Monday, August 27, 2012

Are real cross-party political conversations possible?


For the past few weeks my Monday posting has answered a political question offered by my publisher.  The intention was for a conservative voice to join me in a conversation or debate.  I didn't really like this described as a debate, because debates tend to separate rather than bring people together.  Although I am, according to a little Pew Research Quiz a radical left winger, I don't see myself in that way.  My own self-perception is of a person a bit left of center.  Back to the conversation with Elgin Hushbeck -- I found his answer over the top and decided I couldn't go further.  You can decide for yourself whether I over-reacted. In any case the conversation is on hiatus, but with the start of one party's national convention this week and politics on everyone's mind, I thought it worth devoting at least a little time to the conversation -- after all, on Wednesday evening I'm hosting a conversation on Faith in the Public Square that will include a book signing.

We bemoan the course partisanship that grips our nation.  It's doubtful that there ever was a time when the majority of the nation put aside partisanship, except perhaps during war-time.  And as Abraham Lincoln would tell you, even then there was little unanimity.  There was a time, not all that long ago, when the political parties weren't nearly as ideologically driven.  As recently as the 1960s the two parties had conservative and liberal wings, but by the 1980s this began to change.  Growing up in Oregon, the majority of Republican leaders, at least those who won statewide races, were moderate to liberal.  Mark Hatfield was as anti-war a Republican as there was, while Governor Tom McCall was a rather determined environmentalist.  Neither of these two would be welcome in the Republican Party today.  And of course, if you're a conservative Democrat like Bart Stupack of Michigan, you will have a hard time surviving.

But the issues that confront the nation today require cross-party cooperation.  They require conversations that will encourage new solutions not status quo.  Take the issue of Social Security, for instance.  The idea of privatizing it sounds good at one level, but as we all know, the vagaries of the market can put people at risk. I'm fortunate that as a participant in the Disciples Pension Plan, I will have a defined benefit package not a defined contribution package.  I will know what my minimum is.  So as far as defining benefits, Social Security won't be secure if it depends on market forces -- therefore I stand squarely with Democrats on this issue.  At the same time we need to face the fact that we have an aging population, and except for immigration would have a declining workforce, thus a greater burden is placed on this smaller workforce to sustain this larger number of retirees depending on Social Security.  We can increase the payroll tax but that puts an unfair burden on those who are working today.  Thus, raising the retirement age makes sense.  Remember that when age 65 was put in place most Americans didn't live that long.  Now we're living well past 80 (on average).  So, something has to happen and if both parties would talk they could get something done.

So, how do we bridge the gap?  How do we start the conversation?  And just as a reminder, some conversation has start soon, because looming in front of us are huge budget cuts and ending of the Bush Tax Cuts.  Taken together, whoever wins the election, if these aren't dealt with in a responsible manner, we'll have major economic problems.  So, as Rodney King once said?  "Why can't we all get along?"  

Perhaps we should all go back to Kindergarten!!

2 comments:

John said...

Perhaps this is off-point but I have been thinking this morning about Romney's offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, etc.

Romney is seeking to become the president of the United States. He is seeking to become the chief promoter of all that is America, and all that is worthy of respect and honor in this country. He's been thinking about this for at least 10 years, ten years to think through the implications of his actions and his investments, and how he earns, arranges and spends his millions.

To place his money in the Cayman Islands is to place money beyond the reach of American Laws. Why? Is there an "in case" he is concerned about? An "in case" where it is in his best interest to keep his money where he can avoid the reach of American laws?

It seems to me that the President should stand for the United States, promoting us, promoting patriotism, promoting law abidingness. How can he do that with any degree of integrity if he is shielding assets from American Laws by keeping them in foreign countries who have specifically designed their laws to insulate people such as Romney from the reach of American laws.

I presume that he's not breaking any laws, but even so, how can he, as first among equals, the very President of the United States, justify insulating any of his assets from American laws? Is this not the height of hypocrisy? Does it not send a message we should comply with American laws only when its suits our personal economic interests? Does it not teach exploitation and manipulation? How can he seriously campaign against legal loopholes when he continues to use those loopholes to his maximum advantage. Where is the moral compass in all of that?

And, if he should come to realize this problem now, in the midst of the campaign, what lesson should we the voters draw that it took him all these years during which he contemplated the run for presidency to finally see the problem with shielding assets from the reach of American laws. What does this say about his lack of insight into the consequences of his own actions?

I am not suggesting that he has done anything illegal, just that he has demonstrated an incredible lack of common sense if not a lack of integrity. Is this really the person we want to choose to lead us and our children into the future?

David said...

You mentioned that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Maybe not.

Gov. Gary Johnson Could Cost Romney 5 Battleground States, 74 Electoral Votes Needed to Win in 2012

http://www.lp.org/

By the way, I saw this today. The racists are getting bold already.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40831_What_Right_Wing_Racism_This_Is_How_We_Feed_Animals

The recent local story about the Jewish MSU student who was assaulted is overly shocking, considering the many bystanders who didn't intervene. What are we (the US) becoming?