humble enough to limit service

photo-1456431063673-c7c7e8bab74f

While our current societal state seems rife with disagreement, one thing most agree upon is that our political system is broken. It’s inefficient. It’s too much…

… too much money… too much spending… too much obstruction… too much manipulation of the rules… too much gerrymandering… too much partisanship… too much arrogance… too much lying… too much division… too much disrespect… too much rhetoric… too much secrecy… too much corruption… too much special interest… too much.

Regardless of what happens on Election Day, the American government will remain broken until we solve the “too much.” What’s the solution? Some contend it’s campaign finance reform. Others boast if only we all agreed that their party should possess all power.

My sense is that it starts with something far more simple. It starts by reminding the elect that they are public servants — not career politicians. Public servants do not forget whom they serve; career politicians tend to serve party, special interest, and often self.

We need to remind the elect that they are not the elite. We need to remind them that they are citizens just like the rest of us, putting on their pants — or pantsuits (hardeeharhar) — the same leg at a time. Let me thus strongly advocate this day for term limits. I believe we need to limit how long our legislators can spend in elected office.

One of the things I’ve learned in recent years is that when you realize a season or experience is limited, you’re more intentional during that time. You don’t take it for granted. You’re more apt to handle it wisely and well.

Term limits would keep our Senators and Representatives humbler, reminding them that they are not God’s gift to us. It would emphasize the servant aspect of their position. As stated by Dan Greenberg, a nonprofit executive and former member of the Arkansas House of Representatives:

  • Term limits counterbalance incumbent advantages.
  • Term limits secure Congress’s independent judgment.
  • Term limits are a reality check.
  • Term limits minimize members’ incentives for reelection-related “pork- barrel” legislation.
  • Term limits would restore respect for Congress.

We certainly could use more respect for Congress.

Interestingly, term limit polling continually shows an overwhelming majority of us support such a measure. Note that the only substantial opposition comes from incumbent politicians and special interest groups; that should tell us something. Special interest groups/lobbyists want to keep “their people” in power. Said convicted-for-extensive-corruption, lobbyist Jack Abramoff, “As a lobbyist, I was completely against term limits, and I know a lot of people are against term limits, and I was one of the leaders, because why? As a lobbyist, once you buy a congressional office, you don’t have to re-buy that office in six years, right?” Again, that should tell us something. It should tell us lots.

Note the following:

  • Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has spent over 51 years in office.
  • Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is in year 45 of office.
  • Sen. Thad Cochran (R- MS) — combining his Senate and House tenure — is in year 43.
  • Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is also in year 43.
  • Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been in office for 41 straight years.
  • His counterpart, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has served the exact same amount of time.
  • Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has been in the Senate and House over 40 years.
  • Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have both served for 39.

I thank the above for their public service. However, I desire the promise, independence, creativity, objectivity, and respect that new congressmen would infuse into our current inefficient political system. We’ve put up with it for too long. It’s too much.

Let’s talk to those who represent us…

Want to represent us well? Then start by being humble enough to limit how long you serve.

Respectfully…
AR

wanna fight?

photo-1470936972859-25f4c18b7479

What should we fight about?

C’mon… what should it be?

Cubs/Indians? Indians/Cubs? (… although for the time being, that’s already been decided… Congratulations, Cubs’ fans…)

How about Clinton/Trump? Or Trump/Clinton?

Or how about how one has so much more integrity than the other?

Friends, stop. Could we agree to quit fighting? Because if we can’t agree — and if we can’t agree to respect the person who thinks differently than we do — what do you think is going to happen next Wednesday — when the vote is done? Do we honestly expect the outcome to silence all dissent? Should it? Should we actually rationalize not listening to another?

By this point, most people seem to have made up their mind (… well, not this semi-humble current events observer — but I do have until Tuesday…). Each person’s vote is valid, no less. Each person’s…

Because each person’s vote is valid, we face disagreement. Unfortunately, many of us then also face fierce attempts to silence us or shut up. Let’s be clear: those attempts don’t further dialogue; they don’t build solution; they are not wise or respectful; and by no means do they equate to loving your neighbor well.

For those who are voting based on party platform, policy, or potential Supreme Court justices, the vote is clear. May they exercise their right to vote and sleep well on Tuesday night. For those whose vote is based on character or the perceived integrity of the candidates, the choice is more ambiguous. Note the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday morning; 60% of voters view Hillary Clinton unfavorably; 58% see the same in Donald Trump. We are bothered; there are good people who are seriously, soberly bothered by the thought of a President Trump — or —  of another President Clinton.

We are bothered by the so-called “October surprises” — these incidents and events that are announced or occur in the month before the election, often making one candidate look especially bad… like George W. Bush’s announced DUI (that happened 24 years earlier)… like Pres. William Howard Taft’s 1912 reelection ticket, when his Vice Presidential candidate died one week prior to the election… or like in 1840, when federal prosecutors charged “big Whigs” opposing Pres. Martin Van Buren with fraud in the preceding weeks.

This year, we’ve been “surprised” by Donald Trump’s 2005 crude comments about women and Hillary Clinton’s ongoing, criminal email investigation. We hear more claims that we can’t tell if they are true or untrue from WikiLeaks. Again, good people are bothered. Different things bother different people, but the bottom line (from my very limited vantage point) is something along the lines of: ugh… the perceived lack of integrity is dripping.

Yet here’s the inherent challenge. One of the above two candidates — barring something unforeseen — will become the nation’s 45th President. While no candidate has an unblemished ethical record, most of us will still choose to vote for one of the above. In other words, most of us will choose to vote for someone — whether we personally hold the same belief or not — whose integrity is in question by unprecedented multitudes.

And so here is my plea…

Remembering that each is perceived as something less than ethical, let us stop fighting and refrain from judgment.

Just like the Indians and Cubs, there is a time to stop fighting, shake hands, and congratulate the other.

Can we do that?

Can we further dialogue, build solution, be respectful, and truly love our neighbor well?

I know it’s hard… even among good people.

Respectfully…
AR

needing friends who differ from us

photo-1463778996521-da8b6f00dacf

I wish I had personally penned the below. I did not, but it is one of my favorites. The wisdom shared is poignant, especially in a world where we far too easily (and sadly) justify omitting respect due to differing opinion; we aren’t always kind to those who think differently than we. Hence, as it first appeared on Salon in 2011, NY Times Magazine and GQ contributing writer Taffy Brodesser-Akner offers the following, excellent piece. It’s a little long, but well worth the read, in light of the election, one week from today…

Janet and I would likely have never met, save for the thing that unites so many women across divides of income and age: fat. We met in a weight-loss group. There were six or seven of us in that group, but Janet and I were drawn toward each other. I liked her refusal to lie about what she’d eaten or rationalize it. She liked my tenacity and optimism. She handed me a business card that said her name, followed by “Ph.D., Housewife” and contact information. Clip art of an American flag appeared on the next line.

Beyond our weight-loss goals, we had little in common. She lives in Beverly Hills; I live in an area just beyond it where the potholes are reminiscent of Sarajevo and the government is broke. When we met, Janet was just closing up shop on reproduction, and I had just gotten married.

But for all the things we don’t have in common — and the papery, crumply things we do — our main difference is our political affiliation. Janet is a lifelong, passionate Republican. She does not pretend she is just a fiscal Republican, or just a Republican for Israel, as so many in our Jewish community are. She is a real, live, voting Republican. She likes Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. She admires Sarah Palin. She is for the defunding of NPR and Planned Parenthood. She is against “Obamacare,” and she is for parental notification of abortions. Right now on my Facebook page, I have linked to a New York Times article on how women’s rights are being violated by South Dakota’s new abortion laws. Janet has just posted on hers — I’m not kidding — video footage of her and her husband at target practice.

In the beginning, it didn’t matter. We were more concerned with our own mutual war on body fat. And we soon found on the periphery of weight loss the other things we had in common: a love of books and science, a hatred of hysterics. After I gave birth to my son, so far from my own extended family, her children became a local version of cousins: They marveled at his every new word, they imitated his walk, they donated the books they aged out of. Our husbands began to socialize. Before we knew it, our families were, well, family. Word got out that Janet and I were spending time together.

“You know she’s a Republican, right?” whispered another member of our weight-loss group after I took her card. It was meant as, well, what, exactly? A warning?

Yes, I had known. Her daughters’ names are Liberty, Honor and Victory, the latter named at the time we invaded Iraq. (Her son’s name, inexplicably, is Bernard.) She owns a bust of Ronald Reagan and cried when he died, proving that she, perhaps alone with Nancy, had remembered that he was still alive. There is a bumper sticker on her very, very large SUV that says “REPEAL,” and I believe it refers to the healthcare bill.

Janet and I refer to each other’s political parties as “your people,” but mostly, we try to stick to the things we have in common: budgets, schools, child-rearing. Janet wore a Tea Party shirt to my last birthday party, and my birthday present to myself was to not ask about it.

But it’s hard not to talk about it at all. When you live, say, on a coast or in a very blue state, you grow accustomed to being surrounded by people who believe like you do. You get to thinking that the only people who would dare contradict you are ignoramuses. Meanwhile, I began directing all my anger toward the Republican Party at Janet. On the day that Congress voted to defund Planned Parenthood, I found myself furious at Janet, just Janet, as the face of all that was bad in the world. Feeling sad and deflated, I wandered over to her house, unable to look her in the eye, asking her why? How? To what end?

She told me she didn’t believe government had any business funding it in the first place. That this isn’t about abortion or hating women but ways the government doesn’t need to be involved. She told me Planned Parenthood was well-funded and won’t even miss the money. “Planned Parenthood will be better off without government funding and all the strings that are presumably attached,” she said. “I sometimes wonder why liberals, who are so enamored of the freedom to do any damn thing they want, even take government money when it constricts their freedoms.”

I closed my eyes and breathed through what she was saying. Janet isn’t Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. She believes what she’s telling me, and she’s studied the issues. That might be what is so difficult: She has the same education as I have, and yet she has made different decisions, decisions that are so counter to what I believe. Decisions I find abhorrent.

And yet, I think having a Republican friend is making me a better liberal. We need friends who differ from us. It’s easy to watch Republican extremism and think, “Wow, they’re crazy.” But when someone is sitting face to face with us, when someone we admire and respect is telling us they believe differently, it is at this fine point that we find nuance, and we begin to understand exactly how we got to this point in history. We lose something critical when we surround ourselves with people who agree with us all the time. We lose out on the wisdom of seeing the other side.

When I moved to Los Angeles, the 2004 election had just finished ravaging the neighborhood. Friendships had ended over differences of opinions, a few marriages had learned what they were made of when one couldn’t abide what hadn’t been that big of a deal before 9/11. And so when I met Janet, she was on the defensive. That first dinner at her house, someone brought up her Republicanism. I looked down into my soup, sure this was something we shouldn’t talk about. I don’t remember the comment, or Janet’s reply, but I remember my husband asking why she’d be friends with all these liberals — and yes, it was only liberals at the table — if she felt so strongly. Throwing her hands up, she said, “I guess I lack the courage of my convictions.”

But it’s not that. I don’t speak for Janet, but I think there’s something deeper at play. Janet’s willingness to associate with so many liberal friends — though I know she seeks refuge in chat rooms and magazines that share her beliefs — makes her a better and more interesting person. She has her beliefs challenged constantly. She is more well-read and educated in her politics than most of the liberals I know. Too many liberals I know are lazy, they have a belief system that consists of making fun of Glenn Beck and watching “The Daily Show.” Shouldn’t their beliefs be challenged, too?

This is a democracy, after all. Isn’t it worth understanding a bit more about why approximately half the country votes differently than we do? Isn’t it important that we understand why people — good and legitimate Americans, whose votes count as much as ours — like Sarah Palin? Isn’t it crucial we figure out why any woman would want to defund Planned Parenthood, if only so we could then address the argument? Nobody benefits from sitting in a room, agreeing with everyone else.

Last year, Janet sent me a gift subscription for the National Review. Maybe it was her way of trying, like I am here, to understand how we can be so different and yet the same. Maybe it was a wish, a kind of magical thinking, that if I knew what she knew, I would think how she thinks. It didn’t work. In fact, I now often receive solicitations for causes and candidates I find objectionable. Every time I have to unsubscribe from something, tear up a brochure or tell someone on the telephone how disgusted I am with his or her mandate, I think again about how deep our differences run, mine and Janet’s, and I wonder if this is all worth it.

Then I remember the things that don’t get discussed in our debates — how she held my hand through a recent surgical procedure, rubbing it and distracting me the way a mother would, how she calms my fears about parenting, how she has been a family to me in a town where I have none. How that right-wing, gun-loving, flag-wearing, union-busting Republican still thinks, after all this time, and with so much information to the contrary, that I can lose and keep off weight.

I can’t help it. I love her.

Respectfully…
AR