How I Vote

I vote for principles, not individuals. People are fallible, but principles are enduring.

I vote for democracy, a word not heard from the "leader of the free world" for four years.

I vote for decency and human respect, which have deteriorated in our country to unprecedented levels. 

I vote to resurrect the American dream based on belief in the dignity of every human being regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or background.

I vote to restore the economy and economic opportunity for working people who struggle day to day.

I vote for freedom of speech and thought, once championed by a political party that now has become a cult which says and does what it is told.

I vote to restore science, because ignoring it has led to over 200,000 deaths in our country and environmental deterioration.

I vote for a woman’s right to choose what is best for herself with her doctor.

I vote to restore international cooperation to overcome the effects of climate change, to work together toward world peace, to once again make the U.S. an international partner for the good.

I vote for freedom to participate in religion — or no religion — which is a founding principle guaranteed by our Constitution, but not for the freedom of to impose one’s beliefs on others.

I vote to restore respect to our military and veterans who have been maligned and used as political pawns.

I vote to ensure that violent actions based on extreme ideology are condemned and prosecuted.

I vote to promote education as the most important influence on the development of young minds so they understand, practice and promote democracy, or “Government by the people, for the people and of the people,” all of the people, to ensure democracy for future generations.

 

Steve Zolno is the author of three books on democracy, the latest being “Truth and Democracy” (May 2020). He can be reached at thefutureofdemocracy.net.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dobbs and Brown v. Board of Education: A Comparison

  As we mark the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I note that the supporters of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the decision revoking the constitutional right to an abortion, have sought to draw celebratory parallels between that decision and Brown v. Board of Education. This was the case that recognized the principle that “separate but equal” treatment of Blacks and Whites in segregated schools was incompatible with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Brown , Dobbs overturned a foundational precedent that had been in force for decades, and according to anti-abortion proponents, established an important right – the right to fetal life -- denied by the discredited precedent. The Dobbs opinion itself referenced Brown a number of times, and Mitch McConnell said of the Dobbs decision: “The Court has corrected a terrible legal and moral error, like when Brown v. Board overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.”   But the differences between Brow...
Read more

Thoughts on Transgender Issues

   The treatment of transgender people is one of the most active fronts in our never-ending culture wars. Any nuance gets lost on both sides of the debate. At the risk of being caught in the cross-fire, this post attempts to formulate a sensible framework for understanding these issues.  My starting point is the affirmation of two principles. First, people should be able to express their gender identity as they wish, not in conformity with other people's ideas. That principle is rooted in the fundamental right to express oneself linked to the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech.  Second, gender dysphoria, the strong sense of belonging to a gender other than the biological gender into which one was born, is real. The causes of gender dysphoria are not well understood, but seems to have a physiological basis, at least in some  cases . From this emerges the principle that people experiencing gender dysphoria should be given “reasonable accommodation,” a...
Read more

The Supreme Court's Second Amendment Folly

  You may have seen this news item and thought it was some kind of joke. A Federal District Court in Texas, and then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in   Rahimi v. United States , that a Texas law prohibiting people subject to domestic violence protective orders from owning guns was unconstitutional. Why? Because no such prohibition was recognized when the Second Amendment to the Constitution protecting the right to “keep and bear arms” was enacted back in 1789 or, in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment applied federal constitutional rights to the states. After all, these were the bad ol’ days when there was no such thing as a domestic violence protective order. This court decision was the kind of absurd news item worthy of the Onion. But it was no joke. The explanation for this bit of judicial nonsense is to be found in the Supreme Court’s decision last term,  New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen . Back in 2008, on a 5-4 vote, the Court decided that t...
Read more