I had an epiphany yesterday. Republicans in the House have voted to repeal the ACA 46 times and not once have they offered an alternative. The reason that they have not offered a reasonable alternative to Obamacare is because Obamacare was their idea. Yep. Back in 1974, the Nixon administration proposed an insurance program where all employers would provide insurance for all of their workers or face a fine. The poor would be added to an expanded Medicare and small businesses and low income folk would receive a government subsidy to help cover their insurance costs. It failed because Democrats wanted a public system rather than one based on private insurers. In 1989 the Heritage Foundation proposed a law with an individual mandate requiring everyone to purchase insurance and that feature began showing up in Republican proposals for healthcare reform up until Newt Gingrich made it a centerpiece of his agenda when he was Speaker. All of this on the federal level. Then, of course, Romney established a very similar plan in Massachusetts on the state level. Obamacare is a Republican program. A Democratic program would have centered on a public option with a single payer. The ACA is not socialized medicine, it is a program based on the private sector.
There are other options to the ACA. I prefer a single payer, public program. I think that is the only way to address the myriads of problems in our healthcare delivery system. There was no way the Republicans would have voted for truly socialized healthcare and there were enough Dems who would have sided with them that it was an idea that was dead in the water regardless of whether or not it might have been the best idea. It never even made it to the table for discussion.
I have heard two other options mentioned by some.
Leave the system alone. That is fine if you are someone who has good insurance from your employer without a large employee contribution or never experience any illnesses or accidents that cause injuries. It leaves out the folk who have no insurance or are under-insured. It causes many people to forgo treatment until it is too late and sends others to the most expensive healthcare option of all, the emergency room. It leaves those out who have pre-existing conditions which preclude them
from purchasing insurance (and there is no way to stop insurance
companies from excluding pre-existing conditions without an individual
mandate). And regardless of what folk say, healthcare does not work like any other "free market" industry so in this option there is no way to slow the runaway price increases we've all experienced. Leaving it alone is not an option that I can see as making any sense at all.
I've recently seen multiple folk advocating another option which I find sickening (excuse the pun). They are arguing that we do away with insurance completely. Healthcare would become like any other commodity on the market with individuals bargaining with physicians and hospitals when needed, health care going only to those who can afford it, and the "free" market running its course. In their minds, those who are healthy would not have to subsidize those who are not and those who are not in this scenario are always caricatured as irresponsible folk whose poor choices are causing their problems. While there are many who do not need regular doctor visits or medications and think they can go without insurance, one accident or unexpected illness changes everything in a heartbeat. Those folk argue that a free market would bring down costs, but never imagine the ridiculousness of sitting in the emergency room with a broken bone sticking through their flesh while arguing with the doctor about the costs or leaving to go 55 miles to another hospital that treats heart attacks more inexpensively. I presume they would argue that anyone arriving at the hospital must pay in advance or not receive treatment. Without that stricture, who would pay for those who receive treatment and never pay? Most of all, this kind of idea completely excludes any sense of community and the greater good for the entire community. I can't help but think of politicians in New York and Colorado who argued against government disaster funds until their communities were struck by Sandy and terrible floods and they saw the light that we really are all in this together. The only folk for whom this option works are the very, very, very few who never get sick or injured or the extremely wealthy.
Are there other options that I've missed? Realistic ones that preserve a sense of community? I agree the ACA is not the best option. I would even agree that it does not represent any sense of a compromise. In spite of the fact that it was passed by the Dems, it is a completely Republican idea that Democrats supported, expecting that Republicans would own the baby they birthed. They did not. And they offered no reasonable alternatives... because their proposal was already on the table.
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
the problem with small government
The problem with small government is that there are big problems. We saw that this week in a major way. Sandy barreled down on the northeast and the damage is astounding. There is no way that the strapped states could meet the needs of their devastated populations. Many of them have provisions in their constitutions that they must have balanced budgets so the only way they could address the problems of a natural disaster like Sandy would be to decimate all of their programs. It simply would not work without obscene human costs.
Beyond that, when we have people in leadership whose basic assumption is that government is a bad thing that needs to be shrunk until it is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, it doesn't matter whether they are skilled and competent or not. They will not respond in an adequate way. We saw that after Katrina when FEMA blew it big time. There were reasons even beyond the incompetence of the leadership (and they were incompetent). They simply didn't see it as their job. The response was inadequate and many areas of the gulf still have not recovered. On the other end of the spectrum, we see the Obama administration who put FEMA resources in place as soon as it became clear that Sandy would be horrific. They began to make contacts with the governors and building coalitions to get things done before the storm hit. Even Gov. Christie of New Jersey praised the Obama administration for their efficiency at addressing the problems. He also said that he is expecting significant funds from the federal government to help meet the needs of his state.
Romney implied during the primary debates that FEMA should be privatized or at least that the responsibilities it owns be passed down to the state level. Republicans significantly cut funding to FEMA over the past few years and Ryan's budget calls for further cuts. All of that is while holding the recent memory of Katrina. They simply do not believe it is their job to help out in times like this. The responsibility is given to the states, who simply cannot address the biggest issues. The expectation is that charities and the private sector would help. We saw how that worked with Katrina. Faithful volunteers spent hundreds of thousands of hours helping out and slowly drifted away as the months passed. Some are still working there but they cannot begin to address the problems that persist 7 years later. The private sector? The casinos went back up on the gulf coast in a matter of months. Housing for poor folk? Still waiting to be constructed.
The next time you hear a Tea Party person claim we need smaller government, remember the images of New Jersey and New York and ask them, "If we didn't have a big government, who would help in times like this?" They very well may answer that folk are on their own... that is not a country where I want to live.
Beyond that, when we have people in leadership whose basic assumption is that government is a bad thing that needs to be shrunk until it is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, it doesn't matter whether they are skilled and competent or not. They will not respond in an adequate way. We saw that after Katrina when FEMA blew it big time. There were reasons even beyond the incompetence of the leadership (and they were incompetent). They simply didn't see it as their job. The response was inadequate and many areas of the gulf still have not recovered. On the other end of the spectrum, we see the Obama administration who put FEMA resources in place as soon as it became clear that Sandy would be horrific. They began to make contacts with the governors and building coalitions to get things done before the storm hit. Even Gov. Christie of New Jersey praised the Obama administration for their efficiency at addressing the problems. He also said that he is expecting significant funds from the federal government to help meet the needs of his state.
Romney implied during the primary debates that FEMA should be privatized or at least that the responsibilities it owns be passed down to the state level. Republicans significantly cut funding to FEMA over the past few years and Ryan's budget calls for further cuts. All of that is while holding the recent memory of Katrina. They simply do not believe it is their job to help out in times like this. The responsibility is given to the states, who simply cannot address the biggest issues. The expectation is that charities and the private sector would help. We saw how that worked with Katrina. Faithful volunteers spent hundreds of thousands of hours helping out and slowly drifted away as the months passed. Some are still working there but they cannot begin to address the problems that persist 7 years later. The private sector? The casinos went back up on the gulf coast in a matter of months. Housing for poor folk? Still waiting to be constructed.
The next time you hear a Tea Party person claim we need smaller government, remember the images of New Jersey and New York and ask them, "If we didn't have a big government, who would help in times like this?" They very well may answer that folk are on their own... that is not a country where I want to live.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Mormonism in the news and the ballot box
Let me begin with a disclaimer. Being a Mormon (or a Muslim, an Athiest, a Unitarian, a Bahai, or whatever else) does not disqualify an individual from running for president. At the same time a candidate's religious commitments or lack thereof can certainly be considered when an individual decides for whom they will vote. All of that has nothing to do with this post.
A second disclaimer... while there are lots of Mormons in the area where I live and the property owned by the church I serve shares a boundary with a Mormon church, I don't have any friends who are Mormon. I do have some acquaintances who are Mormon. The Mormon folk I know are nice people. As a community, the hold some values that I admire. They care deeply about their families (even if the definition is a lot more narrow than mine). They care for one another in community and are there for one another when there is need. They take their faith seriously and live it... a two year commitment to mission work is a serious thing. They do have some values that I find problematic as well. The misogyny built into their theology, the belief in American exceptionalism, and a general secrecy about their faith that borders on and perhaps is at times dishonest all trouble me.
And an affirmation. My personal theology is not exclusive. I affirm the truths in other religions and deeply appreciate what they can teach me as a person of faith. In addition to a variety of different brands of Christians, I have friends who are Muslim, Bahai, Jewish, and Hindu. I also have friends who are agnostic and others who are atheist. I learn from all of them and I am glad they are all part of my life.
Last week the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed Mormonism from the list of cults on their website. It was clearly a political move as Franklin Graham, Billy's son, has been an outspoken opponent of Obama and there have been many evangelicals who have been reticent about voting for a member of a cult for president. Remove any mentions of Mormons as a cult and perhaps remove a bit of that reticence among some evangelical voters. Early in the campaign a PAC supporting Romney made a television ad raising the issue of Obama's ties with Jeremiah Wright and the brand of Afro-centric Liberation Theology preached at Trinity UCC Church in Chicago. Romney quickly asked that the ad be dropped and it was. He clearly was worried that issues of religion would cause large numbers of evangelicals to stay home on election day if they learned more about Mormonism. Coinciding with the removal of the cult definition, Romney brought up his faith at the end of the second presidential debate.
Mormons are not Christians... at least not in any traditional use of that descriptor in spite of the fact that they call themselves Christian. Yes, a person named Jesus is central to their faith, but that could be said about other non-Christian religions as well. Jesus appears in Islam and is affirmed in many eastern religions but that does not make them "Christian."
Let me just point to two different Mormon doctrines that take them clearly outside of historical Christianity. First is a little saying "As God was, man is, as God is, man may become." Some folk may see parallels here to the traditional Christian idea of the incarnation, but it does go far beyond that idea. This is a Mormon idea that each man can evolve into a god and that God was once like we are now and evolved into whatever God now is.
Second, Mormons are polytheists. Christians have always called themselves monotheistic and placed themselves in the same traditions as Jews and Muslims. Now, some Jews and Muslims might raise questions regarding Christian monotheism we struggle to make sense of the Trinity, but Mormons again clearly believe something beyond that. Joseph Smith taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods. Other Mormon profits have affirmed numerous times that there are many gods with each world having its own god. You can also see that theme in the previous paragraph. If we all (men) can become gods, then there clearly are multiple gods. Indeed, one prophet, Orson Pratt, said that there are more gods than there are particles of matter.
I do not know whether or not one should include Mormons in a list of cults. I guess that becomes a matter of definition. I would say that they clearly should not be included in any historical definition of Christianity.
Should that affect your vote? Only you can decide that. There are Mormon politicians whom I respect and for whom I might vote - Jon Huntsman would be one. There are politicians who call themselves Christian for whom I would never vote. George Bush was one. Romney? Sure, you can consider his religion if you want, but more importantly, look at his policies and both his expressed values and the things he has said and done in the past... vote accordingly... just don't vote for him because he is a Christian. He isn't. He is a Mormon. For that matter, don't vote for Obama because he is a Christian. He is. Instead, look at is policies, his expressed values, his actions, and the things he has said and vote accordingly.
A second disclaimer... while there are lots of Mormons in the area where I live and the property owned by the church I serve shares a boundary with a Mormon church, I don't have any friends who are Mormon. I do have some acquaintances who are Mormon. The Mormon folk I know are nice people. As a community, the hold some values that I admire. They care deeply about their families (even if the definition is a lot more narrow than mine). They care for one another in community and are there for one another when there is need. They take their faith seriously and live it... a two year commitment to mission work is a serious thing. They do have some values that I find problematic as well. The misogyny built into their theology, the belief in American exceptionalism, and a general secrecy about their faith that borders on and perhaps is at times dishonest all trouble me.
And an affirmation. My personal theology is not exclusive. I affirm the truths in other religions and deeply appreciate what they can teach me as a person of faith. In addition to a variety of different brands of Christians, I have friends who are Muslim, Bahai, Jewish, and Hindu. I also have friends who are agnostic and others who are atheist. I learn from all of them and I am glad they are all part of my life.
Last week the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed Mormonism from the list of cults on their website. It was clearly a political move as Franklin Graham, Billy's son, has been an outspoken opponent of Obama and there have been many evangelicals who have been reticent about voting for a member of a cult for president. Remove any mentions of Mormons as a cult and perhaps remove a bit of that reticence among some evangelical voters. Early in the campaign a PAC supporting Romney made a television ad raising the issue of Obama's ties with Jeremiah Wright and the brand of Afro-centric Liberation Theology preached at Trinity UCC Church in Chicago. Romney quickly asked that the ad be dropped and it was. He clearly was worried that issues of religion would cause large numbers of evangelicals to stay home on election day if they learned more about Mormonism. Coinciding with the removal of the cult definition, Romney brought up his faith at the end of the second presidential debate.
Mormons are not Christians... at least not in any traditional use of that descriptor in spite of the fact that they call themselves Christian. Yes, a person named Jesus is central to their faith, but that could be said about other non-Christian religions as well. Jesus appears in Islam and is affirmed in many eastern religions but that does not make them "Christian."
Let me just point to two different Mormon doctrines that take them clearly outside of historical Christianity. First is a little saying "As God was, man is, as God is, man may become." Some folk may see parallels here to the traditional Christian idea of the incarnation, but it does go far beyond that idea. This is a Mormon idea that each man can evolve into a god and that God was once like we are now and evolved into whatever God now is.
Second, Mormons are polytheists. Christians have always called themselves monotheistic and placed themselves in the same traditions as Jews and Muslims. Now, some Jews and Muslims might raise questions regarding Christian monotheism we struggle to make sense of the Trinity, but Mormons again clearly believe something beyond that. Joseph Smith taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods. Other Mormon profits have affirmed numerous times that there are many gods with each world having its own god. You can also see that theme in the previous paragraph. If we all (men) can become gods, then there clearly are multiple gods. Indeed, one prophet, Orson Pratt, said that there are more gods than there are particles of matter.
I do not know whether or not one should include Mormons in a list of cults. I guess that becomes a matter of definition. I would say that they clearly should not be included in any historical definition of Christianity.
Should that affect your vote? Only you can decide that. There are Mormon politicians whom I respect and for whom I might vote - Jon Huntsman would be one. There are politicians who call themselves Christian for whom I would never vote. George Bush was one. Romney? Sure, you can consider his religion if you want, but more importantly, look at his policies and both his expressed values and the things he has said and done in the past... vote accordingly... just don't vote for him because he is a Christian. He isn't. He is a Mormon. For that matter, don't vote for Obama because he is a Christian. He is. Instead, look at is policies, his expressed values, his actions, and the things he has said and vote accordingly.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Political speech
I vote religiously (in both ways - in every election and in ways that reflect my faith). I think it is an important thing to do as a civic responsibility and as a steward of the future.
This coming election strikes me as being especially important. While things have certainly been worse, the country feels as if it is sitting on the knife edge. The two candidates, especially since Romney chose Paul Ryan as his VP, have radically different agendas and understandings of the direction we should go. If a Romney/Ryan ticket won the election and if the Tea Party was able to get a few more votes in congress, we could see a radically different country than the one I love in a very short number of years. Add the possibility of the next president getting to choose as many as three members of the Supreme Court and this becomes a very important election in which everyone should vote.
There are multiple streams in this election cycle that deeply sadden me.
The political discourse has become polarized to the point that there is little real discussion of the substantive issues. Clear facts are dismissed out of hand. Political leaders on the Republican side have stated that their primary goal is not to do right by the people but to ensure that Obama does not win again. I am struck by the quick name-calling against Obama - Socialist, Marxist, Terrorist, America Hater... which feels more intense to me than I have experienced before. My gut says that the degree of animus can only be based in racism but that is another post.
Both sides are throwing around inaccurate statements, although it seems to me that the Republicans are a bit more loose with the truth. Still, both sides have trafficked in inaccuracies and at times, down right lies. I know politicians "stretch the truth," but again, it feels worse to me than I have experienced before.
The money being spent... could do sooooo much good elsewhere. Think how many teachers could be hired with the money spent on each one of those attack ads. The amount of money being spent by billionaires is just obscene. That the SCOTUS equated that with free speech boggles the mind.
Now, this year I am doing something I have never done before - I am making a campaign contribution. I can't give $1 million like Bill Maher did or even less like Sheldon Adelson who has pledged as much as $100 million to defeat Obama and reportedly has already given over $50 million.
I believe in freedom of speech and have no problem with Mr. Adelson supporting whatever candidate he likes. Here's my question... why is his speech allowed to be so much "louder" than mine? If we put this analogy back to its origins, we see how silly the situation has become. Back in the day, free speech was just that. I could get my soapbox and go out to the corner and speak. I could shout... but only so loud. The physicality of it enabled a real exchange. The woman who disagreed with me could get her soapbox as well and we could have a lively debate or at least any audience could hear both sides of the issue. This just isn't possible when Mr. Adelson is able to speak at a volume 1,000,000 times louder than me. Limiting the amount he can give to a candidate does not limit his free speech, it only limits the volume and ensures that mine can still be heard.
A friend of mine was a part of a Black Muslim group back in the 70's that had a saying, "He who talks loudest gets over." This year the SCOTUS has institutionalized that saying... and that is not a good thing for the state of political discourse or for our country.
This coming election strikes me as being especially important. While things have certainly been worse, the country feels as if it is sitting on the knife edge. The two candidates, especially since Romney chose Paul Ryan as his VP, have radically different agendas and understandings of the direction we should go. If a Romney/Ryan ticket won the election and if the Tea Party was able to get a few more votes in congress, we could see a radically different country than the one I love in a very short number of years. Add the possibility of the next president getting to choose as many as three members of the Supreme Court and this becomes a very important election in which everyone should vote.
There are multiple streams in this election cycle that deeply sadden me.
The political discourse has become polarized to the point that there is little real discussion of the substantive issues. Clear facts are dismissed out of hand. Political leaders on the Republican side have stated that their primary goal is not to do right by the people but to ensure that Obama does not win again. I am struck by the quick name-calling against Obama - Socialist, Marxist, Terrorist, America Hater... which feels more intense to me than I have experienced before. My gut says that the degree of animus can only be based in racism but that is another post.
Both sides are throwing around inaccurate statements, although it seems to me that the Republicans are a bit more loose with the truth. Still, both sides have trafficked in inaccuracies and at times, down right lies. I know politicians "stretch the truth," but again, it feels worse to me than I have experienced before.
The money being spent... could do sooooo much good elsewhere. Think how many teachers could be hired with the money spent on each one of those attack ads. The amount of money being spent by billionaires is just obscene. That the SCOTUS equated that with free speech boggles the mind.
Now, this year I am doing something I have never done before - I am making a campaign contribution. I can't give $1 million like Bill Maher did or even less like Sheldon Adelson who has pledged as much as $100 million to defeat Obama and reportedly has already given over $50 million.
I believe in freedom of speech and have no problem with Mr. Adelson supporting whatever candidate he likes. Here's my question... why is his speech allowed to be so much "louder" than mine? If we put this analogy back to its origins, we see how silly the situation has become. Back in the day, free speech was just that. I could get my soapbox and go out to the corner and speak. I could shout... but only so loud. The physicality of it enabled a real exchange. The woman who disagreed with me could get her soapbox as well and we could have a lively debate or at least any audience could hear both sides of the issue. This just isn't possible when Mr. Adelson is able to speak at a volume 1,000,000 times louder than me. Limiting the amount he can give to a candidate does not limit his free speech, it only limits the volume and ensures that mine can still be heard.
A friend of mine was a part of a Black Muslim group back in the 70's that had a saying, "He who talks loudest gets over." This year the SCOTUS has institutionalized that saying... and that is not a good thing for the state of political discourse or for our country.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Romney & Religion
 |
| LDS Temple in Salt Lake City |
The cynic in me says that the reason for this was not because he felt the ads were out of line, but because he was worried that if religious questions come to the forefront of this campaign, his own Mormon faith would be under the magnifying glass. There are lots of evangelical Christians who already have problems with a Mormon president, to add more doubts to that piece of the picture would, I believe, be very damaging to Romney. He needs the Christian Right and underscoring Mormon doctrines, history, and even his own family story of faith would not be helpful with that constituency or with more secular folk.
I think that Mormonism should come under the magnifying glass, especially with regards to Romney's commitment to his faith and the way that would play out in social policy, ethics, and in who Mitt Romney is... Likewise, I think it is not a bad thing for people to wrestle with the ideas of Black Liberation Theology and the role that tradition plays in Obama's formation and ethics. I do see at least some of that tradition playing out in Obama and it makes sense to me to understand that when I make a decision about whether to vote for him.
I have no idea how serious Mitt Romney is about his Mormon faith at this point in his life. I do know that he did his missionary work and that he continues to give substantial amounts of money to his church. I also don't know a lot about Mormonism. I do have impressions about the way that religion sees its relationship to the government and that makes me a little nervous. From the little I think I know, I'd be very nervous about a seriously committed Mormon as POTUS. I'd like to hear more about Romney's relationship to the teachings of his church and to see more of those teachings made public.
On the other hand, I know a good bit about the various strains of Liberation Theology and feel quite comfortable with the way that theology would and does interact with politics. Indeed, I wish that Obama had shown deeper roots in that tradition and stronger commitments to it during his first term.
I'm not arguing that a Mormon or a Wiccan or a Presbyterian or an Atheist or whatever cannot be POTUS. I am arguing that a candidate's faith or lack thereof are a part of the package that must be considered when we go into the ballot box. I'd like to know more regarding Romney and his Mormon faith.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
why I won't vote for any of the Republicans
OK... anyone who knows me knows that there is a simple answer - BECAUSE THEY'RE REPUBLICANS! There are clearly some Republican stands that do not work for me. In my estimation, they are all too quick to throw the poor under the bus and to shred the little safety net we have. As a party, they have focused on what I think is the wrong issue when they talk about the deficit while what we really need are jobs. Yes, yes, yes, the Dems are not much better, but they are a little better. So here are a few of my reasons with each of the four remaining candidates.
Newt... character counts. He has none. We can look at his hypocrisy as he claims to be a "family values" candidate while having done more to sully marriage than anyone I have ever known, read, or read of. And while involved in despicable behavior, he had the nerve to condemn Bill Clinton for similar acts. I know he says it was not about the sexual acts but about lying to congress, but when the moderator of the South Carolina debate asked about his behavior with his 2nd wife, he said it was despicable to ask such questions in the midst of a presidential campaign. Evidently it was fine to ask such questions of a sitting president?! He claims to have changed. People do change. I don't believe him. His mean-spiritedness through the debates shows that he is the same old Newt. There are those who talk of him as having "big thoughts" and "great ideas." When his big thoughts and great ideas include essentially doing away with child labor laws, they sound like terrible ideas and small thoughts to me.
Rick Santorum... I respect a person living their faith and bringing it to play in their politics. Every single political view that I hold is impacted by my understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to follow him. That said, Santorum's understanding of what it means to be a Christian is, in significant places, diametrically opposed to mine. And while I believe one can act ofor public policy changes based on his or her faith, public policy can never find its sole or even primary justification in anyone's faith. To believe that birth control should be outlawed is so far outside of the mainstream and so far outside of anything that is positive for our country that I can't imagine him being president. Add to that gender views that take us back at least a century. I guess I expect more from him since he calls himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic. When he completely dismisses the rest of the "pro-life" views of his church without a blink, I wonder how much of his political views really are based in faith.
Mitt... First, running a government is not the same as running a business and anyone who thinks it is or should be, doesn't understand government. Add to that the fact that his role in business was to purchase weak companies, strip them of anything of value, and essentially throw the rest away. Even if business and government were analogous, that is not how I want to see government run. That he is so incredibly rich that he doesn't have to work, makes more in a week off of investments that I do in a decade from work, and seems to see nothing wrong in paying a lower percentage of taxes than the vast majority of the 99% makes me wonder whether he really gets it. It also seems that he wants this job too bad. He seems to switch his views depending on what he thinks will get him elected... perhaps not an unusual trait for a politician but still one that I won't vote for if I can help it and it just seems too obvious with him. I do respect that he gives a much larger percentage of his income to charities than any other politician I know of.
Ron Paul... he's the one that really scares me. I don't think the Republican establishment would allow him to win, but I think he is the candidate who would be most able to beat Obama. Paul's commitment to reduce the role of the military and to end our empire is very attractive to me and to many liberals. His commitment to enforce the parts of the constitution that protect individuals from the powers of the state likewise is attractive. His libertarian views regarding drugs also are attractive to many liberals. His consistency is a wonderful thing in the days of politicians reading polls and changing their views like their ties. He could strip off many liberal voters who are disenchanted by Obama's militaristic bent or who drank the Koolaid that he is a socialist and expected him to act like one. He isn't and he hasn't! At the same time, I think that many Republicans who find those views distasteful would still vote for him just to vote against Obama. I think he might gain far more than he would lose. The parts that I don't like about Ron Paul scare me more than the parts I do like entice me... he is commitment to shredding the safety net for the poor, doing away with government involvement in ensuring safe food, water, air, and drugs. He does not believe government has a role providing an adequate education for all or providing foreign aid that can make a difference in saving the lives of literally millions overseas. Those views are more than I can take. Add his racist statements of the past and he is completely off my list too.
When I listen to what each of them envisions for the country, for the world, and look at the stands and characteristics they bring to the table, none are the kind of leader that I believe we need in this difficult time. None bring the kind of vision of the future I want to see implemented.
So that leaves me with Obama. Folk who know me also know that I've never been a huge fan of Obama. During the Democratic primary I described him to my friends as a centrist and looking at his work in office, that is exactly what he has been... and I'm anything but a centrist politically. I'm not thrilled... but I like him much, much, much better than any of the above. I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate even if there was one I loved because I'd be too afraid one of the above might win.
So, given the choices, for me, it's Obama 2012.
Newt... character counts. He has none. We can look at his hypocrisy as he claims to be a "family values" candidate while having done more to sully marriage than anyone I have ever known, read, or read of. And while involved in despicable behavior, he had the nerve to condemn Bill Clinton for similar acts. I know he says it was not about the sexual acts but about lying to congress, but when the moderator of the South Carolina debate asked about his behavior with his 2nd wife, he said it was despicable to ask such questions in the midst of a presidential campaign. Evidently it was fine to ask such questions of a sitting president?! He claims to have changed. People do change. I don't believe him. His mean-spiritedness through the debates shows that he is the same old Newt. There are those who talk of him as having "big thoughts" and "great ideas." When his big thoughts and great ideas include essentially doing away with child labor laws, they sound like terrible ideas and small thoughts to me.
Rick Santorum... I respect a person living their faith and bringing it to play in their politics. Every single political view that I hold is impacted by my understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to follow him. That said, Santorum's understanding of what it means to be a Christian is, in significant places, diametrically opposed to mine. And while I believe one can act ofor public policy changes based on his or her faith, public policy can never find its sole or even primary justification in anyone's faith. To believe that birth control should be outlawed is so far outside of the mainstream and so far outside of anything that is positive for our country that I can't imagine him being president. Add to that gender views that take us back at least a century. I guess I expect more from him since he calls himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic. When he completely dismisses the rest of the "pro-life" views of his church without a blink, I wonder how much of his political views really are based in faith.
Mitt... First, running a government is not the same as running a business and anyone who thinks it is or should be, doesn't understand government. Add to that the fact that his role in business was to purchase weak companies, strip them of anything of value, and essentially throw the rest away. Even if business and government were analogous, that is not how I want to see government run. That he is so incredibly rich that he doesn't have to work, makes more in a week off of investments that I do in a decade from work, and seems to see nothing wrong in paying a lower percentage of taxes than the vast majority of the 99% makes me wonder whether he really gets it. It also seems that he wants this job too bad. He seems to switch his views depending on what he thinks will get him elected... perhaps not an unusual trait for a politician but still one that I won't vote for if I can help it and it just seems too obvious with him. I do respect that he gives a much larger percentage of his income to charities than any other politician I know of.
