Results tagged “partisanship”

In 2001, I checked in with everyone on the morning of the attacks, and then again that night before I finally went to bed.

In 2002, I reflected on what it is to be an American. And it was just as important to me to note that we're all wrong.

In 2003, I was stuck thinking about the impact that violence and anger have on all of our lives.

In 2004, I had to watch and remember from a distance.

And last year, I think I finally started to understand how others may have seen the attacks when they happened.

But this year is something sadder for me. I feel as if we've failed in so many ways. All of us. I have alluded to it in all the pieces I wrote in the past, but after all the grief of the day, one of the strongest feelings I came away with on the day of the attacks was a feeling of some kind of hope. Being in New York that day really showed me the best that people can be. As much as it's become cliché now, there's simply no other way to describe a display that profound. It was truly a case of people showing their very best nature.

We seem to have let the hope of that day go, though. I see that public discourse has dissolved, again, into the same petty partisan politics that we were occupied with in the past. I remember in 2001 it was a summer of shark attacks and Gary Condit and I'll be damned if we're not right back to the same depths of idiocy now. There's no genuine appreciation for the fact that we share our American experience with people whom we can love despite our disagreements.

I'm a hypocrite here, too; I fall into the bickering myself. But I hope, at least, that I'm a sinner trying to be saved, and I loathe the fact that I only ever hear those horrible attacks used as a lever to help win an argument. Just once, I wish I'd hear someone talk about "9/11" as a justification for compromising with their neighbor, or with the person across the aisle. Just once.

And I don't feel safer. I feel like we understand less of the threat against us today than we did when we were attacked. I have not forgotten that, despite the lunacy of news reports about duct tape recommendations and hair gel policy, there actually were envelopes of anthrax mailed around. There really are threats, but all the day-to-day precautions seem to be focused on trying to close the door after the horse has already bolted. What happened to Osama Bin Laden?

I got complacent, too. I was ready to make a change. I was ready to make a sacrifice. I wanted to be asked to buy war bonds, to spend steel pennies, to plant a victory garden. I did make some changes, trying to use less gasoline or to better understand the world around me. I even got a solid start on embracing the ideas of people whom I thought I disagreed with, and have become a passionate moderate. But when we had a chance to really change the way people live their lives in our country, those who should have been leaders asked us to go back to our normal lives.

Today, I'm not 100% satisfied with our normal lives. I want the better life I saw from my friends and neighbors for a few brief moments after the worst day of our lives. I grieve not just for all the lives we lost that day, but for the fact that their loss could have helped us all be better, and that it could have inspired us to keep living the way we do at our best.

Honestly, looking around today, I feel we've failed. We aren't properly honoring those we lost. But I'm still optimistic that we can revive the effort, and that we can do justice to those we remember. Maybe we can still get it right. Most of all, I just hope that we never get a reminder that forces us to realize what an opportunity we've missed.

As I hope anybody who knows me can attest, I'm sick to death of the pointlessly partisan bickering preceding tomorrow's U.S. Presidential election. I'm annoyed by the assumption that I'm partisan. Sure, I have a preferred candidate in tomorrow's election, but like most sane people, I don't think either man (do they have to always be men?) is all right on all the issues, and I don't think the supporters of either side are particularly reasonable.

But more than all of this, I'm sick of shoddy advocacy. I've seen tons of URLs and video clips and a barrage of ads on TV all preaching to the converted. Here's a hint: When an analyst says a candidate is "speaking to his base" that means "he's talking to his own ass". The 10% extremists on either side are the ones who truly hate our freedoms.

And the worst thing about the candidates? They're fucking lazy. Nobody said to me "Vote for me because I'm most able to work with people in the opposite party who have good ideas, and that's how we make progress." These two guys are lazy in the way that can only come from men born into privilege afforded to one hundredth of one percent of all the people who've ever lived in all of history. Work for it, you sad sacks.

Despite all this, I'm voting. My mom and dad didn't travel halfway around the world for me to take their work for granted, and I still want to live in a world where having a civic duty actually means that you have an obligation. Plus, I don't want to be part of the mass bloodshed when P. Diddy has to murder 60 million people tomorrow night.

So, I'll post the platform that I wish someone had the brains or the guts to push at me months ago. I'm not saying I'm great at this, I'm just saying it's a hell of a lot better than any of the messages that got through to me from the campaigns thus far.

I'm in favor of a candidate who supports privatized, faith-based marriage. A lifelong commitment is too important and too personal to be left to any government institution. While the government can, and should, allow people to make contracts with anyone whom they please, it should be impossible for the government to make any laws in regard to marriage, and it should be impossible for churches to have any impact on contracts between any two consenting adults for any purpose.

I'm in favor of deregulated, free-market pharmaceutical sourcing. Protectionism and corporate welfare have no place when it comes to drugs that help improve or save people's lives.

We need a pro-small business foreign policy that considers the social environment for marketing American products and services abroad. Limiting the number of markets where foreign consumers are willing to purchase American goods is bad for our economy.

It's vitally critical to America's future that we preserve America's role as the worldwide leader in science and technology. To do so, we must allow a free market of unfettered research and exploration in every area of development, including the latest areas of genetic technology.

Finally, we need a pro-family health care policy that makes it possible for people to choose to spend time with their children if possible, and increases flexibility in staying under coverage even when unemployed or underemployed. Insurance companies and health care providers aren't properly incented to live up to their social responsibility right now, and a clear system of economic incentives would provide the right motivation to make sure every family in the United States could take care of their children without living in fear of a loss of coverage.

Though I'm an unapologetic liberal, this is (somewhat deliberately) a very conservative platform, and I've tried to couch it in the terms that make most sense to a conservative audience. But if you weigh these issues appropriately, it becomes clear that, of the two major party candidates vying for election tomorrow, John Kerry is the better choice.

Kerry opposes the Federal government mandating regulation of contract law to the individual states in regard to marriage. Kerry is in favor of letting the free market determine supply and demand for prescription drugs. Kerry is trying to encourage an environment where products and services from American businesses are welcomed by overseas buyers. Kerry has pledged a commitment to science over superstition when making decisions about American leadership in research. And Kerry has backed policies which will move us closer to an America where parents can think about kids instead of co-pays.

What is George Bush right on? He's right on not wanting to limit outsourcing. And he's admirably consistent in having a vision that he feels will address our nation's physical security. But I feel the overall military policies of both candidates will be sufficiently similar, due to the demands of our existing (over)commitments and despite protestations to the contrary, that the most sensible way to determine which candidate is best is by a sober assessment of their domestic social policies. Bush's policies are too fiscally irresponsible and not appropriately respectful of conservative values, in addition to being wholly disrespectful of social progressives, and this makes my decision easy.

I'm voting for John Kerry. I encourage you to vote tomorrow, too. And my prediction? We'll see over 290 electoral college votes for Kerry, but with as many as 3 states in contention due to the results being too close to call.

Despite having advocated the decisions of activist judges in 2000, Republicans will suddenly remember their love of states' rights in this year's dispute and ask the decision to go to the House of Representatives, as it has in every past Presidential toss-up except 2000. The Republican-controlled House will grant the disputed states to Bush, or perhaps two states will switch decisions and nearly cancel each other out, but it won't matter due to Kerry's significant lead in electoral votes.

And by the time the whole process has finished, most dumb, loud Americans will go back to hating their counterparts in the other party more than they hate Osama Bin Laden. The other 80% of us will shake our heads, be glad it's over, and get back to work.