The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Twenty

Mid 1991 saw George H.W. Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas for a seat on the Supreme Court. Thomas was a black conservative Republican judge chosen by Bush to replace retiring black progressive justice, Thurgood Marshall; thus, shifting the Supreme Court to the political right. Interest groups from both sides of the political spectrum mobilized over the Thomas nomination. The nomination hearings reached fever pitch, with millions of Americans tuned in, when Anita Hill, a lawyer who had worked with Thomas when he was her supervisor, testified that he had made inappropriate sexual remarks to her, perhaps constituting sexual harassment. President Bush, pressed by conservatives to stick with, and to fight for, the nomination, did so. The bitter process ended with Thomas winning confirmation by a narrow margin, as eleven Democrats voted for his confirmation, while only two Republicans opposed it. Senators from former Confederate states voted 14 to 8 in favor of Thomas's confirmation.

With the economy in recession, Bush's popularity tumbled, giving Democrats hope of defeating the incumbent president. Hard line conservative Pat Buchanan entered the Republican nomination process and criticized Bush for working with Democrats and for breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Buchanan made a strong showing in New Hampshire, but Bush won and he continued on to a relatively easy renomination, but the attacks from Buchanan took a toll, as a part of the conservative base of the Republican Party remained unenthusiastic about George Bush. To placate conservatives, Bush gave Buchanan the keynote address spot at the Republican National Convention in Houston, Texas. In that speech, dripping with venom, Buchanan attacked the Democratic nominee, Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, and Democrats in general, who, he said, were in a fight to take over the soul of the country by advocating abortion, gay rights, and a diverse society. Buchanan obviously forgot his own mixed background of Irish, Scottish and German.

Democrats nominated Bill Clinton of Arkansas and that state's governor. Clinton did well in all of the primaries in former Confederate states. He chose fellow Southerner Al Gore of Tennessee as his running mate, as the Democrats pitted a Southern ticket against the Republicans and Ross Perot, a billionaire businessman who entered the race and quickly became a favorite of many disgruntled Americans. The thing was, while Perot started off well, as with his own money, he didn't need big campaign contributions. Increasingly large sums of money in the political process was something that had become a growing concern among some Americans. Further, his use of charts and pointers about certain issues also played well with many voters, but he later began to display some erratic behavior, at one point even withdrawing from the race, only to later say he had dropped out because Republicans had planned dirty tricks to disrupt his daughters wedding. Further, Perot asserted that the CIA was involved in trying to destroy his campaign by tapping into his stock trading program to prevent him from financing his campaign, and there were other unsubstantiated charges of assassination plots, etc. The White House and the Bush campaign leaders called it all nonsense. Perot's poll numbers tumbled and Bill Clinton's rose, putting the Democrat ahead of the field. Later Perot decided to get back into the race. On top of the display of paranoia, Perot had selected retired, highly decorated Vice Admiral James Stockdale as his running mate. During the vice presidential debate, Stockdale, who had had little time to prepare for the debate, looked into the television cameras and asked, "Who am I? Why am I here?" Stockdale's apparent confusion and lack of focus throughout the debate produced a series of one liners from comedians and it further called into question the judgment, if not the very sanity, of Ross Perot. The thing was, Perot's paranoia and conspiracy theories played right into the minds of a number of Americans obsessed with such things, and to whom Republican tricks were assumed to be commonplace, no proof required.

Clinton and Gore put the South back into play for Democrats, and Bush seemed to be mired in low poll numbers. On election day, the voters had their say: Clinton/Gore received 43% of the popular vote and 370 electoral votes, including those of former Confederate states Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee. Bush carried the other states in the South, but he received only about 37 1/2% of the national popular vote. Perot won no states, but he received about 19% of the popular vote. In the U.S. Senate elections, Republicans gained a seat in a close election in Georgia, and defeated the Democratic incumbent in North Carolina, too. In elections for the House of Representatives, based upon redistricting from the 1990 Census, Republicans gained a seat in Alabama, making that delegation 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans; in Arkansas, Republicans gained a seat to make the delegation 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans; in Florida, a state which saw an increase in representation because of population growth, Republicans won 13 seats to 10 for Democrats; Georgia added one new seat and the new delegation was 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans; Louisiana added an additional seat and the new delegation was 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans; Mississippi's delegation remained totally Democratic, with 5 Democrats; North Carolina gained one seat and after the election the delegation was 8 Democrats and 4 Republicans; South Carolina saw Republicans gain a seat to make the delegation 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats; Tennessee remained steady at 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans; Texas added new seats, and after the election, the delegation was 21 Democrats and 9 Republicans; Virginia added one seat, and after the election the delegation was 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans. In elections for governors of former Confederate states, the only change was that Democrats won the governorship from Republicans in North Carolina.   

