All Packers fans are evil! Just like Republicans! Or not. Just kidding.

Rhetoric on the left.  Rhetoric on the right.  When one side opposes us, we label them as immoral, dishonest, and evil.

Yep, that’s what I have been doing.  I do get fired up about certain policies and ideas, and when a policy is designed to help people who need the help, like the uninsured, it’s all too easy to label the other side as a bunch of Death Eaters.

As the Packers and the Bears prepare to battle in the playoffs, the bantering between Bears fans and Packers fans reminds me all too much of the banter between Republicans and Democrats.  As a Bears fan, a Packer fan is clearly a good-for-nothing, spoiled, ungrateful jerk.  Right? 

I watched a very passionate speech from Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) about repealing health care reform. 

Based on the fact-checking, Weiner is mostly accurate in claiming that GOP arguments are lies.  In a political climate all too divided, however, Weiner’s use of rhetoric is unacceptable.  To call all Republicans liars represents a misunderstanding of our political climate.  Instead of demanding that people choose a side, Weiner should stick to the facts.  It’s ok to say, “The GOP claims that… but here are the facts.”  That would be a much more mature approach.  Additionally, viewers, especially those more moderate, independent, and centrist, will perceive fact-checking without demonization as more credible and honest.  When fact-checking includes demonization of our opponents, no matter how accurate the fact-checking may be, one loses credibility.

Take Sarah Palin, for example.  I greatly disapproved of her use of crosshairs and the slogan “Don’t retreat, reload.”  When Arizona Congresswoman Giffords was shot, I was angry at Palin.  Her type of rhetoric, like Weiner’s, is immature, inappropriate, and only leads to more division.  However, I do not and did not blame her directly.  When she defended herself against the criticism of her use of crosshairs and political rhetoric, she insulted and attacked leftists and liberals.  She had a real chance to improve her credibility by simply sticking to the facts and avoiding attacks. 

See Jon Stewart’s humorous insight on Palin’s defense to see the critical rhetoric she employs:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-18-2011/petty-woman 

Politicians like Weiner and Palin appeal only to the most loyal base of their parties, who cheer like liquored-up football fans that jeer and insult their opponents.  After the shooting in Arizona, we should all recognize that rhetoric is powerful.  Let’s be critical and let’s debate.  But let’s stick to fact-checking without demonizing those who disagree. 

Health Care Reform is not socialistic.  It is not job-killing.  It is not the worst idea ever.  It possesses merit and it possesses flaws.  Those who do not see the merit are not evil Death Eaters.  Opponents simply have loyalty to a party, a different worldview, and different opinions.  Although I disagree with their opinions and the “Bears fan” in me wants to call them ignorant, we must remove the name-calling and generalizations.  Our disagreements will only be resolved by honest explorations of the facts.  Unfortunately, the facts mean very little in our political climate, but at least us ordinary citizens who aren’t necessarily trying to be party-loyal, trying to get votes, trying to fundraise, and trying to get publicity should be able to detach from political stigmas and focus solely on logic and fact.

I’m guilty of the demonization in which I criticize.  That doesn’t make me a hypocrite.  I still believe, if forced to generalize, that most of my previous statements and blogs are honest.  But it’s not fair to demonize, and such criticism will not lead to growth in our political climate.  I hope we can grow together.

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.

Are people being nice?

When a kindergartner asks the President if people “are being nice,” then we the people need to take a step back from our political aggressiveness and reflect on how to improve the country, not make it worse.

Obama provided the commencement address at the University of Michigan on May 1, and the first part of the speech that really caught my attention was when Obama referred to a student question he received in a kindergarten classroom: “Are people being nice?”  It’s such a great question and shows the innocence of youth and the corruption of so many adults.  I’d ask the same question to those replying to this blog, to the media, to the politicians on both sides, and yes, I’d ask myself the question too.  The fact is that we are not often nice when it comes to the opposition.  But then we must ask, “How do we be nice?”  Considering all of the lies and the manipulations the media and politicians use, it’s darn hard to be nice.

Obama continues to speak about government, particularly those supposedly opposed to government, and he says, “But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs from the health care debate was one that read ‘Keep Government Out Of My Medicare,’ which is essentially like saying ‘Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care.’ For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, change our laws, and shape our own destiny.”

In earlier blogs, I’ve mentioned that I am an optimistic person and that I think people can be inherently good.  I like Obama’s statements about government in this speech.  People hate government and have such a negative view of it, but the irony is—we are the government.  He goes on to say that government is why we have police officers and public universities and highways and a military.  Government is not all bad.  What irritates me is that the people on the right are most vocal and shout that government is bad pretty much only when the left is in control.  If the right is control, government is not bad.  Government is the reason we are safe from terrorists and are promoting democracy and freedom throughout the world.  Oh, wait: there’s a democrat in the house? Strike that.  Government is bad and our freedom is threatened.  Oh, the hypocrisy of right wing politics!

Shoot.  Now I’m not being nice.  I’ll try to do better. 

Obama also said in this speech, “We cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like ‘socialist’ and ‘Soviet-style takeover;’ ‘fascist’ and ‘right-wing nut’ may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.”

Are the extremists listening?  Are those of you who say you promote logic and reason listening? We cannot solve problems through fear and insult, yet how often is our political debate nothing more than fear-mongering and name-calling?

Later, Obama said, “Still, if you’re someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil; your mind may not often be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.”

Wow.  I wonder if the Bush administration would have ever encouraged people to actively pursue opposing viewpoints.  I wonder if Limbaugh or Beck have ever encouraged such a radical idea.  What I like about the people who have commented on this blog and clearly disagree with me is that you are at least exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints.  I applaud you.  But how many members of our political parties (both sides) are really trying to understand the opposite point of view?  I applaud our President for encouraging the graduates of the University of Michigan to do just that.  Maybe there is hope that our future generations will not be as polarized as we are currently.

Obama defends government, and while he may be too idealistic for most people today, I appreciate his partisan compliments to republican predecessors: “This notion hasn’t always been partisan. It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who said that the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. He would go on to begin that first intercontinental railroad and set up the first land-grant colleges. It was another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who said that ‘the object of government is the welfare of the people.’ He is remembered for using the power of government to break up monopolies, and establishing our National Park system. Democrat Lyndon Johnson announced the Great Society during a commencement here at Michigan, but it was the Republican president before him, Dwight Eisenhower, who launched the massive government undertaking known as the Interstate Highway System.”

There is so much hate directed at Obama, and certainly every president before him had lots of criticism too.  I know many will say he’s just full of rhetoric, and the real extreme haters will make signs that say, “Hitler was good at giving speeches too.” But I wonder if Hitler ever asked people to consider opposing viewpoints. 

I don’t have the answers.  I just have some observations.  The kindergartner who asks if people are being nice should be a constant reminder as to how we need to grow in politics.  We need to end the insults, the death threats, the immature and ignorant sign making, and get back to reasonable debate.  I like a president who recognizes the need for debate and opposing viewpoints.  He also said, “The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. These arguments we’re having over government and health care and war and taxes are serious arguments. They should arouse people’s passions, and it’s important for everyone to join in the debate, with all the rigor that a free people require.”

 I wonder if Bush ever said something like that to the American people about Iraq or the Patriot Act.  I wonder if in the upcoming elections someone like Sarah Palin would promote the same level of civility.

We have a President who pushes forth his ideas with passion and yet recognizes the need for civil date and opposing viewpoints.  And that is definitely one reason to be proud of Obama. 

Watch the full speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcNXFz_QCVU

The Politics of Lies and Disrespect

                 It’s Friday—TGIF!—so today, I’ll try to be brief. As I’m searching for topics and researching the topics that interest me, I have come across some information that saddens me.  I began this blog with the hopes of finding ways to be bipartisan, but after a week of reading 100 plus articles, I am worried now, more than ever, that politics is full of lies and disrespect and the idea of our political parties coming together for the common good seems incredibly far away.

                Here are some of the lies that sadden me:

 Health Care Lies

Here are common health care lies (copied directly from http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/more-malarkey-about-health-care/, a non-partisan, unbiased source):

• Requires patients to be implanted with microchips. (No, it doesn’t.)
• Cuts benefits for military families and retirees. (No. The TRICARE program isn’t affected.)
• Exempts Muslims from the requirement to obtain coverage. (Not specifically. It does have a religious exemption, but that is intended for Old Order Amish.)
• Allows insurance companies to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Insurance companies have agreed not to exploit a loophole that might have allowed this.)
• Will require 16,500 armed IRS agents to enforce. (No. Criminal penalties are waived.)
• Gives President Obama a Nazi-like “private army.” (No. It provides a reserve corps of doctors and other health workers for emergencies.)
• “Exempts” House and Senate members. (No. Their coverage may not be as good as before, in fact.)
• Covers erectile-dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. (Just as it was before the new law, those no longer in jail can buy any insurance plan they choose.)
• Provides federal funding for abortions. (Not directly. But neither side in the abortion debate is happy with the law.)

How are we expected to fruitfully debate health care with so many lies?  There are pros and cons to the health care legislation, but these lies distract us and members from both political parties from serious debate. 

 Tax breaks for companies with workers abroad

I’m also tired of hearing democrats claim without evidence that republicans support giving companies tax breaks for having workers overseas.[1]  For the most part, republicans pledge not to increase taxes for companies with workers overseas, an idea aligned with general republican principles not to increase taxes for businesses.  It is unfair for democrats to use oversea companies as a way to target republicans.  We need an honest debate about taxation.  The debate about taxation has been buried in debates on specific policies.  We do waste too many tax dollars, and we also have several programs that need even more tax dollars.  When will we have an honest debate about taxation?

 Financial Regulatory Funding

Some republicans are telling voters that the democratic financial regulation will require even more bailouts to major banks with tax payer dollars.  The truth is that promoters of financial reform want to force banks to pay into a savings that could be used for future “bailouts.”  So money that could be used to bail out banks in the future is not coming from our tax dollars, and financial regulatory reform is about making banks responsible for themselves.[2]  Could these costs be passed on to consumers?  Of course.  But let’s get the facts straight if we debate financial reform—it’s not just about taxpayer money.

 Census Nonsense

Some people have gone so far as to say that the census is a violation of our rights, and they have even spread lies as to what kinds of questions you have to answer.  The census is legal, necessary, and courts have upheld its constitutionality.[3]

Here’s a fun quotation from Michelle Bachman, in response to the census: “If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the census bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations, at the request of President Roosevelt, and that’s how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I’m not saying that’s what the Administration is planning to do. But I am saying that private, personal information that was given to the census bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up.”[4]

Attacking the census is a red herring—it’s being used to attack political parties when the actual criticisms of the census have no merit, and in fact, filling out your census can help your community receive its fair share of tax dollars. 

 General Disrespect for the Commander in Chief

Recently, a Facebook group was formed that prays for Obama’s death.  Fortunately, a Facebook group was made in which you can sign a petition to remove the group.  Please read this article and follow the link for the petition to remove this disrespect from Facebook.[5]  Yes, I am a supporter of freedom of speech, but I am not a supporter of disrespect.  It’s one thing—although horrible a horrible thing—to say you want Obama to die in conversation or even on a protest sign.  But Facebook is its own company, and I’d like to see them step up and remove the group.

Overall, I’d like to see a real debate between democrats and republicans.  Not a debate of name-calling and bullying.  Both sides show too much arrogance.  Both sides are guilty of lies and disrespect.  We can compare the lies and disrespect—I’m sure you’d find me biased in terms of who I think lies and disrespects more often.  But the fact of the matter is that our politics has become a schoolyard fight.  I call you a name; you call me a name. 

I started this blog in hopes of finding logic from both political parties, and using logical evidence to compromise on political issues.  While I do agree with health care reform, I do not like that there was no compromise with republicans.  I do agree with financial regulation, but I do not like that it may pass without a single republican vote. 

Obama (whom we know I like and respect): In your 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, you said:

“Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.  Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”

It was the spirit of coming together as one United States of America that made me first find you to be a new leader that this world so desperately needed. 

We must fight harder to come together as one United States of America, and it starts by eliminating the lies and disrespect from our politics—from all sides of our politics.   

---

[1] http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-false-tax-attack/

[2] http://factcheck.org/2010/04/the-bailout-bill/

[3] http://factcheck.org/2010/03/census-nonsense/

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/anti-census-fearmongering_n_525573.html

[5] http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-page-prays-obamas-death/story?id=10451069

Applying a non-Western perspective to social policy

Yesterday I optimistically argued that we could reach common ground on moral issues if we are able to consider other perspectives; however, I presented only two viewpoints from a Western/Christian perspective.  Today, I want to introduce a generalized non-Western worldview that can also assist us in our understanding of right and wrong.

