How liberals view the world...

Someone commented recently (on NPR) that the Democratic convention not only looked different from the RNC’s convention, but it felt different, too. I thought about that for a while, and I am pretty sure I can point to one reason why that is: we view people in very different ways.

Among the many issues at the fore this election season are social-safety net programs funded by the government. Ask a republican what they think about, say, food stamps, and they will likely tell you of their concerns about waste and abuse. Many will insist they know of actual cases where people were loafing off the system and getting more benefits than they were entitled to (or for longer than they really needed said benefit). Ask a democrat what they think of food stamps, and you will get a very different response—they will likely tell you of their concern regarding the opposing party’s plan to cut food stamp benefits, and how they worry about the many families that will go hungry without such essential assistance.

Why the difference? It’s simple, really—liberals see the good in people.  We know some people abuse the system, but we believe most do not. We choose to see the positive, and focus on the good programs do. Conservatives appear to be focused on the negative—because a few bad apples have benefited from the system (that we know of), then there must be way more, and the whole program should just be reduced to a bare minimum. People are lazy and bad, and will choose a free ride whenever possible.  However, such thinking only diminishes the reality of what poor families really go through, and that will never eliminate the need for such programs. Being in a place of need can be hard enough—we don’t need others to add to the humiliation by suggesting that those who take advantage of social programs are simply bad people mooching off of the rest of us.

Childless women and Lesbians, Ann’s not talking to you…

When Ann Romney gave a shout out to the women in the RNC crowd last week, declaring, “I love you women”, I was foolish enough to think she might be addressing all women.

Turns out, I was wrong.  Ann Romney loves women—straight women with children. “The moms of this nation really hold this country together”, said Romney in her RNC speech. "You are the best of America…I very much believe it’s going to be an economic election. And I think a lot of women may be voting this cycle around in a different way than they usually are. And that is thinking about the economy. Thinking about their own jobs, their husbands’ jobs, but also thinking about the future…they care not about their own job, and their children’s job and their husband’s job, which they do care about because they’re worried about those. They are also caring about the legacy of debt that we’re leaving their children.”

Romney talked endlessly about mothers and children, even lamenting that some folks want more children, but simply cannot afford it. She was concerned about moms who’d rather be home with their kids: “moms who love their jobs but would like to work just a little less to spend more time with the kids”—as if suggesting that dads are not also interested in such things. “I’m hearing from so many women that may not have considered voting for a Republican before,” she continued, “that said it’s time for the grown-up to come, the man that’s going to take this very seriously. And take the future of our children very, very seriously.” Never mind the mean-spirited suggestion she’s making about the President…

Ann Romney was smart enough to address different kinds of moms—single, married, divorced, widowed—but she left out a larger portion of women—the ones who don’t have kids (by choice or otherwise) and women who have no intention of ever having a husband in their life. It’s as if those women (of which I am a part) have no place in the Romney vision of America. Women who don’t have kids lack a narrative that Romney can relate to—rather than reach out any way (even if it risked being uncomfortable), she left us out altogether. It’s bad enough that society and tradition looks down upon childless women (think of the “old” term barren), and that Americans still cannot seem to grant equality to our LGBT neighbors, but to have that reaffirmed on a national platform by a woman who wants to be the First Lady is even more sad. Romney cannot choose the citizens she’ll lead in the same way that she and her family have chosen their cloistered life. Either she is the First Lady of all Americans, or she need not be one at all.