What’s The Matter With (fill in the blank)

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
–Marcus Aurelius

On Columbus Day, some of our local group of Democratic Club members gathered at the Court House Square here in the Pea Patch, carrying homemade signs demanding that our Fourth District House Representative, Vicky Hartzler — a Tea Bagger who catapulted into national politics during the Great Disenchantment of 2010 — keep her hands off our Social Security. Hartzler, well funded by the Republican political machine here in Southern Missouri, replaced the respected Blue Dog Dem incumbent, Ike Skelton, beating the 34-year veteran of the House and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee by a mere 5% of votes.

Although the shut-down had yet to be settled, the impetus for the protest was the Tea Party attack on “entitlements.” Hartzler had joined 50 other Republicans in signing a letter to John Boehner urging that any negotiations for shutdown should include, among other things, implementing chained CPI and means testing for Social Security. Nowhere, of course, did it include discussion of raising the cap on earnings of the wealthy, which would quickly stabilize the Social Security Insurance program well into the future, or of allowing for an active immigration program that would mend it in an eye blink.

Since the county seat (of slightly less than 10,000 souls) was shut up tight as a drum on the holiday, we gathered, flashed our signs at the few cars that passed by, and took pictures, including several outside the little local newspaper office, just across the street from the square. One of our company, a lifetime resident active in the Dem party who had previously served in county government, slipped a letter to the editor pointing out Hartzler’s intent into their mail slot, including a copy of the offending letter to the House Speaker with Vicky’s name highlighted. We had no idea if they would print it, given the overt tendency to lean as far right on most matters as possible while still issuing a policy of allowing “all viewpoints to have a voice.” The paper came out mid-week, and — lo and behold — there it was.

Sweetening the pot, this week a picture of our little group made the front page, although the caption was filtered through the conservative editor’s awareness of the issue. The group of “concerned citizens,” said he, were upset that failure to pass a continuing resolution might deprive them of their SS checks. And while that was surely of concern to most of the picketers, who were seniors depending on their insurance each month, it was hardly our main objective. That, in a nut-shell, illustrates much of our collective challenge with the framing issues, the press, and the cynically intentional disconnect between the two factions that are in a 21st century face-off for the political future of this nation.

Mostly, we humans hear what we want to hear, facts be damned. Concerns that the caption would misrepresent our issue fell by the wayside as the previous week’s op/ed had led to three highly indignant responses from those representing the right, inadvertently clarifying the concerns of the opinion piece, which was blasted x3, but which muddied the waters in readers’ minds by the sheer weight of misinformation.

One gentleman, titling his opinion piece Truth About Social Security decried the use of SS monies going into the general fund, citing numerous references to Democratic presidents helping themselves and complaining that if those assets had been kept in an independent trust fund, they would still be available for him and others like him to draw upon. One has to wonder if he was moved to vote for Al Gore in 2000, the man who suffered a volley of slings and arrows when he spoke of a “lock box” on those very funds, but don’t wonder too long. You know the answer to that, don’t you?

Another guy, who titled his piece Learn The Facts For Yourself, accused our club member of distorting the truth and preying on people’s fears. He urged people to ignore “negative campaigning and politicians lying” by fact-checking claims by all such activists. He cited the original op/ed, saying, ” … he attempts to get the reader to believe Congresswoman (Vicky) Hartzler joined in a letter to Speaker (John) Boehner calling for drastic changes in Social Security as part of any budget or debt ceiling deal. Is there any such letter?”

To the paper’s credit, it followed this harangue with an Editor’s Note, indicating that a copy of the very congressional letter in question was provided him, but then continues: “It does discuss Social Security, or more accurately, ways in which to fix it and make it more sustainable. There is a mention of tying it in with a debt ceiling increase, but in a way which would force Washington to finally address this problem.” No mention that Social Security is solvent through 2038. Rather, the meme that SSI is in danger of being tapped out and plays some role in the deficit is implied in the response: neither is true.