            To begin, we must accept these premises:

1. There is not one single worldview that is superior to others.
2. There is not only one right answer.
3. Understanding multiple worldviews—giving each equal respect and consideration—enhances our views of social policy.

(Honestly, it’s obvious that if you disagree with these basic premises that no argument, no matter how logical or credible, will change your mind.)

A non-Western view is incredibly difficult to summarize as it would include a combination of philosophies, religions (such as Buddhism), Confucianism, Taoism, etc.  Forgive me if I speak in generalizations then.  Here is one general worldview as taken from a select combination of non-Western philosophies. 

Generally speaking, non-Western worldviews, unlike many popular religions, attempt to eliminate the idea of moral superiority; self-righteous viewpoints where one fails to recognize moral faults should not play a role.  Instead, non-Westerners want to define ethical principles, strive to live up to those principles, but also recognize that they could be wrong, and if so, they will do better next time.[1]  This moral philosophy establishes an important code: strive to live morally but avoid self-righteousness and recognize faults in the present views of morality in order to overcome them in the future.[2]

Based on this philosophy, one does not initially make a presumptuous decision that a certain policy is correct or incorrect., which we are all guilty of, including myself (part of why I am trying to explore multiple perspectives).

Furthermore, non-Western philosophies center on intention.  One’s intention is either helpful—attempting to help the people who cannot help themselves—or it is hurting others with purposeful maliciousness.[3]  Politically, if the actor of a social policy has an altruistic motivation with a properly defined goal, then the policy could be positive and may be viewed at least as worth trying from a non-Western viewpoint.  Furthermore, to be aligned with this philosophy, the actor of the social policy must have a strong sense of responsibility for future implications. 

When evaluating political policies then, we can learn from the non-Western viewpoints presented here and ask:

• Is one side of the political debate claiming moral superiority?  If so, we must step back, work together, and revisit our claims of morality.
• Are we reflecting as we go, making note of all faults, and striving to do better next time? 
• Is the intention of the actor of the social policy good?
• Does the actor of the social policy possess a sense of responsibility for future implications?

Thinking only from one’s own perspective is not the best method to determine ethical right and wrong, as well as political policy.  Many nations and religions have several different points of view, and the focus here is just one generalized non-Western point of view, and certainly many others need to be considered.  But to truly understand one’s own culture (including one’s own religion, one’s own points of view), individuals must strive to understand the culture of others.  In accepting and understanding perspectives other than one’s own point of view, we will find a better benchmark and platform for which to evaluate social policy.  And therein is the key to improving our understanding: evaluating policies from a benchmark where our view of the world is not the only “right” view.

Based upon the initial premises and the insight gained through non-Western philosophy, I present these conclusions:

1. Members of both political parties have claimed (or inferred) moral superiority.  Our political parties really need to hit F5 and do a better job evaluating policies from neutral benchmarks without claiming their particular viewpoint as superior to the other.  How to do this will be a different topic.  It may sound easy in theory, but it is going to require significant work from all sides. 
2. We spend too much time attacking and defending—not reflecting—on our behaviors.  We yell, “This is why X is bad for you!  Or this is why Y is great for you!”  In health care reform for example, democrats are already emphasizing benefits that haven’t happened yet, and republicans are criticizing aspects that haven’t occurred!  Slow down.  Observe.  Reflect.  Learn. 
3. I believe President Obama’s intentions so far have been good.  Certainly, those unable to evaluate policy outside of their own viewpoints will disagree with this idea.  Most of those who do not think his intentions are good will be conservative or republican and not yet able to evaluate others from appropriate standards.  However, just because the intentions were good does not make the policy good or bad.
4. Only time will tell if the current administration will take responsibility for errors made.  It appears to me the previous administration did very little to take responsibility for the plethora of errors committed.

Now what??

Well, these conclusions can be used as means to more appropriately evaluate policy and politicians.  When determining policy, strive to evaluate morals and values from balanced benchmarks, reflect instead of defend or attack policies made, understand the intentions of the social actor before evaluating him or her, and evaluate leaders in the future by examining if leaders accepted responsibility for errors made in the past.

---

[1] Harvey, Peter.  An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

[2] Snelling, John. The Buddhist Handbook. Rochester: Inner Traditions, 1991.

[3] Weiming, Tu. “Beyond the Enlightenment Mentality.” Confucianism and Ecology. Ed. Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Berthrong. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. 3-22.