Moving Away from Chasm of Theocratic Politics

This last election was about many different issues. But for once, we saw that socially divisive issues, at least at the national level, were not the centerpiece our discourse. Religious conservatives did not drown out the secular voice of America.

When the Bill of Rights passed in 1791, our Founding Fathers showed amazing foresight toward the influence of religion in our country. They seemed to know that religion and politics were inextricably linked yet diametrically opposed to each other. They understood that we were a nation founded on the pursuit of religious freedom. They also understood that no one religion should have a monopoly on political power or the ability to impose or inject their beliefs on others. For reference here is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Americans are, by and large, religious. In 2001, 4 out of 5 Americans identified themselves with a religious group. The largest percentage identified themselves as belonging to a Christian church (Orthodox, Catholic and the many Protestant denominations). And for many, their religious beliefs have a strong influence in their lives.

Over the last 30 years we have seen a strong insurgence of religious groups injecting their beliefs into the political sphere, in large part because of strong opposition to Roe v. Wade. But many religious groups have broadened their political influence to a wide range of social issues, including gay civil rights, sex education and science in the classroom.

There is no doubt that certain social issues run counter to the religious beliefs of some. Yet the problem is that by coupling religious beliefs with political activism is construed as the equivalent of imposing one's religious beliefs over someone else. With such an imposition, we violate the basic principle of the First Amendment - we have the right to practice our religion with impunity, but with equal regard to the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of others. In other words, religion deeply influences American mores, but it has no place in the political process or public institutions. Hence: the separation of church and state.

One area that we have seen the encroachment of religion into our public institutions is the injection of creationism into the public school curriculum. In 2005, the Kansas School Board voted to subvert the scientifically accepted theory of evolution with the more religiously infused concept (note that this is not the equivalent of scientific theory) of "Intelligent Design", simply because evolution runs counter to Biblical teachings found the in the Book of Genesis.

I grew up in the Catholic Church, and for a time, I was educated by them (Marists at Central Catholic High School in Lawrence, MA). I took mandatory religion classes alongside Biology, Chemistry and Physics, and History, Literature and the Arts. And through it all, there was no conflict of belief that the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments) could peacefully coexist with Science. And in fact, the two had a powerful influence over me. There is something extraordinarily spiritual about what occured just before the Big Bang that's beyond our scientific knowledge. The same can be said of the fact that I am writing this billions of years after Earth formed from super heated atoms, assembed through the laws of physics to provide a sustainable ecosystem that we can live in today (the evolution from primoridial slime to sentient beings is in itself an awesome spiritual experience).

Just this past week, Prop 8 (the repeal of Gay Marriage) in California passed in large part to the political efforts of the Mormon Church (and the help of many other religious groups). While the notion of homosexual relationships is antithetical to many religions (Catholicism too, has rejected homosexuality, to the extent of saying that only those who abstain from homosexual practices may receive the Sacraments). I respect the fact that they think that homosexuality is in opposition to their religious beliefs (though I disagree in principle because it violates Christ's teachings of tolerence). Certainly, they have the prerogative to excommunicate those in their church who oppose these beliefs. But they have no right whatsoever to impose their religious beliefs on others who follow other spirtual paths. How does the marriage of a gay couple affect, affront or otherwise attack my or others religious beliefs? Do I, as a heterosexual, married man lose any of my rights because of gay marriage? Are my kids in danger because two committed, loving men or women own (with rights of survivorship) the house down the street from me? Will my house value fall (any further) because they live there?

Just before the election, I heard reports from friends of robocalls with Denver's Archbishop Chaput's voice telling Catholics that they must vote for McCain because Obama supported abortion. All across the country, this same message was spread by pastors and other church leaders to their congregations. In 2004, John Kerry, a Catholic was told that could could not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion because he was pro-choice. Catholics were urged to vote for Bush for this very reason. A few, including John Garvey, wisely argued that we shouldn't mix religious canon with political choice. And where has this choice led us? Two wars with hundreds of thousands dead (including soldiers and civilians), and many more injured, maimed and scarred for life (physically and psychologically), and possibly millions homeless (yes, that includes many here in the wealthy U.S. of A.). I've seen little in the way of Church or the Religious Right speaking on their behalf, or backing candidates who strongly support these issues.

At what point did Christian principles get boiled down to single (small set of) political issues? When did the Church and Evangelical right obtain a monopoly on social discourse here in America? When did the democratic principle "Majority rule, minority rights" get subsumed by theology?

Secular politics and religion should not be antithetical to each other. In fact, we want our leaders to have a strong spiritual and moral compass. We want their decisions to reflect what is good and right, but we don't want them to impose religious dogma into public discourse. George Bush did this with stem cell research, despite the fact that the majority of Americans support it.

Similarly, we need to respect those who do have strong religious beliefs to the point of providing a means to practice their faith without compromise. Those who are strongly influenced by their religious beliefs have the right to refrain from public discourse at-large. The Amish lead very ascetic lives that happily coexist at a distance with the rest of America. Those who disagree with the public school science curriculum including evolution can choose to educate their kids elsewhere in an evironment that better reflects their beliefs. Those who disagree with gay marriage need not allow gays to marry (or participate) in their church.

The moral of the story is this: we've gone down the road to edge of a very deep chasm with theologically infused politics over the last eight years. The 2008 election brought us back from the ledge. Had we gone much further and over the edge, our First Amendment rights may well have been at risk by those who would have imposed their own religious views on all of us. And that would have been the greatest American tragedy. America is at its best when we encourage our religious beliefs to influence our public discourse, but no one religion is allowed to dominate the discussion.

Center-What?

I'm not terribly surprised that Republican leaders and pundits are trying to salvage any shred of hope from the drubbing they took on November 4th. Karl Rove, John Boehnner and others are claiming that we're still a "center-right" nation, firmly anchored on conservative social values and small government.

Even the media has gotten into the mix. Frank Rich's column in the NY Times adds:


Still, change may come slowly to the undying myths bequeathed to us by the Bush decade. “Don’t think for a minute that power concedes,” Obama is fond of saying. Neither does groupthink. We now keep hearing, for instance, that America is “a center-right nation” — apparently because the percentages of Americans who call themselves conservative (34), moderate (44) and liberal (22) remain virtually unchanged from four years ago. But if we’ve learned anything this year, surely it’s that labels are overrated. Those same polls find that more and more self-described conservatives no longer consider themselves Republicans. Americans now say they favor government doing more (51 percent), not less (43) — an 11-point swing since 2004 — and they still overwhelmingly reject the Iraq war. That’s a centrist country tilting center-left, and that’s the majority who voted for Obama.

There's no doubt that we saw a significant pendulum swing to the left. But for the life of me, I don't subscribe to the view that the country is ideologically anchored to the left or the right. I submit that the majority of Americans (sans the Evangelical right or the militant left - that means you, PETA) are more pragmatic than that. Overwhelmingly, they vote their wallets and their families' immediate interests - health care, education, the interminable wars.

This election was a perfect example of that. Bludgeoned by the economic meltdown and the comitant loss of jobs and financial security (just look at your 401(k) statement), Americans were disgusted and tired of the current administration's policies and philosophy. "Throw the bums out!"

Still, to suggest that Americans naturally lean one way or the other from centrist, moderate philosophies is a spurious argument. If a lean was present, we would see much stronger evidence of this in the polls. Instead of 51-49 or 52-48 spread either way, we would more frequently see 55-45 or 58-42 spreads. We wouldn't see candidates courting independent voters as aggressively. But they do. And the reason is that independents who make up the largest percentage of voters in the United States aren't willing to be suckered into religiously adhering to liberal or conservative ideology. They're interested in what's best for them and their families, and by virtue of that, their country.

The last 8 years have pelted us with one-sided propagandistic spew that drowned out alternative competing ideas for the sake of ideological orthodoxy. It's no wonder the American people lurched so far in the opposite direction. In many regards, it was a natural correction for straying too far from the center.

So let's stop the meaningless blathering about where Americans lean ideologically. We, as a nation, are smack dab in the middle, and we're willing to follow the best ideas from both the right and the left. We welcome rigorous discourse from both sides and are willing to engage in comprimise when it makes sense. Hopefully the pundits and political leaders will finally wake up to this fact and stop patronizing Americans. We're not that stupid.

T-minus 3 Days and Counting: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been

This presidential campaign has been remarkably long - 21-plus months - the longest in US history. In retrospect, it's no surprise why the political season started in three months after the 2006 mid-term congressional elections: George W. Bush.

The 2006 election cycle was primarily a repudiation of Bush's handling of the Iraq War. At that time, we had lost nearly 3,000 soldiers with many thousands more wounded, with no end in sight, and increasing doubt about the premise of why we invaded in the first place. Silent whispers of "Vietnam" turned into audible concerns throughout the country and Bush demonstrated that he was tin earred.

The Democrats gained 32 seats in the House and 6 Senate seats. Momentum was on their side and the Republican party's once rock-solid infrastructure was beginning to show cracks. The Bush Administration's actions and revelations (sweetheart no-bid contracts to Haliburton and others, tapping into ordinary American's phone calls and emails - a blatant and clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, the unprecedented and egregious rescinding of Habeas Corpus, and the complete disregard for the Geneva Conventions) only weakened their position further. The Democrats, who had been in the minority since 1994 (see: Contract With America) had regrouped and took advantage of the Republican weakness.

More importantly however, the key factor was the difference in the quality of the candidates running for the presidency. Using a baseball analogy, the Democrats bullpen was much stronger than the Republicans. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the favorite of any candidate, regardless of party. I didn't feel that the Republicans had anyone near her caliber - even McCain, I felt, was inferior to her. Other Republican candidates like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul (though he has garnered interest as being one of the few conservatives to denounce the war) and Tom Tancredo seemed like sway-backed fillies that were added to suggest a semblance of race for the Republican nomination.

I had seen Obama's keynote address delivered at the Democratic Convention in 2004, and was thoroughly impressed back then. And when he announced his candidacy, I had my doubts that he could compete against Clinton's significant advantages in money and organization. Still, I was impressed with his message and insight. I also felt that Clinton's achilles heal was her name: Americans either loved her or flat out despised her.

Throughout the entire campaign, it has been eminently clear that Americans wanted a change in direction from the Bush debacle, and it was McCain's and Obama's job to define that course change.

I think McCain had several factors working against him even prior to 9/15 (the economic meltdown): His campaign was in complete disarray to the point of near disintegration prior to the New Hampshire primaries. And while he was able to pull things together, it cost him significantly both in terms of finances and people. He also had the unfortanate disadvantage of being Republican at a time when the mood of the American people had soured on the party. He couldn't distance himself from Bush for fear of alienating the base, and he desparately needed the evangelical wing of the party if he stood any chance of winning the election. It was a Hobson's Choice at a time when he needed to find a way to build a clear firewall between himself and Bush. Add to that, many in the party weren't enamoured by McCain anyway.

But McCain's true disadvantage (and clearly the Republican Party's also) was Obama's unprecedented organizational and financial strength coming from individuals rather than large donors. Obama's ground game - field offices virtually everywhere, a massive army of volunteers, and most importantly, the millions of small donations (under $100) via the internet - is awe inspiring (you might want to call this: polical shock and awe). Even with an Electoral Vote map that favored Republicans, the GOTV (get out the vote) effort turned a significant Republican advantage into a liability.

The election will be over in three days. And after nearly two years, I think that most of us will be relieved, regardless of who we voted for. It's been a long political season, and we all need a break from political rhetoric.

McCain's Chappaquiddick?

On Huffington Post: McCain may have been involved in a serious car accident in 1964 with a passenger who was injured or killed. Vanity Fair has requested an expedited FOIA requiest, which the Navy has denied:

The first request for information concerning duty assignment logs to Portsmouth Naval Hospital -- where McCain was allegedly brought after the accident -- came in the form of a Freedom of Information Act request on August 28, 2008. The Navy acknowledged receipt of the request and advised that it had located the relevant information a few weeks later, only to deny the FOIA on grounds that it didn't prove an "imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual" or satisfy the criteria of "a breaking news story of general public interest."

"The patient admission record logs that you seek are exempt from release," wrote G.E. Lattin, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General, "as information in personnel and medical files, as well as similar personal information in other files, that if disclosed to a requestor, other than the actual person in which the information is pertaining to or next of kin, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

NS News Service and Vanity Fair appealed the decision and asked for expedited treatment of the case, as the end of the presidential election loomed. But the Navy denied that request as well.

In itself, I don't think this is that politically damning, based on the electoral reaction to GWB's DUI and Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick incident - in other words, we probably won't see any negative movement in the polls. But it comes at a bad time. With only a week left, and down in the polls, McCain needs to win every possible news cycle with his message. This only detracts from that. It might well be enough to put the final nail in his campaign coffin.

This Election and Historical Parallels

The last time the United States was actively involved in an unpopular military conflict was 1968. During that election, the issue was Vietnam and pressing Communist threat, along with significant conflict at home. Today, we're engaged in two wars that are thinly strung together under the auspices of "fighting terrorism."

By every count, war brings out the worst in humanity: In 1968, the press reported on My Lai, a brutal, inhumane and criminal act perpetrated by American soldiers on Vietnamese villagers, because the Americans believed that the villageers were harboring Viet Cong rebels. In Iraq and Afghanistan today, Abu Ghraib and Guatanimo imprison hundreds of purported "enemy combatants" without due process or the Geneva Conventions to protect their rights. Even more egregious is the policy of engaging in torture including water boarding and sensory deprivation to coerce information from the imprisoned. Some have been detained for over 4 years.

What's important about these parallels between 1968 and 2008 is the fact that the party in power found themselves in with an angry electorate and the challenging party offered change, any change. In 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, was in office; today George W. Bush, a Republican is in office.

Interestingly, both presidents were lame ducks. Both were very unpopular with large swaths in their own party. Johnson chose not to run in 1968; Bush is constitutionally limited after his two terms.

In both elections, race is key issue. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, costing the Democratic party votes in the southern states even until now. Today, because of the Johnson's foresight and fortitude, we now have for the first time in our history, a black man running for President. Yet, after 44 years, Barack Obama, despite his strong lead in the polls and high likelihood of winning the Electoral College in 8 days will undoubtedly lose votes simply because of his skin color. We obviously have a long way to go.

1968 was the beginning of the Republican's coalescense of power that would allow them to win 8 of the last 11 elections through 2004. Reagan may the Republican party's venerated saint, but it took the Vietnam war, huge levels of dissent at home because of civil and racial unrest, and a desire to change the philosophical premise of the role of government, because of the sweeping changes brought forth by LBJ's "Great Society."

The 2008 election might well be another fundamental shift in the attitudes of Americans toward government. Undoubtedly, George W. Bush will be remembered as the poster child for presidential incompetence and recklessness, both in terms of the Iraq War and the overarching failed neo-conservative policy of "pre-emptive defense" (aka: Shoot first, ask questions later), and his feckless response the the current economic crisis. He will likely be seen as the proverbial gasoline on the fire that ignited a massive groundswell of anger and antipathy among Americans. Yet, the fire was already lit by previous administrations with policies that slowly undid the previous generations' work centered around the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" and went too far.

Arguably, 2008 offers us another parallel on a more visceral level: in 1968, America had Bobby Kennedy who inspired a whole generation of young people to believe in the lofty idealism that Americans aspire to, until his tragic death. Today, Barack Obama is my generation's Bobby. He has captured the imagination of millions that American Dream is alive and well. For many in my parent's generation, Barack Obama may well be the realism of their dreams also.

In any case, 2008 will be an historic election because of the parallels with 1968.

Obama's New Economic Plan

There's been a lot of criticism in the punditry of Obama's economic plan as being too vague. Today, in Toledo, OH, a key battleground state, he provided more details.

Essentially the plan targets incentives for small businesses to create jobs with a $3,000 per created job tax credit for the next two years, a 90-moratorium on foreclosures, penalty-free withdrawals from 401k (up to 15% or a maximum of $10,000), and additional funds available for municipalities to spur local economic development, among other details.

All told, the estimates for this plan will cost the US between $60B and $100B. Compared to McCain's $300 tax incentive for big business, this looks cheap. It also looks generally doable. I do have doubts that a 90 day moratorium is enough, unless the TARP plan gets its act in gear right now. Nonetheless, it's still better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and it might well save taxpayers around $200B.

McCain is slated to present new economic plans today tomorrow. Unfortunately for McCain, this is too little, too late. He's been shaky from the start on the Wall Street crisis, and Obama's new plan only will give the impression of, "me too! I got a plan!"

Game. Set...

Hillary Rodham Clinton was in Pennsylvania today on the stump for Obama. In her speech, she came up with a retort to the Republican's own line of "Drill, Baby, Drill!":

"Jobs, Baby, Jobs!

