This blog proudly writes from a position that most Americans consider a bit left of center. But I hope to hold positions that are Christian -- not liberal or conservative. As such, this blog protests the flag worship and intolerance of the far right as well as elitist self-righteousness of the far left. It aims at those of us in the middle, strugging to live faithful lives in a complex world.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Searching for a Glimmer of Hope in the State of the Union

As noted above, a recent study by a psychologist here at Emory University has shown that 80 percent of people judge hot political issues not by the facts, but by their own biases, preconceptions, and party affiliations.

Let me attempt to avoid that pitfall by saying what was good about Bush’s State of the Union address (which I watched while drinking beer and eating deer burgers). I will criticize Bush again soon enough. But a few things I liked:

1) Immigration reform. While I think there should be an amnesty for undocumented workers, that’s not politically likely. An expanded guest worker program is a step in the right direction. More importantly, it’s important for the nation to hear the president – a man conservatives listen to – say that our current laws "punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families." Conservatives point out that undocumented immigrants break the law. Think of it this way: If your choice is to watch your family starve or illegally cross a border to support them, what is the morally responsible decision? I guess it depends on what your "family values" are. Bush’s stance, limited though it may be, may help change perceptions. Still, I’ll take a wait and see attitude with Bush’s specific immigration reforms. Like his "Clear Skies Initiative," it could be a smokescreen.

2) Increased use of DNA evidence and training for defense counsel in death penalty cases. I have friends who have worked in death row defense non-profits, and they say the number of wrongful convictions is staggering. Defense attorneys are often non-criminal lawyers who are forced to take death penalty cases only because the courts appoint them. Some spend little or no time on the defense. Others have actually dozed off during cases. Again, this proposal may be smoke and mirrors to divert attention from other problems, like racism in the judicial system. Also, poor people defended by lawyers with government workshops under their belts are still not given the same shot at justice as rich folks defended by a high-priced criminal specialists. Still, it could be a step in the right direction.

3) OK, I still think the Iraq war was, on balance, a horrible idea. We’re still in a horrible morass, and terrorists have a recruiting video on TV every night. But if you really think that it was bad for that Iraqi woman to have a chance to vote – or if your primary reaction to the surprisingly large Iraqi voter turnout was fear that Bush might look good politically – you need to accept the fact that your political allegiances have totally consumed your other values.

Bush said a number of other things that sound good, but that are simply contrary to reality. If you listened to him talk about the environment, you’d think he consulted with Ralph Nader on energy policy. In fact, he talked with Enron. His administration has rolled back, or attempted to roll back, virtually every environmental regulation on the books. After all, this is a man who doesn’t think global warming is happening. How are those ice caps looking again?

Iraq, social security, marriage amendments? God help us. And I mean that as a prayer.

2 Comments:

Blogger Ben Brazil said...

What's the etiquette on commenting on comments to your own blog? I don't know, but ...

First, thanks for commenting, and please continue to read and comment.

Here are some excerpts for a story on the ice caps I found on Lexis-Nexis. They originally appeared in The Guardian, a UK paper. You can reference highlights of the report the article references at:

http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/Testimony.pdf

From the paper:

The icecap has shrunk by 15% to 20% in the past 30 years and the trend is set to accelerate, with the Arctic warming almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet, due to a build-up of heat-trapping gases.

The report found that the changes are likely to harm native communities, wildlife and economic activity, but also highlighted some controversial short-term advantages: oil and gas deposits will be easier to reach, more farming may be possible and short-cut trans-Arctic shipping lanes may open, shortening the sea journey between the UK and Japan by up to 12 days.

The findings support the broad scientific consensus that global warming is caused mainly by rising atmospheric greenhouse gases as a result of emissions from cars, factories and power plants.

Conducted by nearly 300 scientists, as well as elders from the native communities in the region, the report was commissioned in 2004 by the eight countries with Arctic territories - including the US - amid a growing sense of urgency about the effects of global warming on the region.

The report says that "while some historical changes in climate have resulted from natural causes and variations, the strength of the trends and the patterns of change that have emerged indicate that human influences, resulting primarily from increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, have now become the dominant factor".

February 4, 2005 at 11:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A comment from Lea DeLong on Ben's column on the State of the Union address:

I admit that I allowed myself not to watch Bush's State of the Union address. Usually, I require that I watch or listen to things that I don't agree with since I believe in knowing the arguments on the other side and trying to evaluate them fairly. But everything represented by this speech was an emotional/polical overload. Besides, I had to work that night. I have started tutoring since I've decided that I should see for myself the state of education in "No Child Left Behind" America.

I won't comment on everything, Ben, but I do want to offer a cautionary comment about Iraqi elections. Yes, I agree with you: don't let your distress at Bush's policies cloud the fact that something good did happen in Iraq. Indeed it did, and I admire the courage of Iraqi voters along with any Bush supporter.

But this is my question: Could these elections have been accomplished in a different way? Was it necessary to invade the country as we did? Did we have to go in nearly alone and without the cooperation of the UN and without the support of the rest of the world? Even countries which were part of the "coalition" did not join us with the support of the majority of their citizens. Did we have to do it in such a way that created an "insurgency" and a new terrorist cause?

I am not a pacifist. Sometimes you have to fight, I believe. But was this such a case? Were there no other alternatives? Is it possible that the United States could have a foreign policy that cooperates with the rest of the world, or at least has that as a genuine goal? Are we so inflexible that we must insist on doing everything our way and we can consider nothing else? Is there no one in America who could have come up with a better plan to address the situation under Saddam Hussein?

What if we had acted in a truly Christian manner? Was that ever an option? Perhaps we could have asked ourselves: if we didn't have the world's largest military, and we wanted to help establish democracy in the Middle East, how could we do it?

Even if a democracy is flawlessly established from this point on in Iraq, my fear is that the United States has been permanently damaged by the Bush approach. Far from making our country more secure, my worry is that my children will eventually pay the price of Bush's war in Iraq. Yes, let us applaud the elections. But if my applause gives the Bush policy-makers the confidence to extend their strategies to the rest of the world, then I have to reconsider. Is there only one way to establish democracy?

February 7, 2005 at 11:20 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home