Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom
by Jonathan Haidt
What makes us happy? This is the central question of The Happiness Hypothesis. We are not all the same and no one thing is going to make everyone happy, but there should be some general principals that can guide us to a better life. Is money the answer? Does a lack of pain and a comfortable life make us happy? How about the ties that bind us to friends and family? It's a pretty big question and book goes deep into these and many others trying to get a glimpse of the secret of life.
It's a good read. I've read twice already and I'm reading it again because it's so densely packed with insights that you're bound to miss a few the first time and the third time it seems like even though I remember what I read, the significance of the wisdom takes a while to sink in. This is a great book if you like to ponder deep philosophical principals but also have a respect for modern science. The book is full of studies that examine the question posed by the philosophers and spiritual leaders of the past. It's a worth a few reads because each time you read it you are a different person. And how you approach this book determines what you will take away from it.
From Publishers Weekly
The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, lamented St. Paul, and this engrossing scientific interpretation of traditional lore backs him up with hard data. Citing Plato, Buddha and modern brain science, psychologist Haidt notes the mind is like an "elephant" of automatic desires and impulses atop which conscious intention is an ineffectual "rider." Haidt sifts Eastern and Western religious and philosophical traditions for other nuggets of wisdom to substantiate—and sometimes critique—with the findings of neurology and cognitive psychology. The Buddhist-Stoic injunction to cast off worldly attachments in pursuit of happiness, for example, is backed up by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's studies into pleasure. And Nietzsche's contention that what doesn't kill us makes us stronger is considered against research into post-traumatic growth. An exponent of the "positive psychology" movement, Haidt also offers practical advice on finding happiness and meaning. Riches don't matter much, he observes, but close relationships, quiet surroundings and short commutes help a lot, while meditation, cognitive psychotherapy and Prozac are equally valid remedies for constitutional unhappiness. Haidt sometimes seems reductionist, but his is an erudite, fluently written, stimulating reassessment of age-old issues. (Jan.) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From Booklist
Using the wisdom culled from the world's greatest civilizations as a foundation, social psychologist Haidt comes to terms with 10 Great Ideas, viewing them through a contemporary filter to learn which of their lessons may still apply to modern lives. He first discusses how the mind works and then examines the Golden Rule ("Reciprocity is the most important tool for getting along with people"). Next, he addresses the issue of happiness itself--where does it come from?--before exploring the conditions that allow growth and development. He also dares to answer the question that haunts most everyone--What is the meaning of life?--by again drawing on ancient ideas and incorporating recent research findings. He concludes with the question of meaning: Why do some find it? Balancing ancient wisdom and modern science, Haidt consults great minds of the past, from Buddha to Lao Tzu and from Plato to Freud, as well as some not-so-greats: even Dr. Phil is mentioned. Fascinating stuff, accessibly expressed. June Sawyers
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Did you know...
There are two credit cards for every person in the United States.
The Eiffel Tower has 1792 steps.
Ostriches kill more people annually than sharks do.
Pogonophobia is the fear of beards.
The Ottoman Empire once had seven emperors in seven months. They died of (in order): burning, choking, drowning, stabbing, heart failure, poisoning and being thrown from a horse.
In England, the Speaker of the House is not allowed to speak.
More people are killed annually by donkeys than die in plane crashes
Friday, March 20, 2009
Shadow and Self
* * *
It's a miserable day. I just got over one of the worst illnesses I've had in my life. I had a case of food poisoning. Salmonella had contaminated millions of food products in which peanut products were used. I happened to have eaten one of those products and only later did I realize that it was recalled. I thought I was going to die. To date more than dozen people have died from the contamination. It was my first day back at work in nearly a week. I was still pretty weak and I was having breakfast with a few of my coworkers. We're talking about nothing when the topic of acting comes up. It's said that actors rarely watch their own performances even the really good actors have a hard time looking at themselves. And I got to thinking, we are all like this.
Why is it so hard to see ourselves as we are? Do we need our delusions in order to be happy? I remember reading that depressed people tend to have a more realistic view of themselves and the world. Happy people also tend to be delusional about the amount of control they have. In an experiment where the subject was given a task such as turning on a light with a switch that had no influence on the light blinking on and off, happy people tended to believe that they had an effect on the light about 40% of the time. Researchers have discovered that people who are happy tend to dismiss their own weakness and externalize failure. They blame circumstances rather than themselves. They also believe that those circumstances can be changed even when they cannot.
I tend to be a realist. I like to understand things for the way they are, but is it worth sacrificing your peace of mind? No. And so I strive for the middle ground, I am a delusional realist. I'm delusional just like other happy people, only I know and am delusional and aware of my reality though I don't fully accept it. I know I'm not as funny as I think am, or as good looking, or as smart, but when I think of myself, I think positively, because the alternative isn't worth the sadness. I too cannot look at myself in a video recording without cringing a little. The camera doesn't ten pounds our minds subtract it. As I sit looking at myself ready to turn away I linger a little just so that in the back of my mind I can store that realistic self image in a dark and safe place where it will not bother me.
It's a miserable day. I just got over one of the worst illnesses I've had in my life. I had a case of food poisoning. Salmonella had contaminated millions of food products in which peanut products were used. I happened to have eaten one of those products and only later did I realize that it was recalled. I thought I was going to die. To date more than dozen people have died from the contamination. It was my first day back at work in nearly a week. I was still pretty weak and I was having breakfast with a few of my coworkers. We're talking about nothing when the topic of acting comes up. It's said that actors rarely watch their own performances even the really good actors have a hard time looking at themselves. And I got to thinking, we are all like this.
Why is it so hard to see ourselves as we are? Do we need our delusions in order to be happy? I remember reading that depressed people tend to have a more realistic view of themselves and the world. Happy people also tend to be delusional about the amount of control they have. In an experiment where the subject was given a task such as turning on a light with a switch that had no influence on the light blinking on and off, happy people tended to believe that they had an effect on the light about 40% of the time. Researchers have discovered that people who are happy tend to dismiss their own weakness and externalize failure. They blame circumstances rather than themselves. They also believe that those circumstances can be changed even when they cannot.
I tend to be a realist. I like to understand things for the way they are, but is it worth sacrificing your peace of mind? No. And so I strive for the middle ground, I am a delusional realist. I'm delusional just like other happy people, only I know and am delusional and aware of my reality though I don't fully accept it. I know I'm not as funny as I think am, or as good looking, or as smart, but when I think of myself, I think positively, because the alternative isn't worth the sadness. I too cannot look at myself in a video recording without cringing a little. The camera doesn't ten pounds our minds subtract it. As I sit looking at myself ready to turn away I linger a little just so that in the back of my mind I can store that realistic self image in a dark and safe place where it will not bother me.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Beholder
* * *
There is so much beauty in this world. Sometimes I just seem to be drowning in it. I'm walking down a spiral staircase and I look and I see a pattern. It's swirling as it goes down like a giant man made nautilus. It was incredible and to think if I wasn't paying attention I would have missed it. I've come down these stairs so many times and I missed it. I start to wonder how many wonderful things I've been missing because I'm too preoccupied. It is that instinct to see what is interesting and to tell others about it that drives me to write and that draws me to other people who have an eye for the wonders of everyday life.
Beauty doesn't come in visual forms. It can be situational. I call it a life poem. It's beautiful in its own mysterious way. Situations where the irony is so thick that fiction would deem it to unrealistic. Life is filled with unbelievable plot twists, larger than life characters, people so incredibly crazy that their insanity can only make you smile with delight. People ere funny, laugh out loud funny. I remember meeting someone who had such bad conversation skills it was like he was angry at me, every question elicited a one or two word answer. At first I thought he may have been preoccupied, but the later when I asked if he was busy before the conversation started he said he wasn't and I asked several times if something was wrong. I couldn't believe he didn't see himself at all. His self image was so twisted that all I could do is laugh to myself. Life is a sitcom and God has a great sense of humor.
I call it the eye. It's a way of seeing the world with wonder. Instead of taking it all for granted, people with the eye see the beauty m the absurdity and the tragedy and the wonder of everyday existence. I have the eye. As children I think we all have it. If you look at children they stare at people and their parents scold them saying it's not polite. I walk through life filled with a reverence for existence. I'm the child who still stares. I'm drawn to other people with the eye. Artists and writers, teachers and musicians. I am the disobedient child. One of the misfits who thinks the greatest pleasure in life is life itself. Next greatest joy in life is being able to share a glimpse of what I see with other people who can appreciate it.
Monday, March 16, 2009
* * *
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line. - Oscar Levant
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. - Eric Hoffer
Things are only impossible until they're not. - Jean-Luc Picard
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line. - Oscar Levant
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. - Eric Hoffer
Things are only impossible until they're not. - Jean-Luc Picard
Sunday, March 15, 2009
7 Things You May Not Know
* * *
R.S.V.P. comes from the French phrase, 'répondez, s'il vous plaît,' which means 'please reply.' According to western etiquette, you should reply promptly if you receive a formal invitation.
Mosquito repellents don't repel. They hide you. The spray blocks the mosquito's sensors so they don't know your there.
The world's youngest parents were 8 and 9 and lived in China in 1910.
Maine is the only state whose name is a single syllable
One in every 4 Americans has appeared on television.
A quarter has 119 grooves on its edge, a dime has 118.
Until 1796, there was a state in the United States called Franklin. Today it is known as Tennessee.
You Are Here
* * *
Planning takes a lot more energy than it seems. I didn't realize this until one day when I was recalling my struggle to lose weight. I have been trying to do this for most of my life and I would make these plans. I knew how to diet I knew how to exercise and I had made the necessary plans to do it. I would get started, then I would get frustrated and then I was back where I was before I started or even worse off. I never actually did what I planned. Now I go to the gym almost everyday. I eat right most of the time. I've lost 60 lbs already and am confident that I will get to my goal weight if I continue on the path I'm currently travelling. I don't draw up those plans anymore and I'm starting to think that is was those plans that got in the way. I used up all the energy I should have been using to get through the difficult task of implementation on planning.
