To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his immaculate "I Have A Dream" speech, today's program was dedicated to the status of the American Dream and what it means. The funny thing is that not one of the guests nor the moderator actually described what it is, as if assuming that everyone watching has the same idea of what it is. So what is the American Dream?
It used to be: a family with two kids, two cars, and a house, which is really to say that the American Dream was to have a little bit better life for you and your kids than your parents had. But that's not what is is now. Now, the American Dream is seen as achieved only if you've gotten rich, if you've 'made it,' what ever that means. The American Dream for most Americans today, is simply that... a dream.
And by the fact that there are few rich people relative to the rest of the popular, , the dream becomes harder to obtain, or at the very least the perception of that achievement is skewed and hence unrealized. More and more you're seeing that kids today will not be better off than their parents were, and this notion has reached the level of general consensus.
Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), the only living speaker from the 1963 March, outlined many positive changes in our country, but most of them have been social. That's not to say they aren't significant. The United States, like it or not, is much more socially progressive than other countries and we'll be the better for it. We say with full knowledge that there are times, like with the George Zimmerman trial, that will make it seem like that progress has collapsed, but it's not the case.
He also said that there are forces that create a sense of fear, that our country needs to be taken back, and he rhetorically asked, "Taken back to where?" This is a notion we could never reconcile with the Sarah Palin-types leading the Tea Party Movement. The say that we need to take the country back, and to Mr. Lewis' point - to where. Back to a false notion of the 50's when the social and economic order seemed more secure? That's what it always seemed like they meant. But the fact is that in the 1950's income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were twice as high as they are today and because of that, social services were more robust and public service positions (teacher, policeman, fireman) were realistic vital options for families to get a solid leg up. However, the same people who are demanding their country back are also saying that the government shouldn't have to help you because government is inherently bad. In cities and town all across this country you're seeing the laying off of public workers as tax revenues for municipalities are cut.
With what we've just said, Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) would accuse this column, as on the program he accused black political leaders, of only talking about hopelessness and despair instead of hope. It was a disingenuous shot he took that basically went without rebuttal. But what would he say to those people? How do you say to someone, "Hey, continue to have hope even though you should never expect anyone to help you." Ms. WuDunn cited a statistic that in the United States, 1 in 12 people move economically. Given that statistic, how can you agree with Congressman Labrador that the American Dream is alive and well?
Newark Mayor and Senatorial candidate Cory Booker said he's been disappointed on how difficult it is to get young people to think of public service and a cause bigger than themselves, but that's the kind of climate this country has created. Why would someone want to join government when all they've been told all their lives is that government is the problem.
If we continue to collectively believe that the achievement of the American Dream is directly tied to how much money you have in your wallet, it will be forever harder to obtain. It's about much more than that. It's about being able to live one's life with dignity and with the knowledge that if you play by the rules and work hard, you'll have the intrinsic sense that you've achieved a successful American life.
One of the greatest notions that makes up this American nation is a sense of optimism, that the American Dream is not just a dream, but something that can actually be realized. Right now, we're afraid, for most Americans today, that simply isn't the case.
Round table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); business executive and author,
Sheryl WuDunn; President and Founder of the National Action Network,
MSNBC’s Rev. Al Sharpton; New York Times Columnist David Brooks; and
presidential historian and author of “Lyndon Johnson and the American
Dream,” Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Postscript: At the end of the hour, Mr. Gregory interviewed Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and lauded him for taking on his own party with regard to education, who said at one time that Republicans can not be the 'stupid party.' The governor talked briefly about education and then immediately after said something stupid, which was that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced and that Republicans in Congress should do everything they can to defund the law. The reason we call this stupid is because not once have we heard a thoughtful alternative solution from Republicans on how to lower healthcare costs while insuring more people. When you ask them, "Replace it with what?" all you get are crickets...
More on Syria in a later column.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
8.18.13: A Violent Summer After The Arab Spring
As the violence in Egypt escalates, many are going back and forth on what the United States' stance should be. Should we cut off aid, which mostly goes to the Egyptian military, or not? Are there any other measures that the Mr. Obama's Administration can take to quell the killing and unrest?
Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) felt that the United States should suspend financial aid ($1.5 billion per year) until the Egyptian military stops the violence and starts enacting democratic solutions (elections, rule of law, et al.). She said that the President came up short in his recent remarks on Egypt by not calling for aid suspension. Senator Reed's answer was a bit more nuanced but he came to the same conclusion to suspend aid. It would seem like the prudent thing to given the logic that our dollars are being used by a military that has killed some of it's own citizens.
However, just in course of the discussion on today's program, you are able to understand why cutting off aid is problematic. NBC Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel outlined two key factors as to why it wouldn't be a good idea. One, by cutting off aid to Egypt, the United States is essentially nullifying the Camp David Accords - the peace treaty, of biblical scale, between Egypt and Israel that is contingent of the U.S. giving aid to both countries. Based on that, our number one ally in the region doesn't want to see us pull the dollars and then go back to war footing with Egypt.
David Gregory, quoting a government official, said that in the course of this Arab Spring, there are centuries of sectarian and religious scores to settle. So given that long memory, the United States doesn't want to put itself in a position where we are the ones who break the historic deal we brokered.
By political extension, one could say that you're not a backer of Israel, if you're for the United States pulling the aid away from Egypt, a charge that always gives pause to American politicians. Therefore, the United States is best to consider our other allied partner countries in the region and not act, as is the usual, as if it is the only other player. From this, you have to appreciate that the president must choose his words carefully, and consider the ramifications for his decisions driven by consideration of a longer historical perspective. We say this, not so much in the defense of Mr. Obama in particular, but to recognize the responsibility of the office and the knowledge that comes with it. It doesn't make Senators Ayotte or Reed or Paul naive; it's simply a clear illustration of the difference between being in the position of a senator versus being the president.
Mr. Engel also reported that there is essentially an active insurgency in place formed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Our other allies - Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Qatar - feel that cutting off aid would make the insurgency even worse, and thus rendering tacit support for it and the Muslim Brotherhood instead of the military in opposition of a dogmatic Islamic [some would read that as 'extremist'] way of governing.
Yes, democracy is messy, as Senator Reed reminded us. Americans should remember the few wars this country had fought in the aftermath of our Revolutionary War (the undeclared war with France to establish our neutrality and the War of 1812, otherwise known as the Second War for Independence). Egypt's path, while of course tragic, is unavoidable given this level of political upheaval.
What to look for are the upcoming elections the Egyptian military is putting in place, but really all we're distressingly left with is Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Robin Wright's question - will the elections even be considered credible?
The only plausible transition that we can think of is as the violence continues overseas so does it here in the United States, given in a different manifestation. And despite the impressive numbers in reduction of violent crimes that New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly outlined, it's not because of 'stop and frisk,' which NAACP President Ben Jealous accurately called a program.
The employment of the 'stop and frisk' program is understandable, which isn't to say that it's right or constitutional. Think about it... when two policemen get out of their car to 'stop and frisk' someone, what are they looking for? And don't say drugs. Unless a policeman is actually witnessing a drug buy, an individual taking drugs or erratic behavior, he is not going to stop. Policemen are searching for guns.
Once again, it all boils down to that - too many random, untraceable guns in circulation. 'Stop and Frisk' is a Constitutionally questionable program, driven by a culture of fear, employed in a futile attempt to keep illegal guns off the streets of New York City.
In a way, it's the antithesis of 'Stand Your Ground,' which encourages ordinary citizens to carry a gun and in effect determine their own sense of justice. However, when a law or a program has so many shadowy interpretations, there are bound to be abuses and incredible injustices such as racial profiling.
Both are driven by our culture of the gun, and whether the program seeks to extricate guns from the system or the law encourages an infusion of them, they are ultimately flawed and failed policies because neither does what they're designed to do - keep us safe or free.
Round Table: Former White House Press Secretary now an NBC News Political Analyst Robert Gibbs, Editor of the National Review Rich Lowry, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd.
Today's round table discussion focused on presidential politics when it should have really focused on foreign policy, something they never do anymore. There will be plenty of time coming to comment on the 2016 election, but we not going there now... too soon, with the exception to say this:
Robert Gibbs and Chuck Todd were surprised the Hilary Clinton would give a speech now that would clearly put her back in the middle of the political fray, and hence get too caught up in it too early. Why do this, Gibbs questioned while reminding us that Mrs. Clinton is the default 2016 Democratic candidate.
