Herman, we hardly knew ye.
But, then, neither did the Republican voters who flocked to you several weeks ago. Herman Cain has two qualifications that were enough to make him the frontrunner for his party's nomination, and both are to be found in his surname: It is not Romney, and it is Cain.
Now that Republican family values voters have again demonstrated their political infidelity by deserting a man recently accused as a serial practitioner of marital infidelity to embrace a man long notorious as a serial marital infidel and Herman Cain's brief affair with the Republican base has been suspended, let us think about how metaphorically appropriate it was that he rose to the top of the Republican presidential field.
Cain has left his mark on the party -- or, rather, his party already bore his mark before it recognized him as its potential standard-bearer.
Consider where the party's values are these days.
When Herman Cain declared in early October, "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!" Republicans cheered mightily. The party's new frontrunner, Newt Gingrich, has contributed this advice to the Occupy movement: "Go get a job right after you take a bath."
Then, terming child labor laws "truly stupid" and saying that children as young as 9 should be put to work, Gingrich in essence called for transforming 21st Century America into a facsimile of the 19th Century London of which Charles Dickens wrote.
It is easy to imagine Gingrich reprising Ebenezer Scrooge: "Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? If they would rather die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population." Surely these would be applause lines at Republican debates, where letting an uninsured patient die has already drawn cheers of approval.
Remember when the Republicans were the Party of Lincoln? They still merited that label during the early 1960s. Surprising though it seems today, in 1964 80 percent of Republicans in both the House and Senate voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act. That may be surprising; this seems incredible: In 1965, 51 percent of House Republicans and 43 percent of the party's senators voted for the bill creating Medicare and Medicaid.
Now, though, the party is unified in support of the proposition that the primary purpose of health insurance is not to provide healthcare and financial protection to people who are stricken by illness, but to maximize profits for insurance companies.
And what would be the reaction of most Republicans today to the following statement:
"Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
"Socialism!" most Republicans would certainly yell at this declaration. It is from Abraham Lincoln's first annual message to Congress in 1861.
Plainly the Grand Old Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln. Whose party, then, is it today?
Many of its members claim that it is the Party of Christianity.
Here, though, is a brief statement of the social policy of conservative Republican "Christians" today:
Give the hungry no food and the thirsty no drink.
Do not welcome strangers.
Do not clothe the naked.
Do not minister to the sick or visit those in prison.
A fair summary of the attitude of the Republicans who most loudly proclaim themselves to be Christians toward "the least of these" would be: "Let them die and decrease the surplus population."
So the "Party of Scrooge" would be an accurate name for what is so clearly no-longer the Party of Lincoln.
But there is more appropriate name for this new Republican Party.
It is, of course, mere coincidence that the surname of the Republican Party's 2008 presidential nominee means "Son of Cain" and that the man who for a time this fall surged into the lead for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination has the surname Cain.
Coincidental though it is, this Republican infatuation with men named Cain is an apt metaphor for what the erstwhile Party of Lincoln has now become.
The infamous words of the biblical Cain, after all, could readily serve as the slogan of today's Republican Party: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Their answer is identical with that implicit in the rhetorical question posed by Abel's killer. With a resounding unanimity Republicans respond: "Hell, No!"
Many Republicans denounce the evolutionary science of the man born on the same date as Lincoln, Charles Darwin, but believe wholeheartedly in the antisocial doctrine mislabeled social Darwinism.
The Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Cain.
The Republican elephant has become the Mark of Cain.
Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm professor of arts & letters and Professor of History at Millsaps College, in Jackson, Miss. His books include The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941. He is now writing "Oh, Freedom! -- The Young ' 60s."
Follow Robert S. McElvaine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@BobMcElvaine
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/fair.htm
In fact, the Progressive Era "Bull Moose" that Obama is currently channeling, Teddy Roosevelt, channeled Honest Abe in making his own case for reforms to rein in the rampant political corruption perpetrated by the moneyed interests of his day:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501
So, please, it is both unnecessary and counterproductive to quote Lincoln out of context when TR provided an appropriate framing of Lincoln's material.
McElvaine's not trying to make a balanced, nuanced argument like our political leaders apparently used to. He's making a point about political extremism and hypocrisy, and, I think, uses Lincoln's quote effectively to that end.
"I have so far stated the opposite theories of 'Mud-Sill' and 'Free Labor' without declaring any preference of my own between them. On an occasion like this I ought not to declare any."
But his 1961 speech definitely stresses labor's primacy over capital as McElvaine quotes.
Thank you for correcting me on this matter!
