I, along with many other reasonably intelligent people, am aware of the fact that Republicans always seem to talk in coded language. They don’t only do this about those they don’t like; they also do this about those they do, supposedly, like. The goal is to paint the good done by an opponent as bad and to paint the bad done by a supporter as good. The coded language means “telling lies and/or distorting truth.
When language is coded you have difficulty understanding it unless you’re able to unravel the code to determine what may be the unspoken intent. The Republicans (from time to time) have managed to send out a host of insinuations-coded words and phrases. Some of the coded language reached the intended individuals; was received and understood by them-they could unravel the code. They had been prepped prior in the nuances of such coded language. The coded language run the gamut from race to racist; from budget to free spending and from economics to “Reaganomics”. Some of the coded language left many in limbo-trying to guess or speculate as to what was really meant. The racist codes (barring any unintentional gaffs) were immediately translated because they had been used over and over in America down through the ages. America has embraced racism for over 250-years. The economic codes have gotten entangled in taxes; budgets; immigration; domestic policy concerning who to help and who not to help and entitlements-social security, Medicare and Medicaid. The un-coded language about balancing the budget is “we want to stop helping the poor and middle class”. The un-coded language about immigration is “They’re taking Americans’ jobs”-even though Americans don’t want to do many of the jobs the immigrants are doing. The un-coded language about wanting to strengthen entitlements is “We want to privatize them and put them in the hands of the Wall Street crap shooters”. Obama-care has many code words and phrases but the most fitting translation is “We don’t want a public health insurance plan that covers the majority of Americans; abolishes denial for pre-existing conditions; abolishes the cap on what insurance companies are required to pay out and cut the overall high cost of medical services.
Mitch’s Code on Leadership
The recent wrinkle out of the mouth of Mitch McConnell was the coded “President Obama needs to lead”. This “lack-of-leadership wrinkle has been spun often enough in the past and based on evident performance of the president, many (I believe) thought that coded language had gone away after the election because the American people (with their vote) said I believe President Obama is the right leader for America and is leading America on the right course. What’s with Mitch? Did he run out of talking points or is he entering pre-stage dementia? Maybe he, along with the Republican and Tea Party don’t know what constitutes leadership. For one thing, to be a leader you must have followers-voluntary or assigned. You know; I was once deeply involved in a network marketing business. When I first got involved, I made a commitment to do all of the necessary preliminaries that would help assure my success. I didn’t want to look back and say “if I had done this or that I may have been successful”. So I did all of the “this and that’. I stepped out front to lead the group I had established. As time passed, I found myself not leading anyone, because no one was following me. To be a successful leader you must have individuals willing to follow. The Republicans talk often about the president not leading but it appears they have vowed (to a man) not to follow in anything that would help assure his success as the country’s leader. The president sponsored a night out to the movies and invited members of Congress and others to come and view the film, Lincoln. I wasn’t there but I’m sure he directed the White House staff to supply the appropriate snacks and refreshments fitting for the occasion. Very few Republicans (if any) showed up. He led in an effort to try to get people to come together for a light moment of entertainment and refreshments. The party that codes him as not being a leader (again) refused to follow. This is another example of coded Republican pushback. When positions of leadership are put in place or when leaders are put in a leadership position, it is expected there will be followers. When followers aren’t anticipated, you don’t need a leader.
You don’t make a person a squad leader unless you assign him a squad.
You don’t make a person a troop leader unless you assign him troops.
You don’t make a person general of the armies unless you assign him armies.
The Republicans vowed-almost from the election of President Obama-they would resist following him-to a man. Those that didn’t desire to follow him did so voluntarily. Those that may have wanted to follow him were (according to the evidence) coerced in not cooperating in any meaningful way.
Remember Mitch and friends wanted to make sure he was a one-term president-they failed at that. If God wanted Mitt to win, President Obama wouldn’t be in the White House. I hate to disappoint many of you by telling you “God doesn’t make mistakes”.
Mitt and company wanted to make him appear to be unqualified for the job-they failed at that. Mitch didn’t prove he was qualified. The shenanigans at Bain Capital weren’t enough. The people didn’t believe him.
Other “political hatchet-men” wanted to spin him as not being smart enough-they failed at that. His intellectual prowess had already been proven, but the non-readers hadn’t discovered it yet.
The “Donald” and other “birthers” wanted to make him a non-citizen-they failed at that.
They couldn’t tamper with his morals-his family was too much intact.
They suggested he was no leader in foreign policy experience. Maybe he wasn’t to their liking but the people of foreign nations loved him.
They said he was a “rock star”. Part of him may possess that flavor but he is much more than a rock star. He was a natural entertainer on the social scene. When he did the short piece of an Al Green tune, Mitt tried to follow his singing ability-but failed miserably. Mitt tried to sing “America the Beautiful” and his tune sounded like he purchased it from Dollar General.
They couldn’t tamper with the lead he took on controversial issues-the American people wanted them.
This is the first time in the history of this nation that a president has had such resolute push back and been accused of not leading. On second thought; this is the first time in the history of the nation that America has had a black president. They aren’t pushing back against the president; they’re pushing back against the black president. Now; go on and say it. You want to say I’m pulling the race card; right? You’re right; I am. It’s not just a “race card”; it’s a “race deck of cards”. However, truth is what truth is. I’m not writing for fame-God orchestrates fame. I’m writing for truth-too seldom is it told today. In spite of and through all of the fiascos, successes and failures (made by prior presidents) the nation (in general) followed the sitting president in his endeavors. The Tea Party and the Republicans (in particular) refuse to follow this president and then accuse him of not leading. What a bag of hypocrisy.
The American People Followed Them
After the stock market crash of 1929, the nation was in dire straits and needed a leader to step up to the plate. That leader was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Some fringe elements in America called him a socialist and didn’t readily embrace some of his policies but the nation (in general) fell in step behind him.
After the Cuban “Missiles Crisis”, America needed a leader. That leader was John F. Kennedy. The “Bay of Pigs” disaster happened on his watch. Nevertheless, America (in general) fell in step behind him. America didn’t accuse him of not leading. When his term was cut short by disaster, America sorely needed a leader. It was in some of the worst of times. The leader was Lyndon Baines Johnson. America fell in step behind him. Who would dare “go to the wood shed” with LBJ?
After the “Watergate” affair, that was both criminal on the part of the action and the actors, America needed another leader to replace tricky, Dick Nixon. That leader was Gerald Ford. America fell in step behind him.
After the Iran “Hostage Taking” crisis, that was a fiasco and a failure, America needed a leader. That leader was James Earl (Jimmy) Carter. America (in general) fell in step behind him. They didn’t say he wasn’t a leader.
The Iraq War was initiated on false premises and untruths-knowingly or unknowingly. It cost this nation trillions in dollars; thousands in lives; exploded the deficit and still has not come to a complete resolution. At the time it was initiated-under false pretense or not-America needed a leader. That leader was George Bush. The nation (in general) fell in step behind him. He wasn’t accused of not being a leader. All may not have agreed with his actions but they still fell in step behind him.
Was This Leadership?
America today is being propelled by greed, dishonesty and deceit. All these adjectives are negative but render a fair description of present-day America. America has a leader that is bold, resourceful, capable and concerned about the future of this country and its people. He has shown his concern, even to the point of tears after addressing horrible un-American behaviors. Yet; there are those who sit or stand on the side and accuse him of not leading. What kind of people are these? What sinister thoughts propel them? Are they desperate to see him fail or just don’t really love America like they say they do? Often when leaders fail, the nation fails.
The severity of the fiscal crisis was evident immediately after President Obama took office. He proposed a stimulus package to help bring the nation out of the crisis and back from the brink of financial disaster. Was that leadership?
When the auto industry was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and maybe insolvency, the President stepped up-against many voices of don’t do it-and proposed a bailout plan. That has positioned those failing companies at the top of their game today. They were an institution in this nation and embraced many job positions. Did it not require leadership to take the stance President Obama took?
When the most wanted terrorist in the world was on the lam, President Obama made a bold decision to “take him out”; even though the chosen option carried the greater risk and greater reward. President Obama made the decision to move forward on it. He said it was his decision to make. Osama Bin Laden is no longer a threat to America or other nation on the planet. Let me ask; did that require leadership?
After the recent hurricane, Sandy, President Obama immediately visited New Jersey and toured parts of the devastation with the governor, Christie. The way the president went about it showed a depth of leadership and the New Jersey governor praised him for it. The governor didn’t speak from a position of partisan politics but from a truth perspective. He suggested that the president was on the case and showing leadership. The Republican Party became disgruntled with the governor and the president. The House Speaker, along with his cohorts refused to pass a timely aids package for New Jersey and other nearby locales, seemingly because the Republican governor praised the Democratic president. The president is “damned if he do and damned if he don’t”, as the expression goes. Christie may have his other faults-we all have some of one kind or another-but there is something very refreshing in an individual who has the guts to say it like it “tis” is; who can put truth before politics. Many of the other Republicans lack the wherewithal to do this. In the midst of the throes of the “Debt Ceiling” crisis, some of the usual crowd is suggesting the president isn’t leading. I watched two pundits speaking. One supported the president’s position on it-the other suggested that 60% of the American people don’t want the debt ceiling raised. I’m a bit puzzled on the 60%-position. Sixty per-cent or more of the American people don’t know what the debt ceiling is or what it means. I asked a very informed college graduate; with advanced degree credentials and she couldn’t explain what the debt ceiling means. You have many pundits out there with fake facts and false spins.
Why do I write it?
I don’t write about this president’s feats and challenges because I love and agree with every policy and every decision he makes. He doesn’t need my agreement or disagreement. What’s more, I don’t have to agree-in America we can differ with our leader. I’m an individual with my own sense of intelligence. I’m not driven by loyalty to party. I’m driven by loyalty to truth. However, I’m smart enough to recognize that this president has encountered obstacles like no other prior president in history has encountered. This is a first-and he is a first. I’m sure this president has sat around many tables; in many different rooms; on many different continents, where he was the “elephant in the room”. He may have often been put upon to make a decision. Nowhere have I read that he was indecisive. I have read that he (on occasion) wanted to think over the matter for a time. That’s smart-that’s leadership quality. However, nowhere have I read that he would do thus and so when he got “around to it”. You see; “getting around to it” was an expression used in bygone days when a person didn’t want to or intend to do a certain thing. It became obvious that the task would never get done because the person would never find “a round to-it”. All “to-its” are square. Nobody makes round ones. We should summarily dismiss a person’s notion that’s waiting for a “round to-it”. If President Obama ever waited for a round to-it, he would still be waiting. The task at hand would not be done. A “round to-it” is coded language that means “I don’t intend to do it”. What is the code in the language that says “President Obama isn’t a leader or he doesn’t lead”? That must be some proprietary Republican language that is intended to suggest weakness. Leaders are strong, take-charge individuals. The non-leader description doesn’t fit the president? Whatever else he may or may not be, weak doesn’t fairly describe his character. What greater strength of leadership could be demonstrated than that leadership which put the recent machinery in place that “spanked the Republicans’ bottoms”? They are still smarting over their defeat; crying in their champagne and puzzled over the election outcome. What I’m wondering is “Where was the Republican contender’s leadership?” He was one of those who said the president didn’t lead. The American people told the Republican contender he-himself- didn’t know how to lead. After all the false talk of “lack of leadership”, America sent the president back to the White House to finish his job. The House Minority Leader may as well go on; unfix the wrinkles on his brow; the slur on his lips and stop accusing the president of not leading. The Republicans need to re-write their playbook; remove the coded language and begin speaking in truth and plain English.