Oil and water.

To me President Obama’s darkest hour
came  on March 31, 2010, exactly two months ago to the day.  That was
when he announced
new offshore drilling, a move meant to bring more votes over for the climate
bill on the Hill.  With the benefit of lightening speed hindsight, it’s a
decision he most assuredly regrets — one of those “I could kick myself”
moments.  The President has never been a champion of offshore drilling, a
highly charged campaign issue that parented “drill baby drill”.  That’s
precisely why it was so troubling and painful to have seen him
capitulate.   He knew better and that makes it unforgivable.  It
was perhaps the starkest reminder of how compromised public office is these days,
and to our detriment.  Tilting in the Right wind, or caving in (which
Liberals have been doing for decades now) is never a winning strategy.
Hopefully he will draw a sharp lesson from March 31 and what followed.  If
not, it will surely cost him (and us).

It is really pathetic to hear Gulf
State politicians talk about how this still unchecked spill is in, Bobby
Jindal’s words “threatening
our way of life”.  Hello?  Wasn’t it always a disaster waiting to
happen?  It was the decision to drill offshore, and in hurricane prone
waters to boot, that environmentalists, scientists and ordinary citizens were
certain would one day threaten not only our human but also our ecological way
of life.  That those who made those decisions while obviously under the
influence of Kool-Aid may account for the shocking level of unpreparedness now
playing out before our eyes.   Then we have the preposterous
contention of Texas’ Rick Perry that the accident could have been “an
act of God” — don’t blame us, we’re just bystanders not deciders.  Was
this the same God who told Gulf State politicians to encourage the oil
companies to drill baby drill along their fragile coasts and to promote
enabling “wink” legislation?  And then we have Haley Barbour; the man who
got his casinos up and running while New Orleans was still under water,
actually and metaphorically.  He is obviously a betting man, sitting on
the sidelines with the assumption that his state will be spared and that he
will be the sure winner (perhaps GOP nominee) by not having cried “fire” in a
crowded theater.  Given the facts on the ground, it’s an audacious
bet.  Of course, he couldn’t let the moment pass without suggesting that,
“A
bunch of liberal elites were hoping this would be the Three Mile Island of
offshore drilling.”   Yes an act of God and liberal elites, the
Right is “on message”, bless them.  They have come to believe (with some
justification) that American’s will buy their words and catchy slogans while
ignoring reality.  Future offshore drilling?  Bring it on!

It’s hard not to digress a moment to
contemplate how different things might be, not to mention what these Governors
would be saying, were President John McCain in charge.  He's so deft and
cool-headed in a crisis.  Imagine the scenario.  Given her special
expertise on matters oil, he surely would have dispatched Vice President Palin
to take charge of the government’s efforts.  Need I go on?

Returning to reality, while Jindal can
be accused of posturing, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.  He saw
what a lame response to catastrophe did to his predecessor and his ambition and
will to survive is no more than any other politician regardless of party. 
The point is that the Governor is absolutely right. What’s going on in Gulf
does threaten his state and the region’s way of life.   The fishing
and tourist industries might well be decimated by our national thirst for oil
and a lot of “responsible” people at all levels (not to mention consumers)
having averted their eyes from what was always a clear and present danger. 

What Jindal fears is precisely what
Americans hate most and, even in the face of those pesky facts of reality,
resist with all their might.  I see the collapse of the oil rig in the
Gulf as an integral part of, not separate from, the collapse of our financial
institutions and economy.  Both were brought about by risks that were
eminently obvious, both by disasters waiting to happen.  In either case it
wasn’t “if” but “when”.   Taken together, it’s clear that Americans,
not only Gulf Staters, are facing a threat to their way of life and, I would
add, an inevitable change in their way of life.  Band-aids might defer
that change, but it is coming perhaps sooner rather than later.

