My first "involvement" with presidential politics was in 1964 when, as a high school freshman, I sat transfixed, mesmerized by the Johnson-Goldwater debates. Since that time, I've logged a lot of miles, figuratively speaking, so not a lot that goes on up to and at political conventions surprises me.
Who would deny a convention its right to put the best possible face on its proceedings? After all, while it's very important to rev up the delegates and like-minded people, it is also crucial not to alienate men and women who have yet to make up their minds.
Yet studying my eleventh Democratic National Convention this week, it occurs to me that it's almost like watching a virtual convention. Or, better, it's like there are competing, parallel conventions in the same hall, with the network choices of what to cover acting as a firewall.
On the dais, you have--in prime time--speakers whose language has been largely drained of the vitriol that has fueled Democratic politics. In the off-peak hours those who watch cable, which is devoting many times more hours to the convention than the "Big Three" networks, are witnesses to harangues and tirades and invectives heated enough to curl your hair.
That's why if all you see are the couple of hours the networks are giving nightly to the Democratic National Convention, you experience the curious disconnect between insistence that this "is the most important election in memory" and the bland, kumbiyah rhetoric.
Only occasionally are the likes of Sen. Ted Kennedy allowed to tell you how much they really hate, loath, and despise President George Bush. That sort of 19th Century-esque personal assault, which is a staple of the party's campaign this time round, is largely confined to the afternoons and early evenings.
What's that to us? Simply this. The Democrats are a party whose embrace of abortion is so absolute it squeezes out virtually all pro-life voices. The only reason they would brook someone talking who usually votes pro-life in Congress is because (a) the party can piously say it has not shut out ALL pro-lifers, and (b) this congressman can introduce Ron Reagan, to extol the virtues of human cloning.
The latter is a twofer. It brought together a congressman who opposes abortion but not research that kills human embryos, and a man who trades on his father's name to advance a policy he would have utter rejected.
We used yesterday's column to talk about the remarks delivered at the convention by Ron Reagan. Let me borrow from bioethicist Wesley Smith, who always has something thoughtful to say.
Smith made a number of important points in a piece yesterday on National Review's webpage. "[U]nder the guise of promoting Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Reagan actually pushed for the explicit legalization of human cloning," according to Smith, which he described as bait and switch. "[T]hanks to Ron Reagan's speech, which never once mentioned leftover IVF embryos, we learn that what Big Biotech and the Kerry campaign are really after is for the federal government to fund human-cloning research."
Ron Reagan snidely dismissed those who disagreed with him-- it is an unreasonable "theology of the few" which "stands in the way of 'the many' receiving the miracle medical cures," Smith writes,"that Reagan's hyped speech all but promised would be here in 'ten years or so.'"
As Smith makes clear it is not religion that is the primary reason why so many people around the world oppose human cloning. "Indeed, scores of Democrats in the House of Representatives, some of them decidedly secular, have voted twice for the very legal ban against all human somatic-cell nuclear-transfer cloning that Reagan railed against President Bush for supporting."
And the list of countries banning cloning continues to grow. These include, according to Smith, France, Canada, Australia, Norway, and Germany.
There are many other important points Smith makes. I would encourage you to read the full essay at www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith20040728 0818.asp.
Irony of ironies, Ron Reagan's conclusion was absolutely correct: "We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter."
Only the wave of the future is not the commodification of life, but rather the embrace of unborn children, and true compassion not the mindless ideology of choice, but the loving embrace of unborn children.
Likewise, it is most certainly true that the next few months ARE our moment, and that we MUST not falter.
posted by: SaraJones (reply)
post date: 08.04.04 (6:56 am)
Subject-Line: You Have The Power To Save Democracy...Here's Your Chance To Use It!
Dear Sir/Madam
It’s the dawn of electing a new President for our country and it’s time for us to arise and exercise our power to VOTE and save our world acclaimed democracy from the clutches of idiosyncrasies.
As Quoted by Daniel Webster, at a public reception held on October 5, 1840, Virginia...
“Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his VOTE; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own.”
And in this new age, our present generation seems to be a disengaged lot when it comes to politics, civic participation, elections and voting. According to a nationwide survey conducted for the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute, a public-policy think tank at the California State University, the finding was “Most college students doubted that voting in Presidential Elections will make any major changes in American society.” The survey also found that only 19% of American college students believe that politics is “very relevant” to their lives, and
43% believe that politics has little or no relevance.
Leon Panetta, the Institute’s Director and Former Chief of Staff to President Clinton notes, “Somehow the message isn’t getting through. Despite pressing issues such as the economy and the war in Iraq, students often are turned off by politics. Obviously, candidates, educators and all the rest of us need to do a better job of promoting political and civic involvement, if we hope to restore trust in our democracy.” says Panetta
Maybe the new generation feels that when it comes to politics and elections, all the political candidates are the same, so what’s the point in voting? Here, we need to understand about some of our constitutional, civic and basic rights.
Remember that the winning President-Elect may have an enormous impact on our children’s future not just for 4 years but for the next 40 years.
How? These points may help us realize the fundamental privilege of voting:
§ When a new President is elected there is a chance that US Supreme Court Justice will retire
§ The President alone has the power to nominate a new Justice, and Supreme Court Justices hold office for life
§ While the Congress and the President may pass laws and veto bills, ultimately it is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution and consequently determines how each American will live his and her LIFE
For once let us be true unto ourselves and allow our conscience to rule and reflect…
What if the next time we neglect to VOTE, how would we feel if we didn’t have the choice to elect a president, choose a job, or decide how many children to have?
Out in the world there are many countries where an individual doesn’t have choices nor the privileges …and it would be quite obvious if they shift places with us for the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE!
Together let’s restore trust and bring back to life our “Glorious Democracy”!
My first "involvement" with presidential politics was in 1964 when, as a high school freshman, I sat transfixed, mesmerized by the Johnson-Goldwater debates. Since that time, I've logged a lot of miles, figuratively speaking, so not a lot that goes on up to and at political conventions surprises me.