WORD HISTORY:
One-This word, closely related to original English words of Germanic derivation "only," and to the second part of "alone," ultimately goes back to Indo European "oinos." The Germanic branch of Indo European continued with "ainaz." This was passed down to Old English and Old Frisian as "an" (long "a" sound). There seems to have been a wide variety of pronunciations for the English word, and it later tended to have a long "o" sound for quite some time in many areas of England. The "w" sound, however, seems to have developed in western England, and it eventually was accepted as "standard," although not until the 1700s. The Indo European word was also passed along to other branches of its family, as Latin had "unus," for example, and that word further developed into French "un," and Italian and Spanish "uno." The other Germanic languages have: German "ein," Low German Saxon "een," Dutch "een," West Frisian "ien," Danish "en," Icelandic "einn," Norwegian "en," and Swedish "en" (Swedish also has "ett").

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirty-Two

"The Contentious Election of 2000," Part Two
"It All Comes Down To A Few Hundred Votes In Florida"

The 2000 election came at a time when the country was enjoying "relative peace and prosperity," as well as budget surpluses.* The surge in Web-based businesses, and the explosion in stock prices for such businesses, masked the trend of a general decline in what I'll call "working class jobs," as both technology and a shift in jobs to foreign countries was accelerating, making it difficult for wage increases for many workers. On top of that, the increase in health insurance costs for those who had it, previously, but not always, picked up by employers, began to be shifted to employees, as employers deducted a percentage of insurance costs from their workers' paychecks, and often, co-pays for certain procedures or prescriptions increased for those covered. This process too seemed to be accelerating. Further still, the price of oil and gasoline, which had fallen tremendously in the late 1990s,** began to escalate at a rapid pace, and gasoline prices surged toward or above $2.00 a gallon for a time, adding psychological pain to the pain in the pocketbook for many Americans. All of these things, as well as perhaps a "weariness" with the Clinton scandals and political battles, must have had an effect on the electorate and tilted the electoral vote ever so slightly towards Republican Bush.

The 2000 election showed that while most Americans were fairly satisfied with the times, and Bill Clinton's popularity increased, Clinton had failed to build a large lasting coalition among voters, although, as I noted in the previous segment, Al Gore did win the popular vote over George W. Bush (see further below). Bush and his campaign emphasized Clinton's scandals, saying Clinton had embarrassed the country and undermined the presidency. Gore tried as much as possible to play down the topic of Clinton's sex scandals, even to the point of sparingly utilizing the politically adept Clinton in his campaign. The use of American troops in military actions, especially in eastern Africa, was also a target of the Republican campaign, as Bush noted that the United States should not be involved in such operations. Bush chose long time Washington insider Dick Cheney to be his running mate, and Gore chose Senator Joe Lieberman, also a veteran of Washington politics. Cheney, who had served as Secretary of Defense under George Bush (Senior), added military and foreign policy experience, experience which George W. Bush lacked.

The election showed Al Gore receiving nearly 48.4% of the popular vote to George W. Bush's nearly 47.9%, but Green Party candidate Ralph Nader garnered more than 2.7%. The Gore-Lieberman ticket led the Bush-Cheney ticket by about a half million votes. In the Electoral College, however, Bush won 271 votes to Gore's 266.*** A number of states were very close, barely tilting one way or the other, but none was as close as Florida, where the entire presidency hung in the balance. On election night and in the wee hours of the next day, news agencies first declared Gore the winner in Florida, but then changed it to Bush, before backing away from declaring any winner there. To make matters worse, Gore called Bush to concede Florida and the presidency, only to withdraw the concession as Bush's lead in Florida continued to narrow. Florida had 25 electoral votes, far above what was needed for Gore to be the next president, and just barely enough to give Bush the presidency. In what became a saga lasting for weeks, Bush had a narrow lead of about 1700 votes in Florida's unofficial returns, out of about 6 million votes. After a mandatory recount, done by feeding ballots back through machines, and after the counting of outstanding ballots from military personnel stationed in foreign countries, Bush held a lead of less than 1000 votes. It would get closer. Ralph Nader received more than 97,000 votes in Florida.

The issues involved after this point are many and would require at least another article or two to explain, but with such a close vote count, EVERY discrepancy took on major meanings,**** so this is VERY basic here. Gore legally asked for ballots to be hand counted in certain counties, but Florida law allowed only one week from election day for counties to submit revised totals from recounts. Gore received a favorable decision from the Florida Supreme Court, which extended that deadline for about two weeks. All recounts were not complete by that date and Florida declared Bush the victor by 537 votes. Gore protested, as tens of thousands of ballots had been rejected by the ballot counting machines, and the Florida Supreme Court ordered those ballots to be hand counted, a process that gave Americans some new terminology in the expression "hanging chad;" that is, ballots where the dot to be punched out indicating a vote for a particular person or issue remained connected to the ballot in some fashion; "hanging" from the ballot. News reports showed people involved in the count holding up ballots to try to determine the intent of the voter. It was a mess! Eventually the U. S. Supreme Court stopped all recounts by a 5-4 vote, which awarded Florida to George W. Bush, as Florida then used previously certified results as the final official tally. George W. Bush took the oath of office in January 2001.

