Reasoned discourse in the age of instant communication

Back in the day, before the internet (s), when someone had a beef with their local dog catcher, cook, or bottle washer, they took it to the editorial pages of the daily newspaper. Those were better days in my opinion, for the simple fact that before that letter to the editor even saw the darkness of the inside of a mail box, the writer had time for some self-reflection, and if they were really angry at their mayor because the trash man forgot to empty their trash receptacle, the actual time and act of composing and constructing that letter often helped dissipate some of the anger. None of this instant anger flashing across monitors, like today.

In order to get your letter to the editor, chances are you had to lug your overly heavy Underwood to the kitchen table. If you were an adequate typist, knocking it out would be no problem. An interesting component of the letter to the editor was the actual signing, and noting of your residence. There was little of this “anonymous” posting, and instant hating, going on today.

By signing your name, noting the town where you were domiciled, and in many cases, the inclusion of your phone number for verification purposes, it furnished the newspaper with a contact for follow-up purposes. That’s if, per chance, you had a clear, concise letter of 250 words, short of attacks, slander, libel, or words of defamation. In many cases, you also couldn’t send that same letter to four other newspapers in your city, as many editorial page staffers, during their process (usually a simple phone call) of due diligence, asking if you were John Doe from Anytown, USA, as you had signed your letter, and whether it was exclusive to the Finicky Times-Reader. If you passed their muster, then it might be another three or four days before your missive was read by the loyal readers in your newspaper’s circulation area.

This isn’t to say that a poorly written screed didn’t find its way to the pages of your local daily. However, when your factually incorrect letter of run-on sentences, filled with spelling errors reached its intended audience, your original intent was often nullified. Another positive effect is that angry friends of the local dogcatcher (or mayor) who wanted to rush to the defense of their local champion had to go through the same lengthy process, which tended to weed the merely angry, from the passionate and semi-literate.

The intelligent politician, or grass roots organizer often embarked on a strategy to ensure that the issue of the day, or the stellar candidate, had a rash of letters supporting it, or them. A letter would be composed, and copies passed out at a meeting, with suggested changes, so it didn’t resemble astro turf. Then, on Thursday, or Friday, a slew of letters would be printed together, praising Cyrus Dogbreath, who was running for Sheriff. His honest approach of enforcement would surely return law and order to Serenity Falls.

Even better, there was none of this current posting under pseudonyms of “honest avenger,” or “pissed off taxpayer,” making ad hominem attacks the national pastime.

On the flipside, if you wanted to write something more substantial, exceeding the 250 word limit on letters to the editor, you might try your hand at the Op Ed, which potentially could triple the words allowed.

Doing so, however, required greater skill. You had to have something more than just righteous indignation fueling your prose. There’s an art to the well-written Op Ed. There are fewer of them, they tend to be for people that hold a position of some prestige, or at least, have some critical connection to their topic. The process of getting published is also much more competitive. The nice thing is that a well-written Op Ed can make a solid case for the issue that’s important to your cause.

In framing the arguments I made against my local representative, I stated that, “to my way of thinking,” his performance had been less than stellar. This was based on the political philosophy I hold, some of my observations that come from the work I do, personal observations, and the fact that in my very own opinion, a change might be in order.

If stating my case, on my own personal blog, using my ancient personal computer (during non-work time, i.e. the wee hours of the morning, when I often do much of my writing), elicits the level of vitriol, hatred, and personal attacks against me and my reputation that I experienced at As Maine Goes, then something is seriously wrong with our instant mode of communication (or better, some of the folks using it).

In attempt to drive away any of the new readers coming over here from such an esteemed site, I’ll be doing my best the next week, or so, to inform any of the haters who happen to stop by, why I hold some of the positions that I do. Upcoming will be my take on neoliberalism, a real tempest in a teapot subject if there ever was one. Then maybe, it’s a post on anger management.
By the way, this post, which is slightly longer than the length of an Op Ed, has been put away for at least 12 hours to sit and simmer while I go off to work. I will come back to it, reread it, possibly rework it a bit, and then I’ll decide if I still want to post it. I urge others to consider this very method, if perchance, something I wrote here offended their sensibilities, or caused their blood pressure to tick up.