Ron Paul... he's the one that really scares me. I don't think the Republican establishment would allow him to win, but I think he is the candidate who would be most able to beat Obama. Paul's commitment to reduce the role of the military and to end our empire is very attractive to me and to many liberals. His commitment to enforce the parts of the constitution that protect individuals from the powers of the state likewise is attractive. His libertarian views regarding drugs also are attractive to many liberals. His consistency is a wonderful thing in the days of politicians reading polls and changing their views like their ties. He could strip off many liberal voters who are disenchanted by Obama's militaristic bent or who drank the Koolaid that he is a socialist and expected him to act like one. He isn't and he hasn't! At the same time, I think that many Republicans who find those views distasteful would still vote for him just to vote against Obama. I think he might gain far more than he would lose. The parts that I don't like about Ron Paul scare me more than the parts I do like entice me... he is commitment to shredding the safety net for the poor, doing away with government involvement in ensuring safe food, water, air, and drugs. He does not believe government has a role providing an adequate education for all or providing foreign aid that can make a difference in saving the lives of literally millions overseas. Those views are more than I can take. Add his racist statements of the past and he is completely off my list too.
When I listen to what each of them envisions for the country, for the world, and look at the stands and characteristics they bring to the table, none are the kind of leader that I believe we need in this difficult time. None bring the kind of vision of the future I want to see implemented.
So that leaves me with Obama. Folk who know me also know that I've never been a huge fan of Obama. During the Democratic primary I described him to my friends as a centrist and looking at his work in office, that is exactly what he has been... and I'm anything but a centrist politically. I'm not thrilled... but I like him much, much, much better than any of the above. I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate even if there was one I loved because I'd be too afraid one of the above might win.
So, given the choices, for me, it's Obama 2012.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
compromises
My primary instrument is acoustic guitar and I have two wonderful instruments, both built by Lowden Guitars, an Irish company that builds stunning guitars. They are not inexpensive but to my ears, they are well worth the cost. The sound is big, warm, responsive, elegant, and rich. Guitars though are not very loud as far as instruments go so to be heard in any but the most intimate of settings, they require some kind of amplification. Any instrument that embodies all of those adjectives is going to be very difficult to capture with any kind of pickup and amplifying it will necessarily involve multiple compromises between accuracy, complexity of the system used to capture the sound, susceptibility to feedback, and the choice of which characteristics of the instrument must be attenuated to play in a louder situation. I joke that I spent a significant amount on a great guitar only to be faced with multiple compromises when trying to amplify it and significant additional costs.
Getting a good live sound is a huge area of discussion among acoustic players. For me, the bottom line is always, which compromises am I willing to make? What characteristics of the sound of my guitar played in my living room am I willing to give up in order to be able to play for an audience of 50 or 100 or 500 people?
Compromise... is not a popular word in the US these days. For decades, compromise has been the primary work for politicians. In a nation growing ever more diverse, their job was to come together and work out deals with which nobody was completely happy but everyone got something they deemed important. Of course, there have always been instances where folk have had issues about which they could not compromise. Still, until recent times, politicians did a pretty good job of finding ways past those issues and making deals.
In recent years our culture has become more and more polar. In politics this has been fed in the primary process where the more extreme voters are likely to participate and many politicians, especially on the right, are pushed towards the extremes just to get nominated. As those more extreme groups have gained power in the primary process and have enabled some extreme candidates to get elected, they have become more entrenched and less willing to compromise. For what it's worth, the same thing has happened in religious circles.
Now, here's the piece that has me interested. A few days ago Glenn Greenwald published a fascinating article in The Salon comparing many of Obama's political stands to those of Ron Paul and traditional liberal stances. He said the issue was that many liberals are either downplaying the issues where Ron Paul is actually more in line with their beliefs or ignoring them altogether. The reality here is that progressives are being forced to compromise their views. They must decide whom they will embrace when one candidate stands for some of their issues and not others while the other candidate is the exact opposite. I think Greenwald is correct that in large degree the liberals are avoiding a conscious compromise and ignoring those issues where Obama stands in contrast to their historic views.
Coming out of Iowa, the Republicans have a similar dilemma. Mitt Romeny, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul represent very different understandings of what it means to be a Republican and each would present an extremely different platform for that party in the next election. None seem to be a happy compromise for them. Indeed, I think that dis-ease with compromise has been the genesis of the revolving 2nd place candidates as many in the party are not happy with Romney while each option they put forward turns out to be worse. In any case, they will be forced to compromise, to choose which characteristics they can let go in order to keep some others. Some, like many in the Tea Party have already said they will not vote for Romney as he would be a compromise with their core principles. It will be interesting to see where this goes...
Getting a good live sound is a huge area of discussion among acoustic players. For me, the bottom line is always, which compromises am I willing to make? What characteristics of the sound of my guitar played in my living room am I willing to give up in order to be able to play for an audience of 50 or 100 or 500 people?
Compromise... is not a popular word in the US these days. For decades, compromise has been the primary work for politicians. In a nation growing ever more diverse, their job was to come together and work out deals with which nobody was completely happy but everyone got something they deemed important. Of course, there have always been instances where folk have had issues about which they could not compromise. Still, until recent times, politicians did a pretty good job of finding ways past those issues and making deals.
In recent years our culture has become more and more polar. In politics this has been fed in the primary process where the more extreme voters are likely to participate and many politicians, especially on the right, are pushed towards the extremes just to get nominated. As those more extreme groups have gained power in the primary process and have enabled some extreme candidates to get elected, they have become more entrenched and less willing to compromise. For what it's worth, the same thing has happened in religious circles.
Now, here's the piece that has me interested. A few days ago Glenn Greenwald published a fascinating article in The Salon comparing many of Obama's political stands to those of Ron Paul and traditional liberal stances. He said the issue was that many liberals are either downplaying the issues where Ron Paul is actually more in line with their beliefs or ignoring them altogether. The reality here is that progressives are being forced to compromise their views. They must decide whom they will embrace when one candidate stands for some of their issues and not others while the other candidate is the exact opposite. I think Greenwald is correct that in large degree the liberals are avoiding a conscious compromise and ignoring those issues where Obama stands in contrast to their historic views.
Coming out of Iowa, the Republicans have a similar dilemma. Mitt Romeny, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul represent very different understandings of what it means to be a Republican and each would present an extremely different platform for that party in the next election. None seem to be a happy compromise for them. Indeed, I think that dis-ease with compromise has been the genesis of the revolving 2nd place candidates as many in the party are not happy with Romney while each option they put forward turns out to be worse. In any case, they will be forced to compromise, to choose which characteristics they can let go in order to keep some others. Some, like many in the Tea Party have already said they will not vote for Romney as he would be a compromise with their core principles. It will be interesting to see where this goes...
Friday, October 21, 2011
Does Romney Understand?
Earlier this month Mitt Romney stated that he is in favor of a constitutional amendment stating that human life begins at conception. I can only hope that it is a position he doesn't understand or hasn't really thought about. It is a statement that could be made only by three categories of people... 1. the ignorant, 2. the political opportunist who doesn't really believe it but is hoping for votes, and 3. the insanely anti-abortion folk. Here's why.
Conception happens when an egg and a sperm connect. If at that point we have a human being, we have a number of issues to face. Many fertilized eggs naturally do not implant themselves on the uterine wall. If a human life begins at conception, every time that happens, we have had the death of a human being with all of the attending legal ramifications regardless of the cause. Some women experience ectopic pregnancies where the egg implants somewhere other than the uterine wall, most often in the fallopian tubes. This is extremely dangerous for the woman. If the fertilized egg is not removed, she will die. If the fertilized egg is a human being, we're talking about murder here... even though there is no chance that the fertilized egg would remain viable through an entire pregnancy. A number of the most popular birth control methods do not stop the egg from being fertilized but rather from implanting in the uterine wall. This would amount to murder. Many couples find themselves unable to conceive in the normal ways and use in vitro fertilization which typically results in numerous fertilized eggs, some of which are discarded at one time or another. Again, we're talking about murder if human life begins at conception. We haven't mentioned instances of rape or incest where the morning after pill - which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting - would no longer be an option. We also have raised other issues such as the mother's life, the health of the fetus, etc. etc. etc. Regardless of how one feels in general about abortion, this stance is as radical as it can possibly be.
So either Mitt Romney doesn't understand how conception works and how it relates to pregnancy and birth control, he does know all of this and is just trying to get votes, or he actually believes what he said... in each case, the possibility that he could become president is just frightening to me and should be doubly so to any woman of child bearing age.
Conception happens when an egg and a sperm connect. If at that point we have a human being, we have a number of issues to face. Many fertilized eggs naturally do not implant themselves on the uterine wall. If a human life begins at conception, every time that happens, we have had the death of a human being with all of the attending legal ramifications regardless of the cause. Some women experience ectopic pregnancies where the egg implants somewhere other than the uterine wall, most often in the fallopian tubes. This is extremely dangerous for the woman. If the fertilized egg is not removed, she will die. If the fertilized egg is a human being, we're talking about murder here... even though there is no chance that the fertilized egg would remain viable through an entire pregnancy. A number of the most popular birth control methods do not stop the egg from being fertilized but rather from implanting in the uterine wall. This would amount to murder. Many couples find themselves unable to conceive in the normal ways and use in vitro fertilization which typically results in numerous fertilized eggs, some of which are discarded at one time or another. Again, we're talking about murder if human life begins at conception. We haven't mentioned instances of rape or incest where the morning after pill - which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting - would no longer be an option. We also have raised other issues such as the mother's life, the health of the fetus, etc. etc. etc. Regardless of how one feels in general about abortion, this stance is as radical as it can possibly be.
So either Mitt Romney doesn't understand how conception works and how it relates to pregnancy and birth control, he does know all of this and is just trying to get votes, or he actually believes what he said... in each case, the possibility that he could become president is just frightening to me and should be doubly so to any woman of child bearing age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
