It's About Coalitions, Not Purity, Part Forty-Nine

On election day 2008, financially battered Americans, fearful that the nation, and the world, might be entering into a new era of economic depression, sent a very clear message, as Barack Obama won the presidency and Democrats made gains in both the US Senate and the House of Representatives. Barack Obama won about 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 45 3/4%, but in the Electoral College, Obama won 365 votes to McCain's 173. Various exit polls showed Obama did well among many demographic groups, with Senator McCain, in major categories, only winning voters 65 and over by a single digit margin, and in the broader category of white voters, he won by about 10 points.*   

In the U.S. Senate, a strong Democratic tide prevailed as the Democrats gained eight seats, although one of those seats, in Minnesota, was not a definite gain until several months later, as the race was so close.** In the House of Representatives, twelve Republican members of the House retired prior to the election and all twelve seats were won by Democrats, as Democrats gained 21 seats overall and increased their majority. 

When Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the racist and bigoted segment among white voters, many of whom seemingly shifted over to the Republicans from the Democrats,*** helped to form a floor of support under the GOP and to offer a resistance to Obama, and often to Democrats, in general. Certainly not all opponents of Obama were (or are) racists or bigots, but a certain element "joined" the Tea Party, where they could "hide out," in my opinion, criticize the "black Muslim guy" in the White House, as some viewed Obama, but still claim, "I'm not a racist, I just care about deficits, freedom, the price of tea and can't we go back to 1773?" The Tea Party was not truly a political party, but rather a conservative-libertarian political movement that became an activist wing, and thus, an important part of the Republican Party coalition. The Tea Party members waved teabags and some wore colonial and early American garb, which gives you some idea of the century they likely preferred to modern times. Of course, they also just as likely forgot about the drawbacks of the 1700s, like no Internet... well, that might not be a good example. Now in 2017, you barely hear the name "Tea Party" anymore, as the racist elements have now come out more into the open by marching with the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, as we now have a president who sees some "good people" in these groups. For about 4 or 5 years, beginning in 2009, the Tea Party was highly visible and it proved to be troublesome for both Democrats and for the more traditional Republicans. If there was much "organization" to the Tea Party, it was represented by the financial support of the Koch political organization and former member of Congress, Dick Armey. Traditional Republicans need to look at the Kochs and Armey for their support and courting of the disruptive forces to oppose Obama, but which then helped to bring Donald Trump and company to take over the Republican Party, a force which now threatens the very nation; however, this was not done without the inadvertent help of Democrats. Next... Economic stimulus, Wall Street bankers and Obama administers health care to the GOP and helps it back to its feet...  

* The demographic exit polls I looked over were all similar, with minor differences in some categories, but in no case did I see major discrepancies that showed, for example, McCain winning by a few points in a particular category in most polls, but with another poll or two showing Obama as winning that category. One of the close categories was for "men," where "essentially" Obama and McCain split the vote, although some polls showed a slight tilt to one candidate or the other.

** Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, a Republican, switched to the Democratic Party in the spring of 2009 (the new Senate was first seated in January of 2009). In the late summer of 2009, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, a Democrat, died. A temporary Democratic replacement was named, until a special election produced a Republican election victory in early 2010.

*** I told a little about one of these "converts" in Part 48 of this series. Here is the link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2017/11/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part.html     

