Playing the blame game after the election
The post-election conversations remind me of the Monday morning quarterbacking. We are willing to discuss the flaws in the candidates who we supported in a losing effort. We loved the person on Monday, voted for him on Tuesday and pummeled him on Wednesday.
However, mostly we just want to blame. We offer few logical arguments, just blame, recriminations and tirades.
Bill O’Reilly was on the web saying that there is not a traditional America anymore. President Obama won because the people voting for him “want things; want stuff.” What O’Reilly is really saying is that his entitlements as a white American male are now in jeopardy. He may not be able to claim all his customary privileges due his position because his majority status is history. Sorry, Bill.
Bill O’Reilly really said that “the white establishment is now the minority.” Therein lies the problem. Think for a moment about being at a cocktail party. (I don’t usually frequent those, but the setting seems to fit Mr. O’Reilly’s persona.)
The room is full. Everyone is well-dressed and engaged in small group conversations. Soft piano jazz is providing an almost unnoticed background music. The guests move easily between conversations, never staying too long with any one group; never being fully engaged. What is being discussed is not important. Who is there is what matters. Who did you see in the room as the picture unfolded in your mind? I’m betting on something like a white establishment majority.
Now reframe the cocktail party.
The room is again full and the people are dressed for the occasion. The music is lively, not loud, but rhythmic and energetic. The conversations compete with the music and each other in volume and intensity. The guests enjoy each other more than their drinks. Long-necks and microbrews are as apparent as are martinis and Chablis. People don’t seem to be moving around as much, but small group conversations get larger as the conversations attract interested by-standers.
Who do you see at this party? Would Mr. O’Reilly be present here or at the former cocktail party?
The second party welcomed a variety of people. The setting was more inclusive – different music, different libations, different energy. The invited guests were comfortable. And, Mr. O’Reilly, that is the difference that matters. The guest list was different and all were comfortable. It is not a matter of bemoaning the lost white establishment majority; it is a matter of welcoming everyone.
Rush Limbaugh is not someone I respect. I don’t listen to him but I did see a clip of his rant on the day after the election. He actually said, “Don’t tell me the Republican Party does not have outreach. We do. We have Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain.”
Outreach? Only if you think in terms of being “the chosen.” I guess it is necessary to think about who you will reach out to and allow to join the party. There is a difference between reaching out and inviting.
In the first, the person is allowed to join because they fit the description in some way. They may not look like the established members, but they share a philosophy.
In the second, the person is seen as someone whose company you would enjoy. Being invited says, “I think I would enjoy getting to know you and your point of view interests me.” It is not a welcome because we agree on the basics. It is an invitation because we can grow together.
I really wish the Republican dinosaurs well as they wallow in the past. The rest of us just cannot allow them to pull us into their misery. If they continue to tell others there is no welcome until there is an understanding of common philosophy, then let them die slowly.
Mark Lewis is a retired school administrator and lives in Liberty.
Mark Robertson
6 months, 1 week ago“His entitlements as a white American are in jeopardy.” What? I’m not surprised that you are from government education. No, Bill OReilly sees that the welfare state is greatly harming and has greatly harmed this nation. Why African Americans keep voting for Democrats is perplexing. African American unemployment is 15 percent. African American youth unemployment is above 50 percent, yet the disastrous Obama still got 93 percent of the African American vote. Your comment about the great Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain makes no sense. It is actually the conservatives who have the best interest of all Americans in mind. They want opportunity for all, including the unborn. The left wants wealth redistribution, which has never worked, and makes things worse. You may live in Liberty, but you largely oppose liberty. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 1 week agoMr. Lewis, as a retired “educator”, you are the epitome of people wanting “stuff”. Your government school job gave you a pension that no private business offers along with health insurance, all paid by the taxpayer.
Of course, when governments have no more money then you can complain how “unfair” life is.
Mark Lewis
6 months, 1 week agoMr. Hunsucker, I pay for my health insurance. It is not part of my retirement. I also contributed 13% of my salary every month for my well-earned pension. The public school pension program is well-funded and self-sufficient without receiving any government support.
Yanwen Xia
Overland Park
6 months, 1 week agoBlaming others instead of looking inward might comfort the loser if that’s what the loser looks for. I see this too often— when a student fails to get a good grade he/she blames the teacher. But without figuring out the real cause, blaming game won’t help anyone to stand up and rise above.
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 1 week agoMr. Lewis,
Where does the money that funds your pension come from? The tooth-fairy? No, it comes from TAXPAYERS who unless they are a bureaucrat as you were most likely do not have a pension plan with yearly increases.
What was your total pension contribution? What is your monthly benefit? If you extend this based on your life expectancy, the plan is FAR BEYOND an economically viable one.
Mark Hastert
6 months, 1 week ago” The left wants wealth redistribution, which has never worked, and makes things worse.”
…let me disabuse you of that idea. Take a good look at the Clinton years. He and the Republican congress did a pretty good job of striking a balance on taxes and spending. We had balanced budgets and a surplus. It was your supply side trickle down that ruined it all. It hastened the slowest job growth since WW II and culminated in the crash. That’s what has never worked. I know you guys desperately want to believe in the myth Republicans spin but everybody else has wised up. It’s time to let go and move on.
Mark Robertson
6 months, 1 week agoActually, the day Bill Clinton took office, the economy was growing at a robust 4 plus percent. His final full quarter in office, the econmomy was in negative growth. Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 with 20 percent interest rates, 14 percent inflation and 8-11 percent unemployment. Reagan got taxes cut across the board, cutting the top rate from 70 to eventually 28 percent. And he greatly cut regulation. His supply side economics brought on a 25 year economic boom that created over 50 million jobs. Tax revenues nearly doubled iin the 80s, with the top 1 percent going from paying 17 percent of the taxes in 81 to 25 percent of the taxes by 89.(Tax Foundation) Clinton did sign the Republican capital gains tax cut bill, which caused capital gains tax receipts to greatly surge. He also finally agreed to Republican welfare reform after vetoing it twice, because Dick Morris told him it would hurt him in the election if he didn’t. I will give Clinton credit for his excellent trade policy. The brief surplus came about because of economic growth from the Reagan tax cuts and deregulation, and the Republican capital gains tax cut, and the Republican Congress cutting spending. The Bush tax cuts of 01 ande 03 actually brought on a strong economy after the recession that President Bush inherited. 8 million jobs, and record Treasury Revenue from 05-07. And tax payments by millionaires more than doubled from 132 billion in 03 at the time of the second Bush tax cut to 273 billion by 2007.(WSJ 12-1-10, The Dead Enders, p. A-18) The economic meltdown was largely caused by the Carter and Clinton Community Reinvestment Act which forced lenders to make laons to those who couldn’t afford them.(Architects of Ruin, How Big Government Liberals Wrecked the Global Economy-and How They Will Do it Again if No On Stops Them, by Peter Schweizer) In 2003, Bush Treasury Secretary, John Snowe testified before Congress that Fanny and Freddie were heading for a meltdown. The pathetic Barney Frank and other Democrats said he didn’t know what he was talking about, and even accused him of racism. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 1 week agoFACTS confuse the libs Mark Robertson…. they much prefer their little big zezo world where everything will be just peachy-keen if we tax the rich…..
Just think, 4 more years of declining standard of living, brought to you by the chicago thugs and academics….