Votes Can Stop Hunger

The movie, "The Hunger Games", has something for almost everyone.  Romance, adventure, action, beauty, and characters that are captivating.  It is without a doubt entertaining.

As a dystopian vision of the future, it is also, for many, a warning, but it can be a warning of different things for different people.

It could be a warning about the dangers of reality based entertainment that, taken to its extreme, values entertainment over human life.

It could be a warning about the future given policies that are leading us in the wrong direction; the bottom of a slippery slope.  But defining the current policies that might cause this kind of dystopian future is fraught with hazzards.

The Right (Republicans, Tea Party, Libertarians) might see the movie as the end result of government power run amok; a government that has sucked the people dry to fuel it's insatiable desire for power and control.  The result could be an impoverished and desperate populace, disarmed, with a central government, the "Capitol", that is extravagant even as the people are starving.  Think Louis XIV.  A government that abrogates the rights of people as part of a strategy of centralizing power.

The recent scandal of the GSA (Government Services Administration) spending nearly a million dollars for a lavish meeting in Las Vegas typifies the kind of abuse of power and the people's money.  Some see the President's trips abroad, his lavish parties (which are normal for a president, but...), and any expenses for vacation, secret service protection for his family or even campaign trips supported by government money as evidence that the government seeks to enrich itself while impoverishing the nation.

The Left (Progressives, Democrats, liberals) might see the outcome of wealth disparity in the extreme where corporations dictate policy and huge concentrations of money are promoted by a fusion of government and corporations.  With a Right Wing agenda run amok, workers would compete for jobs that don't provide enough money to prevent hunger (no minimum or living wage), protections from dangers at work are eliminated (OSHA, EPA, etc.), and taxes are paid by everyone except corporations and the extremely wealthy (elimination of capital gains tax, elimination of corporate taxes).  Poverty would be criminalized (arrest the homeless, arrest the protesters, squatters, drug test the poor) and an arrest record would exclude one from voting.  Eventually, only land owners (not renters) would be allowed to vote, and only the wealthy would own land.  There would be no welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and if people starve, "it's their own fault."

The Ryan Plan is a step to the right.  Mitt Romney typifies the wealth disparity and lack of comprehension or understanding of poverty.  "I don't worry about the poor; they have a safety net" which he would eliminate.  Every Republican budget gives much to corporations and takes much from the poor and middle class.  Every Republican controlled state seeks to reduce the number of people voting, particularly the young, the poor, minorities and the elderly.

History gives examples of dystopia fostered by government policies.  Here are three:

The "gilded age" of industrial hegemony created "company towns" and ghettos for workers that struggled even with jobs to feed their families.  Work was dangerous and even deadly for the workers while the "capitalists" enjoyed luxuries that had only been experienced by royalty in the past.  Laborers and even child laborers were disposable assets, and there were plenty of poor that would take the chance of death or injury in order to feed their families.  Striking laborers were severely punished by either hired goons or police.

The Communist revolution centralized government and equalized income for the masses - thus creating mass poverty.  A few powerful people (the Apparatchik) maintained lifestyles of luxury and privilege protected by the Soviet military and police organizations that were themselves more privileged than the poorest citizens.  Wealth disparity was a result of government power rather than commerce.

Nazi Germany put increasing powers within the government purview, and the results are documented well in the book "They Thought They Were Free":  http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."

There has never really been a perfect balance in history, but many would point to the 1950s or another post WWII decade as close to ideal (excluding the McCarthy era).  The trends, when objectively analyzed, have been moving towards the right generally.  There may be a "pendulum", but the swings to the left have been minor and insubstantial while the swings to the right have been structural and measurable.

Criminal records are rarely expunged, and their availability creates a new class of individuals that are treated with suspicion.  Recent Supreme Court rulings have eroded the 4th and 5th Amendment rights, and penalties for crimes have been escalating.  Voting rights are being restricted regularly in States that have recently seen Republican control.  Gerrymandering is another way to make votes not have equal importance.  In Michigan, local democratic control of government has been cancelled in several cities by the governor exercising an "emergency manager" option.  That states Republican legislature has also denied the Democrats the option of voting to not implement "immediate effect", thus violating their own constitution.  And a Republican appeals court is poised to support the Republicans' right to claim a 2/3 majority without counting the votes they clearly don't have for "immediate effect."

The one thing that has kept us from slipping down one slope or the other has been the vote.    When we lose that, we can expect the slide down that slippery slope to begin in earnest.  One way or another.

There Is No Excuse For Rape

It should be self-evident that a doctor does not examine a competent patient without their permission – their consent.  This fact can be lost when one considers that a doctor takes certain liberties with his patients, both male and female, in the course of an office visit.  An office visit might involve the doctor’s visual inspection of every inch of skin, touching the breasts or genitals, and even inserting a speculum or his (gloved) fingers into the vagina or rectum (or both). 

It should be clear that, although a doctor may have implicit permission to do each or all of these things, permission must be granted and, should a patient choose to refuse any part of the examination, the doctor that proceeds to do that part of the examination has committed assault. 

Permission granted by patients to doctors is not carte blanche.  There is an understanding that the physician is acting in the best interests of the patient.  When this is no longer true, and the physician is doing something for reasons other than the patient’s interest, that is de facto assault.

Assault can be any unwanted touching.  It can be any unjustified measure.  A podiatrist that asks a female patient to undress completely, or an eye doctor that, in the course of an examination generally limited to the eyes, puts his hands under a woman’s blouse or skirt has exceeded the permission generally granted for an examination.  Here are some actual examples from our court system:

1.  “Prosecutors said Brown performed unnecessary breast and pelvic exams on 11 patients, including a 15-year-old girl.”

2.  “Dr. Alan Dubelman was front and center on Inside Edition in 1994 during his appearance at the Adams County courthouse. He faced multiple counts of sexual assault, accused by female patients who said he molested them during routine visits and even pelvic exams.”

3.  “Doctor convicted of sexual assault

Judge finds he groped patient under guise of medical exam”

4.  “One woman described nine incidents of being groped by Udani at his Redondo Beach office and at Little Company of Mary Hospital in Torrance and Torrance Memorial Medical Center.

Another 22-year-old woman testified during the weeklong trial that Udani rubbed and caressed her breasts during her only visit to his office for an ulcer on Dec. 8, 2004.”

Even for justified measures, consent is required, and that consent must not be obtained by deception, fraud or coercion. 

If the State orders a physician to rape a patient, that is still rape.  The claim that “I was just following orders” has never been an acceptable defense, but it is true that the entity abusing their authority by ordering a rape should also be held accountable for this crime.

You may say, “The State would NEVER order a rape,” but you would be wrong.

Rape is any genital penetration without consent, by an instrument, finger or penis.  Several states have mandated transvaginal ultrasound examinations of pregnant women before they undergo an abortion.  This procedure involves the insertion of a “wand”, the ultrasound probe, deep into the vagina of the patient.  Some legislation has stated that “consent is not required” either written in the law or by voting against amendments to allow for consent.  Medically, these examinations are unnecessary.

The defense that a woman who is pregnant has already been “penetrated” and should therefore have no say about a second penetration mandated by the state at the hands of a physician is ludicrous.  It is the same as saying that a pregnant woman cannot be raped.

Physicians do not have the right to perform unwanted and unnecessary examinations of their patients.  Even external examinations of the breast, genitals, abdomen, back or extremities must be done with the tacit approval of the patient, and that may be withdrawn at any point during an examination.

The intentions of laws mandating transvaginal or even transabdominal ultrasounds are irrelevant.  They constitute unwanted touching or penetration if they are done without consent, they are medically unnecessary, and they force physicians to violate the law, their conscience and their sacred oath.

State ordered rape is an egregious abuse of legislative authority, and if and when there is an accounting, every legislator and governor that has ordered or facilitated this crime will be tried for crimes against humanity.

For the physicians participating in this crime, they should find the strength to oppose it.  Weakness in this circumstance is criminal negligence.  Doing something they know is wrong because they are complying with an illegal order does not excuse them, and it won’t protect them from charges of assault or rape.

American Sharia Law

Whether you think Sharia Law is a good thing or not, it is becoming an increasingly influential force in American law.  I don’t mean to suggest that there have been laws that are specifically identified as Sharia Law, but rather individual laws that have not been part of American law but are enacted as layers within current law or that may upend laws or principles that have been traditionally American.

While there may be overlap between Sharia and American jurisprudence, there are also differences, particularly in regard to laws regulating individual behavior.  When people speak of “enacting Sharia Law”, they are usually referring to changes in the current laws of the United States that would conform to principles embodied in Sharia Law.

Recognizing this phenomenon may be difficult for some.  Many expect Sharia Law to come with a label, or to be proposed by Muslims, or to be written in Arabic, or to be as easily recognizable as a law requiring a woman to wear a Burka.  It may be, however, a law proposed by Christians born in the United States carrying Bibles and wrapped in the Flag.  I will present guidelines for recognizing Sharia laws that are currently gaining popularity and that may transform our society.

Our society is permissive.  The federal government is severely limited by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from interfering in the private affairs of the citizens, and we hold privacy itself to be an important feature of our laws.  Likewise, Equality is both a goal and a result of our Constitution and laws.  Sharia Law in contrast can be very personal and has no intent to effect privacy or equality, but rather seeks (in the manner described in this paper) to regulate the private (noncriminal) behavior and morality of the citizens.  In general, any fundamental change in this relationship between the government and its citizens that invades privacy, restricts liberty or hinders equality is, in effect, Sharia Law even if there has not been any reference made to the Qu’ran or the Sunnah.

Sharia Law is also known for Draconian punishments.  It may be a matter of opinion whether the severity of these punishments is appropriate or not, but there is little debate that some of the punishments are harsh.  Laws that seek to enhance our own punishments in ways that make them more severe than they are currently, or to introduce new unprecedented punishments for crimes (particularly those with moral implications) are examples of Sharia Law.

Just because it isn’t called Sharia Law doesn’t mean it isn’t Sharia Law.

Specific Examples

Homosexuality

Our Constitution does not address the sexuality of people.  Private behavior is, or should be, protected, and discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation has been held contrary to American principles.  In the Letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Congress regarding DOMA and DADT (Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), outlines the federal government’s role with respect to sexuality.  With respect to the Constitution and the States, laws that are being contemplated that restrict liberty (eliminating rights or countering imagined liberties) on the basis of sexuality are consistent with Sharia Law.

Speech

Most people recognize that laws to restrict speech, even speech with which we do not agree, violate the First Amendment protection of free speech.  Pornography, as one example of constitutionally protected speech, has had many detractors, but in general courts have held that adult pornography, especially for private purposes, is protected.  Most efforts to ban pornography are based on morals or religion, and laws or constitutional amendments that would carve out an exception for pornography are consistent with Sharia Law.

Reproduction

The current body of laws in the United States permits legalized abortion (Roe v. Wade) and birth control.  Efforts to restrict or ban abortion, regardless of their intrinsic merit, are consistent with Sharia Law in the sense that they regulate a couple’s (woman in particular) reproductive behavior for moral reasons.  Premarital (or extramarital) abstinence is the goal of many new American laws as well as Sharia, and some interpretations of Sharia prevent the use of abortion or birth control.

There are many other examples of Sharia Law in various states from the (proposed) law permitting Honor Killings in South Dakota to the laws that allow the death penalty for child molesting in Louisiana (and elsewhere).  [A history of the use of the death penalty for child rape can be found here.]  One could argue that many older laws that have been overturned (or amendments repealed, including Prohibition), were motivated by the same concerns as Sharia law and they have one other feature in common:  They restrict personal liberty for what the proponents feel is a good cause.

That should be your guide to recognizing Sharia Law.  Ask yourself if a proposed new law or constitutional amendment meddles with the personal liberty of those who will be affected by the law.   If it does and you support it, then don’t be ashamed to admit it.  Just say, “I want to have this Sharia law enacted.”

I’m sure your friends will be impressed with your honesty.

Jobs and Education

If we look to the future, when we talk about outsourcing jobs, when we talk about global competitiveness and our efficiency, none of that matters very much unless we have appropriate training and education for our young people today who are the workforce of tomorrow. It is an economic reality, and we are failing.
- Bill Frist

In the United States, we hold that the classes are not fixed.  We are not bound by titles of nobility, wealth or heredity.  “All men are created equal.”  Class mobility is a hallmark of our national psyche, our ethos.  We bask in the shared glory of those who have risen above their “station in life” and occupy the height of wealth and society.  Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and a college dropout, is one such person, and when we want to demonstrate that we have a mobile class structure, we can enlist his success to show others that we are a society where anything is possible.  There are, indeed, many, many such stories.

The stories are the exceptions, of course, and not the rule, and everyone knows this deep down, but we always hold out the possibility of success – without considering that there may be both some fundamental and inalterable reasons for class immobility and some factors that may favor mobility that are inherent in the individual. 

My sister-in-law, who is now deceased, argued fervently with me that there are no individual limits to success.  She believed that every person, regardless of any mental or physical limitation, could achieve the same level of success if they were given equal opportunity.  I challenged her belief with what I thought would be an example that was irrefutable; a mentally retarded child could not become a physician.  She was adamant that this should prove to no more than an obstacle to be overcome.  I argued that mental retardation is not only a limitation that would prevent them from retaining the information a physician needs to understand complex medical problems but it would prevent them from deriving a method of evaluating the problems, analyzing the information and prescribing a remedy.  Again, she opined that given opportunities for education appropriate for their level of understanding that the mentally challenged could, in fact, eventually absorb the information and use that information to be effective physicians.

Given my medical training and life experiences, I left that discussion thinking that her reasoning was incredibly naïve.  The mentally challenged could indeed function in society – but at a job and performing tasks appropriate to their abilities.  (I will talk more about this later.)

It occurred to me that, despite a significant number of exceptions, there are people who are poor because they have jobs that do not provide a living wage, but they may be unable to perform tasks that would allow them to take jobs in complex fields such as finance or technology.  There are also, however, people doing simple tasks that make a good wage.  This difference might indeed come from opportunity and training rather than ability alone, but the job must be available to provide that living wage.  The (rare?) exceptions are those that possess incredible intelligence or ability that lack the opportunity to improve their lot.  They can’t afford college; their upbringing did not include incentives to excel.  And so they languish in menial jobs.  A rare few break out of this mold, and that is why they are the rarest of exceptions.  The difference might be parents, scholarships, grants, or possibly even an idea that is marketable. 

My sister-in-law’s attitude was very generous towards the less fortunate, and so she viewed opportunity as the limiting factor in their success of everyone, but I heard another approach towards the less fortunate that was miserly, or at least unsympathetic.  Embracing the same idea that all individuals are equally capable of success, Herman Cain, who is currently a candidate for the Republican nominee for the Presidency, said,

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!  […]  It is not a person's fault because they succeeded, it is a person's fault if they failed.”

Without considering lack of opportunity, mental or physical limitations, Cain has put the blame for poverty squarely on the poor.  My sister-in-law would be very upset with Mr. Cain, but they both share the belief that the poor should be able to succeed regardless of their limitations.

Cain’s attitude, I believe, would remove opportunities, not create them.  Even the best idea requires some investment of capital to be successful.  Who would grant a loan to a proven “failure”?  Who would want to provide a loan for college to a “failure”?  If the poor are to blame for their own failure and resulting poverty, then they may as well be “Dalits”, the untouchables of the Indian caste system.  Cain seems to be implying that if they are poor, it is the fate they deserve.

Regardless whether Mr. Cain meant his remarks to be inspiring to the poor to “work harder” or “make your own opportunities”, the implication remains that the poor have the same abilities as the successful, but they are failures because of other failings:  a failure of will perhaps.

In any event, I have started thinking about the structure of society and the social and economic strata that we have currently.  Ideally, we should have a system that provides opportunity to all to achieve the best possible result, but the aim of that result should also be consistent with ability.  We should not, despite my sister-in-law’s insistence, expect those of limited ability to achieve as much as those of great ability.  We should reward ability, but not punish limitations.

Our task is to provide an education for the kind of kids we have... Not the kind of kids we used to have... Or want to have... Or the kids that exist in our dreams.
- Mary Kay Utecht

In the book, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, social and economic status was fixed by synthetically augmenting or limiting intelligence.  These strata (alpha, beta, gamma, delta and epsilon) were rigidly enforced by law and science.  The exact percentages of each of the categories of intelligence were precisely created in test tubes so that there would be enough of each “class” to perform the necessary tasks, but not so many that there would be competition and a waste of intelligence or ability, or a burden on society with unneeded numbers of those with deliberately limited or augmented ability or intelligence.  Everyone was supposed to be content with his or her job.  No one was given tasks they were unable to perform, and no one was capable of performing tasks above the degree of difficulty of their assigned jobs.  There were none so disabled that they couldn’t perform some needed task.

Let me be clear that I am not advocating rigid social structure based anything like Brave New World.

If I were to design a Utopian society starting with humanity as it is, instead of humanity as it could be artificially constructed, I would aim for a society where everyone has work that they can do, that they enjoy, and for which they are perfectly suited.  This work, regardless of the type, would provide a means of living that allows for enjoyment of life outside of work.

The challenges of such a Utopian vision are many.  How could we ensure that those of great ability and high intelligence are not trapped in circumstances that fail to take advantage of those qualities?  How can we know that people who are elevated to positions requiring certain qualities actually have those qualities and can function in the jobs they have?

On paper, our capitalistic society has the solution to these problems.  We reward accomplishments, and we provide equal opportunity while not expecting or demanding equal results.  We compensate effort and accomplishment so that everyone receives what they merit, and although we reward different skills differently, there is an ideal that everyone working deserves at least a “living wage.”  We incentivize success and define success in several ways: monetary success, fame or reputation, comfort and health.

On paper, equal opportunity comes from public education where skills are refined and abilities defined.  We have a minimum wage that is supposed to provide for a living wage for even menial jobs, and we have a “social safety net” to prevent those with the least ability, or with significant physical or mental limitations, from starving or dying of preventable and/or treatable diseases.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that reality does not match the vision.  All of the tools are in place to create a Utopian society, but the goal escapes our grasp.  The system has flaws, and without addressing these flaws, the United States will degenerate into an aristocracy and the poor will be neglected.

There are so many variables in the equations that determine how the economy functions that it is not possible to consider them all in a single paper, but the single issue that I wish to address is unemployment.  This issue, however, is in turn affected by many other factors, but rather than considering the working force as a homogenous group of equals, I think it might be helpful to consider the workforce as a Bell-shaped curve where there are broad categories of people who have different potentials.

When we compare the IQ of college graduates to the population, we see that the mean IQ is about 1 standard deviation above average.  This tells us that 1) there are a lot of people who would probably do well in college that have not gone to college and 2) as a measure of accomplishment, college education tends to correlate with higher intelligence. 

I do not mean to suggest that opportunities for college education should be limited to those who meet some arbitrary intelligence criteria, but I do suggest that college is not the only means of enhancing ones ability to work, and we should not be so narrow-minded that we overlook other types of education or training that may be better suited to people that are unlikely to excel in college.

The first condition of education is being able to put someone to wholesome and meaningful work.
- John Ruskin

I would agree with Laurence Lessig that “a safe and prosperous nation requires a well educated youth.”  I would also agree that there are many people who would do well in college that may never have the opportunity, but I disagree that “we can educate our children, including the poorest among us, to achieve college-bound competency” if, by “our children” we mean all of our children.

Almost everyone is capable of performing tasks that can translate into a job.  Almost all tasks require training.  It is my belief that our youth should be prepared for jobs with training that can take place either in high school, on-the-job or in trade schools if they are unable or unwilling to meet the standards set for colleges and universities.

In the last century, jobs were usually plentiful.  Many jobs consisted of relatively routine tasks in manufacturing or agriculture that would not require a college degree.  Our current unemployment crisis has affected these jobs disproportionately more than those that require a college degree, and unemployment among college graduates is approximately 4.1% while unemployment in general is approximately 9.1%.

My sister-in-law would probably argue, along with many educators, that the answer to high unemployment should be for everyone to have a college degree regardless of ability.  A college degree that does not enable the person to perform at a job is nothing but a piece of paper.  The Scarecrow notwithstanding, one does not become more capable or smarter because of a degree.  College does not necessarily provide specific job-ready skills, but instead can be a measure of flexibility, adaptability and aptitude.  There are jobs that are best suited for college graduates, but let’s not presume that all jobs require college education, or that having a college degree makes people more employable in the general workplace.

A realistic plan to promote employment of the population that is not college educated needs to address the fact that jobs for that segment of the population are disappearing.  Task oriented jobs have gone to overseas companies with lower wages (that we would not consider a “living wage”) or to automation.  There is no reversing the trend towards automation, but we can bridge the gap between training and the demand for jobs that require specific training. 

“Economic shifts — some potentially temporary, some permanent — have stranded an increasing number of unemployed workers in job limbo because their skills don't match up with employer demand.”

What I have suggested here may be considered a temporary fix for what may prove to be a permanent problem.  Thinking far, far ahead, what would happen if every routine job, from check-out clerk to truck driver to bank teller, could be replaced with a computer or a robot?  It may seem far-fetched, but look around and you will see it happening. 

Whether we can successfully negotiate the replacement of humans with technology may depend on market forces.  More unemployment might lead to less demand and less reason to consider automation.  Or the reverse:  More unemployment might decrease demand thus driving the trend towards automation in an effort to reduce operating costs.  Whether it augurs a nightmare future or a future of opportunity, it will remain true that “a safe and prosperous nation requires a well educated youth.”

Our challenge is to match education to the needs of society and with the abilities and desires of the individual.  We either meet the challenge or fail as a society.

Double Talk and Persuasion

I saw it tonight with my very own eyes, heard it with my ears.  A cause promoted in the interests of the people was stolen, twisted and regurgitated in a form that would take the steam out of a movement and turn it against itself.

That is exactly what is happening in this country, and it is slicker than slight-of-hand.  In just a few sentences, a politician magically transformed ire against wealth disparity into a call to decrease taxes on the wealthy.

Huh?  I still can’t believe it, but it is becoming almost routine.  It may not work with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, but it has worked in other ways for millions of Americans who saw their anger at Wall Street’s disastrous gamble being bailed out by the taxpayers transformed into a call for deregulation of Wall Street.

Huh?

Hard to believe?  Let me start with tonight.  Eric Cantor, who not long ago expressed his concern about the “mobs” occupying Wall Street and other cities around the country, said that he understands their concerns about wealth disparity.  The Republicans are all about upward mobility fairness, he said.  And to help those whose incomes have been stagnant, he, Eric Cantor, has a plan.  The plan will increase jobs and salaries by encouraging the 1% to create jobs by – wait for it – decreasing taxes on the wealthy by 10%.

Huh?

At a time when the wealthiest 1% saw their income increase by over $1,000,000.00 a year, with the lowest tax rates in half a century and special tax breaks only for the wealthy, Eric Cantor wants to give the wealthy more tax breaks so that they will have more money to invest in jobs. 

One imagines the wealthy sleeping on mattresses stuffed with hundred dollar bills and having problems finding places to store more cash.  What in the world will they do with more money?  And what makes Representative Cantor think giving them more will help the average American?  Certainly not history.

With politics so highly polarized, the TEA party’s transformation from a populist movement to a highly conservative, maybe even regressive, movement almost escaped my notice.  Their messages were sometimes mixed with foolishness and racism, and their obvious dislike of Obama invited Democrats to see them as “the enemy.”  Most Democrats see the elections of 2010 and the obstructionism after that as vindication of the “us versus them” polarity, and polls that show the majority of the TEA party are, in fact, Republicans substantiate that.

Something happened that changed my mind a bit; not about the TEA party’s influence or the way that their voters have affected elections, but about what the movement was really about in the first place.  I noticed that the actual complaints from the Occupy Wall Street were almost identical to those of the TEA party at the very start of the movement.

To wit: 

The TEA party objected to “bailouts” of Wall Street and other businesses.  Taxpayer money was being funneled into financial institutions with virtually no accountability right after Wall Street had blown trillions on high stakes gambling with “derivatives” and other practices that were permitted by the deregulation of Wall Street.

Why would this group support further deregulation of Wall Street?  Why would this group support tax subsidies for corporations making billions of dollars in profits?  Why would this group insist that the wealthiest of the wealthy need more tax breaks?

The TEA party was upset when they thought the Democrats might make cuts in Medicare.  The screamed “Death Panels” when they thought the cost cutting measures of Medicare might lead to the need for Medicare to approve some charges and not others that might allow hopeless cases to die rather than receive treatment.  The most mixed up message was, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!”

Why would this group support the repeal of Medicare as we know it?

Democrats have been perplexed at how people could vote against their best interests and vote in favor of those who we can call the 1%, and rightly so, but the more perplexing thing is how they seem to be voting against the very things that inflamed the movement to begin with.

The extremely conservative Republicans whose support comes primarily from the extremely wealthy have (almost) perfected the art of getting people to support the exact opposite of what they want and even what they need.  The mental manipulation could have been taken from a book on “How to make a cult.”

There may be several steps, but they follow a pattern.

1.     Sympathize with the interests of the group.

2.     Equate these interests with some aspect of their own agenda.

3.     Change the nature of the complaint (misdirect)

4.     Voice their agenda as the goal of the group.

A group or cause that has had their message thus transformed may have buyer’s remorse and so may regret endorsing this agenda, but they also have cognitive dissonance, bolstered by a loyalty and trust (that was misused).  If the misdirection is at least superficially logical and fits with their other values, they will find a way to support the substituted agenda.  Both the group and the conservative cheerleaders (emphasis on “leaders”) may use confirmation bias and selective ignorance to avoid further cognitive dissonance.

In steps two and three, simplification to the point of oversimplification can take a complicated issue and effectively make the issue itself disappear. 

When I reviewed the speeches, I found specific rhetorical cues that identify when the message is being changed.  I’ll present some later, but first let me give examples of how specific messages were changed.  Hijacked would be a better word perhaps…

1.     Wall Street Bailouts

Republicans said they too were against bailouts and blamed them on the Democrats even though the TARP program was devised and initiated by President Bush.  They said that Government was to blame.  Governments are bad because they do things like bailouts and over regulation.  “We need to fight government regulation!”

2.     Medicare

Republicans said they supported Medicare and were horrified by the prospect of cutting these programs.  Excessive government spending will mean that programs like Medicare will become insolvent.  Government giveaways and “entitlement programs” like welfare caused this country to near bankruptcy.  We need to cut or eliminate entitlement programs – like Medicare.

I have been focusing on these two items, but there are many other similar examples.  Elimination of the EPA, for example, was seemingly out of left field, but by equating this with government spending and regulation (which they consistently aligned with government “on their backs”) they made the EPA a target of the TEA party.

The TEA party wasn’t persuaded to support a radical approach to government that would leave businesses to squeeze customers, cheat customers and pollute their customers; they were tricked into supporting these causes.

Cognitive dissonance leaves them unable to back away from these caustic and harmful positions because they are told that they supported them from the beginning.

Quite a trick, isn’t it?

Changing the emphasis from rebuilding roads and bridges, hiring policemen, firefighters and teachers to government spending and taxes taken from the working people can make people who complain about the lack of good roads, disintegrating bridges, lack of law enforcement, inadequate response of fire departments and the poor quality of education support letting the roads and bridges fall apart and firing public workers.

I have a friend who had decided that Medicare should be eliminated.  He was on dialysis from diabetic kidney disease when he voiced this complaint and he subsequently received a kidney transplant – both funded entirely by Medicare through the Medicare Special Needs Plan.  Without this support, he would have died.  He had become convinced that his own health was subordinate to the evil that is “government spending and taxation.”

Consider that a Republican congressman or congresswoman that belittles public sector employees and their “overgenerous health and retirement plans”:

1.  Is a public sector employee

2.  Makes more than almost all other public sector employees

3.  Has one of the best health care plans in the world

4.  Has one of the best retirement plans in the world

The rhetorical tricks I mentioned parallel the steps I mentioned that are used to change a group’s message into their own agenda.

“We can all agree that…”

And the game is on.  They sympathize with the concerns expressed.

“The cause of [your concern] is something we’ve known for a long time…”

Their cause is your cause?  Really?

“We know that…”

Taxes hurt business?  The wealthy invest when they have money to invest?  Poor people are lazy?  This is where misdirection becomes an art, and oversimplification makes complicated problems easy to define in terms that are both misleading and enticing at the same time.  The twisted logic plays on the patriotism, prejudices and preconceptions of the people and ignores facts and history.

“The only solution to this problem is…”

Beware of the word “only”.  Their solutions address their misdirection instead of the original concern, but since they have tied the original concern to their agenda the solution will seem to follow, even if the solution will exacerbate their concerns.

I didn’t pay much attention to this when it was happening at first.  I just marveled that people could be led to believe that their interests were being addressed by actions counter to their interests.

Now that I understand, I can explain that vague feeling of nausea I get when I hear Eric Cantor speak.

“Job Creators”…. 

Excuse me for a moment-

Even understanding this cannot explain why Eric Cantor and his colleagues push an agenda that benefits the wealthiest while harming the rest of the country.  In order to understand that, it is necessary to examine the influence of Money in Politics.

That, too, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.