I read with interest the article by William McGurn that appeared in the WSJ on 19 May 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269063343832561.html.
Mr McGurn is right on target when he says " When Notre Dame doesn't dress for the game, the field is left to those like Randall Terry who create a spectacle and declare their contempt for civil and respectful witness". The question becomes how do we as thoughtful Catholics suit up?
I am convinced that the Priests for Life crowd or even my brother knights in the Knights of Columbus have grasped that you not only have to give a prohibition to abortion but to give pregnant women better options and that frankly, will take money. I would love to get Fr. Frank Pavone and Randall Terry in one room and say "OK.....let's say abortion gets prohibited like you want...then what? What are people in the pro life movement willing to give up so that women won't abort their babies. I want to know in dollars and cents how much they are willing to pay in terms of taxes for public services, health care, education and reliable day care to ensure that those babies who are not aborted will grow to their full potential.
I hear scant little from the pro life quarter on these issues. They are quite ready to say no to abortions but what are they going to do about it when abortion is no longer legal.
These sentiments are not only applicable to the pro life crowd but to institutions like Notre Dame. They are absolutely tone deaf on this issue. They talk a good game about honoring church teaching but what do the DO about it. Are they really willing to have an open dialog about abortion or devote resources to this cause?
Sometimes, it seems that the Catholic centers of higher education want it both ways. They want to seem as progressive and acceptable to the great population but still want a veneer of Catholicity.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Photos That Could Cost Lives? Maybe We Should Look At The Policies Instead
I just finished reading the article written by David Rebhein that appeared in the May 8 2009 Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174121748398901.html.
While I believe that the American Legion does great work, I feel that the views expressed by Mr Rebhein are not in line what I believe a free society should be about.
Mr. Rebhein thinks that releasing more photos of detainee abuse will only inflame America's enemies, but I am convinced that in the long run, openness is better for this country. I am convinced that people like Mr. Rebhein and other on the political right would rather have the pictures suppresses so that they can continue to perpetuate the myth that Abu Ghraib was just "an aberration" or the work of a "few bad apples".
Until the full evidence is shown to the American people, we will never be freed of the ghosts of Abu Ghraib. In addition, we have got to get real about making the people whose policy decisions that lead to detainee abuse accountable in some way. It could very well be that this government does not have the stomach or political capital to bring these people to the bar of justice there is always the court of public opinion.
How many generals were allowed to retire quietly and pick up their nice pension and go on the right wing rubber chicken dinner circuit? How many DOJ attorneys who signed off on torture were allowed to go into places like the Heritage Foundation some other sympathetic think tank?
I am all in favor of making life for these politicians and generals at least somewhat uncomfortable and make them think about what they have done.
I would like to draw a parallel with the recent flap over the flight of Air Force One over the Statute of Liberty that was kept under wraps. If the folks had been open about the flight, there would not have been any panic and people would not have thought about the expense of the flight. Now, the administration has had to deal with people's anger (however muted and short term) and the hew and cry over the expense.
I keep thinking that our government does not trust us. It seems that Mr. Rehbein does not either. He would rather keep the photos under wraps on the chance it will inflame our enemies.
Maybe Mr. Rehbein needs to think about the larger policies of the present and past administrations that put troops at risk and not just photos of detainee abuse.
While I believe that the American Legion does great work, I feel that the views expressed by Mr Rebhein are not in line what I believe a free society should be about.
Mr. Rebhein thinks that releasing more photos of detainee abuse will only inflame America's enemies, but I am convinced that in the long run, openness is better for this country. I am convinced that people like Mr. Rebhein and other on the political right would rather have the pictures suppresses so that they can continue to perpetuate the myth that Abu Ghraib was just "an aberration" or the work of a "few bad apples".
Until the full evidence is shown to the American people, we will never be freed of the ghosts of Abu Ghraib. In addition, we have got to get real about making the people whose policy decisions that lead to detainee abuse accountable in some way. It could very well be that this government does not have the stomach or political capital to bring these people to the bar of justice there is always the court of public opinion.
How many generals were allowed to retire quietly and pick up their nice pension and go on the right wing rubber chicken dinner circuit? How many DOJ attorneys who signed off on torture were allowed to go into places like the Heritage Foundation some other sympathetic think tank?
I am all in favor of making life for these politicians and generals at least somewhat uncomfortable and make them think about what they have done.
I would like to draw a parallel with the recent flap over the flight of Air Force One over the Statute of Liberty that was kept under wraps. If the folks had been open about the flight, there would not have been any panic and people would not have thought about the expense of the flight. Now, the administration has had to deal with people's anger (however muted and short term) and the hew and cry over the expense.
I keep thinking that our government does not trust us. It seems that Mr. Rehbein does not either. He would rather keep the photos under wraps on the chance it will inflame our enemies.
Maybe Mr. Rehbein needs to think about the larger policies of the present and past administrations that put troops at risk and not just photos of detainee abuse.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
WSJ and the UAW....Same old, Same old
I just finished reading Holman W. Jenkins column in the April 1, 2009 Wall Street Journal entitled "GM Bankruptcy? Tell Me Another" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123853988781575499.html.
I thought I would find something new and interesting but it's just the same page from the playbook of Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Jenkins makes the same arguments that Rush has in that the problems of the Detroit automakers can be laid at the door of the UAW and the United States Congress in their push for better fuel economy in passenger vehicles. They all want to make the car companies and by extension, their management the victims of the UAW and the congress.
What a load of baloney!!! The car companies keep harping on the fact that "we only sell cars that people want to buy, and the wanted to buy big honking SUV's and now that people don't like to pay for higher gas, that's not our fault".
Let's face realities..people buy cars for the same reason that they buy everything else and that is because of the influence of marketing. It was the skillful marketing of the big three that made the SUV so popular (and by the way enable the big three to make big profits on them). Car companies don't follow demand, they lead it. Otherwise, why would they have marketing and advertising departments for which the spend millions on, not to mention all the TV ad time they take up during prime events like the Superbowl. If the car companies had any vision, they would have been crafting marketing messages that would have alerted people to the danger of foreign oil and that a car that gets good gas mileage can be "cool" to drive and could have made a nice profit on cars like that but Detroit decided to take the easy way out.
With regard to the UAW, I never saw a big three executive with a gun at his head and forced to sign a contract. Those contracts were entered into by both parties...nobody "imposed" terms on the other. If the big three did not like the UAW terms, then they should have ramped up and gotten ready for a fight each time the union contracts came up. The union cannot be blamed for a contract that both parties negotiated and agreed to. If the big three did not like the terms, they should have let a strike happen and starve the UAW out. I'm quite certain that in the long run, the big three would have had the resources to do that.
Auto executives and their proxies should stop pointing fingers and acting like the innocent victims in this tragedy.
I thought I would find something new and interesting but it's just the same page from the playbook of Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Jenkins makes the same arguments that Rush has in that the problems of the Detroit automakers can be laid at the door of the UAW and the United States Congress in their push for better fuel economy in passenger vehicles. They all want to make the car companies and by extension, their management the victims of the UAW and the congress.
What a load of baloney!!! The car companies keep harping on the fact that "we only sell cars that people want to buy, and the wanted to buy big honking SUV's and now that people don't like to pay for higher gas, that's not our fault".
Let's face realities..people buy cars for the same reason that they buy everything else and that is because of the influence of marketing. It was the skillful marketing of the big three that made the SUV so popular (and by the way enable the big three to make big profits on them). Car companies don't follow demand, they lead it. Otherwise, why would they have marketing and advertising departments for which the spend millions on, not to mention all the TV ad time they take up during prime events like the Superbowl. If the car companies had any vision, they would have been crafting marketing messages that would have alerted people to the danger of foreign oil and that a car that gets good gas mileage can be "cool" to drive and could have made a nice profit on cars like that but Detroit decided to take the easy way out.
With regard to the UAW, I never saw a big three executive with a gun at his head and forced to sign a contract. Those contracts were entered into by both parties...nobody "imposed" terms on the other. If the big three did not like the UAW terms, then they should have ramped up and gotten ready for a fight each time the union contracts came up. The union cannot be blamed for a contract that both parties negotiated and agreed to. If the big three did not like the terms, they should have let a strike happen and starve the UAW out. I'm quite certain that in the long run, the big three would have had the resources to do that.
Auto executives and their proxies should stop pointing fingers and acting like the innocent victims in this tragedy.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Is Consumption Still A Virtue?
This is the text of a letter I sent to an edtior at Vogue Magazine
Ms. Sally Singer
Fashion News and Features Director
Vogue Magazine
4 Times Square12th Floor
New York, NY10036-6518
Dear Ms Singer:
I listened with great interest your interview with Ari Shapiro that aired on Morning Edition on Thursday 19 February 2009 on my local National Public Radio station, WBEZ.
I thought the interview was very worth listening to until you made the following statement:
Fashion is an enormously important industry, not just in New York City, but across the country. And there are a lot of people in America who make clothes, who sell clothes, and we want to keep those people working. Not shopping is not a moral act at this time. So many people think that their frugality is somehow a new moral front. Now that might be true if they were kind of excessive and bizarre in the years before. But when people don’t shop, other people lose their jobs. That’s a fact.
I have to admit that I was absolutely appalled by this comment. Not only does it show a marked misunderstanding of where the clothes that most people come from but also does a disservice to those people who are attempting to spend less in these hard economic times.
You above all must realize that the clothes that most people wear everyday are not made in the United States. They are cut and sewn together in countries such as India, China and Indonesia where labor is much cheaper.
Statements like yours may work well in the design houses of Paris, the runways of New York Fashion Week or the shops on Rodeo Drive but fall absolutely flat in Middle America, the so-called flyover states. I also feel that your statement continues to perpetuate an image of your industry as trivial and in no way connected to the lives of everyday Americans, many of who are struggling to stay in their homes. You statement also sends a message that the rest of the American population in some way owes people in the fashion industry a living. Nothing could be further from the truth. American workers, whether in the office or factory floor, must prove their value to their respective employers every day. Maybe it’s time that the fashion industry consider doing the same by designing clothes that can be worn by people who may not have a perfect shape and who need clothes that can stand the rigor of everyday use. I’m sorry to say that much of what passes for fashion in this country fails on both accounts.
I would like you to consider what a lack of saving has done to this country. More and more individuals are looking to the government to save them from their economic and financial folly and your statement about not spending not being a moral act continues to propagate the myth that happiness or at least economic salvation can be found in continued conspicuous consumption.
I truly wish more people in your industry would really try to see how most Americans live. I believe you will find the exercise both eye opening and helpful in your work.
Sincerely yours
Eugene Michael Giudice
Ms. Sally Singer
Fashion News and Features Director
Vogue Magazine
4 Times Square12th Floor
New York, NY10036-6518
Dear Ms Singer:
I listened with great interest your interview with Ari Shapiro that aired on Morning Edition on Thursday 19 February 2009 on my local National Public Radio station, WBEZ.
I thought the interview was very worth listening to until you made the following statement:
Fashion is an enormously important industry, not just in New York City, but across the country. And there are a lot of people in America who make clothes, who sell clothes, and we want to keep those people working. Not shopping is not a moral act at this time. So many people think that their frugality is somehow a new moral front. Now that might be true if they were kind of excessive and bizarre in the years before. But when people don’t shop, other people lose their jobs. That’s a fact.
I have to admit that I was absolutely appalled by this comment. Not only does it show a marked misunderstanding of where the clothes that most people come from but also does a disservice to those people who are attempting to spend less in these hard economic times.
You above all must realize that the clothes that most people wear everyday are not made in the United States. They are cut and sewn together in countries such as India, China and Indonesia where labor is much cheaper.
Statements like yours may work well in the design houses of Paris, the runways of New York Fashion Week or the shops on Rodeo Drive but fall absolutely flat in Middle America, the so-called flyover states. I also feel that your statement continues to perpetuate an image of your industry as trivial and in no way connected to the lives of everyday Americans, many of who are struggling to stay in their homes. You statement also sends a message that the rest of the American population in some way owes people in the fashion industry a living. Nothing could be further from the truth. American workers, whether in the office or factory floor, must prove their value to their respective employers every day. Maybe it’s time that the fashion industry consider doing the same by designing clothes that can be worn by people who may not have a perfect shape and who need clothes that can stand the rigor of everyday use. I’m sorry to say that much of what passes for fashion in this country fails on both accounts.
I would like you to consider what a lack of saving has done to this country. More and more individuals are looking to the government to save them from their economic and financial folly and your statement about not spending not being a moral act continues to propagate the myth that happiness or at least economic salvation can be found in continued conspicuous consumption.
I truly wish more people in your industry would really try to see how most Americans live. I believe you will find the exercise both eye opening and helpful in your work.
Sincerely yours
Eugene Michael Giudice
A New Discourse
Below is a letter I sent to the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus regarding abortion and gay marraige.
Mr. Carl Anderson
Supreme Knight
Knights of Columbus
One Columbus Plaza
New Haven, CT 06510
Worthy Supreme Knight:
I am a Past Grand Knight and former District Deputy from Illinois and I have wanted to write you for a long time in regard to the issues of abortion, gay marriage and the recent presidential elections.
Please understand that I am not advocating any nuance in our stand on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. What I think that the Knights of Columbus should be doing is helping transform the discourse on these issues.
First of all, I would like to address the evil of abortion. I believe in the church’s teaching that life begins at conception and ends with natural death but I have become convinced that the road to ending abortion does not go through the direct political process. The Knights of Columbus need to be at the forefront of championing both attitudes and policies that make it more desirable for a woman to keep her child rather than to abort it. That means that the knights need to be advocating things like accessible day care, education reform and health care reform. If women have the right support network they will be less likely to chose abortion. The problem as I see it is that the advocacy that the knights have engaged in so far seems to stop with ending abortion. I have not seen any other issue command so much rhetoric both at the local council and Supreme Council level as abortion does. We as knights need to really understand what it means to be “pro life”. I further believe that without a true change of heart and priorities in public spending, any legal protections given to the unborn will not guarantee an end to abortion. Affluent women will still be able to travel to foreign countries for abortions as they did before Roe v. Wade and there will arise a network of doctors will continue to perform clandestine abortions.
I have no illusions that the changes in day care, health care and education will be expensive but if we want women not to abort their babies we are going to have find a way to pay for it. Too often, people outside of the pro life movement have the perception, whether rightly or wrongly, that once a child is born, the woman is on their own. We knights need to change that perception. That change won’t happen with the rhetoric that you engaged in with your open letter to Senator Joseph Biden. I feel that while it was doctrinally correct, it was a tactical misstep because it hardened opposition to the pro life movement and your own background, having worked in Ronald Regan’s administration, blunted the efficacy of the message because you have been perceived as just another Republican voice. My point is that if you were to use the resources of the Knights of Columbus to advocate for broader changes in the priorities in terms of government spending, our stand on life issues would have a great deal more credibility.
Now, I would like to address myself to issue of gay marriage. I think what the knights need to do is expand what we advocate in terms of marriage. More and more, Catholic marriages are ending up in divorce. My first marriage ended that way and I was fortunate to get an annulment. We need to spend more time extolling and helping to develop the sacramental theology around marriage than trying to decide who can and cannot get a marriage license. In my professional life, I have come into contact with a number of gay couples who have been able to build a life together without a marriage license. Deciding who can and who cannot get a marriage license will not change that.
I have often heard the statement that gay marriage is a danger to the institution of marriage. I would submit to you that there are dangers to marriage that are more close at hand. I look at my own experience in that my wife and I experienced prolonged periods of unemployment while trying to take care of my wife’s mother in our home while her dementia continued to rob her of mental faculties. These things were far more dangerous in terms of putting our marriage at risk than whether or not two gay individuals can get a marriage license. Again, the knights need to be strong advocates for those priorities in government spending that will demonstrate our true commitment to family life. Without those policies in place, it won’t make a difference who can get a marriage license
I truly believe that we first must evangelize the Catholic community as to what marriage truly means and that is a union of a man and woman that makes manifest in the world Christ’s love for the church. Frankly, if it were up to me, I would tell all Roman Catholic priests and deacons that they were to no longer sign marriage certificates issues by a civil authority. I think we would be better off moving to more of a European model and process like my parents went through when they got married in England in 1954. They had a full nuptial mass and then had to go to the marriage registry office to have their marriage recognized by the civil authority. If we had a model like this in the United States, we could advocate for marriage as we as Catholics understand it regardless of what the civil authorities say.
The essence of what I want to convey to you is that many of us are tired of the same old culture wars and think that a new approach is needed. This approach does not require us to nuance or water down what church doctrine is but does require us to look at it from the larger perspective of bringing about a greater good for more people while staying true to the Gospel of Life.
Sincerely yours,
Eugene Michael Giudice
Mr. Carl Anderson
Supreme Knight
Knights of Columbus
One Columbus Plaza
New Haven, CT 06510
Worthy Supreme Knight:
I am a Past Grand Knight and former District Deputy from Illinois and I have wanted to write you for a long time in regard to the issues of abortion, gay marriage and the recent presidential elections.
Please understand that I am not advocating any nuance in our stand on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. What I think that the Knights of Columbus should be doing is helping transform the discourse on these issues.
First of all, I would like to address the evil of abortion. I believe in the church’s teaching that life begins at conception and ends with natural death but I have become convinced that the road to ending abortion does not go through the direct political process. The Knights of Columbus need to be at the forefront of championing both attitudes and policies that make it more desirable for a woman to keep her child rather than to abort it. That means that the knights need to be advocating things like accessible day care, education reform and health care reform. If women have the right support network they will be less likely to chose abortion. The problem as I see it is that the advocacy that the knights have engaged in so far seems to stop with ending abortion. I have not seen any other issue command so much rhetoric both at the local council and Supreme Council level as abortion does. We as knights need to really understand what it means to be “pro life”. I further believe that without a true change of heart and priorities in public spending, any legal protections given to the unborn will not guarantee an end to abortion. Affluent women will still be able to travel to foreign countries for abortions as they did before Roe v. Wade and there will arise a network of doctors will continue to perform clandestine abortions.
I have no illusions that the changes in day care, health care and education will be expensive but if we want women not to abort their babies we are going to have find a way to pay for it. Too often, people outside of the pro life movement have the perception, whether rightly or wrongly, that once a child is born, the woman is on their own. We knights need to change that perception. That change won’t happen with the rhetoric that you engaged in with your open letter to Senator Joseph Biden. I feel that while it was doctrinally correct, it was a tactical misstep because it hardened opposition to the pro life movement and your own background, having worked in Ronald Regan’s administration, blunted the efficacy of the message because you have been perceived as just another Republican voice. My point is that if you were to use the resources of the Knights of Columbus to advocate for broader changes in the priorities in terms of government spending, our stand on life issues would have a great deal more credibility.
Now, I would like to address myself to issue of gay marriage. I think what the knights need to do is expand what we advocate in terms of marriage. More and more, Catholic marriages are ending up in divorce. My first marriage ended that way and I was fortunate to get an annulment. We need to spend more time extolling and helping to develop the sacramental theology around marriage than trying to decide who can and cannot get a marriage license. In my professional life, I have come into contact with a number of gay couples who have been able to build a life together without a marriage license. Deciding who can and who cannot get a marriage license will not change that.
I have often heard the statement that gay marriage is a danger to the institution of marriage. I would submit to you that there are dangers to marriage that are more close at hand. I look at my own experience in that my wife and I experienced prolonged periods of unemployment while trying to take care of my wife’s mother in our home while her dementia continued to rob her of mental faculties. These things were far more dangerous in terms of putting our marriage at risk than whether or not two gay individuals can get a marriage license. Again, the knights need to be strong advocates for those priorities in government spending that will demonstrate our true commitment to family life. Without those policies in place, it won’t make a difference who can get a marriage license
I truly believe that we first must evangelize the Catholic community as to what marriage truly means and that is a union of a man and woman that makes manifest in the world Christ’s love for the church. Frankly, if it were up to me, I would tell all Roman Catholic priests and deacons that they were to no longer sign marriage certificates issues by a civil authority. I think we would be better off moving to more of a European model and process like my parents went through when they got married in England in 1954. They had a full nuptial mass and then had to go to the marriage registry office to have their marriage recognized by the civil authority. If we had a model like this in the United States, we could advocate for marriage as we as Catholics understand it regardless of what the civil authorities say.
The essence of what I want to convey to you is that many of us are tired of the same old culture wars and think that a new approach is needed. This approach does not require us to nuance or water down what church doctrine is but does require us to look at it from the larger perspective of bringing about a greater good for more people while staying true to the Gospel of Life.
Sincerely yours,
Eugene Michael Giudice
Sunday, September 14, 2008
A Letter to Both Candidates
Below is a letter I drafted and mailed to both Senator McCain and Senator Obama.
Dear Senator McCain and Senator Obama:
I want to congratulate both of you on the nominations you received from your respective parties. My reason for writing to you is to give you some thoughts that I have had for some time on the nature of politics in this country. Please understand I am not writing to ask for anything or to request a specific action on any policy number. I would hope you would count this as one more voice in this campaign.
First, please let me tell you a little bit about who I am. I am a 44 year old Caucasian male. My wife and I live on the northwest side of Chicago. We have no children but we have been taking care of my wife’s mother in our home since December of 2002. We live in what could be classified as a middle or upper middle class community in Chicago. My wife and I have both experienced job loss. I was unemployed from August of 2002 and found full time work as a law librarian in April 2007. My wife was unemployed from April 2006 to September 2007. I took a pay cut of $20,000 to enter my new field of librarianship. During this time, we were able through God’s grace to keep our home and health insurance.
I want to let you know that for myself, I feel that neither political party has much to offer me, either economically or socially. The problem is the partisanship I see manifest in both parties and brought into sharp focus during this summer’s conventions. I realize that conventions are meant to rally the party faithful it should be no surprise that there are little signs of national unity at these conventions.
My alienation from the political process stems from the fact that many ideals that I hold are not honored or respected by one party or the other. Thus, I don’t feel I belong in either party. For example, I am person of deep and abiding faith. The Catholic faith was one of my bulwarks during my protracted unemployment and I don’t believe that a woman has the right to an abortion. This makes me suspect among many Democrats and progressives. I also try to hold a strong position on the church’s option for the poor and social justice. This makes me suspect among many Republicans who might think I have common cause with them on social issues. I believe in a strong commitment serving the nation, especially in the military. The profession of arms is not honored among many progressives. I see this attitude in the way military recruiters are often treated and the fact that ROTC program are not found in many universities. I grew up as a child of the labor movement and think that labor unions can have an important role in commerce. I am hearing more strident voices from Republicans on ways to thwart union organizing. I could go on and on with other examples.
The problem as I see is it is that both parties have allowed the more doctrinaire elements to set the tone of the discussion and have allowed the demonization of the opposition. I, like many Americans, question our role in the world and think that we should act in a more humble fashion. Many on the right often take this as America bashing or America hating and would question my patriotism. I also think that personal responsibility and initiative are the bedrock of which our nation’s economy is built. Many on the left would say that I want to continue to oppress those in our country and other nations to satisfy and sustain a capitalistic system.
I wish that both sides could treat each other with more civility and recognize the inherent goodness of the other. I saw no such civility or humility in both parties’ convention and that is shameful for such a great nation. As leaders in your party you must start to not only “distance” yourself from the more strident and radical elements of your party but to start pressuring these so called surrogates to tone down their rhetoric for the sake of moving our country forward.
I feel that harsh words towards the opposition and the ad hominine attacks are even more detrimental to the ability of the next president to govern because they are often wrapped up in the flag, a sense of patriotism or freedom for the economically or socially downtrodden.
Both of you have the power to fundamentally change the nature of political discourse in this nation. I have no illusions that often times, the loudest and most strident voices are the ones with the most to lose if public policy does not go that way. I also know that these voices are also the moneyed interests and that modern day politics run on money. It is real leadership that can tell these voices that their strident rhetoric is not helping the nation. The time is coming when it won’t matter who has the upper hand politically because neither side will be able to get anything done, and that is when our nation will begin its slow decline to irrelevancy. We may seeing the start of that irrelevancy, with a resurgent Russia, a China that has now taken its place on the world stage through its Olympic spectacle and the enrichment of oil rich countries of the Middle East through petro-dollars. The time for bold action is now, not at some future date when a “comfortable” majority is in place.
I have no illusions that there is very little chance of this letter ever crossing your eyes. I l don’t live in a battleground state and I don’t have the financial resources that would make you want to listen to me. All I can hope is that some junior staffer on your campaign may see this and become food for thought.
At one time, I had great hopes for the political process, but I grew up watching the Watergate hearings and since then, my confidence and connection in politics as they are done in this country has become more tenuous and irrelevant.
