Monday, October 22, 2007

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.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Dr H,

As a fan of yours I would like to make a point and that is this. You have great insight into the issues you preach on , but preaching is terrible way to make a point. From atop the soap box you try to make yourself look alot bigger, whether intentional or not. The best critism comes with a helpful dose of humor.

I look forward to future musings,

Professor Wong
University of Shanghai
Head of the Yangtze Marine Conservatory

Anonymous said...

I would have to agree with Dr. Wong on this one. Laugh a little more, especially when the world is crashing down all around on you. It makes life a whole lot easier. Within that not only do you maintain your sanity, you save a little piece of your soul.

-Little Billy thinks you should find your most inspirational muse and ask for their opinion. He/she might have more insight, or at least teach you some humility.

Anonymous said...

Dude, you're even more insightful than ever, which is saying a bit!

Guess who, brother!

E-mail me. DAMN, have the last few years left a lot of interesting things to catch up on. No doubt for you, too.