AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > July
July 2008
Is military service a campaign asset?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
A 2006 Gallup Poll found that John McCain’s 22 years of military service, including his endurance as a prisoner of war, is what people most admired about him. While never a John Kerry supporter, I personally admire that he volunteered for Vietnam. And at the 2004 Democratic convention, Gen. Wesley Clark lauded that as a presidential qualification, adding “members of our armed forces embody the best of America’s values: service, sacrifice, courage, compassion.” Evidently, Kerry’s service prepared him to be commander in chief, but McCain’s didn’t.
In a superlative article, “The McCain Doctrines,” Matt Bai identified one whispered liberal belief behind that distinction: that since McCain spent five of his military years isolated in a prison camp, he “did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel.” Apparently, five years of torture didn’t qualify.
Most Americans think otherwise. Obama is a likeable candidate, but in a war on terror likeability takes a back seat. Military experience becomes one of McCain’s greatest campaign strengths — and one of Obama’s greatest weaknesses. The June Gallup poll Andy mentioned found that 80 percent of Americans believed McCain can “handle the responsibilities of commander in chief;” only 55 percent believed Obama could.
Obama’s recent Iraq trip was a television bonanza - the basketball clip was a brilliant idea — but also revealed his lack of military acumen. On “Hardball,” Andrea Mitchell explained that, in an unprecedented move, no journalists traveled with Obama, and none of the questions he answered were from the press - she called them “fake interviews.” She explained, “There’s a real press issue here……we’ve not seen a presidential candidate do this…ever before.”
CNN senior analyst David Gergen also criticized Obama for “meddling” with Iraqi policy, saying “We only have one president at a time. He’s the commander in chief and negotiator in chief….I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that’s underway with another party outside the country.”
When choosing the first new commander-in-chief since 9/11, to protect them from very real threats, Americans will look at someone with years of military experience and someone making rookie mistakes, and will likely realize they simply can’t afford the rookie. No matter how likeable he is.
Do public displays of Ten Commandments require equal displays from other religious groups?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The latest Ten Commandments controversy is whether public grounds allowing any private religious or ideological displays must be open to all of them.
The Supreme Court will soon hear cases involving Ten Commandments displays on public grounds in Utah. The Summums, a religious group, want a similar monument of their “Seven Aphorisms.” The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that public officials must allow it or tear down all others.
I am sympathetic to the Summums’ “it’s-only-fair” argument. Government isn’t supposed to establish or favor one religion or ideology over another. The problem is that in real, messy life the government has no choice but to exercise ideological judgments and set priorities for the use of limited public space. The American Center for Law and Justice represents the Utah officials, and as chief counsel Jay Sekulow pointed out by phone, there is such a thing as “government speech” versus “private speech.”
For example, suppose your public park has a Ten Commandments monument, then later accepts monuments with quotes from Mohammed, Confucius, Jesus and Martin Luther King. It’s getting crowded. Then the local Ku Klux Klan wants its own shrine to white supremacy. Does it have to be allowed, “to be fair?” Of course not.
As part of “government speech,” we want officials to set standards for using limited public space. As part of private free speech, the park may have to allow KKK rallies. But they don’t have to erect a monument.
The only alternative to allowing such “government speech” is to eliminate all monuments - the very positive, historical touchstones we should want to preserve! Sekulow pointed out that some government agencies have done exactly that. But, he emphasized, “Government has a role in preserving the heritage of our country.”
Agreeing on that role isn’t easy, even among conservatives. The Rutherford Institute worries that endorsing government speech will eventually lead to infringement of private speech. This is a legitimate concern. But the reality is that government has to set priorities and standards of some kind.
Ultimately, the government must be allowed to preserve our religious and ideological heritage. As Sekulow put it, “Can you imagine if beside World War II hero monuments we had to put up counter monuments for Nazis?” No, nor do I want to.
Rebuttal
I’m sure that my colleague doesn’t want images of Nazi monuments in public parks cluttering her psyche. I’m equally sure, however, that she wants you to hold such images in your mind when you think of the Summums, a religious community wishing to erect their monument alongside the Ten Commandments. It’s a great trick of the far right—create a short walk from a little known religion to the Ku Klux Klan and in no time, fear clouds our understanding of church and state issues.
What we’re looking at here isn’t protecting citizens, it’s protecting the superior status of a 1970’s era Ten Commandments monument over other religious installations. Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice defends the city’s decision, claiming that it’s discretionary “government speech”.
It’s not a bad tactic. Government speech needn’t be content-neutral under the law. For instance, a town can erect a statue honoring veterans without permitting a nearby statue honoring the enemy they fought.
Yet a permanent installation of the Ten Commandments carries its own challenges. Even followers of its timeless laws should ask ourselves: is this powerful but undeniably Judeo-Christian tablet something our government should be preaching? Tell us not to litter, invite us to an annual festival, but it’s a dark day when a public park warns visitors of all faiths that “you shall have no other gods before me.”
