I just want to thank everyone who read or participated in this dialog. I certainly appreciated your attention and input. Although the presidential election is over, I sincerely hope that our conversations around these important topics and their corresponding ideas will continue.
(originally posted here)
I won’t bother giving the cliché Webster’s definition of justice to introduce my argument. I am sure most if not all have some idea in their head already of what justice means and, I imagine, some dictionary phrasing will have little to no impact on that idea. My hope in writing this is two fold: to challenge the commonly accepted definitions on justice (social, economic or otherwise) in relation to politics and to hopefully give pause to those, both Christian and non-Christian, who find themselves wondering who to vote for this Tuesday. I have seen the amount of blog posts, Facebook notes, internet traffic, editorials and friendly (and unfriendly) email exchanges in the last few months leading up to this election increase dramatically as the perception of the importance of this election has seemed to escalate to the highest level of significance since the Great Depression. I figured I would add to the arguments in the slight hope that my opinion or words may strike a chord with some who read this. I do not portend to have the answer nor do I accept any other person’s opinion as fact. I suspect my disclaimer on not claiming to be any sort of authority is relatively unnecessary as most who read this have either already made up their mind or are not so naïve to think that I am any different than the countless others who have shared their beliefs and opinions. That being said, following are my thoughts.
Before I jump into the political and socio-economic issues, let me give you some background on my philosophical journey over the last few years of my life. I was born into a working class family with a firefighting father and a teaching mother. Both parents could not have been more blue collar. They were married extremely young and both came from similarly hard working households. They worked hard all of their lives. When my brother and I were born, my mother chose to stop working and raise the both of us. My father made this possible by both keeping a steady good-paying job with the Los Angeles City Fire Department and working with my mother to keep living expenses low and following good financial practices such as never buying anything we could not afford and avoiding spending money on non-essential amenities. At no point in my young life did I ever feel as though we were poor or lower class. The truth is that we were neither. It was not until Junior High that I started to see the differences in class and socio-economic status that existed in the small Ventura County society in which I had been raised. I started attending a private school in 7th grade where I had the opportunity to meet a number of students from fairly wealthy families. My parents enrolled me in the school in the hopes that the Christian curriculum and instructors’ beliefs would serve to provide an optimum learning experience combined with a protection from the secular distractions of public school. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, I enjoyed my time there and made a good number of lifelong friends and managed to get into UCLA. Needless to say, I have no complaints and am grateful to my parents for the financial sacrifice they endured to send me there.
My parents were (notice the past tense) registered Republicans all through my young life. I came to understand that the reason our home voted red was because we were anti-abortion and pro-small government. That is a very simplistic way of describing it but goes to the heart of the issue I am hoping to address. Based on a misunderstanding of the UC application form, I entered UCLA as a declared political science major. I never changed my major and graduated (sans honors) with a B.A. in a subject that ultimately serves no purpose should one decide to follow any career path other than politics or law. The unexpected effect of my choice of major was a more detailed understanding of our political process and how it plays out both within the corridors of Washington and throughout the diverse households of our country. Without going into an extensive thesis on politics in the United States, I will cut to the chase and posit that politics, government and the rest of the machine that comprises what should be taken under consideration as we prepare to dimple, hang or otherwise manipulate our chads in the voting booths is a broken system that, while painfully ineffective most times, is arguably better than most other alternatives found throughout the globe. I suspect my suggestion is neither a fresh perspective nor particularly revolutionary as far as simplified and succinct definitions of US politics go.
“Why so autobiographical?” you may ask. If I have managed to keep your interest, despite the verbose narrative of my political journey, do indulge me a smidge as I attempt to get to the point. My background, while potentially excessive, serves a particular purpose. The mistake, I believe, many people make when trying to solidify or justify their political leanings is to apply whatever limited life experience they possess and/or utilize those life experiences of the miniscule amount of people they have had the opportunity to meet in their relatively sparse years spent both alive and cognisant as some sort of legitimate source of reference that gives weight to their particular opinion. As I have already disclaimed, my opinion is in no way exempt from this same argument. For this reason, I am hoping to avoid infusing any personal or non-personal experience into my theory so as to possibly provide an idea that transcends people’s need to apply such experiences to their decision making. In short, my giving you my background is an attempt at full disclosure that will hopefully disarm those who might be inclined to presume my intentions for introducing my theory.
So what am I trying to say? How can we as a society define justice while removing any personal experiences or the relayed experiences of others from our attempt at such a definition? This question, in my opinion, requires some sort of fundamental understanding (or at the very least an attempt at understanding) of what is good and/or right and/or empirically (for lack of a better word) just. This question applies to virtually every political concept or platform in our current and future vernacular. How do you define social justice? How do you define economic justice? How do you define criminal justice? Those of us who proclaim a belief in God have somewhat of an advantage (or disadvantage, depending on how you look at it) in attempting to answer these questions. Our combined resources of the Bible and the community of believers provide a significant source for reference. The disadvantage is made painfully obvious when one takes notice of the fact that there are a substantial amount of contentious issues within the church when it comes to politics. If we all have the same reference materials/sources, why don’t we all agree on how to vote?
I think that the truth is that we all have an inherent need to feel good about the choices we make and the way we live our lives. Nobody likes to be accused of being a bad person. I am no exception to this rule. Political parties are no different. It is in their best interest to be viewed as “the just party.” It is no accident that the Republican Party has gone to great lengths to align itself or rather convince its constituents that it is aligned with the basic tenets of the Bible. For a more comprehensive look at this phenomenon, read David Kuo’s Tempting Faith, a troubling portrayal of the failure of compassionate conservatism. Another good read that provides some insight into the seemingly inevitable link between religion and government is Jim Wallis’ God’s Poltics. Instead of listing all of the ways that Republicans and their platform have failed to accurately represent anything close to Biblical or godly governing or, alternatively, attempting to do the same for the Democrats, I will humbly try to demonstrate why voting blue may actually better serve one’s conscience should one feel so inclined to use their enfranchisement as a means to promote justice (accepting, of course, my theoretical definition of justice suggested within this dialogue).
In order to make my argument, I will need to (finally) give you my definition of justice. At the risk of losing the undoubtedly decreased audience who managed to read this far into my little opus, I am sad to say that my definition will most likely disappoint or even inspire legitimate scorn by Christians, non-Christians, Republicans, Democrats and every other imaginable group of people who willingly admit to such categorizations. Are you ready? Here it goes. Justice is a non-existent construct formulated by humankind in order to justify a particular ideology, regardless of whether such ideology conflicts with other individuals’ or groups’ concepts of what is right or good. In short, there is no such thing as justice. Justice is an idea that people need to believe in so that they can feel good about themselves. A person needs to say to themselves, “I am a just person” or they need to understand whether or not that is true so as to find some kind of fundamental grounding in order to know how to feel about themselves. This concept most likely does not apply to sociopaths, who do not suffer from the same need to define one’s self (at least that is my best understanding of sociopathic behavior gleaned from my Sociology of Deviant Behavior class I took in college). Now before you throw my argument out the window, let me explain a bit more what I mean when I say that justice does not exist. Look at it this way, if you have competing arguments for what justice means within a society with no source of authority to legitimize either argument, there is no way the concept can ever be defined. Christians will argue that God or the Bible is the authority. If this were a feasible solution for resolving the issue, we would not have so many disagreements within the church. People interpret the Bible differently. Some churches teach a “prosperity theology” where the wealthy are viewed as the “most faithful.” Ronald Reagan believed poverty was a sign of weakness and not something worth his sympathy. Some believe capital punishment is just. Some believe abortion is just. How are we to agree which side of these countless opinions on these controversial issues is just? Is it so outlandish to suggest that one might be inclined to convince oneself that they are just in order to legitimize the way they live and the choices they make? Isn’t it easier to say that God is rewarding me for my hard work with wealth and therefore it must stand to reason that those less fortunate or less wealthy have not worked as hard? I am certainly not trying to paint every middle to upper class citizen as some miser looking for any way to hold on to his or her money. I do, however, think that we are constantly in danger of finding ways to modify our perception of justice so as to accommodate the status quo and remove the need for personal change or sacrifice.
That being said, I would like to take another look at justice and politics in light of this proposed new paradigm where no one can use supposedly “just” arguments for supporting one side of the aisle or the other. If we do not use the traditional methods of determining how to vote, what choices are we left with for picking our candidate or party? This is where my theory/proposal gets really controversial as well as very gray. In my opinion, everyone has two choices on how to vote: vote for what is best for you or vote for what is best for everyone. My inference at controversy is due to my belief that many people who vote Republican or more to the right, do so for personal reasons. Let’s just suppose for a second that all the right wing arguments for why small government is better are true. Let’s suppose that if welfare really was eliminated that those people who were “stuck” in the system would truly rise out of their current state and better themselves as long as they put in the effort. Finally, let’s put a number out there for what that will mean in terms of money saved by the average American. Let’s say instead of seeing only 70% of your paycheck after taxes that you now see 80%. Let’s say you make $50K a year so you are now seeing a net pay of $40K instead of $35K. You now have $5,000 a year more in your pocket. What are you going to do with that money? You don’t need it to help the poor anymore because they have supposedly been saved from their welfare captivity due to the elimination of the program. Let’s say you spend it on yourself. I’m guessing that 90% of you are going to spend it on yourself. Now let’s jump back to reality where the number of poor people does not change just because the average tax payer get’s to keep a little more money each year (I say reality because, if anything, Reagan’s administration proved that small government does not decrease poverty...in fact, quite the opposite). Does that excess money now go to help them? I think not. I say that 90% are still probably going to spend it on themselves. The reason this little hypothetical situation is so gray is because it is extremely limited as far as examples go. There are plenty of people who will give all of the money away. There are plenty who will see substantially more than $5,000. There are plenty who will see less. The argument on the right says that we should let people’s conscience be their guide and give them the right to give their money away if they want to do so. Government should not be the one to decide for you. Fair enough.
What do you think would happen if we really let that happen? Here is what I think. I think you don’t have to look any further than Wall Street, corporate off-shore tax havens, golden parachutes and hunting trips on the eve of bankruptcy to answer the question of what people do when you let them decide how to spend or handle their money. Don’t get me wrong, not everyone is Enron or AIG or whoever. But it is naïve to think that these are just a few bad apples that give the rich a bad name and for every Ken Lay there is a Bill Gates who gives so much back to charity. Yes, there are some compassionate people out there and there are some evil people out there. Be honest with yourself, what is your knee jerk reaction when faced with the choice to do something good for yourself or sacrifice on behalf of someone else? What do we do when no one is watching? I know I am a very selfish person and am very much pointing my finger at myself right now as well as the rest of society. We want to be just but in the deep down dark parts of our souls, we are selfish. Some (many actually) of us, have managed to overcome our selfishness enough to advocate for the voiceless and fight for those who haven’t the strength to fight for themselves. There are philosophical theories for why we do this. Whether our altruism comes from a belief in God, a need for acceptance or a sense of guilt, the fact is we have not devolved as a society to a point where it’s every man for himself (not yet anyway). This does not, however, mean that we will always do right by each other.