All of this, Governor Perry
notwithstanding, can be said to result from acts of humans not of God and
ultimately all are of a piece.  That’s true for financial overreach
(institutional and personal), the unchecked gusher, and the two wars.  For
Obama, successfully addressing what has landed on his desk is nothing less than
a mission impossible.  In that regard, while pundits and bloggers (myself
included) are doing their duty in taking him to task, they should do so with
some humility.  Consider how you would handle this (to use a vast understatement)
perfect storm.  Okay you and I didn’t sign up for that task, but again
think McCain or any of the contenders for the Presidency back in ’08.

What we face today is the accumulated
coming to roost from years of mindless self-abuse.  And there is no
evidence that we have learned anything.  The moment gas prices dropped in
the past weeks sales of SUVs rose and those of hybrids dropped.  You can
bet that the well-educated unemployed (of which there are now many) dream at
night of restoring what had been their way of life including the excesses that
caused their current plight.  Just as there were no good options for
Afghanistan, and no instant way to wipe the slate of debt clean, the end of the
current Gulf saga is bound to be bad.  The only question is its magnitude,
duration and ripple effect.

Oil and water don’t mix.  How
often do we have to be taught that basic lesson of chemistry and the kitchen?

Enthusiasm.

Not enthused?  Shame on
us!  I have just two words for
you:  Roberts and Alito.  Elections count and turnout — our vote
— absolutely counts.  Only about
60% of Americans exercise our right of citizenship in a presidential year.  That drops to 40% in elections like the
one coming up in November.  Does
enthusiasm count?  Absolutely it
does, and most especially in these off years where an absolute minority — 4 in
10 — are the “deciders”.

Enthusiasm drives our elections these days.  It’s what got Barack Obama elected and it is what the
pundits claim will be driving Republicans, especially of the far right, to
gains in November.  If so, we will
have no one to blame but ourselves.

Do you find yourself with an enthusiasm deficit?  Get over it!  If you’re disappointed in Obama’s performance, perhaps you
were reading your own wishes, your own idea of change, into the 2008.  Is he the unabashed liberal that you
had hoped for (assumed)?  No, but
he never claimed to be that.  Did he
get the healthcare bill you wanted — and that ultimately we need?  Probably not.  I’m still for universal Medicare, but that’s not yet a
majority opinion in this highly selfish country.  “Sure I care (ha, ha) about others, but don’t you dare touch
or threaten the healthcare coverage I have.”  Let’s remember the disadvantaged/uninsured have no voice in
this great democracy, except at our discretion.  By they way many of them don’t vote which compounds the
problem.

So you’re disappointed, not enthused.  Well, given the system we have (not the one you may ideally
want, but the one in place) what would you have done about the economy, the two
wars, the healthcare and education deficits, the financial deficit etc., etc if you were in charge and had to get it trough Congress?  Talk, however idealistic or even right,
is cheap.  It’s very easy to write
one of these blogs (which is why I do it selectively), but so much harder to
govern.  If Obama had to struggle
to get anything accomplished — and don’t make light of what he has done — how
will it be in years 3 and 4 with a much smaller majority or no majority at all
on the Hill?  Again think Roberts
and Alito and what they token. 
Should I say, think President Palin and Vice President Paul?

Time to get enthusiastic. 
It’s not about defeating the tea party or right-wingers, but about
giving our President the continued mandate we so desperately need him to have.  Don’t tell me your enthusiasm attention
span lasts only one visit to the polls. 
What does that say about us? 
And of course that’s a question we could ask about the whole idea of
enthusiasm.  If that’s what it
takes to get us out, it’s reflects not only a selfish citizenry but also a
terribly immature one to boot. 
It’s hard to say which is more disturbing or scary.

