The web-site Oh!pinion reports that in Mason City, Iowa, the North Iowa Tea Party has a billboard showing pictures of Hitler and Lenin, and, in between, a picture of President Obama.  The title on the billboard seems a classic example of projection:  “Radical Leaders Prey On the Fearful and Naive.”

“Projection,” according to Freudian psychology, is “a psychological defense mechanism whereby one ‘projects’ one’s own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else.”

Many right wing leaders manipulate the fearful and naive, and the more successful they are in ginning up fear and misinformation, the more money they make and the more political power they gain.

Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are making millions. There is a whole boatload of radical right wingers who seem only interested in their own gain and who have found a way to manipulate the fearful and naive to help their own self promotion. This billboard headline is pretty funny when seen in that light.

The Tea Party, in this ridiculous slam at Obama, projects onto Obama what, in fact, propels and motivates much of the leadership of the right wing and the Tea Party movement, itself. It manages to reveal the truth of what it does so well — “Prey on the fearful and naive.”

Update: According to this source:

“A billboard in Mason City that pictured President Obama flanked by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and communist leader Vladimir Lenin has been papered over this morning.”

David Esrati, on his web-site, makes reference to a Boston.com post, by Scott Kirsner, that suggests that New England should adopt a “mission statement.” Esrati says, “There is nothing wrong with stealing good ideas.”

This is Kirsner’s suggestion for a “mission statement” for New England:

1. Attract, educate, and retain the smartest people in the world.
2. Support them in solving important problems, developing innovative products, and building successful businesses.
3. Share what we’re doing with the rest of the world.
4. Keep getting better at Items #1-#3.

Kirsner’s suggestions stirred up some discussion on the Boston.com web-site, and Esrati’s web-site, but I’m surprised that none of the comments challenge the notion, whether or not, that Kirsner’s suggestion, in fact, is appropriate to be called a “mission statement.”

A “mission statement,” according to Wikipedia, “should guide the actions of the organization, spell out its overall goal, provide a sense of direction, and guide decision-making.”   It hardly seems to make sense that the “mission” — the “overall goal” — of an entire region like New England should be to “Attract, educate, and retain the smartest people in the world.”

I thought the overall goal of New England, or Dayton, or any region in America, has already been established, and is what we frequently affirm — “liberty and justice for all.”

I’m sure that totalitarian states like North Korea would like to harness “the smartest people” so that they will solve problems, develop products, increase their overall competitiveness, put people to work, etc.  Every Stalinist State, of course, seeks to find talented and hard working people who will throw themselves into zealous cooperation to advance the “mission” of the State.

But getting people fired up, educated, motivated — especially “smart people” — is not the “mission” of a Stalinist State, nor of democratic state.  It is a means toward an end, the means to achieving an overall goal.

I’m guessing that when Kirsner says the “mission” of New England should be to, “Attract, educate, and retain the smartest people in the world,” he is emphasizing that New England needs to cultivate effective leadership to solve problems, build businesses, make technological breakthroughs.  But his idea sounds very topdown — we (the powerful) are looking for “smart people” to give authority and privilege to.  It’s a concept that is embraced by every Stalinist.

To fulfill our stated goal of “liberty and justice for all,” topdown cannot work. We need bottom-up, grassroots approaches.  Nobody would have thought to “attract” or to solicit the Wright brothers, or Thomas Edison.  These successful problem solvers, ground breaking leaders, probably would not have fulfilled the definition of “smart,” agreed to by the powerful of their time.

The emphasis should not be on cultivating an elite, as Kirsner’s “mission statement” suggests, but on vitalizing our democracy.  In a vitalized democracy each person would have the resources and the opportunity to grow into his or her potential, each person would be nurtured and encouraged by an interconnected and enriched community.  In a democracy, greatness and leadership bubbles up, it is not imposed by some authority who somehow discerns who is “smart” or who is worthy.

Kirsner is absolutely correct. Not only New England, but Dayton and all of America needs authentic leadership — really in every endeavor — in government, business, science, education, religion.  Our failure to allow authentic leadership to rise in our society is a huge problem.  The answer is not through further gearing up elitism, that is already rampant, but through vitalizing our democracy.

For Our Future’s Sake, We Must Transform Our System of Elitism To a System of Democracy
Our Democracy Must Be Revived — If We Hope To Achieve The Dreams of Our Wisest and Best

In yesterday’s Special Democratic Primary, 30% fewer voters participated in Montgomery County than in the last Special Primary in September, 2006.  This big reduction in voting rate must be blamed on the fact that in a money saving move, only four polling places were open in the entire county.  There are 310 precincts in the county.

The Montgomery County Board of Election (MCBOE) shows 5104 votes were cast in Montgomery County for a voting rate of 1.57%.   In the last Special Democratic Primary on September 15, 2006 — between Dick Chema and Charles Sanders — there were 7106 votes in Montgomery County, for a voting rate of 2.26%.  This loss of 2002 voters is a 30% decrease, and this big suppression of voting could well have impacted this election.

Joe Roberts won with 2,491 votes; Guy Fogle came in second with 2,093 votes.  David Esrati received 1,063 votes.

I’m disappointed that the Democratic members of the MCBOE agreed to the four regional voting center structure.  This was approved by the state, but the decision to make this big and experimental change happened at the local level. This strategy saved $250,000 for the state, but it did nothing for Montgomery County — except depress turnout and degrade the importance of this election.

David Esrati on his web-site has an interesting analysis, entitled “Centralized Disenfranchisement,” that points out a lot of problems with this Special Election.

Here is the chart as shown on Ohio’s Secretay of State’s Web-site.