ELECTION 2004 Election 2004, the most fateful election in our nation's history, just as every presidential election for the past 215 years has been. Fateful these elections may be, but we have never been able to turn out large majorities of the voting age population to participate in them. To a large degree Americans have been cynical about our democratic process. One such individual said that politics in America "is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Harry Truman commented that "My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference." One campaigner, after being praised for a speech one of his supporters felt sure would win the vote of every thinking person in America, responded: "Thank you, but what I need is a majority." Another disillusioned politician remarked tartly that "being in politics is like being a football coach: you have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important." I am one of the dumb ones who think it is important, though not one of the smart ones who understands it. I will always vote, but I will spare my family, my friends, and the electorate by never running for office. I am inclined to think that there is something immodest about telling people what a grand person you are and why you are so deserving of holding the reins of power. David Broder is probably right to say that "anybody that wants the presidency (the Senate, the Governorship, etc.) so much that he'll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office." Power has a tendency not just to corrupt but to make people stupid. That is why so many of our presidents look better when they have achieved the title of Ex. Jimmy Carter gained stature and wisdom out of office not in. Dwight Eisenhower saw the evils of the military industrial complex as he was leaving the presidency, not during his tenure. Bill Clinton got moral after leaving the Oval Office, not when he was there with Monica. This is what Ed Stein was pointing to in a recent cartoon. It shows a tv newscaster in front of a Decision 2004 sign saying, "Despite a barrage of political advertising, George Bush and John Kerry remain tied…for third, behind Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton." Politicians always look better later! Nevertheless, Bush or Kerry will be our next president. They and their running mates, like most of the candidates for high office, are rich white guys. I wish we had some color--Colin Powell?--some gender mix—Hillary Clinton?—some people who are not well-connected but are intelligent and hard-working and deep-in-the-bone honest—Lynn Rivers? Maybe a housewife or a barber or a nurse, to name three kinds of people I think would bring integrity to the office. Well, not this year, but maybe in four or eight or twelve years we can have those kinds of candidates to represent America as it really is. Meanwhile, our choice is Kerry or Bush or a principled vote for someone who cannot win. I have made choices in all kinds of directions in my voting career, so I can understand almost any choice a person makes. Beyond the character of the individuals for whom we might vote—and there is more than ample information about that—what are the critical issues that face us as a nation? The first, perhaps the most basic of all issues, is the question of what the purpose of government is, why we have political structures, what we are arguing about every two or four years or more often. Politics and government are about honoring the ideals for which our country was founded, ideals spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution. That Preamble talks about government creating and sustaining "a more perfect Union…Justice…domestic Tranquility…the common defense…(and) the general Welfare." Lastly, it speaks of securing "the Blessings of Liberty." The purpose of our government, the purpose of politics, is to provide for the common good of all the people. Out of that common good arises the possibility of individual freedom. We have not taken that lesson to heart. We have indeed reversed the order of the Preamble's priorities by too often putting liberty first. In a recent special issue of US News and World Report about Defining America, most of the articles were about liberty or about Americans as individuals. The titles include: "Those Rugged Individuals," "The Self-Made Model," "Our Consuming Interest," "A Nation on the Make," "The Art of the Hustle," "Whoever We Want To Be," "A New Start," "Our Exceptional Innocence." From our earliest days we have had difficulty pulling together for the common good. The Depression, the Second World War, and brief episodes around tragic events like assassinations and the Challenger disaster and 9/11 bring us together, but little else has. Today's political world has been taken over by special interests that provide the funds that influence how our government is actually going to work. That money flows copiously around every effort at campaign finance reform. Senator John McCain spoke in Saline a couple of weeks ago and bemoaned the fact that the Congress did not discuss "many critical issues lately…(such as) a bill for homeland security…because it has lost so much time talking about a proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban homosexual marriages." The House voted yesterday to ban Federal courts from ruling on these marriages. All this legislative time on an issue that undermines the common good was expended because of pressure from a hateful right-wing religious minority. It has to do with getting votes, not with providing for the general welfare of