Boomers: One more chance to get it right

A Conservative’s Viewpoint

By: Bob Steinburg

Boomers: One more chance to get it right

Unlike some others from my era, I remember the ’60s. Our ranks were filled with folks who were out to change the world – idealistic, perhaps to a fault. It was a time of rebellion and discord between the young and the establishment. An unpopular war was raging in Vietnam, along with social and anti-war protests on college campuses across the nation. “Make love not war” was the slogan of the day as young Americans tried to redefine morality often through minds that were clouded by drugs, alcohol or both.

There were reasons for them to feel angry. Life-long friends, family members and classmates were shedding their blood and sacrificing their lives to support a war our nation was either never totally committed to win or lacked a long-term game plan. Historians and military experts have debated whether we could have won.

In a New York Times op-ed piece in 2005, Stephen Morris argues convincingly that the Viet Cong were defeated in 1972. In 1974-75, the U.S. reduced its level of support, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. This continues to haunt the veterans of that war and our society as a whole.

There are similarities between ceasing our military operations in Southeast Asia in the mid 1970s and the pledge of Barack Obama and a Democratically-controlled Congress to pull out our troops in Iraq – even as the surge is showing unparalleled success and victory suddenly seems attainable.

In 1973-74, like today, the world was in the midst of an oil crisis, which eventually led to gasoline rationing in America. At $4 per gallon, gas might just as well be rationed for many of us who can’t afford it.

President Nixon was embroiled in Watergate and today Bush’s approval ratings are very low, although higher than our Democratically-controlled Congress.

Distrust in our governmental institutions and corporate “greed” concerned many Americans back then. In the Vietnam conflict, many Americans believed we were at war to merely feed the greedy owners of our giant industrial military complex.

Today there are those who believe corporate profits are excessive and therefore somehow evil, even though we live in a capitalistic society.

The “baby boomers,” those of us born between 1945 and the early ’60s, are primarily offspring of the “Greatest Generation” who fought at home and abroad to secure victory in the epic struggle against Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Unlike any war before or since, our nation united as one.

As children most boomers were taught to respect our governmental institutions; we learned the importance of the family unit, a Judeo-Christian faith and having community spirit and pride.

We were also taught to respect and admire those in positions of leadership. Loving thy neighbor was taught to many of us along with those words of Lincoln “that all men are created equal.” However, night after night on the evening news, our television sets revealed the shallowness of accepting those precepts.

To try and find a single reason why the peace and tranquility of the 1950s, when America yearned for a sense of security and stability, evolved into a generation who rebelled against the status quo would be difficult. Initially it was civil rights protests against discrimination and then the battle for freedom of speech on college campuses. The assassinations of three inspirational advocates for social change angered and divided us. And then, Vietnam.

I suspect many boomers felt we could never stack up to that Greatest Generation although many of us are still trying. It was, after all, idealism that set the stage for civil rights reform. We can be proud of that. But culturally, many of us are coming to realize we dropped the ball. And as a result to some degree society is paying for our transgressions.

Today many Americans indulge in only what makes them feel good. God, in most circles, is socially acceptable, but only on our terms. We have abandoned our churches and our civic organizations. Tolerance has been redefined to mean anything goes, regardless of how vile, uncivil or immoral-not just by Christian values but by the very standards of any civil society.

We’ve walked down this path once before. I wonder if we as a nation have learned anything from it. Perhaps we are destined to repeat our mistakes once again.

In 1976, America turned to a peanut farmer from Georgia who few outside of his state knew. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was an abysmal failure, chiefly because he had no foreign policy experience, which became painfully clear to the world during another Middle East crisis.

Two gentlemen are seeking the office of the presidency of the United States this year. Like Carter in 1976, one of them has no foreign policy experience and is the most liberal of Democrats. His opponent has a plethora of foreign policy experience and is the author of the surge that is turning the tide in Iraq.

Which will it be? The baby boomers have one more chance to get it right.

