A thought about political behavior, in which I do not endorse any particular policy, ideology or agenda.

Maybe I am just becoming a cranky old woman, but I do not find it particularly funny, or patriotic, or Christian, to pray for the death of a president, even if it is in supposed jest.

Most of you know that I’m moderately liberal. That’s no surprise. You know that I was opposed to the war in Iraq, and supported the war in Afghanistan. I don’t think health care reform is “teh evil”, or is going to kill grandma, or a form of Nazism. In fact, I don’t think health care reform went far enough.

I was opposed to the war in Iraq. I knew we were going in under false pretenses, and even with a little brother being sent into combat, twice, I never once prayed for President Bush to die.

I think the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Keith Olbermann version of political discourse is more detrimental to the project of American freedom than health care reform ever will be, because they spew hatred, intolerance, and self-righteous justification through vilifying those with whom they disagree. And yet I have never prayed for Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann to die.

I have turned off my television. I may hope that they move to a foreign country. But never once have I prayed for any of them to die. Even as a joke.

You know what happens when I read the Bible? I find these words in Luke:

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

That’s the call I hear in the Bible, from Jesus Christ, to those who would be his disciples. Love those with whom you disagree. Bless those who hurt you, and hate you, and use you to evil ends. Give to those in need, regardless of whether or not they are deserving. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Why? Because even sinners can love those that love them in return. But we, as believers, are called to live a higher law. We are called to love those who hate us. If we only love those who love us back, we are a sinner. If we only serve those who are capable of serving us back, we are a sinner. If we only give to those who can pay us back, we are a sinner.

It’s nice to think that the world is so clear cut that poor people are poor because they made bad choices or are lazy or are evil. That’s nice to think about, because that means that I am rich(er) because I am a good person, or made good choices, or worked hard. Rarely will anyone admit that they are rich(er) because they won a genetic lottery that rewarded them with a beneficial socio-economic portfolio that pays dividends that seem, to the recipient, to be rewards for their supposed labors rather than systemic privileges to which they have no moral desert. Self-congratulatory narratives may make it easier to sleep at night, but they are detrimental to our ability to treat other people with the respect and dignity to which we claim they have an inalienable right.

We need to stop hating in this country. We need to stop hating people because they disagree with us. Even if we are adamantly opposed to the policies they propose, the people they have sex with, the color of their skin, the taxes they pass, or the wars they get involved in, there is no room for hate in this country. We are too great for that. We have in this country a legacy that should shine forth like a city on a hill, but instead of burnishing the flame of freedom that we have inherited, purchased by generations of effort at so great a cost and immense an effort, we are tarnishing it through our actions with a thousand little jealousies, and a million petty acts. We have used that flame to light the torches of an angry mob, rather than candles of example that should illuminate the good within ourselves and in each other. We should be ashamed.

My own private crazy Idaho

I grew up in California, and I didn't think anything could compare with the crazy that is California politics.

And then I moved to Idaho.

A couple months ago one of our state legislators introduced a bill to require people to sign their real name when posting on the internet. I'm not sure how he was planning on enforcing that out of Boise.

And now, this. Go read, I'll wait.

Done? Good.

Okay, Representative Harwood, a few basic concepts of constitutional law. One, states aren't sovereign. Not even in your whacked out reading of the 10th amendment does it say that states are sovereign. It specifically states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In this country, the people are sovereign. It's why the Constitution starts "We the People" because it was the people that entered into the social contract, not the states. And that part about powers prohibited to the states is fairly significant here, because your desire to tell the federal government what kind of laws they are allowed to pass is contrary to the supremacy clause, which is found in Article VI of the Constitution. We fought a war about this 150 years ago, and the idea of nullification lost.

Now, I understand the importance of symbolic statements and political grandstanding, but don't drag the Constitution into it. You demean that document every time you try to use it for partisan purposes.

And, by the way, Idaho gets $1.21 back for every dollar we spend in federal taxes. With the market in the position it is right now, that's a pretty good return on investment.

The Debate

I'm not a huge Sarah Palin fan. While I think she's an intelligent woman, I think she is, at this moment in her life, vastly underqualified for the position she seeks. Whether or not she ever would be qualified is a discussion lots of people are having all over the place. So I watched the debates last night while doing other things, because to give it my full attention would cause me too much pain. And yes, I must say, she exceeded the expectations of many, though those expectations had been set so low in the previous days that just by not wetting herself or accidentally setting the stage on fire I think she would have managed to accomplish that.

She was the pre-Couric interview Palin, who I still had plenty of problems with. But as many problems as I had with the talking points style of her debating, not answering the questions, winking at the camera, and thinking that just because she says it makes it true (and I just loved Biden nailing her on the maverick claim at the end, which was perfectly done in time and tone), can someone besides Chris Matthews please follow up on this:

"I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate."

I'm assuming that she hasn't actually read the Constitution, so let me tell you what the Constitution says about the Vice President.

Article 1, Section 3. The Vice President of 
the United States shall be President of the Senate, but
shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also
a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice 
President, or when he shall exercise the Office of
President of the United States.

That's the section about the vice presidential role with the Senate. Article 2 of the Constitution discusses how the Vice President is elected (which is changed by Amendment 12, to prevent another Aaron Burr fiasco), acting as president in case of removal or death of the President and impeachment.

And then there is Amendment 20, which formalizes the line of succession, and actually makes the Vice President become President because if you actually read the Constitution, Article 2 doesn't say the Vice President becomes President upon death or removal of the President, just that he or she acts as such, so this codifies previous practice.

Now, I'm not sure where you are getting your Constitution support there for an enlarged role in the Senate. You sure aren't getting it from Farrand's transcription of Madison's notes. If you read those (Friday, September 7, 1787), you'll see that the Framers gave the job of Senate president to the Vice President so he would have something to do, and so a Senator wouldn't have to act as president and not be able to vote and represent their own state, not to enforce the president's legislative agenda on the Senate. They explicitly stated it was not to give the vice-president a legislative function. To argue that there is a robust legislative role for the Vice President's office is to ignore the entire concept of checks and balances upon which our Constitution was founded. This is the Cheney Doctrine we're hearing. It's dangerous. It's wrong. It's fundamentally against the principles upon which our country was based. Dare I say it's un-American? And just because you wink at me when you say it, doesn't make it okay.