Scott Cawelti

About Scott Cawelti -

Scott Cawelti was born and raised in Cedar Falls, Iowa. He taught writing, film, and literature at the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) from 1968-2008, and has written regular opinion columns and reviews for the Waterloo / Cedar Falls Courier since the late 1970s.  He played for years in a folk duo with Robert James Waller and still regularly performs as a singer/guitarist/songwriter. Scott continues to teach as an adjunct instructor at UNI.

Categories

Archives

Scott Cawelti Photo
Latest from Scott Header
  • Garrison Keillor--Midwestern Enigma

    • Posted on Nov 19, 2014 by Scott Cawelti
    Here's a paper I delivered last night to the "Town-Gown Supper Club," a long-running club of Cedar Valley residents, half of whom are academics and half non-academics.  They each deliver a talk to the other members, and it meets once a month, so we're all obligated to speak every so often. (24 members, give or take).
    Last night was my turn, and I chose Garrison Keillor because he's one of us, and I've been an erstwhile fan (and kindred spirit) since early adulthood.    

    It was fun to write--I still find Keillor hilarious--and just as fun to read, maybe.   

    ***************************

    GARRISON KEILLOR,  MIDWESTERN ENIGMA

    Garrison Keillor, writer, radio personality, humorist, satirist, all-around enigma, and I come from the same cohort—born eleven months apart, he in August, ‘42 and me in July, ‘43, graduating from high school in ‘60 and ‘61, respectively—he in Anoka, Minnesota, and me in Cedar Falls, Iowa, 235 miles South-Southeast.   We both played in high school rock bands, he in the Pharaohs of Rhythm and me in the Ramrods.  

    We both loved Buddy Holly’s singing and his songs—“Peggy Sue,” “Every Day,”  “That’ll be the Day,” “Not Fade Away.”  Indeed, we both performed them.   And we both grew up in the fifties—in Midwest small towns, the heart of the heart of the country.  Our hometowns were both originally settled by Scandinavians—Norwegians for Anoka, Danish for Cedar Falls.   He majored in English with a strong side interest in music.  I majored in Music with a strong pull toward serious reading, and eventually jumped the fence into English. 

    To get really personal, Keillor remarried for the third time in 1995, and I remarried for the third time in 1996.   

    We have so much in common, including radio punditry and political outlook, that, except for degrees of fame and fortune, we’re kindred spirits. 

    So over the years I’ve been drawn to his work in recognition, admiration, and—yes--envy.   

    As a matter of fact, years ago I met Garrison—I can’t call him Gary— when I performed with Robert Waller on the KUNI version of Prairie Home Companion.  He brought his cast and crew to Lang Hall in the late seventies, not for broadcast—we weren’t ready for prime time—but as a KUNI fundraiser.   He was unhappy with us for playing an extra song, and didn’t seem interested in any personal connection whatsoever. 

    I didn’t take his distance personally, but felt surprised that his real self wasn’t the downhome, warm and fuzzy persona he projects on air. He was cold, distant, even angry that we played an extra song. That ended our Prairie Home Companion career and our fifteen minutes of fame.   

    (Mine, anyway; Waller went on to untold riches and notoriety.) 

    Still, I followed his career like I would a brother’s, and this paper represents a culmination of my examination of Garrison Keillor as an enigmatic personality.  
    For the past few months I’ve been reading Keillor monologues, novels, memoirs, a book of jokes, and his recently published book of poems, O WHAT A LUXURY:  VERSES LYRICAL, VULGAR, PATHETIC, AND PROFOUND.   If nothing else, Garrison Keillor seems utterly untroubled by writer’s block.   

    Our hero is a gathering of contradictions:  mellow but angry, poor but rich, depressed but funny, angry but beloved, a successful performer and writer who lives like a Republican but thinks like a Democrat.  

    He’s shy and reclusive, resenting intrusions on his privacy in the form of
    questions about his marriages, his affairs, and his wealth.  His net worth approaches 1.5 million, and that doesn’t square with his downhome, egalitarian Democrat folksy persona.  Yet that’s a persona that he cannot abandon without forsaking millions of fans, who take him as the archetypal Midwesterner.  

    What redeems him from every flaw, hypocrisy, crankiness, and mood swing, is his storytelling.  A master storyteller captivates listeners and readers so skillfully that personal failings are forgotten or ignored.   

    Garrison spins Lake Wobegone tales impromptu, giving them an aura of spontaneity and freshness.  I’ve watched and heard him unfold extended and coherent stories onstage, with never so much as a nod at a notecard or prompt.  He glances around the audience stoically inscrutable; occasionally a sly smile will cross his features, but he never breaks out into a guffaw or even a chuckle; I’ve never heard or seen him actually laugh.   He’d make a great poker player.  
    I
    ’ve compared written versions in his collections with spoken monologues with the same titles on CDs, and they’re quite different—evidence that he makes them up as he goes along.  He’s told audiences that writing is a process of discovery, and he’s always discovering as he talks—on radio, in front of a live audience.   It’s a verbal high wire act.  

    The only comparable radio personality I know of is Orson Welles, who had an equivalent pillowy resonant baritone voice, and a similar gift for making up compelling stories on the spot.  Of course, Welles was a genuine genius, and Keillor is not, but damn close at times.   

    His monologues begin and end with the same phrases, signaling that we’re
    entering and leaving his imaginative re-creation of life in a small Minnesota town:    “It’s been a quiet week in Lake Wobegone, my hometown . . .” and ends with “And that’s the news from Lake Wobegone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”  

    Between those phrases he engenders serious laughter, and a lot of it. That’s his trifecta:  story, delivery, and humor.   “Prairie Home Companion” tickets regularly sell out, and millions tune in weekly.  It began on July 6, 1974, and is still going strong from the Fitzgerald Theater in St. Paul, and all around the country during various tours; you might have noticed that it originated from Des Moines recently.  
    As of last July, that’s 40 years.  GK, as he’s known in Robert Altman’s 2006 film, Prairie Home Companion, began the show when he was a lad in his early thirties.  He’s now 72, refusing to retire after a couple of scares—a heart problem that required open-heart surgery and a minor stroke.  He took two years off in Copenhagen in the late 1980s for a second marriage to a Danish woman he met in high school when she attended Anoka High School as a Danish foreign exchange student.  Incidentally, his current third and longest marriage (1995) is to violinist Jenny Lind Nillson, who also grew up in Anoka.  

    Now, back to that trifecta:  story, delivery, and humor.  These go a long ways toward explaining his immediate appeal, but not his longevity. 
    Two other elements assure both longevity and even posterity, since Keillor’s fans keep creating new fans, his books assure continuance in print form, his monologues keep getting play on car radios, and Robert Altman’s film made him recognizable as a screen presence.  He’s the utter center of that film, by the way—it all revolves around him, minus the uncinematic monologue.  

    Those two other elements?  Horatian Satire and Norwegian Bachelor Farmers, i.e. the Scandinavian ethos that undergirds all his writing and performing.   These are the fourth and fifth essential aspects of Garrison Keillor’s ongoing appeal.    
    Horatian satire is so named because of the Roman poet Horace, who made gentle fun of his fellow Romans’ follies and foibles, revealing them in all their contradictions and silliness.   Horace’s odes are lighthearted, gentle, and his literary heirs are Chaucer with his Canterbury Tales, Jonathan Swift with his Gulliver’s Travels, Matt Groening with his Simpsons.  And Garrison Keillor with his strong women, good-looking men, and above average children.  It’s not topical, it’s not slapstick, it’s not gross or physical humor—fart jokes excepted—instead, it’s gentle ridicule of somebody’s mostly inadvertent but inescapable foibles—shy, mute, reclusive, almost invisible people who suppress most evidence of having an ego.  

    Ridicule is not necessarily that appealing if you’re the one being made fun of.   In fact, it can be a nasty weapon in the mouth of a bully.  But if it’s done in the Horatian manner—that is, gently and with the clear understanding that it applies to everyone, including the speaker or writer, it can be effective and hugely entertaining. 

