America The Land Of Inequality

There is no denying that America has become a nation of inequality. The $64,000 question is "how do you constrain capitalism from doing stupid things that are not in the public interest?[Robert Reich] In practice we have a set of rules and regulations to check these rogue factions in our community. However, our democracy has been corrupted, and these rules and regulations are being discarded or not enforced. If the corruption by the excesses of the American Capitalist is the cause of this malfeasance then the first thing we must do is get big money out of our politics.

Robert Reich On Inequality For All

On the issue of inequality in America, there is much confusion. Most people of the right-wing persuasion blame the poor. On the other hand, people on the left want to blame the rich. There is a lot of blame going around. According to well-respected economist Robert Reich, "people are not looking at the actual structure of the economy as its evolving." "They're not looking how we need to change the organization of the economy." America is the most unequal of all advanced societies in the world. Our research found many misconceptions floating around out in the public sphere. Many believe the economy is some natural force that can't be changed. In short, we all are slaves to the immutable economy. However, when you " peel back the onion," the economy is a set of rules and regulations.

Our economy is not a state of nature. 

Robert Reich

There are rules regarding property and liability, anti-trust laws, bankruptcy, subsidies, and taxes for various things. These are the rules and guidelines for the game we call the economy. These rules determine the outcome of the game. In a democracy, if you don't like the rules of the game you can create a conscientious and change the rules. If we had a democracy, that was working as envisioned by our founding fathers[See Source]  The rules for the game of economy can be difficult to explain in writing. To get a clear understanding, one must refer to the experts. Our source Robert Reich book " Beyond Outrage," does an excellent job of explaining these rules in writing. American economist has some hard questions to answer. Why does the United States have an unequal distribution of income and wealth by far than any other civilized country? And it's surging! Reich's metric for answering this question is to evaluate the earnings of the people at the top[1%] compared to the earnings of a typical worker[47%] which represents the middle.

Wealth Inequality in America

In Today's America, 400 of the nation's richest people have more wealth than half the population of the United States.

According to our source, which looked at IRS data stretching back to 1913 the beginning of the progressive income tax wealth inequality reached an all-time high in 2012. What was apparent from our research here in the House of Public Discourse America's economic growth has consistently been going to a small group of people at the top.[See Source] 

The Wealth Inequality In America Is Startling To Say The Least!

This inequality is tearing at the fabric of America. In the first three years, of the recovery from the recession brought on by the financial collapse of 2008, the top one percent of Americans took home 95% of the income gains. Amazing! In the past, as the economy grew so did everyone else. Ronald Reagan and his God-awful trickle down economics saw an end to this equitable formula and what we got in return was a nation in debt and growing now surging wealth inequality. Regular Americans knew this as shared prosperity. Along came the Republicans in the 1980's with these so-called family Christian values 'War on Drugs,' 'War on Women,' and "War on the Poor" calling this shared prosperity socialism. Hell, Eisenhower a Republican was president during most of this time of shared prosperity and We The People did not consider him a socialist, We did not think him abnormal. 

In the years of shared prosperity our nation's economy doubled. Moreover, everybody's income increased as well. Even, Americans in the bottom 5% percent did better. Then here comes Ronald Reagan and the extreme radicalization of the Christian Right,and  the "slobbering at the mouth," Capitalist Elect.  The 1980's changed the historical relationship of shared prosperity between economic growth and the growth in productivity and wages. Over the last three decades, most of the wealth and most of the new wealth has gone straight to the top.  Income gains went to the top and people in the middle, the median worker, the median wage stagnated.

How Do We Fix It?

To the point, a strong and vibrant labor movement needs to be orchestrated and based on our research here at the House of Public Discourse could be the " wonder drug" for lack of a term. 

Drawing on a myriad of evidence  as in our nation's past a re invigoration of equitable labor practices would go a long way in achieving an equal society.  The research bears it out clearly. Almost all health and social problems that disproportionately affect poor and middle class are greater in societies with higher levels of inequality. The widening income gap as mentioned earlier seems to be a direct result of the " War on Unions" and the lack of a strong and consistent labor movement in America. Another factor is the dwindling democratic constraints on the top 1% income earners. One of the conclusions we came to here in the House of Public Discourse is to implement practical limitations by extending democracy to our economic institutions.  Our study found equal societies gain greater equality by redistribution. We need a fundamental approach to reducing inequality in America. Our exhaustive research on the issue of " America The Land of Inequality," found that the weakening of the labor movement over the last quarter of the 20th Century has severely impacted the ability of working people to influence their standard of living and overall quality of life. 

One of the House of Public Discourse primary points of advocacy is to recreate a healthy, active labor movement in America. We achieve this with both political and social influence that will enable the old labor movement to regather itself and fight for a fairer more sustainable future for our country.

Read The Main Source for This Article Here

The Repackaging Of The Fascist Playbook

Just like Joseph Goebbels, who headed the Nazi propaganda machine, present day pundits like Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and politicians like Ron Paul are making the same claims today as did Goebbels in Nazi Germany.


There seems to be a growing reality concerning the Libertarian and Tea Party movements in this country and can best be summed up in a phrase, “conspiracy nut balls.” While claiming to be all about freedom and liberty, any fair evaluation of their agenda tells a much deeper and darker story. These groups seem to stay up nights trying to erode our civil right to live a quality life. Moreover, their platform would have us barely existing, languishing in debt. They have been successful in many regions of this nation, through their highly funded media echo chambers, at taking away many of our social protections and denying the American people the social justice We The People have fought so hard for over the years.

For example, politicians like former Texas Senator Ron Paul and his son Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky), backed by special interest groups funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers, have executed a media campaign to distort and diminish public support for fair social safety net programs. Their delusional anti-government claims of socialism, among others, have deceived and scared and convinced droves of people into believing their government is out to get them and is something much less than  "of, by, and for the people.”

We The People Are The Government.

Not just the wealthy, perfectly healthy, spoiled easy-come trust fund successful entrepreneurs. The Tea Party and Libertarian movements in this country amount to nothing more than Social Darwinism. Their agenda is plutocracy. They demonize government as evil. They demonize groups of citizens with the intent to divide and conquer. All in all, this is nothing more than the repackaging of the Fascist playbook. Just like we saw in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. With unconstitutional overreach by the Judicial branch, which upheld the claim money as free speech and corporate person-hood, we have seen this type behavior before from the Anarcho-Capitalist Corporatism of Nazi Germany. 

In these modern times, we see advocates and pundits like Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs put on their Joseph Goebbels mask spewing all sorts of conspiracy propaganda lies against all types of groups and minorities. All  these people are doing is propagating the desires of the wealthiest people in our country and the world like the Koch Brothers. These reckless capitalist want nothing more than to have all forms of regulation out of their midst. Just like the Nazi, they disdain the chronically ill, poor, disabled and out of work Americans. They embrace voter suppression laws for they know their leverage goes up if the voter turnouts are low. Disabled, welfare poor people are nothing more than parasites that should do nothing more than fend for themselves.

In today’s society, the Nazi propaganda takes the form from the pamphlets of old to conspiracy websites, radio talk shows, cable news and now social media Facebook pages. Just like in Nazi Germany, in the 1930’s and 40’s, we see the demoralization of vast segments of our citizenry. The Tea Party crowd, as well as the so-called Libertarians, have blamed people’s economic despair on everything but their failed austerity policies. Groups like liberals, socialist, immigrants, freemasons, minorities have all been targeted.

The Tea Party, GOP and the Libertarians know their agenda is a minority viewpoint. Just like in Germany, they understand they have no shot of gaining influence in a unified America. They understand that their only chance of getting their platform in practice is to cause a polarization of the American people. By using prejudice and institutional racism as their weapons, they have attempted and with much success to split this country into small groups just like the Nazi did in WWII Europe.

We The People must realize that this massively funded propaganda attack has a purpose.

Who stands to benefit from this propaganda? Is it the middle-class? Is it the moderate and working poor? No, it’s the corporations and the elitist who need We The People out of their business so they can run their enterprise to the detriment of our environment, our workforce, all in the name of capitalism and the free markets. This is not a classroom theory this is history repeating itself.  The right-wing, the Libertarians, the Tea Party are using Social Darwinism to demonize and separate groups for the purpose of demonizing them as threats to our country,our culture, our society as threats to our free markets and democracy. It’s scapegoating 101. Just like the Nazi Party, these radical modern-day organizations have waged a war against equality of the person. They don’t want free healthcare for all. They don’t want a good free public education to survive. They have cut programs to the poor, sick, veterans of wars, taxed the middle class while giving huge tax breaks to the upper one percent. These are not theories they are facts. Moreover, they have ostracized groups who have tried to help these segments of our population. Calling them socialists, communists, and have turned the word "liberals" into a pejorative. Name calling is their forte  which they have made into a science.

Don’t Be Swindled By The Hype

Many fell prey to this rhetoric just as many have bought into it hook, line and sinker today in America. Hitler needed suckers as do the Koch Brothers and what better way than to revisit the tactics of a madman who for a time had all of Europe at his feet. They need people to do lots of hard work for cheap and shunned the unions and have fought against the massive inequality that has come to pass in present day America. Matter of fact, it was Unions and Organized labor that were the biggest enemies to the Nazis and  to the Ron Paul’s of this present day. Organized labor demanded fair pay and safe working conditions and other worker benefits. The Tea Party and Libertarians require no minimum wage, no regulation and desire a desperate under-educated demoralized worker.

All the mindless sheep followers of the Tea Party and Libertarians are, is the Aryan Nazis of yesteryear. The Koch Brothers, and others like them, with their Americans for Prosperity, Citizens United, Cato Institute, all born from the John Birch Society genre, have systematically distorted the real facts, and replaced them with lies for decades now.

They abolish the truth by attacking it. They claim it's one big government scheme to take your rights away. Then they create a false reality. Then they tell you what you hear in traditional historical mainstream media and other educational sources is propaganda. The old ” bait and switch.” It's ” Big Brother,” coming to get you. Conspiracy, to hide the truth, planned lies to confuse and deceive us all.

There has been a game-plan with a playbook for decades, now.

This game-plan and subsequent playbook, are their way of brainwashing people, to incite paranoid suspicion, and cause people to lose faith in traditional scientifically well-established academia. Their goal is to get you to question long-held views and realities, all of which have been drawn from easily verifiable accurate authorities in news, science and history.

The Tea Party and Libertarians are anti-intellectuals.

Hitler hated mainstream established knowledge, science, publicly funded schools and institutes of higher learning. He claimed they were bastions of Liberals, Communists, Zionists, and Socialists. Hitler ruled the German people with speeches of hate and lies that these groups were spies trying to deceive the real Aryan German. 

The Tea Party and their Libertarian counterparts have a similar hatred of historical record and facts. They highly question reality and facts. Scientists question reality by using inductive reasoning. But the Tea Party and Libertarians use deductive reasoning. This type of argument is surely not intellectual nor science in any manner. These organizations run on gut feelings based on misguided indoctrination, false assumptions, and faith in preconceived notions no matter their validity or not.

In Nazi Germany, the cost of higher education became so expensive that attendance at these colleges and universities fell some 50%.

One of the bigger topics, in present day America, is the high cost and the coinciding debt that is associated with getting a good education today. What better way to brainwash people with conspiracies, than to keep people dumb and too poor  to be able to get an affordable public education. Then hammer away in their Koch Brothers media echo chambers that getting a great education from public schools and universities is not needed cause there nothing more than enclaves of Socialism.

In this writer's viewpoint, the real conspiracy is the far-right's push against getting a college education and anti-intellectualism. Just last election cycle we saw this from radical presidential candidate Rick Santorum a Tea Party type of guy.

Just like Joseph Goebbels, who headed the Nazi propaganda machine, present day pundits like Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and politicians like Ron Paul are making the same claims today as did Goebbels did in Nazi Germany. They claim that the two-party system is broken and, in fact, a scam. They even claim that traditional Republicans are not far-right enough for them and that all Democrats are nothing more than liberal socialists. Just like the Nazis, they hate any government-run or funded anything (except the military, of course).

The Tea Party and Libertarians hate government, they claim the IRS, welfare, regulations, taxes and the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economics are nothing more than socialist, communist plots. Fear-mongering is their order of the day and the base of their playbook. This is where all claims by these radical far-right groups of valuing freedom of speech, freedom of expression, equality and other liberties they defend and fight for fall apart when put under a close study. When you inductively and rationally examine their ideology, economics, and theories, you find a huge disconnect with what these do in practice.

In fact, in most cases, they inhibit and weaken and destroy these very liberties and freedoms. In this year there will be much debate on which direction America should take and this writer would suggest examining the issues to look at your motivations and why you think as you do and make an honest evaluation as to how you came to that view and most importantly participate because there are factions who do not want you to and are spending huge sums of money to discourage you from doing so. What we are seeing in practice  from the Tea Party, Libertarians, and the radical far-right Koch Brothers funded think tanks, is the repackaging of the Fascist playbook.

Whatever Happened To Liberty And Justice For All?

FDR

While recently listening to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's [FDR] " Four Freedoms" speech, a glaring question popped out at this writer. Whatever happened to liberty and justice for all and was it ever a reality in America? One thing is a certainty.... justice for all is nothing but a catch phrase in America today. It does not exist. We have seen an ever increasing cornucopia of  institutional and social injustices manifested over the last decade in America. We have seen Barry Bonds inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame while on trial for illegal steroid usage.  The out of control banking industry has levied egregious banking fees on helpless consumers. The American Healthcare industry has raked the American people over the coals with. " five times the inflation rate pricing while practicing fraudulent  business methods like billing dead patients just to name one. Wall Street has become a den of thieves betting against their customers.  In 2001, the Patriot Act was enacted and has been turning citizens into suspects ever since. There have been proven cases of U.S. Bishops protecting pedophile priests. And of course we can't fail to mention  the day in, day out civil injustice in the American Criminal Justice System, which has recently been highlighted in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.

The Speech

 

The Never Ending Fight For FDR's Four Freedoms!

It was 74 years ago that FDR made this famous speech and America today is still fighting for its narrative, a free and equal society for all. In this speech, FDR proposed four freedoms. Not only did FDR command these freedoms for all Americans but also every person in the world. FDR's speech was made just prior to the U.S. entering  World War II. The four freedoms were the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to worship or not to worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear.  The speech was hugely popular with the American people with many of the speeches' key components being a guidepost for many post-World War II countries redevelopment.[See Article]

With the help from what many call America's " greatest generation,"  this statement caused a reshaping of the fundamentals of American society. During this period, America became equal and more democratic. What has happened since the time of FDR in America is unconscionable. With the onslaught of Reaganomics in 1980's to our present time, these basic tenets of freedom for the everyday Joe and Mary in America have all but been wiped out. The equality in America is in shambles and the rising gap between the haves and have-nots is staggering.

How Do We Invigorate The Quest For FDR's, " Four-Freedoms?"

