|
Thompson, Democrats espouse true family values
Share
Email
Print
CommentIn spite of having control of all branches of national government, Republicans continue to complain about the “egregious” efforts of Democrats to stick to some workable and sensible priorities (“Thompson Reflects Wrong Priorities,” by Kevin Hangman, Sept. 26).
The positive priorities of Democrats are evident in their approach to the concept of family values. Rather than merely dictating a moral code, Democrats attempt to find ways to support the stability and quality of the family system. Consistent with liberal family values are efforts to fund education, to provide health care and a living wage, to restrict tax advantages doled out to corporations and the wealthy, and to conserve family stability rather than trying to impose fundamentalist dogma.
The positive priorities of Democrats are evident in their approach to the concept of family values. Rather than merely dictating a moral code, Democrats attempt to find ways to support the stability and quality of the family system. Consistent with liberal family values are efforts to fund education, to provide health care and a living wage, to restrict tax advantages doled out to corporations and the wealthy, and to conserve family stability rather than trying to impose fundamentalist dogma.
Conservative family values, by contrast, are reflected in the idea, voiced by Florida’s Kathleen Harris in referring to her opponent, that anyone who votes to allow homosexuals the right to establish secure families is voting “against marriage.” Conservative family values are also reflected in the recent suspension of an art teacher of 28 years, who took her fifth grade class to the Dallas Museum of Art and was fired because a parent complained about children seeing nude statues at the museum. It’s ironic, isn’t it, given the emphasis of the Republican Party on the importance of purportedly Christian family values, that according to the U.S. Census Bureau the highest rates of divorce are found in the conservative states of the “Bible Belt.” The “liberal” Northeast has the lowest divorce rates.
Conservative family values also seem to support the idea that only certain families should be protected, valued, educated and stabilized. Counterintuitively, they would prefer to deny medical benefits and education to migrant worker families, even though those services would be most likely to enlist these workers into the American Way.
Conservative family values also seem to support the idea that only certain families should be protected, valued, educated and stabilized. Counterintuitively, they would prefer to deny medical benefits and education to migrant worker families, even though those services would be most likely to enlist these workers into the American Way.
Based on the liberal ideal of supporting all families, Mike Thompson certainly reflects the right priorities — for Napa, for California and for the nation. As is clear from his recent letter (“Thompson on immigration,” Oct. 3), he avoids a shotgun approach, and addresses those issues related to immigration that are most problematic. Rather than adopting a cynical approach to immigration by building a fence around our nation, we need to join him in looking at the broader picture: Mexican families who come to our country to work are not the terrorist threat. Our relationship with the Mexican workers has been one of symbiosis, in which both benefit to some extent, although we generally fare better than these workers who struggle to support their families. Without them, food crops this season are rotting in the fields of the Salinas Valley and the effects of increased border patrol are being felt in the wine industry in Napa as well. Most of Europe fares quite well without fences around yards and fences around nations. We are not protected from terrorism by wasting money on a fence.
Rather than pretending that the lack of ID cards is the problem with our voting system, we need to see, as Mike Thompson clearly does, the Republican ploy to require ID cards (HR 4844) for what it is — an attempt to essentially disenfranchise many eligible voters. Since it requires anyone who doesn’t have a driver’s license — such as those who are poor, elderly and disabled — to obtain an ID, this bill is clearly not about immigrants. The problems in our voting system have not been because illegal immigrants are trying to vote. The problems in the past six years had to do with ineffective voting procedures and eligible people being turned away from the polls.
Rather than pretending that the lack of ID cards is the problem with our voting system, we need to see, as Mike Thompson clearly does, the Republican ploy to require ID cards (HR 4844) for what it is — an attempt to essentially disenfranchise many eligible voters. Since it requires anyone who doesn’t have a driver’s license — such as those who are poor, elderly and disabled — to obtain an ID, this bill is clearly not about immigrants. The problems in our voting system have not been because illegal immigrants are trying to vote. The problems in the past six years had to do with ineffective voting procedures and eligible people being turned away from the polls.
I do not believe Mike Thompson works primarily for “special interests” in the original sense of the term: those who stand to gain financially from congressional action. His efforts, rather, have supported those special, universal interests and values that will ultimately benefit us all: stable and economically viable communities, respectful and informed international relations, educational and occupational opportunity for stronger communities, adequate health care for families regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic status or national origin, and preservation of our environment for families of the future. I would like to congratulate Mike Thompson for his successful wilderness preservation bill which will protect, among other valuable resources, our own Cedar Roughs near Lake Berryessa. Thank you for your good work, and may it continue!
(Wallin lives in Napa.)
(Wallin lives in Napa.)
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
Rocco Ferrario wrote on Oct 16, 2006 6:07 AM:
Moderate wrote on Oct 16, 2006 7:50 AM:
Richard wrote on Oct 16, 2006 7:58 AM:
Amanda wrote on Oct 16, 2006 8:59 AM:
PHWYLIE wrote on Oct 16, 2006 9:43 AM:
Average Joe wrote on Oct 16, 2006 2:40 PM:
Bobby wrote on Oct 16, 2006 4:35 PM:
CommonSense Stan wrote on Oct 16, 2006 4:55 PM:
Ted wrote on Oct 16, 2006 5:14 PM:
James wrote on Oct 16, 2006 7:52 PM:
Thompson is great wrote on Feb 24, 2007 5:38 PM: