Introducing “Right Mom/Left Mom”–changing the political climate one respectful conversation at a time!

I admire what you’re doing here. I teach freshman comp and, this semester, I’m introducing “The Election Analysis,” where students must present what each Presidential candidate stands for and evaluate critically his rhetorical approach (each class period will feature a different issue). There can be no personal opinion, vitriol, or biased remarks. All information presented must be researched, analyzed, and cited.

I’m of the school of voting for a person, not a party, but it’s getting harder for me to join in on conversations because of the scathing words from people who’d rather polarize than find common ground. I want to teach the next generation of thinkers that it’s not about changing minds about abortion/gun control/taxes; it’s about fully understanding and articulating why you believe how you believe and why people with the opposing viewpoint believe how they do. This is democracy. This is freedom. This is intelligence. Thank you both for modelling it.

You’re in the OC? We’re neighbors (sort of!). I’m in LA! I feel like most bloggers I follow aren’t from So Cal, so nice to have another Californian in the blogosphere

Great idea!! This type of dialogue is much needed. I think we need a left mom/right mom in the Catholic church too. The same sort of polarization is happening there too.

Wonderful idea! I’ll be tuning in to your episodes and I hope a TV network picks this up – stat!

I especially appreciate your focus on maintaining a respectful environment for intelligent debate.

Elizabeth,

I am one of those people who usually just troll around and read interesting blogs,
but rarely feel comfortable commenting. But I think that the Right Mom/Left Mom
discussion is such a great idea that I have to leave a comment. I am in love
this idea and I am really excited to watch it evolve! What I love the most about
it is your mission to set an example for true civil discourse.

So with that being said….can I say I really dislike the
“Mommy Wars,” “War on Women,” etc.? (Although I think you
are always fantastic on air when you discusses these topics!) I am just frustrated at the
politicians and media for constraining women to certain “issues.”
Perspectives are on topics like birth control, abortion, parenting, and family
are important and worthy of discussion, but I resent that women are generally viewed
as being relegated to these issues in the political discussions. Again I think these are important issues, but
women are more than reproductive machines.
We do have concerns and points of view on other issues also!!!

Without sounding like self-absorbed narcissist, I would like to reveal
my perspective. I probably fall closer to your views than Kristen’s. Although, I would rally around Kristen’s point
that issues are often clustered into a particular party and it is never really
that simple or linear. I’m a full
time working (out of the home) mom of 4 kiddos. My kids range in age from 14 to 1 and adore my
life with them. If Kristen is a
post-Evangelical, then I must be a pre-Evangelical as I did not grow up in any
church but came to embrace Christ as my Saviour as an adult. Some may call this born again, but I don’t
really identify with that label either. Politically
I am fiscally conservative. I champion socially liberal (for lack of a better
phrase) environments where people can flourish under their own beliefs and
values, but I don’t care for the politicizing of social causes. Which is the main reason the media focus on
the “Mommy Wars” discussion, among many others (i.e. Akin Rape
comments, Biden’s racial accusations, Romney’s tax returns, Obama’s Muslim
agenda) totally frustrates me! Please try
not to wade into these kinds of typical media distractors .

An objective look at the economic situation would be really valuable. It would be great to find some good Mommy
economists out there who can provide insights and solutions. I am fearful that,
regardless of where we stand, none of the social issues will be effectively resolved
if there is no self-sustaining way to pay for the government response. I certainly have my own “Reaganesque” opinion
on how the government should function, but the need for a viable budget is paramount
and undeniable.

Another great issue would be foreign policy, particularly regarding the
preservation of Israel or the growing concern over the shifting global economic
center of gravity to the Asia- Pacific region. We should contemplate how future outcomes will
affect the next generation. Whether we
work or don’t work, are Pro Life/Choice, or support gay marriage will not
matter when our sons and daughters are called on to respond to a future very different from the one we live in now. How our generation of leadership
handles these global tensions will matter, and I don’t think we should let them off
the hook by spending more time on issues concerning fellow citizens that are
really none of our business. While we
were getting upset over the latest media “women’s issue” debacle, did
anyone notice or care that Obama has moved troops to Australia, or that over
300 UAV strikes have taken place in the past 3 years in the sovereign Nation of
Pakistan? (Please let me reveal that I
support military presence in Australia, but not so much the way UAV strikes
have been utilized in various Middle East countries.) But at this point, even foreign policy issues
should be a lower priority to a discussion on the way forward for the economy, as
US diplomatic power will be severely constrained in its ability to address
foreign policy without its fiscal house in order.
In your introductory segment you both made comments about your lack of
faith in legislative processes. Which, while not unwarrented, is almost cliche these days. I
recommend you try to objectively follow the process. One relevant issue near and dear to my heart is
supporting healthy foods and products for our communities. Check out the Safe
Chemicals Act, bill S.847, which recently left committee and will move to the
Senate floor sometime this year. Watch out for S.847 though. You will be hard
pressed to find any real media against it, but it does hinge on the classic
battle between big Gov. vs big Corporations.
If you do a google search on “Safe Chemicals Act” you will get an
emotional workout contemplating how the collusive nature of big chemical
companies victimizes women and children.
All this while big name Johnson & Johnson removes harmful ingredients from its products to meet
the power of the consumer demand, and the rates of infectious insect borne
diseases like West Nile and Lime, where the application of chemicals can
benefit, rises dramatically all over the country. No doubt, whole foods need to be the norm not
the exception, and citizens don’t want things formaldehyde in carpets, lead
paint in toys, diesel in our water supply to cause sickness in our homes, but I
could go on about the FDA, EPA, National Toxicology Program, National Institute
of Environment Health Services, OSHA, Consumer Product Safety Commission and various
programs in the Department of Health and Human Services (just to give a partial list) which should already
provide mechanisms for consumer safety and don’t. Not to mention we all seem to let our local
and State governments of the hook for their responsibilities in our communities. I ended up writing my Senator to ask for his opinion,
rather than his vote for or against S.847, because I found more questions than
answers after trying to research it. I would love to hear your analysis!

Also take a look at
the Bi-Partisian (Yes Bi-Partisan!) bill that was just introduced this month by
Senators Warner, Portman and Collins. I am
eager to follow it as it addresses sorely needed regulatory reform. Regulatory reform, which by the way could be
an alternative solution to expanding the power of government agencies promoted
in the actual text of S.847. The
Warner-Portman-Collins bill is also a partial response to Obama’s jobs bill,
which the liberal media flayed the Republicans for killing, while the
conservative media flayed Obama for “not meeting with his job council” or
something vague like that. I’m just
saying… I don’t think you ladies should fault the legislative processes as much
as you should the unrelenting bias of the US media outlets.

Elizabeth and Kristen, many
many apologies for this long comment.
This must be why I never leave comments.
You both are great at this and I look forward to your next
segment!