So back to my hypothetical where you get to keep a little more of your money. Now let’s suppose that the left wing arguments are true and the government programs set up to help people are truly effective and can make the difference between poverty and eventual financial stability. Let’s say that not only will the slightly less money in your pocket go to help the poor and less fortunate but will also require larger financial entities such as Enron and AIG to be more financially ethical and, at least to some degree, reduce the gap between the richest of the rich and poorest of the poor. My question is this: Is the extra money really that important? Do you really think you deserve it? Sure you work hard and you make financially responsible decisions. Is it so hard to imagine that there are people out there who work just as hard or harder and never make a bad financial decision in their life and yet still find themselves in need of assistance? Do you deserve to keep your money more than they deserve to get help? Is that just? How do you decide who deserves what? I recognize that by giving government the money, we place the decision in their hands. Isn’t it better than placing it in the hands of Corporate America or individual citizens who are limited in their exposure to the rest of the country and even the world and the myriad problems and needs found throughout? A government like ours has the resources to reach more people both within and outside our borders. One of the prices we pay for centralizing control is bureaucracy and the ineffectiveness and corruption that come with it. I wouldn’t dare try and argue that our government programs are flawless or without their share of problems. What I am trying to argue is that it is worth that price for the good it brings to those who truly need it and when we are honest with ourselves, we can afford the reduction to our bank accounts.
If you were to boil down my basic argument, it would be that we as individuals are overall more prone to be selfish than we are as a collective group. I am betting on the collective better angels of our national conscience over each person’s individual sense of compassion. It is risky to propose a theory that I don’t trust those reading this to be good…but the truth is that I don’t. I don’t trust myself to be good. I have my days but I am human. We are all human. Those of us who need help are human and those of us who can help are human. Is it such a bad idea to force the less compassionate of us to help out even if it means the more compassionate are equally burdened and even if it means that some people will abuse the system? I don’t think so. I feel that I can afford to risk it. I think most of us can. Think about it. How will you measure your individual sense of justice? Even if you put your money where your mouth is, there is no guarantee that everyone else will. I wish I could write more about this and fill out my thoughts even more because I know there are still probably a lot of holes in my logic that I may be able to address. Unfortunately, I wanted to get something out there before tomorrow so that people would have one last chance to think about who they vote for and why. I am hoping that even if I don’t change any minds before this election is over, maybe the discussion that may or may not follow will lead to healthy dialogue on this subject. For those of you who made it to the end, thanks for reading, don’t forget to vote and don’t take it too personally. Just keep an open mind.
I saw Willie May's
at a Scottsdale home depot
looking at garage door springs
at the the far end of the fourteenth row
his wife stood there beside him
she was quiet and they both were proud
I gave them room but was close enough
that I heard him when he said out loud
this was my country
and this was my song
somewhere in the middle there
though it started badly and it's ending wrong
this was my country
this frightful and this angry land
but it's my right if the worst of it
might still somehow make me a better man
the sun is unforgiving
and there's nobody who'd choose this town
but we've squandered so much of our good will
that there's nowhere else will have us now
we push in line at the picture show
for cool air and a chance to see
a vision of ourselves portrayed
as younger and braver and humble and free
this was our country
this was our song
somewhere in the middle there
though it started badly and it's ending wrong
this was our country
this frightful and this angry land
but it's my right if the worst of it
might still somehow make me a better man
I've started something I just can't finish
and I barely leave the house it's true
I keep a wrap on my sores and joints
but yes I've had my blessings too
I've got my mother's pretty feet
and the factory keeps my house in shape
my children they've both been paroled
and we get by on the piece we've made
I feel safe so far from heaven
from towers and their ocean views
from here I see a future coming across
what soon will be beaches too
but that was him, I'm almost sure
the greatest center fielder of all time
stooped by the burden of endless dreams
his and yours and mine
he hooked each spring beneath his foot
he leaned over then he stood upright
testing each against his weight
for one that had some play and some fight
he's just like us I wanna tell him
and our needs are small enough
something to slow a heavy door
something to help us raise one up
and this was my country
this was my song
somewhere in the middle there
though it started badly and it's ending wrong
well this was God's country
this frightful and this angry land
but if it's his will the worst of it might still
somehow make me a better man
--------------
By Joe Henry, Listen to "Our Song" for free here
In August, before McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, The Economist featured this article on McCain:
Bring Back The Real McCain
This article above also highlights weaknesses in Obama.
Conservative writer David Brooks, who I have come to appreciate quite a bit, disagrees with the Economist in this article saying, "when people try to tell me that the McCain on the campaign trail is the real McCain and the one who came before was fake, I just say, baloney."
Today, The Economist, in what I feel is a fair and even-handed article, officially endorsed Obama for President: It's Time
When John Mayer released this song, it struck a chord with many people in my generation through these lines:
"Me and all my friends
We're all misunderstood
They say we stand for nothing and
There's no way we ever could
Now we see everything is going wrong
With the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means
To rise above and beat it
So we keep waiting on the world to change
It's hard to beat the system
When we're standing at a distance
So we keep waiting on the world to change
Now if we had the power
To bring our neighbors home from war
They woulda never missed a Christmas
No more ribbons on the door
When you trust your television
What you get is what you got 'cause when they own the information
They can bend it all they want
That's why we're waiting on the world to change
It's not that we don't care
We just know that the fight ain't fair
So we keep waiting on the world to change
One day our generation
Is gonna rule the population
So we keep on waiting on the world to change"
And now, perhaps sooner than expected, the time for waiting is over. Essentially, the two groups that will decide who will become our next president are undecided voters and first time voters, the vast majority of which are under 30 years of age. Historically, campaigns have had trouble getting young voters to follow through, actually cast a ballot, and make their voice heard. In the past, we could have perhaps used the excuse that our vote simply did not matter, but in this election, if you take young voters out of the equation, Obama's lead on McCain in the polls is essentially nullified as it then falls beneath the margin of error. So the time for waiting is over, and the time for change (at least in a generation's attitude toward participating in the American democratic process) has come. Irrespective of which candidate you support, please make sure you vote before or on this Tuesday, November 4.
