Women & NJ: Not Perfect Together

That the State of New Jersey ranks last---at the very bottom of the barrel---for women holding public and elective office in the Garden State is a disgrace.
(See http://www.iwpr.org/States2004/PDFs/National_FactSheet.pdf and
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/columns/112304WOMENEDIT.cfm )

That comes as little surprise to me. A few months back, this writer received an email from the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, who at that time were on my list of recipients for my frequent letters on the spectrum of public issues.

Their response asked that I remove them from my email list: it went something to the effect that there was nothing they (the LWV) could do about the public issues about which I was writing. Although it seemed more likely to me that the LWV in New Jersey simply disagreed with many of the positions I took in my letters.

I recall that at the time I was angry: here's a mainstream, supposedly civic organization saying there was nothing that they could do about a presumably unimportant issue like, say, the war in Iraq. No wonder that fewer women than men vote in New Jersey even though females represent a greater percentage than males in the overall state population.

The League of Women Voters used to sponsor debates between candidates. They used to organize voter registration drives. They used to be a real, potent organization. Unfortunately, that's not the case anymore. At least not in New Jersey.

And this despite this headliner on their website ( http://www.lwvnj.org/ ):

The League of WomenVoters
of New Jersey

a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose purpose is to promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government


There are reasons for organizations to exist in the world: to advance a cause, to help people who suffer from a disease, to advocate on behalf of a cause. Then, there are organizations who have frankly outlived their usefulness. They become more of a hindrance than a help. Their mission has been fulfilled and they need to pack up and go home content with the knowledge that their job is completed.

I have often thought that the endless arguments over why the Roman Empire fell in the West were similarly futile. Whether the Western Romans declined and then disintegrated because of failure to control their borders from barbarian incursions, political corruption and the inability to collect taxes, moral decadence, or lead pipes. All interesting theses. But can any historian honestly say that any one hypothesis was the ultimate cause of Roman decline? Maybe the Roman Empire simply fulfilled its mission of creating and maintaining a glorious empire that controlled the Mediterranean basin and the ancient world that surrounded it for a millenium. Maybe the organic, or natural, history of civilizations are not meant to last forever.

Sadly, the League of Women Voters in New Jersey has failed women and voters in New Jersey. It is inexplicable how this organization can otherwise explain the political disenfranchisement of women in the Garden State. And that being the case, it's time for the LWVNJ to move aside. Maybe they have outlived their usefulness.

I am always a bit suspicious of the many "non-profit" organizations that exist in this society and constantly ask for and are given money yet have little to show for all their hearty, heartfelt appeals. Take for example the American Cancer Society: what do they actually do? Does showing a few advertisements or handing out magnets for the refrigerator really assist people in stopping smoking for example? What's the American Cancer Society's Caseload of clients who smoke? Of that caseload, how many are engaged in smoking cessation programs that can be measured using objective, performance indicators? What is the success rate of ACS's caseload? It's like the vast tobacco settlements hat are being used, hypocritically and cynically, to fund underfunded state budgets, not to help the people of that state quit smoking.

New Jersey needs to do better in the way of more equitable representation of females in state and local governments. And the establishment organizations and parties, the politicians and fundraisers who stand in their way need to be shoved---quite literally---aside.

Democratic Ritual in an Age of Information & Technology

If the United States of America is premised on the idea of a social contract; that is, the notion that government derives its powers through the consent of the governed, and that the government, so constituted, is essentially an agreement between the people and the institutions and officers who govern them, then the one common value we as Americans all must respect and guard with vigilance and due care is the democratic ritual of voting.

But what does it mean to "vote" in an age of information and technology? And why should we as individual citizens care?

The answer can be found in three principles that support the social contract: popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and the rule of legitimacy.

Popular sovereignty is the idea that government is an expression, directly or indirectly, of the will of the people and is thereby responsible to them. The rule of law is the concept of a just society of ordered liberty where all people are equal before the law. And the rule of legitimacy is the reason or justification for a government and its officers to hold power by means of some equitable and verifiable process, like elections.

The issue of electoral integrity arises in an era of technological dependence and informational decentralization and strikes right at the heart of American democracy. If the electoral process is corrupted and the vote is in doubt, then popular sovereignty is compromised, the rule of law is violated, and the rule of legitimacy is called into question.

This is a situation that can not stand.

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida and in the 2004 contest in Ohio the possibility of voter fraud and unreliable outcomes has cast shadows on the integrity of the American electoral process. This at a time when we as a nation are desperately trying to forge a fledgling democracy, at least ostensibly, in Iraq and see democracy of the move throughout the world.

Florida 2000 demonstrated the inherent flaws in an election that was not verified. Ohio 2004 is the product of a vote that can not be verified. In both cases the very nature and foundations of democracy are at stake.

In an age of space exploration, nuclear weaponry, digital communication, and wireless networking, it is inconceivable that the best science and engineering can not devise an electronic voting machine where ballots can be instantly documented and verified.

What is worse is that corporations who manufacture these electoral contraptions whose products---votes---are unconfirmed and unproven are engaged in partisan politics favoring one over another candidate or party. If the Government is blind to the unavoidable conflict of interest inherent in such trade, then it is unjust and unaccountable to its people.

There was little excuse for Florida. There is no excuse for Ohio.

To resolve this political emergency and mend the crisis of confidence Specific actions need to be taken now.

First, the a special bipartisan commission appointed by the Congress to thoroughly and substantively investigate the voting irregularities in the last two presidential elections, and to make recommendations to correct the problems in the voting process.

Second, the Congress must pass legislation that ensures consistency, integrity, and uniformity in political elections in the United States.

Opposition to Gay Marriage Not License to Gay Bash

A disturbing post-election trend has been the propensity on the part of
some individuals, politicians, organizations, and religious leaders to
engage in what can only be described as anti-gay bigotry and heterosexist
zealotry. Those engaged in such behavior need to stop it and those who
have already been involved in making hateful, homophobic remarks need to
apologize.

The re-election of Mr. Bush and Senator Kerry's defeat did in fact
underscore the need for further clarification and discussion of issues
surrounding gay marriage, on the one hand, and domestic partner rights, on
the other. The institution of legal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered persons needs to proceed purposefully and with due
deliberation. And the search for equality on the part of sexual minorities
is indeed admirable and desirable.

Yet opposition to gay marriage---however defined or mis-defined as the
case may be---is no excuse for the kind of anti-gay slurs and acts of
intolerance that have been exhibited since November 2, 2004.

Yet examples of heterosexism and homophobia have been multiplying
exponentially since the presidential election. That is a trend that both
horrifies and calls us as a society to learn more about Americans of
different sexual orientations.


Here are just a few of the incidents referred to above. Since American
voters went to the polls on election day 2004 a lesbian Methodist minister
has been defrocked, the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association has rejected
establishing a gay chapter, the Governor of Michigan has ordered reversal
of a state policy offering limited domestic partner benefits to homosexual
employees, a high school has sent home students wearing tee shirts
supporting gay rights, a study has found that the rate of HIV infection
among American gay men rose over the past four years, and the U.S.
citizenship application of a male immigrant who married a transsexual
female has been blocked. In addition, ABC News ran a report that could be
construed as implicating Mathew Sheppard in his own killing, and CBS as
well as NBC refused to run paid advertisements supporting inclusiveness.

When will this madness end?

It is time for someone---including the President of the United States---to
stand up in front of the American people and clearly state that there is
no room for such hatred and intolerance in the United States.

Bigotry, bullying, discrimination, hatred, inequality, intolerance,
name-calling, profanity, and violence are not American values.

Americans do not support inequality, but they do believe in truth. As a
people, Americans demonstrate strong faith, eternal hope, and kind
charity. Surely, however, the greatest of all American values is our
respect and love of our fellow human beings. And no matter how they are
oriented.

Lack of Preparedness and Planning Leads to Deteriorating Situation in Iraq

My personal opposition to the war in Iraq began in earnest when the Baghdad Museum was being looted without abandon in the spring of 2003. I never approved of the war. The administration made a poor case for pre-emptive action against Saddam Hussein, and the premises upon which the decision to go to war was made were questionable from the start. Of course, as we all witnessed, the rationale for the war evolved as the administration's case for invasion evaporated with the failure to locate any weapons of mass destruction

What was worse than the case to go to war was the lack of planning for the subsequent occupation and the seemingly complete disregard of Iraqi as well as Middle Eastern history and culture. The consequences of the United States' miscalculations are becoming more and more evident as we approach a self-imposed deadline for elections on January 30, 2005 that appear at this moment to be both unrealistic and untenable. The inability to establish the rule of law in Iraq will surely result in elections that will be widely viewed by Iraqis and the world as questionable, perhaps even illegitimate. This is not an outcome that we can afford.

Yet the U.S. has been unable to afford this war---in the face of real terrorist threats---from the outset. And we have been unable to afford the war in financial, political, and ethical terms. That American troops have been sent into harms way without adequate forces and without necessary equipment is a travesty of logistics and policy whose human costs are immeasurable. The thought of U.S. troops scavenging through garbage to try to find materials required for their protection is unjust.

During the presidential election the American media swallowed hook, bait, and anchor the Republican charge that Senator John F. Kerry flip-flopped on the initial $87 billion package to provide the troops with requisitions and equipment. Apparently, even if he had voted for that bill, our brave troops would not---as they do not---have the necessary armor to protect themselves in battle. Who's waffling here?

And while some Americans are quick to run out and slap magnetic yellow ribbons on their cars (yellow ribbons, historically, were a symbol welcoming prisoners home by the way), how willing would those same Americans who make $100, 000 or more per year be to accept a tax increase to provide the troops with the armor they need?

The situation in Iraq is deteriorating and the inability of the United States to restore order, provide security, and prevail in the war of ideas will lead to further violence and less security. Americans are no safer for the invasion of Iraq---as the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia indicates---and the collateral damage---plummeting credibility and negative world opinion---only frustrates our efforts to protect the United States and diverts resources from the real war on terrorism.

Is liberalism dead?

In a recent article in the National Review Michael Ledeen, gloating in the re-election of his candidate, Mr. Bush, self-assuredly declares the death of American, indeed, Western liberalism.

This pronouncement, I humbly suggest, is at best premature.

First, the "hysterical reaction" to Bush's re-election by liberals, which Ledeen brands "violent language, numerous acts of violence, and demonization of Bush and his electorate" is overblown. Rhetorical flourish is the staple of politicians of all stripes and those seriously engaged in policy matters know that in a democratic process arguments for and against a position need necessarily be made. Hardly hysteria.

Ironically, the leaders Ledeen cites as targets of this "demonization:" America's Bush, Britain's Blair, Italy's Berlusconi, and Spain's Aznar all have several attributes in common. The first shared characteristic is their collective support for the war in Iraq. Their second common feature is that each hails from a country with a monarchy of one sort or another: the British Royal family, the Spanish monarchy, the papacy in Rome, and the Bush dynasty a la George H.W. Bush in the United States. A typical Burkean attitude.

Second, Ledeen claims that the only time liberals win elections these days are by running on conservative platforms. The fallacy here is twofold: equivalency and divine right. Conservatives like to argue that tax cuts, small government, and strong defense are their exclusive domain. Nothing is further from the truth.

Although Americans amuse themselves with conservative and liberal tags, the U.S. is largely pragmatic in its politics. Political leaders from both parties have discovered, sometimes to their chagrin, a lesson seemingly lost on Ledeen, that elected officials campaign to the party base and govern from the middle. Second, the assertion by conservatives of divine right to certain issues, like tax cuts, is presumptuous. Democrats wholeheartedly support tax cuts. Just not for millionaires who do not need tax cuts. Rather, the Democrats propose targeted tax cuts aimed at supporting the ownership society that the Republicans talk alot about, but do nothing to implement. Tax cuts, for example, directed towards middle and working class African Americans who need assistance in down payments for a first home. Or tax cuts for middle and working class Latino families to help send their kids to college instead of reducing federal assistance in the form of Pell grants. Or prescription coverage and dental and medical insurance to keep all Americans healthy and well.

Third, Ledeen waxes philosophical about the death of liberalism invoking and calling by name the philosophers most beloved by conservatives: Hegel and Marx. Initially praising the success of liberalism in achieving important American values like democracy, equality, and prosperity, he then cites, in true cold war fashion, the former Soviet Union---not the United States---as liberalism's best example of liberal democracy. Equating liberal democracy with communist totalitarianism is not only far-fetched and hallucinatory, but a leap of logic that confounds even the clearest of minds.Finally, Ledeen ends his unusual diatribe by parodying the favorite son of neo-conservatives: Francis Fukayama, the professor at Johns-Hopkins University and author of The End of History and the Last Man. That book presented the most sweeping of claims too. That conflict had ended with the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the spread of liberal democracy and free markets was transcendent, indeed, inevitable. In a post 9/11 world both Fukayama's claim of democracy ascendant and Ledeen's death notice for political dialectics require major reevaluation. An observation not lost on this liberal democrat