Liberal and Loving It

Mr. President – you need to talk to her, and the rest of us

Mr. President you need to talk not just with Cindy Sheehan, but with all of us. This country will not support a president in war that merely preaches that the war must continue.

Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt (our two great war presidents) were constantly talking to the country, explaining how the war was going and why it was important. Roosevelt in some of his chats told listeners to get out their atlas as he explained specifically where the fighting was occurring.

Yes you have a weekly radio address like FDR did. But FDR chose radio because it was the prime media of the day. The equivalent today would be for you to have a weekly television address.

And it is not sufficient for your talks to repeat the talking points of the campaign. You need to answer the questions that many Americans are asking. Is this war worth it. What exactly are we going to get out of it. What is our progress in meeting our goals.

Our children are being maimed and killed. And Mr. President, in this country the soldiers are not "their children", they are "our children." It's not just the parents of the soldiers you need to answer, it's every parent in this country.

Because right now Mr. President, all we are getting from you is a couple of slogans repeated over and over again. And all we are seeing on TV and in the newspaper is more soldiers dying with no real change in Iraq.

And if the citizens of this country see the war as futile, this country will end the war. You don't have until the end of your term. Once a critical mass of the citizens of this country want us out of Iraq, the war is over and you will find that your control of the government is limited. After all, while you aren't running for re-election, congress is.

So Mr. President, if you want this war to be successful, you need to explain to us. What is going on, where we are going, and why it is worth it. And you need to continue with the explanations, week by week, until we are done. Because that is the only way America will put it's children in harms way.

What Right to Privacy?

Ok, while the "Right to Privacy" is usually a code word for pro-abortion, lets take people at their word for this. Jay Bookman (Atlanta Constitution Journal) who I respect a lot wrote a piece supporting the finding of a right to privacy.

Amendment IV

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Ok, I'm not a lawyer but I read that to say that you can't use the constitution to say that you cannot pick your nose because there is no specific right in the constitution to allow nose picking.

But I don't see that it says that therefore I have any other rights that I come up with under this umbrella. Let's take one that is not much of a reach - if the "right to privacy" means birth control must be legal (the original case that found this), then by the same argument, shouldn't it mean suicide is legal? In both cases it is an action by a person that primarily impacts that person, but does have an impact on others.

And by the same token, doesn't this mean that using any drug is a right that cannot be "deny-ed or disparaged"? Using Amendment IV as the basis, I don't see how it allows a right to abortion, but not to drug use. (Selling drugs is different - I'm talking about using.)

Son of a Chickenhawk

In WWII all four of FDR's kids were in the military. One of them was a ranger and so much in harms way (one time he was part of a small group that went ashore on a Japanese held island) that FDR did not wonder if he would be killed, but when.

Harry Hopkins, arguably the second most powerful person in Washington after FDR had a son in the military who dies in combat.

George W. Bush, who's father was a senator volunteered. He was so young that he was the youngest fighter pilot in WWII. Again, he was constantly in harms way.

And the list goes on and on.

But where are the children of the elite today? The Neo-cons say this is as critical a war as WWII was. That this is a fight for the soul of civilization. Yet at the same time, not only did the parents almost to a man avoid Vietnam, but their children are avoiding the military now.

I'm not saying that to favor the war you must have children in the army. And I do agree that we are presently in a major clash of civilizations. (I don't say war because I agree with General Pace and others that this is not going to be won primarily on the battlefield).

But to me there is something wrong when none of the country's elite that are backing this war have a child in the military. Yes politicians constantly tell us one thing while believing something else. But the fact that none of their kids have signed up leads me to believe that either in their gut they don't believe this is important enough for their children to put their lives on the line for.

Or even worse, that they figure others can do the dying for them. And if that's the case, that our country's leaders figure that "others" can do the fighting and dying for them, then they have, in my opinion, lost any moral authority to lead this country.

So I ask, why have none of our leaders had their children step up to fight? Not why not this one or that one... but why none?

Update

Is there a single administration official in a policy position who has a child serving in the military?

Overturn Roe vs. Wade

Let me start off by saying I'm a liberal. I've donated to MoveOn.org (not recently), walked precincts, taking my daughters, to help get out the vote, and am glad to see Howard Dean as chairman of the party.

I also believe that abortion should be legal.

With that preface, I have also believed for the last 20 years that Roe vs. Wade is wrong and should be overturned. And here is why.

First, we are a nation of laws. And equally important we are a democracy, not a benevolent dictatorship. To be a democracy under the rule of law it is essential that the courts do not make the law but instead interpret the law.

Very simply, Roe vs. Wade was an incredible reach of judicial activism. I've discussed this with numerous lawyers, most of them liberal, and I have never had one argue that it was a clear legal decision - just that it was a "necessary" decision.

But when the judicial system shortcuts the political system, we are no longer a democracy. We are no longer a nation of laws. Instead we are a benevolent dictatorship.

Second, when to allow abortions is a political decision. It goes to the core of each person's beliefs, their religious beliefs and their moral beliefs. A decision like this must, in a healthy democratic society, be made in the political arena.

By shortcutting this process the court not only pulled this from the political decision making process, but it also stopped the country from working through it's beliefs on this subject. Instead of working it through, the court decision poisoned the political discussion as it allowed both camps to retreat to extremist positions because their political positions were irrelevant. (Operation Rescue might never have existed if this was left as a political decision.)

Third, it hurt democracy in other areas. I find it unlikely any state would have put an amendment on the ballot outlawing gay marriage if not for Roe vs. Wade. It's Roe vs. Wade and the legal efforts made in numerous states to force the legalization of gay marriage through the courts that made many feel the amendments were necessary to stop judicial activism.

Without this concern, its unlikely the amendments would have occurred. Instead people would have argued this out and worked it out and most likely over the next 10 years gay marriage would be slowly legalized throughout the country. However, with the existing amendments, it will now require more than a majority in many states to legalize gay marriage. Roe vs. Wade, and the approach of gaining rights through the courts instead of the legislature, has delayed the adoption of gay marriage.

Fourth, Roe vs. Wade has been devastating for the Democratic party. Because the legislature has no control over abortion, candidates can get elected who have a very conservative agenda that includes support for absolutely no abortions. And their abortion stand is irrelevant to the vast majority of the electorate.

However, if legislators did control who could have an abortion and when, suddenly their stance on this issue becomes very important to a very large segment of the electorate. Instead of being able to pay lip service to this issue, the Republican candidates would have to try to appeal to a majority of the voters (who want at least some form of legalized abortion) as well as their base (many of whom view any form of abortion as totally unacceptable).

This would be as wrenching for the Republicans as civil rights was for the Democrats. And it would force the Republicans to face up to a deeply moral question that they have so far been able to dance around.

And finally to those that say the right to abortion is so important, that in this case judicial activism is called for I ask - are you willing to accept also that the court could find that a fetus is human at the point of conception and that no law could ever make abortion legal? The sword cuts both ways.

Compare this to the civil rights struggle. That struggle was fought primarily in the legislature. The courts were used to enforce existing laws, not to create new laws or rights. And with that long political struggle, came closure. Race is still an issue in this country, but as a country we have come to the conclusion that racism is wrong and we are moving forward.

It's time to finish working out how we want to handle abortion as a society. And to do that the decision must be moved back to the legislature.

Compensation for Takings

The 5th amendment says "…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." And the supreme court decided that if the state took it, that made it public use.

So, was it stretching things to say that taking homes for commercial development counted as public use? Clearly it was beyond what most people would view as public use. And personally I would have been very comfortable with the supreme court finding that this was unconstitutional.

But I also find it a reasonable decision to say that because there is an argument that this counts as public use, not the best argument but one that is logical, that the court should not step in.

And I think this is not judicial activism because the court is neither mandating nor outlawing something. Instead they are allowing the state to take an action. And the legislature in each state can outlaw that activity. Already many states are taking up that exact subject.

People need to separate their views on the specific action of New London (which flat-out sucks) from the legal decision the court made. Just because an action is bad is not a reason for the court to outlaw it.

And for those who are very conservative - you can applaud the court for not being an activist court in this case. (Bummer when you wish it was in this case - huh?)