment when they do wrong. Dobson claims that the punishment must be painful enough that the child will correct themselves next time when confronted with a choice. The idea is that the child will internalize the correction and not do wrong again. Dodson advocates spankings. Dobson claims beating a child is okay as long as they are over the age of 15 months. In the Dobson model and subsequently the republican model, a child and person can only become moral through discipline. The claim is through this discipline a person will become self- reliant and a prosperous adult.

Conservatives believe there is a link between morality and prosperity.

Discipline allows one to be obedient to the moral authority which makes one more successful, happy, and prosperous. There is a logic here. Suppose someone is not prosperous. Then you're not discipline enough. And, if you're not discipline enough you're not moral. So, you deserve your poverty. We see this mentality played out in our modern day political debate. We have seen Tea Party, Libertarians, and Republican Party main-streamers and related legislation on both the federal and state levels take on a " go fend for yourself," narrative. This attitude is a prime example of the politics of morality and how it has caused a political divide in America. All of this has social implications.

Another major part of the Dobson [conservative] model is after a child has grown and become mature if they have gotten the self-discipline they can go out into the world and take care of themselves. If they haven't, adhered to this discipline they should still go out into the world [tough-love]  and let the world discipline them.[The School of Hard Knocks] If they can't make it, too bad. Now, there is another part of this. Why is it moral within this system or doctrine to pursue your self-interest? Dobson is very clear about this; he proclaims this as being in step with Adam Smith version of capitalism. 

Noam Chomsky brings perspective on Adam Smith.          

Adam Smith claimed that if everyone pursued their profit by the 'invisible hand' the law of nature would maximize one's goals. The model suggest it's good to pursue your self-interest because that's good for everybody else. In this model, what's bad, is to interfere with someone's self-interest. According to Adam Smith taxation is an interference. And, that's why Dan Quayle said "why should the best people be punished." So, fast-forwarding to our modern day times, under this "train of thought" the Koch brothers are the best people because they are pursuing their self-interest. The next interference is government regulation. Government gets in the way of people pursuing their self-interest. There is also a term in conservative language for those who don't pursue their self-interest. When people pursue the good of the community they are labeled by conservatives as " do-gooders."

 A 'do-gooder,' is one of those people who is trying to help somebody and are getting in the way of those so-called best people self-interest. Once again, this is a prime example of the politics of morality and, how, it has created a political divide in America. Now, there are lots of other facets of this family values model. What does this conservative family values model say about social programs? Conservatives claim that all social programs are immoral. Why? They claim they hurt the people they are trying to help. Because, they are giving people something they have not earned. This action makes people dependent on the state, hence the term "nanny state." This dependence takes away their ability to be discipline that takes away their ability to be moral beings. So, in the cognitive minds of the right-wing authoritarian follower social programs are immoral according to this logic. In addition, you have the mindset as the father as the strict figure with the moral authority. Moral authority can be a very interesting idea because it brings together two trains of thought.


Morality
Authority
In the text, this translates to morality and power. Part of conservative thought is that people who are in power, who have pursued their self-interest, are moral and should have the authority over the rest of us do-gooders. In short, moral people should rule. The discipline people should rule. This belief gives rise to a conservative hierarchy or moral order. In the moral order which is part of the conservative model, you have GOD above man, man above nature, adults above children, western culture above non-western culture, America above other nations. It's the idea if you look at forms of authority historically that will show you what GOD has made moral. Then there are other versions. The bigotry ones, the ones that are so out front in today's Republican Party. It goes pretty much like this man above woman, whites above non-whites, straight people above gay people, Christians above non-Christians. Now, in fairness, not all conservatives have those bigoted views. There are non-bigoted conservatives. However, it is important to understand as a liberal it has been hard for me not to lump all conservatives into the irrational, mean- spirited, greedy and stupid box. In fact, all conservatives are not irrational, mean- spirited, and stupid. Conservatives have a strict interpretation of morality. For the most part, most conservatives see themselves as moral people. In this writer's view, this reality can sometimes be a "hard-pill-to-swallow."

What Morality Do Progressive and Liberals Have?    

Written By: Johnny Hill

Article Source: Moral Politics by: George Lakoff

The Politics Of Morality. ( Part 1)

Before starting, to understand the politics of morality, one must have a clear definition of morality. According to dictionary.com,  morality is the conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Morality often is acquainted with the moral quality and character of a person. Then, of course, a virtue in sexual matters; chastity. In America, there has long been a doctrine or system of morals. Who sets these standards and rules of morals? And, how have these moralities infiltrated themselves into our political system?

The Politics of Morality.

Some argue that morality is in the eye of the beholder. That its and individuals choice. That individual's act according to their standards. And, through these actions affect others and is thus political. Politics, however, is public. By collective public governance, "We the People," determine policies, and these polices dictate to the individual a code of acceptable behavior thus politics affects the individual. So, in this writers view, it's fair to conclude that morality connects an individual to politics. Politics matters. Politics causes an individual to form opinions. And, through these opinions, which become public, legislation is drafted that impacts back to the individual. 

