Litmus Test. Or: Paternalism and politics

So, I realized a while ago that I am a single issue voter. Or that I have an issue that is a total deal-breaker. (I realized it when John McCain decided he needed the social conservative base enough to make Sarah Palin his running-mate.)

Here it is: I can never vote for someone who thinks abortion should be illegal.

The bottom bottom line on that for me is that that person values potential life more than ACTUAL FEMALE LIFE. As an actual living female, that is deeply offensive to me. Did I say deeply? I meant massively, humungously, a gaping chasm, an abyss filled with o-fecking-fense.

Here's what I hear when some one says they think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: "You are not competent to make decisions for yourself." Or, "there, there, sweetheart - we'll tell you what to think, feel, and do, and you'll be so much happier and better off. Or not - but we don't really care."

To be entirely honest, blunt even: I think there are enough people on this earth. And while I think babies are cute and agree that children are our future (duh), I can't say that I think anyone can decide whether any specific person needs to grow any specific cluster o'cells into a human. Including me. And including you.

At first I felt shallow and possibly lazy when I realized how this one issue colored all my voting decisions. Was I just taking a shortcut? Pro-choice = good; pro-life (hello? you better be against the death penalty, too, if you insist on that sobriquet!) = bad. Put the candidate in a neat little box, and I don't have to think about it any more.

But I've decided that what pro-choice means to me is that the candidate respects me, feels I can make rational decisions about my life, and thinks that I am worth more than a cell cluster. Since I agree, that makes it much easier for me to feel comfortable with voting for him or her.

So for me, it's paternalism=bad; respect=good. And that's my litmus test.

Capice?

'm out.

How Racism Works

I got this email recently; found it thought-provoking. The thoughts it provoked for me follow the text of the email, below.

What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to? What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization? What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5? What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

You are The Boss (Bruce Springsteen? moi? oh, sorry - couldn't resist)... which team would you hire?

Keep in mind: the job description includes America facing historic debt, 2 wars, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc.

Educational Background:

Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Palin: Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire?

PS: What if Barack Obama had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

Note from Lisa: while I agree with the "racism distorts reality" theorem presented here, I think this argument errs on the side of logic. In that it's too logical.

Americans don't vote for the president who is most qualified - or perhaps I should say Americans don't necessarily believe that education qualifies you for anything. And maybe they're right. I mean, Hello? George W? Didn't he go to Yale & Harvard Business? And graduate, even?

We vote for some one we wouldn't mind hanging out with. Regular idiots like ourselves who don't seem to have a clue about foreign affairs or economics or anything except that ol' red herring, "values." Remember, these people will be on television regularly. That means they will be in our homes.

Are they going to remind us of some stuffed shirt smarty pants professor who thinks s/he knows so much more than we do, or Crazy Uncle Leo who does that thing with the empty beer bottles after he's had a few? Who is more fun? That's clearly the criteria to apply here.

Apparently it is also important that they know how to govern by slogan. Keep it simple, please - we don't want to think too much. Call it something we can believe in, like "Patriot Act" and "Pre-emptive strike" and "WMDs" and "activist judges" and oh god I think I threw up in my mouth just a little bit.

America, I hope you are scared enough right now to want some one who is smarter than you in the White House. I guess that's the best I can hope for.

'm out.