Heidi Li's Potpourri

Conscientious objection and conscientious abstention

I confess to being surprised at the number of people who continue to equate conscientious abstention from voting for the top of either the Democratic or Republican ticket with "just not voting" or "copping out." In a continuing effort to clarify the point and nature of conscientious abstention, it may help to compare it to its cousin-concept, conscientious objection.

Conscientious objection is a specific practice that can be used by those who object to participating in war. Here is how the U.S. Selective Service describes it (emphases added):

"[DEFINITION}
A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.

"HOW TO APPLY
In general, once a man gets a notice that he has been found qualified for military service, he has the opportunity to make a claim for classification as a conscientious objector (CO). A registrant making a claim for Conscientious Objection is required to appear before his local board to explain his beliefs.

"He may provide written documentation or include personal appearances by people he knows who can attest to his claims. His written statement might explain:

• how he arrived at his beliefs; and
• the influence his beliefs have had on how he lives his life.

"The local board will decide whether to grant or deny a CO classification based on the evidence a registrant has presented.

"A man may appeal a Local Board's decision to a Selective Service District Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board also denies his claim, but the vote is not unanimous, he may further appeal the decision to the National Appeal Board. [...]

WHO QUALIFIES?
Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."

If a man qualifies as a CO, he is not exempted from service. Again, from the U.S. Selective Service (emphases added):

Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the type assigned is determined by the individual's specific beliefs. The person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned to Alternative Service - described below. The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Conscientious Objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of Alternative Service are jobs in:

• conservation
• caring for the very young or very old
• education
• health care

Some very important things to notice about conscientious objection to military service: First, it is a position that must taken reflectively and be consistent with a person's overall ethics and life practices. Second, conscientiously objecting is not the equivalent of draft-dodging or civil disobedience. Third, conscientious objection is a matter of personal conscience and integrity; not enough people want to or could qualify as COs to prevent all wars or even a particular war. Fourth, the objection in question is to using weapons or participating in war, not to serving one's country.

The obvious difference between conscientious objection to military service and conscientious objection to casting a ballot for either major party candidate is that when it comes to voting we have no system of review boards for vetting the bona fides of a conscientious abstainer.

But in many other ways, a decision to become a CA (a conscientious abstainer) resembles the decision to register as a CO.

A CA differs from the person who simply cannot be bothered to vote or is indifferent to voting or indifferent to the outcome of a particular election. Like a CO, a CA chooses not to participate in a particular practice because of systemic objection to it. The practice in question for CA is active affirmation of one major party candidate over another when the CA has an ethical conviction that neither candidate merits the office in question. The CA does not advocate civil disobedience or boycotting of the entire process of voting. Indeed, it is precisely because the CA takes the values inherent in a truly free franchise - a system that does not make voting compulsory, let alone voting in a particular election or for a particular candidate compulsory -that the CA may well participate in the political process more actively and with more conscious commitment than a more casual voter. The CA may work hard for candidates in other races; may work hard for other political causes, especially those meant to ensure that CA itself is not a needed option in future elections, for by example working hard to reform the aspects of one or both major political parties which render either's Presidential candidate ethically unacceptable on a particular occasion. The CA is aware that the election, with a result, will occur regardless of the CA's alternative service. The CA can be involved in election protection efforts, making sure that those who do chose to affirmatively cast a ballot for one major candidate or the other have the opportunity to do so without duress and to make sure that ballots are securely recorded and properly tabulated.

Just as some COs are indignant or, so to speak, militant about their reasons for objecting to war or the use of weapons, some CAs act from indignation and with a militant attitude. A CO is neither weak-minded person nor namby-pamby. A CO chooses to situate himself differently toward war than either those who participate in it actively or those who evade the Selective Service process altogether. Likewise, a CA situates herself or himself differently toward a particular election than those who vote for a major party candidate on each line of a ballot and those who simply do not show up at the polls or opt out of political participation altogether.

Of course, some people scorn all COs, seeing them as people who allow others to do "the dirty work" while the CO avoids a variety of risks associated with military combat. So too will some people belittle all CAs for refusing to affirmatively assent to either of two options when others who are not necessarily thrilled with their choices find themselves unable to reconcile conscientious abstention with their other ethical beliefs and so cast a ballot they may be less than comfortable casting.

