Both Liberal John Locke and Conservative Thomas Hobbes were right about some things, and both were wrong about some things. Can't there be three sides to every issue?
Gun Control- One extreme says that there shouldn't be any. Anyone should be able to own any gun. The other extreme says that no one needs any guns in the 21st century anymore so no one should be allowed to own any. But somewhere in the middle we can talk about waiting periods and hunting weapons or home protection as opposed to instruments of murder and war.
Death penalty- One extreme says that not only should murder be punished by death, but so should rape and kidnapping. The other extreme says that it's barbaric, cruel and unusual. Surely, somewhere in between we can talk about DNA evidence and redemption and rehabilitation- yet restitution, consequence, and deterrence.
Stem Cells- One extreme says that we shouldn't play God, the other thinks that science has the solution to almost everything. Somehow, so long as we're not deliberately fertilizing eggs to create stem cell lines, if legal fertility treatments, produce cells that will be disposed of anyway, why not allow those to be used for research?
Gay marriage- One extreme stands outside of churches with posters that say "God hates fags." The other extreme would be blasé' about deviant behavior becoming more and more acceptable as just another lifestyle choice. Somewhere in the middle we can see that the constitution guarantees rights to everyone no matter how different from us, like it or not, so if marriage is so holy, then why should states issue marriage licenses? Let marriage be religious and civil unions be social.
Evolution- One extreme says that God created the earth in 6 24-hour calendar days as we know them, roughly 6,000 years ago. The theories of Charles Darwin threaten all Christian norms and not only should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools, but Darwinism should not. The other extreme is that we're all random stardust and everything we know is by random accident. Religion is a delusion and an opiate and not only is the whole concept of Intelligent Design laughable, but you can put your faith in any of the scientific theories in current textbooks, including Darwin's and there's no place for any religion in our schools.
Yikes, right? Seems like there would be no middle, but come on- obviously both of these are too absolutist. No scientific theory or discovery can shake my faith because "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1)." Whereas science is studying, testing, and reporting those things that you CAN see. You can't measure, calibrate, quantify or qualify faith, prayer, love, devotion, belief or forgiveness. And the problem with science is that it depends entirely on what we can see, but the very act of observing something alters it's natural state- so we can never observe something the way it really is. It's like trying to see if the light turns off in the refrigerator when you close the door. The evidence suggests that the rock is billions of years old. Evidence may suggest that a candle has been burning for three hours, unless you lit it with a blow torch.
So where is the middle? Teach scientific method as a method and ALL scientific theories as theories. Teach critical thinking skills, then go ahead and present Intelligent Design as a theory, but attribute it to who advocates it and why and let students make their own judgments about it. But don't try covertly sneak religion into the science classroom. Teach religious doctrine and dogma at Church, at home or at parochial schools in Religion class.
And remember, the First amendment prohibits public school teachers from using their position to proselytize students, but it also protects every students right to freely speak about and practice their religion anywhere, including school. So, as long as the kids initiate it and the teacher facilitates discussion rather than advocating or promoting any one position, there's no reason that kids can't talk about their views on evolution or religion or anything else in any classroom.
Abortion, the war in Iraq, equal pay for women, affirmative action, a progressive tax code, the distribution of power and responsibility between the three branches of government, the balance of power and responsibility between states and the Federal government, participation in international treaties and organizations, illegal immigration, domestic spying, work safety, drug safety, TV ratings, boring budgets and appropriations… everything from infrastructure to Social Security can divide us and anyone can have a liberal positions on one or two issues and yet a very conservative positions on several other.
Not all Republicans are filthy rich and white males and not all Democrats are herb smoking New Agers who can't wait to spit on our soldiers when the come home. So both as Christians and as Americans, we should be slow to judge and quick to look for what we have in common with others, so that together we can move forward on the things we agree on instead of stereotyping each other and resenting each other because of what we disagree about.
"It is good to grasp on to one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes."~ Ecclesiastes 7:18
____________________________________________
"The gospel is meant to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." ~Garrison Keillor
Showing posts with label post-partisanship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label post-partisanship. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Thursday, January 12, 2006
The Radical Middle: Part 2
"It is good to grasp on to one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes." ~ Ecclesiastes is Chapter 7:18
Last week I wrote about how two political philosophers influenced American history and thinking. Thomas Hobbes believed that most people are basically selfish and incapable of governing themselves, so they need a strong government led by those most fit to lead. John Locke believed that everyone is born a "blank slate" and given the right resources, anyone is capable of making rational decisions, therefore everyone should be able to have an equal input in government. Even our government is designed to reflect these two views.
Congress represents small districts with "common" men and women running every two years. They hold more radical positions on hot-button issues and it's easy for them to pass legislation quickly. Locke would love that kind of direct democracy.
Whereas, the Senators represent entire states, they're generally millionaires, from old wealthy families, or have served for years in other government positions, like the Congress before ascending to the Senate. Things move more slowly there and regardless of which party they're from, they tend to be more cautions and careful, negotiating, deliberating and building consensus before finalizing their decisions. Hobbes would have appreciated that kind of institution.
Like Iowa is stuck in the middle of the country, I've often felt like I was stuck in the middle of Locke and Hobbes' two extremes. Sure I lean to the left a little, some of that is because I loved studying history and I admired Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. I liked their pragmatic, progressive reforms and vision and I liked the positive changes of the civil rights movment. I saw Joseph Macarthy and Richard Nixon as threatening, powerful demagogues.
But I guess I didn't fit the mold of what many post-sixties conservatives think "liberals" should be like. I didn't "hate" America, I'm not an anarchist, I've never used drugs, I believe in God and strong families and tradition and working hard at a 9 to 5 for a decent wage and living in suburbia.
I was frustrated by the Iran-Contra scandal and the trickle-down economics that favored the rich used byt the Reagan administration, so I joined the Young Democrats of America (YDA) in high school. The YDA was so small that to have any activities, the school had us join together with the Teenage Republicans (TAR). What I noticed was that the YDA's president was the "Alex P. Keaton (Micheal J. Fox)" sort of preppie with the tie and briefcase who always read Time and Newsweek. It was the Republican guys who wore black heavy metal band concert t-shirts and had long hair or shaved heads. Maybe they were more interested in the pizza then policy and ideology.
Then in college, I interviewed for a job at a Democratic National Committee (DNC) phone bank- but frankly I was kind of uncomfortable with all of the women who didn't shave their legs and the men who did. I try not to judge people with all kind of piercings and tattoos or anyone who smokes or uses colorful language, but none of those things are me. And like anyone, I can handle hanging out or working with a few people who are different, but it's hard to be the one and only square for too long.
There are two things about Clinton that I appreciated. First is that he was a fiscal conservative. He insisted on a balanced budget and he eventually managed to begin reducing the national debt. The other is that he reached out to Republicans and independents to fill positions and help decide policy- even though some hard-core conservatives hounded him his entire term. No one had been as bipartisan since Abe Lincoln. But yes, I felt angry and betrayed by his philandering and lying.
Now, I know I whine about this a lot, but it drives me crazy to be torn between two worlds. Liberals don't understand how I can be so religious and so into families and small towns. Christians don't understand how I can call myself a Christian and ever vote for any Democrats, let alone be registered to that party. I just wish that Americans could allow themselves to" grasp on to one and not let go of the other."
Last week I wrote about how two political philosophers influenced American history and thinking. Thomas Hobbes believed that most people are basically selfish and incapable of governing themselves, so they need a strong government led by those most fit to lead. John Locke believed that everyone is born a "blank slate" and given the right resources, anyone is capable of making rational decisions, therefore everyone should be able to have an equal input in government. Even our government is designed to reflect these two views.
Congress represents small districts with "common" men and women running every two years. They hold more radical positions on hot-button issues and it's easy for them to pass legislation quickly. Locke would love that kind of direct democracy.
Whereas, the Senators represent entire states, they're generally millionaires, from old wealthy families, or have served for years in other government positions, like the Congress before ascending to the Senate. Things move more slowly there and regardless of which party they're from, they tend to be more cautions and careful, negotiating, deliberating and building consensus before finalizing their decisions. Hobbes would have appreciated that kind of institution.
Like Iowa is stuck in the middle of the country, I've often felt like I was stuck in the middle of Locke and Hobbes' two extremes. Sure I lean to the left a little, some of that is because I loved studying history and I admired Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. I liked their pragmatic, progressive reforms and vision and I liked the positive changes of the civil rights movment. I saw Joseph Macarthy and Richard Nixon as threatening, powerful demagogues.
But I guess I didn't fit the mold of what many post-sixties conservatives think "liberals" should be like. I didn't "hate" America, I'm not an anarchist, I've never used drugs, I believe in God and strong families and tradition and working hard at a 9 to 5 for a decent wage and living in suburbia.
I was frustrated by the Iran-Contra scandal and the trickle-down economics that favored the rich used byt the Reagan administration, so I joined the Young Democrats of America (YDA) in high school. The YDA was so small that to have any activities, the school had us join together with the Teenage Republicans (TAR). What I noticed was that the YDA's president was the "Alex P. Keaton (Micheal J. Fox)" sort of preppie with the tie and briefcase who always read Time and Newsweek. It was the Republican guys who wore black heavy metal band concert t-shirts and had long hair or shaved heads. Maybe they were more interested in the pizza then policy and ideology.
Then in college, I interviewed for a job at a Democratic National Committee (DNC) phone bank- but frankly I was kind of uncomfortable with all of the women who didn't shave their legs and the men who did. I try not to judge people with all kind of piercings and tattoos or anyone who smokes or uses colorful language, but none of those things are me. And like anyone, I can handle hanging out or working with a few people who are different, but it's hard to be the one and only square for too long.
There are two things about Clinton that I appreciated. First is that he was a fiscal conservative. He insisted on a balanced budget and he eventually managed to begin reducing the national debt. The other is that he reached out to Republicans and independents to fill positions and help decide policy- even though some hard-core conservatives hounded him his entire term. No one had been as bipartisan since Abe Lincoln. But yes, I felt angry and betrayed by his philandering and lying.
Now, I know I whine about this a lot, but it drives me crazy to be torn between two worlds. Liberals don't understand how I can be so religious and so into families and small towns. Christians don't understand how I can call myself a Christian and ever vote for any Democrats, let alone be registered to that party. I just wish that Americans could allow themselves to" grasp on to one and not let go of the other."
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The Radical Middle: part 1 of 2
One of my favorite books of the Bible to read at New Year’s is Ecclesiastes. I think a lot of people turn to it in January because of that whole chapter 3 thing, you know, "There is a time for everything. For everything there is a season…" turn, turn, turn. Actually, the Birds added that "turn" part to make it into a folk song, but God and King Solomon pretty much wrote the rest of it.
What I like about it is how bare-bones pragmatic the book is. Solomon tells it like it is, he doesn’t hold anything back, like in Chapter 7, verse 20, where he says "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins."
What makes us all equal, is that at least sometimes every single one of us is selfish and short-sighted, everyone. Enough to separate us from each other, enough to separate us each from a healthy, loving relationship with God. Everyone.
Fortunately for us, as C.S. Lewis pictured in his children’s fantasy, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," God sacrificed His Son, Jesus (as symbolized by the lion Aslam) so that we don’t have to remain separated from Him or each other. Unfortunately, He’s such a loving, patient God that He doesn’t force Himself on anyone and if we reject Him long enough, He’ll give us what we want and leave us alone.
But, self-righteous and short-sighted as we all are, most of the time, most of us think that that’s too simple. Either we accuse God of being worse than Hitler for letting so many people suffer and end up lost or we take it upon ourselves to become His defenders and enforcers, going around telling people why He hates them and what’s wrong with what they do and who they are.
That’s why one of my favorite verses in all of Ecclesiastes is Chapter 7, verse 18: "It is good to grasp on to one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes."
In the history of the United States, two great philosophers dominated Revolutionary War era thought. Each represented opposite extremes on the issue of human nature.
Thomas Hobbes believed that in their natural state, men were constantly in conflict, each person battling for what they thought were their own best interests. He believed that the only answer was a strong central government to maintain law and order. Of course, he also thought that some people were bred to be better leaders, so economic class, if not royal blood lines should determine who got to participate in that government. In order for us to live in harmony, Hobbes thought that we all had to forfeit some of our rights to the state, so that the state could protect us.
John Locke, a prominent pediatrician, sort of the Dr. Spock of his time believed that everyone, no matter who their parents were, was born with absolute equal potential for intelligence, and for good or bad. Given the same opportunities, anyone could grow up to be a competent leader. He felt that every baby was a "blank slate." Needless to say, he felt that in order to meet common goals, all we had to do was to compromise some of our personal interests. He called this a "social-contract," you agree not to kick me if I agree not to punch you in the nose. Locke thought that we all had to forfeit some of our rights to the state, so that the state could help preserve the rest of our rights. Rights to life, liberty and property (Jefferson changed property to "pursuit of happiness").
These two points of view (which honestly have more in common than either Locke or Hobbes would’ve likely wanted to admit) are reflected throughout American society. We elect Presidents instead of anointing Kings, but we hold up athletes and celebrities as if they’re royalty. We claim that we’re all equal, but we’re constantly trying to climb the social ladder.
In Ecclesiastes 7, Solomon warns about trying to be overly righteous or overly wicked. He’s telling the reader that it’s bad idea to be too much of a libertine- giving free reign to impulse, letting anything go- but it’s just as much of a bad idea to be too into legalism- a control freak, not ever letting anything go.
Both Locke and Hobbes had some truth to their ideas, but neither was completely right. We need balance. We need to hold on to one, without letting go of the other.
Next week: Moderation in defense of liberty isn’t a vice either.
What I like about it is how bare-bones pragmatic the book is. Solomon tells it like it is, he doesn’t hold anything back, like in Chapter 7, verse 20, where he says "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins."
What makes us all equal, is that at least sometimes every single one of us is selfish and short-sighted, everyone. Enough to separate us from each other, enough to separate us each from a healthy, loving relationship with God. Everyone.
Fortunately for us, as C.S. Lewis pictured in his children’s fantasy, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," God sacrificed His Son, Jesus (as symbolized by the lion Aslam) so that we don’t have to remain separated from Him or each other. Unfortunately, He’s such a loving, patient God that He doesn’t force Himself on anyone and if we reject Him long enough, He’ll give us what we want and leave us alone.
But, self-righteous and short-sighted as we all are, most of the time, most of us think that that’s too simple. Either we accuse God of being worse than Hitler for letting so many people suffer and end up lost or we take it upon ourselves to become His defenders and enforcers, going around telling people why He hates them and what’s wrong with what they do and who they are.
That’s why one of my favorite verses in all of Ecclesiastes is Chapter 7, verse 18: "It is good to grasp on to one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes."
In the history of the United States, two great philosophers dominated Revolutionary War era thought. Each represented opposite extremes on the issue of human nature.
Thomas Hobbes believed that in their natural state, men were constantly in conflict, each person battling for what they thought were their own best interests. He believed that the only answer was a strong central government to maintain law and order. Of course, he also thought that some people were bred to be better leaders, so economic class, if not royal blood lines should determine who got to participate in that government. In order for us to live in harmony, Hobbes thought that we all had to forfeit some of our rights to the state, so that the state could protect us.
John Locke, a prominent pediatrician, sort of the Dr. Spock of his time believed that everyone, no matter who their parents were, was born with absolute equal potential for intelligence, and for good or bad. Given the same opportunities, anyone could grow up to be a competent leader. He felt that every baby was a "blank slate." Needless to say, he felt that in order to meet common goals, all we had to do was to compromise some of our personal interests. He called this a "social-contract," you agree not to kick me if I agree not to punch you in the nose. Locke thought that we all had to forfeit some of our rights to the state, so that the state could help preserve the rest of our rights. Rights to life, liberty and property (Jefferson changed property to "pursuit of happiness").
These two points of view (which honestly have more in common than either Locke or Hobbes would’ve likely wanted to admit) are reflected throughout American society. We elect Presidents instead of anointing Kings, but we hold up athletes and celebrities as if they’re royalty. We claim that we’re all equal, but we’re constantly trying to climb the social ladder.
In Ecclesiastes 7, Solomon warns about trying to be overly righteous or overly wicked. He’s telling the reader that it’s bad idea to be too much of a libertine- giving free reign to impulse, letting anything go- but it’s just as much of a bad idea to be too into legalism- a control freak, not ever letting anything go.
Both Locke and Hobbes had some truth to their ideas, but neither was completely right. We need balance. We need to hold on to one, without letting go of the other.
Next week: Moderation in defense of liberty isn’t a vice either.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Too many sides to too many issues
Before President W. Bush I considered my self "post-partisan," a moderate, a "pro-life Democrat." I was disappointed in and felt betrayed by President Clinton's infidelity and dishonest. I always tried to see past party lines. I believe in hashing out issues and getting to hard compromises. I made every effort to try to help Republican friends see that Democrats and "Liberals" weren't all a bunch of pro-gay, pro-communist, evil, hedonistic atheists out to destroy our way of life. Now, I will freely admit that I am angry about the war, just as angry as many of my dearest friends and neighbors have been about abortion for years.
The thing is none of us (my self included) ought to be single-issue voters. The other thing is that there are scores of issues that are every bit as ugly, wrong, immoral and "un-Christian" that our society and both our parties need to wrestle with.
I hope that this column provokes readers to think and talk about some of them. One of the purposes of a newspaper (and of the internet, I guess) is to be a forum for the free expression and discussion of ideas. A couple people have emailed or signed my guestbook anonymously instead of writing letters to the editor for the NEWSpaper & LEADER to publish. Please write the paper, don't be afraid, your ideas are just as legitimate and certainly as passionately held as any of mine. I'm not always right and I hope I never intentionally put anyone else down.
Here is a note that some one left on my website's guestbook. I could write them back because they left a bogus email address.
I know that the administration didn't go in without support. Heck, I was won over for a while. That only makes it worse. Because many of us (Republicans included) feel duped and used and yes, guilty. Tina is absolutely right, I shouldn't just write out of anger- that part did make me "flaming," although (except for the blank check that Congress gave Bush) I try really hard to include as many facts as I can any time I write about politics. I do not support the killing of innocent unborn babies, but I also don't support killing innocent live babies, youth, adults or elderly. I don't support cutting programs for the poor while maintaining and even increasing tax cuts for the super rich and for corporations. I wish I'd never supported a unilateral, pre-emptive, unprovoked invasion of a tiny, weak nation that had nothing to do with the terroist attack on us. I don't attack rape, torture, and denying basic human rights to anyone, even to terrorists.
Please forgive me whenever any of you feel that any of my columns are irresponsible. I want to be a good neighbor. But please, can I just tell you that I feel like your questioning my faith or impugning how "Chirstian" I am if you assume that I am totally pro-choice or somehow must want to see babies die because I vote for Democrats or criticize Republicans. Sin is sin and wrong is wrong, unfortunately there is no escaping it in this world, especially in politics.
In Boy Scouts I was taught, "God, Country, and Family- in that order." I believe that God created us with a nature that asks questions. I believe that our founding fathers designed our system of government so that we are not only allowed to scrutinize it and express our displeasure with it, but that it is our duty to do so. And I believe in supporting families, even the unborn members of those families, but I have not seen the current administration neglect support for middle class and poor families while flaunting faith and values for political expedience. If I were a Republican or a Fundamentalist Evangelical I would feel abused.
I'd like to leave you with some quotes from Republican leaders. Three of the four are some of my favorite politicians, no sarcasm intended, they really are (sorry to disappoint any of my fellow Democrats). My point in sharing them is that the bush administration may have won your votes by being "pro-life," but I contend that they've pursued policies that are cruel and abusive of life.
All of us, Democrat and Republican, Green Party and Libertarian, Lutheran, Fundamentalist Evangelical, Catholic, Methodist, whoever All of us need to stop accusing each other of being less-Christian, less-moral, less-right. We need to see past our differences so that we can be alert to how un-Christian, immoral, and wrong we can sometimes be.
PS- Torture is NOT "Pro-Life"
The thing is none of us (my self included) ought to be single-issue voters. The other thing is that there are scores of issues that are every bit as ugly, wrong, immoral and "un-Christian" that our society and both our parties need to wrestle with.
I hope that this column provokes readers to think and talk about some of them. One of the purposes of a newspaper (and of the internet, I guess) is to be a forum for the free expression and discussion of ideas. A couple people have emailed or signed my guestbook anonymously instead of writing letters to the editor for the NEWSpaper & LEADER to publish. Please write the paper, don't be afraid, your ideas are just as legitimate and certainly as passionately held as any of mine. I'm not always right and I hope I never intentionally put anyone else down.
Here is a note that some one left on my website's guestbook. I could write them back because they left a bogus email address.
"tina - Many Democratic officials warned of Saddam's weapon capabilities and stock piles of biological weaponery since 1998: Clinton, Albright, Pulousi, Gore, Kennedy, and more .... before Bush was even in the White House. If you are going to spout off as some sort of expert you should know your facts and not just talk out of frustration and anger. The last time I checked ... Congress basically handed the President a blank check in 2002 and backed him with full support. He did not do this alone. Your column is unclear as to intent other then another flaming liberal trying to burn everything around him. Beings as though you are a Lutheran I find this even more appalling. Do you really wish to support the killing of innocent unborn babies in the ballot box, because we have soldiers willing to fight to protect you and what you have to say? I would certainly hope the cost of fuel would not cause you to jump that direction. There are many issues to consider, and your angry column was irresponsible to your neighbors."
I know that the administration didn't go in without support. Heck, I was won over for a while. That only makes it worse. Because many of us (Republicans included) feel duped and used and yes, guilty. Tina is absolutely right, I shouldn't just write out of anger- that part did make me "flaming," although (except for the blank check that Congress gave Bush) I try really hard to include as many facts as I can any time I write about politics. I do not support the killing of innocent unborn babies, but I also don't support killing innocent live babies, youth, adults or elderly. I don't support cutting programs for the poor while maintaining and even increasing tax cuts for the super rich and for corporations. I wish I'd never supported a unilateral, pre-emptive, unprovoked invasion of a tiny, weak nation that had nothing to do with the terroist attack on us. I don't attack rape, torture, and denying basic human rights to anyone, even to terrorists.
Please forgive me whenever any of you feel that any of my columns are irresponsible. I want to be a good neighbor. But please, can I just tell you that I feel like your questioning my faith or impugning how "Chirstian" I am if you assume that I am totally pro-choice or somehow must want to see babies die because I vote for Democrats or criticize Republicans. Sin is sin and wrong is wrong, unfortunately there is no escaping it in this world, especially in politics.
