Category Archives: All Politics Is Local

Never Taking Free and Fair Elections for Granted

My mother was born in 1900 in Nashville, Tennessee. At that time, neither her mother, nor any other woman, could vote in national elections. Women gained that right when the Nineteenth Amendment to the constitution went into effect in August, 1920. Earlier that year, Tennessee had cast the 36th vote for its passage, the number needed for ratification. Overnight, the number of voters increased dramatically, by about eight million, as women took advantage of their new privilege.

As far as I know, my mother regularly cast a vote in every election for which she was eligible from that time on. That included voting all four times for Franklin Roosevelt. My father did also, but they split on the Eisenhower/Stevenson election. (Mom went for Stevenson, Dad for Eisenhower.) They peacefully accepted their political differences. I remember political discussions in our household as interesting exchanges of ideas, including ones about local elections. That is probably why I’ve voted in every election for which I’ve been eligible, including several times when I lived in non-democratic countries, by absentee ballot.

Tennessee, a “border” state, could certainly produce some interesting elections, such as the one in which Lamar Alexander defeated Ray Blanton. Blanton is remembered as the one who began releasing felons from prison, for cash, just before he was due to leave the governor’s office. As I remember, both Democrats and Republicans cooperated in an early, unannounced swearing in of Alexander, effectively preventing Blanton from releasing more felons. I stood on the steps of the Tennessee capitol with a huge crowd as Alexander later took the public oath of office.

Recently, serious allegations about the influence of unelected advisors on President Trump are causing controversy. Practices once considered sacrosanct, such as birthright citizenship, also are being questioned. Migrants, our positions on Israel/Palestine, and our support for Ukraine against Russia are other areas of contention.

“A republic if you can keep it” is the legendary answer Benjamin Franklin gave to one who asked “What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” following the 1787 constitutional convention, setting up the beginning government for the American states.

Democracy is a blessing but never cheap or easy or guaranteed.

Fire-Bombed Voting Box

A few weeks ago, my husband and I cast votes in the November 5, 2024 elections. We had received our ballots by mail, discussed the candidates, then filled out our ballots. We walked a few blocks to the secured metal voting box across from our small town city hall and deposited them there.

The next day I read about an attempt to set fire to voting booths in another part of the state. One fire destroyed only three ballots; the other was more serious. The call went out for anyone using those boxes to see if they might need to replace a destroyed ballot. In addition, more boxes were being equipped with safety measures to make it difficult to set them on fire.

A camera had recorded the probable car driven by the vote destroyer.

I wondered: why would someone want to threaten the right to vote? To make our constitutional privilege more difficult?

Some might call for a return of the old-fashioned voting booth. That’s a valid position. Apparently, however, more people vote when done by a simple trip to a voting box, and such voting may be easier for those with busy schedules.

Regardless, what is so threatening about citizens casting ballots for their leaders?

Hey, I Got to Vote! (And other blessings)

In so many places in the world, one is not able even to vote. In others, a strong man (rarely a woman) is able to manipulate the process so that he’s going to win no matter what the people really want.

I start, then, with thankfulness for the blessing of a still free voting process. I’m thankful I was able to cast my ballot in the presidential election and was able to check that it safely reached the ballot box and was counted.

I’m thankful for my family and how we care for each other. I’m thankful for parents who loved and respected each other, their love more important than their votes for different political candidates.

I’m thankful for my church and for freedom of religion, protected even in a more varied religious landscape than when the Constitution and its founding amendments were adopted.

I’m thankful for those political leaders many decades ago who began public programs that saved the homes of many during the Great Depression, including the home I grew up in.

I’m thankful for those who are concerned for the ones on the bottom rungs of our society, many of these saints spending their lives finding better ways to care for the destitute and powerless.

I’m thankful for books and ideas and spiritual growth, as well as simple joy in reading. I’m thankful for the long ago leaders who helped us develop public schools and college scholarships, one of which benefitted me.

I’m thankful for our immigrants who refresh an aging society.

Lord, please lead us in holding both our faults and our virtues in the proper place.

 

If Generals Were Appointed Like Ambassadors

About a third of U.S. ambassadors generally are political appointees. They haven’t come up through the ranks of diplomats with career experience serving the U.S. in foreign countries.

Some political appointees are well-suited to their jobs—having worked in international jobs or in other positions giving them experience in international relations.

Many, however, are appointed because they gave money to the political party in power. These appointments are a remnant of the old spoils system of political largesse. The appointees may know little about the culture of the countries where they will serve, but view their appointment as a kind of paid excursion for a foreign holiday.

What if generals were appointed based on how much money they spent on a presidential campaign? What if, say, a general in charge of U.S. forces in Europe was appointed because of leading in campaign contributions in Illinois for the president? Suppose the general in charge of U.S. forces in the Pacific was appointed because of contributing the most money to a candidate in a Florida race?

We expect our military leaders to be experienced in military matters. We should also expect our international representatives to be experienced in international relations.

 

Voting by Age Groups

Judging from a U.S. census chart of voting by age groups since 1980, the older you are, the more likely you are to vote. Shown were the years from 1980 through 2016. The rate for 18 to 29 year old voters was generally about or below 50 percent, rarely reaching above that level. Those older than 65 were the most likely to vote: generally over 70 percent voted.

Well, you might say, people over 65 are more likely to be retired and child free, with more time for political matters. However, citizens 45 to 64 were only slightly less likely to vote, though surely many of them had jobs and other responsibilities.

Lately, we have seen interest in whether more young voters might participate in the coming presidential elections. Now that Joe Biden has dropped out of the race, the question of age has landed in Donald Trump’s corner. He’s 78.

Is it Trump’s age or his policies that younger voters might be more interested in? Not surprisingly, all voters may be more interested in vice-presidential picks, especially for Trump.

Regardless, if young people vote at higher rates, age-centered politics might in the future be geared toward a younger America. What might that mean for congressional actions? Less interest in social security and more interest in equal access to jobs and training, for example? Of course, with the country’s lower birth rate, older people become a greater percentage of the population. Immigration, however, tends to bring in younger, working age people.

As the years have passed since the country’s founding, age is only one of many changes affecting our voting population.

Our Chaotic, Lovely Political Conventions

One of the convention happenings I like best is the roll call of states. I enjoy seeing the individual delegates crowd around the ones who are going to (finally) announce the votes for the candidates from each state. For the most part, these appear to be average American citizens having a brief appearance on TV for the folks back home.

Can you imagine Vladimir Putin allowing such a show to be put on in Russia? Much less a Chinese or North Vietnamese leader. Actually trusting the election of a leader to the people?

I’m not suggesting that our politics are pure as the driven snow—but surely we’ve done something right when our system allows Jane and John Doe to play an active part in the party politics that elects the candidates.

Rough and tumble, uncertain, just pure Americana.

When Your Political Candidate Loses

Democracy is, as Winston Churchill reportedly said, the worst form of government except for any other.

Those burdened by living in a dictatorship or in a country ruled by a few elites may envy those able to vote relatively freely for their leaders in countries known as democracies. However, as we found out on January 2021, that quaint burden left to the United States by the early patriots and known as the electoral college has risen to haunt us.

The United States is known as one of the youngest countries in the world but one of the oldest democracies. We hear it so often that we need reminding that we don’t really have a pure democracy. In our presidential elections. we vote for electors who are, according to our constitution, supposed to meet in early January following the popular election to cast the ballots that actually elect the president.

It seems that the country’s early founders didn’t actually believe in ALL the people electing their leaders. Instead, they developed a system in which a small group of supposedly wise men (at the time only white men and more often the wealthier ones) would gather in early January and elect the president.

For most of our history, the electoral college became merely a group of unknowns who simply rubber stamped the November popular election.

Alas, we paid for the lack of clarification when Donald Trump’s followers attempted to use that little known practice to take over the government on the day the electors were supposed to meet, when they would overcome any opposition in order to declare Trump as the elected president.

The electoral college still remains, of course. The U.S. Constitution could be changed to reflect our more democratic ideas, but changing the Constitution is a massive undertaking.

At least we know now that we must safeguard our elections from any kind of mob influence, as well as guard the vote counting from outside manipulators.

We can give thanks that those who wished to overturn the 2020 election were defeated. We are rightfully warned, however, to safeguard the voting process in our coming elections.

Dealing with the Electoral College

As we prepare for our next presidential election, candidates are announcing their campaigns for various offices. Once again that relic from the past known as the Electoral College overshadows the process.

I grew up, as did many Americans, supposing that every four years, we, the American people elected or re-elected our president, to oversee our government until the next presidential election. After a period of turmoil following that terrifying attack on the capitol the day of the 2021 electoral vote counting, more of us now understand that the election is only the first step in the process. The new presidential term begins only after the Electoral College meets in January and certifies the results of the November election.

Perhaps the problem is that the founders of the United States were not whole heartedly into the idea of the people actually ruling themselves. Better if they elected, not the president, but only supposedly wise men (at the time, only men voted and only for male candidates) who would then decide on the president.

That idea had fallen into a kind of quaint custom of the electoral college meeting in January to calmly put the final stamp on the person we the people thought we had elected in November. Then, of course, the country discovered that the quaint custom opened up the idea of a few people pushing the electors to elect who they wanted, regardless of the election numbers. Turmoil ensued, the aftermath of which we are still living through.

Many of us would like to change the Constitution to reflect the more democratic way of electing the president by the voters. Changing the Constitution was made too difficult for that to be done easily.

Perhaps we are stuck for the time being with our antiquated system of the electoral college. Nevertheless, we are certainly free to give serious thought to changing our constitution to reflect the ability of the people to actually elect the president. Perhaps it is time to grow up and go all the way toward a democracy.

 

Listening Versus Demonstrating

I have never been a fan of physical protests. When one side protests, people who believe the other way are apt to counter protest. We lose ourselves in a loud commotion in which all words are lost.

Perhaps a better way would be listening to each other. Perhaps groups could set up “listening areas.” People could gather to talk, not protest. They would agree to respect the other’s words, even if they disagreed with them. The main activity would be talking to each other. A time limit would be set on the amount of time for each talker.

Some might begin to write down the ideas that develop. The words could be examined.
Some might feel called to find common points among the differing ideas and develop those common ideas.

Protests are an American way of life, but talking/listening seem to me a better practice.

Political Religion

In his book Bad Religion, Ross Douthat states: “Using the Word of God to support political causes has long marred Christianity.”

The interplay between Christianity and politics has long been discussed by both religious and secular thinkers. When Christianity began in the backwaters of the Roman Empire, it would hardly have been suspected of much influence. It came to the attention of Rome only after its rapid spread had disturbed the authorities by its devotion to another king, Jesus, called the Christ.

Few adherents of the new religion, however, advocated the overthrow of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the apostle Paul sometimes appealed to his Roman citizenship for protection. Roman roads meant the gospel could more easily be spread. Good government is indeed a blessing.

Roman authorities were mistaken in their belief that the Christianity of Jesus wished to overthrow the empire. When practiced, however, Christianity conquered the Roman empire, but by peaceful means. The government continued, but the practice of Christianity grew to become a major influence.

In its first few centuries, the interplay between government and religion continued. After Christianity became, not only tolerated, but ascendant, the temptation to use it for political purposes increased. However, the more that Christians attempted to use political power, the more they risked corruption.

Later, when religion and political power began to separate, Christianity grew. Those who chose a religion because they would be persecuted if they did not, now were free to leave. Many did. However, the new freedom meant that the remaining members were more committed to their faith. Their dedicated work drew in new members.

In areas like the southeastern United States (where I grew up), the general population was more “religious” in the sense of church membership. Religion became part of the general culture. That included a kind of civil religion.

For many, this meant choosing a political party which catered to religious beliefs. Even though you could choose your religion, you were more favorably accepted, including politically, if you were culturally Christian. Such societies, however, tend to ignore the hard parts of the gospel.

It’s not a coincidence that slavery and then segregation became embedded in southern culture, while the area was termed more “religious” than other parts of the nation.

However, it’s also not a coincidence that Christians have been among those fighting first slavery and then segregation. Stories are legion of southern children growing up in a segregated society who eventually took their Christianity so seriously that they become convinced that racial discrimination was terribly wrong.

The fact that such struggles continue should not surprise us. Those who take Christ seriously, while often a minority, often surprise us with the changes they ultimately birth.

Is Jesus in My Politics?

The short answer for a Christian is: “Yes, of course Jesus influences my politics, the same way Jesus influences how I interact with family or my neighbors or my fellow workers.” Presumably, if I’m attempting to live as a follower of Christ, the teachings of Jesus guide me in all parts of my life. This would include my political life as well.

Thankfully, the U.S. Constitution gives me the right to worship God as I see fit, even to ignore religion if I so choose. It gives that same right to all Americans.

The Constitution’s protection of the right of Americans to believe and worship as they see fit, however, was revolutionary at the time. In the Europe from which most of the American founders descended, a state church was a given. Perhaps because they saw how religious wars had devastated large parts of Europe in the recent past, the founders wisely decided to avoid such conflict by opting out of a state religion.

The majority of early Americans were influenced by churches, however, even those not active in one. Certainly, the country’s day to day life was influenced by what people thought was Christian. (Surely, though, any country that was truly “Christian” would not have allowed slavery.)

The United States stayed more religiously attuned long after Europe had become more secular. Eventually, however, secular trends reached more and more Americans. Christian worship lessened, even though many who did not regularly worship would call themselves “Christian” in a cultural sense. Active church membership, however, has decidedly declined.

Any group who has been in a majority tend to be alarmed when their group diminishes, whether religious, political, or even believers in small town life. In addition, of course, political movements now concern fundamental issues like marriage and abortion. People who considered themselves Christian because of culture may not consider themselves as such in terms of traditional beliefs on these issues.

The question is not whether those actively involved in trying to live as Jesus taught should be concerned. Certainly they should be. The question is how they will respond to their concerns. America is not changing because it is no longer “Christian.” It is changing because those calling themselves Christians are being challenged to actually live as followers of Christ.

Giving Up When You Lose

The United States has often complained to some of our Central American neighbors when unelected dictators take over a government. Lately, Guatemala has bucked the trend and freely elected Bernardo Arévalo to be their new president.

In a region where freely elected governments are hardly a given, the election in Guatemala has been a welcome signal that things could change. Hopefully, outgoing officials will feel the pressure and allow the new government to take over.

Regardless, the United States must temper any arrogance toward countries with a tradition of less than freely elected governments. After all, Donald Trump’s supporters in our last election attempted to keep him in power by insisting that he won the election despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In court case after court case, the results of Joe Biden’s election to the presidency have been validated.

Even in a country with a long history of democratically elected leaders, some would still attempt to overcome that tradition and connive to keep in power a man who lost an election.

The euphoria that followed the end of the cold war, when democracy appeared to be in the ascendency, has vanished. We are learning again how difficult it still can be for free and fair elections to be accepted.

 

When We Have Enough? What Then?

Americans certainly include those who are poor, but America in the last half century or so has known an age of prosperity unlike any in history. What do we do with our prosperity?

Those with money left over after their basic needs are met will make choices, whether purposefully or not. Understandably, “basic” is a moving target. Nevertheless, American prosperity has long given a significant number of us disposable income.

Most would agree on uses of income that we would abhor—use of income to sexually exploit others, especially children, for example. We generally would agree, in principal at least, that paying bribes to obtain political favors is wrong.

But what lawful ways do we agree are acceptable? Vacations, probably. Surely, time away from routine duties refreshes and renews us. But vacations can range from a few days of hiking trails to mind expanding foreign travel to expensive sojourns in exotic locations.

We can use extra money to fix up our house to be more livable and create space for relaxing hobbies or entertaining or bringing people together in community. Or we can make our house some kind of useless god which devours our money and time and keeps us from more useful pursuits.

We can support political causes. We can support international efforts to feed people or develop democracies. We can support soup kitchens and affordable housing.

We owe it to the gifts given us to give thought as to how we use them. Money itself is not the root of all evil. As always, our decisions about the use of our money determine whether money is good or evil.

Letting the Other Side Win

Many years ago, when one of my sons played on a church baseball team, I remember a heated confrontation between players at one of the games. I don’t remember the exact play which started the argument, but the young boys, all presumably church goers, fell into a heated debate about the call. Fortunately, the leaders were able to tamp down the hostility before blows were exchanged.

Unfortunately, Americans today in the political realm too often appear in need of adult supervision. Granted the stakes are high. Abortion, election results, sexual identity, and other issues have bitterly divided us. Surely, no one can deny either the importance of the issues or the major impact of political decisions on them.

What should be questioned is our hostility, even seeming hatred, toward those who disagree with us. How can we find paths that allow disagreement, but without hatred, even on matters we consider of utmost importance, even dealing with human life?

How should we choose to fight when we lose a political round? Even when we are sure our cause is not only right but morally right?

The only acceptable path, it seems to me, is to allow the winners to win, then become members of “the loyal opposition.” To correct political directions we believe to be wrong, we have the freedom to organize peaceful campaigns, present our arguments through newspapers and social media, and talk to our friends and neighbors.

No matter how absolutely sure we are of our beliefs, no one, in fact, including us, is infallible. Surely the height of arrogance is to assume that we are.

Healing Before Leading

I worked at a U.S. consulate in a Middle Eastern country many years ago during a government shutdown over congressional budget disputes. It was hard to explain the shutdown to the people in that country, those we were trying to interest in a democratic form of government. They may have wondered why they should accept a kind of government that couldn’t even keep its government functioning.

The country is even more divided today. Yet, we persist in trying to overcome those with whom we disagree by following a “take no prisoner” kind of approach. If we don’t win, we’ll make it impossible for the winners to govern.

Democracy, however, requires that the losing side let the winning side govern, as it was elected to do. We don’t come up with ways to impede the government when we’re on the losing side. We write and speak our criticisms, but we don’t shut down government functions.

Americans have generally prided themselves on sportsmanship—the referee makes a call, and we expect the losing side to acquiesce. For the game to go on, the players must follow the rules, even accepting penalties when the referee so calls them.

It helps if we recognize that no human or human movement is without error. We may think those on the opposite side of an issue, with whom we strongly disagree, are wrong. If they win, however, we accept it and govern as “the loyal opposition,” with emphasis on loyal. We don’t act like children in a temper tantrum because they must share a toy.

Saturday Night Live Politics

Lately, the American political scene resembles the old Saturday Night Live TV show at its best, before Covid and Hollywood actor strikes. In a kind of comedy of errors, political groups sling accusations at each other, sometimes so absurd as to be comical. They form cabals, making it almost impossible even to appoint routine government officials.

Meanwhile, our tax system continues to favor the rich, allowing political clout to be based more on political donations than on what voters want.

In addition, state voting districts too often favor gerrymandered divisions having little resemblance to actual population distribution.

Our foundational documents are showing their age, beset with modern problems undreamed of in the 18th century.

Even if our foundational documents were all updated, however, issues like abortion and gender identity would not be easily solved. The problem is not with any one issue. The problem is the absolute certainty that tempts us, we fallible humans. We do not listen to our opponents or oppose them with arguments, or God forbid, talk responsibly together. We prefer to demonize each other.

Perhaps it would help if we realized our human imperfections and noted that our founding documents, indeed, were written by imperfect humans. Yet, the country’s founders also made them difficult to change. We can hope that one day we may come together in a more conciliatory age and update our constitution.

At the present time, however, we may simply have to muddle along—in other words, work within the imperfections of our founding documents. What is a greater impediment to our political functioning is our refusal to recognize that no political group or human being has all the answers. It would help if we humbly recognized the possibility that the other side could be right or, at the least, have ideas worth considering.

Taking valuable time by throwing up unnecessary roadblocks to ordinary government duties is not just maddening but possibly deadly to the country’s influence and even survival.

Stopping Politics at the Water’s Edge

Senator Arthur Vandenberg, from Michigan, is credited with using the phrase: “Politics stops at the water’s edge.” Though a Republican, he supported President Harry Truman’s anticommunist foreign policy. America could practice effective world leadership only if partisan domestic politics did not spill over into the country’s foreign policy decisions.

Though a mob attacking the U.S. capitol on January 10, 2021, did not directly attack U.S. foreign policy, it certainly weakened respect for the country’s ability to lead in world affairs. If our own ability to peacefully elect and inaugurate a president is in jeopardy, why should we presume world leadership?

Our government is based on peaceful changes to power, not mob violence. Those who lose must let the winners take office, even if the differences that divide us include life changing issues like abortion, sexual orientation, and school curriculums.

Such respect for the other side on an issue does not restrict peaceful involvement in groups favoring change. The ability to criticize via print and internet also is a protected right. (This right does not include lying or false accusations.) In addition, local elections provide opportunities for newer political directions.

America loves a winner. Yet, in past history, those who lost elections sometimes, by patient perseverance, ended up as later winners. Sometimes, of course, past ideas were changed by new discoveries or directions in thought.

We are all subject to human error. Allow past error to be changed by peaceful means. As long as we can look forward to the next free election, we can and should accept our losses.

Taxing the Second Million

Earning the first million dollars of income is the hard part, we are told, but the second million is comparatively easy. A financial advisor could line out this truism, as well as the time required, depending on the investments. Nevertheless, I’m fairly certain that investing most of your million (even after saving out a little for conspicuous consumption) would net you another million within a reasonable time frame. I’d bet it would certainly be sooner than earning the first million.

What are the reasons for wanting a second million? And should we not place a higher tax on that second million?

One reason for earning money far beyond our basic needs could be a desire to improve and/or grow a company. Another might include growing wealth in order to give much of it to charitable causes. Others: comfort in old age; passing to children; buying the things we lacked growing up; or simply a desire to own as many things as possible.

We make our own judgements of right and wrong ways to use wealth. Along with these judgements is the question of what is the proper taxation of that wealth. How do we in the United States decide this issue?

I wonder why, with all the wealth in this country, we not only experience tax deficits but also poverty, especially child poverty. Yes, I know, the drug epidemic has certainly fueled some of it. However, plenty of low wage earners work hard, stay off drugs, and still have problems meeting basic needs.

Some of it happens because men don’t support the children they father. Some of this can be tied to the breakup of a common belief that a man and a woman should be committed in marriage before they have children.

Nevertheless, the children should not suffer inadequate food and housing because of what their parents did or didn’t do.

Yes, we should establish safeguards and checks against welfare going to the wrong people. However, every child in this wealthy country should have basic needs met. That includes proper schooling as well as food and a safe place to grow up.

If this requires more taxation, I believe the taxes could be raised on our wealthier citizens without any injustice to them.

The Psalms of the Old Testament were written thousands of years ago. Yet, the call for justice to “the poor and oppressed” is often stressed in its pages. For any of us who value justice, the care of the poor and needy is a minimum requirement for a just society.

Since Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford

In 1976 Jimmy Carter and incumbent Vice President Gerald Ford vied with each other for the U.S. presidency. That may have marked the highest level of decency for a U.S. presidential campaign since then. Both candidates appeared decent men who respected not only the electoral process but each other. Carter narrowly defeated Ford for a one-term presidency.

Since then, we appear to have descended lower and lower into hatred and falsehood. No doubt the internet and easy access to rumors, with less fact checking, have played a part.

Whatever the reason, arrogance sets the tone. Our side has all the answers; the other side is not only wrong but a villain. We don’t just disagree with each other—too often we appear to despise each other. The fate of the world is dependent, apparently, on whether we win.

Somehow, we seem to have lost a valuable sense of humility.

Certainly, we have our standards of what is the better political direction for the country. So does out neighbor. It may be different from ours. The problem is not different viewpoints. That is inevitable given the world we live in.

What often seems to be ignored is that all human viewpoints are imperfect, including our own.

If We Care About Children

Often ignored in the controversy about the U.S. Supreme Court decision to allow states to forbid abortion, is the cost of having a child in this country. If we care about children, perhaps we ought to make it easier to have them.

Rose Marie Berger, an editor at Sojourners magazine, visited the issue of free births (Sojo.net, May, 2023.) She quoted extensively from an article by Elizabeth Bruenig (The Atlantic, “Make Birth Free,” July 9, 2022.) According to the article, a birth in the United States costs an average of $18,265. The average not covered by insurance, the article states, is about $2,850. Presumably, poorer mothers tend not to have any medical insurance.

Raising a child continues to cost, of course—food, adequate shelter, clothes, doctor visits, and so on. In addition, unusual medical conditions can render more expenses than any normal household can cover. Some parents have family medical insurance through a job. Having a job, however, is not a guarantee of medical insurance. Lesser paying, more seasonal jobs, often have no medical insurance.

While Medicare provides medical insurance for older Americans, medical care for children often depends on what kind of job their parents have.

If we want to save children’s lives, both those unborn and those already born, we could start simply with making children more affordable for average Americans.