GOP's Faustian Deal

During the presidential campaign several months back, when the news showed a McCain supporter asking him, "How did we get into this situation?" (i.e. losing ground to Obama and the Democrats) it got me thinking, because it's a really good question: What did the Republicans do to get themselves into the political abyss that they're in?

A good place to start looking is at the fractures that have developed within the GOP. On one side you have the political elite of the party, and on the other you have working-class, conservative Whites. The GOP is often seen as a monolithic entity, but it is actually made up of rich Whites and poor Whites, with a much smaller representation of traditionally-minded non-Whites, as well.

The story of Joe the Plumber illustrates the quirkiness of this alliance. Joe supported McCain, even though he would personally have benefited more from Obama's tax plan. He didn't oppose Obama's plan on the grounds that it would hurt him, but on the ideological grounds that higher taxes for the rich is a dis-incentive to becoming rich.

So Joe the plumber would rather have higher taxes for himself now, on the hopes that someday he can benefit from having more money with fewer taxes later - even though having more taxes now will make it more difficult to become rich later.

Why is this? What line of reasoning could possibly make sense out of this?

We all know that money is power, so what could possibly motivate someone to want those with so much power to have more of it, even at his own expense?

I think part of it has to do with the culture wars. In exchange for this twisted "trickle-down" approach that benefits rich, mostly White people at the expense of poor people of all colors, the GOP elites take on the cultural causes that poor Whites value, such as abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, and mixing Church with State.

But it's hard for me to believe that so many otherwise intelligent people would so willingly allow the rich and powerful to fleece them without getting something more than legislation of culture out of it. There has to be something more.

That "something more," has to do with the promise of power and money. It's a trick that the Chinese used very effectively for hundreds of years - anybody could become a powerful bureaucrat if he could just pass the written test. Whole villages would support their smartest child in the hopes that one day he could pass the test and bring wealth and prosperity to them in the future. In this way, the Chinese big-wigs kept up the appearance of fairness, which prevented revolt, and still got to hold onto vastly disproportionate power while only rarely letting anyone pass this "test". If Joe the Plumber is any indication, that technique is working very well for the GOP - Joe would rather have elected a man with 8 houses and 13 cars, and a wife who can wear $300k-worth of clothes and jewelry than a self-made Black man who would actually GIVE him money sooner rather than later. All on the promise that someday he too can benefit from a tax system that is skewed towards the rich.

And of course this all makes sense, because this isn't about fairness or even practicality. It's all about power. What are the culture wars about? Power. The power to enforce one group's values on everyone else. Take gay marriage as an example: When two same-gendered people decide to marry, who is really affected by that, aside from the gay couple? No one. Two consenting adults cannot hurt themselves or others by marrying each other, yet those on the Right are willing to spend millions of dollars in a terrible economy to intercede and prevent those couples from doing what they want. If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, then choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's fine and no one would condemn you for that. But when you pass laws that prevent others from marrying whom they love, you are enforcing your own religious beliefs on those who don't share those beliefs, and that is about POWER, not being a good Christian. Would it be appropriate for the state to force people into gay relationships for ANY reason? Of course not, because that would be an inappropriate violation of our rights.

So if you believe that it is appropriate to force men and women to marry heterosexually or not marry at all even though they don't share your religious beliefs, you care more about power than you do about anyone involved. And if you care about power that much, then of course you will be happy to buy into a tax scheme and ideology that favors the powerful - so long as you have a chance - one day - to BE one of those powerful people.

Of course, the path to such power in the GOP ideology is much easier for Whites than it is for anyone else. That is why minorities favor Democrats to Republicans so much. Many immigrant populations would favor the GOP for its traditional family values, except for the fact that the GOP is also traditionally anti-immigrant (particularly non-White immigrants), so these groups have no where to go but the Democratic party (or Independent). But for the poor Whites of this nation who feel powerless, the GOP offers a great solution - enforcement of cultural values on everybody now, and the promise of an unfair playing field skewed in their favor should they ever find a way to stop being poor.

So how does this relate to the original question? The GOP has fallen apart, and the reason is because of unrestrained power. What do you think will happen when those who care more about power than they do about their fellow man actually get that power? It is extremely destructive. Things fall apart, and people suffer. All of the ideologies and tactics of such power-hungry folks become suspect, and people become immune to their pleas for more power. A backlash develops, and that is what we witnessed in the electoral rejection of the Republican party.

