John Edwards' recent decision not to fire two bloggers from his staff after word got out that they didn't always use the most diplomatic language in during their pre-Edwards campaign days should give him a big boost among those the bloggers were hired to attract -- the so-called "netroots." Such people wanted to see him respect diversity of opinion and the First Amendment. I am one of them, and I like a lot of what I hear and read coming out of Edwards' campaign. Edwards is showing himself to be a mature and sophisticated politician, one that understand the world is not all black and white. But some of what I've come across suggests the former North Carolina senator is still far too naive to handle the job of president.
A few weeks ago, for example, I came across this exchange in a newspaper. (I copied the salient excerpt and while I subsequently lost the original link, I did find a snippets of it here, for those concerned about attribution.)
Asked his view on gay marriage, Edwards called the issue "the single hardest social issue for me personally."
"Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes," he said. "But it's a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven't yet got across that bridge."
"I wish I knew the right answer," he said after one audience member booed."
Is it a shame he still doesn't know the right answer? Yes, but that's not what I want to focus on. It's his description of the gay marriage of "the single hardest social issue." Sorry, John, but if that the hardest social issue you can think of, you're in for a nasty shock should you win the White House.
The list of ethically challenging "social" issues that the next president will almost be sure to encounter is a long one. Many of them will be the product of scientific advances, technologies that challenge the very nature of what it means to be human.
Cloning: Sooner or later, this one's going to make gay marriage look like the no-brainer it already is to anyone under the age of 30. First, there will be the potential to grow spare parts. Eventually, someone will succeed with a full individual.
Xenotransplantation: We're a lot closer to opening up a minefield of questions on this one. People who would never consider donating to PETA are suddenly going to be a lot less sure that animals shouldn't have rights when we start harvesting their organs.
Health care: Keeping the aging baby boomers alive is largely an economic issue, but as costs rise and it lifespans lengthen thanks to new and expensive drugs, what to do about the disparity between the rich and the insurance-less poor is going to overwhelm all branches of government.
Climate change: Not usually considered a social issue, but one that will pose extremely difficult choices as some parts of the world, notably some parts of the U.S., actually benefit in the short term, while much the developing world suffers chaos-inducing changes. It is, as Al Gore, says, a moral challenge, not just a technological or political one.
Bio-electronic surveillance: Let's face it, it's only a matter of time before some judge orders a sex offenders to have a GPS chip implanted in his shoulder...
And so on and so forth. I was going to mention human-computer interfaces and artificial intelligence, but maybe those can wait for whoever wins in 2012. In any case, none of the examples I mention offers any kind of easy answer, one that will be make even half the country happy. And Edwards thinks gay marriage is a tough one? So, 8 out of 10 for honesty, but minus several million for not seeing the big picture.
Technorati tag: edwards
- Log in to post comments
Uh, I agree with your general argument, but gay marriage a "no-brainer (...) to anyone under the age of 30"? Who do you hang out with and can I borrow them? I'm gay and out to most friends and people at my lab (I'm a grad student) and even some of those who say they're completely cool with homosexuality (and that's less people than you'd expect in a population of highly educated 20-something natural sciences students) still admit to not feeling so hot about gay marriage. (And this is in Europe, where we're supposed to be all liberal and decadent and whatnot.) Some have told me outright they consider it to be wrong, even if they couldn't really formulate an argument to support their position (I do appreciate the honesty - it's a change from sneaky ad hominems). Apparently it simply 'feels' wrong. (Yeah whatever, smother my civil liberties because you feel icky. Don't mind me.) And some of the most tolerant/accepting people I know are over 30. Heck, a lot are over 50. My point being, in short, that the 'old=bigoted', 'young=open-minded' stereotype is mostly just that, a stereotype... don't ever take the supposed open-mindedness of youth for granted.
"People who would never consider donating to PETA are suddenly going to be a lot less sure that animals shouldn't have rights when we start harvesting their organs."
We don't do this already? This will be controversial in the context of transplantation because the idea of putting a pig's liver in a person squicks some people. It won't be any more of an ethical issue than existing sales of organ meat.
Health-care and global warming are not controversial and those are two out of three Edwards' main campaign topics which he addresses head-on with some pretty good and blog proposals.
Gay marriage is a hot-button political issue and he is, for now at least (although there is some evidence of gradual evolution if you check out more recent quotes), playing it safe, but at least he is honest and the GLBT community appreciates it.
The rest of the issues are not as politically charged and he can, especially when he is actually governing and not campaigning, make a good decision on it.
Short - these issues are not all the same and should not be lumped together.
My point is not that the ideas are equivalent, only that they pose very tricky political challenges. I would argue that anyone who thinks they don't share that characteristic is hopelessly naive. Let's face it, I could have mentioned germ-line genetic engineering and lots of other things that have nothing to do with each other, except that they don't have as obvious an answer as the gay marriage question, the answer to which is simple: as it poses no threat to anyone, it should be legal.