This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 31, 2008.
Primary Season
Half my lifetime ago, I was a news editor at the Vermont Cynic, the UVM student newspaper. It was February, 1988, and I jumped at the chance to cover the New Hampshire primary election. I was, after all, a Poli Sci major, and the elections are our World Cup.
The story, alas, was too big for one reporter with a car and week-old candidate schedules. In pre-cell phone, pre-Internet days, the best I could do was see Pete DuPont and Bruce Babbitt on the streets of Manchester; I missed appearances by the bigs, George Bush and Michael Dukakis.
In the end, I found the location for Bush's primary-night party, got press credentials, and staked out a spot near a CNN crew. It was as exciting as it could be as I watched all the machinations, all the behind-the-scenes goings-on.
That primary was held on February 16. This year, New Hampshire's primary was held on the January 8, a full six weeks earlier in just 20 years. I'll rail against the primary process in detail some other time. For now, suffice it to say I find it disturbing.
Despite my consternation about the early start time, this election season has been an exciting one. On the Democratic side, there are some excellent candidates left, and history may be in the making. Unfortunately, for Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, the candidates with the widest experience do not always win.
This isn't to say that John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton would not make good presidents - I think they all would.
Edwards has the kind of populist persona that I recognize in the persons of Woodrow Wilson or Harry Truman. I think he, better than any one, recognizes the plight of the middle class. Even after tanking in Nevada and South Carolina, Edwards quixotically vowed to continue on, though when reality set in, he gracefully bowed out.
I've been a fan of Obama's since I saw his speech at the Democratic national convention in 2004. Though he is thoughtful and would attract the best advisers America has to offer, I worry about his lack of foreign policy credentials. Though the economy is dominating the news now, Iraq, and our standing in the world, are critical issues that demand attention.
I was surprised to see Clinton win her New York Senate seat in 2000, and our proximity to that state has allowed me to follow her career, which I see as very favorable. She is a force in Washington of her own right and has the support of many of the most experienced Democrats. She has travelled the world as a First Lady and Senator and knows the issues. Her longevity and experience are her greatest assets.
I think we all know it is down to Clinton and Obama. I lean toward Clinton, but I can fully support Obama. This year, if things stay close on Super Tuesday, it is entirely possible that Vermont's voice may make a difference. I hope so, it would be a nice change.
Many Democrats have developed a false sense of security; that in choosing our nominee, we are automatically choosing the next President. We cannot fall into that trap. Nothing in politics is set in stone, at least not until the votes are counted, and so we have to be concerned about the Republican nominee. I would be comfortable with only one name.
Before he left the race, Rudy Giuliani squandered the goodwill he'd accumulated as "America's mayor." His repeated invocation of 9/11 wore me down quickly, and based on his showing in Florida, he wore down Republicans, too.
I was on the fence about Mike Huckabee - he seemed likable enough, a man of the people, straight-talking. But his statements that our Constitution should be changed to live up to God's standards made him immediately unacceptable to me. I have not viewed him seriously ever since.
Mitt Romney has a respectable track record in business and government. However, what I want from our next President is a sea change in terms of policy, and Romney has said that he would maintain all of the current policies. What a disappointment it would be to have a Bush clone take office.
The one name, then, is the only one left - that of John McCain. I am troubled by his statement that America could stay in Iraq indefinitely, but his prior stances on torture and campaign finance reform are in line with my own thoughts, his war record is beyond reproach, his record in the Senate has been mostly consistent, and I think his "straight talk" approach is real and not a front for the elections.
That said, I think America's best choice for the next four years will come from the Democratic side. Twenty years ago, the politicians were all planning to go to Washington to make things right for "us and the next generation."
I've seen what conservative values have to offer us as a nation. My kids are that "next generation," and as they might say, "I'm so over it."
(Postscipt: Apologies to Mike Gravel on the Democratic side and to Ron Paul and Alan Keyes on the Republican side, for not being mentioned in the original column, but space is not unlimited.)
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Religious Testing
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 17, 2008.
Religious Testing
As you may remember from high school, the original Constitution contained no bill of rights, a fact lamented by some of the framers in Philadelphia. One of the main reasons George Mason refused to sign the Constitution, after a hot summer of work on the document, was the lack of a bill of rights.
Eventually, James Madison went to the House promising to champion a bill of rights, and three years after the Constitution was ratified, the first ten amendments were added.
What many forget is that the original Constitution contains what some have called a "mini" bill of rights. The protection of habeas corpus and the prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are included in this small list.
In my discussions of constitutionally-protected rights, I include the final clause of Article 6:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The framers were creating a state based on democratic principles, not autocratic, not monarchic, not theocratic. This right, the right to not be required to adhere to one religion or another in order to hold office, was especially important in the Protestant melting pot of the 1780s.
The Religious Test clause was created in a society troubled by competing Christian sects. In a time when Baptists and Congregationalists were sometimes at each other's throats, the Religious Test clause was a big step.
Tolerating other Protestant sects was only one challenge. For many in 18th century America, reinstallation of a king would have been preferable to a large migration of Catholics into America. If there was any thought of "Hindoos," "Mohammedans," or any other major world religion, it was fleeting at best. Fortunately, we have evolved in our thinking and our Constitution has been able to adapt from tacit tolerance to actual tolerance.
What brings all this up is the resurgence of religiosity in our presidential campaigns these last few cycles. To be sure, our presidents are usually not shy about their beliefs. Dwight Eisenhower was baptized while in office; James Garfield sometimes took to the pulpit to preach while in office; and, of course, George W. Bush's religious rebirth was the subject of much ink before he became president.
However, outward displays of faith which were often considered undignified just a few decades ago are de rigueur today. In fact, "having religion" seems to be a requirement: polls show that most people would not vote for an avowed atheist or even an agnostic.
What concerns me is that all this talk of religion seems to have rendered the Religious Test clause moot. Though the people are free to vote for whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish, if large enough blocs of voters impose such a test on the candidates they, in effect, impose it for all of us.
From concerns about Mitt Romney's Mormonism to evangelicals voting for Mike Huckabee solely because he is an ordained minister, talk of religion, in some circles in particular, has overtaken the really important issues. I find it more important to know candidate's thoughts on domestic and foreign policy than about the role God plays in their life.
Religion is also being used as a scare tactic. FactCheck.org recently debunked a series of emails that are circulating about Barack Obama, emails that erroneously report that Obama attended a jihadist madrassa in Indonesia, that he took his oath of office on the Koran, and that he attends a racist church in Chicago.
Even worse, these scare tactics work because so many people know absolutely nothing about religion. In his book "Religious Literacy," Stephen Prothero shows that the lack of knowledge about religion is not only sad but dangerous. In a time when many Catholics can't list the seven sacraments and many Protestants don't know who Martin Luther is, it is easy to scare people about Mormons or Muslims.
I don't think it is inappropriate to ask our candidates for president to reveal their religious beliefs. But I do hope that after we hear the answers, we don't close our minds to those who give an answer we perceive as "wrong."
Religion has a prominent place in American life, but when it comes to politics, our religious beliefs should guide us but not rule us. Don't judge someone simply because they are Baptist or Muslim or Mormon or Jewish or Catholic or even atheist.
Instead, listen to what they have to say about the issues and base your decisions on that. It is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution's Religious Test clause, and in keeping with our American tradition of religious freedom and tolerance.
Religious Testing
As you may remember from high school, the original Constitution contained no bill of rights, a fact lamented by some of the framers in Philadelphia. One of the main reasons George Mason refused to sign the Constitution, after a hot summer of work on the document, was the lack of a bill of rights.
Eventually, James Madison went to the House promising to champion a bill of rights, and three years after the Constitution was ratified, the first ten amendments were added.
What many forget is that the original Constitution contains what some have called a "mini" bill of rights. The protection of habeas corpus and the prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are included in this small list.
In my discussions of constitutionally-protected rights, I include the final clause of Article 6:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The framers were creating a state based on democratic principles, not autocratic, not monarchic, not theocratic. This right, the right to not be required to adhere to one religion or another in order to hold office, was especially important in the Protestant melting pot of the 1780s.
The Religious Test clause was created in a society troubled by competing Christian sects. In a time when Baptists and Congregationalists were sometimes at each other's throats, the Religious Test clause was a big step.
Tolerating other Protestant sects was only one challenge. For many in 18th century America, reinstallation of a king would have been preferable to a large migration of Catholics into America. If there was any thought of "Hindoos," "Mohammedans," or any other major world religion, it was fleeting at best. Fortunately, we have evolved in our thinking and our Constitution has been able to adapt from tacit tolerance to actual tolerance.
What brings all this up is the resurgence of religiosity in our presidential campaigns these last few cycles. To be sure, our presidents are usually not shy about their beliefs. Dwight Eisenhower was baptized while in office; James Garfield sometimes took to the pulpit to preach while in office; and, of course, George W. Bush's religious rebirth was the subject of much ink before he became president.
However, outward displays of faith which were often considered undignified just a few decades ago are de rigueur today. In fact, "having religion" seems to be a requirement: polls show that most people would not vote for an avowed atheist or even an agnostic.
What concerns me is that all this talk of religion seems to have rendered the Religious Test clause moot. Though the people are free to vote for whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish, if large enough blocs of voters impose such a test on the candidates they, in effect, impose it for all of us.
From concerns about Mitt Romney's Mormonism to evangelicals voting for Mike Huckabee solely because he is an ordained minister, talk of religion, in some circles in particular, has overtaken the really important issues. I find it more important to know candidate's thoughts on domestic and foreign policy than about the role God plays in their life.
Religion is also being used as a scare tactic. FactCheck.org recently debunked a series of emails that are circulating about Barack Obama, emails that erroneously report that Obama attended a jihadist madrassa in Indonesia, that he took his oath of office on the Koran, and that he attends a racist church in Chicago.
Even worse, these scare tactics work because so many people know absolutely nothing about religion. In his book "Religious Literacy," Stephen Prothero shows that the lack of knowledge about religion is not only sad but dangerous. In a time when many Catholics can't list the seven sacraments and many Protestants don't know who Martin Luther is, it is easy to scare people about Mormons or Muslims.
I don't think it is inappropriate to ask our candidates for president to reveal their religious beliefs. But I do hope that after we hear the answers, we don't close our minds to those who give an answer we perceive as "wrong."
Religion has a prominent place in American life, but when it comes to politics, our religious beliefs should guide us but not rule us. Don't judge someone simply because they are Baptist or Muslim or Mormon or Jewish or Catholic or even atheist.
Instead, listen to what they have to say about the issues and base your decisions on that. It is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution's Religious Test clause, and in keeping with our American tradition of religious freedom and tolerance.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
A political wish list for 2008
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 4, 2008.
A political wish list for 2008
After receiving a Christmas wish list from one of my sons, I was asked, "What's on your wish list, daddy?" While I can do without a WebKinz or an iPod, there are some things I wish for the coming year.
Politically, and this should be no surprise, I wish more than anything for a Democrat to take the presidential elections in November. I'm still not sure, however, who I'd like that Democrat to be, but I have my favorites.
I also wish, as the deluge of political ads continue, that we in Vermont are spared much of the negative mudslinging that pervades the airwaves in other states. Let the newspapers report on candidates' problems. I want to know why to vote for you, and not why I should vote against your opponent.
I wish that we, the people, would see the insanity of our primary system. It will be no surprise to me to see the next Iowa caucus held in December 2011 if we don't fix things soon, and it will take the people's outcry to fix it.
My favorite plan is to split the country into equal quarters, and hold primary elections in each quarter all at once, perhaps two weeks apart, rotating which quarter goes first each election cycle. As much as I love New Hampshire and think Iowa is a fine state, there is little reason either should always get first crack at the candidates.
I wish that we could see an end to the undeclared war in Iraq. The details can fill an entire column, but suffice it to say I don't see a complete pull-out as a viable option. The Iraqis, however, need to be in charge of their own destiny. We should help with that, but we need an exit strategy, yesterday.
For my state, I wish for a continuation to our snow season, to keep our winter industries going. But not so much snow that the kids have any more snow days!
I wish that Vermont would do away with civil marriage. I think marriage is something that only churches should bestow. The state still has an interest in joining couples, and to that end, I think that civil union should replace marriage. As shocking as this idea might first seem, it would solve a lot of problems and avoid a lot of needless debate.
I wish that we, as a state, would make a commitment to alternative power generation. There are a lot of great ideas out there for wind power, solar power, and cleaner nuclear power, and we should be on the vanguard.
This is a bit of an obscure wish, but I wish Vermont would follow its own constitution and house all of our prisoners in-state. It might be more expensive, but if we can violate Article 2, Section 64 of our own constitution, is any part safe?
This may come as a surprise - I don't know if I wish for a Democrat in the governor's chair. I think there is real benefit to having the legislative and executive branches at odds with each other. Negotiation leads to better laws than collusion.
Within Williston, I wish for a resolution, one way or the other, to issues like the Circ, the use of guns on public lands, and the disposition of the proposed landfill. I also wish that the people would come out and hear about the school budget and offer up objections and suggestions long before the budget comes to a vote.
Speaking of voting, I wish Williston could claim 100% participation of eligible voters or, at least, registered ones. There are still people in this world who die to cast their vote - we should take the obligations of citizenship more seriously.
Lastly, I wish that we would all take a few minutes and read our constitutions, both national and state. It doesn't take long and it's worth the time. Find out or rediscover your rights, then exercise those rights: petition your government and speak out on the issues. Let them know what's on your wish list.
A political wish list for 2008
After receiving a Christmas wish list from one of my sons, I was asked, "What's on your wish list, daddy?" While I can do without a WebKinz or an iPod, there are some things I wish for the coming year.
Politically, and this should be no surprise, I wish more than anything for a Democrat to take the presidential elections in November. I'm still not sure, however, who I'd like that Democrat to be, but I have my favorites.
I also wish, as the deluge of political ads continue, that we in Vermont are spared much of the negative mudslinging that pervades the airwaves in other states. Let the newspapers report on candidates' problems. I want to know why to vote for you, and not why I should vote against your opponent.
I wish that we, the people, would see the insanity of our primary system. It will be no surprise to me to see the next Iowa caucus held in December 2011 if we don't fix things soon, and it will take the people's outcry to fix it.
My favorite plan is to split the country into equal quarters, and hold primary elections in each quarter all at once, perhaps two weeks apart, rotating which quarter goes first each election cycle. As much as I love New Hampshire and think Iowa is a fine state, there is little reason either should always get first crack at the candidates.
I wish that we could see an end to the undeclared war in Iraq. The details can fill an entire column, but suffice it to say I don't see a complete pull-out as a viable option. The Iraqis, however, need to be in charge of their own destiny. We should help with that, but we need an exit strategy, yesterday.
For my state, I wish for a continuation to our snow season, to keep our winter industries going. But not so much snow that the kids have any more snow days!
I wish that Vermont would do away with civil marriage. I think marriage is something that only churches should bestow. The state still has an interest in joining couples, and to that end, I think that civil union should replace marriage. As shocking as this idea might first seem, it would solve a lot of problems and avoid a lot of needless debate.
I wish that we, as a state, would make a commitment to alternative power generation. There are a lot of great ideas out there for wind power, solar power, and cleaner nuclear power, and we should be on the vanguard.
This is a bit of an obscure wish, but I wish Vermont would follow its own constitution and house all of our prisoners in-state. It might be more expensive, but if we can violate Article 2, Section 64 of our own constitution, is any part safe?
This may come as a surprise - I don't know if I wish for a Democrat in the governor's chair. I think there is real benefit to having the legislative and executive branches at odds with each other. Negotiation leads to better laws than collusion.
Within Williston, I wish for a resolution, one way or the other, to issues like the Circ, the use of guns on public lands, and the disposition of the proposed landfill. I also wish that the people would come out and hear about the school budget and offer up objections and suggestions long before the budget comes to a vote.
Speaking of voting, I wish Williston could claim 100% participation of eligible voters or, at least, registered ones. There are still people in this world who die to cast their vote - we should take the obligations of citizenship more seriously.
Lastly, I wish that we would all take a few minutes and read our constitutions, both national and state. It doesn't take long and it's worth the time. Find out or rediscover your rights, then exercise those rights: petition your government and speak out on the issues. Let them know what's on your wish list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)