* I failed to note this in an earlier segment, but the budget surpluses looked larger than they actually were, because of Social Security being included in the overall federal budget numbers. Understand, that also means the budget deficits of previous years were really worse than most Americans realized, because of the inclusion of Social Security. What do I mean? Well, during that general era, Social Security was taking in more money than it paid out annually, thus, when added to the overall federal budget, it made surpluses look larger in the late 1990s, just as it had made federal deficits look smaller prior to that time.

** If my memory is right, and please note this caution, I seem to remember paying as little as about eighty-five cents a gallon for gasoline in maybe about 1998. 

*** One elector from Washington D.C. abstained in protest over the lack of representation in Congress for the District of Columbia, but had been a Gore voter, abstaining only when this one vote did not make a difference. The Electoral College provides for each state to receive one electoral vote for each congressional district within its boundaries, as well as one vote each for the two U.S. senators. So if state "XYZ" has eight congressional districts, it has ten electoral votes (8 +2). The smallest number of electoral votes a state can have is three. The District of Columbia, which has no voting member of the House of Representatives and no senators, was given three electoral votes. There are 538 electoral votes available nationwide; 435 congressional districts, and 100 senators, plus the three votes for the District of Columbia. A candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes to win the presidency, so George W. Bush was just over the line.

**** Just a few of the many issues involved were: first, a confusing ballot design in one heavily Democratic county had resulted in Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan receiving what was seen as an unusually large number of votes in that county, 3400, far more than he received in any other Florida county, and "over votes;" that is, where more than one candidate was selected for president. Buchanan received less than a half million votes nationwide, which represented less than a half a percent of the overall vote. Second, a controversial removal of voters from the rolls in Florida by Republican elected officials were found to be incorrect; that is, a number of voter names were removed from the rolls for being "felons," but they were not, and some such voters were never informed of their removal until they tried to vote on election day. Third, Republican Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, the state's chief election officer, was heavily involved in the Bush campaign.   

WORD HISTORY:
Stab-The origin of this word is uncertain to some, but I'm not one of them. It is really a variant form of "stub" used in part of Scotland as "stob," and borrowed into English usage in the 1300s. Up until then, English used forms of "stick" and "sting" to indicate the action of "stab." It goes back to Indo European "steupb," which had the notion of "hit, beat, knock, push." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "stubjaz," which had the same meanings, but also developed meanings for things from the result of being "hit or pushed." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "stybb," meaning a "tree stump;" that is, the remnant of a tree after been hit or knocked by humans, wind, lightning. This later became "stubb(e)," before the modern version. The verb developed from the noun, with the idea of making something "stubby" or leaving a "stub" after pulling, cutting, or hitting (plants, hair/whiskers, ticket), and of course, the OUCH part of hitting your toe or finger against something. So "stab" follows the same course, with the notion of "cutting, pushing a sharp object into something." The noun form of course comes from the idea of the result of  "being pierced by a sharp object."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirty-One

This was originally published in December 2012


"The Contentious Election of 2000" Part One

The election in 2000 was the most controversial in recent times. In a "relatively rare" event in American history, the losing candidate, Al Gore, won the popular vote over George W. Bush, but lost the electoral vote, which is the vote that really counts in American presidential elections.

Al Gore, then Vice President, was the consensus candidate of the Democratic Party and he easily won the party's nomination. The Republican nomination proved to be far more contested, as Senator John McCain of Arizona mounted a serious challenge for a time to Governor George W. Bush of Texas, who was the front runner for the GOP nomination. McCain stunned Bush in the New Hampshire primary, winning by a large margin there. McCain attracted moderate Republicans and independents, as New Hampshire permits independent voters to choose either the Democratic or Republican ballot in primaries. Bush needed a big win in South Carolina, and he got it, although his campaign left McCain embittered by allegations that the Bush campaign had used race and lies to clinch the primary vote in the conservative southern state, by implying that McCain had fathered a child with an African-American woman. How much this influenced the vote, if any, was unclear, but it clearly pointed to how much racial politics had become a part of the GOP.* McCain bounced back, winning a couple of primaries, but Bush won a decisive victory on so called "Super Tuesday" in March, by winning several key states. Generally speaking, McCain tended to do well in states where independents, or even Democrats, could choose the Republican primary ballot, and in states with more moderate Republican voters, and Bush did well in states with large numbers of conservative Republican voters. McCain decided to drop out of the race, leaving Bush with a clear path to the GOP nomination.

In other developments, the "Reform Party," founded by Ross Perot, nominated Pat Buchanan as its presidential nominee, in spite of Perot's personal disapproval of the nominee.** Further, in what may have decided the final outcome of the 2000 election, the Green Party chose Ralph Nader as its candidate. 

