Career Politicians Should Step Aside

Politicians, unlike fine wine, don’t necessarily improve with age.

The US Congress is overloaded with over-the-hill congressmen and congresswomen, who should step aside, go home, and let new blood move this country on into the 21st Century.

The top three offenders of these never-go-home career senators and representatives are Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who has served over 57 years; John Dingell of Michigan, in Washington for over 56 years; and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, over 50 years.

Former congressional lobbyist Tom Korologos had this to say about congress. “Always remember that congress does two things well: nothing and overreact.”

One of the major reasons that this statement is ‘truer’ than we would like, is because of the congressional seniority system.

This system, derived from tradition and culture, as opposed to the constitution, basically allows the members with the most seniority to yield the most power. This prevents new people with new ideas from advancing their hopes and ideas.

Generally speaking, the autocratic committee chairpersons, by virtue of their seniority, can control the congressional committees and dictate what will and what will not be considered.

In theory, all senators and all representatives have an equal vote. But, in practice, the newly elected members of congress get along, by going along, and occasionally, are thrown a few scraps.

There will be no equalization of representation and a leveling of the political playing field until there are term limits for members of congress.

Since, the senior members ‘rule’ the senate and the house, they have a vested interest in keeping things just the way they are. You might say these elected ‘foxes’ are guarding a very lucrative ‘henhouse.’

Only when those elected to office, have enough personal integrity to serve a term or two and then return home, will the original intent of the Founding Fathers be realized.

The official framework for the U.S. Government was the Articles of Confederation. Initially, the early citizens of this country feared a strong federal government and favored one, giving the individual states more authority.

The Articles of Confederation pleased most Americans by creating a ‘weak’ federal government. Their belief was that the United States as a whole was more or less, a ‘league of friendship’ between the states.

The government had no president, no capitol, no federal courts, no national currency, and no military. The government lacked the authority to collect taxes and therefore could not pay debts incurred in the War of Independence.

George Washington feared the young nation, for which, a great many had so gallantly fought, would collapse. As a result, a call went out to strengthen the federal government.

Meeting in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, the Continental Congress issued its own call for a convention to strengthen the federal government. After much heated debate, working diligently on each point, the delegates hammered out the details of the U.S. Constitution.

Thirteen of the 55 delegates left early and did not even sign the new document. The remaining 39 signed it. These men are known as the Founding Fathers.

Each state then had to ratify the document. Rhode Island, the smallest state and the only state not sending delegates to the convention, was the last of the original thirteen states to come on board.

Of the 39 signers of the US Constitution, eight of them went on to be elected to the first Senate. Six went on to become members of the first House of Representatives.

Of the 14 elected members of the first US Congress, only two of them stayed for two terms or more.

Sure, some went on to other governmental offices, both elected and appointed, but they did not envision serving in Congress to be a life-long occupation. They went on to become judges, a state governor, a cabinet secretary, a college president, a businessman, a banker, and Robert Morris of Pennsylvania died a pauper.

These Founding Fathers served their country and then returned to their private lives. Short terms of service for elected members of congress worked then, and I think it would work now, just as well. Perhaps, we would all be better off, if our present day elected official would serve short terms and return to their homes.

21st Century Bill of Rights

In my last blog I alluded to how there were those, from the far left and far right, trying to subvert the legislative process of this country by interjecting their extreme hard core party ideology and beliefs. This results in delaying or prohibiting any meaningful negotiations or compromises.

Well, the Kentucky Senate has joined in this effort with their proposed legislative initiative, known in Frankfort, as Senate Bill 3. The bill was very partisan in committee with all 20 Republicans voting for the bill and the remaining democrats, rolling over and playing dead, by abstaining from the vote.

The bill, nicknamed the “21st Century Bill of Rights” is an assault on any perceived liberal view either from the U.S. President or U.S. Congress.

If the bill is passed by the full Senate and the House in Frankfort in this year’s legislature, it would appear before the Kentucky voters on the November 2, 2010 ballot for their consideration as a constitutional amendment.

The highlights of the bill include nine points. Some of which, I agree with, and some, I do not. But the controversial issues appear to have been sugar coated and lumped in with popular ideas as a take-it-all or leave-it-all proposition.

The first issue is to state that the voters deserve an ‘inalienable’ right to ‘comprehend’ the legislation, raising or lowering tax revenues and appropriations.
The proponents of this bill seem to think this could be accomplished in 48 hours.

