May We Agree to Disagree
On How to Save Democracy?


Gary Tutin . org



For The Next Generation

A Wake-Up Call to Solving Our Nation's Problems

After learning that Debbie Wasserman Schultz had a book published, my second thought was that I should be the first person on my block to read it. I will probably be the only person on my block to read it.

Democratic Congesswoman Wasserman Schultz claims to be a compromiser, who can work with Republicans for the good of the nation. What she means is that Republicans who adopt her political goals can discuss how best to advance them. For instance, if you agree that the federal government should be involved in education, Constitutional admonitions to the contrary, she will accept your help. On the other hand, if you want to stick to your principles (and the law), she has no use for you.

Spoiler alert. Her book illustrates the danger posed by progressive zealots, who want to take away your rights, and mine. Debbie Wasserman Schultz believes she is our protector, who knows better than we do what is good for us.

Debby Rules

Those few misguided Republicans defending the Constitution? Who cares! Government can save the world, despite history indicating that government is far better at ruining it.

Everything our pol does is for the children, including support of measures to reduce your parental rights and deprive your children of their rights, not to mention making them underwrite her costly policies in perpetuity.

This is total partisanship and, honestly, total bullshit. (I hope that isn’t too offensive for the honorable Representative.) Like most who share her radical beliefs, DWS seems entirely humorless, and devoid of a sense of irony. 

I had hoped that the thoughtful process of writing a book might have broadened her perspective. Not at all! Instead, reading this turned out to be a frightening and depressing revelation of the unfiltered thoughts of a government leader.


She begins expounding her theories in the introduction. Her assertion that women with children need to have more representation in Congress is problematic. Most of the DC vermin [lawmakers] have children, so she insinuates that fathers care less about their offspring than mothers. Politicians certainly seem to care more about their families than they do about their constituents'.

DWS claims her top priorities in public life are: 

· Improve the quality of our children's public education

· Expand access to quality, affordable heath care

· Make government more responsive to the people's needs

Arguably, none of these are federal government responsibilities. 

War is Peace

Since this book is so infuriating, I will address several of her fantastic scenarios, beginning with chapter four, "A Superpower for Peace." As head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), you would surmise that Debbie is a dove, but you would be wrong. Her considered view is that military action is necessary, when Democrats advocate it, terribly misguided when Republicans use it. 

Born in 1966, she ignores Vietnam, parachuting directly into Afghanistan and Iraq. I opposed the Iraq attack. DWS writes that the invasion was "based on later discredited intelligence that linked Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction." That is true, so far as it goes; it was intelligence that the US and its allies believed. To suggest the reports were "trumped up," as she does, seems unfair. 

Debbie says it is important to make informed decisions before launching an attack because "war is hellish." Naturally, Obama's war escalations were thoughtful, "a model of how American commanders in chief should use the world's most powerful military force: judiciously." I might have written the same thing… sarcastically.

When she explores Obama's policies in Egypt and Libya, she is on shakier ground than I am in California. She says of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood hood, "only time will tell whether Egypt's fledgling democracy will succeed," [Time's up!] but she's proud of how Obama and Hillary Clinton got Mubarak to resign. One can only wonder if she's proud of the persecution and slaughter of Coptic Christians that ensued without a peep from the US State Department.

Sometimes politicians make ridiculous statements in the heat of the moment, which are easier to overlook than those that appear in a book. Her unequivocal assertion is that "our alliance with Israel is as strong as ever," a message of listen to what I say, ignore what you see. Maybe she should check with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and reconsider. DWS is just as positive in assuring us that Obama will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. That's a relief. 

US policy in Iran has been a failure, since they will soon acquire nuclear capability. Had Debbie admitted that Obama was no more successful than his predecessors, she would retain some credibility. Saying that his Administration is making progress will come back to bite her, very soon.

I could question her Cuban solutions, or lack thereof, but she cannot be taken any more seriously on foreign policy than on domestic policy.

Your Health is Too Important to Cede to DC

For DWS, Obamacare is the greatest thing since FDR. She begins chapter three, "Health Care: A Right Worth Fighting For," by recounting her experience with cancer. Consider me duly sympathetic.

What she omits is that, as a government official, she has comprehensive health coverage and could miss as many days of work as required. Rather than hurt her career, her narrative enhanced it, like John McCain's being a POW, back in that earlier misguided Democratic-party war.

She pats her party on the back for foisting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Unaffordable Care Act) on an unwilling nation. It "paved the way" for approximately "thirty-one million uninsured" to buy insurance, assuming they want it, which she does. That surprised me because while this book is new, that number has jumped to 40-50 million already, as desperate Democrats try to justify this expanding sinkhole of a law.  

Apparently, informed decisions should be made before putting troops in harm's way, not when putting the population's health-care delivery system in limbo. That's when judiciousness gets tossed out the hospital window. In a typical attempt at reconciliation, she writes, "you'll notice that the GOP's attacks are almost exclusively distortions, lies, and mis-characterization about health-care reform, including the oft-repeated lie that it was government takeover of health care." She is correct. It was not a government takeover of health-care, just a takeover of health-care insurance. If she is troubled by lies of her party, claims that you could keep your doctor, keep your insurance, lower your premiums, even that Obamacare would boost the economy, there's no acknowledgement. These fall into the category of what Mark Twain might call "stretchers," not the kind you use to carry patients.  

Oh, here's one, on page 56: "Those who have been happy with their medical coverage will hardly be affected by the reform." That was revealed as false by mid-October, when this book was released. Since the employer mandate was illegally postponed by Obama for one year, it will take another few months to learn the full impact on those getting insurance at work, except for millions who are exempt because they work for government.

Another stretcher, on page 57 of For The Next Generation, she states that Obamacare puts the "reins on runaway health-care costs." False! 

Remember, her goal to "expand access to quality, affordable heath care." Health insurance is not a right, nor a federal concern, but who defines quality? For that matter, who defines affordable?  And exactly how does the Unaffordable Care Act improve health care? We must ignore facts because it's for some greater good. 

Lest you think Debbie an immutable ideologue, she wanted a "public option," badly, but settled for what Democratic legislators could be coerced into accepting. Turns out "you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Because, "if it solves a problem and works for the American people, it's good enough for me!" What if it doesn't solve the problem, doesn't work and is unconstitutional? She doesn't say.

Her bipartisanship is always conditional. If Republicans want to improve this law, she will listen to them, much as Democrats did before ignoring the other party in writing the bill. Debby's pre-condition: "we have to at least agree that every American is entitled to quality affordable health-care coverage." Notice that her major priority has shifted from health care to health care coverage (insurance).

Here is nearly a paragraph of Wasserman Schultz's witless wisdom:

The American people have the right to demand more from their leaders on an issue so far-reaching… We're all susceptible to emotionally charged arguments, especially if we're told that the money we've earned is going toward those who don't deserve it, which is the overarching theme of anti-tax, anti-government diatribes on the right."

Wow. No, let me reinforce that. Wow! Wasserman Schultz is an elected representative who believes the American people have no right to question Congress's right to mess with our health care. When I think of my tax money going towards those who don't deserve it, Debbie is near the top of my list.

In literary fashion, she ends with another touching story relating to her cancer, specifically her daughter's fear of getting it some day. She tells little Rebecca that Mommy will help her in every way possible. "And I will fight for a health-care system in America that will enable me to keep that promise."

Can I throw up now? Does she really comfort her own children with Democratic talking points?

The Congresswoman writes, "So the argument that America can't afford to pay for health-care reform is woefully misguided." She sold me. I was misguided. Somehow I did not consider this reform. 

Ignorance Is Strength

If anyone doubted Debbie Wasserman Schultz's dunce credentials, that misconception will be removed by reading chapter seven, "Kids Learn Best When Parents Teach First." Don't be fooled by the title. It's downhill from there.

Her conclusions are so misinformed and so idiotic, I could write an entire book in response. The overarching theme is her usual approach: big government to the rescue. Damned if she doesn't glow ecstatic over President Obama's rhetoric and blame Republicans, national and local, for systemic failures. How predictable! 

I'll provide only highlights, to avoid getting so upset I suffer an aneurism or something fatal. "Too often," Debbie writes, the education system [her term] "treats children as if they're faceless products of the assembly line of some giant factory, which is the grim legacy of No Child Left Behind." Are schools run like factories? Yes. But they have been for decades, as long ago as when Bush and I went to school. In college in the late 1960s, I read several books bemoaning these shortcomings, a couple by Jonathan Kozol. 

Nothing has improved in the interim, absolutely nothing as a result of federal intrusion into the schools. Referring to her time in Florida's state government, DWS claims that Democrats wanted to "strengthen public schools by giving them a larger portion of the state budget." I am sure that is true, just as I am sure that spending more money on failed models wastes more money.

Despite her defense of unions and the status quo, it is clear that what passes for education in this country has not advanced with the times. As with any bureaucracy, there is no incentive to innovate, so there is little innovation. The "Blob," as it is called, assures that nothing new is attempted, that teachers who do not teach, even those who violate basic codes of conduct, cannot be fired.

DWS is gleeful that vouchers were rejected by the Florida Supreme Court because they could be used at schools offering religious instruction. If such schools can help children learn more for less, that seems better than protecting public schools that cannot, just because their unions donate money to Democratic candidates exclusively. Remember, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Wasserman Schultz demands "choice," except for parents and children to decide where they can learn best.

Voucher programs are voluntary. If they attract several times the number of applicants as they can accept, perhaps there is something to them. When it comes to education choice, Democrats are the party of No.

Debbie is a staunch advocate of post-secondary school, by which she seems to mean "college." After reading her biased, defensive drivel, I wished I had not learned how to read, and considered the best way to gore out my eyes.

Economist Richard Vedder of Ohio University, and many others, have found that "college tuition rises by the precise amount of the tuition tax credit" every time the government increase subsidies. DWS's solution of more grants and more loans results in higher tuition. Am I missing something? Have colleges and universities been providing a more valuable product over the decades where their cost has risen faster than that of health-care, a field where there have been numerous advances?

I was reading For the Next Generation concurrently with Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 by Ann Coulter, which provided some respite. I happened to hit Ann's chapter on "Higher Re-education" immediately after reading Debbie's mind-numbing treatment of the same topic. Coulter reports that CNN were discussing two problems in April 2006, high gas prices and high tuition prices. "The only solution to high gas prices considered on CNN was to pay oil executives less, perhaps by federal law or order of the president. But no one ever suggested that the solution to the high price of college — far, far outpacing inflation — was to pay professors less." In fact, they wanted to increase subsidies to institutions that, Ann Coulter writes, "are designed to do nothing but turn young people into group-think liberal parasites."

DWS now sends her children to public school, which is more than can be said for most politicians and teachers. I question her assertion that teachers are dedicated professionals. Some are great. While attending a post-secondary school, I considered becoming a teacher because I wanted to help children learn. I took an Education course to test the waters, where I learned two things. 

  1. Educators [sic] are taught to follow procedures guaranteed to remove all delight from learning.

  2. The main considerations of future teachers are not education-related, they are the hours, the long and frequent vacations, the benefits, and perks like tenure.

DWS never addresses the layers of bureaucracy driving up costs but, as a government proponent, she probably finds them optimal.

It never crosses her mind that the federal government has no business being involved with local schools, only adding bureaucracy and impediments to teachers teaching. For instance, she wants to expand the Head Start program that government studies have shown have minimal impact on learning.

"Treating our nation's teachers in the same way we treat our doctors, lawyers, and other professionals is essential to upgrading the quality performance" [blah, blah, blah]. Nothing in her proposals suggests treating teachers the same way as anyone else. Do doctors and lawyers get tenure? If a doctor screws up several procedures or acts unprofessionally, can he or she continue practicing, and being paid? How about a lawyer? Thanks to the Unaffordable Care Act, American doctors are being treated like dogs are in Iran. Should we treat teachers similarly?

An ironic revelation. "During one school year, when I received a note from my son's teacher expressing concern over his 'organizational' difficulties, I requested parent-teacher conferences and we hammered out a strategy for helping him improve. They knew I was paying attention, and as a result they noticeably paid more attention to my son. Teachers are human and they respond like anyone would." So her being a state legislator with influence over their school had no impact on their response? I believe it did, teachers being human.

The only thing she does not want parents to do is send their children to private schools, especially if they are not wealthy. For rich parents like her cherished Obamas, exclusive private schools are fine.

One Path Fits All Women

Not being a woman, I probably don't rate an opinion on so-called women's issues, at least not in Debbie's book. While I am not a woman, I have met some over the years, even studied a few, so I will weigh in anyway. 

Chapter nine, "Putting the Fight Back in Women's Rights," disturbed me. Predictably, Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn't just think she speaks for all women, she believes all women think identically on what she considers "their" issues, the most obvious being "reproductive rights." Republican women who disagree with her are merely following their party's line, not expressing their real views. Without using pejorative terms, she is calling them traitors, sell-outs and liars. It would be like saying all Blacks must be Democrats.

Credit where due, it takes her over two pages before invoking the "War On Women" by Republicans. Not because of that party's lockstep position on abortion, but because they don't like some of her legislative proposals. Those sexist bastards! 

One issue DWS hammers home is "equal pay for equal work." Does disparity exist between pay for different sexes? Sometimes. But many factors determine salary, and there are differences between jobs that make "equal work" difficult to define. Equal pay for the same job seems fair, but it will continue to be elusive, and not because of the Tea Party, as the Congresswoman likes to say interminably.

She denounces human trafficking, which I'm pretty sure many Republicans oppose. However, it is not a woman's issue, since many of the victims are male. Compared to that, free birth control seems frivolous. Actually, it seems that way on its own. Americans have the right to practice birth control, not the right to free birth control.

Amusingly, DWS elevates Sandra Fluke to prophet status and rehashes her saga, selectively. Ann Coulter takes the opposite view on Ms Fluke in her book but, seriously, if fertility is not a disease, how is birth-control health care? If a woman requires contraceptive medicine to treat a disease, that is different. As far as we know, Fluke was healthy. If she is a slut, more power to her. Persons of good will, regardless of party affiliation, can agree that sluts make the world a better place.

Ideologues like Debbie, and Sandra, refuse to accept that there are valid arguments against abortion which, after all, results in a dead fetus. One can argue over when that fetus becomes a viable human life, but DWS proudly proclaims her support for late-term abortions, no matter the circumstances, preferably free. Few Americans, male or female, Republican, Independent or Democrat, support abortions after the first trimester. 

Selfishness puts the woman's "rights" ahead of the baby's in the final months of pregnancy, since the baby cannot express a preference. Presumptuousness allows so-called feminists to speak for all women. As with the federal health-care insurance entitlement, one size does not fit all persons.

Within this long, boring chapter, she salutes Hillary Clinton as an advocate for women's rights in the world, citing a feisty speech. Unfortunately, she delivered it in 1995, when she was First Lady. As Secretary of State, Hillary was painfully silent on abuse of girls and women in many parts of the world, everything from stoning to enslavement to genital mutilation. Her boss, Barack Obama, didn't want to offend Muslim thugs in some parts of the world. It is important to DWS that she never use the words "radical Islam" to explain this inhumane treatment, leaving the reader to guess the cause of what most Americans would consider despicable brutality, even worse than not providing free birth control.

She justifies abandoning her young children to launch her political career. Definitely her choice. But Ms Wasserman Schultz's problem is that she wants government to make decisions for women and families that are best handled by the women and families themselves.

Debby writes the book

I Shot the Bankers, But I Did Not Shoot the GSEs*

Her political snow-job begins with "Strengthening the Economy," chapter one, where she runs through all the Democratic Party talking points, blaming every crisis on Republicans and bankers, even if most are Democrats. No mention of Barney Frank saying we can "spin the dice" on providing mortgages to those who cannot afford them. Were Republicans irresponsible on spending? Yes. Were Democrats irresponsible on spending? Yes. 

So what? Americans are not as interested in finding scapegoats as they are in preventing reccurrences. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is interested in winning elections, so Democrats can keep running up the debt to fund ineffective programs and waste. She criticizes Bush's Medicare Part D, which was unfunded, later complains that it was insufficent. 

She loves bailouts for the rich, and stimulus bills with deceptive titles and pork-barrel spending because she has no concept of how Economics works. Maybe she skipped that class, as Obama did.  

Not only does Debbie distort, she lies. She states that GM and Chrysler paid back the loans two years following their bailout. Actually, they haven't paid them back yet, and taxpayers are about to lose about $13 billion as the government withdraws. She ignores the bondholders, mostly retirement funds, who were defrauded in the government's sweetheart deal with the unions. These are Democratic talking points she should be embarrassed to repeat. 

She touts the Dodd-Frank Act, which she would have us believe replaced "Wall Street self-regulation." There were federal regulations, they just weren't enforced, a problem under Republican and Democratic administrations. Then she brags about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an entirely unconstitutional innovation by Congressional Democrats to create a bureaucracy with no oversight. So far, this wonderful bureau has issued numerous regulations, most of which have hurt consumers as much as businesses, especially small businesses, which do not have the lawyers to explain arbitrary, complex rules.

Debbie disapproves of the sequester because it slows Washington's efforts to "continue our economic vitality by investing in education, innovation, and infrastructure." With free birth control provided by Obamacare, she could now boast that government is advancing education, innovation and fornication. Recall the shovel-ready infrastructure projects that weren't so shovel-ready, according to the President. DWS conviently overlooks that the sequester was another Obama White House failed strategy. She can portray the Democratic agenda as boosting the economy only by omitting some facts and lying about others.

I would not blame the Democrats for the nation's economic ills. Republicans have been equally negligent in exercising fiduciary responsibility. Stewardship is their job, not "fixing" the economy or influencing outcomes. DWS forgot to mention this, but I will:
A free economy thrives on government restraint, not government meddling.

Wave if you’re an Immigrant

Platitudes cross the reader in “America’s Promise to Immigrants,” chapter ten, which begins by citing the phrase: e pluribus unum. DWS mistakenly believes this refers to many persons becoming one, or something like that, when it refers to the thirteen former colonies becoming one nation. No doubt, that offends her federalist sensibilities.

There’s a lot of “diversity of both people and ideas makes America stronger” pablum. Only Democrats and other Liberals hate diversity of opinion. For Debbie, diversity stops when others disagree with her, whether on abortion, immigration or the nanny state. With historic revision, she writes that, “Often with the help of unions,” immigrants’ wages increased. Actually, unions tried to keep out immigrants, who would dilute their members’ deals. And these were legal immigrants.

Know the rules    

She points out that only Native Americans did not emigrate here. Yes, we know this is a nation of immigrants, but that does not necessarily justify open borders. This is no place to debate a complicated issue, any more than her book is. A problem today is terrorists who come here illegally or overstay their visas. DWS concentrates on talented foreigners who want to work here, like Canadian actors. They are a small part of a group encompassing millions who are unskilled, and also want to work or receive government largesse. Immigration is a problem because it is controlled by the federal government, which does nothing right. 

Of course, she presents the Obama Administration version of Arizona’s legislative response to illegal immigration. Rather than pointing out that federal ineptitude prompted SB 1070, she calls it a political ploy, as if Obama’s suing Arizona had no political motives. Then she touts the DREAM Act which, of course, Republicans refused to support, necessitating the President to do an end-run around Congress. She forgets the 2013, April fifteenth Boston bombings, and how well US immigration and law-enforcement policies dealt with two fanatical, destructive brothers from Eastern Europe. Muslims. I'm not afraid to say it.

Co-opting civil rights from Republicans

The Congresswoman argues against the PATRIOT Act. That’s fine. But she also cites polls where some Americans are willing to give up rights to be safer, a red herring because there is no evidence that we are safer from terrorists. That and the other little detail: some Americans, even a majority, cannot surrender my rights. 

After decrying the PATRIOT Act, she flips positions to defend the current Administration’s spying excesses, saying it was the Republicans’ fault for giving them so much power. Many Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act and its extensions, although it is admirable that Debbie did not. Her cause is hurt by blatant politics in statements like: 

I am confident that the Obama administration has struck the right balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting our nation’s security. By the same token, with government programs that contain such a dangerous potential for abuse, it is important to ensure that they cannot be more broadly applied by a future administration that has less regard for privacy.

In other words, Democrats can have excessive power because they mean well, Republicans will abuse it. Unquestionably, she is blind to her party’s abuses and to the corruption that stems from power.

Then there is the right to vote, which she claims is being attacked by Republican “voter suppression” laws, otherwise known as having to show a picture ID to vote. She makes it a problem without mentioning that the voter law abuses, such devices as literacy tests, poll taxes, and other Jim Crow innovations, all were administered and created by Democrats. Are there problems with voting in this country? Yes. The big problem is the artificial Democrat-Republican duopoly, which I’m guessing DWS likes because it discourages competition. She asserts that there have been no abuses requiring voter identification.

Of course there have been. The largest known abuser was ACORN, a Democratic-aligned group. Yes, Republicans are nearly as bad, but there are few things you can do in this country without a picture ID. What DWS calls voter suppression laws invariably provide for anyone to get a free ID. How that is bad is a mystery locked in the mind of the author.

Of course she expounds on same-sex marriage. Seems Debbie knows some gay couples… personally. Good for her. She forgets that the main reason homosexuals want to marry is due to onerous laws pitting married couples against single people. The states are working out this issue, federal involvement can only make it worse.

Being a philosopher-politician, Debbie also tackles the First Amendment. She observes that free speech “can be used for good when making a conscientious critique of government or culture. But it can be a force of destruction when used to slander people of a particular group.”

The point of free speech is that it can be abused. Otherwise, it isn't free. Courts decide what constitutes slander, certainly not Mrs Schultz, who constantly maligns Republicans for political gain. As Obama can confirm, freedom of speech includes the right to lie. Since DWS is Jewish, and everything revolves around her, she relates a story of dating a boy in high school. A waitress pulled him aside and admonished the lad, saying, “Why are you dating that Jew bitch?” Maybe the woman was anti-Semitic, maybe she just thought little Debbie was a bitch. We'll never know. Admittedly, the mention of her religion was gratuitous. 

So maybe Debbie wasn’t being paranoid, but when she reports that most Americans observe Christmas, and that they make only token acknowledgement of Hanukkah “because they must,” that is. The two holidays are different and no one is impelled to mention Chanukah. Fact is that Christmas is a US national holiday. Jews are a minority, Debbie, so get over it. She even recalls a girl in college who admitted that she never met a Jew before. While I shudder to think that Debbiew was her first Jew, I'm not sure how that is prejudiced. She probably grew up in Gentile-land. 

If Wasserman Schultz were so concerned about minority rights, she would have begged Harry Reid not to force the so-called nuclear option with the same deliberateness she used to get the House to pass “Jewish American Heritage Month” legislation. That was something no one needed, least of all Jews. 

For some reason, she begins her chapter, “Civil Rights: A March Without End,” with the saga of Terri Schiavo. Since she was unconscious throughout the controversy, Mrs Schiavo would have made a perfect Debbie Wasserman Schultz voter. I agree that the only government body requiring involvement was the courts because it was a dispute between relatives over whether to pull the plug on her. Terri did not have a living will, so her desire was subject to conjecture. But I don’t believe we must obsess over what DWS seems to regard as a civil right to die. The federal government have no business interfering in personal health matters — at least they didn't before Obamacare.

Another shot at the Constitution

Since Debbie Wasserman Schultz claims to be a buddy of Gabby Giffords, she has a personal connection to gun violence. Yet, she begins by describing political tensions in Arizona over several issues, particularly immigration. Then “a man stepped forward and began firing a gun at Gabby.” True, only that had nothing to do with politics, he was insane.

To be fair, she mentions the mental health causes of violence, but only in passing as she hits every Democratic talking point about gun restrictions. “Every year in the United States, more than thirty thousand Americans are killed by firearms.” Of course, this figure includes suicides and criminals shot while committing crimes. In 2012, more than thirty thousand Americans were killed in auto-related incidents. Should we institute federal car control?

She mentions that background checks can be avoided by not going to gun stores, but criminals know that and, for some reason, the lunatics who commit mass murders pass the checks. She quotes the NY Times on how the “gaping loophole” of gun shows and flea markets allow “teenagers, ordinary criminals, terrorists, Mexican drug cartels and arms traffickers” easy access to weapons. Mexican drug cartels? They can buy guns from anyone in the world, or in US gun shops with FBI help, under the same Attorney General she wants to assign oversight duties.

On mental health, she asks, “What causes someone to amass a vast supply of weapons and ammunition, then turn them on innocent people?” Perhaps they are emulating the US government. If you are keeping score, she wants no verification of identity to vote, and no restrictions on abortion, but on guns, anything goes.

This is far too important an issue to be entrusted to politicians. 

