Separate but Equal

The most disappointing moment of the 2008 campaign for me came when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama did not support the right of homosexuals to marry (it was even more disappointing than Obama's vote on the FISA bill). It can only be seen as ironic that in an election when the American people decided to elect an African-American to the highest office in the land, the voters in four states decided to deny homosexuals the right to get married. In California, even more ironically, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for the ban. I am positive that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden are opposed to homosexual marriage, but in order not to ruffle the feathers of the country, they took the more popular public stance.

This battle is very reminiscent of the bans against interracial marriage which were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court stated:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." (Just as a side note, Alabama had retained their law against interracial marriage on the books until 2000)

According to the Supreme Court, marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". However the bans against homosexuals marrying have been upheld in various court challenges. The highest court in New York basically said that the homosexuals cannot be given the same protection under the law because discrimination against them hasn't been recognized until the recent past.

The New York Court of Appeals held in 2006:
"[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries...This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s... It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

I do believe that in time this will become a non-issue. It's just a shame that the American people always seem to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into giving oppressed minorities equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has usually has had to take the first step and I do have hopes that over the next 8 years, the Court will address this issue and lay it to rest once and for all. Here is what Barack Obama said in his now famous Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic convention:

"For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work."

And I would add that if there is one person or group who are having their "fundamental" rights denied, then we are all oppressed, even if my rights are not being infringed upon. Denying the fundamental rights of citizens to marry is separate from the fight for Civil Rights of African-Americans (and clearly less violent), but the right to vote, the right to live where you want and the right to marry who you want are unalienable rights that are essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, that according to the Declaration of Independence, we were all endowed with by the Creator. Eventually we, as a country, realized that denying basic rights to an entire group of citizens based on something as arbitrary as skin color was wrong. I hope for the day when we as a country will realize that denying the fundamental rights of any minority group makes us smaller and uglier in the eyes of history. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was implemented to protect the rights of former slaves, but it should be applicable to every citizen regardless of their race, color, creed or sexual preference. The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Spoils of Victory

It has been less than 48 hours since the results of the historic election on Tuesday and the Republican response has been swift. There has not been an official from the Republican party to appear on TV without mentioning that America is "a center-right" country and that Obama would be best served to govern with that in mind. The Republicans were unable to come up with a strategy for the McCain campaign, however it seems they have decided upon their post-election strategy. Their idea is to try and convince the American people that Barack Obama has to govern as a Republican would in order to be effective.

Apparently it has not occurred to them that they lost this election. They do not get to dictate the terms under which the Obama administration goes about its business. And where do they get the idea that America is a center-right country? The Right has certainly been very vocal and organized, but with the rise of the Internet, the Left has found its voice as well. We are a 45/45 country. The 10% in the middle (who are truly persuadable) decide the fate and the direction of the country in every election. In this election they have decided that we are a little more left than right. In fact in they had pretty much decided that during the '06 election, where the Democrats made dramatic gains in the House and regained control (tenuous though it may have been) of the Senate.

Barack Obama may indeed govern from the center, but it won't be because he feels that he has to follow the dictate of the Republican party. One of the main themes of his campaign was civility. While I believe that there will be times when he takes advantage of the Democratic majority in Congress, for the most part I think that he'll try to find a position that can attract the moderate Republicans, at least, to his side. The economic realities that he will face won't allow for much creative law making anyway. The economy will dominate his domestic agenda and I suspect that while he will find very vocal opposition (to whatever position he takes) from the far right, he will also find those who are willing to cross the isle and work with him.

Republicans have to come to terms with the fact that the American people have rejected the center-right or far-right policies of the Bush administration. In the end, voters do not elect a Democrat as President for his center-right policies.

Speechless

The President-elect.

One of the People

What is the future for the Republican party? Whether they win or lose on Tuesday, it seems that there are more than a few members of their party who seem to think that Sarah Palin is going to be the face of the party going forward. Many believe that a victory tomorrow means that she will become the standard bearer for the party as she serves an apprenticeship under John McCain, a loss leaves her positioned to run for the Presidency in 2012. The most often mentioned reason for her support is that she's "one of the people". There is a general consensus that she more like "Joe six-pack" than Joe Biden, and that is seen as a positive.

Sarah Palin recently complained that the press criticism of her, may in fact be infringing upon her First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects the American people from Congress enacting laws that would infringe upon their right of free speech. How does that relate to the press criticizing Sarah Palin? It doesn't, but since when do the facts have anything to do with the popularity of Governor Palin. In her world, the First Amendment would protect the government from the criticism of the press even though the document actually says the complete opposite. In her world, the Vice President is not only part of the Executive branch, but the most powerful member of the Legislative branch as well. It is that lack of basic understanding of the Constitution that makes Sarah Palin not only unqualified to lead this country but highlights one of similarities between her and the current administration.

Governor Palin has said that she never wavered when asked to be John McCain's running mate, but in hindsight, perhaps she should have. I don't believe that George W. Bush always wanted to be President. I think a group of interested parties believed that they could make him President and he went along for the ride. As with President Bush, Sarah Palin's ambition got in the way of common sense. There clearly was no vetting of her before she was picked by John McCain. From her unmarried pregnant teenage daughter, to her ethics violation investigation by the Alaska state legislature to her husband's ties to an Alaskan secessionist party, she was a ticking time bomb when she was tabbed for the VP slot by John McCain. McCain hoped that she would not only excite the base of the party, but bring in disaffected Hilliary Clinton voters as well. While she has succeeded in the former, she has not been able to bring over Hillary Clinton supporters in any great numbers. She knew what kind of baggage she would be dragging with her into the national spotlight (including exposing her children to excessive scrutiny), but that all took a backseat to the chance to advance herself.

She has shown a glaring shallowness of knowledge about national and international politics. Her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were disasters. She has been abandoned by some of the leading figures in the right leaning press (who are now branded as "elitist" for failing to support her) and many prominent Republican figures have thrown their support behind Barack Obama, while pointing to her selection as a major reason for their decision. None of this has seemed to matter to the base of the Republican party. Sarah Palin is one of them. All attacks against her are viewed as unwarranted and just symbolic of the bias of the "liberal media" (that of course ignores the fact that people like David Brooks and Peggy Noonan are far from being liberals). According to her supporters, she is the perfect face for the Republican Party because of her mistakes, not in spite of them. Her lack of understanding, her misstatements, her outright gaffes, all show that she is a regular person and that is what they value in a leader. Well, that and a committed opposition to abortion.

The standards for leadership in this country have fallen to the point that actual competency no longer matters. Intelligence is now viewed as a detriment. Who wants to hang out with someone who's going to make you feel stupid? We would much rather have a President who we want to have a beer with and talk about the game with than one who is going to bore us with their "elitist" rhetoric. Ronald Reagan started us off down this path, but he was playing a part. While he may not have been a Rhodes Scholar, he spent his entire political career being indoctrinated in Conservative dogma. He learned his politics from Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, so upon arriving in the White House, he was well versed in the game. He decided that folksy was the way to go and as an actor used to playing roles, he played that one to the hilt. He was Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. He was the regular guy who happened to have made it to top, but never forgot where he came from. He claimed to be the champion of the little guy and a true patriot and that's the role he successfully pulled off. George Bush, who followed him into the White House, was as far from a regular guy as you could find, but even he dumbed himself down, so that people would feel more comfortable with him. Bill Clinton (who actually was a Rhodes Scholar) also played the regular guy role. He felt our pain and earned the nickname "Bubba".

This succession of leaders who felt the need to play the role of "regular guy", led to the election of someone who wasn't playing a role. George W. Bush clearly lacks the intellectual capacity of his immediate successors and has led this country to the brink of disaster. He came into office as a "compassionate conservative". His eight years in office have shown him to be neither particularly compassionate (ask the survivors of Katrina) and certainly not a Conservative (how exactly do you inherit a surplus of $200 billion and turn that into a deficit approaching $1 trillion?). He will leave his eight year term having taken almost a full year of vacation time. George W. Bush was undoubtedly "one of us" but the truth is that "one of us" is not qualified for the job.

So now we return to Governor Palin, who claims that whenever she gets a question from the media that she doesn't answer correctly that they are engaging in "gotcha" questioning. If asking a question about what newspapers you read is a "gotcha" question, then every question ever posed to a politician in the history of makind is a "gotcha" question. Sarah Palin is undoubtedly one of the people, but the question becomes, is that who we want to lead us? Do we want someone who doesn't understand the Constitution? Do we want someone who thinks that being able to see Russia from their home state gives them foreign policy credentials (I can see the moon from my backyard, but I don't think that makes me an Astronaut)? Do we want someone who can only talk about issues in soundbites? Do we want someone whose greatest ambition in life was to be an anchor on Sportscenter? Do we want someone who can't pronounce the word nuclear (oh that's right we already have that)? Do we want to settle for mediocrity? If you answered yes to those questions, then Sarah Palin is the person for you. And it seems that a lot of people in the Republican Party would agree.