We Vote For Them

The United States of America was founded on the idea that, given the opportunity, the citizenry of that nation could -- through elected representation -- govern itself in accordance with the doctrine of unity and mutual interest. So it was that an electoral system was devised to ensure that every person who was a United States citizen could vote and that their vote would count equally across all the States. A larger State could not necessarily monopolize the election of a President by turning out all its voters, and thus overriding the votes of smaller states. It presumed that anyone wishing to be elected President, would have to show each State that they carried that State's best interests -- and those of the nation as a whole -- to heart.

The idea of One Person, One Vote and all it implies, is pertinent now more than ever, with a modern Presidential election awash in 'soft money,' as rich benefactors with hidden agendas and secret motives look to manipulate public opinion by pouring money into so-called "social welfare" organizations and having them run advertising seeking to paint the current President in the most unflattering light possible in the name of "saving" America. "Saving America" is a code for saving the current system, whereby the wealthiest elite benefit at every turn by the sweat and tears of those "beneath" them without having to care about their welfare.

No matter what this tiny fraction of American society thinks it can accomplish by flooding the election with its money, at the end of the day, it can only buy so much. True, it may have bought patronage from some local and state legislators, in the form of means to suppress the turnout at the polls through execrable "voter identification" laws, though they are always subject to appeal to Federal power. It may have bought hours and hours of radio play and TV commercial time, reams of newspaper advertising, and blocks Internet traffic in which to pour half-truth, innuendo, and outright lies couched as fact, but people are under no obligation to listen, read, or pay attention to any of it. At the end of the day, the one thing they cannot do, under any circumstances -- is use the money directly to do the one thing that would have the greatest impact: buy actual votes.

For if we are to be serious about it, the only way to really influence an election to any great degree, is to pay people to vote for your candidate. But, of course, not only is that patently illegal, it is folly to believe that not one of those so bribed would be able to keep their mouth shut about it. As we have seen, with the era of social media, when a figure crosses a line that they did not see but we as Americans always knew was there, they are exposed to a virulent counter-reaction which leads to the loss of that they so rightfully believe is theirs. Were any scion of wealth to attempt the transparent and buy votes, it would spell the death-knell of corporate "free speech" in elections and bring a tidal wave of condemnation akin to the march of the villagers waving torches and pitchforks as they seek the destruction of the monster in their midst.

It comes down to this: we hold our own counsel and we hold our right to our vote. It is not a light burden, this decision. Many cannot bring themselves to do it. They sit on the sidelines, content to leave the decision to others, some convinced they can't take the chance on voting for the "wrong person," others refusing to "waste" a vote on the "lesser of two evils." It is actually harder to avoid voting than it is to simply accept that it is your responsibility, because to do so means that you do not believe in your fellow American. Now, for some, it easy for them to look at other Americans as impediments, free-loaders, or to dismiss their plight by fobbing off all the responsibility for it on them, as if each American operates as an independent island, connected by no bridge to any other, which is simply fallacious. We are the "United" States of America, and were so from the very beginning, when disparate groups of Colonists came together to fight for and support a worthy cause: their independence from a foreign power and gaining the right to govern themselves.

Our vote is not just a vote for ourselves; it is a vote for each and every other American. We may certainly decide that a candidate holds for us the key to our happiness, our personal wealth, our future, but that cannot be enough of a consideration. When we vote, we vote for our friends, our neighbors, our local business owners, our civil employees, our military personnel, and every American of every stripe. Our vote does not just influence us, but influences everything that happens to every other person, known or unknown to us. We may like what a candidate says or does -- and in the end, it is what they say and do, not what their proxies say about them, that should matter -- but we should keep in mind what effect those policies will have on people who are not us.

Voting is our responsibility and like so many such responsibilities, taking it seriously is paramount. The only vote truly wasted is the vote not cast. But before we so willingly commit that vote to permanence, let us take a moment to look beyond our own interests, at the broader spectrum that will be influenced by our vote. Let us ask ourselves if what is best for us is truly what is best for others. While we may not suffer the ill effects of a poor choice of candidate, so many others may. We are part of a larger collective, an integral whole, that owes its existence and gains its power from all of us. When we vote, we vote for us all... it pays for us to consider that before we step behind the curtain.

America, The Incorporated

Even more ridiculous than the idea that a fertilized human egg is a human being, is that large, amorphous agglomerations of people can form a person. A company, a corporation, an interest group... that these clusters of people, brought together by similarity of thought or by economic necessity, are artificial creations, a form of human breccia, which cannot be construed as having a homogeneous mind and singular being. They are aggregated together from disparate portions of society, and are entities whose existence is totally dependent on human law for definition. They did not arise spontaneously from a primordial ooze, nor were they birthed by some titanic polyglot mother.

This is an important distinction, in that such groups of people in their various forms, believe that somehow their mere existence provides them the same access to rights and privileges that a natural-born person enjoys, namely in the area of freedom of speech, and under that, the ability to influence elections based on their desire for certain outcomes. The absurdity of this notion is lost upon corporate boards and self-important leaders, alike; their belief in the rightness of their cause or business is such that it blinds them to fact.

The Man Who Will Never Be President, Take Two

In April of this year, I outlined why Newt Gingrich will never become President. Now it is December, and after the implosion of several Republican candidates for President in varied and fantastic ways, we see something which makes me wary of the true intellectual capacity of the American voter: Mr. Gingrich at the top of the polls, challenging Mitt Romney for supremacy at the top of the GOP heap.

Perhaps it has been too long since he last held the national spotlight, and maybe you who have thrown yourselves in his camp have forgotten, so let me bring up a few things about the peripatetic Mr. Gingrich which you might deign to consider before you continue to support him...

• We can start, of course, with everyone's favorite peccadillo, the divorce of his cancer-ridden wife for a new model, punctuated by his coming to her hospital bed to discuss how the divorce would proceed. Though much hyperbole has been attached to this happening, the bottom line remains the same: Newt was busy "trading up" as his current wife lay sick in her hospital bed. Mind you, this is the same man who so zealously pursued impeachment against President Bill Clinton for an ill-advised White House dalliance.
• We could mention -- if it is not too inconvenient -- that he was and is the only Speaker of the House to be brought up for ethics violations
• We might note the peculiarity of his taking millions of dollars from Freddie Mac for consulting work, an agency he spent a good deal of effort trying to close and which used to suggest that certain members of Congress be arrested and tried for malfeasance because of their support for it.
• It may be noted that for someone who has taught history and claims to be steeped in it, his historical knowledge is many times, to put it politely, badly flawed.
• Even one of his strongest character traits -- his ability to buck GOP convention -- becomes a weakness, because he is too willing to change course for the sake of pandering. Look at how he called out Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan for what it was, bad, and then proceeded to apologize when the party backlash became too strong.
• For every cogent theory that he manages to come up with (health care reform), there are several that defy description (ending child labor laws). He is, in essence, a slightly less cantankerous, slightly less insensitive version of Ron Paul, with better bona fides in the Republican Party.

Now, probably about the only person other than a Gingrich supporter who is happy to see Newt at the top of the polls is President Obama. It would not be much of a stretch to say that the ethically-challenged former Speaker and his wild-and-wacky roadshow would be easy meat for the cerebral and well-spoken President. Still, if the GOP ultimately manages to install Newt Gingrich as its 2012 Presidential nominee, it will be solid proof that the Grand "Old" Party has lost complete touch with modern reality. Dragging up a GOP icon of the 90's with questionable personal and political ethics and using a patchwork agenda that relies on tired tropes of the same era, Republicans might be better served attempting to reanimate the fetid corpse of Ronald Reagan.

You Get What You Vote For

The hyperventilating, pontificating, and obfuscating is now over. As with any good compromise, the bill that finally allowed the debt ceiling to be raised in conjunction with budgetary cuts, was met with unhappiness in all directions. The Tea Party was certain it did not go far enough. Republicans grumbled over defense cuts and the loss of a balanced budget amendment. Democrats were unhappy generally, over the whole "crisis" even having arisen, the lack of solid revenue increases, and the President's willingness to sit on the sidelines while they tried to do the heavy lifting, only to "stab them in the back" by giving the GOP much of what it wanted, in terms if not in substance.

As the sound of gnashing teeth and exhaled breath finishes washing over the nation, it's best to take a moment and look closely at what the debt ceiling "crisis" outcome really was, and more importantly, what it all actually meant.

The American Agenda

The most recent mid-term election leaves many of us bitter, our hearts filled with a rancor not easily assuaged. Not necessarily at the outcome, for the electorate -- or that part of it that chose to participate – spoke, and told the Democrats that their short reign was now over and gave the Republicans another chance to acquit themselves honorably. No, the outcome was not really in doubt; what remains in doubt, as it was before these events, is the sincerity of those elected, Republican and Democrat alike. For, far from being a repudiation of the Democratic agenda in Congress, it was mainly a repudiation of the political circus that was Washington, D.C. The voters had, at a stroke, forced both parties into a position where only compromise and cooperation was the key to further success. A divided Congress leaves no doubt – to get anything done will require talking.

Electoral Follies

One begins to wonder if anyone will ever understand politics, and by that, I don't mean the give and take of governance, the “you scratch my back I'll scratch yours” complexity, or the general desire to work toward a common goal through earnest debate and compromise. No, I speak of the knock-down, drag-out, mudslinging, partisan divide that has usurped useful politics, relegating it to dim memory and dusty textbook. We are not in the age of statesmen and diplomats; we instead see self-aggrandizers, boot-lickers, sycophants, and power-grabbers grappling for control of a nation, heedless of the cost to personal virtue, comportment, or American society. They are more eager to draw battle lines and unflattering comparisons than they are to take stock of America's situation and take the appropriate steps to keep the ship of state afloat. They are the crew of a sinking cruise ship arguing over who should get credit for saving the passengers, even though the lifeboats are all in place and a panicked mob stands around them, awaiting action.

The Overt Bigotry Of The Uneducated Mind

Normally, I do not include video in my posts, but before I comment, it is best to see this video for yourself:

These Are The People You Want Leading Us?

As the rabble that is The Tea Party continues to shake the political trees, voter apathy reaches new lows, and partisan bickering and gamesmanship replaces governance, it is probably best to reflect on just what it all means to you and I and our fellow Americans. Perhaps the gravity of the electoral process has lightened over the centuries, to the point that -- in an age of instant communication and the global village -- we feel more disconnected from our leaders than at any time in the past. When the nation was formed, it still had a very close-knit and neighborly feel, but with its expansion in size, distance, and population, perhaps the differences between us are more stark than they were at the time of the Revolutionary War.

Congress, which is the linchpin of Federal Government, being the place where laws are incubated, hatched, and set free to provide all Americans with the protections afforded us by the Constitution, is certainly the most important branch of our tripartite government. The President has very little unitary power, owing to not being a monarch. He/she can only work with what is given to them by Congress. Even a declaration of war, though the purview of the Commander-in-Chief, must still be ratified by Congress. It is by working together, that the Legislative branch and the Executive branch, under the watchful eye of the Judicial branch, bring our nation alive, provide all Americans liberty, protect our freedoms, and protect us from those things which might harm us. The intent of the system was to give average citizens a means to ensure balance and fairness in legislation, by leaving the ultimate responsibility for the composition of the House, Senate, and Presidency to the voting public.

The Republic which we inherited from our ancestors is still basically no different than that they crafted, with some additions and re-engineering to smooth out inequities and fix some basic flaws. No one would claim that the United States and its government are perfect, but then the Founding Fathers knew that when they created the Constitution, and made provision for the American people to make the necessary changes to allow our government to grow and change with the times. Even as the Revolutionary War was being fought, science and technology were beginning to change things, and the Founders knew that a future nation would have to adapt to the changes brought about by these forces. It would also have to deal, eventually, with those short-comings they, themselves, had written into the Constitution.

So, despite the misgivings of some, the composition and functioning of the Federal Government were left in the hands of the citizens. They would have to find the most capable among them to represent their interests at the capitol, and do that not only for the local constituency, but for the country as a whole. Congressmen would have the daunting task of listening to what the home folks said, and keeping in mind the general welfare of all Americans at the same time. This balancing act would require only those of the most open minds and greatest character, for to go to Washington, D.C. with a personal agenda, bent on making legislation only to benefit themselves and their cronies, would be a mockery of and a perversion of, the legislative process.

It cannot be said that the history of Congress and the Presidency has been filled with only the most stellar and erudite minds; the problem with leaving the decision as to whom will represent them, to the people, is that a great many of the people can be swayed by words that resonate with how they feel, even where those words do not represent the truth. Rhetoric and obfuscation can make a king of a pauper, and as the centuries pass, free government has become less a function of the citizenry and more a function of the power brokers. Party politics has led to rampant abuse of a system meant to protect the citizens of America from the very excesses practiced in Washington, D.C., and the saddest part is that this is done with the tacit approval of Americans, who vote the same barons back into control of their fiefdoms, then are shocked when nothing changes.

It is not enough, however, to simply vote out the incumbents, though that is definitely a start. What is more important, is that the incumbents be replaced by people of good character, who are concerned for general society, and are willing to subsume their personal views to the needs of the country as a whole, and to the Constitution which they serve. Sadly, despite the fervor that has swept the nation, stoked by cries ripped pell-mell from the history books, the citizenry has missed the mark, trying to replace the tyranny of the politician with the tyranny of the ignorant. By subsuming themselves to personal messages and talking points, they have failed to take a good look at the candidates they would support, and find them, as so many of us do, wanting.

Whether it is by racist overtones, through misappropriation of campaign funds, rejection of established fact or convention, or the desire to override the personal liberty of all Americans with their vision of what is right and wrong, these candidates reveal themselves to be unfit to represent all America and provide the kind of leadership required to lift Congress from its muck and the miasma of partisanship. They would simply open up a new front, to create even more stagnation and chaos, and would lead to even less action. They would spend more time on trying to reshape the social structure of America, and less time doing what was necessary to keep the country moving forward and becoming strong again. They would attempt to sow their religious beliefs and have them bloom into new laws, restricting the freedoms and liberties of all Americans, forcing a confrontation with the Supreme Court.

It isn't about talking points. It's not about political gain. It's not about who controls what. In the end, it is about how we govern ourselves, and who we ask to take on the responsibility. Only by choosing wisely and thoughtfully, do we show the world the strength of democracy built by the people, for the people.

Inside Outsider

With every election cycle, comes the inevitable boasting and bluster that is partisan politics. Republicans claim Democrats are running the country into the ground with their rampant spending, even as they are attempting ridiculous and fiscally unsupported tax cuts. Democrats complain Republicans are busy saying no to everything, even as they are constantly waging war against the Republican Party rather than working with them. At the end of the day, neither party comports themselves well in the arena of governing responsibly. Both parties are more interested in scoring political points than in settling down and doing the hard task of running a large country.

So it is, that when mid-term elections roll around, so many candidates for office attempt to challenge the incumbents with the claims of being Washington, D.C. "outsiders," people not immersed in the rough-and-tumble of the nation's capitol. Sadly, these candidates inevitably become beholden to the national party organizations for funding, and the "outsider" tag is quickly stripped away as they fall in line behind their party, lest they lose the support they so desperately need to run for office. Once they take cash from the national party organizations, any air of independence is completely fouled with the stench of partisanship. Should they actually win and find themselves in Congress, they then quickly find out that they are expected to toe the party line, lest the goodies of Congressional membership be withheld.

Politics is no longer the realm of the people, but the realm of the party, and the parties in this country are beholden to special interest groups and corporations, who dole out huge amounts of money to elect candidates that will do their bidding. Members of Congress may harrumph and harangue, claiming they are not the puppets of others, but their election coffers are the surest sign that they have been bought and sold by those who would stack the legislative deck in their favor.

Even the nascent Tea Party is simply an offshoot of the Republican Party, a more vocal, more rambunctious, more morally conflicted version of its older sibling. Built upon the anger of fringe conservatives, wishing to rein in American society by clamping down on those things that are at the root of freedom and liberty in this country, it is no better or worse than the established parties. It, too, is rife with greed, corruption, ignorance, bigotry, and political payback. It represents an opportunity for Republican players and retainers to get around the party establishment, riding those conservative sycophants who are willing to avoid applying critical reasoning to their choice of candidates.

For American government to function at any level, it starts with the people, deciding that they will no longer be held hostage by small numbers of people deciding to determine their destiny. It is far too easy for any group to decide that they know what is best for all Americans, but as has been said many times, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, no matter how many that few should be. Personal conviction, religious faith, and political precedent should not rule; they should be factored in to what is required to provide for the general welfare of everyone in this country. The diversity of this nation means that all views must be considered, and compromise must be the order of the day. Eventually, though some may grumble, consensus must lead to rules and laws that all can live under without fear of coercion or corruption.

If we truly wish to live by the spirit of the framers of the Constitution, and do justice to the sacrifice of those who forged a nation, then we owe it to them to throw off the shackles of organized politics, and reassert control of our nation, a nation of, by, and for the American citizenry. Until we decide to sweep away the detritus that has piled up in the corners of our Congress, we risk watching our freedom being further eroded by forces that would rather preserve their power than preserve our liberty.

For The People

It can reasonably be said that the American people are tired of politics as usual, to such an extent that in recent primaries, incumbents were dealt severe blows, falling to new-comers who promised change and an end to "the usual business in Washington, D.C." The anger of a nation, fueled by a wanton Wall Street, corporate disaster, economic failure, mass foreclosure, and partisan politics, is being turned on those who constructed the house of cards that so recently fell, and continues to rain down on the citizens of this country. Rightly so, for the rush to consolidate power, to become adherents of corporations, and to use their political ambition toward their own self-aggrandizement, has cheapened Federal government and made a hopeless muddle of a system that should be serving the general welfare, not lining the pockets of its legislators.

However, in their haste, and untempered by cool reason, some Americans have fallen in for the cheap and easy fix. They seek to replace career politicians based solely on the rhetoric of change, and not with a critical eye toward the character and capability of those they would anoint. They drink of the wellspring of ill-will toward Washington, D.C., but do not taste the poison that still laces it. It is enough that the name-plate on the door changes, and that the elected agree with them wholeheartedly. There is no great debate, no casting of ideas, no formulation of a common theme, merely the reactionary tide of displeasure, which, as before the tsunami, sweeps all away regardless of worth, to leave wreckage in its midst, and an opportunity for the vipers and charlatans to have their day.

The ill-considered lauding of those who stand on in deep, dark chasms, rather than in the purer light and air of the surface, means that the political structure of the Federal government may be shifted, such that a system already fraught with sluggish turmoil, may now be dragged down into festering chaos. It means those who have hidden their lack of sympathy for fellow humans, and their disdain for the very institutions they seek election to, may now stand in the hallowed halls of great legislators, and tear down the curtains and abscond with the candlesticks, as they chop and hack away at two hundred-plus years of progress, to toss our nation back into the mire from which it has been patiently inching.

They who would cloak themselves in the tattered remnants of our true history, place "patriotism" over plurality, and seek to rip the country off of its foundations of liberty and freedom for all, may very well be let in the front door, by citizens who have no reckoning, no inkling, no memory of the darkness from which this country has attempted to emerge. The blood spilled and spilled again defending the soil of the Colonies, then the American nation, and finally, the world, will have been spilled vainly, to see jesters, fools, and mountebanks run the kingdom, as they steal what little the poor have, to fuel the petty excesses of the rich. The shores will choke in oil, the skies blacken with smog and soot, the water run unnatural colors when fouled again with the ichor of industry, in the name of "free markets" and "productivity." America will become the land of Sisyphus, watching the boulder that is our freedom roll down the mountain, forcing us to trudge back down after it, yet again.

