Giving “Pro-Life” A Bad Name

For the past several decades the Republican Party has cobbled together an alliance between “social conservatives” and “fiscal conservatives” to create a powerful political bloc of voters. As a result, the Republican Party has had to vigorously embrace policies that are hostile to the Supreme Court guaranteed right of women for a safe a legal abortion. They successfully shifted the argument away from privacy, freedom, and the life of the pregnant woman to the sanctity of life for a fetus.

At the same time, the Republican Party has made itself subservient to the wishes of gun manufacturers in America. This has been done in the name of protecting the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This allegiance has secured plenty of campaign financing and the loyalty of a small but avid group of paranoid survivalists who believe that at any moment either our society is about to collapse into anarchy or our government is about to transform into a dictatorship.

Guns, guns, guns (Photo credit: paljoakim)

The reaction of American citizens to the Sandy Hook tragedy has tested the Republican Party. Nine out of ten Americans believe that no one should be able to buy a weapon without going through some sort of background check. It is a matter of protecting innocent life from crazy people with weapons. This issue has tested Republicans in two ways. First it has tested them to determine whether they represent special interest groups or the American voters. Second it has tested them to determine what sort of life they consider worthy of protection.

If we lived in a country with a democratic system where majority rules, it would now be impossible to buy guns without a background check. But such a law was not passed by Congress. In fact, such a law was never allowed to be considered by Congress because a minority of members of the Senate blocked it. Virtually all of these Senators were Republicans.

So we have learned several things. The Republican Party is not pro-life; they are pro-fetus, but first graders can be gunned down at school and they don’t think anything needs to be done about it. In state houses across America, Republican politicians are falling all over themselves to write new laws to protect fetuses, but they have no interest in passing laws to protect children.

The Republican Party does not represent people; they represent corporations. 90% of the people said, “do something,” but the gun lobby said, “do nothing.” When the relevant people rose up and demand action, and the relevant corporations rose up and say, “no,” Republicans listened to their corporate masters rather than the citizens they ostensibly represent.

The Republican Party doesn’t really believe in the power of democracy. They betray their party’s name because there is nothing “republican” about a bunch of people who betray those who they represent in order to please a lobbying group.

Many of us are angry about how the Republicans allowed the NRA to win this battle. It will be interesting to see whether our outrage and determination will prove strong enough and durable enough to win the war against gun violence in America.

Republican Idol: Europe

Relief map of Europe and surrounding regions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Don’t let them kid you, Republican’s think that Europe is spot on when it comes to government spending in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Various European nations have responded to the rising debt caused by the crisis by implementing the sort of austerity measures that the Tea Party thinks will save America.

Last week tens of thousands of Spaniards marched in the street over their countries’ latest round of austerity measures. They aren’t thrilled with 26% unemployment. Britain’s David Cameron has implemented an austerity program there. It hasn’t done much to reduce their debt, but it did manage to inspire Moody’s to downgrade Britain’s debt–making it more expensive for them to service their debt.

Ever since the Tea Party took over the GOP, facts and reality haven’t seemed to matter much to their rhetoric or their policies. They have been pining to put the U.S. government on an austerity plan, just like Europe. They may not be happy that one of the first fruits of their labor has been the release of detained immigrants, but that didn’t stop them from deciding to push to make these upcoming cuts permanent for an entire year.

The reality is that this sequester and other austerity measures don’t make any sense while recovering from one of the worst economic downturns in our history. The CBO estimates that our gross domestic product will grow by 1.4 percent this year, rather than the 2.0 growth we’d see without the sequester cuts. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that we will lose 1 million jobs in 2013 and 2014 because of the sequester. A former Republican from the Bipartisan Policy Center says its possible that the sequester won’t  even achieve any savings in government outlays.

The reality is that our present course has delivered slow but steady growth. Smart money knows things are going pretty well. That’s why the stock market is flirting with its all-time high. We will eventually reduce our deficit through economic growth, just as we did in the 1990′s, unless the Republicans insist on remaking the U.S. in the image of Europe.

Surprise! Surprise! Chuck Hagel Gets Confirmed By The Senate

The Republicans would like you to believe that Obama’s nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary was so spectacularly bad that it required them to do something unprecedented to stop it. Never before has the Senate filibustered against a Secretary of Defense nominee.

The odd thing was that if you listened to people like my Senator Lindsey Graham, it seemed that this filibuster was necessary to try to force the President to come clean about the attack on Benghazi. If you thought Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, then Hagel had even less.

Another fierce opponent, John McCain explained the opposition this way:

There’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and said he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that. You can disagree but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.

