2012 Election - Work Will Remain After The Voting

When a friend asked if I would like to provide an essay for her blog about the election, I quickly agreed. It didn't seem like it would be too difficult: I have strong opinions, I've written about them for some time: How hard could it be?

It turned out to be much harder than I anticipated. This election is presenting me with some challenges that I just don't recall any previous election presenting. I know who I am going to vote for, but it seems woefully inadequate, woefully irrelevant. Let me explain:

I find the big social issues to be a continued source of disbelief: You mean, after the Civil War, Woman's suffrage, the passage of the 14^th Amendment (with its Equal Protection Clause) and the 15^th amendment on voting, we STILL insist on attempting to segregate people from general equality based upon some aspect of their lives? We STILL insist on attempting to force conformity to one particular set of religious beliefs, even as those beliefs are undergoing internal revision themselves and don't speak for all of us? Bah.

So, it has been easy for me to vote against the party that continually comes down on the discriminatory side of things – that somehow eschews calls for equality and advocates against women frequently, against a gender-blind definition of marriage. Add to that their almost fanatical support for increasing the means to inflict violence, and its a no-brain-er.

2008 was exciting. Here we had an articulate black man who voiced concern for those who don't get a fair shake; concern for those who face injustice and inequality; and who, more than anything else for me, was willing to advocate for a restructuring of our out-moded and poor system of health care that costs all of us too much and denies coverage to many, specifically many who need it.

He did exactly that, too. Once President, Barack Obama continued pushing to reform the system of health delivery, striking bargains to make the result palatable to Republicans, Democrats, the Insurance and the Health Care Industries.

Of course, what we got represents all sorts of compromises, and in a spectacular play against the nation and for the furthering of their own interests, members of the Republican Party unanimously voted against it – voted against a remodeling that looked surprisingly like plans put forth by their own party 30 years previously; a plan that strongly resembled a successful State Plan enacted in the previous decade.

In the intervening time since then, President Obama has come out in favor of Gay Marriage, and has allowed the Pentagon to repeal their nefarious 'Don't Ask; Don't Tell' policy.

So, here we are in 2012. There is a new gorilla in the room, but nobody is talking about it. Neither Republican candidate Mitt Romney, nor re-nominated Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Both, in fact, seem bent on side-stepping THE major issue of this election (and perhaps our lifetime and more), turning the whole processes into a frustrating side-show of irrelevancies.

Mr. Romney, following his party (actually, almost re-inventing himself to be crueler and more prejudiced against practically anyone who isn't wealthy and white and male than was evident during his tenure as Governor) has brought up the old, tired drudges about taxes and spending and jobs, as though we won't see through it again. His running mate, true to form, has sponsored a non-sense budget that panders exclusively to those who extract rent from the economy, and imposes austerity on those who work.

The gorilla, of course, is the outsized (over 40% of our economy!), enormously detrimental Financial Sector with its reckless debt creation, speculation, and extractive activities that drove us to the brink of ruin four years ago, and its continued existence in current form which will only repeat the cycle. The financial sector has driven debt creation, both private (which we, as a nation, are wallowing in), and public (as the falsely strong dollar elicits large trade deficits, piling on government debt as foreign traders recycle their American dollars in Bonds).

I want a champion who will go to Washington and take on the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) sector without concern for re-election, without concern for the opposition by the malefactors who daily steal the real productivity of the masses. I want a hero who will advocate a return to a true, classical economy, where debt is used to finance manufacturing expansion, where the unearned, 'free lunch' asset appreciation gains (Capital Gains) don't drive the economy nor contribute to outlandish awards to some.

I want a Neil Barofsky, or an Elizabeth Warren, or a Bill Black to go. Each has shown the fortitude to stand tall on this issue; each has worked in their way to raise awareness or to gain a foothold to battle it. Each has clearly demonstrated that they understand both what is happening, which of many possible solutions might give the best outcome, and the urgency with which this is needed.

Alas, outside of Warren who is running for the Senate, the others are not on the ballot. So, that leaves:

Mr. Romney, of course, who earned his fabulous wealth through this very means, borrowing and then saddling others to pay it off, while extracting a fortune from that very same debt. It is inconceivable that a Romney administration would promote the dismantling of the outsized banks and a return to a stable economy based upon real labor, real production, where real people perform real tasks to earn a real living.

President Obama, who has shown only a superficial awareness of this issue, and has so far backed away from any real attempts to address it or even communicate that he is considering it.

Hence, the lackluster feelings I have for this election. I will cast my vote for Obama, recognizing that my political participation will have only just begun at that point. That in order for us to gain any leverage, for us to stave off the austerity measures that the financial elite are cooking up for us, we will have to continue to participate, continue to advocate, continue to Occupy the public spaces.

Do As I Say...(Boy Scouts Edition)

It should be obvious why the Boy Scouts don't allow gays or atheists into their ranks: They don't need the training that scouting has to offer, and their outstanding moral positions would prove to be a humiliating distraction to the rest of the poor boys who struggle with the 12 tenets of the scout law.

For who can demonstrate loyalty better than an atheist, who won't drop you as friend if he learns you worship a different god? Or a gay boy, who won't torment you for liking Sally or Billy, but accepts that liking someone and pledging undying friendship, kindness and love is the height of being human?

Either can demonstrate trustworthiness, thriftiness and cleanliness. And what of reverence? Being gay or atheist is a life lesson in respecting institutions that support connections between people, but rejecting any that smack of bigotry or prejudice. Showing reverence for hate and fear is as wrong as lacking any reverence.

With their extremely tolerant views of others and willingness to offer the freedoms for others to pursue goals as they want the freedom to pursue theirs, the presence of gays and atheists within an intolerant, struggling group of Christian Scouts would prove a constant embarrassment.

(And what of the members of the LDS, who deemed the Book of Mormon insufficient for instilling moral character into their boys, and added the canon of Lord Baden-Powell alongside as the sole youth program for young men? Being bested in the mastery of cheerfulness, helpfulness or bravery by one who didn't consult either text might prove to be a debilitating demoralization!)

Instead of attempting to get in, gays and atheists should rejoice that they have mastered what scouting would teach them. They are the graduates.

And, never-mind that for a boy to fully understand Friendliness (offering his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respecting them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.); Kindness (He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not harm), or many of the other 12 tenets without the inclusion of all people, without leaders and an organization that lives those tenets and shows no prejudice, will, in the end, cripple him and his understanding.

For, obviously, the inclusion of gays and atheists within the ranks of scouting would prove too big a challenge, too great a test for the remainder, and their failure to live up to their tenets would become plain for all to see.

Protecting One's Nose

Benjamin Franklin famously said, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." A libertarian would probably rephrase it thus: "Your right to complain about my swinging fist begins at the tip of your nose."

In many ways, the libertarian viewpoint on when we can complain, when we can limit another's behavior is the right stance to take. It helps us remember that we don't want to overly constrain others, because we want to retain the right for ourselves to pursue our version of happiness without interference from the rest of society.

I find it strangely odd that pushes to limit who we can choose as living partners, as life partners, as marriage partners, issues from the pro-libertarian party. Sure, for decades they trumped up reasons why limiting marriage to heterosexuals protected society's (metaphorical) nose, but as each was debunked, their continued stance against same-sex marriage reveals instead a very non-libertarian viewpoint.

True libertarianism requires a highly developed sense of reciprocity - the ability to recognize that creating societal restrictions requires a strong proof that society will improve as a result, and that the restrictions don't constrain a minority's choices (paradoxically, at least to much of what is espoused as libertarian thinking, regulations fit this test: Requiring that businesses adhere to minimum quality standards allows consumers greater freedom to choose from competing products without fear of becoming the guinea pig for poison, and still gives business the options to select how and what to make). Restricting others simply because you don't like what they are doing is a form of tyranny, not liberty.

Choosing who we associate with, who we share our lives with, should be a fundamental right of all in society. Everyone should be free to make that choice without restrictions - sure, you can impose limits on yourself based upon your world-view, but really, it endangers your nose not one bit if instead of choosing Jill, Jack prefers John, and Ann and Beth want to move in next door.

It is high time that true, reciprocal thinking enters our debate on same-sex marriage, and that those who would maintain true liberty for choosing our lives stand up and drown out the tyrannical calls of those pseudo-libertarians who would instead impose their views - views that increase our liberty not one bit!