Letter by letter: composing life.

October 5, 2008

What I think. All two cents.

Filed under: Uncategorized — letterbyletter @ 9:59 pm

Someone recently asked me for specifics on why I’m voting for Obama. What I intended to be a relatively quick response turned into something a little longer. And after sending it, Zack encouraged me to post it here.

Dear __________,

Hmm. I got a little carried away . . .so I bucketed each rant/talking point.

A few words on why I’d vote for Obama even if I weren’t “for Obama.”
I guess the first place I would start is my dislike of what I truly believe the last eight years have wrought as a result of a Republican administration. We are more in debt than when Clinton was president, we are at war on two fronts, we are potentially poised for a depression and our international relations is at an all-time low.

Additionally, even if I did not believe in Obama’s policies (which I do) I would choose not to vote before I voted for McCain. From his equivocation on positions, his statements about deregulation, his stance on the war (not to mention his reckless decision-making record), McCain has all appearances of being a more extreme version of George W. Further, even if I believed in McCain’s positions, I would not vote for him because of his running mate. Palin is frighteningly inexperienced for being the running mate to what could be the second-oldest president to be nominated. Inexperienced in foreign policy, in domestic issues, in judicial matters. She is interested in pandering to the extreme religious views of Republican issues, and she is championing a notion that a presidential candidate should be “one of us.” Rather, we should be seeking informed candidates—who we may or may not be able to have a beer with (George W.’s “platform”)—who will intelligently run the country.

But why I like Obama?
The thing that’s consistently struck me about Obama was his apparent genuineness. When he talks about his policies and political issues I get the impression that he has actually done some thinking about them and his not merely giving his version of what he perceives to be the most politically prudent. But, even if I’m wrong about that, I agree with many of his policy stances.

So, specifically, in terms of Obama’s policy.
Iraq

I think one of the biggest issues this election is foreign policy. I believe that we need a president who can help end things in Iraq and bring stability to that region. We are pouring money into Iraq and have been for years, while our own economy has been steadily declining. We’ve made cuts in federal programs because we no longer have the money to fund them. We’re borrowing huge sums of money from China–engendering ourselves to a powerful, but potentially problematic world power.

From the beginning, Obama was against the Iraq war, saying when the vote was passed that it would be “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” As a result, Obama is committed to ending our involvement in Iraq. Additionally, his willingness to meet with world leaders (something even the Republican superhero Reagan was willing to do) will go a long way in helping restore better relations with the rest of the world, which have been seriously harmed as a result of our last eight year’s of foreign policy.

Health Care
The second biggest issue in my opinion is health care. We are one of the few remaining countries who does not provide health care for all of its citizens. And I truly believe that a country that is willing to call itself a “Christian nation” is one that should provide for the widow, the orphan and the “least of these.” We are not doing that. The people who die from treatable diseases is appalling. And the rebuttal is, “How much it will cost?”. Well, despite Palin’s claim that McCain’s plan is cost-free, the Urban Brookings Tax Policy estimates that McCain’s plan, which would only cover 5 million uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion. Obama’s plan would cost just a little more (at 1.6 trillion), but would cover 34 million.

Economy
Obama’s emphasis on tax cuts for middle class and his overall approach is, in my opinion, far more robust than McCain’s. And in light of the current economic issues we are facing—nationally, we are seeing the increased need for oversight and regulation, something Obama and Biden are for. And while McCain is now calling for regulation, he has a long, well-documented history for advocating deregulation (e.g.“I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.”) of the financial market and even compared his health care program approach of private competition to the success of deregulation in Wall Street.

Energy
I agree with Obama’s energy proposals, but I will admit that this is one area where his equivocation has disappointed me. He was initially against off shore drilling, citing it as a political ploy since it would not lower gas prices for close to 10 years and that it was putting more money into an infrastructure that we are trying to reduce our dependence on. Overall, however, I agree with his call for increased funding for alternative sources of fuel, reducing our dependence on foreign oil (which is connected both to national security issue and foreign policy) and capping gas emissions. His current plan also includes the creation of jobs in tandem with creating cleaner energy.

A word about abortion.
I’ve heard more than a few people from both the “D” and “R” persuasions, explain to me that there’s no way I could be/vote Democrat if one were Christian, specifically because of abortion. I completely disagree. If one who is against abortion self defines as “pro-life”—then it should be all life that they should champion. And current U.S policies are not “pro-life.” We are not pro-life in Iraq. We are not pro-life in regards to our health care. We are not pro-life in our use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (i.e torture). We were/are not pro-life in our treatment of Katrina victims. We are not pro-life by suspending habeas corpus.

If we’re talking definitions here, which I’m not sure how helpful those really are, I would say I’m “pro-choice, anti-abortion.” I don’t think the answer to abortion lies in legislating away Roe v. Wade. Frankly, I don’t think the Republican party would/could ever overturn Roe v. Wade, and even if they were able, there would still be abortions, illegal ones at that. So, I think making abortion a key pivot issue on whether you vote D or R is distracting and irrelevant.

These are my thoughts, and I welcome discussion.

**UPDATE: So much for intentions. What I intended to be an argument for why I’m voting for Obama has turned into a discussion about abortion. So, I’m adding to my previous comment:

I do believe there should be restrictions on abortion. And I will repeat: I am against abortion. But my point here was NOT to talk about my position on abortion, so much as my position on how Roe v. Wade and other related political legislation fits into one’s political choices. This was not my attempt at an all-inclusive presentation of my full beliefs on abortion. Something that I’m not sure I could even do now or in this forum. I will repeat, though, I do not believe in abortion.

I think my underlying belief in the fact that nothing gets truly done without being done on the micro level informs what I’m trying to express–there are more effective ways to address abortion than by voting R on a ballot every few years.

I knew a family growing up that renovated a portion of their house to make room for pregnant women to live there, providing options for women who had no family or money to turn to in their crisis. I think they were effective.

My personal conviction against abortion is informing my rather pragmatic position of being “pro-choice.” [Again, I’ll also reiterate: I don’t think this definition is helpful or even necessarily accurate, but it’s my way of working within an issue that’s been binary to the exclusion of actually talking about how it pertains to our vote]. Because, while the abortion rate has fallen somewhat in the past few years, the trend line overall has been steadily increasing. And the U.S. still has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the developed world with teen birth rates on the rise.

Which, to me, suggests a bigger problem than legislation can fix.

11 Comments »

  1. In the spirit of discussion, let me get the ball rolling.

    I am actually not sure that more regulation is the solution to the economic problems. A major part of the current mess is attributed to excessive government interference and a lack of diligence/conflict of interest.

    In the late 90’s the Clinton administration pressured lenders -specifically Fannie Mac- to give credit to people who could not pay. “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.” See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FM%2FMinorities%20(US)

    If you give too many of these loans to impoverished individuals, you are going to have a problem. The government never should have interfered.

    As for conflict of interest and lack of diligence, exhibit A is House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank. Throughout the last 6 years, he insisted Fannie and Freddie were fine. Meanwhile, he was sleeping with some of their execs, causing a huge conflict of interest.

    So, who was watching the watcher? Apparently no one.

    Interestingly it was the Republicans lead by Pres. Bush, the supposed champion of the free market, who wanted a new agency to oversea Fannie and Freddie back in 2003. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print.

    But it was blocked by the Democrats, who that it would weaken “the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.”

    Its a great idea in theory, but in practice living in such a pipe dream almost halted the entire economy.

    I have a question with regards to abortion. You say that if you are pro-life, as you seem to suggest you are (in opposing torture, being for health care, for being pro-life with regards to Iraq, etc.), “then it should be all life that they should champion.” But yet you also say you are pro-choice. What does that mean, precisely, in the context that you should champion all life? Are you for ANY limits on abortion whatsoever (on legislatable items such as late-term abortion)? I am interested in your views on that.

    Comment by Jonathan — October 5, 2008 @ 11:00 pm | Reply

  2. brilliant Amber

    Comment by mathew — October 5, 2008 @ 11:32 pm | Reply

  3. hear, hear…

    Comment by jen — October 6, 2008 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  4. So, laissez faire on killing babies but not the economy. Got it.

    Comment by Mike — October 6, 2008 @ 2:49 pm | Reply

  5. @Mike If that’s your conclusion, I believe you’ve missed my point. I don’t believe abortion is something that will ever be legislated away, so conversation about presidential candidates needs to create new space for other issues. Just because a candidate is “pro-life” doesn’t mean they will actually accomplish any legislative measures to decrease abortions. Relatedly, we need to be looking at alternative means of addressing abortion in our country (e.g. how we approach unwanted pregnancy and our support of low-income families).

    Comment by Amber — October 6, 2008 @ 3:01 pm | Reply

  6. I believe you missed my point too. Presidential candidates can encourage pro-life practices by 1) nominating the appropriate judges, 2) restricting federal funding on abortions, and 3) putting regulations on partial birth abortions. Being pro-life is not necessarily about legislating Roe away.

    Finally, your comment that “making abortion a key pivot issue on whether you vote D or R is distracting and irrelevant” is quite alarming. Certainly I don’t have to agree with your position on Iraq, the economy, and health care. But to call it irrelevant and distracting in making a voting choice between R and D shows a fundamental disrespect for those who believe it is an important issue. I don’t agree with granting habeas to foreign terrorists out of the States, but it is relevant and important. How much more relevant is the statistic that 10 million less people will live in our country in the next ten years because of anti-life policies like late term abortion and easy access to federal funding on abortion (and judges upholding those policies) – something the candidates CAN be involved with.

    Comment by Mike — October 6, 2008 @ 3:21 pm | Reply

  7. Glad you posted this, Amber, it’s great.

    Mike: If you’re looking for more snappy and thoughtless phrases you can spout out whenever you’re met with someone that disagrees with your nuanceless grasp of the issues, try these out:

    -When someone thinks we should create a whole new source of jobs via research into and implementation of green energy infrastructures, you go look them right in the eye and say, “DRILL BABY DRILL!” Their expression of pity and mournful shaking of the head indicates you won the conversation!

    -If someone suggests that we avoid getting further entrenched in an endless, pointless war, and instead plan for a responsible withdrawal that takes into account the situation on the ground, tell them “These colors DON’T RUN!” Also, given your interlocutor’s position on war, odds are they are not a member of the NRA, so you can go ahead a wave any firearms you own in their face to punctuate your point, secure in the knowledge that they’re not similarly armed.

    -Whenever you are simply overcome by differing opinions that are better articulated and more thought out than yours, just start screaming “USA! USA! USA!” That should do it. You may also want to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a radical Muslim terrorist.

    OR, and this is totally crazy I know, you can instead respond with a fully-formed argument like an adult, and save the clever comebacks for youth group.

    Thanks.

    Comment by Zack — October 6, 2008 @ 3:34 pm | Reply

  8. “OR, and this is totally crazy I know, you can instead respond with a fully-formed argument like an adult, and save the clever comebacks for youth group.”

    Seriously? Fully formed arguments?

    What does drilling, NRA, or Mulsims have to do with abortion?

    Comment by Mike — October 6, 2008 @ 5:51 pm | Reply

  9. Phrases like “Drill baby drill,” “These colors don’t run,” and “USA! USA! USA!” have as much to do with an honest discussion of energy independence, foreign policy and patriotism as “So, laissez faire on killing babies but not the economy. Got it” has to do with an honest discussion of abortion. Meaning, not much. It’s a careless response that does more to divide people then bring them together. And what it says to me – a person that agrees with the post – is A) my side of the argument isn’t worth more than two quick sentences and B) if I don’t agree with you, I am literally in league with “baby killers.”

    Now tell me, does that sound like a good way to start a conversation? Just imagine doing that to an actual stranger on the street. Someone you don’t know, wearing a pro-Obama t-shirt or something, just going up to them and saying, “Hey baby-killer! Guess your money’s more important than not killing babies!” And then walking away. Does that sound civil or decent to you?

    I don’t care if you disagree with me or anyone else, but I do care about how you express your views. So, while I appreciate your follow-up comment – the one that contained actual, fully-formed arguments – the way you started things off was uncalled for.

    Comment by Zack — October 6, 2008 @ 7:33 pm | Reply

  10. I’m posting the update I just put in the body copy, here as well:

    @Jonathan, @ Mike.

    I do believe there should be restrictions on abortion. And I will repeat: I am against abortion. But my point here was NOT to talk about my position on abortion, so much as my position on how Roe v. Wade and other related political legislation fits into one’s political choices. This was not my attempt at an all-inclusive presentation of my full beliefs on abortion. Something that I’m not sure I could even do now or in this forum. I will repeat, though, I do not believe in abortion.

    I think my underlying belief in the fact that nothing gets truly done without being done on the micro level informs what I’m trying to express–there are more effective ways to address abortion than by voting R on a ballot every few years.

    I knew a family growing up that renovated a portion of their house to make room for pregnant women to live there, providing options for women who had no family or money to turn to in their crisis. I think they were effective.

    My personal conviction against abortion is informing my rather pragmatic position of being “pro-choice.” [Again, I’ll also reiterate: I don’t think this definition is helpful or even necessarily accurate, but it’s my way of working within an issue that’s been binary to the exclusion of actually talking about how it pertains to our vote]. Because, while the abortion rate has fallen somewhat in the past few years, the trend line overall has been steadily increasing. And the U.S. still has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the developed world with teen birth rates on the rise.

    Which, to me, suggests a bigger problem than legislation can fix.

    Comment by letterbyletter — October 7, 2008 @ 10:57 am | Reply

  11. I like your links in your main piece.

    Comment by Jonathan — October 7, 2008 @ 9:53 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.