Responce to "Pro-Life" Voters

A friend of mine who was making calls for the Obama campaign recently reached someone who was against abortion and so wasn't sure if he could vote for Obama. My friend wasn't sure how to respond. She liked my suggestion for a response so I thought I'd put it in writing.

First acknowledge that no one is in favor of abortions in the sense that we all wish the unwanted pregnancies that need abortions never would have happened in the first place. Abortions are not pleasant for the woman who have to have them.

Second point out that in spite of the majority of supreme court justices having been appointed by presidents who say they are opposed to abortion Roe vs. Wade still stands. When Bush was elected we were told that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, but 8 years later it still hasn't.

Then explain why this might be. The Republican party depends on the "pro life" vote to get its politician elected. It's not that they want to end abortion (some may more than others), but they want you to think that they want to end abortion so that people who are against abortion will vote for then. If the right to abortion was ever over turned this could undermine the conservative politicians case that they can help stop abortions. Once over turned stopping abortions is no longer a major issue.

It's worth noting that while Sara Palin is strongly anti abortion and might actually do something to end abortion as vice president, she is not in the position to do so, she won't be appointing judges. On the other hand John McCain has "shifted" his position on this issue.

Now at this point the question is whether the person is just against abortions from a pro-life position or as is often the case they are anti-sex-outside-of-procreation-in-heterosexual-marriage. In the later case abortion is evidence of sex not intended for procreation. (excuse me if I overstate the position, but I think you know what I mean). If their opposition to abortion is part of a larger agenda perhaps you should stop with talking about John McCain flip flopping on the issue. Apparently in 1999, John McCain said.

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." (source: http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm)

If your talking to someone who is truly only opposed to abortion then additional points can be made. Abortions happen whether they are legal or not. in fact according to The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide by Stanley K. Henshaw, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, published in International Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 25(Supplement):S30–S38, "Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law.... than in areas where abortion is legally permitted". Comprehensive sex ed, empowering young women, and reducing poverty does more to reduce the number of abortions than outlawing them. For instance The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide also points out,

"Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands. Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law.... than in areas where abortion is legally permitted".

You might end with wondering if we could have better luck reducing abortion rates more if pro-life and pro-choice people worked together.

Progressive Economists & Republican Reps.

Progressive economists like Dean Baker and James Galbraith are increasingly staunchly opposing the 7 hundred billion dollar bail out. But it seem to be the house Republicans who are most strongly resisting passing the bail out. Some times politicians may do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Meanwhile peoples rage against the banks seems to be turning in to action against the bail out. There are better ways to spend that amount of money that's for sure.

An open leter to Barack Obama on the foriegn policy debate

Dear and Honorable Senator Barack Obama,

I am working on your campaign, I am hopeful that you will be elected. But having seen your foreign policy debate with John McCain I have some deep concerns. I realize that your are stuck like so many politicians playing to that small group of undecided voters, and I realize the media enforces rules of conservative politics, if you step out of an increasingly narrow bounds they can destroy you. Nonetheless, it is in standing for something that you become a strong candidate.

Allow me to share my concerns.

Regarding Afghanistan: we can look back on the history of our invasion of Afghanistan, was it necessary? Perhaps you cannot say this as the Democratic presidential contender, but I would argue that we did not need to invade. The Taliban indicated a willingness to negotiate with us regarding turning over Osama Bin Laden but they were given ultimatums quickly followed by an attack. Perhaps al Quieda could have been dismantled with diplomacy and policing actions. We will, of course, never know where negotiations might have led, but just as the errant decisions that led to the Iraq war are important to keep in focus the same is true for Afghanistan.

More significant is the question of how we leave the conflict. I find it hard to believe that more foreign troops military will win over the Afghani people. This is what I hear you suggest, but as we see in foreigners can increase resistance. If a successful strategy is to be found it will need to be sensitive to the culture and the needs of the people of Afghanistan. It will need to be based on resources to support the country, rather than weapons that ultimately destroy it.