Thought-confining labels bother me. I am reminded of this whenever I read something by Ann Coulter, like her latest, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 · Especially a Republican. Terms like Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Pervert, are used so indiscriminately as to be useless. In many cases, my “liberal” might be someone else’s “conservative.” With all the issues facing us today, these terms obfuscate. 

What do they even mean? Take foreign policy. Is wanting to bomb Iran conservative, liberal or just plain nuts? Is it embracing the unavoidable? By all means, justify your opinions, but not with meaningless labels.

No Tea for Debbie

The Congresswoman’s thirteenth chapter is called “Discourse, Not Discord.” So naturally, she begins by maligning the so-called Tea Party, represented by those she labels “ultra-conservative Republicans.” Discourse is unlikely to be civil when you start by calling your opponents names. There is no question that DWS represents a super-progressive viewpoint, and that’s her right. So why don’t those opposed to massive federal control and taxes have rights?

She recapitulates one of the debt-ceiling squabbles, blaming the conflict entirely on uncompromising Republicans, claiming that raising the ceiling was never controversial before. This one was where they averted imaginary catastrophe, then Standard & Poor’s lowered the US credit rating, whose sole effect was that the Department of Justice later selectively persued them.

She provides her side of the Wasserman Schultz - Allen West feud. Reading it, I can’t help thinking that if their parties were reversed, Democrats would be calling her a racist for daring to criticise a Black Congressman. She slanders the Tea Party, saying someone in that group yelled racist comments at Black Congressional Democrat John Lewis. There was never any evidence of that occurring, despite Andrew Breitbart offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce proof. DWS perpetuating falsehoods to make Republicans and Tea Partiers look like bad people fuels the fire of hatred she claims to loathe. Taking cheap shots at Fox News for daring to present more than one side of an issue, while ignoring the hatred spewed by Obama’s lapdogs over at MSNBC, soothes no one.

Without going into the weeds, she suggests that there should be more social interaction between members of the two parties. That seems fine, as a way to reduce unpleasant encounters. But as a taxpayer, politicians getting along and compromising on everything may not be good. If one side is right, say if taxes are too high, raising them a bit less than otherwise proposed is not helpful. Politics may be a game to Debbie, but its aftershocks reverberate on millions of non-politicians, people trying to live their lives in peace.

I got bored with this book towards the end. I do agree that volunteering is good. However, volunteering for mainstream politicians is not. Politicians spend so much money on their campaigns, they should pay persons foolish enough to make calls and knock on doors for them. They seem more frugal with their own money than they are with ours.

Sadly, she touts AARP, insurance profiteers posing as a political action group for, ugh, seniors [a euphemism for old people]. Writes Debbie, “Members of Congress like myself depend on the intelligent, informed citizens at AARP to educate their members…” In other words, after working out policies with Democrats to maximize their premiums, AARP tries to persuade their members that these are great policies. Policies like stonewalling on doing anything about Social Security except wait for it to go bankrupt. 


I read this book hoping to find a glimmer of truth, rather than a rehash of Democratic Party talking points. You may think it is because I disagree with nearly everything DWS represents, but that’s not true.

I consider other views. I recently read a book by Rachel Maddow, Drift I believe. She’s an MSNBC host, very far left. I didn’t agree with everything she wrote, but was surprised to find her mostly making sense. It didn’t kill me to agree with her. I even read a book by wacky former Indian, now wacky Senator Elizabeth Warren, and her daughter, reviewed on this site. The Two-Income Trap  was not total drivel, even raised many excellent points.

For The Next Generation is a waste of paper I’ll gladly return to the library. It is unclear why the Representative wrote it because it adds nothing to politics or political discourse, while subtracting from literature. I can’t believe it will persuade anyone of anything, just thrill those who already share her loopy progressive views. It lists for $25.99, which comes to $28.33 in Pacfica, including the sin tax on learning. Admittedly, you won't be expanding your knowledge here. While the Index was unhelpful, there is a great list of organizations to avoid.  

In fairness, it isn’t poorly written and the cover photo is decent enough, but it is forgettable. At least I hope so. Writing it was good only in that it kept Debbie out of trouble for awhile. 

*GSEs are Government Sponsored Enterprises, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were instrumental in precipitating the mortgage meltdown by creating a housing bubble.





©2013 Gary Tutin

Get Back   Home   Next