Here's an article posted yesterday on the same theme as the previous article I posted written in June:
David Brooks (Conservative writing for the NY Times): Ceding the Center
RealClearPolitics.com - How the Party of Lincoln was Left Behind on Civil Rights
There is undoubtedly a civil war going within the Republican Party at the moment. This article from a right-leaning publication helps explain why and also gives historical context for both the Democratic and Republican parties. This article also makes it clear why the Republican brand is suffering and why McCain's campaign has drawn criticism not only from liberals but also from conservatives. Written earlier this summer, this article comes from a time not so long ago when many Republicans hoped that McCain was going to restore the party to its roots as the party of Lincoln. The contrast between these hopes and the reality of the McCain/Palin campaign today is striking to say the least.
Recently, I've heard friends of mine express concern about Obama's associations with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Personally, I don't think being friends, even very good friends, with someone means that you ascribe to their values. I have friends and family who are extremely to the right (to the extent that they question the reality of global warming) and those extremely to the left (to the extent that they praise the ideals of Marxism). My association, even my love for them as family and dear friends, does not mean that I share their values or political idealogy. Personally, I don't think it's intellectually dangerous to associate with a certain crowd, but I do think it is dangerous to associate with too homogeneous of a crowd, as that tends to encourage a closed-minded disposition. I think it's a mark of maturity and human progress when we can put aside our differences and genuinely care for and even partner with people who have drastically different ideologies compared to our own. If that relationship allows us to work together toward a common purpose, than we progress even further.
But let's assume the worst for a moment. Let's assume that these relationships are crucial indicators of a candidate's judgment and character. In my view, it then becomes a toss-up as to which candidate has the more dangerous associations. For Obama's relationship with Ayers, we have McCain's relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. Last November, McCain said on Liddy's radio show, "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." This is a guy who helped plan the Watergate-breakin and served 4 years in jail as a result. For Obama's ties to Wright, we have the historical Republican support of the religious right who, shortly after Sept 11, did not say "God Damn America" but effectively said God is damning America:
"JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil, first time, and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters; the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats, what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, if in fact God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.
JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system."
I find it interesting that Robertson and Falwell were criticized, even lampooned as idiots, but they were never called un-American, unpatriotic, America-hating, or dangerous. The fear that Jeremiah Wright struck in the hearts of some Americans was not felt by those same Americans when this Robertson/Falwell interview received attention 7 years ago. This year, Pat Robertson was Guiliani's spiritual advisor, and in general, Americans did not find it alarming in the same way as the Wright/Obama situation. McCain spoke at Falwell's Liberty University in 2006. The following was printed on the press release from the University on March 28, 2006:
"While Sen. McCain and Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell have had their share of political differences through the years, the two men share a common respect for each other and have become good friends in their efforts to preserve what they see as common values. This will mark his first ever appearance at Liberty University."
Somehow becoming "good friends" and sharing "common values" with Robertson did not hurt McCain's credibility either. In fact, it helped his campaign. Since 2001, Robertson has visited G.W. Bush at the Whitehouse to discuss topics including the war that he basically said was something America deserved. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama was elected president and had Wright visit the white house to discuss the war? In my opinion, there's clearly a double standard here, but that really points to another topic, which is perhaps more important and relevant than this one.
Personally, I think none of these "guilty by association" arguments matter too much in this election. But even if I'm wrong, for minds that oppose prejudiced leanings, we're still left comparing apples and oranges, and to neither candidate's clear advantage.
There are a number of reasons trusting John McCain with our highest office is difficult for me despite his very honorable record up until he decided to make a serious play at the presidency (roughly 2004-2006). To be fair, I am somewhat concerned that Obama has had only 2 years of government experience on the national level. I think Obama supporters who are honest can admit that experience does matter. We can argue, as many democrats have, that no new president enters the oval office with presidential experience. However, I think in our heart of hearts we all know that experience in the field prior to entering the oval office will certainly have an effect on how a candidate acts as president, in the same way that our professional experiences usually add to our ability to work at higher levels within a field of work. But here’s the catch: the value of a person’s experience depends on what he has learned from that experience and his application of that knowledge in the present. Experience is not in and of itself a good thing, but a neutral thing. It has great potential to reinforce a person’s capacity for being effective in any line of work, but does not automatically equate to that effectiveness. In my field of education, for example, there are many teachers who have decades of experience that add little or no value to the quality of their instruction. In many cases their effectiveness actually diminishes with experience. So how do we judge what a person has learned from his experience? By examining how his experience influences his present judgment. In short, John McCain’s present judgment reveals to me that he is tired of being a true maverick and being punished politically for it by his opponents as well as his own party and has in turn made startling compromises to align himself with his party. As a result, he has become a low-rent parody of himself. Despite his long and noble record in the senate, he has strayed so far from it in this election that many of us are not asking “Who is Barack Obama?” but “Who is John McCain?” In my opinion, we are watching the unraveling of a great patriot, made even more tragic by the fact that he is likely near the end of his career. I want Obama to win, but at the same time, I do not want McCain to lose and have this misguided chapter of his career be the one that Americans remember.
A Republican friend of mine says that McCain will be a better president than his campaign suggests as his record is what should be considered, not his rhetoric (he also says this same standard should be applied to Obama). David Brooks supports this idea in a McCain-supporting article:
“It’s not that [McCain] has changed his political personality that bothers me. I’ve come to accept that in this media-circus environment, you simply cannot run for president as a candid, normal person.”
And yet Obama has run for president as a candid, normal person, and he has faired well so far with that approach. The tragedy for McCain is that Americans might have taken well to an uncompromised version of him. His base would not have been as excited, but would they have instead flocked to Barack Obama, an African-American liberal with a funny name? I think not.
