Blue Eyes versus Brown Eyes

                A few years ago I read where a psychology teacher conducted an experiment by separating blue eyed students from the brown eyed students and then introduced rhetoric that pitted the blue eyes against the brown eyes.  What started in fun got suddenly personal where genuine animosity was generated between the two groups.  Each thought the other was inferior and sullied.  When the teacher tried to explain it was just an experiment and there was no reason to believe that blue eyes were anymore superior in anyway than brown eyes, it took a while for the animosity to subside. 

                What the experiment showed is how easy it is to form prejudices and biases, and how likeness gravitates towards likeness.  The political bullies of the world use this tactic to divide, manipulate and conquer. 

                My first wife had blue eyes, mine are brown.  We did not have a good marriage and eventually divorced.  I couldn’t help wonder if blue eyed women were incompatible with brown eyed men.  Of course the idea is nonsense – or is it?  My current wife is brown eyed and we get along just fine, as long as I yield to her desires.

                It seems we Homo sapiens have a predisposition to segregate and invent justifications for discriminating against others.    Take the American Indians for example, the Cheyenne raided the Dakotas and vice versa.  The Civil war was fought over economics and ideology.  The Nazis demonized then slaughtered the Jews.  The Japanese slaughtered the Chinese during War II.  But before a shot was fired, the Japanese convinced themselves that the Chinese were an inferior race that deserved to be conquered, just like the Nazis, who falsely demonized the Jews.  And the discrimination and persecution goes on.  Look at tiny Israel surrounded by Muslims who vow to wipe them off the face of the Earth, just because they are Jews, an inferior race, and because the Muslim’s mentor, Mohammad, said so. 

                The mythical Robinhood of Sherwood Forest stole from the rich and gave to the poor and in our hearts we applauded.   Butch Cassidy was thought of as a Robinhood-type, so was Jessie James.  Were they really that benevolent or was it our imagination, or was it wishful thinking.  When we turn killers and thieves into folk heroes, is it a way of projecting our own latent desires?   In other words, do we see in these folk heroes something we identify with or would like to be?  Something that may be guiltlessness, bravery, lust, or hatred. 

                There has always been antipathy between the rich and the poor, the serf and the land lord, the commoner and the nobleman, the plebeian and the aristocrat, the fief (feudal lord) and the vassal.  It is easier to create pejorative rhetoric between the rich and the poor than turning blue eyes against brown eyes.  And education doesn’t seem to matter.  The more educated you are the better equipped you are to articulate convincing derogatory insinuations.  And I think we see that very thing happening in the current political climate.

                Is it a sin to be wealthy?  Only if you are a Republican.  From the poor liberal point of view there is the assumption that wealth is always obtained at the expense of the poor.  But when a fellow Republican makes the same insinuation about another Republican, what does it tell you?  It appears that the animosity against the rich man is stronger than the rich man’s desire to create an environment where the ambitious poor can also become rich.  But it seems the envious poor isn’t interested in how the rich man gained his wealth, not even if it was due to hard work and sacrifice. 

                I remember years ago in a college class hearing the term, “philosopher kings,” government by the most intelligent.  There are currently two politicians who think that because they are the most intelligent they should rule, that they should be President of the United States.  One is already President and wants another term.  The other campaigns to take his job and portrays himself as the only one intelligent enough to do it.

                So here we have disparagement between the most intelligent and the less intelligent.  If I remember right Woodrow Wilson was thought to be very intelligent.  Dwight D Eisenhower was an average student.  FDR was a plutocrat.  Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, but Slick Willy didn’t use his intelligence to lord it over lesser intellects, besides he liked fast foods and was able to connect with the middle class.  Harry Truman was a man of principle, unafraid to do the right thing.  He was neither noted for wealth or intelligence – but smart enough to make some of the toughest decisions ever made by a President. 

                The point is we have had Presidents with blue eyes and brown eyes, wealthy presidents and just ordinarily principled Presidents.   We have had Presidents who were instrumental in building this great country like Thomas Jefferson, Presidents who under extreme stress, bloodshed and faith who held the Union together like Abraham Lincoln.  Presidents who inspired us to destroy our oppressors like FDR and Truman.  Presidents who made us economically and militarily sound like Ronald Reagan.  But our country today is teetering between socialism and capitalism.  As Americans we must choose a man who will return us to a self-sufficient economy and a strong national defense.  There are still dangerous enemies abroad and among us who hate us because of our wealth and successes – an attitude that can be traced to that ubiquitous debate between the rich and the poor, success and failure.  

                It is interesting how the GOP candidates are conducting their campaign.  The most outspoken voices in the Republican electorate are coming from the Tea Party people and the religious right.  Consequently the GOP candidates are placed in a position where they must tailor their speeches to appeal to the Tea Party and religious right.  And in an attempt to convince this powerful few that he is their man, he castigates the opponents.  But there is one thing wrong with this scenario.  Not many turned out to caucus or vote.  In fact in the case of Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado the turnout was so embarrassing low,  4% and less.  Why?  Could it be apathy or a message from the Republican (silent) majority that they don’t like how the campaign is being conducted? 

                I fear that when the idealistic Republican voters demand that their candidate conform absolutely to their ideals,  ideal takes precedence over winning the general election.  Put another way, ideal takes precedence over practicality.  It is a blue eye/brown eye characterization.  It must be their way or no way – blue or brown - because their way, although it has merit, it is a minority way.

                Of the four remaining candidates one is more practical than the others.  One naively believes that if America isolates itself the rest of the world will leave us alone.  Another is a remnant of the philosopher kings, cunning and wise to the ins and outs of Washington politics.  The current leader of the pack, according to the polls, was a United States Senator and at the moment seems to most epitomize the vision of the Tea Party and religious right.  He is practical except when it comes to disparaging the competition.  He seems to think that the way to rise to the top is by belittling his conservative opponents.  Like Glen Beck, it is sometime difficult to tell if he is talking politics or preaching Christianity – as if belief and worship of Jesus Christ is a winning strategy and qualifies one to be President. 

                Once the fault finding started it became epidemic, over shadowing the practical, the solutions and the visions to recover American greatness.  And like a chorus, they chastise the most practical among them for being successful and making money.  They blame his political successes, like the win in Florida and Nevada, on his ability to raise money to publish negative ads, as if they wouldn’t do the same if they had the ability. 

                I am not a Mormon, but was one once, and probably know more about the religion than most true believers.  Although I question Mormon authority, as I question all religious authority, I embrace their virtue and values.   Religion is like the blue and brown eye disputations, except where Mormons are concerned, with some super righteous Christians, Mormon eyes are black, but political correctness prevents them from saying it publically.  So they find more politically correct slander with which to smear Mitt Romney.  

                Mitt Romney is very much as religious as Rick Santorum and very much a family man, but how often do you hear him touting his Christian roots?  When have you heard him suggest he is more Christian than the others? 

                I think Mitt Romney is the best equipped to kick Barak Obama out of the White House.  He has both secular and executive experience.  He has been successful and knows what it takes to be successful in the public sector.  He knows what is needed to create jobs.  I believe him when he says he will repeal Obama Care.  I believe him when he says he will do whatever is necessary to create jobs and balance the budget.  I believe him when he says he will stand up to China and Islamic imperialism.  And I believe him when he says he will stand by Israel and secure our borders.  And I believe him when he says he will build a military so strong and ferocious that no hostile nation will dare challenge it.  And I think Mitt Romney has the credentials and the pluck to shrink big government.  And lastly, if Mitt Romney will adhere and conform to LDS attributes he should make a great president, for he has the personality and stature to go along with it. 

                And what are Latter-day Saint attributes:  a self-sufficient work ethic, strong family values, charity, honesty, clean living, the Golden Rule and patriotism.  Are not these the same attributes of the Tea Party and religious right?  You may not like how Mormons find Jesus, that is their path to Jesus, but their Americanism and virtues are above dispute because they are synonymous with the Christian values hailed by most Christian sects.  Furthermore, LDS patriots firmly believe in separation of church and state.  Mitt Romney will show no more attention to the LDS Church than he will Catholicism or any other Christian faith.  

                In conclusion, the eyes of LDS Church members are not black, they are shades of blue and brown.   

                 PS:  In watching the news tonight, as the price at the gas pumps keep going up, along with everything else that’s dependent upon fuel, like the transportation of food, there are more of the middle class joining the ranks of the poor, than middle class joining the ranks of the rich.  Under the Obama administration the middle class is being decimated.  With the price at the gas pump rising, the cost to heat our houses and keep the lights on climbing, it doesn’t leave much left over for food, clothes and entertainment.   If Obama is not kicked out of office by the time of his second term there will only be two classes in America, the rich and the poor.