In case you haven’t noticed, the Chinese are on the way to cleaning
our clocks.  It isn’t only their
overwhelming size and a system that allows for unitary decision making; it is
that they take the long view of years while we think ahead in terms of days and weeks.  And that’s on our most adult days.  They still make rice the old fashioned
way while we can hardly wait a minute for the microwave bell to go off.  They have patience and staying
power.  Sure our impatience has
worked up to this point, but perhaps, like universal home ownership on 100+%
borrowed money, it was an illusion. 
If we really voted for change in 2008, it will require follow-up.  Make no mistake; change does take time,
step by painful step.  It is also fragile and can be
aborted in an election cycle and we can’t let that happen.  Let’s stop thinking enthusiasm and
consider responsibility as an option?   That in itself would be a meaningful change, and a welcome
one.

He's not like me.

There is little doubt that among those tea party activists are individuals
who simply hate Barack Obama — for some blatant racial hatred.  But to focus on race is to totally miss
the point.  What we should consider
are the telling findings of the recent CBS-NY Times
poll.  In sum, the “teas” skew
white, male, older, and (surprisingly) well off.  The real, and profound, message of their gathering is not so
much opposition to any specific program but in reflecting a much larger unease about
having a leader who is “not like me”. 
That transcends race.  As
Arizona’s draconian response to immigration suggests, it is more a fundamental
fear that “others” are taking over “our” land.  And fear is the operative word.  Of course, such fears and reactions are not necessarily new.  We have seen them play out throughout our
history with every wave of immigration and every advance in government or
business of individuals from the heretofore powerless.  The difference is that, while earlier
fears of takeover were more imagined than real, demographics alone suggest the
long hegemony of people perceived of as “just like me” — as defined by our idealized American  myth — actually is coming to an end.

There is of course an irony in all of this.  In one way or another the vast majority of Americans have
been or still are “not like me”.  That
African Americans, Hispanics, Jews and Muslims to name a few fall into this
category is obvious.  But so do
women who, even at this late date, are still clawing their way into leadership
roles in a “man’s world”.  John F.
Kennedy engendered the same kind of hate as does Obama, in his case an Irish
Roman Catholic with the temerity to assume the ultimate and WASP
entitled office.  When embarking on that
fateful trip to Dallas, hate was in the air.  This is not to suggest in any way that our current President
is destined to meet a similar end, but the ingredients are present, and that
alone is more than disconcerting.

What it does suggest is that fear, especially fear of losing one’s
assumed way of life or the “proper” order of things is dangerous because what
it can produce is so unpredictable. 
It was the fear of losing the slave-based life that drove secession and
ultimately a civil war that cost twice as many American lives than did World
War II.  So we should be taking the
tea party seriously not for what it is, but for what deep-seated angst it
represents.  History suggests that
fear-based movements can’t last, that reality has a way of calming people down
or gaining acceptance (however grudgingly), but a lot of damage can be done in
the interim.  The current
environment is particularly explosive because the very theme that brought Obama
to office — change — is emblematically threatening.

Change that’s what we want, until of course we realize that means
CHANGE.  Polls have told us for
years that Americans hate Congress, but when it comes down to it they are
loathe to throw out their own incumbent Congressperson.  Great, we’ve elected a president who
doesn’t fit the longstanding pattern, who doesn’t look like us (or at least the
us I’m talking about).  Progress,
wow.  But did you realize our
president is not like me.  That’s a
problem if you’re “white, male, older, and relatively well off”, the very
people who have become our problem. 
This is 2010 and not 1992 — it’s so much more than the economy stupid.

It's our business too.

While still the most unfinished business, much ink has been spilled
over the past twenty-five years trying to make sense of the Roman Church’s
horrendous predator priest scandal. 
The Pope certainly is having what Queen Elizabeth famously described as
an annus horribilis.  Beyond a lot of first rate
investigative reporting — that gossip of
the moment — we have seen moving and poignant columns by lay Catholic
columnists, a combination of both rage and deep sadness.  Maureen
Dowd has taken the Church to task in a recent series of powerful pieces, as
she has often over the years.  Her
colleague Ross Douthat, suggesting that Benedict in fact may be the better pope
tries to put some perspective on his verses predecessor John Paul’s response
(or lack of it).  It’s impossible
to improve on what they have written, much less have their special in family authority in doing so.

It is shocking that this story has gone on for such a long time — a
quarter of a century is an eternity in our fast paced short news cycle
era.  Reading current news from
Germany, including the thousands of calls coming in daily to its recently
established abuse hotline, gives one a definite sense of déjà vu.  Much talk, shamefully modest progress.  One has to think that another
generation of unsuspecting youngsters are in present and clear danger from
still unexposed or still free floating serial predators.  Interestingly, it is a problem not
decades old but with deep roots as documented
in some detail by a relentless priest, Rev. Thomas Doyle, whose career has paid
the usual whistle blower price. 

All this trouble is generally attributed to Church hierarchy and a
bunch of bad apples rather than to the majority of individual priests and
parishioners whom the writer (and Catholic) Anna Quindlan characterized in a
recent interview with NPR’s Diane Rehm as “good people doing good things”.   That is undoubtedly the case, but
in our politically correct effort of avoiding making this an anti-Catholic
thing, we shouldn’t simply give them a pass.  Pope Benedict attributes his membership in the Hitler Youth to
a situation beyond his control as a subject of the Nazi regime.  I have no reason don’t doubt him.  But I also know well that Hitler
survived in part because of citizen acquiescence, excused often as “only
following orders” or “we didn’t know”.  The Roman Church is an authoritarian institution led by an infallible monarch.  The Pope and his surrogates down the
line rule in the “name of God” and with that claimed credential take on special
authority.  So it would seem the
faithful have chosen to avert their eyes and carry on business as usual.  They see themselves as good people
doing good things and justify their silence by not wanting anything to get in
the way of that.  A billion people
verses a top-heavy handful of leaders. 
You be the judge.

Of course large numbers of Catholics have protested with their
feet.  According to Pew’s 2008
Religious Landscape Survey one third of those who were born Catholic in
the United States have left the church. 
On April 25, 2005, the day Benedict XVI was elected — the abuse scandal
already in its twentieth year — the New
York Times ran a front-page story entitled Europeans Fast Falling Away From Church.  As Elaine Sciolino reported then,
“Among Catholics, only 10 percent in the Netherlands, 12 percent in France, 15
percent in Germany and Austria, 18 percent in Spain and 25 percent in Italy
attend Mass weekly.”  That’s right,
in Benedict’s homeland, now the focus of attention, 85% of Catholics rarely, if
ever, set foot in their churches and even in Italy where he blesses throngs
gathered in St. Peter’s Square 75% of local Catholics are Sunday no-shows.  So, if you want to understand the
larger story of why the Roman Church hierarchy has been going ballistic about
renewed bad press coverage, I’d suggest you might want to look beyond the
scandal of predatory priests to those statistics.  The
Church is under siege in the developed world.  Were it not for the large influx of Hispanic immigrants, it
would actually be showing a loss of market share (for the first time) in the
already shrinking American religious landscape. 

One could legitimately say that as non-Catholics we have no business
treading in these waters, much less judging the Church or its leaders.  Perhaps that’s so, but let’s remember
abusing priests have broken our civil law, committing what our larger society views
the most heinous of crimes.  The
Church hierarchy, in taking the law into its own hands might well be accused of
vigilantism, something we generally deplore, and which again is illegal.  Their cover-up certainly constitutes
obstruction of justice, a serious violation of civil code, especially in
criminal cases.  But in the end the
real damage — the one about which we probably should care most — is to our
general faith in institutions. 
Here all people and groups, religious or not, are affected.