There are far better solutions to this issue than beleaguered fundamentalists envision; a little Church and State dust-up doesn’t lead to a bunch of heathens sandblasting the words “God Almighty” off the Jefferson Memorial. In the Utah case, I can see why the U.S. Court of Appeals offered up an “all-or-nothing” scenario. Another famous case in Texas started with a request to remove the Ten Commandments from a public spot, and there the monument stayed. This is merely a reasonable request by another group for inclusion.
Do you think Robertson’s group would be so concerned about “monument clutter” if the Summums’ gift had been accepted first, and it was the Ten Commandments waiting to be added to the mix? Would we then be just a short skip and a jump away from encroachment by the Nazis and the KKK? I didn’t think so.
Did the California Supreme Court act properly in overturning the gay marriage bill?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Did you hear the news? Out there on the Left Coast, a bunch of activist judges decided to legislate from the bench, ignoring the will of the people by granting homosexuals the right to marry.
That’s the Golden State for you, familiar with looking strange to the rest of the country. In 1948, California was the first state to strike down a statute prohibiting intermarriage involving white people (Perez vs. Sharpe). The court disagreed with those who claimed the law was necessary to keep “the Caucasian race from being contaminated by races whose members are by nature physically and mentally inferior to Caucasians.” I don’t see anyone lining up to dispute the California court’s wisdom here — are you aware it took 19 years for federal law to follow suit?
So maybe California’s recent trail-blazing deserves closer scrutiny. “Activist judges legislating from the bench?” Nothing more than a phrase employed when the right doesn’t like the result of a legal decision; Scalia and Thomas overturn acts of Congress and they’re just “doing their job.” Furthermore, three of the four in the majority opinion were appointed by Republicans, and this same court nullified thousands of marriages performed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome in 2004.
“Ignoring the will of the people?” When California’s Proposition 22 passed back in 2000, a majority voted for a change in family law code specifying that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet California voters increasingly show a change of heart. By 2005, the 60 percent in favor of the proposition eroded to half, and most polls now show a majority disapprove of such clarifying language.
Those who view homosexuality as a choice, a mortal sin, an inferior lifestyle that contaminates our society—well, no amount of argument will sway you towards acceptance. Yet for others, California Supreme Court decision S147999 might make for some interesting summer reading. Within its pages, the neither activist nor impulsive California court determines that existing rights accorded gay couples aren’t enough, that only through marriage can they enjoy equal respect and protection under the state constitution. If that feels like overkill to you, if it feels “too soon,” I only ask this: is second-class status good enough for your relationship?
Rebuttal
Andy’s last paragraph proves the point of those who charge the California Supreme Court with one of the most egregious, arrogant and far-reaching judicial actions to date. It is not up to a court to determine that “existing rights accorded to gay couples aren’t enough.” It is not in a judge’s job description to ensure gay couples “equal respect and protection.” Chief executives and legislators can fight for their beliefs and to change society. But under America’s separation of powers doctrine, the whole point of a judicial branch is for judges to put aside personal opinions and determine whether laws are constitutional. Period.
Of course Supreme Court Justice Scalia overturns acts of Congress: If the law is unconstitutional, that’s his job. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how much he personally disagrees with it. If it was passed by our elected representatives and doesn’t conflict with the Constitution, he must affirm it.
I believe the most commendable judge on the California Supreme Court is Justice Corrigan. One of the minority who disagreed with the court’s action, her legal opinion stated, “In my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage…[However] a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote.” She points out that, “This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not.”
According to the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg, another serious action by the California court has been overlooked. It was the first court ever to use the “strict scrutiny” standard for sexual orientation — essentially creating a legal tsunami by giving sexual orientation the same strict protection as race, religion or gender. Institutions that agree with the majority of Californians and morally disagree with gay marriage can now be legally punished. For example, Christian, Jewish or Muslim properties refusing to allow gays to be married there could lose their nonprofit status.
Commendably, gay marriage supporters usually argue “live and let live” and don’t want legalization of their unions to hurt anyone else. Unfortunately, by acting in such a judicially indefensible way, the California Supreme Court has almost ensured the opposite.
Should prostitution be legalized outside Nevada?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Eight thousand women. That’s the number of applicants this year to be a prostitute at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch - the legal Nevada brothel of HBO’s reality series Cathouse.
Why would so many women be so eager to sell themselves? Well, it is sexy, lucrative and glamorous, right? In fact, many observers think it should be completely legalized. Since prostitution will always exist, they reason, wouldn’t it be better to make it safe and regulated?
Those people have no idea of the true “reality” behind prostitution and the sex industry. And because I know several former prostitutes and have seen the industry’s lasting emotional and physical damage, the idea of further legitimizing it fills me with anger. Prostitution isn’t glamorous: it is dark, enslaving and utterly depressing. HBO doesn’t show that reality, of course. It doesn’t show, for example, that nearly all young women who end up in the sex industry were sexually abused as children and are acting out of woundedness, not empowerment.
Just recently the FBI arrested 345 people in American prostitution rings and saved 21 children. To say legalized prostitution will save more such children has not proven true in the Netherlands, where prostitution has been legal for years. Netherlands organization ChildRight estimates that the country’s child prostitutes more than tripled between 1996 and 2001 - from 4,000 to 15,000. Further, legalized prostitution only encourages adult sex trafficking: a 1999 Budapest Group study found 80 percent of Netherlands prostitutes were trafficked foreigners.
Those best able to describe prostitution’s true impact are those working with its aftermath. Mary Frances Bowley, author of A League of Dangerous Women, founded the recovery program Wellspring Living to help such women. In a phone interview she shared that “Almost 100 percent of the women I’ve worked with were sexually abused as youngsters. That is the common thread, because it almost sets them up for exploitation. Prostitution does not develop relationships or empowerment, it causes powerlessness. These girls start off thinking that this is great, this is glamorous, but over time they realize that they are putting themselves in this powerless, degraded situation. Almost all the women I’ve worked with have turned to drugs to numb the pain.”
HBO’s reality series isn’t reality: it is a lie. And legalizing prostitution elsewhere would only compound the tragedy.
Rebuttal
Shaunti doesn’t exaggerate the connection between childhood sexual abuse and prostitution; various studies show that 60-75 percent of sex workers share that grim history. Given that, I hardly relish a vision of propagating Bunny Ranches, dotting the landscape like so many sex trade Wal-Marts. Yet I also can’t see how our current response to the “world’s oldest profession” is the answer either.
For most, sex work is indeed enslaving and depressing, enough like jail that sending these women to a literal one is hardly a wake-up call, and hardly fair. Add to that the poor treatment young women receive in correctional “training centers” and it’s easy to see that, while legalizing prostitution is debatable, decriminalizing it makes sound moral sense.
The lack of fairness is particularly evident when you realize that customers don’t come close to paying the same price for this victimless crime. A recent Sacramento (California) Bee arrest database reveals that in a three month period, 233 people in the county were arrested on prostitution charges. The breakdown? 210 Prostitutes, 11 pimps and just two customers. It’s far easier to arrest a known streetwalker than to set up a sting operation to get a customer, yet UC Davis law Professor Jennifer Chacon told the Bee, “It doesn’t get at the demand at all.”
Criminologist Meda Chesney-Lind, co-author of Beyond Bad Girls explained to me why decriminalizing (rather than legalizing) prostitution makes sense, especially for underage girls. Her extensive research into youth detention or “training centers” exposes rampant sexual and physical abuse from the staff, directed at girls who are basically “guilty of running away from home.” Given the stats, we have a good idea what many are running from—only to fall in with girls involved in more egregious criminal activity. The good news? Chesney-Lind finds that when excellently-run alternative programs offer trained counselors,a safe place to sleep and something as simple as a warm shower, “young girls come to them on their own—you don’t need to arrest them.”
So why do we throw young prostitutes into an environment where they’re exposed to far worse criminal lifestyles, instead of programs that could help them escape that path? It’s a mystery. As Chesney-Lind so aptly puts it, “We’re harming the very victims we say we’re concerned about.”
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
The Republican machine may not love their presumptive nominee, but there’s one area in which John McCain tickles their fancy: his military experience. It’s hard to argue with years in a POW camp for guts that deserve glory. It’s already brought him the title of American Hero. Will it bring him the American presidency as well?
The “GOP-at-any-cost” rightwing media sure hopes so. Gen. Wesley Clark’s recent suggestion that McCain’s wartime experience might not translate into presidential aptitude drew howls of protest from Fox and friends. Funny, this same crew had quite a different take on the issue when Vietnam vet John Kerry was running.
Typical of the view then was conservative columnist Thomas Sowell’s query about Kerry: “Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he did all the things he said he did…How does that qualify anyone to be President of the United States?” Columnist Kathleen Parker was even more blunt in her assessment of Kerry: “Given that military service neither qualifies nor disqualifies one for political office…it’s time to dismount this jackass.”
In-the-trenches service doesn’t always correlate to White House accomplishment, even on military matters. Polio didn’t hurt Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ability to contribute to the Allied Victory of World War II. Decades later, “draft-dodger” Bill Clinton fought conventional wisdom in Kosovo by eschewing ground forces, resulting in an air power strike that stopped a genocide in less than three months with only two NATO casualties. On the other hand, Gen. Eisenhower’s application of military strength while in office is still under scrutiny and Kennedy, the heroic commander of PT-109, sowed the seeds for a bloody quagmire in Vietnam.
Our nuanced view of the relationship between military service and the Oval Office was evident in a recent poll: Overwhelmingly, participants saw McCain as more of a “commander in chief.” They then declared that Barack Obama would do an equally good job of turning the situation around in Iraq. A contradiction? Perhaps, but one that shows military service is just one piece of the electability puzzle, even in wartime. McCain may seem more “commander-like” to those being polled. Yet when another type of poll closes in November, we may discover that Obama seems more presidential.