Are you still reading? Then you probably think of yourself as a liberal or democrat or both, too. And that’s a shame. Because in the current political climate, as it has been for several years now, we simply do not listen to one another’s point of view.
It is a shame that we have completely lost the fine art of debate. Let’s face it, our political “debates” are about as far from a debate as one could possibly get, where politicians from both sides completely ignore the moderator’s questions and instead bring any and all questions back around to their own talking points. Or simply shout each other down. Is it any wonder that we’re loosing the skills to engage in an intelligent conversation of differing opinions? We certainly have few good examples to look to in our “leaders.”
True, those early days of American politics were surely no tea party (pun, anyone?). Historical documents lead us to believe that our forefathers did not sit together quietly and congenially, working through their ideas. No, it seems there was quite a bit of shouting and gnashing of teeth as they pounded out the documents on which our country was based. But there was also no CNN or Fox News. No texting. No internet. By the time word got to their constituents that anything was happening, it was already done and over with.
Those founding fathers (with more than a little input from several outspoken founding mothers) worked long and hard hashing out the points they felt were important. There was lots of arguing. Innumerable disagreements. But ultimately, they were all working for the greater good of a fledgling nation, not just the sound bite for their next election campaign ad. And they actually got things done.
I have heard it said that “liberals” are as closed-minded as they claim conservatives to be, just as stubborn about their beliefs. And this may be true. But ultimately, I find myself more readily “left justified” than aligned with the right. And although there are left leaning Republicans and right leaning Democrats, I believe, at the end of the day, that, if I have to be labeled, I fall to the side of the liberals for one very simple reason. Fundamentally, I find that liberals, on the whole, embrace, while conservatives shun, particularly in matters of social significance. We may not always go about it the right way, and assuredly we do not always succeed, but overall we allow our beliefs to guide us in ways that more often than not INclude rather than EXclude.
There are a multitude of examples I could provide, but I will choose from some of the thorniest to make my point. Hang on to your hats, ladies and gents, I’m about to step up to my soap box…it may be a bumpy ride…but then I’m probably preachin’ to the choir…
Pro-choice versus pro-life. First, please stop trying to inflame people by saying that pro-life equals pro-abortion. IT DOES NOT. I am pro-choice. Meaning, as the term would imply, that I support women’s right to have choices regarding what to do with her body. The problem, in part, is a question of terminology. The opposite of pro-choice would be anti-choice, NOT pro-life. I am not against life. Since I, myself, am alive, to be anti-life, would mean I was basically suicidal, regardless of what was going on inside my body, wouldn’t it? So not the case.
It also doesn’t mean I’m out there like some warped version of Oprah—“And YOU get an abortion! And YOU get an abortion! EVERYBODY gets an abortion!” Pro-choice doesn’t mean you demand that people make a certain choice, it means you support the existence of a choice. In my book, this is a deeply personal issue, and I hope and pray that I never find myself in a position to have to choose. I hope you don’t either. But if you do come to such a crossroads, ladies, the liberal position supports your decision either way. Should your views, religious or personal, not support this option, then you should follow your beliefs. Because you have a choice. Having a choice allows both options to be available for use according to one’s views, situation, etc. The conservative (or perhaps ultra-conservative) viewpoint takes away my choice, and makes me have to conform solely to its belief.
The same holds true for availability of birth control (female birth control-clearly condoms can be sold at any gas station). If you do not believe in birth control, then you should not use it. Plain and simple. The fact that it is available does not mean you are in any way forced into it. Use it. Don’t. It’s an option.
In my mind, these are not even issues of the left and right so much as they an issue of men try to control women and their bodies. No, I don’t think all men are evil or out to get me as a woman, and if there are men that don’t believe in abortion or birth control, they have every right to their beliefs and every right to voice said beliefs. But they don’t get to make rules about it. If you don’t HAVE a uterus, you should not be allowed to legislate what goes on in mine. And since women are so pathetically under-represented (number wise) in congress and politics in general, this is clearly something that the government has no business legislating in the first place. What happened to no big government? Now you’re going to, what, create a whole section of government to police women’s reproductive systems? Sheesh! Interesting that no one is talking about making condoms illegal. I’ve always said that if, when two people had sex, either of them could get pregnant, then birth control, abortion, rape, none of these would be an issue. There would be no arguments whatsoever.
And then there is same sex marriage. Why, why are we still discussing this? Conservatives want marriage to be exclusive. One man, one woman. This is the “definition.” Well, who defines things? Definitions are not static; they change constantly through usage, knowledge, understanding. We use words differently, define them differently, over time. Read some Shakespeare, for heaven’s sake!
Everyone is hung up on the word “marriage.” And while some in the gay and lesbian community have made the actual word part of their fight for equality, I would venture to guess that the majority of people are not so much concerned with what you call it. They are more concerned with not being considered “less than”:
Their relationships are less valid than heterosexuals.
Their partners are less entitled to gain medical information about them.
Their partners are less deserving of spousal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples, including health care, pensions, FMLA, etc.
They are less capable of raising healthy, happy children.
Allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married does not infringe upon your right to not believe in homosexuality. If you don’t think it’s right, then you don’t have to get “gay” married. You can choose a church that doesn’t support homosexuality. You can surround yourself with people who don’t believe in it either. You still have the right to choose not to accept it. The liberal stance embraces their rights while recognizing your own. The conservative stance preserves your right to your beliefs, while denying them theirs.
And don’t even get me started on “entitlements.” Seriously. There is much talk on the conservative side of pulling oneself up by their own boot straps. Which is fine when you have a pair of boots. Everyone doesn’t. And when we make promises to people, about things like social security and medicare, we ought to keep those promises.
It is hard to even start a conversation with a conservative about social security, as the immediate response to any discussion is that ‘social security was never meant to be a sole source of income.’ Well, that may be true, and I think it is clear to my generation that social security is in no way secure, nor anything that we can possibly hope to count on in our old age (although we continue to pay into it).
But for my Mom and Dad’s generation, the promise was stronger and the argument was not made quite clear to them. In my parent’s time, they counted on a guaranteed pension promised to my Dad through his work as a state employee, and social security. Dad’s pension was reasonable, but upon retiring from the state with 30+ years of service, it was not large enough for him to take the option of a smaller income in order to guarantee a benefit to my mother upon his death. For her part, my mother had worked prior to getting married, then stayed home to raise our family. After my father retired, she went back to school to be a medical technician and worked for a local “doc in a box.’ What little retirement she had from working there disappeared when the company closed and filed for bankruptcy.
When my father died four years ago, Dad’s pension was gone, his health insurance was gone, and she was left with only a small portion of his social security in addition to her own. A whopping $900 a month total. Cut her social security and what exactly is she expected to live on? At 70 years old, she’s had to go back to work part time just so she doesn’t have to fret about paying her house insurance or buying her groceries. She’s not looking to start a new career, she’s just trying to survive. She has been a good citizen, a good wife, a good mother. Why is it too much to ask the government to make good on the promise they made to her? If we need to change social security going forward, so be it. But maintain your commitment to those already counting on it.
It seems that conservatives presume that people who currently rely on social security were just too stupid to invest or to plan for their futures. Maybe that’s why so many people are against “Obamacare”—less healthcare means people may die off sooner and we can quit paying them out. A modern day Modest Proposal! You may think that’s a cynical potshot, but I assure you my mother was not laughing when federal budget negotiations threatened to delay he social security check. She was visiting me for my son’s birthday and fretted the whole time she was here about how she was going to pay her bills. Congress may have been playing at politics (on both sides), but her worry was real. I’m not sure Congress always remembers that there are real people who are affected by their decisions, or indecisions.
In the case of Medicare, there is an incredibly easy and guaranteed way to fix it, by the way. Simply take away the great insurance that congressmen, both Republican and Democrat, get after leaving office and replace it with the same Medicare benefits everyone else in the country is entitled to. Medicare will be fixed tomorrow. No lie. Come to think of it, maybe we should change their retirement benefit exclusively to social security, and get that fixed, too. Ah, but I digress…
There are also different types of federal programs that provide assistance to everyday people like me.
Here’s a good example. Before I had my son, I wanted to buy a house. I had gotten myself into a debt hole with credit cards, and worked my way, slowly, out of it. I began to save money and eventually started looking for a house. I contacted a mortgage company to get pre-approved for a loan. As a first time home buyer, I qualified for an FHA loan that allowed me to buy a house without having 20% down. I was grateful for this government program that provided me the bit of assistance I needed to make my dream of owning a home of my own, with a front porch and veggie garden, with a bed of iris and a lawn to mow, a reality. I was careful to buy only as much house as I believed I could afford, and in the 7+ years I’ve owned my home, I’ve never missed a payment. I pay my property taxes. I pay my government version of PMI each month. I am a good citizen to my neighbors. I just needed a little assistance to get where I was going.
I am often reminded of the old joke about the man in the flood who refuses assistance time and time again because “God will save him.” When he ultimately dies in the flood and meets God in heaven, he asks why God did not save him, to which God replies, “I sent a car, a boat, a helicopter…” While God helps those who helps themselves, it was a core mission of Jesus to help the less fortunate. Those who needed a helping hand. What is wrong with striking a balance?
Oh, and I never would have been able to get my degrees had it not been for student loans, which I continue to pay back until my balance is paid in full. Unfortunately, I could not ask Mom and Dad for a loan, like some have suggested. Not that they would not have helped me if they could. But that type of financial support was simply not part of my reality. If it’s part of you’re reality, more power to you, my friend. I am happy for you. But allowing programs like federal student loans to exist give those of us without such means the opportunity to earn an education as well.
I could not bring myself to watch either convention this year, but I have read quite a few reviews and watched some of the commentary afterwards on Charlie Rose. After listening to various guests talk about Obama, I guess I share one of the president’s perceived flaws. Like him, I want to believe that rational people can sit down together and talk about things, and when making logical points on either side, can eventually come to an agreement. Clearly this presumes too many things to come to fruition. I am left frustrated at the lack of conversation on every level and a logical train of thought derailed by a fundamental inability to be inclusive.
Why do I think being a liberal matters today? Because I believe somebody has to keep trying to have the conversation, and keep trying to find those people on both sides of the aisle who can engage in genuine debate and fashion solutions that take into account and accommodate as many beliefs as possible. Care to start a conversation? Perhaps eventually we can get rid of all these labels and actually work together, as our forefathers did, with the goal of a government that actually works for the all people it represents.
PostModernMommy 