Regarding Pakistan, I was glad you acknowledged the problems of supporting a dictator for 10 years. But I am concerned about strategic strikes into even on limited and carefully thought out bases. I am reminded of the bombing of the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998 under orders of Bill Clinton. Intelligence told him it was a weapons plant.

I was disappointed when you called Venezuela a rogue nation. Venezuela is a democratic nation and Chaves is a democratically elected and popularly supported president. Chaves and the bush administration have had an antagonistic relationship, but has not engaged in rogue actions. There are still questions of whether the government was involved in any way in supporting or encouraging the coup attempt against Chaves. That would make us the rogue nation.

Perhaps my greatest concern was when you said "No soldier ever dies in vain because they are carrying out the mission of the commander and chief." While this may have had some temporary rhetorical power, I hope you don't really mean this. American foreign policy has not always been "honorable" certainly our invasion of Iraq was immoral and predicated on false purposes. Those soldiers who thought they were fighting to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction who died in the pursuit of that goal died in vain. Further, commander’s orders are not sufficient justification for soldier’s actions. The "just following orders" justification allows horrendous war crimes. America is not above this potential fate.

Those are my concerns.

I am glad that you are opposed to our war in Iraq. This is what drew many of us to your campaign. A quick end to the war has always been ethical; it is also wise and prudent. I wish you would have reminded the American people that the Iraqi people want our troops out, the Iraqi government wants a time table for the withdrawal of our troops, and the majority of American people favor an end to this war. To proceed with out promises of withdrawal threatens to jeopardize the fragile coalitions that have allowed a decrease in violence. This coalition (possibly negotiated in part by Iran is probably more important than the surge in reducing the level of violence in Iraq.

This brings me to the one point in the debate that was most encouraging for me regarding your foreign policy position. I am glad that you are willing to talk with adversaries. I want to commend you for taking this position. I understand that this is very much a part of who you are. It is because of this that I am still willing to support you even if we disagree on many of the important, life and death decisions of American foreign policy. Nonetheless, while I support you, I want to be clear that my support is not unconditional and that I urge you to revise your position on the issues I have presented here.

Sincerely,
Gaia Kile

Bank Bail Outs and Energy Futures

What would you do with $700,000,000,000.00? The American financial system is broken, and this is the repair bill. There is no good solution, although we might like to let the captains of capitalism fail, the problem is that they would take us with them. We are told that with out some support to the banking system we could face a banking freeze, this could mean that the bank may not be able to issue your pay check. no pay checks and the economy could really go down hill. On the other hand 700 billion dollars may not be enough to fix the problem, or it could even make things worse.

As I write this congress is trying to hammer out the details of a bail out, fortunately many in congress are calling for accountability, transparency & re-regulation. Three important ideas include: 1) a call for equity exchange, that is if the government gives the banks 700 billion then the banks give the government some shares in banks. 2) that banks who choose to take advantage of the bail out should have limits on the salaries of their executives. 3) for the individual mortgages the government picks up the government should work to help those individuals keep their homes. A lot of people are referring to the system and bail out as a case of privatizing gains and socializing losses. Although demanding equity, and asserting authority over failing institutions may be lemon socialism it is at least a step better than welfare capitalism.

But what would you do with $700,000,000,000.00? About 4 years ago the Apollo Alliance started talking about a major investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy production and related jobs in this field. They presently suggest $500 billion investment over 10 years. Increasingly others are adopting energy programs that mirror this proposal, Al Gore and the We campaign to fight global warming have called for 100% of American energy to come from non-carbon sources with in 10 years. Barack Obama has presented an energy program that focuses on eliminating our need for foreign oil. Even John McCain has windmills on his energy policy page. In other words a consensus is developing around the importance of responding to global warming and oil prices with a plan for an ecological and sustainable energy future.

I don't know about you but I would much rather see hundreds of billions of dollars go to a green energy program than to help out banks that have made poor decisions. Green re-industrialization promises greater social and financial returns than buying bad loans.

Although the US government is already over strapped with debt related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is possible that the government can bail out the banks and still have funds for an Apollo like energy project. Nonetheless, after this bill there may not be the political will. So if the "fixing of the economy"can't be redirected towards addressing the energy & environment problems directly, I would add one more key element to a 700 billion bail out package, Participating banks should be mandated to preferentially loan to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

it's worth mentioning http://www.freshaircleanpolitics.net/ is a page that is working to slow or stop the bail out process, go there and you can send a message to your legislators.

Remember the Keating Five

As the US government steps in to sure up American financial capitalism with corporate socialism its worth reflecting back on the last major banking meltdown, the savings and loan crises of the 1980's. Saving and loans were institutions oriented towards serving the community, a safe place for individuals to save, and a friendly place average folks could go for a mortgage. If you've ever seen the movie "it's a wonderful life" think of the bank that Jimmy Stewart ran. these institutions were insured by the US government. then in the 1980's deregulation of the S&L industry turned them into vehicles for quick money and bad loans. It was only a short bit of time until the loans started to bring down the institutions to the tune of 125 billion US government payments.

One chapter of that mess was the political scandal of the Keating five, five US senators who supported Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln Savings and Loan. He had made $300,000 as political contributions to them and they may have interfered with investigations of his bank. The whole story is complex but we are hearing a lot these days from one of these senators: John McCain

The Obama Movement

Within the confines of probable American politics, progressive hope is focused on electing Barack Obama. Even this hope is muted by Obama’s support for military involvement in Afghanistan, his capitulation on FICA wire taps, and his willingness to compromise on off shore drilling. In discussing the progressive potential of Obama, it is worth distinguishing between presidential contender Barack Obama, the Obama election campaign, and the movement that is focused on Obama, or what might be called the Obama movement (after elections it will need to be renamed).

The presidential contender is a person and a politician, he is important because he may soon hold the office of the president of the United States. For progressives his political roots hold promise, and his agenda moves American politics in the right direction.

The campaign is the direct effort to elect this politician to the office of president. The campaign is not just the activities of the Democratic Party but also include organizational efforts by other groups such as Move On.

Movement refers to those working for the progressive goals that Barack Obama has articulated or become a focus for.

The Movement is a coalition of American progressives. Key goals of the movement include:

1) Removal of American troops from Iraq in a timely manner.
2) A tax policy aimed at fostering greater economic fairness and equality
3) An approach to energy that is oriented towards sustainability and American self sufficiency
4) Challenges to neo-liberal free trade economics and out sourcing
5) Expanded Health coverage for Americans with the goal of universal coverage.
6) And a list of civil rights objectives beneficial to women, people of color, LGBT, and the poor.

Many of us on the Left may be dissatisfied with the limits of some of these goals, and even more so with the political presentation of these goals. To be clear I disagree with the proposition that the reason for withdrawing from Iraq is to be better able to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. As I mentioned at the onset, this discussion is about probable politics in America at the moment. But probable and possible can be mutually supportive. Even minor gains today can create an atmosphere for larger change in the future. As a movement there is the potential that we can evolve out goals towards even more progressive ends.

As supporters of Obama we should be clear that after elected Barack Obama remains a politician and will have to work with other politicians in congress, at that point the Obama movement becomes very important. It is only if we keep working and pushing that we will achieve the movement’s objectives. In fact even if Obama is not elected the movement is important.

Obama movement activists will logically be enthusiastic about the candidate and participate in the campaign. As we contribute, fundraise, make phone calls, nock on doors, organize events, and register voters, it is important to be clear about why we are engaged in the work. So for instance if you make a donation to the Obama campaign, include a note listing the movement issues that are important to you. If working with other Obama activists work to build political connections, think about how these connections might extend beyond November. Perhaps even plan follow up efforts for after the elections. Of course many of us will be single mindedly focused up to the elections, but some of us ought to start to embrace a longer view.

There are elements of the Obama campaign that are grass roots. And I’m not alone in thinking about keeping the social momentum for change going beyond the elections. As you get involved in the Obama campaign, participate in the Obama movement as well.