The Big Tent Myth

Each of the dinosaur political parties claims to promote a “big tent” philosophy.  Following their primary and caucus battles for the nomination, they scramble to the “center” to appeal to a broad sector of the American electorate. The flaming lefty Democrats attempt to appear more sane and reasonable, and the great Republican Establishment wants to be viewed as more “compassionate” and “inclusive.” If they were selling breakfast cereal, The Federal Trade Commission would cite them both for fraud and misrepresentation. Historically, two major parties have contended for the hearts and minds of the United States’ voters, and the Republicans and Democrats have dominated the political scene for the past 156 years. There have been attempts by third parties to crack the vise-grip hold of the two parties, but their efforts have altered outcomes without winning the elections.

On a superficial level there seems to be some logic behind the “big tent” mentality. After all a nation of 312 million people is difficult to govern without a consensus, so broadening the party’s appeal to reach a significant portion of the electorate seems to be a valid formula for legitimacy. The problem, however, is that the effort to reach a large portion of the population dilutes the message and purpose of each respective party. They transform from a robust meal of solid menu selections to a one-item fare of gruel. Both of the traditional parties play the game in such a fashion that their gruel offerings are very similar. The only detectable difference is that each type of gruel has a somewhat varying consistency. One grows the size of government geometrically, and the other a tad bitter slower.

The attempt to “be all things” to the most people leads to the erosion of philosophy, principles and standards as the guiding directives for a party. Some of the parties’ central beliefs are diluted to widen their appeal, and other planks are added to attract specific demographic groups in the country. All in all the result is that the two parties surrender their basic core values and become caricatures of themselves and near carbon copies of one another. The strategic efforts to erect the big tent often come down to a serendipitous event, an exposed scandal or a subtle shift in the economy as deciding factors for the peoples’ choosing one party or the other. The big tent approach results in voters not having a true clear choice between the two oligarchic parties. Their decisions are based upon false data and perceptions that are driven by highly-paid marketing and advertising experts. The “big tent” is in essence a big corral as the peoples’ choices and opportunities are limited by the two parties’ simultaneous attempts to convince the mushy middle and the special interests to give them power.

The stratagem employed by the two old parties begs the question: can a party with a strong principled foundation attract enough voters to be viable? Are principles, standards and strong beliefs possible in a nation as large and as diverse as the United States of America? Do strong positions that are based on unchangeable principles cause many voters to be wary and suspicious of the party that promotes them? Or are we condemned to our inevitable slide toward more government control over our lives……a form of socialism or fascism? By continually appealing to a mythical middle and governing via soft tyranny, the desire for bold action or the firm restoration of first principles is thwarted. Minor advances or retreats are hailed as great victories by both parties, and the people know it’s all a mirage. Indecision and cowardice replace morality and principles as the attributes of our “best’ political leaders. We lose sight of what really matters and endorse politicians who can “win.” By living so willingly under the big tent, we lose our view of the horizon.

When the herd is gathered under the “big tent,” true leadership will break from the herd and forge a new direction for freedom. The big tent forces each of us to conform to the assumed will of all the others. In reality the big tent creates a false consensus because we believe that others wish to be there too, and their desires are met under the big top. More probably, each of us yearns to grow, to develop and live in our own fashion without arbitrarily being identified as just like everyone else under the tent. The big tent smothers originality, creativity and individual liberty. The big tent is nothing more than a control mechanism to convince us to submit our own preferences to those of the group….the collective, the society and government. The larger the tent the smaller the opportunity is for individual fulfillment. Big tents create a national consensus that is miles wide, but has no depth or no core. I prefer to live in my own tiny tipi and to not be a burden for my neighbors. Save the big tents for the circus….that’s where the clowns are.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tuesday night 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

En

The letter “N” intrigues me. Though not as complete as “M,” it manages to be quite functional. As a political commentator, I enjoy foraging through polling and statistical data….numbers….starts with “n.” As a little child, I often rebelled against an “n” word….No! So, my relationship with “n” has been an up and down one over the six-plus decades of my life. “N” is used rather often when I describe politicians as in “numbskull,” no ethics, ninny or Nanny State. We often overlook “n” because it sits in the middle of the English alphabet….hidden from view and avoiding scrutiny. “A” and “z” are more popular, and the vowel aspect provides “a” with a more functional linguistic utility. Nevertheless, “n” slides through our discourse unnoticed but notably necessary.

No one knows the number of “n’s” that are needed for necessary communication clarification. Can you imagine a sentence or a paragraph that didn’t include an “n?” To reiterate: Ca you imagie a setece or a paragraph that did’t iclude a “ ?” Nearly impossible, isn’t it?

“N’s” are the worker bees of the language. They receive no notice and get no glory, but each and every day they silently go about their assigned tasks. “N’s” are the Tea Party. The Liberty group members are “n’s.” Anyone who labors in the vineyards of freedom without being recognized and glorified is an “n.” Just do the job and do it well. Slug forward for each inch of the battle ground, hold it, regroup and advance. That is what true “n’s” do….silently and effectively.   

Vowels are the glamorous members of the alphabet family. They are singled out for special recognition on “Wheel of Fortune.” The unforgettable and highly lauded “a, e, i, o, u and sometimes y” are indeed necessary for effective communication. The new age of texting has given them an amazing capacity for standing alone…without other letters complementing them. “U R a prince 4 doing it.” “Y not?” “N” on the other hand is generally relegated to a supportive but critical role. The most questionable use of  “n” is the taunting sound that uses “N’s” quite liberally: na, na, na, na, na……, ……na. This practice undermines the value of “n” and gives our quiet little buddy a bad reputation.

You may wonder why I would write such a frivolous column in these times of economic and political turmoil, or why I might write it during this season of Hope, Peace and Joy. Well, this is the time of year when many of us are more concerned about the unfortunate ones in our midst, and, in some respect, that could include the letter “n.” Also, during times of stress and chaos, we often fail to return to basic principles for answers to our difficulties. “N” is similar to a basic principle of economics and politics. Solid, unassuming, ever faithful, and sensible are qualities that are shared by “n” and many first principles. Selfishly I have always longed to be considered a man of letters, and this week could provide my big shot at philosophical and academic stardom.

Please never forget that little seen and never-praised “n” is a vital component in our efforts to communicate to others and for understanding one another. Never forget “n” and its contribution to human interaction in the English-speaking world. Never forget “n.” Never forget.

On Wednesday we’ll examine the sordid and exciting life of “O.”

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Wednesday, 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo   www.wspd.com

  We’ll be interviewing Santa Claus on Wednesday’s show.

Picking Perfect Priorities

Discernment is the act of exercising keen insight and good judgment. In other words…know what you can, understand the parameters and the consequences, and make the best choice possible. True discernment does not necessarily mean that one makes the choice that yields the most favorable outcome. The favorable path may be immoral, unethical or perhaps illegal. The best choice, therefore, may not be the one with the greatest yield. Bernie Madoff chose to engage in an enterprise that initially reaped high returns for his clients and him, but ultimately led to most of his customers losing their entire investments. In addition, Bernie now sits in an eight by twelve cell, and his family apparently loathes him (or it’s a ruse to minimize their liability).

One of the more popular slogans for those engaging in complex difficult tasks is “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” In other words if the goal can be generally achieved with a reasonable outcome, take it and move on. Do not allow your quest for perfection mire you into a fruitless, time-consuming effort when you could be moving on to other tasks or objectives. Discerning decision making is having the judgment to understand when “good” is good enough….additional time and talent will not significantly appreciate the value of the outcome. This column is not intended to be an esoteric exercise in decision making. I leave that to Robert Ringer, Stephen Covey and John Maxwell. This column is a follow-up of sorts to an earlier one (“What is your vision?”, 10-26-2011, www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com). In the previous column I urged you to identify and solidify what your vision for the nation would be if you had the power to implement it. If you cherish and respect the Founding and Framing documents, your vision can be defined more quickly, but getting from “here” to “there” requires a whole lot of vision, work and persistence.

Picking perfect priorities is a method for transitioning from vision to action. As we stated in the earlier column, the vision will establish the parameters for identifying candidates or issues that are consistent with the end result we desire. Reality often intervenes, however, so it becomes necessary to prioritize the qualities or attributes that we believe are essential for earning our support. Earlier I stated that I value constitutional fidelity based on principle, integrity and humility. You, on the other hand, may have different priorities. You may prefer tenacity, pragmatism or collegiality as your over-arching attributes for restoring our Founding ideals. With your vision defined you can choose the attributes that are most likely to lead toward your visionary goal for the country, and choose the people and issues that most closely match your template.

