Posted by Dale Dunkin on October 9, 2009
The war in Afghanistan is a 9 year war at this point. The war was begun on solid reasons and was executed in a manner that quickly obtained our intended result, expelling the Taliban government and destroying Al-Queada’s ability to function. We then ignored, neglected and squandered our chance at rebuilding a country that has been in a constant state of war and rebellion for 30 years.
The result is a strong Al-Queada, destabilized nuclear Pakistan and increasing death toll of American soldiers. President Obama has been in office less than 12 months but already the Afghan war is “Obama’s War.” I don’t fully support this notion but I do acknowledge that Obama is at a cross roads. Regardless of the immoral dereliction of duty that got us into this situation in the first place President Obama now has the task of fixing it. (None of the dereliction is or was the result of anything our armed forces and those serving did or did not do.)
My question now is how much do we put on Obama? He is the leader who now has to decide to escalate, maintain or stop our engagement in Afghanistan. I use the word escalate because I am not going to play word games by calling it a “surge” in an attempt to avoid any Vietnam comparison, like our last administration so successfully did.
If President Obama decides to escalate the war by increasing troops the only way this can be done is to move troops out of Iraq. I am in favor of us getting out of Iraq because Iraq country is going to fall apart, all we can do is delay the inevitable. The other way to add troops into Afghanistan is to institute a draft. I do not think the public will stand for that? Maybe I am wrong?
From what I have read and learned, simply maintaining the current 45,000 or so troop level only continues the level of neglect and improper allocation of military resources that brought us to the current situation. Ignoring things at this point is not an option because Al-Queada has regained the strength and capabilities it once had.
Stopping the war in Afghanistan is a possibility. The results would be devastating to the people of Afghanistan. Doing so is not something we have not done in the past. We did the same thing after we helped Osama Bin Laden kick out the Soviet Union and when we refused to offer air support to the Kurds and Shiites at the end of the first Iraq war.
My emotional / moral side wants us to do the right thing, my pragmatic side simply wants us to do what is best for our country. Considering I don’t think we are out of the woods with our economic troubles I flinch at the idea of dumping billions, borrowed from China, into a war my grandkids will have to deal with. What do you feel and think?
DD
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
Posted by Dale Dunkin on September 17, 2009
Even though accusing a black man and a Jew of promoting Nazi policies is illogical let alone understandable it has kept the media from explaining the multiple but complicated solutions to our healthcare problems. Considering Republicans think government is unable to do anything right I am amazed they believe the government has the man power let alone ability to set up panels to discuss or push death on old people. To help cut through the clutter here is a list of some healthcare options we need now.
1. Allow “ANYONE” to buy into Medicare just like they would any other insurance option.
This creates a government option that is in place operating and ready to go. No learning curve is needed for doctors or the public. The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than private healthcare so that alone will save millions if not billions in total healthcare dollars spent.
2. Allow Americans to cross state lines to find the best policy.
Increased competition is the heart of a free market so why not let it loose. Insurance companies would be able to cut redundant over head costs. The number of state processing centers and state policy specialists could be trimmed due to national standards, condensing 50 different systems into one.
3. Make it illegal for insurance companies to exclude or disqualify Americans due to “pre-existing conditions.”
This makes insurance companies more focused on maintaining the health of their customers rather than weeding out those who actually need the product they provide. This also assures americans that they will not be denied coverage even after paying premiums.
4. Repeal the law that stopped Medicare from using its sizable buying power to negotiate lower drug prices.
This restriction was passed during the Republican control of congress and demonstrates how Republicans work to undermine the success of government even when they would scream at any hint of doing such in the free market.
Other solutions exist but these are key to creating a system that puts us on par with the rest of the modern world. Let me know your ideas, and more important make sure your elected officials know!!!!
Dale Dunkin
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Healthcare, Healthcare options | 14 Comments »
Posted by Dale Dunkin on September 3, 2009
Unlike some military ventures the United States of America has chosen to engage in, the U.S. had clear reason and solid moral ground to invade and occupy the country of Afghanistan. The invasion has now lasted almost 8 years and appears to have no end in sight. Our original objectives have only partially been reached, for a military operation our current objectives are unclear. What path should we as Americans take in Afghanistan? Should we stay, and why?
