They call themselves "Tea-party patriots," but I have referred to them as tea-baggers, because it makes them even crazier.
It was apparent to me from the start that despite good intentions, some average, every-day folks who were frustrated with all things politics would be used and manipulated by the very kinds of cynical and ideological absolutists that are at the root of all things politics.
Absolutism is the enemy of reason and compromise. It's the enemy of balance and fairness and, therefore, the enemy of the most fundamental ideals of democracy.
They call themselves patriots, but they don't want democracy. They want what THEY want, and they want it NOW. They demand the right to speak for themselves, but then go to public meetings to shout down and intimidate those who have other ideas.
They mocked my plea to work with others and make changes "gradually and incrementally."
They refuse to compromise for the sake of getting along, and will destroy the entire structure of anything in which they gain a foothold.
They have ruined the Republican Party. I saw it happen here in Carroll County. The absolutists tore apart the Central Committee with their bickering and name-calling, damaged several local Republican clubs, and lost credibility for themselves and those who they elect in Annapolis.
While claiming special status as Christians and protectors of the Constitution, some of their more ardent warriors have shown a willingness to use ruthless strategies to ruin the reputations and even the financial foundations of those they see as too liberal, which includes anyone who disagrees with them.
So American voters sent 87 of them to represent them in Congress. They have taken hostages, including those who count on Medicare and Social Security, children in public schools, the disabled, veterans, and public employees because they insist that a constitutional change be included in a vote on the debt ceiling, rather than as a separate, well-considered and thoughtfully debated separate bill.
How's that working for you?
We might destroy the economy with intransigence, but at least we'll have pro football for the next ten years.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Commissioners are not keeping their promise of engagement
These same commissioners who ran for the office on the predication that local citizens needed more representation in land use planning are not going to participate in a meeting with local residents and staff from the Maryland Department of Planning.
This does not make sense, unless you fully understand the real agenda of at least three members of this board.
In any case, they are not living up to their own word; that they would encourage more local input on land use, that they would be fully engaged to ensure the constitutionality of any actions resulting in planning and zoning, and they would be both transparent and accessible.
There was even some reference to fighting back, the "Fighting 59th" or something like that, until it was pointed out that it really sounded silly.
Finksburg citizens -- who have the same rights as citizens who voted for any of the five commissioners -- joined with the local newspaper, The Carroll County Times, to host a meeting with state planning officials, so everyone could get up to date on the objectives of the state and the impact that state actions will have on Carroll County.
When they were campaigning, and even before that, when they were opposing the previous master plan proposal and thinking about running for office, Richard Rothschild in particular was noisy about how real leaders would stand up to the state and listen more to We The People.
Now, he stays home. Says there is are "more appropriate venues" for responding to the plan. Based on his activities in office so far, that means taking trips out of county to speak to those who already think like him on issues of property rights and zoning, laissez-faire versus government planning.
If he has to meet opponents in open dialog, he gets scarce. What better venue to stand up for what he purports to be the values of most county residents than a county meeting with state officials? No answer.
Robin Frazier continues to play the Cheshire cat, appearing, disappearing, hard to find and totally non-responsive. She has her 21 percent and forget about the rest of the county. The reference to 21 percent is the extreme Right's number; they figure they can get support from that 21 percent of the electorate that makes up their base at the polls, and most of the rest of population fails to vote, so the ardent conservatives win by default.
If you win re-election, that's Job One; ask the representatives "working" on a debt ceiling issue. Job One puts you in position to obstruct. Anything.
I'm betting Haven Shoemaker winds up going to the meeting, despite luke-warm comments so far. How can he not go, and still claim he cares what Finksburg residents think? Despite the fact that his primary reason for running was to get pay and benefits, Shoemaker at least showed some willingness to actually represent community interests when he was mayor of Hampstead.
Howard will probably stay home. He, too, wanted a job with better pay and benefits, and one in which he could continue building his resume. But attending a meeting with real issues and opposing points of view is not high on his list of things to do right now.
And Dave Roush? He has other plans. Which seems to be his default mode since telling everyone on the economic development commission and the board of zoning appeals and then the campaign trail that the county needs more hands-on leadership from people with a real business background.
Here's a meeting about the immediate AND long-term future of the county, and he has other plans. So much for hands-on.
These commissioners obviously believes they have the support of the people who put them in office. It would seem that they have not yet given full consideration to what they have to do to earn -- and deserve -- the respect of other, still skeptical, citizens.
This does not make sense, unless you fully understand the real agenda of at least three members of this board.
In any case, they are not living up to their own word; that they would encourage more local input on land use, that they would be fully engaged to ensure the constitutionality of any actions resulting in planning and zoning, and they would be both transparent and accessible.
There was even some reference to fighting back, the "Fighting 59th" or something like that, until it was pointed out that it really sounded silly.
Finksburg citizens -- who have the same rights as citizens who voted for any of the five commissioners -- joined with the local newspaper, The Carroll County Times, to host a meeting with state planning officials, so everyone could get up to date on the objectives of the state and the impact that state actions will have on Carroll County.
When they were campaigning, and even before that, when they were opposing the previous master plan proposal and thinking about running for office, Richard Rothschild in particular was noisy about how real leaders would stand up to the state and listen more to We The People.
Now, he stays home. Says there is are "more appropriate venues" for responding to the plan. Based on his activities in office so far, that means taking trips out of county to speak to those who already think like him on issues of property rights and zoning, laissez-faire versus government planning.
If he has to meet opponents in open dialog, he gets scarce. What better venue to stand up for what he purports to be the values of most county residents than a county meeting with state officials? No answer.
Robin Frazier continues to play the Cheshire cat, appearing, disappearing, hard to find and totally non-responsive. She has her 21 percent and forget about the rest of the county. The reference to 21 percent is the extreme Right's number; they figure they can get support from that 21 percent of the electorate that makes up their base at the polls, and most of the rest of population fails to vote, so the ardent conservatives win by default.
If you win re-election, that's Job One; ask the representatives "working" on a debt ceiling issue. Job One puts you in position to obstruct. Anything.
I'm betting Haven Shoemaker winds up going to the meeting, despite luke-warm comments so far. How can he not go, and still claim he cares what Finksburg residents think? Despite the fact that his primary reason for running was to get pay and benefits, Shoemaker at least showed some willingness to actually represent community interests when he was mayor of Hampstead.
Howard will probably stay home. He, too, wanted a job with better pay and benefits, and one in which he could continue building his resume. But attending a meeting with real issues and opposing points of view is not high on his list of things to do right now.
And Dave Roush? He has other plans. Which seems to be his default mode since telling everyone on the economic development commission and the board of zoning appeals and then the campaign trail that the county needs more hands-on leadership from people with a real business background.
Here's a meeting about the immediate AND long-term future of the county, and he has other plans. So much for hands-on.
These commissioners obviously believes they have the support of the people who put them in office. It would seem that they have not yet given full consideration to what they have to do to earn -- and deserve -- the respect of other, still skeptical, citizens.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Real transparency about open meetings, freedom of info act
A reader contacted me to ask if I would report open meetings rules infractions by the current board of commissioners. I said it's something I would leave to the editors of the paper, but then, I got to thinking: This "law" about open meetings is no guarantee of transparency in government. In fact, it is often abused -- not as much by the electeds in office as by their opponents.
And often, the claims of secrecy are misguided. Not reported or under-reported is not the same as a secret meeting; just because the public is unaware of some action does not mean someone was trying to hide anything. I often marveled at the stories that inexperienced or overworked reporters did not report until someone howled that the issue was a done deal, being railroaded through without sufficient discussion or debate. Other stories appeared in print, but citizens obviously never saw them.
Savvy players in politics, locally and at state and national levels, know exactly how to get people to pay attention. They will pick up on something that can be spun as a "done deal," and file official complaints of non-compliance with the ideal of open and transparent government.
Even if the press did not report the initial comments or actions on the issue, it will most certainly report on the controversy that arises out of a complaint of secrecy.
Despite open discussion in open session, the decision to begin a study on local policing got little coverage until then State Senator Larry Haines sent out a letter accusing the commissioners of abuse of power.
Ironically, what Haines was opposed to was increased funding of the sheriff's department, which he feared would lead to the end of the county's Resident Trooper agreement with the state police. By the time the spinners and manipulators got finished with their campaigns, the sheriff had succeeded in lining up the support of the senator and the county delegation, along with sheriffs' associations from across the country, to give the sheriff just what he wanted -- control of local policing.
Then there was the proposal that led to five commissioners by district. It was originated by the delegation, but the final outcome was a surprise to many voters, who never did realize that they would be giving up the right to vote for -- or against -- the entire board, and would be limited to voting for just one representative on the county board. That outcome was the result of misinformation fed by a "Vote for Five" strategy by opponents to the board in power at the time. The irony, again, was that the commissioners in office were blamed by many for the confusion, when earlier we were chastised for pointing out the manipulations going on.
The formation and early public meetings of grass roots committees on a new master plan were all but ignored for months, but when opposition arose, one of the first allegations was that the county was rushing the plan through without public input. A sure way to ignite opposition to any land use or zoning plan is to tell people their property rights are in jeopardy.
Any given meeting day, a board of commissioners or a town council may have up to a dozen agenda items that will require action, and up to six hours of discussion to be condensed into one or two news stories over the next few days. It's easy to see how a story might fall between the cracks, and something considered minor by one citizen might look like a cover-up to another.
The open meetings law has strict and unreasonable standards for compliance; if three members of the commissioners take the same elevator down two floors to a hearing room, they are in violation. If they share a car to an off-site meeting, they are out of compliance.
To add to the the futility, the law is virtually unenforceable, and even when enforced, the consequences are little more than a slap on the wrist.
Real transparency is an ideal, but that ideal is corrupted by the vindictiveness of political enemies, the inattention of the public and the limitations of an overwhelmed news media. If the open meeting is on file, and available on the county web site, the rule of law has been met, even if the intent has not.
If the politicians want to plot in a meeting before the meeting, or after the official meeting, it's hard to catch them at it. As a reporter and editor, I was more concerned about having the stories right that we could cover; as a commissioner, I was committed to the best efforts to comply with the intent of the law and let people know what we were doing -- even when it was sometimes used against us.
Finally, there is the Freedom of Information act, which is often used by hostile citizens to obtain access to files and information. Opponents to the incumbents like to announce that they have obtained information through the Freedom of Information act, as if to imply that the holders of the info were trying to keep secrets.
The fact is that the information sought may legitimately be protected because it is work product between the electeds and staff, or legal representation, and can be redacted. I've seen cases where someone out for the head of a commissioner or department head was given everything we had, and the recipient still could not figure out what it all meant, so it was up to the staff to explain it.
If you really want to know what's going on, hope that your electeds and staff are open and honest. If they're not, neither the open meetings law nor the freedom of information act are going to help you much.
And often, the claims of secrecy are misguided. Not reported or under-reported is not the same as a secret meeting; just because the public is unaware of some action does not mean someone was trying to hide anything. I often marveled at the stories that inexperienced or overworked reporters did not report until someone howled that the issue was a done deal, being railroaded through without sufficient discussion or debate. Other stories appeared in print, but citizens obviously never saw them.
Savvy players in politics, locally and at state and national levels, know exactly how to get people to pay attention. They will pick up on something that can be spun as a "done deal," and file official complaints of non-compliance with the ideal of open and transparent government.
Even if the press did not report the initial comments or actions on the issue, it will most certainly report on the controversy that arises out of a complaint of secrecy.
Despite open discussion in open session, the decision to begin a study on local policing got little coverage until then State Senator Larry Haines sent out a letter accusing the commissioners of abuse of power.
Ironically, what Haines was opposed to was increased funding of the sheriff's department, which he feared would lead to the end of the county's Resident Trooper agreement with the state police. By the time the spinners and manipulators got finished with their campaigns, the sheriff had succeeded in lining up the support of the senator and the county delegation, along with sheriffs' associations from across the country, to give the sheriff just what he wanted -- control of local policing.
Then there was the proposal that led to five commissioners by district. It was originated by the delegation, but the final outcome was a surprise to many voters, who never did realize that they would be giving up the right to vote for -- or against -- the entire board, and would be limited to voting for just one representative on the county board. That outcome was the result of misinformation fed by a "Vote for Five" strategy by opponents to the board in power at the time. The irony, again, was that the commissioners in office were blamed by many for the confusion, when earlier we were chastised for pointing out the manipulations going on.
The formation and early public meetings of grass roots committees on a new master plan were all but ignored for months, but when opposition arose, one of the first allegations was that the county was rushing the plan through without public input. A sure way to ignite opposition to any land use or zoning plan is to tell people their property rights are in jeopardy.
Any given meeting day, a board of commissioners or a town council may have up to a dozen agenda items that will require action, and up to six hours of discussion to be condensed into one or two news stories over the next few days. It's easy to see how a story might fall between the cracks, and something considered minor by one citizen might look like a cover-up to another.
The open meetings law has strict and unreasonable standards for compliance; if three members of the commissioners take the same elevator down two floors to a hearing room, they are in violation. If they share a car to an off-site meeting, they are out of compliance.
To add to the the futility, the law is virtually unenforceable, and even when enforced, the consequences are little more than a slap on the wrist.
Real transparency is an ideal, but that ideal is corrupted by the vindictiveness of political enemies, the inattention of the public and the limitations of an overwhelmed news media. If the open meeting is on file, and available on the county web site, the rule of law has been met, even if the intent has not.
If the politicians want to plot in a meeting before the meeting, or after the official meeting, it's hard to catch them at it. As a reporter and editor, I was more concerned about having the stories right that we could cover; as a commissioner, I was committed to the best efforts to comply with the intent of the law and let people know what we were doing -- even when it was sometimes used against us.
Finally, there is the Freedom of Information act, which is often used by hostile citizens to obtain access to files and information. Opponents to the incumbents like to announce that they have obtained information through the Freedom of Information act, as if to imply that the holders of the info were trying to keep secrets.
The fact is that the information sought may legitimately be protected because it is work product between the electeds and staff, or legal representation, and can be redacted. I've seen cases where someone out for the head of a commissioner or department head was given everything we had, and the recipient still could not figure out what it all meant, so it was up to the staff to explain it.
If you really want to know what's going on, hope that your electeds and staff are open and honest. If they're not, neither the open meetings law nor the freedom of information act are going to help you much.
Monday, July 18, 2011
The man behind the clog in government
THE WEEK, magazine, July 15, page 9, carries an article about Grover Norquist under the headline, "The man who killed tax increases". The Carroll County Times, in a column by Reg Henry on the editorial page on Saturday, July 16, carries a headline, "GOP pledges fealty to Norquist, not U.S."
You never voted for Grover Norquist, but if you want to trace the logjam in Congress, or Annapolis, or Carroll County, back to a primary source, you need to read up on this individual.
Political parties talk about serving the people, but the truth is, they serve the people who influence campaign spending.
Combine the reading of the two articles -- both can be found on line -- and you get a profile of the man of considerable personal wealth who is quoted as saying, "I don't want to abolish government. I just want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathtub and drown it in the bathtub." And, "My ideal citizen is the self-employed, homeschooling, individual retirement account owning guy with a concealed carry (gun) permit . . . because that person doesn't need the GD government for anything."
Nice. So, to paraphrase, to Hell with people who work all their lives and collect Social Security and Medicare, and who send their kids to public schools, or who worked all their lives for a pension that has been stolen by the big investors getting rich on hedge funds and inside trading in the stock market. Forget about paying for better roads, parks, social programs to keep people alive or sheltered. It's about money -- your pocket.
Norquist is a creature of the Reagan administration, and the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, which devised and pressured every person running for public office to sign a pledge that they would never, under any circumstance, vote for a increase in taxes. Many, if not most, of your county Republican office holders in Maryland have signed it.
According to the The Week, 235 Congressmen and 41 Senators have signed it. "Only seven Republican Senators and seven congressmen have not."
If any of them break the pledge, Norquist unleashes his dogs in primary elections. He brags that he denied President George H.W. Bush another term in office for breaking the pledge. He helped Newt Gingrich with the so-called "contract with America," which eventually ticked off enough Americans that the Republicans took a hit in the following election, and Newt Gingrich is now showing a poor last in a pathetic attempt to regain credibility as a leader.
I was pressured to sign the pledge when I ran for commissioner -- first term and second -- but I refused, explaining that a refusal to find the means to fund programs important to voters would be like a business refusing to ever raise prices, or a private citizen taking the position that if gas rose above $3 a gallon, we'd stop driving.
Those who took Norquist's pledge now have to decide which pledge they will keep: The one to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th amendment establishing that the full faith and solvency of the government shall not be denied, or Norquist's short-sighted threat to any elected official who is willing to make tough choices.
You never voted for Grover Norquist, but if you want to trace the logjam in Congress, or Annapolis, or Carroll County, back to a primary source, you need to read up on this individual.
Political parties talk about serving the people, but the truth is, they serve the people who influence campaign spending.
Combine the reading of the two articles -- both can be found on line -- and you get a profile of the man of considerable personal wealth who is quoted as saying, "I don't want to abolish government. I just want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathtub and drown it in the bathtub." And, "My ideal citizen is the self-employed, homeschooling, individual retirement account owning guy with a concealed carry (gun) permit . . . because that person doesn't need the GD government for anything."
Nice. So, to paraphrase, to Hell with people who work all their lives and collect Social Security and Medicare, and who send their kids to public schools, or who worked all their lives for a pension that has been stolen by the big investors getting rich on hedge funds and inside trading in the stock market. Forget about paying for better roads, parks, social programs to keep people alive or sheltered. It's about money -- your pocket.
Norquist is a creature of the Reagan administration, and the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, which devised and pressured every person running for public office to sign a pledge that they would never, under any circumstance, vote for a increase in taxes. Many, if not most, of your county Republican office holders in Maryland have signed it.
According to the The Week, 235 Congressmen and 41 Senators have signed it. "Only seven Republican Senators and seven congressmen have not."
If any of them break the pledge, Norquist unleashes his dogs in primary elections. He brags that he denied President George H.W. Bush another term in office for breaking the pledge. He helped Newt Gingrich with the so-called "contract with America," which eventually ticked off enough Americans that the Republicans took a hit in the following election, and Newt Gingrich is now showing a poor last in a pathetic attempt to regain credibility as a leader.
I was pressured to sign the pledge when I ran for commissioner -- first term and second -- but I refused, explaining that a refusal to find the means to fund programs important to voters would be like a business refusing to ever raise prices, or a private citizen taking the position that if gas rose above $3 a gallon, we'd stop driving.
Those who took Norquist's pledge now have to decide which pledge they will keep: The one to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th amendment establishing that the full faith and solvency of the government shall not be denied, or Norquist's short-sighted threat to any elected official who is willing to make tough choices.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Is this how you curb government intrusion?
Commissioner Robin Frazier wants to make anyone receiving any kind of help through human services programs work for their keep. She calls such mandatory labor "volunteer service."
I am not surprised at her request. She has a track record for shallow self-righteousness and hypocrisy. I am only surprised that her colleagues did not immediately rule it out.
For one thing, its not county business; it is state and/or federal policy that decides eligibility. The only authority the commissioners have is for the level of funding. For another, this is the board that campaigned on the premise that government should be less overreaching, less intrusive. Perhaps they meant only less intrusive into the lives of people like them; less needy, financially and physically well off. There is the hypocrisy, and it can be contagious.
But gone are the quality people who would advise commissioners that some things are not within their domain of influence. Or perhaps such advice was offered by current legal and administrative staff, but was overridden on ideological grounds.
The board as a whole did better on the issue of a master plan. Dave Roush, who has a reputation for being thoughtful, if occasionally condescending or sarcastic, finally got quoted in print for standing up to some of the silliness of Richard Rothschild's paranoic rants about world domination of local planning and zoning.
Still, the tenor of the slide presentation presented by Rothschild and Frazier ignores the intent of Maryland law, which is that an independent board of citizens, comprising a planning and zoning commission, draw up a master plan for growth and land use. In other words, the people, as represented by those on the planning commission, not the politicians, make the recommendations. The commissioners can only approve or disapprove the plan. If they disapprove of the people's plan, they have to send it back to the planning commission for review and possible revision and resubmission for approval.
This board of commissioners, in two separate actions this past week, demonstrated that it is willing to overreach when it serves its' agenda, and is not truly a defender of less intrusive government.
I am not surprised at her request. She has a track record for shallow self-righteousness and hypocrisy. I am only surprised that her colleagues did not immediately rule it out.
For one thing, its not county business; it is state and/or federal policy that decides eligibility. The only authority the commissioners have is for the level of funding. For another, this is the board that campaigned on the premise that government should be less overreaching, less intrusive. Perhaps they meant only less intrusive into the lives of people like them; less needy, financially and physically well off. There is the hypocrisy, and it can be contagious.
But gone are the quality people who would advise commissioners that some things are not within their domain of influence. Or perhaps such advice was offered by current legal and administrative staff, but was overridden on ideological grounds.
The board as a whole did better on the issue of a master plan. Dave Roush, who has a reputation for being thoughtful, if occasionally condescending or sarcastic, finally got quoted in print for standing up to some of the silliness of Richard Rothschild's paranoic rants about world domination of local planning and zoning.
Still, the tenor of the slide presentation presented by Rothschild and Frazier ignores the intent of Maryland law, which is that an independent board of citizens, comprising a planning and zoning commission, draw up a master plan for growth and land use. In other words, the people, as represented by those on the planning commission, not the politicians, make the recommendations. The commissioners can only approve or disapprove the plan. If they disapprove of the people's plan, they have to send it back to the planning commission for review and possible revision and resubmission for approval.
This board of commissioners, in two separate actions this past week, demonstrated that it is willing to overreach when it serves its' agenda, and is not truly a defender of less intrusive government.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Reasonable people were sent home
As I write, Congress has not yet agreed to lift the debt ceiling so we don't go on the world's deadbeat list.
The reason for this impasse is not principle, as the spinners who interview for the newscast would have you believe; it's because the American people, with a lethal combination of zeal and apathy, have sent too many reasonable people home, and the only ones left to vote on any vital issue are either champions of an absolutist gang or are afraid of the rabid reaction of absolutists. Right or Left.
Moderation is not valued enough. Too many find moderate politicians bland, neither here nor there, and so voters stay home. If there is a wingnut running, though, there will be a mob to support him or her, and that's how too many of our Representatives and Senators are selected.
In short, if you voted for an unreasonable absolutist, the impasse is definitely your fault, in part. If you didn't vote, it's also partly your fault, but you will suffer the full consequences of default in less value for your savings portfolio and higher interest rates on your outstanding loans.
The only people who win if the U.S. does not raise the debt ceiling are those who want to see President Obama lose the job in the White House.
So, when you watch all those talking heads, particularly the Republicans -- and the Libertarians who have fooled some people into thinking they are Republicans -- and hear the talking points mentioning "jobs," the jobs they're talking about are not your jobs. They don't care about your jobs. What they mean is the job they want, that White House job and all the hand-me-down jobs that go to politicians.
When they say "economy," they don't mean the economy that affects you. They mean investments for the big-money folks, most of whom have inside information and better connections that the average Joe with a 401K.
The hold up is just that: You're the one getting robbed.
The reason for this impasse is not principle, as the spinners who interview for the newscast would have you believe; it's because the American people, with a lethal combination of zeal and apathy, have sent too many reasonable people home, and the only ones left to vote on any vital issue are either champions of an absolutist gang or are afraid of the rabid reaction of absolutists. Right or Left.
Moderation is not valued enough. Too many find moderate politicians bland, neither here nor there, and so voters stay home. If there is a wingnut running, though, there will be a mob to support him or her, and that's how too many of our Representatives and Senators are selected.
In short, if you voted for an unreasonable absolutist, the impasse is definitely your fault, in part. If you didn't vote, it's also partly your fault, but you will suffer the full consequences of default in less value for your savings portfolio and higher interest rates on your outstanding loans.
The only people who win if the U.S. does not raise the debt ceiling are those who want to see President Obama lose the job in the White House.
So, when you watch all those talking heads, particularly the Republicans -- and the Libertarians who have fooled some people into thinking they are Republicans -- and hear the talking points mentioning "jobs," the jobs they're talking about are not your jobs. They don't care about your jobs. What they mean is the job they want, that White House job and all the hand-me-down jobs that go to politicians.
When they say "economy," they don't mean the economy that affects you. They mean investments for the big-money folks, most of whom have inside information and better connections that the average Joe with a 401K.
The hold up is just that: You're the one getting robbed.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
We celebrate the winners
Watching people celebrate the 4th of July made me think about what it is that Americans really think they have, and how we got here, and where it might all be going.
For instance, do people realize that our nation exists because a few rational men seized control from a few radical hotheads at the last moment, and were successful only because of the complacency and arrogance of the ruling British.
Most average citizens didn't walk around every day saying, "We the People need change!" It was more like, "Those nuts in Massachusetts are going to bring trouble on us all if they don't calm down."
They didn't have much of a stake in who was in charge, knew only that they were not; never had been, never would be.
Freedom meant holding church services as they saw fit, in company with like-minded people, without the intrusion of some king or church other than one of their own choosing. It meant being left alone, for the most part. Big idea for the time; being left alone had not been an option to their forebears in the old country.
So as the zealots stoked the fires of rebellion here, it's likely that many average farm workers, craftsmen and shopkeepers were just keeping a low profile, hoping that the troublemakers did not bring upon them some of the restrictions that had inspired people to migrate to the colonies in the first place.
For the zealots, then as now, it was about taxes and over-reaching government. The ones that had a little money didn't want to part with it. Those who dealt mostly within the barter system -- almost everyone else -- probably didn't care much one was or another.
The really big money guys saw calamity if they didn't wrest control from the thugs who pulled off the tea party thing in Boston. Landowners had the most to lose if Britain decided to really crack down. So they wrote up a plan, described the objective, and sold it to the general population. More independence, less government, low taxes, and so on. Standard campaign stuff.
They fought the British and won, almost by accident, certainly mostly on luck, and began a contentious process of forming a government of our own. King, no king? No king. Parliament or states running their own show? Neither; compromise (which did not work, and led to the Civil War 70 years later).
Within a few years, the new government of the people and by the people was telling the people they can't make their own whiskey without paying taxes on it, and so you had a quick but bloody rebellion, a mini-revolution, as it were, which you do not hear too much about.
Brits, American politicians, either one will impose a government on you and tell you it's the will of the people. We celebrate the version of history as preserved by the winners of the conflicts.
For instance, do people realize that our nation exists because a few rational men seized control from a few radical hotheads at the last moment, and were successful only because of the complacency and arrogance of the ruling British.
Most average citizens didn't walk around every day saying, "We the People need change!" It was more like, "Those nuts in Massachusetts are going to bring trouble on us all if they don't calm down."
They didn't have much of a stake in who was in charge, knew only that they were not; never had been, never would be.
Freedom meant holding church services as they saw fit, in company with like-minded people, without the intrusion of some king or church other than one of their own choosing. It meant being left alone, for the most part. Big idea for the time; being left alone had not been an option to their forebears in the old country.
So as the zealots stoked the fires of rebellion here, it's likely that many average farm workers, craftsmen and shopkeepers were just keeping a low profile, hoping that the troublemakers did not bring upon them some of the restrictions that had inspired people to migrate to the colonies in the first place.
For the zealots, then as now, it was about taxes and over-reaching government. The ones that had a little money didn't want to part with it. Those who dealt mostly within the barter system -- almost everyone else -- probably didn't care much one was or another.
The really big money guys saw calamity if they didn't wrest control from the thugs who pulled off the tea party thing in Boston. Landowners had the most to lose if Britain decided to really crack down. So they wrote up a plan, described the objective, and sold it to the general population. More independence, less government, low taxes, and so on. Standard campaign stuff.
They fought the British and won, almost by accident, certainly mostly on luck, and began a contentious process of forming a government of our own. King, no king? No king. Parliament or states running their own show? Neither; compromise (which did not work, and led to the Civil War 70 years later).
Within a few years, the new government of the people and by the people was telling the people they can't make their own whiskey without paying taxes on it, and so you had a quick but bloody rebellion, a mini-revolution, as it were, which you do not hear too much about.
Brits, American politicians, either one will impose a government on you and tell you it's the will of the people. We celebrate the version of history as preserved by the winners of the conflicts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)