In which fear is rejected

For the record, I hereby reject fear as the motivational force in determining who and what I will vote for tomorrow.

I have to say this for the same reason that a lot of rules are made up and laws passed – because someone tried it. This year a lot of people have tried it, mostly people trying to get their clients positioned to win a political contest tomorrow. We have been told in innumerable political ads that we should be afraid of terrorists, of illegal aliens, of gays.

Apparently Conservatives have no idea how to win this election, other than through dirty tricks and fear. They are motivated by fear themselves – fear that they won’t be able to continue the engineering of social issues that has characterized the move toward conservativism in the U.S. in the past 20 years. And they have progressives and moderates afraid of the consequences of their campaign; the more fearful we become, the more freedom we are willing to give up.

The marriage amendment, defining marriage as “man + woman = marriage” is on the ballot in a number of states for tomorrow’s elections. It is a prominent representation of how conservatives are trying to socially engineer the fabric of our country - but not by defining "marriage". After a number of opinions were issued regarding the unsuitability of this amendment for inclusion in the US constitution, special interests (i.e. evangelical Christians, G-d-squadders, fundies) have gotten enough signatures that they forced it on several state ballots. This initiative was undertaken at least in part to herd fundies from all across the U.S. en masse to the polls in 2006; presumably getting out the vote for this emotionally-charged issue would also insure that Republicans on the ballot would have a higher chance of getting the "X" by their names, and keep the Republican grip on Washington.

With the current state of disaffection with the ever-more-right-GOP, I can hardly believe that this tactic will insure success, but perhaps it's just deeply wishful thinking. Nonetheless, here it is on Colorado's ballot. I checked out the League of Women's Voters' web site to research Amendment 43. I find that both the proponents and the opponents have provided, um, interesting arguments. I am compelled to enumerate – and refute or agree. First the proponents:

"1. Marriage between one man and one woman is common sense. Biology and common sense make it clear that marriage must be between a man and a woman to create human life."

Common sense? Whose "common sense"? Common sense isn't an argument - it's a cop out when you have no argument. Imagine using "common sense" as a rebuttal in high school competitive debate. Evidence, folks; I want evidence. Besides, who says marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation? Our society has built complete concepts out of the legal partnership that is called "marriage". As long as you define marriage as a relationship to "create human life", you imbue the concept with religious meaning that is clearly independent of reality. I don't have to be married to be a parent; I don't have to be a parent if I'm married.

"2. Marriage between one man and one woman provides the best environment for raising children."

According to whom? By what yardstick? Do children of single parents or two moms or two dads necessarily suffer due to the arrangement? How do you measure it? Define "best".

"3. A redefinition of marriage opens the door to polygamy and group marriages. Many believe that the next logical step in an unprecedented effort to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships is the legalization of polyamory (group marriage) and polygamy (one person with multiple spouses)."

And here the Dalmatian’s whitewash rubs off, and the pointy stick of fear comes out. Conservatives are conservative because they don’t like change. As long as they can make other people afraid, they can continue to be conservative. Otherwise, they'll have to develop some new ideas and beliefs. Their argument falls directly in line with the tactics that conservatives are using to win the rest of the election - fear. As long as they can make people afraid of terrorists, or illegal aliens, or fags, they think they can win the election. They are using fear to socially engineer the fabric of our country, not only through the issues that they have placed on ballots, but through the candidates that they hope we'll be scared enough to vote for.

Of course, there is still some critical thinking out there to counter the fear tactics. The opposing view of Amendment 43 states in part:

"3. The amendment will do nothing to strengthen existing marriages in Colorado. If voters are being asked to protect marriage, then policies that target divorce, domestic violence, infidelity, poverty, addiction and homelessness should be considered."

Now that's "common sense", proving again that common sense is pretty uncommon.

What we need is more critical thinking and less fear. Take for example, the fear mongering over immigration. The ads on Denver television would make the naive think that it’s a bad thing that Mexicans can use a Mexican government-issued ID to board an airplane. The ads describe the IDs as unacceptable forms of ID according to the FBI. Remember that the FBI is part of the government conglomerate that condoned surveillance on U.S. citizens, and you’ll be able to apply as much credibility to the FBI as it deserves. The ads go on to further state that they can be used to create fake IDs – as if a Colorado drivers’ license is a more secure document. Fake IDs are a cottage industry in the world, whether you’re a citizen of the US or Timbuktu.

Fear over illegal immigration is supposed to convince us to vote for the Republican candidate, who is (it is asserted) is more able to protect us from this imminent danger. The same Republican who wants to take away more of my freedoms in the name of security? I think not.

Thinking critically, what security risk does Lupe or Ramon pose to the US? All they want is to get enough money to feed their kids or support their aged parents. This is real family values, folks. These people work. They do jobs that most American workers reject out of hand as too menial or too poorly paid. And, yes, they do suck up a lot of community resources – heath care, law enforcement, criminal defense and prosecution, education - mostly because as undocumented immigrants, they are not permitted to pay into the services that they use. If they get paid under the table, they are not paying taxes other than sales tax.

On tomorrow’s ballot is an amendment to eliminate a state income tax deduction for businesses who knowingly hire undocumented workers (Amendment H) and another which will direct the state of Colorado to join other states in suing the federal government for enforcement of immigrations laws (Amendment K) should it pass. As for Amendment H, it seems to me that one way to address the undocumented immigrant issue is to insure that businesses stop hiring people who cannot pay taxes. Logic would further dictate that this is just one part of the reform needed; there must also be a plan to document workers and without that I cannot vote “yes” on H.

Imagine the economic impact that would be created by a large pool of formerly undocumented workers finally being part of the white market. They would earn higher wages that would drive spending; they would increase the tax roles, driving increased jobs in law enforcement, education, and health care. This expanded workforce would contribute in kind to the economy. Where’s the downside? Is it that conservative big business owners fear that they will have to expand their bottom line? Perhaps their yearly salaries would be reduced to 100 times their workers’ average wages, instead of the 200% + that they currently garner. Poor, poor business owners. Let’s all cry a crocodile tear for them, and then do what’s best for our own middle-class pocketbooks.

Either a “yes” or a “no” vote on Amendment K is likely to be moot, since the states cannot file a lawsuit against the Feds for costs related to social services for undocumented immigrants. But let’s take it on its face value. Do we really want the Feds to enforce current immigration law? Is it that great? Does passing K imply that the people think that those laws mandate a huge fence at the U.S. – Mexican border? That it’s effective or economical, or environmentally sound?

Who are the current laws supposed to keep out? When we persist in asking the question, (“what security risk do undocumented immigrants pose to the U.S.?”) we are told by Conservatives that it’s not necessarily Mexicans that we have to be afraid of, but if they can get in, then “terrorists” can get in too. Of course, we’re all afraid of terrorists.

Webster’s defines “terrorist” as one who employs “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”. By this definition, all the politicians, bureaucrats and spin-doctors who are using fear as motivation for voting conservative candidates into office and conservative ideals into law, are themselves terrorists. In this case, we should fear those who would protect us more than those who would attack us.