These two columns in tandem are not intended to be a sum total definition of the process for choosing whom or what to support in the governing and electoral processes. Just as a frame is not a house, these columns are not an action plan. A house does need a solid frame to be structurally worthy, and I believe that we need more than slogans, vague objectives and partisan rhetoric to achieve our goals and save our Republic. In the last election cycle, for example, Tea Party and affiliated groups elected 83 or 84 Republican members of the United States House of Representatives. Yet when the first major vote- raising the debt ceiling- was cast, more than 60 of those freshly-minted Representatives abandoned the overwhelming will of the people who elected them. Why? I believe that we failed to insist on strong constitutionalism from our candidates. “Smaller government” is not necessarily “constitutional government.” Our vision and our priorities were not definitive enough to truly identify candidates who shared our passion….or who were “lukewarm” and in “general agreement” with our objectives. We allowed the “apparent” good to supersede the quest for perfect, and we settled for weak unprincipled poseurs. The outcome, so far, has been disappointing, but as we more clearly define our expectations and do not allow ourselves to be stampeded into strictly partisan boxes, we can be more effective in vetting and identifying those who truly share our vision and our priorities.

The final column in this mini-series will be “Raveling.” We’ll attempt to design a framework for undoing the “unraveling” of the United States of America. See the “vision,” identify the “priorities,” and implement the “raveling” can be a formula for restoration. We must have a plan, and we cannot rely on a party establishment or leadership to share our values. They work unceasingly for power, and we should always labor for liberty. These are not complementary or compatible values.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

This week: Mon., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

    

What is your vision?

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Proverbs 29:18

We have a year until the 2012 elections. The 2011 local and issue elections are less than two weeks from now. Issues, candidates, parties and interested groups will all be vying for your money, your time and your support. If you are a regular reader of this column, you know that I believe principle, character and integrity are vital elements for deciding whom or what to support in the political arena. Those attributes refer to the candidates or the groups that are promoting various issues. The final critical facet to be considered involves you….yes you. What is your vision for your community, your state or our country? If you possessed absolute power to remake everything, what would your perfect picture illustrate?

We often chide or laud political leaders for visionary perspectives or lack of them. George H. W. Bush didn’t think too highly of “that vision thing,” but he wasn’t re-elected either. We desire the leader who has a firm vision for the future but a clear pragmatic grasp of present reality. This is a rare combination because we associate visionaries with inspiring rhetoric, big ideas and even larger dreams. The pragmatic realist, on the other hand, rolls the shirt sleeves and puts her head under the hood to torque, twist and tweak (a Ross Perot flashback). Our schizophrenic desires seem to be for a grease monkey who’s a gifted poet. The ideal leader may be out there somewhere, but the poet generally doesn’t want to wade in the sludge of politics, and the idealistic grease monkey doesn’t want to “waste” months or years trudging around the nation, state or district trying to convince voters that he or she can “fix it.” The doer wants to “do,” not talk about it.

As one of the group of deciders (voters), it is your duty to design the template for the type of leader that you wish to assume office. The pattern or “jig” should frame the vision, and the internal cuts, miters and routing should identify the principles, character and integrity of the candidates. It is your vision for the nation, the state or the community that should define which candidate or issue you support. Nuts and bolts, gears and shafts, bells and whistles are important elements for identifying the important qualities for a potential leader, but the entire assembled powertrain is needed for the vehicle to move forward.

When you imagine what our perfected 21^st Century United States should be, what role do you envision for the federal government? If you believe as I do that it should be limited to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, try to picture in your mind how we move from the sluggish invasive apparatus we have now to the smoothly running structure you desire. Too often constititutionalists have fallen for the slicksters who promise to deliver “smaller government” but fail to clearly define what they mean. If you have the picture or the template, then your questions for the candidate will expose her of his meaningless assertions and promises for what they are. If you do not have the template, the ideal firmly chiseled into your mind, the career politician or the eager opportunist is more likely to win your support and ultimately disappoint you……again.

But Charlie, you might protest, that’s their job. They should share their visions so we can thoughtfully weigh them. You may have a point, but we no longer live in the 18^th Century when our Founders and Framers debated what our future should be. Our current crop of “statesmen” contains few philosophers and even fewer thinkers. If you truly wish to preserve and restore the republic, you must contrast the model for the present era and support only those who share your goals. As you know so well, a person or a nation without a firm goal is condemned to wander aimlessly. If the goal is defined and clear, the path to reach it becomes clearer. If the politicians can deliver no more than lofty rhetoric and empty phrases, the people are duty-bound to design the goal and choose the pathway.

When we assemble something new, the bright shiny parts are rather easy to place together in an orderly fashion. We may make some mistakes in the process, but we can quickly dismantle and reconstruct the item. Restoring and rebuilding is usually much more difficult. Parts are greasy, rusted or worn. Tearing the old piece apart is laborious and breaking critical components is a very real possibility. Finding replacement parts may be nearly impossible so we’ll have to build or machine new ones. Fortunately we have the manual as our reference. We have The Constitution of the United States of America, and it is almost brand new because it hasn’t been used very much in the past. Draft your vision, build your dream, and perhaps….they will come.

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