Not only that sometimes the plan isn't realistic. A plan is like a map. It's a way of telling you where you are and where you want to be. But what happens when you get lost? You look on the map then you look at the world and you realize that they don't match. What do you do? You can "bend the map" to reality; try to rationalize why you're lost and basically lie to yourself. You say "the map is still right this like could have dried up, and this road my be new, or this building may have been torn down." You can try to make the map fit the world. This is a mistake bound to get you lost for good, bound to the map you're unable to see the world as it is. The better choice is to abandon the map and take look around and try to understand the way to your destination.
If the world and the map don't match, abandon the map, not the journey. I used to think that I was going to eat perfectly on my diet. I knew it was going to be hard, but I thought it was possible. But I don't eat perfectly, so why am I using a map that says I do? I look at the map then I look at the world and they don't match and I abandon the trip. What I should have done is pack the map, know the map, but when reality doesn't match the map take clues from the world and keep on the path to my destination. Not only am I going to get where I'm trying to go, I'll enjoy the tip at lot more. Now I lose weight and eat anything I want. How is that possible? Because I have no guilt when I mess up, because that's reality, I mess up and I shouldn't feel bad about it. On my very next meal I go back to my diet as planed.
I still pack the map it does come in handy, but when I notice that the world isn't matching the map I trust the world rather than the map. I take not of the mistakes on the map like eating junk and I try to avoid those pitfalls in the future. But without relying on the map I no longer say the pitfalls "shouldn't be there" when you realize that you don't get to create reality you just accept it for the way it is. The world is the way it is regardless of my opinion about it. I don't judge it anymore I take it into myself and even word er at it's complexity and contradictory elements. I don't feel lost anymore. When you think about it how can you ever be lost. When ever I ask the question "where am I?"I answer "I am here" you can never be lost.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Obama to Lift Stem Cell Restrictions
President Obama is expected today to end an 8½-year ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
President Obama is expected to sign an executive order today reversing Bush era stem cell restrictions.White House officials said Sunday that the president's order will give the National Institutes of Health 120 days to develop ethical guidelines for the research.
"Encompassed in [the executive order] will also be the requirements around guidelines that will be drafted by the NIH [National Institutes of Health] as they ... work with others around the country to make sure we're handling the issue responsibly," said Melody Barnes, the director of the president's Domestic Policy Council.
The president will also sign a memorandum that Barnes says will "restore scientific integrity in government decision making." It will help ensure public policy is "guided by sound scientific advice," she said.
The memorandum will cover all scientific research, including such areas as energy and climate change. The Bush administration was often accused of allowing politics to color its scientific decisions, something the administration denied.
Actor Michael J. Fox, a longtime advocate for embryonic stem cell research, expressed his enthusiasm for the president's plan and commended Obama for "recognizing the inherent value of research freedom and creating an environment in which it can flourish."
"Today is a new day. I'm thrilled to see President Obama has honored his commitment to get politics out of science," Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, told "Good Morning America." "The last few years have been incredibly frustrating for patients and researchers who believe that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to bring better treatment."
One of those who will be on hand for the signing at the White House is 34-year-old Roman Reed, who was paralyzed from the waist down at age 19, while playing college football.
The Fremont, Calif., resident and his parents have become tireless advocates for embryonic stem cell research. They were instrumental in getting California to fund this research, when the federal government would not.
Reed told ABC News he is convinced embryonic stem cell research holds limitless promise.
"I know one day I will get out of this chair and pick up my son and hold him right," Reed said. "I promised my family that I would walk again, and I will make that dream come true."
Reed's father and mother have accompanied him to Washington.
"The last eight years have been frustrating," said Don Reed, Reed's father. "It's hard to have the president of the United States be an obstacle. We want the president on our side."
The significance of the move has been hailed by disease advocacy organizations as a positive step toward new treatments for a variety of conditions.
"We are delighted to hear that President Obama will be signing a stem cell executive order on Monday, restoring a level of scientific freedom to this country that we believe is critical to the future," said Katie Hood, CEO of The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research in a statement issued Friday. "Our foundation is optimistic about the work that will now continue toward better treatments and cures for the millions of people impacted by injury or disease."
The announcement resounded through the research community as well. Sean Morrison, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Stem Cell Biology in Ann Arbor, said he was "overjoyed" at the news.
"President Obama's executive order signals a new day in which science policy will be based on science and in which the federal government can invest in the best ideas with the greatest potential to improve public health," Morrison said. "America will once again seek to be the world's engine for biomedical discovery, leading the way toward new treatments for disease."
But the executive order that ends President Bush's 2001 ban on such research will likely bring no such end to the fierce political debate that surrounds the use of embryonic stem cells.
On Friday, ABC News' Karen Travers reported that Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del. -- co-author of the stem cell legislation that President Bush vetoed twice -- welcomed the White House decision.
"I could not be more excited to hear that President Obama will finally lift the stifling restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research -- something I have actively fought for over the last five years," Castle said in a statement. "This single action symbolizes a new day for scientific research and highlights the importance of a strong federal role in promoting potentially life-saving science."
Shortly afterward, ABC News' Jake Tapper reported outrage from another Republican in the form of a statement issued by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
(ABC News/AP)"Advancements in science and research have moved faster than the debates among politicians in Washington, D.C., and breakthroughs announced in recent years confirm that the full potential of stem cell research can be realized without the destruction of living human embryos," Boehner's statements read. "The question is whether taxpayer dollars should be used to subsidize the destruction of precious human life. Millions of Americans strongly oppose that, and rightfully so."
David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences for the Washington, D.C.-based Christian advocacy group Family Research Council, expressed similar disappointment.
"There are adult stem cells that are helping to improve patients' health and saving lives, and these new iPS cells that are providing basic research tools to study disease," Prentice said. "It's really a waste of resources to be moving in that direction now. It's a waste of funding, and it's a waste of lives, both in terms of the embryos and the patients waiting for these advances. ... I think it's clear that this is perhaps just fulfilling a campaign promise that was ill conceived."
Public Mostly Supportive of Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchWhat has traditionally made embryonic stem cells such a hot-button issue is the fact that, in order to obtain them, researchers must destroy human embryos -- a step that some say violates the sanctity of human life.
In August 2001, Bush signed an executive order barring federal funds for embryonic stem cell research on all but a couple dozen existing embryonic stem cell lines.
But proponents of the study of embryonic stem cells say much of this research uses discarded embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures, which in all likelihood would have been destroyed anyway.
As the discussion over the potential promises of embryonic stem cells has evolved in the last decade, so too have public opinions of the research. Currently, most Americans appear to support the loosening of restrictions on embryonic stem cell research; according to the results of a January ABC/Post poll, 59 percent of Americans support loosening the restrictions, while 35 percent oppose doing so.
The relaxation of federal funding restrictions sits well with most Democrats, as well as with most independents. Republicans were more likely to oppose lifting such restrictions, with only 40 percent supporting such a move and 55 percent opposing it.
President Obama is expected to sign an executive order today reversing Bush era stem cell restrictions.Indeed, the president's order comes more than a month after the Jan. 23 approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the first study of a treatment based on human embryonic stem cells aimed at treating those with spinal cord injuries.
Researchers Overwhelmingly Positive"This decision is a major step forward for stem cell research in the United States," said Martin Pera, professor and founding director of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at USC. "The move will enable NIH-funded researchers to work on valuable new embryonic stem cell lines ... to determine which cell lines are best suited to treat particular diseases."
"This is a huge step forward and typical of Barack Obama, who is an incredible breath of fresh air and exactly the president the U.S. and the world needed," said Helen Blau, director of the Baxter Laboratory in Genetic Pharmacology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. "Thank goodness this senseless ban has been lifted."
Still, Dr. Allen Spiegel, dean of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and vice chair of the National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Task Force, said the years of restriction on embryonic stem cell research has been a major setback for U.S. researchers.
"In hearings before Sen. [Arlen] Specter [R-Pa.] and [Tom] Harkin [D-Iowa], I stated that banning funding for research on human embryonic stem cells was like tying one hand behind the backs of stem cell investigators," Spiegel said. "Lifting the ban cannot eliminate the effect of years of delay, but harnessing the full power of NIH to review and fund scientifically meritorious research projects will accelerate progress toward the goal of helping people suffering from diabetes, neurologic diseases, and many other conditions."
Other researchers remained cautious in their enthusiasm.
"I'm super excited, but the devil's in the details," said stem cell researcher Dr. George Daley, associate professor of biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Harvard Medical School in Boston. "I'm still worried that he might say that only some types of lines will be allowed."
"I hope he'll say the decision should be made by scientists and allow the NIH [National Institutes of Health] to decide based on the recommendations of experts and scientists outside of politics and religion," he said. "This is where the NIH [National Institutes of Health] has served us so well in other areas, and we've been missing that for the past eight years."
Reports from Sunlen Miller, Jake Tapper, Karen Travers, Gary Langer and the ABC News Medical Unit contributed to this report.
President Obama is expected to sign an executive order today reversing Bush era stem cell restrictions.White House officials said Sunday that the president's order will give the National Institutes of Health 120 days to develop ethical guidelines for the research.
"Encompassed in [the executive order] will also be the requirements around guidelines that will be drafted by the NIH [National Institutes of Health] as they ... work with others around the country to make sure we're handling the issue responsibly," said Melody Barnes, the director of the president's Domestic Policy Council.
The president will also sign a memorandum that Barnes says will "restore scientific integrity in government decision making." It will help ensure public policy is "guided by sound scientific advice," she said.
The memorandum will cover all scientific research, including such areas as energy and climate change. The Bush administration was often accused of allowing politics to color its scientific decisions, something the administration denied.
Actor Michael J. Fox, a longtime advocate for embryonic stem cell research, expressed his enthusiasm for the president's plan and commended Obama for "recognizing the inherent value of research freedom and creating an environment in which it can flourish."
"Today is a new day. I'm thrilled to see President Obama has honored his commitment to get politics out of science," Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, told "Good Morning America." "The last few years have been incredibly frustrating for patients and researchers who believe that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to bring better treatment."
One of those who will be on hand for the signing at the White House is 34-year-old Roman Reed, who was paralyzed from the waist down at age 19, while playing college football.
The Fremont, Calif., resident and his parents have become tireless advocates for embryonic stem cell research. They were instrumental in getting California to fund this research, when the federal government would not.
Reed told ABC News he is convinced embryonic stem cell research holds limitless promise.
"I know one day I will get out of this chair and pick up my son and hold him right," Reed said. "I promised my family that I would walk again, and I will make that dream come true."
Reed's father and mother have accompanied him to Washington.
"The last eight years have been frustrating," said Don Reed, Reed's father. "It's hard to have the president of the United States be an obstacle. We want the president on our side."
The significance of the move has been hailed by disease advocacy organizations as a positive step toward new treatments for a variety of conditions.
"We are delighted to hear that President Obama will be signing a stem cell executive order on Monday, restoring a level of scientific freedom to this country that we believe is critical to the future," said Katie Hood, CEO of The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research in a statement issued Friday. "Our foundation is optimistic about the work that will now continue toward better treatments and cures for the millions of people impacted by injury or disease."
The announcement resounded through the research community as well. Sean Morrison, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Stem Cell Biology in Ann Arbor, said he was "overjoyed" at the news.
"President Obama's executive order signals a new day in which science policy will be based on science and in which the federal government can invest in the best ideas with the greatest potential to improve public health," Morrison said. "America will once again seek to be the world's engine for biomedical discovery, leading the way toward new treatments for disease."
But the executive order that ends President Bush's 2001 ban on such research will likely bring no such end to the fierce political debate that surrounds the use of embryonic stem cells.
On Friday, ABC News' Karen Travers reported that Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del. -- co-author of the stem cell legislation that President Bush vetoed twice -- welcomed the White House decision.
"I could not be more excited to hear that President Obama will finally lift the stifling restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research -- something I have actively fought for over the last five years," Castle said in a statement. "This single action symbolizes a new day for scientific research and highlights the importance of a strong federal role in promoting potentially life-saving science."
Shortly afterward, ABC News' Jake Tapper reported outrage from another Republican in the form of a statement issued by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
(ABC News/AP)"Advancements in science and research have moved faster than the debates among politicians in Washington, D.C., and breakthroughs announced in recent years confirm that the full potential of stem cell research can be realized without the destruction of living human embryos," Boehner's statements read. "The question is whether taxpayer dollars should be used to subsidize the destruction of precious human life. Millions of Americans strongly oppose that, and rightfully so."
David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences for the Washington, D.C.-based Christian advocacy group Family Research Council, expressed similar disappointment.
"There are adult stem cells that are helping to improve patients' health and saving lives, and these new iPS cells that are providing basic research tools to study disease," Prentice said. "It's really a waste of resources to be moving in that direction now. It's a waste of funding, and it's a waste of lives, both in terms of the embryos and the patients waiting for these advances. ... I think it's clear that this is perhaps just fulfilling a campaign promise that was ill conceived."
Public Mostly Supportive of Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchWhat has traditionally made embryonic stem cells such a hot-button issue is the fact that, in order to obtain them, researchers must destroy human embryos -- a step that some say violates the sanctity of human life.
In August 2001, Bush signed an executive order barring federal funds for embryonic stem cell research on all but a couple dozen existing embryonic stem cell lines.
But proponents of the study of embryonic stem cells say much of this research uses discarded embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures, which in all likelihood would have been destroyed anyway.
As the discussion over the potential promises of embryonic stem cells has evolved in the last decade, so too have public opinions of the research. Currently, most Americans appear to support the loosening of restrictions on embryonic stem cell research; according to the results of a January ABC/Post poll, 59 percent of Americans support loosening the restrictions, while 35 percent oppose doing so.
The relaxation of federal funding restrictions sits well with most Democrats, as well as with most independents. Republicans were more likely to oppose lifting such restrictions, with only 40 percent supporting such a move and 55 percent opposing it.
President Obama is expected to sign an executive order today reversing Bush era stem cell restrictions.Indeed, the president's order comes more than a month after the Jan. 23 approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the first study of a treatment based on human embryonic stem cells aimed at treating those with spinal cord injuries.
Researchers Overwhelmingly Positive"This decision is a major step forward for stem cell research in the United States," said Martin Pera, professor and founding director of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at USC. "The move will enable NIH-funded researchers to work on valuable new embryonic stem cell lines ... to determine which cell lines are best suited to treat particular diseases."
"This is a huge step forward and typical of Barack Obama, who is an incredible breath of fresh air and exactly the president the U.S. and the world needed," said Helen Blau, director of the Baxter Laboratory in Genetic Pharmacology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. "Thank goodness this senseless ban has been lifted."
Still, Dr. Allen Spiegel, dean of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and vice chair of the National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Task Force, said the years of restriction on embryonic stem cell research has been a major setback for U.S. researchers.
"In hearings before Sen. [Arlen] Specter [R-Pa.] and [Tom] Harkin [D-Iowa], I stated that banning funding for research on human embryonic stem cells was like tying one hand behind the backs of stem cell investigators," Spiegel said. "Lifting the ban cannot eliminate the effect of years of delay, but harnessing the full power of NIH to review and fund scientifically meritorious research projects will accelerate progress toward the goal of helping people suffering from diabetes, neurologic diseases, and many other conditions."
Other researchers remained cautious in their enthusiasm.
"I'm super excited, but the devil's in the details," said stem cell researcher Dr. George Daley, associate professor of biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Harvard Medical School in Boston. "I'm still worried that he might say that only some types of lines will be allowed."
"I hope he'll say the decision should be made by scientists and allow the NIH [National Institutes of Health] to decide based on the recommendations of experts and scientists outside of politics and religion," he said. "This is where the NIH [National Institutes of Health] has served us so well in other areas, and we've been missing that for the past eight years."
Reports from Sunlen Miller, Jake Tapper, Karen Travers, Gary Langer and the ABC News Medical Unit contributed to this report.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Smore more food for thought
There wasn't a single pony in the Pony Express, just horses.
Termites eat wood twice as fast when listening to heavy metal music.
The name Jeep came from the abbreviation used in the army for the "General Purpose" vehicle, G.P.
All US Presidents have worn glasses. Some just didn't like being seen wearing them in public.
The average person falls asleep in seven minutes.
In 75% of American households, women manage the money and pay the bills.
HIV/AIDS has created more than 14 million orphans — 92 percent of them live in Africa.
Butterflies taste with their feet
Termites eat wood twice as fast when listening to heavy metal music.
The name Jeep came from the abbreviation used in the army for the "General Purpose" vehicle, G.P.
All US Presidents have worn glasses. Some just didn't like being seen wearing them in public.
The average person falls asleep in seven minutes.
In 75% of American households, women manage the money and pay the bills.
HIV/AIDS has created more than 14 million orphans — 92 percent of them live in Africa.
Butterflies taste with their feet
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Food for Thought
*
Twelve newborn babies are given to the wrong parents each day
Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson."
"Character is what you have left when you've lost everything you can lose."- Evan Esar
Canada has it’s name derived from an Indian word meaning "Big Village".
Today you will breath in 1 liter of other peoples' anal gases.
"Those who agree with us may not be right, but we admire their astuteness." - Cullen Hightower
A person afflicted with hexadectylism has six fingers or six toes on one or both hands and feet.
Birds do not sleep in their nests. They may occasionally nap in them, but they actually sleep in other places.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." - Casey Stengel
If you have three quarters, four dimes, and four pennies, you have $1.19. You also have the largest amount of money in coins without being able to make change for a dollar.
Twelve newborn babies are given to the wrong parents each day
Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson."
"Character is what you have left when you've lost everything you can lose."- Evan Esar
Canada has it’s name derived from an Indian word meaning "Big Village".
Today you will breath in 1 liter of other peoples' anal gases.
"Those who agree with us may not be right, but we admire their astuteness." - Cullen Hightower
A person afflicted with hexadectylism has six fingers or six toes on one or both hands and feet.
Birds do not sleep in their nests. They may occasionally nap in them, but they actually sleep in other places.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." - Casey Stengel
If you have three quarters, four dimes, and four pennies, you have $1.19. You also have the largest amount of money in coins without being able to make change for a dollar.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
The Man Who Could Be King
August 28th, 2008 in Denver Obama accepted the Democratic Party's nomination as its candidate for president of the United States. His acceptance speech was 40 years to the day of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech. January 15th, 2009 marked what would have been the 80th birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. Today we commemorate Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday. Tomorrow, in a country that within living memory, denied black citizens the right to vote will inaugurate its first black president. A man with a funny name and African blood will stand where 43 white men have stood before him and take the oath of office.
The coincidence doesn’t go unnoticed, but the questions do remain unasked. Is Barack Obama the next Martin Luther King, Jr? What would Dr. King say about the election of Obama? Is the election of the first black president of the United States mean that Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled? Does Obama's election indicate that racism is no longer an insurmountable obstacle in America? Will Obama's election have any impact upon a number of social ills within the black community? What would Martin Luther King, Jr. say about Senator Barack Obama's election as President of the United States? The reason people refrain from asking such questions is not that they don’t merit asking, but that we’d feel presumptuous proposing an answer.
Dr. King is and will remain one of the most respected Black Americans in our history. He had an abiding belief in the basic goodness and decency of America. He never abandoned his confidence that a majority of Americans would ultimately embrace the basic precept of our Declaration of Independence: "That all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." As we celebrate one man's accomplishments on the eve of another’s he would probably smile and say "Amen" as he listened to Senator Obama say, more than once, that we have a "righteous wind at our back, but we can't slow down now." Maybe we don’t ask those questions because we are afraid of what the answer may ultimately be.
On the issue of race, Dr. King would remind us of what Dr. Dubois said in 1903: That the problem of the 20th Century was the "color line" and, that "race" has been the most divisive theme in the history of America. He would say, therefore, that the challenge of the 21st Century is how the United States can transition from its legacy of slavery and segregation, a legacy that has defined race relations in America for previous generations, to a multi-racial society predicated on the pursuit of excellence. He would probably say that as a country, we must come to terms with our past. We cringe at the mention of slavery, ignore the realities of modern day self-segregation, and racial discrimination is all but accepted as inevitable. Until we face the truth of this legacy, race relations principally between whites and blacks will continue to define much of who we are as a nation.
Martin bequeathed to us a unique and historic opportunity to chart a new direction. However, he knew this could not be done without a substantial base of support within the white community. Obama’s diverse victory represents an ethnic, age, gender, and voter demographic political tsunami. November 4th, 2008 is likely to realign the political landscape of America for years to come. During the 40 years following Martin's assassination the most recurring question asked has been who if anyone, is most like Dr. King? Dr. King was one of a kind. Who today is most like Michelangelo, Mozart, Galileo, Aristotle, or Shakespeare? Until the election of Barack Obama, in the 12 years from 1956 to April 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. may have done more to foster racial, social and political justice in our country than any other person or event in our history. Now, confronted with the magnitude of domestic and international issues that will require his attention, a Black American President may do more to foster racial, social, political and justice and economic opportunity in America than has been achieved by any other person or event, including that of Dr. King. Does that make him the next Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? No.
The sweeping victory of Barack Obama ushers in a new era of leadership that will affect every aspect of American institutions and that sounds a death knell for the top-down, power-oriented leadership prevalent in the 20th century. A new style of 'bottom-up, empowering' leadership focusing on collaboration is sweeping the country. A new wave of 21st century authentic leaders will take over U.S. institutions of every type: business, education, health care, religion, and nonprofits. These new leaders recognize that an organization of empowered leaders at every level will outperform "command-and-control" organizations every time. Our foreign and domestic challenges require a different political matrix of problem solving. We need to build a new political constituency to implement successful solutions. We need a leader who can inspire a new generation of all Americans to be the best that they can be. Dr. King would most likely say that President Barack Obama appears to understand this better than any other political leader today and is ready to fill that role.
He might direct our attention to the speech that President-elect Obama delivered following his primary victory in South Carolina. Obama said,
"This election is about the past versus the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distraction and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach a politics of common sense and innovation - a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."
The current culture in America is a by-product of today's black experience and of the legacy of slavery and segregation. In language, dance, fashion, sports, and music, it is this black experience that has fueled the engine of much of our popular culture. President-elect Obama has tapped into and ignited this fuel of potential talent and creativity. Obama is a musical artist blessed with perfect pitch. Obama's ear and ideas are more in tune with the hopes and dreams of a new multi-racial Internet generation than any other national leader in America.
Anecdotal stories are beginning to come from the barber shops and basketball courts in the hood, following Obama's election as president, suggesting that young black men are starting to re-examine and reconsider whether or not their dreadlocks, baggy low-rise pants, do rags and use of Ebonics are the most "authentic" expression, and validation, of their black manhood. The pursuit and celebration of educational excellence may be taking hold as a realistic, potentially possible alternative lifestyle. If Obama can be elected President of the United States of America, then, opportunities may exist, that they never seriously considered as "real" for them, to pursue and become who they want to be. Dr. King might advise us to carefully observe, whether, in the near term, President Obama's inspirational political "music" transcends the gangster rap of the hood and engenders its own authentic constituency among young black men. He, like many of us, would notice that Obama has motivated an enthusiastic new generation who has embraced him as their spokesperson and messenger.
Crowds of 25,000 to 100,000 and more, mostly white people under forty years of age, and African-Americans never before seen in such magnitude since Martin's civil rights and peace movement in the '60s, assembled to see and hear Senator Obama during the democratic primaries for president. The television pictures of the ethnic demographic, gender, age and color mosaic of Obama's supporters in Grant Park in Chicago on that historic night of November 4th, 2008 were and are an affirmation of Martin's 1963 "Dream" of a future America. Dr. King would note that President-elect Obama's speech to the nation and world that night reflected the knowledge of Obama and his speechwriters of many of the themes and words articulated by him in his speeches during the Civil Rights Movement. In referring to his successful election as President of the United States, Obama said to his supporters, who had gathered in Grant Park in Chicago on election night, that his victory was
The answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment , change had come to America.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America-I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you-we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partnership and pettiness and immaturity that have poisoned our politics for so long. This election has many first and many stories that will be told for generations.
But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voices heard in this election except for one thing -- Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old. She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin. And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times when we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes, we can.
America we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves-if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time.
Among the many extraordinary moments of Obama's speech at Grant Park, those that Martin might have commented upon would be the High-Definition TV pictures showing the panoramic kaleidoscope of age, gender, and race assembled, and the tears rolling down the cheeks of Reverend Jesse Jackson and the beautiful picture on stage that evening of the affirmation of the Black family, as represented by President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and their two daughters. Frank Rich writing in the Sunday New York Times, in a column captioned "On the morning after a black man won the White House, America's tears of catharsis gave way to unadulterated joy." Said,
Let's be blunt. Almost every assumption about America that was taken as given by political culture on Tuesday morning was proved wrong by Tuesday night."The most conspicuous clichés to fall, of course were the twin suppositions that a decisive number of white Americans wouldn't vote for a black presidential candidate -- and that they were lying to pollsters about their rampant racism. But the polls were accurate. There was no "Bradley effect." A higher percentage of white men voted for Obama than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton included."
If there were any doubts the 1960 are over, they were put to rest on election night when our new first family won the hearts of the world as it emerged on that vast blue stage to join the celebration in Chicago's Grant Park. The bloody skirmishes that took place on that same spot during the Democratic Party Convention 40 years ago. This is another America, hardly a perfect or prejudice-free America, but a nation that can change and does, aspiring to perfection even if it can never achieve it.
The coincidence doesn’t go unnoticed, but the questions do remain unasked. Is Barack Obama the next Martin Luther King, Jr? What would Dr. King say about the election of Obama? Is the election of the first black president of the United States mean that Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled? Does Obama's election indicate that racism is no longer an insurmountable obstacle in America? Will Obama's election have any impact upon a number of social ills within the black community? What would Martin Luther King, Jr. say about Senator Barack Obama's election as President of the United States? The reason people refrain from asking such questions is not that they don’t merit asking, but that we’d feel presumptuous proposing an answer.
Dr. King is and will remain one of the most respected Black Americans in our history. He had an abiding belief in the basic goodness and decency of America. He never abandoned his confidence that a majority of Americans would ultimately embrace the basic precept of our Declaration of Independence: "That all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." As we celebrate one man's accomplishments on the eve of another’s he would probably smile and say "Amen" as he listened to Senator Obama say, more than once, that we have a "righteous wind at our back, but we can't slow down now." Maybe we don’t ask those questions because we are afraid of what the answer may ultimately be.
On the issue of race, Dr. King would remind us of what Dr. Dubois said in 1903: That the problem of the 20th Century was the "color line" and, that "race" has been the most divisive theme in the history of America. He would say, therefore, that the challenge of the 21st Century is how the United States can transition from its legacy of slavery and segregation, a legacy that has defined race relations in America for previous generations, to a multi-racial society predicated on the pursuit of excellence. He would probably say that as a country, we must come to terms with our past. We cringe at the mention of slavery, ignore the realities of modern day self-segregation, and racial discrimination is all but accepted as inevitable. Until we face the truth of this legacy, race relations principally between whites and blacks will continue to define much of who we are as a nation.
Martin bequeathed to us a unique and historic opportunity to chart a new direction. However, he knew this could not be done without a substantial base of support within the white community. Obama’s diverse victory represents an ethnic, age, gender, and voter demographic political tsunami. November 4th, 2008 is likely to realign the political landscape of America for years to come. During the 40 years following Martin's assassination the most recurring question asked has been who if anyone, is most like Dr. King? Dr. King was one of a kind. Who today is most like Michelangelo, Mozart, Galileo, Aristotle, or Shakespeare? Until the election of Barack Obama, in the 12 years from 1956 to April 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. may have done more to foster racial, social and political justice in our country than any other person or event in our history. Now, confronted with the magnitude of domestic and international issues that will require his attention, a Black American President may do more to foster racial, social, political and justice and economic opportunity in America than has been achieved by any other person or event, including that of Dr. King. Does that make him the next Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? No.
The sweeping victory of Barack Obama ushers in a new era of leadership that will affect every aspect of American institutions and that sounds a death knell for the top-down, power-oriented leadership prevalent in the 20th century. A new style of 'bottom-up, empowering' leadership focusing on collaboration is sweeping the country. A new wave of 21st century authentic leaders will take over U.S. institutions of every type: business, education, health care, religion, and nonprofits. These new leaders recognize that an organization of empowered leaders at every level will outperform "command-and-control" organizations every time. Our foreign and domestic challenges require a different political matrix of problem solving. We need to build a new political constituency to implement successful solutions. We need a leader who can inspire a new generation of all Americans to be the best that they can be. Dr. King would most likely say that President Barack Obama appears to understand this better than any other political leader today and is ready to fill that role.
