Will Responsible Republicans Admit Mistake?

This was first published in February 2013, but as the forces of greed are already running ads to "reform" the tax code, it is very appropriate, since to them, "tax reform" means, "give us tax cuts, don't you know how tough it is to get by on a few billion? Life is tough."

In the late 1930s, film producer/director Frank Capra, who was born in Sicily, but came to the United States as a child, did a picture called "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington." Americans need to sit down and watch this picture again, and again, to remind us of what this country has tried to stand for in its relatively short lifespan, compared to the rest of the world. We aren't perfect, maybe we've been far from it, but we haven't let our imperfections stymie our desires to correct flaws, or to file down our rough edges. Even in the last thirty plus years of conservative influence, the country has at times chosen to go in the opposite direction of those who would keep us divided and keep us from moving forward. But this age, which began with "so called conservatism,"* has not "pro"gressed, but "re"gressed to the point where the wealthy and large business interests have come to dominate; never satisfied to make millions, but rather to pile millions upon millions, upon millions, upon billions, with many showing not the slightest concern for their fellow, far less well off, citizens, and by demanding tax cuts and taxpayer money as an "entitlement" for their being rich and powerful. Whether this "era of nonsense, sold as sense," is coming to an end remains to be seen, as the ruthless interests still have many cards up their sleeves, cards with lots of $$$ signs, and they won't hesitate for one moment to play those cards.

For those who have seen "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and may have forgotten the gist of the picture, and for those who've never seen the film, Capra put together a story of a young idealistic average citizen, "Jeff Smith," who is tapped to replace a senator who has just died. The young man, played by James "Jimmy" Stewart, is so overwhelmed by his choice to serve his country and to help others, he is unaware of really WHY he was chosen. A wealthy and powerful businessman in his state, played by Edward Arnold, has gotten a seemingly benign clause about a land deal inserted into an important relief bill before the Senate. The land will prove to bring in a bundle for the greedy businessman, and the feeling is, Smith will never notice what is going on. The actual bill is important to the nation, with the potential to provide help to millions of Americans (this was in the Depression era), but so much for patriotism, money is the ONLY important thing to the ruthless businessman and his bought and paid for cronies. Claude Rains plays the state's senior senator, a well respected and progressive man, but who has come under the thumb of the ruthless businessman. The new Senator Smith takes the floor to offer his first bill for a boys' camp. Little does he know, the proposed camp is right smack dab on the land included in the businessman's deal. The reaction is swift and ruthless, as the businessman and his cronies try to stymie the young senator, who finds out just what has been going on. Efforts to discredit the senator and to make him a laughing stock appear to work, until the young man, abandoned by much of the Senate, but supported by his aide, played by Jean Arthur (whom he loves), decides to take to the floor himself in an effort to get the attention of his home state and of the nation. He holds the floor for hours and some senators start to wonder whether such a determined man would stage such a grueling effort without having some truth to his claims.

Little does the young senator know, in his home state, the ruthless businessman has closed off contact with Washington and has gotten the newspapers and radio stations he owns (and those under his thumb) to condemn the young senator. A youth organization tries to spread the truth to help Senator Smith by delivering leaflets to the people, but the businessman's thugs overturn their wagons and bicycles and destroy the leaflets, injuring some of the kids. Further, the businessman has his cronies send thousands of telegrams to the Capitol Building telling the senator to stop and let the bill be passed by the Senate. The young man becomes despondent, but then bounces back and lectures the other senator from his state on how he once had been an idealist who fought for what was good for America, not what was good for wealthy interests. Totally worn out, the young senator collapses. The senior senator rushes to the back offices and tries to shoot himself, but is stopped by others. He dashes to the floor of the Senate screaming that the young senator has been telling the truth and that he himself has been corrupt as Senator Smith had said all along. In the end, he takes responsibility in an effort to correct a terrible wrong.

My question is, which Republicans nowadays will now stand up and admit to their terrible mistakes of letting a bunch of nutcases and fascists take over a segment of their party? Just like with the wealthy, ruthless businessman in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," once you let these kinds of people in and they get a foothold, getting them out is painful and dangerous. You may lose some elections if you root out these nutcases and fascists, but it may make you stronger in the future. I'm not saying you should totally agree with Democrats, hell, Democrats don't always agree with one another, and we need competing ideas, but this nonsense of opposing just about EVERYTHING just to oppose, or often to help wealthy interests, it's not acceptable and I believe many Republicans see this too, but they may be afraid to speak out, as the roughneck thugs you have let in to your party are a threat to them, but also to the nation. Capra's movie was about American patriotism and ideals. Not patriotism manufactured to keep a political ideology in power, but a patriotism that came with the founding of this nation, one of inclusion, not exclusion, although we've struggled with that idea from the very beginning, but no one can say we haven't tried to right many a wrong, a struggle we continue with to this very day. Republicans were once the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, and in Capra's film, the young senator goes to the Lincoln Memorial to renew and steady his belief in the ideals of America. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt had ideals that were based upon the patriotism that came with the founding of this country. It's time Republicans once again found that same patriotism. Stand up and be counted!   

* I say "so called conservatism," because any philosophy which renounces deficits and deficit spending, only to use "deficits and deficit spending" as policy, is anything but conservative. No, this was the beginning of an outright "reactionary" period, using "liberal" economic policies, combined with an ever increasing appeal to patriotism, to remain in power, and all the while sapping the strength of the nation's middle class and poor in a gigantic transfer of wealth to already wealthy interests.
   
WORD HISTORY:
Responsible-The ancient origins of this compound word are uncertain, so I am going to go backward in this history. English borrowed the word from French "responsible" in the latter part of the 1500s, which had been derived from Latin "responsus," the participle form of "respondere," which meant "to respond, to answer to." This came from the Latin prefix "re," a common form in Latin derived words, usually with some context of "go back, return, repeat," but why Latin, an Italic language, has this prefix is unclear. The second part is from Latin "spondere," which was derived from Latin "spondeo," which meant "to promise or to pledge, to assume responsibility for." The trail after this is more than a little murky.