WORD HISTORY:
Garb-The ultimate origin of this word is uncertain. It is related to "gear," a word from Germanic. "Garb" goes back to the Old Germanic verb, "garwijanan," which meant, "to prepare, to make ready;" thus also the more specific, "to equip (make ready) for battle." This produced Germanic "garwa," meaning, "ready, finished." The verb also produced Germanic "garwi," a noun for, "clothing, military wear (gear, equipment)." This was borrowed by Italian from one of the Old High German dialects of the Alps region, which had, "garawe," meaning, "mode of dress, adorned attire." The Italian form, "garbo," meaning, "stylishness, elegance," seemingly from the notion of "well adorned (well prepared) form of attire." This was borrowed by French as "garbe" ("graceful appearance/bearing"), and this was borrowed by English in the second half of the 1500s, and the shift in meaning to, "type or mode of dress/attire," came in the 1600s. It is related to German "gerben" (to prepare hides for wear or use by tanning), Low German "garven" (same meaning as German). Other related forms in the Germanic languages came to mean "to make;" thus also, "to do," from the original notion of "to make ready, to prepare." Its relationship to "gear" goes back to the same Old Germanic form and the forms that generally meant "equipment, military arms, clothing," which later broadened a good deal in the English meaning to, "saddles, harnesses for horses and pack animals," then also, "parts for ships," and "mechanical parts for machinery," as well as, "equipment to do various activities, like fishing and physical sports."   

The Economic Philosophies Do Battle

There are deep, emotional and opposing philosophical beliefs by many an American about our economic system. "Generally," the political right says the system is just dandy, that only the private sector can do things efficiently, that government is the enemy (except in military matters), that the free markets are supreme and never wrong, and that giving money to the country's wealthiest people via tax cuts will help everyone. The political left is "generally" against all of the above, to put it simply, calling tax cuts to the wealthy "trickle down economics," and generally supporting government intervention during downturns, and supporting government aid to help level the playing field and give a helping hand up for those not born into wealth, and to help those damaged by the sharp edges of capitalism. My "guess" is, most Americans hold opinions "somewhere in the middle" of all of this, with their opinions about specific aspects of the American economic system often colored by their own experiences, and also likely being at times contradictory. I also "assume" some Americans swing back and forth, depending upon the political winds, but again more likely swayed by their own perceived sense of how things are going for themselves and for the country at any given moment. These are the people who generally determine the outcome of national elections. During the self centered individualism of the 1920s, these kinds of folks leaned toward the more conservative pro-business approach mentioned above, and they voted Republican.* When that system imploded, bringing about the Great Depression, many of these people turned with a vengeance on their own previously held beliefs. Not only did they vote Democratic, but they helped to make the general liberal-progressive philosophy the dominant political philosophy of the country for decades, as the economic collapse showed them how we need each other, and how government can help, although sometimes imperfectly. Throughout that progressive era, the rich were still the rich and they did just fine.

For more than three decades now the country has moved in the direction essentially favored by those on the political right. I think it's a fair assumption to say that even many on the political right have a feeling the country has been going downhill. Part of the rationale for the Tea Party was that the country had to be righted (no pun intended). The funny thing was, many in the Tea Party blamed the newly elected Barack Obama as the culprit, rather than to look back at how wealth has ascended to the top in record amounts. You can like Obama, or not like Obama, but to act as if the country's problems all began when he took office is not only unfair, it's living in serious denial. They never admit that the economic philosophy they've supported has anything to do with the nation's decline. No, they're looking for scapegoats. Scapegoats who will give them a chance to keep from looking at themselves and at the ideas they've supported, because that's just too scary to face. Many arguments are not easily refuted until they have been tested, and the trickle down economics of the last few decades has had more than its day in court. It doesn't work, except for the upper incomes, where the richest 400 now control more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans; that is, almost half of the country.

Throughout the trickle down era there has been a war on government, and that's no coincidence, because the greediest of the superegos are far more fearful of what government CAN do, than what it can't do, when it comes to their self interest. The removal of regulations, tepid enforcement of existing regulations, one-sided trade deals, tax cuts heavily weighted to top earners, all combined to put many Americans in a stagnant income period, at best (in actual purchasing power), and many have not been "so lucky," as their incomes have actually fallen. We need regulation and adequate tax policy before the egomaniacs among the wealthy destroy all of us, a feat some nearly accomplished just a few short years ago, and from which we still have not fully recovered, although they have done VERY well in the same time frame. If you're further out on the left, these kinds of changes will not be adequate for you, but it's good to remember, progress is generally slow, and progressives need to start making progress on economic matters. Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to derail change, that's what conservatism does. It's also good to keep in mind, America's original conservatives in the era when the colonies moved toward independence, favored rule by England, but once independence was gained, conservatives joined in.

Coming soon; in fact, maybe next, I'll have some support for the wealthy, but I doubt conservatives will like it anyway.  

* While the two major political parties have changed dramatically since the 1920s, the post-Teddy Roosevelt Republicans moved much more toward pro-business stances, although in those times labor unions often supported the GOP, and black Americans were nearly 100% Republican. The Great Depression turned the tables so much and gave Democrats such a leg up, the Republicans had little room on the political spectrum to maneuver. They ever so gradually began their march to where they are today on the political right, with really no "liberal Republicans," a once common element of the GOP, and with moderately conservative members seemingly intimidated by vocal right wing activists. The party has moved so far to the right, former moderate Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George Bush Sr. rarely, if ever, even get a mention by today's Republicans (some Democrats mention them more favorably than Republicans); and, even Ronald Reagan's conservative credentials have been questioned by some on the right who have said he was "too moderate." Of course the pro-business and pro-wealthy tax cuts and other such policies of George W. Bush get a thumbs up from Republicans, but they rarely mention him either, as it's tough to criticize Obama and Democrats for bank and auto company bailouts, when it was Bush who started these programs (see note at end of this paragraph). Then too, federal deficits exploded under Bush, as a combination of tax cuts, unfunded wars, an unfunded Medicare expansion, unfunded homeland security, stagnant wages for many, lower wages for some (less tax revenue), and a later imploding economy saw the deficit soar to about 1.4 trillion dollars when Bush left office. (Note: The bailouts by Bush are to his credit, in my opinion, and Democrats can't have it both ways either, supporting Obama's moves in these matters, but denouncing Bush's. There most certainly needed to be "conditions" on the bailouts, but without the overall bailouts, we likely would have suffered a far worse collapse on the order of the 1930s. Bush was slow coming to the ballgame, always having touted "free markets," but in the end, he stepped up to the plate, with several Republicans in Congress voting against his proposals.)

WORD HISTORY:
Who-This common word goes back to Indo European "kwis/kwos," with the meanings "who," "which," "what," depending upon usage, with variations in pronunciation for usage also. This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hwas/hwos" (as the "kw" had softened to "hw") with the same meanings, but also "how," and again with spelling/pronunciation variations depending upon usage. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hwa," which meant "who." This eventually evolved into modern "who." The variant spellings/pronunciations mentioned above evolved into modern English "whom" (for the object) and "whose" (for possessive or the genitive), while other forms evolved into "how," "where," "why," "which," and "what." Because of the wide number of variations, it is sometimes difficult to see the relationship of these numerous English words to each other, let alone to their Germanic cousins, but here they are for "who," and they all are from the same source as the English word: German and Low German Saxon have "wer," Dutch has "wie,"^ Frisian has "wa," Danish has "hvo," Norwegian has "hvem," Swedish has "vem," and Icelandic has "hver."

^ In German "wie" means "how."     

Asking A Republican A Few Questions

This was first published in May 2013

"Hello folks! This is Dan Ratherbe, in Philadelphia. Today I have a Republican here who promises to speak out on the issues confronting the nation and his Republican Party, no holds barred. His name is George Owen Pappenstiel* and he's a strong supporter of the Tea Party. Welcome Mr. Pappenstiel.

GOP-Thank you Mr. Couldbe, or is it Mr. Shouldbe?

DR-It's Ratherbe, but my name isn't important here, you are. So here's the first question, and remember, no holds barred. Is The Republican Party still the "party of Lincoln?"

GOP-Oh no, that was just temporary insanity on the part o' people who weren't no real Republicans. Ol' John Wilkes Booth was just too late gettin' at that guy. See, that's why Americuns need guns, to stop this stuff. 'Sides, I'm not sure Lincoln could ever convince Donald Trump that he wuz a 'gitimate president with a valid birth certificate to prove it. Just like that Bomma guy, a Mooslim if ever there was one. From over there in one of them Africa places nobody knows the name of.