He might direct our attention to the speech that President-elect Obama delivered following his primary victory in South Carolina. Obama said,
"This election is about the past versus the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distraction and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach a politics of common sense and innovation - a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."
The current culture in America is a by-product of today's black experience and of the legacy of slavery and segregation. In language, dance, fashion, sports, and music, it is this black experience that has fueled the engine of much of our popular culture. President-elect Obama has tapped into and ignited this fuel of potential talent and creativity. Obama is a musical artist blessed with perfect pitch. Obama's ear and ideas are more in tune with the hopes and dreams of a new multi-racial Internet generation than any other national leader in America.
Anecdotal stories are beginning to come from the barber shops and basketball courts in the hood, following Obama's election as president, suggesting that young black men are starting to re-examine and reconsider whether or not their dreadlocks, baggy low-rise pants, do rags and use of Ebonics are the most "authentic" expression, and validation, of their black manhood. The pursuit and celebration of educational excellence may be taking hold as a realistic, potentially possible alternative lifestyle. If Obama can be elected President of the United States of America, then, opportunities may exist, that they never seriously considered as "real" for them, to pursue and become who they want to be. Dr. King might advise us to carefully observe, whether, in the near term, President Obama's inspirational political "music" transcends the gangster rap of the hood and engenders its own authentic constituency among young black men. He, like many of us, would notice that Obama has motivated an enthusiastic new generation who has embraced him as their spokesperson and messenger.
Crowds of 25,000 to 100,000 and more, mostly white people under forty years of age, and African-Americans never before seen in such magnitude since Martin's civil rights and peace movement in the '60s, assembled to see and hear Senator Obama during the democratic primaries for president. The television pictures of the ethnic demographic, gender, age and color mosaic of Obama's supporters in Grant Park in Chicago on that historic night of November 4th, 2008 were and are an affirmation of Martin's 1963 "Dream" of a future America. Dr. King would note that President-elect Obama's speech to the nation and world that night reflected the knowledge of Obama and his speechwriters of many of the themes and words articulated by him in his speeches during the Civil Rights Movement. In referring to his successful election as President of the United States, Obama said to his supporters, who had gathered in Grant Park in Chicago on election night, that his victory was
The answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment , change had come to America.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America-I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you-we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partnership and pettiness and immaturity that have poisoned our politics for so long. This election has many first and many stories that will be told for generations.
But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voices heard in this election except for one thing -- Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old. She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin. And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times when we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes, we can.
America we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves-if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time.
Among the many extraordinary moments of Obama's speech at Grant Park, those that Martin might have commented upon would be the High-Definition TV pictures showing the panoramic kaleidoscope of age, gender, and race assembled, and the tears rolling down the cheeks of Reverend Jesse Jackson and the beautiful picture on stage that evening of the affirmation of the Black family, as represented by President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and their two daughters. Frank Rich writing in the Sunday New York Times, in a column captioned "On the morning after a black man won the White House, America's tears of catharsis gave way to unadulterated joy." Said,
Let's be blunt. Almost every assumption about America that was taken as given by political culture on Tuesday morning was proved wrong by Tuesday night."The most conspicuous clichés to fall, of course were the twin suppositions that a decisive number of white Americans wouldn't vote for a black presidential candidate -- and that they were lying to pollsters about their rampant racism. But the polls were accurate. There was no "Bradley effect." A higher percentage of white men voted for Obama than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton included."
If there were any doubts the 1960 are over, they were put to rest on election night when our new first family won the hearts of the world as it emerged on that vast blue stage to join the celebration in Chicago's Grant Park. The bloody skirmishes that took place on that same spot during the Democratic Party Convention 40 years ago. This is another America, hardly a perfect or prejudice-free America, but a nation that can change and does, aspiring to perfection even if it can never achieve it.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech
Thank you so much.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, everybody.
To -- to Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin, and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation, with profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for presidency of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me -- let me express -- let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest, a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
To President Clinton, to President Bill Clinton, who made last night the case for change as only he can make it...
(APPLAUSE)
... to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service...
(APPLAUSE)
... and to the next vice president of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.
To the love of my life, our next first lady, Michelle Obama...
(APPLAUSE)
... and to Malia and Sasha, I love you so much, and I am so proud of you.
(APPLAUSE)
Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story, of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.
It is that promise that's always set this country apart, that through hard work and sacrifice each of us can pursue our individual dreams, but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams, as well. That's why I stand here tonight. Because for 232 years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women -- students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.
We meet at one of those defining moments, a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.
Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit cards, bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.
These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.
(APPLAUSE)
America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.
(APPLAUSE)
This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.
We're a better country than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment that he's worked on for 20 years and watch as it's shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.
We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty...
(APPLAUSE)
... that sits...
(APPLAUSE)
... that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight, tonight, I say to the people of America, to Democrats and Republicans and independents across this great land: Enough. This moment...
(APPLAUSE)
This moment, this moment, this election is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive.
Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third.
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
And we are here -- we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look just like the last eight.
(APPLAUSE)
On November 4th, on November 4th, we must stand up and say: Eight is enough.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, now, let me -- let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.
(APPLAUSE)
And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.
But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.
Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but, really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time?
(APPLAUSE)
I don't know about you, but I am not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change.
(APPLAUSE)
The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives -- on health care, and education, and the economy -- Senator McCain has been anything but independent.
He said that our economy has made great progress under this president. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
And when one of his chief advisers, the man who wrote his economic plan, was talking about the anxieties that Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a mental recession and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."
(AUDIENCE BOOS) A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made.
Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third, or fourth, or fifth tour of duty.
These are not whiners. They work hard, and they give back, and they keep going without complaint. These are the Americans I know.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn't know.
(LAUGHTER)
Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under $5 million a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies, but not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans?
How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
It's not because John McCain doesn't care; it's because John McCain doesn't get it.
(APPLAUSE)
For over two decades -- for over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy: Give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.
In Washington, they call this the "Ownership Society," but what it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you're on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You're on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own.
(APPLAUSE)
Well, it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America. And that's why I'm running for president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
You see, you see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.
We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage, whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma.
We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was president...
(APPLAUSE)
... when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of go down $2,000, like it has under George Bush. (APPLAUSE)
We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off and look after a sick kid without losing her job, an economy that honors the dignity of work.
The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great, a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.
Because, in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill.
In the face of that young student, who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree, who once turned to food stamps, but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.
(APPLAUSE)
When I -- when I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.
And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business or making her way in the world, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman.
She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight and that tonight is her night, as well.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine.
(APPLAUSE)
These are my heroes; theirs are the stories that shaped my life. And it is on behalf of them that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
What -- what is that American promise? It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours -- ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.
Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.
That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper.
That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now.
(APPLAUSE)
So -- so let me -- let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am president.
(APPLAUSE)
Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
(APPLAUSE)
I'll eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
(APPLAUSE)
I will -- listen now -- I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.
(APPLAUSE)
And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
(APPLAUSE)
We will do this. Washington -- Washington has been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years. And, by the way, John McCain has been there for 26 of them.
(LAUGHTER)
And in that time, he has said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil than we had on the day that Senator McCain took office.
Now is the time to end this addiction and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution, not even close.
(APPLAUSE)
As president, as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America.
(APPLAUSE)
I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars.
And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power, and solar power , and the next generation of biofuels -- an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced.
(APPLAUSE)
America, now is not the time for small plans. Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy.
You know, Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance.
(APPLAUSE)
I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability.
And we will keep our promise to every young American: If you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.
(APPLAUSE)
Now -- now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American.
(APPLAUSE)
If you have health care -- if you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.
(APPLAUSE)
And -- and as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.
(APPLAUSE)
Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their job and caring for a sick child or an ailing parent.
Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses, and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.
And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have the exact same opportunities as your sons.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime: by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow.
But I will also go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less, because we cannot meet 21st-century challenges with a 20th-century bureaucracy.
(APPLAUSE)
And, Democrats, Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our intellectual and moral strength.
Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient.
(APPLAUSE)
Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents, that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework, that fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance to their children.
Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility, that's the essence of America's promise. And just as we keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad.
If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander-in-chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.
(APPLAUSE)
For -- for while -- while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats that we face.
When John McCain said we could just muddle through in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.
You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives.
(APPLAUSE)
And today, today, as my call for a timeframe to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration, even after we learned that Iraq has $79 billion in surplus while we are wallowing in deficit, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.
That's not the judgment we need; that won't keep America safe. We need a president who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.
(APPLAUSE)
You don't defeat -- you don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances.
If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice, but that is not the change that America needs.
(APPLAUSE)
We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe.
The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.
(APPLAUSE)
As commander-in-chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.
(APPLAUSE)
I will end this war in Iraq responsibly and finish the fight against Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts, but I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression.
I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation, poverty and genocide, climate change and disease.
And I will restore our moral standing so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.
(APPLAUSE)
These -- these are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.
But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism.
(APPLAUSE)
The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.
The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and independents, but they have fought together, and bled together, and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a red America or a blue America; they have served the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
So I've got news for you, John McCain: We all put our country first.
(APPLAUSE)
America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices. And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that's what we have to restore.
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
(APPLAUSE)
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.
But this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.
And that's to be expected, because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.
(APPLAUSE)
If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.
And you know what? It's worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know.
I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.
But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me; it's about you.
(APPLAUSE)
It's about you.
(APPLAUSE)
For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said, "Enough," to the politics of the past. You understand that, in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same, old politics with the same, old players and expect a different result.
You have shown what history teaches us, that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.
(APPLAUSE)
Change happens -- change happens because the American people demand it, because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.
America, this is one of those moments.
I believe that, as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming, because I've seen it, because I've lived it.
Because I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work.
I've seen it in Washington, where we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans, and keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
And I've seen it in this campaign, in the young people who voted for the first time and the young at heart, those who got involved again after a very long time; in the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did.
(APPLAUSE)
I've seen it -- I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day, even though they can't afford it, than see their friends lose their jobs; in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb; in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.
You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.
Instead, it is that American spirit, that American promise, that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.
That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night and a promise that you make to yours, a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west, a promise that led workers to picket lines and women to reach for the ballot.
(APPLAUSE) And it is that promise that, 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.
(APPLAUSE)
The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustrations of so many dreams deferred.
But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that, in America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one.
"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."
America, we cannot turn back...
(APPLAUSE)
... not with so much work to be done; not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for; not with an economy to fix, and cities to rebuild, and farms to save; not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend.
America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone.
At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise, that American promise, and in the words of scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
How Bush Destroyed the Republican Party
How Bush Destroyed the Republican Party
A president driven by ideology. A Congress rife with corruption. A political party hellbent on a "permanent majority." A leading scholar examines the radicals who hijacked the GOP — and wrecked the longest conservative ascendancy in American history
By SEAN WILENTZ
The failure of the administration of George W. Bush — and the accompanying crisis of the Republican Party — has caused a political meltdown of historic proportions. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Bush enjoyed the greatest popularity ever recorded for a modern American president. Republicans on Capitol Hill, under the iron rule of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, fattened their coffers through a fearsome operation overseen by corporate lobbyists and GOP henchmen that functioned more like an empire than an old-fashioned political machine. "Republican hegemony," the prominent conservative commentator Fred Barnes rejoiced in 2004, "is now expected to last for years, maybe decades."
Now, only four years later, Bush is leaving office with the longest sustained period of public disapproval ever recorded. No president, at least in modern times — and certainly no two-term president — has risen so high only to fall so low. Indeed, Bush's standings in the polls describe one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the American presidency — second only, perhaps, to that of Richard Nixon, the only president ever forced to resign from office. And in Congress, the indictment and downfall of DeLay and a host of associated scandals involving, among others, the Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, have badly damaged the party's image. The supremacy of the GOP, once envisioned by party operatives as a "permanent majority," may be gone for a very long time to come.
At first glance, the collapse of the Republican Party seems rapid and unexpected. When viewed within the larger context of American history, however, the party's breakdown looks familiar, even predictable. As in earlier party crackups — 1854, 1932, 1968 — the demise has involved not a single, sudden explosion but a gradual unraveling followed by a sharp and rapid deterioration amid major national calamities. If Bush and the Republican majority in Congress accelerated the demise of Ronald Reagan's political era with their assault on traditional American values and institutions — including the rule of law itself — it is a decline that began two decades ago.
A few examples serve to place recent events in historical perspective. In 1848, the Whig Party, which had emerged more than a decade earlier to oppose the Democrats of Andrew Jackson, captured the presidency for the second time in its history and consolidated what looked like a formidable, nationwide political base. Yet differences over slavery and territorial expansion had always hampered party unity, and in 1854, amid the sectional warfare caused by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Whigs ceased to be a national force, replaced by the anti-slavery Republican Party as the nation lurched toward the Civil War.
Three generations later, in 1928, the Republicans, although the dominant party, were battered by scandals and old battles between conservative party regulars and self-styled progressives. GOP power brokers wisely chose as their presidential nominee Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, whose engineering projects and disaster-relief efforts had earned admiration across party lines. Hoover crushed his Democratic opponent, Al Smith, in what looked like the culmination of the party's growth since the Civil War. Four years later, though, following the stock-market crash of October 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression, the Republicans went to pieces — and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after burying Hoover in a landslide, inaugurated the New Deal.
In 1964, the Texas liberal Democrat Lyndon Johnson wiped out the right-wing hero Barry Goldwater and ushered in a true working majority of Democratic reformers in Congress. Political commentators hailed a second birth of New Deal liberalism, and some experts even wondered if the Republicans would soon go the way of the Whigs. Yet the Democrats had long been battling among themselves over civil rights issues, and Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 triggered the defection of the once solidly Democratic South. A mere four years after Johnson's outsize triumph, Democratic infighting over his escalation of the war in Vietnam, as well as over racial turmoil in the nation's cities, paved the way for Richard Nixon's election. The breakdown of the Democrats, coupled with Nixon's downfall in 1974 in the Watergate scandal, blew the ideological center out of American politics and cleared the way for the conservative age of Ronald Reagan — the age only now beginning to come to an end.
The decay of Reagan Republicanism dates to 1988, Reagan's final year in office. With no clear-cut successor from the right on the horizon, the party chose Reagan's dutiful vice president, George H.W. Bush. A scion of the old GOP establishment, the son of a U.S. senator from Connecticut who was a Wall Street banker and golfing partner of President Dwight Eisenhower, Bush had shifted both rightward and southwesterly over the years. Although he was never able to forge a convincing political identity as a Connecticut Yankee in Texas, as president he dealt with the enormous federal deficits left over from Reagan's "supply-side" stewardship. In 1990, he finally broke his "no new taxes" vow — thereby earning the enduring contempt of the Republican right. The quirky but effective third-party candidacy of Ross Perot in 1992 was a sure sign that Bush had lost touch with the GOP's anti-government base, and his inability to cope with a recession tolled his end.
Bill Clinton's victory over both Bush and Perot seemed to spell a revival of center-left liberalism in a new form. But during his first two years in office, Clinton's missteps and defeats, coupled with the self-destructive fracturing of the Democratic Congress, handed the Republicans an opportunity to regroup. Their recapture of the House for the first time in 40 years — by forging their "Contract With America" during the midterm elections in 1994 — seemed to portend that Clinton, like his predecessor, would be a one-term president. Yet the brash ideological leadership of the new House speaker, Newt Gingrich, foreshadowed the GOP's turn to the far right and further hastened the unraveling of the conservative ascendancy. Clinton outfoxed Gingrich in battles over the federal budget and held the line against GOP demands to slash Medicare and cut taxes, and most of the public blamed Congress for the partisan bickering in Washington. In 1996, only two years after Democrats had been repudiated at the polls, Clinton won re-election with an increased plurality, marking the first time a Democrat had won two presidential terms since Franklin Roosevelt in 1936.
The outcome incited congressional Republicans to a fury, and conservative leaders even more doctrinaire than Gingrich — including House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay — took advantage of the anger to hijack the party. In 1998, after a network of right-wing operatives discovered Clinton's sexual trysts with the young White House intern Monica Lewinsky, the congressional right-wingers forced Clinton's impeachment. But public backlash over the impeachment drive contributed to Gingrich's downfall as speaker and Clinton's acquittal in the Senate. With Clinton's popularity soaring and his troubles behind him amid peace and prosperity, it looked as if 2000 would bring a solid Democratic victory.
But nothing went right for the Democrats. Their nominee, Vice President Al Gore, believed that the Lewinsky scandal had made Clinton a liability and distanced himself from the very administration he had served so ably. Rather than building on the legacy of the previous eight years, Gore embraced the bogus idea of "Clinton fatigue," signaled by his naming Joe Lieberman, the sanctimonious Clinton critic, as his running mate. The left wing of the party backed the protest candidacy of Ralph Nader, and the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, ran as a "compassionate conservative" who would uphold the kinder, gentler mode of his father as a kind of Clinton-lite. The press, following its dismal performance as mouthpiece for impeachment prosecutor Ken Starr, gave credence to a string of pseudoscandals about Gore, tarnishing his integrity and casting him as a privileged, self-regarding dissembler. Nader's nihilistic campaign to destroy Gore won him enough votes to throw New Hampshire to Bush, and the election ultimately turned on the razor-thin margin in Florida. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court, including four Reagan-era appointees (and the man Ronald Reagan had named chief justice, William Rehnquist), finally intervened, stopping the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, and made Bush president.
Clinton's precarious center-left alliance did not hold. With Bush's court-engineered victory, the conservative ascendancy entered a new and even more radical phase. But that phase would prove to be its last.
George w. Bush was easilyunderestimated by the press and his Democratic opponent. When he entered the White House, he looked like the luckiest political leader on the face of the earth. A man whose early efforts in business and politics had failed, Bush had persevered thanks to well-connected family and friends who repeatedly saved him from his failures and gave him his chance to make a fortune when he sold his financial interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team. In 1994, Bush won his first of two terms as governor of Texas — a high-profile job with, as stipulated in the state's constitution, undemanding day-to-day authority. Having learned the nastier arts of politics while helping out in his father's national campaigns and apprenticing with the ferocious Republican operative Lee Atwater, Bush formed an alliance with one of the greatest political tacticians in the country — Karl Rove, another Atwater disciple. After Sen. Robert Dole lost his presidential bid in 1996 — and with Rove pulling strings in the background — Bush emerged as a top candidate for the 2000 nomination.
Bush's family connections, once again, proved invaluable. For nearly half a century, from 1952 to 1996 — except for 1964, the year of Barry Goldwater — the Republican Party's national ticket included a Nixon, a Bush or a Dole. Through thick and thin, the party's top leadership had retained a coherence that was familial as well as political. And when Ronald Reagan transformed the party in 1980, he wisely did not uproot its establishment, as the Goldwaterites had tried to do in 1964, but rather absorbed it into his grand new coalition by naming George H.W. Bush as his running mate. Twenty years later, another Bush was waiting in the wings.
Although born in Connecticut and schooled at Yale and Harvard Business, the younger Bush had successfully assimilated himself to Texas business and political culture as his father had never managed. The black sheep of the family, Bush also, at the age of 40, took Jesus Christ as his personal savior. That conversion, he said, freed him from a well-documented addiction to drink. It also brought him into much closer connection with the right-wing evangelical base that Reagan had brought into the Republican Party and with which Bush senior never forged a convincing bond.