the nation. It is not in the public interest that our present House of Representatives has only 36 out of 435 seats that are competitive. Safe seats thwart democracy, stifle debate, and ultimately frustrate the common good of all the people because the voice of the people is not being heard. William Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins, both wealthy men in their own right, have pointed to the assault on the common good by the efforts to permanently repeal the estate tax. That tax has such a high threshold that fewer than two percent of us would be assessed under its terms. Repealing that tax will strip tens of billions of dollars from the government for the sake of a small number of already very rich people. Gates and Collins write that "if these same individuals had attempted to launch their enterprises in almost any other country, they would not be as wealthy today…The United States has a remarkable public and civic infrastructure for the creation of wealth…a society enhanced by public investments…a robust economy…(with) order, stability, a predictable system of rules for investing, and mechanisms for resolving disputes…Americans who possess great wealth have a special obligation to pay back a debt to society." We all do. We should all strive for the common good, out of which can flow great benefits for everyone, including a liberty that is secure. We have failed to pursue the common good in the international arena as well. Our nation has made scant efforts to curb our greedy use of the world's resources. We use 25% of the available oil in the world, and our demand goes up every year. We resist regulations that could make our vehicles, our heating and cooling systems, and our energy producing plants more efficient. Our investment in renewable energy sources, wind and solar, is miniscule. Paul Roberts, in his recent book THE END OF OIL: ON THE EDGE OF A PERILOUS NEW WORLD describes our nation as "tone deaf to the crisis." We have abandoned or refused to join eleven major international treaties and conventions: the ABM, the Kyoto, the Small Arms, the Biological and Chemical Weapons, the Rights of the Child, and the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court. In the US News and World Report series on Defining America, Michael Barone writes that "every nation is unique, but America is the most unique." We have a mythic tale of our manifest destiny to rule this continent and to show others the path to liberty. Many people in America still believe this myth. That belief enables Americans of many different political stripes to think the world must become like us because we are so good, to think that because our ideals are noble that whatever we do is right. William Pfaff, a long-time observer of the international scene, commented recently that "America's principal allies no longer believe its national story." Long ago those with whom we are in contention stopped believing that story. Friend and foe alike see that we still will not fully acknowledge our genocidal actions against the native peoples of this continent, our enthusiastic involvement in slavery, and the greed that is so big a part of our capitalistic enterprise. If we are to participate meaningfully in the creation of a world order that is stable, just, and enduring, we must accept that every nation is unique, every nation has contributions to make, and every nation has sins for which it should atone.We have to listen to and respect other nations and their stories if we want to promote a common good around the globe. Neither in our land nor in international relations is the question settled as to what the common good really is. We can discover that common good only if we give up our loyalty to special interests that serve my welfare or the welfare of my group alone and seek to build structures and systems that promote the welfare of all. That is what the Preamble to our Constitution calls on us to do. That is what common sense calls on us to do. That is what I am going to be listening for as the candidates present themselves, their program ideas, and their visions over the coming months. How do they propose to strengthen the common good of American society and of the human community? A second important issue is the mean-spirited partisanship that has become the norm for American political discourse. As one whose political maturing as a citizen was deeply affected by the courtesy of Senate leaders like Mike Mansfield and Everett Dirksen, I am appalled at the level of hostility and mistrust that seems to infect most of the conversations today between Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps our Founding Fathers were right. James Madison, arguably the most influential figure in Constitutional development, said that "the common good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties." In his farewell address, George Washington spoke "in the most solemn manner against the baleful effects of the spirit of party." The country gave heed to neither man's warning. From the bitter election of 1800 to the disaster of the 2000 election, American politics has proceeded through the actions of competing political parties. It is worth noting that Unitarian Universalists have been part of all of the major parties and quite possibly the minor ones as well. John Adams was a Federalist. Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat, as later was Adlai Stevenson. Millard Fillmore was a Whig. William Howard Taft was a Republican. So were Elliott Richardson and William Cohen. At no time in our history has there been a deeper, more acrimonious divide between the two parties than there is now. Landmarks along the way of this bitter enmity include the arrival of Newt Gingrich in the House of Representatives in 1979, the fight over the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and four years later an equally bitter fight over the nomination of Clarence Thomas, the well- financed effort to discredit the presidency of Bill Clinton and the attempt to impeach him, and in recent years the House Republicans twisting the rules in order to get their votes and the Senate Democrats using the filibuster to block action. Think of the tone of voice of people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, Al Franken and Arianna Huffington—angry, contemptuous, dismissive. Think of the tone of voice, not the content, with which you may agree or disagree, but that arrogant stance that condemns any one who does not share the author's point of view to the lowest reaches of hell. This may be amusing to adherents, but it does not contribute to an intelligent discussion of critically important issues. Of course, there are differences between the parties. There is almost always more than one way of looking at a problem. Different parties representing different philosophical positions can help to expand our horizon of what is possible, what is needful, and what really is the best option in any given circumstance. George Lakoff has delineated the differences in the two major parties in our times as well as anybody I know. He argues that political thinking in America is now based on a family metaphor. Republicans in this metaphor follow a Strict Father model; strength is the moral norm.. Democrats follow a Nurturant Parent model; compassion is most important. One could also point to the traditional view that Republicans lean toward business interests and Democrats lean towards the interests of workers. There are social differences as well. Democrats tend to favor choice in reproductive issues and a stricter line between church and state. Republicans tend to be more restrictive in the former area and more relaxed in the latter. Many voters—and non-voters who do not vote because of this perception— hate politics, as E.J. Dionne pointed out more than a decade ago, because they perceive that conservatives don't represent their interests and liberals don't represent their values. Amy Goodman points to an important phenomenon happening to our parties. She says in her recently published book, THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULERS, that "lines are breaking down between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. Conservatives, like Progressives, care deeply about privacy, about corporate control of their lives. People across the political spectrum are outraged by the profiteering corporations…robbing our treasury, raiding our pensions, ravaging our wilderness areas, and running away with the loot." There are a lot of us who despair of the political parties themselves accomplishing very much. That is why the Independents form the largest political bloc in America. There is a small but growing group of people who retain their party affiliations and who are reaching across party lines to address the major issues from what I will call a "trans-partisan" rather than a non-partisan perspective. They remain partisans of their own political parties, but they have the capacity to recognize that the other party has something important to say too, and they are listening. This new group was founded in 1992 by Peter Peterson, a Republican who was Secretary of Commerce in the Nixon Administration, and Paul Tsongas, a Democrat who represented Massachusetts in the Senate in the 1980's. It is called The Concord Coalition. Its main focus is long-term fiscal responsibility. Peterson has just published a book about our economy, RUNNING ON EMPTY: HOW THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES ARE BANKRUPTING OUR FUTURE AND WHAT AMERICANS CAN DO ABOUT IT. It is endorsed by former Democratic Senators Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn, former Republican Senator Warren Rudman and Republican Senator John McCain, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, and Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. Peterson's basic idea is that we are headed for a massive economic disaster because we think only of short-term benefits and ignore long-term responsibilities. Toward the end of his book he also outlines briefly three ideas for better parties and better politics. One, in order to do away with gerrymandering after our census, we should either have bipartisan commissions redraw district lines or, with the help of computers, develop neutral mapmaking rules for the new districts. A second proposal is to forget limits on campaign finances, most of which money goes to television programming and ads. Instead have television stations give free air-time to all candidates who raise a certain amount of money from small donors. This would insure every legitimate candidate an opportunity to be heard. Thirdly, educate young people about civil rights and civic rights and the responsibilities of citizenship, and about fiscal realities and management. Nothing could more surely keep our politicians from thrusting the burden of our privileges and benefits onto future generations than to have those future generations aware of what is going on so that they can prevent it. Yes, hold on to the parties. Join one and work for it. But speak honestly, humbly, and respectfully as you explain what your party's