The Afghan government sheltered if not actively supported the known terrorist organization of Al-Qaeda, which planned and executed the attacks on 9/1 killing just over 2900 people. Very quickly after the attack of September 11th CIA operatives and assets were on the ground building strategic connections with regional warlords and chiefs, often referred to as the Northern Alliance, as well as tracking and militarily engaging Al-Qaeda. The initial objective was to create tactical assets within the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban Government and organization of Al-Qaeda. The other objective was to find capture and or eliminate Osama Bin Laden and other key leaders of Al-Qaeda. The CIA was soon followed by the full capability of the US military. The military employed the strategy of tactical insertion of special forces for short term highly focused attacks on Al-Qaeda. The highly trained special forces after a short time were withdrawn back to the states to prep for starting a war in Iraq. The special forces were replaced by National Guard units. Almost 8 years after the first military operations started in Afghanistan we still have not caught Osama Bin laden and Al-Qaeda is now expanded its influence into the northern tribal areas of Pakistan and controls if not disrupts all but the central capital of Kabul. The ability of Al-Qaeda to directly reach beyond Afghanistan is unclear.
The question I have is what is our goal in Afghanistan? Do we think we can build “democracy” in a country that has been in an almost constant state of war for 30 plus years? Is it our job to establish democracy / nation build around the world? Al-Qaeda is a real threat and if we do nothing they will attack us again if they are not already able to do so now. How long do our kids or grandkids have to be there until the “objective” is achieved?
Rarely do I lack an opinion, but I don’t think we as a nation are not ready nor can we afford the political, social and economic costs required to get the job done in a quick manner.
Tell me what you think. What is your way out of Afghanistan? Help me get off the fence because I hate being so undecided.
Dale Dunkin
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
Posted by mormondemocrats on August 12, 2009
Obviously we’ve been having a hard time keeping the posts up lately. Maybe Twitter can keep us more active. Follow us on Twitter @mormondemocrats
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Posted by brainscientist2008 on May 2, 2009
Suppose that President Obama decided that it was time to nominate a member of a religious minority to the Supreme Court that had never been represented before and decides it is time to appoint a Latter-day Saint. He asks you for potential nominees. Who would you recommend? Clearly, there a many talented church members in the legal profession. It would not be an easy task, but I would like to suggest one likely candidate.
The individual I would choose is R. Collin Mangrum. My reasons are many fold. The first is that he is one of the best trained legal scholars in the world. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard University in 1972; his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Utah, School of Law in 1974, where he was Associate Editor of the Law Review; his Bachelor of Civil Laws from Oxford University in 1978; and his Doctor of Judicial Science degree from Harvard University in 1983. He is currently the A. A. & Ethel Yossem Endowed Chair in Legal Ethics at Creighton University School of Law. Collin is considered to be a constitutional scholar of considerable renown in the areas of evidentiary law and church and state issues.
The second reason is the clarity of his reasoning and thoughts. I remember when I was a young graduate student, Dr. Mangrum was asked to speak in a forum jointly sponsored by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the local LDS Institute of Religion. The topic was on comparing and contrasting classical liberalism and Mormon Philosophy. What impressed me the most, besides refuting many of the so-called conservative political philosophers who haven’t bothered to do their basic homework, is how he logically set up the “dots” of his arguments then carefully connected those “dots.”
The third thing is that I had considerable contact with him with my ward in Lincoln, and was very impressed by his genuine humanity and compassion; qualities that are highly desirable in every member of the “Supremes.”
I would like to hear from our readers who they would nominate for the first Mormon Supreme Court Justice and why.
Posted in Church and State, Friday Forum, Uncategorized | Tagged: constitution, Nomination, supreme court | 1 Comment »
Posted by brainscientist2008 on April 10, 2009
I was pleased to see in the Washington Post earlier this week that the administration has reversed the no press policy at the Dover Air Force Base arrival ceremonies and replaced it with a family discretion policy. This hits home a little harder to me than most Americans. As the father of a daughter who was deployed to Iraq’s Al Anbar Province during its most dangerous period, I can certainly empathize with the families of the deceased warriors. In my daughter’s case, she was “volun-told” to double as a blackhawk helicopter crew chief (door gunner). She participated in several “Angel Flights”; both planned and when, as the closest helicopter a badly wounded service member, they simply could not make it in time. I now have an American flag that they would hang in the window as they brought of their fallen Angels home.
