“Beta O’Rourke May Benefit From an Unlikely Support Group: White Evangelical Women”, Elisabeth Dias, New York Times, 2018-10-09
This shift is that these women are seeing O’Rourke as a “stark moral contrast to Mr. Trump.” They are seeing other moral values that Trump does not have; values that are just as important as opposing abortion.
The problem with abortion as a political issue is that it ignores many problems that are not controlled by an “unwilling” mother.
Shall a teen-age girl be responsible for a child fathered by force, whether by a known or unknown male?
Shall a woman of any age be forced to bear a child whose birth will kill her? What would that do to any previous children she had?
We really cannot make any sweeping pronouncements about abortion without knowing all facts in each individual case.
If we make all abortions illegal, who will be punished? Will it be the unwilling mother? Will it be the “back alley abortionist”? Will it be the not present father?
Ironically, some of these “value” voters are supporting a party that is quite willing to cause unwanted abortions in other countries. How many pregnant women are killed in wars? How many of these pregnant women even support the wars in their countries? And some of these politicians with the “big buttons” are quite willing to obliterate large numbers of women and children.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 09, 2018
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Pro-lifers are anti-safety?!?
How is it that the party that puts such emphasis on being pro-life wants to gut safety regulations because the latter are anti-business?
Safety regulations reduce worker injuries and deaths. How can a pro-life party be so anti-life once a child is born? It figures. It doesn't want to provide health care for the already born. It doesn't want to put any restrictions on gun control; guns are very anti-life. It wants to sell more and more weapons to other countries. It wants to increase the nuclear arsenal; nuclear weapons kill thousands of unborn children.
I think many of these pro-life politicians took the hypocrite oath: first do harm.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Constitutional Amendments: Government Power Versus Personal Rights
Originally published in the
Reader Weekly
November 25, 2004
I don’t know how many constitutional amendments have historically been before Congress, but in the last two decades it almost seems Congress has been flooded with them.
I did a Google Search and a search of the House of Representatives web site for “constitutional amendment”; both yielded thousands and thousands of results. I narrowed my search to the House Judiciary Committee and got a mere 6652 hits. However, I had a hard time finding more descriptive material in them. I went back to the Google search and looked into several of the first 80 items. From various sources I succeeded in finding ten currently proposed amendments.
Marriage Protection Amendment (H. J. 106)
Constitutional Rights for Victims (S.J. Res. 1, H. R. Res. 10)
Desecration of Flag (S.J. Res. 4, H.J. Res. 4)
Balanced Budget (H.J. Res. 22)
Religious Freedom (H.J. Res. 46)
Abortion Ban
Continuity of Government (H.J.Res. 83)
Naturalized Citizens for President (H.J. Res. 104)
Natural Born Citizen Act (S.2128)
Direct Election of the President (H.J. Res. 109)
Some readers will think all these amendments should be adopted and some will think some of them are frivolous. I put the relevant House or Senate bills after most of these. You can find their text, current status, and related information by searching from The Library of Congress' Thomas by bill number or keywords.
I didn’t put a bill number by Abortion Ban because I could not find a bill that seemed to directly relate to it. All the bills I scanned seemed either to limit it or limit its prohibition.
I think we should ask four questions about any proposed amendment to the Constitution.
1. Does it define the structure and purpose of government?
2. Does it preserve the checks and balances?
3. Does it extend the power of government or does it extend the rights of persons?
4. Will it really work?
If you read the original Constitution, you will find that it mostly defines how the government should work and defines broadly what functions each of the three branches has. It doesn’t get into details of what people may or may not do; those are left to particular laws, their administration, and their judicial review.
We who were fortunate enough to take civics and American history learned repeatedly that the framers of the Constitution did not want one branch of the government to dominate the other. They were especially wary of a king-like executive. They were divided on how strong the federal government should be.
The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) were to correct a flaw many critics felt the original Constitution lacked – protection of the people from an all-powerful government. Unfortunately, although Congress thought it had a clear vision of what those rights should be, many people have distorted them to either claim a greater right than Congress intended or claim a right does not cover certain situations.