The younger Bush perfectly embodied a new melding of the Republican right and the GOP establishment, a process essential to the success of the conservative ascendancy since 1980. The only other serious challenger for the nomination was neither a son of the party establishment nor a Reaganite ideologue: Sen. John McCain. A hero of the Vietnam War (a conflict from which Bush had escaped by serving in the Texas Air National Guard), McCain married a wealthy second wife and made his political home in Arizona, where being a conservative and a maverick fit the Goldwater tradition. His independent stands on campaign-finance reform, regulation of the tobacco industry and health care irked the party's leadership but gained him favor inside the news media.
Read the entire story in the issue of Rolling Stone, on stands August 22, 2008.
A president driven by ideology. A Congress rife with corruption. A political party hellbent on a "permanent majority." A leading scholar examines the radicals who hijacked the GOP — and wrecked the longest conservative ascendancy in American history
By SEAN WILENTZ
The failure of the administration of George W. Bush — and the accompanying crisis of the Republican Party — has caused a political meltdown of historic proportions. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Bush enjoyed the greatest popularity ever recorded for a modern American president. Republicans on Capitol Hill, under the iron rule of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, fattened their coffers through a fearsome operation overseen by corporate lobbyists and GOP henchmen that functioned more like an empire than an old-fashioned political machine. "Republican hegemony," the prominent conservative commentator Fred Barnes rejoiced in 2004, "is now expected to last for years, maybe decades."
Now, only four years later, Bush is leaving office with the longest sustained period of public disapproval ever recorded. No president, at least in modern times — and certainly no two-term president — has risen so high only to fall so low. Indeed, Bush's standings in the polls describe one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the American presidency — second only, perhaps, to that of Richard Nixon, the only president ever forced to resign from office. And in Congress, the indictment and downfall of DeLay and a host of associated scandals involving, among others, the Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, have badly damaged the party's image. The supremacy of the GOP, once envisioned by party operatives as a "permanent majority," may be gone for a very long time to come.
At first glance, the collapse of the Republican Party seems rapid and unexpected. When viewed within the larger context of American history, however, the party's breakdown looks familiar, even predictable. As in earlier party crackups — 1854, 1932, 1968 — the demise has involved not a single, sudden explosion but a gradual unraveling followed by a sharp and rapid deterioration amid major national calamities. If Bush and the Republican majority in Congress accelerated the demise of Ronald Reagan's political era with their assault on traditional American values and institutions — including the rule of law itself — it is a decline that began two decades ago.
A few examples serve to place recent events in historical perspective. In 1848, the Whig Party, which had emerged more than a decade earlier to oppose the Democrats of Andrew Jackson, captured the presidency for the second time in its history and consolidated what looked like a formidable, nationwide political base. Yet differences over slavery and territorial expansion had always hampered party unity, and in 1854, amid the sectional warfare caused by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Whigs ceased to be a national force, replaced by the anti-slavery Republican Party as the nation lurched toward the Civil War.
Three generations later, in 1928, the Republicans, although the dominant party, were battered by scandals and old battles between conservative party regulars and self-styled progressives. GOP power brokers wisely chose as their presidential nominee Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, whose engineering projects and disaster-relief efforts had earned admiration across party lines. Hoover crushed his Democratic opponent, Al Smith, in what looked like the culmination of the party's growth since the Civil War. Four years later, though, following the stock-market crash of October 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression, the Republicans went to pieces — and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after burying Hoover in a landslide, inaugurated the New Deal.
In 1964, the Texas liberal Democrat Lyndon Johnson wiped out the right-wing hero Barry Goldwater and ushered in a true working majority of Democratic reformers in Congress. Political commentators hailed a second birth of New Deal liberalism, and some experts even wondered if the Republicans would soon go the way of the Whigs. Yet the Democrats had long been battling among themselves over civil rights issues, and Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 triggered the defection of the once solidly Democratic South. A mere four years after Johnson's outsize triumph, Democratic infighting over his escalation of the war in Vietnam, as well as over racial turmoil in the nation's cities, paved the way for Richard Nixon's election. The breakdown of the Democrats, coupled with Nixon's downfall in 1974 in the Watergate scandal, blew the ideological center out of American politics and cleared the way for the conservative age of Ronald Reagan — the age only now beginning to come to an end.
The decay of Reagan Republicanism dates to 1988, Reagan's final year in office. With no clear-cut successor from the right on the horizon, the party chose Reagan's dutiful vice president, George H.W. Bush. A scion of the old GOP establishment, the son of a U.S. senator from Connecticut who was a Wall Street banker and golfing partner of President Dwight Eisenhower, Bush had shifted both rightward and southwesterly over the years. Although he was never able to forge a convincing political identity as a Connecticut Yankee in Texas, as president he dealt with the enormous federal deficits left over from Reagan's "supply-side" stewardship. In 1990, he finally broke his "no new taxes" vow — thereby earning the enduring contempt of the Republican right. The quirky but effective third-party candidacy of Ross Perot in 1992 was a sure sign that Bush had lost touch with the GOP's anti-government base, and his inability to cope with a recession tolled his end.
Bill Clinton's victory over both Bush and Perot seemed to spell a revival of center-left liberalism in a new form. But during his first two years in office, Clinton's missteps and defeats, coupled with the self-destructive fracturing of the Democratic Congress, handed the Republicans an opportunity to regroup. Their recapture of the House for the first time in 40 years — by forging their "Contract With America" during the midterm elections in 1994 — seemed to portend that Clinton, like his predecessor, would be a one-term president. Yet the brash ideological leadership of the new House speaker, Newt Gingrich, foreshadowed the GOP's turn to the far right and further hastened the unraveling of the conservative ascendancy. Clinton outfoxed Gingrich in battles over the federal budget and held the line against GOP demands to slash Medicare and cut taxes, and most of the public blamed Congress for the partisan bickering in Washington. In 1996, only two years after Democrats had been repudiated at the polls, Clinton won re-election with an increased plurality, marking the first time a Democrat had won two presidential terms since Franklin Roosevelt in 1936.
The outcome incited congressional Republicans to a fury, and conservative leaders even more doctrinaire than Gingrich — including House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay — took advantage of the anger to hijack the party. In 1998, after a network of right-wing operatives discovered Clinton's sexual trysts with the young White House intern Monica Lewinsky, the congressional right-wingers forced Clinton's impeachment. But public backlash over the impeachment drive contributed to Gingrich's downfall as speaker and Clinton's acquittal in the Senate. With Clinton's popularity soaring and his troubles behind him amid peace and prosperity, it looked as if 2000 would bring a solid Democratic victory.
But nothing went right for the Democrats. Their nominee, Vice President Al Gore, believed that the Lewinsky scandal had made Clinton a liability and distanced himself from the very administration he had served so ably. Rather than building on the legacy of the previous eight years, Gore embraced the bogus idea of "Clinton fatigue," signaled by his naming Joe Lieberman, the sanctimonious Clinton critic, as his running mate. The left wing of the party backed the protest candidacy of Ralph Nader, and the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, ran as a "compassionate conservative" who would uphold the kinder, gentler mode of his father as a kind of Clinton-lite. The press, following its dismal performance as mouthpiece for impeachment prosecutor Ken Starr, gave credence to a string of pseudoscandals about Gore, tarnishing his integrity and casting him as a privileged, self-regarding dissembler. Nader's nihilistic campaign to destroy Gore won him enough votes to throw New Hampshire to Bush, and the election ultimately turned on the razor-thin margin in Florida. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court, including four Reagan-era appointees (and the man Ronald Reagan had named chief justice, William Rehnquist), finally intervened, stopping the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, and made Bush president.
Clinton's precarious center-left alliance did not hold. With Bush's court-engineered victory, the conservative ascendancy entered a new and even more radical phase. But that phase would prove to be its last.
George w. Bush was easilyunderestimated by the press and his Democratic opponent. When he entered the White House, he looked like the luckiest political leader on the face of the earth. A man whose early efforts in business and politics had failed, Bush had persevered thanks to well-connected family and friends who repeatedly saved him from his failures and gave him his chance to make a fortune when he sold his financial interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team. In 1994, Bush won his first of two terms as governor of Texas — a high-profile job with, as stipulated in the state's constitution, undemanding day-to-day authority. Having learned the nastier arts of politics while helping out in his father's national campaigns and apprenticing with the ferocious Republican operative Lee Atwater, Bush formed an alliance with one of the greatest political tacticians in the country — Karl Rove, another Atwater disciple. After Sen. Robert Dole lost his presidential bid in 1996 — and with Rove pulling strings in the background — Bush emerged as a top candidate for the 2000 nomination.
Bush's family connections, once again, proved invaluable. For nearly half a century, from 1952 to 1996 — except for 1964, the year of Barry Goldwater — the Republican Party's national ticket included a Nixon, a Bush or a Dole. Through thick and thin, the party's top leadership had retained a coherence that was familial as well as political. And when Ronald Reagan transformed the party in 1980, he wisely did not uproot its establishment, as the Goldwaterites had tried to do in 1964, but rather absorbed it into his grand new coalition by naming George H.W. Bush as his running mate. Twenty years later, another Bush was waiting in the wings.
Although born in Connecticut and schooled at Yale and Harvard Business, the younger Bush had successfully assimilated himself to Texas business and political culture as his father had never managed. The black sheep of the family, Bush also, at the age of 40, took Jesus Christ as his personal savior. That conversion, he said, freed him from a well-documented addiction to drink. It also brought him into much closer connection with the right-wing evangelical base that Reagan had brought into the Republican Party and with which Bush senior never forged a convincing bond.
The younger Bush perfectly embodied a new melding of the Republican right and the GOP establishment, a process essential to the success of the conservative ascendancy since 1980. The only other serious challenger for the nomination was neither a son of the party establishment nor a Reaganite ideologue: Sen. John McCain. A hero of the Vietnam War (a conflict from which Bush had escaped by serving in the Texas Air National Guard), McCain married a wealthy second wife and made his political home in Arizona, where being a conservative and a maverick fit the Goldwater tradition. His independent stands on campaign-finance reform, regulation of the tobacco industry and health care irked the party's leadership but gained him favor inside the news media.
Read the entire story in the issue of Rolling Stone, on stands August 22, 2008.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
I Misspoke
frrom Dr. Alan J. Lipman's Head of State
It was a treacherous night landing. Ice had formed on both of our wings, and as I looked out the port window, I could see it breaking into shards, flying off into the night sky with each near barrel roll of our C-50, highlighted by the flares shooting past on either side of the cabin, turning them into falling prisms of wildly careening light.
As the cabin lurched back and forth and the sounds of rocket fire percussed the urgent, faltering rhythm of our right engine, I unfastened my seat belt, and, finding my center of gravity, rose from my seat, moving past aides who were frozen, stock still in their chairs, arms locked like girders against their arm rests in terror, and walked up the center aisle to the pilot's cabin.
"How long to Kosovo"? I shouted over the screaming whine of the altimeter's alarm, marking our steep descent. The pilot turned, looked at me in shocked recognition--"How...how did you make it up here? No one has ever walked up here in these conditions before! How..."
"Never mind that!" I barked, with what I hoped was a not too stern forcefulness, yet laced with sufficient steel and empathy to create an impression of firm imperturbability. "Check the master FMC! Is it working or has it failed?"
The pilot, paused, as if in amazement at my readiness, and then himself awakening to crisis, looked to the Control Display Unit . "It's down! It's down!" he shouted. Beads of sweat began to form on his brow.
I knew what I had to do. "Get out of there!" I commanded, and pulled him from the seat, from where he crumbled to a fetal position on the floor behind me. Stepping over him, I took the chair behind the console.
"Check the Central Maintenance Computers and activate the NAV RAD for alternate radio tuning capability!" I shouted to the co-pilot. He, too, had broken down in tears, his head buried in his hands. I looked to his ID on the console. Another newbie.
Well, this was another one where I would have to go it alone.
Quickly, I tore the scarf from my neck and fashioned it into a crude lasso that could be used for EFIS/EICIS control. Catching the lever with my right hand, I activated the cabin loudspeaker with my left. I knew that the passengers had likely been gulled by the earlier soft patter of the pilot. "Brace yourself! Get ready! These aren't just words!" Then I pulled the lever back hard, sending us rocketing towards the runway.
"You'll never make it!" A voice behind me--I knew that voice, and turned. Richardson! How did he trundle up to the cabin? "Out of here, Judas! And take that quivering beard with you!"
I could feel bolts straining against Pennsylvania steel as I pushed the '50 down, down, down to the ground below us. Suddenly, an explosion punctuated the sky--Hand held rocket fire at 3' o'clock!
I quickly performed the evasive maneuvers that I had learned for so long, and so well. My face became angry, then sad, then gentle, then intensely serious, then was finally rocked by a powerful squealing, an unnatural burst of laughter. That did it! The rocket exploded harmlessly behind us.
Now. Now it was time to take the stick and bring this shaking, careening flight, parts straining against themselves until nearly ready to burst, down to the ground. I put my arms to the twin arms of the FO-AP, set the APC, and with all of the strength remaining in me, began to push the levers down. Straining, I pushed harder. And harder. I could see the runway rising before us in the glare shield. I would have to find the remaining strength to bring it down.
Finally, as if a burst of superhuman might had been somehow delegated to me, I pushed the levers into locked position. I could hear Penn in the cabin shouting "We're landing...We're going down!" as I felt the rough shock of the landing gear snapping into place.
Sparks flew as we hit the runway, bullets ricocheting off of the cabin, one wheel touching pavement. I looked straight through the windshield--the militia, arms at the ready stood at the runway's end. The last obstacle.
I turned the craft hard, sending it hurtling sideways across the pavement. It swept the militia away in a single screaming motion that combined with the screaming that arose from the cabin, as we continued to move towards the small, makeshift terminal, where the dignitaries, negotiators, and heads of state awaited for my arrival.
I did not close my eyes. I did not let go of the wheel. I watched--as we ground to a halt just before the doors of the terminal.
I looked fore, at the dignitaries protecting themselves from the sniper fire that raged around them. I looked aft, at the passengers, shaken but safe.
We had arrived. All was good.
Just a moment...
Due to the discovery of a video of the above described occasion, I would like to make few small corrections. The flight was in fact actually a regularly scheduled chartered flight that was actually flown by the pilot and co-pilot--although the pilot did have a cold, and during the flight, I did at several times give serious attention to our flight conditions (notes indicate that I found it "a bit bumpy"). I would also note that the dinner, Salmon with Creamed Potatoes, was undercooked, and was served with a Riesling that was unusually dry. It is also true that we were met not by a militia, but by a girl's youth soccer team. However, it was necessary for me to dodge a soccer ball as team members demonstrated their often aggressive skills. No other shots were fired.
In short: I misspoke.
It was a treacherous night landing. Ice had formed on both of our wings, and as I looked out the port window, I could see it breaking into shards, flying off into the night sky with each near barrel roll of our C-50, highlighted by the flares shooting past on either side of the cabin, turning them into falling prisms of wildly careening light.
As the cabin lurched back and forth and the sounds of rocket fire percussed the urgent, faltering rhythm of our right engine, I unfastened my seat belt, and, finding my center of gravity, rose from my seat, moving past aides who were frozen, stock still in their chairs, arms locked like girders against their arm rests in terror, and walked up the center aisle to the pilot's cabin.
"How long to Kosovo"? I shouted over the screaming whine of the altimeter's alarm, marking our steep descent. The pilot turned, looked at me in shocked recognition--"How...how did you make it up here? No one has ever walked up here in these conditions before! How..."
"Never mind that!" I barked, with what I hoped was a not too stern forcefulness, yet laced with sufficient steel and empathy to create an impression of firm imperturbability. "Check the master FMC! Is it working or has it failed?"
The pilot, paused, as if in amazement at my readiness, and then himself awakening to crisis, looked to the Control Display Unit . "It's down! It's down!" he shouted. Beads of sweat began to form on his brow.
I knew what I had to do. "Get out of there!" I commanded, and pulled him from the seat, from where he crumbled to a fetal position on the floor behind me. Stepping over him, I took the chair behind the console.
"Check the Central Maintenance Computers and activate the NAV RAD for alternate radio tuning capability!" I shouted to the co-pilot. He, too, had broken down in tears, his head buried in his hands. I looked to his ID on the console. Another newbie.
Well, this was another one where I would have to go it alone.
Quickly, I tore the scarf from my neck and fashioned it into a crude lasso that could be used for EFIS/EICIS control. Catching the lever with my right hand, I activated the cabin loudspeaker with my left. I knew that the passengers had likely been gulled by the earlier soft patter of the pilot. "Brace yourself! Get ready! These aren't just words!" Then I pulled the lever back hard, sending us rocketing towards the runway.
"You'll never make it!" A voice behind me--I knew that voice, and turned. Richardson! How did he trundle up to the cabin? "Out of here, Judas! And take that quivering beard with you!"
I could feel bolts straining against Pennsylvania steel as I pushed the '50 down, down, down to the ground below us. Suddenly, an explosion punctuated the sky--Hand held rocket fire at 3' o'clock!
I quickly performed the evasive maneuvers that I had learned for so long, and so well. My face became angry, then sad, then gentle, then intensely serious, then was finally rocked by a powerful squealing, an unnatural burst of laughter. That did it! The rocket exploded harmlessly behind us.
Now. Now it was time to take the stick and bring this shaking, careening flight, parts straining against themselves until nearly ready to burst, down to the ground. I put my arms to the twin arms of the FO-AP, set the APC, and with all of the strength remaining in me, began to push the levers down. Straining, I pushed harder. And harder. I could see the runway rising before us in the glare shield. I would have to find the remaining strength to bring it down.
Finally, as if a burst of superhuman might had been somehow delegated to me, I pushed the levers into locked position. I could hear Penn in the cabin shouting "We're landing...We're going down!" as I felt the rough shock of the landing gear snapping into place.
Sparks flew as we hit the runway, bullets ricocheting off of the cabin, one wheel touching pavement. I looked straight through the windshield--the militia, arms at the ready stood at the runway's end. The last obstacle.
I turned the craft hard, sending it hurtling sideways across the pavement. It swept the militia away in a single screaming motion that combined with the screaming that arose from the cabin, as we continued to move towards the small, makeshift terminal, where the dignitaries, negotiators, and heads of state awaited for my arrival.
I did not close my eyes. I did not let go of the wheel. I watched--as we ground to a halt just before the doors of the terminal.
I looked fore, at the dignitaries protecting themselves from the sniper fire that raged around them. I looked aft, at the passengers, shaken but safe.
We had arrived. All was good.
Just a moment...
Due to the discovery of a video of the above described occasion, I would like to make few small corrections. The flight was in fact actually a regularly scheduled chartered flight that was actually flown by the pilot and co-pilot--although the pilot did have a cold, and during the flight, I did at several times give serious attention to our flight conditions (notes indicate that I found it "a bit bumpy"). I would also note that the dinner, Salmon with Creamed Potatoes, was undercooked, and was served with a Riesling that was unusually dry. It is also true that we were met not by a militia, but by a girl's youth soccer team. However, it was necessary for me to dodge a soccer ball as team members demonstrated their often aggressive skills. No other shots were fired.
In short: I misspoke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)