An Honest Dream of Equality Poisoned by Pernicious Propaganda

Bill O’Reilly Uses Martin Luther King To Attack African Americans
 http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_uses_martin_luther_king_to_attack_african_americans_08272013#Sl87hYJze7qSc7iQ.99

     On this historic day marking the semi-centennial anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s landmark "I Have a Dream" speech, August 28, 2013, there are those who twist its legacy for their own backwards agenda. Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and host of the Talking Points commentary took it upon himself to warp and simplify the complicated issue of disproportionate crime by African Americans on the historic day's very eve. Indeed, Bill oftentimes finds time on most days to condescend other human beings of different color, and it is perfectly fine for him to do so. But one has to really question the gall of him to do so on the night before the 50th anniversary of the famous speech and, in extension, the current political climate that is caused by the conservative notions of the sanctity of the family and of personal responsibility being used to buttress, arguably, racism. Of course conservatism has its place in politics. But in today's times it has seen a disproportionate increase in influence, reflecting the verdict in the Trayvon vs Zimmerman case that set a precedent for killing on suspicion and Fox News's superior audience numbers compared to any other news show despite their repeated insistence that the news media is liberal and that Fox News viewers are less informed than if they watched no news at all, statistically. Conservatism, in accordance with the new online textbook in the A.P. Government course, is a fundamental mentality of staying "traditional." But this focus on tradition was clearly erroneous when looking back in time. It was, after all, tradition that was used as justification to continue slavery,something that is now universally considered immoral but was considered just back then. Tradition is not a valid excuse for any wrongdoing; progress stems from challenging societal norms that are unjust and bettering the life of society in general. Conservatism, at least according to the definition outlined in the course book, strikes me as a highly rigid and anti-intellectual ideology that discourages innovation in thought. As Bill no doubt knows, "family values" is a good way to garner votes but a horribly simple way of looking at such a complex and diverse world. Individual accountability might sound nice, but as it is shown throughout history, only recognition and subsequent reformation causes any real change worth noting. In essence, conservatism as an ideology needs to be reorganized and gain much-needed empathy, as accurate pollster Nate Silver put it, or it will not survive going on into the modern age. 

   

Bonus Post 4: The Differences

     John Klein's book on the subject of establishment candidate Bill Clinton ran holistically counter to the decentralization of government that Ron Paul argues for. The former argued for increased government intervention, even if indirect through voucher systems, versus the latter's desire for complete and utter dismantlement of any government aid whatsoever. The first represents what is essentially the new form of mainstream government policy making: to reach a consensus in order to get much-needed reform past both houses in a bipartisan effort. In contrast, Dr. Paul insists on demolition of government, something that runs opposite to what the Clinton Administration did, favoring government intervention for most issues. While Clinton is a classic representation of today's establishment candidate, Paul is what is arguably the only representative of an anti-establishment group that has any significant sway nationally while still being vehemently opposed to any government involvement whatsoever. Clinton favored polling out options to such an extent that he even polled whether or not to tell the truth about the Lewinsky Scandal, a sensible if petty carefulness, while Paul refuses to budge on even the smallest of his policy ideas, something admirable though politically inadvisable in current times. Klein presents a very moderate position, giving credit where he believes it is due while also mercilessly attacking Clinton for the relatively few hiccups his campaign endured. The book written by Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a truly self-promoting piece of literature, one that defiantly and consistently boasts his way as the right way. To be fair Klein actually was somewhat outspoken on things like the fickleness of the public just like Clinton while Paul astutely appealed to it, but Klein never expressly states one position as superior to another, even when Clinton supported it. Paul's style speaks out in volumes to the one-track mindset that he expresses against conventional wisdom, and rightly so, as the book is after all Paul's go-to guide for his far more energetic supporters. What was synthesized was the political atmosphere is much more willing to come to agreement for common interests but loves to make a show of almost every other issue which there is not a mutual, profitable solution. Capitol Hill is not closed off to change, but understandably has it marked as a last resort in an environment in which stability has become valued above a purely pragmatic point of view. The lack of pragmatism is precisely what has given previous political outcasts such as Ron Paul the power to seriously challenge the establishment. The American People clearly want activism and are unnerved by the clearly reactionary Washington response to the unprecedented accountability and access to their lives that the Information Age affords. As an ironic backlash, the increased accountability has led to legislature which refuses to take risks against the conservatism that power holds, the very same power that actually helps to elect the legislature, the very same power the American People despise. That animosity and lack of trust has allowed a wide range of leaders with very different political ideologies to unite, even something as unfeasible as Ron Paul's virtual government shutdown, as long as the underlying motive is to bring much-wanted change and reform to Washington.

Bonus Post 3: The Conclusion to the Manifesto

     In the second part Ron Paul makes a more general argument, going from specific points that liberals and conservatives truly do disagree on and moves onto more unilateral agreements between both sides such as the recent erosion of civil rights, as a strong finish which is not as controversial among the factions' dissidents. Doing so no doubt strengthens the sense of contingency that Ron Paul so desperately needs and aspires to in order for his movement to have any momentum going forward. Paul espouses economic sanctions based infamously on commodities such as gold and silver. Dr. Paul completely dismisses the argument that times are changing and so must standards for the economy that have been held in the very infancy of the country. Following the conclusion of that argument, Paul moves onto civil liberties and wisely melds his libertarian point of view very deftly with egregious violations of people, something nearly everyone would reasonably be against. By doing so, he makes libertarian-ism de facto with the fight against the degradation of American rights. The result is a very skewed, if technically correct, reassurance that libertarian-ism would not have constitutionally delegated rights limited by a perpetual-war government. Finally the final issue Dr. Paul touches upon is the need to end money in politics, once again a very popular position with the people, if hated by virtually all establishment representatives who do not have as big a loyal following to help fund their campaigns. He argues for the importance of federal government to shrink, presenting is as the ultimate solution to corruption, as he presents drastically reduced government as the answer to all issues. But the issue with the states' rights Ron Paul so feverishly supports is that the U.S. has a demonstrable history of doing the wrong thing when looking back at history. Sure liberty for all may sound nice, but without any guarantee that empty promise cannot be fulfilled. The most significant example in support of this position is when many of the U.S. states chose to keep African Americans disenfranchised. Such an occurrence is paradoxical to the promise of freedom that Paul presents, as freedom to choose is not freedom guaranteed. There has to be a leader to guide the United States and keep it together on issues such as these as is famously said, "a nation divided cannot stand," the failure of which would no doubt be devastating and unfeasible in terms of national security  in such turbulent times.

Bonus Post 2: The Argument So Far

     Ron Paul argues intensively for his stance of government nonintervention. Predictably, he does so through facts and numbers that are interpreted in his mutual favor, a clear indication that a candidate is a substantive threat. He presents his case as a rationale for the book in the start and then moves onto explain his points in no particular order. Indeed Paul tacitly appeals to both liberals and conservatives/libertarians who grow disgruntled with the current politicians who intermingle their ideas with unprecedented  thoroughfare. As a libertarian he presents his side with solid numbers while touting his own ideas as the only sensible answers, a smart tactic that helps to clout party doubt-fulls under the same uniform umbrella that appears sensible and welcoming. Although it is clear that the disproportionate number of conservative mentions amounts to far greater pandering to that political spectrum, it is also a reflection of  his realization that a much greater number of his following has previously identified as conservative. Disappointingly, though predictably, Ron Paul presented virtually no fair view of liberal or conservative alternatives, instead opting to point to the Founding Fathers, most of whom were conservatives themselves at the time, and stressed very basic core functions as justifications through the quotations. To supplement his points, Paul points to the constitution and has a lengthy discussion throughout about it. However, how will Ron Paul continue to justify the outright exclusion of popular programs like social security at the moral level?    

Bonus Post 1: The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul(TR:MRP)- Introduction

     In accordance with a necessary and intellectual, if radical, contrast to the establishment candidate of Bill Clinton, the perfect foil that would fit these criteria while still being situated in the new century was, invariably, congressman Ron Paul. Dr. Paul embodies everything that Clinton is, by mere merit of existence, fundamentally opposed to. While Clinton is a New Democrat, an open-minded amalgamation of traditional liberalism cultivated and modified to be palatable to neoconservative tastes, Paul is a textbook libertarian(quite the opposite of a classic liberal despite the similar nomenclature) that is utterly uncompromising in his ideals and on the other side of virtually every issue Clinton supports by his own nature. It would be refreshing to see a character that rose to prominence almost on his own who would be inherently contradictory to the previous reading. Through the book, a thorough understanding of libertarian-ism from one of its most ardent constituents can be expected to be developed, along with a working knowledge of a potential usurper to the highly traditional state that Washington is currently in. Dr. Paul has indeed been incredibly consistent on virtually every issue, with a near-perfect record corroborating his stated ideology. As a long-time serving congressman that has not changed views for short-term gain and as a former physician, Paul is one of the most acclaimed libertarians out there and presents a very unique point of view. Obviously, the repercussions of such immovable principles is anticipated to highly slant the reading in favor of his particular political brand of ideology. The title of his own book, after all, includes the word "manifesto," a word which certainly discourages fair presentations of the opposite side. However biased it is, however, is besides the point; the reading is meant not to serve to give a fair representation of the political and socioeconomic realities of libertarian-ism, but as a go-to manual as to what the movement represents as it exists in this day-and-age.

Post 4: The Review

     Mr. Klein's faithful reminiscence of the Clinton Administration has proved to be a valuable asset in a historically accurate, if personally charged, account of the inner workings of the bureaucracy. The novel drives deep into the day-to-day affairs of the Clintons while not being overly telling, presenting a colorful and interesting tale that whoever wishes for a realistically objective story should read. Many details not publicly well-known are scrutinized while a glimpse of the inner workings of Washington is given. Throughout its substantive and relevant proceedings, many politically significant events are given a moderate perspective to be peered through. For those wanting a comprehensive yet pleasantly temperate telling of one of the most misunderstood and crucial presidencies in recent times, with a noticeable but strangely quaint tendency to stray into the emotional, this book is an excellent read. Thus the book is definitely recommendable as a well-balanced, if complicated, political memoir of an essential figure. Indeed the book may be enjoyed by those who like a moderate account of history in general and for those who cherish a rare flower of temperament in a jungle of political backbiting. The whole account was, personally, vastly informative of politics in America. It gave an idea of how things work in Washington that is simple and, perhaps exactly for that reason, rings true. It details how every party wants to serve their own interests in an environment where a ideologically pure candidate is struck down as an ideologue, where every candidate, be him or her Democrat or Republican, has to beg the corporate establishment for funds through the butchering of their own ideals. When a strong personality like Bill Clinton has to change his own ideology the minute he steps in office, it truly shows just how corrupt Washington  and the complacent media have become.  

Post 3: A Different Kind of Man

     Mr. Clinton would learn how the political game was played on Washington very quickly. During his second term, he astutely turned to polling and the public as tools he could use in his own favor. Whereas his first term was defined by an embarrassing willingness to fall into the political landmines Republican presidential hopefuls such as Newt Gingrich set up, in his second term Mr. Clinton was far more precise and careful. Over time he learned to juggle his New Democrat ideals with his politically active wife the Old Democrat Hillary while also fighting the omnipresent Republican opposition. When a government shutdown loomed, he wisely used it to his advantage and put the Republicans into a war of attrition, a war in which they would be constantly chided for being unreasonable. Following up with an ill-advised counter-offer, the New Democrat delivered the finishing blow and won a balanced budget deal that would be remembered by many as his greatest legacy, showing his political savviness. In a series of unfortunate events, he would be forever bludgeoned by a string of attempts to make scandals of his public life, the centerpiece being the infamous Lewinsky Scandal in which Bill Clinton would famously remark "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The whole event was even given a back story as to how he came to say such a preposterous thing. It was revealed that a close friend told Clinton to be aggressive. The author Joe Klein was accordingly harsh of Clinton and his bad decisions, charging him, like many others, of hurting his legacy forever. Conclusively the novel revealed that through being completely honest and articulate the issue became a non-issue and the Republicans who wanted impeachment were, in an amazing turn of events, questioned as to why they would even consider it. Indeed it appears that was far more dogged in his stance against the Republican elite and thus had a base to fall back to, a move that Mr. Obama curiously did not follow in his first year of office despite conversing with Clinton and undoubtedly knowing his history. Perhaps reality needs to explode in one's face instead of blossom serenely for one to take the message to heart.

Post 2: Interlude

     As per expectations the book has very valuable inside information that thoroughly recounts the Clinton Administration in an objective manner. In fact, the objectivity can be considered remarkable as it often chastises its very namesake for shortcomings and regrets. Often times personal conviction is added which bemoans Mr. Clinton a publicly inept individual, the extents of which are stark and moderating in a novel one would expect to protect the President. Not to say that it does not, of course. It often concludes that the President should be otherwise be remembered as a political genius if not for a starry-eyed public and sensationalist press. Luckily, it follows its entire premise in a way that is arguably as close to historical and balanced as one involved in politics can pull off. The novel follows a mostly straightforward chronological account of the administration, straying off the timeline to point out eminent points and events that the author must have felt needed to be addressed beforehand to give proper context, some of which can at times be surprisingly personal. Via first-hand accounts, the author details Clinton's slow rise to power followed by the shortcomings and subsequent shock the rookie president endured by a vehemently hostile Republican presence. When reading such revelations, the presidency of Barack Obama is brought to mind. Observations are raised on how similar the two are; both are rookies that wanted to get much done their first year. Soon after their arrival, however, the Democratic leaders realize that the political tapestry is weaved in hostile, even conspiratorial ways. Republicans are astoundingly against the duo just because they are from opposing parties and not because of any reason of true substance. In order to get what they both want, the Presidents have to make compromises that disillusion any remaining faith their traditional constituency have further complicating the already fragile alliance and converting public opinion from positive to widespread hate. So the question to be posed at this point is, what would make Bill Clinton a president that left a budget surplus while simultaneously leaving the Oval Office as one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history?

Post 1: the Rationale

     In lieu with a desire to enter the world of politics in a relatively straightforward and intellectual manner, the book is was chosen as it offers a reputably  impartial assessment of a very relevant and controversial President Bill Clinton; someone who has drawn extensive ire from the right. Thus the point of view is decidedly left-leaning, but articulated from a very prominent reporter who has previously written a bestseller of that was also on the left of the political spectrum. It is expected that the work will provide solid facts on its subject. In addition, the author Joe Klein has also been closely involved with the President in an openly critical way, further accentuating his credibility on the subject matter. Mr. Klein has had a record of printing articles opposing the former President, so a rare and unique point of view can be salvaged from a source that can, through an  established track record, be as unbiased as possible from a person of said background and history. By choosing the book as a first read, a triage of criteria are, in essence, achieved: an exposure to a liberal author's style, a personal interest in the Clinton Administration and the need for an academic structure are all satiated.