But just as scorning a CO does not constitute an argument against his reasons for opting out of military combat while accepting alternative service, belittling a CA does not refute her or his reasons for denying either major party candidate her or his vote while still embracing ongoing political participation.

The Equal Rights Amendment and the First Hundred Days

A proposal for the candidate who would like to win the upcoming Presidential election: tell us now that you will, within the first hundred days of your administration, send Congress the Equal Rights Amendment for passage and announce that you will use the bully pulpit of the presidency as well as the president's abilities to work with governors and state legislatures to ensure ratification.

The text of the Equal Rights Amendment

• Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
• Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
• Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

For more information about the history, status, and ongoing need for the Equal Rights Amendment go here.

In the 110th Congress, The Senate version of the bill was introduced by Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DODD, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BROWN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE). The Senate bill eventually had a total of 24 co-sponsors including Senator Barack Obama.

Since both Senator Obama and Senator Biden co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, they are the more likely, by far, of the president/vice-president tickets to announce that passage of the Equal Rights Amendment will be a top priority of their administration should they be elected.

Since they both already support the Equal Rights Amendment, this would be a relatively minor step for them to take.

Since millions of Democrats remain unsure about the seriousness of the Party's and it's ticket's commitment to full equality for women, it would seem to behoove Senator Obama and Senator Biden to use the final days of their campaign to announce that if elected, they will do everything within their power to fight for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Time out for reflection...

A friend wrote to me yesterday that he agreed with the claim that 'our political "views" are almost entirely dictated by our background and circumstances, not by us reasoning our way through to them.  The evidence for that view is, I think, overwhelming. Which suggests that blogging -- and any other kind of political writing -- can rally and inform the already convinced but persuade nobody (not counting those persons who take the rest of us for fools and claim to be of one persuasion when they are of another in the vain hope that their pathetic ruse will lend weight to their view: "I'm a lifelong Democrat but I'm supporting McCain").'

I adore and value my friend, but my own experience this year as a writer of this blog, reader of others, and reader of much other political writing runs completely counter to the view endorsed by my friend. My own experience as a political writer has been transformative: the regular discipline of thinking through my positions in order to articulate them has led me to take positions that cut against the entire grain of my background and circumstances. I was raised a dyed-in-the-blue Democrat; my nearest living relatives while still displaying strong love for me are shocked and unhappy with my resistance to lending my vote or approval to Senator Obama's candidacy; and as an academic my circumstances are such that every colleague with whom I have discussed politics this year has disagreed with this resistance. Because I have had the good fortune to attract a fairly wide response to what I have written I have been exposed to people from very different backgrounds from my own; as well as some with similar ones. Some with different backgrounds express what seems to be sincere agreement with me; some express criticism. Those with similar backgrounds tend to be harshest in their criticisms, somehow seeming to take my disagreement with them as a sort of traitorous act; although others with similar backgrounds and circumstances write in support of what I have written. Many people who have commented or written to me have made me think harder and reflect more about why I take the stands I take.

Those who write regularly for RiverDaughter's blog The Confluence or regularly comment there seem to have had a similar experience. Likewise for Murphy at Puma Pac. Or Shtuey at Oh My Valve or Dakinkat at Skydancing in a Man's World or democraticjack at ISO steady ground (There are plenty of other examples, but these are representative stand-outs.) I do not agree with everything each of these writers or their regular commenters say but I have literally observed the writers at these blogs think their way through to the positions and stands they adopt.

Maybe what makes my own experience this election year so different from the one my friend describes is that this is the first year in which I have a taken a series of highly public stands; and when I take a public stand I am doing something other than just maintaining "views". For me, taking a public political stand differs from holding a view in that taking a stand means being prepared to explain and defend that stand, even against - especially against - those who one deeply respects but with whom one disagrees. I realize that other public speakers may have a more shallow approach and rather than take stands, they adopt postures without feeling compunction to explain or justify these stances. But if one believes, as I do, that the ethics of communication include an obligation to self-criticize and to weigh seriously any reasonably articulated criticism of one's ideas, then the very practice of systematically presenting one's ideas in public tends to force one into reasoning one's way to the positions one ends up sticking with.

My friend's comment did make me realize something about why this election cycle has been so deeply wrenching and painful at times. The bit of truth I see in what he wrote is that in other years I have held political "views" and when doing that I probably did not do the hard, tiring working of reasoning my way to stands I was I willing to publicly take and defend. And reasoning one's way to stands sometimes put you in places other people, especially friends, did not expect to see you in, causing them shock and dismay that you have not come out where they have. Dissension among friends hurts. It is tiring. It is hard. But if my friends or my colleagues were always in agreement with me then the claim my friend advanced would seem more evidently correct to me.

I am not claiming that sentiment, passion, and intuition play no role in the evolution of my political stands. But that is because I think that sentiment, passion, and intuition play an important role in reasoning, providing clues and guideposts, just as the more cerebral activities of analysis and study reshape one's sentiments, passions, and intuitions. That is a topic to which I have devoted scholarly attention and will not delve into here. My point is that  the act of political writing or political reading can indeed persuade somebody rather than merely rally them or provide information to reinforce a position she or he would have adopted anyway.

The irony of this post is that the friend who sent me the comment which provoked this post is a person whose political and social views are not, based on my knowledge of his background and circumstances, "almost entirely dictated" by them. I do not know whether he believes he has arrived at via reason at the positions he defends that run most counter to his background and circumstances. His understanding of reason is more purely cerebral than my own, so he might say that his positions are a product of his experiences not a result of reasoning. But one can have a knee-jerk reaction to one's experiences or a reflective one. I have found my friend to be reflective about his experiences (sometimes when he would rather not be, because, as I said before honest self-reflection is hard and tiring). I  know I am about my own. So whether we would agree that we reach the positions we hold that run counter to our background and circumstances via reasoning or via experience, I believe my friend and I both have found ourselves at odds with the views that would be dictated by our background and our circumstances.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Majority Leader

Over 325 individuals have signed this letter to Democratic Senators urging them to elect Senator Clinton as Senate Majority Leader in 2009 (assuming the Democrats retain a majority in the Senate). Senator Clinton's powers of persuasion and her commitment to the Democratic Party have been more in evidence than ever as she has done as she said she would and campaigned the length and breadth of the country for the Democratic Party presidential nominee and many, many downticket Democrats. This sort of energy and political flexibility are particularly desirable qualities in a Senate Majority Leader, a job that requires keen political sensibility and stamina to keep Democrats united and bring Republicans on board for programs such as universal health care or votes to reform the bailout bill hastily passed a few weeks ago.

You can read the letter here. To become a signatory, check the directions in the sidebar at:

Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Majority Leader 2009

WomenCount gets it

From WomenCount, an organization that has abstained from endorsing either Presidential candidate:

If Not Now When? A Call for a Presidential Commission on Women

John McCain and Barack Obama have a once in a lifetime opportunity

"Effigies of Barack Obama were hung on the University of Kentucky campus and outside a home in Indiana after authorities said an effigy of Sarah Palin in California was offensive, but not a hate crime."

--FoxNews.com

I do not believe that the best way for political leaders to deal with unacceptable hate speech is to call for it to be legally defined as such or demand that it be prosecuted. By the time the legal issues in this contentious area are decided in any particular case the moment for political leadership is past.

I do believe that that those who claim to be political leaders,especially in times of turmoil, must prove their mettle. The rash of so-called Halloween displays depicting lynchings of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin is symptomatic of one part of the turmoil our country is currently undergoing. It is no less grave than the economic turmoil, nor any of the other ills we will expect a new administration and Congress to to take on (the spread of terrorism and overall rise in political violence abroad, the underprotection of civil liberties in the U.S., global warming, universal health care, to name just a few.)

The social ill that these effigies represent is bigotry. As the Presidential campaign comes down to the wire, both candidates are busy attacking and questioning one another as much as, if not more than, specifically detailing what they plan to do about anything if and when inaugurated. And thus, both candidates are not only failing to address the social ill of bigotry, they are contributing to an atmosphere in which public displays of bigotry are acceptable.

