The 10th Anniversary of his death inevitably conjured thoughts of Senator Paul Wellstone. They are what ifs.
What if Paul, the familiarity comes easily although I never saw him in person, had lived these past 10 years? Six of them would surely have been devoted to opposing undeclared wars. He would have undoubtedly questioned and opposed the role of the U.S. military-industrial complex in fomenting undeclared war by a major player in the USM-IC, the oil industry, including the activities of a sitting Vice President.
What if Paul had been here to see the financial industry sidestep unenforced Federal regulations and Pied Piper this country into economic disaster? What if he had been able to direct Progressive opposition to the Citizens-United calamity? What if he had been here to help grease the wheels of Move.On. And Occupy Wall Street? And the 99 per cent?
Who could have been a stronger Senate voice for social justice following the election of President Obama? The crippling intransigence of Congressional Republicans against all of the President’s domestic initiatives could very well have been mitigated by Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside; Joe Biden teamed with Paul Wellstone. The President has sorely lacked Democratic dynamism during his first term; no LBJ nor Paul Douglas, nor any Daniel Patrick Moynihan; no Sam Rayburn, no Tip O’Neill. Paul Wellstone could have supplied the missing spark.
As Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken observed at the memorial observance of Senator Wellstone’s death, Paul always sought the cooperation of his Senate colleagues. They agreed that passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1993 was his greatest legislative achievement. He passionately advocated for universal health care, welfare for the poor, equitable funding of public education, adequate child care, public funding of campaign financing, and protection and preservation of the environment.
In his autobiography, Wellstone wrote, “I have dedicated my life to the cause of economic justice and equal opportunity for all Americans. The famous abolitionist, Wendell Phillips, was once asked, ‘Wendell, why are you so on fire? He responded, ‘I’m on fire because I have a mountain of ice before me to melt.’
“So do we.”
Sadly, the further contributions Senator Paul Wellstone may have made, including contributions to the Obama Presidency, can only be left to speculation. We are poorer for his loss.
Next week’s ballots here will contain two proposed amendments to the State Constitution. The first will require voters to show a state-issued photo ID. The second will define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Both are attempts to govern by referendum. Governing by referendum is a tactic of losers who can’t win in conventional legislative discourse. Going back to Howard Jarvis and Prop 13 in California, we have seen the chaos public referendums engender.
Here we have an attempt at an end-run around the State Constitution in the form of a badly conceived proposal written by Tea Party Republicans, who, by the nature of their politics reveal themselves to be unburdened by the weight of intelligence. They are directed by the hard-line right wing conservatives who rule the national Republican Party. The strategy has been to create a phantom issue around which to rally the faithful. In this case, it’s voter fraud. To guard against voter fraud, the state GOP wants to require every voter to present a “Government Issued” photo ID at the polling place.
There is no need. Minnesota’s election procedures are a model for the nation. The state ranks at or near the top in terms of voter turnout. There has never been any evidence of fraud. Even in the 2010 elections for governor and the U.S. Senate, both of which were won by Democrats in extremely tight races, there was no suggestion of fraud. The present GOP implication of fraud is itself fraudulent. The GOP knows about fraud. Look up the results in Florida of the 2000 presidential race.
Minnesota has voted Democratic in presidential elections for the past 40 years. Democrats in this state number voters from all economic and income strata. The Party is inclusive. The poor, the elderly, the disabled, the minorities, must often struggle to turn out in support of Democratic candidates, but turnout they do. This is the group that would be most negatively impacted by additional barriers. It’s bloc the GOP has in its sights. Anything that will preclude its participation will hurt the Democrats and help the GOP. Voter ID is a hoax, a political ploy, another display of Republican contempt for the downtrodden. It is an archetypal solution in search of a problem.
What next? A poll tax?
The second of the two amendment proposals would enshrine in the State Constitution a definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It was placed on the ballot at the behest of homophobic Christian churches. It’s a stunning defiance of the Separation Clause, and a quite desperate attempt to shore up failing institutions.
Christian congregations are palpably shrinking, probably due to highly visible public stances such the amendment proposal. Christ preached inclusion. The institutional church spreads fear and bigotry. The question arises. If marriage is sacred, why do more than 50% of marriages end in divorce? Is that reality not proof of the huge failure of the institutional church? Christ preached inclusion, even to the least of us. The institutional church denies some of us because of sexual orientation. Is that not antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?
In Biblical times, “No hint is preserved, in either the Old Testament or the New Testament, that a religious ceremony accompanied the wedding. The occasion was a legal one, and perhaps written contracts were signed, just as written bills of divorce could also be signed.”(Harper’s Bible Dictionary, Harper & Row, 1985)
How odd it is today that some sects of religion seek to dictate terms of marriage, not only to their believers, but to the population at large. In the U.S., it is not only odd; it is unconstitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment