How the martial arts can help us understand politics and religion: an examination of attitudes based on superiority, location and convenience, and the challenge of rebuilding our foundation

I’ve been training in the martial arts for nearly 20 years, and I have run my own school for nearly 9 years (a very successful school at that, as we have won two national awards, including best school for children in the entire United States in 2008 by Black Belt Magazine).  And of course, I’ve had political and religious opinions since I was able to talk.  The martial arts can provide us with insights to understanding political and religious attitudes, and if you give me a chance, even if you know nothing about the martial arts, I just may be able to create a good metaphor to enhance our understanding of political and religious attitudes. 

First, there are a variety of martial arts styles. Even the biggies that non-martial arts folk would recognize like karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, judo, and more all have several different styles (There are hundreds of styles of karate, for example).  Each style builds a specific foundation of combat principles.  Additionally, the students of each style often view their style of martial arts as superior to the any other style.  (Sound familiar, yet?)

Second, one who is interested in the martial arts often picks a school based on location and convenience.  Many small towns, for example, may only have one martial arts studio, so interested students must learn the specific style of that school.  Additionally, few people actually research the different styles of martial arts before picking one.  Students are consumers, and consumers are manipulated through marketing techniques and claims of superiority.  If a martial arts school is to be successful, its marketing will claim to offer the best self-defense and physical fitness available. 

Third, when someone has been training in one particular martial art for a long time, it is incredibly hard to switch styles.  Why?  Because one style builds a foundation of techniques and principles, and to switch styles often means starting completely over and rebuilding an entire foundation, which of course is tremendously difficult.

In reflecting on my martial arts training and teaching, I’ve come to a few insights about the political and religious worlds.  Like martial arts, there are a variety of political viewpoints and religious belief systems.  Like martial arts, each political viewpoint and religion often sees itself as superior to others.  Like martial arts, people adopt political and religious viewpoints based on what is available to them at home and in their community.  Politics and religion are no doubt adopted out of convenience—it’s what has been taught to us.

Even as we are further educated, it is incredibly difficult to change our attitudes.  Our politics and religion have created a foundation of thought, and to change religious viewpoints or political philosophy, one must destroy and rebuild his or her entire foundation.

As a martial arts teacher, I emphasize to my students that there is no superior style.  Sure, there are better teachers and better martial artists, but there is no one superior style.  I further encourage my students to keep an open-mind to other martial arts styles and feel free to explore what else is out there.  In my own training, although I primarily focus on one specific form of karate, I have trained in dozens of other styles—some for a few months, some for a few years.  I feel that if I only focus on one martial arts style that my combat skills will be limited.  I must develop an understanding of several styles to develop a balanced, well-rounded approach to combat.

It’s that kind of open-mindedness and education that is missing from politics and especially from religion.  Most political fans do not spend enough time trying to learn the ideology and logic behind the other political group’s camp.  Few if any religions will spend any time respectfully teaching the beliefs of another system.  Instead, our politics becomes more divided because we do not listen with an open-mind to our opponents.  The religions of the world claim moral superiority over all others, and the religiously devoted rarely consider the possibility that they could be wrong.

I’m a very politically opinionated guy, and I waste no time criticizing what I see as bad ideas, bad people, and bad programs.  But unlike many of my opponents, I admit that I could be wrong.  Yep, it’s possible.  How many of you can honestly say that?

It’s the possibility of being wrong that led to the creation of this blog.  I want to hear different attitudes.  But I also want those who oppose me to truly try to understand the logic and the empathy behind my attitudes.  In politics, I optimistically believe we can all be on the same page.  We can all care about people and transfer our care into sound logic and reasoning as to what will be the best way to help our people.

In religion, I’m not as sure.  The best bet for the religious is to keep it private.  Once one’s religion is public, then the religion dominates public policy and opinion, and no religion should have that power because no one religion is superior to any other.  In order for religion to survive in a world of logic, one must be able to detach from his or her religion to view the world from a more appropriate benchmark (in other words, a benchmark in which no one religion is superior to others). If individuals cannot detach from religion to view the world through sound logic and reasoning, then that individual’s reasoning for politics and social policy will be severely misguided.  It could lead to discrimination of gender, sexual orientation, race, and much more (and clearly, all of the major world religions have embraced discrimination in one form or another based on superstitious ideas that cannot be proven). 

So what’s the metaphor here and what can we learn from the metaphor?  First, like martial arts styles, individuals view their politics and religion as superior to others.  Second, like martial arts styles, religious and political viewpoints are taught to us based on location and convenience.  We learn our politics and religion from our home environment, local churches, and local culture.  Third, just like martial arts training, the longer I have “trained” or been taught from specific political and religious ideologies, the harder it is to change.  We become more focused in one style or one way of thought, and over time, other styles and methods of thinking are simply incompatible with the foundation of attitudes we have developed. 

So now what?  If you accept the above ideas as true (and I cannot understand how any logical person could see otherwise), then we must challenge ourselves by examining the ideas and evidence of our opponents.  Although I emphasize open-mindedness, self-analysis, and education, there is by nature an inherent problem with conservative thinking.  The problem is this: conservatives by nature hold on to traditional beliefs and develop an “absolute” form of thinking.  For a conservative, progressive ideas are harmful because the ideas disrupt their foundation.  For many conservatives, there is no reason to consider opposite viewpoints because conservatives possess an “absolute” way of thinking where they are already convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong.

This dogmatic absolutism is incredibly dangerous.  It results in criticizing change, even when change is beneficial to them.  It results in discrimination in two areas: 1) Their sense of superiority to other political viewpoints and religion creates an atmosphere of negative discourse and emotional manipulations such as fear instead of an examination of logic and evidence and 2) Their absolutism has been the source of discrimination against women (equal pay act), minorities (Arizona’s immigration law, Tea Party behavior in general, civil rights), and homosexuals (denying rights to gay couples).    The sense of absolutism and tradition does not allow room for most conservatives to grow. 

On the other hand, a progressive point of view is able to consider and examine conservative and religious ideas from an unbiased perspective.  However, the examination does require evidence, logic, and reasoning, and if conservative ideas and religious viewpoints cannot provide evidence, logic, and reasoning, then those ideas must be abandoned.

Some conservatives do have the sense of open-mindedness I emphasize, but unfortunately, simply by definition, many cannot move beyond the traditions and superstitions they see as true.  Our politics and religion today should be able to move beyond labels to a point where we can embrace truth, logic, open-mindedness, and respect.

Here’s what such a philosophy must include:

1. A civil discourse that allows for an exchange of ideas based on logic and evidence.
2. An attitude that there is no absolute right or wrong ideology, with the exception that an ideology unable to provide factual evidence, observable data, and sound logic cannot be included in discussions of public policy.
3. Learning the principles and facts of different perspectives from unbiased sources.  For example, the religious should seek an academic background from unbiased universities.  Any person who considers themselves religious but has never moved beyond the church and religious texts is really not a religious authority.  Such a person needs to explore the academics of religion based on empirical evidence and scientific reasoning as best provided by academic institutions whose purpose is to provide truth and knowledge, not biased, one-sided information.

In  the end, if we can simply come to the conclusion that no one style or ideology is superior, that we must deeply explore other styles and ideologies from unbiased sources, that we believe what we believe based upon geography and convenience, and that we must challenge ourselves, we could live in a much stronger world.  A world based on logic, not superstition.  A world that wants to grow, not hold on to tradition just because of “that’s the way it has always been”.  A world that views all people as equal and treats all people as such. 

Can you picture such a world?  I can.  It’s why I am a teacher.  It’s why I am a lifelong student.  It’s why I write this blog.  Can we grow and learn from each other?  Can we replace bias, illogic, and superstition with fact, logic, and evidence?  Yes, we can, but it is going to be one long journey.

Progressive vs. Conservative or Innovator vs. Laggard: A Different Perspective

If we take a simple look at those who work for change and those who resist change, we find some very important characteristics of progressives and conservatives that may help illuminate the political divide in America. When I refer to change, I’m referring to an innovation—a social policy, an idea, a law—that is new to society. Whenever something new is introduced, we have people who are eager to support it, people who are eager to oppose it, and everyone else somewhere in the middle. As a generalization, progressives, liberals, and Democrats are more likely to accept change and conservatives and Republicans are more likely to resist change. I want to understand the reasons why some people embrace change and some people resist change, even if the benefits of the change outweigh the cost.

First of all, I don’t like the left-right scale in politics, but I will use it for the sake of illustration. But instead of making the scale specifically liberal to conservative, I’m changing the terms to represent those who adopt change and those who reject change.

The scale is as follows (left to right): Innovators—Early Adopters—Early Majority—Late Adopters – Laggards.

On the far left (of this scale and politics), we have the innovators of society. Innovators are venturesome, obsessed with new ideas and change and tend to be daring and risky. Early adopters are the cosmopolites—the folks who are willing to try the new ideas and have the most exposure to new ideas. These two groups tend to represent the liberal and progressive political viewpoints. In the middle, we have the early majority. The early majority is characterized by those who deliberate for a greater amount of time before adopting a new idea. The early majority is composed rather equally of members of all political parties, known as the “moderate” in our society. The late majority are those who are skeptical of new ideas. They do not embrace change and will not do so unless nearly everyone else in the social system has done so. The last group is the laggards. The laggards are completely traditional, the last to adopt any change, and they tend to be isolated socially and greatly suspicious of any change. These last two groups represent conservative politics.

When we look at politics from this angle of change, we can see some pros and cons from both parties. On one hand, some change is very good and should be adopted immediately, but the conservatives in Congress will be the last to vote for any change. On the other hand, some ideas are risky and may need more careful deliberation. Politically though, I cannot understand the laggards. I respect the late majority but relate much more to the early majority and the early adopters of change. Here’s one example why:

If we examine the date when hate crime laws were passed for each individual state, we can see a pattern that reflects the above terms and characteristics. Hate crime laws were passed first by California in 1972; the last state to pass hate crime laws was Mississippi in 1994 (and several states still have not passed hate crime laws!). The hate crime laws are still currently amended in many states to include issues such as sexual orientation and specific punishment of laws. But here’s a quick preview of a few states that have passed hate crime laws and the percentage of people in that state who voted for McCain in 2008. The connections should be obvious.

State 1: The innovator—California. Only 37% voted for McCain. Passed hate crime laws in 1972.
State 2: The early adopter—Washington. 40% voted for McCain. HC laws passed in 1981.
State 3: The early adopter—Oregon. 40% voted for McCain. HC laws passed in 1981.
State 4: The early majority—Ohio, 47% McCain. HC laws 1986.
State 5: The late majority—Texas, 56% McCain. HC laws 1993.
State 6: The late majority—Mississippi, 56% McCain. HC laws 1994.
State 7: The laggard—Arkansas, 59% McCain. No HC laws.
State 8: The laggard—Wyoming, 65% McCain. No HC laws.

I only used a few states to make my point, but obviously, the states that are innovators and early adopters accept change more easily and tend to be progressive and liberal. Early majority states tend to be more moderate—can go either way Democrat or Republican. The late majority and the laggards—conservative all the way. (And FYI: can you believe some states still do not have hate crime protection? In 2010!)

Additionally, there are other important characteristics within these categories. Here are some generalizations about early adopters with brief commentary:

1. Early adopters have more years of formal education. Those who are most educated tend to accept change more easily. Is it any wonder why liberals are labeled as “elite”? Is it any wonder that conservatives criticize colleges, universities, and educators as too liberal?
2. Early adopters have greater empathy than later adopters. Empathy is the ability to feel as another feels. Is it any wonder that progressives fight for health care reform and other policies to help those who need it while conservatives resist any change? If you cannot empathize, you will resist change.
3. Early adopters are less dogmatic than late adopters. Dogmatism is the degree to which an individual has a narrow-minded belief system and is unwilling to negotiate and open his or her mind to new ideas. Is it any wonder why the extreme religions and fundamentalists tend to be conservatives? They are perfect examples of laggards who want no part of change.
4. Early adopters have a more favorable attitude toward science than late adopters. Is it any wonder that progressives and liberals tend to follow scientific evidence while many laggards and conservatives will reject science if it is incompatible with their belief system?
5. Early adopters are less fatalistic than late adopters. Fatalism is the degree to which an individual thinks he or she can or cannot control the future. Is it any wonder that progressives think we can fight for the environment while conservative laggards think the future is determined by fate?

There are about 20 more generalizations I could include. In the end, sometimes we need to take a look at politics from a different perspective. It’s not all about liberal vs. conservative. The labels can be misleading. However, the politics of today presents a remarkable era for change. We can fight for change in the financial industry, health care industry, hate crime protection, education, diplomacy, equal rights, energy, the environment, the oil industry and on and on.

