When John Kerry made his concession speech, he kept reinforcing that he wanted to see unity return to the U.S. In light of the Editor's Comments from the Autumn 2004 issue of Wilson Quarterly, I couldn't help but feel that I was staring at a man who lost the White House for non-political reasons.
Steven Lagerfeld stated so succinctly a concept that had been nagging at the back of my mind for months, wordlessly occupying gray cells without proper terminology to communicate it coherently. Far too many facets of private life in America have become politicized, creating a schism dividing the nation.
It is one of the negative parts of human nature - the desire to belong even if it requires excluding others. In its more innocuous forms it has spawned secret clubs for children in playgrounds. That camaraderie often matures to the point of creating insular groups of adults who have nothing but enmity for those who disagree with them. For most of my life, politicians have abused this simple portion of the human condition, driving wedges between Americans for nothing more than a few more votes in the ballot box.
In this election, I have to wonder how many people made their choices based on lifestyle issues, as opposed to true political ones. There was a time when sex was considered beneath politics, but now it is the 'bread and butter' of the arsenal of the professional politico. Wave the flag and say that you are against one group or another based on sexuality and you're guaranteed to gather a few thousand votes of some closed-minded constituents who honestly believe that it is their right to legislate what happens in their neighbors' bedrooms. It doesn't get through to those righteous people that by standing against those 'horrible' people who have sex the "wrong" way that they are actually paying more taxes for the privilege to call them "sinful." There's another statement against the "marriage tax" that is still there, albeit not as severely as in the past.
Former President Reagan was one of those true believers, and for those of you who believe in Karma, perhaps it could be said that he got his due. The irony is that the stem cell research that so many people who follow in his footsteps want to see stopped could have helped Alzheimer's patients. I'm still trying to figure out why politicians find it necessary to even speak on scientific and religious matters on the Hill. Last time I checked, even the most radical Christians would have a little bit of difficulty getting around the following concept. If God created man, and God gave man a mind, who has the right to say that any scientific or medical advancement is truly wrong? I'm not trying to say that man is incapable of conceiving an evil concept. If someone believes in God, there has to be a limit where man's free will ends and divine intervention begins, right? I just remember that there is evil in the world, and when some good can come of evil, we should encourage the good. Maybe I didn't get the point of it all and am just a horrible heathen. It's all hypothetical anyway, since there is separation of Church and State, and our Congress must not make laws that endorse the beliefs of one faith over any other. I'm wondering if some of the people on the Hill missed that part of their high school civics class.
I hesitate in laying blame fully on one side or the other. We are making history now, as this is the first time in this country that the people have acquiesced to relinquishing certain rights to privacy. It is said that this is for the sake of the greater good - the protection of the people against terrorist attacks. We've seen a war of this kind before and are still fighting it; the front lines are on our streets and borders - our enemy: illegal drugs. Stopping all terrorists who consider the U.S. an enemy is just as possible as ending the production and sale of illegal drugs. Since September 11th, we have been cautious, trying to prevent further attacks on American soil. We are still vulnerable, and unless a President wants to spend more than has ever been spent on social programs, we always will be.
Beyond these scare tactics, there are Americans who wrap themselves in the flag, saying that they stand for the values of the entire nation, and then spew hatred toward other citizens. This is a divine right in their eyes. We are spreading democracy in the Middle East, while cultivating intolerance and hatred on our own soil. Kerry asked for healing, but didn't say what needed to be said, that the wounds were inflicted by the ones standing as the righteous rulers in Washington.
During this campaign, the American people believed that a smoke screen was the truth. On one of the only true political subjects, Bush kept stating that he would not seek the approval of other nations when acting to protect the U.S. What he neglected to add was that in acting this way, he was also willing to make the American people financially responsible for all acts of war. By not getting the approval and assistance of other nations, we will bear all of the debt. Kerry tried to say this, but this concept was lost in the "protect America" rhetoric. Who will protect us from those financial responsibilities?
My grandfather served in the Army during World War II and was admittedly nave about many lifestyles. Even if he believed that someone was acting contrary to his personal beliefs, he was never arrogant enough to say that they didn't deserve freedom to live as they chose. He fought for a country that embraced differences, disapproved of intolerance. It was an ideal, but it made him proud to serve. I am glad that he is not here now, to see what it has become. It would break his heart.