Will an amendment really work? History gives us mixed lessons on this. The amendment that flopped the most was Prohibition – it really was interpreted by a large number of people as a restriction of their freedom. On the other hand, the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote regardless of race or color, took decades to be enforced. Some feel that it is still not uniformly enforced in all States.
Let’s take a quick peek at some of the amendments I listed and see how they satisfy my four questions.
Marriage Protection Amendment
It could be argued that this defines a purpose of government, but that is a stretch. It really is an extension of the power of the federal government at the expense of individuals and the states.
The best comment I found was by Rep. Jim Davis of Florida. “Personally, I believe marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman; however, I voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because I also believe the United States Constitution should protect rights, not deny them, and states should have the right to decide whether same sex marriages should be recognized within their borders.”
If it is to be considered an extension of people’s rights and a protection of marriage, then maybe the first sentence should read “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman and they shall be considered equal partners.”
Will it work? It certainly won’t prevent two men or two women living together.
Constitutional Rights for Victims
This amendment enjoys bi-partisan support. It essentially guarantees that victims of violent crimes be informed of proceedings against the accused, be allowed to heard at public proceedings, and be protected from further injury. It does have a loophole about restrictions “dictated … by compelling necessity.”
It definitely extends the rights of some people though others would say it limits the rights of the accused.
As to preserving checks and balances, the judiciary prefers a statutory approach to victims' rights over a constitutional amendment.
Religious Freedom
This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing of amendments. In the guise of protecting freedom it extends the power of government to promote religion. The catch is the use of “people” instead of persons, such as in “The people retain the right to pray…” Does this mean that if the majority determines that a public gathering will have a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim prayer, then the minority must sit quietly by while a prayer that they find offensive is given? Is the “people” a local government that will specify the prayers? Would an evangelical Christian be happy if all local government functions began with a Muslim prayer?
Special Elections/Appointment (Continuity of Government)
Naturalized Citizens for President
Natural Born Citizen Act
Direct Election of the President
These are the only amendments in my list that I think really satisfy all of the questions I posed. My only caveat is, will they work as intended or will they have some serious unintended consequences? The Continuity of Government is opposed by many representatives because it doesn’t guarantee quick elections to replace representatives. The Naturalized Citizen amendment is called the “Schwarzenegger Amendment” but it could apply equally to Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian-born, Democratic governor of Michigan. The Natural Born act is more limiting in that applies to people whose citizen parents happened to be elsewhere at the time of their birth or to people who immigrated as children. Direct Election essentially abolishes the Electoral College.
Let’s hope that these four get more attention than the others and that Congress and the State legislatures deliberate them openly and honestly.
Reader Weekly
November 25, 2004
I don’t know how many constitutional amendments have historically been before Congress, but in the last two decades it almost seems Congress has been flooded with them.
I did a Google Search and a search of the House of Representatives web site for “constitutional amendment”; both yielded thousands and thousands of results. I narrowed my search to the House Judiciary Committee and got a mere 6652 hits. However, I had a hard time finding more descriptive material in them. I went back to the Google search and looked into several of the first 80 items. From various sources I succeeded in finding ten currently proposed amendments.
Marriage Protection Amendment (H. J. 106)
Constitutional Rights for Victims (S.J. Res. 1, H. R. Res. 10)
Desecration of Flag (S.J. Res. 4, H.J. Res. 4)
Balanced Budget (H.J. Res. 22)
Religious Freedom (H.J. Res. 46)
Abortion Ban
Continuity of Government (H.J.Res. 83)
Naturalized Citizens for President (H.J. Res. 104)
Natural Born Citizen Act (S.2128)
Direct Election of the President (H.J. Res. 109)
Some readers will think all these amendments should be adopted and some will think some of them are frivolous. I put the relevant House or Senate bills after most of these. You can find their text, current status, and related information by searching from The Library of Congress' Thomas by bill number or keywords.
I didn’t put a bill number by Abortion Ban because I could not find a bill that seemed to directly relate to it. All the bills I scanned seemed either to limit it or limit its prohibition.
I think we should ask four questions about any proposed amendment to the Constitution.
