Check for web archive captures
Much to Puzzle About
By lindamuralidharan on 2018-06-08 04:46:45
One of my ongoing internal debates is what to make of apparently intelligent people saying one thing and doing another on
the national stage. Recently my local paper published a "Point"/"Counterpoint" debate between two authors of differing
opinions as to whether policy or character is more important to us as a society. Their approach hit right at my own
puzzlement about why "values voters" were seeming to abandon their values when it came to support for policies which
would on the surface of it contradict the essential values they espoused. It was the writer on the right side of the spectrum
who argues that policies are more important than "character". Well, now I am stuck with how to define values and how to
define character. Policy seems self-evident enough. I write here about my personal understanding of these issues from my
own life and from what I read of the politics of the right promoted in recent decades. The people who have been called
"values voters" and the politicians who claim to speak for them said they like Biblical proscriptions on abortion, birth
control, public support and interventions to help the poor. Of course, different people have different interpretations of the
same Bible. As a child, the most I heard about the poor in Sunday school was that Jesus liked them and wanted everyone to
honor and help them. Here the folks who seemed to say they were for "family" values don't seem to want to protect
children, women, and the marginal or vulnerable within our society. So it seems they really meant they cared more about
those other values, the judgmental and controlling and harsh ones. Some would say they were deceptive all along. Others
would say we just didn't get what they were trying to tell us or that they themselves hadn't quite figured out that the men and
a few women would would vote in office for their policies were all too likely to be charlatans and blackguards. In recent
years, however, I have read up on some more current preaching (in the more fundamentalist types of churches) that claims
that people are poor because they don't try hard enough to work or do what their god wants. Rich people do, and the more
they obey god and work in the ways he wants, the more rewarded they should be. (This refers to their god, their
interpretation of a god from the Bible not so much the god of Muslims or Jews or Hindus.) Additionally, it appears the ways
in which the person they call Jesus Christ talked about nonviolence did not resonate with this branch of the Republican
oriented public as they are very much in favor of a policy of unfettered freedom to own guns. And they are rarely found in
anti-war movements. I'm getting ahead of myself here. I thought that the values voters wanted people to practice the family
values of honesty, loyalty to the family, sexual abstinence outside of marriage, and adherence to Biblical teaching (as they
saw it). [caption id="attachment_11307" align="alignleft" width="600"]
women's health
decisions...what's wrong with this picture?[/caption] This would indicate they would come down on the side of "character"
as presented in the debate. Now, they say it doesn't matter what a politician does.....have pre or extra marital sexual affairs,
commit various kinds of public corruption, lie to the press, your voters, your family, your associates....... it can all be
overlooked so long as you are using whatever power you have to limit women's rights to control their own bodies,
everybody's access to cheap and available birth control, the free exercise of choices by LBGT people, empowering policies
toward the poor. It is also important that you enhance the wealth of the affluent and find ways to enforce the belief of some
that their god thinks people of color are inferior. In any case, it is a useful strategy of the power structure to act as though
people of color are inferior to white people. It would seem that the preferred policies take precedence over the idea of
character as they once thought of it. Protecting access to guns, separating parents and children and vilifying people of color,
cutting off much affordable access to medical care....these values resonate more than the character of the politician who is
going to implement the policy. People were recently reminded that President Donald Trump once said that blacks kill whites
more than vice versa. This is patently untrue. The same president has implied that all Mexicans who choose to come to the
US are unworthy vagrants and criminals. He has recommended police brutality such as hitting the heads of arrestees on the
roofs of patrol cars. We all know by now that he has had any number of affairs outside of his marriages and that he supports
corrupt cabinet appointees. The above referred to "values voters" can ignore this because he roots for their cosen policies.
[caption id="attachment_ 11309" align="alignleft" width="300"] Human
beings, not animals[/caption] When Judge Roy Moore ran in Alabama for a Senate seat despite his many violations of law
and social norms, he was preferred over his opponent because the latter wanted more gun safety laws, protections for
women's rights, and other policies that violate the "values" of the Moore voters. I misspeak here. He was preferred by
many right wing and evangelical voters. Luckily their votes weren't quite enough this time to elect Judge Moore. [caption
id="attachment_11308" align="alignleft" width="266"] violates separation of
religion and government[/caption] In other words, my definition of values and character are both pretty close to each other
and pretty much different from right wing viewpoint. I might have found some common cause with people on the right
where "character" is concerned if they truly meant honesty in personal and public affairs, and if they meant decency with
regard to family matters. In other words, I don't have a big issue with a person' chosen sex life so long as nobody is being
hurt. If I there is a commitment to a person, then it is better to keep the commitment. Domestic violence, on the other hand,
is never okay. Overall my idea of character would be that a person searches for truth in understanding human nature and in
finding the best policies for the nation. It means keeping one's word to the best of one's ability. It means being open minded
and flexible and willing to learn new ideas and methods. It means looking for ways to avoid hostility and violence while
being also able to stand up to bullies and negative ideas or policies. It means making conscious efforts to avoid bigoted
comments or actions and making conscious efforts to reduce our natural tendency to judge people by stereotypes. It means
pretty regular exercising of consistency in addressing other people or significant issues that arise in the course of personal or
public life. [caption id="attachment_11310" align="alignright" width="284"] lawl? 2.
suffer the little children[/caption] And I guess you could say that my own values are pretty much reflected in my idea of
character. Also my values are based on a desire to see less suffering in the world and to see a steady movement towards the
elimination of war. My values include a desire to see people in public office who are basically honest and not too self-
serving! I can see the point of the people on the right who keep voting for unsavory characters. They want to get the job
done. They hate undocumented immigration and they pretty much object to any kind of immigration of people of color.
They have champions all over the Republican spectrum and Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Vice President Mike Pence
are among the best in that regard. The current head of the EPA feeds into their distrust of the "government" so he stays in
office no matter how much he aggrandizes himself at the public trough.....and has done since he held office in Oklahoma.
Their champions are working as hard as they can in state legislatures to hobble women and LGBT people. I have a different
take on all this. I believe that without "character" you may win the battles but lose the war if the war is a more prosperous,
just, and functioning society. For so long, the efforts to hamper immigration of any kind and anti-government views in
general have left us with a complicated and often illogical immigration system that has had a tremendous back log of cases
to be processed. This means that honest, documented persons who need to move toward citizenship or otherwise have their
status resolved for any number of reasons are left waiting for years. I also recall some years ago ....and I don't know about
this aspect currently....people who wanted to file papers to start their processes often had to line up at 6 in the morning and
then wait for hours to even speak to a clerk. [caption id="attachment_11311" align="alignright" width="600"]
women need affordable health
care[/caption] This is but one example. Character in citizens and public servants alike increases the chance that all voices
will be heard, that decisions will have a rational basis and not be purely emotional, that there will be honest accounting of
public expenditures, that the public will have better (more and more accurate ) information upon which to make voting
decisions, and that declared policy claims will be followed through on. The general left leaning political
community....largely represented by the Democratic Party....that exhibits character much of the time does have some
disadvantages, especially in the short term. After allegations of sexual misbehavior on the part of Al Franken and of a form
of domestic violence on the part of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, both were pressured by their party to
leave office. These men had done much and still had much to offer in the way of useful and effective governance, but their
type of flaws are too suspect to be tolerated in a person holding the public trust in his hands. Meanwhile the right leaning
community tolerated a man accused of sexual harassment of teenagers, a man at a high level in the White House who had
physically attacked two different former wives, another man who....as Chief of Staff to the President....has made remarks
exhibiting anti-women biases and actually went out of his way to spread a lie about a prominent woman legislator. These
people either still hold office or left only after days or weeks of pressure from the public. On the average, people on the left
stick close to facts and modest claims when advocating for their policies or candidacies. Probably they are too reticent at
times to articulate what they have to offer to the voters, and this may in fact be a character flaw! Perfection is not expected
of either side. Rather what I look for in a candidate is not only good policy positions but also a track record of being able to
follow through along with ethical ways of campaigning and operating in office. I don't care what gender, ethnic background,
religious beliefs (so long as she/he does not want to violate the US Constitution and impose narrow doctrine of one religion
on the rest of us), or marital status the person represents. [caption id="attachment_ 11313" align="aligncenter" width="564"]
— a older women need health care and
home care[/caption] I think that when character takes precedence over policy, a person is more likely to admit mistakes and
attempt to correct them, more likely to avoid wars that are based on emotional wishes or greed, more likely to be inclusive in
hiring staff and listening to advisers. I think that when character is paramount an official is more likely to try to persuade
others of her views rather than to ride rough shod over the Constitution and other democratic processes in order to
implement policy. People who believe abortion is wrong have a right to argue their case to the public. I do object, however,
to their using false arguments and disinformation and to their wanting to stop people by unconstitutional means. I don't
think a person of character falls victim very often to the temptation to get their way by unethical, dishonest, or manipulative
means. And I, for one, don't like to be manipulated. I'll close with a couple more personal comments. It is easier to be
friends with a person who is pretty consistent and straightforward than with one who doesn't show much consistency in what
they say or do.. Also I am really disturbed by seeing the erosion of so many standards that I admire and that many, many
people have believed for decades to be worth striving for....however inevitable that we would sometimes fall short. There
was major corruption in the New York State legislature for many years and both parties were culpable. A few years back,
however, the justice system caught up with the major perpetrators. I want to see more Americans today standing up for
ethical standards in office, minimizing the way that office holders think it brazenly okay to self-aggrandize when supposedly
holding the public trust, and for reducing as quickly as possible the rampant racism and xenophobia that is popular today. I
would also like to see a better understanding how our Constitution is supposed to work to help all of us get along better and
have both civil protections and a more fair slice of the pie.
