Paying The Piper-Part Four-B-Does Obama Get It?

First a little disclaimer: Since "it's the economy, stupid," I'll say this, many people have compared the last couple of years to the Great Depression and have compared Obama to Franklin Roosevelt or to Herbert Hoover.* While we came close to a new depression in late 2008, and we aren't totally out of the woods yet, the devil is in the details. The circumstances which faced Hoover, and then Roosevelt, were different from today. When the Great Depression started, America still had a substantial, although dwindling, agriculture component as a percentage of the economy, and the country had become a major industrial powerhouse in previous years. With American agriculture having been depressed throughout much of the 1920s; that is, prior to the onset of the actual Great Depression, many small farmers and laborers had headed into cities and towns to seek jobs in America's bustling factories or associated businesses. When the economy went belly-up, and they lost their jobs, they couldn't just decide to go back to the farm, because agriculture was in terrible shape, even worse than in the 1920s; thus unemployment in many cities was extremely high. Back in those times though, most businesses in this country were owned by Americans, were headquartered in America, had plants in America (with some scant exceptions), and relied upon the American economy and the American consumer to make those businesses successful. Increasingly in more recent times, many companies located in America are foreign-owned or have large interests (plants and outlets) in foreign countries, with workers provided by those countries, or in some cases, like BP, for instance, are foreign-owned and located overseas (the actual headquarters), but have plants or outlets here. In just casually watching some business news on television in recent years, I've heard it said that many "American companies" are more dependent on markets in foreign countries for the biggest share of their profits, than right here in this country. Now, I'm NOT slamming foreign countries, or American companies with large foreign interests, but there's no question that all of this has an effect on OUR economy and OUR country. The question is, is that effect good or bad? I'm not sure we know the answer to that question, as we've never seen a situation like this before, and the answer will always depend upon who is giving that answer. If you are in the importing business, you will probably say the effect is "good." Will things get to be every business for itself and who cares what happens to the country? Maybe, but eventually what happens here helps or hurts most of the world. To those who wonder why "history" is important, this is why. We look to the past for answers about the present and the future. So this situation is one major difference facing Obama that neither Hoover or FDR confronted.

Next, we have so much, what I'll call, "political information" available to us, it is absolutely mind boggling. Notice I didn't say it was necessarily truthful information. We've always had some of this, but now maybe it's tied to our "legalistic society," where lawyers toss accusations and theories around to defend clients, and that is part of our system. While I'm not a lawyer, I do believe a judge has to allow such theories to be used based upon some realistic foundation.** Further, unlike in the not too distant past, there are all sorts of ways to get these accusations and conspiracy theories out to the public. Claims can now be made on the blogosphere, talk radio, cable TV, or by mass emails. They then get picked up by the more traditional media, and off they go. It happened to George W. Bush and it has certainly happened even more, in my opinion, to Barack Obama. All of this hurts the presidency. I'm not for squashing debate or free speech, but so often there is a lack of reason. What is perhaps more troubling is that these folks have fairly large audiences and followings. What has gotten into America's drinking water? Polls show a disturbing percentage of Americans believe Obama, not Bush, started the bailouts of banks and auto companies (he didn't, Bush did, but Obama continued those policies) and that Obama is a Muslim (he's not, he's a Christian). This is not the sign of an informed American public, nor is it the way America will be able to compete in the modern world.

Then we have the political parties. These are not the same parties of a few decades ago, and in some officeholders' cases, not even the same as fairly recent (witness Charlie Crist of Florida changing from Republican to independent, and a couple of southern Democratic congressmen changing to the Republican Party). The Democratic Party has always been pretty raucous, some times VERY raucous. Why? Undoubtedly a lot of reasons, but perhaps the most important is about regional philosophy. Some of the most conservative elements of this country were, until fairly recently, Democrats, not Republicans. The South came to be known as the "solid South," in political terms, because in the post-Civil War era, the states of the old Confederacy (and even many so called "border states") voted Democratic.*** In fact, there weren't many Southerners who even dared identify themselves as Republicans, because, unlike in recent times, Republicans were the party of the Federal Government, and Lincoln was far from a revered figure in the South. These conservative elements often clashed with the more moderate or progressive Democrats in other parts of the country. On the other hand, some of the most progressive/liberal elements of the country were in the Republican Party a number of decades ago, and this too brought about some major philosophical clashes among Republicans. Ever so gradually conservatives, mainly "fiscal" conservatives at first, began to take control of the Republican Party. The 1970s and 1980s brought the much more socially conservative elements into the party until it truly became the conservative party of the country, leaving little room for liberals/progressives, or even in some cases, moderates. At this very moment, there is still a battle going on within the party over who is conservative enough.

So, for quite some time, both parties had a big mixture of conservatives, moderates, and progressives/liberals. With such a mixture of these philosophies being represented in both parties in Congress, members frequently reached across to members of the other party to work together on legislation for the country, something that is sorely missing so often today. Today's Republican Party is pretty much limited to people who identify themselves as conservatives, some even espousing such so called conservatism that Ronald Reagan, the man who initially brought conservatism to power, and made it acceptable to many Americans, would not qualify as a Republican. Democrats have many progressives/liberals, but also many moderate to moderately conservative supporters, especially in southern and border states, while many Americans have chosen to declare themselves as independents.

With the two parties so philosophically aligned now, the venom has poisoned the political atmosphere. Politics has never been much of a profession for the faint-hearted, but now it has truly become a "knock 'em down, kick 'em, and drag 'em by the hair" donnybrook. In this case, Obama is much more like Herbert Hoover, at least so far. Like Hoover, his basic temperament is less combative. His opponents have done just about everything they can to dirty his name and image. The question is, can he bounce back? Bill Clinton was pummeled too, and some of his wounds were self inflicted, but Clinton, no matter what you may think of him, was a fighter, as is Hillary.

To be continued in Part 4 C.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* For those interested, this link will take you to "The Great Depression-Part One," a multi-part series which I did a few years ago. You can then get to the rest of the series by clicking on either "Herbert Hoover" or "the Great Depression" in the "labels" listed at the bottom of Part One.

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/08/great-depression-part-one.html


** What I'm getting at is, if you are on trial for murder, saying "I'm on the government death panel," isn't necessarily going to fly with a judge, unless that judge is Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.

*** Political philosophies aren't subject to state borders, and while border states didn't attempt to leave the Union, many people in those states had strong sympathies for the Confederacy, and like the states of the Old South, these feelings didn't die with the end of the Civil War.

WORD HISTORY:
Five-This numerical word goes back to Indo European "penkwe/pengke," which meant "five." This gave the Old Germanic offshoot "fimfe/fenfe" (I found both forms). This in turn gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "fif," which later became "five." There are many relatives to our word throughout the Indo European languages, sometimes a bit "disguised," but our other Germanic relatives are: German "fünf," Dutch "vijf," Frisian "fiif" (that is double "i"), Low Saxon "fief," Danish, Norwegian and Swedish "fem," and Icelandic "fimm."