Simply, I ask you: do you really want to be part of a group (be it laggard or late majority) that is resistant to change, dogmatic in principle, skeptical of science, lacking empathy for those who need help, and do not believe you have control over your own future? Label me what you want, but I am a fighter for change, progressive in innovation yet moderate in deliberation. Empathy, scientific evidence, open-mindedness, and education are my guiding principles, and if you accept that you too are empathetic, open to science, open to diverse cultural ideas including religious viewpoints, and value the strength of education, then you too are progressive in thinking.

Do not let your vote be wasted on the laggards in our society. Vote for the innovators of change, for they have the greater potential to make the most positive contributions to our world.

Primary source: Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “sign me up” button on the upper left.

var a2a_config = a2a_config || {};
a2a_config.linkurl = “https://alittlemoreconversationplease.wordpress.com/”;

He promised it. Has he delivered? On Obama’s “Change”

In less than half of one term, it may surprise you that Obama has accomplished a heck of a lot. Love him or hate him, he has done more in his presidency than virtually any president in the 20th century, perhaps except for FDR. For all of you who may criticize if government is working for the people and for all of you who need some proof of the “change” and “hope” Obama promised, here is a quick list of 10 accomplishments so far:

1. The Stimulus Package
In short, because of Obama, you had fewer taxes taken out of your paycheck in 2009. First time homebuyers received a tax credit for buying a home. Energy-efficient improvements on your house earned tax credits. Tax credits were available for new vehicle purchases. HOPE college credit for students was increased. Unemployment benefits were extended. All in all, because of the stimulus package, more money was put into our highways and infrastructure, renewable and clean energy, and science and technology. This bill was for the people and for the economy, and based on the improvements in the economy and jobs, it appears to have worked.

2. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (aka Matthew Shepard Act)
Obama signed into law this act that gives the Department of Justice the authority to investigate and prosecute any crime where the victim was selected because of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, nationality, etc. Named after Matthew Shepard, a student killed in 1998 because he was gay, Obama finally enacted tougher penalties for hate crimes, something ignored during the Bush administration.

3. Equal Pay for Equal Work Bill
Obama amended the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 to end gender pay differences in the work place. The bill fights for women so that women in the workplace are paid the same amount of men. (Does it surprise you that many Republicans voted against this bill? Obama and the Democrats made equal pay for women law. Why would a woman be opposed to this? It still amazes me that people vote against their self-interests.)

4. Children’s Health Insurance Program
The expansion on this program guarantees that children can get health insurance when families cannot afford private insurance. It includes medical, dental, and mental health coverage. Still, a majority of Republicans voted against this act too, but thankfully Obama fought for the act and our children are covered.

5. Nuclear Arms Reduction Pact
Obama worked with Russia (and the world at the Global Summit) to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In building a better relationship with Russia, Obama and President Medvedev agreed for tighter nuclear security and a reduction of nuclear weapons.

6. Comprehensive Health Reform
Like the health care overhaul or not, you have to admit this bill is perhaps Obama’s biggest accomplishment. The Clintons tried in the 90’s and failed, and politicians have constantly been talking about health care reform. Although liberals failed to include the public option, the bill is still a major accomplishment. I’m aware that people either hate or love this bill, and so without discussing specifics (you can read the article linked via footnote), I want to argue this: PRIVATE business has one goal: PROFIT. Government should have one and only one primary goal: protecting and empowering its citizens. Our health care as we know it is private. Private insurance, private hospitals, private doctors—and we wonder why health care costs so much? Because private business seeks to make money. That’s all it cares about. Money and profit and more money and profit. Thankfully, Obama now has the government’s foot in the door to this profit-seeking private industry, and government can now further protect and empower the people who need health care.

7. FDA authority over tobacco
Obama granted, for the first time in our nation’s history, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) the authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco products. It ended the special protection that tobacco companies have received for generations.

8. Overhaul of student loan program
Since I was a child, I’ve heard politicians argue that they will improve student loans and student access to loans and college education. Now that I am a college graduate of course, it has finally happened. The law eliminates fees paid to private banks, uses the savings of money to expand Pell Grants, and makes it easier for students to repay student loans (capping repayment at 10% of income instead of the current 15%). Anyone who takes out a college loan now has Obama to thank for making life easier and more affordable.

9. Minerals Management Service divided into 3 parts
The Minerals Management Service is responsible for overseeing offshore drilling. In response to the Gulf oil spill, Obama has divided it into 3 parts. The separate parts will improve management and regulation, as the MMS as we know it had too cozy of a relationship with the oil industries.

10. Financial regulation
Obama is working to tighten oversight and regulation of business on Wall Street. The reform is designed to prevent a future meltdown to protect our economy. The financial regulation is designed to watch out for families, not just banks. Oversight of payday loans to mortgages will be improved, banks will see tighter oversight, executive compensation will be limited, and much more. For the first time, the family and the individual—not just the bank—are truly being protected.

Of course, there is still much more to come. “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” will finally be ended. We hope a strong, real energy bill will pass that will address climate change and the production of carbon. And certainly, Obama has many more accomplishments than listed above. But here’s the point: we have a president who works for the American people and gets things done. The policies listed above are not in anyone’s self-interest (as perhaps so many of Bush’s policies were—special interest groups, the wealthy, the oil industries). Obama is an other-centered President, focused on genuinely helping us. Stimulus to improve the economy, hate crimes prevention, equal pay for women, health insurance for children now, reduction in nuclear weapons for our safety, the protection and the right of health care for all, increased regulation of tobacco, more affordable student loans, tougher regulation of the oil industry, and financial regulation that protects the consumer are all just a few of the major accomplishments, and all in less than half of the first term of his presidency. I for one cannot wait to see what happens in the second half, and I hope Congress works with him. Think about the Republicans in Congress—the party of NO—and how hard it is to pass legislation that actually helps people. Obama made it happen.

We live in an exciting era of hope and change. We are witnessing the changes in policy that our children will enjoy. Someday too they will ask you: “You mean some people did not vote for health care for all?” “You mean student loans were more expensive in the past?” “Tobacco was not regulated?” “Hate crimes were more tolerated?” “Laws did not enforce equal pay for women?”

We will lower our heads and say, “Yes, children. There was a time in our history when people did not see the importance of such issues.” I am at least happy and proud that I will be able to say to our future generations that I fought for these rights and protections.

The extreme conservatives, the far right of the Republican base, the Tea Partiers and the like will continue to promote fear over logic and continue to say no to laws that fight for our rights and freedoms and protect those freedoms. I just hope we know for whom to vote in upcoming elections.
Can you imagine if McCain were president? In less than half of one term, what do you think he would have accomplished? Any of the above? Probably not. Obama’s message of change and hope was for real. And it wasn’t just good rhetoric and public speaking. It has happened, and it will keep happening.

I hope you all can see that.

Please subscribe to this blog by clicking “sign me up” on the upper left corner of the page.

Don’t ask; don’t tell: How about- Don’t discriminate.

                Whenever the GOP loses its control on social discrimination, the far-right thinkers resort to the most extreme, ridiculously intolerant statements to try and scare the moderates.  This week—as soon as tonight or tomorrow—the U.S. Congress will vote on repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gays in the military.  Now that it looks more certain than ever that this discriminatory law will finally be repealed, the right is showing its true colors, and the colors certainly aren’t a rainbow.

                Top social conservative Bryan Fischer—who by the way is scheduled to speak with Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachman, and others at a “Values Voter” summit—said the following on a recent radio broadcast: “So Hitler himself was an active homosexual. And some people wonder, didn’t the Germans, didn’t the Nazis, persecute homosexuals? And it is true they did; they persecuted effeminate homosexuals. But Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals.”[1]

                My brain just hemorrhaged a little.  I had to look up Fischer, convinced that he must be a member of the Texas School Board of Education.  But he’s not.  He’s the head of a Christian conservative group the American Family Association.  Fischer isn’t the only nut that’s speaking out now that Congress is voting to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Cliff Kinkaid of American’s Survival, Inc produced a ten minute video claiming that “Disease tainted gay blood harms our troops.”[2]  His recent column is entitled “Save Our Soldiers from Gay Death.”

                The two above examples are certainly extreme.  Although they are not names the general public may be familiar with, they are certainly representative of the extremist right wing thinking of conservatives that is an absolute danger to freedom and democracy.  As Congress votes on this bill, I feel like I am in a time machine—back to a time when Congress mandated that all races must be served at restaurants.  But if you think it’s just a couple of extreme nuts speaking against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” it’s not.

                What’s our old buddy John McCain got to say?  In 2006, the Maverick said, “And I understand the opposition to it, and I‘ve had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.”[3]  Military leaders have supported the removal of DADT.  But this week, McCain has said he would support a filibuster to prevent voting on the issue.  He further said, ‘I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda. ”[4]  Why would McCain do this?  Well, he’s losing a battle in his home state to a Tea Party candidate who has accused him of being a conservative actor who only pretends to support conservative issues.  When the crazies shout their intolerance, the people who represent them must change their position to be more closely aligned with those who can re-elect them.  In other words, since the extreme right of Republicans are comparing the DADT policy to Hitler’s army and claiming that our military will die of “gay diseases” if DADT is repealed, McCain can no longer show common sense and vote against discrimination.  If he does, he will not be re-elected in Arizona.

                What does it all mean?  As a generalization, the GOP clearly includes a variety of intolerant, discriminatory individuals who would love nothing more than to promote policies that take away human rights.  Liberals are not perfect, but at least liberals push forth human rights.  How many times have we seen even in the last few weeks times when the GOP makes ignorant statements regarding human rights and pushes forth a biased, right-wing Christian fundamentalist agenda??  Rand Paul, the Texas School Board of Education, Republican criticism against Elena Kagan—just to name a few. 

                Here’s what needs to happen with “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell.”  First, a little history may be important.  It was Bill Clinton’s administration, a Democrat, who passed DADT.  Although Clinton wanted legislation that would eliminate the issue of gays in the military all together, he had to fight a Republican Congress, and he could not get such legislation passed.  Clinton even calls DADT a failure and says we need more, but at the time of its passing, it was the best our Congress could do to protect human freedoms.[5]

                When it comes down to it, very little will change with the removal of DADT.  I’m not here to argue why gays should be allowed in the military; it’s just common sense that one’s race, gender, or sexual orientation do not affect their ability to serve their country.  Sure, some homophobes argue they can’t work with a gay soldier.  Well, maybe I can’t work with someone who prefers Coke over Pepsi.  Get over yourself.  Learn to bridge your differences by the fact that both of you—regardless of sexual orientation—care about serving our country and protecting our freedoms.  How ironic that gay soldiers fight for freedom when they are not free.  DADT is a matter of principle and those who oppose the removal of DADT reveal their ignorance and intolerance.  This country should be about freedom for all.  We’ve been talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a lot recently after ignorant remarks from Tea Party candidates, but let’s check the calendar.  It’s 2010.  Protecting gay rights should be a part of Civil Rights!  The same types of people who protested Civil Rights (in the 60’s and today) are the same types of people protesting gay rights and the repeal of DADT.  Doesn’t that teach us anything????  We have a large group in America who is intolerant, bigoted, and discriminatory, and that group is the right-wing sector of the GOP.  Every now and then the Republicans may offer conservative politicians that are not attached to discrimination.  I used to think McCain was such an example.  However, it is clear when it comes time for re-election, even the least intolerant conservatives will play to the angry base of their party that shouts intolerance. 

                As I’m watching the news, awaiting the results of the vote that will repeal DADT, news commentators are saying things such as, “The Democrats hope/need to get some Republican support, and Democrats are confident a few Republicans will vote with them to end DADT.”  I sigh deeply when I hear this, wondering why the GOP cares so much about keeping outdated discriminatory laws.  I wonder when we will move beyond intolerance.  I hope our government shows me more of that message of hope and change tonight or tomorrow with the removal of DADT.  And I hope those that oppose such legislation hold a mirror up to their faces to see what intolerance looks like in 2010.

---

[1] http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/top_social_conservative.php

[2] http://www.earnedmedia.org/amsrv0526.htm

[3] http://gay.americablog.com/2010/05/type-what-you-want-on-home-page-here.html

[4] http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/05/27/john-mccain-filibuster-to-stop-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-.html

[5] http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html

Change, while difficult, is needed.

                I was reading a story today—a story I had heard before—about the history of our current QWERTY keyboards.  In case you don’t know, the keyboard we use today for our computers was created in the late 1800’s.  At that time, typewriters had a serious jamming problem.  Each letter had a bar that would strike the paper to make a letter.  The striking bars, before the QWERTY keyboard, would jam too frequently.  The bars would hit one another if two letters were typed too quickly and jam the typewriter.  The QWERTY keyboard was introduced to prevent jams and actually slowed down one’s typing speed.[1]

                In the 1930’s, Professor August Dvorak invented the Dvorak keyboard, which rearranged the letters so that the home row had 70% of the most commonly used letters (QWERTY’s home row only has 30% of the most commonly used letters).[2]  The Dvorak keyboard actually makes it faster to type, is more convenient, is easier to learn, and is simply more efficient. Why then haven’t we switched from the QWERTY keyboard to the Dvorak keyboard?

                Because change is never easy.  My hope is to discuss social policies that require great change, to argue why certain policies need change, and to understand why change is so slow and challenging. 

                My first analogy—the fact that we use a keyboard that is proven to be inefficient—illustrates that by human nature we are unlikely to change our ways.  Even if the system is flawed, we get used to doing things a certain way.  In fact, we often commit a fallacy of tradition when anyone suggests we should do things differently.  “We should continue doing things this way because that is the way it has always been done.”  Just because we have done things a certain way does not mean that way of doing things is the best way.

                People are scared of change.  They are scared as to what may happen if they allow change to happen. If we suddenly switched to a different keyboard, we would have to learn a new way of typing, which would seem horribly inconvenient.  In the long run, the work we would put into such efforts to change would pay off.  I want to preview some of the changes that I predict will occur within the next generation or two.  However, these changes will only occur if we are willing to take a risk and detach from traditional, “know-it-all” politics.  Here are some of the changes I predict will occur:

1.  Everyone will have affordable health care.

I have yet to argue health care reform, but I should tell you I support it.  Without getting into specifics, I simply propose a philosophical, moral question: Is health care a right or a privilege in a modern society?  Those who oppose health care reform often possess a philosophical idea that health care is something earned.  However, I argue that health care is a right, especially in contemporary, civilized nation.  We can argue specifics, and the specifics are certain to change over the next ten years or so, but one thing is for sure: we will have health care for all in our lifetime.  Why?  Because it is the right thing to do.  And someday, those of you who did not support health care reform will have to explain to your children why you opposed this fundamental right.  I envision the conversation similar to a child today asking his or her parents why they voted against social security, Medicare, or the Civil Rights Act during the 1900’s.  At the time of social security, there was much controversy.  Today, fortunately, we see it as a necessary part of our society, just as we view Civil Rights (well, except for Rand Paul).  I see parents shuffling their feet and looking at the ground while searching for a legitimate response as to why they opposed health care for all.  I at least am optimistic that at some point in the future, we will all have health care, and our judgment will not come from a supreme being but rather from our children who will question how their parents ever could have opposed such a great idea. 

2.  Marriage as we know it will be redefined.  Specifically, I argue in this century that gay marriage will be supported.  In the 2100’s, our children will wonder how in the world the people of today ever argued that same-sex couples shouldn’t get the same rights and benefits of married couples.  Like slavery, we will wonder how in the world our society ever discriminated against that group of individuals.  The narrow-minded Bible beaters will disagree, but fortunately, most people—religious or not—will come to their senses and understand that homosexuality is not immoral and is not a choice.  Science will help prove this idea, and the religious intolerant will look more ignorant than ever when denying empirical evidence.  Regardless, human rights will eventually prevail, even though there will be bumps in the road along the way.  I guess when it comes down to one idea, I urge those who oppose gay marriage to consider the same idea I suggested for those who oppose health care reform: how will you explain to your children and grandchildren that you were intolerant, closed-minded, and selfish?  The world will change and move on without you—eventually.  Change is slow, but change will occur, and you will be on the wrong side of history if you cannot support such ideas.

I could go on and on, and I have other policies in mind that will change, but I will save those for future blogs.

To get political, I ask one simple question: which political party will embrace and support the change that we need in the future?  It is common sense that the GOP and Republicans in general hang on to tradition, regardless of evidence.  The liberals, the left, the Democrats of today in general support the change that our society needs.  Just as several Republicans generally disapproved of the Civil Rights Act of the 1960’s, many Republicans oppose changes to health care, gay rights, and other issues.  Our history will show they are in the wrong.  Although they think they are in the right today, they will eventually have an epiphany.  It may not happen until they have to explain to their children why they voted against human rights and health care for all, but in time, I have faith that they will recognize their errors.  Certainly, members of the right are not bad people; they just are currently supporting bad policies and making bad decisions. 

I encourage people to support the change we need.  But just like we have not changed the QWERTY keyboard, change may not happen for a long time.  Eventually though—even if it takes a hundred years—the change will happen. 

I am proud to be a supporter of the change we need in society.  I will be proud to tell our next generation of children that I did support health care reform and gay marriage, along with several other issues.  When change occurs, will you be proud to say you opposed it?  Or will you be an advocate for those who deserve equality?  I cannot imagine being proud to oppose the Civil Rights Act.  I hope people come to their senses. 

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY

[2] http://www.powertyping.com/dvorak/keyboard.html