The paramount motivation for FDR delivering this speech in his State of the Union address was that Europe at the time was being overrun by the Germans and East Asia was being terrorized by imperial Japan. FDR knew it was inevitable that America was heading for conflict.  It was FDR's view that it was essential for America to begin to prepare for war. However, it was his[FDR] viewpoint that the most important thing for America to do was become an ''arsenal of democracy.''  England, France, and the Eastern Hemisphere who were under siege from what history has shown as one of the most evil empires ever in the world,  Nazi Germany.  President Roosevelt knew well if you were going to prepare for a national defense , you needed security forces for the nation, but, moreover, you needed economic security for the nation as well. FDR had been fighting for years on the economic  front with labor and others in the New Deal. This address was needed to rally these associations once again. FDR had to hone the American people in on his vision that he had been striving for, for eight years, and that was the " Four Freedoms." Our research into this matter revealed that one of the FDR major beliefs was that all Americans aspired for these freedoms and knew they were a galvanizing force to bring the country to a sense of oneness and purpose.

Freedom From Want

In addressing what FDR was touching on in his ' freedom from want' segment within the speech, one might need an understanding of the term " General Welfare.Clause."

General Welfare Clause Explained

As we know, FDR succumbed from his Polio disease before seeing these aspirations fulfilled, and the reason was well documented.  The Republican Congress and the  newly elected President Harry S Truman, who proved to be ineffective, were left to deal with them. The freedom from want aspect from this speech struck fear into the hearts of conservative Republicans. They [Republicans] imagined that FDR goals would be to take Social Security that he enacted in 1935 and build upon  it to the point that the program would include National Health Care. Moreover, in 1944 when FDR came back to Congress in another State of the Union address, he intended to put real practical meaning  to the program by laying out rights for Americans that would have included guarantees like  a job, healthcare, housing, food and shelter, and clothing. Behind the scenes, we learned that FDR was not hopeful these guarantees [wants], would be enacted.  He felt the Conservative Coalition of the day,  North Republicans and the Southern Dixiecrats would block it. But Roosevelt knew the American people wanted  a Social Democratic America.

The writer of the " Pledge of Allegiance" was a Socialist

Francis Bellamy

1. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.[See Source]
2. FDR was a very thorough person, and he had surveys conducted by various agencies. These investigations found 85% of Americans wanted National Healthcare and the other aforementioned desires which in practice functioned as an Economic Bill of Rights for the American citizens. 
3. FDR was a visionary and a man of his time and in addition to the socialist GI Bill [Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944] FDR advocated, as now President Obama has,  that all American citizens should have the right to a free college education. 

4. The Voice of America President Obama on Free Community College for all.

What we have in our present time is a post-educational system that has caused nothing but over-the-top debt for America's college students. There is no question that if FDR's vision could have come to pass it would have transformed America,  and leaves its supporters asking the question: what if, and why not? Just like in FDR's time and today as well,  a super-majority of Americans wanted socialized medicine and education and did not get it.   So why is this not a reality in America? Sweden provides its citizens with free health care and a college education. Denmark does this. Norway does this. Germany does this. France does this. Free health care and college were an American idea from arguably one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever seen and yet we do not offer these fundamental freedoms to our citizenry. In this writer's mind it's an outrage and should be something for which every American citizen should be fighting and advocating. 

Ronald Reagan

Unfortunately, what we have seen since Reagan has been an all out attack on Democratic and Social Rights in this country.  All the work and aspirations of the post-World War II generations' quest to bring about the vision of FDR's " Four Freedoms," done in the 40's, 50's, and 60's,   such as reforms in immigration, Medicare, and Medicaid, civil rights and right to vote laws, and environmental protection;  all being dismantled by the 1% stuffed shirts of the GOP.  It has reached a point in this writer's view that the true " Patriotic Duty," of every American should be to protect these rights from the radical-right, Tea Party, and Libertarian factions operating within today's Republican Party.

Is Liberty And Justice For All An American Pipe-Dream? 

One could argue that to imagine an America where all citizens are equal with the same protections and benefits a cohesive society should demand, is a dream long gone. We here at the House of Public Discourse believe it's paramount to remind ourselves of the founding principles of this nation. One of the common themes for this nation should be that this is our land, this is your land, and this is my land from the sea to shining sea. We The People are in this together should be the everyday focus of every single individual in this country no matter their race or any other mitigating factors. Moreover, the reason we have Democratic institutions and the reason we have a government, is to provide for the health and happiness of We The People.  The " General Welfare Clause" was based on these principles. According to the Declaration of Independence, when the government fails to provide for the " General Welfare" of its citizens it's that said government's duty and obligation to correct it or be overthrown by We The People. The founding documents of America are crystal clear. They reveal to us that the purpose of government is to do something good for everyone in our country and not just a privileged few. Our government was not founded on a principle for us but not them mentality. It is to represent We The People not We The Few. In addition, our government was designed to be  a help to us not a hindrance. 

The Declaration Of The Ages

74 years ago, FDR came out and said in his " Four Freedoms," State of the Union address:

"As men do not live by bread alone they do not fight by armaments alone. Those, who man our defenses and build our defenses, have the stamina and courage which come from the unshakable belief in the manner of life they are defending."  

What FDR is saying here is we are not just fighting Hitler, we are not just fighting against an evil empire, we are fighting for something. What does our nation stand for? Once again, this questions leads us right back to our nation's founding first principles of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness? The United States of America's Declaration of Independence was the first time any governmental document in the history of the world had a provision for its citizens to be happy. FDR continued:

" The mighty action that we are calling for is not based on a disregard for all the things worth fighting for, the nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things that have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in their observation of Democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fiber of our population, renewed our faith and strength to their devotion to our institutions we make ready to protect." 

It's important to understand that when FDR made this speech we were in the middle of World War II. Certainly this was not the time for any American to stop thinking about the social and economic problems that were the cause of  the Social Revolution which was a supreme factor of the world at that time as it is in our present time.  Our research has found that FDR wanted to drive home the message that the fundamental things expected by the American people were. " Life, Liberty, Justice, and Happiness for All." This narrative is what President Obama should be covering with the American people in his upcoming State of the Union address. When you wade through all the political rhetoric of today,  what the American people want is very straightforward: Life, Liberty, Justice, and a fair shot at having happiness. What the American people are screaming for is an equal opportunity no matter the circumstance you were born into. Jobs for those who can work that pay a wage that correlates with the cost of living in an area would be a great place to start.  Why have the Republicans blocked the Obama administration on creating government jobs to rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure? We have seen since Reagan and his government is the evil mantra;  cut our children's education, lack of funding to maintain our roads and bridges, power grids, sewer systems, environmental protections, and the deregulation of the banking industry and Wall Street.  Like the Rolling Stones song proclaimed , it's enough to " make a grown man cry."

One can only imagine what our country would be like today if FDR's aspirations could have become a reality. But after 35 years of Reaganomics, all one can imagine is that it's too late to believe in an America that works for all. If Capitalism cannot provide enough jobs for We The People, when their sole motivation is a maximization of profits, then having government sponsored jobs for any myriad of General Welfare concerns and needs is not only practical and smart it, makes good common sense.  Since Reagan, we have learned new terms like downsizing, outsourcing; trickle-down economics just to name a few and all WE, The People have gotten in return, is the largest  wealth inequality ever recorded in the annals of history!  It is time for our President to be a leader like FDR and step up to the podium in his upcoming State of the Union Address and demand a passage of a jobs bill that will put Americans to work rebuilding our nation's infrastructure and  strengthening our public schools and making two-year college free for all Americans.  Whatever happened to liberty and justice for all?  It was sabotaged by greedy Capitalists and the corrupt politicians who do their bidding.  Citizen United ring a bell?  We as a people can do two things. [1] Do nothing but grin and bear it, or [2] Do something and stand up and fight and demand as our founding fathers did in the Declaration of Independence...demand  our government  change its ways or else be overthrown. So let it be written, so let it be done.

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