During a GOP primary debate on June 13, 2011, CNN moderator John King noted that FEMA–the Federal Emergency Management Agency–was about to run out of money.
And so he asked Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney:
“There are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role.
“How do you deal with something like that?”
“Absolutely,” Romney replied. “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction.
“And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.
“Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut–we should ask ourselves the opposite question: What should we keep?
“We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do?
“And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in.”
FLIP!
Mitt Romney vs. FEMA
On October 30, 2012, one day after Hurricane Sandy lashed the densely-populated East Coast of the United States, reporters wanted to know if Romney still wanted to eliminate FEMA.
And, as he had on so many other issues, Mitt Romney once again refused to answer questions.
“Governor, are you going to eliminate FEMA?” a pool eporter shouted to Romney.
Hurricane Sandy
Romney refused to answer.
The reporter asked Romney at least five times: “If you’re elected President, would you eliminate FEMA?” and “What would you do with FEMA?”
No reply.
Another reporter asked: “Governor, are you going to see some storm damage?”
Again, no answer.
“Governor,. has Chris Christie invited you to come survey storm damage?”
No answer.
“Governor, you’ve been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?”
Again, Romney refused to reply.
Finally, under mounting public pressure, he gave this reply:
FLOP!
Mitt Romney pro-FEMA
“I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters.
“As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need.”
In a court of law, a defendant has the right to refuse to take the witness stand and answer questions. And jurors are told by the judge they should not assume the defendant is guilty for doing so.
Courtrooms are often places for a game of let’s-pretend:
- Let’s pretend that a man who’s accused of rape or murder is innocent–even if he refuses to answer legitimate questions; and
- Let’s pretend that a truly innocent man wouldn’t want to clear himself from a totally false charge
But this is the real world.
And, in it, unlike a courtroom, experience teaches that:
- People who are honest want to testify to that truth; and
- People who refuse to answer legitimate questions usually do have something to hide.
Think of Richard Nixon refusing to answer questions about Watergate.
Think of Ronald Reagan refusing to take questions about Iran-Contra.
Think of George W. Bush refusing to take questions about why he ignored months of terrorism warnings before 9/11.
And think of Mitt Romney refusing to answer questions on any number of subjects.
So it’s natural to distrust those who refuse to give specific answers to specific questions–especially when those questions apply to matters that direclty affect people’s lives.
For millions of Americans who profess to be deeply religious, Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:7-8 should have been instructive:
Ask, and it shall be given you. Seek, and ye shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
For every one that asketh receiveth. And he that seeketh findeth. And to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
In a democracy, those words are a call to citizen action:
Ask.
Seek.
Knock.
In the Soviet Union, the truth about the workings of government and the realities of everyday life was carefully guarded.
Only those who gained special access to the Kremlin’s hidden archives could learn at least some of that truth.
Everyone else had to settle for the official, self-serving, lie-filled pronouncements of the Soviet leadership.
But Americans have no such excuse.
They do have access to a wide range of news from differing sources–ranging from the far left to the far right. At least 1,382 daily newspapers–both domestic and foreign– provide information on a wide range of national and international issues.
More than 20 nationwide broadcasting networks exist. Among these: ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, PBS, Telemundo, The CW.
Nevertheless, millions of Americans remain ignorant of the well-revealed truth about the issues that most affect their lives.
As a result, Cassius’ words to Brutus in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar apply to them:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.”

ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ACADEMY AWARDS, ARGO, CBS NEWS, CIVIL WAR, CLARK GABLE, CNN, CONFEDERATE FLAG, DANIEL DAY-LEWIS, FACEBOOK, GONE WITH THE WIND, HATTIE MCDANIEL, MARGARET MITCHELL, MOVIES, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSCARS, RACISM, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, SLAVERY, STEVEN SPIELBERG, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT, TWITTER
LESSONS FROM “LINCOLN”: PART ONE (OF TWO)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on October 21, 2015 at 1:12 amArgo won for Best Picture at the 2013 Academy Awards ceremony. But, in the long run, it will be Lincoln who is deservingly remembered–and loved.
Argo focuses on a humiliating episode that most Americans would like to forget. On November 4, 1979, at the climax of the Iranian revolution, militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking 52 Americans hostage.
But, in the midst of the chaos, six Americans managed to slip away and find refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador. Knowing it was only a matter of time before the six were found and likely killed, a CIA “exfiltration” specialist offered a risky–and ultimately successful–plan to smuggle them out of the country.
While Argo wrings cheers from American audiences for the winning of this small victory, it cannot erase the blunt truth of the Iranian hostage crisis: For more than 14 months, American diplomats waited helplessly for release–while America proved unable to effect it.
By contrast, Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln celebrates a far greater victory: the final defeat of human slavery in the United States.
And it teaches lessons about the past that remain equally valide today–such as that racism and repression are not confined to any one period or political party.
At the heart of the film: Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) wants to win ratification of what will be the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. An amendment that will forever ban slavery.
True, Lincoln, in 1862, had issued the Emancipation Proclamation. This-–in theory-–freed slaves held in the Confederate states that were in rebellion against the United States Government.
But Lincoln regards this as a temporary wartime measure.
He fears that, once the war is over, the Supreme Court may rule the Proclamation unconstitutional. This might allow Southerners to continue practicing slavery, even after losing the war.
To prevent this, Congress must pass an anti-slavery amendment.
But winning Congressional passage of such an amendment won’t be easy.
The Senate had ratified its passage in 1864. But the amendment must secure approval from the House of Representatives to become law.
And the House is filled with men-–there are no women members during the 19th century-–who seethe with hostility.
Some are hostile to Lincoln personally. One of them dubs him a dictator-–”Abraham Africanus.” Another accuses him of shifting his positions for the sake of expediency.
Other members–-white men all-–are hostile to the idea of “equality between the races.”
To them, ending slavery means opening the door to interracial marriage–especially marriage between black men and white women. Perhaps even worse, it means possibly giving blacks-–or women–-the right to vote.
Black soldiers in the Union Army
To understand the Congressional debate over the Thirteenth Amendment, it’s necessary to remember this: In Lincoln’s time, the Republicans were the party of progressives.
The party was founded on an anti-slavery platform. Its members were thus reviled as “Black Republicans.”
And until the 1960s, the South was solidly Democratic. Democrats were the ones defending the status quo–slavery–and opposing freed blacks in the South of Reconstruction and long afterward.
In short, in the 18th century, Democrats in the South acted as Republicans do now.
The South went Republican only after a Democratic President–Lyndon B. Johnson–rammed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress.
Watching this re-enactment of the 1865 debate in Lincoln is like watching a rerun of the 2012 Presidential campaign. The same mentalities are at work:
During the 2012 Presidential race, the Republicans tried to bar those likely to vote for President Barack Obama from getting into the voting booth. But their bogus “voter ID” restrictions were struck down in courts across the nation.
In the end, however, it is Abraham Lincoln who has the final word. Through diplomacy and backroom dealings (trading political offices for votes) he wins passage of the anti-slavery amendment.
The movie closes with a historically-correct tribute to Lincoln’s generosity toward those who opposed him–in Congress and on the battlefield.
It occurs during Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address: “With malice toward none, with charity for all….To bind up the nation’s wounds. To care for him who shall have bourne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan….”
Listening to those words, one is reminded of Mitt Romney’s infamous comments about the “47%: “
Well, there are 47% of the people who…are dependent upon government, who believe that–-that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
Watching Lincoln, you realize how incredibly lucky we were as a nation to have had such leadership when it was most needed.
Share this: