Election Day 2004

Originally posted on Tuesday, November 2, 2004:

I arrived at our community library this morning to find a line of people extending beyond the polling place to the doors of the library itself. What has typically taken a few minutes took about a half hour. People’s spirits were high, partly because after today we won’t have to hear any campaign ads for a while, and partly because it is so refreshing to see people so eager to vote. All of us in line this morning felt that it was a good problem to have.

Here in Ohio, and in many other “swing states” as well, we’ve been hearing campaign ads for six months. It would be tempting to think of today as the day that all ends; but it won’t, of course. Lots of observers expect challenges and recounts to delay our knowing the final results for weeks; but it’s the nature of America to be a work in progress. Even if we were to have no electoral challenges, and even if one candidate were to win in a walk, this Election Day would end with unfinished business.

I have received overwhelmingly positive responses from the readers of this little series of essays, including those who have disagreed with some of my conclusions. Their support encourages me to take some time today to address the challenges we will continue to face after we know today’s outcome.

First: we need to address the very real “culture war” that exists in this country. Let’s hope that the renewed interest this election has seen will reduce the “echo chamber” effect in politics, in which people speak only to those who already hold the same beliefs while those views become more and more extreme.

Second: between this election and the next, we will need to communicate with our public officials. Sometimes we forget that electing the right people is only the first step: that we have a responsibility to keep after them once they are elected so that they will know what we want them to do. Thanks to the Internet, it is easier to stay in touch with public officials now than it has ever been before; likewise, it’s easier to see which ones are responsive and which ones aren’t.

Third: we should all rejoice at the renewed interest in participation in democracy. The scandalously low turnout in some past elections robbed their outcomes of legitimacy and encouraged more voter apathy. Perhaps this year’s events reflect a real change in the quality of our political life.

Fourth: we will still have negative campaigning. Negative campaigning keeps good people from running for office; it uses up campaign funds that could be used to explore real issues; and it contributes to voter cynicism and apathy by perpetuating the myth that “they’re all alike.” But it’s been around nearly as long as our democracy because, unfortunately, it works.

Fifth: we need more candidates. Close to half the positions on my ballot this morning were uncontested; I think that’s unfortunate. Over the years I’ve run for public, party, and organizational office, I’ve found candidacy to be challenging but rewarding; even losing is educational. I hope that this year’s elections will stimulate a resurgence of interest in public office, particularly among younger citizens.

I am always hopeful–not confident, just hopeful–about democracy’s ability to correct itself. Institutions seldom make progress in a straight line, so that corrective function works slowly. Maybe, years from now, we will look back at 2004 and realize that it was indeed the most important election in our lifetime: not just because of the issues and the candidates, but because it called forth the passion and commitment of people on all sides and reminded us once again of the blessings that we share as Americans.

When a Man Loves a Woman

Originally posted Thursday, October 28, 2004:

Someone has decided that marriage needs defense. It’s rather nice that so many people care enough about marriage to defend it, but at the same time it’s a bit disturbing that so many married people feel it needs defending. Anyway, a number of people have decided that marriage must be defended against the threat posed by same-sex couples who might want to get married.

Personally, I’ve always used the term “marriage” to refer to the union between one man and one woman. Men and women are so different that marriage is really a sort of miracle. And it provides an important sign by showing that love can overcome even those differences: no wonder religions generally regard marriage as a sign of God’s love for us. So I’ll confess that it bothers me a bit that same-sex couples want to use the same term to describe their version of a life-long union; part of me thinks that they should find their own word for it.

But the self-assigned defenders of marriage aren’t concerned about terminology; they oppose anybody except one man and one woman having access to a legally-recognized, committed union. Apparently they think that they are somehow hurt by the happiness of a same-sex couple.

Despite my own reservations, I’ve come to the conclusion that linguistic niceties pale in comparison with the intolerance displayed by the religious right. Like censors who think they can make choices for others, “defense of marriage” proponents seem to feel qualified to decide who will relate to whom and how.

They’ve come up with two varieties of these proposals. The first is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution. Since the Constitution is mute on marriage, and since courts have ruled that the decision of whom to marry is a private matter, the religious right has decided that the only way to dictate who gets to clean whose socks is to amend the Constitution. Since it’s generally regarded as an impossible proposal, it’s really a nonissue; but that doesn’t keep right-wing candidates from using it to pander to the fears of social conservatives.

Here in Ohio, the second attack is a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution. Unlike the federal proposal, this one actually has a chance to pass, and that makes it more dangerous. The Ohio proposal, Issue 1 on this year’s ballot, consists of two sentences. The first defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman; Ohio law already does that, so this part of the amendment is superfluous.

The second sentence, however, carries its real payload: “This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage.” It would deny not only civil unions but parental, survivorship, and visitation rights to all except traditionally-married couples.

