What do Obama, Romney, Bachmann, et al. have in common?

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., June 22, 2011 –  You need a scorecard to be able to distinguish between the Republican candidates for President.  Interestingly enough, they all share something in common with President Obama:  an insatiable desire for money to fund their campaigns.  The question is whether the Office of President of the United States should go to the highest bidder?  It shouldn’t, but it certainly is trending that way.

As I mention in my book, The National Platform of Common Sense, 2008 Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain, raised approximately $368 million during his campaign.  In his failed attempt to “win” the Presidency, he spent approximately $333 million of that sum.

Senator McCain was somewhat constrained by having signed a pledge that restricted his ability to raise additional campaign funds.  Then-Senator Obama verbally agreed to honor the same pledge but never bothered to sign it.  Since, in today’s world, a man’s word apparently isn’t his bond, Senator Obama was able to ignore the pledge and raise what was considered to be an astonishing $745 million.

Now, Senator Obama could have restricted his spending to something in the neighborhood of the ridiculous $333 million that Senator McCain spent, but he had more than twice that amount in his campaign coffers.  So, there was only one reasonable thing to do:  spend about $730 million of it … because he could.

Lesson learned:  you can buy a lot of attack ads if you have $400 million more to spend than your opponent.  Welcome to American politics at its finest!

Of course, it wouldn’t be hard to come up with 100 other legitimate reasons why President Obama won the election, but no one can reasonably deny that money played at least a partial role.  The issue is whether that should be the case.  Should the person with the most chips at the table have such a decided advantage?

Imagine a poker tournament where everyone started the game with the same number of chips … except for one individual who was given more than twice as many the other players.  Could the lucky individual still lose?  Certainly!  All other things being equal, is it likely to happen?  No!

That’s why we are likely to see a drop-off of Republican candidates after the first campaign financing reports are filed with the Federal Election Committee (FEC) on July 15^th.  If Governor Romney has a dramatic monetary advantage, several candidates are likely to “fold.”  It won’t be because they still don’t believe that their solutions are superior.  It will be because the odds against them are just too high.

The odds are even higher for the 2012 election because the incumbent’s campaign committee has established a goal of raising $1 billion to re-elect the President; a goal they are expected to achieve.  Never mind that the job only pays $400 thousand a year … it’s all about “winning,” as Charlie Sheen might say.  Besides, what else would you do with $1 billion … feed the homeless … educate a few hundred thousand children?  Where are your political priorities?

Most people aren’t aware of how stacked the deck is against those who would otherwise be legitimate candidates in today’s political environment.  In that regard, let’s take a look at a few salient elements of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) … but first, you’ll need a scorecard to identify who is playing.

Candidates may be funded by individual contributions, candidate committees, party committees and Political Action Committees (PACs).  The FECA requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs to file periodic reports that disclose how much money they raise and spend.  It also requires candidates to identify individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle.  So far, so good!

Individuals can give:

$2,500 to each candidate per election

$30,800 to each national party committee per calendar year

$10,000 (combined) to state, district and local party committees per calendar year

$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year

With a combined biennial limit of $117,000 ($46,200 to all candidates and $70,800 to all PACS and parties)

Of course, money can also filter back to the candidates through the party committees and PACs.  For example:

National party committees can give:

$5,000 to each candidate per election

Unlimited funds to a national party committee per calendar year

Unlimited funds to state, district and local party committees per calendar year

$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year

$41,300 per Senate candidate per campaign

District, state and local party committees can give:

$5,000 (combined) to each candidate per election

Unlimited funds to a national party committee per calendar year

Unlimited funds to state, district and local party committees per calendar year

$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year

No other special limits

Multi-candidate PACs can give:

$5,000 to each candidate per election

$15,000 to a national party committee per calendar year

$5,000 (combined) to state, district and local party committees per calendar year

$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year

No other special limits

Non-multi-candidate PACs can give:

$2,500 to each candidate per election

$30,800 to a national party committee per calendar year

$10,000 (combined) to state, district and local party committees per calendar year

$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year

No other special limits

And authorized campaign committees can give:

$2,000 (combined) to each candidate per election

Unlimited funds to a national party committee per calendar year

Unlimited funds to state, district and local party committees per calendar year

$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year

No other special limits

Add it all together and “let the good times roll!”