No surprise Bill Clinton won in 1992, and 1996. "It's the economy, stupid!"

Welcome

My other blog is more related to my professional life. Outside of my professional interests, I have been and continue to be a political "junky." My Master's thesis in Sociology was focused on Politics, Economics, and Class, all of which are still interesting to me today.

My Political Philosophy

I tend to lean left of center, but not so much so that I blindly adhere to liberal tenets or the Democratic Party's platform (though, I am registered as a Democrat). I am wary of (and will in the future rail against) extremes on either side of the political spectrum. I'm fiscally conservative and believe in the principle that a smaller government is better, but I don't necessarily believe in the Republican (read: William F. Buckley) philosophy that the role of (federal) government should be minimalized to the point where individual states have too much control. Therein lies a balance where states have control over their economy and to a certain extent their social mores, but only to the extent that individual rights cannot be impinged. To that extent, I believe that the size and strength of the federal goverment should be proportionate to the needs of society. No more and no less. When the federal government is too large, we relinquish too much power to too few; on the other hand, when the federal government is too small, we leave too much control to the states to consider the interests of the nation at-large (much like herding cats).

Socially, I tend to be more liberal. I believe that government's sole responsibility is to ensure that all citizens are afforded the opportunity to live their lives in a manner that harms none. For me this means:

• Gay Rights: I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights afforded to heterosexuals, including rights of survivorship, the ability make decisions for partners when they are incapacitated, and to be recognized as a legal and binding partnership in every state in the union. In short, whom one partners with is none of my business, as is my relationship with my wife none of anyone else's business.
• Women's Rights: Women still earn less than men, and frequently are overlooked for promotions. I firmly believe that merit (regardless of gender) is the ultimate benchmark of anyone's ability to succeed.
• Religion: I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. I believe that all religious traditions should be respected, and that no religion is superior to another. But I believe that religion has no place in politics or government. Period. Like Andrew Sullivan, I have my own religious beliefs, but strongly assert that these remain separate from my secular life.
• Environment: I believe that global warming is real, and man-made. We need to clean up our mess, and need to find alternative fuel solutions, and fast.
• Race: I find it discouraging that this is still in the public discourse. How does the color of someone's skin or their birthplace make someone more or less likeable, interesting or vice versa?

About Me

I grew up in Lowell, Massachusetts, the "birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution", in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood. I went to public schools through junior high school, and went to a catholic high school in Lawrence. Lowell is a blue collar city, ethnically and racially diverse. There were Irish, French-Canadian, Greek, Polish, Italian, African American and Puerto Rican enclaves within the city. Politics were (and generally still are) dominated by Democrats.

I moved to Colorado in 1986, and attended the University of Northern Colorado. Colorado politics aren't nearly as visible as those of my youth. Politicians infrequently make news, and the political discourse is as rough and tumble. Here, folks are much more inclined to be left alone, and only want government involvement when they ask for it. Otherwise, they prefer that government's footprint to be very light. There's a much stronger emphasis on socially conservative ideals - of strong moral character and doing the "right" thing.

I also lived in Northwest Washington State for 8 years. Politically, this region is a mishmash of very liberal and very conservative views, somehow coexisting in a tenous detente, neither side having or exerting too much or too little influence.

I'm influenced by all of these political mindsets. My family and friends cover a wide swath of the political spectrum also. To me all facets of politics are interesting personally, and sociologically. I'm interested in the internal and external factors that influence how an individual chooses to vote. I'm interested in the dynamics of politics that influence our elected leaders in their decision making processes.

In this era of instant news, and a wide range of opionions from the punditry, it's truly mind boggling that anybody "gets it right". There are so many spin doctors competing for their version of the truth to win out that the average American is justifiably cynical about politics. I enjoy the spin. In some ways, it truly is an art form; in other ways, it's pure BS. Nevertheless, my hope is that I can untangle their spin, and put my own on things, purely through my own rose colored spectacles.

And with that, some ground rules: I enjoy polite, courteous, and civil debate. No one person has a monopoly on what's right or wrong. At the least, we can agree to disagree; at best, we can find common ground for further discussion. Flame and hate trolls aren't welcome.

I hope you enjoy. On to interesting discussions.