vision and programs are and how they differ from the other party's and the other candidate's positions. In terms of our political process, these two issues—our failure to pursue the common good and our angry partisanship—are of overwhelming significance. But they are obviously not the only issues that matter. Many other issues need to be considered as we think of which candidate and which party we want to give our support to. One of the most important is the issue of women's reproductive rights, one of the most passionate issues in our land. I read the UU heritage as one that supports such rights to the fullest extent, but it is an issue that crosses party lines back and forth, often generating more heat than light. Our health care system is in a huge mess, as any of us knows who ever have to use it or want to use it but cannot because of poor or no insurance. What are the candidates going to do to put money as a lower priority than the health of all our citizens? The environment must claim our attention. How do the candidates propose to address global warming? Do they believe it is a serious threat, as a huge majority of the world's scientists do? What actions are they going to take and how quickly? What really is the state of our economy? Have the massive tax cuts of the past few years helped? Is the growing divide between rich and poor something government can or should deal with, and how will that be done? Are there enough jobs for everybody who wants to and is able to work? How can we protect our children from the huge financial burdens we are deferring to them rather than paying ourselves without adding yet more financial stress to the lives of ordinary citizens with ordinary incomes, especially the elderly who are dependent on Social Security and Medicare? Have the wars of the past three years been worth it? More than 1,000 American lives have been lost and more than 4,000 wounded. More than 14,000 Afghans and Iraqis have died, most of them civilians, many of them children. Untold numbers have been wounded. There is a growing number of people from other countries that have become involved in these two wars who have been killed, wounded, or kidnapped. Some will believe that the wars have been justified, the missions of such importance that the lives lost or damaged have been worth it to secure liberty and to provide security for us. Others will disagree. Which way one goes on this issue, given that Mr. Bush has invested so much of his presidency into war-making, could determine ahead of any other issue how one votes. There is one thing that I find shameful, that no high administration official— including and especially the President--has ever attended a funeral of any soldier or civilian killed in these wars. The return of the dead and the wounded has been hidden from the public eye. That has never happened before. It should not be happening now. Respect for the courage and dedication of the young men and women who have made great sacrifices— life, limb, sight, and other parts of their bodies and minds—to serve their country requires that they be honored publicly and fully by the men who sent them off to risk their lives. My view of leadership is this: you don't ask of others what you have not done yourself or what you would not be willing to do. You do not make laws that do not and cannot apply to you or that only profit you in unfair ways. You never lie or dissemble. You work with not against those who disagree with you. One more thing. I hope that our next president and all who are elected with or appointed by him will follow the advice of the Tao Te Ching. This is what it says in Number 30: "…Just do what needs to be done. Never take advantage of power. Achieve results, But never glory in them. Achieve results, But never boast. Achieve results, But never be proud. Achieve results, Because this is the natural way. Achieve results, But never through violence. Force is followed by loss of strength…" Election 2004—the most fateful election in American history! BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Thomas Cleary, translator and presenter, THE ESSENTIAL TAO, HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. 2. E, J. Dionne, Jr., WHY AMERICANS HATE POLITICS, Simon and Schuster, 1991. 3. William H. Gates, Sr. and Chuck Collins, WEALTH AND OUR COMMONWEALTH: WHY AMERICA SHOULD TAX ACCUMULATED FORTUNES, Beacon press, 2003. 4. Amy Goodman with David Goodman, THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULERS: EXPOSING OILY POLITICIANS, WAR PROFITEERS, AND THE MEDIA THAT LOVE THEM, Hyperion, 2004. 5. Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler, PARTISAN HEARTS AND MINDS: POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE SOCIAL IDENTIES OF VOTERS, Yale University Press, 2002. 6. Thich Nhat Hanh, CREATING TRUE PEACE: ENDING VIOLENCE IN YOURSELF, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR COMMUNITY, AND THE WORLD, Free Press, 2003. 7. George Lakoff, MORAL POLITICS: HOW LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES THINK, The University of Chicago Press, 2002. 8. Peter G. Peterson, RUNNING ON EMPTY: HOW THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES ARE BANKRUPTING OUR FUTURE AND WHAT AMERICANS CAN DO ABOUT IT, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2004. 9. Kevin Phillips, WEALTH AND DEMOCRACY: A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN RICH, Broadway Books, 2002. 10. Robert B. Reich, I'LL BE SHORT: ESSENTIALS FOR A DECENT WORKING SOCIETY, Beacon press, 2002. 11. Arundhati Roy, WAR TALK, South End Press, 2003. 1