Ben Carson’s Personal “Poverty of Spirit”

First, let’s start with what is known.  Dr. Ben Carson is a serial prevaricator.  Everything he utters must first pass through that lens.  Distrust and verify.   The fact that he stands 13^th in the line of succession would, normally, be cause for trepidation…but it’s just another day in Trump-occupied America.

So this fabulist who recently said that “poverty to a large extent is also a state of mind” is now helming the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  And what is going on with the Administration and community development and housing these days? Well, according to Jose DelReal of The Washington Post:

The Trump administration's 2018 budget blueprint, unveiled Tuesday, would cut more than $6 billion from HUD's budget. The cuts would end popular grants that facilitate first-time home ownership and revitalize economically distressed communities, including the Community Development Block Grant. The budget would also cut billions of dollars in funding for public housing support, gutting dollars used to fund big-ticket repairs at public housing developments around the country.

How precisely are these proposals going to help folks get a leg up?  How will denying people living at the margins, from check to check, opportunities for advancement help bring about an “Opportunity Society” that sometime-Trump enthusiast and disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich used to bloviate about?

Allow me to shift format and go open-letter. Let’s talk Michiganian to Michiganian here, Doc. I know we grew up in different eras and in different circumstances.  But we both know something about being of the working class and having some tough times.  Your family had to rely on food stamps for a while, ours needed government assistance too.  You and I both know that all it takes is one bad break to make a precarious situation far worse.  Your family did well enough where you could get a “new Chrysler” according to one of your books.  Good for you.  Of course, what if someone in your family had come down with a serious illness? What then?  I am guessing you might have wanted a strong safety net in place…just in case.  

Many hard-working folks who live, and not just talk about, the virtues of self-reliance fall through the cracks.  So stop peddling your bullshit about “creating dependency” when you are part of an Administration that seems determined to take a hacksaw and slice off several rungs of the “ladder of opportunity” of which you speak.

Further, how dare your allies cloak your mealy mouthed nonsense under the guise of “faith,” as your sketchy pal Armstrong Williams did.  Side note:  how much money did Williams make promoting No Child Left Behind in that ethically dubious side deal that got him canned?  

So, Doctor, you apparently interpret the book of Genesis literally but what about all of the other Bible verses that talk about helping the poor…in Proverbs?  In Acts? In Matthew? In Luke? In Isaiah? Etc...I may not share your religion, but I do know that picking and choosing which verses to believe and which to ignore is a big “no no” in many Christian denominations.

I don’t know you.  I can’t speak to what is truly in your head or heart.  I can only assess your thinking based on your words and deeds. Based on those, it appears as though the true poverty in spirit can be found within your own soul, Doctor Carson.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

More in Sorrow than in Anger

I don’t know Greg Fox that well, but he strikes this author as the lumbering embodiment of the Peter Principle.  In my former career as a Very Important Republican ™, I would meet office-holders like Fox all of the time…generally hyper-parochial and somewhere on the George Babbitt spectrum of unoriginal.  Entirely unremarkable…of whom little is given, less is expected. And on that measure, Fox does not disappoint.

The point of this is to say that when folks hold themselves up to a higher standard of progressive thinking, unlike Fox, they had better deliver the goods.  This is where word has to match up with deed and this is where Allan Kittleman, with his promised veto of the sanctuary bill, falls short.  If you want to be a different kind of Republican, now is the time to demonstrate your values by your actions.  I read his statement and found a great deal of the rationale therein to be disingenuous fear-mongering.  Right out of the old Newt Gingrich/Joe Gaylord playbook.  I didn’t see anything that was reassuring in the least to those who might feel “othered,” Not even a nod recognizing legitimate fears, like those expressed by the woman in Tom Coale’s excellent piece today. 

So I can only believe that this is the real Allan Kittleman, or that he is posturing for another office and he feels the need to align himself, on this wedge issue, closer to where the Maryland GOP base is. 

On a related note, do I know what Governor Hogan’s plans are?  Oddly enough, Big Lar’ doesn’t confide in me his electoral intentions.  His loss.  At least he had the fortitude to grab for the brass ring in ‘14.  I, personally, would wager at this moment that he runs for re-election, but something closer to 60% likelihood on that, in short, not a slam dunk.  His favorability numbers are quite good now, but so were George H.W. Bush’s approval ratings in early ’91.  Even if he runs for re-election, I believe it will be a tough road for Hogan assuming the Democrats nominate a half-way decent candidate.  Maybe he wants to focus on governance and not on campaigning?  Take the James K. Polk approach perhaps.  Stranger things have happened. 

If he doesn’t seek re-election, the lack of anything near a deep bench means that the GOP will be looking for any Republicans who might be electable, and with Kittleman’s positioning on the sanctuary bill, he might just be palatable enough to emerge as the GOP nominee in ’18.   We should know about Hogan’s plans within the next few months.  Stay tuned.

In the meantime, all “Democrats for Kittleman” should remember where he stood on the sanctuary issue.  Maybe it’s time to donate those T-shirts.

Next up:  Thoughts on 2 and 3, probably before the end of this weekend.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Contingency, Community and Waffles

Claiming “Otherness” is a useful thing in political campaign.  It helps establish the perception of a moral center around which one’s allies can rally.  It assists in the creation of an antagonist to further a narrative. “They” are not “of us.”  “Their” preferences are alien to ours.  “Ours” is the authentic vox populi.

While it is within the bounds of fair play to have a civil discussion, where debates among reasonable people are grounded in reality, it is quite another case to insist that one’s opinions are true simply because…well…one believes them to be true.  “Your plan cuts down more trees than our plan.  Why?  Because it is your plan and therefore it must lead to bad things!” When one side adopts a “final vocabulary,” as Richard Rorty might say, it inhibits the ability of such a population to consider the validity of different perspectives.  It is a signifier of a closed mind.

Political language is meant to persuade.  Words and numbers are combined to develop the most compelling argument for (or against) one particular position or cause.  Rhetoric is employed to communicate that argument to an audience.  It is hoped that the language will move that audience to make a decision and take an action.  That said, when language is twisted and debased... or when the “others” are termed “enemies,” that coarsens the discussion and weakens the foundations of democratic governance.

Imagine if two groups were discussing waffles.  One group describes a waffle as “leavened batter or dough cooked between two plates, patterned to give a characteristic size, shape and surface impression" (source: Wikipedia).  Another group describes them as flattened disks of steaming evil and those who consume them are bad, ill-intentioned people.  Where is the ability to find common ground?  How can productive communication occur?

Of course that is what former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and certain GOP operatives did in the 1980s and 1990s when they sought to turn the word “liberal” into a vicious epithet.  Sully the group and make their ideas unpalatable.  In the short term, it might have given Gingrich and his coterie some victories….but it helped usher in an era of distrust, of hyper-partisanship, of gridlock and bitterness.

I have no hopes that his legacy will yield in favor of a newfound spirit of respect and cooperation anytime soon, not in DC.  That said, I hope in our corner of the universe, in Howard County, we can find ways to talk with each other civilly, and not at each other angrily.  

At least we should be able to agree on the definition of a waffle.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.