Why can’t Americans speak politics on an ideal level in lieu of always dredging up irreverent issues having nothing to do with a sense of justice and democratic principles? Why is it so important to so many that “under God” be held sacred in the pledge, rather than simply “under the guidance of democracy?” Why do we go ballistic over private matters such as a woman’s right to choose, or sex-orientation? As JillUser explained in a blog that if her father had not come out of the house with a gun in hand, she and her sister could have been violated by young thugs — three cheers for a good father — but what has that to do with a gun law that does not prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying a gun? Why do we care whether it is French or Freedom Fries? Or that it is an absolute that Israel under any situation is deserving of our aid? Or that Nicaraguans were freedom fighters but the Irish terrorists? That is, why are we so paranoid that we must constantly debate issues that have no effect on the citizenry?
Is it anyone’s business that a poor maiden who is with child and cannot afford it, be expected to have the child and put if up for adoption? Or that a career woman finds herself pregnant and does not want the fuss to jeopardize her advancement? And why is it only the woman is held accountable as though her counterpart had nothing to with the condition? Whether the motives of people are not to our taste has nothing whatever to do with public policy. Whether we personally believe at conception the fetus is a person or is not does not give us the right to be judgmental and carry it all the way to the supreme court. Why be homophobic, if homosexuality is so bad why would anyone want to dwell on it? Though I may sympathize with environmentalists, I really do not care whether a rare toad or desert plant is on the endangered species list, there are more important things to worry about, such as killing seals, whales and elephants for demeaning gain, or global warming and clean air, which should be public policy.
I for one, simmer a little when Congress opens its sessions with a benediction, because it is hypocritical and defies the separation clause, yet this is practice that is a tradition of our puritan values from the birth of the nation that I accept on reflection and that it is not a matter of law but of practice that could end tomorrow. I may disagree, yet admire the courage of the poor maiden who through thick or thin decides to have her baby, I do not feel that I should urge her to do the opposite. Because of my military training during which I learned to respect the awesome power of a rifle and therefore, do not wish to see such lethal weapons available to the everyday citizen, and worse, on the marketplace for criminals, does not allow me to deny a law-abiding citizen the right to obtain one, even though I might wish he be aware of the profound responsibility of owning one.
Why don’t we spend our argumentative energy on famine round the globe and health care at home, or the dehumanization of poor people in the nation? Why is there not outrage that there is no policy to clean up the slums, and wipe out gangs on inner city streets, where thousands of innocents are in peril? Yet we argue continually about the justification for the war on Iraq — if it had no WMD, then it lurked in Saddam’s cunning mind for the future, or that on second thought Saddam being a mass murderer had to be taken out — rather than concentrating on our losing the gain achieved in Afghanistan, or more importantly losing ground in doing what is needed for our own country.
Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 12, 2004.