Luckily, “big money” resources are precluded from having undue economic influence in a federal election.  The FECA states that no one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100, and no one may make a contribution in another person's name (even though, in some jurisdictions, they apparently can still vote).

In addition, the FECA precludes corporations and unions from contributing to federal election campaigns as well as federal government contractors and foreign nationals.  That sounds reasonable and reassuring.  So, why do we hear so much about corporations and unions buying political influence?

Well, it appears that corporations and unions can establish PACs.  Corporate and labor PACs are allowed to raise “voluntary” contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees … and, of course, PACs can give money to candidates and disclose the sources of their funding.  What could possibly go wrong with that scenario?

Corporate and labor PACs may also conduct “other activities” related to federal elections, within certain guidelines (11 CFR Part 114).  There goes the illusion that “big money” isn’t filtering to the candidates through “big business” and “big unions.”  Then again, it’s only money.

Money apparently can’t buy influence.  No less of an authority than Press Secretary Carney says so.  When questioned about the current Administration’s appointments, the Press Secretary said, “We stand by all of our appointments … it is important to note that being a supporter does not qualify you for a job or guarantee to you a job, but it does not disqualify you obviously.”

Evidently, it’s just random chance that nearly 80 percent of those who raised more than $500,000 for the President’s last campaign were chosen to fill “key administration posts.”  The same is true with respect to more than half of the 24 ambassador nominees who fell into that same fund-raising class.

Press Secretary Carney pointed to himself as an example of someone who has risen through the ranks on merit.  “I didn't raise a half million dollars, I didn't raise any money and I'm standing here.”  Please don’t tell him that “Press Secretary” isn’t one of those positions with which a President would reward a major donor.  It’s more akin to getting to be the point man in an assignment to sweep a minefield.

Heather Higginbottom is another example.  She is not a “big donor.”  Since graduating from college, Ms. Higginbottom has worked non-stop in the political arena.  She served John Kerry during his Presidential and Senatorial bids before becoming a valued member of President Obama’s campaign team.  Most recently, she was nominated by the President for the position of Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Deputy Director is the number two position within the OMB.  The OMB is the largest Cabinet-level office within the Executive Office of the President of the United States.  It is intimately involved in resolving our Nation’s budget crisis.  Did I mention that Ms. Higginbottom doesn’t have a background in finance or accounting?  We must not have been able to find a “big donor” with appropriate qualifications.

I guess that money isn’t always the key.  Sometimes it’s just who you know.  However, money talks … and you don’t have to get particularly close to hear it

With approximately 200+ million people in the United States who are over the age of 35 … most of whom even have easy access to their birth certificates … it’s disturbing to think that the Office of President might come down to money.  I guess it’s only a matter of time before we see a “FOR SALE” sign on the White House lawn.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

Website:                   www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in The Communities of The Washington Times.

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made. T.J.

Weiners, Whiners and Other Political Misfits

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., June 13, 2011 – Should moral turpitude enter into the equation when we choose our elected officials?  Congressman Anthony Weiner’s tearful apology for his unacceptable behavior has captured America’s interest for a number of days.  His party’s leadership, which initially offered a rather lukewarm level of support, finally sensed a high potential for collateral political damage and called for him to step down.  In an last ditch effort to overcome the demands for his resignation, he even pulled the “addictive/rehab” hybrid from his bag to help him get out of the “Woods.”  In the mean time, the economy is still in the tank, and our politicians have welcomed the distraction.

Does Congressman Weiner deserve the puerile jokes that media pundits seem unable to resist?  Were it not for the unfortunate burden of his surname, perhaps he would have been spared … at least to the degree that those who broke ground in this area before him were (e.g., Clinton, Condit, Craig, Ensign, Foley, Frank, Lee, Massa, McGreevey, Sanford, Souder, Spitzer, Studds, Vitter, and the Kennedy of your choice … to name just a few from both sides of the aisle).  Some resigned … some still serve in their official capacities.  Are we just a tolerant society, or have we become so desensitized to such transgressions that morals don’t matter?

As Alexander Pope once said, “To err is human; to forgive, divine.”  Certainly, anyone can make a mistake.  Who among us hasn’t?  However, should distinctions be made?

It is one thing for people to err early in their lives when they lack experience and a mature appreciation for the consequences of their actions.  It is another matter, when they should have evolved beyond that point.  When someone decides to represent the People, an even higher standard should be applied.

Elected officials are inherently imbued with power … and with that power should come a greater sense of responsibility.  Men (and women) who hold political office should not leverage their position to attract the sexual attention of others.  In today’s political environment, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that, in many instances, the elected officials are married and of considerably greater years than the parties upon whom they prey.

Part of the problem is that our public officials no longer view themselves as “civil servants.”  For many, there is nothing “civil” about their behavior, and they prefer to be served than to serve.  Their sense of personal entitlement is profound.

Rather than being classified as “civil servants,” our politicians are more frequently positioned as celebrities.  Perhaps we should hope that they be cast in the next Celebrity Apprentice.¹  That would occupy them and Mr. Trump … a veritable two-for-one deal!

The greatest problem with “celebrity” status is that we attribute too much credibility to it (see A Star is Born in the Leadership and Procedural Reform section of The National Platform of Common Sense).

For the past several years, it was difficult to find a news program that didn’t feature Congressman Weiner arguing his position as if it were fact.  He was often arrogant and condescending, but that just made for “good TV.”  His recent apology shouldn’t have come as a big surprise; he had been misrepresenting “the truth” for years.

Accepting Congressman Weiner’s “explanation,” maybe everything he has said in the past should be similarly categorized as “a joke.”  We probably just aren’t smart enough to get his brand of humor.  Perhaps the best course of action is to allow him to continue to serve.  We should just take away his cell phone, block his use of the Internet, and ground him for a month … or at least until his grades improve.

Trusting our officials to “do the right thing” doesn’t seem to be working.  About half of them step down when they violate our trust while the other half remain in office.

The Constitution speaks to presidential Impeachment with nebulous language that refers to “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” to go along with the more clearly defined “Treason” and “Bribery” (Article II, Section 4).  Within the context of English Common Law at the time (which formed the basis of our Constitution), the term “Misdemeanors” meant something different than it does today lest you think the President can be impeached for jaywalking.

The more interesting descriptive term is “high.”  Once again, it does not mean “high” in the colloquial sense with respect to government officials who may or may not have inhaled.  Instead, many Constitutional scholars believe that the term was meant to imply that elected officials who hold “high” offices should be held to a higher standard of conduct.  Imagine that!

Similarly, Article I, Section 5 states, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”  Of course, as we all know, expulsion from “the Good Old Boys’ Club” almost never occurs.  You have to have done something truly dastardly AND proven that you can no longer raise money or otherwise positively impact your party’s chances.

That being said, what if we were to apply a private sector solution to our politicians?  What if we were to have them enter into a binding Ethics Agreement before they could even run for office or, in the very least, before they can serve?  Senior executives often have ethics clauses in their employment contracts.  Heck!  Even “celebrities” occasionally have ethics clauses in their contracts.  Maybe that’s the way to get politicians to embrace the idea; tell them they cannot officially become “celebrities” without signing an Ethics Agreement.

The Ethics Agreement could be fairly straight-forward.  It would require the candidates to act with integrity, honesty, truthfulness and an adherence to an absolute obligation to safeguard the public trust.  It would require them to exercise their best judgment and to make decisions that are in the public’s best interest with disregard to any other influence.

Ethics Agreements also typically require that one adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of all applicable laws and regulations.  Let’s include that for good measure.

They also generally require that one avoid even the appearance of any criminal offense or professional misconduct.  Okay, that may be a tough one for a lot of our candidates to swallow, but we’re making the rules here!

Ethics Agreements also traditionally have an “honors” provision of some kind that requires one to report any transgressions against such ethical principles and standards (including one’s own).  That would spare us from a week’s worth of “I didn’t do it; this is just a vicious political attack” denial press conferences … followed shortly thereafter by the inevitable and usually disingenuous “I’m sorry for the pain I have caused” apology press conferences.

Incorporating the key concepts of the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence might help as well.  Something to remind candidates of the “self-evident” truths “that all men are created equal” and that every citizen has “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” … regardless of the individual’s sex, race, religion, orientation, affiliation, etc.  This could provide some needed direction when elected officials are otherwise tempted to apply their personal prejudices to a given situation.

We might even want to throw in something about how all of their decisions should be driven to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”   Wow!  Those are great ideals.  How did I come up them?  I must be gifted!

Seriously though, in a nation of at least 225 million adults who can run for public office, you’d think we could find 536 competent individuals at the federal level who would be willing to commit to a Code of Ethics and adhere to it … at least for the limited period of their terms.  What they do as private citizens, before and after, is their own business.  However, the day they decide to represent the rest of us in “high” public office … on our dime … it becomes our business.  It would be nice if we could trust our public officials  to behave with proper decorum rather than the “celebrities” they would like to be.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

Website:                      www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in The Communities of The Washington Times.

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Why Bother to Budget When You Can Demagogue?

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., June 1, 2011 – Democrats and Republicans don’t seem to care about our economic reality as long as they score political points.  President Obama invited Speaker Boehner and other House Republicans to the White House this morning to discuss the budget crisis.  Freshman Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) declined the invitation stating, “I don't intend to spend my morning being lectured …”  Despite Rep. Landry’s anxiety about how this session might be the President’s equivalent to the upbraiding he recently received when he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Speaker Boehner described the discussion as “frank” and “productive.”   

TRANSLATION:  nothing was really accomplished.

But why should we worry?  We’ve gone from $9 trillion in debt to $14.3 trillion in just a few years.  That proves we can do it!  Maybe we can “double down” and get it to $28.6 trillion as fast as you can say, “Place your bets.”

Some have claimed that the issue of our national debt has been overstated because we can just print more money.  There goes their chance to win the Nobel Prize in Economics … no matter how easy it is to win one of those awards these days.

This brings us to the most popular word on the Hill today:  “demagogue.”  According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a “demagogue” is “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises to gain power.”

No wonder “demagogue” is such a popular word.  It may be the only word that accurately describes both of the major Parties’ most avid supporters.  Of course, “petty,” “egotistical” and a few other less “politically correct” words might work as well, but “demagogue” seems so much more sophisticated!

So, let’s explore the “popular prejudices and false claims and promise” the Parties use to begin the “demagogue” process.

As we all know, Democrats are bleeding-heart liberals who would give away every hard-earned dollar of someone else’s money to God-less, lazy bums who just want a handout and are probably in this country illegally … and Republicans are cold-blooded, capitalist pigs who want to kill old people and take advantage of the poor and middle-class so they can line their coffers with more money than anyone deserves and gloat about it at church.

If you happen to agree with either of these scenarios, you can stop reading now.  One of the Parties already owns your soul.

If you think both definitions are a bit extreme, there may be hope for you.  Whether you survive the Parties’ intellectual onslaughts is up to you.

Do you watch multiple news channels and listen to different stations … or do you just follow the ones that lean your way?  Do you read multiple publications … or only those that generally agree with your point of view?  Do you research statements made by politicians … or do you just accept the ones made by those who are members of your party-of-choice and reject those made by members of the “opposition?”  As the saying goes, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

With respect to our current economic crisis, Democrats (who haven’t proposed a budget) are quick to claim that the Republican budget is an insidious attempt to “kill Medicare” and that the death of Social Security can’t be far behind; that Republicans want to kill these “entitlements” to provide tax relief to “big oil;” and that Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich while funding the government “upon the backs of middle-class citizens.”

Republicans counter those assertions with the claims that the Democrats want to expand our “already-out-of-control spending” only by “taxing the rich” (who the Republicans portrayed as the backbone of America and the key to private sector job growth); that Democrats “don’t want to fix the deficit” because they want to force our nation into Socialist reform; and that Democrats refuse to consider cuts to any special interest programs that might cost them votes (thus raising fear among the rich).

Either these two mantras are reflective of demagoguery at its worst, or both Parties should be expelled from Washington, D.C. and banned from ever returning.

The reality is that our nation is suffering from a financial crisis of potentially epic proportions.  As a result, all alternatives should be on the table … from taxes to entitlements.

As I described in The National Platform of Common Sense, a good starting point would be Article I, Section 8 of The Constitution of the United States.  That section prescribes the basis upon which the Legislative Branch of our government can raise money and for what purpose it may do so.  Specifically:  “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.”  It tells us that “… all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” and that Congress also has the right “To borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

If Congress restricted its attention to those programs that impact “the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States,” delineating appropriate budgetary cuts would be considerably less daunting.  Once such cuts were defined, Congress could back into the level of taxation that would be required to fund the programs that remained.

The key is to ignore the fictional world of politics and apply the rules of the real world in which the rest of us live.  Think of it this way:  if you didn’t have enough money to maintain your current lifestyle and were spiraling out-of-control toward bankruptcy, what would you do?

The first step that most people would take would be to cut any unnecessary expenses until such time that cash inflows matched cash outflows.  This is because expenses are the easiest budgetary element to control; cutting them generally offers the most immediate impact; and they can be prioritized in a reasonably straight-forward way.

Vacations, luxury items, and other discretionary expenditures would go first.  Basic food and healthcare would be cut last.  You would probably “downsize” certain facets of your life (e.g., housing, etc.) and consider other less expensive alternatives in others (i.e., a smaller car, mass transit, etc.).  No one would think you were crazy.  Everyone would understand.

On the other side of the equation, you could try to raise your income.  You might try to find a second job or perhaps a new one that pays more.  You might begin selling unnecessary assets or redeploying them in a way that produces revenue (renting property, etc.).  You might even try to acquire additional job skills that would lead to a higher level of compensation in the long-term.

What you wouldn’t do is NOTHING.  You wouldn’t continue to spend at your current rate, and you certainly wouldn’t spend at an accelerated one.  You wouldn’t borrow money to buy a shovel to dig a deeper financial hole nor would you expect some other party to “bail you out.”  You would take responsibility for your choices and take all necessary actions that were within your control to stabilize your situation.  Why can’t Congress do the same?

During his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “We do big things.

The idea of America endures.  Our destiny remains our choice.  And tonight, more than two centuries later, it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.”

Let’s “do big things” starting with exhibiting an intelligent level of fiscal responsibility.

Let’s recognize that “our destiny remains our choice.”  Democrats and Republicans can continue to “demagogue” to fix the blame … or they can begin to work together to fix the problem.

The Parties and their devotees need to recognize that “it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong” … not because of any skewed ideologies that “make use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises to gain power.”  (If you need clarity with respect to how weak the Parties’ National Platforms really are, read The Left isn’t Right / The Right is Wrong.)

So, let’s hope that the Parties can put their rhetoric “on hold.”   We need them to take a less biased and more practical approach to resolving our current issues.  If something doesn’t change soon, they may find themselves having to answer to The Common Sense Czar.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

T.J. will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on Thursday, June 23rd on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM (PDT) and KTIE 590 AM 8:00-9:00 PM (PDT).  Listen and watch live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.

Website:                      www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

***** 

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Advice to the Middle East: “Do as I say, not as I do”

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., May 24, 2011 – A funny thing happened I was while listening to President Obama’s speech about the Middle East last week.  I found that if I compared his advice to the Middle East with the course we are actually following in the United States, it painted an interesting picture.

After an obligatory compliment about how Hillary Clinton is “one of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history,” the President said, “Today, I would like to talk about change.”  It was almost a throwback to the 2008 campaign trail.

Then, he spoke briefly about how “bin Laden was no martyr” and how “his (bin Laden’s) agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build.”  Well said, Mr. President!

It was then that an intellectual revelation began to evolve.  The trick was to substitute the United States for whatever country the President was referring.

For example, the President began talking about the upheaval in the Middle East as follows:  “That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia … (when) a young vendor … was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart.”  Substitute “United States” for “Tunisia” and the phrase “when a bank foreclosed on his home” for “when a police officer confiscated his cart” and you begin to get the picture.

The President continued, “This was not unique.  It is the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world - the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity.”

How prophetic!  For are not many of our citizens denied their dignity because of the failure of our government to “provide for the common defense and general welfare” when it comes to this country’s economic stability?

President Obama explained, “In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn - no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.”

Let’s see … “no honest judiciary.”  Didn’t constituents of both major parties in Wisconsin just spend over $3 million in campaign ads to try to elect a “favorable” Justice to that State’s Supreme Court?  Who says, “Justice is blind?”

Then there’s the phrase “no independent media to give him voice.”  Do you recall those on the Right arguing about the left-wing media (or “Lame Stream Media” as Sarah Palin likes to call it)?  However, let’s not forget about those on the Left who think that conservative talk-radio should be banned or who refer to Fox News as “Faux News.”

“No credible political party to represent his views” is almost axiomatic, and “no free and fair election where he could choose his leader” comes a little too close to home.  Elections are virtually bought and sold in today’s political environment … if not directly, then indirectly by the countless millions of dollars spent on misleading attack ads.  Then, there’s the problem with falsified voter registration … all in the name of Party politics.  On the bright side, some of us will apparently still be voting long after we’re dead.

A little later, the President stated, “In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people's grievances elsewhere.  The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism.”

Luckily, we never witness that type of “misdirection” in the United States.  Our politicians demonstrate leadership by accepting their responsibility to improve upon the circumstances they “inherited” without feeling the need to blame their predecessors … well, at least a few of them do.

Then, President Obama stated that “Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.”

This is almost a basic tenet of political power in the United States.  If you don’t believe me, just read the Democratic and Republican National Platforms as they’re exposed in The Left isn’t Right / The Right is Wrong (see link below).  I call it the “Oppressed Minority Strategy.”

The President correctly acknowledged that “change of this magnitude does not come easily.  In our day and age - a time of 24 hour news cycles, and constant communication - people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks.”

The reality is that we live in a Twitter world:  we lose interest in about 140 hours (rather than 140 characters).  Think about it.  The nuclear incident in Japan hasn’t just disappeared; the debt ceiling is still an issue; the Midwest is still flooded … but we lose interest and move on to the next big story.  Heck, Newt Gingrich’s viability as a Presidential candidate didn’t last 140 hours!

Then, the speech became even more fascinating.  The President said, “… we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.”   Yet, we tolerate aggression across our own borders and prosecute States that have a compelling need to defend their citizens.

Some members of our Jewish community may also take umbrage with how well we “keep our commitments to friends and partners” given some of the President’s follow up comments about Israel.  But let’s not quibble about whether his position “bordered” on being pretentious.

According to the President, “Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.” 

Speaking of “fear and repression,” how recently have you heard Republicans warn us of an impending economic collapse if we don’t eliminate programs like Planned Parenthood from the budget?  Correspondingly, how recently have you heard Democrats claim that Republicans are plotting to end Medicare and Social Security because they’d rather give tax breaks to “big oil?”  There’s an old phrase that just seems to be appropriate:  “Poppycock!”

Continuing, the President said, “We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders.”  Here! Here! … as they say in England.

Unfortunately, “free speech” is too often shrouded by an attack of “political correctness.”  You’re entitled to have an opinion but only if it is in alignment with a particular Party’s position (and not necessarily the Party with which you are affiliated).  Otherwise, you’re “ignorant,” “radical,” “unpatriotic,” “racist,” “ageist,” “sexist,” or a “religious fanatic.”

You have “the freedom of peaceful assembly” … unless, of course, you’re a union or Tea Party member.  Then, you’re a stupid, violent thug if you gather anywhere to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

You have “freedom of religion” as long as it’s a fashionable, politically correct, designer-label type of religion … or no religion at all.  But if you want to sing Christmas carols on a street corner or wear a yarmulke while you shop … well, God forbid!

