At least five times in the last 90 minutes I have heard commentators say something about the cyborg that occurred in the Florida primary.  I was sure that someplace along the way someone would stop and define the word, but, alas, it was used and then passed over as if everyone in America would know what they meant.   I’ll bet not.  I didn’t have a clue as to the meaning of the word, and even trying to put it in the context of the conversations didn’t get me there.

Finally, in desperation, I went to the dictionary where I discovered that cyborg is  a portmanteau, combining the words cybernetic and organism.  Thus, a cyborg is an organic  being who is assisted in its existence by electronic technology.   Cyborg is a word that is usually used in science fiction literature, depicting a human (or almost human) being with technology built into its body, giving it extraordinary powers unavailable to the ordinary human.  Much of today’s sci-fi media depends upon the cyborg phenomenon.

In the case of today’s news, however, the term cyborg is being used to indicate that the candidates for the Republican nomination for president were dependent upon their electronic support, i.e.: television ads.    The talk shows this morning were heavily laced with conversations, complaints, criticisms, analyses, and commentary on the prolific use of negative advertising in the Florida primary.   Something like 92% of the massive number of ads being aired in Florida were deemed “negative” and most people seem to think that Romney won as a result of his barrage of negative ads destroying Newt Gingrich’s chances for winning.  Romney spent over $15 million on his ads.  Gingrich was closer to $3 million.   The combination of these figures is obscene, but pundits seem to believe they were effective.

I suppose it depends upon what you mean by “effective.”  There is no question that Romney was the winner, and the double-digit victory makes him a run-away winner.   This was no Iowa where he and Rick Santorum ended up in almost a virtual tie, with Santorum squeezing out a 28 vote “victory.”    Clearly, Romney smothered the other three prominent candidates in Florida.

If, indeed, Romney’s “victory” is attributable to his cyborg partnership with television, I find myself questioning where we find ourselves in the whole question of elections.

• It is clear that the more money one has to spend, the more television coverage (he) is going to have.
• If “negative advertisements,” in which a combination of truths, half-truths, and lies are employed, what does that say about our vulnerability as voters to sort out the pertinent facts about a candidate?
• Is the “winner” of an election really the person we have seen in the ads, or has a faux persona been created which will evaporate after the election?
• What is the moral/ethical standard for elections, and are we stuck with it?

It does no good to be a “retro” thinker on this matter.   We can’t simply go back to the “good old days” of campaigning from the back of a train, or debates that look more like a Harvard-Yale academic discourse.   That’s enticing, but it’s too late for that.  We live in an age of electronic wonders which control much of our incentives for purchasing, including the purchasing of a candidate.  After we have been disgusted and offended by the tone of political advertising, we are left with the need for people to vote, knowing that they have been affected by what they have seen on television and the internet and what they have heard on radio.  We can’t stuff the toothpaste back into the tube.

My take on this matter is to

• finally pass legislation which forbids SuperPACS and wealthy individuals from controlling the finances of a campaign
• establish standards, with penalties, for negative advertising which is based upon personal attack and lies
• seek an agreement among the media leadership regarding their culpability in promoting such advertising

Right … like television stations who move from working in the red to working in the black/green as a result of political advertising are going to agree to restrictions on themselves!

Regulation of political advertising isn’t even in the hands of candidates any more.  It has slipped into the hands of third-party groups over which (supposedly) candidates have no control.   It’s a messy, messy road we have chosen to follow.  The potholes in that road cause damage to the political process and the dream of Americans to elect the most honorable, capable people to the roles of leadership.   I, for one, resent being duped by cyborg mentality.

Photo Credit: Stefani Baynum

The term class warfare is actually a term created by Karl Marx and used by Marxists to describe the way in which the elite pound on the lower classes in society.  It is amusing, therefore, to find the words being used in today’s political dialogue by Republicans (primarily) to describe the way in which they believe the Democrats are railing against the financially powerful. To have conservatives, therefore, espousing a theory formulated by Marxists is ironic.

There is no question that the overbearing power being used by the rich and powerful  is a topic of those who are disturbed by the overbearing power being exercised  by the wealthy and the powerful in industry.   Every time time statistics on capital growth are announced and it is clear that the segment of society characterized as “Wall Street” has seen its  income soar while unemployment and foreclosure is rampant among middle and lower class citizens it becomes clear.   The benefits of our society are gravitating to the wealthy and the programs that aid the middle and lower class are being jeopardized in order to bring economic balance to the governmental budget.  It has become very easy for Republicans to call for the elimination of so-called entitlements while scrambling to protect against any taxation of benefit elimination for the wealthy and powerful.

The Supreme Court decision which allowed for Super-PACS to contribute massive amounts of money to the elections and remain hidden by anonymity is yet another reason for the critics to pounce on the wealthy.  The inequitable tax shelters and tax benefits being granted to the upper 1% of taxpayers is infuriating to those who struggle to pay their taxes on unemployment benefits.

So there is no question that there is rampant criticism of the wealthy class.   Democratic and Independent voters and candidates are vocal in their call for heavier pressure on the millionaires and billionaires in this country.   Sometimes that anger and vocal objection is passionate and has a revolutionary ring to it.

The question is whether the class warfare is being waged by the wealthy and powerful upon the less powerful and less financially successful citizens, or if they are the ones waging class warfare against the “privileged.”    The point is that the circumstance of economics in this country is party-neutral.  It is a matter of fact, easily acknowledged by rich, poor and middle class alike.  Nobody is denying the successes of the wealthy, and nobody is denying the difficulties of the other 99%.   The arguments and verbal battles being identified are procedural.    The embracing of tactics to maintain the imbalance  or those to bring about balance is the area of contention.

It would be irresponsible, however, to depict this conflict as being simply rhetorical.   It is far more than that.   There is pain in the lives of millions of people who are unable to free themselves from economic stress and disaster.   That pain is increasingly burdensome and the rhetoric and action are more and more aligned on a daily basis.  The Occupy Movement is a sign of the growing intensity of the distress between the economic poles.

For Democrats and others to be speaking out about the economic disparity and polarization in this country is not a sign of simple rhetorical disagreement.  It is the acknowledgement of a growing frustration that is capable of erupting in a way not dissimilar to that which has occurred in Europe over the past several months.  Tax reform and overall economic reform are not just clever campaign slogans.  They are legitimate and urgent matters which should not be relegated to jargonistic “class warfare” chants.  They should be a part of the platforms of both major parties, and should have attached to them serious program proposals which will directly bring about the change necessary to lessen the disparity.

My attempt to characterize this issue in a brief posting does not do justice to the depth or the seriousness of the problem facing us as a nation.  Neither does the tossing about of the term “class warfare.”   What is called for is serious collaboration by the elected leaders of this nation to alleviate the polarization being experienced by people.   That cannot wait for November, 2012.  It needs action now.

Cartoon Credit: Matson

The marathon runner crossing the finish line is the most vivid illustration of someone who has striven.  After months and months of training and preparation, the runner puts the last effort of a 26.2 mile, grueling race behind (him) and thrusts his body across the line, sometimes collapsing, having given his last ounce of energy to the effort.   He has striven to accomplish something that even he may not have believed to be possible those months ago.  The medal on a ribbon which is placed around his neck to signal that he has completed the 26.2 is symbolic.  The real acknowledgement is within himself.

I heard Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Morning Joe Show yesterday talking about American greatness, and he used the word striven in the context of the effort America has demonstrated in its attempt to be a leader among nations.  His optimism for America’s ability to return to a position of international greatness was remarkable and refreshing in the midst of great negativity by pundits of all stripes.

The question is, does strife to regain greatness amount to a sufficient entity to assure that greatness?  Can an individual or a nation “assure” its greatness simply because it strives for it?  Obviously, it takes more than individual effort.   The quality of greatness must be recognized by others before the awarding of greatness can be valid.   It is like the proverbial philosophical question of whether the sound of a falling tree in the midst of a deserted forest can said to have existence.  Does not the translation of the airwaves emitted by the crashing tree have to excite the eardrums of a living being in order to be valid?

Our nation’s declaration of greatness can fall on deaf ears and can be invalidated by perceptions of less than greatness by others.

But the optimism expressed by Dr. Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Carter,  is a powerful testimony which deserves acknowledgement.   It is too easy to discount the greatness of America by recounting the errors we as a country have made and ignoring the accomplishments which overshadow them.  In this age of disparagement of greatness and the taking of pleasure in trashing good done by an individual or an accumulation of individuals, it is too simple a task to denigrate their strife to do good.

That is not to be Pollyanna about this nation’s recent history.  There are many things to diminish the record of goodness of this country, the Iraq war not being the least by far.  Bad choices and boundary crossings by American citizens and the nation as a whole are too easy to recognize to be able to ignore them.    But the heart of America is good and the intention of the American people is to do good.  We have not always demonstrated that through the leaders we have chosen and the policies we have promoted.   But, especially in the post-9/11 world in which our confidence was shaken and our grief was evident, those leaders and policies have been as much a demonstration of post-traumatic stress as anything else.  We have been attuned to detect such a phenomenon in military personnel returning from war or family members rebounding from a disaster.  But we are slow to recognize the PTSD in our nation and the ways in which it has affected us.  Some continue to demonstrate that disorder, including some who would be leaders of our nation in all three branches of our government.

But Dr. Brzezinski is correct:  this country has striven to be great and magnanimous and will continue to do so.  Like those who suffer with PTSD, it may take years for us to discover how to live that out in legitimate and sincere ways.  And, in the right moment, it will take world opinion, not our own declarations, to establish that the United States is again a great nation.   In the meantime, it is required of us to recognize our national humility and be willing to receive the assistance needed to grow and heal.   We begin with the recognition of, and embracing of, our soul.  That calls for the demonstration of reality, not fantasy.   As we are about to identify the leadership who will lead us into the next years of our striving for goodness and greatness, that demonstration is vital and urgent.

Photo Credit: runner

I forced myself to watch the Republican Debate from Tampa last night.  It wasn’t quite the circus it’s been with a stageful of potential candidates.  Now that it’s down to two major contenders and two pretenders it’s a more manageable scene.  That’s not to discount the importance of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, who I felt added an interesting dynamic to the debate; it’s just that it appears that Gingrich and Romney have assumed center stage (literally) and the debate is really about them.

One of the comments that always follows one of these debates is “which one of them seems truly presidential?“  That’s a loaded question, as it assumes that people agree on what the term “presidential” means.

For some, a candidate is presidential when he or she looks like previous presidents.   That includes physical appearance, form of dress, hair style, comfort level on camera  and modulation of voice.   I suspect that concept took flight in the John Kennedy/Richard Nixon debates.  Television played a huge role in determining the outcome of the debate, and the youthful, articulate image of a John Kennedy against a more pasty, five-o’clock shadowed, uncomfortable Nixon.   Add to that the technological improvements of the medium, including High Definition, and we find ourselves acting as TV critics, checking out the skin texture, coloring (or lack of coloring) of hair, clothing quality, whiteness of teeth, and presence or lack of presence of redness in the eye.   It’s somewhat more like a beauty pageant than a political debate to some people.

But there are other qualities of presidential aacceptability.  They include:

• moderation of voice
• eye contact or lack of it
• speed of response to criticism
• lack of whining or pouting
• clarity of answers
• sticking to the point
• nastiness factor
• appropriateness of humor
• choice of language
• ability to respond convincingly

There are others, but these are the ones that seem to be spoken about in the post-debate summaries.

The problem is that different people have different viewpoints on who has set the standard for presidential qualities.  Ronald Reagan, an experienced actor, seems to be the standard for Republicans in this election.  His swagger, folksy tone of voice, attractive persona and appearance, and well-fitting clothing help to make him a standard.   His conservative bent doesn’t hurt either, giving him high points in the race to decide who is more conservative in 2012.

