Category: Politics

Anderson cooper is blogging over on CNN getting ready for a program on a case that’s being called “Roe v. Wade for men.” The idea is that a man should have a choice about having a child, and about whether he should have to pay child support. I suppose there’s going to be a long discussion complete with handwringing and emotion, but I’m not going to watch.

But let me give you one more links, to a story that has all the details in one place. Men’s activists launch ‘Roe v. Wade for Men’says a story on MSNBC.com.

The story says that a group calling itself the National Center for Men is supporting this lawsuit. I don’t usually get this annoyed at a story. But is this the national center for men, or is it perhaps the national center for irresponsibility?

This guy had a choice. He could choose whether or not to have the fun of making the baby. Now he wants out of the responsibility that results. I hear his arguments about the woman having the choice of an abortion. But I would make two points about that. First, even if one does support abortion rights, the situation of the man and the woman when pregnancy occurs is hardly comparable. But second, one type of irresponsibility is not the solution to another.

Let me note simply that my position on the moral issues of abortion is different than my position on the legal issues. I think the proper moral place to make choices about reproduction is before you engage in sexual activity that might produce a pregnancy. This is true for the man or the woman. After that, your moral choices are different. At the same time I do believe that the best approach to preventing abortion is through education and support. By this I mean education in making responsible choices, and the necessary social support when the right choice, or for that matter when the wrong choice is made.

In this case, the woman has made a responsible choice, and the man wants permission to make an irresponsible one. Well, he can. He can irresponsibly decide not to pay child support, and then like anyone else who doesn’t face his responsibilities, he can face the legal consequences.

In an opinion piece in Newsweek, titled Perception is Everything, Eleanor Clift comments that due to the fumbling of the Bush administration on several issues, scandals in congress, and the resulting low approval ratings for the Bush administration, all that may be necessary for the Democrats to sweep congress would be just to show up. “But when a party is in as much trouble as the Republicans, the Woody
Allen line takes hold: ‘Eighty percent of success is showing up.’ For
the Democrats, that may be enough.”

I tend to agree with her about the problems that the Republicans are having. In many cases, such as the ports deal, I actually agree with the Bush administration’s stance, but it is hard to see how a reasonably competent White House staff could have failed to realize that this would be massively controversial and somehow manage to handle it better. The handling of aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has also been a major disaster in itself, both on the ground and in terms of public relations.

As a moderate, I have some policy issues with the administration, but I also have some issues with the Democrats. (I’m an independent–very independent.) But what I would expect of an administration of either party is the ability to govern. The Bush administration is beginning to look rather weak on that point. But I don’t see the Democrats looking any better, and I don’t agree that it will be enough for the Democrats “just to show up.”

I believe that if John Kerry had managed to convey some sort of plan to deal with terrorism, and some sort of determination to carry it out, he would have beaten Bush in the last election. President Bush’s numbers were low then (though not as low as they are now), and people were questioning his leadership and his competence. The problem was that people also questioned whether Kerry was going to do any better, and he failed to be convincing where he needed to be. Going just on my non-scientific survey of friends and folks I talk to about politics, their question was just what would electing Kerry mean to the war on terror. He was going to use the military, though less than Bush, but how much less was not defined. He was going to use more diplomacy, but just how that worked was undefined.

I really suspect political advisors who were telling Senator Kerry to stay undefined so he couldn’t be attacked on the issue. But when you’re trying to get fearful people to swap out who is in charge, you’ve got to do more than protect yourself from criticism. You have to make them feel that you can make them safer. And politicians should be aware that, whatever someone says about priorities, terrorism can jump out to become the #1 issue in a moment.

The same thing is likely to apply in November, with an added problem–incumbency. Polls generally show that while people really despise congress, they generally like their congressman. Republicans have the majority of incumbents. To change that, some people will have to be convinced that the Democrats running in their districts will do a substantially better job. And that’s going to require something that is both substantial and is well sold, such as the Contract with America in 1994 that Swift mentions. The Democrats will have to come up with something that will bring not only their base, but new voters and those who are undecided.

Politicians should know that there are a substantial number of voters like me–independent and moderate. You can’t get our votes by scare tactics about the other side. You can’t get our votes by just showing up. We’re waiting to be convinced.

Right now, neither party is being very convincing.

UPDATE:  Added link to Eleanor Clift’s Newsweek article.

In an article titled Renewable Energy: Blowing in the Wind, Newsweek reports that a number of companies, including Aspen Ski Company in Colorado, are buying wind energy, in effect, putting their money where their mouth is. I’m not commenting on this story to talk about energy, though I’m very interested in that topic, as I think every American should be. I want to call attention to the type of actions involved.

These companies would not be so anxious to take these actions if there weren’t people like you and me who see what they have done as a positive thing, and who will remember them and their actions when it’s time to make marketplace decisions. I take this as an indication that small, individual actions can easily accumulate into real change. Perhaps these few purchases of wind energy are only a drop in the bucket, but they provide additional impetus to wind energy, they call attention to the possibility of finding alternative energy sources, and these little things build up.

Don’t forget to take those small actions today, even when they don’t seem to make much difference. Most of the good in our world has been the result of accumulations of small actions.

As reported today in the Pensacola News Journal, the 1 cent option sales tax for our county has been extended. (I apologize to those of my readers who don’t live in Escambia County. You may find, however, that you have a similar situation with your local government.)

My big interest in this story is not in the simple event, though I voted in favor of continuing the tax. You would hardly come to my blog for breaking local news. But there was an interesting statistic in the story that I want to underline. The tax won with 64% of the vote. But get this–that 64% of the vote was amongst 20% of Escambia County voters. Only 1 out of 5 local voters chose to get out and vote on this issue. The tax will raise approximately $380 million for the county over the next ten years. In our local budget that’s hardly inconsequential. It’s a 1% charge on everything you buy. Don’t you care?

Now I’m willing to bet that it won’t be just 1 in 5 Escambia County voters who will be complaining over the next 10 years. I’m guessing there will be lots more. They’re going to talk about local government corruption, about excess taxes and lack of public services, all at the same time. They’re not going to ask where the money will come from to fund those services. When it was time to actually make a decision, to exercise just a tiny bit of responsibility (it took me less than 5 minutes all told to vote), they didn’t have the time or the energy.

Some of those voters will show up when “important” things are at issue, like candidates for congress, or the presidency, or a well-publicized state-wide vote. But they just aren’t interested in taking responsibility for local issues. I once heard a political strategist speak to some activists and he said that you don’t have to investigate to find out whether local government is corrupt. It is. He said just to go make a “sunshine law” request from any department you want to, and you’re going to find problems. He’s probably right.

But the reason that can be true is simply that people don’t get involved in local issues. It’s not that they have no interest. They will complain plenty about county roads, local education, police protection, and other local issues.

But at least here in Escambia County, when it was time to make a decision about how to fund those services, only one in five could be bothered to mark one ballot.

For shame!

In an article subtitled Love in a Time of Madness Newsweek (via MSNBC.com) calls our attention to the human side of the conflict in Iraq. It’s easy to become tied up with strategic goals such as how we prevent terrorism, how we can get out of Iraq and still at least feel that we accomplished something. But then there is the daily human tragedy that is still what life is in Iraq. What exactly have we done?

This story brought some personal history to mind. My family were missionaries and we lived in southern Mexico when I was a child. There I saw the conflict that could erupt between family members who were of different Christian denominations. In Guyana, South America, we arrived only a few years after a conflict between races. Guyanese of African ancestry and East Indian ancestry had come to blows, and there were mixed families, and children who were of mixed race. When the violence started where would those couples, those children go to be safe? We had numerous friends who would recount their stories of fear because they didn’t really belong anywhere. South Africa, during apartheid made a special category for people of mixed race. People who have not experienced such a thing may have difficulty understanding what that does to one’s identity.

I mention the personal history because this story reminded me of those things. But most importantly, it reminded me of how human this story actually is. It’s easy for us here in America to distance ourselves from the human tragedy involved. After all, most of us, myself included, couldn’t give a reasonable resume of the differences between the Shia and Sunni branches of Islam. Those things are silly differences between other people in other places. But as I read about the one couple’s argument over cleansing the feet, I had to think, “That’s a little bit like our Christian arguments over what form of baptism is right, or what kind of music is legitimate church music, or just how the order of service is arranged.” All of those things have produced arguments between Christian couples. And it hasn’t been all that many years since such arguments amongst Christians have resulted in violence.

It’s very much a part of the common human condition. Stress most any of us sufficiently, and you’ll find conflict erupting, and often doing so over the most trivial of issues–trivial, that is, to those who are not involved. It’s not one of the good things about us as human beings, but it is a reality we have to live with and deal with. And when we undertake to alter another society, it’s a reality that’s likely to come back to haunt us.

Before the invasion of Iraq, I wrote an essay entitled Revenge!. In it, I commented that Saddam Hussein had certainly provided a good reason for someone to use violence against him. In that sense, action would be justified, but what would happen afterward? I asked:

But I believe there is a second part to the justification of violence. How can things be better when it’s done? In this case that includes the question of who will rule Iraq following an invasion. Will there be a power vacuum left in its place?

You see, no matter how bad a government is, there is a possibility for something worse.

I’d compare the justification for violence I was discussing in that article to a personal justification for violence. If someone is robbing my house, do I have the right to resist? Certainly. But if I resist ineffectively, I could simply make the problem worse. I could turn robbery into assault, and assault into murder.

At this point, I’m still left to ask the same question about Iraq. I still don’t know how one makes a better situation overall come out of the troubled and violent situation there. But maybe we can start by simply realizing, as a nation, that these people are like us in many ways, that their problems are not other people’s problems, and that we have made ourselves part of an ongoing tragedy. No, I don’t think we caused it all. The situation was bad before we went there.

Perhaps we need to quit thinking of Iraqis as “people over there” with odd beliefs and incomprehensible conflicts. They are, in many ways, just like us, with similar hopes and dreams, similar angers and hatreds, and a similar desire for peace and security. It’s just much harder to accomplish those goals in their circumstances.

As Christians, we are admonished to love our neighbors as ourselves. Could it just be that Jesus would regard the Iraqis as our neighbors?

In a very interesting article, Newsweek discusses the European reaction to Muslim violence over the cartoon issue (see Cartoons: The End of Europe’s Tolerance? – Newsweek: International Editions – MSNBC.com).

This story brought to mind a question I am frequently asked: If you believe in tolerance, why don’t you tolerate the intolerant? Shouldn’t you have to tolerate everyone?

And my answer is a resounding “No!” This is the kind of black and white thinking that tends to get us into trouble. Tolerance is a value, and it has a certain priority. It is not an absolute that can never be questioned. I do not, for example, tolerate the person who is trying to rob me. I choose a strategy to defeat him, if one can be found. That’s an easy situation. It’s much more difficult to find a balance in the case of someone like Fred Phelps and his followers. In that case, while I believe in freedom of speech, and would not advocate his arrest unless he breaks some appropriate law, I certainly have no problem expressing my absolute revulsion at his ideas and his actions.

In the case of Islam, I make distinctions. Why? Because I believe the distinctions are valid. Those Muslims (and I choose not to try to decide if they are real Muslims or not) who want to kill me or even who will allow any form of force to make me conform to their views I readily condemn. Again, note that value I place on freedom of speech is very high. I do not want them silenced by force, but I will in no way pretend that what they say is alright. And as soon as they move to apply force, I am ready to act.

It’s easy for us to pretend here in America that we’re dealing with a small band of criminals, and if we can just eliminate those few, everything will turn out fine. But that is not the case. There is an ideological breeding ground right now in most of the Muslim world that is producing people who do want to destroy us, who do want to force their culture on us. It is a minority, but it also has a larger group of sympathizers. We cannot be tolerant of any actions they take in furthering those goals.

At the same time, both for moral reasons (I believe) and for practical ones we do need to distinguish that minority group from the majority. Strategically it may look something like divide and conquer, but as advocates of tolerance and diversity, we can leave out the conquer part. What we want to do is recognize how they are divided and use that to defend ourselves. When we respond with anger at all Arabs because of the actions of some Arabs, we simply increase the number and determination of our enemies. When we treat all Muslims according to we think some Muslims deserve, we spread our resources around, create enemies, and eliminate friends.

