Winning all the Time?  Not gonna happen

By Gene Hall

Today we will compare our broken political discourse with our favorite football team. Mine is Texas A&M. I want to win. I want to go 14-0 and put a national championship trophy in the case. I want every Aggie possession to result in scoring. I refuse to accept that Aggie opponents score, ever again, or gain another yard. I want the scoreboard at Kyle Field to explode keeping up with Aggie points.

Now back to reality. Even though I would prefer undefeated seasons and championships, I am adjusted to the fact that it’s not possible all the time. Even vaunted Alabama lost two games last season. I can take pleasure in winning eight or nine of 12 games.

But when it comes to our politics, we condition ourselves to reject many things we want, holding out for everything we want. Is that realistic? We wind up with nothing. There are many serious problems in this country. Immigration reform is a big one. Because no one will give an inch, we can’t do anything. That’s hurting the country.

Of course, one day I want that championship, but I hope to enjoy some wins along the way. Ronald Reagan governed that way. He strategically yielded to his opponents strengths, and overwhelmed their weaknesses. Reagan never went undefeated, but he had an impressive showing in the political equivalent of “nine games or better seasons.” Bill Clinton played politics the same way with the same results.

As for the country, the stakes are a lot higher than in any football game ever played—even my Fighting Texas A&M Aggies.

Gene Hall

Public Relations Director
Texas Farm Bureau
I believe that the only hope for a food secure world is capitalism and reasonable profits for America’s farm and ranch families–that the first element of sustainability is economic survival.
Follow Gene on Twitter and Facebook.

6 Responses to “Winning all the Time? Not gonna happen”

  1. Ronald Reagan might have strategically yielded to his opponents at times so he could overwhelm their weaknesses. But when it came to fighting Communism Reagan was not willing to concede an inch.

    As governor of California, and later as America’s most-successful president, he was willing to negotiate with Democrats. But when he met with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, he held fast to his vision of developing America’s Strategic Defense Initiative. And no mater what Gorbachev tried offering him, he refused to give it up. 5 years later, Gorbachev’s Soviet Union collapsed.

    So please Gene, be careful when you suggest conceding anything to the enemies of freedom. If we are committed we can achieve anything.

    • Gene Hall says:

      It does not appear to me that we have much to argue about, Micsha. Of course, not every issue rises to the level of Communist oppression. My point is this, when folks make what is ordered for breakfast a matter of principle, it devolves into silliness. I don’t care how committed any faction is, many of these issues will not be solved without compromise. And… I’m “careful” enough that want a peek at your enemies list before I jump on the bandwagon.

      • Let’s take the anti-GMO organic movement as a case in point. Are you willing to compromise to them?

        • Gene Hall says:

          You always put both together. My answer is maybe. It depends on the issue and there is nothing I hate more than answering hypothetical questions. The, “Oh yeah, then what about this?” argument is one that movement likes to play. I have said before that organics and GMO science can learn from one another – running both ways. You will always be able to find things where there is no room for compromise. I’m talking about things where there are. If someone is shooting at me or advocating overthrow of the government, then they are an enemy. Otherwise, we just disagree and shame on me if I’m not willing to talk.

          • All right. No hypotheticals then.

            Let’s take GMO labelling. Are you for, or against it? and are you willing to compromise with those who want it?

  2. “Today we will compare our broken political discourse with our favorite football team.”

    Amazing analogy, Mr Hall.

    What is broken about “our political discourse”?

    Taxpayers are speaking out, loud and clear, though you may not like their opinions.

    Serious question. What percentage of U.S. citizens trust the current Congress to reinvent our immigration laws while most informed citizens understand that the old laws haven’t been uniformly enforced in over a decade?

    Perhaps you are invested in supporting an industry that needs a continual, over-supply of fresh, subservient workers in order to keep labor sufficiently inexpensive to be able to compete with foreign competitors?

    Those of us who continue living in small rural communities where large numbers of minimum wage workers are needed see what happens to these “migrants”. The second generation reject the way of life their parents chose.

    With the benefit of their free education and knowledge of the generous entitlement system U.S. taxpayers provide, they no longer need to labor in the fields.

    The few American ag interests who need high volumes of this type of labor refuse to consider the economic damage their labor force does to small communities, in the off season.

    ANY immigration reform MUST include major, ironclad entitlement reform or U.S. taxpayers will simply continue to reject it.

    Most folks who know the ag industry understand the conundrum, and that there are no easy answers. Some of us particularly resent that the PR onslaught for “immigration reform” keeps coming up, like a petulant child whines incessantly after being told “NO!”.

    Particularly hilarious is the Op-ed three giant crony corporatist published last week in a major U.S. newspaper. Their appeal wasn’t to the American public, but to Congress. Does that not demonstrate a major disconnect in our Constitutional system? They were asking our elitist overlords to override the wisdom of the citizenry, in order that they who preside over the top of the economic pyramid, could make greater profits.

    We the People will not be “worn down” by the continual barrage of the hate-mongering PR machine who plays the race card repeatedly to try to silence us, therefore I suggest those interest in need of inexpensive labor should reinvent their own business model.

    The mega-growers with the most political clout repeatedly threaten to go offshore with their food production operations. I believe America is ready to call their bluff. Some of us believe that a few large entities addicted to huge profits will be replaced with smaller, more hands-on operations which don’t demand such high administrative overhead.

    We understand “economy of scale” theory, however what we actually have in several sectors of ag production is very close to monopoly. Competition is never bad. It keeps the producer on his toes, and the consumer in reasonably priced goods.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>