All Things in Moderation

I assume you reposted since I wrote, QB, because now it is fully visible and open to comment, to me.

Because I have seen the nation more divided than it is now [IMHO] I believe the comparison is not the proper focal point.  I think the proper focal point is in your positing of the current nature of profound disagreement and of mass and personal communication, and how to address them.

In order to have this discussion, I am assuming [by assumption] that EVERYONE AT THIS TABLE is familiar with the English language as spoken in the USA, and that we all are fluent at a post high school level.

Further, I am assuming that we all have access to all the same news sources and that we understand with substantial clarity what we read and what we hear and what we see.

If my assumptions are correct, we [here] come to our disagreements early.  We choose our reading/viewing material by predisposition or prejudice, if you will. This may be by reason of parental influence, or college experiences, or psychology, which last is beyond my ken.
============================
My father was an Eisenhower R.  He was an anti-communist with a sense of humor.  He despised Joe McCarthy as a fake and a fear monger.  But he correctly believed, as history has now revealed, that Hiss spied for Stalin.  I wrote my senior in high school honors history paper on “Communism in Latin America”.  I predicted Castro and urged that we co-opt him before he took power.

I went to Rice in 1960 on a full ride and turned down a partial scholarship at Yale. At Rice I came face to face with the reality of segregation and I was caught up in the Civil Rights movement, as were all the northern boys on one wing of one dorm in Houston.

In law school at UT, while the rest of the campus seethed with anti-war protest, we went about our business knowing we would sign up for OCS and hoping for JAG slots.

By 1967, I was a Texas D hawk.  When the D Party abandoned the military [I was there for McGovern’s capitulation] I was not amused.  I voted for Ford in ’76.

So I think my predispositions have focused my news reading and my perceptions.  I rely fairly heavily on the “Economist” for facts.  I do not watch any 24/7 cable except when forced to on the treadmill at the gym.

From where I began my “political journey” the Eisenhower Rs are gone.  The far left, when it argues for unilateral disarmament or someting like it, still drives me nuts.

My experiences as an attorney active in local politics and working the last twenty five years on the side of management in labor and employment law have  made me believe much can be achieved by local government when folks are aroused, and my civic mindedness does not immediately turn to “federal” solutions.  Indeed, I have seen what spirited private public local partnerships can do and how much more efficient they are.

My last roommate in Law School was John Carter, still a friend but now the R Congressman from our neighboring CD.  I have been friends with Lloyd Doggett ever since 1971, a D Rep from our neighboring CD.  KBH  is a classmate and I have always voted for her. I recall how tough it was for each of my four female classmates and how gracefully Kay handled it.

Our schoolboard races here are between sane Rs and creationists.  I vote for the sane Rs.  Yes, I think this refusal to acknowledge evolution is nuts.

Ross Perot almost singlehandedly brought Texas public schools into the top 20 in America for a time in the late 80s.  He spent millions of his own money lobbying school reform and going around the state with his persistent flip charts.  I voted for the man twice for Prez without regret.

I worked for a while around 1970 in David Richards’ law office.  He was [still is]a brilliant labor lawyer.  His wife Ann became governor.  I used to go to swim parties at their house.  I worked for Ann’s election.

I did pro bono ACLU work in the early 70s.  Mainly defending court martials at Ft. Hood, of men who were being tried for wearing obscene or political tee shirts, worn off duty.

This began for me with my first federal case in late 68 after I was HD’d from the Navy.  I repped a Defense Atomic Substation worker, an E-7 corporal, who had had his security clearance pulled because my client’s daughter had called the Colonel’s daughter a pothead, which she was.

I sought a due process hearing on the security clearance issue.  The Army lawyers walked in and announced they were offering to reinstate my client’s security clearance.  The Judge asked me to respond, and so stunned was I that I began my opening statement.  Judge Roberts, who knew me already, growled and interrupted.  “MARK, YOU WON.  SIT DOWN.”

I have worked both sides of the labor law aisle, defense/employer since 1980.

So my experiences and background probably have more to do with my current perceptions than failures of communication.  And mine are unique to me as yours are to you.

Where we have common experiences [I busted a big Ponzi scheme in 1989 – headlines in Austin, recovered all of 13% of the “investments”] we still have differences of opinions as to what defines Ponzi and what defines insurance, or finance, or gambling, or tax supported welfare.  I think you focus on the rising number of retirees and think the base can no longer support the top, or as Scott says, will no longer support the top without a change.  I focus on the mens rea and the demographics that actually will ease in another twenty years.

But in an instance like that, I do think we can agree to disagree knowing what each of us are emphasizing.

And that is probably the best as we can do.

Filed under: Uncategorized |