Part 2

I responded recently to a certain local newspaper Editor’s challenge to us to put “an honest post” on our website.  Within that challenge, he charged that our local Tea Party had “taken individual people trying to improve their lot in life and stripped them of their individuality…grouping them into a large pot called ‘public employees’ which you [we] then demonize.”  He continued, “As we all know, it is easy to whip up the masses when you use generalizations and stereotypes … much harder when you bring it to an individual level.”  And he said, “Freedom is hardest when you have to support, or at least grudgingly allow, something that you personally do not believe in.”

That post was Part 1; this is Part 2, and it addresses the above:

For this post, let’s look at “group them into a large pot…which you then demonize.”  That’s an amazingly accurate description of how so many of the media (including some local folks) are quick to depict, describe, and denigrate both the Tea Party and many others with whose opinions, stances, political philosophies -- and sometimes even facts -- they don’t agree.  It’s also consistent with the tactics of radical Muslims toward America.  But does it apply to the Tea Party?  A core part of our raison d’etre was and is to criticize Congress for its profligacy and absence of accountability.  Is Congress a “large pot”?  Is criticizing Congress “demonizing” it?  As the old saying goes, it depends on whose ox is being gored.      

Or, let’s look at “easy to whip up the masses…”  That might well be so; as noted above, that’s precisely what major segments of the mass media do vis-à-vis Tea Party types – but with the added twist of slipping in the (however false) obligatory and gratuitous labels of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., etc., etc.  It’s also a classic tactic used by the power-hungry everywhere throughout history.  I believe an objective assessment would show that Tea Party members and their positions are, for the most part, fact-based, fact-focused, and non-personal – especially when compared to what currently passes for main-stream professional journalistic content. 

But let’s look closest at “Freedom is hardest…”  If I “have to support…something [I] personally do not believe in,” that’s not freedom, but its opposite -- tyranny.  Indeed, that’s precisely why the Founders adopted a republican form of government in lieu of the pure democracy of ancient Greece (which fell victim to its own inherent intrinsic fatal flaw, i.e., the tyranny of the majority.)  Nor must I “grudgingly allow” it.  True freedom means I’m not forced or required to do either; I can disagree with, even work lawfully and legitimately to change, those laws, by-laws, rules, regulations, policies, and practices – public or private -- which clash with, ignore, override, violate or even attempt  to criminalize my principles.  A couple of examples should suffice:

1.       Roe v. Wade:  In 1973, under the guise of fostering humane treatment for women experiencing unwanted pregnancies, the ACLU petitioned, and received assent from, a pliant U.S. Supreme Court to de-criminalize the deliberate killing of an unborn child.  Thus was legitimized the abortion industry, the direct descendant of the American Eugenics movement, itself the direct descendant of the enslavement of black persons in America.  Since 1973, over 50 million legal (never confuse “legal” with “moral”) abortions have been performed.  In its own way, both in numbers and its heinousness, it has far surpassed its sister spawn, the Holocaust – another direct descendant of the American Eugenics Movement -- and continues today:  unabated, unashamed, and largely uncondemned.  In 1973, ethical scientists were unable to state definitively that a fetus, whatever its stage, was already human; today, they can -- and do.  That it’s long past time to revisit the morally repugnant Roe v Wade is obvious, but for our discussion, the main point is this:  Freedom cannot mean that I must support, “grudgingly allow,” or even accept Roe v Wade to be the law of the land or mandated national policy, without question or quibble. 

2.       “Obamacare”:  Whether this legislation is constitutional or not is in serious question, and lawsuits challenging it are currently working their way through the courts.  Under the “Freedom is hardest…” rubric, once the government has spoken or acted, there can no longer be any argument: done is done, like it or lump it.  Worse, simple logic would dictate that such a definition of freedom also obviates any further need for the Constitution itself – a positing that no true American of intelligence, honor, or conscience ever can or will accept.

As we are all fully aware, words have power.  They can be a tremendous influence for good – or do tremendous damage.  (Witness the Matthew Snyder funeral fiasco, the current U.S. Supreme Court’s inability/refusal to recognize slander when it slaps American citizens across the face, and the mass media’s silence on the same issue – the latter, of course, in the name of “objectivity.”  It seems that free speech is freer for some than for others after all, and that the consequences of defamatory speech apply only to some, as well.)  I’m not a media professional, but I remain obligated to be as accurate and honest as possible toward, with, and for those to whom and with whom I communicate.  If that makes me old-fashioned, that’s a label I’m proud to wear.

In closing, as before, I refer not only to Admiral Yamamoto’s wisdom in his report to the Japanese Emperor after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant,” but also to Cicero’s perspicacity: he correctly predicted not just Detroit’s current sorry state -- and that of most major American cities – but also the cause, agents, and motivation behind that decline.  (More on the latter at a later date.) 

Bud Nason

We The People, Carroll County, Maryland

Cicero, on The Enemy Within:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.  But it cannot survive treason from within.  An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.  But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.  For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.   He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.  A murderer is less to fear.  The traitor is the plague.”

