Wha happen?

Get rich quick schemes, favored by Wall Street, were sold to the public, as patriotic as microwaveable apple pie. Of course they crumbled. The tail (financiers and hedge traders) wagged the dog (corporate boardrooms). This was done in the name of “liquidity.” But note that get rich quick schemes are the favorite tool of con men. They are inherently unstable. So “too big to fail” is what happens when Brobdingnagian business meets instant trading.

The watchdog role of government was cuckolded by anti-government rhetoric and political campaign contributions.

Here’s a blog by Michael Reardon. His idea is to establish the “George Bailey” award. It would be given annually to deserving business persons who best exemplify the spirit of Frank Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

Many dislike the politics of Frank Capra. But even the most hardened cynics get teary-eyed if forced to sit and watch this fabulous piece of storytelling. Admit it, the film is a tidy counter balance to the “me, me, me society” of the 2000’s.

Read Mike Reardon’s blog at:

http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2011/12/05/lets-move-tobedford-falls/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RSAcomment+%28RSA+Comment%29

Is the legend true?

I attended a meeting of the North-East PAChyderm Coalition last week.  The PAChyderms were hosting a forum for the Republican candidates for Corporation Commission.  The new candidates on the republican slate are former Senate President Bob Burns and former Scottsdale Councilwoman and CAP Chair Susan Bitter Smith.  I have a little history with both, so I thought it might be interesting to attend.

The PAChyderm Coalition bills itself as a “Reagan Republican organization.”  This particular chapter seems rather small, but they may have been up-staged by the fact that two of the republican candidates for President of the United States were making appearances in the Valley at the same time.

The meeting was headed by a guy named Howard Levine.  Howard seems like a likeable, sincere guy, eager to “make a difference” in government.  Howard also seems intelligent, but definitely has a bad case of what I call “Dogmaticia Extremicus” (extreme dogma).  This affliction makes people blow things up way out of proportion, and seems to cause irrational fear–similar to the legend of the elephant and the mouse.

Howard is incented by the mandate that requires that 15% of APS and SRP power be generated from renewable sources by 2025.  None of the candidates endorsed the policy; they all called it an “experiment.”  They all agreed that the mandate should not be enlarged, but they also felt it was too late to roll the mandate back.

Howard disagreed.  He kept pushing the panel for a “repeal” date.

Now remember, these are all really conservative candidates.  Although I wasn’t familiar with the incumbent, Commissioner Bob Stump (great name though!), I would say that all three seemed ideologically aligned.  From my past history with Bob (Burns) and Susan, I am sure they would make wise and fair judges for the Commission.

But that wasn’t enough for Howard.  He kept pressing.  You could tell the panel was uncomfortable, if for no other reason than not wanting to boil highly complicated (and boring) regulatory matters down into neat little sound bites.  Finally after much prodding they agreed that the only date certain was 2025.  Howard seemed to lose sight of the fact that the mandate actually sunsets in 2025.  Still he seemed satisfied:  “Maybe then we can throw away our solar panels, and rates will go down.”

Howard’s questioning bore little resemblance to the complicated spreadsheets commissioners must wade through.  Never mind such pesky things as capital outlays, depreciation and revenue streams.

What does all this mean?  Here is an example of smart guy trying to make a complicated issue fit into a tidy, somewhat over-simplified vision of the world.  Why?  I can only assume because it makes Howard feel better.

Now I’m not saying that some of his concerns are baseless, but isn’t the complexity of utility regulation the reason why we elect commissioners?  It was if he was trying to prove that a pair of pants is really a shoe.

For the record, the RINO Dude is actually for the 15% mandate.  I think it withstood early and withering conservative skepticism and has really emerged a winner for the state.  I am not; however, interested in raising the mandate to a higher percentage.

In an earlier post entitled “A Closer Look at the Clowns in the Cockpit,” I detailed how in 1990 NASA had determined that 65% of all airline accidents stemmed from pilot error, and that such errors came from the pilot’s own “godlike certainty” (their words not mine).

History is full of “group-think” mistakes carried out by people with “godlike certainty”.  Howard Levine is a nice, well-meaning man—but even well-meaning people can lose their moral compass when they think they have all the answers.

I know this put me at odds with the current mind-set within my party.   But it is a condition that, in my opinion, is not only consuming our party, but it is paralyzing our country.