DR- Kenya?

GOP- Cun I what?

DR- The President's name is Obama, not Bomma.

GOP- See, can't even say his name right, 'cuz it ain't no Americun name.

DR-Who is your favorite president?

GOP-Jeff Davis!

DR- Sir, Jefferson Davis was not president of the United States.

GOP- Shows jist how dumb you liberals are. Ya never had a proper edjeecation. Jeff Davis is my answer and that's final. I'll bet Donald Trump wouldn't have no trouble with ol' Jeff. He wuz a real Americun like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin. They don't go 'round hatin America like that Bomma guy. They don't see no bad things 'bout this great ol' country and they only tell people the plain and simple facts and the communists and socialists don't like the truth or facts, so theyz agin them.  Michele and Sarah, they just plain and simple, that's what they are.

DR- Okay, who besides Jefferson Davis?

GOP- You sure ere trying to make this tough. Let's see ... ah ... Strom Thurmond? Oh wait, he only ran and he didn't win; got cheated I believe. George Wallace almost made it, but they cheated him too. Well, I guess Ronald Reagan.

DR-Do you believe Ebenezer Scrooge gets a bum rap?

GOP-You better believe it. The liberal media has done made him a scapegoat and felt sorry for that lazy moocher who worked for him. I can't remember his name, but he had that good for nothing son who sang like a woman and had the long hair to go with it. Played a banjo or some such thing too. Maybe a ukelele.  What was his name? Hm ... Tiny Tim or some such crap. Used a crutch to make people feel sorry for him. Not me, I don't fall for that stuff; I don't feel sorry for nobody, exceptin' maybe ol' Ebenezer. He was just a honest business guy tryin' to make a livin'. He was a job creator too. That moochin' worker of his wouldn't o' had a job if'n it weren't for ol' Ebenezer.

DR-Do you think some Republicans secretly celebrate Hitler's and Mussolini's birthdays?

GOP-Oh that Muss-ah-lini was such a wimp, nobody'd be celebratin' his birthday. I dunno 'bout Hitler tho.

DR-You mean you don't know of anyone in your party who celebrates Hitler's birthday on April 12th?

GOP-No, no, not April 12th, 'cause his birthday is April 20th. A cuzin o' mine has an old armband, give to him by his pa from the war time in Germany. He likes to wear it 'round the house sometimes, but I'm not sure it's just on Hitler's birthday. 'Sides, he got a nice white sheet he like to wear too sometimes. Keeps it good 'n clean and has a good Christian cross with it.     

DR-What do you think of the growing Hispanic population in the U.S.

GOP- I think we should use the Army to secure the border and shoot first an' ask questions later, like that there guy done there in Florida. What's his name, Zimmerman? We gotta stop this stuff or soon we'll all be eatin' tacos and refried beans fer breakfast, lunch and dinner. They can't even speak good English like you an' me duz. An' those Pertoo Ricans, why you'd think they wuz real Americuns, the ways they act.

DR- Puerto Ricans are American citizens, sir.

GOP- Now quit joshin' me. Ain't no real Americuns if'n they don't look like you an' me. An' don't fergit my cuzin neither. Then too, real Americuns don't got names like Peedro or Jose. That Jose name only any good fer the national anthem, you know, 'Jose ... can you see, by the dawn's early light?' Jist thought I'd be throwin' in a little humor, but you ain't laughin'. Guess you don't git it.
 
DR- Do you think the Tea Party is at least partially in response to political correctness? If so, do you think they're really racist, or that they just think segregation wasn't a bad thing at all, and that in fact, slavery helped take care of slaves?

 GOP- Now ya got that last part right, an' no truer words was ever spoke. Let me tell ya, a little slavery never hurt nobody, at least not no white person, or Egyptian. Just think, no slavery, no pyramids. No slavery, no cotton industry. No child slavery, no Walmart. Hey, this ain't tough to figur out.

DR-  Why do you think many Americans believe the GOP, especially the Tea Party, is bigoted, if not outright racist?

GOP- I got no idea. I never met a Tea Party patriot who didn't believe colored people, or I guess I should say, Negroes, haven't performed a valuable service to this country; as I said, no slavery, no cotton. If people like John Brown and that bunch hadn't been messin' in, we'd still have a thrivin' cotton business and big plantations all over the South. An' see, I said Negroes. You probly thought I didn't know no better.

DR- What do you think of unions?

GOP- Oh that bunch of Commies. They just wanna keep stoppin' American business from growin'; after all, what's good fer business, is good fer America.

DR- So if unions were destroyed, the country AND workers would be better off? How would workers benefit?

GOP- The country's businesses would be better off, no question 'bout it, and they are the nation's job creators. They need more money to 'spand and invest so they can provide more jobs to Americans. We don't need no unions stickin' their Commie noses in to where they ain't wanted ner needed. Let one company outbid the others over workers with pay and any benefits.

DR- What do you think of Medicare?

GOP- Oh that sozialyzed med'cine started by Lyndon Johnson. Called hizself a Texan too. Baloney! He weren't no real Texan like George W. Bush and Rick Perry. Now thems Texans.

DR- Has your family always been Republican?

GOP- Oh no, no. My pappy and my grand pappy and his pappy were all Democrats, but that was 'fore the Democrats started stirrin' up the colored people tellin' 'em they was equal to us white folks. Can you imagine that? Then it all got worse, 'cause they done tole women they was equal too. Now they's sayin' men cun marry men and women cun marry women and that we should let more feruners become citizens. I'm tellin ya, Lady Liberty is ashamed o' this stuff and pretty soon we white, educated, sane people gonna be a minority in our own country.    

DR- Thanks for your time, sir. You've really answered the questions, no holds barred, just like you said you would. Only thing is, I'm feeling a bit sick to my stomach now.

GOP- I done tole you, you liberals don't like hearin' the truth.  

* Pappenstiel is used in the German expression "etwas für einen Pappenstiel kriegen;" that is, "get something cheaply/get something for chicken feed." It is pretty much pronounced like "poppin-steel."

WORD HISTORY:
Thwart-This word goes back to Indo European "twork/terkw," which had the notion of "turn, twist." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "t(h)werkhaz," which seems to have meant "crosswise, crooked," from the original notion of "twist, turn." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "thweorh," which likewise meant "crooked, bent," and from those ideas, also the figurative meaning "perverse" (the basic idea of such is still around today, as we say things like "the criminal had a twisted mind"), and also "angry." Along came Old Norse speakers to England, usually referred to as "Danes" back then, although not all came from what is now Denmark. Old Norse was the North Germanic offshoot of Old Germanic; thus making it a close relative of English. English is classified as West Germanic, along with its closest relatives: Frisian, Low German, Dutch, and standard German," but English has a number of influences from North Germanic, because of these "Danish" settlements in England, which were mainly in the northern and eastern parts of the England. Old Norse brought the word "thwert" to England, which had much the same basic meaning as the its Old English relative "thweorh;" that is, "across, crosswise." This form gradually worked its way into English by the 13th Century, seemingly blending with the original English word. Apparently from the notion of "crosswise sticks or logs" used to block an entrance/exit, came the idea in the mid 1200s of a verb form meaning "block, obstruct, hinder," which is still with us today. Originally both the English and Old Norse forms were adverbs/adjectives. Other forms in the Germanic languages: German has "quer" (originally spelled with a "tw" and a "dw," instead of a "q"), which means "across, crosswise; diagonally," Low German and Dutch "dwars," West Frisian "dwers," Swedish "tvär," Danish "tvaer," Norwegian "tvers," and Icelandic "thwert."

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War?

This was first published in late 2011.

