Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Tea Parties, Patriotism, and Rebellion

There has much commotion about the Tea Parties and the Town Hall meetings that have been taking place lately. And for good reason, there has been much to discuss and much more than just discussion at these public forums. Today I will share my thoughts and ideas on the public forums, many of which may or may not seem random:

For starters, nothing boils my blood worse than calling these forums "unpatriotic" or "anti-American". Especially by people who supposedly support free speech. And by the people that are elected as our public officials. The people that say that these forums and the rebellious attitude are UN-American know very little about American history. We are a nation of rebels. We are a people that have the freedom to complain and fuss and be angry. We are founded on it, entitled to it by our Constitution, and built a culture around this concept of free speech. Granted, I do wish some people would not speak as often as they do(see Nancy Pelosi)but it is not my place to decide who can and can't speak at what time or place. If i were King of this country, I certainly would use my power to close the mouths of many people; but as we have no King, we must rely upon our constitution, our elected officials, and responsible citizens. But that may be a topic for a longer essay and another day. Back to the point of the UN-American activity and the anti patriotism, I have two quotes that come to mind. One is from Thomas Jefferson "who holds that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing" and the other chestnut is from Samuel Johnson, and it says that," Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". There is much food for thought in those two quotes, and very applicable to our society today.

Another thing that gripes me is when "Tea Parties" are just an excuse to yell and complain. It is not that the verbal pugilism bothers me, but that the original Tea Party was held as a rebellion against being taxed without being represented. And in my mind, that is what the tea Parties today should be doing. We are being taxed unfairly and we the people are not being represented. And I believe that this opinion and closely knit sentiment is growing, and will be reflected in the next elections for congress people and such. And this sentiment also is what is feeding such strong emotion and harsh language. I only wish that more people were aware of that, on both sides of the issue. So my "behind" would be much less chapped if we could keep the general fussing and debates to the forums of town halls and such, and that the tea parties would be a demonstration of rebellion to the manner in which our government is being ran these days. This may clear up some confusion and provide a little organization. Not to mention that our displays of rebellion would become more effective and not as diluted by mixing in the town hall issues.

One thing that has been a good thing, in my opinion, is that it is good to see so many people riled up and taking action. This is the best thing that has happened, politically, in a very long time. Maybe we are turning the corner on apathy.
But we unfortunately are not turning the corner on intelligence. I hate "mobs" and feel that many a coward hides inside of a mob. But let's be certain not to confuse a mob with a group of protesters; protesters have a common goal and purpose. And there is strength in numbers. A mob is just a bunch of mad idgits, looking to turn over a car after their team loses at any given sporting event. A mob is mindless and uninformed. Sadly there are some people confusing mobs and protesters, within and outside of the movements. The politicians and media have blurred these terms when it supports their motives, stories, and ratings. It should be on all of us, "we the people" to redefine these terms and peoples. And kick the mobsters out of the protesters. If you are at a public forum and someone acts like a member of a mob instead of a protest or, tell them to hush their mouths and leave. "Go form a mob or something" would work. There is strength in numbers, but idiots and uninformed people who are mad at the world only dilute this strentgh.

I have lost all respect for Anderson Cooper and Sean Hannity for their coverage and opinions of these public forums. I never much liked Hannity and he only confirmed that he drinks too much Kool Aid, but I am really, really disappointed at Mr. Cooper for his adolescent tea-bagging jokes. Very unprofessional. I have gained more respect for Claire McCaskill though. I have never been a fan of her politics, but she is taking a tough, bring 'em on attitude that is very refreshing to see. She is not afraid of the challenge, and this seems to embrace it. That is my kind of person. We can grow through all of this is we all face our responsibilities and if we will not shy away from our duties.

I do not like the new Chicago style strong-arm tactics used by the Obama administration. It shows too much of an arrogant "we vs. them" mentality. It exposes paranoia and elitism. The "If you hit us then we will hit you back" thought process only further divides the American people and will only fuel rebellion; possibly even violently.

And speaking of division, I have never seen such polarization in this country. And I am very disappointed by this. My hope was that President Obama would be instrumental in bringing people together and uniting the country, ala Reagan. This ws the only real thing that I felt he was capable of. But he has been atrocious in this regard. There has been no other worse President as far as setting a "civil" tone in our country. And before you think that this is a shot or a not very well thought out issue on my part, know that I think that the single most important aspect of leadership and especially the presidency, is to set a ethical, moral tone for the nation. This will provide unity. George Bush did this very much during his first term(and none of this in his second term) Reagan did this for eight years. Kennedy did a great job of this. Eisenhower was a leader in this regard. Clinton, not so much, as he lead to much sexual immorality. And before you get mad at that statement, think about the "state of the union" in the sexual context before and after Clinton; or better yet, find some polls or statistics. Or just turn on the cable and find three shows made in the last 10 years that doesn't feature sex. And this sexual "outburst" is due, in large part, to Mr. Clinton. Granted, the people have a choice not to watch or fall prey to the sexual revolution; but a leader none the less is much more responsible and held accountable. That is a tough part about being a leader. That is why you must heavily weigh your decisions and words in any leadership position...and I have gone astray, haven't I? Back to the point: President Obama has lead to a much greater degree of polarization and anger among Americans with his elitist, arrogant, and egotistical attitude and policies. he was big on words of change and hope, but has been small on action that support these big, fancy words used in an election year. Only George H Bush's "read my lips" statement has been as grossly negligent; albeit with smaller consequence. I do feel that Obabams lack of keeping promises and his lies, yes lies, about transparency has grossly fueled the fire of angry sentiments. Not too mention that he is force fed upon us 24/7. But that is a longer issue for another day also...