Next, in Part Two, "It All Comes Down To A Few Hundred Votes In Florida"

* In fairness, such racial politics had once been part of the Democratic Party, when the South was solidly Democratic, as I mentioned in some previous parts in this series.

** Buchanan's selection showed how Ross Perot had lost control of the movement he generally had started and how it became a coalition which attracted right wing elements. Perot originally had put emphasis on the budget deficits, blaming both parties for deficit spending, including the "voodoo economics" of the Reagan administration, and also criticizing trade deals which sent jobs and investments overseas. Perot had been much more libertarian on social issues, steering clear of them as much as possible, but Buchanan was well known for his tough stance, and rough talk, about many such issues (he was anti-abortion and anti gay rights, in particular). This further added to the Reform Party's coalition.  

WORD HISTORY:
Stub-This word goes back to Indo European "steupb," which had the notion of "hit, beat, knock, push." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "stubjaz," which had the same meanings, but also developed meanings for things from the result of being "hit or pushed." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "stybb," meaning a "tree stump;" that is, the remnant of a tree after been hit or knocked by humans, wind, lightning. This later became "stubb(e)," before the modern version, and it also broadened in meaning to short, fat objects, as does the derived adjective "stubby." The verb developed from the noun, with the idea of making something "stubby" or leaving a "stub" after pulling, cutting, or hitting (plants, hair/whiskers, tickets), and of course, the OUCH part of hitting your toe or finger against something ("I stubbed my toe!"). Other Germanic languages have: Danish and Norwegian "stubben, Swedish "stubbe," all generally still meaning "tree stump." Dutch had "stubbe" and Frisian once had "steb/stib." West Frisian has a couple of compounds containing "stub," but whether these are survivors of its previous form or borrowings, I'm not sure.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Three

"The 1992 Campaign and Election" Part One

The 1992 nominating process brought hard line conservative Pat Buchanan into the Republican primaries against President George Bush. He challenged Bush about breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge and about the President making deals with Democrats, with Buchanan "essentially saying" the country didn't need two liberal parties, thus moving elements of the Republican coalition to advocate standing firm in beliefs, and making compromise seem like weakness. Buchanan made a strong showing in New Hampshire, but Bush won and he continued on to a relatively easy renomination, but the attacks from Buchanan took a toll, as a part of the conservative base of the Republican Party remained unenthusiastic about George Bush. Buchanan's challenge and his standing with many conservatives led Bush to give Buchanan the keynote address spot at the Republican Convention. Buchanan's address was a full throttle assault on the Democratic candidate Bill Clinton, his wife Hillary, and Democrats in general, who, he said, were in a fight to take over the soul of the country by advocating abortion, gay rights, and a diverse society. The speech energized conservatives to some degree, but the venom dripping words undoubtedly shocked many truly independent voters.

Meanwhile, Texas businessman Ross Perot had entered the national spotlight by focusing on the federal budget deficit, an issue on the minds of many Americans, regardless of party affiliation, although especially so for fiscal conservatives. Like Buchanan, he indicated that the existing politicians were not truly responsive to the public. Unlike Buchanan, Perot was not wedded to many of the socially conservative ideas laid out by Buchanan and some elements of the Religious Right, and he was more libertarian on many issues. A large number of Americans flocked to Perot, who seemed to fill a niche at that time, and he said he would run for president, "if" enough people showed interest in his candidacy by getting his name placed on the ballots in all fifty states, a condition which was fulfilled. A billionaire, Perot didn't have to rely on donations from special interest groups, with such money raising being another growing concern among Americans. In the spring of 1992 Perot led in many national polls, which only increased his appeal to Americans tired of party politics. For George Bush, Perot's candidacy was a plague, as the President had tackled the deficit issue, even breaking his no tax pledge to do so, and by working across party lines, now only to have Perot say not enough had been done to deal with the national debt and that deals between members of the two parties were sort of tainted. So Bush had hard line conservatives furious with him for tax increases to reduce the deficit AND Perot angry with him for not having done enough to deal with the debt. No good deed goes unpunished and Bush's accomplishment ended up being largely negated. Again, many of the people who claimed to be so concerned about the deficit and tax increases under George Bush never held Ronald Reagan to the same standard, although deficits under Reagan were horrible and Reagan increased taxes in several ways, but Bush was not a showman or a "great communicator," and he suffered accordingly. The '92 election also showed how many Americans disregarded facts in favor of showmanship. Hey, we're the country of Hollywood and slick ads telling us why dish detergent "A" is better than dish detergents "B" and "C," even though they're all essentially the same thing.

Next, in "The 1992 Campaign and Election, Part Two," Perot implodes, Clinton surges, and the Republican coalition melts down.