Another Republican friend of mine recently said to me that McCain was the best man for the job and if Republicans have to play a little dirty (including tactics of fear and pandering to ignorance and bigotry) to get the best man in office, than so be it. I must assume, to give McCain the benefit of the doubt as a decent man, that this is the rationale behind his recent campaign choices. (If I do not, than I would have to assume much worse things about him which I do not believe to be true.) However, I view this line of thinking as fundamentally opposed to the ideals of democracy. Furthermore, a campaign that elicits the kind of terrifying responses we have seen at McCain/Palin rallies cannot possibly be justified by a win for his campaign. As an idealist living in the real world, I am open to the idea that sometimes the ends justifies the means, but in this case, the cost to the character of our country is simply too high. Even if he wins, America loses too much in the process. For me, no amount of experience can justify the judgment behind having his VP say to supporters that Obama “palled around with terrorists” and run an ad focused on the same theme. McCain is not an ignorant man. He must have understood the dangers of what he was about to do. He must have understood that there are some in his base that fear Obama simply because of his skin color and his name (as seen in this video). And if for some reason he was shocked by people’s reactions, than perhaps he truly is out of touch.
And now I must address his greatest error of judgment which cannot be separated from his record as it could potentially have a greater impact on America than all of his work in the senate combined: picking Sarah Palin as his VP. A Republican friend of mine makes the argument that he would rather have the inexperienced candidate at the bottom of the ticket than at the top. But I say that Obama and Palin cannot honestly be compared as equals in any area of competence. In addition, the problem I have with Sarah Palin is not with her, but with John McCain. As Matthew Dowd, a chief strategist from George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, states in this article: “[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that." This is an error in moral judgment that cannot possibly be swept under the rug as part of a campaign the educated are supposed to ignore in favor of McCain’s experience.
I came into this election season as a left-leaning independent voter, but even staunchly conservative Republicans who are generally regarded as “thinking/intellectual conservatives” have criticized John McCain’s judgment:
• Kathleen Parker writing for the National Review, a conservative publication founded by William F. Buckley Jr., the figurehead of American conservatism: “Palin Problem: She’s Out Of Her League”
• Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley Jr., and now a former writer for the National Review (he was let go after writing this article) on TheDailyBeast: “Sorry, Dad, I’m voting for Obama”
• Charles Krauthammer for the Washington Post: Palin’s Problem
• David Frum for the National Post: Palin the irresponsible choice?
• George F. Will for the Washington Post: McCain Loses His Head
• Peggy Noonan from the Washington Post: The Trial
• Wick Allison for D Magazine: A Conservative For Obama
And just today, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, endorsed Obama as reported here in the NY Times: Powell Backs Obama and Criticizes McCain's Tactics
As previously mentioned, I had a series of email conversations with a conservative Republican friend of mine regarding his thoughts on the election. With his approval, I have consolidated his responses and broken them down by subject area for posting on this site. Obviously, my opinions differ from his on many of these topics, but I certainly appreciated his ability to think lucidly about the election and bring up logical arguments for his position. These conversations have stretched me to grapple more deeply about where I land on these topics. The process of talking "across the aisle" has been a good one for me, and I hope to recreate some of that benefit for readers of this site.
------------
On the Media:
"I have a problem with the pundits/campaign representatives etc. taking extreme positions with no recognition of the other side, no recognition / admission of their own issues and deliberate exaggeration / misrepresentation of issues etc. Quite frankly, I can't watch Fox news as much as I can't watch Keith Olbermann (John Stewart is legitimately funny, so he gets a pass, so does Stephen Colbert, most of the time). Aside from that though, the rest is fair game. There is usually some substance underlying the distorted junk they are spewing, it has just been so twisted and simplistically presented that it's impossible to watch for a thinking adult. The underlying substance, for me, is a legitimate part of what we should talk about, and subsequently, the so called 'talking points' are legitimate places to debate, as long as the debate is in good faith."
On Palin:
"I don't think this is a debate the democrats want to have (and actually one strategic reason McCain picked Palin). The fact that there is even a discussion that there may be some parallel between the amount of experience Obama has and that of Palin is devastating for Obama. She was a Mayor of a small town for two terms and has been a Governor for almost two years. He was a state senator of a small district in Illinois (who voted "present" most of the time), and has been a US Senator for two years before running for President. One could legitimately argue that "executive" experience of a governor vs. legislative experience as a senator (with no legislative credit to his name) is more relevant and give the nod to Palin, but I won't do that. I'll call it a toss-up, actually I will even give Obama the nod for being in the national spotlight and dealing with it well for the last year. The glaring difference is he is on the top of the ticket, she isn't. The reality is VP's don't do much, so the top of the ticket is what matters. If you are worried about the unlikely event that McCain dies in office and we end up with "inexperienced" Palin, how confident does voting for Obama make you feel? And on what are you basing that confidence? I agree that for the same reasons I cannot get comfortable with Obama's lack of experience, Palin's lack of experience worries me as a pick, but I can get over that worry, because actuarially (sp?) it is a small chance she is ever President, but with Obama its guaranteed he is President."
On Experience (Executive & Legislative) & Palin:
[I asked him why experience matters so much when talking about Obama, whose 2 years in the US Senate + his time in the State Senate combine to more years of experience than what George W. Bush had prior to becoming President (6 years as Governor of Texas).]
"To the George Bush experience question. A couple of thoughts. There is, in my mind, an experience hurdle that must be crossed. You need a record to run on. McCain (and Biden, were he the Presidential candidate) far exceed the hurdle. Obama doesn't meet it. Had he waited another 4 or 8 years (as most people expected he would) he probably would have met it. Being a second term governor of one of the nation's largest states (any way you measure it), with a record that can be analyzed, criticized, praised etc. did meet it for me, but I agree it wasn't a slam dunk. In the middle of your first term, doesn't meet it.
I am not saying that legislative experience is irrelevant, or wholly not applicable, only that executive experience maybe more relevant or applicable. Given my druthers I would prefer someone with both, or someone who had been a governor for a long period of time, but that choice does not present itself. Again though, I go back to the fact that we are comparing Apples and Oranges with Palin and Obama. Let me be clear, I would not vote for Palin as President of the United States based on her current experience, just as I will not vote for Barak Obama for President of the United States based on his. That I see as logically consistent. People who will vote for Obama, but have a problem with Palin's experience I find logically inconsistent.
State Governor vs. State Senator experience re: both state level. I did some (admittedly quick) research on this one, and actually could not find out how many state senators there are. It seems most states have at least as many as congressional districts but many have more (Ohio has 30 state senators, but 18 congressional districts). So I would safely guess there are more than 500 state senators in the US. There are 50 governors, there are 100 US Senators, there are 435 US Congressman. States have significant power in the US federalist system of government, and the Governor, much like the President, and in many cases more so, sets the agenda, dictates what actually gets done, and takes credit/responsibility for the record. There is a strong history of Governor's being elected President from both parties. George W, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and that is just the last 40 years. Never has someone jumped from being a state senator to President. I don't believe that there is objectively a comparison. It gets back somewhat to executive experience. The closest you can get in similarity of roles to being President in the US (excluding Foreign policy) is being governor. Big state, little state probably isn't even as relevant. Bill Clinton came from Arkansas, Carter from Georgia. The other two groups that have provided Presidents are Vice Presidents (usually with previous Governor/Congressional experience) and US Senators (never with less than one term as a senator).
In terms of your second question. I guess I don't believe that either state senator, or mayor are relevant to assessing someone's capabilities to be President. Those two positions are both stepping stones to higher political office that people use based on their personal political circumstances/connections/opportunities to get to higher office (if that is their aspiration). Once the stepping stone has been used to get to a position that is relevant (to my previous answer above, Governor, US Senator, high profile congressman (Speaker of the House etc.)) then, over time a record can be built that voters can assess, critique, criticize, praise etc. In that capacity I find them pretty close to a wash. Again though, they are apples and oranges for me."
On Bipartisanship:
"McCain is a politician, as is Obama, and just as much as Obama's rhetoric on scrapping NAFTA (just one example) was a sop to the primary base that his own economic advisor said he didn't believe in, the inevitable truth is that during the primaries republicans lean right, democrats lean left (because primaries are about winning the base) and then for the general election everyone comes back to the center (because the general election is about winning the moderates/independents). This is all the more the case for McCain because he has historically been such a rebel in addressing republican positions (see immigration, campaign finance reform, torture, supreme court filibusters etc.) Because of this reality, for me, with politicians, actions speak exponentially more than rhetoric. This is one of my primary reasons for respect of McCain (see the list above), and one of my primary concerns with Obama (please show me any list of actions). The rhetoric is soaring, no doubt, and that is important for inspiring a nation (see Ronald Reagan), but not enough for me, especially when put up against someone I respect as much as McCain (and that is for his political stands more than his personal back story). I think, having secured the nomination and placated the base with Palin, his convention speech was a much clearer reflection of his unvarnished thoughts on "both parties" being the problem. About whether he can stand up the party. The RNC (and DNC) are pretty much shaped by the current leader of the party, which with a sitting president, is the president so it should change. But no doubt there is a civil war going on in the republican party that is being papered over by the desire to win the election (Palin helps deal with this a little for McCain, which brings us to point 2)
Another point that is somewhat different, but related to the evidence of actions (experience) rather than rhetoric. Obama has made much of moving past blue state/red state partisanship and governing in a "post partisan" way, however there is no evidence of this in his time in government. In fact when given the opportunity to ("Gang of 14" compromise on federal judge filibusters as one example) he hasn't. McCain on the other hand has actual evidence of doing so, and doing so on many occasions in high profile meaningful ways (Gang of 14, torture, campaign finance, immigration off the top of my head)."
[From a separate email]
"One comment on the bipartisan stuff. There are many un-controversial bipartisan things to do (extreme example, resolution honoring MLK. It will be bipartisan, since it is universally accepted as a good thing). What is more interesting and relevant to what I think Obama is referencing is finding a way to not be an ideologue and actually go against the prevailing view of your party and its traditional pressure groups (teachers union, Christian coalition, trial lawyers, anti-immigration groups etc.), reach across to the other side and actually get something done. I appreciate the research below [regarding Obama's bipartisan work], and admit I was not aware of it all, nor do I know the specifics of each instance, but that in of itself says something. McCain's stances have been high profile, because they have been controversial, from what I read below, and from the lack of press coverage at the time, Obama's don't appear to be.
With respect to your second question [about what the content was in the 5%-10% of issues that McCain voted opposite of Bush over the last 8 years], I think you know as much as I do on this one. I believe it is technically accurate (just as it is technically accurate that Obama was rated to have the most liberal voting record of any senator), what this actually means I don't know. It's like that quote about statistics "there are lies, damned lies and statistics". What really matters is what is behind all those votes, and as you said, what was in the 5%. It maybe that only 10% of the votes were on truly controversial/meaningful things and half the time he went the other way (same true of Obama). That being said, I do believe that McCain made a concerted effort to court the base over the last eighteen months, and he probably voted the party line more than in the past. Just as he has "flip-flopped" (sorry "changed his mind") on making Bush's tax cuts permanent. So I would imagine that there is some significance to the 95% number, and in my mind a legitimate line of attack for the Obama campaign, just as the "rated most liberal senator" line of attack is legitimate for the McCain campaign. They are a simplistic, but overall accurate reflection of the candidates ideological tendencies, even if reality is more nuanced then they communicate."
This quote above is a small, hopefully harmless soundbyte from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope."
The Obama campaign has been criticized (since the primaries against Clinton) by some democrats as not being aggressive enough in its attack, feeling that one has to fight fire with fire, and arguably, evil with evil. While Obama certainly has gotten his hands dirty in the campaign process, I think an honest person can say that he has set a new precedent of decency and respect we have not seen from either side in a long time. More significantly than any other presidential candidate that I can remember, he has chosen to fight fire not with more fire, but with water.
