A shift in social attitudes

The campaign from the right tried to make the 2012 Presidential election a repudiation of President Obama’s economy.  The message was; there isn’t enough job growth, the economy is sluggish and the deficit is too high.  Many voters did buy into this message.  The electorate clearly moved to the right in this election. 

Most Americas it appears are fiscal conservatives.  In the past, when the economy was slow or sluggish, the incumbent faced certain defeat.  Votes may want their religion and their guns, but what they really want is a job and a future for their children.  There is nothing wrong with that.  After all, the thinking goes, without a healthy economy it may all be for naught.

With the blind confidence that the right’s strategy to focus on the economy was the correct one, many thought the voters wouldn’t notice the other ideas that the right would bring quietly with them to their elected posts.  But, those Republicans who could not be controlled by their party came out of the woodwork.  (Maybe a better word than “woodwork” might be “cave”.)  Most of the ideas from the most extreme Republicans were talking points from a century ago.  Birth control, rape, abortion, race, the rejection of gay rights, the role of government (or lack thereof) and many other old, tired ideas.  While the generation that came from those times may have been happy to talk about them, those from the last two generations rolled their eyes.

With an economy portrayed as being bad and an electorate that shifted to the right (actually, more like a shift to the center) should have been enough.  But, the social positions that the right holds so dearly brought it all back to focus.  It turned enough voters back in support of Obama. 

This represents a fundamental change in the social attitudes of the country, as slight as it may be.  In this election cyle, a president with a liberal social agenda won in what was portrayed as a sluggish economy.  Perhaps as many as four states (three for sure) supported marriage equity.  The voters want the financial reforms that came out of the crisis to stay in place.  They supported the continuation of the health care reform.  The right to choose will be left in place.  Gay rights will be supported by more and more people.  Also, many other ideas from the last two generations will now become accepted as part of a new life of freedom and security in the country.

If the Republicans continue with their current track of holding on to old social ideas they will soon be obscure.  But, if they change they may have a chance.  That of course, in the irony of the times, is actually what they are fighting against.

CEO of GM talks about the government investment in GM

The saving of the Detroit auto industry is a popular thing to talk about during this election cycle.  President Barak Obama was instrumental in engineering the structured bankruptcy and the investment in the industry that was needed.  Mitt Romney, the son of an auto executive, said he would have allowed them to crash.

Even hindsight can’t tell us if the dire prediction about the failure of the auto industry would have ever come true.  But, a threat of some kind was there.  It is too easy to say that they should have allowed the industry to fail because new industry would have risen from the crumbling empty auto plants.  Even if one did, how long would it have been before the benefits of the market failure would have worked its “magic?”

The truth is, in practical terms the auto industry is alive, improving and perhaps in the best condition it has been in decades.

Dan Ackerson, CEO of GM, in an interview with The Take Away’s Celeste Headlee, points out that this wasn’t the first time the country has saved an industry and that the benefits were much more far ranging in practical terms.  Ackerson is a Republican.  As a Republican, he is not likely to give an interview in support of something that a president and congress from the other party did in an election year if he didn’t think it was an important thing to do.

Let’s read what Ackerson had to say about the investment we made in the auto industry.

Dan Ackerson -”This is not the first time that the American government has injected themselves into the American economy. If I asked you, who [was] the biggest owner of commercial property in the United States 1990s, you wouldn't say the United States, but it was. [During] the Savings and Loans crisis, [the U.S.] [pumped] in $394 billion dollars. Call it around $400 billion dollars.  Not $50.  $400 billion.

“So it's not unusual to see governments for a short period of time, inject themselves into a marketplace to stabilize it.  The analogy I like to make, you remember last year when Joplin, Missouri had the terrible tornado or Katrina [in Louisiana], it's in the basic DNA of Americans [that] we don't walk to help our fellow citizens, we sprint.  This part of the country, the arsenal of democracy saved this country in many respects along with many soldiers, marines, coast guard's men.  But it built the arsenal that saved Western Democracies.”

During the world wars in the last century, it was the heavy industry that we had on our home turf and owned by United States companies that built the machinery to defend ourselves and our allies.  Without that heavy industry already in place, it is hard to image that we would have been able to build all the factories needed before we built one tank in time to make a difference.  As another example, during the early part of the last century, the shipbuilding industry was in the same situation as the auto industry was during the last few years.  The United States stepped in to save it because of the importance of having the ability to build on our own shores.  Can you image the need to build heavy equipment in times of a crisis and expecting Honda of Ohio and the other foreign auto companies in Georgia to do the building?  What would happen if we went to war with the home countries of those companies?

Ackerson continues - “[After World War II] what did we do[?]  In the interest of international economy, international trade, we lowered our trade barriers.  We lowered them in Japan, we lowered them in Germany, our mortal enemies.  And they built export economies to the detriment of this part of the country.  It didn't happen overnight with a hurricane or tornado: It happened over 30 years.  So a million jobs were saved, that's what I say.  $150 billion it's been reported in terms of total tax revenues that would've gone by the boards had the company not been saved.”

That doesn’t include the increase in taxes on surviving companies to pay for the unemployment benefits that would have been paid on those that lost their jobs.  Instead, as Ackerson says, many auto workers didn’t lose their jobs and are still paying taxes.

Ackerson - “And all the supply chain that would've gone with us.  And then if you back off and you say, at the time we went under, or we went into bankruptcy, we had about a $25 billion pension deficit.  But think back if we'd gone into bankruptcy and liquidated in '09.  That $25 billion would've gone into the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) which is government sponsored.  Footnote to that comment is, $25 billion would've bankrupted PBGC.  And whose dime would that've been on?  It'd have been on the taxpayer’s dime.  That's never in the calculus.”

It might be said that if we hadn't backed the PBGC, we wouldn’t have had the problem with the pension deficit bankrupting the system.  But, then there would have been no pension money for all those currently retired and those that have worked for many years depending on the pension fund.

As for finding private money to invest in GM, Ackerson also addresses that issue. Ackerson at the time GM was going through its problems was managing private equity money for investors.  This is what he has to say about finding private money.

Ackerson – “So when people say, it should've been saved in another way, it should've gone through a bankruptcy, controlled bankruptcy.  I was in private equity.  I was managing many buyouts, where you do a big buyout of corporations with a portfolio of $50-$100 billion.  There was no way you could've gotten me to put a billion dollars into this thing without the restructuring that was really mandated by the government.

“So, you know I know this is a political year and everybody wants to argue for tactical and political advantage.  Again, I don't have the luxury to do that.  I'm not making a political statement.  I would say, let's be pragmatic about it: It worked.

Finally, Ackerson says, “I think the government does have an obligation to step up and help its people.  This wasn't a giveaway.  It was an investment.  It was an investment from the American people.”

Communities are not a separate entity from the people that live in them.  They are not there to just police the streets and facilitate common services.  Communities form for the safety net and security that they provide.

Thank you, Mr. Ackerson.  Your words represent the best of a Responsible Community.
-----

Institutional rights don't trump individual rights

In a speech to supporters in Colorado, presidential candidate Mitt Romney blasted President Barack Obama over his administration’s decision to force religious organizations to provide birth control pills and other related drugs in the health plans they offer. The Catholic Church doesn’t believe that the use of birth control is moral. Other Christian organizations and churches believe the use of most birth control pills is actually abortion. The religious organizations believe that by offering the drugs in the health plan they are supporting an immoral act.

Romney says that if he was president, he would allow the exemption on religious grounds. In the speech he accused Obama of restricting religious freedom. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he tried to exempt religious institutions from providing the drugs in the health care mandate in the state. But, the legislature overruled his policy.

Romney is making the choice between an institution (that does have deep religious concerns with birth control) and the individual’s right to make those choices. His belief is that groups, in this case the Catholic Church, are equal in status with individuals. Keep in mind, Romney is the same man that said corporations are people too.

A pillar of conservatism is that the individual holds all the power and the responsibly. It is the individual’s choices that determine his responsibility. Apparently, that is true up to the point that the individual is covered under a health plan.

By allowing the Catholic Church to be exempt from offering birth control in their health plan, it limits the individual's choice and personal freedom. Just because the church provide the drugs doesn’t mean they are suggesting anyone should use them. The church can use their freedom of speech to express their concerns about birth control.

If it was allowed, it could create many other divisions, not even just in the birth control issue. Should a church have health insurance policies rewritten that restrict what clinics, hospitals and doctors can receive payments from the health plan because they offer birth control and abortion? This, even though the health of the woman may dictate that she goes to one of them?

President Obama made the right decision on the birth control issues. The individual’s right to make choices must be greater than the group’s ability to control those choices.

-----

Immigration

It can’t be said that there are many parallels between Newt Gingrich’s political philosophy, if it can be collected into one coherent philosophy, and the structure of the Responsible Community. But, we do need to give Gingrich his due when he is right, even if not for the same reasons.

Today is Florida’s Republican primary and immigration is a big issue because of the large amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s biggest rival in the presidential primary, has developed his “self-deportation” plan that has some truth at the core. He believes that as a country, we need to somehow remove the illegal immigrants from the neighborhoods of America and return them to their home country. There, they can apply to come to America legally. He would do this by cutting off the jobs the immigrants obtain when here. This is the truth at the core of his plan; we would have much less illegal immigration if there weren’t jobs going unfilled here.

But, Romney is not likely to be willing to go up against business owners and fine them for hiring illegals. Remember, he is a pro-business candidate, having run a capital investment firm very successfully. It just can’t be seen how the pro-business, less regulation candidate is going to stop businesses who need cheap docile employees.

If Romney wants to remove the illegals from our neighborhoods, he will have to drive the padding wagon down the street, dragnet style. He will have to round them up and send them home.

Gingrich doesn’t think that is such a good idea, nor do I. Gingrich has said something like rounding up someone’s grandmother that has been here for many years to deport her is against humanity and, besides, can’t really be done. (Gingrich is right on both points. Can you image removing 10 to 20 million people from the country? Panic and chaos would be pandemic. There would be riots and armed conflict in the streets of our towns. Our courts would be filled with backlog cases for many years, if not lifetimes.)

These people are here because we needed them to fill jobs that went unfilled. While they may have taken jobs that legal immigrants could have filled, it is not as bad as it seems. Once here, they created a synergy that created more jobs. Economically, they hold entire communities together. They rent houses and apartments, buy food for their families, entertain themselves and buy shirts from JC Penny. By removing about 10 to 15 percent of the population, if it could be done, would send us into another recession. The jobs it is said the illegals took would be gone along with all the other jobs that were created from the goods and services they purchased.

That is not to suggest that we should not do a better job of keeping illegals from the country in the first place. A blog post from May 2010, End Illegal Immigration in Five Steps, outlines five steps to end illegal immigration without ten foot concrete walls around the country. Let’s make sure every person has a national identification card so we know who is legal and who isn’t, that every business knows that there will be severe consequences if they hire undocumented workers, manage our borders not control them and build the economies in the home countries. We also need to provide a path for documenting workers that aren’t currently legal instead of deporting them.

Solutions for problems like illegal immigration come from practical community based solutions not from politically motivated ideological double speak. Romney is suggesting that we get tough by cutting off the supply of jobs at the same time he says we need to get rid of regulations and help business. This is Romney’s double speak. Gingrich at least is defining the issue in practical terms.

-----

At the debate of the Republican presidential candidates, each contender stood firm in their opposition to same sex marriage. Their opposition was based on religion, tradition or both. The debate was held at St Anselm’s College, a Roman Catholic grammar school for boys (in Wirral), in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Newt Gingrich, whose sister is gay and a supporter of President Barack Obama, started the conversation by saying that there was a bias by the news media bias because they keep asking the wrong question. The media should be asking about the consequences of same sex marriage instead. Gingrich said that the recognition of a marriage goes far beyond a loving couple who want to form a long term relationship. The consequences of allowing same sex marriages are that all married couples have to be considered for adoption and other rights. Gingrich suggested that this creates an institutionalized bigotry (his word) by the federal government against organizations, like the Catholic Church, because they will not consider gay couples in the adoption process. Gingrich said, therefore, that he supports the traditional sacrament of marriage, one man and one woman, to avoid the consequences.

Mitt Romney said that recognizing same sex marriages, as has been done in New Hampshire, is a mistake. His reason is that children being raised by a male and a female are better off.

Jon Huntsman, Jr. supports civil unions of same sex couples. He does not, though, support same sex marriages. His reason is that he is a traditionalist. Marriage, Huntsman believes, should be saved for one man and one woman. He added that “reciprocal beneficiary rights” should be part of civil unions and that states should talk about the subject.

Rick Perry said that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, the DOMA, was struck down in part by the federal courts. Obama decided against defending the law in the courts and Perry believes that the Obama administration is at war against people of faith by deciding not to defend the law in the courts.

Rick Santorum believes that marriage is a federal issue, while adoption by same sex couples is a state issue. He believes that there needs to be one law for the entire country that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Ron Paul didn’t respond to the marriage question. He does believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Paul has said in the past that he personal believes in marriage as between one man and one woman.

As mentioned above, President Obama did decide not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In part, the act said that states don’t have to accept a marriage from other states and that marriage between same sex couples are not to enjoy the same benefits as those of one man and one woman. In the case Smelt v United States of America, the Obama administration at first defended the law, as it is the policy of the administration to defend all federal laws. But, after pressure from civil rights groups from around the country, Obama withdrew his support and reinstated his original position of asking for full repeal of DOMA.

The definition of marriage is going to be a big issue in the presidential election this fall. The concern the candidates have with marriage is adoption and partner benefits. It is their belief that a child should be raised in a home with a man and a woman, the traditional marriage arrangement. Additionally, with providing benefits to domestic partners it both cost more and provides a de facto approval of the living arrangements.

But, can anyone tell me how same sex marriage is a problem? Same sex marriage doesn’t cause harm to anyone either in the relationship or in the community, so government should not attempt to prevent it. Since being gay it is not a choice, but a biological determination, raising children in the environment is not going to brainwash more children into the gay lifestyle. The argument about costing more is a moot point. It is likely that if there weren’t same sex marriages, there would be more traditional marriages and cost just as much. Finally, to argue that as a community we should continue with one man and one women marriage just because it is tradition is nonsense. Over the last 3,000 years many things have changed and the human species is still here. In fact, we have survived and prospered because we changed when it was deemed necessary.

Civil Unions, which some candidates have suggested is to step into the equal but separate argument. In a broad acceptance of Brown v the Board of Education, separate is not equal. It is inherently unequal by the very fact that they are separate.

Marriage as a contract is something the community should recognize no matter the partners. The benefit is to allow rights and property to pass to each partner and for other legal reasons. But, to define it as only between a man and a woman makes no sense.

-----
 
Follow us on Facebook.