WORD HISTORY:
Cloth-Like its close relatives "clot," "clod" and "clout," this word goes back to Indo European "gleuh," which had the notion of "stick together, adhere." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "klaut," with the same general meanings.This then produced Old Germanic "klutaz," which had the notion of  "piece of material," and also, "material used to cover something." This then gave Old Germanic the variant "klaithan," with the "material used to cover something," meaning; thus "cloth," and by extension "garment," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "clath," likely with a long "a" sound, and this later became "cloth." Old English "clath" also had the additional meaning "sail," obviously from the notion of the material used for such, but it was not the primary word for "sail," which indeed was the ancestor of the modern word "sail" (I'll cover 'sail' soon). The original Old English plural form was "clathas," which became "clothes," "wearing apparel, clothing." The other Germanic languages have forms all having meanings to do with "clothes" or "cloth": standard German "Kleid" (garment, dress), Low German Saxon "kleed" (clothing, garment), West Frisian "kleed" (piece of clothing, garment), Dutch "kleed" (garment, carpet), Danish has "klaede" (cloth) and "klaeder" (clothes), Icelandic has "klaethi" (clothes), Norwegian has "klut(en)" (cloth), and Swedish has "kläder" (clothes) and "kläde" (cloth).

Pat Buchanan & MSNBC

Leave it to Randy to defend Pat Buchanan, someone I have little in common with politically. I have to say, I have NOT read his latest book, "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" I have read some reviews of the book. Buchanan was with MSNBC/NBC as a political commentator for about a decade, offering various views, some considered to be rightwing (I concur), on all sorts of political and international events. For the last few years he was more associated with MSNBC's "Morning Joe," an early morning talk/discussion show on the cable channel, where he became a regular.

Just briefly, Buchanan worked for President Richard Nixon and later for President Ronald Reagan. He was on the original "Crossfire" show on CNN in the early 1980s (I watched it regularly), just before he went to work in the Reagan White House. He ran against fellow Republican and incumbent President, George Bush (Sr.) in 1992, and caused the President numerous headaches during the primary campaign, and later at the Republican Convention. He also ran in 1996, emphasizing the loss of American jobs due to poorly negotiated trade deals, a position which seemed to garner him some Democratic votes. He criticized both major political parties on this and other issues, often "social issues," like abortion, gay rights, and immigration policy, and he proudly proclaimed his staunch Catholicism and support of Church dogma. As I recall (and I may need to be corrected on this), polls showed much of Buchanan's support from white men, some even being dubbed "angry white men." When Republican President George W. Bush proposed immigration changes that would have permitted eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants who went through a process taking several years, Buchanan dubbed it "amnesty," and he and his supporters (and others) so battered the proposal, it went nowhere. Highly polarizing, Buchanan has been a red flag to Blacks, Latinos, Jews, gays, and many women, and that doesn't count the many white men who were also turned off by his heated rhetoric.

Last October Buchanan's book was released and MSNBC suspended Buchanan as some of the topics in the book sparked heated retorts from Jews and other minorities, including gays, as Buchanan charged that America is in decline because of minorities, and the decline in percentage of the population of white people of European heritage, as well as the decline of "European Christianity." Interestingly he laments that "Mexico is moving north," but Mexicans are overwhelmingly Catholic, the religion brought there by European Spaniards. Hm, I must have missed something. Anyway, a little over a month ago, MSNBC terminated its relationship with the outspoken Buchanan. "Morning Joe" hosts Joe Scarborough (a former Republcian congressman) and Mika Brzezinski (daughter of foreign policy analyst and author Zbigniew Brzezinski) both offered personal support for Buchanan, while noting the differences they had with many of his opinions, especially those opinions offered up in this book. They countered that a debate of Buchanan's ideas is the best way to expose his fallacies (this is not a quote, but my take on their remarks). I totally agree. I'm not too keen on firing commentators, columnists, etc over their views. I'm not afraid of views contrary to my own, rather I like the debate over such things. Now, some might well argue that Buchanan's views fire up some of like mind, including racists and bigots, but they will always find things to be fired up about, and making him something of a martyr does the same thing, but without input from those with other viewpoints. That is far more dangerous, in my opinion.

WORD HISTORY:
Woman-This word is really a compound, which was then contracted into the modern form. It is an English creation and is thus peculiar to English among the Germanic languages. In Old English (Anglo-Saxon), the common word for a female human was "wif," which is obviously still with us in the modern form "wife" (this will be the next "Word History"). English put together "wif" and "mann" ("man" in the sense of "human being") as "wifmann" for a "female human." Pronunciation variations as the "f" sound died out later made this "wimman" (also spelled "wiman") and "wumman," before the modern version. The process whereby "woman" replaced "wife" for a "female human being" took a few centuries, but since "wife" came to by applied more and more to "a married female, a female spouse," "woman" finally triumphed, as many men already know.

Paying The Piper-Part Six-Incomes Fall, Poverty Rises

Yesterday, the Census Bureau released figures showing the nation's poverty rate climbed to 14.3% (figures go through 2009), the highest since 1994. There are now 43.6 million Americans living poverty, the most since the 1960s. The number of people without health insurance also increased, presumably as businesses tried to cut costs during the economic downturn, and the new health care law doesn't take full effect until 2014, if it survives Republican attempts to repeal or kill it by refusing to fund certain parts of it.*

While I don't believe George W. Bush is a bad person, his economic policies, and those policies that have been put into place in the last three decades have taken a TERRIBLE toll on many Americans. Newly released figures show that the median income for Americans fell nearly 5% between 2000 and 2009.** Of course incomes for the top 20% rose, and how much do you want to bet that the increases at the very top 1 to 2% were higher than most?***

I've noted here before that "Morning Joe," on cable channel MSNBC, is one of my favorite shows. Today, host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, and none other than conservative Republican commentator Pat Buchanan talked about these very figures I've mentioned above. Buchanan said that he has had "big differences with his party" over many of the economic policies of the last few decades, most put into place by Republicans, although at times with help from some Democrats. Buchanan threw some figures out, and I have no idea how accurate these figures are, but he said that during Bush's eight years in office, more than 50,000 manufacturing plants closed in America! As a result, he stated that 6 million manufacturing jobs ("the highest income jobs for working class Americans," he added) disappeared, with many of these jobs going to China. Scarborough mentioned "three decades of American decline." Remember, these were two Republicans talking about this, not two Democrats.

If you're a Republican, God bless ya! We need differing points of view, as neither political party has a monopoly on good ideas, and certainly neither has a monopoly on virtue. I just hope you'll go look into that mirror and say to yourself, "I think we've got a problem here." That's a start! Don't be in denial! What is terribly troubling to me now is to hear Republican officeholders acting as if they had nothing to do with creating the economic situation this country is in. It's as if they learned nothing! That's a recipe for more decline. (A Word History is below the notes)

Related previous article:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/06/you-wont-need-time-machine.html

* The health care bill (now law) was not great, but it was a start. A number of Republican members of Congress and some Republican candidates are indicating they will try to repeal or "de-fund" the health care law, if Republicans take over Congress in the November elections. The Republican senatorial candidate in Alaska (Joe Miller) has noted that with a Democratic president, no repeal will be possible, as the president will veto any such legislation, but Miller advises that he will aim to "de-fund" the law, thus effectively killing it.

** See the Wall Street Journal for today, the front page article, "Lost Decade for American Income," by Conor Dougherty and Sara Murray.

*** I'm not against people making money, even lots of money, but in my lifetime I've found that most Americans are pretty sensible. We want businesses to make money, we understand it, we get it! There will always be those who resent someone who made a dime off of them, but they are in the distinct minority, probably like 2%. The other side of the coin is, however, Americans also know when they see excess, and we've seen excess. There has been a tremendous transfer of wealth to the upper incomes, and they were already, well, the upper incomes.

WORD HISTORY:
Poverty-This word goes back to the Indo European root "pau," which meant "little, few," and which then spawned the Latin offshoot "paupertas." (Latin is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the family tree.) Old French, a Latin-based language, continued with "poverte," and English then acquired the word from French in the late 1100s. Initially it was spelled as the French word, "poverte," but later took on the modern spelling. It is closely related to both "poor" and "pauper." In Old English we used a form of the base "earm" to relate words connected to poor and poverty, and in our close relative German, they still have "arm"(not the same as the body part, which is spelled the same in German), which is obviously close to our old word.

"Morning Joe" and Me

Weekdays, I frequently watch a part of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. It has had some of the best discussions I've seen on television about many of the issues confronting the nation. The show appeared a couple of years ago as a replacement for the "Imus Show," which was televised on MSNBC. It is hosted by Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, and Mika Brezinski, the daughter of former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brezinski. There are a variety of regularly appearing participants, like Pat Buchanan and columnist Mike Barnicle, among others, who sit in with Joe and Mika, commenting on some current events and asking questions of guests. Some very pointed questions are often asked of the various guests making appearances on the show, and to be quite honest, at times, things can get a bit chaotic. Unfortunately too, the group can get off topic, at times, not always, leaving a scheduled guest or two with little time to express their views or offer their expertise on what was supposed to be the matter at hand. Frequently these guests are asked if they can stay longer, or return to the show in the future. I'm not particularly fond of the show's tendency to have some participants in New York, and others in Washington. This adds to the "chaos" at times, as participants from both locations begin "talking over" each other.