...but to blame all of this on Obama is not accurate. The last 2 or 3 years of Bush began the anger. His hiding his head in the sand did little to help Americans to feel that anyone was really guiding our country. And when there is lack of leadership, or a leader, people tend to wander around and decide on their own agendas. Then when the agendas clash and there are no answers, just more questions, anger and disillusion occur. And this has been the case of America. And let us not forget that Bush started the bailout crap that the majority of the Americans were against. His allowing Hank Paulson to run amok and panic, showed a lack of leadership and spine. No two ways about it. It began to show that we really aren't being represented and that there is something wrong with our government.

Have I gotten too far from the issue of public forums? I guess this happens when you get behind in your blogging. Sorry...

...Another thing that frustrates me with this stuff is the political spin. People on the left saying that all of this is staged, implying that the people on the right have set up all of these venues in a grass roots movement aimed at undercutting the left. Of course, we have also blurred the words "grass roots", but you get the point I am making. To those who support this school of thought, do you really think that a group of tired old men such that are in the GOP could come up with this plan? Do you really believe that a party as disorganized as the Republican party is today, could organize this many people in the nation? Think about it....I think that the majority of the protesters are conservative, or at least what I used to define as conservative, and that many business owners and individuals do not like the direction of the country. I think that Bush and Obama have created this rebellion, and for this I thank them. But I do hope it serves a purpose and rights our countries path.

Because another thing that I cannot tolerate is the mindless name calling and fighting. Don't get me wrong, I like a good disagreement to keep things honest. But to call people names is just childish and pointless. Unless the shoe fits. But calling Obama Hitler? Come on. Really? Or calling a protester unpatriotic? Honestly...How does this help us show that we are tired of the status quo? And isn't that what the forums are about? That and to ask difficult questions of our elected politicians. Do we want answers and guidance or name calling ad pie throwing? You get out of it what you put into it...

And these are some of my thoughts on the Tea Parties and Town Halls. I am sure that this is not very organized and strays from what I intended on saying on the issue, but it didn't cost you anything. And if you don't like it, grab a couple of like minded citizens and protest. EMail me (ronnie_mason@hotmail.com)send me an angry note on Facebook. But let your feelings lead to an action; an action that will better this blog and those around you. This should be the American way!

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Strange how you would quote someone like Jefferson who fathered a child from a "slave", but would down talk a Clinton who had "sexual relations" with an intern. Sounds party related. Republican vs. Democrat. This is what is wrong with America.

RMason said...

I think that you make a good point on the surface, but I believe that the difference between jefferson and Clinton is like apples and oranges. Jefferson is not a person i would immitate personally, but I agree very much with his political views of a small government. And there is also a difference in the moral tone that was set by the two men. Clinton was riddled by affairs and sexual relations well before he was president, even as governor. His answers to the questions about the affairs usually contained technicalities, half truths and such. And i don't recall Jefferson having to explain oral sex and the like, to the nation. Whether you like it or not, the president sets a tone for the nation and clintons sex life was so that it spilled over into the lives of Americans. Jeffersons did not. Even considering the increased role of the media made things worse for Clinton, it is difficult to compare an affair with affairs. And Clintons sex life, and those who condoned it as merely his personal life, allowed many people to have many "sexual relations" and view them as a lesser evil; even teengers. And while Jefferson was bright enough to get inot a debate as to what "it" or "the" may be, he had the sense not to do such at the cost of the people.

And I never said that I agreed with Jeffersons affair. Never even hinted at it.

Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican; so you can decide, as did the people in the 18th century, if you want to be called a Democrat or a Republican. And i am sorry that you feel that I am a Kool Aid drinker. Maybe you should read more of my stuff. And note that I have many beefs with the party system as it stands today. And that I am very conservative does not make me a republican, unless you wish to stereotype me and ignore my personal views and desires. That is what is wrong with America; we slap a lable on someone by who they vote for and then treat them as a polar opposite in a political war instead as a person with an opposing view of wht we feel would be the best direction for the country. By your comments I can tell that you support Obama, but I am not willing to call you a yellow dog. maybe we should extend the same courtesy to others.

I appreciate the questions and commentsas welll as hope for more in the future. I want to be held accountable for my views and statements!