Bill Clinton was really at ease in front of a camera and could use humor to fend off criticism.   His fast mind allowed him to respond to a question with computer-like speed, even though he could slow it down to accommodate a drawl or a “gee-whiz” speech pattern.  The intensity of his eyes when he wanted to be serious and intimidating was incomparable in debates.  And, his good looks, silvery hair, and flashy smile didn’t hurt.

Gingrich’s rumpled suit appearance, hefty girth and sizable head would seem to discount him from the physical qualities one might admire, especially against the well-dressed, greying at the temples, slimmer Romney.

But the presidential tag seems to have been adjusted to include snarly, biting, nasty, attack-dog demeanor, and … for some sad reason … it has become a measuring point for pundits.   There is a constant call for Romney to be more aggressive in “fighting” Gingrich.  (The same thing is said of President Obama.)   Romney is challenged by debate-watchers to step out of his comfort zone and become someone who can spar with Gingrich, who is very much in his comfort zone when blood-letting is demonstrated.  Presidential effectiveness in debates has moved (in the eyes of the audience) from Harvard lecture hall behavior to cage boxing and ultimate mud wrestling arenas.   It’s not pretty, and I would contend that it is a false criterion for presidential behavior.  Someplace in between these two extremes lies a composure which is aggressive and firm, but respectful of the opposition.

I try to picture the potential candidate in a room with ambassadors and heads of state, with the leadership of the opposition in Congress, talking out differences with heads of organized labor and economic leadership from Wall Street.  Granted, firmness and integrity are required, but is there really a desire for a pit bull mentality?  I think we’ve been watching too much reality television these days.

Photo Credit: Politico

In the past few days Republicans have been said to be about the process of  culling the ranks of prospective candidates for their nominee for President.   It may well describe the process of sorting out the field, but I doubt that cull is a good word to describe the process.

Cull is a term used to describe the necessity of killing off animals in an oversized herd.   On a regular basis it is necessary to employ hunters to cull off  the rapidly-growing herd of deer in Upstate New York, for instance.   As more and more deer are born and thrive in the lush atmosphere of the Adirondacks, the incidence of cars and trucks crashing into them on the roads worries officials. Deer are also nuisances in the agricultural areas of the state, invading farms and destroying portions of a crop.  Consequently conservation officials  will increase the number of deer allowed to be taken by an individual in a season, or a special extension of the season allows for the taking of deer over a longer period of time.  It is properly called a cull.

The word is from Old French (14th century) and means to “strain out” or “glean.”   It is used in food preparation, for instance, when referring to selecting out the flawed or damaged strawberries, tomatoes, or other food items to be used in a recipe.   Ranchers use the word cull to describe the selecting out of weak or injured cattle from a herd.

Unfortunately, the word cull is closely related to the concept of “kill off.”  The way to cull a herd is to shoot the “extraneous” cattle.  The way to cull a batch of strawberries is to thrown away the damaged ones.  The way to cull a herd of deer is to shoot some.

That is why I indicate that the use of cull to describe the winnowing down of the number of Republican candidates is somewhat harsh and maybe an overstatement.   Candidates aren’t killed to eliminate them from the pack; they are simply not voted for.   Eventually they, themselves, recognize the inevitable and withdraw from the race. (Some don’t get the point soon enough, though.)

I suppose there is a sense of “killing the chances” of a candidate by not voting for them.   When the numbers get too low and the prospect of being a serious candidate is dim, it may be that a candidate’s political career is damaged.  But being damaged is not the same thing as being culled.  One of the signs of maturity among contenders is the recognition that the time is not right.  That doesn’t mean that there will not be another time.  It’s just that right now there are candidates who gather more support for one reason or another.

In yesterday’s Republican Primary in South Carolina it was clear that Gingrich and Romney are being selected to be the front-runners in the rest of the Primary season.   Santorum and Paul are still serious contenders, but their numbers aren’t great.   It’s only a matter of time before they come to the conclusion that they will not be selected by Republicans this year.  At that point they will withdraw.  They haven’t been culled, in the technical sense of the word.  It may feel that way for a few days, but they have simply been handed a set of figures to ponder.

Now comes the brutal part of the Primary race.  The language of battle becomes even more harsh:

• they will “slug it out”
• they will seek to “knock off” each other
• media barrages will be the “fatal bullet” in the race
• one will “go on to live another day” and the other won’t

Death images will be prolific.   So maybe cull will be employed legitimately after all.  It all depends upon whether the victory of one is the direct result of the winner’s attack or whether the loser “shoots himself in the foot” and eventually concedes.

What is with all this violent language?

Photo Credit: cull

This won’t take long.

The news this morning is full of reports about potential Republican Presidential Candide Newt Gingrich and his comments about the way the President is handling the Iran threat situation.   In strong, blatant criticism, Gingrich declares that the President is dangerous, the most dangerous President of the United States he has ever seen.   He advocates strong military response to the Iranian threats to close the Gulf channel through which a huge amount of oil is transported.

Gingrich’s comments are irresponsible and, from my perspective, signal the very reason why he is not a credible candidate.  The use of such volatile commentary directed at the President is fuel for a bonfire being set by the Iranians.  It’s dangerous and it discounts the kind of careful diplomacy which has characterized President Obama’s tenure.  Intelligent and experienced commentators have commended Obama for his foreign policy.

Enough said.   It’s up to the Republican voters in the coming primary states to decide how they measure this kind of candidate blathering.

Photo Credit: Win McNamee

It always bothers me when a word gets brutalized and loses its accurate and helpful meaning and is replaced by a more popular meaning.  That’s especially disturbing when the new meaning denigrates the original purpose of the word.

A current example of my point is the word debate.  It is a word with a long and honorable history, some linguistic historians dating it to the 13th century.   Definitions of the word debate include honorable words such as “discussion, deliberation, consideration, dispute,  and consider.”  (see Dictionary.com)

A controversial topic is presented and members of the debate have allotted times, in rotation, to present positive and negative viewpoints on the topic.  Scholarship is assumed.  Vitriol is not a part of the formula.  Personal attack and demeaning personal jabs are irrelevant.  The purpose of the debate is to explore the topic at hand, not to destroy the members of the opposition.  In fact, there is respect and dignity for the opposition.

That doesn’t mean that debates don’t get strong and confrontive.   But the confrontation is demonstrative of resources and information which has been accumulated to make the point. Good debaters may become energized and forceful, but not in the sense of destroying the integrity of an opponent; the victim, if there is one, is the information, not the informer.

In the same Dictionary.com reference cited above there are archaic terms identified, and they include such words as “fight, quarrel, contend, and beat down.”   It would seem that the employment of these methods have failed to comply with the preferred understanding of the word debate.

But in today’s world, especially in the case of political debates, the scheduled events are designed for the specific purpose of exposing personality flaws, injuring participants, and destroying competition.  It is a similar pattern which defines the difference between athletic boxing and the new extreme fighting.  In the former (especially in collegiate boxing) there are rules, and the participants demonstrate techniques which are agreed upon and monitored by the referee.  In extreme fighting the purpose appears to be to maul, injure, and destroy the opponent using whatever method one can devise.  In competitive boxing injuries are incidental.  Points for the exercise of good technique are accumulated toward a victory.  In extreme fighting the goal would appear to be destruction of the opponent.

Americans have become so addicted to violence and gore that the debates are deemed inconsequential unless someone is bloodied.  Personal jabs and inflammatory accusations (whether true or imagined) are applauded and considered victories.  If a candidate can be knocked to (his) knees and humiliated that “debate” is considered a success.  Over the past week those who have commented upon the two debates scheduled for this weekend have jostled over who would be “knocked out” of the Republican race for nomination, and there has been a degree of blood-letting implied in the expectations for the debates.

Moderators are expected to feed fuel to the personal attacks which are possible.   The crowds are allowed to cheer or jeer, depending upon their position.  Variation away from the established rules of the debate are common, giving candidates opportunity to extend arguments and accusations well beyond their useful levels.

The most dreadful result of these contemporary political debates is the lack of intelligent discourse and the exploration of the issues which most affect the voters.  At the end of a debate we are no more intelligent about the positions of candidates; we only know how good or bad they are at being kicked in the groin and recovering.  That, supposedly, is a sign of a good candidate for President of the United States.  One’s grasp of foreign policy, economics, political methodology,  or other serious qualities and issues  is secondary and may, or may not, emerge from the interchange among the debaters.

The purpose of exposing the best potential candidate is skewed and often undermined by the present understanding of debate.  The events have become reality TV episodes, unscripted cat fights, and … at times … meaningless exchanges of scripted abuse.  It is no wonder that the results so frequently produce the wrong candidate.  The perceived criteria for leadership have been mangled.

Photo Credit: NAACP

When I first saw the title of journalist Michael Gerson’s article in The Washington Post this week I was tempted to pass it by. 

“Rick Santorum and the return of Compassionate Conservatism.”

Somehow I just didn’t have the stomach to endure another appeal to the Bush-era thinking that there could be such a thing as “compassionate conservatism.“   My experience with the concept over the past several years has led me to believe it has been a sham.  The concept is just a cover for the Republican Party’s attempt to remove the federal dollars spent on social agencies.  Diverting their ministries to religious organizations and non-profit organizations just exposes much-needed programs for the poor and those others in need to financial struggles and eventual shut-downs when the dollars fail to materialize.  Having been on that end of the spectrum for many years in a variety of capacities, I know from personal experience that the intentions of well-meaning people are regularly mismatched with the impossibility of success.   Not always, but regularly.

But I chose to read the article and I’m glad I did.  I’m not a fan of Santorum and I have really, really serious difficulty with some of his views on people who don’t live their lives like him and his conservative Roman Catholic family.  But it wasn’t so much the promotion of Rick Santorum  in Gerson’s article that attracted me.  It was his careful and intelligent explanation of the social conscience of mainline Christianity and how it plays an important part in the way in which the religious community  regularly responds to human need … even when there isn’t an election year camera posed to record it.  The same can be said of institutions established by Jewish, Muslim and other religious communities.

In the midst of the article Gerson chooses to differentiate between two commonly confused motivations for the urging of compassionate programming by non-governmental agencies:

1. statism: giving over control for the major social programming to the central government, in many cases, the state.
2. subsidiarity: recognizing that peoples’ needs are best met by the institutions closest to those individuals

It is in that context that Gerson briefly describes the principle which is prominent in most mainline Christian Churches, that a purpose of the Church is to care for the poor, the disenfranchised, the prisoners and those in need of medical care.    This principle is not a new one; it has been evident in the Church from the beginning.  The Bible is filled with instructions to its believers that they have a responsibility they cannot shun.  Matthew 25 in the New Testament  spells it out clearly, at least for Christians:

 [³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

   ³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

   ⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"]  

Too many times religious communities are characterized by their weaknesses, their failures, their flaws and errors.   But the reality is that for centuries the religious community has established hospitals, educational institutions, and very successful social agencies.  This is the place where, for many people, the institution closest to them is their church, their synagogue, their mosque or their similar religious community.

But Gerson makes a good point.  Subsidiarity doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  While the religious community may be the closest to the individual, government may be the institution closest to the religious body.  He points out the paradox which baffles many, especially those of a more libertarian bent:

“But when these institution require help or protection, higher-order institutions should intervene.  So when state governments imposed Jim Crow laws, the federal government had a duty to overturn them.  When a community is caught in endless economic depression and drained of social capital, government should find creative ways to empower individuals and charities — maybe even prison ministries  that change lives from the inside out.”

This is the flip side of the coin that is so often overlooked by those who would hold a hands-off position on state and religious community issues.   Subsidiarity implies a collaborative effort on the part of government and social agencies (even if sponsored by religious bodies) in providing for the needs of those who fall through the cracks.   President George W. Bush defined this practice in his initiative which sprang from his interpretation of “compassionate conservatism.”    But implicit in his understanding was the withdrawing of government from the provision of benefits which would provide direct aid to the people in need.  Subsidiarity does not dismiss government; it simply defines the distance between government and the person who is homeless or unemployed.

One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons has three panels which depicts an older couple driving in the front seat of a car.   The woman turns to her husband, the driver, and expresses lament for the fact that they used to sit close to each other in the car when driving.  One panel allows him time to ponder the point.  The third panel has him turn to the wife and say, “Who moved?”

If government is at a great distance from the people, dismissing it from the principle of subsidiarity, the same question applies:  Who moved?

Photo Credit: AP

It was Andrea Mitchell who said it on TV the other day.  “Mitt Romney is going after Newt Gingrich with hammer and tongs.”   I knew immediately what she meant, and, I suspect, so did 99% of those watching the news show.   But it was the first time I remember stopping and asking myself, “What does that term really mean?”   If there is one benefit of writing this blog it is that I have become increasingly aware of the subtleties of language … things I used to take for granted and let slip by.   Today I’m more inclined to pull out my I-phone and register the term on my “Notes” pad for later scrutiny.   I’m glad I did that with this one.

The Urban Dictionary says that hammer and tongs, as we use it today,   is Australian slang.  That was a surprise.  I would have thought that the term might have been around in Olde English long before Australians began adapting the language to their own use and meanings.  It sounds like a medieval term.

It turns out that the term originated in the seventeenth century and is, predictably, a phrase originally applied to the work of a blacksmith.  It was meant to indicate that the smithy went “at it” with great vigor, pounding a hot piece of metal he was holding with a pair of tongs. There was nothing gentle about it.   The blacksmith needed to accomplish his shaping of the metal while it was hot, and the project required force and accuracy.

In later years, that picture was adopted when the term began to drift from practical usage and started turning up in conversational English.  It has the same meaning, however.   The purpose of the term is to indicate that someone went after a “project” with unusual vigor, pounding away at it until victory could be attained.   The words hammer and tongs is usually included with the words, “she went at it with”, as in

“When elected president of the failing company, she went at it with hammer and tongs until the budget was balanced and the product line was once, again, sought after on the open market.”

The use of the term emits a picture of strength, vigor, unrelenting power, lack of restraint, and intensity.

As used by Andrea Mitchell in her commentary, she was indicating that candidate Romney had pulled out all the stops (another term we’ll look at soon) and was beating on his rival, candidate Gingrich, with bare fists.   This was no pushing and shoving match; to the contrary, it was ultimate fighting.  Romney’s intent was to “draw blood” from his opponent.

It appears that he was successful.  As the Iowans wander into the caucuses tonight, they find Romney at the top of the pile and Gingrich having slipped from the top to the bottom region.  The barrage of negative advertising coming from Romney supporters has been brutal and Gingrich struggled to field it.   My suspicion is that he didn’t anticipate it and was not equipped to handle it.  The other side is that the content of Romney’s barrage was hard to dispute.

In any case, we have experienced before our eyes the living out of a venerable term in the English language.  Hammer and tongs is a perfect word to describe the battle we have just experienced between these two candidates.  For better or for worse.

Photo Credit: Comstock and Jansen

At the top of the State House in Providence, Rhode Island, stands the statue of “The Independent Man.”   It is a revered statue that symbolizes the ideology employed at the time of the establishment of the state.* Roger Williams and his followers came to the land to be known as “The State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations” to avoid persecution of their religious beliefs after having suffered at the hands of the leadership of the colony of what became Massachusetts.  Rhode Island was created as a new province in which religious belief would be tolerated even if it varied from the norm.  Laws and guidelines for life of the people in this new colony were to be free from persecution for free thinking.   Since established in 1663, the State of Rhode Island has guarded this ideology fervently, often to the ridicule and abuse of other surrounding states.

While the political flavor of the State of Rhode Island is clearly Democratic, the truth is that there is an ideological strength which is greater than a political party.   That is demonstrated by the election of Rhode Island’s current governor, Lincoln Chafee, a former moderate Republican Senator from the State and currently elected as an Independent.   In the year since his election he has repeatedly stood by his affection for and belief in the “independence” ideology which characterizes the state.

In the last couple of months he has drawn fire for his refusal to turn over to the federal government a prisoner indicted for murder in Rhode Island.   Chafee’s insistence in refusing this transfer of custody is based upon the strong anti-death penalty position of the legislature and people of Rhode Island.  In spite of the horror of the alleged murder, Chafee has said that the man must be tried under Rhode Island law which would provide a maximum of “life without parole” should the prisoner be convicted.  If federal courts were to judge him, the possibility of capital punishment could be introduced, as federal law does not reject it.  That, says, Chafee, would be a denial of the strong beliefs of the people of Rhode Island as articulated in their laws and ordinances.   Obviously, a “states’ rights” debate will emerge in the courts which may have national significance.

Who is right and who is wrong in this issue of capital punishment is not the foundation of the current struggle.   Chafee’s obligation to uphold the laws of the State of Rhode Island includes his obligation to respect the ideology behind the laws.  It is that obligation that is being contested by federal law enforcement agencies.

Chafee’s willingness to put his political life in jeopardy by the embracing of a principle is not restricted to this one case.  In December he has been identified around the country by a media that is fascinated with a Governor who insists upon calling the decorated tree in the State House a “holiday tree” instead of a “christmas tree.”   His point is clear that his language gives credence to the strong beliefs in separation of Church and State, particularly given the clear articulation of purpose of Roger Williams and those who defined the founding ideology of Rhode Island.  If those principles can be tossed aside due to public pressure (even by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence) then the whole question of the existence of the state as a separate entity becomes viable.  The establishment of Rhode Island was not an economic or political matter.  It was based upon a clear and enviable ideology which was articulated without ambiguity by its founders.  Unless openly and clearly rejected, the Governor is not only obligated legally, but morally, to defend the positions identified. The irony of the “holiday tree” issue is that the use of such a secular symbol would probably have been rejected personally by Williams and his cohorts.  But the principle surrounding it would have been consistent.

In a year/era when the moral character of public leaders is under scrutiny to the degree we witness in today’s media, it is refreshing to know of an example of a governor who respects the ideology prominent in the very fabric of the state in which he serves.  The impact of the variation of a state’s norms from those of the federal government  is upon the citizens, who must choose to embrace them or deny them accordingly.  And, in this case, perhaps the question raised by the murder trial issue is one for the nation to struggle with.

Capital punishment is  far from being a popular practice in the minds of many … maybe even most … Americans.  But the act of removing a man’s trial from his home state to that of the national courts for the specific purpose of injecting the possibility of capital punishment is abhorrent to even those who consider it a legitimate punishment.  If, as the current case points out, the ability of a state to deny capital punishment is legitimate, that right should be preserved and respected without manipulation of the codes of law.  Federal law provides for each state to determine its own position on capital punishment.  Rhode Island, legally, has determined to reject it as a method of punishment.  Governor Chafee is correct to defend that decision.

Photo Credit: Stephen Conn

*INDEPENDENT MAN — Standing 11 feet tall and 278 feet above ground, the Independent Man is a gold-covered, bronze statue placed atop the State House on December 18, 1899. The Independent Man is a symbol of the independent spirit which led Roger Williams to settle here. The statue weighs more than 500 pounds and is covered with a thin gold covering called “gold leaf.” The spear held by the Independent Man reaches to 14 feet. The statue was designed by sculptor George Brewster