1. Does it define the structure and purpose of government?
2. Does it preserve the checks and balances?
3. Does it extend the power of government or does it extend the rights of persons?
4. Will it really work?
If you read the original Constitution, you will find that it mostly defines how the government should work and defines broadly what functions each of the three branches has. It doesn’t get into details of what people may or may not do; those are left to particular laws, their administration, and their judicial review.
We who were fortunate enough to take civics and American history learned repeatedly that the framers of the Constitution did not want one branch of the government to dominate the other. They were especially wary of a king-like executive. They were divided on how strong the federal government should be.
The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) were to correct a flaw many critics felt the original Constitution lacked – protection of the people from an all-powerful government. Unfortunately, although Congress thought it had a clear vision of what those rights should be, many people have distorted them to either claim a greater right than Congress intended or claim a right does not cover certain situations.
Will an amendment really work? History gives us mixed lessons on this. The amendment that flopped the most was Prohibition – it really was interpreted by a large number of people as a restriction of their freedom. On the other hand, the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote regardless of race or color, took decades to be enforced. Some feel that it is still not uniformly enforced in all States.
Let’s take a quick peek at some of the amendments I listed and see how they satisfy my four questions.
Marriage Protection Amendment
It could be argued that this defines a purpose of government, but that is a stretch. It really is an extension of the power of the federal government at the expense of individuals and the states.
The best comment I found was by Rep. Jim Davis of Florida. “Personally, I believe marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman; however, I voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because I also believe the United States Constitution should protect rights, not deny them, and states should have the right to decide whether same sex marriages should be recognized within their borders.”
If it is to be considered an extension of people’s rights and a protection of marriage, then maybe the first sentence should read “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman and they shall be considered equal partners.”
Will it work? It certainly won’t prevent two men or two women living together.
Constitutional Rights for Victims
This amendment enjoys bi-partisan support. It essentially guarantees that victims of violent crimes be informed of proceedings against the accused, be allowed to heard at public proceedings, and be protected from further injury. It does have a loophole about restrictions “dictated … by compelling necessity.”
It definitely extends the rights of some people though others would say it limits the rights of the accused.
As to preserving checks and balances, the judiciary prefers a statutory approach to victims' rights over a constitutional amendment.
Religious Freedom
This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing of amendments. In the guise of protecting freedom it extends the power of government to promote religion. The catch is the use of “people” instead of persons, such as in “The people retain the right to pray…” Does this mean that if the majority determines that a public gathering will have a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim prayer, then the minority must sit quietly by while a prayer that they find offensive is given? Is the “people” a local government that will specify the prayers? Would an evangelical Christian be happy if all local government functions began with a Muslim prayer?
Special Elections/Appointment (Continuity of Government)
Naturalized Citizens for President
Natural Born Citizen Act
Direct Election of the President
These are the only amendments in my list that I think really satisfy all of the questions I posed. My only caveat is, will they work as intended or will they have some serious unintended consequences? The Continuity of Government is opposed by many representatives because it doesn’t guarantee quick elections to replace representatives. The Naturalized Citizen amendment is called the “Schwarzenegger Amendment” but it could apply equally to Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian-born, Democratic governor of Michigan. The Natural Born act is more limiting in that applies to people whose citizen parents happened to be elsewhere at the time of their birth or to people who immigrated as children. Direct Election essentially abolishes the Electoral College.
Let’s hope that these four get more attention than the others and that Congress and the State legislatures deliberate them openly and honestly.
Sunday, April 02, 2017
Religious Americans who believe war is murder shouldn’t be forced to fund it
This my counter to “Religious Americans who believe abortion is murder shouldn’t be forced to fund it”, one of the opinions in “Should the new Congress defund Planned Parenthood”, Duluth News Tribune, 2017-04-02.
It boggles my mind that those who want to ban abortion seem to have no qualms of supporting a party that is all to willing to go to war wherever they think “American interests” are at stake. War causes many unwanted abortions, abortions the victimized mothers would not want if they had survived the bombing or gunfire. Even if the mothers had survived, would the stress of war caused spontaneous abortions in some of them.
These anti-abortion, pro-war “religious” seem to forget “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. - Matthew 5:9. They also seem to have ignored “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.” Peter I 3:8.
It boggles my mind that those who want to ban abortion seem to have no qualms of supporting a party that is all to willing to go to war wherever they think “American interests” are at stake. War causes many unwanted abortions, abortions the victimized mothers would not want if they had survived the bombing or gunfire. Even if the mothers had survived, would the stress of war caused spontaneous abortions in some of them.
These anti-abortion, pro-war “religious” seem to forget “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. - Matthew 5:9. They also seem to have ignored “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.” Peter I 3:8.
Monday, November 28, 2016
Anti-abortion but pro-war?
How is it that those who are against abortion are allied with the party that wants to get involved with wars all over the world? Doesn’t war kill pregnant women and their unborn children?
How many pregnant women in England were killed German rockets? How many pregnant women were killed by the fire-bombing of Dresden? How many pregnant women were killed in Leningrad and Stalingrad? How many pregnant women were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many pregnant women were killed in Viet Nam by either side? How man pregnant women have been killed in Iraq, Syria, and many other places?
None of these war victims was given a choice.
How many pregnant women in England were killed German rockets? How many pregnant women were killed by the fire-bombing of Dresden? How many pregnant women were killed in Leningrad and Stalingrad? How many pregnant women were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many pregnant women were killed in Viet Nam by either side? How man pregnant women have been killed in Iraq, Syria, and many other places?
None of these war victims was given a choice.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
Protect the unborn, forget the pain of the born children
Idaho has a "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" which supposedly is based on some neuroscience findings about what a fetus might feel. It tried to convict a woman of self-abortion because she used RU-486, a legal drug bought out of state. The case was dropped because of lack of evidence.
My question is if these pseudo-conservatives are so concerned about the pain of the unborn, why are they not also concerned about the pain of the born caused by their own wars? Does not a drone missile cause pain and death to children? Does not a nuclear bomb cause pain and death to children? Think Sadako Sasaki of a thousand cranes.
For a lengthier discussion of the implications of basing decisions on limited scientific research, see "Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe v. Wade", William Egginton, New York Times, 2012-10-28.
My question is if these pseudo-conservatives are so concerned about the pain of the unborn, why are they not also concerned about the pain of the born caused by their own wars? Does not a drone missile cause pain and death to children? Does not a nuclear bomb cause pain and death to children? Think Sadako Sasaki of a thousand cranes.
For a lengthier discussion of the implications of basing decisions on limited scientific research, see "Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe v. Wade", William Egginton, New York Times, 2012-10-28.
Monday, August 20, 2012
The political spectrum – from wrong to wronger
The conventional idea of the political spectrum from left to right is as if one adapts different ideas as one moves smoothly from one side to the other. But people aren't so easily graded as eggs. Some people are for ideas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and other are against all six. Some people are for ideas 1, 2, and 3, and against ideas 4, 5, and 6. Others are for ideas 1, 3, and 6 and against 2, 4, and 5. And so on.
But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative. If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.
Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers. If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative. If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal. If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative. If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.
About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves. About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.
So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?
That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.
Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me. Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance. I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status. I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.
Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less. Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations. Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food? Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases. Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.
It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays. Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day. As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.
But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative. If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.
Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers. If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative. If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal. If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative. If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.
About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves. About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.
So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?
That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.
Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me. Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance. I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status. I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.
Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less. Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations. Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food? Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases. Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.
It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays. Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day. As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.
Friday, May 28, 2010
The ultimate abortion machine
I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Republican Party is not as hawkish as many of its opponents believe. The 2008 Republican Party platform includes the following under "National Security":
"The U.S. should lead that effort by reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number consistent with our security requirements and working with other nuclear powers to do the same."
Let's hope that "the lowest number consistent with our security requirements" rapidly approaches zero. This would be consistent with the large section in the 2008 Republican platform titled "Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life", which includes, "At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life." After all, the use of nuclear weapons, or any other weapons taking the lives of non-combatants, "is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life."
In other words, nuclear weapons are the ultimate abortion machine.
"The U.S. should lead that effort by reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number consistent with our security requirements and working with other nuclear powers to do the same."
Let's hope that "the lowest number consistent with our security requirements" rapidly approaches zero. This would be consistent with the large section in the 2008 Republican platform titled "Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life", which includes, "At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life." After all, the use of nuclear weapons, or any other weapons taking the lives of non-combatants, "is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life."
In other words, nuclear weapons are the ultimate abortion machine.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Yes or No! No Ifs, Ands, or Buts!
Creationism vs. evolution, anti-abortion vs. pro-abortion, pro-Americanism vs. anti-Americanism, “you’re for us or against us”, “my way or the highway”, Democrat or Republican! On and on it goes for issue after issue – taxes, gun control, and war. Loud voices drown out reasoned voices. Slogans overwhelm discussion.
Now the election is over and we shall see if we get more partisanship or more governance. If McCain has won, we’ll definitely see more partisanship and less governance; each side working to show how they “know best”. If Obama has won, we may see less partisanship and a bit more governance. Even then, with our “imperial presidency”, there will be grandstanding both in Congress and in the Executive Office to show how “hard everyone is working for the people.”
Whoever has won, we will see many shortsighted solutions. On one hand, we’ll see “free market knows best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries. On the other hand, we’ll see “the people know best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries.
Charles Wheelan, author of “The Naked Economist”, recently wrote “The Twilight of Free-Market Ideology”. He faulted those who promoted lessening regulations to let business thrive, especially those who say government should get out of businesses’ way. He wrote that, at a minimum, we need government for when we want to sue somebody.
Many of the comments that followed on finance.yahoo.com were extremely vituperative. Almost any hint of government involvement is seen as socialism or communism. Fortunately, we have few public voices that are espousing either of these extreme ideas of government involvement in the economy.
In health insurance, McCain has been promoting individual choice and wants to tax employee-provided insurance. He seems to forget all the fraternal societies founded in the 1800s to provide various forms of assistance to members as well as help to others. At one time insurance companies were owned by policyholders; that’s why they included the name “Mutual”.
Obama has a several-point plan on reducing costs and providing insurance for more people. However, it will take a lot of jawboning on the part of the Federal government to implement many of these ideas.
Wouldn’t a better way be to encourage states to improve health care and insurance costs? This way a lot more ideas can be tried sooner with a lot less hassle than a national plan.
“Obama will take our guns away.” Other than an ill-advised, off-the-cuff remark about some people finding solace in having guns, I don’t think Obama has said much about gun control. Even if some future president and Congress wanted to take guns away, does anyone think they will succeed? President Bush hasn’t been able to take guns away from people in Iraq and Afghanistan in over five years. And there are enough Democratic hunters in Congress to block any extreme action in the U.S.
“Gay marriage will destroy marriage!” “All couples should be treated equally!” Hm! I find both positions tiresome. Gay marriage surely will not destroy my marriage of 48 years. And everybody has the right to marry a person of their choice of the opposite sex. However, there are many living arrangements that require more legal support than is currently available. How about two widows living together to save costs?
As for the Biblical basis of marriage being one man and one woman, what about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines?
Every abortion is a difficult choice. To criminalize abortion is to assume that the federal government knows best; strange coming from the party that wants “to get government off our backs.” Criminalizing abortion will work no better than prohibition of alcohol or drugs. We would be much better off working to reduce abortions by providing more non-governmental counseling, just like is done with substance abuse.
“The two-party system” is the king of “yes or no, no ifs, ands, or buts”. We are bamboozled into making a choice between two candidates, both of whom may cause more problems than they will solve. “Don’t throw your vote away!” “A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush!” It was? More Democrats stayed home than voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida. Nader got 9,000 votes and over 100,000 Democrats stayed home.
I hope you didn’t stay home on Nov. 4 but cast your vote as you saw fit, whether it was for McCain or Obama, Barr or Nader, or whoever else was on the ballot. If you didn’t like any of them, I hope you voted for “None of the above”. You didn’t see it on the ballot? It’s there in two ways. In Minnesota, you can write someone in (remember to give two names when voting for President) or you can leave the boxes blank for any given office.
This election may see the rise of a viable national third party. There may have been enough Republicans, dissatisfied with the McCain-Palin candidacy or with the ideological hardening of the Republican Party, who will split off into a new party. Don’t forget that the Republican Party was started by dissatisfied Whigs.
As the first and last real Republican said, “As our case is new, so must we think anew, and act anew.”
Now the election is over and we shall see if we get more partisanship or more governance. If McCain has won, we’ll definitely see more partisanship and less governance; each side working to show how they “know best”. If Obama has won, we may see less partisanship and a bit more governance. Even then, with our “imperial presidency”, there will be grandstanding both in Congress and in the Executive Office to show how “hard everyone is working for the people.”
Whoever has won, we will see many shortsighted solutions. On one hand, we’ll see “free market knows best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries. On the other hand, we’ll see “the people know best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries.
Charles Wheelan, author of “The Naked Economist”, recently wrote “The Twilight of Free-Market Ideology”. He faulted those who promoted lessening regulations to let business thrive, especially those who say government should get out of businesses’ way. He wrote that, at a minimum, we need government for when we want to sue somebody.
Many of the comments that followed on finance.yahoo.com were extremely vituperative. Almost any hint of government involvement is seen as socialism or communism. Fortunately, we have few public voices that are espousing either of these extreme ideas of government involvement in the economy.
In health insurance, McCain has been promoting individual choice and wants to tax employee-provided insurance. He seems to forget all the fraternal societies founded in the 1800s to provide various forms of assistance to members as well as help to others. At one time insurance companies were owned by policyholders; that’s why they included the name “Mutual”.
Obama has a several-point plan on reducing costs and providing insurance for more people. However, it will take a lot of jawboning on the part of the Federal government to implement many of these ideas.
Wouldn’t a better way be to encourage states to improve health care and insurance costs? This way a lot more ideas can be tried sooner with a lot less hassle than a national plan.
“Obama will take our guns away.” Other than an ill-advised, off-the-cuff remark about some people finding solace in having guns, I don’t think Obama has said much about gun control. Even if some future president and Congress wanted to take guns away, does anyone think they will succeed? President Bush hasn’t been able to take guns away from people in Iraq and Afghanistan in over five years. And there are enough Democratic hunters in Congress to block any extreme action in the U.S.
“Gay marriage will destroy marriage!” “All couples should be treated equally!” Hm! I find both positions tiresome. Gay marriage surely will not destroy my marriage of 48 years. And everybody has the right to marry a person of their choice of the opposite sex. However, there are many living arrangements that require more legal support than is currently available. How about two widows living together to save costs?
As for the Biblical basis of marriage being one man and one woman, what about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines?
Every abortion is a difficult choice. To criminalize abortion is to assume that the federal government knows best; strange coming from the party that wants “to get government off our backs.” Criminalizing abortion will work no better than prohibition of alcohol or drugs. We would be much better off working to reduce abortions by providing more non-governmental counseling, just like is done with substance abuse.
“The two-party system” is the king of “yes or no, no ifs, ands, or buts”. We are bamboozled into making a choice between two candidates, both of whom may cause more problems than they will solve. “Don’t throw your vote away!” “A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush!” It was? More Democrats stayed home than voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida. Nader got 9,000 votes and over 100,000 Democrats stayed home.
I hope you didn’t stay home on Nov. 4 but cast your vote as you saw fit, whether it was for McCain or Obama, Barr or Nader, or whoever else was on the ballot. If you didn’t like any of them, I hope you voted for “None of the above”. You didn’t see it on the ballot? It’s there in two ways. In Minnesota, you can write someone in (remember to give two names when voting for President) or you can leave the boxes blank for any given office.
This election may see the rise of a viable national third party. There may have been enough Republicans, dissatisfied with the McCain-Palin candidacy or with the ideological hardening of the Republican Party, who will split off into a new party. Don’t forget that the Republican Party was started by dissatisfied Whigs.
As the first and last real Republican said, “As our case is new, so must we think anew, and act anew.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)