18 Questions *From* Congressional Republicans II: The Back Nine

Previously, on “18 Questions *From* Congressional Republicans”:

–“For some reason I happen to be on the mailing list of the National Republican Congressional Committee.”
–“18…questions they just sent me…”
–“‘our nation’s position on marriage…'”
–“‘victory…in passing a law banning partial-birth abortions…'”
–“‘…moral, family, and values issues…'”
–“‘Liberal Democrats persist in attacking our Government’s steps and strategies…'”
–“‘…burden of additional security at our airports…'”
–“‘…Bush tax cuts PERMANENT…'”
–“‘…overhaul of the way we pay federal taxes…'”
–“‘…Baby Boomers…retiring…personal retirement plans.'”
–“For this reason I answered ‘not sure.'”
–“‘…not sure.'”
–“…because I’m not an economist, I answered ‘Not sure.'”

And then I came to Question 10, which opened with a clarion call of triumph! “Congress and President Bush strengthened Medicare and provided seniors with their own choice of a health care plan that provides prescription drug coverage.” “Their own choice”! Like a toddler getting his “own” special seat in the car! No mention of the restriction, specified in the law, against Congress doing, when buying prescription drugs, what any other big-ticket customer does when he buys, say, a ton of potatoes–negotiating a better price.

My inner response? The usual: Blah blah blah “what happened to the wisdom of the marketplace?” blah blah blah “competition,” blah blah “government run by corporations for their benefit,” “naked hypocrisy blah,” and so on.

The three answers from which I could choose, alas, featured none of those. Rather, did I favor “more strong Republican approaches to reforming the Medicare system,” (underlining in the original), the Dems’ plan to create “a government-run health care system,” or “leaving things pretty much the way they are now”?

Yes, you read that correctly: “pretty much.” Like you, I was–and remain–offended by the questionnaire’s slack language. I inscribed, with lapidary care, my own box, checked it, and wrote “Not sure.”

If there were a Sentence Hall of Fame (and somewhere on the Internet there probably are six of them), surely Question 11’s opener would qualify for admission: “Despite the success of the President’s No Child Left Behind Act, many U.S. schools are still receiving failing grades.” Here we have a masterpiece of English construction that accomplishes three things at once. It starts with an untrue premise; it contradicts itself with its second clause; and it confuses “schools” with “students” in a question dealing with standards of education.

When asked whether “we” should “mandate that our schools and teachers abandon the burdensome, ‘politically correct’ requirements that are hamstringing their work and concentrate more on the basics of a sound education” (whatever they are, in this day and a.), who wouldn’t (as I did) answer “Not sure”?

Question 12: “In an effort to protect the religious heritage and character of our nation,” am I in favor of the Bush administration’s request that “under God” be retained in the Pledge of Allegiance? Now, I am on record (at least in my mind) as being firmly against protecting the religious heritage and character of our nation.

But even more importantly, I don’t care about this “under God” business because I believe the Pledge of Allegiance itself should be replaced with the Breyer’s Pledge of Purity. Instead of promising “liberty and justice for all,” which is obviously a sales slogan and not to be taken literally, let’s make a promise we can keep, and vow that the United States of America will use “the highest quality, all natural ingredients available.” (Thanks to Richard Price, and Clockers, for the idea). “Not sure” was my answer, and I stand by it.

Question 13 seemed to hint at something progressive: “Do you think that much of our legal system is now working harder to protect the rights of criminals–” Do I ever! White collar criminals! Un-indicted co-conspirators, lying Vice-Presidents, and worse! I got excited and prepared to answer Yes.

Then I finished the question: “…than it is to safeguard the rights of citizens to be free of crime in their homes and on the streets?” Oh. That. Actually, no–I haven’t watched 2,469 iterations of Law & Order without knowing better, or–and this is essential to the Republican world view–believing I know better, even if I don’t. So my initial Yes was killed–murdered!–by my subsequent No and came out “Not sure.”

“More than 3 million illegal aliens now flood into our country each year,” states Question 14. “Our schools, hospitals, and social services are become overburdened by this influx.” What to do? “Tighten our borders, restrict immigration,” etc.? Let the “heavy influx” continue (“…as it has been to ensure the continuation of increased diversity in our country”)?

