Since my buddy Mark "not the Race Car Driver" and I have been testing the bounds of our friendship through a heated political discussion on this blog and his, I thought I would attempt to explain a little of my own politics by reprinting what I wrote this week in my column:
My paternal grandmother was from Alabama and was a rock solid Democrat. When asked once if she would vote for Jesus Christ if he was running as a Republican, she replied, "He wouldn't be a Republican."
In fact, my brother and I were under an oath not to reveal to Grandma that my father ran and won a seat on the Granby School Committee as a Republican. He had no party affiliation and had merely accepted the invitation of the Republican Town Committee to go for the position. The old man was deadly serious with us on not spilling the beans, as he didn't want to face his mother's wrath.
I bring this little bit of my family history up as illustration of my belief that faith and politics go hand in hand. Just like we believe in the mysteries of religion, many of us place the same devotion in candidates for public office.
And I don't believe we look for a candidate to challenge or enhance our beliefs, but rather someone who mirrors our established opinions.
How many people vote on following criteria:
Whether or not a candidate is a friend of labor?
Whether or not a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice?
Whether or not a candidate is considered a fundamentalist Christian?
Whether or not a candidate a candidate is for "big" government?
Whether or not a candidate is for or against gun control?
Whether or not a candidate supports minority rights or the rights of women?
Whether or not a candidate is for stopping illegal immigration?
Whether or not a candidate would work toward same-sex marriage?
Whether or not a candidate has a stand on the war on drugs?
Now once a candidate admits a position on any of these particular issues, some voters either stop or start their support. Too many folks are one or two issue people. So do these one or two issue voters have the inclination to consider opposing arguments to their own views?
My guess is "No." I have several friends who call themselves conservative and if I do get into a discussion with them some won't even discuss politics with me it's almost a certainty that any challenge to their belief structure is met with a level of hostility.
The same goes for people who I see that call themselves "progressive." They are often times so adamant in attacking the status quo they lose sight of the goal to help convince people the liberal side of politics does indeed offer solutions.
How do you stand on the checklist I cited? Here's my score:
Whether or not a candidate is a friend of labor? I support the right to organize.
Whether or not a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice? I support a woman's right to chose.
Whether or not a candidate is considered a fundamentalist Christian? Religion is a private issue, protected by the Constitution and should not be part of government.
Whether or not a candidate a candidate is for "big" government? I'm for effective government meeting the needs of the nation.
Whether or not a candidate is for or against gun control? I support the right to bear arms.
Whether or not a candidate supports minority rights or the rights of women? Everyone should be treated equally under the law.
Whether or not a candidate is for stopping illegal immigration? Illegal immigration needs to be stopped by making sure workers are here legally.
Whether or not a candidate would work toward same-sex marriage? The government shouldn't interfere in the romantic lives of consenting adults.
Whether or not a candidate has a stand on the war on drugs? Have we actually addressed the reasons behind the demand for illegal drugs?
Now, do my answers make me a liberal or a conservative or a Libertarian? For whom should I should I vote?
Here is my list by which I judge candidates:
What are you going to do to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs from this country?
What are you going to do to create a new economy with entry-level jobs?
What are you going to do to end the War on Terror?
What are you going to do about global warming?
What are you going to do about NAFTA?
What are you going to do about creating an equitable tax structure for all Americans?
How are you going to reverse the national deficit?
These are difficult questions that can't really be addressed adequately with a 30-second attack ad.
Perhaps I'm asking for too much.
So dear readers how would you answer those questions?
© 2008 by Gordon Michael Dobbs
4 comments:
Hello again. OK, you asked me to read this. I read it.
Want me to comment? Will you feel attacked if I disagree?
I'll test the waters with a question. Try to believe me if I tell you that the Edwards question was just a question and not a demand that you crawl on broken glass. This is just a question too:
What do you mean by "end the War on Terror"? I'm asking because the only way I can see to end it is to defeat terrorists, or convince them to be nice and stop terrorizing. OR, as some seem to think, stop the war in Iraq, ignore Iran, stop meddling in the Middle East and stop antagonizing, and the Muslim extremists will stop bothering us. (assuming you are talking about that sort of terror only, and not African genocide and other pockets of terror across the globe that don't directly affect USA).
I'm not sure what you mean by "stop the War on Terror". The initial caps make me wonder if you mean the Bush Doctrine? Or the war in Iraq? Not sure...
Please see jabberous question about "cloaked sources"
Mark I don't feel attacked when you disagree. I feel attacked when you attack me.
The War on Terror is our current incursion in Iraq and Afghanistan.
OK thanks for clarifying.
If you just said Iran, I'd want a candidate who had a plan like this: Tell whatever govt is in control of Iraq at the time (I'm talking about THEIR govt, which is still mutating, so that's why I say it the way I do. I'm not talking about USA vs Iraq vs Iran...)... Tell that govt to decide if they want our help, and will pay for it themselves with their oil money, that we will be glad to help. Otherwise, we will work with them to leave as soon as possible, without just saying "OK, you're on your own, good luck with the mess we made."
I would of course expect that to be a genuine treaty or whatever you call it. A written agreement, not just "tell them".
With Afghanistan thrown into the mix - I'm not sure what I'd want them to do. Many so-called experts say that is in fact the real hotbed of terror and where we should be, but I'm not sure any further effort there would be any more appreciated or effective than it is in Iraq.
So I guess I'd just want them to deal with getting out of Iraq, or staying under more reasonable conditions as I suggested, for now. Then I'd want them to get better intelligence before they make any more stupid moves.
Of course that is just one tiny part of your overall list. I'm not going to comment further, or try to discuss what makes me tick politically here. It's just too easy to be misunderstood as an attacker. (see latest jabberous).
We'll talk about it later in person if you want to.
Always enjoy your blog!
The War on Terror is a meaningless, by-definition-un-winnable war on a tactic -- the tactic of the disenfranchised, decentralized, and impossible to localize who do not have countries, armies or any definable military force.
It is a war on a word.
It is, by definition, nonsensical. It cannot be won. Ever. There will always, forever and ever be some individuals or coalition of those with no defined geographic 'country' or location willing to kill/suicide bomb/terrorize innocent citizens to take out larger, insurmountable symbolic targets.
This is the most ridiculous bill of non-goods sold to the US public since the "War on Drugs" (which, BTW, escalated even as Reagan's best and brightest imported vast quantities of cocaine into the US to finance their covert unapproved-by-Congress operations in Central America).
You boys play nice, now.
Post a Comment