What I really like are the tough questions that are asked. We NEED this!!! The show is not tilted toward any particular ideology or political party, although Scarborough is a Republican and is not the least bit shy in reminding the audience of his affiliation. He also claims to be a "conservative," although during the early part of the economic meltdown, I heard him "seemingly" side with Pat Buchanan, who has a kind of "economic populist" streak in him. Joe's biggest problem is his "inclination" to interrupt others and sort of monopolize the conversation, at times; but hey, he's a lawyer, what do you expect? He has some ideas I tend to agree with, and some I tend to be a bit skeptical of, but he's a thoughtful guy and, as I mentioned, he asks some tough questions. I just wish he'd asked some of those tough questions when he was in Congress in the 1990s. In fairness to him, he admits that there were mistakes made about economic matters, and I'm not sure he'll admit it, but while he insists he's a supporter of "free market capitalism," I have heard him utter some support for that word so brought into disrepute by "conservatives" in the last several decades...."regulation." Also, one morning, about two months ago, he certainly sided with Pat Buchanan when Pat mentioned "economic nationalism," regarding the auto industry. Joe also tries to boil down the positions of various politicians of both parties. His "what this really means" offerings are usually none too flattering. I like that, even though I don't always agree with his assessment,*** as I often try to do the same thing here, like when I say, "Is America going to provide national care to all citizens, or are we going to say, "The hell with 'em...let 'em suffer or die?" Bottom line folks; that's what it means!

As to Buchanan, I don't often find myself in agreement with him on social issues, but on many economic matters, he's closer to what I believe, although I think he might be a bit too tight-fisted over trade. Further, Buchanan opposed the Iraq invasion, and many of his concerns turned out to be valid. While he's been known for some maverick tendencies, it still could not have been easy for him to oppose a Republican administration on such a crucial matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but I also seem to detect a bit of weakening on some of his positions on social issues. Is it that he sees things differently now that he's a bit older, or is it that he's not a candidate for president, and therefore doesn't need to pander to parts of the electorate for votes? Maybe a bit of both? Then too, Pat was a regular on CNN's "Crossfire" at various times during the show's life, and he was expected to take strong conservative views. Maybe some of this was just for the show, and now that he's not expected to always offer a hard line point of view, he doesn't?

As to Mika, I like her very much, and she seems to enjoy the spirited and tough discussions, but she likes the discussions to be civil. She also seems a bit idealistic, but then again, I suppose it could be argued that some of Joe and Pat's conservative views are idealistic, too. Come to think of it, I suppose all of our views, if carried to their apex, could be considered idealistic. I'd certainly argue that "Reaganism" went too far after Reagan, although I wonder if he had not developed Alzheimer's, would he have supported the continued pushing of an agenda that dismantled so many regulations of business? That pushed the notion of "the government is the enemy?" That let income disparity grow to 1920s levels? Reagan talked tax cuts, but he raised taxes when he thought it necessary. He talked about "gun owners' rights," but he supported the "Brady Bill" after he left office, if I remember right. To me, the smart politician knows when to STOP pushing an ideological agenda. On the old television show "Fantasy Island," guests to the island got to live out THEIR idealisms, usually with bad results for them.

Anyway, Mika preaches against certain foods, especially sweet and fatty fare. Then, I believe it was Mike Barnicle, IF I remember correctly, who asked one guest, regarding possible health care legislation, that if America gets national health care, do each of us then have a "responsibility" to take better care of ourselves. Ah, we're back to the "idealism," which seems a bit like "nannyism," to me. What will we have... the "Nutrition and Exercise Police?" And speaking of Mike Barnicle, I like him a lot too, but at times, he seems a bit intimidated by Joe's strongly enunciated conservative viewpoint on certain issues. I would have liked to have seen him challenge Joe on some things, mainly economic, but then too, maybe he's lying back because its Joe's show?

Then there's Willy Geist, a regular who provides some comic relief for the show. Willy was once a regular on Tucker Carlson's show. Carlson is a kind of libertarian/conservative commentator, who has been on both MSNBC and CNN, and he makes occasional appearances on "Morning Joe."

If you like good political discussions, I highly recommend "Morning Joe." You can always record the show, if it is too early for you. (A "word history" is below)


***Sometimes I'm about to leap off the couch over his comments!

Word History:
Skirmish-I can't find the Indo European root for this word, at present, but "skirmish" goes back to Germanic, and Frankish, a Germanic dialect, gave a form of their word "skirmjan" to French as "eskermiss,"^^^ which itself was the present stem form of "eskermir," meaning "to fence, fight with a sword." So the French notion may have been "defend yourself with a sword." The Germanic meaning had been "to defend, protect," and indeed modern German has "Regenschirm," which means "umbrella;" that is, a cover/defense against rain, and a verb, "schirmen," which means "to protect, to cover." Whether Old English had a form of this Germanic word that may have died out prior to acquiring it from French, I don't know, but Old High German had "skirmen." English acquired "skirmish" during the 1300s from French.

^^^A couple of sources say that Italian got the word from Germanic and passed it on to French.

Conservatism Unravels, Part Three

So Reagan was leaving office having negotiated some substantial deals with Gorbachev, the then leader of the Soviet Union. While Reagan has been given credit by conservatives, Republicans and some Democrats for bringing down the Soviet Union and Communism in eastern Europe, in general, it is, in my opinion, something like the Dems claiming that FDR ended the Depression; that is, there is certainly some truth, but also some exaggeration involved. Reagan developed a good relationship with Gorbachev, a man who also deserves some credit for the demise of the Soviet Union, although he probably didn't want things to actually turn out exactly as they did. Gorbachev's "openness" policy helped curb the police state that the Communist Party had developed from the very inception of Bolshevik rule, which was simply an exchange of a Tsarist police state for a Soviet police state.