It is true that we need change, and that change started with the election of Barack Obama, but even he pronounced that this was not the end, but merely the beginning. Change, that inevitable and irresistible force, must be driven by our desire to do better than those who came before us, not by the simple desire to heave out the old and replace them with just anyone. We do ourselves and our nation's heritage a disservice when we stoop to mob rule; the Founding Fathers wanted better of us. They wanted citizens to stay engaged, to work with, not against, their government, and to be its arbiters and conservators and care-takers. They entrusted the people, for whom the government was formed, with the task of shepherding the nation through every new age, every new change, every new challenge, and gave us the power to ensure that the government met its obligations fairly and with honor. That government now is seen as an enemy, rather than a partner, is an indictment of we, the people, for it has become so only because we have refused to take our stewardship seriously.

Even now, we face a test. We can throw out the old, fill the seats with those who salve our consciences and stoke our prejudices -- to our ruination. Or, we can seek to promote those who will restore the patina of honor to government, who will carry through on the credo that our government is of, by, and for, us, by working to make all Americans partners again, by ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of all citizens, without cost to our individual liberty. Given the right people -- thoughtful, magnanimous, honorable, tolerant -- we can seek to honor our history, and by doing so, provide a meaningful and prosperous future for all. To do less, is to place our nation in peril, and to see the dream of the United States of America that our Founders gave life to wither and die in ignominy. Let us be sure that never comes to pass.

We The People, Incorporated

The Supreme Court of the United States is the last line of defense against laws which may violate the sovereignty of the country and infringe on the rights of its citizens. Though certainly not perfect, it remains the backstop, against which the misses of the Legislative and Executive branches must come to rest. It has a very narrow set of rules to work from -- the Constitution of the United States. It's only job is to ensure that no local, state, or Federal law violates those rules.

Now, the rules are subject to interpretation. The Founding Fathers worded each Amendment carefully, so as to make the intent of them clear, but leave room for subjectivity. They also ensured that the Constitution was amendable, where clarification or expansion was required. They made a clear hierarchy in the system of checks and balances, upon which the whole framework of American government was supposed to rest; the Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch enables the laws, and the Supreme Court rejects those laws that violate the Constitution.

It has always been assumed that the Justices of the Supreme Court were impartial enough to look at the law for its essence and its legality, not for its political potential. Of course, where the business of humanity is concerned, to expect any individual to be completely impartial is to ask too much. Upbringing, education, happenstance, personal belief, religion -- all these things will have subtle influences on any person, and while a person can claim impartiality, they are betrayed by their humanity. Still, where codes and laws are concerned, the wisdom of Solomon is not required to hear the evidence and distill the essence of it and compare it to the law, and then determine if it is a violation of the Constitution.

Therefore, it is a bit perplexing that the Supreme Court decided in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to imbue corporations with the same rights to free speech as actual, living, breathing American citizens. In essence, the court has give the OK to corporations, both domestic and foreign, to meddle in the election of public officials. Though it stops short of giving them an actual vote, the decision means that a corporation is free to spend any amount of money attempting to support an incumbent politician or a rival to an incumbent, in order to tip the balance in Congress in favor of their corporate interests. A Sword of Damocles can now be hung over legislators, who cannot possibly raise enough money to oppose the concerted efforts of their corporate foes, forcing them to either toe the line, or resign.

One wonders just what predisposed the majority Justices to vote the way they did. Could they be so weak-kneed, as to feel the pull of corporate greed? Could they be so contemptuous of the average American citizen, that they feel that it is necessary to allow corporations to their thinking for them? Are they unaware that by granting these rights, they leave the door open to foreign entities that have majority stakes in American corporations? Were they oblivious to the havoc that several major corporations caused, with their poor business practices, which plunged this nation (and the world) into a global financial crisis?