More recently, he has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for saying "John McCain was right" several times during a presidential debate. The McCain campaign even ran a TV ad highlighting these occurrences. But in my view, I think reasonable Americans are ready for a leader who understands that the measure of true strength and leadership should not reside in one's ability to villainize dissenters and draw bold, divisive lines between us ("the good") and them ("the bad") as we have seen recently from the McCain campaign. For me, the true measure of strength and leadership lies in one's ability to consider ideas from both sides, think thoroughly about a decision, and come up with a solution that provides for the common good. I think John McCain, as evidenced by his record in the senate, is capable of such leadership. But I would also say that since 2004, and certainly since the general election, he has been willing to sacrifice these ideals of true leadership to pander to his base. Does Obama also pander to his base? Certainly. But the difference is that Obama has upheld a basic decency while doing do. (Admittedly, where the line of "basic decency" can be drawn is very subjective, but in my mind, McCain has crossed it and Obama has not.)
In stark contrast to McCain/Palin ignoring (at least initially) the disrespectful and downright horrific statements made by supporters at their rallies, Obama chose a different approach as reported here in an article by the New York Times regarding his expanded economic plans:
"Mr. Obama reprimanded his audience when people started jeering at the mention of Mr. McCain’s name, declaring: 'We don’t need that. We just need to vote.'
Mr. Obama praised Mr. McCain’s proposal to waive the rules that penalize retiree withdrawals from 401(k)’s, saying: 'I want to give credit where credit is due.'"
Some say that campaigns should not be taken too seriously, as we should prioritize a candidate's record over his rhetoric. But I believe that campaigns have historically set the tone for each president's term and are the true beginning of a candidate's presidency. In addition, I believe a candidate's choices in governing his campaign provide significant insight into his current capacity for sound judgment. Even more, in a democratic process, campaigns should be taken more seriously. Campaigns are where candidates make their promises to the American people, provide their plans, and set the tone for the direction of our country's next chapter. In my view, misdirection away from the issues, using tactics of fear and polarization, are not only an attack on American decency but on democracy as a larger ideal.
Our next president must work to take the higher road for the common good. I have been disappointed for most of my voting life watching candidates run for the highest office in our country by reaching for the lowest ground in a win-at-all-cost contest. This year, I think we have two candidates who are capable of leading differently. The difference is that one candidate has shown us that leadership in the past while the other is showing us that leadership now.
A friend of mine (US Citizen) who has been working overseas for the last several years sent me this link to a map from The Economist depicting how the world would vote:
http://www.economist.com/vote2008/
I think most of us would agree that how the world would vote is a relevant topic, but the details as to why its relevant or its degree of importance are certainly debatable. I'll refrain from injecting my opinion here, however, if you would like to assert yours, please do by posting a comment, a link to a relevant article, etc...
Here's an excerpt from an article released today by The Associated Press regarding the angry hate-filled outbursts that continue to be heard at McCain-Palin rallies:
"McCain once stepped forward directly to denounce that tactic. This week, his campaign merely issued a lukewarm criticism that tried to score a political point in the same breath: 'We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November.'"
Until he began his presidential campaign, I found it very easy to respect John McCain. He has an honorable record of service in our military and in the senate. He has often spoke up against his party on issues of principal such as when he denounced the Swift Boat ads run against John Kerry in 2004. But in this moment, with his own presidency on the line, I think he is crossing over toward a dark place that is not only dangerous for his campaign, but more importantly, for his country. McCain's judgment must be better than to assume, as his campaign manager does, that the "inappropriate rhetoric" displayed at Republican rallies has "nothing to do with what our candidates are doing or saying right now."
Perhaps some believe that anything goes in a political campaign, but I definitely think there is a line. McCain has crossed it, and in the same moment, ironically revealed a less than favorable side of his judgment, character, and whatever else his experience has taught him. If he wants voters to believe that he will truly be an agent of positive change, he should have led his campaign in a congruent fashion. Either way, now is the time for him to put country first and lead strongly by taking a stand against bigotry and steering his campaign in a new direction.
We've seen some of the ugliest sides of America this week from Republican rallies, including incidents where supporters of McCain-Palin called Obama a terrorist and yelled out "kill him!"
Here's an article from ABC reporting on these rallies.
Today, as reported here from the Wall Street Journal, McCain finally took a stand against these horrific outbursts from the Republican base and yet aired a new ad linking Obama to Bill Ayers, who Palin referred to as a terrorist earlier at one of these rallies. Personally, I think it's time for the McCain campaign to draw the line cleanly with both his words and his actions if he is truly trying to reform the Republican party. He cannot tell his supporters "I have to tell you [Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared (of) as president of the United States" and simultaneously run an ad linking him to someone his VP pick referred to as a terrorist a few days ago. I have a weak stomach for negative ad campaigns in general, but when people are saying things at rallies like "off with his head" and "I can't trust him because [Obama]'s an Arab," McCain has to know that his campaign has crossed the line. If he wants American voters to believe that he can truly reform the Republican Party, he's been handed a golden opportunity to prove it. It's time for him to put a definitive end to these ridiculous character attacks. (And in response, Obama should also pull his ads on McCain and the Keating 5 Scandal). However, if I am honest, I think McCain and Palin should have nipped this in the bud as soon as the first of these outrageous comments were made. If there was ever a clear time to model judgment and decisiveness as a leader during this campaign, and to put country first, this was it.
