Carl Rove will not give up

Carl Rove, George W. Bush’s political advisor and director of the Super Pac Crossroads, said he will not give up the battle.  Even though Romney lost, Rove still believes strongly enough in his own point of view that he will continue to work for them.

Good for you Mr. Rove.  We don’t find answers in our human experience by blindly allowing one side or the other to dominate the debate.

Many years ago, Dr. Jacob Bronowski wrote a book called the “Ascent of Man.”  It accompanied a series that was broadcast on PBS stations.  He explores human existence from the very beginning to the present day.  Not so much a history of man, but more of an outline of man’s search for the truth.  Bronowski believed that by dedicating ourselves to science, research and knowledge we can find the truth that seems to elude us. 

On his journey through time, Bronowski stopped on Auschwitz, the infamous Nazi concentration camp that slaughtered perhaps millions of people.  He found a place in the camp where the ashes of the people that were killed there were dumped.  As Bronowski reached down into the mud on a rainy afternoon that could still contain some of the ashes from over 60 years ago, he looked straight into the camera and quoted Oliver Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”

That very thought is the foundation of the research being conducted by SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence).  A scientist was asked during an interview about what happens when they find something that has some of the characteristics of being made by intelligent life.  The first thing they do is challenge their own findings.  This challenge doesn’t take the form of confirmation, that might lead them to just reinforce their discoveries.  It takes the form of error checking, that would lead them to another conclusion if they were originally wrong.  Then, they turn to the outside scientific community and ask them to tell them why they are wrong.  Repeat, why they are wrong!   

We don’t find truth for our country by adopting something that sounds good and resonates with us alone.  That is a personal outlook.  We find truth by asking questions of those around us and having questions asked of ourselves.  To have a single power in our culture or any culture that defines what is right and wrong is a dictatorship.  Looking back at the Nazi’s, that is what killed over ten million people.

The words of Voltaire, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is still true today.  Our collective quest for the truth must be based on that very phrase.  To silence on a single voice means that we have denied the freedoms that we all share to that single voice.  That could be our undoing. 

So, Carl Rove, keep up your work and your quest.  I will from time to time (if not a little more often than time to time) disagree with you.  But, the continuing conversation in the public form will help all of us find the right path.

Demand to know who is speaking

The next time you go to the doctor, don’t worry about who he is or what his credentials are.  It doesn’t matter and he shouldn’t have to tell you.  Or, when you go to your financial advisor, if he keeps hidden that he is an employee of the fund he suggests when he leads you to believe he isn’t, he has a right to privacy.  Oh, and your baby sitter – not to worry that you are not able to find out who she is and anything about her past. 

If you think those are really dumb statements, I would agree with you.  But, when a clandestine organization goes on television with information about one of the constitutional proposals or a candidate; you don’t have the right to know who they are.  If you wouldn’t accept advice or trust people in your personal life that you don’t know, why would you trust a group that you know nothing about in your political decisions?

That is what has happen during the last election more than any other time in United States history.  Claims, accusations and downright lies filed the advertising of the political ads.  It should make honest, good people ill.  (Yes, everyone, before you get excited, both sides have committed this sin.)  But, we didn’t have the chance to evaluate their point of view because we don’t know who provided the financial support for the advertising. 

Additionally, people and organizations called “bundlers” skirted campaign laws and used them to hide the source of money for candidates and parties.  Many of us were upset when we found out that Romney said things in private that were difficult to support in public.  Romney himself even said that it could have been said better.  But, did any of us find out who was in the room that night (other than the host, a bundler)?

Is there anyone that thinks that the “smoked filled rooms” of yore where secret deals were made was the proper way to govern?  Well, of course not.  If your local politician takes money from an oil company then votes in support of their petition to drill in your neighborhood, wouldn’t you want to know?  Do black hooded people stand on the floor of the United States Senate and make a speech about policy?  No, because we all demand to know who is speaking.

Yet, we put up with Super PAC's and bundlers that raise, over the last election in this case, literally billions of dollars.  This money flows to candidate’s campaigns and their parties like water down a hill, filling the lowest ground.  In this case, the money fills the coffers of candidates that are willing to accept every last cent.  There are candidates that don’t accept the money blindly, demanding to know where the money came from.  But, many of them, I feel confident, feel great pressure to accept the money so they can compete against a foe that does take the money. 

Don’t be fooled.  When people go to the store to buy a stove, they want certain features and they want it to work.  No one, let me repeat, no one, gives a dime to any campaign if they don’t think they will get the results they want.  Give enough, your voice will be heard.  A little more, your plan will be enacted. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech.  It is an amplifier to your own voice.  This is true.  Also, people do have the right to assemble to combine their resources so that their voice will be louder – and delivered with force.  But, the voters, as the ultimate decision maker in any policy decision, should have all the information available to make an educated decision. 

Let's all cry, "Enough of this lunacy!"  In a Responsible Community, when someone exercises their right, they are to take responsibility for their action.  It is not a violation of someone’s freedom of speech to ask that they take the responsibility to say who they are.  

If it takes a new ruling from the Supreme Court to change the current situation, then let’s find a case to carry to their doorstep.  If it takes more than that, then let’s change the Constitution.

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.

Gay rights and marriage equity

The Responsible Community blog is working through the blog’s position on issues important to an equable community and comparing them to the presidential candidate positions and their respective parties.  Abortion and gun control have been reviewed in the last couple of days. 

Today’s issues are gay rights and marriage equity.  As I have asked in most every post about gay rights and marriage equality, where is the harm?

Government is tasked to protect its citizens.  That means making murder, stealing, assault and other actions like them illegal.  All those listed as well as many more not listed and the variants of each, hurt people in some way.  It can’t be shown in any way how being gay hurts anyone. 

To make it illegal for a same sex couple to get married is placing their action in the same category as those that commit one of the other crimes listed above.  There is absolutely no rationalization for it. 

Governor Romney has stated very clearly that he will not support gay marriage.  Members of the party he belongs to have tried for many years to pass a constitutional amendment that would prevent states from enacting laws that would permit marriage equity.  The party also, in the house and the senate teamed with a republican president, passed the Defense of Marriage Act (odd name for legislation that restricted marriage instead of expanding the rights of marriage to more citizens).  The courts have struck down the act, but those in supported of the act are fighting it to keep on the books.  It is believed that Romney working with his party would set back the quest for gay rights and marriage equity many years.

Obama on the other hand has come out in support of gay rights and supports marriage equity, although he said he would leave it to the states.  When the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional by the courts, he refused to defend it, an action that let the court’s decision stand.  The house, controlled by Republicans, is now taken up arms in defense of the act. 

For gay rights and marriage equity, Obama receives the Responsible Community’s support.

Abortion should remain legal and safe

Of all the hot issues, none is more deeply passionate to people than abortion.  But, just because of the heat, it can’t be ignored. 

Abortion should remain legal and safe in America. 

In the perfect world, as I wrote in, “Body autonomy, at the core of abortion rights,” in January of this year, everyone’s rights would be given the same weight.  The reality is that it can’t be done. 

The primary focus on all rights is the concept of body autonomy.  What happens to your body is in your control.  Government and society can’t force someone to work for someone else without their permission.  To force a woman to carry to term would mean that we are assigning second class rights to a large portion of society. 

Lately, many senatorial candidates from the right have said some very strange things about abortion, pregnancy, rape and incest.  The Republican Party believes that abortion should not be allowed in almost all cases, if not all.  For the life of me, I can’t understand saying abortion is wrong, but making allowances for rape and incest.  How far is the step in logic to support abortion for rape and incest but not for failure of medication or a simple mistake?

Romney has been all over the board on the issue.  While Governor he supported a woman’s right to make the choice.  Then, he didn’t think it should be allowed in any circumstances.  Now, he is coming back to the middle.  His party, the Republicans, as stated above, is against a woman’s right to choose.  If Romney was elected president, he would be hard pressed to move against the Republican Party and his own campaign statements.

Obama on the other hand is pro-choice.  He has not waived.

Obama receives the nod for his support of body autonomy.

Gun control and the presidential candidates

Gun control is at times a hot subject in politics, but it is taking a back seat in this Presidential race.  Obama has not taken a direct and strong stand on the issue and Romney has stated that he is a strong supporter of gun rights.  But, the issue has not risen to the top even when we had a couple of big events that have come up in the last few months.

There is no doubt that the Constitution has guaranteed the right for individuals to own and carry guns.  That is true if you believe the document insured that right in a limited way through regulate state militias, or, in the most extreme unlimited way of packing heat anytime, anywhere.  A reading of the Federalist Papers and the documents collected on the debates of the Constitution do not provide any more clarity.  But, one thing is for sure, guns were a part of the frontier life of individuals at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

But, there is another thing for sure.  The Second Amendment, or any of the other amendments for that matter, where not intended to be absolute.  There are reasonable and narrow limits on all the other rights, why should the most volatile of the rights be absolute? 

The Constitution was established for many reasons, but one of the most pressing at the time was that the Articles of Confederation were not working and was not protecting people.  The leadership at the time gathered together in an effort to fix the Articles of Confederation.  But, they found it was best to create a new government.  In the new document that outlined the process of making laws, the Constitution, there were no rights guaranteed.  It was felt that if the government went too far in restricting rights to provide for the safety of the community, the elected officials would be voted out of office and the restrictions would be drawn back.  (This is the reason many at the time believed that voting was more important than all the other rights that could be listed on a piece of paper.) This process created a balance between the freedoms that individuals can practice and the responsibility of the government to protect people.

But, there is a Bill of Rights and all the amendments that have followed over the last two and half centuries.  Also, many rights that are not numerated in the amendments have been carved out to protect an individual’s rights.  These rights, numerated and un-numerated, were added to the Constitution as a base line to guide the legislature, executive and judicial branches not as a proverbial line in the sand. 

There is no argument that can be made, based on the above, that means the ownership, use and possession of guns cannot be limited as long as there is a clear and present danger if action is not taken. 

As stated in the opening, Obama has not taken a direct and strong stand on gun control and Romney made statements in support of gun rights.  Obama having not made a clear statement about his position on gun rights, at the very least, suggests he is in support of reasonable gun control.  Romney, having made his clear statement about the issue, suggests that he is not for reasonable control of guns. 

The Responsible Community supports reasonable gun controls.  The current president, Barack Obama, receives the Responsible Community’s endorsement on this hot issue.

Review of the candidates

Let’s take the next two weeks to review the candidates for President and their parties. 

As a basis, this blog is about individuals and communities.  So, the list of issues that we would compare and contrast the candidates about would be those issues that most impact individuals and the communities they live in.  A review of the blog subjects and the positions taken will provide the basis for the conclusions.

Perhaps the first issue is the candidate’s party affiliation.  It was decided to judge the candidates and their party because it is very clear in America today that the parties have taken more control of the debate on issues.  There was a time in American when those holding office in local, state and national positions were independent in their views and did not always support the party they were affiliated with.  As proof of this and with recognition of the passing of someone that crossed the aisle many times, it is important to mention the recent passing of Arlen Spector, the longtime senator from Pennsylvania.  While Republican in party he was an independent in thinking. Using his own conscience to help him decide on issues and not what the party supporters dictated.

Whoever is president, if the president’s party shares power with him, it is the party that will dictate the position on the issues and how they are addressed.  (I say him here because, unfortunately, it is only men who are running for office.) 

As I have discussed before, it is not likely that Romney will be able to stand up to the powers that support the Republican Party.  That doesn’t mean the leadership; it means those that drive the support and the money behind the party.  If the positions he has taken in the past are any indication, he is a moderate leaning to the right.  He was at one time pro-abortion; he did author the health care law in Massachusetts and did support reasonable control over guns in that state.  But, since he began running for president, he has said himself he is an arch conservative.  If Romney was a stronger man, he would have pulled his party into the middle where most of the voters in America are.  But, instead, he took the money and support of those that hold extreme views on the right.  Now, he is stuck and must continue to support his party’s extremist.

As for Obama, if he wins the election, he will be a lame duck president.  Obama will not need to watch the polls for his own good because he is unable to run again.  Knowing this, the powers of the Democratic Party will do everything they can to have him work on their behalf.  As is with Romney, Obama is a moderate but leaning to the left.  He did preside over the enactment of the health care law, is pro-abortion but has done nothing to restrict guns and other civil rights.  The leadership and supporters of the Democratic Party are left leaning.  Obama will be pulled in that direction. 

After considering the above arguments on both sides, it is believed that both Romney and Obama will be under control of their individual parties more than they should be.  Both candidates receive a pass.