I looked, in vain, for a third answer (“Re-direct some of the kabillions being wasted in Iraq to support and expand our schools, hospitals, and social services?”). I made a mental note to suggest this option to the Committee, and then punted by writing in “Not sure.”

Question 15 seemed inspired by black helicopter- monitoring cranks: “As we continue to fight the War on Terror, do you think our U.S. troops should be required to serve under commanders from other nations or from the United Nations…” etc., etc., “…as some Democrats have suggested?” Even the author of the question seemed a bit embarrassed by it. The answers available were “Definitely not,” “Probably, sometimes,” and my personal favorite, “Don’t know.”

And now came Question 16.

“How do you describe yourself politically?”

There were four boxes: Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, and Uncommitted. I did what any sensible person would do, and checked all four.

Question 17 was a gimme: Did I vote in the 2004 Presidential Election. (Yes). The 2006 Mid-Term Election? (Yes.) Nuff said.

And finally: “The Democrats are gearing up to increase their numbers in the next elections, when every single one of our 201 Republican representatives will be vulnerable.” Knowing this, am I willing to help “by making a generous donation to the National Republican Congressional Committee today?”

Of course not. And yet, haven’t we all had a bit of fun at the NRCC’s expense? Don’t I owe them something?So I went to the trouble of drawing a little box and checking it and writing “Not sure.”

And there you have it. Eighteen ways to foster ignorance while pretending to ask questions. Eighteen ways to press the red meat of the credulous and the resentful. Eighteen ways to throw hot buttons at a constituency that gets stupider every time it listens to its leaders.

“Not printed at government expense,” it says at the bottom of the form. That’s good to know. It means the government won’t suffer when I take advantage of the postage-paid envelope, and mail back my response.

18 Questions *From* the NRCC

The Republican Party, as every schoolchild knows, has by now degenerated from a quasi-aristocratic affinity group of Rotarian strivers and upper-crust coupon-clippers, into a wild-eyed cult, fully marinating in denial and mendacity, in which the very rich exploit the very credulous for the purposes of promoting corporate dominance in the service of the re-distribution of wealth upward via the manipulation of “values.”

Yeah, I know. Duh. Yawn. Check, please.

Still: How do they do it? How do they talk to themselves–which is to say, how do they butter up the indignant “patriots” and self-righteous “warriors for Christ” on whom they want to put the touch for some election-year dough? (Butter up, touch, dough: as always, it all comes down to bread.)

For some reason I happen to be on the mailing list of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Here, then, duly annotated, are the 18 (a sacred Hebrew number standing for LIFE!) questions they just sent me. In fact, so wide-ranging and important are these questions, I may have to address them in a two-part post. Because summarizing and condensing won’t do them justice. I’m talking about an NRCC Every-Member Canvas “prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Ellis Weiner.” Eat your hearts out, those of you who aren’t me.

It goes without saying that filling in the questionnaire involves three steps: 1) Answer the questions; 2) Sign the form; 3) Return it with “the largest contribution you can make at this time.” Can do. Behold:

1. Do I believe that “our nation’s” official “position” on marriage should be that it is the legal union of a man and a woman, and not of two people of the same sex?

I wasn’t aware that nations had positions. I thought they had laws. For this reason I answered “Not sure.”

2. Following the “victory” of Congress and the president passing a law banning “partial-birth abortions,” do I think “we” should increase “our” efforts to “revisit” Roe-v-Wade, which “has made it easier to kill unborn babies for over 30 years in our country”?

I thought this question missed the point, which is that it should be easier to kill already-born babies, a list of whose names I am willing to provide. Interestingly, all of them are Republicans! I answered “Not sure.”

3. Do I want “us” to “concentrate even more on moral, family, and values issues during this session of Congress than we did on the previous one?”

Normally, yes (and I appreciate the bonus zeal in that use of “even more”). I want us to promote my morals, my family, and my values. But then I realized that I couldn’t really name any actual Republican achievement concerning “values” in the previous session. The partial-birth abortion ban doesn’t promote a value, it promotes a piece of dogma. (The purported “value” it supposedly sustains, that “life is sacred,” is so often honored in the breach by this administration it hardly bears mentioning. If there’s one thing that isn’t sacred to Republicans, it’s “life.”). So I decided this was a trick question, and bailed out by answering “Not sure.”

4. “Liberal Democrats,” Mr. Ellis Weiner’s canvas declares, “persist in attacking our Government’s steps and strategies in fighting the War on Terror.” Do I approve of “our” policies for seeking out and destroying terrorists and their organizations?

I cannot take any question seriously in which a Republican capitalizes “government.” Republicans hate government. They brag about it. George W. Bush has made it his life’s mission–which he has accomplished, thank you–to prove that government destroys, ruins, corrupts, or botches literally everything it attempts. Another trick question. Another “Not sure.”

5. Do I feel that any inconvenience that may be caused by security measures at airports, train stations, and public buildings “is worth the hassle”?

Oh please. I wasn’t born yesterday. I know, even if the intern who wrote this questionnaire doesn’t, that “hassle” is a 1960’s hippie word. I will not so easily be tricked into revealing that I was once a 1960’s hippie. “Unsure of how I feel about this,” is my answer, and you can quote me.

6. Do I support President Bush’s “pro-growth approach” to solving our economic problems “by creating more jobs and creating a more receptive climate for risk-takers who start new businesses”?

Not any more. This “pro-growth approach” has led to what everybody including two of our three dogs is calling a recession. (The third, Chester, our foster Ridgeback, is still holding to his “wait-and-see” position.) I’d like the president to use what remains of his time in office to advance an anti-growth approach, to sort of use reverse psychology to maybe try and fool the economy. “Not really” was a tempting box to check, but in the end, because I’m not an economist, I answered “Not sure.”

7. Do I support “our Republican insistence” that making the Bush tax cuts “PERMANENT” (all caps in the original) is the best way “to ensure that America’s families, seniors, hard working job holders and small business owners can keep more of their hard-earned dollars?”

Could anything be more manipulative? This entire list of so-called beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts is a tissue of lies, provided you pronounce tissue as “tiss-you,” in the fancy Brit manner. First, families don’t earn dollars, hard-ly or otherwise. Dad earns dollars; Mom gets “house money” and kids get allowances, just as Adam and Eve and their kids (Cain and Abel) did in the Bible. Second, seniors, fine–but what about juniors, sophomores, and freshmen? I resent the classist bias. Third, the fate of small business owners is touching, and so forth, but what about our large business owners? What about our multi-national corporations? I feel strongly that any tax policy that omits them cannot be supported. Then again, I’m not sure how our government can tax multi-national corporations, since they’re…you know. Multi-national. So I answered “Not sure.”

8. “Support appears to be growing in Washington for an overhaul of the way we pay federal taxes.” How would I prefer to see our tax laws completely changed: A national flat tax? By “abolishing the IRS altogether and creating a national sales tax applied only to items that are actually purchased”? Or keep the tax system the same?

I was actually not crazy about any of these options. The flat tax and the national sales tax both seem, not only unfair, but deliberately designed to be unfair, because everyone has to pay the same $3.89 for a gallon of milk, if by “milk” I mean “gasoline.” This is cruel, heartless, and socially retrograde–all of which are classic Republican values I can certainly support, normally, but which would in this case adversely affect what I laughingly call my “lifestyle.” However, those were the only three answers available. Therefore I wrote in and checked, in my own hand-drawn box, “Not sure.”

9. Because “huge challenges” will arrive as the Baby Boomers soon begin retiring, how do I feel about the proposal, advanced by “many Republicans,” that today’s “younger workers be given a chance to invest a portion of their income into personal retirement plans”?

I’ll tell you how I feel. I feel a combination of disbelief (that anyone can afford to retire), resentment (that today’s younger workers will be exempt from funding my Social Security), and gratitude (that many Republicans care enough about me to address this issue). Put them altogether, they spell “I’d need to know more about it before making a decision.”

Exhausting? Somewhat. But enlightening, no? And those are just the front nine. Watch this space later in the week for my review of the final nine questions, and join me as I decide how much money to send the National Republican Congressional Committee, and my method of payment. Oh, and to find out whether or not the return envelope is postage-paid.