Election Sloganeering is Not Thoughtful; Hyperbole Is Common in GOP Rhetoric

To the editor:

Populism has emerged during periods when there was a conspicuous disparity in the distribution of economic wealth, opportunity for betterment and political influence.

A people steeped in a belief in democracy have an expectation to be heard and to be given a fair chance to succeed on the basis of their own merits. This is a message that resonates with many. 

Perhaps because of its appeal, it is a message ripe for being co-opted and distorted.

Americans are optimists at heart—rooted in our expansive growth in wealth and influence in our relatively short history as a nation state. Optimism turns to impatience when things aren’t going right.

During periods of trial, it is inevitable that we should call into question the structures and institutions that have served us.  This is both a necessary and appropriate exercise. The world is not static, and neither should the structures that we as a people count on.

Just as a hammer is not an appropriate tool for adjusting a watch, we need to carefully and thoughtfully proceed with adjustments to complex supporting structures. But election sloganeering is not a thoughtful process.

Hyperbole is a common element in election rhetoric, but it is disingenuous at its very core.  The electorate deserve better.

Drawing on Populist sentiments, we have witnessed the rise of the Tea Party and expansion of Libertarian movements exemplified in the growing appeal of the presidential candidate, Ron Paul. 

Core themes are anti-government, anti-social safety net and anti-tax.  The so-called Populism expressed in the Paul Libertarian campaign rhetoric and by some of the Tea Party elements relies on the memes of independence and self-sufficiency.

The more extreme rhetoric goes on to tout isolationist proposals and the virtual elimination of governmental oversight and regulatory functions.  The preferred concept of capitalism being preached is a laissez-faire approach of total reliance on “the marketplace” to give corporate big business unfettered reign to pursue whatever and wherever their appetites take them.

What I find missing in the core of the positions proposed by some Libertarians and the Tea Party is a grasp of Community. 

To perceive oneself as a self-made person is a fallacy of enormous proportions.  Yes, there are differences in native abilities and drive.  But what successful person has not benefited in countless ways from the community infrastructure that nurtured and continues to support them?
 
We too easily take for granted what others before us—and today alongside us—do for the common good.  At its worst, Libertarianism and the more extreme elements of the Tea Party appear to be saying, “I’ve got mine and the hell with you!”

At its best, Libertarianism and Populism want a basic fairness and do not want artificial barriers and arbitrary bureaucracies hampering opportunity to be all one can positively become.
   
We have no argument there. But is the real enemy the need for oversight and reasonable restraint on unfettered appetite and greed?  There is an important distinction between necessary reform and dismantling. 

Hyperbolic rhetoric about eliminating government does no service to the need of having an important and informed discussion as to what we expect as a people from the government and commercial institutions upon which we must rely.

The poet Robert Frost gave advice we need to take very seriously when he said: “A wise man never takes down a fence until he figures out why it was put up in the first place!” 

Make no mistake. I am a determined critic of bloated and duplicative governmental bureaucracies that have ceased to bring value added to the taxpayer.  But having served in government, I can say that it is not uncommon to have a vitally important function being carried out in an agency of government down the hall from an activity that has outlived its utility. 

Bureaucratic inertia with a primary goal of self-perpetuation is a major obstacle to meaningful governmental reform. The art is in developing mechanisms to make informed judgments and taking timely action to reform—not destroy.

What also confounds meaningful institutional reorganization is the influence of special interests with equities counter to the original intended governmental oversight for the common good.
 
Special interests operate in multiple ways. The significant culprits are the combination of the revolving door between business and the governmental entities that supposedly are to have a regulatory function combined with the outright purchase of congressional oversight.

Government is in itself not the problem–the corruption of government is the problem.

There is a special irony in having candidates who want to project an image as a champion of the common man proposing measures to unleash an increasingly out-of-control corporate power block.

Simply ask what group in this country has the most to gain by hobbling governmental oversight originally intended to protect the citizens?
Money talks and too many politicians listen.

At this point, an observation attributed to Upton Sinclair comes to mind to the effect of: “It is hard to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Wrapping an electioneering message in reassuring slogans and nostalgic nostrums doesn’t change what the resulting negative consequences are likely to be of actually carrying out extremist ideas.
 
Self-sufficiency and independence are important virtues, but must be realistically balanced in the world in which we actually find ourselves.

 None of us lives in total isolation. We all live in a local community, a national community and a world community.  Just as the pioneers depended upon others in a wagon train and neighbors to help raise a barn, we are all in this together. 

We must be more attentive to the health and well-being of the communities that directly affect our daily lives. Our disregard of this reality will ultimately fall back on our own heads.

Over the last century, we saw the position of the United States expand to become a dominant force in a world in which great disparities in wealth and influence existed.  It is ironic to propose, as Thomas Friedman has done, that because of the stability sustained by the Pax Americana, a flattening of these disparities has taken place. 

The world has become a place in which much of the imbalances in wealth and influence have begun to level out and where partnerships are now increasingly more important. That is a positive development if you are prepared to see the world as an interacting community presenting potentials for mutual growth and a resulting reduction in the potential for major armed conflict.

But if at core you see relationships as one between the domineering and those being dominated, this new reality can be very disquieting.

Acceptance of change is never easy.  But like it or not, change appears here to stay. 

Having an open mind and learning to live with the tentative is more promising than retreating into a sanctuary built on sentimental slogans—however initially comforting it may appear.

The nostalgia for a perception of the past of legend that never really was is simply not a constructive way to go forward. Looking backward with sentimentality, we celebrate the independence and self-reliance of the days of being alone on the frontier.

Historical reality says the frontier of the past was dangerous and fraught with predatory exploitations and injustices.  That only changed when communities came along and brought more stability and a more level playing field upon which real progress could be built.

Larry Howe
Mount Helix