Morality Dominates Issues In Modern Day Politics.  

America has always quibbled over issues like foreign affairs, health care, economics, and taxes. However, in the modern day sphere of politics moral flash-point issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, and gay rights seem to have become the rallying points for the political parties to muster their supporters. These issues are always presented as moral ones. All of this raises questions. Has this shift in political focus been good for the American people? Moreover, is shaping public polices by these elements of morality healthy for  politics?

Where Does Morality Come From?

     

Morality has always been an element in American politics. Morality's role in politics evolved as morality itself evolved. In these modern times, morality has evolved from religion. Nowadays, political parties deem themselves the party of the heavens. Religious, political factions run rampart in modern day politics not only in America, but; around the world. These pious politicians and clergymen proclaim their message is from Jehovah God himself. That following this message puts our country in the realm of the will of God. Many in America feel that our country was organized, and the authority of government rested upon certain beliefs, practices, institutional principles and social norms that are religiously based and can be called morality. It is because of this reality that morality continues to play a major role in our modern day politics. Case in point. In a recent article published in DailyKos.com a Republican Party house member sent every congressperson a Bible to guide their decision making.

Rep. Steven Palazzo, (R-MS)

Separation of church and state, anyone?

"When a politician calls for using the Bible as the basis for public policy, what he or she is really saying is, 'Let's use the Bible as I interpret it as the basis for public policy," "When it comes to religion, our nation is pluralistic and diverse. Rather than look to the Bible or any other religious book to craft our nation's public policy, we would do well to examine another source instead, one that was created to guide governance. It's called the Constitution." [Source: Barry Lynn-Executive Director with Americans United for the separation of church and state]

These type of stories inundate our daily news in modern day politics. It's these type stories that has changed moralities role. From this writer's perspective, the authority, legitimacy, and power of any elected official comes from We The People. Since, we the people, use a standard of morals to set a code for social behavior morality can be and is often used as a tool for keeping our elected officials and clergymen in check.

With the rise of capitalism in a democratic society, modern politics matured into a discourse of economic considerations. In which, personal virtues such as honesty, charity and fairness, which were essential in the past are now secondary and much seems to be taken for granted in our political sphere today, in terms of character. In modern day politics, it seems implicit, there is an implied " contract of confidence," that a person in public service is moral and it becomes explosively explicit when that confidence is breached. Then, we see the person's political enemies come out of the woodwork. We see former allies turn tail and run. We see media pounce like a hungry pack of wolves. Morality that was secondary, now; becomes the main issues for we the people. A good example of this reality was the Nixon Watergate scandal.

    

Individual morality has long formed the basis for political legitimacy and a precondition to good governance. However, as we have seen develop in America in earnest since the late 70's and more so in the early 80's a manifestation of group morality based on religion in which public policy should be shaped cause a deep and growing polarization of the citizenry. We have witness political and religious faction spring up with their pious proclamations that their mindsets have the " consent of the heavens," and following them is the will of God and is "Godly governance." We have experienced political candidates using their so-called morality as political tools to win popular approval and basis for political legitimacy. However, in practice, morality has taken a backseat to economic issues, foreign issues, tax issues, and is only used when a politician has been caught with their " hand in the cookie jar." This has been moralities evolution in modern day politics. This evolution has led to extremism in our political parties and as we will cover in [The Politics of Morality-Part 2] a political divide in our nation.

          

Written By: Johnny Hill

Libertarianism Is Not Only Wrong, It's Dangerous!

Abraham Lincoln 

We are living in ever-changing times. These changes are happening in all facets of our lives. On the political front, there are more and more people who call themselves or at least identify with what has come to be called libertarianism. Over the last year, I have been putting to study the behavior and attitudes of these pro-claimers of liberty and justice for all. Frankly, I have not been impressed with their narrative from their outspoken correspondence which makes comments like. "You sure love letting people steal your money!" 
Moreover, their behavior brings to mind the famous quote from one of the most popular presidents of all time, Abraham Lincoln.

"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln

To a libertarian, property rights are sacred. Any government is bad. Capitalism has no flaws, and the capitalist are the modern-day nobles of our society. Worker rights and activism is evil. Lastly, they feel the poor are pampered and "good-for-nothings," who should be left to fend for themselves. For example, an outspoken libertarian Murray Rothbard, who claimed to be such an intellectual, advocated a dangerous spew to the least common denominators of our society. The libertarian’s emphasis is the demagoguery of government and taxation, and here is an example of his rhetoric:

   

Rothbard was an early pioneer of modern-day libertarianism. In a nutshell, libertarianism is a radical anti-state political philosophy. It unites a free-market system of economics,with a no exception attachment to property rights, a so-called profound love of human liberty and a love of peace, with the conclusion that society should be allowed to develop with no interference from the state whatsoever. In fact, the libertarian feels there should be no state,  period. The libertarian hates worker unions. They [Libertarian's] claim labor unions pursue policies that disrupt a capitalism in action that is the cause of their prosperity.
Renowned libertarian Ludwig Von Mises once said:

Ludwig Von Mises

  

       "What is today euphemistically called the right to strike is in fact the right of striking workers, by recourse to violence, to prevent people who want to work from working."