I believe in marriage. It bothers me to see so many children born to single parents, and it bothers me even more to see what appears to be a rash of celebrities producing children without first providing for them by making the commitment that marriage requires. But passing Issue 1 won’t defend marriage. What it will do, if passed, is to make Ohio even less attractive as a residence or an employer than it already is.

Because it appeals to the teachings of some religions–and also because intolerance has plenty of advocates in Ohio–Issue 1 has organized support. Polls indicate that it has a fair chance of passing. As far as I can tell, the opposition isn’t organized; but on their own, most mainstream labor, employer, and civic groups in Ohio have decided to oppose Issue 1. Virtually all Democratic public officials oppose it, along with most Republican public officials.

No matter whom you support in the other races, take the opportunity on November 2 to vote against intolerance. If you’re an Ohio voter, vote against Issue 1.

Tax and Spend

Originally posted Thursday, October 28, 2004:

You always know that a Republican candidate has run out of things to say about his opponent–it doesn’t matter whether it’s another Republican in a primary election or a Democrat in a final election–when he calls the opponent a “tax and spend liberal.” These are the magic incantation of Republican politics, and they’re supposed to make voters avoid the epithet’s target like radioactive waste.

The epithet can be used in other grammatical constructions: “All Senator Snort has done in office is tax and spend”; “For the past four (two, six) years, he’s been over there in Washington (Columbus, City Hall), taxing and spending your hard-earned dollars.” It’s the ketchup of political invective–it goes on anything. “Tax and spend” is a magical incantation; no epithet thought up by Democrats has quite the same mojo.

At the same time, it’s a little silly. After all, the unique and defining characteristic of government is that it taxes; nobody else can do that. And once you’ve taxed people, you pretty much have to spend the revenues on something; taxpayers tend to rebel when governments just collect their money and store it in warehouses.

So let’s be clear, what governments do is “tax and spend.” Without taxing and spending, you don’t have a government. Liberals and conservatives both do it; Republicans and Democrats both do it. President Bush has done it, and John Kerry will do it once he’s elected.

I bring this up because we use political labels far too often. Right and left, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, pro-choice and pro-life–part of our handicap in state and national politics today is the overuse of simplistic labels. (Fortunately, the labels are harder to use in municipal politics, so they’ve never really caught on there.)

(Digression alert: personal reference coming.)

A few friends have noted that I seem to be exceptionally motivated in this campaign, and they’re right: I haven’t been this excited about a presidential election since forty years ago, when as a high school student I was doing volunteer work for the campaign of . . . Barry Goldwater. (This is when the reader says, “Barry Goldwater? Wasn’t he that conservative Republican senator from Arizona, somewhere to the right of Vlad the Impaler? How does this joker support John Kerry, that tax-and-spend liberal?” But Hillary Clinton started political life as a Goldwater Republican too: that’s why she and I are so tight.)

Well, my candidate now is quite different from my candidate then; politics have changed, and so has our country. But now as then, I am disturbed and frightened at the direction in which our country is going. My own political odyssey over those years has taught me a disrespect for political labels.

(Personal reference over; reading can safely continue here.)

The notion that you can sum up a person’s political beliefs in a simple label is ludicrously simplistic. In general, liberals are supposed to favor governmental interventions to correct societal problems; conservatives are supposed to favor economic policies that increase profits. Liberals are supposed to help the poor; conservatives are supposed to protect the rich. Both, of course, claim to be the savior of the middle class. But of course, there are social, economic, foreign policy, and civil rights liberals and conservatives; trying to track one’s beliefs in all four seems unfulfilling.

The most common break between the two philosophies concerns the role of government in private enterprise: since resources have to be allocated somehow, liberals favor government involvement in that allocation, while conservatives favor leaving it up to private business and markets. Like most idealogues, both liberals and conservatives take their philosophies on faith with very little empirical evidence; neither one has very good data to support its own pure ideology.

Ordinary people distrust ideology instinctively; but ordinary people aren’t the ones who make campaign donations. So in order to be nominated, most candidates have to persuade their own parties that they have the right beliefs, while simultaneously convincing those same supporters that they can appeal just enough to moderates to get their votes and be elected.

So, in this campaign, as Bush campaign ads trot out that tired “liberal” epithet, what should undecided voters do? I believe they would do well to realize that classic American liberalism is essentially dead. Most Democrats accepted Bill Clinton’s declaration that “the era of big government is over,” and liberals recognize just as much as conservatives that a strong defense is essential to our security.

I respect conservatism: it’s is a proud and honorable political ideology that values responsibility, individual initiative, and self-reliance. What I don’t accept is fake conservatism, and today’s conservatives, including the President, are mostly fakes. Passing debt onto our children isn’t good financial policy; inadequately staffing and supplying our military isn’t good defense; and pushing difficult economic decisions like Social Security reform into future administrations isn’t good planning.

Ignore the labels, especially when candidates use them against each other.