    Keillor insists that he’s one of us, insecure, geeky and nerdy growing up, downright ugly (I have a face that’s made for radio, he insists) and morbidly shy, except when he’s performing for millions.  There’s that enigma again. 
    He tells the story of being completely smitten with one of his beautiful female classmates at Anoka High but never having the courage to speak to her.   One day on a field trip, she was sitting next to a vacant seat on the school bus as he climbed aboard.  

    He dared to sit beside her—it took all of his courage—and then—ever so secretively and gently—put his arm behind her, not really touching her.  She paid no attention, just looking out the school bus window and treating him as though he were elsewhere.   Then his hand grazed the back of her shoulder, and she turned and looked straight at him.  He gazed straight back, hoping for a smile or at least an acknowledgement of his existence, if not a trace of affection, and she said: “What?”  

    He says he’s been looking for the answer to that question his whole life.   

    This self-denigration gives him leeway to make fun of his tribe—that vast subset of Americans from Ohio to Wyoming, Minnesota to Missouri.  And they all seem to be Lutheran.  

    Keillor insists that everyone in Minnesota is a Lutheran.  The Catholics are Lutheran.  So are the Baptists and Episcopalians.  Even the atheists are Lutheran—“The God they don’t believe in is Lutheran.”  

    He grew up among Lutherans, even though he was a member of a tiny fundamentalist sect—the Plymouth Brethren—they too were Lutherans in their behavior and outlook.  They lived extremely quiet, bland, retiring, virtually ego-free lives, and though they were generous, it was mostly to other “Lutherans” of their sect.   

    Their closed society was a way of making sure every one stayed Lutheran.  When someone strayed, they were quietly and subtly shunned, made to feel there was something wrong with them.  Lutherans passively and quietly exercise this form of social control, and many of Keillor’s stories and novels concern characters who broke free, who dared to dance and raise hell and smoke and drink and have wild sex and even leave town to move to Florida and California—only to return for visits—and leave as quickly as possible, sensing they’re no longer welcome.  A Minnesota saying:  “There’d be more suicides in Minnesota if it weren’t for what the neighbors would think.”  

    He jokes about the Lutheran shipwreck survivor who disappeared for twenty years, then miraculously found on a tiny island. They pick him up, and he gladly agrees to leave his lonely patch of land.  As he’s getting into the rescue boat, they notice a small hut with a chimney for his home, and another hut with a cross over the door. And yet a third hut, unadorned, further back.    “So that’s your home,” they notice, “and there’s your church—what’s that other building back there.”  “Ah, yah—that’s the church I used to go to.”   

    Lutheran sects sprung up like weeds, constantly and everywhere, due to disagreements over—well, anything and everything.  That’s Keillor’s oft-repeated assertion.  

    These are the good citizens of Lake Wobegone—or rather, that portion of them that really live and breathe the “Jante” laws of Scandinavia. 

    Norwegian\Danish writer Aksel Sandemose wrote a novel, A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks, published in 1936, in which he posits a small Danish town, Jante, where everyone without fail follows ten rules.  

    These “Jantelovian Commandments” have become a satirical indictment of the Scandinavian ethos, best exemplified in GK by his Norwegian Bachelor Farmers:  
    1. You're not to think you are anything special.
    2. You're not to think you are as good as we are. 
    3. You're not to think you are smarter than we are.
    4. You're not to convince yourself that you are better than we are.
    5. You're not to think you know more than we do.
    6. You're not to think you are more important than we are. 
    7. You're not to think you are good at anything.
    8. You're not to laugh at us.
    9. You're not to think anyone cares about you.
    10. You're not to think you can teach us anything. 

    Note the 8th law:  you’re not to laugh at us. That’s the one that Keillor has broken from the very beginning, and has asserted that he actively set out to alienate Lutherans by making fun of them.  

    Keillor knows that successful satirists must remain outsiders, and his ridicule of Lutherans certainly helped that along. Incidentally, he does go to church—the Episcopalian—having long ago given up on the Plymouth Brethren.  He loves Episcopalian rituals and songs, he says, though I doubt that he’s a genuine believer.  

    Now here are samples of his writings, illustrating his satire and that Scandinavian ethos: 

    FROM LAKE WOEBEGONE DAYS: (p. 22)   “I crossed Main Street toward Ralph’s and stopped, hearing a sound from childhood in the distance.  The faint mutter of ancient combines.  Norwegian bachelor farmers combining in their antique McCormacks, the old six-footers.  New combines cut a twenty-foot swath, but those guys aren’t interested in getting done sooner, it would only mean a longer wait until bedtime.”  

    From “Aprille”—a Lake Wobegone monologue: 
    “Spring has come, grass is green, the trees are leafing out, birds arriving every day by the busload, and now the Norwegian bachelor farmers are washing their sheets.”  

    From GOODBYE TO THE LAKE, monolog:  Rain fell all morning and everyone was in a festive mood, the Chatterbox was packed for dinner.  A bunch of Norwegian bachelor farmers piled into the back booth and had mushroom soup and liverwurst sandwiches.  “Looks like this may keep up all day,” one said. “Yeah, that’s what they’re sayin.”  If a drought were to kill off his crops, a bachelor farmer might be forced to contemplate marriage, the last refuge for men unable to fend for themselves, just as poor Mr. Hauge did in the drought of ’59.  He married a Saint Cloud woman and died six months later and not from excitement.  To them, rain means that life continues, and they cleared their throats like happy lions, Braaagbbbbb.”  

    And from LAKE WOEBEGONE DAYS this fuller description, beginning with Mr. Berge and how he blew his nose:  

    Other residents (of Lake Wobegone) come to mind as people who if you were showing a friend from college around town and you saw them you would grab his arm and make a hard U-turn, such as Mr. Berge, not because he might be drunk but because whether drunk or sober he might blow his nose with his index finger the old farmer way.  Farmers still do this in the field, though most of them know that town is a different situation, but not Mr. Berge and his friends, the Norwegian bachelor farmers.   Their only concession to town is a slight duck of the head for modesty’s sake.  To them, the one-hand blow is in the same league with spitting, which they also do, and scratching in the private regions.  They never learned the trick of reaching down deep in your pocket and feeling around for a dime until you solve the problem.  When ill at ease, such as when meeting a friend, they are apt to do all three in quick succession, spit, blow, and scratch—pthoo, snarf, ahhhh—no more self-conscious than a dog.  

     ‘Tis better to apologize than to ask permission,” says Clarence, arguing for greater boldness in life.  The bachelor farmers, however, do neither.  On a warm day, six of them may roost on the plank bench in front of Ralph’s, in peaceful defiance of Lutheranism, chewing, spitting, snarfling, and p-thooing, until he chases them away to the Sidetrack Tap (they’re bad advertising for a grocery store, the heftiness of them seems to recommend a light diet) and then they may not go.  Mr. Munch may just spit on the sidewalk, study it, and say, “I don’t see no sign says No Sitting.”  “You get up, I’ll paint one for you,” says Ralph.  They may wait a long time before they go.
    “Tellwiddem,” says Mr. Fjerde, “Tellwid all ovum,” says Mr. Munch.  
    The Norwegian Bachelor’s password:  Tellwitcha.  

     We are all crazy in their eyes.  All the trouble we go to for nothing:  ridiculous.  Louis emerging from his job at the bank, white shirt and blue bow tie, shiny brown shoes, delicately stepping across the street for lunch:  Dumb bastard.      . . .
    .. . in their hearts, the bachelor farmers are all sixteen years old.  Painfully shy, perpetually disgruntled, elderly teenagers leaning against a wall, watching the parade through the eyes of the last honest men in America:  ridiculous.  Clarence mentioned this when I was eighteen and complaining about my father’s lawn compulsions—grass is meant to get long, it’s part of nature, nature is growth.  “You should talk to the Norwegian bachelors, you have a lot in common,” he said. 
    I said to myself:  ridiculous. 

