I must admit, I have been a political junkie since my youth. And despite being interested in local, provincial and national politics in Canada, I am constantly drawn to the drama, interest and hype of U.S. federal elections, especially during a presidential election year. I follow the debates, I read multiple newspapers, I’m addicted to CNN, and I drift off at night listening to news talk radio.
The current closeness of the upcoming American election between Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan has no shortages of interesting themes and stories. Off the heals of an historic win for the Democrats in the last election, the lack-luster U.S. economy and foreign policy challenges have coalesced to make this upcoming election to likely be as closely contested as three of the last four U.S. runoffs.
What concerns me about this election is the polarizing forces that are emanating from attempts to make social issues a driving force in the decision as to who will lead America. This past few months, especially during the republican nomination run-off, and now continuing in the presidential race, there has been an rising presence of social issues being dragged into the debate about who is best equipped to lead the nation. It amazes me that this fundamental decision will be in part predicated on the candidates’ views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and funding for planned parent-hood. These highly charged, personal, philosophical and religious issues are starting to trump the critical issues at hand, such as foreign policy, taxation, stimulating the economy, social security, immigration and health care.
The abortion debate has been a divisive force in American politics for decades. But after decades of “acceptance” of current U.S. legislation, the advent of the right wing “Tea Party” in the last few years has catapulted issues that resided in the personal domain of each citizen, onto a national debate stage.
For example, during this past week’s Biden-Ryan Vice-Presidential debate, moderator Martha Raddatz directly challenged the candidates on the abortion issue. “… We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country, please talk personally about this, if you could.”1 In my personal view, this kind of question detracts from the debate, and attempts to re-introduce religious divides into the ballot box.
What good will become of making a political decision based on a candidate’s views on abortion? Have we not got past the era where we challenging the personal and private nature of a union between two people? Do we really want the U.S. electorate to pick a President based on views about stem cell research?
Hopefully the remaining two debates between President Obama and Governor Romney will focus on the substantive issues that should be driving decision making, not emotion-laden, religion infused, personal philosophical issues.
If you have any views about this topic, comment on the blog, or better yet, please stop by the Macklem House, my door is always open.
Richard
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-r-shaffer/paul-ryan-abortion_b_1960318.html
Dean Reznick I could not agree with you more! Politics does indeed make for odd bed fellows.
But helas, I fear history will simply (and I think quite predictably) repeat itself. You only need to think for a microsecond of how we’ve “managed” all this unreal globally bakrupting debt!
Who wins the next elections are of very little import. Our social, environmental and economic devolution will once again occupy the stage in the decade looming before us.
There are indeed important technologies today that make this human El Niño spike of indulgence that is “upon us” somewhat different from the past… but the peak is here and our future will unfold as it must, once again, with very little governance from anything other than hatred, bigotry, fear and ignorance: the smoke and mirrors of insatiable greed.
History tells us that the beast called Greed must consume and build to prevail then consumes itself. This is not a bad thing… it simply is.
And, come to think of it, that abortion and same sex marriage are important issues in America today is not surprising… The fact that Obama is “black” and not a woman is even more important, as is the fact that he’s easy to look at (in an Aryan kind of way) and relatively tall… as if that should matter!
And I think, last time I checked the statistics, some 50% of Americans believe that same sex marriage is WRONG.
I could get into the intellectual dishonesty of our abortion laws, but that is hardly as important really compared to how easily we embraced the slaughter of our invasion war of Iraq so America could occupy a 1/3rd of the dwindling global supply of oil.
Dear Lois
Thanks for your perspective and commentary about the role of social issues in political decision making
Richard
I think many of us share the same views on the matter, but a dwindling amount of us are able to speak about it without a great sense of frustration.
To a degree, that’s what they’re going for, the candidates. Emotional issues are always the best motivators for voters. Politics in general seem to have trained citizens to vote out of reflex, and in many cases, out of spite.
Ralph, thanks of your comments and views on his issue.
Richard
Preface: I am a Democrat, so most of what I say will be biased, but the important parts, I think, are true independent of political biases.
I’m not going to argue that social issues should be the most important part of an election, but they have always been part of politics regardless of what country you live in. As Canadians, the social aspects of American politics don’t affect you at all, so of course economics and foreign policy are going to matter more to you.
That said, I agree that there are more pressing issues this election than abortion and same sex marriage.
When I took US government classes growing up, I was always disturbed by pork barrel spending: the idea that politicians were probably always in someone’s back pocket. That doesn’t seem nearly so bad anymore, at least not since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
Now instead of politicians that may owe a company a favor, we have candidates with extreme views who get supported by shadowy super PACs . All a candidate has to do to get massive amounts of money thrown at their campaign is say that they’ll lower taxes and reduce regulations on businesses. Ten years ago, these candidates probably wouldn’t have been able to win their primary elections in even the more conservative states. Now, they have enough money behind them that any shortcomings when it comes to the important issues gets plastered over by ads that ignore logic or focus on social issues.
My personal favorite are the ads blaming Obama for how he handled the recession that use the unemployment statistics. Yeah the unemployment number is just getting back to where it was when he took office, but take two derivatives and call me in the morning. (math/medicine joke, uahahahaha)
If you look at the Republican primaries, not only did the moderate candidates not really stand a chance, but the whole tone was kind of crazy. Usually in the primaries you’re trying to pick the candidate that best represents your party while still being attractive to middle of the road voters, but nobody seemed to be worrying about that at all. The way Romney won was kind of underwhelming too. He just took as few positions outside of cutting taxes and social issues as possible and then didn’t make as much of a fool of himself as the rest of the people around him. The fact that Herman Caine and Newt Gingrich (Where’s Libya and Mayor of the Moon, respectively) were once leading the republican polls should be proof enough that lately the starting point for any republican candidate is “will you cut taxes,” and only later do they look at your actual knowledge or qualifications.
Social issues are a distraction this election, but it’s intentional. It’s pretty clear that Romney cant compete with Obama at all when it comes to foreign policy or leading a nation, so the right wing super PACs do their best to focus people’s attention on social issues and go for the gut reaction.
If you look at what Romney actually has a stance on, it’s pretty much social issues and lowering taxes. If he’s able to win this election without ever explaining any of his economic plans or demonstrating some kind of real understanding about world politics, it’s just money buying money, which is absolutely terrifying.
Dear Ruan,
Thanks for your views and perspective. You bring up many valid points and analyses.
Richard
I am a Liberal/New Democrat/Greener socialist (one of the 70% of Canadians who since 1896 have built the character, peace and international reputation of Canada, our great nation). So what I believe and say is biased too maybe. And I totally agree with you Ryan.
What you describe as how Romney slid to lead the Republicans is very telling.
Obama’s incredible deficits and debt are partly due to the Republican gridlock (both houses) and war (where Haliburton et. al. made out like bandits), but mostly due to the shift of bad debt from the rich to the people where we have globally temporised the collapse, printing credit to barely pay the “minimum ballance” on this bankrupt debt.
Romney and his five sons make for quite the handsome crew. Looks are incredibly influential, Franklin Pierce is testimony to this.
That one stupid debate has shifted polls so much is also telling.
And oh my goodness gracious, when money is simply buying money this is absolutely terrifying. But it isn’t evil, it just is. Plus ca change… And out of the shallows, as inevitably will come the tide.
So that Obama “won” tonight, does it really matter?
Dear Lois,
Thanks for your comments, and adding tithe conversation.
Richard
There are many people I being one of them, who are interested in American politics. We are surrounded by it. Social issues are, and will remain, a major factor unfluencing how we vote (or decide not to) perhaps more so for Canadians. We Canadiands review the positions and outlook of candidates for office, trying hard to balance the good parts with the bad parts.
You may see abortion as a “private” issue betwen two people. Like many others, and I hope you will forgive us for not agreeing with you, I see the fetus as a person, a third person, and not the property of any woman/man/couple. Do no harm
Dear Pat,
No worries about having different views. Indeed, in part, this blog is a forum to encourage that. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Richard
Pat, I could not agree with you more when you say: “I see the fetus as a person, a third person, and not the property of any woman”. But we must be clear about the definition of “person” in this sentence. For the sake of brevity, it will be a given that we know the difference between conception, contraception and abortion.
Accepting a woman’s right to abortion simply accepts her right to decide whether or not to host this newly conceived “person, fetus, embryo” (call it what you will). Yes of course, this person doesn’t belong to the host, but our democratic society agrees women must have the right to kick pregnancy out of their body. And this is exactly what I mean by “the intellectual dishonesty of our abortion laws”. Which could bring us to informed consent… another time… suffice it to say there are days informed consent seems to me even more uncommon than common sense… Ne’er a better oxymoron than the common sense revolution!
BTW Pat, I don’t think abortion is the sperm donor’s jurisdiction at all. But if we figure out how to do this with test tubes, only then of course would I immediately change my opinion.
As I say, I’ve way less interest in the abortion issue compared to what we did in Iraq to countless innocent “persons” victims, women, men, children and families. And if you think for a moment about what we have done, it may also be terrifying to think how we will someday pay for the horror we rained on these poor unfortunate victims. Mutually assured destruction is blissful music to the suicide bombers ears!
Abortion and war: Two wrongs do not make a right. But there are different values here on these different lives (the newly conceived or the breathing versus the pregnant mother) that seem obvious to me…
Speaking of the value of a human life brings to mind Animal Farm. Money, wealth, power and territory are odd for what they do FOR and TO humans: They provide us such exploration, comfort, peace and harmony, yet at the same time introduce such absurd ideas as a value for human life or land.
Oh, and Pat, I must say that I categorically disagree with you when you say: “We Canadians review the positions and outlook of candidates for office, trying hard to balance the good parts with the bad parts.” Pat, we are surrounded with Canada’s best educated professionals and I am dismayed with how so many of us do not know (or seem to even care) what is going on out there. Most voters are about as informed as a newt. You have but to look at our most recent federal election: Robo calls don’t work on informed minds! Did we hear Mr. Harper talk about Liberal robo calls yesterday afternoon? Who knows the difference between the Liberal and Conservative robo calls? Worse: Who cares? Who understands consumer tax (the GST) versus the old manufacturer’s sales tax (remember?) or income tax? What happened to the long form census and why? Who in health care (especially) understood what happed to, why it happened or even knows Linda Keen? etc. etc. etc.
Getting back to where this started, a deciding number of voters will once again go to the polls confident they know all they need to know about the spins this time around: social issues, lowering taxes and Romney’s (trickle down) economic action plan (for the rich). Add to the double speak detailed calculated polls and democracy becomes a joke. the pawn of international corporations. Yes,yes indeed, it could be worse: Russia, China, Africa… Two wrongs do not make a right. BTW, America is the only country on earth that has ever unleashed nuclear hollocaust. Do we know the history of that decision? Who cares?
Louis
Louis,
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Richard
Louis, I wish you were a little more capable of brevity and logic and less inclined to sermonize using your own beliefs. May I say I was surprised to hear you refer to a woman’s right to “kick a pregnancy out of her body”. The developing infant was not an intruder, nor an assailant. If she decided that a developing child was unwanted, to be disposed of, well, there iwas always her right to prevention, wasn’t there?
I have no idea of your background, Louis, but for the record, I am a nursing science grad of Queen’s, with a considerable amount of experience in both teaching and patient care. Maybe that helped shape my beliefs, such as they are to you.
.
Dear Pat,
Thanks for your comments and views on this controversial area. It would be my view, that while this is a subject where different views are expected, it should to be an issue over which an election is run.
Richard
The demographics for the women seeking abortion are very different than those who have access to contraception. Abortion, by definition is very poor planning. Actually the demographics of abortion are quite revealing WRT etiology and improved health care policy. Legalizing abortion does nothing to the overall abortion rate. Legalization of abortion only dramatically improves the morbidity and mortality of the procedure.
I think, abortion is a common topic in elections simply because of its power to mobilize more Liberal/Democratic votes than the right.
