“You’re no good at politics”
That’s what 17-year-old my son told me the other day. The context was an hours long discussion of the presidential candidates and the issues up for grabs in the next election. Having, in my humble opinion, bought into the internet hype, he was trying to convince me that as a liberal I should be supporting Ron Paul for his anti-war stance.
The conversation got heated when I informed him that I could, under no circumstances, vote for a candidate who was not openly pro-choice. He argued that no president, even in her/his Supreme Court appointments, could have any affect on abortion laws. He held forth that any erosion of rights is the province of the states and that the president and the courts have nothing to do with it. He didn’t buy my belief that one of the roles of the Supreme Court is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. It’s a “states’ rights” issue. He saw no connection between that and the fact that it took a Supreme Court decision to upend the “states’ rights” claim to force integration of our public schools. That had nothing common with abortion to him.
I wasn’t swayed. Call me a one issue voter, but there it is. I’m lucky that as a Democrat I won’t have to choose between pro-choice and opposition to the war this time around. I’m passionate about both.
That’s where he had the biggest problem with me — my passion on the subjects, hence the charge that I’m “no good at politics.” At 17 he doesn’t agree that the personal is political and the political is personal. Maybe it’s his youth; maybe it’s being male. Maybe it’s a combination of both. Maybe he’s just more objective than I am. He definitely has more faith in the system than I do.
He would like politics to be a coolly impersonal process, operating strictly on the intellectual level. Those passionately involved in the issue should not be able to influence decisions. On one level I can see where he’s coming from. He’s a moderate, though by community standards he’s a raging liberal. He’s upset by classroom discussions that get derailed and overrun by students spouting the Neo-Con line with no regard for logic. He wants intelligent discussion without ignorance playing a role and without appeals to emotion. I understand his frustration.
But politics happens to real people. Real lives are affected by the decisions of our government, and those who would lose or gain rights must have a place at the table. Yes, it’s messy, and sometimes it gets ugly. But I believe it’s vital to the process.
Being “too emotional” is a charge far more often leveled at women than at men, specifically on things that directly affect us, such as reproductive autonomy. We have to be passionate to keep from being overlooked by a society that would like us to quietly watch the process rather than participate in it. We’re emotional because it’s our lives at stake.
Yet I can see the downfall of passion. It allows the secretly bigoted to vote against Obama because of the color of his skin. It allows the hidden sexist to vote against Clinton because she’s a woman. It allows the mainstream Christian and those who believe religion has no place in politics to vote against Romney because he’s a Mormon. It allows those who would put fetal rights ahead of women’s rights to try to legislate their version of morality. Passion works both ways.
But we have to fight for what we care about, and we have to convince others to care, too, whether about women’s rights, the environment, or the futility of the war. Sometimes what’s right isn’t the consensus answer. That’s where the Supreme Court should come in.
How do you feel about it? Would we be better served by a dispassionate electorate? Would we arrive at better solutions is emotion was not a consideration? Should politics not be personal at all?
I’m really curious.
May 20th, 2007 at 9:13 am
I tend to agree with your son, and I am 41 years old.
It is unfortunate that “the personal is political” because politics should not invade every aspect of our lives. Politics is a power play and brings strife and discord amongst communities and families. We should be worried about making a good life for ourselves or just living life however we choose to live it, regardless what Washington DC or the statehouses think.
Government cannot mandate that we care about this issue or that issue, or that we even care about our fellow man. caring is part of the human condition and not subject to legislation. Example: a friend of mine in Kansas (I’m in California) informed me that an anarchist collective called “Kansas Mutual Aid” went to assist those ravaged by the resent tornados. The police THREW THEM OUT of Greensburg simply because of their political beliefs, even though that devestated town needs help.
Once again, politics gets in the way of human kindness and caring.
That’s why I am supporting Ron Paul. Will he become elected? I don’t believe so. However, his message is one that is resonating in this nation. he is not politics as usual and the vast majority of people in this nation are disaffected by the political process and the fake, scripted politicians offered for election every few years. Ron paul has STUNNED the establishment, but endeared himself to those disaffected Americans. While I don’t agree with him on everything myself, his ideas would lead to what I believe a nation not dependent on foreign oil, a sound ecomomy, freedom of expression and giving individuals the opportunity to really *live* life, instead of being a corporate-state minion.
May 20th, 2007 at 10:52 am
We might dream about such a thing - politics as not being personal - but it’s the social animal in all of us. It’s just not a reasonable expectation - especially given the areas over which presidents and other elected officials want to have influence. But bravo to you both for debating it - that’s the most useful thing about disagreeing.
May 20th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Ron Paul’s connection to racialists is troubling, but at least he’s interesting.
I think your son’s position is a very common one, particularly among younger and male populations…. That doesn’t make it wrong per se, but this is the same demographic that likes skateboarding and bungee jumping! Seriously, though, there’s a difference between taking a passionate interest in politics and policy, and being emotional about them: it’s an unfair charge to conflate them, I think, but useful to those people who want to dismiss the passionate or cover up their own emotionalism.
May 20th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Coolly logical folks can get us into a heap of trouble in no time, and what’s more, they’ll ignore your concerns because, hey, they’re logical, therefore they assume that you’re not.
The politicization of Darn Near Everything is a sore spot with me, but I figure that the alternative might actually be worse.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:46 am
I would love if politics could not be personal. However, since this country seems set on legislating personal issues they have become fatally intertwined and there is nothing that can be done about it.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:44 am
Welcome Gene, and thanks for commenting. It’s always interesting to see why people support the candidates they do. Thank you.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Jill, we debate everything, from politics and religion to the use of power chords and high hat in modern music. My biggest accomplishment as a parent has been teaching them to think for themselves.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
What a wonderful discussion - this is exactly what I hoped would happen!
I like the distinction you draw between passionate and emotional, A. Passion implies brain fully engaged. As CG says, claiming to be logical implies that the other party is not, therefore is arguing from a position of emotion rather than rationality. As Jill and Natalie point out, government insists on trying to legislate personal issues, so we must take it personally to defend ourselves. To distance ourselves from it is to surrender. I’m unwilling to do that.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 am
[...] Sunday was my last day of teaching my 9th graders for the 5767 school year. They were my best class ever. I wish I could clone them all. As we wound up our discussion I told my students that what they thought and believed is not as important as how they struggle with those thoughts and beliefs. This morning I get another lesson in how important this is from Terry at I See Invisible People. [...]
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
It’s always a difficult discussion but I think when you look objectively as possible on situations you come up with the best answers. Letting emotion and eventually fear affect our policy is what lead to the administration taking away our civil liberties in the name of “freedom”. People are willing to accept phone-tapping without warrants and water boarding un-charged prisoners in the wake of Sept. 11 but objectively did that really change the ethics of it? I don’t think so.
I think the same argument your son is making can apply to the logic of hate crimes as well. If a white man murders a black man out of hate is that really significantly worse than a white man murdering a white man out of hate? Was the white man’s life and family worth less? At that point the motive becomes more important than the crime. Is it truly justice if we are judging out of passion and emotion at the expense of logic and reason?
Passion and emotion are not bad in and of themselves but they must be carefully monitored because frequently they trample upon objectivity. Objectivity does not come naturally to humans but I believe it is essential in living in an increasingly diverse community.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Just two quick things for your frank discussion.
First, the “connection” with “racialists” does not exist. Ron Paul had a campaign aid who wrote something he did not agree with, and that campaign aid no longer works for him. There has never been any other such allegation about Ron Paul in 10 congressional terms, and he frequently speaks out against racist propaganda.
Second, Ron Paul sees abortion as a states rights issue, because that’s the way the US Constitution was written–find the power of the Federal Government to regulate abortion–it does not exist. He holds similar views on other issues for the same reason. Mr. Paul wants the massive US Federal Government returned to the manageable size the founders intended.
I will be voting for Ron Paul, so far as I know, and I’m not (currently) registered as a Republican.
Thank you for your time.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Please show me where in the Constitution it gives to the federal government the right to legislate on abortion? Good luck finding it, because you won’t.
I now refer you to the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”
This is something that isn’t taught very well in schools. The powers of government in our federal system are divided into three classes: delegated, concurrent, and reserved.
The delegated powers are what the federal government is authorized to do under the Constitution. But this day in age, the federal government does a lot of things it’s not supposed to be doing.
The concurrent powers are powers which both governments have, but on different levels of operation. Take commerce for instance: trade between L.A. and Chicago is federal in nature and should be regulated by the federal government; trade between Houston and Dallas is not, and is at the sole discretion of the Texas government.
Lastly are the reserved powers. All powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states, or the people: marriage, inheritance, hunting licenses, sex laws, liquor laws, etc. What ever powers the people refuse their state government, they keep themselves.
As I said before, abortion falls nowhere in the scope of federal government. It’s a state issue into which the federal government has elbowed to exert its will. You don’t want abortion in your state? Okay. Vote in lawmakers that will keep it legal. If it’s already outlawed, vote in law makers that will repeal those laws and review your state’s Constitution and look for a right to privacy there. If there is a state-given right to privacy, elect judges or candidates who will nominate judges that believe a right to privacy includes a right to abortion.
Comparing the state issue of abortion to the segregation of schools is misguided as the reason schools were segregated was due to the illegal disfranchisement of black voters by the southern states. The root of the problem was voting rights and poll taxes. I’m sure had the blacks been allowed unfettered access to the polls, they would have voted for integration without relying on the federal government to interfere in the matter. This is the reason we have the 24th Amendment, which prohibits poll taxes.
The federal government was right to step in on that occasion because blacks have their right to vote secured under the 15th Amendment. I would also recommend you check out Section 1, Clause 2 of the 14th Amendment, which says that states cannot make or enforce laws that abridge to US citizens the rights granted by the Constitution.
Instead of relying on the federal government to solve all your problems (it won’t, by the way), how about you take an interest in your own local politics instead, hmm? When Ron Paul says government is not the answer, he means the federal government. If Californians don’t like what’s going on in Kansas, then I say “tough titties.” Show me where they have a right to dictate to Kansans what is right or wrong. If it really bothers people that much, then they should move there and press for change then or move to amend the Constitution. If you aren’t willing to do that, then how about you mind your own business?
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Another thing: women do have reproductive autonomy. They just need to focus on the reality of their sexual freedoms instead of continuing to play the victim.
Don’t want to have kids? Don’t have sex. It’s that simple.
Want to have sex without the risk of kids? It’ll never happen (barring obvious things like tube tying, hysterectomy, other damage to the womb, etc.).
It all really comes down to being a simple game of Russian Roulette. The more you have sex, the more likely you are to get pregnant. The risk can be alleviated with contraceptives, but replacing some bullets with blanks means that eventually you still are gonna paint your wall red.
Fact is fact: life begins at conception. It grows, it moves, it responds to stimulae. There’s no question there. It is a human life (and that is fact, not appeal to emotion). It is distinct from its mother, yet depends on her to live. And yet we let women kill it.
Think of the logic there. It’s okay to snuff out a human life while still in the womb whose only fault was one of being an inconvenience to its mother. Let me ask: What happens to women who bring a child to term, birth it, and then–keeping in mind that this life still depends on it’s mother for sustanance–lets it starve to death? We put them in jail for negligible homicide.
How is killing it while still in the womb any different from killing it once it’s born, but still helpless?
I see no difference. All human life deserves a right to live. Notice how in our Declaration of Independence Jefferson ordered all people’s inalienable rights “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Life was placed first for good reason.
Abortion is simply a cop-out on personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions.
Your pursuit of happiness does not outweigh that child’s right to life.
Rape, however, is another matter when it comes to responsibility, but not when concerned with the life of the child. In cases such as those, society owes a debt to the assaulted woman. She should not have to care for the child. However, the child should still be born. The woman should in no way be responsible for rasining it afterwards. Let a couple who can’t have their own kids offer that child a home. How is that not a good thing?
The fact that abortion is murder is a logical and principled conclusion. It’s not about a woman’s freedom as it is about the child’s rights as a human.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I am pro-choice and a supporter of Ron Paul. If he were staunchly anti-choice and didn’t believe in states rights, I would never support him (or anyone) as a candidate for public office.
His pro-life stance is grounded on much more than a woman’s reproductive rights. He is anti-death penalty and strongly against military intervention without cause. Not to mention the fact that he has delivered over 4,000 babies.
I fear the day the Supreme Court rules to ignore legal precedent and overturn Roe v. Wade. However, if it were a states rights issue, I feel that there would always be a majority of states that would protect a woman’s right to choose.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Paige, you are exactly right.
Dr Paul subscribes to what is known as the consistent life ethic: no abortion, no death penalty.
And women should realize that, should Roe v. Wade be overturned, abortion in America will not end. Only a Constitutional amendment is capable of uniformly stripping women of that choice as it would take from the states and the people their power to legislate on the matter. That is how federalism works.
Were Roe v. Wade were overturned, states would still have the right to legislate the matter. If all of the classic red states outlawed, I can guarantee that most of the NE US and California would keep it legal.
As freedom of travel amongst the states is still a right and privilege of US citizens (a legal holdover from the Articles of Confederation), and since states must treat citizens of other states like their own, then pregnant women would still be able to travel to the bastions of abortion and legally obtain the desired service.
It would be expensive for them, yes, but I’m sure those states would set up charities of some form to help those women.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
If you give the federal government broad sweeping powers to defend abortion, you also give it broad sweeping power to take it away.
And the court is now stacked 5-4 conservative, due to Sandra Day’s stepping down.
That is why state’s rights are superior.
Think about it.
Oh, and RON PAUL 2008!
May 24th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Great. So you get a pro-choicer for dictator for maybe 4 years, and then the whole thing is in jeapordy AGAIN. Then you get a pro-lifer for dictator for another 4 years, and it’s in jeapordy again.
Keep doing doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. It’s called insanity, people.
There is certainly room for emotion in politics, but regardless of whether the 4 year dictator agrees with my moral values and forces everyone else to live by my moral values is irrelevant to me. I want a president that limits the role of government in my life. What’s good for Michigan is not always good for California. Besides, I have much more of a chance of affecting the policies of my state government than you have of affecting federal government with the current regimes. My emotions and passions are about freedom of choice, the same as you “claim” to be.
I don’t want a government to tell me it’s “okay” to have an abortion. I want them to stay the fuck out of it, period. It isn’t even a question they should be asking. It is not the role of federal government to “grant” rights, because with that power they can and WILL also abolish them. You are born with the right to choose what you do with your life and your body. This is not a gift from the government, unless you give them that power.
Ron Paul is for individual liberty, smaller government, and states rights. This means that he understands that it is not the federal governments business to put his hand in your womb, whether that means delivering a baby or killing one.
The problem is that people are so terribly short-sghted. Sure, you get a dictator for 4 years that does all these things to make you feel good, but they establish an even greater power base that the next 4 year dictator will use. Well, guess what, THAT dictator might decide to give the death penalty to people having an abortion. And you just granted him the power to do it!
I am looking for a president that will put the reigns back on big government PERMANENTLY. Then, you all can fight your states to dictate over your bodies however you choose. And if they (meaning the majority of people in your state) don’t agree with you, either keep fighting it or MOVE! Yeah, imagine that! You want to be pro-choice, you can move to a pro-choice state!! With a federal dictator and micro-manager of your body and sexual habits in power, you do not have that option, unless you want to leave the country.
Nevermind, that Pauls position is nothing but the way this country was intended.
All these pet social issues can be argued once we regain our individual liberties. When our voices are more likely to be heard and heeded by our elected representatives.
We should be voting to protect our rights, not force our personal views on others. You want to vote for a king, but just YOUR king. Again, you get him for no more than 8 years. Then what?
Admit it, you formed your political beliefs about him without knowing anything about him and where he stands on government. You heard his personal opinions about abortion and that made up your mind. I give you some slack only because poltician’s personal beliefs have affected your rights ever since you were born. It is hard to imagine ACTUALLY being free to make a choice without government sanction. Your vote will go for party, not for freedom of choice.
Do you honestly believe any other candidate is serious about what they are saying? It is called “ear candy”, and they do it to you every single time and you get nothing for it but more power over your lives.
You pro-choicers should actually mean what you say when you shout “keep your hands off my body!”
A vote for ANY other candidate so far is a vote for insanity! I call you to task to actually vote for your freedom of choice.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:02 am
[...] naturally, I was very struck when I read this account by Terry at I See Invisible People about a conversation she had with her son about the USian [...]
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Ron Paul’s far-right credentials are pretty substantial.
I’ve always said that hardcore rightists are actually pretty good at seeing some of the problems of society, and can speak about them eloquently, but the solutions curdle my milk, so to speak.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:08 am
No dead horse, A. I’m always interested in what you have to say. That’s an interesting point about being able to identify problems - they does seem to be able to do that. But I agree. I can’t go along with their solutions.