The last of the letters to the editor is entitled Cold Hard Facts, and should the author have stuck to them, his political leanings would surely have been clarified by his selection of same (budget deficit and US spending, nothing concerning SSI) but, of course, he didn’t. He had to get some licks in about how Hartzler and others Pubs had “NO plans to change Social Security” and that the shutdown wouldn’t have occurred had Obama and the Dems simply agreed to delay implementation of Obamacare, with “the GOP’s plan financing EVERY other function of government.” (DO pardon my derisive snort and consider that loud honk a virtual reply for next week’s op/ed page!)

Talk about rewriting history before it even happens, proving  Churchill’s comment that, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Reading these three heated declarations of righty-tude, from somewhere not far off in memory, I hear the echo of a chant:

I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-Am.

Back pre-Bush, our previous House Rep, Ike Skelton was considered one of the last of the Truman Democrats, socially conservative but in most instances a champion of the people. Practicing old style politics, he brought home the earmarks that kept the rural areas running and made sure veterans had what they needed. Educated at a military school, he was a hawk, a natural to lead the drum beat for adequate armament and supplies denied our foot soldiers during the war in Iraq. At a small gathering, I once mentioned to him that I wrote him often with my complaints over his positions. He smiled and asked, “Do I answer you?” He and I both knew how the game of politics was played. I didn’t always agree with Ike, but I respected him.

Skelton’s final years played out at a time when the conservative takeover revealed itself in Thomas Frank’s book, What’s The Matter With Kansas. Political policy that assisted the public was cast aside in favor of hot-button issues, creating an over-amped populace that voted against its own best interests again and again. Seemingly overnight, blue sections of the map went red, giving rise to the “fair and balanced” news network, the careers of people like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, and blanket approval of hot-air radio-jocks like Rush Limbaugh. Want to hear a shocker? This book was sold in England and Australia under a different title: What’s The Matter With America. Under Bush’s leadership, no other ideology, political or social, was heard for years. That was the climate that gave us Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and paved the way for our current Fourth District Representative.

Ike’s replacement, Vicky Hartzler, is a former Home Ec teacher and farmer’s wife, who with her family collects well over half a million dollars in farm subsidies. Author of a book (self-published through an organization that has been likened to a “purity cult”) titled Running God’s Way, Vicky served as spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, and, according to Wiki, “Despite Hartzler’s fierce partisan opposition to the Missouri Assembly’s ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (“I don’t want women used to pass a liberal agenda”), Republican Governor Matt Blunt nonetheless appointed Hartzer Chair of the Missouri Women’s Council in 2005, where she served for two years.”

The Governor Blunt in question is the son of Roy, who took over as Interim House Majority Speaker after Tom DeLay was indicted for criminal activity in 2005. Roy has since left the House of Representatives, effortlessly winning the senatorial seat beside Dem. Claire McCaskill when Senator Kit Bond retired. It’s the inbred “old boy” network that accounts for these seemingly uncontested wins, money and power passed like a baton between the generations. That’s just how we roll here in Southern Missouri, home to another name that should be familiar to you: former Attorney General John Ashcroft (he of female statues with modestly draped breasts).

In the end, our little Columbus Day protest satisfied the lot of us, opening up a dialogue that otherwise would have simply been missed. With this district gerrymandered to the point of criminal intent, we have little likelihood of unseating Ms. (she would hate that!) Hartzler any time soon — certainly not in next year’s election — so our activism must focus on educating our local voters. Discovering acceptance, even appreciation, of that aforementioned meal of green eggs and ham requires small bites, breaking through the tribal bias and cultural warfare that considers such sustenance poisonous even should those in need of it starve silently without food stamps or slip into oblivion without the help of safety nets.