Apparently I am also at odds with the Ronald Reagan quote featured on the PAChyderm website:

“A political party cannot be all things to all people.  It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers…. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these conservative principles, then let them go their own way” (emphasis added).

What can I say?  Those are strong words meant to lead the true believer.  But quotes can be taken out of context.  Here’s another quote from a pretty famous republican: nothing is right 100% of the time.  And another, this one from scripture, which says:  there is a time and a place for everything under the sun.   This is why I cringe every time I hear from people so filled with certainty.  And, with all due respect, by definition, a political party certainly is many things to many people–that is the nature of the big tent (another circus allusion, see how tidy that is!).

For an interesting “Myth Buster” on the elephant vs. mouse legend watch here:

The “Tea Party” and “Yes We Can” are two sides of the same coin.

Think back two years.  October 2008, the improbable was happening.  Then Senator Obama’s dark horse presidential campaign held a significant lead in the home stretch.  Even more amazing, it was about to be swept over the finish line by Wall Street’s crumbling infrastructure–infrastructure built on a foundation of Neo Conservatism.

The slogan “Yes We Can” effectively summed up what candidate Obama was selling:  optimism in the face of wide-spread dissatisfaction over an already worsening economic environment and the Iraq war.  A close look at Senator Obama’s actual policies never occured.  The Republicans were in disarray.  Senator McCain was too busy shoring-up the right wing of the party to be mounting a serious campaign for the hearts and minds of moderates.

But had Mr. McCain been able to do so, perhaps he could have said this, “There is nothing new about Mr. Obama’s rhetoric.”   Oh there was talk about opportunity afforded by a new “green economy,” but there was no realistic roadmap on how to get there other than some reheated Keynesian thinking (and perhaps a dash of central-party planning).  Boiled down, for Obama and the Democrats, change meant returning to FDR-style policies.

Fast forward to today.  The Republicans are poised for big wins in the House and Senate.  This seems to be a reaction to the continuing awful economic environment, perhaps combined with an Obama backlash (political scientists tell us this happens to some degree with every first-term president).  But what horse are Republicans riding in this race? 

The Tea Party would like to believe it is the same one rode by Paul Revere himself, but if you believe that—well you probably belong to the movement.   No, if you take out the anger, and the immigration debate, from an economic policy perspective, this is the same stuff Ronald Reagan ran on.  Get the government out of the way and everything will be fine–not really any different from Milton Friedman and the Chicago School.

We're all mad here...

The reality is that neither idea is new.  Strict adherence to one or the other does not offer any new answers to the long-term debt and employment problem faced by the U.S. (and Europe and Japan for that matter).  Both extremes perpetuate the same idea, which lies at root of our problems:  that you can get something for nothing.  And, unfortunately, until the “you know what” really hits the fan, it seems unlikely that we are destined to make progress on the real issues—Social Security, health care, and defense. 

The good news is that it seems we’ll always have Washington to blame for our problems.

Embrace Complexity

In the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, a baby is born to old age and then reverts to infancy.  More on point, the author of the Dune series opines that societies become “soft” once they become dominant, eventually decaying and passing from glory because they are no longer shaped by hardships that led to greatness. 

I do not mean to suggest that anyone’s particular lot in life is easy.  Life in general is often cruel and unfair.  But step back and view life in the United States as others see it.  We all should be thankful to be Americans.  Often times, when I listen to political rhetoric, I would think we are an oppressed people.  Anger and fear are so persuasive that I hardly recognize this country as the one I grew up in.  I believe this reaction stems from the complexity of our modern world.  Problems are so intertwined and change happens so quickly, that we suffer from burn-out.   

It may be comforting to know that this problem is not new and probably tied to simply being human.  Certainly change and complexity have picked up in the modern era (defined as post enlightenment).  Abraham Lincoln said, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.”  I find Lincoln particularly inspiring because at a time of unmatched difficulty and discord, he guided the nation by two stars:  the importance of individual liberty and the importance of the American experiment, the union that guaranteed such liberty to its citizens.

Comparatively, today we have little to complain about.  It is alarming to hear Americans revert to whining complainers.  We live in an age of “miracles and wonders” and, as a citizenry; we enjoy a life style unsurpassed in the history of the world.