Thanks for the links in your other comment to articles about how the Internet is affecting our brains. I was not aware of the research on the learning efficacy of web page design. Great stuff!
In general though, I think the question of whether the Internet will make us "smarter" over the long run will depend upon the intent of those who supply and control its content. Meaning, if purely commercial interests dominate this medium, then it will be predominantly used to distract and entertain us for monetary gain and political control. Alternately, if there is sufficent subsidization of non-commercial content providers, altruistic contributions to Web content will reduce the tendency for commercial content to make Internet users "dumber". This argument, to my knowledge, has been advanced most vigorously by media critic and net neutrality supporter Robert W. McChesney.
Applying McChesney's argument to the issue of whether Google in particular is making us dumber, one could argue that because its search engine business has the characteristics of a "natural monopoly" (increasing returns to scale), the government should...
(a)Â force it to spin this portion of its business off into a regulated monopoly, or
(b) subsidize not-for-profit competitors of this portion of its business using taxes based on its Web traffic.
Here is some more relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McChesney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
Another Way the Rich Dodge Taxes
The capital gains tax you face, after all, only runs 15 percent. That’s less than half the 35 percent you would be paying if capital gains were taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.
Some super rich in this situation do indeed just take their capital gain, pay Uncle Sam his 15 percent, and buy a bigger yacht. Others get creative. They don’t pay Uncle Sam. They get Uncle Sam to pay them.
These super rich go ahead and sell their shares — for colossal sums — but don’t deliver them to the buyer until a few years after they cut the deal.
At delivery time, these mega rich do report the income from the sale on their tax returns and pay the capital gains tax upon it. But in the meantime they’ve enjoyed what amounts to an interest-free loan from Uncle Sam.
Look, the main problem now is too many Americans have been led to believe that the Reaganite Neo-Conservative platform is "patriotic and religious."
Despite all the mounting evidence that it is not, too many Americans still believe it.
They still believe it because it was originally sold by a very charming corporate television pitch man, Ronald Reagan. And the Reaganites still believe he was a hero and their champion.
They also still believe it because Reagan was supported by the leaders of the "Christian Right," who thumped their bible as they waved the flag and rattled their swords.
Now that is what enables and justifies deceptive right-wing extremists in labeling Obama and progressives as "ungodly socialists" or "ungodly secular humanists" who are "against religion."
Fortunately, the truth flies in their face and they will be stopped when they are exposed and rebuked. And that has been done well by a man who foresaw that all this would happen and has been developing his message for 27 years, and you can read it at http://messenger.cjcmp.org
And you can hear what he has to say at http://www.soundclick.com/ttap
http://www.theamericancause.org/patreaganneoconservative.htm
Just because we don't want the government doing these things doesn't not mean we don't want it done.
It's people like you who worry about convenience because instead of going out and making sure your money is going to the right place, you lay the burden on a mismanaged government so no blame is put on yourself.
A very myopic statement --- Guess what ????? The Government Charity Programs ARE STILL all of us .... and
Obviously we can still not afford to do all that some want done on the terms they wish it done.
Want to feed the hungry .... STOP allowing public largesse through the SNAP (formerly called FOOD STAMPS) Program for non essentials like potato chips and Soda Pop. Instead concentrate on real food Reinstate the USDA Surplus Program instead of worrying about how someone feels about standing at a Public Building for food worry about getting the most bang for the dollar.
Public Largesse Programs are full of waste such as this. When my tax dollar is spent as efficiently as I spend what the Feds allow me to keep I will stop being so concerned with taxes.
The Progressive answer of throwing more money that it should be painfully obvious by now we do not have at these issues is wrong headed. That is what we have been doing for 50 years to no avail. It is not the answer.
Wonder the effect if one or more of our cable commentary shows would actually get down to the ISSUES and what a Republican victory in 2012 would mean, say, point by point?
What are Republican voters willing to give up in their lives for a Republican win? What are independent voters willing to give up, should any of them be seriously considering voting Republican next Fall?. What indeed is America willing to give up?
Things in their lives like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, affordable health care, Wall Street reform, environmental protections, Public Broadcasting Service (goodbye Sesame Street) . . .
CHECK IT OUT:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/01/republican-spending-cut-proposals.php?page=1
Still interested Republican voters?
Still interested independent voters?
Still interested America?
C'mon.
It becomes increasingly difficult to be charitable when federal, State, and local government confiscates nearly half your income so they can take the credit for your charity.
The stagnation of the economy created by Progressive pie in the sky plans creates the very problems you erroneously claim conservatives are unwilling to address