The Founding Fathers certainly did not anticipate the extent to which companies would expand to become global corporations, with influence far beyond their borders. They most assuredly did not intend for companies to gain the rights of American citizens -- to have freedom of speech or even to vote. Companies and corporations are ephemeral entities, composed of many individuals, with no separate existence of their own. They were not the product of love, borne into the world via the pain of birth, to be nurtured by caring parents. Their function is to provide products or services for the consumption of the citizenry, to generate profits for their owners and/or shareholders.

It is obvious, given this decision, that there are two facts that cannot be in dispute: 1) the Supreme Court of the United States no longer functions as intended by the Founders, and 2) corporations have gained too much power over the government of the United States. This decision means that Congress will have a hard time passing meaningful campaign finance reform, if the Supreme Court will simply dismiss it as restricting freedom of speech for anyone, which leaves Congress paralyzed. Given the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court Justices, it is possible that such gridlock on campaign finance reform may remain for decades, until the majority justices from this decision have been replaced.

So it is becoming increasingly clear, that just as our ancestors felt the need to throw off the yoke of British oppression, we must rise up and throw off the yolk of corporate oppression. This is not a thing that can be accomplished using the current system; it will require that we, the citizens of America, use our Constitutionally guaranteed power, and call a Constitutional Convention, to alter the playing field, redefining the rights of citizens as belonging to citizens only, and to tackle the inertia represented on the Supreme Court by imposing limits on the tenure of Justices. Only by doing so, can we short-circuit the undue influence of business in politics, and ensure that the Justices of the Supreme Court have a clearer vision of modern society, rather than dragging along the influences of the past.

Why Some Americans Don't Trust You, Senator Obama

It's quite simple really -- you upset the status quo.

For one, you're a "Black man." Nobody is outright playing the race card, but then no one would be stupid enough to. And yet you know that behind closed doors in America, there are people actually frightened at the thought of you holding the reins. Their fear is that there will some kind of retribution for slavery or there will be rioting in the streets as your brethren decide to "punish the White man." It's frightening that living in an age of information as we do, such parochial views are still widespread.

For another, you're a Democrat. Yes, the mere fact that you are not of the party in power has them worried, at least those who have been making out quite well living off of other people's money and resources. The "fat cats" have been having a party for 8 years and they are afraid that the chips and dip are gone, the bar is closing, and they will soon have to stumble blearily back to the cloakroom. The idea that very soon they might actually be forced to fork over some of their money to foot the bill for the extravaganza has them spooked.

And further still, you are a progressive. You want to change how our federal government operates. You want to take away the pacifier that is oil and replace it with renewable energy. You want Congress to stop handing out candy (earmarks) to the States. You want everyone, everyone, to be able to go to the doctor or the hospital when they need to. And what you want everyone's kids to have a level playing field when it comes to education. You're threatening to upset the balance of power, to tear down class distinctions and remove the things that separate "us" from "them." In essence, you want to change the structure of society, and that will not do.

And you're upbringing leaves a lot to be desired. No nuclear family, in a suburb, with a white picket fence around the house and church every Sunday. Raised by a single mother and your grandparents -- who are you kidding! That does not make a family! Exposing children to other cultures and belief systems, confusing them with different ideas. What was your mother thinking?

And to top it off, you're a smart man. The smart kids are the ones who get picked on in high school. They're usually the kids with little money, no fancy stuff to wear, a simple life that affords them the time to learn and grow. They are not supposed to be successful, only to supply those who are successful with grist for the mill. There can be no working your way up the food chain -- you have to be invited up to the heights. We can't have people getting the idea that yes, anyone can be President. That will never do, or the next thing you know, Washington, D.C. will be filling up with people who shun special interests and are not susceptible to graft and blackmail, who want to work for the common good.

Yes, Senator Obama, you scare some people. Not me, because your life resonates with mine in many ways and because you seem to hold the promise of the future out as a reality, something I have always striven for. No, you scare those people who are used to things being "the way they are" and don't care much for progressive social thinking. Those are the people you have to convince if you are to succeed; not many, but enough of those who are sitting on the fence to tip the balance. You've got to show them that their world will change but it will be good change and won't mean the end of their way of life. Do that, and this election is in the bag.