This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 20, 2008.
Election Reflection
In our lives, it is important to look back on past events and reflect on what has gone before, to learn lessons, to make plans for the future. In elections, time gives us a chance to do all that, but it also gives us a chance to do something just as important - hold recounts.
Or just counting in the first place. For days after the election, it looked clear that convicted felon, and Republican incumbent Ted Stevens of Alaska would be returning to the Senate, at least long enough for the Senate to expel him. But after 65,000 of 90,000 absentee ballots had been counted as of last Friday, the tide had turned and Democratic challenger Mark Begich had taken the lead.
In Minnesota, Democratic challenger Al Franken trailed incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by only 206 votes, out of 2.9 million cast. A recount is mandated by state law, and began yesterday. It will be next month, though, before the result is certified. Franken (actually running on the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party ticket because of some interesting historical quirks) was in Washington to work with the Democratic leadership, just in case the recount went his way.
In Georgia, there is little question about the vote count, but since none of the candidates got the required fifty percent, a run-off election is scheduled for the two top vote-getters, Republican incumbent (and plurality winner) Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin. A key issue in the run-off campaign so far seems to be support for the Fair Tax, which Chambliss supports and Martin does not.
Speaking of run-off elections, thankfully, no such election will be needed here in Vermont. Here, if no candidate for governor, lieutenant governor, or treasurer gets fifty percent of the vote, the election is thrown to the legislature, with the top three vote-getters eligible for election.
For a while on election night, it was unclear if incumbent Republican Jim Douglas would be able to get the required fifty percent, but after all the votes were counted, he handily won and passed the threshold with 53.4%. It is not easy to unseat an incumbent in Vermont. Despite several hard challenges in both of their careers, Jim Douglas and his predecessor, Howard Dean, fended them all off.
Since Douglas did win the needed 50%, the more interesting aspect of the governor's race was the fight for second place. Though he eked it out by just 257 votes, Independent Anthony Pollina beat Democrat Gaye Symington for Douglas's leavings. His success in beating out Symington may or may not be helpful to Pollina, a well-meaning and well-spoken man who has made something of a career of being a spoiler and also-ran.
Seven Days columnist Shay Totten reports that some Democrats are pushing to allow Pollina to run against Douglas as a fusion candidate in 2010. It seems unlikely to me, barring a decision by Douglas not to run or a major scandal in the Douglas administration, that any challenger could possibly win. That might be their point - let Pollina take the fall for another loss.
In any case, we have at least a week or two before the next campaign season begins in earnest, so no decisions have to be made right now.
In terms of state-wide offices, the governor's race was the one the incumbent won by the lowest percentage. According to the Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie won with 55.0%; Secretary of State Deb Markowitz won with 70.8%; Attorney General Bill Sorrell won with 72.6%; Peter Welch was sent back to Congress with 83.2%; Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon won with 83.8%; and Treasurer Jeb Spaulding won the highest percentage of all with 89.9%.
And, of course, Barack Obama won Vermont's three electoral votes with 67.4%. There were seven other major party candidates for President. Republican John McCain garnered 30.4% of the vote; the only other player to get at least a full percentage point was Independent Ralph Nader, with 1.02%.
For the country, this was, indeed, a historic election, and one which is not quite over in some states. Here in Vermont, though, it was more of the same, with incumbents enjoying the protection of their offices. It is not necessarily true that we've gotten the best that we could have gotten, but what is true is that we picked them.
Now our job is to keep an eye on them, and I hope you'll join me as we do just that.
-----------------------------
Notes:
Following the submission of this column, the victory of Mark Begich over Ted Stevens was confirmed. On November 20, Stevens made his final speech in the Senate and went home.
Not to be outdone on the recount front, Vermont got in on the action. The seventh place candidate in the Chittenden Senate race, Denise Barnard, requested a recount of that county's ballots. Barnard had assumed she had come in sixth on Election Night, but several miscount issues led to Tim Ashe taking that position. The recount, scheduled to start on December 3, is scheuled to take seven to ten days. There was also a recount in the House race in Milton scheduled for one day of work.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Great Debates
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 9, 2008.
Great Debates
Televised debates in U.S. presidential campaigns have a long and storied history. Over time, it is not the substance of the debates that we remember but instead the one-liners and the blunders.
Classic gaffes include George H.W. Bush's impatient glances at his watch during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and Al Gore's creepy hovering during a town-hall style debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Classic one-liners abound, but Ronald Reagan supplied two memorable ones in a 1980 debate. His reprimand of "There you go again" when Jimmy Carter criticized Reagan's position on Medicare is often replayed, as is his rhetorical question to the viewing audience, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
It would be a stretch to say that a gaffe in a debate is a death sentence to a campaign or that a great one-liner could seal the deal, but these, along with the other trivialities from the campaign trail, can add up to enough of a nudge to push fence-sitters into one camp or another.
So it is with this knowledge of debates past that I have watched the last three debates, looking for the critical mistake, the classic zinger. So far, though, the debates have been very even.
For the first debate, John McCain supplied plenty of drama, keeping everyone guessing if he'd even show up, given that he had nonsensically "suspended his campaign" so that he could work on the economic bail-out bill. Barack Obama vowed that he would appear at the University of Mississippi for the debate whether McCain showed up or not. In the end, McCain did appear, revealing the "suspension" as mere melodrama.
As I watched, I was impressed by most of the answers that both candidates gave, though I cynically let pass the answering of the question they heard rather than the one that was asked. Post-debate polls asking "Who won?" indicated a preference for Obama among undecided voters, but only just barely - McCain and "Neither" were both close behind. Given that the debate's primary focus was on foreign policy, seen as a McCain strong point, that Obama held his own was seen as a big plus by many pundits.
Going into last week's Vice Presidential debate, many were expecting Sarah Palin to stumble. Considering her mangled answers to such softball interview questions as "What newspapers do you read?" it was easy to expect a stumble. But by only answering the questions she wanted to, Palin was able to keep an even keel, even managing to wink at the camera a few times.
Joe Biden, known for being pedantic and verbose, managed to keep those impulses in check and avoided boring the audience to tears. He ended up being very eloquent and even folksy, threatening to take that mantle from Palin. Though a CNN poll indicated a Biden win, Palin did better than expected, which was seen as a plus for her ticket.
In the days since the VP debate, the McCain campaign has been reeling from declining poll numbers in battleground states, and as a result, it has decided to turn negative. Red flags starting going up in the blogosphere, and McCain's own words from his 2000 campaign emerged: "If all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
Perhaps trying to counter his own "lack of vision" critique, McCain came out swinging in Tuesday's debate. While he roundly lambasted Obama for new spending proposals, McCain surprised everyone by proposing a mortgage bail-out plan that is bound to cost more hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama, who watched McCain speak throughout the debate with the bemused look of someone comfortable with his positions on the issues (and his positions in the polls), again held his own in a format that was predicted to play to McCain's strengths.
After all was said and done, one CBS "instant poll" of undecided voters found that Obama again came out only slightly ahead of both McCain and "draw". While surely discouraging for McCain, such results only lend credence to Obama's articulated positions.
With one more debate to be heard, there is still time for a slip-up or a home run. History shows it might not make much of a difference - but that's not to say they won't keep trying.
Great Debates
Televised debates in U.S. presidential campaigns have a long and storied history. Over time, it is not the substance of the debates that we remember but instead the one-liners and the blunders.
Classic gaffes include George H.W. Bush's impatient glances at his watch during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and Al Gore's creepy hovering during a town-hall style debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Classic one-liners abound, but Ronald Reagan supplied two memorable ones in a 1980 debate. His reprimand of "There you go again" when Jimmy Carter criticized Reagan's position on Medicare is often replayed, as is his rhetorical question to the viewing audience, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
It would be a stretch to say that a gaffe in a debate is a death sentence to a campaign or that a great one-liner could seal the deal, but these, along with the other trivialities from the campaign trail, can add up to enough of a nudge to push fence-sitters into one camp or another.
So it is with this knowledge of debates past that I have watched the last three debates, looking for the critical mistake, the classic zinger. So far, though, the debates have been very even.
For the first debate, John McCain supplied plenty of drama, keeping everyone guessing if he'd even show up, given that he had nonsensically "suspended his campaign" so that he could work on the economic bail-out bill. Barack Obama vowed that he would appear at the University of Mississippi for the debate whether McCain showed up or not. In the end, McCain did appear, revealing the "suspension" as mere melodrama.
