Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts

Sunday, January 3, 2016

R.I.P., Dale Bumpers



Dale Bumpers must be a patron saint for anyone who dreams of coming from nowhere and winning whatever the greatest prize in that person's chosen profession happens to be. Bumpers' profession — his calling, if you choose to call it that — was in politics.

He may not be the patron saint of all such people, though. Jimmy Carter, who overcame low name recognition to win the presidency, must hold that title for presidential aspirants. But for those with low name recognition who seek lesser offices, well, they couldn't do better than to have Bumpers on their side.

I spent most of the first 30 years of my life in Arkansas, and it often seemed as if Bumpers, who died Friday at the age of 90, had always been a part of the state's political scene, but the truth was that he spent the first 18 years of his career, after serving in World War II and then studying law at Northwestern, in virtual obscurity as a mostly unknown city attorney in the town where he was born — Charleston, a village in Northwest Arkansas.

He entered state politics in 1970 as a Democratic candidate for governor. The incumbent was a Republican so the Democratic primary was crowded. Bumpers was polling at 1% when he entered the race, but he elbowed his way into a runoff with former Gov. Orval Faubus and won it easily. Then, in the general election, he handily defeated the incumbent, Winthrop Rockefeller, in the process earning the reputation of political giant killer.

That wasn't the last giant he toppled, either. In 1974, after serving two two–year terms as governor, Bumpers challenged five–term Sen. Bill Fulbright in the primary and won by a 2–to–1 margin. He went on to serve four terms in the U.S. Senate.

His most memorable moment in the Senate most likely came a few weeks after his retirement from it in 1999, when he was asked to deliver a closing argument in Bill Clinton's Senate impeachment trial. "H.L. Mencken said one time, 'When you hear somebody say, 'This is not about the money,' it's about the money," Bumpers said. "And when you hear somebody say, 'This is not about sex,' it's about sex."

I always love it when someone works in a quote from Mencken.

Bumpers was frequently mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, and I always thought he would have been a good one. He did whatever he thought was right, not what he thought would win him votes. It's my understanding that, even after serving as governor and senator over a period of nearly 30 years, the accomplishment of which he was most proud was playing an important role in the integration of the school district in his hometown — the first in the old Confederacy.

He always had a sunny disposition, whether he actually believed what he said or not. The thing was that he could make others believe it.

I recall when I was on the faculty of the University of Oklahoma, and I attended a lecture being given by former Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972, the year Bumpers was re–elected governor in a landslide. After the lecture, I went up to McGovern to introduce myself and shake his hand. I told him I had seen him once, late in that '72 campaign when he made a brief stop at the Little Rock airport, and a crowd of both the curious and the committed gathered in a hangar to see him.

McGovern told me he remembered that stop because Bumpers had assured him he would carry Arkansas when the votes were counted about a week later. It didn't work out that way. Richard Nixon carried 69% of the vote, the first time in precisely one century that Arkansas voted for a Republican for president. It has now done so in all but three of the 10 presidential elections that have been held since — and native son Clinton was the Democrats' nominee in two of those elections.

But through that transition, Bumpers continued to win elections. When he was elected governor, observers speculated that he would be one of a new breed of Southern governors — a group that, at the time, included the likes of Jimmy Carter of Georgia. Carter, as I have pointed out, enjoyed his own meteoric rise when he came from nowhere in 1976 to win the presidency. Bumpers later said he had long believed that 1976 was his best opportunity to be elected president.

Bumpers was often mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, but the talk seemed to be loudest in 1980 and 1984. He declined to enter the race both times. I always thought he would have been successful because he had qualities that served Ronald Reagan so well — that sunny disposition I mentioned and remarkable oratorical skills. On a few occasions as a reporter, I covered Bumpers speaking at Labor Day Fish Fries and Chamber of Commerce luncheons in Arkansas, and I always marveled at his speaking style. It was so engaging, so folksy.

He had a real knack for connecting with people, regardless of their political philosophies. It is why in these last couple of days since his death, both Democrats and Republicans in Arkansas have been speaking highly of Bumpers and his ability to reach across the aisle.

Of course, the political landscape in Arkansas has changed considerably since Bumpers was governor. In those days, reaching across the aisle wasn't really the issue. Democrats held nearly every seat in the state legislature, but Bumpers still had to build a consensus on most issues. The legislature had conservative Democrats, liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats. It was the same challenge that Bumpers' Democratic successors, David Pryor (who followed Bumpers to the Senate four years later) and Bill Clinton, faced as governor.

All three understood that it is necessary for each side to give a little, to compromise if great things are to be accomplished. They may not be quite as great as each side envisioned, but they will be better than doing nothing.

Arkansas was fortunate to be governed by such men in times of tremendous change — and doing nothing was not an option.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Why I Am An Independent



From "Inherit the Wind:"

Matthew Harrison Brady: Why is it, my old friend, that you've moved so far away from me?

Henry Drummond: All motion is relative, Matt. Maybe it's you who've moved away by standing still.

Gallup reports that more than two–fifths of Americans self–identify as independents.

That is the highest it has been since Gallup started asking that question a quarter of a century ago, and it indicates that a large portion of the American electorate is up for grabs.

Gallup reported this finding last week, and I have been trying to figure out what it means. The talking heads of all political stripes appear to believe they understand why so many Americans say they belong to neither party, but I think the answer is a lot more complicated than they like to believe.

I have my own thoughts on that, but, ultimately, I can only speak for myself. I, too, consider myself an independent, but I'm sure the path I took is unique to me in most respects.

The fact that so many Americans consider themselves independents suggests several things to me:

For one, I believe winning this voting bloc is going to be a tall order for either party. Both parties will give you ample reasons why the independents should vote for them — indeed, why so many people are leaving the established parties — but I think one of the reasons why so many Americans do identify as independent is because the shrillness of the extreme wings of both parties (and both parties have extremists) turns them off. To win them over, the parties will have to be less accusatory and more placatory.

I repeat, I can only speak for myself. Until a few years ago, I considered myself a Democrat, but I have been bothered by the fact that both parties presume too much about each other — and assume too much about anyone who disagrees with them. Initially, I saw it as the embodiment of George W. Bush's assertion that, essentially, if you ain't with us, you're against us.

(That, in turn, reminds me of some graffiti I read about in my studies of history, graffiti that appeared in Massachusetts in the late 18th century — "Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won't damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won't stay up all night damning John Jay!" I always thought that was a pretty good example of why George Washington warned against the formation of political parties.)

Now, I think it is far more insidious than anything Bush suggested. Bush's use of that with–us–or–against–us approach was simplistic, but, originally, it was aimed at foreign countries. Now it is aimed at our fellow citizens — from within, and that bothers me a lot.

I believe people who self–identify as independents are uncomfortable with the extremist bent in both parties. They don't care for it in the party they have called their political home, and it is probably the main reason why they have resisted switching to the other party.

Personally, I have never considered joining the Republican Party.

My ideology is more inclusive, always has been, and I concluded, after careful reflection, that my loyalty is not to a party. The way both parties operate these days, they believe a voter's first (and only) loyalty is to his/her party. I don't walk in lockstep with any party. My loyalty is to freedom.

I don't remember when I began identifying myself as a Democrat, but I know who influenced me in making that choice — my parents, especially my mother.

(My father played a role in it as well, but he was never as outspoken about his political beliefs as my mother was. They believed the same things so he seemed content to let her do the talking on politics for both of them.)

As nearly as I can recall, Mom never spoke in terms of Democrat or Republican. She spoke about the qualities of leadership that she admired, and she chose candidates for office who demonstrated those qualities. Usually (but not always), those candidates were Democrats.

She admired them because they stood for tolerance and acceptance. She truly believed in those qualities. She lived them, and it was entirely consistent that, when it was time to vote, she should gravitate to those who were tolerant and accepting.

(Mom also encouraged my faith in basic American concepts like freedom of the press and freedom of speech.)

I followed her lead because I believed in the same things — and, for most of my adult life, I voted almost exclusively for Democrats.

But times were different when I was a boy. Both parties had strong centrist factions. There were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Party division wasn't nearly as divisive then as it has become. There were healthy and vigorous debates on most issues in both parties. The concept of the big tent really applied to both parties.

When I was growing up, Mom really embodied the concept of tolerance and acceptance — for me, I know, but also for the people who knew her. She was active in community groups that promoted positive relationships between races, religious groups, etc. She is still remembered in my Arkansas hometown for her commitment to making it a better place for all.

Even as a child, I was proud of her for that. I'm prouder still today.

But our friends weren't exclusively Democrats. If they had been, I suppose my family's circle of friends would have been considerably smaller than it was.

My mother taught my brother and me to cast a wide net for friends, to look beyond those things that divided us, and I have tried to do that. I haven't always succeeded, but I have tried.

She never told me to shun people with whom I did not agree.

I often wonder what she would think of today's Democrats because that is exactly what they do. Most of them, anyway. Not all, but most. I speak from personal experience. There are people I have known since college (some longer than that) who have thrown me under the bus because of politics.

A conversation I had is fairly representative of others I have had. Why are you a Republican? I was asked by a Democrat whom I have known for a long time. (Well, at least, he asked me why. I have other "friends" who never bothered to ask that question before tossing me in the path of an oncoming train.)

I'm not a Republican, I replied. I'm an independent.

You're a hater and a racist.

No, I'm not.

You hate Barack Obama because he's black.

(This accusation has been made against me often but never with any supporting evidence. That doesn't surprise me because there is no such evidence. But that is irrelevant to the accusers. You see, I have learned — the hard way — that you have to be careful when you are accused of this because it is the equivalent of the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" query. If you say that you don't hate Obama because he is black, you are implying that you do hate him for some other reason — and I don't hate him at all.)

No, I don't. I disagree with him.

(That really does express how I feel. I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, but I didn't vote for John McCain, either — I voted for Ralph Nader. After Obama was elected, I told people I was willing to give him a chance, that I would judge him on his record of encouraging job creation.

(And that is precisely what I did when he sought a second term.)
"I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me."

Ronald Reagan

How did it come to this? I don't know. I do know that I really started to notice a shift in Democrat attitudes about five or six years ago, and I felt increasingly uneasy.

See, one of the things that bothered me most about the Bush years was the way that his supporters accused those who disagreed with him of being unpatriotic. That flew in the face of something that I have always believed — that the very essence of freedom and patriotism is the right to criticize the government without fear of being impugned.

At the time, most Democrats seemed to agree with me. But I came to realize they were taking notes on the actions of their Republican colleagues and refining them for future use. Once they seized congressional power, they began using the same tactic — and accelerated it — after Barack Obama was elected president because they could replace unpatriotic with racist to squelch criticism.

No doubt, there are some racists among those who criticize Obama, but criticism of Obama is not proof of racism any more than criticism of past presidents by blacks or Hispanics or any other minority group was proof that those voters were racist.

I don't object to a black president (or a yellow one or a brown one, either). I do object to an incompetent one of any color.

Perhaps the thing that troubles me the most in our present political environment is the tendency to make race or gender or religion or sexual preference more important than anything else. Such things are irrelevant to me. What matters to me is whether the person in question can do the job.

In the past, I have voted for non–whites, non–males, non–heterosexuals. Voted for some in the most recent election, in fact. I voted for some Democrats. I voted for some Republicans. I didn't vote based on labels. That, it seems to me, is what being an independent is all about.

I was bemused recently by the reactions, as expressed on Facebook, of some diehard Democrats here in Texas when Charlie Strong, the coach of the Louisville football team, was named coach at the University of Texas.

Strong is black, and these two Democrats could only talk about how UT and its longtime rival, Texas A&M, both have black football coaches now. Not one word was said about Strong's qualifications as a coach and an educator. Not one word was said about his coaching style or his ability to recruit talented football players — or his record of graduating his players.

UT is very oriented to recent results. The man Strong is replacing, Mack Brown, brought Texas its first national championship in 35 years, and he coached the Longhorns in another national championship game a few years later. But the last couple of years have been very un–Texas–like.

I predict that Strong will be judged on his results, the same as any other coach at UT. If he wins his conference and, perhaps, coaches the Longhorns to the national championship game, he will keep his job. If he continues the recent trend of eight– and nine–win seasons, well, that might be good enough at other schools, but it wasn't good enough for Mack Brown or his predecessors at UT to remain in the good graces of the athletic department and its wealthy boosters.

Nevertheless, if Strong is dismissed because he doesn't make the Longhorns a Top 10 team, I further predict that there will be those, possibly many, who will say he was fired because of racism. It is the nature of the times.

As far as I am concerned, both parties rely on stereotypes to discredit the opposition. That has been part of the political game as long as I can remember, but never to today's extent. it has completely overwhelmed everything else.

And I think that explains, to a great extent, why so many Americans think of themselves as independents. The parties aren't working together, and that's what the voters want them to do. They want real solutions to real problems. They want the people who have been elected to high office to do what they were elected to do — solve problems — instead of pointing fingers at each other.

I don't know if it entirely explains my decision, but I suspect I will continue to try to explain it to people who are determined not to listen for a long time.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Losing My Religion

My parents were Democrats.

I feel it is necessary to say that right up front because it tells you something about how I was brought up. It should tell you something about what I value.

In case it isn't clear, let me spell it out for you:
  • I believe in truth even when truth hurts.

  • I believe in fair and equal treatment for everyone in every situation or endeavor.

  • I believe justice is a two–sided coin, and it isn't always what the majority may think it should be.

  • I believe in individual freedom, and

  • I believe that, while respect must be earned, everyone is entitled to a certain amount of respect from others simply because they exist.
There are other things I believe, too, but that will do for openers.

Being a Democrat was like a religious faith in my family. My roots run deep in Southern soil, but my parents, who spent the first several years of their marriage living abroad, always identified more with the Democrats from the other regions of the country.

They were rarely in sync with many of the Democrats in the small Arkansas town where I grew up. They supported things like civil rights, and they were against the war in Vietnam.

I remember accompanying my mother when she went campaigning door to door for George McGovern in 1972. We encountered few positive responses on our sojourns through our county. I don't know how many doors were slammed in our faces. I just remember that there were a lot of them.

I also remember that the kids with whom I went to school reflected their parents' (and, as it turned out, the state's) political preferences. Richard Nixon got about 70% of the vote in Arkansas that year.

Kids always want to be accepted by their peers, and they are sensitive to the things that they think are barriers to that acceptance. I was quite young in 1972, but I remember feeling that supporting the Democratic ticket was keeping me from gaining the acceptance I craved.

Anyway, I remember one October afternoon when my mother and I were driving into the rural parts of our county to try to win one or two supporters for McGovern's quixotic presidential campaign. Henry Kissinger had just announced that "peace is at hand" in Vietnam, and I mentioned that to Mom.

And then I asked her a question. Mom wasn't given to icy stares, but she gave me one on that occasion.

"If Nixon ends the war in Vietnam," I asked, "couldn't we be for him then? Isn't that what we want to do, end the war?"

Mom stared at me for what seemed like an eternity. "Yes, we want to end the war," she finally said, "but there is more to it than that."

I didn't understand that at the time, but I understood what she meant when I got older.

And, for most of my adult life, I was a Democrat. Until 2008, I supported Democrats in every presidential election after I turned 18.

But I just couldn't vote for Barack Obama. It wasn't that I disagreed with him on many issues. Just the opposite, in fact. To be honest, I was bewildered at the time. I even told some friends, "I can't believe a Democrat is about to be elected president ... and I'm not going to vote for him!"

My friends were even more baffled than I was. I tried to explain it to them, but I couldn't. It was just a gut feeling, I said. I didn't trust Obama.

You must be racist, my Democrat friends said dismissively. But that conveniently overlooked the fact that I was raised by parents who were active supporters of civil rights in the American South at a time when white Southerners who did that wound up having crosses burned in their yards — or worse.

I just didn't trust him. Never have. But I couldn't explain it any better than that in 2008. And my uneasy feeling has continued to grow, along with the unemployment rate. As I wrote here about 18 months ago, I have become an independent.

I have tried to understand it better, and I think I do. In fact, I think there are lots of others out there who are beginning to experience the same nagging doubts I have had about Obama since he emerged as the Democrats' frontrunner three years ago.

They may be just as bewildered as I was — although they shouldn't be because there was much less evidence to support my position in 2008. Folks who are having doubts about Obama today have had 30 months to observe his actions — and inactions — in office.

For the most part, all I had to go on were my suspicions. I'll grant you, they were nothing more than gut feelings three years ago, and I tried to persuade myself that there was nothing to them — or, if there was, I hoped he would overcome the shortcomings that I feared he possessed.

But I have seen nothing since this president took office that has led me to believe that my suspicions were mistaken — or that Obama has made any progress in overcoming his weaknesses.

Persuasion really is the operative word here because that is a big problem I have perceived in not just Obama but many of the prominent members of his party in the last several years. I think it predates Obama's election — which, I suppose, would make him more of a product of it.

It really should come as no surprise when folks on the left and folks on the right disagree — that happens frequently. But I have seen an outright unwillingness on the part of the so–called liberals to treat dissenting opinions with enough respect to listen to them and respond to them. Instead, Democrats tend to dismiss the dissenters as stupid — and/or racist or sexist or whatever.

Say what you will about Rush Limbaugh and the other right–wing radio hosts — and most of it is true — but they treat callers with dissenting views with more respect than their counterparts on the left. They listen to what they have to say (usually), and they respond to the points that are made.

But Democrats too often skip the persuasion part. It's hard work. It's much easier to treat dissenters with contempt or condescension.

When I was growing up, both political parties were positioned more in the middle of the road, and they worked together to resolve their differences. Today, both are so far to either extreme that there is simply too much that stands in the way of compromise.

That's under normal circumstances. It's even tougher to persuade people to come around to your side when you've been demonizing them or dismissing them as fools.

A basic fact that many Democrats seem to have forgotten is that people respond positively to politicians who act as if they respect the voters' intelligence. Democrats like to accuse Republicans of being country clubbers — and many may well be — but, in fact, many voters see Democrats as smug and elitist with no respect for ordinary Americans' beliefs, fears and values.

I have often observed that the Republican Party veered far to the right when it nominated Ronald Reagan in 1980, and it has largely remained there for the last 30 years after striking its deal with the Christian conservatives.

It is harder for me to pinpoint when Democrats veered so far to the left, but I think it took root midway through the last decade — in the aftermath of Republican mishandling of the Terri Schiavo tragedy and the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

The pendulum swung back to the Democrats, and they began seizing the components of the federal government — but it turned out that all they had learned from Republican control of Congress (and, later, the presidency) was how to bully people into doing what they wanted.

That kind of politics, as Democrats should have learned by now, has a short shelf life.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Weiner Roast



Up to this point, I have avoided making any comments on the Anthony Weiner scandal.

But I was speculating via e–mail with a friend of mine — for a few years, we worked in the same newsroom as copy editors — about how much fun it would be to work on a copy desk when the headline on Weiner's resignation announcement was being written.

How many off–color headlines and double entendres will wind up in print, I asked him. And he agreed that it would, indeed, be fun to be working on a copy desk that evening.

Actually, it was an ongoing joy ride for headline writers — a gift that truly kept on giving. Most of the time, headline writers only get a single shot at a memorable headline, but the Weiner story went on and on, giving headline writers the chance to improve on their work every single day.

So, before the Weiner story recedes too much in our collective consciousness, I thought I would review some of the better headlines that have been written throughout this episode involving the congressman.

There were some of the obvious ones, like the ones that suggested that Weiner had been "exposed."

And many of the headlines came from the New York Post's daily coverage of the emerging scandal. (I guess it was only right that a newspaper from Weiner's home state would be the most significant contributor.

(The Post dubbed the Weiner story the "battle of the bulge.")

But there have been some headlines elsewhere that have been worth noting.

For example ...

The headline on Howard Kurtz's piece in The Daily Beast spoke about Weiner's "junk defense."

(I can't help wondering if that has any relationship to the "Twinkie defense.")

The New York Daily News simply concluded that Weiner is a schmuck.

That one is really tough to argue with.

I've seen headlines that said Weiner was "grilled," that said his story was "hard to swallow," that said he had been "hung out to dry," that said he was "in a pickle," that contended his support was "soft."

As Jay Leno observed on The Tonight Show, since this story broke, we're all in ninth grade.

Personally, I would say that my favorite came from the Kansas City Star.

It spoke of "Weiner's schnitzel."

What can I say? I studied German for awhile when I was in high school.