If John McCain and Barack Obama each cared about the country as much as each man claims to, they would announce a joint press conference, surround themselves and issue a joint statement objecting to racism and misogyny, both in general and as these forms of bigotry have manifested themselves this election cycle. For the issue of bigotry in political discourse transcends policy differences. In a country riven by racism and misogyny, too many politicians play to those factors rather than pay attention to the policy matters. By doing so they contribute to a sick political environment, one that cannot foster good programs related to economic welfare, world peace, civil liberties, or environmental preservation.

John McCain and Barack Obama have a once in a lifetime opportunity. Two presidential candidates fighting one another hard to lead this country on the basis of different policies could join together to address an issue that transcends and in some ways is more fundamental than policy differences or even the policy matters at stake. In a genuine democracy in a diverse society, the mission of true political leaders (not all of whom are elected politicians) must be to create a political and civil environment in which participants of every color and each gender feel free to participate. Nothing would go so far as to demonstrate both Senator McCain's and Senator Obama's commitment to such an environment than for them to join together and speak as one on this topic.

Many people will read this piece and think to themselves, "She's dreaming. Politicians in the final days of a presidential election are not going to do this sort of thing." To which, I say: yes, I am dreaming - but also demanding - that both Senator Obama and Senator McCain prove themselves to be something more than mere politicians, that they take this opportunity to prove that they are genuine political leaders. As for whether my dream is unrealistic, that depends on the actual character of the two men fighting to become our nation's next president. Other presidents and other Americans have proven their ability to rise to an occasion, to transcend normal politics, and show real leadership. Let us see whether the current aspirants to the presidency have the same ability.

UPDATE: Look, ordinary citizens can show the Senators the way.

Why being asked tough questions helps

Last night I participated in a wonderfully stimulating panel and audience question-and-answer sponsored by Baruch College's Department of Journalism. After the panel, most of the participants enjoyed a good meal and great conversation. The discussion was lively, respectful, fun.

One of my fellow panelists, James Taranto, who most certainly does not share many of my opinions on social and economic policy, helped me clarify my thoughts about the point of conscientious objection: a reflective choice to withhold one's vote from Barack Obama while also not voting for John McCain.

I was explaining the connection between my views and M.K. Gandhi's approach to Indian independence from British rule. James asked me some interesting clarificatory questions, particularly about Gandhi's reason for caring so deeply about HOW Indians achieved self rule and not just WHETHER they did. In replying, I said that Gandhi believed that if Indians did not include members of all castes in the independence fight and if Indians engaged in violence to achieve it, India would not end up with a democracy that could work for India, indeed would not end up with a democracy at all.

James pointed out that this meant that Gandhi's position was not best characterized as the end does not justify the means, but instead was better understood as the view that the means inflect the nature of the end.

This exchange yielded an "aha" moment for me. I have sometimes couched my objection to the DNC's and the Democratic Party's approach to this year's presidential election as an objection to the view that the ends justify the means. But no, my point is better put in the terms that emerged in my exchange with James Taranto: a Democratic Party that achieves an electoral victory via the methods used to pick its nominee is not likely to be a Democratic Party that can bring the sort of changes to American politics that our country desperately needs. This year's Democratic Party has not been one of unity, hope, and transcendence of dirty politics. It has perpetuated division among Democrats, left millions in despair about the the credibility and honor of the party, and convinced many that the Democratic Party leadership expects blind loyalty rather than seeing itself as answerable to rank and file voters. A political party that does this does not seem likely to put into effect policies that will be radically different from politics as usual. Such a party seems likely to continue catering to special interests, reneging on commitments made to the electorate, and ignoring the divisions that have riven the party.

I anticipate writing additional posts as result of the Blogging the 2008 Election event at Baruch. For now, l would like to thank the organizers, my co-panelists, our moderator and all those who attended. To learn more go here. I encourage readers to check out the blogs of my co-panelists.

I have asked whether a video or other coverage of the event will be made available, and if and when it is I will let readers of this space know.

Disaffected Democrats, Objectors to Misogyny, Those Underwhelmed by Senator Obama: You are not alone

You are not alone if you find yourself unable to hang with the current incarnation of the The Democratic Party. Wendy Button feels the same way.

Meanwhile, at Real Clear Politics, "Senator Obama, your silence is dangerous and unforgivable" has received, at last count, 129 votes, almost twice as many as the next most voted upon. So if you are sick of the misogyny you are not alone.

And Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, with whom I had an extensive conversation about the politics-as-worse-than-usual during the Democratic primary season,  has finally spoken out about the hypocrisy of Senator Obama's campaign. Check it out.

Racism is vile. Misogyny is vile. And election tampering does not redress either.

Unfortunately, in the new era of the Democratic Party, brought to us by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, when one objects to misogyny people assume that one condones racism. I have been writing in recent posts about the misogyny that has surfaced in this political season. In various places and in comments left for me, some have complained that I have not objected to racism directed at Senator Obama.

Racism is vile. To demean, degrade, threaten, or disrespect anybody because of the color of her or his skin is unequivocally unacceptable and reprehensible. To refuse to vote for somebody simply because of the color of his or her skin is unacceptable.

I believe the same holds with regard to gender. To revile misogyny is not to accept racial bigotry. Bigotry, in all its forms, is a pervasive problem in American life. That this must be spelled out in the year 2008, among Democrats, is a sorry reflection upon the state of the Democratic Party and the state of the union.

I lay the blame for the need to state that my objections to misogyny are no excuse for racism squarely at the feet of Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.

When confronted with the end of a primary season where the two leading contenders for the Democratic Party nomination happened to be a black male and a white female, Chairman  Dean and Speaker Pelosi choked. Instead of leaving the nomination to a free and noncoerced floor vote - or votes, if balloting took more than one round - Dean and Pelosi chose to rig the eventual nomination, risking the legitimacy of the outcome. This has opened the door to suspicions that those who object to the outcome base their objection on something other than the fact the Democratic Party, the self-proclaimed party protector of voting rights since the mid-1960s, tampered with its own election.  I do not know why Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi chose to rig the Democratic nomination; I do not know why they chose to rig the nomination in favor of Barack Obama, a black man, rather than Hillary Clinton, a white woman. Doing this has damaged both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Senator Obama appears to have profited from a corrupt process at the expense of Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton seems to have had to do back flips to demonstrate her commitment to the Democratic Party, thereby costing her credibility with many primary voters who shared her primary season objections to Senator Obama's qualifications and substantive positions.

As for the rest of us, the Dean-Pelosi decision means that we must state the obvious, at the risk of being boring.

At that risk, here's the obvious:

Objecting to corrupt electioneering practices or corrupt elections (within a political party or in general elections) is an entirely separate issue from condemning racism or misogyny. And condemning misogyny, and those politicians who will not step up and object to it, is an entirely separate issue from condemning racism and those politicians who will not step up and object to it. Election corruption and bigotry are bad and bad for America. Bigotry in all forms is bad and bad for America. Election tampering is bad in any democratic venture, bad for democracy and bad for America.

Senator Obama, your silence is dangerous and unforgivable

Sarah Palin has been hung in effigy by an alleged adult who thinks that showing the lynching of a woman is excused or warranted by it being Halloween time. Please go here to not only read but watch the coverage of this latest in the barrage of misogyny that continues to go unaddressed by Senator Obama or his surrogates.

Senator Obama, your silence is dangerous and unforgivable.

You should be convening a press conference with your top advisers, supporters and surrogates, including John Podesta, Senator Clinton, President Clinton, Senator Biden, Senator Kerry, Governor Rendell, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Colin Powell, William Weld, Susie Buell and anybody else you can get to stand with you, and at this press conference you should not only condemn this depiction of a lynching, you should apologize for your complicity thus far in creating an environment where anybody in his right mind could think that a children's holiday - Halloween - is a good time for depicting the lynching of any woman, let alone a woman running for vice-president of the United States of America. You owe it to every woman in America and to every man who cares about any woman to make it clear that you realize that this display is horrific but, tragically, not atypical for this election year.

And if you fail to speak to this event, as you have failed each and every day for months to acknowledge that you have been the beneficiary of misogyny and sexism and as you have failed each and every day to even acknowledge the rampancy of these ills in our body politic, the advisers, supporters and surrogates I have named - and those who I have not - should rescind their support of your candidacy and refuse to continue to aid your election and announce that they will not accept a position in the administration of a President who does not speak out against the virulent and pervasive hatred of women that has arisen anew in a year when two women have stood a serious chance of serving as President or Vice-President of our country.