Hagel was being nominated as Secretary of Defense of the United States not some post within the Republican Party, so putting his loyalty to the United States above his party loyalty should be considered a good thing.

McCain and others are on the record as admitting that they knew that Hagel would eventually be confirmed despite their filibuster. [In fact most of them are on the record a week or so ago saying that they wouldn't filibuster him, but that's another story!] So their filibuster was never about influencing who would be the next Secretary of Defense. They knew he would be confirmed. Their filibuster did nothing more than block the Senate from confirming him.

This delay was political theater, pure and simple. It served no constructive purpose from the perspective of what’s good for America. The Republicans used it to try to keep alive their narrative that somehow Benghazi represents a huge failure of this administration, and they did it to try to punish a fellow Republican because they thought he had betrayed them.

If the Republicans spent half as much energy towards building up America as they do towards tearing down our President, I wonder where we might be today.

Who’s Interests Are Being Represented?

National Rifle Association (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

[This is the fifth of a series of blog reposts from my campaign website. This post first appeared on Jun 28, 2012]

One of the central tenets of my campaign is that politics in the U.S. has been corrupted by the need to please special interest groups in order to get elected. Politicians need the money and publicity that such interests offer. One of the reasons I decided to run for office was my determination to offer the voters in Oconee County the opportunity to elect someone whose only interest is representing their interests. I am not pursuing the support of special interest groups.

I read an article this morning that illustrated my point. The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to hold the U.S. Attorney General in contempt of Congress for the first time in the history of this nation. This effort has been a partisan effort. Republicans have been in favor while Democrats have been against this move. Yet, this morning reports are coming in that as many as 31 Democrats may switch sides. The L.A. Times reports:

House vote counters predicted that somewhere between 20 and 31 Democrats would desert their party largely because the influential National Rifle Association threatened to oppose legislators who support the attorney general.

If this article is correct, then these members of the U.S. House will apparently be representing the members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) rather than the voters in their districts. Like most politicians, they have learned that their re-election depends not on how well they represent voters but how well-liked they are by groups such as the NRA.

The only ones who can change this situation are the voters themselves. Voters must demand representation of their interests rather than those of powerful interest groups.

Being A Pro-Life Christian

English: Pope Benedict XVI during general audition (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On Saturday, thousands marched in Washington in favor of making abortion illegal in America. It was inspired by the 40th Anniversary of Roe vs Wade. On his new Twitter account, Pope Benedict XVI supported the march with the following tweet: “I join all those marching for life from afar, and pray that political leaders will protect the unborn and promote a culture of life.” It was only the fourth time in history the Pope had ever sent out a message via Twitter.

On Sunday, thousands marched in Washington in favor of gun control in America. It was inspired by the tragedy in Newtown, CT. On his Twitter account, Pope Benedict XVI was silent. The director of the Vatican press office, Father Federico Lombardi released a statement in favor of gun control in the aftermath of Newtown, but the Pope himself has made no such pronouncements. The Pope is signalling to the world that, in his view, outlawing abortion protects life in a more important way than controlling the proliferation of firearms in society.

I do not believe that government should impose on society its opinion about the question of when human life begins. The morality of abortion hinges on this question. It is both a question of science and of faith. Neither science nor faith give a clear answer. That is why I believe it should be left up to the individual to decide.

For me, it is not simply a question of biology, because that is not what distinguishes humanity from other life on earth. If we make no such distinction between living organism, then we must decry something as common as killing bacteria. The important distinction between human and other life is not biological, it is in the human spirit and soul.

Christians disagree, but I believe the Bible is pretty clear about when the human spirit is implanted in the human body. In the creation story, the human spirit is breathed into Adam after he is fully formed. In the dry bones dream in Ezekiel, God says, “I will put breath in you, and you will come to life.” I interpret these and other passages from Scripture to suggest that we become fully human only at birth when we take our first breath of life.

The Catholic Church has for several centuries taught that human life begins at conception. The evangelical Protestants used to disagree, but ever since Jerry Falwell, they have embraced this notion. I believe elevating the status of fetuses is motivated more by a concern over dwindling numbers of members than by Biblical teachings.

I fear that these Christian leaders who decry a woman’s right to choose are primarily concerned about maintaining their power in society through the numbers of their adherents. Teaching their members that abortion (and any form of birth control) is wrong, increases the birthrate among their members, and this in turn helps to ensure that their “kind” maintain or grow it’s percentage within a society.

Jesus said go and make disciples, but I don’t think he meant by forcing women to have babies against their will. I believe being a pro-life Christian means valuing human life, and I believe this mission is undermined by equating a human fetus to a human child.

Hidden Surprise in Immigration Law

[This is the fourth of a series of blog reposts from my campaign website. This post first appeared on June 26, 2012]

The Supreme Court struck down many provisions of the Arizona immigration law, but one provision that they did not consider and therefore remains the law in Arizona will likely surprise most people. Did you know it is now possible to sue an Arizona police officer for NOT enforcing the “papers please” aspect of the immigration law? If a policeman fails to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they encounter, then they can be sued by any disgruntled citizen. Such provisions please the angry Tea Party mob who see the government as the enemy and embrace all sorts of conspiracy theories. If those government agents (otherwise known as police officers) won’t chase all of those people who look like immigrants out of their towns, then angry citizens can sue them.

Can you imagine what this precedent is likely to mean for those who choose to serve their community as a police officer? Would you be eager to serve, if you knew that it meant you could be a target of a lawsuit by any citizen who isn’t happy with the way you are performing your duties?

This sort of bad lawmaking is the direct result of elected officials pandering to a political interest group rather than representing the interests of society. And, yes, unfortunately South Carolina passed a similar bill last year, and, yes, both Reps. Sandifer and Whitmire voted for it. Sen. Alexander went so far as to sponsor South Carolina’s version. Thankfully South Carolina’s law is currently blocked by order of U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel.

Day of Contrasts

Saturday was a day of contrasts. The reds came out and spent the day at the Guns Across America Rally. The blues came out and spent the day participating in the National Day of Service. Five people were injured by firearm accidents at several gun shows on Saturday. There is no report yet about how many people were injured participating in the National Day of Service.

Serve others or fight to arm more citizens. WWJD?

Putting Politics Before People

[This is the third of a series of blog reposts from my campaign website. This post first appeared on June 25, 2012]

Last week Governor Nikki Haley vetoed a bill designed to make it easier for middle school girls to receive a vaccine against the HPV virus that causes cervical cancer. It’s hard to imagine why any thinking and caring person would object to this goal.  In her justification for the veto (Read the text of her veto here), Governor Haley complains that this Cervical Cancer Prevention Act (CCPA) may lead to a future bill that spends money to get girls protected from cervical cancer. She describes this possibility as a “tax-payer-funded healthcare mandate.”

This week the Supreme Court will decide whether the healthcare mandate in Obama‘s Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional. That mandate has no resemblance to anything in this bill that Governor Haley just vetoed, for the CCPA carries no mandate whatsoever. Governor Haley is trying to ride the coattails of the unpopularity of the healthcare mandate in the ACA to drum up support for her veto. She is hoping that by waving the “healthcare mandate” slogan in front of your eyes you won’t notice that she is leaving your daughters unprotected against cancer. Her ploy exposes how she is more interested in protecting herself politically than she is in protecting you and your family.

Hopefully we will see the General Assembly override Haley’s veto this week.

Update:

The State House dashed all hopes for a veto by sustaining Haley’s veto on Monday, June 26th. The override in the House failed, and my opponent, Rep. Bill Whitmire was one of those who voted to allow Governor Haley to kill this bill. This is why elections matter. We need to vote for representatives who will put the interests of South Carolina citizens first. I will do that. I would have voted to override the governor’s veto of this important bill.

The Cost Of Winning

English: Cyclist Lance Armstrong at the 2008 Tour de Gruene Individual Time Trial, 1 November 2008 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Back in the “good ole days” (you know, the days of my childhood), several well-worn phrases were associated with athletics: “Winners never cheat, and cheaters never win.” and “It’s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.” Today, we are hearing that yet another star athlete, Lance Armstrong has admitted that he was cheating in order to win his particular game of cycling.

I have never been much of an athlete. Although I did participate in organized sports as a kid, it was never a passion of mine. I didn’t spend a lot of time in the culture of competitive sports. I’m not a sports fan, and I don’t watch games on television much. It was later as an adult, when I returned to work at my High School, that I got more involved. As an adult, I helped out the school athletics program by volunteering as a timekeeper at basketball games and as a scorekeeper at baseball games.

My experience with High School athletics from the late 90′s until the mid 2000′s left me with a disturbing impression of modern sportsmanship of youth athletics. I was horrified by the unsportsmanlike behavior of the parents at baseball games. Parents would yell angrily at the umpires whenever they made a close call that went against their team. When one of the players on their own team made a particularly bad play, they would protest loudly, and sometimes they would even ridicule the kid.

At basketball games, the behavior was even worse. It might have seemed that way because every scowl from the crowd was amplified by the walls of the gymnasium; it might have been because as a timekeeper, I was technically part of the team of referees. Beyond the bad behavior of the spectators, I began to notice that the basketball teams were specifically coached to break the rules in certain situations. For example, when a team is losing the game, and there are only two minutes left, they are often coached to intentionally foul the other team in order force a change in possession of the ball. This is so common that few people consider whether it is problematic. Few would agree with me that this amounts to training kids that it’s okay to break the rules in order to improve their chances of winning. Somehow the word “foul” no longer means behavior outside of the boundaries of fair play.

What is the difference between breaking the rules of the game in order to gain a competitive advantage and cheating? I think they are the same. When I discussed this with my friend who was the athletic director, he thought I was crazy. The fouling strategy is part of the game. When I raised my old fashioned platitude about winning not being the most important thing in school athletics, he also thought I was crazy. This man had spent his entire life in school athletics. He scoffed at the notion that any coach worth his salt would tell her or his team that there was anything more important than winning. The only way to win was to make that the only acceptable outcome.

I realized that this ethic was behind all of the behavior that bothered me so much. Parents hadn’t put their kids into the athletic program in order to teach them sportsmanship at all. They had put them into those programs in order to teach them to be winners; coming out on top was all that mattered in this environment.

We still like to put a noble face on athletics, so we still give lip-service to the notion that we value sportsmanship. This is why we pretend to be scandalized by Lance Armstrong’s doping. This is why there is so much self-righteous indignation about the Baseball Hall of Fame right now. No one was voted in this year because even though many players put up numbers to earn them a spot, those players had been recently outed as steroid users.

I believe there are many lovers of sports who still believe in the integrity of the game. The problem isn’t that they stopped believing; the problem is that they have also embraced a conflicting ethic that cannot co-exist with the integrity ethic. You cannot both believe that a player or team should win by any means necessary and also believe they must play by the rules. You send mixed messages when you teach your kids to respect the rules, but to also break them when it gives you a strategic advantage.

We are now experiencing the natural consequences of such actions. Our sports heroes are turning out to be cheaters, and even though they tell us that it is a systemic problem–because players can’t win today without doping–we don’t want to acknowledge our complicity in the breakdown of the ethics of the “game.”

I don’t think it is a coincidence that traders on stock exchange floors behave like a bunch of High School jocks in a locker room. Our win-at-all-costs ethic has been an ideal training ground for Wall Street. We still aren’t ready to admit our own part in promoting this ethic, and so nothing changes. We just keep demonizing the few who get caught, and in the meantime, we slowly watch our cherished values of ethics drain away.

We Would Rather Be Entertained Than Informed

NHK TV crew (Photo credit: Lunar Camel Co.)

A nagging problem with which I seem to constantly wrestle is the phenomenon that people seem to embrace fiction rather than fact as their reality. Many people very earnestly argue for a policy for our nation based on erroneous assumptions. This might be just a problem of being uneducated, but these same people resist education in order to preserve their world view.

This issue came to mind when recently I was discussing a reality TV show with someone who talked about it as if it were real rather than staged. Even after I explained that these shows have people who craft a story and then make it look like it is real, this person remained unfazed not just in his enthusiasm for the show but in the way he continued to talk about these characters and their adventures as if they were totally real.

It occurred to me that what I was observing should really have been obvious to me long ago: people would rather be entertained than informed. This is why news programs have turned into “infotainment“: they get a larger audience and make more money. It is why Rush Limbaugh is so popular: he is an entertainer rather than a reporter. Because we would rather be entertained, we embrace engaging narratives and monologues as reality so that we don’t have any obligation to watch real news which is so boring.

If you spend enough years in the fantasy world of “infotainment,” you lose your perspective on reality. You also lose your appreciation for the scientific method of determining what is true. We lose, in effect, the heart of the benefits of the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment. We move from an enlightened society to a primitive, unenlightened one.

Most people appreciate the benefits and advancements that humanity has enjoyed during the past few centuries, but I’m not sure they understand that these benefits were the result of the Enlightenment. I figure some assume that humanity progresses inevitably over time. Humanity, however, spent many centuries before the Enlightenment when the rate of advancement was very slow. There have been periods when civilization devolved into more anarchy and primitiveness.

So where are we headed? Will we allow our lazy appetite for scintillating stories and images to convince us to reject facts determined by the scientific method of empirical, measurable, and repeatable evidence? I don’t think we will. I believe the power of science is strong enough to weather this storm, but I believe we are already seeing setbacks within our society, and these setbacks may altar our global standing in the future.