And THAT is the answer to this one man's short, intelligent question.

Rush Limbaugh's Ego Is Anti-American

Rush Limbaugh has stated unequivocally that he wants Obama to fail. Why? Because, as he says, "...what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?"

Of course, such a statement makes you wonder why Rush thinks George W. Bush and the Congressional Republicans of 1995-2007 were so liberal, but there is an even deeper flaw in his logic:

The only reason why Rush would want Obama to fail - and thereby doom our country to greater deficits and a spiraling economy - is because he doesn't want his own beliefs to be discredited. He would rather be right and watch the country circle the drain than to be proven wrong in the marketplace of ideas, because Obama cannot 'succeed' unless his programs succeed, as well. If liberalism is such a blight on America as he supposes, then Obama's policies can't succeed. However, if they do succeed then Rush would be proved dead wrong in his assertion that liberalism is a dangerous problem.

His is the kind of ideo-logical (rather than simply 'logical') thinking that got us into this mess in the first place, and Rush's inability to see that is a function of his ego, pure and simple. Therefore, it is Rush Limbaugh's ego that is anti-American, and by his own logic it should be deported.

Fortunately we live in a country without 'Thought Police,' so it is up to those of us on the other side of his microphone to recognize the fallacy for what it is, and to move on to something that uplifts us all, not just one man's ego.

What the Obama Inauguration Means to Me

I was one of probably thousands of individuals who sent the Obama Team an essay on the following question: "What does Barak Obama's inauguration mean to you?" 10 winners were selected to attend the inauguration, and while I didn't win, I still think it's a pretty good essay, and a great way to start my "Nathan's Noodles" Blog:


The inauguration of Mr. Barak Obama to the United States Presidency means that over the coming years, I will be faced with a daily challenge to my latent choices of fear over action, drama over partnership, mediocrity over excellence, and selfishness over service.

In this life, we all face challenges that make it difficult to fulfill our vision for a better tomorrow. However, on inauguration day the leader of the free world – and our foremost role model – will be a man who was not challenged by the assumption that he couldn’t be elected, but who instead challenged the validity of that assumption. Rather than accept the limitations that the world would put on him, our President will be a man who chose something different, something better, something more difficult but also far more worthwhile.

Every day of Mr. Obama’s Presidency will be a reminder to me and to all Americans that the world we are born into never limits us, but instead it gives each of us a unique set of choices. This is our greatest freedom – the freedom to choose – and that freedom is paid in the currency of consequence.

In the coming years, as I watch the unlikeliest of Presidents do his job, I will see that the power and prestige that he wields is not an accident of birth or the product of luck, but the consequence of choice. He chose to live a life that is far better than anyone could have imagined for him, and if he can make that choice, what is stopping me from doing the same? Is today’s distraction worth the price of a future I can be proud of? When those who don’t understand my vision obstruct its fulfillment, will I retreat and then blame them for my failure? When I have given all of myself, and still more is needed, will I console myself that I’ve given enough, or will I find a way to dig even deeper?

I will find the answers to these questions in the unassuming, brown eyes of a man who should never have been President but chose to be anyway, and what I will see there is that I hold the power of choice – Only I can choose to be even stronger than my circumstances. For if there is anything to be learned from Mr. Obama’s historic victory, it is that the world we live in is not a monolithic obstacle to our greatest hopes and dreams, but instead it is the sum total of all our choices. If we have the power to choose hatred, division, war, and greed, then we also have the power to choose compassion, unity, peace, and charity. Our individual choices cannot help but to change the world we live in, so that hopefully, someday, all of our fellow human beings across the globe will know the power of their undeniable freedom, their unstoppable power to choose a better tomorrow for themselves, for their children, and for every generation to come.

Mr. Obama won the Presidency by reminding us of the power that each of us has to choose something better, and on January 20th his pledge to serve the American people as President will be a call for all of us to serve our collective vision of a world that is better today than it was yesterday. I will answer that call, and with President Barak Obama as a living example of life’s truest possibilities, I know that I will succeed because his Presidency will be an unavoidable reminder of the consequence of individual choice, and as a result, anything less than my very best is a choice that I can not and will not accept.