Littlestuff Weekender-10-8-2011

As the nine announced candidates are vying to secure the GOP presidential nomination, various states are jockeying for early primaries. So far it seems the primary season will get underway right after the New Year which means that about three months remain before the selection process begins in earnest. Polling and straw polls will lose their significance as the voters in their respective states trudge to the polls and select their favorite. The condensed primary schedule places a premium on money raising for the candidates because the opportunities for retail face-to-face campaigning have been minimized so mass media buys, direct mail and robo-calls become critical.

There are times when the gullibility and cluelessness of my fellow citizens drives me to despair. Now is one of those times. The President and his “pass the bill” mantra has become tiresome because we know that: 1) it represents a huge tax increase during a recession; 2) it is “stimulus II” which subsidizes public employees for one year; 3) it funnels piles of money to unions who will, in turn, contribute to Obama’s campaign; and 4) he doesn’t expect it to pass and wants to “blame” Republicans for not creating jobs. Yet, some people will “buy” his theme despite the clear evidence provided by Harry Reid’s failure to move the bill.

Here in Ohio we have less than a month until we vote on three statewide issues. Issue 1 changes the maximum age for running for judge in the state courts from 70 to 75. Issue 2 deals with the legislative effort to repeal mandatory collective bargaining/binding arbitration for public employees and local governments and school boards (SB 5). Opponents of repeal got the measure qualified for a referendum so the citizens of Ohio can address the issue. A “Yes” vote allows the changes the General Assembly passed, and a “No” would repeal the new legislation.

Issue 3 is the “Healthcare Freedom Amendment” that allows Ohioans and Ohio to “opt out” of the individual mandate imposed by Obamacare. This issue is a grassroots attempt to enforce the 10^th Amendment since the State Legislature has exhibited neither the inclination nor the will to challenge another federal government over reach. A “yes” vote would signal the feds to put their usurpation of individual freedom of choice right where the sun never shines. A “no” vote is a ringing endorsement of Big Brother and the Nanny State. It is difficult to assess what the turnout may be since our “early voting” period has begun, and the progressives/socialists/statists have mastered the art of gaming the system.

Today is the “Day of Atonement” for the Children of Israel. It’s a very special and sacred time for reconnecting and restoring one’s relationship with G_d.

For those of you who are Christian or secular….78 shopping days until Christmas.

“Occupy” (fill in the blank) will not be covered in today’s column because to this point they don’t have large enough numbers to “occupy” phone booths and porta potties.  

We have a big weekend planned with much driving across and around western Ohio. Enjoy your weekend. Cherish your loved ones. Always stand for liberty.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. and Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

Ending Entitlements

As a small-government constitutionalist (actually I prefer the Articles of Confederation), I shudder when I suggest that it may not be prudent or practical to end our federal entitlement apparatus. Entitlements represent the epitome of government theft by force. They take the wealth and property from one citizen and transfer it to another. The problem is that our entitlement mentality has become so entrenched that weaning the recipients could result in violent confrontation. The very last development we can afford in times of fiscal and social stress is to encourage or implement robust policing by the government. Neither the welfare state nor the police state is healthy for liberty.

Another factor that affects the wisdom of eliminating the major portion of the entitlement structure is the regulatory over reach of government at every level. If our goal is to remove people from government benefits, there must be a viable alternative for them to support themselves, their families and to pursue personal wealth. The present regulatory nightmare is not friendly for new startups and, in many cases, discourages creative, energetic people from becoming entrepreneurs. The same government that developed programs to create dependency status for recipients has erected innumerable barriers for those who wish to become self-sufficient.

Dismantling the entitlement and welfare superstructures is a good start towards smaller more constitutional government, but for the reasons cited above and for philosophical and constitutional reasons, the regulatory maze must be simultaneously disassembled. In many respects an attempt to develop a sensible regulatory regime will be infinitely more challenging than ending the entitlement fiasco. Layer after layer, exception after exception and rule after rule exist in a political lasagna of nanny-state oversight. The multi-layered regulatory control mechanism will be extremely difficult to unravel. As one tier or another is peeled away, some unscrupulous individuals or companies may seek to take advantage of the opening. Their schemes could cause the public and the professional political class to demand the restoration of the regulatory oversight. In addition the various agencies and departments are so over-lapped that eliminating one noxious regulation may expose another just as toxic.

Now we move back to the original premise of this column. The drastic reduction of the entitlement/direct subsidy function of the government must be drastically reduced or eliminated altogether in order to restore fiscal sanity and constitutional government. That isn’t enough however as the myriad rules and regulations lie in wait to subvert our efforts to secure our liberty. The task is monumental, but it is vital if we are to pull Nanny’s rug out from under many of our fellow citizens. Concurrent with their weaning they must have a corresponding freedom to pursue their personal prosperity. We cannot in good conscience destroy their lifeboats on which they have depended perhaps for generations without providing the life vests of freedom. Unskilled people whose motivations and dreams have been blunted by government handouts must be allowed as much leeway as is possible to develop the skills and habits necessary for survival…..and for thriving.

Our federal government has grown so large and cumbersome that an objective analysis would suggest that inefficiencies and cost overruns are standard operating procedure. One doesn’t have to be a constitutionalist to understand that our government cannot adequately perform the tasks that it has claimed for itself. Reducing the monster to a functional role is a monumental task. Shrinking the leviathan to its constitutional function requires a radical vivisection that will cause massive disruptive upheaval. The radical remedy is the only viable one because we have experienced the steady growth of government in our lifetimes. Partial solutions will result in little gain as the incremental reestablishment of big government will accelerate and overwhelm us.

We cannot simply address the looter class and their living off the largesse of productive taxpayers. We must attack and eliminate every tentacle of the big government monster in order to rebuild the dream of our Founders and Framers. Restructuring and rebuilding will be painful. The path to restoration is littered with traps and foes. We must be strong. We must be resolute. We must be victorious.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

   

  

Rhetorical Flourishes and Fizzles

Good speakers are rare. Great speakers are rarer, but rhetorical mastery should not be confused with sound principles and good ideas. We all have witnessed the nearly worshipful attention paid to Barrack Obama’s speechmaking skill when he was running for the presidency. Now that he has been in office for almost three years I assume that many of you share my vomit-in-the-mouth reaction whenever he approaches a microphone (usually every day) and engages in one of his repetitive, stammering and “uh-laden” painful addresses. His glaring weakness as a leader and his distorted priorities have demonstrated that eloquence alone is not enough for the leader of the free world---what’s left of it.

One of the more unfortunate aspects of our current political system is that people who speak well frequently say very little. Their verbal skills are directed towards disguising their true thoughts rather than revealing them. They have developed the ability to speak in “sound bite” fashion while failing to provide much detail that could open them to criticism. We citizens are somewhat responsible for the politicians developing that trait because of our short attention spans. We would rather have a brief unrefined answer than face the prospect of a long detailed explanation. As a consequence, some of our political speakers become frustrated by the short-answer format and respond with statements or ideas that may unsettle us. They have complexity and nuance to share, but mass media and our dismal listening habits combine to make their messaging difficult.

With 9 or more candidates vying for the Republican nomination we have an opportunity to compare and contrast rhetorical styles. Also, we have ample opportunities to analyze candidates’ statements for clarity and information. Each of the candidates has some unique attributes, but it is clear that some of them have either been coached or have diligently worked to hone their speaking style for the television/computer age. Others either shrug off the needed alterations for media type speaking or feel the need to thoroughly explain their positions despite the constraints imposed by the media and the audience.

To illustrate how the candidates vary with the rhetorical styles I will attempt to perform a “quickie” analysis of each of the GOP contenders. The two who have the most highly developed delivery styles in my view are Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. There is a vast difference between them, however, because Romney’s utterances for the most part are designed to minimize potential damage whereas Newt’s are directed towards innovation. Both of them are conscious of time constraints, but Newt’s professorial style sometimes causes him to drift outside the suggested time limit. Mitt’s precise and clipped answers suggest a monumental rehearsal regimen, and he sometimes fails to utilize his entire allotted time. Herman Cain’s rhetorical toolbox is fast approaching the previous two. In the early stages of the campaign he left too many unanswered questions on the table, but as he becomes more comfortable in the spotlight, his answers and statements have been more fully developed.

Rick Perry has a plain folksy delivery, but when he delivers a statement or answers a question, he appears to circle before landing the punch line. Personally, I get frustrated with this approach because I prefer to have more “meat” in the sandwich rather than a lovely garnish with a small entrée. Michele Bachmann has adopted a combative style that seems to work for short bursts of intensity but at times appears to lack thorough substance. Rick Santorum, too, has an intense speaking style that slides into passion when he is particularly concerned about a specific issue. He has not mastered the short answer and appears compelled to filibuster with his passionate delivery.

Jon Huntsman seems to be groping for a rhetorical tool that he can call his own. When he attempts to portray intensity, he appears like a professor. Gary Johnson acts as if he were extremely frustrated…perhaps justifiably so because his positions get very little media notice and minimal face time at the debates. Dr. Ron Paul has the weakest rhetorical style of the nine candidates, but he wastes no words and lacks the slick methods one would expect from someone who’s been in the political arena for more than a quarter century.

Now that I have given you my interpretation of the speaking styles of the various GOP presidential candidates, I urge you to look and listen beyond the words. Parse the sentences and the statements. Are they real, solid and substantive, or are they elegant sounding fluff? Do NOT be fooled by well-coached meaningless rhetoric. We already have one of those in the White House, and we’re trying to get rid of him. It appears that the primary season will be sooner and shorter than it has been historically. That suggests that more people may be swayed by someone who is a “good speaker.” Sound principles, honesty, consistency and integrity are far superior criteria for choosing someone who could be our next president. Go past the words…..to the heart. It is your responsibility.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

    

"Across the Field"

Because these columns are read all over the United States and the planet, I am aware that most of you are not Ohio State football fans. In fact, I would wager that a significant number of you loathe the Buckeyes. Bear with me as I use their recent troubles to illustrate how our nation stepped into the mess where we currently find ourselves. Those of you who follow college sports are probably aware that the OSU football team had to suspend five of its star players for 5 games this season and another 3 players for two games because they accepted illegal benefits as a result of their celebrity status. In addition, their highly successful coach for the past ten years was forced to resign. One of the five five-game suspendees decided to bolt for the NFL rather than face further sanctions for his misdeeds. He was the quarterback.

All of the suspended players were to be juniors or seniors this season. As a consequence, the Buckeye football program finds itself floundering with a 3-2 record after the first five games, and even when winning have looked bad. It’s the worst Ohio State team in the last twenty years. Certainly the suspended players are all talented athletes, but Ohio State prides itself on its ability to “reload” rather than rebuilding. The underclassmen that remain are talented athletes too and should have the athletic ability to play Big Ten (Twelve) football at a high level. The new head coach (interim) was an assistant under the previous regime, and as a former player with the Buckeyes should have a “handle” on the traditions and policies to continue the caliber of play OSU teams have routinely experienced.

The lengthy preamble to this column is intended to create an example of how our nation and our troubles came about. Any coach will tell you that talent and skill are important attributes for players, but leadership and team unity are absolutely vital for a winning program. The eight stars for the Buckeyes (actually seven because the quarterback skipped town) should be the leaders and the mortar for building team cohesion. Their transgressions, however, undermined their capacity for leadership because the other team members can no longer trust their judgment or rely on their sense of priorities. They have demonstrated that their personal preferences trump their responsibilities to the team. As a consequence, a talented group of athletes appear to be navigating the football season with no rudder and no compass. Those who should be leading and uniting have forfeited their status, and the remaining players are struggling to define their new roles within the system.

Our federal government and our national psyche are similar to the OSU program. Because of their venality, profligacy and inattention to the national good, our political leaders have lost their credibility and forfeited their stature as trusted leaders. They stumble around the national field and fumble opportunities to right the ship of state. When they attempt something grand to gain our approval, they throw an interception or miss the wide-open chance to score. When they attempt to tackle a vexing issue, they do so half-heartedly while allowing the problem to gain even more territory. Failure after failure causes the political class to stop throwing the long ball. They begin to diagram plays so as not to lose rather than designing them to win.

The fans and the citizens become increasingly frustrated with the ineffective activities taking place on the field. The clamor for change grows louder, and boos echo throughout the national stadium. The wrath of the people unsettles the team and the politicians even more as they grope for an antidote for the current mess. All, the team, the politicians and nation, overlook the obvious. In the midst of chaos simplicity works best. Reduce the playbook to what can work. Fall back on tried and true principles and do them well. Eliminate the superfluous and the “feel-good” gaudy. Stick to the basics. Block and tackle with power and intensity. Look to people of character to lead by example, and bring the team together around them. Do the simple and do it well. Restore the playbook to its original size and master the fundamental tasks. Kick butt and win games.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo.   www.wspd.com