It may be jumping in too soon for Washington, but not for most people who aren't paying attention right now. Mrs. Clinton making a speech about the Voting Rights Act and racial discrimination to a base Democratic audience right now is a smart move. In August this far out, the scrutiny and criticism is as muted as it can be, but this is also the speech that the press will refer back to when citing her views on the subject. The press will drop it in two days and then refer back to it when it will eventually count, which would be during the Democratic primary.
Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) felt that the United States should suspend financial aid ($1.5 billion per year) until the Egyptian military stops the violence and starts enacting democratic solutions (elections, rule of law, et al.). She said that the President came up short in his recent remarks on Egypt by not calling for aid suspension. Senator Reed's answer was a bit more nuanced but he came to the same conclusion to suspend aid. It would seem like the prudent thing to given the logic that our dollars are being used by a military that has killed some of it's own citizens.
However, just in course of the discussion on today's program, you are able to understand why cutting off aid is problematic. NBC Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel outlined two key factors as to why it wouldn't be a good idea. One, by cutting off aid to Egypt, the United States is essentially nullifying the Camp David Accords - the peace treaty, of biblical scale, between Egypt and Israel that is contingent of the U.S. giving aid to both countries. Based on that, our number one ally in the region doesn't want to see us pull the dollars and then go back to war footing with Egypt.
David Gregory, quoting a government official, said that in the course of this Arab Spring, there are centuries of sectarian and religious scores to settle. So given that long memory, the United States doesn't want to put itself in a position where we are the ones who break the historic deal we brokered.
By political extension, one could say that you're not a backer of Israel, if you're for the United States pulling the aid away from Egypt, a charge that always gives pause to American politicians. Therefore, the United States is best to consider our other allied partner countries in the region and not act, as is the usual, as if it is the only other player. From this, you have to appreciate that the president must choose his words carefully, and consider the ramifications for his decisions driven by consideration of a longer historical perspective. We say this, not so much in the defense of Mr. Obama in particular, but to recognize the responsibility of the office and the knowledge that comes with it. It doesn't make Senators Ayotte or Reed or Paul naive; it's simply a clear illustration of the difference between being in the position of a senator versus being the president.
Mr. Engel also reported that there is essentially an active insurgency in place formed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Our other allies - Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Qatar - feel that cutting off aid would make the insurgency even worse, and thus rendering tacit support for it and the Muslim Brotherhood instead of the military in opposition of a dogmatic Islamic [some would read that as 'extremist'] way of governing.
Yes, democracy is messy, as Senator Reed reminded us. Americans should remember the few wars this country had fought in the aftermath of our Revolutionary War (the undeclared war with France to establish our neutrality and the War of 1812, otherwise known as the Second War for Independence). Egypt's path, while of course tragic, is unavoidable given this level of political upheaval.
What to look for are the upcoming elections the Egyptian military is putting in place, but really all we're distressingly left with is Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Robin Wright's question - will the elections even be considered credible?
The only plausible transition that we can think of is as the violence continues overseas so does it here in the United States, given in a different manifestation. And despite the impressive numbers in reduction of violent crimes that New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly outlined, it's not because of 'stop and frisk,' which NAACP President Ben Jealous accurately called a program.
The employment of the 'stop and frisk' program is understandable, which isn't to say that it's right or constitutional. Think about it... when two policemen get out of their car to 'stop and frisk' someone, what are they looking for? And don't say drugs. Unless a policeman is actually witnessing a drug buy, an individual taking drugs or erratic behavior, he is not going to stop. Policemen are searching for guns.
Once again, it all boils down to that - too many random, untraceable guns in circulation. 'Stop and Frisk' is a Constitutionally questionable program, driven by a culture of fear, employed in a futile attempt to keep illegal guns off the streets of New York City.
In a way, it's the antithesis of 'Stand Your Ground,' which encourages ordinary citizens to carry a gun and in effect determine their own sense of justice. However, when a law or a program has so many shadowy interpretations, there are bound to be abuses and incredible injustices such as racial profiling.
Both are driven by our culture of the gun, and whether the program seeks to extricate guns from the system or the law encourages an infusion of them, they are ultimately flawed and failed policies because neither does what they're designed to do - keep us safe or free.
Round Table: Former White House Press Secretary now an NBC News Political Analyst Robert Gibbs, Editor of the National Review Rich Lowry, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd.
Today's round table discussion focused on presidential politics when it should have really focused on foreign policy, something they never do anymore. There will be plenty of time coming to comment on the 2016 election, but we not going there now... too soon, with the exception to say this:
Robert Gibbs and Chuck Todd were surprised the Hilary Clinton would give a speech now that would clearly put her back in the middle of the political fray, and hence get too caught up in it too early. Why do this, Gibbs questioned while reminding us that Mrs. Clinton is the default 2016 Democratic candidate.
It may be jumping in too soon for Washington, but not for most people who aren't paying attention right now. Mrs. Clinton making a speech about the Voting Rights Act and racial discrimination to a base Democratic audience right now is a smart move. In August this far out, the scrutiny and criticism is as muted as it can be, but this is also the speech that the press will refer back to when citing her views on the subject. The press will drop it in two days and then refer back to it when it will eventually count, which would be during the Democratic primary.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
8.14.13: MTP Ratings Low, but Our Thank You
Columnist Jennifer Rubin, of The Washington Post, editorialized on the reasons why Meet The Pres is getting beaten in the ratings by both Face the Nation and This Week... and to a certain degree, we can not disagree with the litany.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/14/meet-the-worst-sunday-morning-show/?hpid=z4
We really like that she wrote this column. After all, it is a business, and it's the content that sells it so unforgiving observations are a necessity.
However, we'd like to offer criticism that's more constructive in tone. We've made it clear in the past that we're often baffled by the format and hence the pacing of the program. We don't have a real problem with the guest choices for the round table sessions per se, but two round tables in one program is too much.
We would suggest going a little bit more long form. Conduct an in-depth interviews with our Congress people, 18 minutes in length on a range of issues. If Meet The Press would like to have clips featured on the Huffington Post for something notable, it's better for something interesting that you got out of your guest's mouth instead of not doing so well in the ratings. The second segment could be rebuttal or perspective, but thoughtful counterpoint or further reporting (a reporter from a newspaper that's local to that politician, perhaps) on one of the subjects discussed. And maybe at the end, bring back something that resembles the Meet The Press Minute, but with a different twist, corresponding dates in the history of the program... We're not saying these are the answers, but just suggestions that better professionals could take as their own and run with.
As for our little column here, it's not great to hear that the program that your blog is based upon (and critiques) is the least popular of the Sunday political programming. But our hope is that we take what this great institution of a program offers us, and we run with the goal being that the points we've made transcend, if only a little bit, the dialogue that we've witnessed.
The support for this blog has grown, which has both startled and humbled this weekly column so we offer a very gracious thank you to all our readers. Thank you so much for reading.
We will continue our goal of contributing positive commentary that you find helpful and entertaining. Because, if it's Sunday....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/14/meet-the-worst-sunday-morning-show/?hpid=z4
We really like that she wrote this column. After all, it is a business, and it's the content that sells it so unforgiving observations are a necessity.
However, we'd like to offer criticism that's more constructive in tone. We've made it clear in the past that we're often baffled by the format and hence the pacing of the program. We don't have a real problem with the guest choices for the round table sessions per se, but two round tables in one program is too much.
We would suggest going a little bit more long form. Conduct an in-depth interviews with our Congress people, 18 minutes in length on a range of issues. If Meet The Press would like to have clips featured on the Huffington Post for something notable, it's better for something interesting that you got out of your guest's mouth instead of not doing so well in the ratings. The second segment could be rebuttal or perspective, but thoughtful counterpoint or further reporting (a reporter from a newspaper that's local to that politician, perhaps) on one of the subjects discussed. And maybe at the end, bring back something that resembles the Meet The Press Minute, but with a different twist, corresponding dates in the history of the program... We're not saying these are the answers, but just suggestions that better professionals could take as their own and run with.
As for our little column here, it's not great to hear that the program that your blog is based upon (and critiques) is the least popular of the Sunday political programming. But our hope is that we take what this great institution of a program offers us, and we run with the goal being that the points we've made transcend, if only a little bit, the dialogue that we've witnessed.
The support for this blog has grown, which has both startled and humbled this weekly column so we offer a very gracious thank you to all our readers. Thank you so much for reading.
We will continue our goal of contributing positive commentary that you find helpful and entertaining. Because, if it's Sunday....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)