The gay community is justly ecstatic about President Obama’s recent decision, after years of straddling the fence, to fully endorse same-sex marriage. Some have even called the president’s decision courageous. Well, while the president deserves credit for finally “evolving” on the issue, I would hold off on awarding him any gold stars for political courage.
In ultimately reaching the conclusion to support same-sex marriage, the president essentially followed public opinion, which had been increasingly trending in favor of gay marriage since the mid ‘90s. According to a recent Gallup Poll, support now stands at 50 percent, which is up from less than 30 percent in 1996. Among young adults (18 - 34) support for gay marriage today is as high as 70 percent.
In the face of such a tectonic shift in public attitudes, the president was presented with a more auspicious environment in which to now take a firm stand on a controversial issue at minimum political risk. That’s hardly an act of bold political courage. In essence, the public led on the issue, and Obama tentatively followed safely behind.
Yes, same-sex marriage has been a hard fought and emotionally charged social issue that was fraught with great political peril, so taking an affirmative stand was far from easy. But championing a cause with civil rights, social equality and constitutional equal protection implications requires strong leadership, whatever the risks. Besides, when has demonstrating leadership on polarizing issues ever been easy?
Politicians display real political courage when they are willing to stake a position on unpopular issues, in spite of the apparent political risks, something too few have the guts to do in today’s poll-driven environment.
That said, we can still applaud Obama for the watershed moment in history his decision on same-sex marriage represents. While his endorsement has no direct effect on laws currently banning gay marriage in many states, it does offer an unambiguous federal government position should the issue come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
So yes, laud Obama’s affirmative evolution on marriage equality for gay Americans; but let’s not pretend political courage got him there.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Partisan “Team” Mentality Undermines Responsible Governance
Rick Santorum’s comment during the recent GOP debate in Arizona in which he said, “sometimes you take one for the team,” in defense of his support for the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind legislation, which he now regrets, was both surprisingly honest and troubling.
Santorum, a supposed advocate of locally controlled education, even admitted that his support for the law went against his own principles. Of course Santorum is not alone in demonstrating such hypocritical political behavior; he was simply honest or foolish enough to express it verbally.
Politicians in both political parties willingly endorse initiatives advanced by the president when he’s a member their party even if they don‘t agree with the measure. I have no doubt that had a Democratic president proposed No Child Left Behind, Santorum would have had no difficulty finding reasons to vociferously condemn and demonize it, thereby avoiding any cognitive dissonance between his political beliefs and legislative actions.
His actions and those of many others in Washington reflect a childish “team mentality” that pervades our politics. Instead of objectively questioning or debating the merits of proposed laws, politicians mindlessly line up along partisan lines out of some misplaced ideological loyalty to prop up the president and their party.
Newsflash, the US Congress isn‘t a team sport. While leaders clearly represent distinct regional interests, they still have to work collectively for the common good of the nation as a whole. But partisan cheerleading, which too frequently guides decision making in Washington, undermines this core responsibility of national leadership.
Santorum’s honest gaffe, may have cost him his chance to grab the GOP presidential nomination from the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, but it offered insight voters need to be mindful of in choosing who to support for president. Do they want a partisan team player or a leader who understands our collective national interest?
Santorum, a supposed advocate of locally controlled education, even admitted that his support for the law went against his own principles. Of course Santorum is not alone in demonstrating such hypocritical political behavior; he was simply honest or foolish enough to express it verbally.
Politicians in both political parties willingly endorse initiatives advanced by the president when he’s a member their party even if they don‘t agree with the measure. I have no doubt that had a Democratic president proposed No Child Left Behind, Santorum would have had no difficulty finding reasons to vociferously condemn and demonize it, thereby avoiding any cognitive dissonance between his political beliefs and legislative actions.
His actions and those of many others in Washington reflect a childish “team mentality” that pervades our politics. Instead of objectively questioning or debating the merits of proposed laws, politicians mindlessly line up along partisan lines out of some misplaced ideological loyalty to prop up the president and their party.
Newsflash, the US Congress isn‘t a team sport. While leaders clearly represent distinct regional interests, they still have to work collectively for the common good of the nation as a whole. But partisan cheerleading, which too frequently guides decision making in Washington, undermines this core responsibility of national leadership.
Santorum’s honest gaffe, may have cost him his chance to grab the GOP presidential nomination from the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, but it offered insight voters need to be mindful of in choosing who to support for president. Do they want a partisan team player or a leader who understands our collective national interest?
Monday, February 20, 2012
On Gay Marriage, GOP Must Distinguish Personal Beliefs from Civil Freedoms
In the wake of the recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Proposition 8 (the California same-sex marriage ban) as unconstitutional, conservatives are once again making claims of “judicial activism.“ Such hollow claims have become a familiar refrain from conservatives in response to major court rulings on which they disagree. They seem to believe that the role of the judiciary is to simply rubber stamp whatever the majority wants, whether it runs afoul of constitutional principles or not. Keep in mind that it took a major court ruling in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education) that struck down racial segregation, an immoral apartheid system in which the majority found perfectly acceptable.
The GOP, most notably its Christian conservative base, holds to the moralistic claim that preventing same-sex marriage is about protecting the institution of marriage, which has been historically defined as a union between man and woman. Christian conservatives also view homosexuality as a sin and want no part, as they see it, in advancing a homosexual agenda.
In fairness, one can reasonably respect that people may hold differing views on matters of morality, homosexuality in particular. But the greater issue isn’t about divergent views on the morality of homosexuality; it’s about a seeming lack of understanding for the distinction between personal moral views and civil freedoms. In a pluralistic society where citizens are afforded great democratic liberties and freedoms, individuals have the right to make choices that may not conform to the strongly held personal or religious beliefs of some. For example, heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex or indulge in pornography are behaviors people of faith would clearly deem unacceptable, and some have made condemnatory public pronouncements to that effect.
But voicing strong disapproval of adult behavior is one thing; attempting to pass laws to prevent them from doing it is another. The simple reality is that we live in a free society where people must often tolerate behavioral choices they may find objectionable. Moral disapproval, even if voiced by a majority of citizens, doesn’t trump the virtue of free choice. Republicans, too busy pandering to the narrow interest of the Christian Right for electoral support, either don’t get this fundamental concept, or they choose to willfully disregard it. Either position is disturbing and unacceptable, especially for a party that is seldom shy about proclaiming the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it embodies.
Sadly, the GOP’s anti-gay rhetoric frequently contradicts those virtues. One of the most offensive examples comes from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a prominent Christian conservative who openly espouses the belief that gay individuals shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers. Not only are such views abhorrent, but to be held by someone in a position of leadership in the 21st Century is truly disgraceful. Unfortunately, his extreme views and other like them too often find comfortable refuge in a political party that in 2012 still deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Issues of equality and equal protection under the law aren’t matters that need to be polled to gauge public sentiment. Our collective duty to treat people with deserved respect, fairness and dignity -- regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation -- isn’t a matter that should ever be subject to political calculation or electoral strategy. It’s about doing what is morally right and Constitutionally just, whether one personally agrees with it or not.
The GOP, most notably its Christian conservative base, holds to the moralistic claim that preventing same-sex marriage is about protecting the institution of marriage, which has been historically defined as a union between man and woman. Christian conservatives also view homosexuality as a sin and want no part, as they see it, in advancing a homosexual agenda.
In fairness, one can reasonably respect that people may hold differing views on matters of morality, homosexuality in particular. But the greater issue isn’t about divergent views on the morality of homosexuality; it’s about a seeming lack of understanding for the distinction between personal moral views and civil freedoms. In a pluralistic society where citizens are afforded great democratic liberties and freedoms, individuals have the right to make choices that may not conform to the strongly held personal or religious beliefs of some. For example, heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex or indulge in pornography are behaviors people of faith would clearly deem unacceptable, and some have made condemnatory public pronouncements to that effect.
But voicing strong disapproval of adult behavior is one thing; attempting to pass laws to prevent them from doing it is another. The simple reality is that we live in a free society where people must often tolerate behavioral choices they may find objectionable. Moral disapproval, even if voiced by a majority of citizens, doesn’t trump the virtue of free choice. Republicans, too busy pandering to the narrow interest of the Christian Right for electoral support, either don’t get this fundamental concept, or they choose to willfully disregard it. Either position is disturbing and unacceptable, especially for a party that is seldom shy about proclaiming the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it embodies.
Sadly, the GOP’s anti-gay rhetoric frequently contradicts those virtues. One of the most offensive examples comes from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a prominent Christian conservative who openly espouses the belief that gay individuals shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers. Not only are such views abhorrent, but to be held by someone in a position of leadership in the 21st Century is truly disgraceful. Unfortunately, his extreme views and other like them too often find comfortable refuge in a political party that in 2012 still deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Issues of equality and equal protection under the law aren’t matters that need to be polled to gauge public sentiment. Our collective duty to treat people with deserved respect, fairness and dignity -- regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation -- isn’t a matter that should ever be subject to political calculation or electoral strategy. It’s about doing what is morally right and Constitutionally just, whether one personally agrees with it or not.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Blame the Public for our Partisan Politics
A look at our political climate in Washington over the past three years and few would refute that we have a polarized governing body. Blame is usually directed at the two major political parties for their increasing ideological rigidity. Perhaps, but a more basic reason is at the heart of this entrenched partisan divide, as Gallup Poll statistics examining historical presidential approval ratings show.
Presidential approval rating averages from President Ronald Regan to President Barack Obama present a clear partisan divide in how Democrats and Republicans polled judge a president’s performance: Not surprisingly, each group showered favorable praise on the president when he’s a member of their party and voiced strong disapproval of the leader if he isn’t. Yes, there is a certain measure of political logic that voters’ reaction to a president would be skewed by their own party identity, but the fact that the divide is so stark and consistent across presidents regardless of party is indeed troubling. The data suggest that average American voters lack the ability or willingness to fairly assess presidential performance due to the influence of their own political party bias.
It’s understandable that voters might take exception to certain policy positions espoused by a president who’s a member of an opposing party, and would therefore be inclined to offer a less favorable critique. However, the polarization in approval ratings over time suggests neither political group is willing to give the opposition party's president fair credit -- even when, one assumes -- they may like what he’s doing. In other words, political ideology likely trumps fair judgment.
And this leads us back to our polarized political climate. It follows that the extreme partisan politics we see playing out in Congress is simply a reflection of the political divide shown in the views of voters throughout the country. If like-minded voters of their respective political parties can’t be fair and reasonable in their views of the president, why should the public expect elected leaders to behave any differently?
But there’s a huge contradiction in all this: Voters frequently express frustration and anguish at the inability of Democrats and Republicans to work together to get things done for the good of the country, which is a sensible and reasonable expectation. But what those same voters need to first acknowledge is that their own partisan political attitudes make it highly unlikely for that to happen because politicians ultimately take their cues from the voters they represent. So, if voters truly desire less partisan politics, they might try being less partisan.
Presidential approval rating averages from President Ronald Regan to President Barack Obama present a clear partisan divide in how Democrats and Republicans polled judge a president’s performance: Not surprisingly, each group showered favorable praise on the president when he’s a member of their party and voiced strong disapproval of the leader if he isn’t. Yes, there is a certain measure of political logic that voters’ reaction to a president would be skewed by their own party identity, but the fact that the divide is so stark and consistent across presidents regardless of party is indeed troubling. The data suggest that average American voters lack the ability or willingness to fairly assess presidential performance due to the influence of their own political party bias.
It’s understandable that voters might take exception to certain policy positions espoused by a president who’s a member of an opposing party, and would therefore be inclined to offer a less favorable critique. However, the polarization in approval ratings over time suggests neither political group is willing to give the opposition party's president fair credit -- even when, one assumes -- they may like what he’s doing. In other words, political ideology likely trumps fair judgment.
And this leads us back to our polarized political climate. It follows that the extreme partisan politics we see playing out in Congress is simply a reflection of the political divide shown in the views of voters throughout the country. If like-minded voters of their respective political parties can’t be fair and reasonable in their views of the president, why should the public expect elected leaders to behave any differently?
But there’s a huge contradiction in all this: Voters frequently express frustration and anguish at the inability of Democrats and Republicans to work together to get things done for the good of the country, which is a sensible and reasonable expectation. But what those same voters need to first acknowledge is that their own partisan political attitudes make it highly unlikely for that to happen because politicians ultimately take their cues from the voters they represent. So, if voters truly desire less partisan politics, they might try being less partisan.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Donald Trump’s Anti-Obama Tirade Lacks Credibility
While I never disliked business mogul Donald Trump, I also never quite considered myself a fan either, even as I readily admit to having watched “The Apprentice” on occasion. However, his highly questionable crusade against President Barack Obama has completely soured my opinion of him.
Ever since his clownish and unserious flirtation with becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination, Trump can‘t seem to resist the opportunity to scorn Obama at every opportunity, maligning his presidency as a “disaster” for the U.S. economy. Of course his so-called outrage would have an ounce of credibility had he made similar charges or expressed concern when President George Bush was in office when the economy tanked.
Perhaps Trump was too busy with the important business of filming another frivolous “Celebrity Apprentice” to notice that three years ago, the U.S. economy was on the precipice of collapse. Banks and major Wall Street financial institutions were failing one after the other. Obama’s decision to bail out the banks to stem the tide of financial disaster clearly worked. While his actions are not so popular with the fickle masses today, the markets stabilized and the threat of a full-scale economic calamity was averted.
So the obvious question is, where was Trump’s outrage when the financial sector meltdown was occurring on Bush’s watch? Where was his unrelenting crusade against Bush as in incompetent leader whose policies were a disaster for the economy?
Perhaps Trump, who has made a fortune in New York real estate and other investments dislikes Obama because of the president's tough financial regulatory reforms. Or maybe he dislikes the president’s tough on Wall Street posture. Whatever the reason, his anti-Obama tirades seem quite suspect. Even during Trump’s fortunately brief moment in the political headwinds when polls among Republican primary voters indicated some support for his candidacy were he to jump in, he chose to discuss few, if any, issues of political or economic substance. He decided instead to become a vocal advocate of the wacky “birther” nonsense, something that even many mainstream Republicans rejected as foolish. And if that wasn’t shameless enough, Trump then had the audacity to question Obama’s intelligence and academic credentials to be president.
The motivation driving his inexplicably odd actions make little sense, so much so, that I am inclined to suspect racial animus might have been a factor. But what does make sense is Trump’s penchant for being an ego-centric publicity hound. Perhaps he should consult with a better publicist because this is one publicity stunt he will ultimately come to regret. I believe his foolish antics have damaged his image and his celebrity business man brand, making him an irrelevant political joke.
Of course Obama has already had the last laugh on Trump, having masterfully mocked and denigrated him during last year’s White House Correspondences' Dinner. Trump’s buffoonish action’s should provide plenty of material for another well-deserved roasting at the next dinner.
Ever since his clownish and unserious flirtation with becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination, Trump can‘t seem to resist the opportunity to scorn Obama at every opportunity, maligning his presidency as a “disaster” for the U.S. economy. Of course his so-called outrage would have an ounce of credibility had he made similar charges or expressed concern when President George Bush was in office when the economy tanked.
Perhaps Trump was too busy with the important business of filming another frivolous “Celebrity Apprentice” to notice that three years ago, the U.S. economy was on the precipice of collapse. Banks and major Wall Street financial institutions were failing one after the other. Obama’s decision to bail out the banks to stem the tide of financial disaster clearly worked. While his actions are not so popular with the fickle masses today, the markets stabilized and the threat of a full-scale economic calamity was averted.
So the obvious question is, where was Trump’s outrage when the financial sector meltdown was occurring on Bush’s watch? Where was his unrelenting crusade against Bush as in incompetent leader whose policies were a disaster for the economy?
Perhaps Trump, who has made a fortune in New York real estate and other investments dislikes Obama because of the president's tough financial regulatory reforms. Or maybe he dislikes the president’s tough on Wall Street posture. Whatever the reason, his anti-Obama tirades seem quite suspect. Even during Trump’s fortunately brief moment in the political headwinds when polls among Republican primary voters indicated some support for his candidacy were he to jump in, he chose to discuss few, if any, issues of political or economic substance. He decided instead to become a vocal advocate of the wacky “birther” nonsense, something that even many mainstream Republicans rejected as foolish. And if that wasn’t shameless enough, Trump then had the audacity to question Obama’s intelligence and academic credentials to be president.
The motivation driving his inexplicably odd actions make little sense, so much so, that I am inclined to suspect racial animus might have been a factor. But what does make sense is Trump’s penchant for being an ego-centric publicity hound. Perhaps he should consult with a better publicist because this is one publicity stunt he will ultimately come to regret. I believe his foolish antics have damaged his image and his celebrity business man brand, making him an irrelevant political joke.
Of course Obama has already had the last laugh on Trump, having masterfully mocked and denigrated him during last year’s White House Correspondences' Dinner. Trump’s buffoonish action’s should provide plenty of material for another well-deserved roasting at the next dinner.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)