I am having a hard time being jubilant about the election. I am encouraged that we have broken one barrier, and even threatened another. The fact that America could look past old biases to elect an African American man and have women actively involved as candidates is remarkable. But I am sad to say that the rhetoric about it is not supportable.
I have heard many people, mostly older African Americans opine that this proves anything is possible. I know that they must feel vindicated for what they have lived through in decades of discrimination and exclusion. I just wish we could say that it was done.
But while we were electing Barak Obama, we were more quietly creating a new group of “second class citizens.” Arizona, Arkansas, California and Florida all amended their constitutions to limit the civil liberties of Gay and Lesbian couples. So, while we broke one barrier, we also allowed another to be codified that simply shifts what may be our need to find someone to pick on to a new target.
I am not gay or lesbian. This injustice effects me not at all in terms of my civil rights. It has personal impact in that it does limit the choices of friends and neighbors who sexual orientation is not the same as mine. But I think it has a bigger impact on us all.
When we allow a minority of our citizens to try to dictate choices about morality and single their belief systems and choices out as the only ones acceptable, we lose some of our humanity. When we sit by and are not outraged at the injustice of stripping others of their rights by changing our laws, we damage ourselves and our moral credibility.
I wish I could celebrate Barak Obama’s victory more enthusiastically. But I feel guilty and shameful for allowing bigots to simply shift the target of the bigotry from one group to another.
It is a little late- but I finally got it. We have two candidates living out 2 archetypes. John McCain is Heracles, a hero who confronts all challenges directly. Barak Obama is Orphic in his ability to get people enrolled and engaged. Both have their advantages and their risks.
Heracles of course has the problem that he is not clear about what to do with his strength. He ends up doing the bidding of others more than having any vision or idea of his own. Orpheus on the other hand brings success all the way to the gate, but cannot sustain his discipline long enough to be successful.
So which one is better for the nation now?
Odd as it sounds, I take my queue from the myths under these powerful archetypes.
Heracles does not redeem or change. He meets his end through the unaware use of power at the hands of his wife who is equally naïve about the power she evokes. Orpheus on the other hand is eventually reunited with his wife in the afterlife, although he must wander painfully for years and engage in some very dangerous activities on the way.
I do not know if anyone can come through the Presidency unscathed. I even have some empathy for poor “W” who just wanted to get abortion legalized and put the 10 commandments back on courtroom walls. George got tossed into a pit he had no preparation for and it has been the albatross on his neck for 8 years. If the office is a test of mettle and endurance, I will count on Orpheus who can attract help and enroll them rather than Heracles who has to conquer all on his own.
I do not agree with the economic policies (and intended social programs) of either candidate, so I will go with the one more likely to be able to build bridges and restore our standing in the world community. And I trust Barak Obama to seat a cabinet of experienced capable executives.
Today I heard a piece on NPR about the split vote in the Vietnamese community in the US. As a Vietnam vet, I find it miraculous that they are here and that we are doing buseinss there. It provides hope that the same may be possible in places such as North Korea, Iran and Syria. One thing I do know… it happens only when we talk with each other. And that happens only when we stop shooting.
For a moment… just a moment… I thought that this ad from a liberal PAC was going to be a clean message.
They start by making the clear and (I think) defensible statement that being a POW is not a qualification for President. And they have someone who is credible to make the judgment say it. It is not very PC in the current chauvanistic environment to suggest that getting shot down and spending time as POW does not qualify one for public office. So now someone did.
But they just could not leave it at that. Subjective personal opinion painting McCain as a hot head follows the core message. Ok- it is one guy speaking his own mind and taking accountability for his opinion. So maybe not quite a “swiftboat” attempt to rewrite history and discredit John Kerry’s service. But it is still over the line.
As a Viet Nam vet myself (I was drafted- so get no glory for service- except that I went) I have to honor the sacrifice that McCain made. Those of us who have not lived through it have no idea. To tarnish that with a personal attack is a cheap shot. In fact I imagine that much of the experience can teach lessons that make for a more mature President. And I wonder if this is not another example of the anti-Palin email I wrote about. Are they going to piss-off independents by taking a cheap shot? The swiftboat guys did!
I wonder – what would our campaign would look like without this kind of crap? I guess we would have to focus on the issues.
I just received yet another rant email about Sarah Palin. Why do people send these things?
Ok don’t get into a snit. It is not that I think much of the Republican Veep candidate. I just wonder what people are thinking when they send this stuff. Do people with passionate political, social or economic views really think that they are going to change any minds by sending an email?
First of all, about 99% of what is represented in any of these emails is bunk. Before you send or forward, how about a visit to Snopes just to find out if the entire web knows its crap before you flood your friends’ in boxes.
Second, do you really think that anyone is going to change their stance based on an email full of diatribe? Taking today’s missive on Palin as an example:
- If I am a Democrat, I am not going to vote for her anyway and you are preaching to the proverbial choir. So the only thing I am likely to do is clog up MORE email boxes.
- If I am a Republican, I am going to vote for her and your email is not going to make me see the light that my politics have been wrong-headed my entire life so that I should now abandon my beliefs.
- If I am undecided and I make up my mind how to vote based your email then the gene pool needs a little more chlorine. (OK- personal rant- but it is how I feel.)
Moreover- your note may not have the desired effect. I know of at least one woman who is traditionally a conservative Republican voter. She got the same note I did and is not web-aware enough to know that it is bunk. Because the rhetoric was so extreme, she was very upset at even receiving it and has now gone from “on the fence” over environmental issues back to her safe Republican views.
So let’s be real. Even if the information is 100% accurate and verifiable, your email blast is more about expressing your fear and outrage than changing anyone’s mind. So- if you MUST do so, please do it honestly. At the least, check Snopes before sending that stuff. Better yet, write from the heart about how you feel and why. That is more likely to influence someone that 3 pages of rant that proves to mostly be BS.