Columnists

You can count on pompous right-wing champions rising to the occasion when it comes to filling in conversational openings with political fodder instead of logic.

Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh among others are always on standby to provide talking points in support of their political brethren. Critics of Sarah Palin are said to have defamed her because of her gender. Bad behavior when he was a teenager is said to be immaterial in the resume of presidential hopeful Romney no matter how mean-spirited or similar in kind it is to his current policies. The apoplectic O'Reilly approach is kind of funny but infuriatingly predictable. No matter what the subject these folks are able to spin it their way.

Even Bristol Palin has, for some inexplicable reason, found a media corner from which to expound about the president with respect to his remarks about same-sex marriage. The fact that her mother ran for vice president with a minimum of intellectual heft apparently allows daughter Bristol to enter the political fray with even less gravitas. "Mama Grizzly," always quick to defend her ‘cubs' should tell her daughter that if she chooses to criticize her betters she should be prepared to take a few well-aimed hits herself.

On what basis do we determine the character of our leaders? The fundamentals for judging those who would lead us aren't so much what they choose to publicize as their core values, but rather how they behave when they aren't being choreographed by handlers and are forced to answer questions to which they haven't memorized answers. Values that reside in the heart and are woven into the mental process don't need to be referenced with note cards and rhetorical flourishes. They just are.

This campaign season has been littered with false premises and outright lies and it is unfortunate that the "fourth estate" hasn't always seen fit to make truth a foundation for discussions of policy and platforms. When a candidate promises to change things for the better, what is he actually talking about? It's easy for anyone to say they will change the fortunes of the country by creating more jobs, trimming the deficit and making us energy independent. What is often missing from these pronouncements, however, is anything concrete in the way of realizing these goals. Impassioned supporters at rallies often cheer the generalized formulas their chosen candidates propose without the slightest idea of what their wannabe leaders really have in mind.

Not a day passes that Republicans in Congress or on the campaign trail don't find some phony premise upon which to attack the administration. It is to be expected that philosophical differences among partisans would elicit contradictory responses aimed at diminishing the clout of political adversaries. But legitimate differences shouldn't devolve into frivolous bouts of vitriol from pols determined to make a name for themselves by bringing down members of the opposition.

Apparently it has become an acceptable Republican tactic to pounce on opponents with accusations that are more appropriately identified with members of their own party. On last Sunday's Meet the Press former party leader Ed Gillespie pontificated about the president's "divisive" ways. Curiously of course the most divisive aspect of our current political framework has been the way the far right chooses to depict President Obama and his policies. The Tea Party, right-wing media and the lock-step House have all been in attack mode from the moment of Obama's candidacy to the moment of his inauguration. A lightweight like Sarah Palin criticizes the president for things about which she is embarrassingly ignorant, a fact that seems to make little difference to her devoted followers. In fact the country is beset by candidates who are similarly ignorant about the office they seek and the demands their election would make upon them. The presumptive Republican nominee is touted by his supporters as just the person to bring the country back to a solvent, profitable future. But people who tell us we need a business executive to right our economy fail to understand that our government cannot be conducted on some esoteric business principle, a plan that would lead us inevitably down the path we have just traveled to a future of ruthless corporate raiders bent on cementing their fortunes at the expense of regular folks.

Perhaps the most challenging choice we face as a nation in November, or whenever, will be to decide what kind of a country we want to be - what will define us as a people. Politicians may recalibrate their positions about "core" values and pose alternative views about everything from health care to defense to the environment. But in the end when partisan gibberish is swept away, the expressed values that remain will serve as a definitive barometer of our better selves and our future conduct.

Sadly as Bill Moyers has said, "our democracy has gone off the rails." Many of the virtuous goals to which our founders ascribed have deteriorated into waves of influence-peddling and mind-numbing partisanship. Angry rhetoric has taken the place of meaningful discourse so that it makes perfect sense that the Republican base sidesteps issues and decides instead that making Obama "a one-term president" is the ultimate goal and however that end may be achieved is the way to proceed. This objective is often fleshed out by denying or ignoring the obvious fault lines in our political configuration.

No mainstream candidate admits to the racist implications of what has come to be known as "the southern strategy." In fact this framework is referenced without shame or regret though it has little to do with geographical placement and everything to do with parochial politics. It isn't just that nothing of importance is accomplished and that our goals have become limited and narrow, but rather that we are losing a sense of who we are and why we matter. We‘re not just standing still - we are retreating - despite the protestations of those who keep insisting we are "exceptional" no matter how far we stray from our higher purpose.

Newt Gingrich turns back the clock when he rails at Occupy demonstrators as if they were the raggedy remnants of Woodstock. Gingrich and others were never able to relate to those who gathered in upstate New York in the sixties - not their issues, or their anti-war message. Today's Occupy protestors are nothing like the population that lingered in the fields at Woodstock. And, although detractors like Gingrich would like to apply the same language they used back then - take a bath, get a job and so on - that line of attack is totally misplaced and irrelevant. Many of the demonstrators today are out of work with little hope of finding employment any time soon, nor are they un-bathed, poorly spoken or without ambition. But they exemplify the economic hurdles today's workers face in a social framework that favors the already rich and scorns everyone else.

In an unpleasant reminder of the just-past administration's "let-them-eat-cake" approach, a George Bush address to supporters referred to them as the "haves and the have mores." Some call them the elites he said, but "I call them my base." The crowd was greatly amused, but considering the mess the economy is in Bush and his base have not served the country well. Politicians in thrall to special interests continue to attack entitlements and government spending, but balk when their tax advantages are threatened.

What's more there's a concerted effort on the right to ignore the pervasive effect of racism in concert with the nation's lopsided financial configuration. Critics of the president decry what they call his racist approach to events like the killing of Trayvon Martin as if the racial implications of the incident weren't obvious to any reasonable observer. Of course the death of any young person regardless of color or ethnic background is sad and incredibly painful for the family involved. But the fact is that young people of color face a different set of circumstances than whites and the willingness to ignore that fact and indeed to offer mitigating explanations to excuse the horrific nature of racially motivated crimes is a willfully blind escape route for those who refuse to see or accept complicity in what is a national disgrace.

When our leaders fail to take a moral stand and ignore reality they fail the country and set a bad example for our youth. They forfeit the right to speak of values when they use low-minded racial preferences for political advantage and call into question the very nature of our democratic principles.

There was a tremendous outcry when the president commented that the Boston police had acted stupidly by arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. as he attempted to "break in" to his own house when he was unable to open his front door. Although the police were to some extent just doing their job they still found it necessary to fudge their official report by saying the neighbor who called 911 described the "housebreaker" as black when she denied giving such a description. One was left to wonder if the same dedication to duty would have prevailed if skin color hadn't been part of the mix.

Last month a more serious encounter led to the death of a teenage boy walking home after purchasing candy and an ice-tea at a local store. A self-styled neighborhood-watch sentinel was following him and, despite being instructed by law enforcement to desist, kept after him eventually killing him. He claimed that, according to statutory license he "stood his ground" and was entitled to use deadly force because he felt his life was in danger.

In the process of dumbing down our intellectually fragile national ethos, recent events are an indication of the further mindless assault on anything resembling logic. Rush Limbaugh's trash talk, the retelling of the 2008 election saga or the insults enmeshed in rhetorical Republican hyperbole have turned the first-amendment, free-speech guarantee into opportunities for defamatory, hate-infused rants.

Whenever right-wing aspirants to higher office (or a place in the spotlight) are at a loss for substantive material they haul out favored incendiary talking points. Nothing in the Republican larder is so shop-worn it can't be dragged out, polished off and thrust upon the world stage.

Pastor Wright served to identify Obama as someone who "palled around" with undesirable, left-wing activists or terrorists as Fox News and Sarah Palin prefer to describe them. But Wright is in danger of being eclipsed by a Harvard professor, the late Derek Bell, who was called a "radical" by the same inane pundits on the right, mostly because he spoke out about racism in the United States.

It is curious what "proof" can be dredged up to illustrate radical tendencies. No doubt supporters, anxious to find anything to defame the president, will become standard bearers for this latest assault on reason and truth. But those who express anger at the divisiveness and racial angst that continues to exist in this country are not radicals because they speak out. To deny the obvious inequities in our society is a refusal to acknowledge the obvious, but that doesn't make them less true.

It is, however, a national trait to pretend that our democracy and faith-based traditions make us "exceptional." In the midst of a nasty Republican primary battle we encounter candidates who leave a bad taste in one's mouth as they rail against those who do not share their beliefs. It isn't ‘values' that are wanting, as some would have us believe, but views that differ from those religious zealots that preach at us. And there arises a struggle between civil rights as we have come to know them and religious precepts that do not apply to the vast majority of society. It is distressing to realize that polls indicate a preference among voters for candidates who share the same religion. And it is a perversion of the Constitutional stipulation that there be no religious test to hold office.

Instead of looking for candidates who have a body of knowledge in foreign affairs, economics, health-care or any number of other concerns about which most people care, partisans strive to create someone invented for the occasion or "electable" - a power play rather than a search for talent. Thus, voters were asked to accept Sarah Palin as a serious candidate when she was obviously unprepared for the enormous task she would be asked to undertake should the need arise. Her attributes as a mother or her willingness to participate in an ego-driven exercise do not redound to her credit. Likewise, many tea-party members of the current Congress have little to recommend them other than their mastery of rhetorical bluster. And instead of tending to the business of the country, new members of our legislative bodies at both the state and national level have spent their time trying to re-litigate the nation's social agenda.

Right-wing Republicans will continue to paint President Barack Obama as a radical lefty because it suits their constituents' view of the world not because there's any truth to the charge.

Defamatory speech will continue to be part of the right-wing playbook, with little in the way of big ideas, and it will all be played out against a background of religious zealotry and stubborn ideological positions.

The primary battle waged in 2008 was between two strong candidates who had something to say, but who were able to coalesce in the end. The Republican field today is a travesty that forces voters to choose among a roster of flawed candidates whose narrow views do not suit a diverse population that hungers for real answers to complex problems.

ANN DAVIDOW FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

When did bluster and rudeness begin to supplant reasonable discourse and responsive answers? It seemed shocking in 2008 when Sarah Palin during the vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden looked squarely into the camera and said "I'm not going to answer the question, (posed by moderator Ifill} I'm going to speak directly to the American people." When did that ever pass muster before? Were there no guidelines about the way the debate would be conducted? In the end, Palin winked and was gone with nary a rebuke from either side.

That may not have been the first departure from the rules of the game, but it was a hint of what was to come. Increasingly rude and disrespectful behavior has seemingly become acceptable since President Obama was elected. The right wing, having more or less successfully defined Obama as "the other," wantonly discarded manners and respect for the office of the president and the man himself because, well just because. Now what, as Bill Maher queried, could possibly explain such behavior after the election of our first black president - something of a proud moment for our democracy but an opportunity for ridicule among the under-educated, partisan-riddled likes of Tea Party elites.

Perhaps more shocking than the "you lie" outburst from Representative Joe Wilson during the president's state-of-the-union speech in 2009 was the fact that he was rewarded by supporters with a fundraising surge. One might have thought everyone on all sides would have been embarrassed by such disrespect from what in other cultures might have been called a "back-bencher." Not so these days when odd and disrespectful behavior has been countenanced by Fox News and others accompanied by laughter and derision as if there were no portentous matters worthy of discussion.

And apparently strategy, particularly on the right, includes the "filibuster, non-answer" to questions. During the last debate, Newt Gingrich ignored an audience-generated question about birth control and contraception and went on a rant about what he called the president's support of "infanticide." A loud chorus of boos greeted the original question while the Gingrich diatribe, which attacked the "elite media" as well as the president, was enthusiastically applauded. When candidates or right-wing media pundits inject inflammatory speech into discussions, real substance is immediately lost. At the last "debate" infanticide served that purpose.

A master of appropriate-answer avoidance, New Jersey's Governor Christie manages to attack and avoid simultaneously. His angry response to a woman at a town meeting about cuts to public-school funding while sending his own children to private school was that it was none of her business how he schooled his children - not the point of her question at all. And just a few days ago on Morning Joe he said he didn't intend to be "cross-examined" there about his decisions, e.g. his veto of a legislative vote to allow same-sex marriage in New Jersey - arguing the president's indecision about the issue instead of simply dealing with the question as it pertained to his state. Considered a hero among conservatives he exhibits a rude and condescending attitude whenever he is confronted with serious issues he refuses to discuss in a rational forthright manner.

It is disturbing to observe a trend toward a celebration of non-intellectual, uninformed discussion that allows ideologues to turn debate into angry confrontational political non-sequiturs. In addition to asking "what's the matter with Kansas" we might also be inclined to ask "what's going on in Virginia" and no doubt elsewhere in this country. From the party of smaller government and freedom we now see elected conservatives trampling on individual liberties, privacy and the right of medical practitioners to freely advise their patients. Wrongly framed as a freedom-of-religion issue and driven with blunt force throughout the right-wing media mill surely the courts should intervene in this clear example of unreasonable search and seizure.

Contextual avoidance has removed the decision-making process from its proper place in our society and allowed once again the wrong voices to countermand the free will of a rational people while all the while pontificating about the attributes of free markets and small government.

It seems it isn't enough to have a political opinion and to exercise freedom of speech without spending inordinate amounts of cash or to ignore the parts of the Constitution that don't fit an ideological profile. Thus the Supreme Court and other supporters of unfettered gun rights choose to ignore the amendment's opening lines "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Where are those well-regulated militias to which the second amendment refers?

And no-one has yet offered a satisfactory explanation for defining money as free speech or for congratulating candidates who disrespect the president, the press or each other with rude, self serving remarks. Ever since Congressman Joe Wilson interrupted president Obama's state-of-the-union speech by shouting "you lie" and was criticized by some but rewarded with contributions from supporters the tone of our political discourse has grown ever coarser and more inappropriate.

This country affords its citizens the right and opportunity to express views that may or may not be popular but for some reason this right has deteriorated into a license to ignore facts and supplant them with opinion and the assumption that any view may be posited on any occasion. The inexcusable behavior of Boston Bruin goalie, for example, in refusing an invitation to the White House honoring his team - - winners of last year's Stanley Cup - - was unconscionable and allowed political bias to interfere with the nature of an a-political celebration. Somewhere along the line we have lost a sense of rudimentary common courtesy. People like Tim Thomas seem to think it is acceptable to use any opportunity to express their personal views no matter how inappropriate or disrespectful. Thomas played a great series but receives a failing grade in good citizenship.

The race to the bottom in which Republican potential nominees are  engaged continues apace. Nobody expects politics to be a non-combative  clean exercise in terms of truth and fresh ideas. But the diabolically  perverse inventions that clog media outlets and confuse debate on a  daily basis are exasperating claims on our time without rewarding us with better options - - empty-headed pretentious chatter posing as  intelligent thought.

In the guise of respecting democratic processes Rick Santorum tells an  audience that they should elect people who share the same values and hope to enact those values into law. His views are so far to the right  they would impose rigorous religious structures on our political system. Never mind that Santorum and others like him claim to abide by the Constitution, forgetful it would seem of that document's specific exclusionary language that stipulates no religious test should ever be required as a voting prerequisite.

In general religion has been introduced into every political contest as the best adjudicator of who dwells in the upper regions of truth and morality. Of course those two attributes aren't always in evidence on the hard right where "free markets" and tight control of food stamps for example are at variance with Christian principles of caring for the less fortunate among us. In fact just the opposite is true as capitalism is the ruling principle conservatives profess.