Then there’s the issue of “equality for men and women under the rule of law.”  A concept like that would require equal pay for equal work, identical promotional opportunities, and a whole raft of societal changes that some people apparently just aren’t ready to embrace.  It could even lead into a discussion about the whole “same sex marriage” thing … but as many of our politicians have explained in the Oval Office and to their housekeeping staffs, traditional marriage is sacred.

As for “the right to choose your own leaders” … well, that’s also a tough pill to swallow.  Caucuses tell us who our candidates are going to be (whatever a “caucus” is).

Picture what was previously a smoke-filled room (now banned by political correctness and a greater awareness of cancer) replaced by a room filled with cappuccinos, lattes and herbal teas of assorted flavors … and a bunch of political zealots with limited real-world experience who believe our country would be better served if only their Party existed.  They struggle to plan a $25,000 a plate fund-raiser at which their candidate will pontificate about his or her concern for the poor.  Much later, you get to pick from among the scraps of candidates who survive the vetting process.

Moving on … the President said, “This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand (sic) for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home.”  While in our country, certain high-profile political officials have stated how they “stand in solidarity with the Egyptian / Libyan / Syrian / (name the country of your choice) protesters” while demeaning Tea Party protesters to be violent, racist individuals who are more akin to Nazis.  In honor of former Navy SEAL, Mr. Rogers, “Can you say hypocrite?  Sure you can!”

President Obama made another important point:  “We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard - whether it's a big news organization or a blogger.  In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.”  So, why do we seem so bent on tempering the flow of information in our own country?  Do you favor Net Neutrality but support the concept of WikiLeaks … or vice versa.  Confusing, isn’t it?

Ignoring the fact that our country is a republic, the former Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law continued, “We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy.  What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion - not consent.  Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities.”

No one can argue with what the President said.  He’s absolutely right.  It’s just that in practice, our government has grown to a point that would frighten our Founding Fathers.  Federal departments and agencies have grown almost virally as have the regulations they promulgate and the oversight they assume.  Are you feeling a little “coerced?”  Washington, Jefferson, and Madison probably would be.  “Consent” seems to come into play only within the sense that a certain Frenchman’s attorneys might be inclined to use.

Would you describe our “democracy” as being led by “strong and accountable institutions?”  Consider that to be a rhetorical question.

How about “respect for the rights of minorities?”  Do our politicians “respect” minorities … or use them to fashion sympathetic voting blocks?

Then, the President hit the nail on the head.  “After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets.  The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family.  Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change.  Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job.  Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.”

Quick!  Is he talking about the Middle East or the United States?

The President goes on to say, “Drawing from what we've learned around the world, we think it's important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance.  The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young.”

This should remind us of the distinction made in the Declaration of Independence; specifically, that among our unalienable rights is the “pursuit of Happiness.”   We are not guaranteed happiness.  We are only guaranteed the right to pursue it.  Therefore, “it's important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance.”

Unless we endorse a society that challenges us to pursue our own happiness rather than one that provides for us, “the reigns of commerce” will never “pass from the few to the many.”   Until then, far too many people will lack the motivation to exercise the “Liberty” they have to chase their dreams.  It’s not about redistributing wealth; it’s about inspiring people to create their own wealth.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”  If we move away from the delusion that government is responsible for our “Happiness,” a lot of budget cuts should become “self-evident.”

President Obama ended his speech with “… the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves.  Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.”

Now that would be a good starting point for our country!

I have to give the President’s tone and presentation style high marks.  However, if he would only act upon his foreign advice within the context of our own country, perhaps he wouldn’t find the need to apologize for our arrogance.  The United States would be in a position to lead by example.  Until then, the President will continue to tell the world, “Do as I say, not as I do.”  

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.

To Order Books, go to:  http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

Website:                           www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:     http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet The Czar:             @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J. O’Hara’s columns at The Common Sense Czar in The Washington Times Communities.

***** 

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.