Societies are dependent on their institutions — their organized we.  Institutions facilitate functioning effectively and
furthering our collective agendas.  
When we lose our trust in institutions both they, and logically we, are
imperiled.  It is now well known
and often repeated that we Americans hold our principal governmental institutions
in low esteem and by larger margins each year.  Think Tea Party. 
What may be less so is that, according to the 2008 General
Social Survey, high confidence in organized religion has fallen to a paltry
20% — only marginally better than our discredited banks.  That is an important number to the obviously
worried Vatican, but is no less so to any of us.  To say that the Pope's annus
horribilis is wholly to blame for undermining our institutions would be
ridiculous; to say what’s been going these past decades plays no role would be
naïve.  And it’s not merely what
the Church has or has not done, it is also the misguided respectful silence of
many of its own and of the larger religious community, which, aside from woeful head-shaking, has remained mostly silent and continues to be.  None of our business you might say.  Wrong!

 

Annus horribilis.

The year Princess Diana died in an auto accident was seen by Queen
Elizabeth as her annus horribilis,
her wretched year.  So too with
Barack Obama who seems to be at the low point of his administration with
everyone right and left either scolding him or expressing profound
disappointment.  There are the
critical columns from his natural supporters, the stories of how Axelrod and
Emmanuel seem to have lost their juice and even an Op Ed by Stanley Fish asking
if we miss George Bush.  I don’t
have a moments hesitation in saying I don’t miss Bush and the country is better
off without him and would have been far better off had he never taken
office.  I have greater difficulty
in dismissing the criticism of people like Frank Rich and Bob Herbert.  Their recent columns also illustrate
the dilemma in which Obama finds himself today.  Rich criticizes the President for doing too little about
healthcare; Herbert for doing too much. 
In Herbert’s case, he faults the administration for not paying sufficient
attention to jobs.

Lyndon Johnson famously said that the then Congressman Gerald Ford,
“couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time”.  Senator Obama in his campaign rightly repeated often that Presidents must be able to more than one thing at a time.  Easier said than done.  I don’t think he had any idea of what
kind of multitasking lay ahead. 
All administrations are pitched curve balls, but few such wicked ones
and simultaneously.  Franklin
Roosevelt, history suggests, dealt effectively with two of our greatest, the
Depression and World War II, but they came along sequentially and we judge him
on more than twelve years in office. 
That’s not an excuse for Obama’s missteps, if one can fairly call them
that, but a simple statement of fact. 
He came into office with the ship of state grounded on a sandbar and a
year later it not only hasn’t budged, it seems more stuck than ever.  That’s hard for us to take, especially
for a society that accepts nothing less than instant gratification.

At this juncture we can all play the expected parlor game.  Would we have been better off with
McCain/Palin or perhaps with Secretary of State Clinton in the White
House?  More to the point would
either of them done better? 
McCain’s performance during the campaign, most notably in selecting
Palin, and since tells me that his Presidency might well have been a total
disaster.  Clinton, whom I did not
support, probably would have made a fine President, but I doubt would have
preformed better in the current circumstance.  If, as the Republicans claim, the American public has
rejected Obama's relatively modest healthcare reform, consider what might have
happened to the excellent and more far reaching proposals she made during the
campaign.  If the President is
faulted for having Larry Summers and others like him on his economic team,
would you expect different personnel from a President Clinton II?  I don’t think so.

Year one has been a disappointment and a frustration.  But it also reflects a much more
fundamental reality over which even a President who started out calling for not
blue or red but a UNITED States of America obviously has little control.  This is a bitterly divided country
where conversation has essentially ceased.  We talk at each other and whatever “discourse” may take
place, it is far removed in content from fact.  When Joe Wilson shouted out “you lie”, he was directing his
charge at the President, but it could have been at any one in the room or any
branch of government.  Elected
officials shade the truth every day, excusing their deception as the only way
to get things done.  Sadly, in that
they speak the absolute truth.  The
Chief Justice of the United States tells his confirmation inquisitors that he
is a man who believes in precedent, in settled law who sees his role as a neutral
umpire, not a legislator.  Right. 