I’m hoping one of you can change that.
Dear Senator McCain and Senator Obama:
I want to congratulate both of you on the nominations you received from your respective parties. My reason for writing to you is to give you some thoughts that I have had for some time on the nature of politics in this country. Please understand I am not writing to ask for anything or to request a specific action on any policy number. I would hope you would count this as one more voice in this campaign.
First, please let me tell you a little bit about who I am. I am a 44 year old Caucasian male. My wife and I live on the northwest side of Chicago. We have no children but we have been taking care of my wife’s mother in our home since December of 2002. We live in what could be classified as a middle or upper middle class community in Chicago. My wife and I have both experienced job loss. I was unemployed from August of 2002 and found full time work as a law librarian in April 2007. My wife was unemployed from April 2006 to September 2007. I took a pay cut of $20,000 to enter my new field of librarianship. During this time, we were able through God’s grace to keep our home and health insurance.
I want to let you know that for myself, I feel that neither political party has much to offer me, either economically or socially. The problem is the partisanship I see manifest in both parties and brought into sharp focus during this summer’s conventions. I realize that conventions are meant to rally the party faithful it should be no surprise that there are little signs of national unity at these conventions.
My alienation from the political process stems from the fact that many ideals that I hold are not honored or respected by one party or the other. Thus, I don’t feel I belong in either party. For example, I am person of deep and abiding faith. The Catholic faith was one of my bulwarks during my protracted unemployment and I don’t believe that a woman has the right to an abortion. This makes me suspect among many Democrats and progressives. I also try to hold a strong position on the church’s option for the poor and social justice. This makes me suspect among many Republicans who might think I have common cause with them on social issues. I believe in a strong commitment serving the nation, especially in the military. The profession of arms is not honored among many progressives. I see this attitude in the way military recruiters are often treated and the fact that ROTC program are not found in many universities. I grew up as a child of the labor movement and think that labor unions can have an important role in commerce. I am hearing more strident voices from Republicans on ways to thwart union organizing. I could go on and on with other examples.
The problem as I see is it is that both parties have allowed the more doctrinaire elements to set the tone of the discussion and have allowed the demonization of the opposition. I, like many Americans, question our role in the world and think that we should act in a more humble fashion. Many on the right often take this as America bashing or America hating and would question my patriotism. I also think that personal responsibility and initiative are the bedrock of which our nation’s economy is built. Many on the left would say that I want to continue to oppress those in our country and other nations to satisfy and sustain a capitalistic system.
I wish that both sides could treat each other with more civility and recognize the inherent goodness of the other. I saw no such civility or humility in both parties’ convention and that is shameful for such a great nation. As leaders in your party you must start to not only “distance” yourself from the more strident and radical elements of your party but to start pressuring these so called surrogates to tone down their rhetoric for the sake of moving our country forward.
I feel that harsh words towards the opposition and the ad hominine attacks are even more detrimental to the ability of the next president to govern because they are often wrapped up in the flag, a sense of patriotism or freedom for the economically or socially downtrodden.
Both of you have the power to fundamentally change the nature of political discourse in this nation. I have no illusions that often times, the loudest and most strident voices are the ones with the most to lose if public policy does not go that way. I also know that these voices are also the moneyed interests and that modern day politics run on money. It is real leadership that can tell these voices that their strident rhetoric is not helping the nation. The time is coming when it won’t matter who has the upper hand politically because neither side will be able to get anything done, and that is when our nation will begin its slow decline to irrelevancy. We may seeing the start of that irrelevancy, with a resurgent Russia, a China that has now taken its place on the world stage through its Olympic spectacle and the enrichment of oil rich countries of the Middle East through petro-dollars. The time for bold action is now, not at some future date when a “comfortable” majority is in place.
I have no illusions that there is very little chance of this letter ever crossing your eyes. I l don’t live in a battleground state and I don’t have the financial resources that would make you want to listen to me. All I can hope is that some junior staffer on your campaign may see this and become food for thought.
At one time, I had great hopes for the political process, but I grew up watching the Watergate hearings and since then, my confidence and connection in politics as they are done in this country has become more tenuous and irrelevant.
I’m hoping one of you can change that.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Should I trust Lanny Davis?
Lanny Davis’ article in the 31 July Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745984626098717.html does more to convince me that Hillary Clinton should NOT be Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate. The key issue for me is the ability to control Bill Clinton personally and to a lesser extent, the Clinton’s desire for power.
It was quite evident during the primary that Hillary could not control Bill. If she could not do it then, why should we trust Lanny Davis when he basically says that things would be different if we only knew them as Davis knows them?
I further believe that with Hillary in the vice president’s office, we would have a continued state of campaigning for the presidency, with her as the candidate. We have had had eight years of that with George W. Bush; we don’t need another four or eight years.
But the most important fact that leads me to believe that Hillary is not the right choice for vice president is the fact that she cannot keep her supporters in line. In other words, she cannot exert what used to be called “party discipline” on all these various supporters who have been very vocal (like Mr. Davis) of their unhappiness with the way the primary season ended. If Hillary cannot control these people, how in the world will she control Bill and his entourage? If all this vocal unhappiness is being done with her approval (albeit with enough plausible deniability), doesn’t that speak volumes to the idea that Hillary is no real change agent but somebody willing to continue with politics as usual?
It was quite evident during the primary that Hillary could not control Bill. If she could not do it then, why should we trust Lanny Davis when he basically says that things would be different if we only knew them as Davis knows them?
I further believe that with Hillary in the vice president’s office, we would have a continued state of campaigning for the presidency, with her as the candidate. We have had had eight years of that with George W. Bush; we don’t need another four or eight years.
But the most important fact that leads me to believe that Hillary is not the right choice for vice president is the fact that she cannot keep her supporters in line. In other words, she cannot exert what used to be called “party discipline” on all these various supporters who have been very vocal (like Mr. Davis) of their unhappiness with the way the primary season ended. If Hillary cannot control these people, how in the world will she control Bill and his entourage? If all this vocal unhappiness is being done with her approval (albeit with enough plausible deniability), doesn’t that speak volumes to the idea that Hillary is no real change agent but somebody willing to continue with politics as usual?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Hillary Clinton and Her "Supporters"
Michael Kinsley's essay that appeared in the July 11th 2008 edition of Time magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1821662,00.html is right on target.
I am getting so tired of Hillary Clinton's supporters threatening to 1) stay home on election day 2) vote for John McCain 3) support some other third party candidate. I find it especially galling that they keep demanding that the 18 million voters who supported Mrs Clinton be heard. I'm not hearing that from John Edwards' supporters or Bill Richardson's' supporters or any of the other Democratic contenders.
What Mrs. Clinton's supporters must realize is the following 1) they lost because they had poor strategy and poor cohesion amongst the campaign leadership 2) they failed to keep Bill Clinton on a short leash 3) if they decide to pout and not support Barack Obama, do they think they will get a better deal in terms of moving a progressive agenda forward from John McCain? If they do, they are sadly mistaken and finally and most importantly, if Mr. Obama loses because of their lackluster or nonexistent support, it will come back to haunt them because many in the party will consider them and by extension Mrs. Clinton a pariah and not want to have anything to do with them because Mrs. Clinton could not exercise effective discipline over these so called "friends".
NB: Portions of this letter appeared in the August 4th Edition of Time magazine
I am getting so tired of Hillary Clinton's supporters threatening to 1) stay home on election day 2) vote for John McCain 3) support some other third party candidate. I find it especially galling that they keep demanding that the 18 million voters who supported Mrs Clinton be heard. I'm not hearing that from John Edwards' supporters or Bill Richardson's' supporters or any of the other Democratic contenders.
What Mrs. Clinton's supporters must realize is the following 1) they lost because they had poor strategy and poor cohesion amongst the campaign leadership 2) they failed to keep Bill Clinton on a short leash 3) if they decide to pout and not support Barack Obama, do they think they will get a better deal in terms of moving a progressive agenda forward from John McCain? If they do, they are sadly mistaken and finally and most importantly, if Mr. Obama loses because of their lackluster or nonexistent support, it will come back to haunt them because many in the party will consider them and by extension Mrs. Clinton a pariah and not want to have anything to do with them because Mrs. Clinton could not exercise effective discipline over these so called "friends".
NB: Portions of this letter appeared in the August 4th Edition of Time magazine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