While Communism lost control of various nations by the early 1990s, the problems associated with their rise didn't go away. There still remains in the world and in our own society a debate about basic treatment of workers and some sort of basic fairness to society, including income and services like health care. Remember, the old members of the Bolshevik Party didn't just decide one day to form a radical political movement just for the hell of it. They were reacting to brutal treatment by the Russian business class and by the Russian government, a government ruled by the upper class. This is not an attempt to sanitize the Bolsheviks, later called Communists, but the fact remains that what seems to have been a fairly large segment of the Russian population favored some major changes in the economic life of the country, although most did NOT favor the Bolsheviks. In fact, within the particular socialist party from which the Bolsheviks came, the Bolsheviks were a minority. That's how they got their name, as "Bolshevik" means "minority," as opposed to the far larger segment of this socialist party called the "Mensheviks," meaning "majority." Anyway, Reagan certainly helped to bring Communism to its knees in eastern Europe, with his enormous military build up, but he did so at the expense of the American budget deficit, which ballooned to extraordinary heights.

In his campaign for the White House, George Bush (Sr.) had some difficulties within his own Republican Party, as many on the far right were lukewarm, at best, toward him. The media picked up on this tension and dubbed Bush as being the dreaded "M" word, meaning "moderate,"*** primarily based upon his perceived stands on many social issues and possibly on taxes.^^^ The anti tax mantra of the Republicans had become so strong, that in his acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention, Bush felt forced to declare that he would never raise taxes, and uttered a line that helped get him elected, but which then turned on him: "Read my lips...no new taxes!!!" Of course, never to be counted out for doing something stupid, Democrats helped Bush's campaign by putting presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in an army tank, with an extra large helmet that made him look something akin to Snoopy of the Peanuts cartoon strip doing some stunt. The thing was, Snoopy was more popular than Dukakis, and Bush won handily.

I've often felt that politics is so unfair. Sometimes, the wrong people are made to pay for the sins of others. To me, thus it was with Bush. He formed a very formidable alliance, even with many Muslim nations as participants, to oust Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait. The "Gulf War" sent Bush's popularity soaring higher than any president in history, but then the American economy started to falter. The deficits incurred under Reagan became even worse under Bush, as revenues from the slow economy and spending on the war took a toll. Bush made a deal with Democrats (who controlled both houses of Congress) to raise taxes. The right wing of the Republican Party went ballistic.

As the economy sagged, so did Bush's poll numbers. Conservative Pat Buchanan chose to run against Bush in the Republican primaries and gave Bush a bloody nose, and the "read my lips" part of Bush's 1988 speech was used against him. Bush never really recovered. Further, Buchanan had proven himself to be quite popular with the hardcore conservative base of the party, and he demanded a prominent role at the Republican Convention. Buchanan's speech to the convention turned off many moderate (there's that "M" word again) voters, as he tossed out the red meat of intolerance to the social conservatives and members of the Religious Right. Ross Perot, a billionaire businessman, also entered the general election fray, and at times, led Bush in the polls. In the end, many Republicans "came home" and voted for Bush and saved him the embarrassment of finishing third. Conservatism seemed to be running out of steam... or was it? Bush lost, but Republicans actually gained seats in the House of Representatives!!! Enter...Bill Clinton, the guy conservatives love to hate. (Of course, even some Democrats aren't all that thrilled with him either, at times!) To be continued.... (Some word histories are further below)

***Bush and other Republicans had frequently dared Democrats to use "liberal" to describe themselves, with the implication being that "liberal" had become a sort of dirty word, and that Democrats were trying to disassociate themselves with the term. Bush said that Dems were afraid of the "L word." And he was RIGHT!

^^^And THEY were right! After he left office, Bush talked about being able to express his own views on many social issues, without the worry of having to placate the right wing of his party. As to taxes, just read further in the main text.

Word History:
Skill-The basic idea behind this word is "the ability to make distinctions; that is, to have the knowledge to make distinctions, discernment." It came to English during the 1200s from Old Norse "skil," which also meant "distinction, discernment." Old Norse is a North Germanic language. It is related to the Old Norse verb "skilja," which meant "distinguish, separate." It goes back to Old Germanic "skaljo," (from the root word "skel") also meaning "separate, divide." Middle Low German had "schillen," meaning "to differ," and Dutch has "geschil," meaning "difference" (the notion being, if you can separate things, you can discern the difference). Within a short time in English (by the early 1300s), the word had developed further, with the idea that if you had the mental ability to make distinctions, you were clever. Then finally that progressed quickly to the modern meaning of "being able to do something well."