Bob Steinburg is a free lance columnist whose weekly column "A Conservative's Viewpoint" appears in newspapers in New York and North Carolina. He resides in Edenton, N.C. and may be contacted at Bob@aconservativesviewpoint.com

The views expressed by the author may make perfect sense, but may not express the views of the staff and ownership of WoodShavings.

Do we really need partisan politics?

A Conservative’s Viewpoint

By: Bob Steinburg

Do we really need partisan politics?

Partisan politics is defined by Websters, Wikipedia and others in a number of different ways including the ardent and enthusiastic support of an individual or political party that stands for a specific set of ideals or beliefs that they would like to see advanced through the political process with nary any regard for fairness.

Others might suggest it is any candidate or party opposing the status quo of the sitting candidate or controlling party irrespective of any criticism, new ideas or vision that the potential “newbie’s” may be injecting into the political discourse.

And sadly it can also be about those in control for years wanting to stay in control at any cost, including discrediting the loyal opposition by spreading falsehoods, rumor, innuendo and character assassination.

I’ve often asked why politicians at all levels of government at times appear desperate to keep their death grip on the armrests of the seat of power. I suspect prestige and ego may be one reason. An additional source of income may be another.

An additional reason is influence. When you’re an incumbent sitting in the “catbird seat” this seemingly intangible commodity is the most significant source of control an elected official can exercise both within and without their immediate sphere of influence.

I’m a firm supporter of term limits. Many might say that by imposing tenure limits we are losing experienced legislators. Others will say we have term limits now. They’re called elections.

But it’s often the “experienced” legislators that concern me. When you examine elected officials involved in scandal and corruption it’s difficult to recall many, if any, involving a freshman or two-term legislator. Conversely, there is an infinite list of those who’ve been in power for numerous terms who have gone astray.

And then there is the power of the incumbency. The longer they serve, the more name recognition they have, the bigger their donor lists become and as a result, the more favors they owe. An election then boils down to popularity contests between powerful, well-known and well-financed incumbents vs. the usually under-financed and less known idealists whose narrow resources limit their ability to have their message heard.

In local elections, incumbents often go unchallenged by the opposition party’s inability or unwillingness to field a candidate. In some cases there is no opposition party, or at least one that is active. Without a two-party system in place the opportunity for innate unfairness and demagoguery replaces debate and a system of checks and balances to oversee and protect the interests of the average citizen.

A controlling one-party system sews the seeds for potential corruption, influence peddling, nepotism, favoritism and cronyism. Yes, state and federal government officials are big-time players in this winner-take-all sweepstakes, but many local town and county governments that have been controlled for decades by the same players or their minions can be even more troublesome.

How can voters change a system that is so firmly entrenched that it is becoming increasingly difficult to think we can ever change it? One of the best ways is to see to it that no elected seat at any level of government ever goes unchallenged.

We have two major political parties in this country and neither is perfect. They do however, offer the only real chance we currently have to exercise any control over the destinies of our world, our nation, our states, our communities and thus ultimately ourselves.

Our freedom to vote is not only our constitutionally divine right but our solemn responsibility and duty. We all believe in something. Most of us can find a home within one party or another, with each representing its own set of ideals, values and vision. Our active participation within this system allows us to partake in the shaping of those principles that will guide our individual party’s platform and selection of candidates.

Labeling anyone as a partisan politico may seem to some as mean-spirited. But in truth we’re all involved in partisan politics, whether we see ourselves as Republican, Democrats, Libertarians or Independents. Anyone striving through whatever “honorable” means to offer a choice of candidates, ideology and a vision is involved in partisan politics.

Bi-partisan cooperation, that great ideal, can only become a reality when the interests of all sides are respectively presented and considered through the prism of initial partisan viewpoints. This can serve as the catalyst for discussion, negotiation and ultimately real, fruitful and productive compromise.

You can say what you want about partisan politics being mean spirited or unnecessary, but without it we risk becoming mindless droids wandering in the wilderness of a political landscape we neither understand nor have the ability or will to change.

