Politics at the Minnesota State Fair

Now some people might say my opinions are a bit biased, but I don’t know why anyone would say that.  They might also suggest that I do generalize a bit too easily.  Really?  No, no no.  Pish posh.  That’s just silly.  And I am going to prove it.

Yesterday I went to the Minnesota State Fair and lingered at the GOP booth.  I like to do this, especially with a few anti-Marriage Amendment and pro-Democratic buttons pinned to my shirt.  I also like to see how long I can hold my breath.  (I don’t know, but those people must have caught something and I don’t want it.)  So picture me there, holding my breath turning shades of red and holding a half-full cup of pale ale, too, while I eagerly look  for action.

I am an observant guy and I seek out the truth.  So I linger and watch and wait and so on.  I want something to happen, after all I always look for facts that I can share with you.  And year after year I keep giving these people a second chance and each year I am disappointed.  Certainly their politics are wrong — bad thinking leads to bad politics — but why the hell can’t these people get fashion right?

Come on folks!  Have some style.  Who dresses you, Nurse Ratched?

I exhale and leave.

Here is an indisputable fact…if you see a stylish, well-dressed (maybe even sexy…definitely if sexy) person at the Minnesota State Fair, they’re a liberal.  I’ll take that fact one step farther, if you see a stylish, well-dressed (and most definitely if they’re sexy) person anywhere, they are a liberal.   And I can prove it with one visit at the fair.

Certainly there are some liberals with closets best suited for the 80s, I don’t deny that — I might even be one of them — but I challenge you to find a conservative with any fashion sense.  I only speak the truth, so prove me wrong.

Let’s start with the basics.

Your typical conservative congressman, as an example, matches his belt and shoes only because someone told him to do so.  Whereas a liberal finds fashionable ways to mix it up.  And pulls it off.  Look back at any of the Republican debates earlier this year.  If there are people who can make a standard blue suit look bad, that’s your gang.  Clearly they watch episodes of Dragnet for tips on style and poise.  Dare them to mix patterns or try a European cut.

I do have to give George W. Bush some credit, though.  He appeared to have a tailor.  And a good one.  Of course he wore his suits like a coat hanger — Jack Webb would have been proud — but then a suit of clothes doesn’t make the man.  Often the other way around.  And we know other issues swirl around and through George W that a suit cannot fix.

But this is simple stuff, clothes are clothes, so let’s go back again to the fair where I can prove my point.

The GOP booth was a raging bore.  A few folks with bad hair (once again, check out the people conservatives elect, cf. Kurt Zellers?)  and even worse t-shirts stood around catching flies or awaiting the Rapture, I couldn’t tell which.  It was disappointing.  These people were lost in their own little cloudy cocoons, being extra careful not to make eye contact.  I couldn’t find anyone to talk with me.  Instead they wandered to and fro as if they had been at the Kool-Aid just a bit too long.  An absolute disaster over there at the GOP, but that should surprise no one.

Have I ever been wrong about Kurt Zellers?

The DFL booth on the other hand was busy with happy, energetic good people.  Most of them were hot as hell, too.  Even I felt a little sexy over there with the Democrats.  And of course there was no arguing with my Black Fleece gingham shirt, pressed linen pants, polished shoes, and jaunty hat.  Clearly not a conservative, because even if it didn’t quite work, I at least tried.  (When was the last time a conservative tried ANYTHING…other than taking away your public services and limiting your rights, that is?)

Now let’s go up the street where the anti-marriage rights people have a booth and…you know what…I’m not even going to pick on these people, not their sense of style or anything else.  I genuinely felt a little sorry for them.  Their politics, however, are fair game.

(By the way, if I remember correctly, they are sporting a bad shade of aqua at that booth.  Aqua?  Maybe it was Gatorade green.)

The anti-marriage rights booth was dead, just as that amendment surely is dead.  For the record here, the amendment is commonly called the “Marriage Amendment,” which is an example of conservative talent with Owellian Doublespeak.

