Author Archives: tom

Blue Christmas and the Incarnation

Posted on by
Reply

My colleague at San Diego Hospice, Lori Leopold, is a Methodist minister and has been a hospice chaplain for a little over 8 years. For the 2nd year in a row she has presided over a liturgy called “Blue Christmas” at La Jolla United Methodist Church. Their description of the liturgy is this:

The Blue Christmas Service is designed and offered especially for those who struggle during the holiday season. For anyone who has suffered a loss – the loss of health, the loss of a loved one or a pet, the loss of a job or a relationship – the holidays can be an especially difficult time of year. Just when our culture tells us we are supposed to be “merry and bright,” we can find ourselves feeling most lost and alone. It is an important time to draw close to God and allow God to draw close to us in a quiet, reflective service that acknowledges the reality of our wounds and the graciousness of God who comes to meet us there.

This year Nancy and I attended and I’m grateful we did. I expected this to be akin to “I know it’s a hard time of year but it’s going to be OK.” Lori’s preaching turned it into something much more. She spoke about how during times of despair, loneliness, and separation the Incarnation (birth of the Savior) is all the more poignant. Christ came for all of us, but most importantly for those in most need. The pastor of the church read from 1 Kings 19:1-16. Here is the text of Lori’s homily:

I love this passage from 1 Kings. It has intrigued me for as long as I’ve been familiar with it. It feels deep and rich, whispering of something profound and holy. And while this section is a small piece of a much larger story, I want to focus just on this small piece tonight. The prophet Elijah, fleeing for his life, becomes overcome by despair. He finds himself deep in the wilderness, sitting beneath a solitary broom tree and is so overwhelmed that he asks God to take his life. An angel encourages and enables him to continue on his journey and he winds up at Mt. Horeb where he is told to go out and stand on the mountain because the Lord is about to pass by.

The scripture says that as Elijah stood there, a great wind came up, so strong that it broke rocks into pieces, but that God was not in the wind. And the wind was followed by an earthquake, but again, God was not in the earthquake. And the earthquake was followed by a fire, but God was not in the fire. But after the fire, came the sound of sheer silence – and God was in the silence. And it was out of that silence that God spoke to Elijah about where he should go from there.

Can you imagine? There was Elijah, waiting, probably breathlessly, for the Lord to come, for the Lord to pass by. And all of these dramatic things began to happen – wind and earthquake and fire. But each time we hear that God was not in the dramatic event. That God was not contained in the wind, the earthquake or the fire. Now that’s certainly not to say that those dramatic events were coincidental, because it was the coming of God that set all of those things into motion. They wouldn’t have happened if God weren’t passing by. But they did not contain the holy – they were not the way that God chose to reveal Godself. God revealed Godself not in the flash of those happenings, but rather in the pure silence. In fact, the scripture goes on to show that God revealed Godself to Elijah in a way that was gentle, in a way that was understandable, in a way that was personal and in a way that was purposeful.

And I think that this scripture passage holds a lot of meaning for us as we contemplate the Christmas season, maybe especially if we, like Elijah, find ourselves in a time searching, struggling, despairing. It’s easy to identify the flash, the flurry, the whirlwind, the dramatic and out of the ordinary things that happen around Christmas. The decorations and lights and card writing and baking and singing and shopping and holiday parties. All of those cultural Christmas traditions are something akin to the wind and the earthquake and the fire. They are the things that happen around Christmas. And as it was with the wind and the earthquake and the fire, our Christmas flurry is, in some way, set in motion by God’s coming. Because, chances are, we wouldn’t be doing all of this if the Christ child hadn’t come in the first place. It is to God’s coming, to the incarnation, that we have attached 2000 years worth of tradition, layers of stuff that, in some way, shape or form, point back to the heart of Christmas.

So when we peel away the layers of activity, when we peel away all of the stuff that’s accumulated around Christmas, we return, really, to the heart of things. We come down to the stillness, the silence of one holy night. A night when God came, so like God, not in the furiousness of a wind storm, not in the dramatic shaking of an earthquake, not in the searing heat of a fire, but when God came into the world in a way that was gentle, in a way that was understandable, in a way that was personal and in a way that was purposeful.

When I think about it, I always imagine that the vast darkness of that night swallowed up the sight and the sound of that small family in that small place. Or maybe I should say that I imagine that the night seemed to swallow up the sight and sound of them. Because we know that ultimately it did not. It could not. We know that the birth of that child – so small, so subtle, birthed into the holy stillness of that night was a flicker of light that would burn bright and eternal, changing the world and changing us forever.

There have been times in my life when despair has darkened the doorstep of my spirit. Despair over personal circumstances, despair over the violence that wreaks havoc in our world. I can’t imagine that there is one among us that wasn’t shaken to the core, shattered in some way, by the shootings in Connecticut last week. There have been times in my life when I have found myself beneath the proverbial broom tree. Perhaps you have been there too. Times when I wanted and prayed for a sign – a big, bold catastrophic sign, to assure me of God’s presence. I never got one. But what I’ve come to believe is that God is not forceful or showy, especially with those who feel particularly tender or wounded. Rather God reveals Godself lovingly and sometimes surprisingly in those precious moments of stillness and silence. God provides an unexpected angel or some small sustenance, strength for the journey, even when we may have many miles of wilderness left to go.

It is a great irony to me that those who are grieving oftentimes find themselves feeling utterly disconnected from Christmas. I was talking with a friend the other day and she said, “I hate Christmas.” She’s dreading it, can’t wait until it’s over. And it’s true that against the backdrop of all of the more superficial merriment, our grief can make us feel alien, alone, out of step with everything and everyone around us. But in reality, when we go back to the heart of things, peel away all those layers of fluff around Christmas, it is that aspect of all of us, the part of us that is wounded, that is broken hearted that God most wants to reach with the miracle of Christmas. How much we might miss if we tuck those aspects of ourselves away as if they’re somehow inappropriate in light of the holiday season. I believe, with all my heart, that what God wants from us this Christmas is to make those parts of ourselves available – to God, maybe to one another – that, resting in silence, we might receive the blessing of the One who came to love us, to encourage us, to heal us, to set us free.

Thank you Lori: it was an evening well spent. I have ahead of me many hours of thinking and praying on this.

America, Stop Listening to the NRA

Posted on by
Reply

After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School the National Rifle Association went silent for a few days. Many of us were hoping they would either remain silent or consider a dialogue about gun safety. So much for that hope. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre responded by saying that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The NRA is now calling on Congress to put an armed guard in every school in America.

That’s right: the answer to gun violence is more guns.

Years ago one of the NRA’s tag lines was “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Clearly gun violence happens only in combination of guns and people; I used to joke that the difference between the NRA and me was that I wanted to eliminate the guns and the NRA wanted to eliminate the people. I didn’t realize how right I was until now. They argue that the world is divided into good people and bad people, that bad people will always have access to guns no matter what we do, and (we) good people have to make sure we’re not outgunned.

Their “reasoning” is silly (and dangerous) on so many levels. First and foremost, we simply can’t divide our nation between good people and bad people: it’s not that simple. The overwhelming majority of us would never dream of turning a gun on anyone and I’ll admit that even nations that have restrictive gun laws haven’t completely eliminated gun violence. But we have way too many murders in this country only because there is easy access to guns, and guns that are too powerful for any other use.

Sandy Hook is a good example. We still don’t know the shooter’s motive but we do know what happened. His mother legally owned a number of powerful weapons. He had access to them and used them to kill 26 people and himself. If assault weapons were illegal there is no indication that he would have had the interest or opportunity to obtain them illegally. Whatever rage, loneliness, or other demon lived in his soul may have found a violent outlet, but it wouldn’t have killed 20 children and 6 adults.

Second, the NRA “solution” likely would not have worked. The shooter shot his way through the front door of the school. Had there been an armed guard in school he would have had to be at the entrance the shooter used (did your elementary school have only one entrance?) and be able to accurately fire the first shot. In my previous post I spoke of Texas Congressman Louie Gohmer’s suggestion that if the principal had been armed she could have prevented this. Yes, but only if she was carrying the gun and was able to outshoot an assault rifle.

And finally, we need to stop listening to the voices who insist that more guns equal more safety. The shooter’s mother was killed by her own weapon, and any gun in a school has the potential to be used accidentally. Lock it up? Sure, but that makes my point: any gun that is secured won’t be instantly available if needed.

We don’t need more guns. We need to get rid of the these “personal weapons of mass destruction.” Yes, I made that up.

And again, we need to tell our representatives that the NRA may target their seats, but they cannot target my vote.

It's Time to Stop the Moment of Silence. It's Time To Do Something

Posted on by
Reply

You would have to live in a cave not to hear about the events on Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It’s been an awful weekend for anyone with a conscience.

I have lots of feelings about this, but I have to confess I keep coming back to the issue of gun violence and the Second Amendment. I’m one of the people who believe that the 2nd Amendment mandates only a National Guard. Alas, the Supreme Court found in the case of District of Coumbia vs. Heller that there is an individual right to private gun ownership.

I’m willing to concede the right to own guns for hunting or protecting your home and family. I don’t have any desire to hunt and I worry that a gun for my own protection could be used against me (as it was with the shooter’s mother Nancy Lanza). But this allows for a fairly narrow slice of the guns we own. If you want to hunt you will probably use a rifle or a shotgun. Rifles normally carry 5 rounds before needing to reload. Shotguns need to be reloaded after one or two shots. If you’re hunting game this makes some sense.

If you have a gun for personal protection your needs can be met with a simple revolver. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night it’s hard to imagine that 6 shots won’t do what needs to be done.

I’m troubled by the proliferation of assault weapons. The last few decades have shown us rifles and handguns with incredibly high firepower. Adam Lanza showed up at Sandy Hook Elementary School with three guns: a Bushmaster Assault Rifle, a Glock 9mm pistol, and a SIG Sauer 9mm pistol. According to news reports he had hundreds of bullets and could have killed every teacher and child in the school. He shot himself only when he heard the sound of sirens. There are variations but the Bushmaster clip holds 30 rounds and is easy to reload.

Is this what our founders had in mind? I don’t think so. High power guns with huge clips are not designed for hunting or protecting. They are made for mass violence and they are incredibly successful. Had the shooter needed to reload after only 5 or 6 shots someone might have been able to disarm him.

We keep having the massacres, and yet we keep having these weapons. Why? The NRA and other gun lobbies are incredibly successful in convincing a small but powerful number of us that banning these guns won’t solve anything. They are also successful in telling our lawmakers that they will defeat any candidate who opposes them. The Sunday news shows covered the massacre and had no trouble finding people like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Senator Dianne Feinstein talking about the need for sensible gun legislation. The pro gun lobby was largely silent; the exception was Texas Representative Louie Gohmer who said that if the school principal had been armed she could have stopped the massacre.

Talk radio was not silent. Rush Limbaugh said this on his show Monday: “[P]art of the [liberal] agenda that was being advanced was, of course, gun control. And there was glee, there was excitement at the opportunity that was presented here.” Sorry, I can’t bring myself to link to Rush’s page. You can find it on the transcript on his web page.

I’m pretty outraged at being told that my reaction to this massacre was glee. This is not an opportunity to talk about sensible gun control, the massacre is reason we need to have this discussion.

For those of us who favor sensible legislation about guns, it’s time to move. It’s time to write to our representatives and tell them that we will support sensible legislation, no matter how much the NRA tries to block it. We need to tell them that we will not vote for NRA backed candidates, no matter how much money they spend.

We need our legislators to know that our vote is safe.

My prayers are with the victims.

So Does This Make Me a Man?

Posted on by
Reply

Over last weekend I was surfing the internet looking for the recipe for the perfect martini. I found that there are several opinions on this (and don’t get me started on the whole gin vs. vodka thing) but I found a good recipe on the website The Art of Manliness.

I used that recipe, and started exploring the page. They had a page on the 100 books every man should read. While I’ve never worried about my status as a man, I’m a sucker for booklists. I even have booklist of my own. So how did I do?

Well, of the 100 books they list, I’ve read (or at least started) 25 of them. Here are the books they recommend that I’ve read:

  1. The Great Gatsby by F.Scott Fitzgerald. I read this a few years ago.
  2. Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. I read this in 1977 at the end of my junior year in High School.
  3. 1984 by George Orwell. I read this in high school, and was frankly more impressed with his novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying.
  4. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. I read this in 9th grade. The book is excellent but you should also watch the movie.
  5. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. I read this in High School after reading 1984. It didn’t scare me as much as it was supposed to.
  6. The Odyssey by Homer. I can only claim half credit because the web page lists both the Odyssey and the The Illiad, also by Homer. I read only the Odyssey in my 2nd year of college.
  7. Walden by Henry David Thoreau. I ready this in my junior year in High School
  8. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. This has become a political football. I can only claim half credit as I stopped 2/3 of the way through the book as I found Ayn annoying. I still believe I am my brother’s keeper.
  9. Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer. I didn’t like this book, but most of those who read it liked it. I’m happy for them.
  10. The Divine Comedy by Dante Aligheri. I read this in college.
  11. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. It was my gateway to the rest of his stuff, and also to C.S. Lewis.
  12. The Boy Scout Handbook by the Boy Scouts of America. For a very brief time I was a Cub Scout in the late 1960s. They lured me in on the pretense of camping but I soon found out it was all about medals (that I couldn’t have cared less about). On the other hand, this is where I learned to tie a tie.
  13. Animal Farm by George Orwell. I read this in high school before 1984.
  14. The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. I can only claim half credit as I haven’t read all of them, but I’ve enjoyed what I have read.
  15. Moby Dick, or The Whale by Herman Melville. I’ve seen both versions of the movie, and started the book. Someday I’ll finish it. Give me half credit.
  16. Hamlet by William Shakespeare. I took a course in 12th grade on Shakespeare’s tragedies. I’m actually happy about a book I was assigned to read in high school
  17. The Boys of Summer by Roger Kahn. Nancy is a big Dodger’s fan so it was inevitable we’d read this. It was a few years ago.
  18. The Stranger by Albert Camus. I read this as a senior in high school in 5th year French. Do I get extra credit for reading it in the original French?
  19. On the Road by Jack Kerouac. I “read” this as an audiobook a few years ago. I agree with Truman Capote: “That’s not writing, it’s typing.”
  20. Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer. If this doesn’t dissuade you from climbing Mt. Everest, you shouldn’t have children
  21. All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque. I read this in English class in high school; the course was called “War Literature.” It may have started my fascination with World War I.
  22. The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane. I also read this in the “War Literature” course; I was already fascinated by the Civil War. Thanks Mr. Brady.
  23. The Bible. This is really a collection of books, but in the course of several years of seminary, I’m sure I’ve read all of it.
  24. Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry. I read this a few years after the mini-series came out. Still not a fan of westerns.
  25. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. I read this in 9th grade English in a course called “Family Literature.” Thanks Mrs. Peterson. It’s a rare event where the book and the movie are equally brilliant. I still refer to a house in my neighborhood as the “Boo Radley House.”

If you want to see the other 75 you’ll have to go on the web page. I don’t want to publish it here as I’m not eager to have people email me with your shock that I haven’t read your favorite book.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 10: There He Goes Again (Hopefully for the Last time)

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been five days since the election and binders have been written about what happened and why. The day after the election Governor Romney held a conference call with major donors (that CNN and other news organizations joined) about what happened. This was his chance to be magnanimous, thank his supporters, and move on. That’s what he did in his concession speech.

Instead, he stated that President Obama won the election by pandering to the voters. He said (and this comes from multiple sources on a few different phone calls):

  • What the president, president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote
  • With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift
  • Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women
  • And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008

The best part of this? I don’t even need to react because other Republicans already have.

Newt Gingrich said this: I just think it’s nuts. I mean, first of all, it’s insulting. The job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can’t offer a better future that is believable to more people, we’re not going to win.

Piyush (Bobby) Jindal: [A winning strategy] does not involve insulting [voters] and saying their votes were bought. I’m proud to have campaigned for him across the country, but I absolutely reject what he said. Look, we as the Republican Party have to campaign for every single vote. If we want people to like us, we have to like them first. And you don’t start to like people by insulting them and saying their votes were bought.

Lindsay Graham: Rhetoric like this keeps digging a hole for the Republican party. We’re in a big hole. We’re not getting out of it by comments like [Romney’s]. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. He keeps digging.

To this I add only this: Justice is not a gift. Providing people what they need is the role of government. I’m grateful Romney lost.

PS: You can still order Romney campaign stuff on his webpage.

Finally Settled: It's a Good Thing

Posted on by
Reply

The congressional race I’ve been following has finally been settled. Today Brian Billbray conceded to Scott Peters. As of today Scott has built a lead of 5,132 votes. It’s still not a big number, but it’s worth noting that every day Scott’s lead grows. As for Brian, I’m sure he’ll find a home back in the lobbyist world. I’m just glad I won’t be paying his salary anymore.

It's Still Not Settled But Going In the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I blogged that Scott Peters is pulling ahead of Brian Bilbray. It’s still too close to call, but every day Scott’s advantage gets bigger. Last Thursday Scott was ahead by only 565 votes. By Monday Scott was ahead by 1899 votes; Tuesday Scott was ahead by 2660 votes, and today he’s ahead by 2948 votes. Every day his lead increases. I have to confess a little satisfaction here. When I moved to San Diego in 1997 Brian Bilbray was my congressman in the 49th district and was reelected in 1998. In 2000 Susan Davis defeated Brian. He then moved to the 50th district and ran for the seat vacated by Randy “Duke” Cunningham who was in prison. It seemed like a safe Republican seat. It was until Randy and Brian ran. To be fair, the district changed after the 2010 census (including my home) and included more Democrats. In any case I’m celebrating the fact that I’ve been able to turn Brian out twice

The One Election Race That Still Isn't Settled

Posted on by
Reply

The election was a week ago, and by Wednesday morning we knew the results of almost all the races. In my Congressional district we still didn’t know the winner of our race. The incumbent is Brian Billbray, whose district was changed in the 2010 census. Scott Peters challenged him. It’s always an uphill battle to challenge an incumbent for Congress, but Brian’s new district was more Democratic than his old district. The San Diego Registrar of Voters has posted partial results every day and Scott’s lead has increased every day: from 565 votes to 1334, then to 1899, and now to 2660.

I hope this trends continues and Scott is our representative.

Ballot Propositions: Sometimes Democracy is Hard to Love

Posted on by
2

I’ve lived in several states in the last few decades and each one brings its own learning curve. When I moved to California in 1988 there were several ballot propositions dedicated to auto insurance reform (as an aside, most of them were drawn up by auto insurance companies to confuse the voters; it didn’t work). I have to admit I was a little taken aback that my ballot contained what looked like ordinary legislation that the state government should have taken care of. I wrongly assumed these propositions were legislation that the legislature didn’t want to act on, and they punted it to us.

I was wrong. I got this information from the state web page. In a special election in 1911 voters approved a way to create legislation (or amend the state constitution) by popular vote, bypassing the governor and state legislature. I’ve boiled down the process:

  1. Write up the legislation you want and submit it to the Attorney General
  2. Determine if it will affect the state budget
  3. Write up the petition and get signatures. You need to obtain signatures equal to 5% of the number who voted for governor in the last election. All signatures must be registered voters.
  4. After the signatures are checked and verified, your initiative is on the ballot. If it gets 50% of the vote (55% in some cases), it becomes law.

We’ve learned over the last 101 years just how easy it is to pass legislation. You need a smart person to write the initiative, and lots of money. Any Californian will tell you that we know it’s election season because everytime we leave a grocery store there is someone there with multiple petitions and a sign that says something like: “Help people get what they need.” The person is being paid, often $1.00 per signature, and usually has no idea what the initiatives actually mean. Once it’s on the ballot you need to spend millions (or least more than your opponent) convincing voters that your initiative is the only thing keeping us from doom and that your opponent wants to destroy all you hold dear.

