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.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
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
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
What is the REAL Price of Transporation
Dennis Byrne's column entitled "Not Quite A Fare Share" that appeared in the July 14th 2008 Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0714byrnejul14,0,648646.story was absolutely no help in the discussion of public transporation subsidies.
Mr. Byrne very conveniently forgets the millions of dollars that go in to road construction contracts that people like me never get value from because we use the public transportation system. I'm quite sure that the tolls paid for by drivers come nowhere near the real cost of road construction and maintenance.
I'll make a deal with Mr. Byrne. He can stop subsidising my train ride when I can stop subsidising his commute by auto.
Mr. Byrne has done one valuable service and that is to create another wedge issue that can divide the electorate and make it easier for the status quo to remain.
Mr. Byrne very conveniently forgets the millions of dollars that go in to road construction contracts that people like me never get value from because we use the public transportation system. I'm quite sure that the tolls paid for by drivers come nowhere near the real cost of road construction and maintenance.
I'll make a deal with Mr. Byrne. He can stop subsidising my train ride when I can stop subsidising his commute by auto.
Mr. Byrne has done one valuable service and that is to create another wedge issue that can divide the electorate and make it easier for the status quo to remain.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
In Defense of Lobbyists?
Below is a letter to the editer that I submitted to the Wall Street Journal.
I found the article entitled “In Defense of Lobbyists” written by Mr. Tom C. Korologos and published in the Wall Street Journal on Friday May 30, 2008 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121210874509231275.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries to be an extremely self serving article and does nothing to enhance the public perception of lobbyists.
First of all, Mr. Korologos is correct in stating that all lobbyists should not be tarred with the brush of Jack Abramoff but he also wants us to consider all lobbyists equal in that he equates the lobbyists hired by corporations and industry groups to be the same as those hired by unions and public policy organizations. I doubt that the lobbyists hired by unions and public policy organizations have the same cash resources as corporate and industry lobbyists.
This brings us to the second about the “coin of the realm” of the lobbyists being trust and respect. I would submit that Mr. Korologos is delusional if he thinks that the real coin of the realm of the lobbyist is indeed the money that they can control and generate for the ever growing, ever voracious appetites of political campaign. We need only to look at Tom Delay’s self styled “K Street Project” for evidence of this.
Thirdly, no one should be misled by Mr. Korologos in thinking that lobbyists are performing a public service strictly in the public interest. Organizations do not hire lobbyists to look out for the public’s welfare, whatever that might be. Lobbyists are hired to protect the interests of their respective clients and that should not be forgotten.
Mr. Korologos also equates lobbying with citizens petitioning government for redress. I would submit that lobbying as it is practiced in the United States is a far cry from what the Founding Fathers had intended.
As an experienced reference librarian, I categorically reject the notion that the lobbyist is the best place that legislators, their staffs and executive department agencies can get the information they to make policy. The United States government is the largest single source of information, much of it gathered by agencies such as the Congressional Research Service or agencies of the executive branch.
The real cure for lobbyist abuse is to make the legislature and executive branch agencies less dependent on them for information to assist them in promulgating public policy or the funds to run political campaigns.
I found the article entitled “In Defense of Lobbyists” written by Mr. Tom C. Korologos and published in the Wall Street Journal on Friday May 30, 2008 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121210874509231275.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries to be an extremely self serving article and does nothing to enhance the public perception of lobbyists.
First of all, Mr. Korologos is correct in stating that all lobbyists should not be tarred with the brush of Jack Abramoff but he also wants us to consider all lobbyists equal in that he equates the lobbyists hired by corporations and industry groups to be the same as those hired by unions and public policy organizations. I doubt that the lobbyists hired by unions and public policy organizations have the same cash resources as corporate and industry lobbyists.
This brings us to the second about the “coin of the realm” of the lobbyists being trust and respect. I would submit that Mr. Korologos is delusional if he thinks that the real coin of the realm of the lobbyist is indeed the money that they can control and generate for the ever growing, ever voracious appetites of political campaign. We need only to look at Tom Delay’s self styled “K Street Project” for evidence of this.
Thirdly, no one should be misled by Mr. Korologos in thinking that lobbyists are performing a public service strictly in the public interest. Organizations do not hire lobbyists to look out for the public’s welfare, whatever that might be. Lobbyists are hired to protect the interests of their respective clients and that should not be forgotten.
Mr. Korologos also equates lobbying with citizens petitioning government for redress. I would submit that lobbying as it is practiced in the United States is a far cry from what the Founding Fathers had intended.
As an experienced reference librarian, I categorically reject the notion that the lobbyist is the best place that legislators, their staffs and executive department agencies can get the information they to make policy. The United States government is the largest single source of information, much of it gathered by agencies such as the Congressional Research Service or agencies of the executive branch.
The real cure for lobbyist abuse is to make the legislature and executive branch agencies less dependent on them for information to assist them in promulgating public policy or the funds to run political campaigns.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Let The Trains Move!!
Below is a letter I submitted to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times and Crain's Chicago Business regarding the proposed purchase of the Elgin, Joliet an Eastern Railways by the Canadian National Railroad.
I find the current uproar in certain northern suburbs by some politicians and residents regarding the proposed purchase of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railways but the Canadian National Railroad to be short-sighted at best and a case of overblown self entitlement at worst. Add to these two possibilities a strong case of NIMBY (not in my back yard).
The reality of the situation is this: The faster goods can get to market, the lower prices can become. Anyone with a simple understanding of economics and accounting will tell you that goods in transit wind up as an asset on somebody’s balance sheet. Those assets, though, are not doing anyone any good. They are sitting in some boxcar on some railway siding somewhere in the Chicago metropolitan area. A reduction in the transit time for goods will be beneficial to all consumers. The residents of the northern suburbs who up to this point have enjoyed the benefits of an abundant supply of goods at fairly reasonable prices must now step up to the plate and take responsibility for helping to ensure the efficiency of the supply chain.
Having grown up in Melrose Park less than a mile from what was then the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad and now living less than two blocks from a Canadian National right of way, I understand the frustration of waiting for freight trains to pass but in my opinion, that is a small price to pay for the added economic vitality that railroads add to the entire region.
Finally, I would add that individuals who live close to the railroad who have expressed concerns about safety and property values should look at their own economic behavior. Chances are the railroad was there long before they moved into the area. They should have understood that trains run on those track and their strident outcry regarding property values and safety are extremely late in coming.
I find the current uproar in certain northern suburbs by some politicians and residents regarding the proposed purchase of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railways but the Canadian National Railroad to be short-sighted at best and a case of overblown self entitlement at worst. Add to these two possibilities a strong case of NIMBY (not in my back yard).
The reality of the situation is this: The faster goods can get to market, the lower prices can become. Anyone with a simple understanding of economics and accounting will tell you that goods in transit wind up as an asset on somebody’s balance sheet. Those assets, though, are not doing anyone any good. They are sitting in some boxcar on some railway siding somewhere in the Chicago metropolitan area. A reduction in the transit time for goods will be beneficial to all consumers. The residents of the northern suburbs who up to this point have enjoyed the benefits of an abundant supply of goods at fairly reasonable prices must now step up to the plate and take responsibility for helping to ensure the efficiency of the supply chain.
Having grown up in Melrose Park less than a mile from what was then the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad and now living less than two blocks from a Canadian National right of way, I understand the frustration of waiting for freight trains to pass but in my opinion, that is a small price to pay for the added economic vitality that railroads add to the entire region.
Finally, I would add that individuals who live close to the railroad who have expressed concerns about safety and property values should look at their own economic behavior. Chances are the railroad was there long before they moved into the area. They should have understood that trains run on those track and their strident outcry regarding property values and safety are extremely late in coming.
Monday, May 26, 2008
What is Marriage
Eric Zorn is right on target with his column published on 22 May entitled "Let Churches Define What Marriage Is" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/chi-zorn-22-may22,0,3266777.column.
My parents were married in Europe over 40 years ago and they had two steps. The first was a church ceremony and the second was registering at the marriage registrar's office. The marriage was not considered official until this second step was completed.
I think that gay marriage has become such a hot topic is because we have members of the clergy acting as functionaries of the state.
My marriage is not defined by some civil statute but how we live our marriage as our religion (we're active Roman Catholics) has taught us.
I believe that people in this country should be able to enter into any sort of contractual relationship they want. It should be fairly easy to change the "marriage law" so that any couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual could apply for a "civil union permit". Notice I did not call it a marriage license. That permit would be enough to guarantee all the benefits that married people now have. If people want to have their contract soleminized in some fashion by a clergyman or clergywoman, that would be up to the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of their chosen religion.
In a similar vein, I would call upon state legislatures to collaborate and draft a uniform civil union statute in the same fashion as we have the Uniform Commercial Code.
My parents were married in Europe over 40 years ago and they had two steps. The first was a church ceremony and the second was registering at the marriage registrar's office. The marriage was not considered official until this second step was completed.
I think that gay marriage has become such a hot topic is because we have members of the clergy acting as functionaries of the state.
My marriage is not defined by some civil statute but how we live our marriage as our religion (we're active Roman Catholics) has taught us.
I believe that people in this country should be able to enter into any sort of contractual relationship they want. It should be fairly easy to change the "marriage law" so that any couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual could apply for a "civil union permit". Notice I did not call it a marriage license. That permit would be enough to guarantee all the benefits that married people now have. If people want to have their contract soleminized in some fashion by a clergyman or clergywoman, that would be up to the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of their chosen religion.
In a similar vein, I would call upon state legislatures to collaborate and draft a uniform civil union statute in the same fashion as we have the Uniform Commercial Code.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