Like some of you, I have harbored not just a little judgment toward the Republican Party while living under the Bush Administration. But I want to take this opportunity to remind myself and those of you like me that the bigots at these rallies do not represent all Republicans. Here's another good article by David Brooks, a conservative addressing the unfortunate trend of anti-intellectualism in the Republican party: The Class War Before Palin
Jessica Tou recently made a comment here adding helpfully to my post on the Bill of Rights. As a followup, here are some resources:
To learn more about the 3 branches of our government as laid out in our constitution:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/federal.shtml
To learn more about Landmark Supreme Court Cases that have since shaped the interpretation of our constitution:
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/Teach/freeResources/LandmarkSupremeCourtCases/
Here's an article that helps fill out the picture a bit on the Economic Crisis, proving again that oversimplification seems to be the ultimate enemy of truth during election this season:
"Who Caused The Economic Crisis?"
The Commission on Presidential Debates provides transcripts of current and past Presidential Debates.
Also, you can read a complete transcript of the Saddleback Civil Forum here.
As you may know, I am leaning heavily towards voting for Obama. However, I created this site not to convince readers to mindlessly follow my lead, but to instead engage minds, both Democratic and Republican, in a thoughtful process and dialogue. Accordingly, before I express my opinions about the two candidates, I would like to share two articles sent to me by a well-respected, thoughtful Republican friend of mine. Both articles are written by David Brooks, a conservative writing for the New York Times:
In a previous post, I directed readers to the official site of the US Constitution. While I think it would be great for people to read the whole constitution, much of the original constitution is very dry in that it describes in detail the structure of the US government and focuses less explicitly on American ideals. However, The Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to our Constitution) talks much more explicitly about our values as a country. I also found the historical reason behind the creation of The Bill of Rights interesting and reflective of our founding fathers' motivations:
(from the site):
"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a 'bill of rights' that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights."
I encourage you to consider The Bill of Rights during this election as you decide which candidate is more likely to lead us in the right direction.
As the entirety of Factcheck.org can be a bit overwhelming, this article provides a helpful summary of "red flags" to watch out for from both campaigns:
"The Whoppers of 2008"
Our constitution contains the ideals upon which our country was founded. If US patriotism was a religion, this document would be its holy book, and yet I must admit that I never gave our constitution a thoughtful read until only a few months ago. Sadly, I am sure I am not alone in my neglect of our country's most important document, which is why I am posting the link to the official site of our Constitution here:
The Constitution of the United States
As someone who is newly engaged in the voting process, I found it helpful to first read this document and interpret for myself what the ideals of our forefathers were as they founded this country. In the midst of all the negative ads and media distractions, it's easy to lose perspective on what is truly important. For me, our constitution serves as a grounding point, and accordingly, much of my vote will depend on which candidate, which party, and which stances on issues most closely align to what I think is an accurate representation of our constitutional ideals.
(Added 10/20/08)
Here's an article sent to me from a friend regarding this topic:
Wall Street Journal - Opinion: How to Read the Constitution
www.factcheck.org is a good resource to tap in order to get closer to the truth (or lies) behind all that is said during the presidential campaign.
If you must spend time at partisan sites such as www.meetbarackobama.com or www.therealmccain.com, I would suggest that you make sure to spend time at both camps. I believe it's in our nature (certainly in mine) to want to tap only those resources that affirm what we already believe, but if we really want to get a better perspective on our candidates, we must be open to both sides or pursue, as best as we can, non-partisan resources in order to rise above becoming lemmings to propaganda.
I have heard supporters of both McCain and Obama deride the opposing candidate for not addressing the issues and for not explaining how he would lead regarding those issues. In my opinion, the issues are often complicated. As a result, going over the nitty gritty details of any plan is unfortuantely not a stragically advantageous move for either candidate in terms of winning votes. However, in this time of the internet, we are fortunate to have easy access to information beyond what the candidates choose to talk about on TV. Please use these sites below find out more about where each candidate stands on the issues:
Breakdown of Obama's positions/plans on issues from www.barackobama.com
Breakdown of McCain's positions/plans on issues from www.johnmccain.com
Comparison of differences on issues from the Wall Street Journal (arguably right-leaning publication)
Comparison of differences on issues from the Boston Globe (arguably left-leaning publication)
Please participate by writing comments or posting directly to this site. If you are interested in posting directly, please contact me and I will add you as an author to this blog. You can also just email me what you would like posted and I will post on your behalf. My email address is joe(at)joechangmusic.com.
Please be sure to follow the "Ground Rules" before you post or comment.
Thank you in advance for your participation.
The most disturbing aspect of this election for me has not been a republican issue, or a democratic issue, but a US political culture issue. Along with many of you, I feel deeply saddened that in the process of electing a leader into our nation's highest office, our candidates' representative campaigns stoop to the lowest levels. Yes, we can argue which campaign is worse, but for me, that discussion would only distract us from the fact that at least in some way, both sides are guilty, and that ultimately, this is an American problem. Furthermore, due to what I believe is a failure of our education system to raise voters who have the capacity to think critically at a higher level, these embarrassingly dishonorable methods work on the majority of American voters. Solving this problem is beyond my ability, but I must do what I can to help rectify this situation.
As a result, I have started this blog and have invited Republicans and Democrats to participate in a reasonable discussion about this very important election. This is not a place for smear or misleading soundbites. This is not a place for tabloid-like attacks on either candidate or party. This is a place for reasonable people who exercise their patriotism by listening, learning, presenting their point of view respectfully, and getting closer to the truth behind what informs (or should inform) our votes. We will almost for sure not all agree. That is not the goal. But I believe we make progress if we understand better why we do not agree.
Because we will be discussing politics, perhaps it is unavoidable that active persuasion will be involved, but I ask that users approach this site with an eagerness to learn from each other. Questions are greatly encouraged, especially if they are asked in order to learn about an alternate perspective. If possible, I would like to invite passion, but not anger, into this discussion, as I believe the second causes us to become at least somewhat less rational and less willing to learn and understand each other. I sincerely hope this site will be productive and enlightening for everyone involved.
Posts
All Comments
