The West Wing...and America

For those out there that watch The West Wing, you understand that it gives you a feeling that our leaders seek to do the best by us, and even when we do not agree, we all can connect behind the following ideal: America is good.

With the 2012 election on the horizon, I am thinking about the many ways we are not the nation we used to be. Maybe this is me thinking that the past is better than the present, but I have to believe that the country my parents grew up in, and its promise, is much different than the one I am inheriting.

I know the issues facing our country are complicated. Many things need a revision, from tax code, to medicare, to social security. But what I have come to understand, as both a student of history, and a watcher of politics, is that no one answer works for all our problems. If I had to classify myself, I would say I was a progressive; but I am not a progressive that thinks all republicans are evil. I get that people believe different things for different reasons.

So, given that I can hold a conversation with a conservative republican without it dissolving into me calling him a bigot and he calling me a pinky liberal, why can't our elected officials do the same?

I get that politicians have reelection to worry about...but for once I would like to see these people doing the work of the American people, rather than doing the work that they think gives them the best chances of not losing the next election.

Listening to:


Tweet

Senator John A. DeFrancisco's No Vote on Same Sex-Marriage: The response

I posted this about a month or two ago.

Earlier this week, Senator John A. DeFrancisco's office responded to my 5 letters. He response was at best perfunctory and at worst glib. We know what he believes, we asked why? His letter was a brush off of the worst kind. We plan to respond, but thought that people might like to see what 'he' said.

Hasta pronto, Cuidate,

Michael

Senator John A. DeFrancisco's No Vote on Same Sex-Marriage: Letter-tastic

So in early December the New York legislator voted down a measure to legalize same-sex marriage. This was obviously disheartening to me, although not surprising. So my partner and I decided to write our local legislator in hopes that he could let us know why he voted no. I sent the letter first on December 4, 2009. I waited a month, and no word, so on January 6, 2010, I sent the letter again. As of today, still no word. So, I will send the letter again; and again, and again, until I get an answer. If you believe enough to deny people the right to marry, than you should be willing to explain why. I have attached the letter below, I hope to hear something soon!

Hasta Pronto, Cuidate,

Michael

February 5, 2010

State Senator John A. DeFrancisco

Room 802 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247

State Senator DeFrancisco:

Below is the original correspondence we sent on December 4, 2009. I resent this letter on January 6, 2010. To date we have not received a response. Please treat this letter with all due consideration and respond accordingly. Thank you.

We wanted to send you a letter to note our disappointment in your NO vote on the gay marriage bill brought up before the state senate earlier this week. We are not sure what your rational was; maybe religion guided you, maybe it was the consensus of your constitutions or maybe it is your personal beliefs, but none-the-less, you are simply wrong.

Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, this we believe, and the state should have no business in defining marriage. What the state does have a business in doing is making sure that rights are distributed evenly and with regard to marriage in New York State, they are not. You are a steward of the state, and thus the rights of its people, and sir, in our opinion, you did not do your job.

We understand that pressure abounds in political office and we appreciate that this is one of the many issues that you are asked to contemplate. What is unfortunate is that your name will be a foot note in New York and American history as someone who did not have the foresight nor the will to do the right thing when faced with a civil rights issue. If that mark in history is a place at which you find yourself comfortable, then so be it. Understand that same-sex marriage will happen in this state and in this country and you are simply on the short winning end of this tug-of-war.

We hope that upon the time that this issue resurfaces, and it will, your mind and heart will find its way to the right side of history; to the place where sex does not determine the ability of couples to marry, but rather it is the willingness and want of two people that does.

We are both independently minded individuals and do not believe that one vote defines an elected official. We know that you have your reasons for voting the way you did, and that you feel justified for doing so, we simply want to know why and we would welcome an opportunity to discuss your reasons.

Sincerely,

David J. Kachermeyer & Michael Mancini

44th President

Barack Obama will be sworn in as our 44th president tomorrow. Much is hoped for his presidency. Obama has done a great job of getting his team together, doing what he said he would, reaching across party lines to get the job done.

In practice, that is easier said than done. It is simple to pick someone who is seen as your enemy and put them in high office; it is another to have to work with them on a day to day basis. I hope, as many Americans do, that he can live up to the hype, both created by him and created by his followers. I voted for Obama, because I believed he was the better among the choices and I have always liked Joe Biden. Do I believe he is the second coming? No. Do I believe he will do a good job? Yes. But he is no more human than George W. Bush, and thus no less susceptible to his failings.

There has been much speculation in the media these past months about Bush’s legacy. It seems that most are trying to say, ‘hey, it’s Cheney’s fault.’ And while I think that Cheney had too much influence, it was Bush’s white house. Bush is an example of why you must want to be, and do, president to run for the office; because if you do not, you will never give your whole self to the Office. I believe Bush wanted to be president in his second term but not his first. That is why he did a lot better in that term than his first; although the bar was pretty low. What you saw in his second term was a more thoughtful president who utilized the right people. Secretary Rice become more influential, Rumsfeld left, and Cheney took a back seat. Foreign policy became more nuanced and less myopic. As Daniel Drezner of Newsweek writes “In his second term, Bush made a concerted effort to repair the transatlantic relationship, in part by endorsing negotiations with Iran.” Drezner goes on to note that President Obama owes a great deal of gratitude to President Bush for his policy shifts.

The mistake many presidents make, as Bush did, is to think they can come into office and on day one flip everything on its head. Bush did this with much of Clinton’s foreign policy which did America no good, but at the start of Bush’s second term he reverted back to many of the policy’s of Clinton’s white house. While voters say that they want change that does not mean a president accomplishes the same by doing the opposite of what the other guy did. A president will never understand the choices of the previous president until s/he is in the job. That is why I believe Obama will make a good president, not because of his experience, but because, seemingly, he gets that the presidency is all about shades of gray and nuance.

Bush leaves office with very low approval rating, much of it is deserved and some not. While I have never liked Bush I can see that he has changed; like the teenager who approached his parents with contempt and petulance, to the reflective adult who understands in part that stubbornness is not akin to ‘staying true to oneself.’ Maybe I give him too much credit, but the forgiving person in me wants to think he realizes his mistakes, even if he won’t admit them. I believe this is best evidenced by the transition of power that has taken place since November.

The Office of the President has not been treated with much respect for these past 16 years, from Clinton’s inability to understand the difference between a hotel room and the oval office to Bush’s outsourcing of his duties to his principles.

All I can hope for, and believe to be true, is that Obama will treat the Office with more respect than those who came before him. It might be too much, or too little, to ask but it will make me a prouder American.


Listening to:











Hasta Pronto, Cuidate,

Michael