Every American will wholeheartedly agree that one of our most basic and noblest beliefs is that all people are created equal, and should be allowed the benefit of beginning their pursuit of happiness on a playing field that is equal and level to every other American. In fact, that’s what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was all about, insuring that everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion or country of origin had equal opportunity to succeed (or fail) under the law. Yes, it would take time for some people to get used to the idea and change their biased ways (our history of inequality is long and shameful), but for the first time in our history, they would clearly be on the wrong side of the law.
Unfortunately, a level field wasn’t enough for some people. Under President Johnson’s Great Society ideals, the government became obliged to make up for "past injustices," thus the creation of Affirmative Action, a sweeping initiative that, with the stroke of a pen, declared everyone who was not of European Caucasian descent socially, morally and/or intellectually inferior, incapable of achieving wealth, health and happiness without the benevolent interference of our know-it-all government. Why would any group of people willingly admit to that?
Quite simply, it was because they astutely recognized how many special privileges such a demeaning label would reap them in the long run. For the price of being labeled inferior, they no longer had to begin at the starting gate, like every other young person in the country, they could start a hundred yards into the race, legally, sanctioned, even encouraged by the law. And the bar wasn’t just set with the legislation in 1968. As recently as 1989 new laws were added to insure that those wanting to secure government contracts had special advantages. The wording of the 8a designation, which grants greater consideration for such contracts, is "Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged."
"Presumed to be" is pretty powerful stuff. The daughters of Senator Barack Obama and his wife (both graduates of Ivy League Universities) are hardly "socially and economically disadvantaged," but the simple fact that they are three-quarters black means they automatically go to the front of the line in the pursuit of their education and vocation, according to the law. Is it any wonder that ordinary Americans feel put upon, fueling any dormant prejudices that may remain from the past, or worse, rekindling another generation of racists who inevitably recognize the unfairness of the deal their fathers and grandfathers made?
When will we realize that preference for one group inherently means repression of another?
Every loyal American would vehemently disagree that anyone should receive special privileges because of their race, yet we’ve been brainwashed to think that it’s okay to have a Black Caucus in Congress, but a White one would be racist. We’ve been trained to believe that a Black Miss America Pageant where no whites need apply is fine, but a White Miss America Pageant with the same restrictions against blacks would be outrageous. We insist that mortgage lending be equal under the law, but force people to indicate their race on their applications in order to make sure the lender is lending "equally." If the lenders don’t, they’re subject to sanctions, yet if they do "meet the numbers," we hypocritically say there’s no quota being forced.
The biggest problem with Affirmative Action is that it fails to provide a measure for when those original "injustices" are sufficiently remedied. How do we know when we’ve achieved equal opportunity for all? When we have Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans in Congress? Been there, done that. How about in the Cabinet? Been there, done that. Must we have one of each minority become President before we finally decide we’ve outgrown Affirmative Action?
The whole Affirmative Action movement is one big fat hoodwink, and it needs to be changed before we raise another generation of citizens who learn that some Americans are given preferential treatment by the government (again) because of their gender, race, and creed. As long as Affirmative Action is on the books, as long as certain groups are given a hundred-yard advantage, individual achievements will never earn the respect they deserve, because there will always be doubt whether that success was the result of unfair play. For generations, the defining cry "Only in America!" could be proclaimed by anyone who achieved success from humble beginnings, despite whatever obstacles of life were put in their way. Somehow, it doesn’t ring quite so true when the government, by law, removes some of those obstacles based on racist reasoning, further perpetuating our long shameful history of inequality.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Abortion Shouldn’t be a Presidential Issue
For decades now, pro-life and pro-choice forces have been trying to make abortion a key issue in Presidential elections. To date, there is no evidence that their posturing and vehemence has made any difference at all, either to the outcome of the election or the furthering of the issue. By wasting all their time, money and energy pinning all their hopes on a candidate that has little or no control over the debate (other than to appoint justices that never seem to vote the way they want anyway), both sides have missed many opportunities to progress this heated dialogue toward a practical and amenable solution.
The obvious yet unseen truth is that both the pro-life people and the pro-choice people want the same thing: for every pregnancy to be a planned and wanted one. But their horns have become so locked in anger, so inflamed at the insensitivity of the other side, that they are unable to step back and look at the big picture, and the many, many things they have in common, including the clear-cut steps necessary to achieve their mutual goal.
It is their stubbornness to see the other’s point of view that precludes them from coming together with solutions that would benefit everyone in a satisfactory way. By distracting themselves with the hunt for the perfect Presidential candidate to support their side, they have alleviated themselves from having to tackle the tough issues on the ground, where it counts. In the 1960’s vernacular, both sides have "copped out."
Yes, the arguments for pro-choice and pro-life are wide and deep. Yes, there are strong feelings on both sides. But the fact is, better solutions could be found, if only the leadership of the groups that hold this issue most dear would come together, rather than put all their eggs in an inconsequential presidential basket.
The fact is, abortion has been legal in this country for over thirty years now, and few people would want to give up a right they have had for more than a generation, any more than they would want to return to the days of Prohibition. For those of us who remember the reality of the pre-Roe v. Wade days, when abortion was as illegal as ultra-conservatives would like to make it again, women still had abortions, just as people still drank during Prohibition despite its illegality. The difference is that when you try to legislate behavior, rather than educate responsibility and accountability for that behavior, everyone, and our society as a whole, loses. We lose freedom, we lose rationality, we lose common sense.
Just as making alcohol illegal forced the making of moonshine and bathtub gin in unsanitary conditions the norm, thus posing a greater health risk to those who ingested it, women will once again be forced to give up the current safe and sanitary conditions with skilled medical personnel, and return to the days of sneaking into run-down flophouses, with abortions being performed by anyone with a coat-hanger and a modicum of greed, inviting infection and botched procedures that cost not just the lives of the embryo, but the lives of thousands of women as well. The Prohibition of abortion has never been successful, just as the Prohibition of alcohol, too, was a spectacular failure.
There is no question that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would force a return to that kind of butchery, because women in certain unfortunate circumstances have for millennia been making that choice, albeit a choice of last resort, and always will. These are lessons we Americans have already learned. Why must we have to learn them over and over again?
By the same token, the preservation of life is also an extremely important matter for all of us. Naturally we’d like every pregnancy to end in a healthy birth, every child born to grow up in a happy and well-balanced family, either natural or adopted, and to live up to his or her full potential as a benevolent human being. The problem is, reality gets in the way. Life has never been that easy, even under the best of circumstances, and never will be. Human nature, even with the best of intentions, won’t allow it.
Most importantly, it must be realized that the settlement of the pro-life v. pro-choice issue won’t come with either the repeal or the salvation of Roe v. Wade. Even were the decision to be overturned, the debate would continue. Solutions can only come when the two sides seek out and find their common ground, and settle it peacefully, and the sooner they stop wasting time and get on with it, the better. Unfortunately, that won’t happen as long as the issue erroneously remains a contentious presidential one to be fought over again and again every four years.
The obvious yet unseen truth is that both the pro-life people and the pro-choice people want the same thing: for every pregnancy to be a planned and wanted one. But their horns have become so locked in anger, so inflamed at the insensitivity of the other side, that they are unable to step back and look at the big picture, and the many, many things they have in common, including the clear-cut steps necessary to achieve their mutual goal.
It is their stubbornness to see the other’s point of view that precludes them from coming together with solutions that would benefit everyone in a satisfactory way. By distracting themselves with the hunt for the perfect Presidential candidate to support their side, they have alleviated themselves from having to tackle the tough issues on the ground, where it counts. In the 1960’s vernacular, both sides have "copped out."
Yes, the arguments for pro-choice and pro-life are wide and deep. Yes, there are strong feelings on both sides. But the fact is, better solutions could be found, if only the leadership of the groups that hold this issue most dear would come together, rather than put all their eggs in an inconsequential presidential basket.
The fact is, abortion has been legal in this country for over thirty years now, and few people would want to give up a right they have had for more than a generation, any more than they would want to return to the days of Prohibition. For those of us who remember the reality of the pre-Roe v. Wade days, when abortion was as illegal as ultra-conservatives would like to make it again, women still had abortions, just as people still drank during Prohibition despite its illegality. The difference is that when you try to legislate behavior, rather than educate responsibility and accountability for that behavior, everyone, and our society as a whole, loses. We lose freedom, we lose rationality, we lose common sense.
Just as making alcohol illegal forced the making of moonshine and bathtub gin in unsanitary conditions the norm, thus posing a greater health risk to those who ingested it, women will once again be forced to give up the current safe and sanitary conditions with skilled medical personnel, and return to the days of sneaking into run-down flophouses, with abortions being performed by anyone with a coat-hanger and a modicum of greed, inviting infection and botched procedures that cost not just the lives of the embryo, but the lives of thousands of women as well. The Prohibition of abortion has never been successful, just as the Prohibition of alcohol, too, was a spectacular failure.
There is no question that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would force a return to that kind of butchery, because women in certain unfortunate circumstances have for millennia been making that choice, albeit a choice of last resort, and always will. These are lessons we Americans have already learned. Why must we have to learn them over and over again?
By the same token, the preservation of life is also an extremely important matter for all of us. Naturally we’d like every pregnancy to end in a healthy birth, every child born to grow up in a happy and well-balanced family, either natural or adopted, and to live up to his or her full potential as a benevolent human being. The problem is, reality gets in the way. Life has never been that easy, even under the best of circumstances, and never will be. Human nature, even with the best of intentions, won’t allow it.
Most importantly, it must be realized that the settlement of the pro-life v. pro-choice issue won’t come with either the repeal or the salvation of Roe v. Wade. Even were the decision to be overturned, the debate would continue. Solutions can only come when the two sides seek out and find their common ground, and settle it peacefully, and the sooner they stop wasting time and get on with it, the better. Unfortunately, that won’t happen as long as the issue erroneously remains a contentious presidential one to be fought over again and again every four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