In Boy Scouts I was taught, "God, Country, and Family- in that order." I believe that God created us with a nature that asks questions. I believe that our founding fathers designed our system of government so that we are not only allowed to scrutinize it and express our displeasure with it, but that it is our duty to do so. And I believe in supporting families, even the unborn members of those families, but I have not seen the current administration neglect support for middle class and poor families while flaunting faith and values for political expedience. If I were a Republican or a Fundamentalist Evangelical I would feel abused.
I'd like to leave you with some quotes from Republican leaders. Three of the four are some of my favorite politicians, no sarcasm intended, they really are (sorry to disappoint any of my fellow Democrats). My point in sharing them is that the bush administration may have won your votes by being "pro-life," but I contend that they've pursued policies that are cruel and abusive of life.
All of us, Democrat and Republican, Green Party and Libertarian, Lutheran, Fundamentalist Evangelical, Catholic, Methodist, whoever All of us need to stop accusing each other of being less-Christian, less-moral, less-right. We need to see past our differences so that we can be alert to how un-Christian, immoral, and wrong we can sometimes be.
"If we are viewed as a country that engages in torture ... any possible information we might be able to gain is far counterbalanced by (the negative) effect of public opinion... This battle we're in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be." -- Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
"I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture." --Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
"I'm a strong supporter of Senator McCain's amendment. I don't think the White House should veto it." -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell
"The United States can win the war on terrorism without sacrificing our values." --Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
PS- Torture is NOT "Pro-Life"
Thursday, October 03, 2002
Plant Dirt, Harvest Mud
Let me get this straight- a Senatorial candidate held a private strategy meeting where he and his supporters were venomous, angry, and full of malice toward his opponent. It’s a shame that hatred would be what motivates you to run for office, but big deal, we’d expect a candidate to be full of venom and malice toward their opponent, I suppose.
Someone secretly tape-recorded this meeting. That’s not cool. Remember all the trouble tape recorders got Richard Nixon into? Oh, and lemme see if I remember this right… some how or other a transcript of this tape recording was got into the hands of this candidate’s opponent (the incumbent Senator). Wow.
On top of all this, someone from the incumbent’s camp leaked a copy of this transcript to the press. Big surprise there. Were they hoping that the public would be outraged and offended by the things that were said at the meeting? It seems like instead focus is on how unscrupulous it was to leak the transcript and how suspicious it is that the incumbent received a copy to begin with.
At first it was thought that the person who did the recording was an invited guest, later it was suggested that the recorder was a long time friend of the incumbent.
Sound like a bad episode of NBC’s "The West Wing?" Don’t I wish. This is what’s happening right here in Iowa, between candidate Greg Ganske and Senator Tom Harkin.
Now at the risk of losing the respect of many of you I’ll admit something to you….My name is Ted Mallory, and I’m a registered Democrat. I didn’t have to say it as if I were at a twelve step meeting before George Bush Sr. made it into a dirty word back in his run for President in 1988, you know, "the L-Word."
The reason I tell you this is to lend credence to this next confession- I’ve never been a big Harkin fan. I can’t put my finger on it, there’s just something about him that doesn’t set right. Not a good reason, my fellow Democrats will probably say, but what can I say? I try to weigh information heavier than intuition when I vote, but it’s still there, and it nags at my gut.
Mind you, I in no way see Ganske as a hero or a victim in this scenario. Politics, like war, is Hell, I guess. And, like in war, both combatants are equally covered in the mud, blood, and filth. Only for one of the first times since I first cast a ballot, I don’t have a side to root for.
The gubernatorial race isn’t much better. My Republican friends had pretty well convinced me that Governor Vilsack was too urban, too influenced by partisan politics on the National level, and bad for education. Then their candidate came on TV with negative campaign commercials. What can I say about them? They’re gross. They grossly oversimplify the issues. Gross, gross, gross.
Okay, you’re right, it’s not fair to make fun of a guys name. But my point is this; We know who you’re against, but what are you for? I would have thought that of any state in the Union, Iowa would be a place where political candidates would be practical, plain spoken and positive. I consider what we’re going through a leadership drought. The field isn’t producing a decent crop of leaders. All we have are reporters dishing up dirt and candidates slinging mud.
I don’t know anything about Democratic Congressional candidate Paul Shomshor. What I know about Republican candidate Steve King is that some Republicans I respect thought of him as their second or third choice in their Primaries. It’s hard to jump ship when the gruel’s just as tepid in the other crew’s galley.
Back in June I interviewed Crawford County Democratic Party Chairman Les Lewis for a story about the Primary elections. He had high praise for our neighbor Clarence Hoffman, he said Clarence was "more of a rural representative than a Republican representative."
There’s what we need, bi-partisanship, post-partisanship, and concern for and focus on your constituents, rather than on winning at all costs. Stop the attacks and dirty tricks. Stop the negative ads. Start telling us what you plan on doing for us.
Someone secretly tape-recorded this meeting. That’s not cool. Remember all the trouble tape recorders got Richard Nixon into? Oh, and lemme see if I remember this right… some how or other a transcript of this tape recording was got into the hands of this candidate’s opponent (the incumbent Senator). Wow.
On top of all this, someone from the incumbent’s camp leaked a copy of this transcript to the press. Big surprise there. Were they hoping that the public would be outraged and offended by the things that were said at the meeting? It seems like instead focus is on how unscrupulous it was to leak the transcript and how suspicious it is that the incumbent received a copy to begin with.
At first it was thought that the person who did the recording was an invited guest, later it was suggested that the recorder was a long time friend of the incumbent.
Sound like a bad episode of NBC’s "The West Wing?" Don’t I wish. This is what’s happening right here in Iowa, between candidate Greg Ganske and Senator Tom Harkin.
Now at the risk of losing the respect of many of you I’ll admit something to you….My name is Ted Mallory, and I’m a registered Democrat. I didn’t have to say it as if I were at a twelve step meeting before George Bush Sr. made it into a dirty word back in his run for President in 1988, you know, "the L-Word."
The reason I tell you this is to lend credence to this next confession- I’ve never been a big Harkin fan. I can’t put my finger on it, there’s just something about him that doesn’t set right. Not a good reason, my fellow Democrats will probably say, but what can I say? I try to weigh information heavier than intuition when I vote, but it’s still there, and it nags at my gut.
Mind you, I in no way see Ganske as a hero or a victim in this scenario. Politics, like war, is Hell, I guess. And, like in war, both combatants are equally covered in the mud, blood, and filth. Only for one of the first times since I first cast a ballot, I don’t have a side to root for.
The gubernatorial race isn’t much better. My Republican friends had pretty well convinced me that Governor Vilsack was too urban, too influenced by partisan politics on the National level, and bad for education. Then their candidate came on TV with negative campaign commercials. What can I say about them? They’re gross. They grossly oversimplify the issues. Gross, gross, gross.
Okay, you’re right, it’s not fair to make fun of a guys name. But my point is this; We know who you’re against, but what are you for? I would have thought that of any state in the Union, Iowa would be a place where political candidates would be practical, plain spoken and positive. I consider what we’re going through a leadership drought. The field isn’t producing a decent crop of leaders. All we have are reporters dishing up dirt and candidates slinging mud.
I don’t know anything about Democratic Congressional candidate Paul Shomshor. What I know about Republican candidate Steve King is that some Republicans I respect thought of him as their second or third choice in their Primaries. It’s hard to jump ship when the gruel’s just as tepid in the other crew’s galley.
Back in June I interviewed Crawford County Democratic Party Chairman Les Lewis for a story about the Primary elections. He had high praise for our neighbor Clarence Hoffman, he said Clarence was "more of a rural representative than a Republican representative."
There’s what we need, bi-partisanship, post-partisanship, and concern for and focus on your constituents, rather than on winning at all costs. Stop the attacks and dirty tricks. Stop the negative ads. Start telling us what you plan on doing for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