Looking again at Europe, the points made in the Newsweek article about religious tolerance are extremely important. Perhaps it’s time for Europe to look at a form of separation of church and state. Established Christian churches might actually find themselves growing and becoming more relevant if they weaned themselves of the protection of the state, and allowed the state to be neutral on religious issues. It’s going to be hard for Europeans to assert their culture, which does include a strong element of tolerance, while at the same time behaving inconsistently with regard to religion. In terms of religious tolerance, getting the state out of the business of religion can be extremely important.

(As an aside, I’m frequently reminded that the words “separation of church and state” don’t occur in the U. S. constitution, generally by someone who is opposed to the concept. I would point out first that “separation of church and state” is simply a title for a constitutional doctrine, and was never intended as a quote from the constitution. It’s what courts have determined was accomplished by the establishment clause. But even further, I don’t believe in separation of church and state because it’s in the constitution. I believe in it because it’s a good idea. I believe that churches will destroy spirituality and produce lifeless congregations, much like many of the state churches of Europe, if they continue to depend more and more on state assistance.)

When this cartoon issue first broke out, my immediate reaction was in two parts: 1) I thought the cartoons were offensive and needlessly so, and 2) I thought that the Danish newspaper that published them had every right to do so. Those elements of the Muslim world that responded with violence set back tolerance for Muslims and Muslim values; they certainly did not help. I continue to feel that way. I also see the divide deepening.

Let’s be careful to place the right priority on our tolerance here in the west.

As seems so often the case, the news on the shooting accident in which Vice-President Cheney accidentally shot a friend while hunting has become a story about the story. We’re now spending our time talking about how the news was collected, and whether reporters should pursue information vigorously. On The Daily Nightly – MSNBC.com blog, David Gregory, NBC News chief White House correspondent, does a bit of explaining, and even apologizes for an exchange with Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary. But even that is not really news.

After all, most of us have occasionally heated moments in our relationships with people at work, at home, or wherever we go. People get annoyed, they lash out, they apologize, they go on. It’s not news.

But at the same time, I question whether reporters, especially when reporting for TV are actually asking the hard questions, or more importantly getting the hard answers. In this case, the focus of media attention has been on how long it took to get information to the media. It’s not a suggestion of a cover-up, though I’ve seen a few posts on the internet suggesting as much. It appears to be much more a case of inefficiency and uncertainty on the part of the presidential and vice-presidential staffs. It’s of interest, but I believe it’s a secondary story.

Further, I think it’s silly to suggest that the reason the press is upset about this is that they are left wing while the White House is right wing. It looks to me like some people must not have watched TV news during the Clinton administration. There were plenty of occasions when the press went after public officials vigorously. It certainly might have appeared to supporters of the Clinton administration that the press coverage was even unfair. (Nearly three years ago I wrote an essay entitled Media Bias, in which I claimed that the bias of the media was “stupid.” Not liberal, not conservative, just stupid. Unfortunately, I should probably have said simply that the media bias is simply in favor of popular–the stuff we’re most likely to watch.)

What I see as the problem here is that the news is primarily being sought from the people who have the motivation to spin it. Now don’t get me wrong. David Gregory’s job needs to be done. Somebody has to ask the questions, otherwise the politicians wouldn’t have the opportunity to spin and lie. My question is why we have to repeatedly play this type of information. The reason spin works is that whatever the politicians say gets air time. Sometimes, you have to just say, “That’s not news.” Go on and find some real news to report.

Just to be more specific, I think real news in this case asks whether the Vice-president was behaving responsibly, what are the reasons for missing game bird stamps (surely there are staffers to watch such issues), and yes, why does it take so long to report. But the last is really a fairly minor issue unless we find that there is, in fact, something to cover up.

But I want to say a few more words about spin. My question is not why reporters were so tough, but why they aren’t tougher more of the time. Why is it possible for a campaign to set a spin and a set of issues they want to talk about, and then execute that plan successfully? Repeatedly correspondents ask candidates a question, get a response that is really unrelated, and then go on to simply ask another question. I would suggest not airing the answer to a question if it is no, in fact, an answer to the question that was asked. I think it’s in the hands of the media to make spin work much less efficiently.

But it’s in our hands, as the consumers, to encourage the media to do so, by rewarding those who dig for the underlying information and hang on for the real answer. We do that by reading their papers or watching their shows.

Mr. Gregory is probably right in regretting that one remark. But I hope he’ll get even more aggressive in other areas where serious questions need to be asked, and where the public needs actual answers.