Before church on Sunday I engaged in a brief discussion with a woman whom I hadn't met previously. Our conversation was very ordinary. I asked all the usual questions, "Where are you from? What brought you here? Early service or late?" And She asked me all the usual questions, "How long have you been here? What are you studying? Where do you work?" When I responded, "I work in Governor O'Malley's Press Office," she grimaced and said, "Oh we want Ehrlich to win don't we?" (For those of you who do not live in Maryland, Ehrlich is O'Malley's Republican challenger.)
I said no and she peered at me and said so judgmentally, "Well your a conservative aren't you?" as if I wasn't, I somehow didn't belong in the church, or any house of God for that matter. She looked at me as if I was helping the enemy. In this case--in this particular house of God--the enemy simply wasn't a man with opposing ideals or different solutions...he was the devil and depending on how I answered her question, I was his little minion of American destruction.
Usually I pride myself in my beliefs and strong stances on issues, but this lady looked at me with such disdain that it took a good amount of courage to tell her that no, I was in fact not a Conservative and yes, I was still sitting in what seemed apparently to be HER house of God.
She walked away without saying anything more to me. She never got the opportunity to know that I'm conservative on several issues. She will never know that I also have worked for a Republican Governor in Utah. She will never know that I am working in politics not to accumulate power, but to distribute it to those that have none. I'm working in politics not to implement my rules and customs, but to find the solutions to our largest problems whether they come from a Republican or Democratic ideal.
We may be a predominately Christian society but that does not mean that we must force our customs onto those who don't believe in their sanctity. If our country was predominantly Jewish would it be alright to construct a law outlawing the consumption of Pork? If we were a predominantly Muslim country would we be forced to fast during Ramadan?
I am a Democratic Lutheran and as part of the Christian population of America, I wish I could say with confidence that we are an accepting majority. Until we can learn to accept our differences--Liberal or conservative, Baptist or Catholic, Man or Woman, Latino or Native American--we will never be able to harness the strength of our diversity, the strength that the forefathers foresaw in creating a free and accepting nation.
Romans 15:7 Accept One Another, then, just as Christ has accepted you...
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Election 2009: America Favors the Alternative
Since last night, news sources have been telling us that the real loser in yesterday's elections was President Obama. They have been telling us that citizens voted in opposition to the Democratic Party in order to exemplify their disappointment over the lack of "change" and societal advancement since Democrats won the White House a year ago. In opposition, I do not believe that the elections were a referendum on President Obama. Instead, I believe the election results are illustrative of a general rejection of authority altogether--a trend that has gradually been developing over the last few years. We not only saw previously Democratic constituencies favor the Republican, but we also witnessed historically Republican precincts voting for the Democratic candidate.
In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie won the race for Governor. A Republican has not won a statewide race in New Jersey since 1997. In Virginia, McDonnell, also Republican, won the gubernatorial election. McDonnell beat his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, by almost 20% in a state where Democrats have won control of the office 5 out of the last 7 races.
On the flip side, in upstate New York, Democrat Bill Owens won the 23rd Congressional District--a district that has been held by republicans for over one hundred years. Some would argue against this example by saying the Democratic Party only won the seat because the Republican party was split between Diedre Scozzafava and the Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. However, considering Scozzafava's ideology and support of the Democrat after her withdrawal from the race, if anything, she split the liberal vote.
People are simply no longer accepting the dominant authority, meaning they are rejecting those previously in office, whether that be based on a rejection of the dominant party or a rejection of other historic norms of power. Several important races included a prominent third party candidate illustrating a refusal of the dominant party authorities (both Republican and Democrat) altogether. Additionally, voters seem to be rejecting authority not only on the partisanship of the incumbent, but rejecting the authority of precedent for a particular area. For example, in Atlanta Georgia, Mary Norwood received more votes than her contenders (although a run-off election is to be held). If Norwood is to be elected, she will be the first white mayor in a 35 year history of African American incumbents. The Houston, Texas mayoral race resulted in a 5% lead for Annise Parker. If she wins she will be the first openly gay mayor in Texas, a historically conservative state. In both these examples, voters are rejecting previous authority by refusing to support the historic norms within the region.
The areas in which incumbents did win resulted in very close races. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg won his third term in office. He beat his Democratic opponent, Bill Thompson by a narrow 5 point margin. Considering Bloomberg outspent Thompson 31 million dollars in his campaign, the closeness of this race still exemplifies an extreme refusal of authority even in the presence the incumbent's win.
We are experiencing an important political wave: one described not by an excessive partisan shift due to a disappointment in the predominate party, but one classified by a rejection of existing authority simply because it is the authority. People are looking for ways to transcend external power and thus, are favoring the alternative.
In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie won the race for Governor. A Republican has not won a statewide race in New Jersey since 1997. In Virginia, McDonnell, also Republican, won the gubernatorial election. McDonnell beat his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, by almost 20% in a state where Democrats have won control of the office 5 out of the last 7 races.
On the flip side, in upstate New York, Democrat Bill Owens won the 23rd Congressional District--a district that has been held by republicans for over one hundred years. Some would argue against this example by saying the Democratic Party only won the seat because the Republican party was split between Diedre Scozzafava and the Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. However, considering Scozzafava's ideology and support of the Democrat after her withdrawal from the race, if anything, she split the liberal vote.
People are simply no longer accepting the dominant authority, meaning they are rejecting those previously in office, whether that be based on a rejection of the dominant party or a rejection of other historic norms of power. Several important races included a prominent third party candidate illustrating a refusal of the dominant party authorities (both Republican and Democrat) altogether. Additionally, voters seem to be rejecting authority not only on the partisanship of the incumbent, but rejecting the authority of precedent for a particular area. For example, in Atlanta Georgia, Mary Norwood received more votes than her contenders (although a run-off election is to be held). If Norwood is to be elected, she will be the first white mayor in a 35 year history of African American incumbents. The Houston, Texas mayoral race resulted in a 5% lead for Annise Parker. If she wins she will be the first openly gay mayor in Texas, a historically conservative state. In both these examples, voters are rejecting previous authority by refusing to support the historic norms within the region.
The areas in which incumbents did win resulted in very close races. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg won his third term in office. He beat his Democratic opponent, Bill Thompson by a narrow 5 point margin. Considering Bloomberg outspent Thompson 31 million dollars in his campaign, the closeness of this race still exemplifies an extreme refusal of authority even in the presence the incumbent's win.
We are experiencing an important political wave: one described not by an excessive partisan shift due to a disappointment in the predominate party, but one classified by a rejection of existing authority simply because it is the authority. People are looking for ways to transcend external power and thus, are favoring the alternative.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
We Shouldn't Need Laws to Open Our Hearts
Today, Wednesday October 28, 2009, President Obama signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his sexual orientation or gender identity. This piece of legislation was named for Matthew Shepard, a teenage boy in Wyoming who was brutally murdered because he was gay. First, I would like to emphasize my belief that the implementation of this law is an important first step, of the many required to establish equal rights for gays and lesbians. Second, I am disheartened that a law like this even had to be passed at all.
It's hard for me to understand how someone could be so angry, ashamed, disgusted (what ever the case may be) at another individual's preferences, that he would feel the need to harm that person. Why? Why would you need to assault or murder someone based on a choice they made that does not affect you in any way? I truly am unable to comprehend a reason.
We live in America: the land of the free, the country of choice, the founder of personal liberty. We all know this; we all live by it. We complain if we are told what to do; we protest if we are not given options. We argue and disagree because we are free to do so; we give our opinions because we can. And for some reason, we still are unwilling to let others do the same; we wish to put limitations on our neighbor, but never ourselves.
On that note, I am sad that we still have to pass laws that protect people who may look, think, or act differently. We should all be protected equally no matter the circumstance. There should be no need for this hate crimes bill, there should be no need for the 19th amendment; there should be no need for affirmative action. But, there is...there is a need and that is what distresses me most. We are passing laws to counteract our hearts....this should make us ask: "what is wrong with our hearts?"
It's hard for me to understand how someone could be so angry, ashamed, disgusted (what ever the case may be) at another individual's preferences, that he would feel the need to harm that person. Why? Why would you need to assault or murder someone based on a choice they made that does not affect you in any way? I truly am unable to comprehend a reason.
We live in America: the land of the free, the country of choice, the founder of personal liberty. We all know this; we all live by it. We complain if we are told what to do; we protest if we are not given options. We argue and disagree because we are free to do so; we give our opinions because we can. And for some reason, we still are unwilling to let others do the same; we wish to put limitations on our neighbor, but never ourselves.
On that note, I am sad that we still have to pass laws that protect people who may look, think, or act differently. We should all be protected equally no matter the circumstance. There should be no need for this hate crimes bill, there should be no need for the 19th amendment; there should be no need for affirmative action. But, there is...there is a need and that is what distresses me most. We are passing laws to counteract our hearts....this should make us ask: "what is wrong with our hearts?"
Friday, May 22, 2009
We Have Everything To Gain
During my last semester of college I took a political sociology class. Among other things we learned the history and evolution of civil movements in our nation. One of the theories was based around the following premise:
"Those who have more to lose fight harder than those who have more to gain."
At first, I thought this was untrue. It seems that if an individual has something to gain, they would do all they could to attain it. they would fight just as hard for that privilege or right as someone who was on the verge of loosing it. But then I recognized the unfortunate truth.
There are two children shopping in a grocery store with their mothers. Susie is allowed to have candy on occasion while Anna is not allowed to have sweets. Both spot a tub of taffy and ask their mothers if they may have a piece. Both mothers say no. Susie having had the joy of tasting the mouth watering substance previously pleads with her mother in hopes of trying it again. Anna, never having the privilege of tasting the sweet chewy candy, figures that she has survived this long without and will be fine not having it now.
The same theory is emphasized in relationships. You will fight a lot harder to heal a relationship that you have had for a year than you will fight for an individual whom you've had one phone conversation with. You will spend more time fighting to keep what you have rather than struggling to achieve something more.
I began to wonder if this is the reason why large advancements in our society take so long to take place. The Civil Rights Movements did not make any headway until the 1960's. I don't believe their success was stunted because they were not fighting hard enough. I think it is very possible that the opposition was just fighting harder. White men felt threatened. they did not want to lose their influence in business and politics. they did not want to face competition to their elite status. The opposition had nothing to gain from subduing the voice of civil rights, but felt as if they had everything to lose.
i feel the same thing is occurring right now in the movement for the expansion of gay rights. Do heterosexual couples feel as if allowing gay marriage will somehow make their own unions less special? (If they do, I personally think these couples need to reevaluate their own relationships.) Why does the gain of the excluded make others feel as if they have lost something?
Immigrants are currently faced with harsher penalties and greater restrictions to the privileges that they once retained with ease. It is harder to attain green cards, work visas, temporary student exchanges, or even simple access into America at all. Are these liberties being threatened so this particular group must fight to retain what they already have instead of fighting for anything more?
This system is teaching the public to be happy with the status-quo. The American dream is built on the progression from the bottom to the top. How do we expect to make progress if we are continually struggling to keep what we have rather than fighting for what we want? We are stifling the very premise that this nation was built on: the prospect of advancement. It is time for people to recognize that we are all playing for the same team; the progress of one is the progress of America... They have everything to gain and we have nothing to lose.
"Those who have more to lose fight harder than those who have more to gain."
At first, I thought this was untrue. It seems that if an individual has something to gain, they would do all they could to attain it. they would fight just as hard for that privilege or right as someone who was on the verge of loosing it. But then I recognized the unfortunate truth.
There are two children shopping in a grocery store with their mothers. Susie is allowed to have candy on occasion while Anna is not allowed to have sweets. Both spot a tub of taffy and ask their mothers if they may have a piece. Both mothers say no. Susie having had the joy of tasting the mouth watering substance previously pleads with her mother in hopes of trying it again. Anna, never having the privilege of tasting the sweet chewy candy, figures that she has survived this long without and will be fine not having it now.
The same theory is emphasized in relationships. You will fight a lot harder to heal a relationship that you have had for a year than you will fight for an individual whom you've had one phone conversation with. You will spend more time fighting to keep what you have rather than struggling to achieve something more.
I began to wonder if this is the reason why large advancements in our society take so long to take place. The Civil Rights Movements did not make any headway until the 1960's. I don't believe their success was stunted because they were not fighting hard enough. I think it is very possible that the opposition was just fighting harder. White men felt threatened. they did not want to lose their influence in business and politics. they did not want to face competition to their elite status. The opposition had nothing to gain from subduing the voice of civil rights, but felt as if they had everything to lose.
i feel the same thing is occurring right now in the movement for the expansion of gay rights. Do heterosexual couples feel as if allowing gay marriage will somehow make their own unions less special? (If they do, I personally think these couples need to reevaluate their own relationships.) Why does the gain of the excluded make others feel as if they have lost something?
Immigrants are currently faced with harsher penalties and greater restrictions to the privileges that they once retained with ease. It is harder to attain green cards, work visas, temporary student exchanges, or even simple access into America at all. Are these liberties being threatened so this particular group must fight to retain what they already have instead of fighting for anything more?
This system is teaching the public to be happy with the status-quo. The American dream is built on the progression from the bottom to the top. How do we expect to make progress if we are continually struggling to keep what we have rather than fighting for what we want? We are stifling the very premise that this nation was built on: the prospect of advancement. It is time for people to recognize that we are all playing for the same team; the progress of one is the progress of America... They have everything to gain and we have nothing to lose.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Priorities Please!
This is what I know. The world spends 800 million U.S. dollars on military each year. America and Europe spend 400 million dollars on narcotics, 17 million on pet food, and 12 million on perfume. Europe alone spends 100 million dollars on Alcohol and 50 million on tobacco. This all happens while the entire world only spends 12 million dollars on women's reproductive care, 9 million on all other health care, and 6 million on education. How sad is this? Europe and America spend 3 times the amount of money on food for our pets than for our children's education. Guess that puts our priorities in perspective. We like to get liquored up, smoke, and feed our dogs before we take care of our sick and hungry...but don't worry because we smell nice while doing it due to all our perfume purchases.
Don't get me wrong. I am very far from perfect myself. I have 62 pairs of shoes sitting in my closet. But something has got to be done. As a world, we have got to make a change. And as the national great power of America we should stand as an example. America holds only 5% of the population while consuming 28% of the world's goods. And each day 30,000 children die from poverty around the world. What are we doing people? Instead of spending 580 billion dollars on the Iraqi War we could have given that money to provide basic healthcare, needs, and education for countries not as fortunate as this one.
The 3 richest families in the world have a greater fortune than the total GDP of the 48 poorest nations. Lets start today. I gave away a pair of shoes tonight. I know it's not much, but if you knew me at all, you would understand what a huge personal step that is for me. Start today. Today is a gift. That's why they call it the present.
Don't get me wrong. I am very far from perfect myself. I have 62 pairs of shoes sitting in my closet. But something has got to be done. As a world, we have got to make a change. And as the national great power of America we should stand as an example. America holds only 5% of the population while consuming 28% of the world's goods. And each day 30,000 children die from poverty around the world. What are we doing people? Instead of spending 580 billion dollars on the Iraqi War we could have given that money to provide basic healthcare, needs, and education for countries not as fortunate as this one.
The 3 richest families in the world have a greater fortune than the total GDP of the 48 poorest nations. Lets start today. I gave away a pair of shoes tonight. I know it's not much, but if you knew me at all, you would understand what a huge personal step that is for me. Start today. Today is a gift. That's why they call it the present.
Today Is One Of Those Days
These are the days I live for. You might think I am exaggerating, but as a student of politics and with the dream of a future career in policy, I believe that these days encompass the spirit of America. We live in an amazing country at an amazing time and it is a day like this that reminds us of everything we usually take for granted: our freedom, our security, our voices, our experiences, and our individual possibilities.
Moreover, its even more incredible to think not of what we have as individuals, but we have as a nation. Despite who we voted for in November or what our liberal or conservative views may be, these days, days like this one, bring us together because we remember that we are all in this together. Our diversity of religion, color, background, social status seems to fade away if only for a moment, because for a moment we are united under one label...American. I may celebrate Christmas and you celebrate Hanuka. I may be a blonde college girl from the country and you a Wall Street economist from the big city, but today we are Americans and for a split second nothing else matters. What would it be like if we could always feel like we do today? What would it be like if for the next four years our differences never separated us from one another? Today, the artificial walls came down. Tomorrow, we may construct them again, but we have the moment and that is what makes politics so special. It is more than a moment in history, its our present and we could make this moment our future.
Moreover, its even more incredible to think not of what we have as individuals, but we have as a nation. Despite who we voted for in November or what our liberal or conservative views may be, these days, days like this one, bring us together because we remember that we are all in this together. Our diversity of religion, color, background, social status seems to fade away if only for a moment, because for a moment we are united under one label...American. I may celebrate Christmas and you celebrate Hanuka. I may be a blonde college girl from the country and you a Wall Street economist from the big city, but today we are Americans and for a split second nothing else matters. What would it be like if we could always feel like we do today? What would it be like if for the next four years our differences never separated us from one another? Today, the artificial walls came down. Tomorrow, we may construct them again, but we have the moment and that is what makes politics so special. It is more than a moment in history, its our present and we could make this moment our future.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Am I Free?
In a democracy like America, we are given certain freedoms. Sometimes I believe that those liberties are the very things that restrain us. Marketing, for example, developed due to our capitalist society. Advertisements are not selling the product, they are selling an intangible idea that we all believe we need and cannot find within ourselves. For instance, Nike sold millions selling the idea of transcendence beyond sport. Saturn sells the belief of community, being a part of a group, being accepted. This freedom to advertise...has it lead to a restraint on the individual? Are we being told what we need? If not, then why are we buying into the useless material items that are far from basic necessity?
In America, we are not only buying product, we are buying governance. We are given a select group of politicians to choose from. Political marketing begins years before election. These ads are nothing more than an artful construction of lies. We are not being told the truth. We are being told what we want to hear, the ideas we want to believe in.
Democracy leads us to believe that the consumer is in control. Are we? We need to believe in ourselves in order to understand that a product is just a product and the true fulfillment of personal yearnings is unattainable within those material goods. Do we have enough identity within ourselves to truly be free from persuasion?
In America, we are not only buying product, we are buying governance. We are given a select group of politicians to choose from. Political marketing begins years before election. These ads are nothing more than an artful construction of lies. We are not being told the truth. We are being told what we want to hear, the ideas we want to believe in.
Democracy leads us to believe that the consumer is in control. Are we? We need to believe in ourselves in order to understand that a product is just a product and the true fulfillment of personal yearnings is unattainable within those material goods. Do we have enough identity within ourselves to truly be free from persuasion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)