Do you send Christmas/Holiday Cards to Friends and Family?

Folks, if you do, please consider adding one more to your list:

"Holiday Mail for Heroes"
P.O. Box 5456
Capitol Heights, MD 20791-5456

This program, now in its second year, is sponsored by the American Red Cross. Their goal is to distribute 1 million cards to wounded and active service members, veterans, and their families. You can learn more about the program here.

IMPORTANT NOTE: All cards must be postmarked by December 10, 2008 to reach their destinations.

Its a simple, powerful gesture . . . one that grows with each card sent.

Thinking and reading; reading and thinking . . .

Came across this, from Michael Steele's "Listen. Adapt. Be Positive." (WSJ online).

Republicans once said that the opportunities this nation has to offer rest not in government but rather in the hands of individuals. Over the past decade or so, however, we Republicans lost our way. The disparity between our rhetoric and our action grew until our credibility snapped. [more]

And this, from Dennis Prager's "Some Positive Reactions from the Right"(Real Clear Politics):

We who oppose Barack Obama's policies will, hopefully, act in accordance with conservative values of decency. Hence my simple announcement on the day after the election: "I did not vote for him. I did not want him to be president. But as of January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will be my president."

[ . . .] we can celebrate the aforementioned good of Barack Obama's election and pray for him and for our beloved country. [more]

While I am certainly more comfortable with Steele's argument than Prager's (when considered in their entireties and taking into account the latter's treatment of his subject and, as I read it, his somewhat condescending tone), I do appreciate the spirit driving both . . . a spirit palpable in many other editorials and commentaries of late. These seem to reflect the general tone echoing through the ranks of the right following last Tuesday's election. No animosity, or at least very little of it. No ominous predictions. No making excuses (for the most part). Honest, forthright introspection and a genuine expression of optimism, rather than a cynical gesture, that the new leadership will do right by the nation . . . and the world. In fact, the only truly negative rumblings seem to be emerging from those who ineffectively ran McCain's campaign. 'Out with the old, in with the new' may be an oversimplification, but a useful one.

I have to say, I am very pleased. Who knew the kind of 'change' offered by President Elect Obama would offer a katharsis of sorts? But to my mind the biggest surprise is how this election presents the GOP with an opportunity to revisit its purpose in this country, to re-prioritize its (often nested) missions, to reconnect with the wider constituency, to step almost completely out of the spotlight, and to re-imagine the ways it may serve the nation. As the moment matures, as moments must, I hope the goodwill and civility continues. That said, it is an exciting moment (on all fronts), and I have to admit that I am a bit taken in by it all.

Bradley's been at it again . . .

Over at The Ethical Exhibitionist, my pal Bradley posted a thoughtful and provocative reaction to the election results, which he titled "Lets Not Pat Ourselves On the Back Too Hard." Though I'm sure I'm about to get myself into a heap of trouble, here's my response:

nathan is entirely on the mark when he writes

the problem is that they (and we) haven't respected that there are two things that we're talking about as one. One is a legal contract between two people, upheld by the State that agrees that two people will share life together. The other is a religious symbol that has all sorts of meanings different than what the majority of "marriages" encompass.

I also admire his attempt to engage the ethos of those who vote to deny the rights of their compatriots on moral grounds. This is an important, if extremely difficult, step in working toward consensus—or at the very least, mutual respect. That said, I hold fast to the opinion that it is erroneous in the extreme to attempt to legislate morality.

As you know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, but on this issue I break with much of my party. To say that I cannot understand the justification for denying people these basic rights understates my stance: doing so undermines, at the most basic level, everything this country stands for. It is our concern with rights and liberties that underscores every US ideology and serves as our common ground. I cannot comprehend why anyone would want to deny their neighbors the full rights and privileges guaranteed (implicitly and explicitly) by the constitution—or to amend a constitution to limit the rights of one’s own citizenry. The only limits to freedom I can embrace are those that reflect the philosophy that one person’s rights extend only as far as another’s begin—that is to say, we cannot justify violating another’s rights in the name of our own. The 1996 Congressional Essays reflect the importance of reasonable limits cogently.

More to the point, allowing same-sex marriage (or, the related hot-button topic of the ‘90s, allowing homosexuals to serve in the US armed forces) does not impede on the rights of the individual; disallowing full rights and privileges does.

One final thought: while it may be 'democratic' to allow the constituency to vote on such an issue, it runs counter to the notion of the 'republic,' which explicitly ties liberty to law. If one considers the notion of law Aristotle advances in the Politics as “reason unaffected by desire” and understands morality as pathos(in the rhetorical sense), then it is worthwhile to note that, perhaps ironically and certainly theoretically, it is my party—with its philosophical concern for definition and law—who should be the most adamant champions of equal rights under the law . . . for every US citizen.