An Exchange of Words: David B. Coe’s Weblog

My local newspaper ticked me off this morning.  At least half of it did.  For those of you who don’t know, the Chattanooga Times-Free Press used to be two papers, one progressive, the other conservative.  The papers merged and since neither editorial board was willing to cede control of content or opinions to the other, they both maintained (and continue to maintain) editorial pages.  Anyway, the conservative side of the paper was attacking Barack Obama today for saying that he thought the United States should use foreign aid funds to combat world poverty.  According to the paper, Obama’s proposal would cost up to $865 billion over 13 years.  Nevermind that the war in Iraq, which this side of the paper supports wholeheartedly, would cost more than twice that amount over the same period.  Wouldn’t combatting poverty be a better use of our treasure and power?  Isn’t it possible that we’d be thought of better throughout the world if we were as generous with food and medicine as we are aggressive with guns and bombs?

My daughter (the older one) is reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights for homework.  And because it’s densely written, and because Dad has a Ph.D. in history, we’ve been going through it together whenever she has trouble deciphering a section.  Reading it through once more, explaining to her what the clauses mean and why they’re important, I’m struck repeatedly by the genius of the Founders.  In particular I was struck by the following clause in Article I, Section 8, which gave Congress the power “To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”  My daughter thought it very cool that the copyright I enjoy on my books is provided for in the Constitution.  I thought it was cool that our Founders so prominently recognized the importance of the arts and sciences, even if our current leaders do not.

One of my dearest friends from college, Carla Wise, a brilliant, wonderful woman who has studied science and ecology for years and years, is now making a go of writing professionally.  Her focus is on sustainable agriculture and the local foods movement.  Here’s a link to her latest blog post, which is well worth reading:  http://eatdrinkbetter.com/

I am so sick of listening to the Republican Presidential candidates trying to lay claim to the “Reagan Legacy,” and if I hear John McCain say one more time that he was “a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution” I’m going to puke.  It’s time for a reality check, folks.  Ronald Reagan might well have ushered in a new political era, one in which conservatism, specifically religious conservatism, proved transcendant, (and one which is, to all appearances, finally, mercifully drawing to a close) but to call him a Great President is to strain credulity to the breaking point.

The Ronald Reagan I remember embraced trickle-down economics, a financial theory that was discredited half a century before by the onset of the Great Depression.  He cut taxes for the wealthy, increased military spending to ridiculous levels, and thus presided over soaring budget deficits, incurring a debt of over a trillion dollars that to this day continues to be a drag on our national economy.

The Ronald Reagan I remember propped up repressive but pro-Western governments in Latin America and Africa.  He funded a civil war in Nicaragua, giving arms and money to the brutal Contra rebels in violation of United States law, and he raised the funds by selling arms to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages, despite his claim that he would never, under any circumstances, negotiate with those who took hostages.

The Ronald Reagan I remember pushed for cuts in Social Security that were so draconian that members of his own party in Congress refused to go along.  He relaxed environmental controls on American businesses, setting back by decades national efforts to clean up our water and air.  During his presidency the gap between rich and poor widened to historic levels, more people fell into poverty and homelessness than at any time since the 1930s, increasing numbers of American workers found themselves working full-time but still earning too little to rise above the poverty line, the financial circumstances of African-American and Latinos worsened.  It was morning in America if you happened to be wealthy and white, but otherwise, good luck to you.

Of course, Reagan’s supporters always point out that he presided over the end of the Cold War.  Actually, they usually claim that he “won” the Cold War, as if the downfall of the Soviet Union was his doing alone; as if the presidencies of Truman and Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, were all some sort of Cold War Preseason that didn’t count; as if during the period from 1947 to 1987 diplomats in the State Department, leaders of both parties in Congress, and our allies in Western Europe were just sitting there twiddling their thumbs waiting for the Gipper to come along and save them.  Give me a break.

Actually, when you think about it, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have a great deal in common:  huge deficits, regressive tax policies, utter disregard for the environment, attempts to inject religion into our government and politics, unscrupulous Attorneys General (Edwin Meese was Reagan’s Alberto Gonzales), cavalier attitudes toward Constitutional limits on Executive power.  The only difference was that Reagan managed to do it all with charm and elegance and grace, while Bush comes off as bumbling and incompetent.  But in other ways they’re really quite similar; it’s just the times that have changed.  And thank goodness for that.

Today’s music:  Jerry Douglas (Restless on the Farm)

Ever go to www.crooksandliars.com?  Great site.  It’s kind of a compendium of the daily posts from various left-leaning blogs (along with clips from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, when they’re airing new segments).  Yesterday, there was a post from Jamie Holly lamenting the spate of deadly shootings we’ve seen in the States over the past week or so – the Omaha mall shooting, the Colorado church shootings.  It’s worth a read (as is today’s lead post, in which Tony Perkins, the leader of the far-right Family Research Council, is taken to task for blaming secularists for the church shootings).

Jamie raises the point that those on the right who seem all too willing to sacrifice our personal freedoms in the name of “Homeland Security” — the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the detention of suspects without trial, the illegal wiretapping of law-abiding American citizens, the use of torture against detainees – refuse to give an inch when the discussion turns to limitations on our Second Amendment right to bear arms.  Why is it that the Second Amendment is more important than the First (freedom of expression), or the Fourth (freedom from “unreasonable search and seizure”), or the Sixth (right to “a speedy and public trial”), or the Eighth (no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”)?  Why is it considered patriotic to allow the Federal Government to erode our personal liberties, but a crime against the intent of the Founders to enforce a ten day waiting period for the purchase of an automatic weapon?

Every year in this country, thirty thousand people die from wounds inflicted by firearms.  Every year!  That’s nine times the number of people who died on 9/11.  I offer that not to downplay the significance of the attacks on New York and Washington, but rather to point out the terrible cost of gun violence.  Even if we were to take out suicides and gun accidents, that would leave eleven thousand murders and cases of manslaughter involving guns.  Isn’t that too many?  Shouldn’t that be considered a matter of national security?  Weren’t last week’s shootings acts of terrorism?

Where are our national priorities?

Today’s music:  Sphere (Sphere)