(Part 1)

“Just for the fun of it…I’d like to see an honest post on your website…”  This challenge to us of the Tea Party (when you challenge one, you challenge all) came from a certain local newspaper Editor.  He wants us to state that “union members [I guess simply because they’re union members], and public employees, and teachers, and nurses, and policemen, and firefighters, and the guy who plowed out your road in the last snowstorm are enemies of the Tea Party, and we Tea Partiers hate them” on our website.

Well, Mr. Editor, that’s not likely to happen – it would be neither true nor honest.  But this post is:  

I’m a retired public employee, and I still pay my annual union dues – not a dime of which goes to any politician, party, or slush fund.  (Per Casey Stengel, I looked it up.)  I’m also a Tea Party member.  So, given your words and logic, which part of me is my enemy, that I should therefore hate?  My wife is a nurse, and a Tea Party member; which part of her is my enemy, that I should therefore hate?  In my family are cops, teachers, firefighters, bus drivers, prison guards, and, yes, “the guy who plowed out my road in the last snowstorm.”  Ordinary working stiffs -- and family.  And you dare taunt me to see them through your eyes, and claim to hate them?  I think not.

Did/do all those relatives and their fellow union members instruct their unions to fund anyone’s political campaign or initiative?  I think not.  Did any of them have a choice?  I think not.  Did any of them even know?  I think not.  Were any of them aware of their dues going to feather the personal nests of their shop stewards, local presidents, and national officers?  I think not.  Would they approve if they knew?  I think not.  And you want me to say that I hate them?  Honestly, I think not!!  

As for “Just for the fun of it,” it’s not funny; the subject is too serious.  Plus, it’s demeaning: to your target; to those you’re supposedly supporting; and to yourself.  The same holds for “hate.” These are the tools, tactics, and mindsets of antagonizing and agitating; and their intent is to destroy, not build.  You can do better.

To the extent I am able, I try to live by two guiding principles:

1.       We are all God’s children.  Thus, I have a duty to treat all persons as such (and they, me.)  And I believe that actually living that principle would make this world a far better place. 

2.       I also hold to the concept of separation of Church and faith.  The Church, being run by Man, can and does make mistakes.  Faith, on the other hand, being from God, doesn’t.

Within this construct, in my faith, we distinguish between the deed and the doer.  Here’s an example of how it applies:  In the 2004 Presidential campaign, in a nationally-televised debate, John Kerry responded to the moderator’s query on his views on same-sex marriage with this bomb: “We’re all God’s children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.”  In the short space of a single sentence, Kerry revealed himself as a monumental hypocrite – insulting, demeaning, and humiliating one of God’s children just to score political points!  But, while I can (and do) despise the deed, I cannot hate the doer; I can only pray for him.  He will answer to his Maker, not to me.  Denounce the deed; chastise the doer.

Similarly, when two entities conspire to harm a third, e.g., political parties colluding with unions to rip off the taxpayer, merely for the momentary slaking of  their mutual greed for power and riches, I can’t let myself stoop to hating them -- but I can recognize corruption, and the injustice of the deed.  And I can withhold any respect, both for them and for what they do.  As we are all aware, for as long as there have been politicians and unions they’ve been doing this little minuet.  So have Big Money and unions.  In fact, history shows that any time two greedy individuals or groups concoct or see an opportunity to steal another’s rights or property, they simply can’t resist the temptation.  Does this apply to all unions?  No.  Does it apply to some?  Absolutely. 

So much for your challenge – but I have one for you:  Are you up to an open and honest (there’s that word again) debate that goes beyond all the lather and blather about “hating” public sector employees and unions, and instead addresses the true substance of the issue, i.e., are public sector unions and their collective bargaining agreements even necessary; indeed, are they at all beneficial to the public?  After all, we pay the tab; do we get true value for what we pay?  Or do we get less? 

If I’m a teacher, how does “demonstrating” in the State Capital building; doing so on my employer’s time and dime; publicly (and proudly) using fraudulent doctor’s “excuse” notes to avoid being docked, reprimanded, or fired; encouraging/allowing my students to participate in interrupting my representatives’ legitimate conduct of the public’s business; lionizing other elected representatives who flee the State and refuse to do their jobs --  how does all this improve those students’ respect for true authority and for the laws that, as a public employee, I represent but refuse to uphold?  How does this kind of behavior, attitude and example earn their respect for me as their teacher/moral guide?  How does it earn their parents’ respect?  How does it help them to improve, rather than continue to lose ground vis-à-vis their scholastic counterparts around the world – who will soon enough outwork, out-produce, outshine, out-innovate, and outpace them in that real world?   Are our children and their future helped -- or harmed -- by this kind of behavior, attitude, and example?  As a public employee, what am I really teaching here?  What’s my real job? 

Mr. Editor, rather than challenging us to say things which we both know not to be true, are you up to doing something positive and actually constructive?  Are you up to my challenge? 

You dared us to put “an honest post” on our website.  Here’s mine – and I intend to share it with everyone I can.  In closing, I want to acknowledge the wisdom of Admiral Yamamoto’s comment in his report to the Emperor on Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor:  “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant.”  How right he not only was, but remains.

Sincerely,            

Bud Nason

We The People of Carroll County, Maryland

Cicero said this of The Enemy Within:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.  But it cannot survive treason from within.  An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.  But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.  For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.   He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.  A murderer is less to fear.  The traitor is the plague.”