This entry is wonkier and clunkier. You should probably go do something else, something more useful, more entertaining, more unwonky and unclunky, and come back at the end for dessert.
The full 2008 platform is here.
Aaaand... go.
In the Second Amendment section, which interestingly, headlines the platform, I expected to find plenty to agree with. I can read the Constitution. (Indeed, I HAVE read it! The Second Amendment is there, in plain-ish English, saying well-regulated militias are OK, and because of that, the individual's right to own guns is to be protected.) Yet of the 197 words present in "Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms," I could only concur with "We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers," which isn't even a complete sentence. Oh well. Moving on.
In the "Equal Treatment for All" section, there is much to like. "We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes." Great.
"We ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance." Good stuff. So far, so good.
As a matter of principle, Republicans oppose any attempts to create race-based governments within the United States, as well as any domestic governments not bound by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." I'm not sure what a race-based government is, but it sounds highly inequitable, and I'm also against inequitable, so yay. This whole section is, of course, missing one key component of the nation's present struggle against discrimination, and we all know what that component is, but it's good to see a clear denunciation of hatred, even if it could use some widening.
Skipping ahead a tab, to "Freedom of Speech and of the Press," I find comfort in: "We support freedom of speech and freedom of the press and oppose attempts to violate or weaken those rights, such as reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine." Totally agree. The Fairness Doctrine is an ill-begotten attempt to balance the opinions presented on the airwaves - i.e., if Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are given 72 hours of airtime a week, liberal viewpoints must be represented in equal proportion, and the government has a duty to make it happen. I simplify, but that brand of"fairness" is a bad idea. Let the marketplace dictate which shows thrive, and which ideas win. (The Fairness Doctrine, in case you couldn't tell or didn't care, is not currently in effect.)
And then we arrive at abortion, or as the issue if framed in the platform, "Maintaining the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life." (As if anyone could oppose that... but I digress.)
Deep breath. And... go.
"We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement." I agree. Abortion is a medical procedure. A minor teenage girl should obtain parental authorization before having such a procedure performed on her body. To be thorough, I don't actually agree with the "exploitation and statutory rape" clause of the sentence. I just believe that parents have rights that supersede the privacy rights of their children under the age of 18.
"We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy." Yes. Although we might go about that moral obligation differently. Abortion is horrifying, after all, no matter where you stand on its legality. We should be helping girls and women in any way we can in their neediest moments.
"We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers." This is what I'm talking about. Don't nudge people to abortion - offer alternatives. Yes. Do this.
So, logically, the next plank in the platform is entitled "Preserving Traditional Marriage." So, skipping ahead to... but wait! Wait wait! I found something, I found something! Two sentences even! Extra exclamation points on their way!!!! (*sarcasm off*)
"The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character." So true. Studies confirm this. Google it. (I did.) Homes with two parents do produce, statistically, better-adjusted children.
"Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems." I will second this if I'm allowed to substitute "homes without fathers" to "single-parent homes." Otherwise, I have to agree with it only as it pertains to children raised by single moms compared with children raised by two parents.
The section ends this way: "As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights." Duh. I'm guessing that this is meant to tie back to the abortion issue. Now if this reasoning is used to rationalize or defend spanking, then we need to chat, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Publican. Otherwise, carry on.
Carrying on to "Safeguarding Religious Liberties," where this turns up: "We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. Respectful of our nation’s diversity in faith, we urge reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in the private workplace."
If you're going to take government money, you need to play by the government's rules. No discrimination in hiring. But if you want to form a private organization and intend on minding your own business, I'm with the R's on this: let people exclude whomever they want. the Scouts want to bar gays -- fine. Their call. Churches want to not perform gay weddings -- totally cool with them declining. But once you're on the government's dime, that all changes.
Less controversially, sort of, the "Preserving Americans' Property Rights" section ends with the sensible "We urge caution in the designation of National Historic Areas, which can set the stage for widespread governmental control of citizens’ lands." Private property is not to be trifled with. Capitalism still works better than other systems, and it only functions if the government shows restraint.
There we are. That is precisely how Republican I am. (Don't measure it.)
Some of the "parental rights" stuff is connected with ratifying the UN Rights of Children document which prohibits things like homeschooling (which could indoctrinate children in a religious point of view). I guess in countries where it's been ratified, children have been taken from their homes for rather spurious things (because it puts the onus for raising children on the government over the parents). There's a current court case in Sweden where a boy was taken from his parents as they were boarding a plane to India (the mother's home country) because the family was planning to homeschool in India. This happened over a year ago & the parents have been allowed 1 hour per month supervised visits with the boy in his foster home.
ReplyDeletehi John,
ReplyDeleteThe parental consent thing gets dicey in abortion cases where a non-insignificant percentage of under-18 pregnancies are the result of incest. The required signatures and consent forms could, potentially, force additional trauma on victims of such crimes.
However, the set-up in Washington (no parental consent needed) has its serious weaknesses, where minors can be easily swayed by peers and often much older impregnators (really astonishing age discrepancy between mothers and fathers of teenage pregnancies). Pushy older-boyfriends know that people can do the math when a baby is born...and abortion hides the evidence of statutory rape.
In Massachusetts, one parent's sig is required (some states require both parents to sign), though minors can go through a judge if there are reasons why getting parental signatures causes problems for the young girl. This strikes a better balance between the Washington/Montana/Alaska/Idaho (and a bunch of other states) no-parent-consent method and the Mississippi/N.Dakota system, which requires two parent signatures and (supposedly) makes the court-exceptions hard for a 14 year old to obtain. Minnesota tries to fix this problem by requiring both signatures, but giving exceptions for cases of rape/incest/abuse.
Thanks for the effort, by the way, but you seem no more Republican than before I read your (excellent, if sometimes wonky) posts. :)
eric
The CRC actually does not prohibit homeschooling, its contents may be examined here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.unicef.org/crc/
Only suitable for minors?:
Schoolchildrens' "spanking" related injuries (WARNING - These images may be deeply disturbing to some viewers. Do not open this page if children are present).
http://www.nospank.net/injuredkids.pdf
Reasonable and moderate? You decide.
(WARNING - This sound recording may be deeply disturbing to some listeners. Do not open this file if children are within listening range).
http://nospank.net/prj-006.wav
Recommended by professionals:
Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak
http://www.nospank.net/pt2010.pdf
The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson
http://nospank.net/sdsc2.pdf
NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor MD and Adah Maurer PhD
http://nospank.net/taylor.htm
Most current research:
Spanking Kids Increases Risk of Sexual Problems
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2008/feb/lw28spanking.cfm
Use of Spanking for 3-Year-Old Children and Associated Intimate Partner Aggression or Violence
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/126/3/415
Spanking Can Make Children More Aggressive Later
http://tulane.edu/news/releases/pr_03122010.cfm
Spanking Children Can Lower IQ
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2009/sept/lw25straus.cfm
Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child "spanking" isn't a good idea:
American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
American Psychological Association,
Center For Effective Discipline,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
United Methodist Church
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.
In 31 nations, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US also has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
The US states with the highest crime rates and the poorest academic performance are also the ones with the highest rates of child corporal punishment.
There is simply no evidence to suggest that child bottom-battering instills virtue.
PDeverit - I'm with ya. Spanking is hitting your child. If you can bend your mind enough and bring yourself to rationalize hitting your child, then good luck to you and good luck to your child. That's all I have to say on the issue. For now.
ReplyDeleteAnne - I'd be interested in hearing the whole story behind the incident you describe. Sounds awful. I'll go look it up and see what surfaces... although I doubt I'll find anything satisfactory.
Eric - yeah, the MA and MN compromises seem well thought out, certainly better than what we have here in WA. I hadn't considered pregnancies that result from incest, because, really, who wants to dwell on that. One parental signature, with ways around it that incorporate a judge, is a more than reasonable requirement.
Oh, and don't lose any sleep re: my political orientation. I'm going to do the same kind of posts, only for the Democrats next weekend. Potential title: Don-key!
Anne, again - Here are some juicy excerpts from the unicef document:
Article 9.1: "States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence."
Article 11.1: "States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad."
