For years, but especially over the last month, I have thought, watched, heard, read, and talked about the subject of school shootings. I consider the larger, more inclusive issue of "gun control" to be among the most difficult issues of our time -- and by "difficult" I mean that the issue is complicated, with no good, clear solutions or answers, and thoughtful, rational, intelligent, passionate people on various sides.
The thing that makes the more specific issue of school shootings even worse, and the reason I am reluctant to write about it, is that it involves horrible, senseless tragedy. There is nothing I -- nor anyone else -- can say, write, or do to bring back the victims, or to lessen the overwhelming, crushing pain of the survivors and loved ones of the victims. In a way, it seems obscene to discuss these incidents in terms of statistics, or intellectual or philosophical arguments.
In fact, I believe quite strongly that there is only ONE thing that we, as a society, can do that will definitely lessen the frequency and number of victims of future school shootings: Quit publicizing them! Quit showing them on television, quit having national discussions about them. That is the ONLY sure-fire way to combat them. However, in a free society, with a free press, that is not going to happen.
So I am left to discuss the issue in mostly in terms of intellectual and philosophical arguments (I will leave the statistics to others, at least for now) -- which is NOT what the loved ones of the victims want to hear, and I cannot blame them.
As with most troubling, divisive, controversial issues, school shootings and gun violence involve a number of related and complicated philosophical issues. One of the most basic is the issue of control. As the human race marches forward through time, we like to believe we are achieving increasing control over the world around us. We do not want to hear that something "just happens" -- we want to assign responsibility and blame, and we want to vow to prevent it from happening again. In fact, I would argue that one of the more destructive forces in human nature is the need to "do something!" Often, there is simply nothing to be done -- a fact which few of our political leaders have the courage to embrace.
The most recent school mass shooting particularly lends itself to oversimplification and false arguments. A few days ago, I heard the President of the United States say something to the effect of, "If we can do something that might save even one life, then we must DO it!" On the face of it, this is a compelling argument, especially when the President surrounded himself with children as he said it. On closer examination, it is absurd. We could save many human lives by banning automobiles, and some by banning all forms of mass transit -- planes, trains, even boats. Every year, people are electrocuted; we could stop using electricity. Sporting events account for deaths every year; there is no definite human "need" for sports. And the list goes on.
I expect that those who agree with the President would counter with the argument that whereas we NEED automobiles and planes and trains and boats and electricity -- and possibly even sports -- there is no compelling "need" for the right to bear arms. The TRUTH is that the President is NOT simply interested in the possibility of saving a single human life -- he is interested specifically in doing things that he claims may decrease the likelihood of shootings, and only by decreasing the availability of guns.
One of the problems with this discussion is that it easily leads off in many different directions, like a maze. I COULD focus on the fact that all of the President's ideas are pure conjecture, and while many of them may sound "obvious" there is little objective, factual support for the idea that they might "save even one life".
I will instead focus on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There continues to be debate over the precise intentions of these words. In recent decades, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, some attempted to argue that the term "militia" referred to government organizations such as the National Guard. The founding fathers were quite clear on this point, with George Mason, one of the writers of the amendment, stating, “What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” Mason also wrote, "“A well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army.” The entire POINT of the Second Amendment is for INDIVIDUALS to retain their firearms so that they might rise up against our own or foreign armies. Incidentally, this view -- the individual right to bear arms -- has been clarified and accepted by Supreme Court decisions.
In the modern world, we do and require lots of things to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies. We design our buildings to attempt to withstand floods, earthquakes, storms, and fires. To prepare for and prevent fires, we install sprinkler systems and smoke detectors, and we have fire extinguishers at the ready. Our automobiles have seat belts and air bags, and are constructed to protect us from injury in the event of a collision. These are just a few examples.
My mother, who is 100 years old, has always scoffed at such preparations. Her general logic is along the lines of, "I have lived in this house for over fifty years, and there has never been a fire, or an earthquake, or a tornado, and therefore there never WILL be, and it is foolish to prepare for such things. And I have never been in a significant automobile collision where I would have needed seat belts or airbags, so there is no reason for them." Furthermore, she has never called the police, the fire department, or an ambulance. Perhaps there is no need for any of these things.
I must confess that I, too, have never had need of seat belts, or airbags, or smoke detectors, or fire extinguishers, yet I accept the fact that they, along with the police, fire department, and ambulance services, are all good ideas.
This is the same way that I view the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the citizens' right to bear arms. The founders of the United States of America believed quite strongly that circumstances might arise calling for the citizens to have weapons capable of defending against foreign armies or the tyranny of our own government. That is why they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. They were NOT concerned about being allowed weapons for hunting small game -- they were concerned about being able to fight against other armed humans.
So far, I have never needed to possess an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol to defend myself against tyranny, just as I have never needed seat belts or a fire extinguisher. I suppose my mother would argue that since I have never needed such weapons, I will never need them. Still, I accept the fact that they are all good ideas. I view the concept of banning these weapons just as I would view the concept of banning seat belts or fire extinguishers. All are intended to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies, and it would be morally wrong -- not to mention stupid -- to eliminate them.
Some will argue, "Wait! Each year, innocent people are harmed by people using guns!" I would reply that each year, innocent people are harmed by people using cars -- and cars are NOT necessary to preserve all of our freedoms, including the freedom to drive cars. Most dangerous things are NOT necessary to preserve our freedom. Guns ARE necessary to preserve our freedom, should the worst case arise.
Personally, I am willing to accept the possibility of stupid, needless, tragic deaths, in order that our civilized, free society might survive.
Ultimately, this is the debate, and the problem for which I see no solution. Some of us believe that firearms are a crucial safety device, perhaps the very foundations of our rights, liberties, and our way of life -- whereas others simply scoff at this view, arguing that "assault rifles" and "high-capacity magazines" are "used only to kill people, and are therefore unnecessary in modern, civilized, society." Scoffing at and dismissing the views of those who disagree with you is never a fruitful way to begin a discussion, yet it is the normal, typical way for President Obama to do business. President Obama wants us to "stand up to the gun lobby". President Obama refuses to acknowledge that millions of Americans -- Americans who have nothing to do with the National Rifle Association, and who have no financial interest in firearms -- are simply concerned with upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, a Constitution that has nothing to do with "hunting", and everything to do with protecting individual liberty and the rights of the minority.
Perhaps the time has come that we can no longer afford to be concerned with individual liberty, when we must let the government assume control over our choices and our lives, in the interest of saving "even one life". If that is what President Obama believes, then he should SAY what he believes -- that is, that he wishes to do away with the Second Amendment and assume additional power. Then, and only then, can we at least begin an honest discussion.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Monday, December 24, 2012
Grandma's Wreaths
As I was growing up, my elderly Czech grandmother -- who had come to America alone, when she was in her teens -- did almost no Christmas decorating. She lived in another city, in the house where she had lived for decades -- now alone, after the death of her husband (my grandfather), and with her children grown and/or dead. I do not recall whether she had a Christmas tree -- I suspect she might have had a small, artificial one. The only decoration that I remember was two small artificial wreaths -- I believe they were made out of a red tinsley material, and perhaps four or five inches in diameter -- that she hung from the "pulls" on the shades on her two front windows. Those are the only decorations I remember, but she hung them every year.
Back at my house, we had outdoor lights, lights in the windows, at least one large Christmas tree (sometimes more), and greenery and bows and candles and all sorts of decorations. I was always struck by those two little wreaths in my grandmother's windows. They seemed so profound, and so ... HOPEFUL. Most of her life was over. Her loved ones were mostly gone or far away. Yet she did not let the season pass by un-noticed. There were those two little wreaths, year after year. Other houses had massive displays. Why bother with those two little fake wreaths? But there they were. I wish I could write or say something as profound as my grandmother said with those two little wreaths.
Merry Christmas to one and all!
Back at my house, we had outdoor lights, lights in the windows, at least one large Christmas tree (sometimes more), and greenery and bows and candles and all sorts of decorations. I was always struck by those two little wreaths in my grandmother's windows. They seemed so profound, and so ... HOPEFUL. Most of her life was over. Her loved ones were mostly gone or far away. Yet she did not let the season pass by un-noticed. There were those two little wreaths, year after year. Other houses had massive displays. Why bother with those two little fake wreaths? But there they were. I wish I could write or say something as profound as my grandmother said with those two little wreaths.
Merry Christmas to one and all!
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
2012
I do not know how to quantify "knowledge". That is, I do not know any objective way to say whether I know "more" than you do, or how much knowledge is available in a given library, or whether there is more knowledge on earth today than there was yesterday.
Since knowledge includes history, and an infinite number of things have happened between yesterday and today, and all of them can be "known", I suppose there is more that can be known today than yesterday. Plus, each day offers new scientific discoveries and technical breakthroughs. At the same time, knowledge is continually lost. Every time a person dies, the human race loses billions of historical details known only to that person -- details of the person's life and times. In addition, more basic everyday knowledge is continually lost. Most people of today have little grasp of the everyday knowledge that was needed, for example, to survive in an undeveloped wilderness.
Modern humans, living in "the information age", are in many ways an arrogant people. We do not like to admit that knowledge is continually being lost, but there is no doubt that our parents and grandparents knew things that we ourselves will never know, if only about the details of their daily lives.
We are losing more than just the details of personal histories. We cannot duplicate the construction of hundreds of archeaological sites, except perhaps with modern, high tech equipment that we currently believe was unavailable to earlier generations. We can only speculate about the construction methods used for the pyramids, or Stonehenge -- or the purposes of various devices now found in museums. Yet we persist in believing that we know "more" than earlier generations.
Some people claim that more than one earlier civilization believed that 2012 would be a time of cosmic significance. At one extreme are those who believe that the Mayans -- among others -- believed that the world would end on December 21, 2012. At another extreme are those who claim this is nothing but a modern fabrication -- that neither the Mayans nor the Hopis or any other earlier people believed anything specific about 2012. Another view falls somewhere in between. There are those who believe that this WAS predicted to be a special time, but not specifically the end of the world -- perhaps a time of great change, or even of rebirth. Finally, there are those who believe it simply does not matter what earlier peoples believed about 2012, and that it will turn out to be a year like any other year.
Personally, I lack the expertise to evaluate whether or not any earlier cultures believed that something special would happen near the end of 2012. I DO have the expertise to realize that our current science does NOT know or understand everything, and that it is possible that earlier peoples DID know something about the future that our current scientists do NOT know. It is strictly arrogance to believe otherwise.
Within reason, there is value in living as though this might be the last few days, weeks, or months, of the last year. For some people, it WILL be their last few days. Several people close to me have died in recent years, and another could go at any time.
When I say, "Within reason", I mean that it is probably not a good idea to quit your job, or to spend all of your money, or to cancel all your magazine subscriptions, or to quit brushing your teeth. There is a good chance that you will live to see 2013, and probably have to make it on through to 2014 and beyond.
Still, it is probably a good thing to try and make these next few days the best days of your life. It is probably ALWAYS a good thing to try and make the next few days the best days of your life, just as it is probably always a good thing to be at least a little prepared for the unexpected.
I suppose that, in some ways, I am hoping for something extraordinary to happen on December 21, 2012, though I suspect that it will not. I am also hoping to have the best year ever. I am always hoping to have the best year ever.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. There is another, more complicated, possibility. Something may quietly happen on December 21, 2012, that will ultimately dramatically change the world -- but we may not be AWARE of it at that time. Though change can be frightening, and is not in and of itself a good thing, there are things about the world, and about my life, that NEED changing. Good luck, world!
Since knowledge includes history, and an infinite number of things have happened between yesterday and today, and all of them can be "known", I suppose there is more that can be known today than yesterday. Plus, each day offers new scientific discoveries and technical breakthroughs. At the same time, knowledge is continually lost. Every time a person dies, the human race loses billions of historical details known only to that person -- details of the person's life and times. In addition, more basic everyday knowledge is continually lost. Most people of today have little grasp of the everyday knowledge that was needed, for example, to survive in an undeveloped wilderness.
Modern humans, living in "the information age", are in many ways an arrogant people. We do not like to admit that knowledge is continually being lost, but there is no doubt that our parents and grandparents knew things that we ourselves will never know, if only about the details of their daily lives.
We are losing more than just the details of personal histories. We cannot duplicate the construction of hundreds of archeaological sites, except perhaps with modern, high tech equipment that we currently believe was unavailable to earlier generations. We can only speculate about the construction methods used for the pyramids, or Stonehenge -- or the purposes of various devices now found in museums. Yet we persist in believing that we know "more" than earlier generations.
Some people claim that more than one earlier civilization believed that 2012 would be a time of cosmic significance. At one extreme are those who believe that the Mayans -- among others -- believed that the world would end on December 21, 2012. At another extreme are those who claim this is nothing but a modern fabrication -- that neither the Mayans nor the Hopis or any other earlier people believed anything specific about 2012. Another view falls somewhere in between. There are those who believe that this WAS predicted to be a special time, but not specifically the end of the world -- perhaps a time of great change, or even of rebirth. Finally, there are those who believe it simply does not matter what earlier peoples believed about 2012, and that it will turn out to be a year like any other year.
Personally, I lack the expertise to evaluate whether or not any earlier cultures believed that something special would happen near the end of 2012. I DO have the expertise to realize that our current science does NOT know or understand everything, and that it is possible that earlier peoples DID know something about the future that our current scientists do NOT know. It is strictly arrogance to believe otherwise.
Within reason, there is value in living as though this might be the last few days, weeks, or months, of the last year. For some people, it WILL be their last few days. Several people close to me have died in recent years, and another could go at any time.
When I say, "Within reason", I mean that it is probably not a good idea to quit your job, or to spend all of your money, or to cancel all your magazine subscriptions, or to quit brushing your teeth. There is a good chance that you will live to see 2013, and probably have to make it on through to 2014 and beyond.
Still, it is probably a good thing to try and make these next few days the best days of your life. It is probably ALWAYS a good thing to try and make the next few days the best days of your life, just as it is probably always a good thing to be at least a little prepared for the unexpected.
I suppose that, in some ways, I am hoping for something extraordinary to happen on December 21, 2012, though I suspect that it will not. I am also hoping to have the best year ever. I am always hoping to have the best year ever.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. There is another, more complicated, possibility. Something may quietly happen on December 21, 2012, that will ultimately dramatically change the world -- but we may not be AWARE of it at that time. Though change can be frightening, and is not in and of itself a good thing, there are things about the world, and about my life, that NEED changing. Good luck, world!
Thursday, November 15, 2012
2012 Election Wrap-up
A friend of mine sought legal action to end her marriage. As I recall, she had been married for a year or two, after a whirlwind courtship. The way my friend explained it to me, the judge eventually annulled her marriage, rather than granting a divorce. The judge's reasoning was that since the groom had badly misrepresented himself to my friend, she had never actually married HIM -- she had married some non-existent fictional character created by him, and therefore had never been married at all.
In a way, this illustrates my problem with the 2012 American Presidential Election, except that the non-existent, fictional character was created by President Obama and his campaign, and substituted for the real-life Mitt Romney. The voters who voted for President Obama were not choosing between the real Barack Obama and the real Mitt Romney -- they were choosing between Barack Obama and a character that Obama and his campaign had created. I believe that IF the voters had been presented with the choice of the REAL Barack Obama versus the REAL Mitt Romney, Romney would have easily won the election.
In support of my position, I offer up any of the three Presidential debates. During each debate, President Obama spent considerable time stating not HIS beliefs and plans, but the beliefs and plans of Mitt Romney. When Mitt Romney would attempt to intervene, and state his REAL beliefs and plans, President Obama would ignore him, and re-state what he had already said, arguing that only HE was capable of accurately stating the beliefs and plans of ... Mitt Romney. Incidentally, this tactic alone was enough to ensure that I would not vote for Barack Obama -- or anyone else who used this tactic. But, according to exit polls, many voters accepted Barack Obama's description of Mitt Romney, rather than Mitt Romney's.
Anyone who has followed my logic this far, and not quit reading in disgust, may respond that it was the real Mitt Romney's job to overcome Barack Obama's misrepresentation of him. This can be close to impossible, especially when most of the news media is participating in the deception.
Most of my family and friends supported and voted for President Obama, in both the 2012 and 2008 elections. I repeatedly observed a phenomenon that I have never seen before in politics. In both campaigns, when anyone expressed criticism of Barack Obama, or support for his opponent, the Obama supporters often responded with words to the effect of "I don't want to hear that!" or "I will not talk about that!" They did not defend their candidate or his positions -- they simply refused to engage in discussion, or listen to opposing views. This is a new and puzzling phenomenon, and it does not bode well for the future of political discourse in America. This was something that I observed personally -- perhaps it is not widespread.
My personal opinion of Barack Obama has always been based solely on Barack Obama. When he makes a speech, I listen -- to the entire speech -- and when he takes action, I pay attention. As the 2012 election approached, I noticed that when the people I was in contact with expressed criticism of Mitt Romney, it was almost never based on anything REAL -- not on his real past, or his real positions, or his real plans for America -- but instead on the lies spread by President Obama and his campaign.
I am not saying the recent election was illegal. Even if elections could be annulled, President Obama and his campaign would continue to run against their fictional creation, and they would likely win again. THAT's one of the biggest tragedies: now that the tactic has been successful, it will probably be used over and over in American politics.
Less than twelve years ago, George W. Bush became our forty-third President after an election that was too close to accurately count, and was, in the end, settled by the Supreme Courts of both Florida and the United States. Prior to the election, George W. Bush had proven himself capable of working successfully in a bipartisan manner with his opponents as he served as Governor of Texas. For his entire term as President, his opponents fought him tooth and nail, and then criticized him for his failure to win THEIR support. People maintained his election was "illegal". To this day, there are bumper stickers in my community referring to George W. Bush that proclaim "Not MY President!" And to this day, President Obama and his supporters blame George W. Bush for their current problems.
One of the most exasperating things about politics is double standards. For over twelve years, Democrats have fought, demonized, and ridiculed George W. Bush, and continue to do so. When Barack Obama was elected President, Democrats indignantly insisted that the nation must suddenly "unite" and "respect the Office of the President". Furthermore, they insisted, and continue to insist, that anyone NOT uniting behind President Obama is motivated primarily by racism. In fact, for the last four years I have TRIED to unite behind President Obama, but in every single speech, at every opportunity, he attacks and mocks me and my beliefs (well, not me PERSONALLY -- he has shown no evidence of caring about me personally, or my opinions). For four years, he has been unable to rise out of campaign mode, and shift into a mode of leadership.
It's a tricky and dangerous thing to accuse a politician of "divisiveness". Often, the charge is leveled by those who have spent years opposing the politician, and attempting to persuade others to join in their opposition. In the case of President Obama, he himself has led the opposition, by continuing to battle against the very people he is supposed to represent and lead.
In a perfect world -- the world of my dreams -- after an election, the opposing sides come together, agree that the voters have made their choice, and get down to the business of doing what is best for all. President Obama and his supporters -- NOT Mitt Romney, and NOT those who opposed President Obama -- have made this difficult. It remains to be seen whether they have made it impossible.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. I was looking forward to writing about something OTHER than politics. Maybe next time.
In a way, this illustrates my problem with the 2012 American Presidential Election, except that the non-existent, fictional character was created by President Obama and his campaign, and substituted for the real-life Mitt Romney. The voters who voted for President Obama were not choosing between the real Barack Obama and the real Mitt Romney -- they were choosing between Barack Obama and a character that Obama and his campaign had created. I believe that IF the voters had been presented with the choice of the REAL Barack Obama versus the REAL Mitt Romney, Romney would have easily won the election.
In support of my position, I offer up any of the three Presidential debates. During each debate, President Obama spent considerable time stating not HIS beliefs and plans, but the beliefs and plans of Mitt Romney. When Mitt Romney would attempt to intervene, and state his REAL beliefs and plans, President Obama would ignore him, and re-state what he had already said, arguing that only HE was capable of accurately stating the beliefs and plans of ... Mitt Romney. Incidentally, this tactic alone was enough to ensure that I would not vote for Barack Obama -- or anyone else who used this tactic. But, according to exit polls, many voters accepted Barack Obama's description of Mitt Romney, rather than Mitt Romney's.
Anyone who has followed my logic this far, and not quit reading in disgust, may respond that it was the real Mitt Romney's job to overcome Barack Obama's misrepresentation of him. This can be close to impossible, especially when most of the news media is participating in the deception.
Most of my family and friends supported and voted for President Obama, in both the 2012 and 2008 elections. I repeatedly observed a phenomenon that I have never seen before in politics. In both campaigns, when anyone expressed criticism of Barack Obama, or support for his opponent, the Obama supporters often responded with words to the effect of "I don't want to hear that!" or "I will not talk about that!" They did not defend their candidate or his positions -- they simply refused to engage in discussion, or listen to opposing views. This is a new and puzzling phenomenon, and it does not bode well for the future of political discourse in America. This was something that I observed personally -- perhaps it is not widespread.
My personal opinion of Barack Obama has always been based solely on Barack Obama. When he makes a speech, I listen -- to the entire speech -- and when he takes action, I pay attention. As the 2012 election approached, I noticed that when the people I was in contact with expressed criticism of Mitt Romney, it was almost never based on anything REAL -- not on his real past, or his real positions, or his real plans for America -- but instead on the lies spread by President Obama and his campaign.
I am not saying the recent election was illegal. Even if elections could be annulled, President Obama and his campaign would continue to run against their fictional creation, and they would likely win again. THAT's one of the biggest tragedies: now that the tactic has been successful, it will probably be used over and over in American politics.
Less than twelve years ago, George W. Bush became our forty-third President after an election that was too close to accurately count, and was, in the end, settled by the Supreme Courts of both Florida and the United States. Prior to the election, George W. Bush had proven himself capable of working successfully in a bipartisan manner with his opponents as he served as Governor of Texas. For his entire term as President, his opponents fought him tooth and nail, and then criticized him for his failure to win THEIR support. People maintained his election was "illegal". To this day, there are bumper stickers in my community referring to George W. Bush that proclaim "Not MY President!" And to this day, President Obama and his supporters blame George W. Bush for their current problems.
One of the most exasperating things about politics is double standards. For over twelve years, Democrats have fought, demonized, and ridiculed George W. Bush, and continue to do so. When Barack Obama was elected President, Democrats indignantly insisted that the nation must suddenly "unite" and "respect the Office of the President". Furthermore, they insisted, and continue to insist, that anyone NOT uniting behind President Obama is motivated primarily by racism. In fact, for the last four years I have TRIED to unite behind President Obama, but in every single speech, at every opportunity, he attacks and mocks me and my beliefs (well, not me PERSONALLY -- he has shown no evidence of caring about me personally, or my opinions). For four years, he has been unable to rise out of campaign mode, and shift into a mode of leadership.
It's a tricky and dangerous thing to accuse a politician of "divisiveness". Often, the charge is leveled by those who have spent years opposing the politician, and attempting to persuade others to join in their opposition. In the case of President Obama, he himself has led the opposition, by continuing to battle against the very people he is supposed to represent and lead.
In a perfect world -- the world of my dreams -- after an election, the opposing sides come together, agree that the voters have made their choice, and get down to the business of doing what is best for all. President Obama and his supporters -- NOT Mitt Romney, and NOT those who opposed President Obama -- have made this difficult. It remains to be seen whether they have made it impossible.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. I was looking forward to writing about something OTHER than politics. Maybe next time.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Romney for President
Each of us has strengths and weaknesses -- areas in which we are skilled, strong, or knowledgeable, and areas in which we are not so skilled, strong, or knowledgeable. If you want a job done well, the key is not to find the best person, but to find the best person for the job. Even more, the best person for that PARTICULAR job under those PARTICULAR circumstances at that particular time.
I suspect that historians will look kindly upon the Obama Presidency, if for no other reason than that he was the first black President. Objectively, I believe his Presidency should be viewed as one of the worst in the history of the United States -- not because he is intrinsically a bad person, or a bad President, but because he was uniquely ill-suited for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
People will differ on their views of the biggest challenges facing the American President at any precise time, but President Obama has failed on most of them. Again, not because he is necessarily a bad person, or a bad President, but simply because he was ill-equipped to face those particular challenges.
America, at this time, needed a President who could deal with rising debt and out-of-control spending. President Obama responded by increasing spending and dramatically increasing the debt.
Most of all, at this time America needed a President who could bring together the deeply polarized and divided populace. This is contrary to President Obama's personal style. The number one weapon in his arsenal is to divide, vilify, and blame. He seems to lack the ability to make a speech without using it as an opportunity to attack those who disagree with him. Rather than attempting to build consensus and to understand those who oppose him, he attacks them and misrepresents their positions. He is considered by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- to have been the most divisive, polarizing President in American history. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but it was precisely the opposite of what was needed NOW.
Four years ago, as a candidate, Barack Obama seemed to understand what was needed, promising a new era of bipartisanship and transparency, and even vowing that all legislation would be published on the internet three days before it was passed. Instead, we have Obamacare, passed so quickly that not a single person even a chance to read through the entire bill before voting on it. Obamacare, President Obama's flagship "accomplishment", passed at a time when the country was desperate for more jobs, is perhaps the largest piece of job-killing legislation ever passed in America. This is not to say Obamacare is without merit -- it may slightly improve the health insurance system -- but it was the wrong legislation for this particular moment in history. Perhaps ten years ago, or ten years from now, it would have been the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do NOW.
If President Obama is re-elected, I will view it as the triumph of misrepresentation over honesty, of divisiveness over unity, of brute force over consensus, and of anger over hope. Some might claim that is precisely what is needed at this time -- crush the opposition, using whatever means necessary -- but I believe they are wrong.
In many Presidential elections, the voters find themselves displeased with all of the candidates, and ultimately choosing the lesser of evils. It has been many election cycles since I voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the poorer candidates. Finally, in Mitt Romney, I believe I have found a candidate I can vote FOR. Mitt Romney may not be the best person ever to run for President, and he may not objectively be a better person than Barack Obama, but he is the best person for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
America needs a uniter rather than a divider, a job-builder rather than a job-killer, and someone who will cut spending and debt rather than expand it. Mitt Romney is skilled, strong, and knowledgeable in exactly those areas that America needs at this moment in time.
No one can predict the future. Perhaps the challenges facing America at this time will be too much even for Mitt Romney. I know they have been too much for Barack Obama.
Postscript: This will be my last blog entry posted prior to the 2012 Presidential election. I have not yet found the words to write about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. IF President Obama is re-elected, I believe he will either be impeached or forced to resign over his role in the response to the Benghazi attacks. If President Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden would become President. I cannot predict the future, and I cannot say whether Joe Biden would be equal to the challenges facing the American President.
Truth is complicated.
I suspect that historians will look kindly upon the Obama Presidency, if for no other reason than that he was the first black President. Objectively, I believe his Presidency should be viewed as one of the worst in the history of the United States -- not because he is intrinsically a bad person, or a bad President, but because he was uniquely ill-suited for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
People will differ on their views of the biggest challenges facing the American President at any precise time, but President Obama has failed on most of them. Again, not because he is necessarily a bad person, or a bad President, but simply because he was ill-equipped to face those particular challenges.
America, at this time, needed a President who could deal with rising debt and out-of-control spending. President Obama responded by increasing spending and dramatically increasing the debt.
Most of all, at this time America needed a President who could bring together the deeply polarized and divided populace. This is contrary to President Obama's personal style. The number one weapon in his arsenal is to divide, vilify, and blame. He seems to lack the ability to make a speech without using it as an opportunity to attack those who disagree with him. Rather than attempting to build consensus and to understand those who oppose him, he attacks them and misrepresents their positions. He is considered by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- to have been the most divisive, polarizing President in American history. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but it was precisely the opposite of what was needed NOW.
Four years ago, as a candidate, Barack Obama seemed to understand what was needed, promising a new era of bipartisanship and transparency, and even vowing that all legislation would be published on the internet three days before it was passed. Instead, we have Obamacare, passed so quickly that not a single person even a chance to read through the entire bill before voting on it. Obamacare, President Obama's flagship "accomplishment", passed at a time when the country was desperate for more jobs, is perhaps the largest piece of job-killing legislation ever passed in America. This is not to say Obamacare is without merit -- it may slightly improve the health insurance system -- but it was the wrong legislation for this particular moment in history. Perhaps ten years ago, or ten years from now, it would have been the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do NOW.
If President Obama is re-elected, I will view it as the triumph of misrepresentation over honesty, of divisiveness over unity, of brute force over consensus, and of anger over hope. Some might claim that is precisely what is needed at this time -- crush the opposition, using whatever means necessary -- but I believe they are wrong.
In many Presidential elections, the voters find themselves displeased with all of the candidates, and ultimately choosing the lesser of evils. It has been many election cycles since I voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the poorer candidates. Finally, in Mitt Romney, I believe I have found a candidate I can vote FOR. Mitt Romney may not be the best person ever to run for President, and he may not objectively be a better person than Barack Obama, but he is the best person for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
America needs a uniter rather than a divider, a job-builder rather than a job-killer, and someone who will cut spending and debt rather than expand it. Mitt Romney is skilled, strong, and knowledgeable in exactly those areas that America needs at this moment in time.
No one can predict the future. Perhaps the challenges facing America at this time will be too much even for Mitt Romney. I know they have been too much for Barack Obama.
Postscript: This will be my last blog entry posted prior to the 2012 Presidential election. I have not yet found the words to write about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. IF President Obama is re-elected, I believe he will either be impeached or forced to resign over his role in the response to the Benghazi attacks. If President Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden would become President. I cannot predict the future, and I cannot say whether Joe Biden would be equal to the challenges facing the American President.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Big Tent
There is a surprising truth in American politics today -- a truth that few talk about, and that those on both the left and the right wish to deny. The truth is that, over the last few decades, the Republican Party has quietly become the "big tent" party, the party of diversity of viewpoints -- especially when it comes to "social issues".
This truth is denied by both sides. Those on the far right of the Republican Party want the world to believe that the rest of the party agrees with them, and find comfort in telling themselves that they speak for the majority of Republicans. Those on the left want the world to believe that the Republican Party is made up of extremists, while the Democrat Party is more moderate and reasonable.
I am referring mostly to divisive controversial issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control, though the diversity extends to things like war and environmental issues. The extremists would have you believe that all Republicans oppose abortion and same-sex marriage and gun control, favor war as opposed to peace, and give no regard to protecting the environment. Though it is hard to gather honest, accurate statistics about the personal beliefs of millions of Americans, there are large numbers of Republicans on both sides of all of these issues -- while it is much harder to find large groups of Democrats on both sides of these issues.
I hasten to acknowledge that it is currently difficult for a vehemently pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, pro gun control candidate to win the Republican nomination for President. This simply reflects the fact that the extremists exercise inordinate control over both major parties, and probably over all political parties. One of the weaknesses of the American system of government is that a well-organized and/or well-funded minority can easily wield disproportionate power.
To those who would disagree with me, I offer this true example: A few months ago, I attended my "neighborhood caucus". Theoretically, all power within the political party proceeds upward from the caucus level. Among the tasks of the caucus was to elect delegates to the county convention, and also name members of the local "central committee". In both cases, we were unable to fill the available slots. That is, we were supposed to hold an election to narrow down our slate of delegates to eleven, but only nine would agree to serve. We were supposed to elect six people to serve on the "central committee", but only five would agree to serve. This means that any extremists who wished to have THEIR views heard could proceed unopposed to the county convention and central committee -- and technically represent the hundreds or thousands of eligible voters in my "neighborhood". That is truly how the system works. At the most basic, local level, power comes not from "the majority" but from those who desire power. At the present time, most of the members of my local "Republican Central Committee" are probably anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-gun control. This offers NO indication of the beliefs of local Republicans on these issues, despite the fact that extremists on both sides would like to believe that it does.
To a certain extent, this same process may extend to the Democrat Party, which is probably also dominated by those who agree to serve. However, there are specific, organized Republican groups on both sides of these issues. That is, there are specific organizations of Republicans who are pro-choice, and Republicans who are pro-same-sex marriage (though offhand I am unaware of any large Republican "pro-gun control" group). I do not believe there are large, organized "Democrats against abortion" or "Democrats against same-sex-marriage" groups. The Democrat Party has simply become less diverse than the Republican Party, and less tolerant of diversity.
As I stated at the outset, this truth is denied by both sides. I consider this deeply dishonest, and deeply troubling.
Truth is complicated.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Obama and Race
As I type this in 2012, ANY discussion of "race" is dangerous -- especially for someone "white" like me -- and ESPECIALLY any discussion linking the subject of "race" with President Obama. However, it seems likely that ANY discussion of President Obama, now or in the future, will include the subject of "race". President Obama will always be viewed as "America's first black President", and will always be mentioned that way in the history books, no matter what else transpires during his Presidency.
The title of "America's first black President" was destined to be complicated and troubling, regardless of who held it. On the one hand, I had always thought that part of the entire IDEA of having a black President would be to prove that their race did not matter -- but then of course it DOES matter if you are excited about them being "the first black President".
A week or two after President Obama was elected, I heard a discussion on National Public Radio that illustrates the problem. Several people, including pollsters from both the Obama and McCain campaigns, were discussing the election results, and especially focusing on the information gained from "exit polls". They were also taking phone calls from listeners. One of the callers brought up the issue of people who voted based primarily on race. The pollsters agreed that some voters had based their votes primarily on this issue. Then the pollster for the Obama campaign made an interesting statement. He said that everyone feared that people would vote AGAINST Barack Obama due to his race -- and some people DID vote against Barack Obama due to his race -- but their data indicated that even MORE people had voted FOR Barack Obama due to his race, and in fact, he would not have won the election WITHOUT the people who voted for him mostly BECAUSE of his race. So, while they had feared that his race might prevent him from being elected, in fact it had CAUSED him to be elected. His final comment was the most curious of all, as he stated, "And isn't that a wonderful thing!"
As I listened to the discussion on the radio, I was struck that it was NOT necessarily a wonderful thing for someone to be elected BECAUSE of their race. Clearly, most people would have felt that if John McCain had been elected BECAUSE of his (white) race, it would have been a BAD thing. I continue to be troubled by the roll that race played in the election. By the way, I am simply repeating what I heard on National Public Radio. I personally do not have the expertise or data to say what roll race played in Obama's election. Still, I question whether it is truly any better to SUPPORT someone because of their race than it is to OPPOSE them because of their race.
I must confess that from the moment Barack Obama became a candidate for President, I was troubled by the idea that anyone who opposed him, or disagreed with him on ANY issue, risked being branded a "racist". This has turned out to be even more true than I had feared. Even today, almost four years into his Presidency, there are those who insist that the ONLY reason anyone EVER opposes President Obama is due to his race. I suppose this was predictable, but it is still troubling, and it tends to interfere with honest debate over the true issues. Years ago, I heard someone on television -- and I wish I could recall who it was -- who stated, "I disagree with President Obama on almost every issue, and am troubled by all of his positions EXCEPT his race. I do not care about his race one way of the other." I believe many people fall into this camp, yet all are routinely labeled "racist".
For me, labeling all of those who oppose President Obama as "racist" shows disrespect not only for them, but also for President Obama. It is as if he has no ideas, and no positions, and has done nothing as President -- all that matters is his race. If, as I believe, he HAS ideas and positions, and has taken actions as President, then clearly there are going to be people who disagree, just as there are people who agree with him. It sells him short to label all opposition "racist".
I cannot completely ignore the fact that in many ways America NEEDED to have a black President, and the fact that we HAVE a black President is, in many ways, a good thing. At the same time, I consider Barack Obama to have been a bad President, and bad for the country, and bad for the entire world -- but NOT because he is black ... in my opinion, his "blackness" is perhaps the only good thing about his Presidency. (But of course, since I believe Barack Obama has been a bad President, many will simply label me a racist, and ignore my opinions beyond that.)
Barack Obama had a unique opportunity to unite America, and serve as President for ALL Americans. He has squandered that opportunity, choosing* to be one of the most partisan Presidents -- ignoring, demonizing, or ridiculing all with differing ideas, rather than attempting to build consensus, and tossing aside his 2008 campaign promises of a transparent administration ("the most transparent administration in history!"). One of Barack Obama's biggest failings as a President has been his failure to ever rise out of "campaign mode", and represent not only those who voted for him, but the entire country. Instead, he can never resist an opportunity to praise his supporters, and attack his opponents. As America's first black President, this is especially tragic.
Truth is complicated.
*Despite what President Obama or his supporters might claim, dominating rather than uniting IS a choice, and cannot be blamed solely on one's opponents.
The title of "America's first black President" was destined to be complicated and troubling, regardless of who held it. On the one hand, I had always thought that part of the entire IDEA of having a black President would be to prove that their race did not matter -- but then of course it DOES matter if you are excited about them being "the first black President".
A week or two after President Obama was elected, I heard a discussion on National Public Radio that illustrates the problem. Several people, including pollsters from both the Obama and McCain campaigns, were discussing the election results, and especially focusing on the information gained from "exit polls". They were also taking phone calls from listeners. One of the callers brought up the issue of people who voted based primarily on race. The pollsters agreed that some voters had based their votes primarily on this issue. Then the pollster for the Obama campaign made an interesting statement. He said that everyone feared that people would vote AGAINST Barack Obama due to his race -- and some people DID vote against Barack Obama due to his race -- but their data indicated that even MORE people had voted FOR Barack Obama due to his race, and in fact, he would not have won the election WITHOUT the people who voted for him mostly BECAUSE of his race. So, while they had feared that his race might prevent him from being elected, in fact it had CAUSED him to be elected. His final comment was the most curious of all, as he stated, "And isn't that a wonderful thing!"
As I listened to the discussion on the radio, I was struck that it was NOT necessarily a wonderful thing for someone to be elected BECAUSE of their race. Clearly, most people would have felt that if John McCain had been elected BECAUSE of his (white) race, it would have been a BAD thing. I continue to be troubled by the roll that race played in the election. By the way, I am simply repeating what I heard on National Public Radio. I personally do not have the expertise or data to say what roll race played in Obama's election. Still, I question whether it is truly any better to SUPPORT someone because of their race than it is to OPPOSE them because of their race.
I must confess that from the moment Barack Obama became a candidate for President, I was troubled by the idea that anyone who opposed him, or disagreed with him on ANY issue, risked being branded a "racist". This has turned out to be even more true than I had feared. Even today, almost four years into his Presidency, there are those who insist that the ONLY reason anyone EVER opposes President Obama is due to his race. I suppose this was predictable, but it is still troubling, and it tends to interfere with honest debate over the true issues. Years ago, I heard someone on television -- and I wish I could recall who it was -- who stated, "I disagree with President Obama on almost every issue, and am troubled by all of his positions EXCEPT his race. I do not care about his race one way of the other." I believe many people fall into this camp, yet all are routinely labeled "racist".
For me, labeling all of those who oppose President Obama as "racist" shows disrespect not only for them, but also for President Obama. It is as if he has no ideas, and no positions, and has done nothing as President -- all that matters is his race. If, as I believe, he HAS ideas and positions, and has taken actions as President, then clearly there are going to be people who disagree, just as there are people who agree with him. It sells him short to label all opposition "racist".
I cannot completely ignore the fact that in many ways America NEEDED to have a black President, and the fact that we HAVE a black President is, in many ways, a good thing. At the same time, I consider Barack Obama to have been a bad President, and bad for the country, and bad for the entire world -- but NOT because he is black ... in my opinion, his "blackness" is perhaps the only good thing about his Presidency. (But of course, since I believe Barack Obama has been a bad President, many will simply label me a racist, and ignore my opinions beyond that.)
Barack Obama had a unique opportunity to unite America, and serve as President for ALL Americans. He has squandered that opportunity, choosing* to be one of the most partisan Presidents -- ignoring, demonizing, or ridiculing all with differing ideas, rather than attempting to build consensus, and tossing aside his 2008 campaign promises of a transparent administration ("the most transparent administration in history!"). One of Barack Obama's biggest failings as a President has been his failure to ever rise out of "campaign mode", and represent not only those who voted for him, but the entire country. Instead, he can never resist an opportunity to praise his supporters, and attack his opponents. As America's first black President, this is especially tragic.
Truth is complicated.
*Despite what President Obama or his supporters might claim, dominating rather than uniting IS a choice, and cannot be blamed solely on one's opponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)