My only suggestion would be that each fallen angel should be met at the tarmac, with the family’s permission, by at least one elected representative of the people to present the family with the fallen warrior’s Purple Heart. That duty should be the responsibility of the President, Vice President, the fallen warrior’s Senator, Congressperson, Governor, or Lieutenant Governor. This new tradition would serve several purposes including showing the families that the American people are truly grateful for their sacrifice and giving our elected officials a better appreciation for the true costs of war.
As always my friends, your feedback and comments are always appreciated.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: fallen soldiers, Iraq war, press, respect, traditions | 1 Comment »
Posted by demlawyer on April 6, 2009
Here’s your chance to share your impressions from this weekend’s General Conference. Were there particular talks you found inspiring? Themes that you appreciated? Questions that came up? They don’t have to have a political angle, just share your thoughts.
I was particularly impressed, although not surprised, by the number of talks that addressed the struggling economy. There is so much finger-pointing going on in the media right now that it gets a bit exhausting. I sometimes wonder if some of the more radical pundits out there want the economy to continue to dive just so they can blame Obama. But what impressed me about Conference was the refreshing focus on how we as individuals, families and wards can help ourselves and those around us to improve our financial health. I was inspired to revisit my own family budget and do more to help those who may be in need but too afraid or embarrassed to ask.
Posted in Economic Issues | Tagged: charity, economy, general conference, lds | 5 Comments »
Posted by brainscientist2008 on March 27, 2009
It must have been bitterly cold, during the winter of 1776 when Private John Shupe stood guard for General George Washington’s revolutionary army. Like many of his colleagues, my ancestor was likely ill-prepared for the blizzards of that year. He did not have adequate food clothing or shelter. I am utterly amazed of the sacrifices made that winter in the wilds of Pennsylvania. Not much is known about Private Shupe; just the basics like birth date, his rank and his unit. But much is known about the issues that motivated him to join the revolution. His was a fight against tyranny. He fought so no innocent man, woman or child should have good reason to fear the government of the United States of America. His dream was to form an nation based on freedom and liberty for all, including those who are not like us.
For most Americans the concepts of freedom and liberty are vague ideas that are brought out for the Fourth of July in between the picnics and parties. But there are a few of that have stared at the ugly face of tyranny and stood helplessly by as witness to man’s worst nature. As a 19-year-old missionary I was called to the Chilean Mission arriving two weeks before Salvador Allende was overthrown by Angusto Pinochet on September 11, 1973. At one point I was picked up at gunpoint for questioning and accused of “clandestine activities.” I was the accused terrorist. I have stood before the man who was my judge, jury and executioner with the full knowledge that I had no Constitution – no consistently applied rule of law to protect me. I was at the mercy of one man who only had his sense of professionalism left over from a career of public service restraining him from becoming the instrument of tyranny.
I have heard the cries of the orphans and widows. I have heard the tales of torture and indiscriminate execution. I have seen the faces of the women who lined up outside the “Intendencias” [local police stations] every morning waiting for news of their husbands and sons who had been picked up by the police or military. I have heard the stories of the covered trucks that quietly make deliveries to the cemeteries after midnight, of the helicopters that fly out to the Pacific with bound prisoners and return without them; prisoners that would never be seen again. I have been woken by the sounds of gunfire in the wee hours of the morn. I have seen trials of blood down the city streets. I understand the fear of the knock on the door in the middle of the night.
I have often wondered what men like John Shupe would think if they could see what they hath wrought. I would imagine that they would be filled with pride and gratitude for much of what the United States has accomplished, for clearly we have overcome our darker nature most of the time throughout our history. Though most of our history innocent men, women, and children have not needed to fear being held without evidence, having our personal correspondence monitored by the “king,” tortured for information or watched over by heavily armed soldiers or police.
But there have been times in recent years when my personal nightmare has returned. I cringe at reports of my government holding civilians at Gitmo without the most basic of due process. A flood of memories comes back when I hear reports of torture and/or activities like unto it. I am very proud of my son who turned down a badly needed computer programming position with the NSA because he had read the Constitution.
My fellow Democrats, we are the party in charge now. What can and should we do to restore John Shupe’s dream?
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Posted by Dale Dunkin on March 25, 2009
The last few weeks as I listen to the talking heads go back and forth discussing the Obama budget I felt a need to do something. Tonight I finally found an outlet. Below is a letter to one of my elected officials. Share with us the letter you sent or want to send or simply comment on my letter.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »
Posted by brainscientist2008 on March 20, 2009
As a very even keeled individual, I rarely generate genuine anger, but when I heard of the A.I.G. bonuses, my reaction was best described as visceral. Was I feeling righteous indignation or jealousy? As it turns out, I was not the only one. From my reading in my hometown paper, The Washington Post, my reaction was measured and kind compared to many others throughout the country. So what do you think/feel my fellow Mormon Democrats? Is there just cause for righteous indignation? If so, what is the appropriate way(s) to approach this messy situation?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: AIG recovery | 7 Comments »
Posted by brainscientist2008 on March 8, 2009
It seems as though we are in the midst of another tempest in a teapot over earmarks. Several lawmakers from the loyal opposition seem to think that they are the root of fiscal evil. The truth is, they view their earmarks to be vital short-term projects and our earmarks to be “pork barrel spending.” Ok, so things haven’t changed much in Congress, but they could. Since the Democrats pretty much own the House and the Senate, maybe it’s time to change the rules to address much of the legitimate criticism. I would suggest the following process:
1. Congress pre-approves a spending amount for an omnibus earmark bill that would be passed as part of the yearly budget cycle.
2. Half of the corpus will be allocated for Senate sponsorship and half for the House.
3. Each Senator sponsor project s valuing up to 1/100 of the Senate amount. Likewise each House member will be allocated an equal share to sponsor.
4. Each Senator and Congressman would then choose to fund projects up to their allotted amount. They will be encouraged to submit a short waiting list in case a project is removed for cause.
5. Senators and Congressmen would be encouraged to joint sponsor regional projects for specific amounts.
6. Multi-year projects could be sponsored up to the balance of the Senate or Congressperson’s term by obligating a specified amount for their following years. Thus, in the first year of their terms representatives could sponsor two-year projects and Senators could sponsor up to six-year projects.
7. The projects will then go through a quick vetting process to verify that they are legitimate government projects by the finance committee. One of the criteria for this process is that no project can go forward that the relevant agency has specifically requested that they do not need or want. If a project is questionable then it would be replaced by the Senate or Congressperson’s waitlisted projects of similar size.
8. The two legislative bodies then could approve it on a voice vote.
9. Law makers would be explicitly prohibited from introducing earmark or earmark-like bills for the rest of the year.
Since the individual projects would be clearly identified with a specific lawmaker, then each lawmaker could be made accountable for the projects they sponsored. So, for example, if the good citizens of Arizona think that expanding their irrigation system is a good use of taxpayer money, then they could thank their friendly lawmaker at the polls. If they think that spending their state’s allocation on a project to build a subway system in Snowflake, AZ is a bad idea, then they can express their opinion at the next election.
This set of rules would be helpful by capping the kitty to an agreed upon amount, allow for specific responsibility, and stop the competition for delivering the most earmark cash to the lawmakers’ home turf.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: earmarks, Federal spending, House rules, Senate rules | 2 Comments »
Posted by brainscientist2008 on February 24, 2009
As the administration is forming its mortgage rescue plan, there has been unexpected resistance within the body politic. It seems that there a fear that the government will be subsidizing and thereby encouraging irresponsibility amongst those that took out mortgages unethically. Clearly, that is a point well taken. We don’t want to bailout folks who have cheated, speculated or scammed the system. It is in our interest, however, to help out good honest folks who contracted their mortgages honestly and prudently, but now find themselves, through no fault of their own, holding a mortgage they can no longer pay. Since the best estimates of the impact of one foreclosure in a neighborhood is the lowering of housing values between 6 and 9%, this is a problem that has the potential to affect us all.
Since we are a group of bright thinking people, I would like to hear program suggestions that would be helpful in differentiating those that are in need of mortgage help through no fault of their own and those that are in their financial situation due to their own irresponsibility.
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
Posted by Browan on February 12, 2009
“All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans,” said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express newspaper. “We will buy up all the subprime homes. We will work 18 hours a day to pay for them. We will immediately improve your savings rate – no Indian bank today has more than 2 percent nonperforming loans because not paying your mortgage is considered shameful here. And we will start new companies to create our own jobs and jobs for more Americans.”
Read the full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/opinion/11friedman.html?em
I like this idea a lot. It presents security risks (9/11 bombers were here legally) and massive potential for new American bigotry (see 1, 2, 3, or this, this, and this), but the immigration as an economic stimulus idea carries some compelling arguments and exceptionally democratic underpinnings. http://www.wcvi.org/intermestic_initiatives/FinalWCVIWhitePaperLegalization.pdf
What do you think?
Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »
Posted by brainscientist2008 on February 10, 2009
In the 41st chapter of Exodus, I would argue, we find the first known description of a business cycle. Joseph, who was sold into Egypt, described seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. God also told the King through Joseph what the optimum policy would be to ameliorate the seven years of famine. That policy was to have the government store up a surplus during the good years then use the stored surplus to pump their economy during the famine years. This buffered the effects of the famine and helped Egypt and surrounding counties get through the difficult times. Had they not stored up this surplus, they may not have recovered and the people would have likely perished.
In modern times, these principles still apply. The business cycle is still with us. We still have feast and famine years in spite of some modest success in buffering the extremes. The general solution is still the same; store a surplus during the good years then use the surplus in the famine years to pump the economy until the famine is over.
Since most of the years in the post WWII era have been basically good ones, if we had followed this general principle we should have averaged a modest net Federal surplus. The record since 1950 has been an average deficit of 1.8% of GDP. Although neither party has been successful in averaging a positive Federal balance sheet, the Democratic presidents have come closest to that goal with a 0.9% of GDP average deficit to the Republicans 2.3% of GDP average deficit.
I understand that balancing the Federal budget is not an easy task. I can understand that projections are not always accurate and that there are frequently unforeseen circumstances that will cause an unbalanced budget. However, there have been times when we have simply not been responsible such as the infamous tax cuts of 1981 and 2001. I could easily climb on my soapbox and pontificate against the competing party, but as fun as that may be; it doesn’t do anything to resolve the nation’s economic problems. The three ring circus is over. We need to act like adults and clean up after the elephants.
So coming back to reality, we are in the midst of a famine cycle. It is imperative that we overhaul our economic engine before it is completely broken down. We don’t have the reserves we need to fix it easily. So what do we do? I would argue that we have essentially four generic options:
- Do nothing: The extreme free market folks would argue that the market always self corrects. I would argue that the self correction process works well in “normal” economic times, but this is not your father’s recession. It could take decades to recover. Meanwhile since tax collections are heavily dependent on economic activity, the deficit will accrue even faster than it is already accruing.
- Balance the Budget at all costs: We tried that one at the beginning of the great depression. It was counterproductive. Increasing taxes at the time when business and individuals can least afford them, causes the economy to slow down even further; a bad unintended consequence.
- Borrow and pump: This is the favorite Republican approach of borrowing money then pushing it out to individuals and companies through mechanisms such as tax rebates and tax cuts. Historically, these tactics have seen modest benefits to the economy, but this approach has three downsides. The first is that rebates and cuts are described as leaky in the economic literature. Many households spend the extra cash on things that are made outside of the US (like last year’s gas spike); they save it, or pay off old bills; so much of the stimulus effect is lost in the process. The second is that they are short lived; usually lasting in the neighborhood of six months to a year. The third is that they leave more debt, which has the effect of raising the base cost of government until such time as the debt is paid.
- Borrow, invest and pump: This option borrows money and invests it in projects that create assets that have a positive net present value to the Federal Treasury. The advantage is that they create assets that lock in a cash flow to the Treasury (such as a loan to individuals or businesses), reduce the operating expense of the government in future years, improve workers skills translating to more taxable income or create taxable income enabling assets that will likely generate more income then what was originally invested. The disadvantage to this option is that it takes time for these projects to gear up and some serious thought, planning and effort to make it happen.
Needless to say old Dr. Brain Scientist has a strong preference for option 4. He sees it as the 1 Ne 3:7 option. Nephi was sent on a difficult, seemingly impossible errand, yet he was confident that the way was prepared for him to accomplish this task. In likewise manner, we are creating a huge debt burden for ourselves and our children to borrow our way out of this recession. Repaying this debt would be an impossible task, unless we prepare the way by insisting that the bulk of the bailout money is spent on positive net present value projects. Tax cuts and rebates should be viewed as a stop gap measure for the longer term projects to kick in so it is best that we keep them to a minimum.
If we are successful in implementing this strategy, the deficit will increase in 2009 and possibly 2010. By 2011, the deficit will start shrinking again as we regain our economic confidence and the assets we created start to pay off. I just hope that when this is all over that we will learn our lesson and start paying down the National Debt so one day we will have a National Surplus that we can call upon in any future years of famine.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: deficit, Economics, Stimulus, surplus | 11 Comments »
Posted by demlawyer on February 5, 2009
Now here’s something we didn’t get much (any?) of with President Bush: an Op-Ed in the Washington Post by the President of the United States. Those that questioned Barack’s ability to play the political game with such limited Washington experience are being proved wrong already. The President avoided what must be a constant temptation to cram legislation down the Republicans’ collective throat, went out of his way to explain and discuss the stimulus bill with Republican legislators, and now he’s doing the same with the American people.
The Republican plan involved tax cuts, more tax cuts and nothing other than tax cuts. We’ve seen that NOT work over the last two years, why would it work better now? Sure, Obama’s approach will help people other than just the super-wealthy, but that’s just something this country is going to have to get used to, and I’m glad.
Posted in Economic Issues | Tagged: obama, recession, republicans, Stimulus | 17 Comments »
Posted by Browan on January 30, 2009
It’s on baby. IT IS ON!
I really don’t know how else to sum up my feelings about the partisan BS being shoveled from the right onto the Obama stimulus bill.
The bill passed the house but didn’t receive one single Republican vote. Nope. Not one.
After the vote, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican, called the Democratic package “a spending bill beyond anyone’s imagination.”
You mean I’ve just been imagining that Republican control of this country has resulted in the greatest deficit known to man and most terrifying economic situation in several generations? I guess so. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Economic Issues, Friday Forum | Tagged: Bill, NY Times, obama, Partisan, republican, Stimulus, Votes | 13 Comments »
Posted by brainscientist2008 on January 28, 2009
You never know when the boss might drop in
Years ago, when I was supporting my young family as a weekend telephone operator at the church officed building while attending graduate school, I frequently had to track down Spencer W. Kimball which was not an easy task since he was always out doing something for others. I always admired that part of his leadership.
For the staff and patients of Ward 57 of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center there are those that talk and those that do. I still admire that characteristic in a leader.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Leadership, Wounded warriors | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Dale Dunkin on January 26, 2009
A lot has happened since my last post, but one question keeps repeating in my mind the last few weeks. Maybe you have been thinking the same thing?
What (can / should / must) I do to answer President Obama’s call to serve our communities and country?
As a Mormon we are taught to serve our communities. We usually do our service through what ever project or need the ward is working on. We have been asked to do more by leaders other than our new president. What will you do? What do you have planned? Are you excited about the possibility to act in a larger way but don’t know where to start? That is me.
I want to hear what you plan to do, and advice on what I should do. How can we get involved to make a real difference? Let US know.
Good to be back.
Dale Dunkin
Posted in Moral Issues | Tagged: obama, service | 4 Comments »
Posted by demlawyer on January 23, 2009
It was late on Election Night, but I was energized. As the talking heads projected victory for soon-to-be President Obama, I literally felt chills. As I spoke with my mom later that night, and listened to her concerns about what an Obama administration would look like, I asked her to just step back for a minute and appreciate the moment. Regardless of her political views (not as vastly different from mine as she’d like to think), I thought she ought to be able to appreciate the historic nature of this moment. She did, and it helped her realize that elections in our country are much bigger than the actual people we elect, it is representative democracy in its most palpable form. And through those acts of democratic participation, we get perhaps the best indication of where are country stands. Not in terms of red states and blue states, GDP and unemployment, but in terms of heart-felt, often unspoken, views and beliefs about our world and where it should be going. I cringe when I hear people talking about how this election signals the end of racial prejudice. It does not. We are far from that, unfortunately, but it is a significant sign of the direction we are headed.
Which brings me to today’s forum topic. I couldn’t help but notice a disparity this week between the historic inauguration of President Obama and what appears to me as a continuation of a double standard when it comes to gender in politics. The reaction to Caroline Kennedy’s possible appointment to the Senate these past weeks is just one example of the higher standard that we appear to hold women in politics in this country. (The Post has a good column on this in today’s paper.)
I recall a discussion I had with a female co-worker about six months ago. I was an ardent Obama supporter and she a Clinton supporter. I had expressed my concerns about Hillary’s electability in the general election and she called me out. She flat-out accused me of sexism. This blow hit hard for me as I have always considered myself an open-minded, non-judgmental person. I’ve gone out of my way to speak up, particularly in LDS settings, for the important role of women in leadership. Nevertheless, she called me out. She challenged me to ask myself if, deep down, part of my discomfort with Hillary as a candidate was her gender. She questioned whether I wasn’t at least in some measure conditioned to think of leaders as men, and of leadership qualities as those qualities we generally associate with predominantly male characteristics. The thoughts I had over the following several weeks were revealing. As careful as I thought I had been, I couldn’t deny the truth of her accusations. Did I find Hillary too “abrasive” simply because I was conditioned to think of women as less aggressive? Was my impression of her as being too calculating and manipulative just a reaction to some subconscious expectation that she should somehow be less ambitious than her male counterparts? Was I even applying the same standard for motives to the other candidates? Clearly not. Did I form my opinions about Sarah Palin’s intellectual weakness based on objective reasoning or some unfair social construct based on male intellectual superiority. Who knows, but it was certainly a rough couple of weeks as I grappled with my own prejudices.
So, for today’s forum, I challenge you to go through the same analysis and post your thoughts here. The point is to discuss openly and not condemn each other for speaking honestly. The truth is hard to face sometimes, but we must if we ever hope to overcome some of the prejudices.
Posted in Civil Rights, Election Coverage, Friday Forum | Tagged: feminism, kennedy, gender | 6 Comments »
Posted by brainscientist2008 on January 23, 2009
Like most offices, it isn’t unusual to hear conversations in my office just before quitting time. A couple of days ago, I overheard the administrative folks who shared the large office across the hall, most of whom happened to be African American, talking about how they thought the inauguration was going to be cool and historic, but how it was going to be too crowded or too much effort for them to go.
I couldn’t resist. I walked up to the door and said, “For those of you who can make it, please look me up. I will be in the red hat with the volunteer credentials.”
One of them said, “How are you getting there?”
“I am getting up at 5:00 to catch the MARC train to Union Station then walk to my assignment on the Mall” I matter-of-factly quipped. Needless to say, the conversation changed to figuring out the best ways to get downtown to the ceremony.
I short time later, when I had come in to resupply my paperclips, one of the young ladies very politely and respectfully asked, “Dr. Brainscientist, do you mind if I asked why you care so much about the inauguration?” I could see in her eyes that she was really trying to say, “Why would a middle-aged, over-educated Mormon white guy like yourself go to such effort to see the first black president take the oath of office.”
I paused for a moment then gently said, “My reasons are deeply personal. I have seen what happens when a government is changed by coercion. I have seen innocent people drug to their deaths. To me, next Tuesday will be a time of joy; a time to celebrate our freedom.”
The look on her face was priceless. She understood.
The more I pondered her question, the more I am convinced that our inaugurations are not so much about the man who takes the oath of office. They are not about “my party is better than your party. “ They are not even about throwing the “bums” out after four to eight years. Inaugurations are about the joy that comes when we the people have the freedom to choose our leaders and not have to fear the evil bonds of tyranny. All we have to fear is the Halloween pranksters who move our lawn signs to our Republican neighbors’ front yards. Inaugurations should be nothing less than the 4th of July on steroids!
See ya’ll on the Mall next Tuesday.
Posted in Election Coverage, Uncategorized | Tagged: freedom, Inaugaration | Leave a Comment »
mormondemocrats
Browan
Dale Dunkin
adjohn08
brainscientist2008
demlawyer
lisajenkins