I read the first 41 articles and came away with this impression: unicef is trying to toe the line, giving governments as much power as it possibly can in the area of rescuing children at risk, while trying to respect parental rights as much as possible across cultural boundaries. Obviously, that's a task I don'y envy, and one that will inevtiably lead to overreach in certain jurisdictions.
Here's a really good link to the whole text, in English: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
Passing this comment along from Amy J, who lost her battle with her browser in trying to add to the discussion, so she e-mailed it to me. I will respond afterwards.
ReplyDelete"John, let's start off with, yes, I think you are right that the UN CRC does not explicitly prohibit homeschooling.
Anne is probably referring to Article 29 of the UN CRC (okay, so one of possible many places, but one I have been reading about recently). One clause mandates what must be taught to all children, no matter where they are educated: "The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in he spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin ..." What do "they" mean by tolerance? Who knows, but I am pretty sure that it won't involve being tolerant of my Christian views. Even the American Bar Association recognizes that a private (or home) school that taught that other world views are unacceptable and that Jesus is the only way to God would be teaching lessons that "fly in the face" of Article 29 of the CRC. Tolerance only goes so far, I guess.
A quote concerning the CRC, from Kimberly Yuracko, professor at Northwestern University of Law, in California Law Review: "This argument about the constitutionally mandated minimum education that states must require of homeschools is critically important for two reasons. Conceptually, it rejects the dominant HSDLA [Home School Legal Defense Association] view that parents possess absolute control over their children's education. It highlights the legal distinctness of parents and children and emphasizes that parental control over children's basic education flows from the state (rather than vice versa). States delegate power over children's basic education to parents, and the delegation itself is necessarily subject to constitutional constraints." Really? States delegate this power to parents? (for the record, previous UN declarations have put parents ahead of states when it comes to choosing education for their children)
It isn't necessarily what the UN CRC says that causes my blood to boil, it is how some in the world (and in power) might interpret it. Oh, and yes, some of the CRC is absolutely right on correct, too, but this comment is already too long.
Now, a reply:
ReplyDeleteI'll address your Tolerance Tangent first, Amy. If your Christian views are rules for you to live by and you'd like to suggest that others follow them, then you deserve precisely as much "tolerance" as every other citizen with other religious views is afforded. Which is to say, lots. If you don't get that basic level of decency, then something is wrong with the system.
Now if your Christian views involve making it illegal to be non-Christian, then your views should be fought, plain and simple. Because then you're advocating fundamentalist rule of law, and you're trying to become an enemy of freedom. Whether or not your methods are democratic is beside the point.
Yes, the teaching of "other worldviews are unacceptable" is an evil we, as Americans (and as Whatevericans), should diligently work to stamp out.
Other worldviews ARE acceptable, period.
You can elect to pass on those worldviews, freedom of opinion and all, but you can't outlaw them on their face, just because of their "otherness." Maybe if they promote sexual discrimination or genocide or human sacrifice or unconstitutional totalitarian oppression, you can cry foul, but you can't tell someone it's illegal to be a Buddhist. Or an atheist. Or a communist.
Or even a Satanist, for that matter.
Regarding the idea that "parents possess absolute control over their children's education," which seems to be what the HSDLA says: Nonsense. Of course parents don't have that "absolute control." Parents, thankfully, never have absolute legal control over their children. Not in matters of health, not in matters of abuse, not even in matters of custody, and certainly not in matters of thought, in the unlikely event you forgot that your kids had their own brains. ;)
But parents DO have the right to choose the method by which to instruct their children, up to the point where that instruction crosses the line into child abuse.
Let's be clear. If the CRC rules put the burden of proof on the state, i.e., to wrest education control from the parents, the state must prove abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, then I say go for it, UN. If the rules give the state the authority to step in and ban homeschooling for spurious reasons based on circumstantial evidence, then screw the UN.
Lastly (because this comment, too, is already too long), the unicef document seems directly NOT aimed at the U.S., but squarely pointed at developing nations in which virtual brainwashing of children and overt sexual discrimination (I'm looking at you, Middle East theocracies) is commonplace. Not sure anybody in this country has to worry about the U.N. snatching children from homes and re-educating them in Norway anytime soon.