In the case of some legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, this could take more like 48 years, but I have no real problem with this one.

Second, they are championing the need for an ‘informed’ citizenry and seem to think this will be accomplished with wide use of technology and electronic media.

Ostensibly, this is one of many ways to share and provide news and information, but, there are still a large number of households in this state with no computer access. So, this is not a cure-all, only an aid in the ‘knowledge deficiency’ of the general public.

The third point is to prevent government from compelling health care providers to participate in any health care system. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to de-rail the proposed national health care initiative.

This may be a moot point anyway, as many doctors and dentists and other health care providers, even today, fail to treat patients with Medicaid, Medicare, or CHAMPUS (military) insurance.

The bill’s fourth issue states that no health care entity should be required to perform abortion services. Even, if the ‘Obama Health Care Plan’ passes and funds for abortions services are available, it is doubtful that there would be a ‘mandatory’ requirement to provide the service. And, again, currently, there are hospitals and providers that elect ‘not’ to provide the service.

I personally am ‘against’ abortions. Unfortunately, I have to be ‘pro-choice,’ because I don’t have my head stuck in the sand, and I realize that abortions will occur, whether they are legal or not.

After working in the health care field for over 30 years, I recognize the additional tragedy when illegal abortions are performed. As well as death to the unborn child, there is the added risk of severe, permanent, injury or even death to the mother. Anytime, I’m asked about the decision or choice, I always encourage the mother ‘not’ to have the abortion.

The fifth article deals with the severing of coal, and basically deals with this state being ‘pro-coal’. I endorse this idea as long as there is also an enforceable mandate for strict land reclamation and stringent air quality provisions.

The next issue deals with there being no government entity interfering with the posting of the Ten Commandments as a part of a display of historical documents.

I have no issue with this matter, either. As a matter of fact, there is a very attractive display of such documents in the Estill County Courthouse today.

But, the over-riding concern is the interpretation of the courts concerning this matter. Citizens’ opinions matter little when they are counter indicated by the court system. Opinions have to become laws and approved as being constitutional before they are legal in the eyes of the courts.

The next issue is a ‘wordy’ phrase basically stating that no one should be prevented from doing or not doing anything because of their faith. This is probably the least thought-out of all the proposed bills. It is written solely to placate those fearing religious persecution.

The establishment clause of the US Constitution’s First Amendment has already covered this. It states: “Congress shall make no laws respecting or establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As far as I can determine, there has been no formal establishment of a state sanctioned religion or faith.

However, there ‘does’ need to be certain laws that may ‘appear’ to infringe upon the religious rights of others. Examples include those faiths that prevent underage children from receiving medical treatment; those that don’t approve of military service; those who think polygamy is a religious right; those, whose leaders engage in sex with the youth of their church; those who believe in the use of illicit drugs in their worship; and there are others.

It is of extreme importance, that when we think of freedom of religion, we realize that the laws are not ‘just’ for Christians alone, but for anyone who professes ‘any’ faith or religion. Christianity and religion are not synonymous terms.

The eighth matter of concern is related to gun control. This is essentially a re-inventing of the wheel. It is virtually a repeat of the second amendment with the addition of the word ammunition.

The problem with gun control laws is not what is written on a document, as much as the interpretation of the laws by the courts. I am a staunch supporter of gun rights, and have a concealed deadly weapon permit.

But, as with so many ‘hot topic’ buttons, I feel this issue was added to give the “21st Century Bill of Rights” a degree of legitimacy in this ‘gun-loving’ state. Again, I think it is redundant to include this issue.

This final article is simply stating that Kentucky, under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, claims sovereignty over all powers not specifically spelled out to and granted to the federal government.

Again, this is directly addressed in the 10th Amendment where it states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it, are reserved to the states.

So, this is again, redundant. It is much ado about nothing. Those trying to discount slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War, always claim it was a state rights issue. But, it has been decided, time and time again, that state rights never supersede federal law.

To pass such irresponsible, even if well-intentioned, legislation, will open a plethora of federal law suits with never-ending appeals and a bottomless pit of legal expenses.

Wake Up America

The polarization of American politics today has gotten to such an extreme, or we might say, fallen to such a low, that there is very little that Congress can actually accomplish.

It seems the Republican Party is controlled by the extreme right-wing conservative politicians. Likewise, the Democrat Party is controlled by the left-wing liberal politicians.

There is way too much negativity on the part of both major political parties. Each only seems to be able to voice what they are against, not what they are for. This attitude prevents either party from effectively legislating for the good of the total constituency of the nation. It’s what my Grandmother used to call ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face.’

It is my firm belief that the vast majority of Americans fall in the middle fifty per cent of a ‘conservative verses liberal’ scale or spectrum. The two twenty-five percentage groups on either end of the scale are the ones currently running the show.

There is no room for compromise on virtually any issue facing America. Compromise can only occur in Congress when ‘reasonable’ elected officials, put aside petty partisan politics, and strive, their dead level best, to come up with solutions for the common good.

There is growing evidence that the American electorate is becoming less and less enamored with the current two party system. In fact there is a growing distaste for Republicans and Democrats and their hard-line inflexible ideology and unwillingness to compromise.

In fact, Independents or non-affiliated voters, outnumber Republicans or Democrats in total registration in at least eleven states. This is the fastest growing segment of the electorate in the country.

The importance of the independent vote was forcefully demonstrated in the recent election of Republican Scott Brown to fill the unexpired seat of the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, a state that is usually considered very liberal, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2-1 margin.

The most eye-opening aspect of this special election was the voter turnout. It is true that Republican Brown got most of the Republican votes and Democrat Martha Coakley received most of the Democratic votes, but the election was determined by the Independents. Yes, Independents, the middle-of-the-roaders, those with no party affiliation.

For you see, 46 per cent of the voters in Massachusetts are registered Independents, with 35 per cent being Democrats, and only 19 per cent registered as Republicans.

Traditionally, Independent candidates or ‘third party’ candidates, those who ran as neither, Democrats nor Republicans, were more or less seen as election ‘spoilers’. They could only sway enough votes to, perhaps, hurt one of the major candidates’ chances to win.

This was due mostly due to the way the national election process is set up with the Electoral College. A winner-take-all system whereby a single candidate gets all the electoral votes, at least in most states.

Only three times has a third party candidate received a significant number of electoral votes. They were when John C. Breckenridge, in 1860 received 72 votes running as a Southern Democrat; Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, received 88 electors as a Progressive candidate; and George Wallace, as an American Independent, received 46 electoral votes in 1968.

Ross Perot in 1992, running as a Reform Party candidate, received nearly 19 per cent of the total votes cast, but won no electors.

There are still several so-called third parties. They include the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Reform Party, the Constitutional Party, the Socialist Party, and a number of others.

These parties usually are devoted to one or a few special issues that are not of primary concern to the two larger parties. I don’t feel that they will make any significant in-roads in the near future.

However, nationwide, the voters are registered as approximately 43 per cent registered Democrats, 33 per cent registered Republicans, and 25 per cent Independents.

It is this 25 per cent of Independents, along with the 25 per cent moderate Democrats and the 25 per cent of the moderate Republicans that are going to win elections and govern this nation.

The sooner the extreme elements of the political party spectrum realizes this, the better off all Americans will be. There is no room for politicians that are more interested in their extreme party ideology than they are the good of America. We need elected officials who will put this country first.

To quote Gary Burbank’s redneck character, Earl Pitts: “Wake up, America.”

Americans Must Fly Safely

One of our son travels extensively throughout the world in his job. His family flies frequently, too. Our other son has been to Europe a few times and will soon be travelling to Costa Roca on a mission trip. Our daughter has made some trips to Europe as well. My wife and I have traveled both for work and pleasure.
We have entertained guests in our home from Korea, Japan, Zimbabwe, Latvia, Albania, Afghanistan, Denmark, Ireland and England.

Airline safety is a concern, not just to the rich and famous, but to everyone in America and the world. We live in a highly mobile society. In this 21st Century in which we find ourselves living, there seems to be two main issues concerning safety in the skies. They are terrorism by means of hijacking and airport security privacy.

Airplane hijacking goes back as far as many people alive today can remember. The first attempted hijack of a commercial US airliner took place in 1961.
Those hijackers, for whatever reason, were seeking asylum in Cuba. These relatively ‘benign’ hijackings became so frequent during the 1960’s that the phrases ‘Take me to Havana’ or ‘Take this plane to Cuba’ became part of the American culture.

I can even remember in Korea in 1968 when an intoxicated US soldier boarded a public bus near the DMZ loudly exclaiming “Take this bus to Cuba” before passing out among the Korean peasants on their journey to Seoul.
Much work was done in an effort to stop the hijackings and following the 1974 Anti-hijacking Act, the number of hijackings did, in fact, fall sharply, especially in the US.

However, in the 1980’s Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. These hijackers were found to be from the Libyan intelligence community and were convicted of the crime. The Libyan government formally accepted the blame for this tragedy a few years later.

Hijacking reached a new ‘low’ when on September 11, 2001; Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists took control of four commercial planes with devastating results. Two of these airliners crashed into the World Trade Center in New Your City, one into the US Military’s Pentagon in the Washington DC area, and a fourth airliner, thought to be headed for Washington, was forced to crash in a rural field in Pennsylvania.

Of the 19 hijackers who directly participated in the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001, fifteen hailed from Saudi Arabia, three from the United Arab Emirates, and one from Lebanon. The masterminds of this tragedy were a terrorists group named al-Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden, who was born in Yemen.

Following this devastating event, the US Government transferred responsibility for airline safety from the Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) to the newly organized mega-cabinet entity of Department of Homeland Security, currently chaired by Janet Napolitano.

Significant strides toward safety have been accomplished. Only two life-threatening occurrences have since been noted. Once, when Richard Reid (aka Abdul Raheem) who trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan, tried to explode a bomb in his shoe. And again, when Umar Faroak Abdulmutallab tried to explode a bomb in his underclothing just recently on a flight from Yemen.

I am the ultimate champion of an individual’s rights in this country. I think we should do everything within our power to protect these rights (i.e. voting, right to bear arms, and others constitutionally guaranteed). But, I think the majority has a ‘limited prerogative’ to defend and make America safe from all those who choose to do us harm. We are in a state of war according to our former and current presidents. Not a declared war, but war, none the less.

I certainly oppose any policy that would place innocent individuals into an ‘internment situation’ such as was experienced by many Japanese-Americans during World War Two. I believe it is too easy to forget civil liberties in times of national unrest, fear, and insecurity.

I am against racial profiling, generally speaking, but when 100 percent of the 9 -11 hijackers, 100 percent of the USS Cole attackers, and 100 percent of the most recent attempted airplane explosions, are of Middle Eastern heritage, training and beliefs, it is only prudent to observe those individuals more closely.
In today’s circumstances, any law-abiding, peace-loving, rationally-thinking person of Middle Eastern descent, or any other individual for that matter, should welcome the opportunity to aid all attempts of safety for the public.

If I go to an airport and am singled out for closer scrutiny either electronic, visually, or manually, I say “bring it on.” Any right I have or even perceive as having, ENDS where it interferes with another person’s safety and right to life.

I Hope I'm Wrong

I hope I’m wrong.
I have been an observer of the political history of this country for nearly fifty years. I have been especially intrigued with the US Military and the way it has been used and abused these many years by this nation’s politicians to influence the political world and to satisfy their desire to control it.
I think it is significant that the United States of America has not fought a ‘war’ since World War 2 in the 1940s. We have seen a ‘police action’ in Korea; a Cold War military conflict in Viet Nam; Operation Just Cause in Panama; the Invasion of Granada; the Armed Conflict of Bosnia; Operation Desert Shield in Iraq; Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq, and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
These military actions were all given, at least, tentative approval by our US Congress. However, none of these were ‘declared’ wars. And we need to remember that only Congress, not the President, can declare war.
Famed Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman said in 1879, that “War is hell.” And he was right. It is hell for those involved in combat; those loved ones left behind; and those footing the bill.
A huge problem in this country, is that the ‘wars’ America has been involved in since Korea, were military wars alone. The United States citizens, for all practical purposes, have not been at war. If you are not a military service member, or have a loved one in the military, then life has been pretty much, business as usual.
Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guards are at war, declared or not. The rest of Americans are generally unaffected. There is no rationing of items, no selling of War Bonds, no conversion of a civilian economy to a wartime economy.
For most of America we experience the current fighting as we did, starting with Viet Nam, when we were first exposed to a live television war or living room war. What started out with around the clock coverage has now become a short segment of cable news or a heart wrenching scene when a local fallen warrior returns home in a coffin, draped in an American flag.
Ostensibly, we are in Afghanistan as a result of the horrific happenings of September 11, 2001. There was credible evidence that Osama Ben Laden and his group of radical Muslim followers were provided a safe haven and possibly training, and backing, from the Taliban, who are concentrated in Afghanistan. Our mission was and still is to capture Ben Laden and neutralize the Taliban.
The speech given by President Obama recently at West Point brought back many unwanted feelings and memories of our most recent massive military action, that in Viet Nam. The similarities between Viet Nam and the current condition in Afghanistan are noteworthy.
The French fought to an unsuccessful end in Viet Nam in the Indo-China War from 1947-1954. The Soviet-Afghan War lasted for 9 years with a similar outcome. Now, the US has been in Afghanistan since 2002 with little or no lasting evidence of success.
The corruption-riddled South Viet Nam government, in a failed effort at nation building, finally had to stand on its own, only to eventually fall in defeat to the North Vietnamese.
As old time baseball player Yogi Berra used to say “it’s déjà vu all over again.” Now, several decades later, Americans are fighting in a seemingly endless ‘war’ on behalf of a corruption-riddled government trying to bring about a lasting peace (nation building).
The terminology has been sanitized over the years. We no longer hear of demilitarized zones, kill ratios, and body counts. We now hear of embedded reporters, collateral damage and troop deployments.
The one term that I look upon with the most disdain are the words concerning the level of personnel in the combat zones. Where President Johnson and General Westmoreland talked of a troop escalation (going from 16,000 at the end of the Kennedy Administration to 537,000 at the end of Johnson’s administration), we now hear of a troop surge.
Just who is being ‘surged?’ They are individuals, men and women, actually, boys and girls, our sons and daughters. This is who the surge is.
LBJ couldn’t decide if he should listen to the ‘Doves’ or the ‘Hawks” resulting in the deterioration of the US military’s morale, fighting ability, and support back home. It is my fear that the troop ‘surge’ in Afghanistan will meet the same consequences. Even if the US is successful in stabilizing Afghanistan, will it be worth it? There will be untold loss of lives, both Americans and Afghans; billions of dollars spent; and the possibility, if not the probability, of years of additional involvement.
I hope I’m wrong.

Palin’s Presidential Qualifications

Sarah Palin has been the ‘fodder’ for the political animals (i.e. political pundits, editorial and news writers, and talk radio ‘blowhards’) for several days now.
The reason for the recent revival of interest in Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate and recently resigned Governor of Alaska, is the release of her book Going Rogue. This book is apparently selling very well and Palin is participating in book signings across the nation.
As with many books and articles penned by politically active, former or prospective candidates, this book has received fairly diverse reviews.
Without too much generalization, I think it can be safely said that Democrats rate the book as lightweight and self-serving. They view this book as an early attempt to sway voters from both parties to the former governor’s conservative ways of thinking on a range of topics.
Republicans, on the other hand, are somewhat divided over the new publication. Some, especially, those with strong feelings for Senator John McCain, feel that Palin has misrepresented the facts of the inner workings of the 2008 Republican Presidential Campaign. These individuals think Palin vilified their standard bearer and feel she denigrated him and his campaign. So, naturally, they are less than enthused with Palin’s literary effort.
Other Republicans seem to think the book is well written, factually accurate, and is a true picture of a great person they hope to be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee. These individuals are generally pleased with Going Rogue.
Much of the debate since the release of the publication of Palin’s book is pretty much a ‘rehash’ of her qualifications to serve as the vice-president, if she were to have been elected last year. So, naturally, the same arguments can be made concerning her run for the presidency in 2012.
Although Palin coyly denies that she is a candidate for the office of president, as recently reiterated on Oprah Winfrey’s show, when she said “it wasn’t on her radar,” both, Democrats and Republicans doubt that statement seriously.
The issue mentioned most often is whether or not, she is ‘qualified’ for the top job in America. It is a fair question. Is Sarah Palin qualified to be president of the United States? Well, the answer is ‘yes’, ‘no’, and ‘the jury is still out’.
Legally, the answer is ‘yes.’ According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 11, Section 1, an individual in America is basically qualified to be president if he or she is a native born citizen and over 35 years of age. There are no other stated qualifications for the highest elected office in the nation.
There is no educational requirement. One president, Abraham Lincoln, had, as best can be established, roughly one year of formal education. At the other end of the educational scale, Woodrow Wilson earned a PhD from Johns Hopkins University.
Sarah Palin attended five colleges or universities, ultimately graduating from the University of Idaho with a degree in communications and journalism.
Military service is not a requirement. Many presidents of the United States were veterans (all officers), some with citations for bravery and valor in action. Another, an alleged ‘draft-dodger,’ sought educational amnesty in England. Many others had no military experience at all. Palin would fall into the latter category.
Prior occupations of U.S. Presidents included the military, lawyers, members of Congress, state governors and a few others. Palin did serve for a time as governor of Alaska.
So, you can see, by most measurable standards, former Governor Palin is qualified to be president. But, the real qualifications for president are those intangible qualities that can never be quantified.
A president ‘ideally’ needs to be a person of integrity, a person the nation can trust, a person of honor and respect , a person of compassion and of understanding.
A president needs to have the resolve to do the right thing regardless of partisan political views. A president needs the ability to have a good grasp of issues facing America.
A president needs to be seen as the leader of the free world, respecting the position of the office and the heritage of this country. A president must have the strength to serve as Commander-in-Chief of our military and know when to use force and when to use restraint.
A president needs the vision to develop a good domestic plan; one that will address the needs of the ill, the needy, the unemployed, the children, the elderly and the veterans. A president must be able to adequately address issues of health care, unemployment, education, balance of trade, immigration, social security, gasoline prices, pollution, drug abuse, and alternative energy.
A president needs a good foreign policy to try to solve problems with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the whole Middle East, as well as nuclear proliferation in other rouge countries such as Iran and North Korea.
The list of presidential abilities and attributes goes on and on.
So, back to the original question: “Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States?” I think the jury is still out.
A better question might be: “Is anyone qualified?

Keep Your Tongue from Evil

There has been quite a bit of uproar lately, in political circles, news outlets, and in general conversations. It basically has to do with the recent announcement of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient. The winner this year was Barack Obama, President of the United States.
According to the organization awarding the prize, President Obama was selected for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.”
Do I think he deserved the award? Yes.
Was it perhaps a bit premature? Maybe.
A lot of individuals in the country are misinformed about the award when they respond that he was nominated just weeks into his presidency. Or, that he had not been in office ‘long enough’ to accomplish anything.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not necessarily awarded for accomplishments and certainly not for longevity in an elected position. A number of the Nobel Prize recipients were not elected office holders at all.
The prestigious honor is awarded for possessing intangibles such as vision, ideas, aspirations, articulation of beliefs and values, creating a new climate of cooperation and interdependence based on hope, fairness and goals for the advancement of humanity.
America has had twenty recipients of the award since President Theodore Roosevelt first received the honor in 1906. Other honorees have included other sitting and past presidents, vice-presidents, Secretaries of State, university professors, religious groups, military leaders, civil rights activists, physician organizations, authors, environmentalists and average citizens.
Some of the ideals promoted were peace treaties, formation of the League of Nations, foundation of the United Nations, Christian organization leaders, nuclear war opponents, international food cooperative founders, land-mine opponents and international economic policy proponents, to name a few.
Were they all successful? No.
But, they believed to their very core in what they were doing and they believed they were doing it for the betterment of humankind. President Obama was honored, not so much for what he accomplished, as for what he was trying to accomplish; the problems that he felt needed to be rectified.
It is true that a lot of the policies he advocated were during his presidential campaign. But, this was the vehicle from which he could make his ideas known to the public at large.
He had a vision of more involvement of the world community, especially, in areas of multi-national cooperation involving military operations. He articulated his concern for international initiatives in areas of climate control, pollution, medical aid, food distribution and other humanitarian issues.
Much to my disappointment and dismay, important issues in this country are diminished to petty partisan politics that depreciate the value and importance of the issues being addressed.
It was not a Republican, or ‘Bull Moose’ Teddy Roosevelt, who drew up the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan. It was not the Democrat President Woodrow Wilson who worked tirelessly to help found the League of Nations.
It was not Democratic former Secretary of State Cordell Hull who diligently worked to establish the United Nations. It was not Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that negotiated the Vietnam Peace Accord.
These were ‘Americans’ that saw a particular problem in the world and forged ahead to try to solve it. And we Americans applauded their efforts, for the good we do for one citizen of this world, we do for all.
We Americans need to stop polarizing every issue in the national and international scene based on our particular Republican or Democratic ideology.
I think it is great, in fact, wonderful, to discuss and debate ideas and issues that face us as a nation. But, it is a national shame when we allow our biases to denigrate the discussion to name calling, personal attacks, and gross overgeneralizations.
From the third chapter of 1 Peter, we read:
“For whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit. Let him seek peace and pursue it.”
We call ourselves a Christian nation, or at least, a nation based on Christian principles. Whichever view we subscribe to, we need to step up to the plate, and act with civility, compassion, and restraint.
Tony White