.

Re-distribute: The New Political Word of the Day

Redistribution: The Tea Party word of the day: As usual, a word misused.

I have to believe that many of us are fed up with the election ads, with the sound bites, and the venom from both sides. I know that I am. Like many of you, I have made up my mind already. For me, it now is a straight-forward decision — one that cannot be overturned any longer: just because one candidate or another were to say something new, parse his words differently, hire a new wordsmith, it has all already been said.

The Republican Party that I grew up embracing has lost its path. The morality and ethics of the Republican candidates for the White House, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, are so anathema, to my concerns for a sustainable America and my Judeo-Christian upbringing that, in good conscience, I could not vote for this so-called Republican ticket of pretenders — under any circumstance. In fact, I am of the opinion that Wisconsin, now that we know the root cause of Ryan's political philosophy, should reject him twice.

That said, we all know that, on nearly a daily basis, both sides will try to find one word on which the "swing vote" might hinge. The new word we are told by Republican pundits to ponder is "re-distribute." My first suggestion: Turn off Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. You know the truth and it will not be said on TV or by political rabble-rousers.

Tea Party radicals and capitalists who believe that there is no such thing as immoral, or too much, profit and who rally round the flag of the 1786-ers now do have a word with which to cry "foul," however.  Of course that word is "re-distribute."

In truth, though, we all know that President Barack Obama is not encouraging a scenario under which anyone would be able to dip into someone else's bank account, stock portfolio, or piggy bank. First that quote, or sound bite, is a decade old; and, as with so many "sound bites" taken out of context (unlike Romney's remarks and the lies pouring forth from the mouth of Ryan) it should be disregarded or put into context. The president is talking about the good. America's good. We Americans have destroyed the social contract on which this nation was borne. America needs to have a revitalized social contract, one that is inclusive of all and designed to help co-create a sustainable future. We need a social contract based upon Aristotelian and Pauline principles. So, rather than, or at least before, attacking the President, why don't we severally, or individually, try to unpack the word "re-distribute" and then try to understand the challenge inherent in the word.

My approach is to suggest that each of you stop using calculative thinking and instead employ meditative thinking, as you each unpack the word for yourselves. To get you started, however, let me ask a question, or two. First, is there such a thing as too much profit? Is morally responsible to lay off thousands of workers so that the total profit goes up — and the owners can buy another house, or another SUV or another yacht? What about sending jobs off-shore? In America, we used to pay $15 to $25 an hour for jobs that no longer exist here. If 2 million such jobs in America were moved to India or another off-shore environment where their standard of living needed $6 to $12 an hour, what is the morality of that decision? What happened to those 2 million workers? Is it morally correct and to be encouraged, if one employee is paid $850,000 while others inside the same company or firm cannot support their families with what is paid to them?

Or, if you were the president of a company with 4,200 employees what should your greatest concerns be? For whom are you responsible? After the textbook answer of "profit" or "profitability," I suggest that the answer is "your employees." In fact that was a lesson I learned in the 80s when I had my first opportunity to deal directly with a CEO. Frank Jones, then CEO of G&L, told me that his NO. 1 responsibility and the  NO. 1 responsibility for all leaders is the welfare and care of his employees and their families. That is not the way of Romney/Ryan. In fact, they would have let the auto industry collapse; they would have let the housing market sink further; and banks, well Romney and Ryan don't believe in regulating banks. (Instead these "Republicans" would swoop in and cash in on any and all windfall profits, caring not at all for who they hurt - it is the Bain way, after all).

Like many of you, I believe this election is vital: perhaps it is the most vital and critical election in the past 100 years. What is it that we are voting for? Are we not voting for America's Democratic republic? Are we not voting to build a sustainable future — for all?

For all: America is an inclusive nation, not an exclusionary one. Let's keep it that way. America is battling to become a sustainable society. In order to co-create a sustainable future, one characterized by the ability for all to flourish, we cannot elect anyone like Romney or Ryan, since they would exclude 47 percent of the population. 

The message I keep seeing, and which these Republican pretenders have emphasized with their gaffs is: "Stay the course: re-elect Obama."

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

J. B. Schmidt September 24, 2012 at 02:24 AM
@Nick Just keep eating what they serve you. https://store.barackobama.com/obama-2012-store-home-outdoors/obama-2012-store-pets/obama-dog-bowl.html
Awake! September 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM
@ JRH...With all do respect sir, I admire your dedication to buying "American"...However, My perseption of "American" products has slowly changed over the last few years for two reasons...1) I work in a "closed" shop where the union tries to "rule the roost" as far as how the company does business and what it's expected of it's employees. I'll discuss this more in a sec...and 2) The bailout, overseas ownership/merging had done NOTHING to improve the quality of the vehicles when i used to go out of my way to "buy American" over the years...until this year. I recently unloaded my Dodge Grand Caravan for a Honda because I have grown tired of the constant nagging issues with nearly every "American" vehicle that I have purchased...the most recent issues being the powertrain using 2.5 qts of oil between every oil change at 65k miles...shameful...considering I have an accord in my driveway that has 200K+ miles on it and still runs perfect w no oil usage.
Awake! September 24, 2012 at 12:52 PM
As far as the employee as an asset or not is conserned...it is none of my business what a CEO thinks is fair to put in his/her pocket. Yes, I hope that ever owner feels that they have a moral obligation to caring for the employees that work for them, but in my opinion, that is bread out of a sense of entitlement. The way I look at myself is as that of a rental car, the business owns me for a time during the day to be as productive as possible for forwarding the businesses agenda, whether i agree with it or not, and hopefully if i perform/add value to the business, they will maybe "buy/rent" me for another day. If I don't like how the CEO or anyone else is "running" the business, I can take my chances back out in the field and hope to land on my feet somewhere else. The company doesn't owe me anything other than what they pay me every wk/by-wkly, whatever. If i agree to work for a certain wage then I shuldn't feel "slighted" because of a business decision to operate differently. It's their company...not mine...they own me for whatever hours i agree to work (or not)...after that...i have zero obligation to the company and 100% obligation to my family...
Awake! September 24, 2012 at 01:00 PM
I have worked a long time in an entitlement atmosphere that sickens me, where if u ask a long time union member to simply change a part of a process that improves quality, they cry "foul" as a safety violation or some other misconstrued way of not having to change to better the product...but if you ask a flexible worker to do the same job with the change, they have no issue operating how the company needs to in order to improve the product...with no detriment to their health or well being...it is this type of "entitlement" that really makes/gives the "American" workforce a bad name...no wonder so many companies are looking overseas for better ways to do business (outside of monetary gain)...
H.E. Pennypacker September 27, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »