Every person seeking elected office in this country says that America is the "Land Of Opportunity". It is a requirement. The public must hear those words in every speech, along with "The American Dream", and every speech must now end with "And God Bless The United States Of America". It has become mandatory. What is the meaning and what is the purpose? They are trite phrases without meaning or purpose, but if not said will result in reactionary criticism that includes being un-American and God-less.
Being reactionary used to be an undesirable trait in American politics, but the neo-con right and uber-Christian Tea Party wing-nuts have sadly convinced American low-information voters to believe that it is now desirable. Low-information voters is not a description for people who are unintelligent or do not have the capability to understand issues, but rather they are people who, either intentionally or unintentionally, are poorly informed about the political issues in their country. A large proportion of them are white, working-class people who make voting decisions often based on useless information such as gender or race rather than where a candidate stands on the issues. They often vote against their own interests when purposefully misinformed about a candidate. A classic example of this is the swift-boating attacks on John Kerry.
Before I get too far off track, I want to get back to the "God Bless" point. For over 12 years I was an elected official and for much of that time served with a fellow official who was a couple decades older than I. It is important to note his relative age, because it explains why, at the start of every official meeting, he always said the "Pledge of Allegience to the Flag" differently than most other elected officials with whom I served. He was a very devout Roman Catholic Irishman who did not include the words "under God" in the Pledge. Why not? Because when he went to school, the Pledge did not include those words. They were added in 1954 by a joint resolution of Congress, in reaction to the anti-communist fervor that swept the nation during the Cold War in the late 1940s and early 1950s. If you don't understand this point, refer to Senator Joseph McCarthy and Edward R. Murrow. Check Wikipedia. I'll wait.
So my fellow official learned the Pledge by rote, and seemingly never forgot the original words he memorized. The interesting twist about this story is that the actual original Pledge was created by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, in 1892, and specifically excluded any mention of God. So a religious leader who wanted to encourage Americans to be more patriotic, and to celebrate the 400 anniversary of the Columbus voyage to the New World, saw no need to include "under God" or any reference to religion in the Pledge he wrote. Yet here we are today expecting every political speech to include a trite statement that God should bless our country. And supposedly, no other country. At least not to the extent that God blesses our country. Goes back to American Exceptionalism, doesn't it.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
An Answer
Previously I was asked why Americans believe that anything their country does is "right". I had only a short time to try to explain to the two Germans sitting opposite me on the Inter-City Express train from Brussels to Frankfurt the concept of "American Exceptionalism".
You could say that de Tocqueville started it in the 1830s in his Democracy in America when he said Americans were "quite exceptional" and that perhaps no people would ever be in the same position again. Individual liberty and equality was supposedly unique in America. According to de Tocqueville, it was the Puritan ethic of the American settlers, the lack of a history of feudalism, and the "virgin" land itself that made America "exceptional". Americans differed from Europeans even though they came from Europe. This was the support Americans used for "Manifest Destiny" or the right to expand throughout the continent without questioning the destruction of the existing Native American civilization that millions of indigenous people had established for thousands of years. America became the Land Of Opportunity.
The phrase "American Exceptionalism" became common in the 1920s when it was used--are you ready for this--by the American Communist Party to explain that America was not subject to the Maxist Laws because it was a classless society. However, to the Soviet Communists, the Depression showed the flaw in that argument.
The most concern should be directed toward the present interpretation of the phrase by the neo-conservatives in America, which use the term to mean America is superior to all other countries, and is not subject to the rules of law which the international community has established. The neo-cons argue for an American Empire, which has a mission to forcibly impose American values of government and culture on any other country it sees fit through military and economic power. The neo-cons argue that President Obama does not believe in "American Exceptionalism", because he believes that while America has a major role in leading the nations of the world toward democracy, morality, and peace, it cannot do it alone but must join in partnerships with other nations.
What is exceptional about a country founded on accepting the principle of slavery, genocide of the indigenous peoples, and voting rights only for male property owners? What is exceptional about a country that has less social mobility than many European countries, and greater income inequality than most European countries? What is exceptional about a country that tries to limit the voting rights of minorities, that has more weapons in private hands than the next 20 countries combined, and that attempts to erase 60 years of gains in civil rights, woman's rights, and gay rights in one election? American cannot be the "shining city on a hill" when it has a very high murder rate, a huge prison population, pockets of extreme poverty, and a terribly inequitable health care system. American is no more exceptional than many other countries, and in many ways less exceptional.
As we pulled into Frankfurt bahnhof, I thanked my fellow riders for letting me rant on. We walked down the platform, and I wished them well, as my journey was continuing on another ICE train to Stuttgart. We will never meet again, but we did communicate. It is possible.
You could say that de Tocqueville started it in the 1830s in his Democracy in America when he said Americans were "quite exceptional" and that perhaps no people would ever be in the same position again. Individual liberty and equality was supposedly unique in America. According to de Tocqueville, it was the Puritan ethic of the American settlers, the lack of a history of feudalism, and the "virgin" land itself that made America "exceptional". Americans differed from Europeans even though they came from Europe. This was the support Americans used for "Manifest Destiny" or the right to expand throughout the continent without questioning the destruction of the existing Native American civilization that millions of indigenous people had established for thousands of years. America became the Land Of Opportunity.
The phrase "American Exceptionalism" became common in the 1920s when it was used--are you ready for this--by the American Communist Party to explain that America was not subject to the Maxist Laws because it was a classless society. However, to the Soviet Communists, the Depression showed the flaw in that argument.
The most concern should be directed toward the present interpretation of the phrase by the neo-conservatives in America, which use the term to mean America is superior to all other countries, and is not subject to the rules of law which the international community has established. The neo-cons argue for an American Empire, which has a mission to forcibly impose American values of government and culture on any other country it sees fit through military and economic power. The neo-cons argue that President Obama does not believe in "American Exceptionalism", because he believes that while America has a major role in leading the nations of the world toward democracy, morality, and peace, it cannot do it alone but must join in partnerships with other nations.
What is exceptional about a country founded on accepting the principle of slavery, genocide of the indigenous peoples, and voting rights only for male property owners? What is exceptional about a country that has less social mobility than many European countries, and greater income inequality than most European countries? What is exceptional about a country that tries to limit the voting rights of minorities, that has more weapons in private hands than the next 20 countries combined, and that attempts to erase 60 years of gains in civil rights, woman's rights, and gay rights in one election? American cannot be the "shining city on a hill" when it has a very high murder rate, a huge prison population, pockets of extreme poverty, and a terribly inequitable health care system. American is no more exceptional than many other countries, and in many ways less exceptional.
As we pulled into Frankfurt bahnhof, I thanked my fellow riders for letting me rant on. We walked down the platform, and I wished them well, as my journey was continuing on another ICE train to Stuttgart. We will never meet again, but we did communicate. It is possible.
And more questions
I was on the ICE train from Brussels to Frankfurt reading the Australian magazine, The Monthly, with the cover article by Peter Conrad titled "Obama: Too Good For America?" When I put the magazine down, the two Germans across from me asked what my opinion was of the U.S President. I answered by asking them what their opinion was.
So they told me. It seems that Europeans really like Obama. None of the EU countries are as multicultural as the U.S. is. None have the percentage of their citizens that are of different races than the U.S.--African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans. None have the number of first and second generation immigrants than the U.S. Yet Americans seem to understand little of the world outside of their own country, and when they do speak of the outside world, it usually is stated in terms of America's control of the course of world events. To Europeans this is heard as the American "might makes right" philosophy. Unlike the second President Bush, Obama has moved America back into the world community of nations
Obama has a more realistic comprehension of the present position of the U.S. in the world, and he also understands that, as Peter Conrad wrote, there is no longer any part of the world that is non-American. While American culture is omnipresent, and America is militarily as powerful as it ever has been, the U.S. does not seem to be as threatening with Obama as its leader. At least that was their opinion. Perhaps Obama is too good for America. But what they could not understand was the number of Americans who, it seemed to them, were greatly un-informed and supportive of the extreme right-wing of the Republican party.
They were amazed that so many Americans could not accept climate change, could have such archaic attitudes concerning the rights of women, minorities, and the poor, and especially be so supportive of the growing income inequality in the country.
It was difficult and took much of the rest of the train ride to try to explain the completely foreign concept of "American Exceptionalism". Foreign to them, and probably to you too. But that is for another time.
So they told me. It seems that Europeans really like Obama. None of the EU countries are as multicultural as the U.S. is. None have the percentage of their citizens that are of different races than the U.S.--African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans. None have the number of first and second generation immigrants than the U.S. Yet Americans seem to understand little of the world outside of their own country, and when they do speak of the outside world, it usually is stated in terms of America's control of the course of world events. To Europeans this is heard as the American "might makes right" philosophy. Unlike the second President Bush, Obama has moved America back into the world community of nations
Obama has a more realistic comprehension of the present position of the U.S. in the world, and he also understands that, as Peter Conrad wrote, there is no longer any part of the world that is non-American. While American culture is omnipresent, and America is militarily as powerful as it ever has been, the U.S. does not seem to be as threatening with Obama as its leader. At least that was their opinion. Perhaps Obama is too good for America. But what they could not understand was the number of Americans who, it seemed to them, were greatly un-informed and supportive of the extreme right-wing of the Republican party.
They were amazed that so many Americans could not accept climate change, could have such archaic attitudes concerning the rights of women, minorities, and the poor, and especially be so supportive of the growing income inequality in the country.
It was difficult and took much of the rest of the train ride to try to explain the completely foreign concept of "American Exceptionalism". Foreign to them, and probably to you too. But that is for another time.
Friday, October 19, 2012
More questions
Living every day in the American culture, being immersed in it, can make it difficult to determine the effect American actions have on other people. Is it relevant to consider other people's interests to prevent negative effects on those who are not part of our society? I would hope so, but this is similar to another question I was asked while in Europe: Why do Americans think that anything their country does is always "right"? Before I get into this issue, let me present an example of how some U.S. politicians manipulate Americans.
One of the present political arguments being made in the U.S. is that the European Union (commonly called "Old Europe") is socialist, and any actions taken by the U.S. government that mirrors the way the EU does it is a socialist action, and is therefore "bad" because socialism is bad. That is the simplistic way that neo-conservatives package their political philosophy. No questions are asked, no true analysis is done to see if an EU action has value, it is just wrong.
However, one specific point that neo-cons emphasize is that America has a high corporate tax rate, and other Western industrialized nations have a much lower rate. The result of this is lower job creation in the U.S. compared to other countries. Note that they do not specifically use the term EU or "Old Europe" when talking about this issue. If they did, then it would be socialist, and therefore, bad.
In order to be more competitive, and multinational-corporation-friendly, the U.S. should lower their corporate tax rate from the commonly-stated 35% to the 25% rate of other countries, or better yet, the 16% that Canada has. This is argued as if there were no other requirements on corporations in other countries that differ from those in the U.S., and as if there were no other differences in tax burdens on people. Look at a few actual examples.
In Germany, it is true that the federal corporate tax rate is about 16%. However, corporations are also subjected to local taxes from 14% to 17% on top of the federal rate. The maximum personal income tax rate is 45%, and the VAT (sales tax) is 19%. Those last two rates are never mentioned by the neo-cons.
Okay, let's look at the UK. Corporate rate of 20 - 24%, personal income rate of 20% - 50%, and a VAT of 20%. Ouch!
All right, what about Norway. They are in Europe but they are not a member state of the EU. Corporate rate of 28%, personal income rate of 54%, and VAT of 25%.
You get the point. Every country in Europe is similar to the above examples. And this doesn't include regulations that result in increased costs for corporations. In Germany, most large corporations are required to allow employees to elect a percentage of seats on the corporation's supervisory board. In many EU countries, if a layoff occurs, the unemployed workers are entitled to a living allowance, help in finding work, and alternative training. In Ireland the unemployed worker can get a rent supplement, mortgage interest supplement, and fuel allowance. In the Netherlands, the unemployed worker gets 70% of their last wage for 38 months, all paid by the company.
It is irresponsible to argue for a lower U.S. corporate tax rate as if it were a black box, with no other inputs that would affect the true value of such an action. And if you really want to know the complete truth, most large American corporations--due to loopholes, subsidies, and various government benefits--actually pay less than a 15% effective tax rate. Some pay no tax at all, and have not for years.
One of the present political arguments being made in the U.S. is that the European Union (commonly called "Old Europe") is socialist, and any actions taken by the U.S. government that mirrors the way the EU does it is a socialist action, and is therefore "bad" because socialism is bad. That is the simplistic way that neo-conservatives package their political philosophy. No questions are asked, no true analysis is done to see if an EU action has value, it is just wrong.
However, one specific point that neo-cons emphasize is that America has a high corporate tax rate, and other Western industrialized nations have a much lower rate. The result of this is lower job creation in the U.S. compared to other countries. Note that they do not specifically use the term EU or "Old Europe" when talking about this issue. If they did, then it would be socialist, and therefore, bad.
In order to be more competitive, and multinational-corporation-friendly, the U.S. should lower their corporate tax rate from the commonly-stated 35% to the 25% rate of other countries, or better yet, the 16% that Canada has. This is argued as if there were no other requirements on corporations in other countries that differ from those in the U.S., and as if there were no other differences in tax burdens on people. Look at a few actual examples.
In Germany, it is true that the federal corporate tax rate is about 16%. However, corporations are also subjected to local taxes from 14% to 17% on top of the federal rate. The maximum personal income tax rate is 45%, and the VAT (sales tax) is 19%. Those last two rates are never mentioned by the neo-cons.
Okay, let's look at the UK. Corporate rate of 20 - 24%, personal income rate of 20% - 50%, and a VAT of 20%. Ouch!
All right, what about Norway. They are in Europe but they are not a member state of the EU. Corporate rate of 28%, personal income rate of 54%, and VAT of 25%.
You get the point. Every country in Europe is similar to the above examples. And this doesn't include regulations that result in increased costs for corporations. In Germany, most large corporations are required to allow employees to elect a percentage of seats on the corporation's supervisory board. In many EU countries, if a layoff occurs, the unemployed workers are entitled to a living allowance, help in finding work, and alternative training. In Ireland the unemployed worker can get a rent supplement, mortgage interest supplement, and fuel allowance. In the Netherlands, the unemployed worker gets 70% of their last wage for 38 months, all paid by the company.
It is irresponsible to argue for a lower U.S. corporate tax rate as if it were a black box, with no other inputs that would affect the true value of such an action. And if you really want to know the complete truth, most large American corporations--due to loopholes, subsidies, and various government benefits--actually pay less than a 15% effective tax rate. Some pay no tax at all, and have not for years.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Questions
I was asked a number of interesting questions while in Europe while meeting British, German, and Australian friends, and discovered a number of interesting impressions others have of the political situation in the USA. One impression is that the two political parties in America are simply two variants of the same center-right political party, with the Democrats being slightly more center, and the Republicans being slightly more right. When compared to other Western industrialized countries, this is usually true.
In the UK there are 3 major political parties which have over 90% of the seats in the House of Commons: Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrats, all of which would be more "liberal" than either the Democrats or Republicans. But there minor parties which also have seats: the Scottish National, the Plaid Cymru in Wales, Democratic Unionist, and a few others.
In Germany, the two major parties, the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats have controlled the selection of Chancellors since 1949, but the Free Democrats, and the Green Party also have seats in the Government and have important roles in policy decisions. The Pirate Party is growing rapidly. All are to the left of American parties.
Perhaps Australian politics comes closest to the USA with the two major parties, Labor and Liberal/National Coalition dominating the country in recent years, but the Greens, Australian Party, and Democratic Labor Party also have seats in the government. The Liberal/National Coalition is perhaps the only one that is center-right similar to the Democrats or Republicans in the U.S. The ruling Labor Party is considered center-left.
I would have to agree with my friends concerning the position of American political parties on the political spectrum, however I would have to disagree with them that the difference is so small that there is no value in supporting one over the other in the present election cycle. When one party supports women's rights and the other opposes it, one party supports health insurance for 30 million people who are now without it and the other party opposes it, and one party supports the great income inequality in the country and the other party opposes it, then I believe these are sufficient reasons to value one over the other. Granted there is little chance for a third party to become established nationally, or even locally, in the near future. The influence of money in American politics is well recognized, and, sadly, will prevent the growth of third parties, just as it has prevented the existing parties from moving to the center. Forget about center-left or even radical centrist parties. The last chance for that was lost in 1972 when I was in the Antipodes having a pie floater.
In the UK there are 3 major political parties which have over 90% of the seats in the House of Commons: Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrats, all of which would be more "liberal" than either the Democrats or Republicans. But there minor parties which also have seats: the Scottish National, the Plaid Cymru in Wales, Democratic Unionist, and a few others.
In Germany, the two major parties, the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats have controlled the selection of Chancellors since 1949, but the Free Democrats, and the Green Party also have seats in the Government and have important roles in policy decisions. The Pirate Party is growing rapidly. All are to the left of American parties.
Perhaps Australian politics comes closest to the USA with the two major parties, Labor and Liberal/National Coalition dominating the country in recent years, but the Greens, Australian Party, and Democratic Labor Party also have seats in the government. The Liberal/National Coalition is perhaps the only one that is center-right similar to the Democrats or Republicans in the U.S. The ruling Labor Party is considered center-left.
I would have to agree with my friends concerning the position of American political parties on the political spectrum, however I would have to disagree with them that the difference is so small that there is no value in supporting one over the other in the present election cycle. When one party supports women's rights and the other opposes it, one party supports health insurance for 30 million people who are now without it and the other party opposes it, and one party supports the great income inequality in the country and the other party opposes it, then I believe these are sufficient reasons to value one over the other. Granted there is little chance for a third party to become established nationally, or even locally, in the near future. The influence of money in American politics is well recognized, and, sadly, will prevent the growth of third parties, just as it has prevented the existing parties from moving to the center. Forget about center-left or even radical centrist parties. The last chance for that was lost in 1972 when I was in the Antipodes having a pie floater.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
More fears
Back at my friend's home north of Stuttgart, the town was having their annual medieval festival. My friend and I, along with the whinging pommy bastard who is the other male member of my friend's family, laughed at the jesters, listened to the merry tunes, and drank some hearty grog. For those who are unaware, as a former Australian, the term I just used to describe an Englishman was the most common one used at any drinking establishment in New South Wales and is not necessarily derogatory. Whinging means complaining, and pommy is the common term for a Brit in Oz, as limey is in the U.S . Bastard is usually added for emphasis, especially at cricket matches. Well, maybe it is derogatory. Nothing personal, John.
The Brit did wonder a bit about my explanation at the Volkfest earlier in the day concerning fear in America. He wondered if I really believed what I had said, or if it was the biere talking.
I was born into an America that was taught to fear. The earliest I remember was the Soviet Union which was run by dictatorial communists who wanted to dominate the world, so we had to build countless nuclear weapons that could destroy an enemy, and likely the entire world, many times over to deter an attack upon our country. We had an appropriate acronym for this policy, which was called MAD, for Mutually Assured Destruction. Tens of thousands of Americans died fighting in a war in Korea because we had to fear the Communist Chinese Red Hordes who wanted to dominate the world. The Soviet surrogate, Cuba, had to be feared, so it became US policy to overthrow the Cuban government by supporting the Bay of Pigs invasion, the establishment of Operation Mongoose, and the eventual naval blockade called the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Vietnam War became an equally large reason to fear the Soviets and Chinese, because the fall of Vietnam would result in a domino effect, culminating in the Vietnamese dominating the world, or at least Vanuatu, Brunei, and the Maldives. Twice the number of Americans died in Vietnam as had died in Korea. The US government knew that the Vietnamese had fought the Chinese, the French, the Japanese, and the French again, and despite no indication of wanting to dominate anyone but themselves, the US had to fear them. They are now a welcome U.S. trading partner .
After Vietnam, the US still had the Soviets and Chinese to fear. We soon lost the Chinese when Nixon visited the Great Wall in 1972. But, another fear was created when the Shah of Iran, an ally of the US, was replaced by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Now the US had not only Arabs, a whole race of people to fear, but an unusual religion, Islam. Ignoring the fact that Iranians are Caucasians and not Arabs, the religion thing was a bonus for generating fear, because it was a completely foreign, read non-Christian, religion.
The Soviet Union disintegrated, and Communist China turned into Business China, so the Arab / Islam fear was encouraged. After the 9/11 attacks, fear of Arabs and Islam grew into the fear we know today. Then fear of Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, etc.
Of course there had been other fears: The Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and many others. And these are all only the foreign country fears to which Americans have been constantly subjected.
Don't get me started on domestic fears of black, brown, yellow, and red people. Keep Americans fearing that all their problems are caused by others, and you end up with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
Yes fear is a basic requirement for living in the USA.
The Brit did wonder a bit about my explanation at the Volkfest earlier in the day concerning fear in America. He wondered if I really believed what I had said, or if it was the biere talking.
I was born into an America that was taught to fear. The earliest I remember was the Soviet Union which was run by dictatorial communists who wanted to dominate the world, so we had to build countless nuclear weapons that could destroy an enemy, and likely the entire world, many times over to deter an attack upon our country. We had an appropriate acronym for this policy, which was called MAD, for Mutually Assured Destruction. Tens of thousands of Americans died fighting in a war in Korea because we had to fear the Communist Chinese Red Hordes who wanted to dominate the world. The Soviet surrogate, Cuba, had to be feared, so it became US policy to overthrow the Cuban government by supporting the Bay of Pigs invasion, the establishment of Operation Mongoose, and the eventual naval blockade called the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Vietnam War became an equally large reason to fear the Soviets and Chinese, because the fall of Vietnam would result in a domino effect, culminating in the Vietnamese dominating the world, or at least Vanuatu, Brunei, and the Maldives. Twice the number of Americans died in Vietnam as had died in Korea. The US government knew that the Vietnamese had fought the Chinese, the French, the Japanese, and the French again, and despite no indication of wanting to dominate anyone but themselves, the US had to fear them. They are now a welcome U.S. trading partner .
After Vietnam, the US still had the Soviets and Chinese to fear. We soon lost the Chinese when Nixon visited the Great Wall in 1972. But, another fear was created when the Shah of Iran, an ally of the US, was replaced by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Now the US had not only Arabs, a whole race of people to fear, but an unusual religion, Islam. Ignoring the fact that Iranians are Caucasians and not Arabs, the religion thing was a bonus for generating fear, because it was a completely foreign, read non-Christian, religion.
The Soviet Union disintegrated, and Communist China turned into Business China, so the Arab / Islam fear was encouraged. After the 9/11 attacks, fear of Arabs and Islam grew into the fear we know today. Then fear of Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, etc.
Of course there had been other fears: The Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and many others. And these are all only the foreign country fears to which Americans have been constantly subjected.
Don't get me started on domestic fears of black, brown, yellow, and red people. Keep Americans fearing that all their problems are caused by others, and you end up with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
Yes fear is a basic requirement for living in the USA.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Fears
It was perfect weather for the first Saturday of the Cannstatter Volkfest in Stuttgart. Thousands of people from, based on all the different languages I heard, every country in the world. They had come to see the largest carnival in Europe, and to eat and drink with the Stuttgarters. I was sitting with my friend and his family at a large picnic table in one of the large temporary buildings the Germans call "tents" that are erected by the Stuttgart brewers. Having just finished a very tasty Ganze knusprige Schweinshaxe, which was once an important part of a now-deceased pig and can also be used as a deadly weapon due to its size, two middle-aged couples sat beside us to enjoy the music. There is no explanation for it, but the favorite song of the Volkfest is John Denver's Country Roads, and everyone stops what they are doing to join in singing the song. "Dark and dusty, painted on the sky." The second favorite is YMCA, but isn't that the case everywhere.
Having been introduced as the American visitor, I was asked by one of the newcomers, "What is wrong with America?" Being asked this question was not a surprise. I had been asked the same question earlier in the week at a coffee shop in Brussels, then again while having tea and a Belgian waffle in Brugge, on the Inter-City Express train from Brussels to Frankfort, and on a second ICE train from Frankfort to Stuttgart. So I knew exactly what it was they were asking. How could America actually consider any of the eight nutcases that the US Republican Party put forward for President, and how can it be that President Obama is in a tight political race when he should win 90% of the vote? They do so like Obama in Europe. He seems to understand what America's relationship should be with other countries in the world.
But what they really couldn't understand was how Americans could vote for Mitt Romney after knowing about his foreign bank accounts, his unwillingness to produce tax returns, and his accusation that 47% of Americans were lazy parasites.
Previously I had provided my pat answer. "I live there, and I ask myself the same question every day. What is wrong with America? I don't know." That seemed to satisfy Europeans, who obviously know more about American politics than Americans. But I was half-way through my second masse of Schwaben Welt, and the pat answer was getting a bit old. They deserved the truth. "Right-wing politicians need Americans to be in constant state of fear."
By the shocked faces now before me, I came to the belief that this was the answer they were neither expecting nor hoping for. Country Roads was played again, and everyone stood up to sing. "Radio reminds me of my home far away." When the song was finished, I was asked, "What do you mean?"
So I finished the bier and said, "Consider the 47% speech. There was Mitt Romney speaking at a wealthy white private residence to a number of wealthy white financial contributors. What would bring fear to that audience? Of course it would be the losing of any of their wealth. And what would cause them to lose their wealth? A non-white President who supports any social program that assists those in need, such as African-Americans, or Hispanic-Americans, which is financed by taxing the wealthy. Yes, they ignore the fact that they and their friends on Wall Street, and in the Bush administration caused the massive recession that put those people in need. Is this racist? Of course, but many Americans respond to racist threats. Most will not admit to being racist. They might use other terms that sound like acceptable political disagreements. Some might say these types of social programs are "redistribution of income", or are "socialist". But these are just code words to induce whites with fear of blacks and immigrants.
"Or take Romney's constant comments decrying China's purchasing of US treasury notes. In reality, China has actually reduced the amount of US debt it owns, and it is now about the same as Japan at 8%. The biggest holders are the US Federal Reserve, and the Social Security Trust Fund. So why all the China-bashing? To create fear in the minds of Americans. The Communist Chinese Red Hordes will soon own the country! Fear China!"
They quickly finished drinking and said their goodbyes.
It was quite some time later that I realized I should have given them the pat answer which would have satisfied them. But I had driven them away by giving them the real answer. And they now feared what would happen to America.
"Take me home. Country Roads."
Having been introduced as the American visitor, I was asked by one of the newcomers, "What is wrong with America?" Being asked this question was not a surprise. I had been asked the same question earlier in the week at a coffee shop in Brussels, then again while having tea and a Belgian waffle in Brugge, on the Inter-City Express train from Brussels to Frankfort, and on a second ICE train from Frankfort to Stuttgart. So I knew exactly what it was they were asking. How could America actually consider any of the eight nutcases that the US Republican Party put forward for President, and how can it be that President Obama is in a tight political race when he should win 90% of the vote? They do so like Obama in Europe. He seems to understand what America's relationship should be with other countries in the world.
But what they really couldn't understand was how Americans could vote for Mitt Romney after knowing about his foreign bank accounts, his unwillingness to produce tax returns, and his accusation that 47% of Americans were lazy parasites.
Previously I had provided my pat answer. "I live there, and I ask myself the same question every day. What is wrong with America? I don't know." That seemed to satisfy Europeans, who obviously know more about American politics than Americans. But I was half-way through my second masse of Schwaben Welt, and the pat answer was getting a bit old. They deserved the truth. "Right-wing politicians need Americans to be in constant state of fear."
By the shocked faces now before me, I came to the belief that this was the answer they were neither expecting nor hoping for. Country Roads was played again, and everyone stood up to sing. "Radio reminds me of my home far away." When the song was finished, I was asked, "What do you mean?"
So I finished the bier and said, "Consider the 47% speech. There was Mitt Romney speaking at a wealthy white private residence to a number of wealthy white financial contributors. What would bring fear to that audience? Of course it would be the losing of any of their wealth. And what would cause them to lose their wealth? A non-white President who supports any social program that assists those in need, such as African-Americans, or Hispanic-Americans, which is financed by taxing the wealthy. Yes, they ignore the fact that they and their friends on Wall Street, and in the Bush administration caused the massive recession that put those people in need. Is this racist? Of course, but many Americans respond to racist threats. Most will not admit to being racist. They might use other terms that sound like acceptable political disagreements. Some might say these types of social programs are "redistribution of income", or are "socialist". But these are just code words to induce whites with fear of blacks and immigrants.
"Or take Romney's constant comments decrying China's purchasing of US treasury notes. In reality, China has actually reduced the amount of US debt it owns, and it is now about the same as Japan at 8%. The biggest holders are the US Federal Reserve, and the Social Security Trust Fund. So why all the China-bashing? To create fear in the minds of Americans. The Communist Chinese Red Hordes will soon own the country! Fear China!"
They quickly finished drinking and said their goodbyes.
It was quite some time later that I realized I should have given them the pat answer which would have satisfied them. But I had driven them away by giving them the real answer. And they now feared what would happen to America.
"Take me home. Country Roads."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)