I guess I was happy to see the economy was the main topic in the last debate. But I think it is as futile as talking about abortion. It is illogical to think there is a solution (especially a political solution) to our current global economy other than bankruptcy. And we all know what happens after that.
Louis, let’s hope you are wrong about financial collapse.
Richard
Dean Reznick,
I respectfully disagree with your comments on social issues dominating the current U.S. election. My wife and I lived in the U.S for 30 years before returning to Canada, and we have great respect and sympathy for the American culture. I also have watched the debates and my read is that the economy is number one concern, and recently the deaths in Libya of the U.S. people. Yes, social concerns are always present, but I do not think they will be a determning factor this year. The big question of ” are you better off now than 4 years ago?” has nothing to do with such concerns as stem cells and the start of life. As far as not cool politics, let us not forget Stephen Harper’s and Dalton McQuinty’s dissolving of their respective parliaments in order to cover their backs. I think the U.S. election will be a nail biter and filled with much more drama than any recent Canadian elections.
Best regards and good wishes. John Arber
Kindly I ask your help and assist cause really i am very suffered and tired to search about faculty for my kids.
I am father for two egyptian children “boy & Girl” who are studying British secondary at saudi arabia and hoped that admit them study at your Faculty of “Medicine or dental or pharmacy” on next year.
kindly, I hope to help me by telling me what are the conditions required for admission, and what is the required number of subjects and estimates.
And if there is the area of migration, If that was not what it would cost for the academic year
Thank you for your patience.
Your immediate response and reply on my email will appreciated
Yours sincerely,
Dear Mr. Konsowa,
Our current admission criteria mandate that we accept Canadian citizens or landed immigrants in Canada.
This would preclude application to this particular program.
Richard
I completely agree with Dr. Arber’s comments on our current election here in the U.S. Social issues are ever present in any election both here and in Canada, and so they should be – ventilation in electoral politics is ultimately healthy no matter how indecorous it may seem in the heat of the moment.
Far better such concerns be openly and freely debated in all their messiness rather than suppressed as a lot of our enlightened betters in the media and societal elites would prefer. This would be the most unhealthy solution of all as it plays into the hands of demagogues both right and left (and yes, Richard, there is complete symmetry in this!!!). Sunshine is always the best astringent in a free and vibrantly healthy democratic society.
Dr. Arber is absolutely right in his assertion that social issues are on the back burner for most of us here. We are to choose between a President who has chosen to campaign without any proposed agenda for his second term (whose policies in his first have eventuated in chronic un- and under-employment rates of about 14%, and whose “lead from behind” instincts have badly undermined America’s position in an increasingly hostile world) and an opponent who proposes that the only solution to our current predicament is strong economic growth in the private sector while curbing the ruinous moral hazard endemic in the public sector.
Both are flawed human beings who in their own different ways mirror each of us. The public’s conceit that they are superior to the politicians they “are forced” to choose between is fatuous nonsense.
I don’t know how this is all going to turn out, but am confident that when all is said and done, the American people will have delivered their verdict using the imperfect and fragmentary information available to them on the basis of that most pragmatic criterion of all – which individual seems more likely to turn our current situation around. There are still just over two weeks to go, and “October surprises” may yet materialize. We will see.
Winston Churchill said it best. “America can always be counted upon to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted!”
FLM
Fred, one of the major reasons I have lost every political argument with you for twenty years is that you are so damned smart and eloquent!
Although I believe your analysis of Obama is a bit harsh, and doesn’t take into account the mess he inherited, I agree that both candidates have been light on specifics with respect to their plans.
I do honestly believe that inclusion of issues such as abortion and same sex marriage is problematic and ostensibly drags religion into politics…a bad mix.
Richard
Many thanks for this!
Your concerns are on point and completely valid in principle, but to suppress open and public discussion of those issues comes with its own set of risks. Letting a little steam off peaceably in the public square can be very salutary where preservation of social comity is concerned!
All my very best to Cheryl and you. Jenny sends her love as well!
FLM
Thanks Fred,
Richard