The pro-rights people — the people correctly opposing this soi disant Marriage Amendment — attract quite a crowd.  It is a large, busy, and — even at the Minnesota State Fair — socially diverse crowd.  People actually wait in line to sign a petition, and none of them were wearing grey air-brushed t-shirts showing F-15 fighter jets flying through a bad collage of American flags, eagles, and Mount Rushmore.  I felt kind of sexy here, too.

In fact, I think I can close the circle on this discussion right now.  Is it simply the fact that liberals have a better sense of style that makes them more attractive or is it something else?  Likewise, does bad art silk-screened on a cheap shirt or a DIY haircut really make one unattractive or is it something else?  Sarah Palin spent $70,000 at Neiman Marcus here in Minneapolis and it didn’t seem to help her.  Maybe it is her glasses or her screeching, whining voice…I don’t know.  But I think I do know…

Using Sarah Palin as an example — a woman whose sense of style cannot be saved by the fashion forward efforts of Neiman Marcus’s talented sales people — we see that style isn’t so much about what you wear but who you are.  In the current  epoch of American Conservativism, I can go to the GOP pound year after year and not find a winner in that show.   Look at Sarah.  Even  a stylish Armani suit cannot overcome her wooden, Team America persona.  She might impress a knuckle-dragger, but she does nothing for me.

The progressive thinking people at the anti-Marriage Amendment booth, on the other hand, possess something entirely different.  There’s nothing wooden about them.  They possess a degree of thoughtfulness and intelligence.  And intelligence is attractive.  Therefore the good liberal people lining up and crowding around the booth are attractive.  They have style!  They have panache!  Sadly it seems it will be a long time — in a galaxy far, far away? — before you will be able to say that about conservatives again.

So there you have it.  You can go see it for yourself.  Why are liberals sexy and attractive?  Because they have style.  And why do they have style?  Because it is all about smarts and good thinking.  Go out there and be sexy today!

Related articles

• Gay Marriage Campaign Comes to Minn. State Fair (kstp.com)
• How to survive (and still enjoy) the Minnesota State Fair (thesweethealthylife.wordpress.com)
• The Fascinating Differences Between The Conservative and Liberal Personality | Alternet (mbcalyn.com)
• How Conservatism Lost Its Mind (theamericanconservative.com)

Choosing a GOP Rally Song

Tom Petty Might Have Something to Say About This

We’re getting into election season and we can count on the anti-progressive GOP hijacking the good work of progressive artists to give their campaigns some much-needed excitement and energy.   In fact riling aging rockers is the most consistent thing most Republican campaigns do in America today.

Already this year Romney had to stop using K’naan’s “Wavin’ Flag” at his rallies and Gingrich was asked to stop playing Survivor’s “Eye of the Tiger.”  Republicans running into flack from musicians unhappy with them playing their music at rallies is almost a joke, and a yawner at that.  Perhaps it is time the Republicans stop choosing songs from progressive rockers (What’s wrong with Nugent’s “Wang Dang Sweet Poontang”?) and choose from a body of music more fitting to their political message.  I would suggest fantasy.

And seeing that Republicans are all about family, why not choose a family fantasy, one with exciting, colorful images that – on the surface – appear simple.  That is, after all, what the GOP is all about today.  Shallow fantasy that’s easy to swallow.

So my choice for fitting GOP fantasy songs come from the classic film “The Wizard of Oz.”

They’re all great, we only need to choose which would be best.  When you start looking into it, that isn’t the simplest choice to make.  Really, any song from that classic will work, but let’s look for the best.

Let’s start with “We’re off to See the Wizard.”  It kind of sets the theme of the film after all.  It is a brief synopsis and quick overview of the story, kind of like reading Cliff’s Notes.  GOPers will be familiar with this approach of inquiry and fact.