There are foundational problems.  Chief among these is our version of the welfare state.  The welfare state was sold as a way to ensure “social security” (little-S little-S) without the redistribution of income.  As the original opponents of the system argued, welfare systems as they exist here and in Europe (spend as you go) are elaborate pyramid schemes.  With shrinking population bases and modern medicine extending life-span, the pyramid is being turned up-side down.  We are now locked in, millions and millions of Americans depend on promised benefits.  Yet we continue to stick our head in the sand and point fingers rather than rolling up our sleeves to tackle the issues.  Unfortunately, the situation is going to get worse the longer we continue to ignore it.

However, even here, after writing these words, it is easy to see that everything is not black and white.  The tendency of fertility rates among women living in developed countries to go down (which is driving the pension problem), is actually a good thing for the future of life and human civilization on this planet. 

Therefore, our well publicized immigration problem can be seen in a new light.  The United States obviously has the right to control its own borders, and supporters of measures like S.B. 1070 have a valid point when they talk about respect for the rule of law.  But, in the short-term America must continue to grow in order to support its aging population.  If the Tea Party were honest, they would acknowledge that undocumented aliens, who use phony Social Security numbers, actually contribute more to the Social Security and Medicare systems than they take out.  To the extent that some are paid under-the-table is more an issue of U.S. citizens taking advantage of lower-than-market labor rates.

Many worry about illegal aliens accessing the Medicaid and public education systems, but, as I discussed above, this is a rather limited view of human capital and, again, such situations are not entirely black or white.  In regards to the health and education of children, these are citizens according to the Constitution.  But there is an additional responsibility we have as the world’s leader.  We must find humane solutions to such problems, particularly when our own country’s drug abuse problem contributes so mightily.

My point in all of this is not to defend any particular political philosophy or dogma.  Instead I want to point out that these are difficult times, and our problems are so complex that we need new solutions.  In Lincoln’s words, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.”  Note that Lincoln used the words “rise with the occasion” rather than “rise to the occasion.”  This is an important distinction.  Not everything is so bad.  The way forward is not with malice, but with rational amounts of charity.  The words also suggest the importance of non-linear thinking rather than the reliance on old beliefs and certainty.  Such thinking hinders the creative process and the search for solutions.

In the meantime we should be grateful for all we have.  Count your blessings, acknowledge that life is good.  Doesn’t the label “ugly Americans” apply if we don’t?

Desparados Muchacos

When I was a young boy, my grandparents retired and moved to Tucson from a suburb of Chicago to be close to my family.  I’ll never forget what my Grandmother told me.  Paraphrasing, she said something along the lines of:  “We must try to understand the Mexican culture, as it has been here in this part of the country longer than we have.”  That was my Grandmother, though staunchly conservative, she was always an independent thinker.  In a previous post I suggested that the best strategy for Republicans in regards to immigration reform is to hold Democrats accountable to their pledge of closing the border.   I understand the desire to do something more about illegal immigration, but with one exception, I still believe that is the best strategy.   

The exception is pretty huge.  It comes from my perception that sometime during the 90’s, the federal government made a big push to effectively “close” the California border to illegal immigration.  Arizona then became a major thoroughfare, but has received little assistance from the Fed’s ever since.  As a matter of fact, former Governor Janet Napolitano used to make this a big talking-point during her administration.   

The new law certainly has drawn attention to the situation.  Arizona has become the “squeaky-wheel” of U.S. immigration reform.  It has focused the nation’s attention on the problem, but at what price?  My wife works for the tourism industry, so maybe I’m more concerned with public opinion than others, but let me remind all the conservatives who fret about Arizona’s business climate that indeed “climate” in terms of tourism has always been one of Arizona’s five “C’s.”  In addition, since national and international companies tend to focus on younger consumers, this does not help in terms of attracting businesses to our state.  I guess one could argue it makes our state more attractive to certain retirees, but do we really want to be known for that?   

As far as the big picture is concerned, this could do for Arizona what Pete Wilson and Prop 187 did for California, which, after being over-turned by the courts, swung the balance of power to the Democrats.  Typically, Arizona always trends 10-20 years behind California, just look at the demographics.   Arizona’s racial composition is changing, the Latino population has increased 180% since 1990, and 62% of this increase is due to birth rates (U.S. citizens).   “Non Hispanic Whites” make up only 43% of those under 18, while they make up 83% of those over 65—that’s a 40 point difference.  Fertility rates among Latina women are 2.9 compared to 1.8 for European and Asian women.  If I worked for the marketing department of the Republican Party, I’d say we just made our product into modern-day Geritol.   

I do believe both sides talk out of both sides of their mouths.  The left isn’t honest when it calls the bill “profiling.”  Profiling as defined by law has a specific meaning, and this is not it.  However, local law enforcement has been given a terrible burden, and could themselves easily become the target of profiling lawsuits.  Which brings me to another big problem with the law:  that it is one big unfunded mandate.  Isn’t this something we conservatives are supposed to hate?  Couldn’t this easily drive spending increases?   

Like Prop 187, the law should be over-turned by the courts, but not because it’s profiling.  States shouldn’t be allowed to enforce federal law.  How is this any different from the state enforcing I.R.S. regulations?   Is that a precedent we want to allow?   

Immigration is certainly a serious problem, but I’m not really sure we should call it crisis.  I do believe countries have the right to secure their own borders; however, immigration in the millennial decade seems to be on par with immigration during most of America’s short history.  At any one time, about 13% – 15% are usually foreign-born.  The only time foreign-born population was in single digits was the time between the Depression and 1970.  The Great Repression seems to be applying the brakes once again, at least in Arizona.  Census Bureau estimates indicate that annual net migration to the Phoenix area could be down as low as 12,000 from a recent high of nearly 100,000.  Also, with a nationally aging population, we need young workers.   

The bigger problem is our failure in the war on drugs.  Drug importation is the most critical aspect of our border problem, and the hardest to eradicate.  S.B. 1070 will do nothing to address this problem.  Drug cartels also create the civil unrest in Mexico, which ultimately creates more economic refugees.  The situation in Mexico is grim, with corruption and gang warfare out of control.   The number of dead Mexicans dwarf U.S. casualties.   It is not really fair to blame Mexico when it is the laws of supply and demand that fuel the problem.   

Bill supporters say its purpose is to create a “hostile environment.”   How can that statement not be considered racially motivated?  Bigotry and racial stereotypes are organic.  They are embedded in our DNA; however, as human beings we have the choice to rise above such meager origins and aspire to greatness.  Our European neighbors are only now finding out how difficult it is to have multi-cultural societies.  This is also something our ever shrinking world must learn to live with, even homogenous countries like China, we are all interconnected.  America has always been the leader, the land of opportunity because of the emphasis we place on civil rights as imagined by the Bill of Rights, let’s hope that continues.

Federalism in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s amounted to state’s rights.  At that time, joint-stock  corporations were a relatively new concept.  Division of labor had reached the states, but by and large, America was primarily a source of raw material for European manufacturing.  Jefferson’s vision was to have de-centralized power and an agrarian lifestyle.  The Whig or federalist side believed in strong central control, and were intent on developing a strong manufacturing base.  This side scored big with the passage of the U.S. Constitution and the creation of the Federal Reserve, although state’s rights advocates did secure important concessions along the way including the separation of powers.  In the years that followed, many fights took many forms over these basic ideas, but the capper, the one that propelled the nation into the modern age, was the Civil War.  Slavery was the primary reason for the war.  Slavery was an abomination, that, when viewed through the prism of history reveals the depth of man’s inhumanity to man, and man’s ability to rationalize just about any behavior.  But it is also true that the issue of slavery was the ultimate test of state’s rights.  Furthermore, when the antebellum South fell, so did the last vestige of Jefferson’s dream.  Overlaying this time period was the industrial revolution, which effectively made it impossible to turn back the hands of time. 

It was the U.S. evangelical movement, the tradition of Jonathan Edwards that gave birth to the abolitionists.   Truly this was a remarkable feat.  After the war; however, the evangelical movement became bi-polar in its public persona.  Some detested the influence that Wall Street and the big corporations wielded over the political process.  Other evangelical leaders believed in America’s ability to control these forces and harness them for the power of “good.”  Unfortunately, as we have seen, often times “good” can depend on your point of view.  There can be no denying that, America, in general, has been a force for individual liberty and opportunity. 

Issues which have afflicted the evangelical movement are things like the rise of labor unions, prohibition, government regulation, isolationism vs. imperialism, civil rights, and consumerism.  Western expansion, and romance of it, acted as something of a pressure relief valve (although Native Americans and ethnic Chinese did suffer).  It was after World War I, when the country first faced the twin terrors of fascism and communism that the evangelical movement began to turn towards a predominately libertarian outlook.

The only difference I have with libertarian Republicans and Tea Party activists is the degree to which they place their faith in free markets, and their refusal to pay for the services to which we have already committed.  I have written at length about the second, so here’s my take on regulation.

Standard Oil is the model of the modern multi-national corporation.  Every subsequent industry leader have emulated this model, such as Microsoft and Goldman Sachs.  These corporate behemoths do not compete.  They use their market power to avoid it.  Standard Oil either absorbed their competition or squashed it depending on circumstance.  John D. Rockefeller, who is about as interesting as any American who ever lived, and an evangelical to boot, famously said, “Competition is a sin.”  My point is that such corporations have the potential for both good and bad.

The trend over the last thirty years has been mergers and acquisitions.  With few exceptions, the industries that were broken up and/or deregulated have all reconstituted themselves like the liquid steel villain in Terminator 2.  Competition, to the extent that it exists at all between these giants, is not done explicitly on price and quality.  ”Friendly competition” leaves consumers very little real choice.  In some industries that may be fine (though bland).  However, there are some industries that have historically proven that they can’t play nicely.  These industries are so focused on short-term profit that they repeatedly kill the goose that laid their golden eggs.  When I was young, bankers were town leaders and knew pretty much everyone.  They took risk seriously.  They also felt a responsibility to promote a stable environment.  But then when I was young, banks could only incorporate in one state and were highly regulated.  Today’s Wall Street bankers are in dire need of impartial referees.  Their corporate boards have proven themselves completely unable to moderate unethical behavior.  The irony is that though they fight regulation tooth and nail, these corporations will do much better long-term with it, least their activities go viral. 

However, I am not a complete fatalist.  I believe we are in the economic equivalent of the Jurassic time period.  Eventually such corporate T-Rex’s will succumb to natural moderating forces, such as the energy and environmental paradigm.  Eventually, a more libertarian world will emerge.  The slow food movement is a very small, but very good example of the next era that awaits our children’s children.  

Two parting thoughts in regards to competition and the future of democracy itself:  First, if businesses cannot prosper under ham-handed government regulation, how is the success of China to be explained?  Second, it is my firm belief that we must not take the future of democracy for granted; as most of human history has existed under the yoke of tyranny.

Hey wait a minute, who's running this country anyways?

President Obama ran on change.  Is change what we got with healthcare?  Maybe it seems like change to a voter trying to check things off a list, but to me it sounds like more of the same.  Maybe it feels like change for the President’s own party faithful.  But I ask the question again, is change what we got?  I had to smile at this line that I picked out of the Sunday NY Times:  “What if they through a revolution and nobody came?”

The truth is President Obama never really showed us his healthcare hand.  Perhaps he truly recognizes the problem of mushrooming U.S. healthcare costs, particularly in light of the eminent retirement of the baby boom, but if I had to guess, this is what his brain trust were thinking:

First, they wanted to show a big “win” to voters.  He did get a little bump in the polls (and he stopped the slide, which for him was huge) and a “trophy” or “skin” to hang on the wall.  But it came at a great cost—he jeopardized his Democratic Congress and his future legislative agenda.  But most importantly, he has inflicted more damage to the country.  The guy who billed himself as the great healer has torn the country apart and he still hasn’t touched the biggest issues:  debt, government overreach, Wall Street Banking reform, and energy. 

Secondly, I imagine he may have truly wanted to insure the “notch” group—those “46 million” he kept talking about during the campaign, but he did it at the expense of senior citizens (which may or may not be a bad thing), but more importantly he did it at the expense of long-term deficit reduction.

Most of my friends bemoan the fact that this is big government—and I hear them.  The only thing I would say is wake up; the government is already the primary provider of health care.  We lost that battle years ago.  Your baby is already ugly.  The health care industry would crash like an addict going cold turkey if the government didn’t subsidize seniors and the poor, and most of us know it—particularly the elderly!

We are all so stuck in process that we can’t help ourselves.  We all know things have to change, but we’re too scared to do anything about it, so we go back to our accepted definitions of right and wrong, right and left, black and white.  We know that Oprah’s love fest isn’t reality, but we don’t want that guy holding the sign running the country either.  President Obama is not a fascist–maybe a socialist but let’s stop labeling everything for a moment and take a deep breath.

The most amazing thing is that President Obama actually sold FDR/New Deal policies as new ideas and change.  We Republicans should stop and figure that one out.  This country is split into thirds, and those who control the middle will control policy, or else the whole thing falls on its face—and that is an alternative where the country gets even sicker.

For me, chief among these is the sexual abuse scandal.  It is the proverbial “elephant in the room.”  For better or worse, the scandal will continue to rock the Church to its foundation until it drills down deep to deal with these issues.  So this is where I begin to look for answers, both metaphorically and physically.

Several years ago, I was privileged to have the opportunity to take what the Vatican calls the “Scavi” tour.  This tour is limited to the public for reasons that will soon become apparent.  What you do on this tour is explore the ancient ruins buried deeply below the surface of St. Peter’s Basilica—and believe me, just like the sex scandal, they are buried deep.  You enter through air locks down into a moist but surprisingly fresh, temperature controlled environment.  I felt like Maxwell Smart entering Control Headquarters.  As you descend you sometimes glimpse the feet of a multitude of pilgrims seeking truth and more ordinary curious tourists—all of this through special grates and thick one-way glass.

Once you arrive at the appropriate geological strata, you are transported back in time to an engaging Roman roadway.  The roadway is lined with interesting structures each about the size of a living room (some larger, some smaller).  Inside these structures are monuments and benches, they are gravesites with elaborate markers and, sometimes, even graffiti.  This was real life in the first century A.D.  As you move along you eventually arrive at St. Peter’s modest gravesite, and directly above is Michelangelo’s enormous dome reaching for the heavens.

Roman Catholics have a right to be proud of their religious tradition.  There are only a handful of Christian Churches that can claim traditions that date back before Luther.  Roman Catholicism is also the predominant Christian religion worldwide with 1.147 billion souls.  But this is an analogy I think all Christians (Catholics and “Non’s” as we say) should keep in mind:  although the foundation was laid by the almighty, after Jesus, the church was built by human hands.  Admittedly, there were many remarkable hands.  The Catholic Church points to all the Saints and martyrs, and I get it.  But I also think about the dichotomy of Pope Julius (of the notorious Borgia family), perhaps history’s most evil pope.  It was he who Luther rebelled against, but it was also he who commissioned Michelangelo’s remarkable work—the Sistine Chapel and the dome itself.

And that is not to let my fellow Protestants and the scriptures we hold dear off the hook.  Most scholars agree that only seven of St. Paul’s letters are undeniably his.  That leaves three that are questionable and three that are not of his hand.  This should make us curious.  Why would there even be three letters included in the canon not originally Paul’s?

Additionally, there are problems with translations and well-documented copying errors.  So what does all this have to do with Easter, and the meaning of Christmas?

I believe we often get too focused on resurrection at Easter time, forgetting reconciliation, which is more typically celebrated at Christmas time.  Quite frankly we are not even 100% sure that Christ was born on Christmas Day (there’s pretty good evidence suggesting he was not).  That being said, because of the Jewish observance of Passover, we are pretty certain of the timing of Easter, and to me, reconciliation is the true meaning of resurrection.  I may never really know if Jesus actually rolled away the stone and walked bodily out of the tomb.  The Gospel accounts vary greatly, and often the disciples—even the twelve—did not even recognize him. 

But I have seen and felt the miracle of reconciliation in my own life, and, after all isn’t that exactly what “taking away sin” actually means?  Paul used the sign of the cross as a bludgeon against imperial Rome.  It has remained to this day the most poignant symbol of Christ’s suffering, but with the pain comes rebirth, and isn’t that the true meaning of Christmas?

Formal Western American Romanticism as an art form started (as many things originally American things did) in Boston; however, its real genesis probably started in Northern Europe whose populace held America up as the land of opportunity.

Academia tells us that Romanticism was a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, which is probably true, but it is historical irony that the Industrial Revolution produced the very tools used to conquer the last bastion of the wild and romantic West.

The early practitioners of Western American Romanticism were Whitman, Emerson, Thoreau, Poe, and Bierstadt (of the Hudson River School).  Real people, however, seemed to embody and perpetuate the myth–people like Davy Crocket, Mark Twain and Kit Carson.  Perhaps no one embodied it better than Theodore Roosevelt, who led the charge up San Juan Hill, and against the likes of Tammany Hall and Standard Oil, but who also somehow managed to be the nation’s first environmental President.  It is worthwhile to note that Roosevelt was linked to both preservation (Grand Canyon and Yellowstone Parks), and to development (Roosevelt Dam).  Interestingly, Teddy was eventually squeezed out of the Republican Party.  He then formed his “Bull Moose Party,” and went down to unfamiliar defeat to Woodrow Wilson in an election that signaled a real switch in American politics, and perhaps, the true beginning of the Twentieth century.

Jumping forward to the ‘60’s, President Kennedy skillfully usurped Romanticism’s powerful image in front of a televised audience in his “Last Frontier” speech, and, as I pointed out in my last post, Presidential politics have never been the same since.

Hollywood continued the evolution of the art form, combining it with another, perhaps even more powerful story-telling archetype—that of single combat.  In this art form the Western “big man” stands against corruption and the forces of evil, usually to protect a good, but needy small town, unable to fight off the big-bad black hats by themselves.

Make no mistake this is powerful storytelling.  It has resided in our collective conscience since the dawn of pre-history.  It is based on our ancient tribal need to avoid total devastation, which our ancestors accomplished by appointing a single champion.  And so we have Achilles, David, King Arthur, Gary Cooper, Frodo, Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter all coming out of the same literary tradition.

The problem is that Arizona is no longer a small territorial state.  We have big cities, big budgets and complicated problems.  So too, the United States is the undisputed leader of a huge and quickly modernizing world.  Although we yearn for simpler times and rededucted storylines, we must face the reality of life in the twenty-first century.  We must develop the ability to separate our desire to cast things in simple black and white, and do the harder thing, which is to embrace complexity.  Therefore, I am suspicious of any politician on either side of the aisle who appeals to this base instinct[1].  That goes equally for both Tea Party ideology as well as Obama socialism; they are two sides of the same coin.  

All of this reminds me of a powerful line from the song The Last Resort by Don Henley of The Eagles; it goes like this:  “There are no more new frontiers, we have got to make it here.” It’s as simple as that.

"Oz didn't give nothing to the Tin Man that he didn't already have..."

One of my favorite characters in the Wizard of Oz is the medicine show charlatan who, in  Dorothy’s  dream, morphs into “OZ” himself.  “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” he screams as he is revealed to be nothing more than an ordinary man.   There are many pop references to “hawkers” and “snake oil salesmen.”  In a true historical irony, however, John D. Rockefeller’s father famously moved from town to town selling fake miracle cures.  Extending the analogy further, he was also a renowned bigamist, who used his absences from John D’s family to visit his other wives (Mark Stanford anyone?).   We all know that politicians tend to tell you what they think you want to hear.  There is a famous quote attributed to Samuel Johnson that goes:  “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel,” to which Bob Dylan added:  “Steal a little and they put you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king.”  

Growing up in my family, my father drilled us on the virtue of Cicero, whom he said stood like a “Pillar of Iron[1]” against the venial populist Catalina who led the Roman Republic to bankruptcy by over-promising benefits in a bald-faced plan to get himself elected.  Conservatives have long understood this dynamic, calling the Democrats ward healers.  Take a quick look at the infamous corruption of the political machine Tammany Hall for example.  

Nixon often complained about the sweat that gathered over his top lip.

The media has made matters worse.  It is said that people listening to the radio broadcast of the Kennedy/Nixon debates judged Nixon to be the winner; however, the opposite was true with those who watched the television broadcast.  Ever since then, television has been the ultimate tool of Presidential politics.  The twenty-second sound byte evolved throughout the 60’s and was fully formed by the 80’s.  Performance now matters more than content.  

Ideology and certainty have exacerbated the situation.  People tend to listen and read things political that confirm previously held beliefs rather than probing such dissertations in a reasoned pursuit of real solutions to terribly difficult problems.  The media caters to this phenomenon by providing just what their audiences want to hear:  Glen Beck for conservatives, Bill Maher for liberals, and so the political divide gets wider.  

It does seem, however, that voters are getting nervous.  As we swing from one political extreme to another, the one fact that traditional party politics is grappling with is the rise of registered Independents.  In Arizona, we have spilt into roughly thirds—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.  This provides a huge opportunity to the first party to embrace the center, yet the very paradigm that is driving the parties to the extremes seems to be keeping that from happening.   Perhaps the Independents are waiting for a standard-bearer, someone who can hold up under the white-hot lights of public scrutiny.