Moral Exceptions

With the Tea Party making real gains this election season, it’s becoming more and more common to hear candidates stating that they don’t believe in abortion even in cases of rape and incest.  This is a relatively new phenomenon, as in the past, even staunch anti-choice politicians wouldn’t admit to being so cold and callous as to expect teen girls who have been raped by their fathers to carry the resulting child to term.  While they might believe abortion should be outlawed in all cases with no exceptions, they rarely go that far when questioned about their abortion beliefs by the press.

Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle recently stated in a television interview that women who were raped should turn lemons into lemonade because “God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives.”  Putting aside the debate about whether religious beliefs should influence public policy, this is an incredibly insensitive statement for a major political candidate to make.

As moral people, we not only have to measure our actions against religious and/or social yardsticks, we have to consider the broader ethical implications of those actions.  While it may be the most moral position to oppose all killing by choice, we as a society have decided that certain exceptions are allowed within that moral framework.  This is especially true when our decisions don’t impact everyone equally.

We choose to send troops into battle, knowing that a certain number of them will die.  By not sending more aid or spending more money to help Pakistan deal with massive floods or Haiti recover from their recent earthquake, we choose to allow citizens of those countries to die.  We choose to cut funding for homeless shelters, free clinics and food stamps, knowing those decisions mean American citizens will die.

In adopting these policies, we are forced to consider the resulting impact on multiple groups of people.  In cases of war, we accept that for the security of all citizens, a few soldiers must be killed.  We place our national security over the lives of those people who are killed by our bombs in Afghanistan.  In choosing the death penalty, we defer to the feelings of families whose loved ones were victims of a serial killer, despite it having a higher financial cost than life in prison without parole – a cost which must be paid for by everyone.  We carve out exceptions from our moral opposition to killing every day, and abortion shouldn’t be any different.

Even if a majority of Americans believed that abortion should be outlawed (which they don’t), we must always allow it in cases of rape and incest – because sometimes the needs of a few individuals outweigh the opinions of the many.  No matter which side of the abortion debate you’re on, the objective should be to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, not to penalize already-victimized women because of a personal or political quest for moral certainty.

For the Greater Good

By now, we’re all aware of the Mark Foley Congressional page scandal, and some of us are probably familiar with the scandals surrounding Curt Weldon, Jim Kolbe and Harry Reid. It may be three Republicans and one Democrat, but the tables could easily be turned, because in my opinion, they’re all corrupt. And with only two choices at the polls, the poor American public is faced with choosing between corrupt and corrupter in most races. (Maybe someone can get Jim Carrey to do a sequel).

Yesterday, I read an article about how Democrats agreed on an election focus or “catch phrase,” which can be boiled down to “for the common good”. (Personally, I’d tweak that slightly to “for the greater good”. The common good implies appealing to the lowest common denominator, while the greater good conjures up ideas of a better and more beneficial tomorrow for all Americans.) Regardless, with election (and scandal) season upon us, here are a few policy suggestions for the Democrats if the common good is truly their concern.

Congressional Term Limits

I’m sure there is a fairly large learning curve for new congressmen and senators, but let’s face it — after several years in Congress, our representatives lose touch with the people for whom they supposedly speak. When the Greeks invented the democratic and elective system, they intended for representatives to hold other jobs before and after serving “the people”. In their minds, the idea of a “career politician” was a contradiction in terms because no person could continue to speak for the people after they had become fully integrated into a political machine.

Public Financing of Political Campaigns

Our current system favors the wealthy over the smart, the rich over the innovative, the out-of-touch over the of-the-people. Further aggregating the problem is our two party system which weeds out anyone who might have novel approaches to solving today’s complex issues. If we removed the ability of individuals to directly contribute to their own and others’ political campaigns and instead used a limited amount of tax dollars to fund all candidates equally, we’d end up with more than two unappealing candidates from which to choose on election day. In addition, elected officials wouldn’t end up “owing” favors to big doners, and they wouldn’t be motivated to overfill their coffers to fund future campaigns.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

Most people may not know it, but Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (familiarly known as “The Oscars”) uses to select their winners. It’s a pretty simple and intuitive system — voters rank candidates in order of preference. This is most easily understood by comparison to an everyday situation. My boyfriend often picks up breakfast for me in the morning. When he asks what I want, I usually say “A croissant, but if they don’t have that, a muffin, preferably blueberry, or apple cinnamon if they don’t have that”. We’ve all been through a similar mental process. IRV is the same thing, just with political candidates.

The benefits of this system are many — voters don’t have to adopt an “either or” mentality, third parties have a better chance at winning and the so-called “spoiler effect” is eliminated. At the end of the day, the candidate who is most preferred by voters is the winner. For a real life example, look at the 2004 election where Nader was blamed for “stealing” votes from Gore. (This isn’t really a great example because Gore lost his own state of Tennessee and more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than Nader, but it’s the most widely cited case). Liberal voters could have ranked Nader first, Gore second and Bush third — without having to feel like they were throwing away their vote — because if Nader got the fewest votes, his votes would have been transferred to those voters’ second choice, which in most cases would have been Gore. This would have resulted in a Gore win because Gore was most preferred by the electorate.

Subsidized Living Expenses for Elected Officials

When you are elected to a position that requires you to work away from home most of the time, you need a second home. As a former resident of the D.C. metropolitan area, I can attest that it’s not cheap to live near the capital. For a few months, I considered running for a State Assembly position in California, but when I realized that I couldn’t afford a second rent in Sacramento, it soon became an unrealistic goal. The ultimate result of this is that only wealthy people can afford to be elected officials, again eliminating the possibility of third party and “of the people” candidates running for office. But if the government subsidized housing and living expenses for congressmen and senators, the playing field would be leveled and voters would have more (and hopefully better) options come November.

All of these things would result in a more representative government, one that could make decisions based on the needs and desires of the people rather than those of corporations and wealthy campaign doners. Of course, the Democrats are just as opposed to these ideas as the Republicans, something that often comes as a shock to progressives who think that the Democratic party is more concerned about the average citizen than the GOP. And so I issue this challenge to the Democrats this election season — if you truly believe that you are the party for the “common good”, will you make good on your election year promises and return the power to the people as our Founding Fathers intended?

---

Technorati Tags: Elections, Democratic Party, GOP, Republican Party, Scandal, Mark Foley, Harry Reid, Curt Weldon, Jim Kolbe, Pages, Voting, Politics, Political Campaigns, Public Financing, IRV, Instant Runoff Voting, Campaign Finance Reform, Term Limits, Common Good, Greater Good

Election Year Blues as a 3rd Partier

As another election season ramps up, I once again dread the campaign literature that will soon be flooding my mailbox from the Democratic party. Why? During the last presidential election cycle, I gave more to John Kerry’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee than I’ve given to political candidates every election prior combined. And what did I get for it? A losing candidate, a bunch of letters addressed to “Fellow Democrats” and far too many post-election pleas for money not so cleverly disguised as Democratic Membership cards.

What gives me the right to complain over any other depressed Democrat? One search of the voter rolls would have revealed that not only am I a registered Green, but I’ve never been a Democrat (I’ve always been “Decline to State”).

So what’s the deal? Are the Democrats so arrogant that they simply can’t conceive of other liberal political parties? Or are they just so lazy that they can’t be bothered to reach out honestly to fellow progressives? To all those Greens who recognized the legitimate threat of Bush and his cronies enough to work on the Kerry campaign? Let’s face it – there’s a war going on out there, and neither arrogance nor laziness is going to reign victorious when all is said and done.

And here’s the kicker – I’m just waiting for an excuse to join the Democrat Party. (No offense, Greens, but there is an appeal to a party that has a legitimate infrastructure.) But no, instead I get Hillary Clinton abortion speeches that use the same language as Bush’s, Joe Biden and his lip service on the cable news channels (while his votes betray him) and John Kerry’s lackluster support of third-party-forced recounts in Ohio. Could we get just one “thank you” for David Cobb, Michael Badnarik and all their supporters who tried their darndest to fulfill the “every vote counted” promise that John Edwards made on election night?

It’s time all you Democrats woke up. In a post-11/2 world, us lefties have to stick together. Stop fighting us on IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) and ballot access. You need our help. The world has become too complex a place to sustain a two party system, and as long as the neo-cons are in power, America needs all the help it can get. If you really believe in what your party stands for, you’ll respect our differences while working with us towards common goals. (It wouldn’t kill the supposedly non-partisan MoveOn.org to promote or endorse a Green candidate every once in a while.) Here’s an easy idea for starters – how about some letters addressed to “Fellow Citizens”?

---

Technorati Tags: Politics, Elections, Democrats, Greens, Green Party, John Kerry, IRV, Instant Runoff Voting, Voting

An Open Letter to George W. Bush

This letter was sent to the White House in the fall of 2004. Over a year later, it still captures how I feel every day. For some reason, re-posting it on the 4th of July just seems appropriate.

Mr. Bush:

I am writing to tell you that I have not embraced your conservative agenda. Do not fool yourself into believing that you have a mandate from the people – you do not, and myself and others will not go quietly into the dark future you intend to create. There will be protests. There will be mass demonstrations and strikes. We will not be silenced, even though we know that you have no intentions of compromising with those of us who disagree with you. We know this because, despite losing the popular vote in 2000 and promising to be a “uniter, not a divider”, you spent your first term pursuing extremist policies with no regard for popular opinion. As a result, thousands are dead, women and children worldwide have been denied healthcare, our environment is dying, and our country is despised by most of the world.

48% of the electorate hopes for a better future, one that is free from the destructive powers of intolerance, hatred, corporate greed and go-it-alone foreign policy. We will continue to fight for the America that we know is possible, an America guided by the founding principles of this country: freedom, liberty, equal opportunity and human rights.

No matter what you say, you cannot leave us behind. We are citizens of this country and as such we have the right to protest, to revolt and to overthrow when necessary. Our founding fathers gave us this power, and we will not refrain from using it.

---

Technorati Tags: Bush, Letter, Election, Mandate, Protest