"More than any other event in recent times, the Social Security compromise demonstrated that there is a political center in America that can govern for the benefit of the country even when there are extremely difficult problems to be faced and strongly held differences of opinions about solutions."
(emphasis mine)
Chris Matthews
Tip and The Gipper: When Politics Worked
Simon and Schuster 2013
p. 250
Ray tells people that I shook the bed laughing so hard at Barbara Johnson's book, "Stick A Geranium In Your Hat."
I knew Mom would enjoy the book, too. She had a fully functioning sense of humor and a contagious laugh.
"When does it get funny?" she asked.
Whoa! I didn't see that coming.
I feel a bit the same way about, "Tip and the Gipper." When politics worked? I was two thirds through the book and hadn't seen it yet. I hadn't seen two parties cooperating with one another.
Then I realized, I had twisted expectations. "Working" isn't about pleasantries and good manners. (It's not even about nice language.)
"Working together" is about two people/parties who are absolutely passionate! Passionate about what the problem is and passionate about how to fix it.
"Working together" more resembles a boxing match; each giving and taking blows of blame and insults--sometimes getting bloodied in the process. It's about not giving up, until -- one or both realizes that the wins and losses are about the people they serve. It's about partial wins, trade-offs--compromise!
Social Security (a hot button which will probably never cool down) drew a line of barbed wire between President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neil.
"The Democrats on it [Greenspan Commission]had been pushing for more revenues in the system, while their Republican fellows were insisting on lower payments to the retirees. The result, as the deadline neared, remained a stalemate . . . with the Democrats hoping to make the system of greater value to those who need it most and the Republicans looking for ways to reduce the burden on those paying in." p. 246
BOTH sides had valid views. Both sides were thinking of the people. Yet both would attack the problem from a different direction.
Knowing that "no compromise" only hurt the people they were trying to help, creative thinking had to take place. O'Neil considered a progressive tax solution (versus his preference of no increased payments).
Delay in cost-of-living increases came to the table.
Higher income brackets paying income on half of their Social Security benefits made an appearance, too.
In the end, "the changes favored low-income Americans and ensured the survival of a strong Social Security system." p.250
"There was a sense, on a certain level," Chris Matthews writes, "of working together in the service of the country. What's strange is that I can claim such a thing even though the rivalry was often so ferocious." p.251
I don't know if we need two parties; but we need, at least, two points of view. (Isn't one point of view synonymous with dictatorship?) Neither side may have the whole answer, but between the two, they may come up with a solution better than either side has on its own.
I, apparently, had seen "working together" as one side finally seeing the wisdom of the other side and conceding to it. Perhaps, to me, working together was a kin to good sportsmanship; someone winning and the loser not blaming the umpire or the coach, but just accepting the loss with hopes of better luck next time.
BUT
I'm beginning to see that politics work when you fight for what you believe in--you even fight hard! But, in the end accepting some trade-offs and partial wins for the good of the people--ALL people.
EverGrowing,
Lonnie
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Saturday, August 9, 2014
HOW BIG IS THE MIDDLE?
We often think of "the middle" as a small, almost invisible place between two larger, but equal sides. Perhaps we need to change the picture. If we don't, when we ask people to meet us in the middle, it becomes more like a line in the sand that we dare someone to cross. It becomes "my way or your way."
What if the middle looked more like a 9 by 13 chocolate cake divided into thirds--thus making the middle not quite so threatening? If you'll pardon my pun, it leaves some "fudge room." We can listen to one another's ideas, and even "consider" them without losing our party status and without shamefully surrendering our convictions.
I'm listening to Senator Elizabeth Warren's book, A Fighting Chance. I'm reading D'Sousa's book, America. I'm also reading, Tip and the Gipper. Trust me when I tell you, no one in my family or school class would peg me for reading anything of consequence, but . . . I hate being totally predictable, so that's okay.
As I experiment with stretching the middle, I'm finding one rather refreshing thing. Politicians aren't all monsters. They are passionate. Elizabeth Warren, having done extensive research on bankruptcy, found desperate families--not deadbeats. She has fought with all her power to bring them some relief. The bale-outs of big banks infuriated her, especially when help for multitudes of families facing foreclosures was needed and expected. Here's some middle ground I can step into.
Tip O'Neill would probably be your poster boy for big government; Ronald Reagan, just the opposite. Ben Carson and D'Sousa stand in a conservative camp, rather than in a liberal one or, what we now call, progressive. (Progressive definitely conjures up a different and more positive picture, but wears the same clothes as former liberals.) I don't deny that I "lean" toward conservative.
Our family experienced welfare: the help and the humiliation. I'm grateful for government's intervention. BUT . . . I see more and more that the government doesn't give without a cost. What they "give," they control. The more people/institutions receiving government assistance, the greater the threat of government takeover. I know that sounds radical--not like middle ground, but if we look at freedoms and privacies that we have already lost, we can't help but consider that possibility. I repeat, "All politicians aren't monsters." Some, however, do not have your best interest in mind. We need to educate ourselves on issues and people from both sides. And we need to vote accordingly. Pardon my repetition again: We Need To Vote!
One thing that sort of baffles me. We get so ticked at Congress because they won't cooperate with one another. No one will cross party lines! But what about us? Are we willing to see that both camps have their amenities, if you will? Can we vote a split ticket? Can we communicate with our congressmen and women and with our senators places where we think the other camp has some reasonable ideas? If we threaten to withdraw our votes when they "cross the line," how can we Expect Cooperation and Progress?
Really. Think about it.
EverGrowing,
Lonnie
What if the middle looked more like a 9 by 13 chocolate cake divided into thirds--thus making the middle not quite so threatening? If you'll pardon my pun, it leaves some "fudge room." We can listen to one another's ideas, and even "consider" them without losing our party status and without shamefully surrendering our convictions.
I'm listening to Senator Elizabeth Warren's book, A Fighting Chance. I'm reading D'Sousa's book, America. I'm also reading, Tip and the Gipper. Trust me when I tell you, no one in my family or school class would peg me for reading anything of consequence, but . . . I hate being totally predictable, so that's okay.
As I experiment with stretching the middle, I'm finding one rather refreshing thing. Politicians aren't all monsters. They are passionate. Elizabeth Warren, having done extensive research on bankruptcy, found desperate families--not deadbeats. She has fought with all her power to bring them some relief. The bale-outs of big banks infuriated her, especially when help for multitudes of families facing foreclosures was needed and expected. Here's some middle ground I can step into.
Tip O'Neill would probably be your poster boy for big government; Ronald Reagan, just the opposite. Ben Carson and D'Sousa stand in a conservative camp, rather than in a liberal one or, what we now call, progressive. (Progressive definitely conjures up a different and more positive picture, but wears the same clothes as former liberals.) I don't deny that I "lean" toward conservative.
Our family experienced welfare: the help and the humiliation. I'm grateful for government's intervention. BUT . . . I see more and more that the government doesn't give without a cost. What they "give," they control. The more people/institutions receiving government assistance, the greater the threat of government takeover. I know that sounds radical--not like middle ground, but if we look at freedoms and privacies that we have already lost, we can't help but consider that possibility. I repeat, "All politicians aren't monsters." Some, however, do not have your best interest in mind. We need to educate ourselves on issues and people from both sides. And we need to vote accordingly. Pardon my repetition again: We Need To Vote!
One thing that sort of baffles me. We get so ticked at Congress because they won't cooperate with one another. No one will cross party lines! But what about us? Are we willing to see that both camps have their amenities, if you will? Can we vote a split ticket? Can we communicate with our congressmen and women and with our senators places where we think the other camp has some reasonable ideas? If we threaten to withdraw our votes when they "cross the line," how can we Expect Cooperation and Progress?
Really. Think about it.
EverGrowing,
Lonnie
Monday, August 4, 2014
BLACK AND WHITE: IT AIN'T HAPPENIN'!
"In politics there's a large divide between losing and being defeated . . . "
Tip and The Gipper: When Politics Worked
Chris Matthews
Simon and Schuster 2013
p. 173
"When Politics Worked?" Is that possible? In today's climate of undiluted stubbornness, it wouldn't seem so. And when compromise isn't seen as an option, we all lose.
I loved reading Ben Carson's books and finding hope. I knew that some of his ideas, In America The Beautiful and in One Nation, if carried out by government, would hurt me. But, for the overall good and for the future of America and coming generations, I determined that someone had finally discovered some workable and sensible solutions. America was worth fighting for.
But, speaking of compromise . . .
I LIKE BLACK AND WHITE BUT, IT AIN'T HAPPENIN'!
I'd make a great Pharisee. I like absolute requirements because it feels like I'll get predictable results. Number one: I'm wrong. Number two: Jesus rebuked the Pharisees rather harshly.
I'd known that I needed to read the other side, whatever that looked like. I, typically, don't vote a straight ticket. To the best of my ability, I try to vote for the best person. That being said, I quit voting for the hot buttons--ones like gay marriage, abortion, etc that both parties "use" to get your vote and mine. Boy, I hate the games!
I ran across this Tip and Gipper book at a sale. I didn't have in mind the opposing viewpoint piece, but it is working in exactly that direction. It's a good read for me.
I'm seeing two men, not playing the rival for the sake of the game and competition; but two men who truly believe their way is best for America. These men (these parties) don't agree. But it isn't about chalking up victories so much as it is about each foreseeing the likely consequences of, for example, heavily taxing the rich or givng them breaks.
I also see the "games." And I'm beginning to see that they are not entirely avoidable. "'We haven't obstructed,' Tip explained. 'I think we fought a good fight as far as the Reagan people are concerned. We stuck to our timetable. We passed the largest tax bill and budget bill in history. It's the President's now. The ball is in his court--the deficits, the interest rates and unemployment.'" p. 171 (emphasis mine)
It seems, at times, that it does a party more good to let the other party hang itself. Call it manipulation or call it wisdom; it's a game. But the score does get settled in the end. The parties and the American people see how it plays out. And, honestly, no one is guaranteed certain outcomes. Black and white ain't happenin'. As it all plays out, we all learn--what works, what doesn't. The unfortunate part, is that often when mistakes are made, no one wants to take credit for them. We, then, not only question the wisdom of leadership but, more critically, their integrity and sincerity as well. And . . . reversing the action and consequences seems impossible.
I'm sure there are politicians who have unhealthy agendas. And frankly, I feel that way about our current administration. But, I'm encouraged by reading about two men who (at least half way through the book) genuinely care for our country and the people--just in different ways.
God, give us leaders who love You and listen to Your wisdom--for only You know outcomes.
EverGrowing,
Lonnie
Tip and The Gipper: When Politics Worked
Chris Matthews
Simon and Schuster 2013
p. 173
"When Politics Worked?" Is that possible? In today's climate of undiluted stubbornness, it wouldn't seem so. And when compromise isn't seen as an option, we all lose.
I loved reading Ben Carson's books and finding hope. I knew that some of his ideas, In America The Beautiful and in One Nation, if carried out by government, would hurt me. But, for the overall good and for the future of America and coming generations, I determined that someone had finally discovered some workable and sensible solutions. America was worth fighting for.
But, speaking of compromise . . .
I LIKE BLACK AND WHITE BUT, IT AIN'T HAPPENIN'!
I'd make a great Pharisee. I like absolute requirements because it feels like I'll get predictable results. Number one: I'm wrong. Number two: Jesus rebuked the Pharisees rather harshly.
I'd known that I needed to read the other side, whatever that looked like. I, typically, don't vote a straight ticket. To the best of my ability, I try to vote for the best person. That being said, I quit voting for the hot buttons--ones like gay marriage, abortion, etc that both parties "use" to get your vote and mine. Boy, I hate the games!
I ran across this Tip and Gipper book at a sale. I didn't have in mind the opposing viewpoint piece, but it is working in exactly that direction. It's a good read for me.
I'm seeing two men, not playing the rival for the sake of the game and competition; but two men who truly believe their way is best for America. These men (these parties) don't agree. But it isn't about chalking up victories so much as it is about each foreseeing the likely consequences of, for example, heavily taxing the rich or givng them breaks.
I also see the "games." And I'm beginning to see that they are not entirely avoidable. "'We haven't obstructed,' Tip explained. 'I think we fought a good fight as far as the Reagan people are concerned. We stuck to our timetable. We passed the largest tax bill and budget bill in history. It's the President's now. The ball is in his court--the deficits, the interest rates and unemployment.'" p. 171 (emphasis mine)
It seems, at times, that it does a party more good to let the other party hang itself. Call it manipulation or call it wisdom; it's a game. But the score does get settled in the end. The parties and the American people see how it plays out. And, honestly, no one is guaranteed certain outcomes. Black and white ain't happenin'. As it all plays out, we all learn--what works, what doesn't. The unfortunate part, is that often when mistakes are made, no one wants to take credit for them. We, then, not only question the wisdom of leadership but, more critically, their integrity and sincerity as well. And . . . reversing the action and consequences seems impossible.
I'm sure there are politicians who have unhealthy agendas. And frankly, I feel that way about our current administration. But, I'm encouraged by reading about two men who (at least half way through the book) genuinely care for our country and the people--just in different ways.
God, give us leaders who love You and listen to Your wisdom--for only You know outcomes.
EverGrowing,
Lonnie
Saturday, August 2, 2014
AMERICA THE AWFUL?
"America has been the undisputed world leader for only two decades. When we consider that the Roman Age lasted a thousand years, and the Ottomans and the British dominated the world for several centuries,America's dominance seems brief, and already it is precarious."
Dinesh D'souza
America: Imagine A World Without Her
Regnery Publishing 2014
p.7-8
I intend to be more casual with this blog--less worried about word arrangement and convincing anyone else; more about clarifying my own thoughts. A friend told me recently, "Lonnie, you can't change the world." She's right. If anyone is to be changed, including myself (!) that's a God-sized job.
Ray and I went to see America at the theatre--probably our first movie since we took the kids to Short Circuit. It was eye-opening and helpful. I saw what our children had been taught in school and began to understand the attitudes and rebellion expressed since. If America is as they were taught, it DOES stink. But, they were taught partial truths.
That being said, discernment is always needed. One side against another? There are bound to be extremes. As a responsible adult and Christian, I need to weed them out to the best of my ability. And try as I might, I'm unlikely to capture the whole truth.
SO . . . AMERICA DOESN'T STAY IN FIRST PLACE. DOES IT MATTER?
You know what? I asked myself this question and I think it does. From a pride standpoint, no. From a freedom standpoint, yes.
Why do we have so many other peoples coming to the United States to live? Is it because we are the crumby, disgusting nation that our children have been led to believe?
"Alexander Hamilton noted that, historically, countries have been founded by 'accident and force' but America was an opportunity to found a nation by 'reflection and choice.'" p. 8
"Thus America's influence in the world, unlike Europe's, was not based on conquest but rather on attraction to American ideals and the American way of life." p.8
I remember, from the movie, D'souza talking with a border guard. D'souza suggested that it must be a tough job keeping people from crossing the border of America into Mexico. D'souza asked that question a few different ways, each time getting the same answer: "No." No problems in keeping people from slipping into Mexico? No, not once.
It makes me smile.
Another man D'souza talked to was Mexican. D'souza discussed America having "stole" Mexico and only having given part of it back. "If we gave the rest back, would you move back to Mexico?"
"No."
America isn't perfect. We are a nation made up of sinners like anywhere else. But, there has to be something good here, or why are so many migrating to our lands?
Just saying . . . maybe we need to wonder and ask that if the America founded by our forefathers is worth coming to, is it worth fighting for?
Thinking and Growing,
Lonnie
Dinesh D'souza
America: Imagine A World Without Her
Regnery Publishing 2014
p.7-8
I intend to be more casual with this blog--less worried about word arrangement and convincing anyone else; more about clarifying my own thoughts. A friend told me recently, "Lonnie, you can't change the world." She's right. If anyone is to be changed, including myself (!) that's a God-sized job.
Ray and I went to see America at the theatre--probably our first movie since we took the kids to Short Circuit. It was eye-opening and helpful. I saw what our children had been taught in school and began to understand the attitudes and rebellion expressed since. If America is as they were taught, it DOES stink. But, they were taught partial truths.
That being said, discernment is always needed. One side against another? There are bound to be extremes. As a responsible adult and Christian, I need to weed them out to the best of my ability. And try as I might, I'm unlikely to capture the whole truth.
SO . . . AMERICA DOESN'T STAY IN FIRST PLACE. DOES IT MATTER?
You know what? I asked myself this question and I think it does. From a pride standpoint, no. From a freedom standpoint, yes.
Why do we have so many other peoples coming to the United States to live? Is it because we are the crumby, disgusting nation that our children have been led to believe?
"Alexander Hamilton noted that, historically, countries have been founded by 'accident and force' but America was an opportunity to found a nation by 'reflection and choice.'" p. 8
"Thus America's influence in the world, unlike Europe's, was not based on conquest but rather on attraction to American ideals and the American way of life." p.8
I remember, from the movie, D'souza talking with a border guard. D'souza suggested that it must be a tough job keeping people from crossing the border of America into Mexico. D'souza asked that question a few different ways, each time getting the same answer: "No." No problems in keeping people from slipping into Mexico? No, not once.
It makes me smile.
Another man D'souza talked to was Mexican. D'souza discussed America having "stole" Mexico and only having given part of it back. "If we gave the rest back, would you move back to Mexico?"
"No."
America isn't perfect. We are a nation made up of sinners like anywhere else. But, there has to be something good here, or why are so many migrating to our lands?
Just saying . . . maybe we need to wonder and ask that if the America founded by our forefathers is worth coming to, is it worth fighting for?
Thinking and Growing,
Lonnie
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)