Bob Steinburg is a free lance columnist whose weekly column "A Conservative's Viewpoint" appears in newspapers in New York and North Carolina. He resides in Edenton, N.C. and may be contacted at Bob@aconservativesviewpoint.com

The selling of a president: 1968 vs. 2008

A Conservative’s Viewpoint

By: Bob Steinburg

The selling of a president: 1968 vs. 2008

In his book “The Selling of the President 1968,” author Joe McGinniss examines the re-packaging of Richard Nixon during the presidential campaign of 1968. With his loss to John Kennedy in the battle for the White House in 1960, followed by his crushing defeat at the hands of Pat Brown in 1962’s California gubernatorial race, the press subsequently labeled Nixon a loser. Nixon himself thought his political career was finished.

Then in November 1963 came the unexpected – the assassination of President John Kennedy. Kennedy’s successor Lyndon Johnson eventually ended up presiding over an unpopular war in Vietnam. Add to that excessive federal spending and the tax increases to pay for it and Johnson, one of the most skilled politicians ever, was in political trouble. Not only were Republicans anxious to have at him in the ‘68 general election, but others within his party were as well. A fissure opened within the Democratic Party. In considering the rising tide of anti-war protests and demonstrations along with having to watch a protracted and contentious primary battle for his party’s nomination, Johnson decided not to seek another term.

Nixon now felt that miraculously the karma was with him. He saw an opening- one more attempt at the prize he believed was stolen by Jack Kennedy eight years earlier-the presidency of the United States.

In his book, McGinniss takes us behind the scenes to see how Nixon was packaged to appear as the strongest presidential candidate; someone who could bring an end to a war that was dividing America and get this nation back on track. He had after all been the vice president in Dwight Eisenhower’s administration, an eight year period in the 1950s during which our nation enjoyed peace abroad and prosperity at home.

With very careful scripting, Nixon’s campaign capitalized on the increasingly important medium of television, ironically the same mass communication venue that failed him in the 1960 presidential debates with Kennedy. He successfully manipulated an unwitting and impatient public into believing that he possessed the leadership skills necessary to lead America over the next four years. Nixon resigned from the presidency in disgrace in 1974 in the middle of his second term, his character flaws skillfully hidden from us until it was too late.

As in 1968, politicians today are also being sold as a product and/or super-heroes. Savvy marketing people are hired to convince the electorate that their candidates are best suited for office. With all of the fanfare of a Hollywood studio introducing a new movie, each candidate is made to appear bigger than life.

Leadership is not necessarily revealed by a candidate’s skills at salesmanship, showmanship or staging. It should have nothing to do with trying to please everyone either, which in the end pleases no one. Leadership is about courage, not complacency. It’s about standing up for those beliefs one holds dear and that are deeply rooted within, no matter the cost.

Voters should consider candidates’ values because those qualities will influence a person’s behavior when faced with making decisions. What skills do the candidates possess that give them the knowledge and ability they’ll need in fulfilling their duties as our next commander and chief?

Voters need to examine very closely traits like honesty and competency, as well as courage, commitment and candor. Leaders are needed who will tell it like it is and then share their vision for the future.

In the 40 years since McGinniss completed his book, the actual selling of a president hasn’t changed all that much but there are some new wrinkles added to the marketing mix – primarily the Internet, which fosters the blogosphere.

There are other similarities between the 1968 presidential election and this one. Johnson and Bush both had high approval ratings early in their presidencies only to see them plummet as a result of unpopular wars. The opposition then and now wanted change. A candidate was marketed then as an agent of change that unfortunately was not the change America really needed. A candidate for wholesale change is being marketed now. Will we make a similar mistake again this November?

Bob Steinburg is a free lance columnist whose weekly column "A Conservative's Viewpoint" appears in newspapers in New York and North Carolina. He resides in Edenton, N.C. and may be contacted at Bob@aconservativesviewpoint.com