Part One:
Protests and revolutions of various types have broken out in many parts of the world. In America, once in the forefront of revolution and change, reactionary forces have gotten a grip on the country, the likes of which hasn't been seen since before the Great Depression, and the way we're heading, it may date back into the post-Civil War era. When Barack Obama took office, mainly right wing elements mobilized in protests against many of his proposals, although he took certain aspects of these plans from Republicans (such as Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts), or he continued inherited plans from the George W. Bush administration (bank and auto company bailouts). The protesters often declared they feared a "socialist" takeover of the country, and they seemed to believe every problem facing the country began with Barack Obama, although he hadn't been in office very long. The group was the Tea Party, and they waved tea bags and held mass rallies across the nation, acting at times as if they were the only patriotic Americans around. They had and have every right to do so, although I truly believe many are terribly misguided in aspects of their protests (more on this later), although they have some points, too. Business groups and allied right wing organizations run television ads about every 20 minutes telling Americans to be against anyone who would dare to support raising taxes on the wealthy and oil interests to help reduce the budget deficit. They use distortion (not just a right wing tactic, but heavily so nowadays) to scare Americans into believing tax increases being floated are for everybody, and not just for the rich. The whole process smells....badly! The budget process smells badly, too, as I would say average Americans are overwhelmed by the numbers, and how those numbers are used: "Senator What's His Name wants to raise taxes by a trillion dollars!" The statement is true, but what is lacking is the context that the senator's plan is for ten years and he wants only high earners to pay the tax. Let's see... a trillion dollars divided by ten years is....don't tell me now, I can figure this out, but I need more fingers and toes. Darn! Okay, a hundred billion a year. Hell some of the greediest among us have made a bundle just in the time I've been typing this. All the while the assault on average Americans' living standards continues.

More recently, essentially left wing groups have gradually mobilized in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. They have camped out in parks and held rallies throughout the country protesting the tremendous, and growing, income disparity in America, and the takeover of the political system, and thus the economic and income distribution system, by the top 1% on the income scale (it's more than the top 1%, in my opinion). They have managed to focus attention on these problems, and while I believe them to be on the right track, there seems to be no true agenda to remedy the ills they are protesting. You can carry signs all day, every day, until hell freezes over, and camp out all you want, and it won't change the system, although you may come down with pneumonia; in fact, support for the protests may well have peaked, as outbreaks of violence in some locations have marred the image of the movement. If middle class Americans are afraid of the movement, it will NEVER fly. If it appears that the "I don't want them to make a nickle off of me," totally anti-business people are seen as being too influential a part of the movement, it will NEVER fly. Many unions have linked up with the group, but the original organizers (from what I understand) are leery of union leaders. My experience with unions and union people, and indeed most "unrich" Americans, is that they understand the need for businesses to make a profit. They are not against businesses making money, but they don't want to be gouged and they also want that money shared with workers in those businesses, and not just with independently wealthy investors and their money managers, the "sit on their ass class," as I call them.

WORD HISTORY:
Hoist-It "seems" this verb originated in Low German as nautical talk in reference to "hoisting;" that is, "raising," the sails of a ship (later also applied to raising a flag); the assumption by some is that it came from the sound made by the men exhaling while straining to raise the sails..."hissssss." The word spread through High German, and also into Dutch. English borrowed the word either from Low German or Dutch in the late 1400s as "hysse," then "hoise," and its past tense form, "hoised," came to be pronounced and spelled "hoist." The noun, meaning "a pulley," was derived from the verb. German and Low German have "hissen," Dutch has "hijsen," Danish has both "hisse" (borrowed from Low German "hissen") and "hejse" (borrowed from Dutch "hijsen"), Norwegian has "heise" (probably from Dutch) and Swedish has "hissa" (hoist/raise), probably from Low German. All of these languages interacted with one another in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea in trade and, at times, war. I could not find a form of the word in Frisian, which seems a bit odd, seeing that Low German and Dutch are geographically "right there" by Frisian, and the Frisians were seafarers, but it could have died out (let's face it, while not a totally obscure word in English, it's not exactly an every day word either). Also, I could not find a form in Icelandic, but "if" the word indeed originated in Low German, that is likely the reason... distance. It was borrowed into French and Italian, most likely from German, and even into Spanish, probably from Italian.