With The Libertarian Who Needs Facts?

One thing this writer has uncovered in research of the libertarian and the followers of its ideology is that facts don't matter. Who needs facts, seems to be their mantra. Studies have shown when people leave one ideological extreme they usually end up in another. The methodology of the libertarian is not that hard to follow. Oppose their perceived evils of the world with a fairy tale; "Obama coming to take your guns, Obama is a Muslim and not a natural born citizen who is going to hand America over to our enemies, there is epidemic voter fraud." These are but just a few of the libertarian backed fairy tales of our current times. The bottom-line is the academic libertarian loves abstract, fact-free arguments. This type of behavior may go over well with like-mined right-wing authoritarian followers, where nobody is going to pull the old fact-checker out. But, en masse, it matters to the American people and time after time these flawed untruths being levied by deep-pocket backers of the Libertarian party have backfired on the libertarians.

The Libertarians Think They Are The Modern Day Founding Fathers!

All the modern day political parties want the founding fathers on their side. The facts, with any earnest study, clearly shows all modern day political parties laid their roots in the 1700s. All of us are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and independents against the monarchy which hovered over us, and we fought as a nation to unleash ourselves. We all fight for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. History has revealed to us times when our founding fathers not only encouraged rants against government, but led the charge. There were also times when our founding fathers were against rants of rebellion, anarchy, and the anti-government rhetoric that has become so common-place in today's environment.

James Madison

"It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end."

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."

 

"All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it."

The Constitution of the United States is the very definition of a strengthened government. The Federalist Papers were nothing more than an extended argument in support of the Constitution. In fact, the founding fathers comprised a balance that was arbitrary and coercive. Fast forwarding to modern times, the founding fathers had no way of foreseeing the New Deal. There was no need for this type of action back when our nation was being forged. However, there are examples when the founding fathers were quick to resort to the resources of the state as quick as any modern day liberals. For example, Ben Franklin, played the Pennsylvania legislator like a "piano in the dark," using it to fund a hospital he wanted to establish. One of the first instances in our nation’s history, using the state to do good social work. It's also worth bringing to the light that the founding fathers' words were much nobler than their actual deeds. Most were quite comfortable with owning slaves. Women were given no voice whatsoever. George Washington himself, by executive order, made it a crime to criticize the government.

For almost 150 years, in fact, the Bill of Rights was paid lip service in patriotic orations and ignored in the marketplace. It wasn't until after World War I that the Supreme Court began the process of giving real meaning to the Bill of Rights.[ Source: Robert Allen Rutland]

Why Are Libertarians Dangerous? 

The libertarians are dangerous because of their growing influence within the Republican Party for starters. Then there is the emergence of the radical Tea Party, which is nothing more than the repackaging-of-the-fascist-playbook. These people are political crackpots and are, usually, harmless. However, with America electing a black president, the Republican Party hierarchy began to come to the realization that its Southern strategy no longer can win national elections. Catering to the lowest common denominator in our society; the uneducated, racist, anti-government types, and their fairy tale propaganda is spurning not only division among people in America it is emboldening anyone with an ax to grind. To act out in violent anti-social ways which have brought on the genesis of new terms like ' hate crimes', and 'don't tread on me,' mentalities. With the already flawed doctrines of the Republican Party being proven to be failures, we see a faction develop that says we must hang on to power no matter what.  In short, Republicans have taken the libertarian mantra that " government is bad," and run with it, largely with the help of deep-pocketed influences like the Koch Bros. Judicial decisions like corporate-person-hood and money is free-speech and lastly gerrymandered voting districts we are, in fact, looking at a governess by organized mob. Take all of this into account with the following  Republican doctrines already in place and we have a civil storm brewing in this country. This storm is why Libertarianism is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Here are just but a few of the ills of the libertarian's influence on the Republican Party.

Reagan's "Government is the problem."

Phil Gramm's contention that the country's "economic crisis" and "moral crisis" were due to "an explosion of government."

Talk radio hosts' advocacy of armed resistance to "jack-booted government thugs."

Dole's 1996 campaign, advancing the notion that taxes were "Your Money" being taken from you.

Gingrich's Contract with America (welfare cuts, tax cuts, limitations on corporations' responsibility and on the government's ability to regulate them)

Dick Armey's comment that Medicare (medical aid for the elderly) is "a program I would have no part of in a free world."

Bush's tax cuts, intended not only to reward the rich but to "starve the beast", in Grover Norquist's words: to create a permanent deficit as a dangerous ploy to reduce social spending.

Jeb Bush's hope that the Florida state government buildings would one day be empty.

Intellectual support for attacks on the quality of working life in this county and for undoing the New Deal.

   In closing, here is a video by an ex-libertarian who, mind you, clearly states his narrative is a worst case scenario if the libertarians were to gain a foot-hold of our We the People government. For one, this writer hopes never to see such a day. 

Written By: Johnny Hill