“We’re Off to See the Wizard” ideally fits the GOP message, just because, because, because, because…just because.  You see “We’re Off to See the Wizard” really doesn’t say anything.  There isn’t any reason to believe that the Wizard is either wonderful or even a whiz of a wiz.  He just is one because of the wonderful things he does.  And what does the Wizard of Oz do?  I don’t know.  He just is a whiz of a wiz.  Just because.  And that is precisely the GOP message.  No ideas, just follow us just because…because, because, because.  You get it.  Call it the Whiz of the Wiz trope.  It fits.

I would stop right now and say you can do no better than nominate “We’re Off to See the Wizard,” unless…of course, you consider “If I Were King of the Forest”.

I hate to say it, but Dorothy looks a little Republican in this shot.

Showing that even a cowardly lion may aspire to kingly influence is right in line with GOP individualism, is it not?  All you need to do is puff up your chest, swish your tail and soon both mountains and chipmunks will bow and genuflect.  You don’t really need any plan for greatness, it happens on a wish.  You don’t need a sound economic strategy for a stronger future, for example, you just declare yourself an expert and that’s it, regardless of how wrong you are.  The key is making oneself king.  Pish posh about anything else.

You can see that the choice will not be simple.  Let’s make the decision even more difficult and consider another.  (Any Oz song will do.  We’re looking for the best.)

Don’t overlook the Tin Man’s tender tear jerker “If I Only Had a Heart.”  Of course that classic absolutely must be in the running…but only for its irony.  The Tin Man, after all, wants a heart so he can be “kinda human.”  Whoa!  That hits it.  If today’s Republicans were kind of human, well, we wouldn’t be racing toward ruin under conservative obstructionism and hostage taking.

But it is the irony angle that I like.  It is on par with Sarah Palin trying to co-opt Heart’s “Barracuda”.  Nice try, Fish Lips, but the only thing Palin has in common with a real barracuda is a vacant stare.

Which brings me to my conclusion.  To have a heart, understand irony, be courageous, and NOT be seemingly confused when Tom Petty asks you to stop using “American Girl” without his permission also means you have intelligence.  (At least a little.)  And thus I stop at my choice, my clear winner:  The Scarecrow’s “If I Only Had a Brain.”   This is the most obvious choice for many reasons and in the song I would like see take the lead over all others.

There isn’t a word in the Scarecrow’s song that doesn’t fit the essence of today’s Republican Party, not a word.  It exists as if it were tailor made for the modern conservative campaign.  It is direct and honest – which, of course, poses some problems for any legitimate tea drinking conservative – but perhaps it is time that conservatives come out of the closet, so to speak, and embrace their shortcomings.  They might come out as more sympathetic characters.

scanned from 1900 Wizard of Oz book (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Clearly the song works.  Think about it.  Whenever I hear even the first cackle of Michele Bachmann’s voice, for example, the Scarecrow theme begins to jingle in my thoughts.  It is a pleasant song so this offers a bit of a musical refuge from the loony nonsense stuffin’ head Bachmann inevitably speaks.  Everyone wins.

And if conservatives won’t embrace the song, why shouldn’t the rest of us?  I imagine choruses of better Americans standing in unison, supporting the conservative delegation with a little musical cheer, kind of like caroling, but different.  It isn’t difficult.  “If I Only Had a Brain” is easily hummed or whistled.  In fact, I have developed multiple variations of the theme for my own entertainment.  You can, too!  Hell, lead a “If I Only Had a Brain” group in your community.  Hum a song and save your country.

Below are the words to “If I Only Had a Brain”.  Check them out and tell me if I am wrong in my choice.

I could while away the hours, conferrin’ with the flowers

Consultin’ with the rain.