Steven Lagerfeld stated so succinctly a concept that had been nagging at the back of my mind for months, wordlessly occupying gray cells without proper terminology to communicate it coherently. Far too many facets of private life in America have become politicized, creating a schism dividing the nation.
It is one of the negative parts of human nature - the desire to belong even if it requires excluding others. In its more innocuous forms it has spawned secret clubs for children in playgrounds. That camaraderie often matures to the point of creating insular groups of adults who have nothing but enmity for those who disagree with them. For most of my life, politicians have abused this simple portion of the human condition, driving wedges between Americans for nothing more than a few more votes in the ballot box.
In this election, I have to wonder how many people made their choices based on lifestyle issues, as opposed to true political ones. There was a time when sex was considered beneath politics, but now it is the 'bread and butter' of the arsenal of the professional politico. Wave the flag and say that you are against one group or another based on sexuality and you're guaranteed to gather a few thousand votes of some closed-minded constituents who honestly believe that it is their right to legislate what happens in their neighbors' bedrooms. It doesn't get through to those righteous people that by standing against those 'horrible' people who have sex the "wrong" way that they are actually paying more taxes for the privilege to call them "sinful." There's another statement against the "marriage tax" that is still there, albeit not as severely as in the past.
Former President Reagan was one of those true believers, and for those of you who believe in Karma, perhaps it could be said that he got his due. The irony is that the stem cell research that so many people who follow in his footsteps want to see stopped could have helped Alzheimer's patients. I'm still trying to figure out why politicians find it necessary to even speak on scientific and religious matters on the Hill. Last time I checked, even the most radical Christians would have a little bit of difficulty getting around the following concept. If God created man, and God gave man a mind, who has the right to say that any scientific or medical advancement is truly wrong? I'm not trying to say that man is incapable of conceiving an evil concept. If someone believes in God, there has to be a limit where man's free will ends and divine intervention begins, right? I just remember that there is evil in the world, and when some good can come of evil, we should encourage the good. Maybe I didn't get the point of it all and am just a horrible heathen. It's all hypothetical anyway, since there is separation of Church and State, and our Congress must not make laws that endorse the beliefs of one faith over any other. I'm wondering if some of the people on the Hill missed that part of their high school civics class.
I hesitate in laying blame fully on one side or the other. We are making history now, as this is the first time in this country that the people have acquiesced to relinquishing certain rights to privacy. It is said that this is for the sake of the greater good - the protection of the people against terrorist attacks. We've seen a war of this kind before and are still fighting it; the front lines are on our streets and borders - our enemy: illegal drugs. Stopping all terrorists who consider the U.S. an enemy is just as possible as ending the production and sale of illegal drugs. Since September 11th, we have been cautious, trying to prevent further attacks on American soil. We are still vulnerable, and unless a President wants to spend more than has ever been spent on social programs, we always will be.
Beyond these scare tactics, there are Americans who wrap themselves in the flag, saying that they stand for the values of the entire nation, and then spew hatred toward other citizens. This is a divine right in their eyes. We are spreading democracy in the Middle East, while cultivating intolerance and hatred on our own soil. Kerry asked for healing, but didn't say what needed to be said, that the wounds were inflicted by the ones standing as the righteous rulers in Washington.
During this campaign, the American people believed that a smoke screen was the truth. On one of the only true political subjects, Bush kept stating that he would not seek the approval of other nations when acting to protect the U.S. What he neglected to add was that in acting this way, he was also willing to make the American people financially responsible for all acts of war. By not getting the approval and assistance of other nations, we will bear all of the debt. Kerry tried to say this, but this concept was lost in the "protect America" rhetoric. Who will protect us from those financial responsibilities?
My grandfather served in the Army during World War II and was admittedly nave about many lifestyles. Even if he believed that someone was acting contrary to his personal beliefs, he was never arrogant enough to say that they didn't deserve freedom to live as they chose. He fought for a country that embraced differences, disapproved of intolerance. It was an ideal, but it made him proud to serve. I am glad that he is not here now, to see what it has become. It would break his heart.
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |