Anti-Intellectualism 201: Historically Speaking, We Revise, Revise, Revise.

Facebook is fun. You get to keep in touch with friends, family and possibly meet people who are kind of like you. You share interests, laughs and most definitely opinions. Those memes are cute.  They usually give us a good laugh. Then opinions are thrown in, then political opinions, and gentle (and not so gentle) insults are given and received. Then Facebook is not so fun. I got into a FB fight about health care recently. Boy, what a mistake that was. The guy kept using blogs as sources. I give everyone permission NOT to use my blog as a source. Blogs are opinions, like memes.

Those memes are like the new t-shirt or bumper-sticker. They boil down an opinion to a phrase, sentence or paragraph. The picture below is of bumper-sticker you can get from the good people at zazzle.com and I have seen this meme around Facebook.

I would like to say definitively, no, President George W. Bush, I do not miss you. I do not miss much about the economic mess that was your presidential career. People who do miss you are revising their memories and cutting and pasting your screw ups to President Obama. Hence the above meme. I am not saying President Obama has done a perfect job, but he had to steer this country away from an economic catastrophe. That is not an easy thing to do.

The word revise is an interesting one. Dictionary.com defines it as:

re·vise

   [ri-vahyz] Show IPA verb, re·vised, re·vis·ing, noun, verb (used with object)

1. to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.

2. to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript.
3. British . to review (previously studied materials) in preparation for an examination.

My husband (since he is British) often uses the last definition and that throws me off a bit. I think of our interpretation of history is more like the first and second definitions. Not usually in a good way.

It is said that history is written by the victors. Well in our democracy, I would say that history is revised by both political parties until you cannot remember what the truth happened to be. To improve the history till it fits your beliefs.

Remember President Reagan? He is now the banner boy and meme star for conservatives. I find it rather funny because Reagan would be considered a moderate in today's political landscape. He did do an AMNESTY for illegal aliens. That would be political suicide today in the Republican Party. But never mind, he is a conservative god.

Remember President Clinton? He is also a moderate in todays political landscape. He did sign the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which then helped the country to build an economic banking bubble. The act separated commercial and investment banking. I think that did fuel budget to our first budget surplus in a long time. Then George W. Bush spent it all and threw us right back into the red, then, surprise surprise, the financial crisis happened. Should have Clinton not repealed Glass-Steagall? Well, all we can do is reenact the provisions that would separate commercial and investment banking again.

I think Clinton's intentions were good (he was always concerned about the economy), but we always think that mistakes of the past (the Great Depression) will not happen again because we are so much smarter now. That thinking put us in a Great Recession. My point is that Clinton was not so left-wing and I think his signing this (as well as Don't Ask Don't Tell) puts him in a territory that seems to be no-man's land now.

Life, history and politics are always more complicated than what can be put on a postcard, bumper-sticker or meme. To intelligently vote, you need to do research, lots of it, and then make up your mind for yourself.

Let us all try to interpret history as accurately as possible. Historical revisionism is like any other fraud. One that comes to mind is faking results in science. It may help one person get fake kudos and recognition but it holds back what the real result is because it is not reproducible. Revising history helps one person or party but it holds us all back.

Speaking of fraud, have you heard that there is a movement of Representatives running for the Senate that want to repeal the 17th Amendment? Leaving all that decision making to our state legislatures. I don't trust my state legislature (of Arizona) to much of anything so why would I want to give them my vote for senator. This is yet another example of historical revisionist thinking. The reason for the 17th Amendment was to take away the rampant corruption from the process.

I am an independent because of all the corruption I find in both parties. Why would I “trust” the state legislature to this important decision? Let those rich politicians do the thinking for me? NO WAY!

I actually started a Facebook political “discussion” about this very topic. This idea was defended by my Uncle David as resembling the Electoral College. I am also not crazy about that idea from our Founding Fathers. But it does seem that this process is not too corrupt. That we know of... Actually we got some very interesting ideas such as 6 year single terms for Presidents (no more lame ducks) or go the whole FDR route of no term limits. I like the first idea, as for the second one I agree with my friend Joni who said “Too royal.” My cousin John thought it would be a good idea for the loser of the election to get “2nd place” and become the Vice-President. I then joked that we would have a do nothing executive branch. It is a good idea, except for all the divisiveness. This actually happens in other countries where there is a President (1st place) and a Prime Minister (2nd place). Zimbabwe comes to mind. It does not work, due to the rampant corruption...

We all dread the political season, except for those who seem to revel in it. I for one cannot wait till November 7th, 2012. The day after the election.

Then a few days ago a friend posted this meme of a poster which is a representation of our discussion above:

I like it (along with 24 other people) and completely agree: Then after 15 shares and 4 positive comments, we get this from someone who I will not share their name but will guess that they are a GOP operative:

“There can be no debate if only a war will decide the victor. Politics and voting was designed to stop killing wars when word wars fail to get results. Like gay marriage. Without politics and voting, bullets would be used. We are polarized and it will never change. Why do you think Democrats want socialism under a dictator? If they were honest, they could never win. If they were open to dialog, they would never win. So it must be low life because republicans would never win. If the plan is domination why have a dialog? Dems want domination nothing else. So names, Lies, and underhandedness is the only way... who on the left can have an honest dialog? Exactly. No one. So ... capitulate or fire with fire.”

What can you say to that? I would say “This way to the loony bin.” But I don't think that person would appreciate humor. That person is ITCHING for a fight. So I said nothing.

So, I have to add this, because if a friend of mine put that out there I would at the very least have to do this:

But I am not going to, because everyone is entitled to their opinions. That does not mean I won't think they are a GOP operative that are desperately trying to shake that etch-a-sketch.