Me, Now, Here

Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country (John F. Kennedy)

Many of our politicians in Congress would do well to revisit this truth by one of our greatest Presidents. Their vision is limited to ME, NOW, HERE. It should be, of course, THEM, THEN, THERE, wherein Them are the suffering people of this powerful nation, Then is the next 50 years and There is our devastated environment.

The powerful lobbies have taken over our federal government; we have, in effect, ceded the control of all branches to large corporations. Even the Supreme Court is not immune to private interests. Some of its august members dine and play golf as guests of honor of wealthy executives, which makes it difficult if not impossible to remain unbiased when called upon to act on appeals involving large conglomerates.

The President offered during his campaign to eliminate the influence of lobbies and to veto any bill that had special interests attached to it. Alas, he was caught in the web just like any newly minted Congressman. "Do what I say, but not what I do" seems to be the motto on the Hill. Legislators make fiery speeches against legalized corruption, i.e. lobbying all the while opening their coffers to anxious donors.

Their weapons now are BlackBerries and cell phones. But connections, savvy, and fundraising clout are still the keys to the influence wielded by the city’s 50 top lobbyists. (Washingtonian, Kim Eisler, June 1, 2007)

Does the name Abramoff ring a bell?  "We need to entirely eliminate any contribution by those lobbying the government, participating in a federal contract, or otherwise financially benefiting from public funds" says the disgraced lobbyist. He should know a thing or two about how the system works. But unfortunately, Congress is the only organism allowed to make laws and it will never agree to pass anything that hurts its individual pockets. Ideally we should have an outside agency, a sort of ethical watchdog, that forces changes upon the legislative branch, but, again, such agency would have to be set up by the very people it would supervise. No Way, no How!


 We? The People?? Or They, The Special Interests? The Founding Fathers would be aghast at the business-like atmosphere in Congress which apparently has become a branch office of Wall Street. The venerated television program 60 minutes devoted a segment to insider trading by some Congressmen, asking pungent questions to embarrassed legislators who vehemently denied any personal involvement. Or course, they have experts doing the financial work for them and the report from CBS implied that they have advanced knowledge of bills that may impact the value of some companies or portions of real estate. It would be quite revealing to ask Congressmen to publicly declare their fortune at the beginning of their hallowed representation and at five year intervals thereafter. "How did they become rich?" is the burning question in every middle-class member's mind.


"We have the government we deserve", said a wise philosopher and the solution to the present problem is to get rid of every incumbent next November and elect fresh faces who may or may not give us, the people, some hope that Washington will regain the confidence that has been lost. Recent polls indicate a new and shameful low for Congress: 9% of the respondents said that they trusted that federal organism. Wow! Is that a message that will be heard next year or will most of us stay home and then complain that government doesn't work? If you don't vote, you deserve the government that is in place. So stop whining and prepare to act!

A Shining Example From the Past

"Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be."

May, 1962 at West Point, Gen. MacArthur in his Farewell Address to cadets.

Right when the Vietnam War was beginning to heat up, the old general who died 2 years later, gave these future Army officers a vision that endures till today. His uncanny remarks about the federal deficit (where have we heard that before), his accusations of big government, excessive crime (no change), and loose morals (if he could only see today's society, he would probably have a heart attack). He even questioned violent extremists and personal liberties, a topic of heated discussions among libertarians. The man was a veritable oracle, even though Truman had to sack him to avoid a nuclear confrontation with China during the Korean War.

Charismatic leaders like MacArthur cannot be found nowadays; the ex-generals who now work as consultants for public and private news organizations are drab and boring when they express their expert opinion on modern politics. The old warriors have taken arms in a different world where they can fight new battles for all eternity. Nothing like hearing bullets flying around you to make you see life with new eyes and develop a true sense of mortality. Military experience, the real kind, not just flying airplanes or buffering leather seats in a fancy office, is a scarce commodity among Republican presidential candidates.

Gov. Perry, like Bush, was a pilot in the National Guard and was able to avoid going to Vietnam. Ron Paul was in the Air Force for 5 years. The other candidates have no military background. Is it necessary to have served in order to become President? Of course not; look at Obama. He has absolutely no history to have served before becoming Commander-in-Chief. Does that make him unfit to manage two wars? Our best commanders-in-chiefs were FDR, Lincoln and Truman, and all three performed brilliantly in that capacity without an iota of battle smoke in their nostrils.

What we look for in a leader like MacArthur and Truman is the strength of their convictions; in the present group of candidates to the White House, only Ron Paul seems to fit the bill. He never wavers from his basic tenets on how to fix the United States of America. Is he right? That's another matter, but let's remember other Presidents who got us in hot water: Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs, a botched attempt to invade Cuba that almost turned ugly for us. Jimmy Carter and the disastrous attack on Iran. Lyndon Johnson who got us in the Vietnam mess with a lie. Bush Jr. who got us in a war on Iraq with another big lie. So even though Paul is convinced that his proposals are right, at least he is not suggesting getting us involved in another conflict; on the contrary, he wants us out of 150 countries where we have military presence. None of the other candidates supported him in his position; a shame, because he is totally right. We are wasting billions that could be applied to our pressing problems here in the good USA.

Am I recommending Ron Paul for President? No, not even for VP. He has other controversial views that cannot be accepted by the general public. And..he is too old, way too old. We don't want to risk another Ronald Reagan in his last 2 years in power, controlled by the visions of his wife's astrologer.


We need however a President with strong convictions who is willing to fight for them, as long as these beliefs do not cause our great country more irreparable harm. No warmonger, and no peace-at-any-cost either. The ideal executive head of our nation must be able to compromise, yes, but without seeming weak. He must be able to negotiate with anybody, yes, but without seeming cowardly. He must be respected by his opponents, unlike the present administration. The Republican leaders do not respect President Obama; their actions clearly show it. They say no to whatever he is proposing and that did not happen with Clinton's second term, when Republicans controlled Congress. The reason behind it is a matter for historians to debate 20 years from now.


Obama has faltered on many occasions; I remember in particular the extension of Bush's tax rebates for rich people. He had control of Congress, a lame duck Congress for sure, but he still had the power to act and he blinked..It is true that he showed courage with the bin Laden Affair. He also showed restraint and wisdom in the Libyan conflict, and has been vindicated with the violent death of Qaddafi. But does Obama have the vision for future America, a country that still can recover its greatness? Does he have the steely resolve of a John F. Kennedy who faced the Russian Bear?


That is the bet that voters will make next November 2012 when they cast their ballots. They will not vote for a Republican; they will vote for or against Obama.