And we, the American public — we shout
“yes we can” to a call for bringing about change and balk if it comes anywhere
near our doorstep.  We decry
deficits but squeal like injured animals with only the slightest talk of even
modest tax increases, any of which have to been hidden in some shaded truth
euphemism to have the remotest chance of passage.  We acquiesce to unwarranted wars because others — sons and
daughters from another neighborhood — pay the human price they exact.  We even avert our eyes when the
financial cost is conveniently left off the books until the resulting deficit is
so large that it can no longer be hidden and can be blamed on others.

Yes it’s been a terrible year for Barack Obama and he has to answer
for it.  It’s been a terrible year
for us and, in pointing our fingers at him, let’s not forget to look in the
mirror.  I don’t have to read a
poll to know that this country is headed in the wrong direction and it will
take more than a President, one for whom I continue to have much hope, to
change its course.  The question is
whether we have the will to do so.

 

Time to act!

Certain things struck me as I watched — yes every minute of the nearly
seven hours — the healthcare summit. 
First of course was the civility. 
No “you lie” or anything close. 
To say that civility when grown public officials gather is worth
mentioning tells you a lot about the times in which we live.  But what was striking about this
momentary quiet is how it magnified the deep divide that now plagues not only
the Congress but also our country. 
Fifteen plus fifteen people in a room each group living on a different
plane, seeing the world through different eyes.  It was sobering and disheartening, not so much because
divergent points of view are in themselves bad, quite the contrary, but because
no time has demanded some semblance of unity more.

For the President of course it was another display of how informed he
is, in this case every detail of the two thousand plus pages so derided by the
Republicans.  To be sure Bill
Clinton could have done the same — different as they may be, both credentialed
wonks — but that can’t be said of our recent Republican Presidents.  John McCain took part, and made some
headlines on CNN which, given the very few minutes he spoke during those seven
hours, was a bit of a surprise to me. 
But on second thought, perhaps not.  The McCain we saw yesterday was the angry looking one and
his performance in many ways echoed that seen in face of the economic crisis in
the fall of 2008.  That one sealed
Obama’s victory.  This time made
one feel all the more relieved he is sitting in the Senate not the White House.

Looking at the President’s facile handling of both facts and the room,
I couldn’t help thinking too of Sarah Palin.  Remember the silliness made of her “hand notes” following
the tea party convention where she took a swipe at the President for using a
Teleprompter?  Can you image (I
shutter to even utter it) President Palin leading that session yesterday, much
less having to engage on a complex bill or problem?  I know asking that question might seem below the belt, a
cheap Katie Couric gotcha shot, but humor me.  Think about that — seriously! 

My major take away from the Blair House square table was that we make
a huge mistake and do ourselves a great disservice in simply labeling
Republicans as the party of “no”.  In
the first place, it’s a vast over simplification.  Second, the hyperbole, which gets old very quickly, undermines
substantive argument.  While we get
caught up in the cleverness of our zinger, the Republicans proceed to drive the
conversation and to define us as they see fit.  For the moment they remain far more adept than are we at
using words and characterizations to promote their agenda.  If you have any doubt of that consider
their continuing success in getting the very people who have been devastated by
their policies, to eat a regular diet of their dog food and drink their cool
aide.

In that context, reality and facts — exactly what the President
pressed for yesterday — are rendered moot.  Rest assured that a growing number of today’s unemployed
think Obama and the Democrats created the entire deficit, the near collapse of
our economic system and are preventing them from getting a job or a decent
wage.  In the same way, Republicans
have convinced them that healthcare reform that would, if nothing else, bring
more people under the protective umbrella, is a bad thing.  The Republicans “no-bill” alternative
makes clear where they stand. 
Forget the distractions of tort reform and cross state insurance
marketing, the real message is found elsewhere.  Their focus is entirely on those now covered, in wringing
out costs by eliminating defensive medicine with its unnecessary tests and with
prosecuting fraud.  All these are
good things, upon which most of us can agree.  Where they tip their hand is in expanding coverage to only 3
million of the 45+ million uninsured — the Democrats seek to cover 30
million.  It’s ironic that they
deem helping these desperate fellow citizens too expensive but are always at
the ready to loot the treasury with a one-sided tax policy.

It is time to act.  The
legislation before us is flawed. 
Ultimately only universal Medicare will solve America’s healthcare
problems.  But, like Paul Krugman
and others, I think an imperfect bill is better than no bill at all.  I’m not troubled by Reconciliation, but
why give that ammunition to the Republicans when the resulting bill will be
only marginally better than what the Senate put forward?  The House should take on and pass the
Senate bill and the President should sign it.  Nobody can question that.  They should do it now!

High anxiety.

I talk to people at the checkout counter — no really talk to and
sometimes get to know them a bit.  There’s
the one who just broke up with her boyfriend, the guy whose wife is expecting
any day and the tall you gal whose balancing finishing a degree with work.  I actually know their names and that’s
not uncommon in a small community like Chapel Hill.  But I did the same in New York.  In fact, before E-Zpass I used to chat briefly with
tollbooth operators, sometimes getting a honk from those behind me in
line.  To one degree or another,
we’re all somewhat guilty of giving short shrift or even to avoiding eye
contact with those who “serve” us as if they were inanimate objects,
non-persons.  Of course we know
they are just the opposite, people like us with lives — families, joys, sorrows
and, yes, anxieties.

The difference between living in a city apartment with built-in
services as I did for decades and a free standing house on three quarters of an
acre is that you develop an intimate relationship with Home Depot or, in my
case because it’s a little closer, Lowe’s.  You’d be surprised how many times a week one can frequent a
store like that.  And, as you’d
expect, three years in I’ve gotten to know most of the people who work there,
many by name.  That brings me to
Ron.

I knew the first time we met that Ron, unlike some of the kids working
in the store, was both seasoned and knowledgeable.  He was stationed at the commercial desk and you could ask
him about anything — what lumber to use for this project or how to install a
door lock and which one to buy. 
Sometimes you had to wait a bit because Ron’s expertise stood out and
his advice was in demand. 

Well the other day, I found myself in Lowe’s picking up some
birdseed.  Heading to the checkout
I spotted Ron behind one of the registers.  “What are you doing here Ron?”  It was asked in a kind of joking way expecting the usual
“someone didn’t show up” answer. 
To my great surprise an obviously unhappy Ron told me he had been
“demoted”, given the choice to move down or move out.  Thirteen years on the job, by then the store’s highest paid hourly
employee, he was reduced to making exactly $3 an hour more than when he started.  Like so many businesses, Lowe’s is
cutting back.  It wasn’t that Ron
had done anything wrong; he was just caught in the financial draft and, with a
family to feed, had no choice but to accept the humiliation.

So if you want to really understand why Barack Obama is having such a
hard time and why people are so angry, suffering such high anxiety, think of
Ron.  Down in the real world where
90% of Americans live, he’s considered one “lucky” guy.  After all, he still has a
paycheck.  How do you think Ron
feels about Lowe’s CEO who is probably taking home millions in pay and stock
options?  The outrage over
corporate compensation, bonuses and the growing disparity between both incomes
and quality of life in the land is real and legitimate.  In that explosive environment, we don’t
give anyone slack especially when the inequities are so clearly and starkly
visible to the naked eye.  Sadly
the president and all the members of Congress in both parties don’t seem to
understand.  Perhaps it isn’t quite
Nero watching Rome burn, but pretty damn close.  Other than fearing they’ll be thrown out of office, our
elected officials seem unconcerned about Ron, the millions
like him or their growing anxieties.  Ron, is just one of those
unseen non-persons attached like a fixture to the cash register.  We pass him by daily, eyes averted.