And my head I’d be scratchin’ while
My thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain.
I’d unravel every riddle for any individ’le,
In trouble or in pain.
With the thoughts you’ll be thinkin’
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain.
Oh, I could tell you why The ocean’s near the shore.
I could think of things I never thunk before.
And then I’d sit, and think some more.
I would not be just a nothin’ my head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only had a brain.More lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/w/wizard_of_oz/#share

Related articles

• Quote of the Day: ‘We Republicans Don’t Have a Lot of Songs to Choose From’ (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Punk Rock Band Insults GOP Senate Candidate (huffingtonpost.com)
• Sarah Palin Robocalls For Texas Senate Candidate Reportedly Sent In Kansas (huffingtonpost.com)

Why Sarah Palin Won’t Run

In today’s New York Times (August 24, 2011) and elsewhere there is talk once again that Sarah Palin might join the Republican race for the party’s presidential nomination.  Perhaps she see’s what the rest of us see, an ensemble of embarrassing partisan extremists and intellectual light weights.  This would seem to suit Palin well.

As much fun as it would be to see Palin add yet another layer of absurdity to the race, it isn’t likely to happen.

First of all, I believe Palin is smart enough about her best interests to steer clear of this year’s race.  She has more to lose than gain.  Her popularity is already waning.  More exposure, especially in the “lame-stream” press, will only highlight her ineptness and flaws.  More public scrutiny would only further tarnish the Palin brand.

Palin sucks up trends and profits from them more than she establishes a lead role.  Her rhetoric distills a mix of angry conservative soundbites and complaints without offering much in the way of ideas and solutions.  And this has proven to be very profitable financially for Palin.  It has made her a political celebrity.  She enjoys this.  Real politics?  Probably not so much…she quit her most important political job midstream, as everyone remembers.

Palin will avoid a serious political race simply because it is what it is:  A lot of risk and a lot of hard work.  This one-time short-term governor isn’t up to the task.  Sarah is a better whiner and complainer than campaigner.  She does not enjoy the fight.  She struggles with interviews, slips up with facts, stands glassy-eyed in debates…and does none of it with any hint of polish as her Tea Party twin, Bachmann, seems to do.  Sarah Palin wants things her way and on her schedule.  That’s it.  A race for the Republican nomination won’t cater to her comfort well.

Plus the GOP already has a whole lot of out-of-touch crazy in the race.  Backwardness is the GOP theme in recent years and with people sharing Palin’s credentials like Perry and Bachmann already enjoying a headstart…well, it just wouldn’t be that much fun for Sarah.  She might get the spotlight for a few days, but couldn’t count on much more after that.  That is not the Palin way.  She expects and demands to win popularity contests.  She prefers to choose where she will be most popular.

And don’t forget the money.  Palin’s got all she can expect with Fox News, speaking fees, and book deals.  It is hard to see her giving up that golden goose even for a short time.

The realities of a campaign for the GOP nomination won’t cater to Palin’s needs.  She’ll need to compete and — even more importantly — she’ll need to compete with competence and success.  Again, Palin isn’t up to the task.

Perhaps the most obvious reason Palin won’t go after the GOP nomination is a reason Palin understands well enough instinctively.  Very simply, she isn’t qualified to be the nominee, let alone occupy the White House.  People like Palin — e.g., Bachmann, Perry, et al — have personalities and propensities that should make anyone looking for serious leadership look elsewhere.  These are not leaders, these are self-serving opportunists.  When it comes to an intelligent grasp of serious ideas and debate, these people are flat and shallow.  Few people represent this shortcoming as well as Sarah Palin and she might be just smart enough to understand this.

Finally, if Palin were planning to run, we’d probably see more of her now.  I think we would certainly hear more about her now.  There’s no talk of a campaign staff being organized, for example.  Nothing is happening and worse for Sarah fewer people are talking about her; as her party searches for a strong and popular candidate, Chris Christie was the guy GOP leaders wanted, not Palin.

In short, a presidential race is way over Sarah Palin’s head and her abilities.  She would not stand up to the scrutiny that comes with a campaign.  Personally this would cut into her profitable personal enterprise of being Sarah Palin.  Moreover, her party doesn’t want her anyway.  Sarah won’t run.

Why not just nominate Romney and be done with it?  The debates are too predictable anyway.

Related articles

• 5 Reasons Sarah Palin Needs to Join 2012 GOP Race Now (usnews.com)
• Sarah Palin Shall Not Be Shackled [Video] (gawker.com)
• Time to bring in Sarah Palin (thehill.com)
• Sarah Palin, second-tier candidate (telegraph.co.uk)

Deconstructing The Rhetorical Right

The recent effort to pin blame  — or maybe more importantly to evade it — by the political left and the political right since the Arizona shootings last Saturday offers an opportunity to become a Monday morning deconstructionist. 

Jaques Derrida. It has been a while.

And, actually, I think there might be some legitimately rational conclusions drawn from such an effort.  So let’s go!

Almost immediately after last Saturday’s shooting, critics on the left made connections between the increasingly partisan and bitter rhetoric they believe comes from the right, including language that references violence and revolution, and the actual act of political violence in Arizona. 

The result has been a lot of finger-pointing and the now-expected call — almost a necessary cliché — to find a calm middle ground and share the blame.  Politicians and the media alike qualify their comments with “balanced” statements which are intended to reflect even-handed objectivity. 

I don’t care about that, not in this post.  That finger-pointing blame game occurs on the periphery of what the debate reveals.  I have my opinions — I do think words and ideas create real environments, both good and bad — but I think if you want to look at what the blaming fracas truly reveals, look not only at what people are saying, but how they say it.

Think of a schoolyard.  When something bad happens, what do children say?  How often do the guilty deflect guilt?  The window didn’t break because I threw the ball at the glass.  It broke because the other kid didn’t catch the ball.  Right?  That’s an easy one. 

But how often does the child about to be punished scream and point at the other children and say “they did it too”?  (Who is “they”, by the way?)  But that’s another easy one.  We all know this.  Simple.  Guilty children, especially little brats, rarely accept responsibility with dignity; they’re children afterall.  When a child caught red handed cries that it isn’t his fault, the child essentially confirms his guilt.  And that, I believe, is the smoking gun.

Hidden within the bluster of people like Limbaugh and Judson Phillips is a trace of what they are not saying.  By rising up and taking an aggressive position countering the blame coming from the left there is, I think, a tacit acknowledgement that blame exists.  What is said is defined by what isn’t being said.   

Look at it this way.  Most rational people would not argue the point that a specific statement by a politician had the direct or intentional result of causing an otherwise rational person to act violently.  No one would draw a  simple direct link like that.  Conservatives, however, are trying to control the debate by framing the criticism precisely in that way.  This is key.  The debate shifts from criticism of dangerous rhetoric generally to the specific absurdity that a specific text (Palin’s sharpshooter map, for example) caused a specific outcome (the Arizona shootings). 

If the “lock and load” rhetoric from the right were not dangerous, they could say as much, but by trying to say that the other side is as much to blame as anyone else, the right admits that there is something wrong with the language that people like Palin and Bachmann routinely use to rally support. 

That’s the key that I think we need to talk about.

The right simply cannot go out and say their combative and divisive speech is nothing more than harmless metaphor and clever rhetoric because the argument would fall flat.  We know they understand this not so much because they choose not to defend the violent language, but because they choose to attack the critics.  In their efforts to say they alone are not to blame they very much admit that fault exists, not specifically for any single act of violence, but for the destructive language of us versus them that poisons public discourse today.

Left, Right, and Some Guy in the Middle.

Finally, language does not have to directly cause violence and killings to create a dangerous environment that enables violent behavior.  Human history shows what happens when we create a divide between us and them, when we create the other.  Rarely do we create divides that flatter the other side.  We don’t create difference to reach out and be more like them.  We do it to create a hierarchy.  This hierarchy exists in the political language of our country and the debate that has followed the Giffords shooting exposes it in a very real, but perhaps somewhat hidden, way. 

The problem is the increasingly bitter and even violent tone of that debate and public discourse generally.  We can — and we should — ask if one group is out of line.  If we are the great democracy we want to be, we should not shirk responsibility.  Own up to it, correct it, and move on.

Related Articles

• False Equivalency Watch, Cont’d (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Clinton warns against demonized rhetoric (thehill.com)