Suffrage.

As the the day that we practice our rights as citizens to choose our leaders draws near, it seems appropriate to take a step back and really think about this thing we call government. Somewhere, beneath all the layers of political maneuvering, smear tactics, pandering, stump speeches, and campaign propaganda, there lies the truth to what we’re actually deciding in November. We are deciding how we want to be governed. We are deciding who we want to make the laws we will have to follow. We are deciding who will represent us and our interests abroad, and at home. Essentially, the bigger question we have to decide, for ourselves, is what role we want our government to play in our lives and in the lives of others.

Because the economy is the issue on all of our minds, it makes sense to consider of the role of government in terms of domestic policy. How best do we stimulate our economy and protect our citizenry (thereby protecting ourselves)? Does a strong economy grow from the bottom up, or does a strong economy grow from the investment class? Should our government help those who consume goods, or those who make goods?

I think we can all list a number of things we want our state and federal government to provide for us. It is hard not to appreciate a safe transportation system and clean drinking water. Do you want to feel safe when you fly an airplane or ride a train? Fire departments, police departments, emergency vehicles, public hospitals, schools, electricity, protection, safe pharmaceuticals, safe food…the list goes on. This list implicates more lists: So, you want safe food to eat? Even if the government isn’t directly harvesting the apples or processing the Oreos or making the pizza you will eat, it has a hand in your food by limiting the pesticides that can be used, and mandating nutritional facts on the side of the Oreo container, and enforcing workplace laws at the Nabisco factory, and enforcing health codes at the pizzeria.

Everyone agrees that we need government. We need laws and we need standards and we need a body to enforce those laws and standards. Why? Because, left to our own devises, we will not do what is best for our society. Remember Hobbes and the state of nature? Without order, man’s life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In order to protect himself, man had to give up some of his freedom to the commonwealth. That’s not to say that with a smaller government we’d run around killing each other. But, as we’ve seen in the unraveling of our financial sector, without enforcement, human beings tend to do whatever they can get away with. Some argue that the forces of the market could drive human behavior, and while in many aspects I believe that to be true, I do not think the power of money can direct all human action. Environmental policy is a good example of this. Would companies have ever voluntarily submitted themselves to environmental regulations? For example, would auto manufacturers ever limit fuel emissions on cars without government requiring them to? Consumers could theoretically ban together and refuse to buy something, but that generally doesn’t seem to work.

While I think we can all agree that some government is necessary, we disagree on how much. We have political parties to help us identify with others who feel the same way we do about what government should do and how much. I personally want government to do a lot of things. I want government to provide health care and education and a clean environment and a better future. I want a government whose economic policy focuses on building from the bottom up: empowering consumers and “Joe Sixpacks” the opportunities to provide for their families and buy a house and envision a future for themselves. As Adam Smith said, “[n]o society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.“

I want government to do a lot of things. So, as I take a step back from all of the single issues and political banter, and think about what I really want in a government, it makes it all the more clear who I’m going to vote for.

Look at Me! I’m sick of politics!

I’m watching the final presidential debate and despite the ten minutes spent devoted to the negative campaigning over the past few weeks (see: Bill Ayers, The Sarah Palin Mob Rallies, ACORN), I’m bored. I’m ready for this campaign to be over. I know how I’m voting and frankly, undecided voters need to decide already: you have two, clear choices. Pick one.

We have three weeks left. Three weeks of increasingly negative ads, three weeks of internet rumors (no, Obama is not a Muslim. But what if he was? Who cares?), three weeks of pandering, three weeks of blah blah blah.

Oregon votes by mail, which I should receive next week. So between now and then I’m going to focus on who I’m going to vote for locally. Particularly, whether or not to vote for Congressman Wu, my district’s democratic incumbent. He voted against the bailout which really frustrated me.

—-Debate Update—-

Now we’re talking about energy in the debate:

Off-shore drilling.

First, read Thomas Friedman’s new book. Off-shore drilling? Drill baby drill? As Friedman points out, no one agrees more with those chants and that energy policy than the Saudis and the middle eastern oil barons we are so desperate to break ties with. Yes, please, let’s drill so that
we can get our oil fix. We’re like heroin addicts who don’t like their supplier so they try to get some from their friend, but their friend doesn’t have very much so they end up having to go back to the supplier.

Second, there is no such thing as clean coal. Again citing Friedman, it’s interesting to note that the swing states in the past few states are mostly coal states – Ohio, Pennsylvania – and coal states aren’t going to vote against coal.

—

Anyway, Oregon is a fairly solid blue state, so I’m hoping my friends in Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, and Florida vote…and vote for Obama.

Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate!

Warning: I’ve been drinking lattes and reading the New York Times all day.

Is the will of the people that important when the people are idiots?

In both capitalism and democracy the will of the consumers, as a majority, is pandered to. I understand the reasons why: the object is to make money or win an election, and you have to either sell things that people will buy or say things that people will like. It is this system that allowed “According to Jim” to live on, yet ended “Freaks and Geeks” after only one season and “Arrested Development” after only three. This system gave us Wal-Mart and shitty music and sustained Mike Myers’ film career. This system also gave us politicians who put reelections before good decision-making and transformed non-issues like faith and religion into political litmus tests.

But then, both offer some advantages. I can buy anything I want, anytime. If I can’t afford it I can bid on a used item on ebay. I can feel like my legislators owe me some accountability and hold back my vote and $20 campaign contribution if they don’t do their job.

Choices are good. I guess you could say I’m Pro-Choice.

Sometimes choices get me down though. Unfortunately, it’s not my choices – it’s the choices of everyone else. It’s popular culture, the masses, the dumbing down of America, that gets me down. I see the effects of it everyday on Facebook: where people really believe that Obama is a terrorist. Where people really plan to vote for McCain/Palin for President*. The left has their share of idiots too. In fact, just this morning I saw a very offensive sign tacked to a light pole in my neighborhood. This sign had a picture of Sarah Palin and it said “Sarah Palin is a C*nt.” That, as you may know if you watch 30 Rock, is one of the most offensive things you can call a woman. I can’t even spell it out, let alone say it. So while I appreciate the apparent Obama support, I don’t want that idiot voting either.

So, what do we do, America? We wake up. Stop forwarding me those emails that Obama is the anti-Christ. Stop calling Palin gender-specific slurs. Stop making fun of McCain for being old (well….guilty).

*Some real quotes from a Facebook group called “McCain/Palin 08 (One Million Strong for the Mavericks” (take a drink) followed by my commentary:

“Sarah Palin: Man’s last, best hope for the free world! She was awesome in Jacksonville. Well worth waiting 5 hours for a front row ticket.” First, if that’s true we are in worse trouble than I thought. Second, five hours? Get a job.

“Mavericks = good….. Barak O’SAMA= we all die” Take two drinks. Then take two more to console yourself over the fact that someone out there actually believes this. Take another when you realize they may actually vote.

“WHYYYY is nobody talking about not just how Obama Bin Biden thinks nothing of brutally murdering children by partial birth abortion, but Barack also tried to pass a bill in Illinois that said that it is okay to let mentally retarded children die AFTER being born. They just let them die! Sarah Palin shows that even these children who are precious in their own way deserve life. It makes me sick.” Obama Bin Biden? Well, this person gets points for creativity. But then negative points for adding three unnecessary Ys and being completely wrong.

“To say obama is anti- American is to say the sky is blue and the grass is green. People are just to lazy or do not care anymore. President Thomas Jefferson once shot a dead on the White House Lawn for Treason. The traders body laid there for tne hours. I am not saying that obama has commited treason yet…but give him time. Where are all the patriots? Do I stand alone? Will no one stand and say we can not elect this shrew of a man?” I really don’t know where to begin. If this is a drinking game, I suggest just finishing off the bottle.

Most of the rest were more of the same, or boring “Go McCain! Sarah is AWESOME!!” posts. Or posts from Obama supporters trying to spark some controversy among the other posters. Then I saw this little tidbit in response to a post about global warming not being man-made:

“You believe a man died in a loin cloth and magically rose into the clouds, to sit next to an imaginary man with a beard and magical creatures with wings, don’t talk about science.”

Look at Me! I’m Undecided!

Undecided voters are the new reality TV star: people who seek affirmation from attention and coddling.

Being an undecided voter is pretty sweet: you get front row to tickets to all the good debates, you get to be on TV (and you just love the camera, don’t you?), and everyone listens to what you have to say and what your opinions are.

Can we just remember for a second that undecided voters are, by their very definition, simply people who can’t make up their mind?!

I kid, I kid.

But really. Choose already.

DEBATE TEAM

I watched the debate last night. Luckily there was enough progress made on the bailout plan that Sen. McCain could reinstate his campaign and attend. No, no plan was passed (despite my earlier post…and belief that a deal had been made), but you know, enough progress was made.

I thought both candidates had a good debate. Both we able to make good points and I think both looked and sounded good. Here’s a non-so-well-organized laundry list of random thoughts I had during the debate:

– McCain starting off by talking about Sen. Kennedy being in the hospital seemed a bit over-the-top.
– McCain laughing and smirking while Obama was speaking probably hurt him a bit. It made him appear as though he wasn’t even listening to Obama. On the contrary, while Obama did smirk and smile a few times, he appeared to be actually listening to McCain’s answers. I felt like McCain wasn’t taking Obama seriously.
– Both need to learn how to answer questions. I thought Obama did a better job than he has in the past, but answer the question then explain the reasoning. I realize there are not political advantages to offering straightforward answers to some questions, but answer those that can be answered.
– McCain alluded to his age a number of times: “I’ve been around for awhile”, “I’ve known Henry Kissinger for 36 years”, “The Great society”, “D-Day”, “I’m really, really old” (okay, he didn’t say that). I guess this shows his experience, to me it just shows how old he is.
– Obama is the better speaker: he is better at explaining his answer and better at formulating well-thought out answers. This can probably be attributed to his legal training and education, and political and teaching experience. The man was a constitutional law professor at a top ten law school: of course he’s a good speaker! Perhaps it’s my law school elitism coming out, but I feel assured having someone who has taught the constitution being a leader who is bound by it…dependent on their political ideology, of course.
– Obama referred to McCain by his first name…and so did Tom Brokaw after the debate. I think this could be taken as disrespectful or as demonstrating that a personal relationship.
– It’s clear the two have some differences in regard to foreign policy, health care, and taxes.

Bring on the VP debate…

So, Sen. McCain doesn’t want to debate on Friday. In fact, he wants to suspend his campaign, including ads. The official motivation behind the suspension is to allow the Senator an opportunity to work with his fellow legislators in developing a solution to the current financial crisis.

I appreciate the Senator’s enthusiasm in wanting to work to find a solution to this crisis. I just don’t appreciate that he really thinks I am, as a voter, this stupid. That I can’t see through a strategic, political move camouflaged as genuine concern and leadership for the situation. If anything, THIS IS the time for a debate between the presidential candidates.

I think political maneuvering was the sole motivation behind McCain’s proposal. Well, that and maybe he’s just not ready for the debate.

Completely unrelated to this, but somewhat related to a Facebook debate I was somewhat involved in regarding my hometown of Scott City, Kansas (long story short: the yearly fight to save Christmas has come early this year to SC), and definitely funny:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Palin Interview

I finally watched the Charlie Gibson interview with Sarah Palin. I think it was successful in that she survived and stuck to the talking points. I don’t even think her nervousness and obvious discomfort in deviating from rehearsed answers hurt her. Even her lack of knowledge in regards to foreign affairs and unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine did not derail the interview.

And this is what is truly troubling.

I really believe many voters, particularly those who are McPalin supporters anyway, watched her squirm and react like an unprepared student to many questions and thought “well, I don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is either.” Well, average American voter, news flash: you’re not running for president.

I don’t understand why we don’t approach this like a job interview. We are hiring these people to govern our country, yet voters’ decisions are based on factors like gender, race, age, parental status. And of course the best way to pick a president: Who would you rather have a beer with? I want my president to be smart, tested, and confident. To decide who would be the best leader we should evaluate not only what the candidate has done, both privately and professionally, but the candidate’s governance plan and basic knowledge.

Maybe to even be a presidential or vice presidential candidate those vying for the office should take some sort of test. Maybe the PAT: Presidential Assessment Test. The PAT would cover vocabulary, world and U.S. history, economics, law, international relations, and geography. The PAT could be administered early in the campaign, perhaps even before declaring candidacy. Our candidates would know what the Bush Doctrine is, where other countries are, political theories, and current world events. Maybe the candidates wouldn’t be the type of people you’d want to have a beer with or see at the local PTA, but they would be smart, knowledgeable, and tested.

Just because anyone can be president, does not mean that just anyone should be president. That is not elitist. It is the same approach employers use in hiring. America owes it to itself and the rest of the world to use this same serious approach in hiring our next administration.

The Neighbor Vote

I’m stealing this from someone else’s blog, that was posted to a message board. I just think it’s clever:

Stop voting for people you want to have a beer with. Stop voting for folksy. Stop voting for people who remind you of your neighbor. Stop voting for the ideologically intransigent, the staggeringly ignorant, and the blazingly incompetent.

Vote for someone smarter than you. Vote for someone who inspires you. Vote for someone who has not only traveled the world but who has also shown a deep understanding and compassion for it. The stakes are real and they’re terrifyingly high. This election matters. It matters. It really matters. Let me say that one more time. This. Really. Matters.

Sarah Palin Scares Me.

In today’s CNN “Poll of Polls” McCain has pulled in front of Obama, 47% to 45%. While it’s no question that McCain got a bounce coming out of the RNC, how much can he attribute his current poll figures to his vice presidential pick?

This week Sarah Palin is literally on every cover: from US Weekly to Time, she’s everywhere. She will undoubtedly provide water cooler fodder for the months to come. She hunts moose, she has a pregnant teenage daughter, she doesn’t have a masters degree, she has blue collar roots, she goes to church, she has five children. She, for the first time in a long time, is a major candidate that embodies the American people. She didn’t go to Harvard, she doesn’t come from a political family or money. I think that resonates with middle America more than anything else…she’s just like the rest of us. While I think it’s encouraging that someone without an Ivy league education or a trust fund can possibly be Vice President, I don’t think Sarah Palin is the right person for the job. In fact, she terrifies me.

She terrifies me first for purely political reasons. Her down home country bumpkin persona has ignited the Republican base. Even more so, her conservative religious beliefs have ignited a base that was otherwise apathetic to McCain. Consequently, she scares me. As an Obama supporter, right-wing conservative voters coming out in droves to vote for what they see as “one of their own” in November is more than a little frightening.

She also terrifies me for more ideological reasons. She is, at least from what I know about her, my ideological opposite. This is a person who opposed adding polar bears to the list of Endangered Species to protect Alaskan oil exploration. She believes creationism should be taught in public schools; supports off-shore, on-land, whenever, wherever drilling (was “Drill now” really chanted at the RNC?); and would take away a woman’s right to choose in a heartbeat. I like the environment and think we should work to protect it and I think drilling will not only fail to solve any of our problems, it will create more. I think the Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest pieces of environmental protection legislation we have (well, it’s surviving anyway…barely) and bypassing it for economic gain is so, so…George W. Bush. I also think teaching a particular religion’s view of how the world began is completely contradictory with the separation of church and state, a pillar this country was founded on. The same country Palin fervently maintains she “puts first”.

Finally, she terrifies me for purely practical reasons. Yes, Alaska is closer to Russia than any other part of the United States, but geographical proximity does not translate to experience! Furthermore, it’s not like Russian immigrants are braving the Bering Sea on rafts to reach the promised land in Alaska. On that note, governors of Texas, Arizona, California, Florida, and New Mexico have more foreign relations experience than a governor from Alaska. Quebec is essentially French AND Canadian, so think of the foreign relations experience the Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine governors have! Yes, being a mayor and a governor provides administrative experience. However, 2 years as governor of Alaska is a far cry from governing one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

As McCain enjoys the bounce provided by the RNC and his VP choice, I only hope this new support in McCain support is short-lived…or limited to the red states.

The Working Mom Issue

After letting the Palin pick set in for a few days and after talking to a few Republicans and Democrats I realize, that when it comes to working mothers, many still hold as much resentment as they did when then First Lady Hillary Clinton made that comment about not baking cookies. Coincidentally, I am baking cookies right now. Cookies for lunch and dinner = perfect Sunday. Anyway, I’m sure you remember that comment and how up in arms certain groups were. Well, certain groups of mothers in my hometown in western Kansas anyway. Working instead of staying home to raise children was a slap in the face to some stay-at-home moms. Instead of careers they spent their days shuttling kids to and from school and band practice, and yes, baking cookies.

Now, sixteen years later, and potentially a working mother in the White House as a Republican, this discrimination towards mothers with careers seems to still exist. I discussed this my grandmother who found it difficult to believe a mother with a new baby would even think of running for such a high office. And what about the other children? Will they even see their mother for the next four years? Will they have to move to DC? I agreed, that it will undoubtedly be hard for the family to adjust. However, I did not point out that many men have ran for the high post with small children. In fact, no one has mentioned the fact that Obama himself has two young children. How men handle the work/family balance is simply not part of the national discussion. The irony is that those voters who may have a problem with a working mother in the White House may be the same voters who traditionally vote Republican.

I’d be a terrible stay-at-home mom. I just burnt my second batch of cookies…