This process has been taken over by deep pocket special interests. I’ve completely made this up as an illustration, but imagine this:

It’s 1900 and you make buggy whips for carriages. You’ve made a good fortune for yourself and you are touch with others who are equally successful. You hear that there is a guy in your state who is working on an invention called a “horseless carriage.” It sounds crazy, but he’s working on an internal combustion engine that will propel the carriage by burning gasoline instead of being pulled by horses. You recognize that if you remove horses from the equation you also remove buggy whips and your way of life is going to end. You want to ban these horseless carriages but you know you can’t write a ballot initiative that bans them because it’s bad for your business; that won’t pass. In a moment of inspiration you decide that since gasoline is flammable, it must be unsafe. You write an initiative that proposes to ban large containers of gasoline (5 gallons or more) on wheeled vehicles because they are “explosions waiting to happen.” Together with other buggy whip manufacturers you start a campaign called “Citizens for Public Safety” that warns of the dangers of exploding gasoline containers. Ordinary voters, who may not know who you are, vote for your initiative out of fear of firestorms in the street.

Sound crazy? Maybe, but I’m glad I’m not driving a horse powered carriage.

Republican Hand Wringing: Here's My Theory

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been a few days since the election and it appears the Republican Party is still trying to figure out how it happened. There is a report from CBS News that Governor Romney and his advisers had no idea he was going to lose. According to the article it wasn’t until the polls closed and the states began to report that the Romney camp finally understood that they might lose. This article came as a surprise to me because I had spent the previous week reading Nat Silver’s Five Thirty Eight blog on the New York Times website. Nate dug down into the numbers and by election eve he predicted President Obama had a 90% chance of winning the election. Turns out Nate’s electoral map was 100% correct.

So how did it happen? I have a few theories:

  • The Chaotic Republican Primary: When any party challenges an incumbent, all sorts of people think themselves the Messiah. Combine this with the visceral hate they all have for President Obama, everyone running for the Republican nomination was convinced of his (or her) inevitable coronation. Some (Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Chris Christie) knew better than to run, others (Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum) threw their hat into the ring, had a brief skyrocketing showing in the polls, followed by a freefall. At the end of the day Mitt Romney got the nomination, but lots of Republicans couldn’t hold their nose and vote for him.
  • The search for his own beliefs: Mitt spent the primary season convincing the Tea Party that he was a true believer. He wasn’t; he just wanted to be President. After getting the nomination he spent the rest of the race convincing us that he wasn’t an opportunist. He didn’t. Much to his despair we were listening all along.
  • The disconnect between money and votes: this is probably the heart of the reason for the Republican defeat. The source of their money and the source of their votes were mutually exclusive. We saw staggering amounts raised by the campaign and Super Pacs like American Crossroads, Restore Our Future, Winning Our Future and others. These Super Pacs were funded almost exclusively by angry white men, and Mitt was successful in winning their votes. But angry white men is a shrinking demographic. Latinos are now 16% of the population and 10% of the voting population. Only 27% voted for Mitt (according to CNN).
  • The economy: they kept hammering that President Obama had four years to give us a healthy economy and didn’t. But there were two problems here: in the last few months of the election the economy was showing signs of real growth, and the Republicans had positioned themselves as obstructionists. In 2010 Mitch McConnell said this: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Note that he said nothing about improving the economy.

So where do they go from here? On one level I’m loathe to give advice to the Republican party, but I also believe they aren’t listening to anyone, and my contribution will be ignored with everyone else’s.

The first thing they need to do is broaden their appeal. Doing outreach to the Latino population needs to be more than claiming to care about them. They (along with all of us) need to start talking about immigration reform that provides a path not only for the engineer from India, but also the agricultural worker from Mexico.

They also need to move beyond the politics of fear. They were able to raise so much money because they were able to tell their base that “those people” (Latinos, the 47%, etc.) are after what you’ve earned. Now they need to articulate a message that includes everyone.

Finally, they need to move away from the Tea Party belief that taxes are somehow a malignant cancer on the country. Nobody argues the need to be vigilant against waste and corruption, but we can be the great country we all want only when everyone pays his fair share. Telling people that we can balance the budget by cutting income doesn’t work on a family budget or a national budget.