Thursday, October 20, 2011

Cain Vote Gets Money Out of Politics

     The presidential campaign of Herman Cain is cause for concern for many members of the Republican Party.  There is the fear by some that, even if Cain somehow wins the Republican nomination, he could not possibly win against President Obama.  Others fear that in a contest against Obama, Cain might actually win.  Such is the nature of the party. 
     Herman Cain would like to be the second black president in the White House.  And some black Americans--maybe even Cain himself--would even welcome the chance to have what they consider a "real black man" there.  Without giving Cain candidacy more credibility than it deserves, though, we must give him credit for having run well, thus far.      
     The idea has been floated that the Mitt Romney campaign encouraged his supporters to vote for Cain in the Florida straw vote, hoping a substantial Cain victory would create a ground swell of support for Cain, and, given the choice of Romney or Cain, conservative Republicans would choose Romney.  And the fact that Republicans are using their control in state governments to pass legislation that suppresss opposition votes suggest they certainly would not be averse to using unscrupulous means to attain a politician advantage over each other.
      But whatever is the political fate of Herman Cain--and regardless of why it has happened--he is currently making a serious run for the Republican nomination for the presidency.  The main question concerning the viability of Cain's candidacy seems to be whether his intelligence and management skills can offset limited political skills and limited awareness of worldwide circumstances.
      Cain is a conservative Republican.  And the meaning of conservatism does not change just because the person espousing the ideology is black.  The only difference between black and white conservatives is that one can be reasonably sure that black-conservative opposition to liberals has nothing to do with race.     
      Cain has said that black Americans have been brainwashed, and many black people have been offended by the comment.  Some of that feeling may be due to the fact that there is some truth to it.  Certainly, many black people vote based on a trust they have in black leaders who are advocates--often paid advocates--for the Democratic Party.  By that definition white voters are similarly "brainwashed."
     The leanings of Black Americans toward the Democratic Party began and evolved through the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, which led to Civil Rights Laws in 1948.  That confidence in the Democratic Party grew under the leadership of the Democratic Party during the 1960s, as black Americans demanded--and finally achieved--many rights due to us as American citizens.          
     The fact is, however, that black Americans don't know what they could have achieved had their votes not been pledged to Democrats.  Black people never forced Democrats and Republicans to bid for their votes with promises of fairness.  Both black voters are swing votes that perhaps could have force attention by both parties to the issues of social and economic justice.  But present congressional Republican aren't even inspiring confidence among fellow Republicans.
     Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan seems to have merits, not necessarily in the numbers but potentially in the concept or model  The numbers may not be the right mix.  Perhaps they should be 7-8-9, 5-10-15 or some other combination.  The merits of the model would ultimately be evaluated in terms, not merely of its simplicity, but of its potential to lead to consensus on taxation and spending in a manner that  grows the economy and reduces--and eventually eliminates--the number of people who are too poor to pay taxes.  Such a simple plan would not necessarily, as is often claimed, eliminate Social Security and Medicare, as national safety nets.  The core 9-9-9 plan--or whatever numbers it contains--would not become law as presented by Cain during the primary debates.  It would be debated and amended by both houses of Congress before a presidential signature makes the plans law.
     A political candidate cannot be liberal and conservative at the same time, as some black Americans think Cain should be, and which Mitt Romney is trying to shed the image of trying to be).  When Cain says that Wall Street protesters should not blame Wall Street but themselves, which is the conservative message, he did not mean they should blame themselves for not blaming President Obama, which is also a conservative message.  But he also did not mean those protesters who have done the right things but are victims of present economic conditions.  
     He did mean those who had not applied themselves sufficiently in school to prepare themselves for present and emerging job markets, and I would add those who were eligible but did not vote for Democrats during the 2010 elections.  But Americans cannot help if we are in denial of the extents to which certain malfunctions exist within many American families and communities, and within the psychic of many Americans. 
     Conservative Americans who gave Republicans control over Congress in 2010 did not send them to Washington to govern the way they have so far--and they did not campaign that they would.  The support of Herman Cain could just be a message to Republican members of Congress that constituents disapprove of their representatives representing Grover Norquist and not them.  Many of them are  sending a message to congressional Republicans about the 2012 election results unless they change their acts in Washington.
     Cain justifies his 9-9-9 plan by contending that math suggesting it won't work is flawed and that opponents don't understand the plan because they are confusing apples with oranges.  But distorting the truth and making people believe what is not true has been a recent Republican strategy.  Why shouldn't Republicans try it on each other?
     Meanwhile, the liberal media are criticizing Cain and his 9-9-9 plan as if they fear he could actually become president.  Or maybe that's what they would like conservative Republicans to believe is the case.  Anyway, he is being criticized more than--and including by--those who have no plan.
     More importantly, though, a vote for Cain might help get money out of politics.

Monday, October 10, 2011

About Not Following "Strangers"

     The problem facing the United States is that too many people who want the United States to be perceived as being the leader of a diverse world are having problems appreciating diversity within their own borders.
      A majority of Americans claim to be Christians, but increasingly Christianity seems more about talking the talk than walking the walk.
     Several years ago, Rev. Andrew Jason, a late associate minister at the church where I am a member, preached the sermon.  He began by recounting for the audience a time when, after many years, he revisited his home community back in rural Louisiana. 
     He said that he knocked on the door of a home of one of his parents old friends--  he wasn't even sure if anyone still lived there.  But soon an old man opened the door, and before he could tell the old man who he was, the old man looked at him and said, "You must be Andrew Jason's son.  Come on in."  The subject of Rev. Jason's sermon that Sunday was "If you are a child of God, you don't have to tell anybody who you are."
     Jesus said that we know a tree by the fruit it bears.  He also said that His sheep know his voice and they will not follow a stranger.  Too many American Christians don't know whether to follow Jesus or strangers.  Jesus said we can't follow both.
However, strangers of different persuasions have convinced many Americans that they indeed can follow both.  Following Jesus to church on Sundays and following strangers Monday thru Saturday allows us to get along better with family members and neighbors, in the work place, and with church-roll strangers.
     If blind men still begged, present-day Republican Christians would require them to pay income tax on the day's collections.  Instead of  putting something in the cup, many of them would favor the government's taking something out.  They want the government out of their own business but wouldn't object to government intervening in the blind man's business.  
     Even today, some Republican would have them back of the corners begging.  They may not be saying it publicly now, but they thinking it.  These are the kinds of strangers that present-day Republicans--and some independents are following.
     But this suggestion that I'm making about Christians too often not sounding or behaving like followers of Jesus is not intended to ignore the merits of conservative arguments that our "welfare state" does encourage some of our people to be dependent on government, and on the wealth of more fortunate Americans.  For those who would have achieved greater independence were it not for such government assistance--sharing the wealth--the welfare system is a handicap.  But for those who would not have become independent but would have been even worse off without assistance, the system has been a necessary safety net.
     Recognizing, therefore, that there are if fact people who will need our help as badly as do those who are blind or mentally challenged demands appropriate actions.  We act as if we have forgotten that people are born whose intelligence ranges from the most severely mentally challenged to the most gifted geniuses.   These people don't have equal chances in their pursuit of happiness.
     Not only do people differ in their intelligence levels, individual differ in many other qualities over which they have no control, such as: educational and employment opportunities; self and other's motivation; encouragement; role models; predispositions; ethnic diversities; kinds of friends and classmates; neighborhoods; religious faiths (or no faith),; home environments,;education, wealth and influence of parents; quality of schools; whether parents are on welfare; personal attitudes and attitudes of others; etc.  
     Those who criticize those who have not achieved their potential because of the welfare system has encouraged it should therefore consider the factors which more often than not contribute to underachievement and welfare dependence.
      Let's face it, though.  If many of these people who are unemployed or on welfare had had in their lives all or at least many of the advantages that contribute to economic success, they would have the jobs of some of those who criticize them because they would have become better qualified.  So many who are employed who are glad that some people are satisfied to receive welfare  and food stamps.  They don't mind contributing financially to keep them there--or they shouldn't.
     But there is a increasing number of people who don't want to help them on welfare and food stamps but also don't want to help them.
     For the rest of the complainers, those who don't follow strangers, let's provide as many as we can of those factors which contribute to success.  Let schools work on student work habits, their skills, their attitudes toward themselves and their futures.  Discuss what schools, houses of worship and communities should be doing.  Discuss why each is failing and what can be done to help them succeed.  Discuss how homes, churches and community can both help and be helped through these endeavors.
     When great majorities of Americans say in all major polls that they favor the wealthy paying higher taxes in order to take some of the nation's financial burden off the backs of the poor and middle class, most of them aren't talking about class warfare; they're responding to a calling for that "Old Time Religion" that was good enough for their parents and grandparents, and used to be good enough for them.  There is a yearning for the joy of their salvation that once made them "kinder," "gentler" and more compassionate.
     Republican presidential candidate Mitch Romney says he believes that the United States is God's pick to lead the world's nations.  But how can the United States ever become God's world leader if the American people no longer allows Him to touch their minds, shape their thoughts and guide their decisions and behavior.  God can't lead a country when strangers lead the people. 

Ronald
Email:  rcspoon@earthlink,net
Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com