Clearly, fear has exacerbated the polarities that define this juncture, a perfect storm of escalating fear over the last dozen years. If George W. hadn’t tanked the economy, I doubt if our divided electorate would have found its tri-cornered hat, and if we hadn’t elected the black guy for not just one but TWO — count ’em — terms, the elitism at the core of Republican politics would have simply continued to seethe quietly, looking for its next war. But now we’ve entered the heart of our human darkness, warring with one another over a list of positions we should feel shame in ignoring: feeding kids and old folks, meeting our fiscal commitments, allowing corporations power over every aspect of our culture, and denying our citizens a living wage or decent health care.

What’s the matter with the Pea Patch? When members of the House of Representatives tell us, with considerable pride, that they represent “the people’s house,” they’re right, and a small house it is, too. If the founders wanted to make sure change in government proceeded at a snail’s pace, they succeeded by designing a House system with members responsible only to their own small demographic. These are not people with a wide view of politics, legislating for the public good, but rather interested only in the regional and often parochial sensibilities of the rural population they represent. I could suggest that, viewing their positions and attitudes, these folks seem racist, sexist and theocratic, but the umbrella most fitting, I think, is elitist. They have been at the head of this table for a very long time. Anything else is a reason for panic.

Fearing the end of their influence here in middle and rural America, the local movers and shakers have sent their representative out with orders to unplug the government at any cost, convincing those around them that they are being victimized by the very government that provides the structure of their lifestyle. And that explains how, here in the Pea Patch, three grown adults can put out their very best response for the public to read without realizing how embarrassingly flawed is their interpretation based not on fact, but on opinion and perception; much of it, I suspect, thanks to FAUX News.

It should also be noted that of the three op/eds, two suggest that the reader Google for the facts, which probably means that they did so themselves, cherry-picking the arguments they approved. No help there, then; not for any of us if we only accept as fact that with which we agree. Let’s remind ourselves of that frequently, looking for the holes in our own argument. That’s the direct line to truth.

What’s the matter with the Pea Patch and every other city and hamlet in this country is all the same. If we had a list of facts regarding the issues in our hands, would we believe them? Could we sort out what was true when weighed against public opinion? Could we keep what is factual from being tainted by our perceptions? Before the Bush years, that seemed possible. Now? We’re in the eye of the storm, and if we’re going to survive it we must learn how to separate fact from fiction. More, we must WANT to.

Can we? We won’t know if we can unless we do something, even if it’s wrong. We must follow our hearts, and listen to what they reveal to us. As our lessons in finding truth present themselves, let’s summon the courage to embrace them. You may notice in the picture above, the folks holding signs in front of the newspaper office are all elders (I’m the one in white shoes). I think there were only a couple of us present that day under 70.

Across the street, a few protesters waited for us to finish our photo op, unable to walk so far. One was a lovely frail woman using a walker. She came, she said, because she’d told her husband that in all her life, she’d never protested anything, even though she’d wanted to. That day, she had the courage of her convictions, and I hope she slept a little sounder that night knowing she’d crossed something off her Bucket List. I hope she was proud that she’d stood up for what she believed. I know I was proud for her.

Now, here’s the kicker: she could be wrong. I could be wrong, even as impatient as I am with the disinformation, proven to my satisfaction, present in those three op/eds. In the pursuit of truth, attaching to what’s comfortable is always the Achilles heel, is it not? For instance, is this article biased toward my point of view? Oh, you betcha, as the Palin would say. But isn’t that how we learn, by taking our best shot and risking being wrong?

Writing a piece the world can read, that’s courageous. Protesting something we feel strongly about, that’s courageous. Standing up for what we think is right takes courage. We’re asking for whatever isn’t absolutely true about our position to be revealed to us. We’re opening ourselves to change of mind, inviting life to teach us what we don’t know. We’re opening to the flow of change, inviting in clarity and instruction, maybe even that change of perception that produces a miracle. And yeah — we might break a few eggs making that omelet, but oh! my dears! Isn’t that exactly why we came?