Baby Steps

I'm really starting to question whether certain issues, particularly certain social issues, should play a large part in the national government (I'll limit this topic to the USA since that’s what I’m familiar with).

Moral issues like abortion, gay marriage and the death penalty have an enormous influence on both the turnout for presidential elections and ultimately who is elected. I believe that these issues determined the last two US elections. Doesn't our national government have enough to worry about already, what with a war in Iraq, global warming, poverty, foreign policy issues that include: a middle east crisis, Iranian nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Darfur, China and so much more, than to have to be forced to spend so much time on social issues? In the past I have always felt that the President should take a strong stance on big social issues but I'm beginning to wonder, since we live in such a diverse country, if it shouldn't be left up to the individual states.

For example, I believe there should be a national law the requires all states to provide equal marriage rights for everyone, gay or straight, but I'm not sure the national government should make an outright decision for everyone as to what that law should be. If the people of Mississippi or Louisiana or any of the other (I think there have been 26 so far) states want to ban gay marriage, that’s okay (for now) as long as they provide equal rights under the law for all people. I used to believe this was a position left leaning democrats took to play it safe (Howard Dean made this argument when he ran for president) and I resented it, but now I’m starting to agree only because I don’t believe the national government should waste its time trying to please both rural, uneducated (and educated) people in Wyoming as well as intellectual liberals (some not so intellectual) in San Francisco when those people tend to be so different when it comes to certain issues (I know I’m geographically stereotyping but bare with me). I mean the fact that the next President will have (more than likely) a direct impact essentially having the say) on whether or not Roe vs. Wade is overturned seems way off track from what the U.S. President's top priorities (and authority?) should be. I know this is a controversial statement and I am without question pro-life, pro-gay marriage, anti-guns, anti-death penalty but these all seem like issues the President shouldn't have to bother with (as much as he does) and probably shouldn't have to campaign so heavily about. Not with everything else he (hopefully she too) deals with and will be dealing with in the coming years.

Now I'm not saying that there shouldn't be discussion on these issues at the highest level and that we shouldn’t continue to educate people and that some day, hopefully, the majority of the people in every state will see how stupid it was to ban gay marriage (and they’ll overturn it) or that the death penalty is morally wrong (and they’ll overturn that too). But this is just my opinion and that’s just the point. We over here on the left too often feel too superior in our perspectives and, I think, fail to see the whole picture (That picture being of a very diverse, immigrant built, Christian based country with a whole lot of exceptions to very point of view). And isn’t that what we blame Republicans for? We’ve got to start looking at the whole picture and we’ve got to think ahead in baby steps. Because some day I want to meet a farmer or small town Christian (I know I’m stereotyping right now) in rural Texas (still stereotyping) and say “isn’t it great that the last state in the union just amended their constitution to allow gay marriage?” And he (or she) says, “Yes, it is. What a great day for America.” And then I say, “Now we just have to ban guns and then we’ll be on the right track.” And he (or she) says, “This is why we the second amendment should never be changed…” And I say, “I’m listening.”

Baby steps, people. Let’s not forget about the other side because their perspective is just as valid and important as our own.

Searching For Bobby Kennedy...

It’s difficult to get excited about the 2008 election. The only thing I find remotely appealing is that, unless some miracle of Satan occurs (but Jerry Falwell is dead, so I’m not sure there’s much he can do), George W. Bush will not win again and it seems the Republicans will have a tough time replacing him. Still, I find myself in search of a candidate, because it feels like we’re in the midst of a major turning point in this country and what’s potentially exciting about that is getting involved, being an active part of that history. But I am having trouble being remotely inspired by the politicians that are a) running for president and b) stand a chance at winning. I know you’re supposed to vote your conscience (and I’ve tried that, I voted for Nadar in 2000) but wouldn’t it be great to have a candidate that not only reflected your ideals, inspired people to stand up for those ideals and proposed new policy, but was also in the position to be elected?

Dennis Kucinich (in my estimation) says all the right things, has the ideals that most closely reflect my own, seems to be honest in everything he preaches and has no chance at winning the Democratic ticket. At a time in which the media controls the election and money controls the media it seems that it always comes down to two or maybe three candidates in the primaries and, of course, only two in the general election. It seems that this democratic primary will come down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (the Republican primary seems less certain but I’m putting my money on Mike Huckabee to come out of deep right field to challenge Giuliani and maybe Fred Thompson) the two candidates who have greatly out gained every other candidate in terms of both money raised and media attention.

For someone who is not greatly involved in politics but who has an above average (and that’s not saying much) but not astounding knowledge of it, I feel the overwhelming desire to be realistic in this election and support a candidate that has a chance to win. This gives me a choice between two candidates that aren’t saying anything strikingly new about policy and government (Obama and Clinton) and perhaps a long shot (John Edwards) who seems to have the people’s interest at heart (he actually talks about poverty and domestic issues more than he dwells on Iraq) but doesn’t seem to have what it takes to break into the race in a relevant way. I hate to seem like I’m settling my values or ideals by going with a more likely winner but there’s only so much time and energy an individual can devote to an election while trying to sustain his own personal life, ambitions, pursuits, etc. If I could be an active part of a campaign (for example, being paid to campaign so that I might be able to eat, pay rent, etc) then it would be worth devoting myself to the most ideal candidate. But even then it would take a real inspiration to change the (current) devotion of my life and energy, if only for a year, to politics. And still, I am concerned...

So, here’s a good question: When’s the last time we (out here in left field) have had a candidate that can actualize our dearest values and ideals, our hope for the future and our ability to actually win the election? (And actually I’d be interested in any opinions from the right side as well because I often wonder how devoted conservatives really are to Bush and the like. I feel like most conservatives are much more gung-ho about their candidates, thus a decisive advantage). Because I’m not sure there’s been this kind of candidate in my lifetime (at least not on the left side, but both sides please chime in if your opinion differs). In fact, looking back over recent history, the last time I can definitively state that there was a candidate whom inspired and proposed new, progressive and universally relevant ideals as well as had a great shot at winning the presidency was Robert Kennedy in 1968.


Robert Kennedy was the last of the a small group of individuals who rose to the occasion, not in spite of, but in reaction to the challenges of his time, to inspire a nation of people to look outside of their suburban comforts and see that neighbors aren’t just people who live on the same block as you, but those on the far side of the city, across state lines, from region to region and even around the globe. His ideals spanned races and borders and his charisma was not just founded on the way in which he articulated his words and expressed his ideas but in the warmth and human emotion, the integrity he put into them. When Bobby Kennedy spoke (much like JFK and MLK) you not only listened and believed, but you listened with all your heart and believed in a way that gave you hope and inspired you into action. Bobby, like his older brother John, spoke for people to give back to their nation, to give of themselves so that others could be free. His ideas remain relevant today, perhaps because he did not live long enough to do anything about the problems that plagued his generation, still forty years later we are faced with a dumb war, racial inequality, poverty, a divided nation, etc, etc, etc.

I have never felt the same kind compassion or determination or even the same kind of patriotic reverence that Bobby Kennedy had from an American politician in my voting lifetime. Barack Obama has been touted as this candidate or this type of candidate since his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic national convention. There are comparisons to be drawn between Obama and Bobby Kennedy. They were both passionate advocates for troop withdrawal and the end of an unjust war. They both spoke for equality and against poverty, both for the opportunity and potential of this nation. But the way in which Barack Obama frames his positions on the issues says nothing new about how to solve these problems or why his ideals and his solutions are right. Without changing people’s perceptions, without adjusting their consciousness, we cannot inspire them to change the world in which we live. This is what Bobby Kennedy did simply by speaking. I have never felt this from Barack Obama or any Presidential candidate. And if Obama is our best chance at having this kind of candidate, well, then I guess that makes me sad. But I hope that he rises to the occasion. His greatest opponent right now is someone who campaigns to the middle and inspires hate from the conservative side because they fear her liberalism. This has, seemingly, pushed Obama to the middle, perhaps toning down his idealistic vision and, in my opinion, weakening his candidacy in the process. He was touted by the media from early in his campaign as an inspirational candidate because he seemed to be different, to speak different, he seemed to be a refreshing change, but change inspires fear in many Americans and it seems that Obama is afraid of this as well.

Bobby Kennedy was never afraid of change. He embraced it, he endorsed because he knew that without change there is no progress.

And what are we without progress?

I strongly suggest listening to some of RFK's speeches at:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/kennedy/speech.html

"Gross National Product measures neither the health of our children, the quality of their education, nor the joy of their play. It measures neither the beauty of our poetry, nor the strength of our marriages. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It measures neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our wit nor our courage, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything in short, except that which makes life worth living. It can tell us everything about our country, except those things that make us proud to be a part of it.” -RFK

Sometimes...

Sometimes I like to believe in the idea that God created us and that he did so in his image. Because if this is true, then he is just as fucked up and imperfect as you and me. And if that's true, then everything makes a lot more sense.