As I watched, I was impressed by most of the answers that both candidates gave, though I cynically let pass the answering of the question they heard rather than the one that was asked. Post-debate polls asking "Who won?" indicated a preference for Obama among undecided voters, but only just barely - McCain and "Neither" were both close behind. Given that the debate's primary focus was on foreign policy, seen as a McCain strong point, that Obama held his own was seen as a big plus by many pundits.
Going into last week's Vice Presidential debate, many were expecting Sarah Palin to stumble. Considering her mangled answers to such softball interview questions as "What newspapers do you read?" it was easy to expect a stumble. But by only answering the questions she wanted to, Palin was able to keep an even keel, even managing to wink at the camera a few times.
Joe Biden, known for being pedantic and verbose, managed to keep those impulses in check and avoided boring the audience to tears. He ended up being very eloquent and even folksy, threatening to take that mantle from Palin. Though a CNN poll indicated a Biden win, Palin did better than expected, which was seen as a plus for her ticket.
In the days since the VP debate, the McCain campaign has been reeling from declining poll numbers in battleground states, and as a result, it has decided to turn negative. Red flags starting going up in the blogosphere, and McCain's own words from his 2000 campaign emerged: "If all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
Perhaps trying to counter his own "lack of vision" critique, McCain came out swinging in Tuesday's debate. While he roundly lambasted Obama for new spending proposals, McCain surprised everyone by proposing a mortgage bail-out plan that is bound to cost more hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama, who watched McCain speak throughout the debate with the bemused look of someone comfortable with his positions on the issues (and his positions in the polls), again held his own in a format that was predicted to play to McCain's strengths.
After all was said and done, one CBS "instant poll" of undecided voters found that Obama again came out only slightly ahead of both McCain and "draw". While surely discouraging for McCain, such results only lend credence to Obama's articulated positions.
With one more debate to be heard, there is still time for a slip-up or a home run. History shows it might not make much of a difference - but that's not to say they won't keep trying.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Restoring the world's faith in America
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 31, 2008.
Restoring the world's faith in America
Listening to NPR on Monday, I heard the story of a Billings, Montana businessman who was in a bind. In his low-unemployment city, he was having a hard time filling an information technology position in his small company.
Driving to work one day, Rob Hunter heard the story of Bahjat, an Iraqi IT specialist who worked with the Americans in his country. Because of his work, Bahjat was targeted by Iraqi insurgents. He applied for and got refugee status, moved his mother and sister with him to Florida, and began looking, in vain, for work.
Hunter contacted Bahjat and offered him the open position. Though unsure why someone from so far away would want to help him, Bahjat eventually accepted the job.
As the family drove a donated car from Florida to Montana, Hunter organized his friends and neighbors to contribute home goods to furnish a small apartment and to ensure that Bahjat and his family would feel welcome when they arrived.
Throughout the world, America is reviled, looked down upon, feared, hated. But in a world where crowds are wont to chant "Death to America!", stories like that of Hunter and Bahjat give me some hope that we can turn this negative perception around.
While hatred of America is nothing new, it is surprising when you look back at where we were in September, 2001.
As I'm sure you recall, in the days following the attacks on Washington and New York, we enjoyed an outpouring of support from all corners of the world. The Bush administration, with its arrogant approach to diplomacy, has squandered most of that good will.
We need more Rob Hunters to restore our position in the world.
Locally, we are doing our part. My parents run an employment agency in Burlington, and over the years I've heard many stories of refugees coming here to start over. Be they Vietnamese, Cambodian, Croatian, Bantu, Congolese, or Iraqi, desperate to make their own way, they would take any job they could find.
Similar stories dot the pages of the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program's online newsletters: Vermonters lending their language skills to newcomers; Vermonters donating gently-used winter gear to Africans seeing snow for the first time; and Vermonters introducing immigrants to the wonders of an American grocery store.
We Americans have big hearts, and it is disheartening when the world reacts only to the negatives.
So it was with some great enthusiasm that I watched Barack Obama visit Europe last week. According to some estimates, the size of the crowd that he addressed in Berlin was even larger than his largest thus far here in the U.S.
Some of the onlookers were spurred by curiosity, to be sure. But I think there is more to it than that. With some exceptions, I think that most of the world wants, desperately, to look up to the United States. It cannot bring itself to do that while George Bush is at the helm, and John McCain just looks like more of the same.
Obama is bringing ideas to the American people, and, by way of wide media coverage, to the world. Most of them are not new ideas -- they are long-held Democratic Party principles -- but they seem fresh after eight years of Bush.
But more than restating Democratic Party ideals, more than a return to an America that values conversation, diplomacy, and cooperation, Obama is seen as a realization of a classic American ideal, the same ideal that Lincoln's log cabin once evoked.
That's the ideal that anyone, from whatever background, can excel in America. That regardless of our checkered history, even the son of a Kansan and a Kenyan can become our head of state.
Obama is also seeking to restore another classic American ideal - that of John Winthrop's City Upon a Hill. Though Winthrop envisioned an America worthy of almost religious worship, the phrase has evolved to mean an America founded on democratic principles that all nations should aspire to.
Restoring our position of leadership in the world must be a goal of the next president. With people like Barack Obama and Rob Hunter working to that goal, either deliberately or tangentially, we can restore our position, we can be a beacon, we can again be that city upon a hill.
Restoring the world's faith in America
Listening to NPR on Monday, I heard the story of a Billings, Montana businessman who was in a bind. In his low-unemployment city, he was having a hard time filling an information technology position in his small company.
Driving to work one day, Rob Hunter heard the story of Bahjat, an Iraqi IT specialist who worked with the Americans in his country. Because of his work, Bahjat was targeted by Iraqi insurgents. He applied for and got refugee status, moved his mother and sister with him to Florida, and began looking, in vain, for work.
Hunter contacted Bahjat and offered him the open position. Though unsure why someone from so far away would want to help him, Bahjat eventually accepted the job.
As the family drove a donated car from Florida to Montana, Hunter organized his friends and neighbors to contribute home goods to furnish a small apartment and to ensure that Bahjat and his family would feel welcome when they arrived.
Throughout the world, America is reviled, looked down upon, feared, hated. But in a world where crowds are wont to chant "Death to America!", stories like that of Hunter and Bahjat give me some hope that we can turn this negative perception around.
While hatred of America is nothing new, it is surprising when you look back at where we were in September, 2001.
As I'm sure you recall, in the days following the attacks on Washington and New York, we enjoyed an outpouring of support from all corners of the world. The Bush administration, with its arrogant approach to diplomacy, has squandered most of that good will.
We need more Rob Hunters to restore our position in the world.
Locally, we are doing our part. My parents run an employment agency in Burlington, and over the years I've heard many stories of refugees coming here to start over. Be they Vietnamese, Cambodian, Croatian, Bantu, Congolese, or Iraqi, desperate to make their own way, they would take any job they could find.
Similar stories dot the pages of the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program's online newsletters: Vermonters lending their language skills to newcomers; Vermonters donating gently-used winter gear to Africans seeing snow for the first time; and Vermonters introducing immigrants to the wonders of an American grocery store.
We Americans have big hearts, and it is disheartening when the world reacts only to the negatives.
So it was with some great enthusiasm that I watched Barack Obama visit Europe last week. According to some estimates, the size of the crowd that he addressed in Berlin was even larger than his largest thus far here in the U.S.
Some of the onlookers were spurred by curiosity, to be sure. But I think there is more to it than that. With some exceptions, I think that most of the world wants, desperately, to look up to the United States. It cannot bring itself to do that while George Bush is at the helm, and John McCain just looks like more of the same.
Obama is bringing ideas to the American people, and, by way of wide media coverage, to the world. Most of them are not new ideas -- they are long-held Democratic Party principles -- but they seem fresh after eight years of Bush.
But more than restating Democratic Party ideals, more than a return to an America that values conversation, diplomacy, and cooperation, Obama is seen as a realization of a classic American ideal, the same ideal that Lincoln's log cabin once evoked.
That's the ideal that anyone, from whatever background, can excel in America. That regardless of our checkered history, even the son of a Kansan and a Kenyan can become our head of state.
Obama is also seeking to restore another classic American ideal - that of John Winthrop's City Upon a Hill. Though Winthrop envisioned an America worthy of almost religious worship, the phrase has evolved to mean an America founded on democratic principles that all nations should aspire to.
Restoring our position of leadership in the world must be a goal of the next president. With people like Barack Obama and Rob Hunter working to that goal, either deliberately or tangentially, we can restore our position, we can be a beacon, we can again be that city upon a hill.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Parable of Iraq
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 27, 2008.