Obama and small town America

Mr. Obama is an amazing orator. Listening to him, it's easy to get swept away by the cascade and cadence of words and rhetoric that flow from his lips.

What's more troubling to some is when we examine facts that lie behind the oratory facade.

Here's a couple of points to ponder:

From the Chicago Daily Observer, a daily from Mr. Obama's hometown, there's this quote from Bill Burton, a spokesperson for Obama, on the John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his vice-president.

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."

What does the Obama campaign have against small towns? Does Mr. Obama and the sycophantic media that hangs on his every word recognize that the majority of Americans live in small towns? Probably not. Elitists know very little about life in America, outside of the the urban power centers where they spend most of their time. Oh, they occasionally meet small town folk while out slumming on the campaign trail, but they don't have any real perspective about life outside of the media spotlight.

This isn't the first slight of small town Americans. In Pennsylvania, while going toe-to-toe with Mrs. Clinton in April, Mr. Obama let slip his true thoughts about working-class, small town Americans, when he said, "...voters in Pennsylvania clung to 'guns and religion' out of bitterness." If it were as simple as you think.

As Tom Skype notes, "Sen. Obama just doesn’t understand true American values. We don’t all shop at Whole Foods and we don’t care what the price arugula is."

Beyond not understanding the life of everyday Americans, there's the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

The personal appeal of local politics

I love following politics. Always have, and probably always will. There's something about the horse race that hooks me and keeps me interested. Certainly the national presidential race, despite two less than stellar candidates, IMHO, has had me hooked since the field was full of kooks, wannabes, and also-rans.

National politics tends to grab the lion's share of attention and interest, even among those who self-identify as junkies. Sadly, too many of these same folks ignore paying attention to local and state matters, which I think are more important, and affect voters more directly. There's an adage which says that "all politics is local." I'll go one step further and offer that rather than just local, "all politics is personal." Many people don't plug into local and state matters until they touch their lives in some way.

In the community where I live, we're served by Maine House District 105. Our incumbent, Mike Vaughan, is a staunch conservative, and will be running for his fourth term. That, in and of itself, ought to be reason to take notice. Three terms in Augusta is more than enough time to learn the ropes (term 1), and get something done. The second term, and a third, are more than enough time to have some tangible items of accomplishment. To my way of thinking, Mr. Vaughan has accomplished very little, other than towing the party line, and mimicking everything that troubles me about conservatism as it stands in 2008.

Vaughn is being opposed by a gentleman named David Van Wie, who hails from New Gloucester, which is one of the towns making up District 105 (the others being Durham, and parts of Lisbon). I don't know Van Wie, but he did stop by on Sunday, as he was out knocking on doors. Unfortunately, I was out back doing yard work and didn't hear him drive in. I did find his pamphlet tucked into our front door, with a note saying he had stopped by. Mr. Vaughan has never knocked on my door, asking for my vote. Part of the reason may be that I know Mr. Vaughan from my days of being a member of the Androscoggin County Republicans. When I left the party, he and I had a long discussion. I'm sure that he knows that his efforts to stop by would result in a discussion where he wouldn't find an agreeable, compliant constituent, so for him, it's not worth the effort. Legislators like Mr. Vaughan like to spend their time with people that agree with them, like most of the crowd over at As Maine Goes. He seems to enjoy regaling his fellow conservatives with his witty repartee, which consists of the usual Maine conservative blather about cutting taxes, making Maine more business friendly, blaming Governor Baldacci and Democrats for all that's wrong with Maine, etc. I actually find AMG worthwhile, at times, and a good source of Maine news, since we no longer have a statewide paper that serves that purpose.

In addition to not asking for my vote, Mr. Vaughan also hasn't responded to any emails I've sent him over the past six years, relative to issues and votes, as well as thoughts and opinions I've shared with him. Obviously, he is all-knowing, and doesn't need constituent input to get in the way of his right-wing agenda.

In my workforce position, I've had cause to contact him in a professional capacity. Last March, while attempting to raise awareness about the importance of middle-skills for Mainers, I set out to contact a good portion of Maine's house and senate delegation. I sent a well-written email to him, as part of my effort at building support for an important initiative that will move Mainers forward. Once again, Mr. Vaughan could not extend the courtesy, as a fellow professional, of acknowledging my email and ideas. Even worse, he once again ignored one of his constituents, which seems to be his modus operandi. Since he thinks so little of me, and my thoughts, opinions, and ideas, should he be getting my vote? [In all fairness to Mr. Vaughan, out of 75 communiques that I sent out to key legislators, community leaders, and other influential Mainers, I received one response, from a legislator from Auburn, Mark Paul Samson (D-Auburn)-JB]

His opponent, Mr. Van Wie, had a guest column in Sunday's Lewiston Sun Journal (Aug. 24), talking about Maine needing an energy strategy. I concur with that. In fact, I've been writing quite a bit about energy at my workforce blog, opining that Maine has an opportunity to get out in front on the energy issue. This post, and my post from yesterday, are examples of issues I've been highlighting, which I think our legislature ought to be thinking about.

Mr. Van Wie had some good points in his column, including the following;

"...we need to support investments in energy efficiency, wind power and in-state renewable energy, so we can keep our dollars working in the Maine economy. Our state must support small businesses and entrepreneurs in Maine who can help make it happen."

There were some points in his column that concerned me. Since I take issue with Mr. Vaughan's party line adherence, I'll also say that some of Van Wie's points seemed like so much of what's being spouted by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, "Dingy" Harry Reid, and other Democrat comrades. Still, Van Wie's private sector experience, as well as having served under one of Maine's best governors, Angus King, make him a candidate worthy of consideration.

Simply, what I'm looking for in a local representative is someone who has a mind of his/her own, understands the issues affecting Mainers, and is the kind of representative that is responsive to constituents, especially constituents that are knowledgeable about issues affecting the Pine Tree State.

I'll probably contact Mr. Van Wie to raise some of my concerns, and find out a bit more about him and his thoughts on representing the good people of our district. As a voter, I refuse to be ignored any longer. I also refuse to support candidates that are so filled with hubris that they think they know more than their constituents.

Carrying water from the sidelines

It would be hard to find a more vilified public figure than Hillary Clinton. Few current political figures elicit such strong responses of either adulation, and yes, respect, to downright hatred crossing into misogyny.

The Wall Street Journal, one of the last places where traditional American journalism is still practiced, has one of the best pieces on Mrs. Clinton that I've read since the commencement of our current presidential horserace.

The Journal's editiorial writer accurately captures the strength of Mrs. Clinton's appeal in traditional blue-collar locales, such as Youngstown, Ohio, Scranton, Pennsylvania (where Hillary's father, Hugh Rodham, was born and raised) and other places where lattes are not the drink of choice, and where an Ivy League diploma doesn't hold much sway.

The writer opines, "Lower-middle-class women especially saw her as a pathbreaker, refuting the notion that her symbolic candidacy was limited to upscale professional women. She earned 18 million votes. Joe Biden won something like 9,000. She was on a roll by June, but the Hillary surge began too late. She lost by the brutal math of her party's own making."

The Clintons are far from being perfect, and a casual listen to AM talk radio will help understand why this former first family is so often mischaracterized.

If you visit PUMA sights like this one, you'll find many former Hillary supporters still pissed off, and not ready to laud Mr. Obama, and knight him as their presidential choice. I can identify with some of their sentiments.

It's interesting to me how almost every representative of the mainstream media misses out on why many working-class people held out hope for Hillary to be their representative to do their bidding as president. Having read her biography, Living History, I realize that Hillary never really got over being a Nixon Republican, just like her dad. For those of us who still have some grasp of history (certainly no one younger than 50 will get this reference, unless they're one of maybe five Americans that still read U.S. history books, or possibly are a fan of the late Hunter S. Thompson), there are worse things than being Nixonian, particularly in these halcyon days of party bastardization--like a Pelosi Democrat.

I'm not sure how Mrs. Clinton will come off tonight, when she gives Tuesday nights Democratic Convention keynote. She'll certainly put on a good show, but I'm sure that a part of her will be thinking about what might have been.

Coming to terms with one's faith

The twists, turns, and rocky trail of my spiritual past occasionally have made their way into my postings here at Words Matter.

I’ve written about the fundamentalist years in Indiana, and my return to Maine, as an avowed post-Xian (which is the label I’m still most comfortable with). While I’ve written some about my former spiritual mentor Jack Hyles, and derogatorily about the likes of James Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and the others in the pack of Gantry, I’ve only made one brief reference to the late Francis Schaeffer.

When I was first testing the waters of my newfound born-again faith, as my baseball career unraveled at the University of Maine, I discovered the writings of Schaeffer. For the uninitiated, he was a Calvinist theologian and philosopher, whose trilogy of books, The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent formed the basis for what later became my own personal apologetics.

I won’t go into too much more detail about Schaeffer, as non-Xians and those for whom religion is a mystery will end up being lost. What I want to emphasize about Schaeffer is that he was no mental lightweight. Say what you want about religion, but the Calvinists, particularly the Van Til, Dooyeweerd brand of apologetics where Schaeffer cut his teeth, learning to argue for the Xian faith, forced followers to think, and give a reasoned defense for their belief in God.

Schaeffer’s books, and in particular, his approach at reaching the unconverted through his unorthodox approach at L’Abri (compared to the American brand of “churchianity”) was of interest to me. Schaeffer himself had much to say about the failure of American Xianity.

After a decade and a half away from organized religion, I made brief foray back into the orthodox fold, post 9-11. While I had discarded most of my previous religious materials, for some reason, I kept Schaeffer’s books packed away in one particular box I never threw out. In early 2002, I reread much of the trilogy, as well as his book, A Christian Manifesto that ratcheted up his popularity with what we now define as the religious right, and made him a rock star for God.

Throughout the 80s, Schaeffer became a hero to people like Randall Terry, of Operation Rescue, and others of the Christian Dominionist movement. Along with his son, Franky (who now goes by Frank), and wife Edith, the Schaeffers helped fuel the yoking of politics and faith in America, helping to propel the movement that is now headed by Dobson, Gary Bauer, and others into the mainstream. See how faith is mentioned at the drop of the hat in this year’s horserace.

Over the years, I’ve occasionally come across a reference to Schaeffer. Several years back, prior to having access to the internet (s), I tried to find information on what had become of his son Franky. I didn’t have much luck. Recently, however, I’ve run across a wealth of material, including this interesting post he penned for Huffington Post.

It’s ironic that Schaeffer, who was so instrumental at one time, promoting the militant pro-life movement, believes that the fate of the unborn is better with an Obama presidency, than a McCain one.

Schaeffer, who still self-identifies as pro-life, believes that the right have “milked the abortion issue, as have the Evangelical and Roman Catholic leadership, for every dime it's worth for fundraising, votes, power and empire-building, without changing much if anything.”

A year ago, Schaeffer came out with a memoir, CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back that I’m eager to read, since I was such a big fan of his father, and hung on much of what he wrote about the faith I held at the time.

Schaeffer has some things to say about the right, power, and the wealth that holding certain positions visits on acolytes of the right.

As he writes, “…for the record: my annual income was a lot bigger and more secure within the Evangelical fold than without. The big bucks in America are all about selling God, as Rick Warren, James Dobson or Joel Osteen can tell you, not earned blogging for lefty sites such as Huffington Post or writing novels as I do now.”

I have no trouble believing what he says, as I saw firsthand how so-called servants of God, the leaders, lived regally, while me and my Bible school chums lived poor as church mice, back in the day, when I was a student at Hyles-Anderson College.

I urge you to read Schaeffer’s piece. In a day when so much passing for journalism is just a rehashing of the same old meme, Schaeffer offers some things worth considering, unless you’re so wedded to your ideology that you no longer use the brain that God gave you.