Jeannie Babb Taylor: What the issues are (and aren’t)
Tuesday April 22, 2008 12:20:29pm
As campaign season heats up to a rolling boil, voters are bombarded on every side by campaign slogans and media chatter. Everybody wants to tell you how to vote. Some people complain when I am transparent about my advice (“Vote Democratic!”), yet they are oblivious to the subtle pressure emanating from newscasters, preachers, and the guy in the next cubicle at work.
Subtle campaign pressure uses tactics that have nothing to do with the real issues. Consider a bumper sticker shaped like a girl’s head with a big hair bow, and the words, “Do we really want a blonde for president?” Of course, such a sticker actually means, “Do we really want a woman for president?” — with an implied no. A man’s hair color (or lack of hair) is hardly fodder for comment. In fact, I wanted to list off a few blond presidents from the past, but presidential hair color is such a non-issue that my research turned up nothing.
Obviously, hair color is not a real election issue. Neither are other fashion statements, such as the wearing of a flag pin (or not). Beyond the trivial non-issues, there lies an entire field of pseudo-issues. These issues seem so compelling that special-interest groups use them to cultivate entire blocks of single-issue voters. Yet, these issues are as empty as hair color and jewelry when it comes to presidential selection.
Consider abortion. Certain candidates are identified as “pro-life” while others are identified as “pro-choice.” Church-goers, in particular, are bombarded with the message that they are not good Christians unless they vote Republican, because Republicans are supposedly “pro-life.”
These labels are nothing but campaign rhetoric. No serious presidential contender wants abortion to be criminalized. Huckabee liked the idea, but he could not even get the endorsement of Pat Robertson. Robertson, widely viewed as a pillar of the Christian right, instead backed “pro-choice” candidate Rudy Giuliani. Robertson’s choice (no pun intended) demonstrates that abortion never was an important issue to the religious right. They just used it to control voters.
Both parties intend to keep abortion legal. The only difference is that the Democrats are honest about it.
Republican officials call themselves “pro-life” and croon about creating “a culture of life,” while they not only keep it legal, but also pass legislation that increases the demand for abortion by impoverishing our nation and cutting programs that enabled poor families to afford another child. If you look at the statistics for various countries, the abortion rate is determined primarily by socioeconomic factors, not legal issues. Then there is the utter hypocrisy of a “pro-life” president presiding over so much killing overseas.
The other big pseudo-issue is gay marriage. Far-right extremists would have us believe that gays are out to destroy traditional marriage. A look at divorce statistics suggests that heterosexuals are dismantling it pretty rapidly without any help.
There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican plans concerning gay marriage. Both parties recognize the issue as a big, sticky mess and they tiptoe around it, hoping history will do the work of settling the question.
Voters must not be distracted by these hot-button issues that have no substance behind them. Somehow we have to turn off the chatter, the moralizing and the guilt-laden messages, and instead pay attention to the real issues.
The real issues are those that matter to Americans every day. The issue that most directly impacts all Americans is the economy. We are also intensely interested in resolving the health care crisis and the wars abroad.
Fiscal responsibility is paramount. We need a president who understands how money works. Republicans repeat the mantra of “lower taxes,” but fail to acknowledge that without decreasing spending, tax cuts only increase our national debt. They say the right things (decrease the tax burden, reduce spending, common sense fiscal policy) but they do all the wrong things. Their tax cuts provide no relief for those of us who learn less than $200,000 a year, particularly when you take the tanking economy, wage stagnation, fuel prices and medical inflation into account. They spend our money as if it were burning a hole in their pocket, even while they cut funding for education and other middle-class programs.
If the Democrats win in November, they will plug the leaks in the national pocketbook. One of those leaks is the no-bid contract. Under the Bush administration, no-bid contracts more than doubled in number, with spending increasing 121 percent to $103 billion from 2000 to 2006. No-bid contracts represented over half of federal procurement spending. Is it any surprise that companies like Halliburton enjoyed record profits during this time? It’s time to end no-bid contracts. Let legitimate businesses compete for government contracts. Let capitalism work.
Democrats will also end the Iraq war and bring our troops home. Lives will be saved, and dollars, too. It is disingenuous for McCain to promise lower taxes while he admits he will continue the occupation of Iraq for 100 years or more. Wars must be funded. The debts we are racking up today will eventually come calling. Taxes will be raised, if not for this generation then certainly for the next, to fund the war in Iraq.
But will the Democrats raise our taxes? Republican Party leaders keep saying so, but that does not make it true. Clinton’s plan involves a tax cut for the middle class. Only taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year will experience any increase.
Obama’s tax plan is similar, providing relief for lower and middle-class taxpayers and senior citizens. The tax cuts are offset by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the top tax bracket.
We have to stay focused on these issues. The TV media is not helping us do that. When George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson moderated the ABC debate in Philadelphia, we learned more about the moderators than we learned about Obama and Clinton. We learned that the moderators think the presidential election is just a grown-up form of “American Idol”, where the judges (that’s voters) will select a president based on popularity, performance and style.
It is time voters set aside the marketing glitz, the non-issues, and the pseudo-issues that occupy the national dialogue. Let’s look at the real issues and elect the person who will address them in ways that boost our economy, restore our international standing and strengthen ordinary Americans.
Jeannie Babb Taylor may be contacted at jeannie@babb.com, or you can leave a public comment on her blog at JeannieBabbTaylor.com.
Subtle campaign pressure uses tactics that have nothing to do with the real issues. Consider a bumper sticker shaped like a girl’s head with a big hair bow, and the words, “Do we really want a blonde for president?” Of course, such a sticker actually means, “Do we really want a woman for president?” — with an implied no. A man’s hair color (or lack of hair) is hardly fodder for comment. In fact, I wanted to list off a few blond presidents from the past, but presidential hair color is such a non-issue that my research turned up nothing.
Obviously, hair color is not a real election issue. Neither are other fashion statements, such as the wearing of a flag pin (or not). Beyond the trivial non-issues, there lies an entire field of pseudo-issues. These issues seem so compelling that special-interest groups use them to cultivate entire blocks of single-issue voters. Yet, these issues are as empty as hair color and jewelry when it comes to presidential selection.
Consider abortion. Certain candidates are identified as “pro-life” while others are identified as “pro-choice.” Church-goers, in particular, are bombarded with the message that they are not good Christians unless they vote Republican, because Republicans are supposedly “pro-life.”
These labels are nothing but campaign rhetoric. No serious presidential contender wants abortion to be criminalized. Huckabee liked the idea, but he could not even get the endorsement of Pat Robertson. Robertson, widely viewed as a pillar of the Christian right, instead backed “pro-choice” candidate Rudy Giuliani. Robertson’s choice (no pun intended) demonstrates that abortion never was an important issue to the religious right. They just used it to control voters.
Both parties intend to keep abortion legal. The only difference is that the Democrats are honest about it.
Republican officials call themselves “pro-life” and croon about creating “a culture of life,” while they not only keep it legal, but also pass legislation that increases the demand for abortion by impoverishing our nation and cutting programs that enabled poor families to afford another child. If you look at the statistics for various countries, the abortion rate is determined primarily by socioeconomic factors, not legal issues. Then there is the utter hypocrisy of a “pro-life” president presiding over so much killing overseas.
The other big pseudo-issue is gay marriage. Far-right extremists would have us believe that gays are out to destroy traditional marriage. A look at divorce statistics suggests that heterosexuals are dismantling it pretty rapidly without any help.
There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican plans concerning gay marriage. Both parties recognize the issue as a big, sticky mess and they tiptoe around it, hoping history will do the work of settling the question.
Voters must not be distracted by these hot-button issues that have no substance behind them. Somehow we have to turn off the chatter, the moralizing and the guilt-laden messages, and instead pay attention to the real issues.
The real issues are those that matter to Americans every day. The issue that most directly impacts all Americans is the economy. We are also intensely interested in resolving the health care crisis and the wars abroad.
Fiscal responsibility is paramount. We need a president who understands how money works. Republicans repeat the mantra of “lower taxes,” but fail to acknowledge that without decreasing spending, tax cuts only increase our national debt. They say the right things (decrease the tax burden, reduce spending, common sense fiscal policy) but they do all the wrong things. Their tax cuts provide no relief for those of us who learn less than $200,000 a year, particularly when you take the tanking economy, wage stagnation, fuel prices and medical inflation into account. They spend our money as if it were burning a hole in their pocket, even while they cut funding for education and other middle-class programs.
If the Democrats win in November, they will plug the leaks in the national pocketbook. One of those leaks is the no-bid contract. Under the Bush administration, no-bid contracts more than doubled in number, with spending increasing 121 percent to $103 billion from 2000 to 2006. No-bid contracts represented over half of federal procurement spending. Is it any surprise that companies like Halliburton enjoyed record profits during this time? It’s time to end no-bid contracts. Let legitimate businesses compete for government contracts. Let capitalism work.
Democrats will also end the Iraq war and bring our troops home. Lives will be saved, and dollars, too. It is disingenuous for McCain to promise lower taxes while he admits he will continue the occupation of Iraq for 100 years or more. Wars must be funded. The debts we are racking up today will eventually come calling. Taxes will be raised, if not for this generation then certainly for the next, to fund the war in Iraq.
But will the Democrats raise our taxes? Republican Party leaders keep saying so, but that does not make it true. Clinton’s plan involves a tax cut for the middle class. Only taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year will experience any increase.
Obama’s tax plan is similar, providing relief for lower and middle-class taxpayers and senior citizens. The tax cuts are offset by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the top tax bracket.
We have to stay focused on these issues. The TV media is not helping us do that. When George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson moderated the ABC debate in Philadelphia, we learned more about the moderators than we learned about Obama and Clinton. We learned that the moderators think the presidential election is just a grown-up form of “American Idol”, where the judges (that’s voters) will select a president based on popularity, performance and style.
It is time voters set aside the marketing glitz, the non-issues, and the pseudo-issues that occupy the national dialogue. Let’s look at the real issues and elect the person who will address them in ways that boost our economy, restore our international standing and strengthen ordinary Americans.
Jeannie Babb Taylor may be contacted at jeannie@babb.com, or you can leave a public comment on her blog at JeannieBabbTaylor.com.
Post a comment: You must be logged in order to comment.
Comments: 698 Joined: 01/31/2006 |
05/05/2008 08:28:17 AM
Blogeye "I just don't get it. Diogenes, you want smaller government? Why in the world would you support Bush? "Whose post were you reading ? Blogeye "Think about people that worked for companies like Enron. Their retirement plans were bust. Nil. Nada. Nothing. If it weren't for Social Security some of the older workers would have been left with nothing." So, evidently, you do think the governement can manage our money better thant we can. I don't. |
Comments: 31 Joined: 05/02/2008 |
05/04/2008 07:24:24 PM
I always vote for the person, not the party. I have issues with both parties. Take Brad Scott...he harps on pro life, says he is a Christian, a youth minister. I would not want my two sons to be under his ministry. Everything that comes out of that kids mouth is a lie. Sin is sin. What is the difference between abortion and telling lies? I will not be voting for this kid for anything. |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
05/04/2008 07:50:20 AM
We have a democratic controlled congress and the speaker of the house is a democrat, a very scary one at that, and since they have taken control, the economy has spiraled rapidly downward. Our country has always spent money on other countries and it didn't matter whether the president was republican or democrat. As for Iraq, they had stockpiled all the components of WMD's and I don't think Iraq and Iran get along. I believe the insurgents are coming from Iran. Don't think just because a democrat gets elected everything will just magically be ok. We may not have captured Bin Laden, but he is on the run and he hasn't been sucessful in attacking our country again.Yes, SSI is suppose to be a supplement, not your main retirement, but too many hands are in that pot and I believe most of those programs were started by democrats. As far as companies like Enron, well if we didn't have SSI coming out of our paychecks, more of us would have money to fund our own retirement accounts. Also, if we were just all a little more frugal and wiser (myself included), when we were young we would have put away as much money in mutual funds as we could and watch it compound over the years and have a tidy nest egg when we reached retirement age. Trouble is when you are in your 20's, you think it will be forever before you have to think about being old. |
Comments: 291 Joined: 08/18/2006 |
05/03/2008 09:57:45 PM
I just don't get it. Diogenes, you want smaller government? Why in the world would you support Bush? Our government continues to pump money into Iraq. That's not small government. Talk about meddling. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al felt the need to go into a country (that didn't have WMDs) to depose their leader and prop up a new one(fairly corrupt I might add) which gets along splendid with Iran. Afghanistan is a forgotten memory which is falling apart as we speak. No Bin Laden captured. Our defecit is breaking records. Social Security is not a retirement plan; it is an insurance. However, for some folks it is all they have. Think about people that worked for companies like Enron. Their retirement plans were bust. Nil. Nada. Nothing. If it weren't for Social Security some of the older workers would have been left with nothing. For many (most) older Americans S.S. is a saving grace to supplement their retirement plans. Our government should have kept their sticky fingers out of Social Security. It is not meant to fund every other program. |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
05/03/2008 07:53:59 PM
Familymom, I would have liked to have heard him speak. Yes, we have strayed so far from the founding principles of our country and our constitution. It is a really sad state of affairs and I am worried about our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
05/03/2008 05:13:43 PM
Diogenes and Maggie,You two should have been with me in Atlanta yesterday. I attended a homeschool conference that featured Mike Farris. He is a constitutional law attorney in Virginia. He gave a talk on the constitution and teaching it to our children. It is amazing how far we have strayed as a country from the original intent of our Founding fathers and the constitution. We are no longer "enlightened" in terms of understanding the document. All of these issues you mentioned, were discussed. He teaches a constitution class online through Patrick Henry College, and I will be one of many adults who will sign up to take it....along with many high school kids who take it each year. He was a really good speaker and I enjoyed it very much. I agree....none of the choices this election year are very desirable. |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
05/02/2008 01:56:45 PM
Well said Diogenes, I agree with you, we will never see what we have paid in to SSI, because my grandparents lived on what my husband and I have paid in and our parents generation is living on what we and our children are paying in now. As you said, it was never intended to fund programs for those who won't work and other programs, but it has been. You are right, we should be allowed to plan our own retirements, which of course we can, but think how much more we would all have in our 401 and other retirement plans, if we had access to all of our income taken from us for SSI. |
Comments: 698 Joined: 01/31/2006 |
05/02/2008 09:18:02 AM
JBT: "Let’s look at the real issues and elect the person who will address them in ways that boost our economy, restore our international standing and strengthen ordinary Americans."I agree completely with this statement, I just don't think we have any choices before us that will do any of this. Democrat or Republican. In my humble opinion, the whole thing has become a race between who has the most money, and has very little to do with who would be the best president. I don't like any of the current crop, whether they be Republican or Democrat. That said, I am very much a conservative, and very much opposed to the bigger government, which continues to be, just as it always has been, the real agenda of the Democratic party. They seem to think we are not responsible enough to make our own choices, so they want to make them for us. They tell us that business needs more government regulation, and they seek to limit individual freedoms. They seek votes from the ill informed, with offers to shift more of the tax burden to "the rich" and reduce the tax burden of "the poor". Does anyone want to consider who has always paid the lion's share of taxes to start with ? Does anyone mention that the people who are in favor of this are predominately people who pay very little, if any, taxes to start with. Does anyone want to think about why it is possible, in this country, for someone to start out with absolutely nothing, and become successful from their own efforts ? No, the democrats are all about building a bigger more powerful government. The leaders of this party are certainly not among the poor, but they want you to think they share the pain. They care so much about the poor people of this country that they want to take ever more money from "the rich", and use it for, you guessed it, funding for more "social programs". Social Security is a shining example of how well such government programs work. The democrats didn't think Americans were responsible enough to manage their own money for retirement, so they stuck their hands deep into our pockets, taking increasingly larger amounts of money that didn't, and still doesn't, belong to them, and what they don't give away to people who refuse to work, they use to fund other "social programs" that have nothing to do with what this money was supposed to be for to start with. Now, people like me, who have paid into this huge mess for all of our working lives, will not get nearly what is due to us, while people who haven't paid a dime into it, live better than many of us do. These same people want more money, to do even more of the same for us, or to us, depending on whether or not you are a Democrat. And when they start talking about putting a higher tax burden on successful people (i.e. "the rich"), remember what happened when Jimmy Carter tried to eliminate the tax shelters associated with real estate investments. The money shifted to other investments, housing starts went into a tailspin, and many, very many, previously well paid construction workers were suddenly unemployed. Now, it may be a surprise for some, but very few of those construction workers were actually rich, but many of them ended up poor because of this government meddling. In the end, it is all about power, either power is in the hands of the people, or it is in the hands of the government. Look at history. Study the events leading to the Russian revolution. Study China. The communist label asside, those are what a big "socialistic" government is. Then, for a real eye opener, study what transpired allowing the Nazis to rise to power. They weren't socialists, but it is another example of a big government "taking care" of it's people. Oh yeah, this sort of thing can't happen here. We have the power to vote, or revolt, just like old Abe Lincoln said. Just as long as we don't let the Democrats "interpret" history, or the Constitution for us. They wouldn't dare try to do that, would they ? |
Comments: 186 Joined: 12/20/2007 |
05/01/2008 10:02:00 PM
JBT: It is time voters set aside the marketing glitz, the non-issues, and the pseudo-issues that occupy the national dialogue.That was a very tactful and diplomatic way of saying: "Grow up already, people!" For some reason it reminds me of a saying (paraphrased): "If you refuse to learn from observing other's mistakes, then you will be required to experience them yourself." Which reminds me of another one (also paraphrased): "It is human nature that repeats itself, not history." Um, am I off topic yet? ;) |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
05/01/2008 03:58:23 PM
Diogenes, I like the way you think!!!!! |
Comments: 698 Joined: 01/31/2006 |
05/01/2008 02:00:37 PM
Well....,JBT -- "We learned that the moderators think the presidential election is just a grown-up form of “American Idol”, where the judges (that’s voters) will select a president based on popularity, performance and style." We learned ? It is not that Liberals don't know a lot, they just know a lot that isn't so. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
04/30/2008 11:21:36 PM
Another great article !!! Right on target !AC |
<< < Prev - Next > >>
Login
| Password: |
Newest Users
Popular Blogs
What makes me mad in Walker County is...
The Watercooler
Matters of Faith
Disappearance of Theresa Parker, 911 dispatcher in Walker County
LaFayette man arrested on federal pornography charges
What makes me mad in Catoosa County is...
What makes me mad in Floyd County is...
Catoosa fire meeting heats up
Most students promoted despite CRCT failure
Candidates for Walker County clerk of Superior Court
Recent Blogs
And the winner is; Lakeview Fort Oglethorpe High School, Governor’s Cup No. 2
Jeff O’Bryant: Bush bailed, people nailed
LaFayette Rotary holds mock election
Democrats charge Catoosa Chamber debate was partisan
Handgun found in restroom at Ridgeland High
Jeannie Babb Taylor: Got melamine? Formula-fed infants are at risk both at home and abroad
New policy requires Walker County students to make up time for bomb threats
Naman Crowe: The Russia/Georgia Conflict and America
Jeannie Babb Taylor: Palin pros and cons
Northwestern, Coosa Valley tech colleges will merge services
Comments: 100
Joined: 08/10/2007
I also vote for the person and have voted for both the Democrat and Republican people in the past and will do it again in the Catoosa races this year.
But what makes you blast Scott like that?
He seems to have a lot of common sense when he has been on the Judy ONeal television shows with the Walker County guy. He is no "kid" at 23 and has been involved with politics in Atlanta for years.
I don't know his religion connections, but I know I don't want the two attorneys that are running against him. One was a judge that got removed and the other is from Whitfield County and can't know our needs in Catoosa County.
Emerald. Are you in House District 3 or are you just blasting Scott on general issues? Sounds like you just have a personal issue or an old grudge.