The Parable of Iraq
It is a common device in fiction - the seeming threat that is anything but. From the Great Wizard in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to the Beast in the Lord of the Flies, the threat frightens the characters, spurs them to action.
Sometimes the falsity of the threat is revealed before any real damage is done - the Wizard is exposed as just a ventriloquist and for Dorothy, a way home is revealed. Often, though, the tragedy of the story is that the falsity is never realized, or realized too late. Ask Simon, the looming figure from the jungle mistaken for the Beast, killed in a frightened frenzy.
These stories resonate with us because such frightening non-threats are everywhere in real life. And, far too often, we realize too late how wrong we were.
We interned over a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans during World War II because we were frightened that they would turn on their country. When the House Un-American Activities Committee and Sen. Joseph McCarthy saw Communist threats around every corner, we black-balled scores of talented artists and besmirched the records of civil servants and military officers.
And, most recently, we entered into an unfortunate war with Iraq because we were frightened into believing that Saddam Hussein was, or soon would be, looming over us with chemical weapons, perhaps even biological or nuclear weapons.
Five years ago, the undeclared war in Iraq started, and though we conquered Hussein, we still fight on there, against new threats. Only after it was too late did we learn that Hussein was no more a threat than that Wizard - a blustery, loud voice that emanated from a small, powerless man.
Sadly, the people we trusted to be right about the facts were either wrong about them or lying about them. The truth is, there were no chemical weapons, no biologicals, and certainly no nukes. Revealed just this month, we now know for sure that Hussein had no connection, whatever, with the 9/11 terrorists. The pretext for war was all wrong.
Like many of us, I feel partially to blame. I was willing to be convinced, willing to suspend my skepticism. I trusted Colin Powell when he showed me the evidence. I trusted the President when he said the links were there. But as time passed and as my suppressed skepticism began to reemerge, as new evidence belied old evidence, it became clear that our actions against Hussein were a fool's errand.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Hussein. He was a savage, brutal man, and I shed not a single fraction of a tear that he is gone. But was his ouster, capture, and death worth all of the physical destruction Iraq has endured? Was it worth a single Iraqi life? A single American life? Was it worth 4000 American lives?
What's done is done. Debate about what should have happened will go on for a long time - many books have been and will be written on the subject. Clearly, Colin Powell was right about one thing when he told Bush that if he sent troops into Iraq, he'd end up owning it. Indeed, we own this mess, dearly paid for in American treasure and American blood.
In this election season, a lot of speeches will be made about what to do in Iraq. Public opinion is mixed. Many want an immediate pull out, not realizing how irresponsible and foolhardy this would be. Many of us want to stay in Iraq and have no problem with an open-ended commitment. This is just as foolish.
What the next president must do is come up with the plans for withdrawal that were sorely lacking when we got into this mess. We must bolster the Iraqi political and military institutions, and redouble our efforts to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I firmly believe that by the middle of the next president's term, with the right leadership, we could be out of Iraq completely, save a few military advisers.
We should have looked at our own past, should have read a few more parables or morality tales - we could have prevented this tragedy. We didn't. As an electorate, though, it is not too late to take some lessons away from the parable of Iraq. The foremost lesson is that until we have a president with a will to leave, we won't leave.
The Parable of Iraq
It is a common device in fiction - the seeming threat that is anything but. From the Great Wizard in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to the Beast in the Lord of the Flies, the threat frightens the characters, spurs them to action.
Sometimes the falsity of the threat is revealed before any real damage is done - the Wizard is exposed as just a ventriloquist and for Dorothy, a way home is revealed. Often, though, the tragedy of the story is that the falsity is never realized, or realized too late. Ask Simon, the looming figure from the jungle mistaken for the Beast, killed in a frightened frenzy.
These stories resonate with us because such frightening non-threats are everywhere in real life. And, far too often, we realize too late how wrong we were.
We interned over a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans during World War II because we were frightened that they would turn on their country. When the House Un-American Activities Committee and Sen. Joseph McCarthy saw Communist threats around every corner, we black-balled scores of talented artists and besmirched the records of civil servants and military officers.
And, most recently, we entered into an unfortunate war with Iraq because we were frightened into believing that Saddam Hussein was, or soon would be, looming over us with chemical weapons, perhaps even biological or nuclear weapons.
Five years ago, the undeclared war in Iraq started, and though we conquered Hussein, we still fight on there, against new threats. Only after it was too late did we learn that Hussein was no more a threat than that Wizard - a blustery, loud voice that emanated from a small, powerless man.
Sadly, the people we trusted to be right about the facts were either wrong about them or lying about them. The truth is, there were no chemical weapons, no biologicals, and certainly no nukes. Revealed just this month, we now know for sure that Hussein had no connection, whatever, with the 9/11 terrorists. The pretext for war was all wrong.
Like many of us, I feel partially to blame. I was willing to be convinced, willing to suspend my skepticism. I trusted Colin Powell when he showed me the evidence. I trusted the President when he said the links were there. But as time passed and as my suppressed skepticism began to reemerge, as new evidence belied old evidence, it became clear that our actions against Hussein were a fool's errand.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Hussein. He was a savage, brutal man, and I shed not a single fraction of a tear that he is gone. But was his ouster, capture, and death worth all of the physical destruction Iraq has endured? Was it worth a single Iraqi life? A single American life? Was it worth 4000 American lives?
What's done is done. Debate about what should have happened will go on for a long time - many books have been and will be written on the subject. Clearly, Colin Powell was right about one thing when he told Bush that if he sent troops into Iraq, he'd end up owning it. Indeed, we own this mess, dearly paid for in American treasure and American blood.
In this election season, a lot of speeches will be made about what to do in Iraq. Public opinion is mixed. Many want an immediate pull out, not realizing how irresponsible and foolhardy this would be. Many of us want to stay in Iraq and have no problem with an open-ended commitment. This is just as foolish.
What the next president must do is come up with the plans for withdrawal that were sorely lacking when we got into this mess. We must bolster the Iraqi political and military institutions, and redouble our efforts to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I firmly believe that by the middle of the next president's term, with the right leadership, we could be out of Iraq completely, save a few military advisers.
We should have looked at our own past, should have read a few more parables or morality tales - we could have prevented this tragedy. We didn't. As an electorate, though, it is not too late to take some lessons away from the parable of Iraq. The foremost lesson is that until we have a president with a will to leave, we won't leave.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Civic Responsibilities
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 14, 2008.
Civic Responsibilities
As I'm sure most of you do, I cherish the rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution and protected by our government. I cannot imagine living in a place where I had to be afraid, for example, to write my honest opinions of our government or its leaders.
So important is the freedom of the press that it gets special mention in the 1st Amendment, and the United Nations has declared May 3 to be World Press Freedom Day.
Another critical right we take for granted is that of expression. Our record here is imperfect, but our misguided Alien and Sedition Acts or the jailing of Eugene Debs pale in comparison to countries where anti-government speech is tantamount to treason or where blasphemy is a capital offense.
For citizens of the United States, these liberties are ours for the taking. We need not do anything special to have them or to retain them. Not, at least, at first glance.
Around the time of last Thanksgiving, I got a notice from the courts that I was on a list of potential jurors, and that I was to fill out a form confirming that I was qualified. Am I over 18? Am I a United States citizen? Have I ever been convicted of a felony? Two yeses and a no later, my wife said something that I also heard my friends and co-workers say, in a sympathetic, better-you-than-me tone: "You're going to be on jury duty."
I, on the other hand, was thinking, "Finally!"
To serve on a jury is to complete my citizenship responsibility trifecta - responsibilities that are crucial to the retention of all those rights we hold so dear.
The first leg of the trifecta was to vote. I awaited my eighteenth birthday with great anticipation, and cast my first votes for members of Congress in 1986. Two years later, I got to vote for president. To me, voting is such a critical part of being a responsible citizen, I really cannot fathom why more of us do not partake.
I certainly understand that not everyone can vote every time. And in some places, voting is made particularly difficult. The entire caucus system some states still inexplicably use is one example. I've missed a few votes in my time, due to moving or travel, but today, with absentee voting so easy to use, there really is no good excuse.
The second leg I completed when I was sworn in as a member of the Vermont Army National Guard. Though I would never want to redo boot camp, I have fond, wonderful memories of two summers at Fort Knox, Kentucky; of summers at Fort Drum, New York; and of all the members of my platoon and company up in Swanton. I saw one of those company-mates last year, working to build my house. It was amazing how quickly we were able to reminisce about the old days in the 1/172nd.
Military service has never been a particularly safe job, even in the National Guard, and I understand the moral objections some have to military service. There are, however, many ways to serve. The Peace Corps and AmeriCorps are two non-military ways for young people to serve the nation. Locally, volunteering for the fire department is crucial service. Service to ones community is an awesome duty, and though I begrudge no one the choice not to serve, I honor and respect those that do.
And just at the beginning of this week, I finished the third leg when I served on my first jury. There was some "hurry up and wait," though the Army had prepared me for that. Voir dire was not as nerve-wracking as I thought it might be (though I cannot get used to being called "Mr. Mount"). And testimony and deliberations were everything I thought they would be, yet completely unexpected.
There are other responsibilities to citizenship, but these three are some of the most critical: voting, service to country, jury duty.
Civil rights, civil responsibilities. Some might wonder, are these liberal values? No, not specifically. These are American values. Though liberals and conservatives differ on specifics, we are united in some key principles. And it is here, in the principles, that we can see the stark contrasts between us and our enemies.
So, I beseech you. Vote whenever possible. Serve your community. And when you are called to be a juror, do it willingly, even excitedly.
Civic Responsibilities
As I'm sure most of you do, I cherish the rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution and protected by our government. I cannot imagine living in a place where I had to be afraid, for example, to write my honest opinions of our government or its leaders.
So important is the freedom of the press that it gets special mention in the 1st Amendment, and the United Nations has declared May 3 to be World Press Freedom Day.
Another critical right we take for granted is that of expression. Our record here is imperfect, but our misguided Alien and Sedition Acts or the jailing of Eugene Debs pale in comparison to countries where anti-government speech is tantamount to treason or where blasphemy is a capital offense.
For citizens of the United States, these liberties are ours for the taking. We need not do anything special to have them or to retain them. Not, at least, at first glance.
Around the time of last Thanksgiving, I got a notice from the courts that I was on a list of potential jurors, and that I was to fill out a form confirming that I was qualified. Am I over 18? Am I a United States citizen? Have I ever been convicted of a felony? Two yeses and a no later, my wife said something that I also heard my friends and co-workers say, in a sympathetic, better-you-than-me tone: "You're going to be on jury duty."
I, on the other hand, was thinking, "Finally!"
To serve on a jury is to complete my citizenship responsibility trifecta - responsibilities that are crucial to the retention of all those rights we hold so dear.
The first leg of the trifecta was to vote. I awaited my eighteenth birthday with great anticipation, and cast my first votes for members of Congress in 1986. Two years later, I got to vote for president. To me, voting is such a critical part of being a responsible citizen, I really cannot fathom why more of us do not partake.
I certainly understand that not everyone can vote every time. And in some places, voting is made particularly difficult. The entire caucus system some states still inexplicably use is one example. I've missed a few votes in my time, due to moving or travel, but today, with absentee voting so easy to use, there really is no good excuse.
The second leg I completed when I was sworn in as a member of the Vermont Army National Guard. Though I would never want to redo boot camp, I have fond, wonderful memories of two summers at Fort Knox, Kentucky; of summers at Fort Drum, New York; and of all the members of my platoon and company up in Swanton. I saw one of those company-mates last year, working to build my house. It was amazing how quickly we were able to reminisce about the old days in the 1/172nd.
Military service has never been a particularly safe job, even in the National Guard, and I understand the moral objections some have to military service. There are, however, many ways to serve. The Peace Corps and AmeriCorps are two non-military ways for young people to serve the nation. Locally, volunteering for the fire department is crucial service. Service to ones community is an awesome duty, and though I begrudge no one the choice not to serve, I honor and respect those that do.
And just at the beginning of this week, I finished the third leg when I served on my first jury. There was some "hurry up and wait," though the Army had prepared me for that. Voir dire was not as nerve-wracking as I thought it might be (though I cannot get used to being called "Mr. Mount"). And testimony and deliberations were everything I thought they would be, yet completely unexpected.
There are other responsibilities to citizenship, but these three are some of the most critical: voting, service to country, jury duty.
Civil rights, civil responsibilities. Some might wonder, are these liberal values? No, not specifically. These are American values. Though liberals and conservatives differ on specifics, we are united in some key principles. And it is here, in the principles, that we can see the stark contrasts between us and our enemies.
So, I beseech you. Vote whenever possible. Serve your community. And when you are called to be a juror, do it willingly, even excitedly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)