    That’s Garrison Keillor:  not only does he make fun of the Scandinavian Jante ethos through Norwegian Bachelor Farmers, he’s one of them.  

    At bottom, all of Keillor’s monologues and much of his other prose seems to have been written by the quintessential Norwegian Bachelor Farmer—a  painfully shy (now elderly) teenager who out of his own insecurities finds most everyone and everything just plain ridiculous, and therefore worthy of ridicule.  

    Take Clarence Bunson, who went to church without any cash.  So he had to write a check to put in the collection plate—you can’t leave church without leaving a donation—what would the ushers think?  But he wrote it for $300 instead of what he intended--$30, so his dilemma became whether he could go downstairs and ask the ushers for his check back. 

    Oh, the humiliation, and oh, the necessity, since $300 was more than he had in his account. 

    Finally, a few of his poems, where he truly shines as a Minnesota’s bachelor farmer poet laureate.  

    First,  “Lutheranism Explained” 
    I was raised in Iowa, went to St. Olaf, /Norwegian, I’m proud to say./ Thirty years a member of Zion Lutheran,/ I’m there every Sunday. /Always sit in the back of the church, /Always in the same pew. /I like the folks who sit back there, /They’re Norwegian too. /We are a modest people /And we never make a fuss /And it sure would be a better world/ If they were all as modest as us./ We sing the hymns, listen to the sermon, /Go up front and commune, /Drop in the money, shake hands with the pastor /And we’re out by a quarter to noon. /Episcopalians are proud of their faith, /You ought to hear them talk./ Who they got? /They got Henry the 8th /And we got J. S. Bach. Henry the 8th’d marry a woman/ And then her head would drop. /J. S. Bach had 23 kids /Cause his organ had no stop. /We got a female associate pastor /And she’s nice, don’t get me wrong,/ But the boots she wears are what I’d call sexy / And the skirt’s not what I’d call long./ She’s single and she smiles a lot/ And she sure does like her beer/ And I’ve been talking to some of the others /And we trust she’s gone next year. /Here at Zion Lutheran Attendance seems to be down /And that’s because most of the membership /Is six feet underground. /We don’t go for long-term planning, /No need to look that far. /Luther said we’re saved by grace/ So we’re good enough just as we are. /If you come to church, don’t expect to be hugged, /Don’t expect your hand to be shook. /If we need to know who the heck you are, /We can look in the visitors book. /I was raised to keep a lid on it, /Guard what you say or do. /A Mighty Fortress is our God/ So He must be Lutheran too.  

    "Minnesota Rouser” 
    Let winter come and walk roughshod /With sleet and freezing rains. /We fear it not, we trust in God /And jumper cables and tire chains. /We’re prepared for the good fight, /We shall be cheerful though the blizzard blows. /Though it is ten below, a long cold night, /We trust in coffee and warm clothes. /From Worthington to Grand Marais, /From Lake Vermilion to Red Wing, /We thank God for the coldest day/ And offer up our suffering. /From Bemidji to Anoka, /From Rochester to Roseau, /Winter makes us finer folk, a- /Las we’re modest and can’t say so.  

    And  “Times Square” 
    I was born with an affliction, /A disposition or mood /Of silent introspection, /A tendency to brood. /I brood about good people I knew/ In the bygone time gone by/ & what I should’ve done & didn’t do /& won’t before I die. /But I come to New York (boom boom)/ & the razzmatazz, hullabaloo & jazz. /The guy with a snake wound around his chest /The anti-fur protest /A street-corner preacher and the quack quack man/ Boys beating on a garbage can /The river of taxis and the quiet roar /Of ambition. And I don’t feel sorry anymore. /Henry Thoreau went to Walden Pond, /Sat at a table in a straightback chair. /I’d rather be in Times Square /& look at that six-story blonde /On the billboard wearing black underwear. /And a lady out of a fashion magazine /A lady in black, her lips bright red /How did she ever get into those jeans /A beautiful woman, so I’ll just drop dead /New York—(boom boom) when all is said / Is where I go to get out of my head.  

    Finally, the summing up poem:  

    WHY I LIVE IN MINNESOTA 
    Where the temp gets down to thirty below 
    And it’s perfectly flat, miles of snow, 
    And you ask why I live in this desolate spot. 
    Why? Because you do not. 
    You in loud clothes 
    With lacquered hair 
    And monster pickups 
    And not much upstairs, 
    Who whoop in church 
    And worship the Word, 
    For whom evolution 
    Has not yet occurred. 
    The men shoot gators Out in the marsh, While the women stay home And hang up the warsh. 
    It’s all about rifles 
    And the Second Comin’ 
    And wave the flag And down with Gummint 
    And up with football 
    And the G.O.P. 
    Now what if those people Lived next door to me? 
    And the only thing That keeps them away 
    Is the fact it will hit Minus thirty today?  
    Winter’s a challenge But it can be faced 
    When you’re among people 
    With brains and good taste.  

    Garrison Keillor, the Norwegian bachelor farmer, feeling secretly superior, yet suffering heavy guilt about it, happy to be living in a state that so many want to leave—and which he can happily leave whenever he wants for his posh NYC Apartment--to find refuge from himself.  An enigma indeed.  

    Yet he always returns to making fun of Scandinavian Midwesterners who still delight in his warm and gentle ridicule.   

    At least someone’s paying attention to them—and to him. 




    Go comment!
    Posted in
    • Language & Writing
    • Humor
    • Personalities
    • Cedar Valley Chronicles
  • Let's Talk about how Lou Holtz "Nails it."

    • Posted on Aug 21, 2014 by Scott Cawelti

     An old friend recently e-mailed me a piece of extended prose that I assume he agrees with, as do many of his friends, they all being staunch conservatives. 

    I read it closely and decided to respond with observations that I trust will be taken seriously and responded to civilly.  The piece is titled "Lou Holtz Nails It," and it was presumably written by Lou Holtz, a long-time and highly respected hall of fame football coach and motivational speaker.   


    Far from "nailing it,"  Holtz’s piece divides, inflames, and offers nothing that might suggest a common ground for all of us to explore--which we desperately need.  Instead, Lou Holtz contributes to the continuing division and acrimony that make our politics so frustrating and frankly, impotent.  

    Our problems seem too large for our politics, thanks partly to such outbursts from the Lou Holtzses of our culture.  They flood their blogs and the Internet with divisive rhetoric, and it hurts us all.  

     My responses are in bold, Holtz’s original is in italics. 

     “Lou Holtz Nails It”

    The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.  The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.  The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don'ts.  Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support   themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That’s the divide in America.  

    Well, are there only two Americas, really?  What about the have nows but not before?  Or the doers who can no longer do?  Or the don’ts who became doers? 

    Surely we can agree that Lou Holtz employs dualistic thinking here that oversimplifies reality.

    But let’s give the good coach this point just because we know (and he must know) that it’s a rhetorical strategy designed to develop his larger point.  Also Holtz is a motivational speaker, and knows that most listeners want a point they can immediately get and remember.   Hence:  either-or, which is memorable but wrong.   

    It’s not about income inequality; it’s about civic irresponsibility.  It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.   

    The “it” in this paragraph seems to refer to a political party, but here’s a bothersome point.  When I first read this, I assume he meant Republicans, and was taken aback when the rest of the piece basically attacks Democrats as the party of hatred, greed, and victimization . . .” 

    That to me, describes the Tea Party Republicans pretty well, though I realize it’s oversimplified and hyperbolic.  But a glance at the 2008 meltdown and who was in power and who got rewarded, and which party repudiated the moderates in its ranks who tried to support the recovery should reveal that reasonable people would think Holtz is referring to Republicans.  Though exaggerated and divisive, as I say.  

    Consider the part about “loves power more than it loves its country.”  Which party has done everything it could to stall and slow bill after bill that might have helped?  Which party has put its ideology of despising government before debating serious issues that need decisions and laws?  The country’s least productive Congress in history has just taken five weeks off with no debate or decisions on anything of note, including immigration, minimum wage, veterans’ benefits, among many others.  It’s shameful, and most Americans are sick of politicians’ inability to take action on anything important.   Both sides share blame, I will admit, and we can argue a good long while about whether one side should take more blame.  We probably need to let that go for now.   

     That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

    This elevates Holt as the truth teller, the One Who Knows.  It works for those on his side, but alienates skeptics, since his “truth” was nothing but invective. 

     The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.”  He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.  That is the rationale of thievery.  

     “Income inequality” is a genuine issue that’s being discussed far and wide, from

    Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” to columnists Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, George Will, and many others.  It’s a serious and growing concern, and deserves serious consideration.  Introducing it as a “rationale of thievery” brands Holtz as a polemicist, not a serious analyst of issues.   Honest, good people can disagree about aspects of income equality without being called thieves. 

     The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat.  That is the philosophy that  produced Detroit.

     This continues a polemic, the either-or dualistic fallacy that doesn’t connect with reality.   Obama has never proposed “take it for you” nor have Democrats.   And “Detroit” is a meaningless term in this context, since a host of complex causes are behind that city’s woes, including entitlements, but both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for that.  It’s a systemic issue that deserves debate and discussion—and action.     

     It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American  values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.  

     Phrases like “destroying America” reveal the fear and anger behind this speech or essay.   As does “fundamental deviation from American values and common sense” and “betrayal.”  Nowhere on the political scene has anyone betrayed American values or is in the process of destroying America.  Hyperbolic, overheated rhetoric only obscures the genuine issues that we must face and discuss as fellow Americans with a common cause and purpose.  Holtz’s rhetoric is not an attempt to contribute to a discussion, but a screed that reinforces those who believe Holtz’s fallacious dualisms.  

    The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a  culture of dependence and  entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.  The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the  successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and  spare the unsuccessful the consequences of  their choices.  Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.  Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.   Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.  You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.  You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.  Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.  

     This is a strange paragraph because it states a truism—that certain choices are better than others for a variety of outcomes—as though anyone would disagree, as though one political party somehow doesn’t support it.  It’s a fact, and everyone agrees with it.   Yes, bad choices lead to bad outcomes, less income, and so on.

    There’s no issue or disagreement here, though Holtz seems to imply there is with terms like “enslaved, ” “culture of dependence,” and that all-purpose whipping-boy,  “entitlements.” 

     Where we do disagree, however, is on the question of choice vs. chance. I believe chance is crucial, while others think life hinges almost entirely on good or bad choices. This is an honest disagreement, and I can respect those who believe in choice being life’s major determining factor.  I’d like to remind these good people that people can lose their jobs due to downsizing, or make decisions without good information which they then mistakenly believe are right.

     Moreover, people are born into dysfunctional families, or marry people who become addicts, and so on.  I defy anyone who’s rich or poor to tell their story accurately without relying, at some point, on chance, random events that either interfered with their lives or gave them a boost—in a major, transformative way.    

    This is life as I’ve known it--though I could be wrong, and I’d be happy to hear from readers who disagree.     

     My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do.  There is significant income inequality between us.  Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but our lives also have had an inequality of effort.  While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth?  No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.   

    Where has Barack Obama suggested, said, or supported anyone who said or suggested “take away his wealth”?  This seems like a classic straw man argument, where a false action is suggested as true, then argued against.   I myself would argue against anyone taking away anyone’s wealth, as would everyone reading this.  

    My guess is that Holtz refers to tax increases on higher income bracket something we can honestly disagree about and deserves serious attention.   Suggesting that higher taxes are “taking away wealth” obscures the issue—tax rates in this country for the wealthy are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and with loopholes, the very wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their wealth, relatively, even compared to the rest of us. 

    A different and better way to put it:  taxes enable a country to pay for the crucial infrastructure, army, and environment that enable wealth and freedom.   This is certainly why we enjoy a relatively high standard of living—for which we all have to pay. 

    It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom.  The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.  There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.

     This paragraph again relies on the straw man fallacy.  Obama and the Democrats/liberals/leftists/progressives do not believe or behave like they believe any of this.  The “punitive hand of government” implies that government is involved in punishing people for achieving, and I have never witnessed this, nor has anyone else in this country.   Achievers get rewarded (depending on luck, to some extent) and slackers get less—as Holtz pointed out in his 7th paragraph above.   So to suggest that Obama and the Democrats have changed everything makes little sense—and with no cited evidence, I cannot take this point seriously. 

    However, I do believe that some good, honest, and smart people will in fact see taxes and regulations as “punitive” and I can see that they would like the freedom to act without restraint. However, we do have a regulated economy and regulations governing environmental concerns—and have had for decades.   That’s why we have a reasonably safe food supply, clean drinking water, and breathable air (for the most part) in our cities. No one has the freedom to despoil our right to breath clean air and eat safe food.   And we must maintain and improve a highly developed and evolved infrastructure and military.  All of this is expensive. 

    Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

    Where, exactly have they done this?  And where have they suggested that equality of income is a right?  Is that a reference to a minimum wage?  If so, Holtz needs to state that as the issue and let us discuss that.  Reasonable people can disagree about the amount of a minimum wage—but I would remind readers that if the minimum wage of the seventies had kept pace with inflation, it would now sit at $21.72 an hour instead of the current $7.25. (Source:  Huffington Post, 2-13-13)  We need to be taking this seriously and making decisions about it as a country—instead of offering straw man rhetoric.  

     The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get."  

    Yes—on this we can agree, though as I say, plenty of people work very hard and get very little—ask the students who finished advanced degrees who looked for work during the economic downturn in 2008.  Are bad markets for their degrees their personal fault?  Should they have chosen more more lucrative fields, ignoring what they love to do?   Maybe, but that’s asking them to forgo one of America’s founding principles:  the pursuit of happiness.   Again, we can disagree about this, but it an issue worth genuine discussion.

    Obama would turn that upside down.   Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.   Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.   America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes; it is divided by the differences in our efforts.

     Where has Obama said, insinuated, proposed, or even hinted at punishing achievers as enemies of society?  Or rewarded as wards of society? I can only think that this is a veiled reference to welfare recipients, and this harks back to the Republicans cheering Ronald Reagan when he declared the government is the enemy, and that “welfare queens” were sapping the wealth of the country.  This is factually untrue then, and even more so now.   Now, many Wal-Mart workers do not make enough to put food on their tables, and many collect welfare in order to eat.

    From Forbes magazine, April 15, 2014:  “Wal-Mart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.”

    In other words, Wal-Mart relies on taxpayers to subsidize their business practices. 

    Does this seem fair?  Shouldn’t we be talking about why we must subsidize the wealthiest family in America who make billions because of their low wage scale?   Should they be “free” to engage in such practices to the detriment of the rest of us?

    It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

    Yes, it is a false philosophy.  Who can disagree with this?  In the context of his point, however, he’s offering this as an accusation, not a truism.  It’s another example of a straw man fallacy. 

     What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism.  He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer.  Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.   

     Since Holtz is speaking here in the past tense, I assume he’s referring to something that Obama has done.  Where’s the evidence?   Obama in fact tried to offer a “grand bargain” and Speaker Boehner rejected it because his far right ideologues wouldn’t accept compromise.  This is the actual history of separatism—no compromise by the current Republicans, even though Obama offered plenty of opportunities.  

     So if there are two Americas, it’s not the socialist left against the freedom loving Republicans—it’s the reasonable people trying to understand and debate difficult issues, and agreeing to disagree and compromise—and those who refuse to debate at all, but offer only rhetorical fallacies and accusations that further divide us. 

     "Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it."  

    Yes, and I respond to reality by trying to understand it and offer reasonable points, and Holtz responds by creating false dichotomies and straw men that obscure and divide.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    1 Comment
    Posted in
    • Politics
    • Personalities
    • Cedar Valley Chronicles
    • Conservatives/Liberals
Contact Scott Header
Contact Scott Photo
Brothers Blood Book
James Hearst
Landscape Iowa CD