The Solution is Simple

You may have sensed there is a national debate in progress; it seems to grip almost everything. Although delineation of the sides involved would require some explanation, let’s just say our upcoming Presidential election more or less defines one camp from the other.  There are some folks in the middle, of course, but I believe they are generally a tired group and come this fall they may find football more meaningful than anything else.

The problem is that there really isn’t any debate at all.  What we have are two sides of a spectrum which acts like the rope in a tug of war.  A debate by definition implies the presentation of an argument, a refuting and counter-argument, and so forth until both sides are whittled to the essence of their cases and one side prevails.  

That sounds a bit like what we might think elections are all about, but not so today.  Today the “debate” is nothing more than pragmatic shouting and political gamesmanship.  Few are listening.  Further, most all the shouting is directed toward each side’s own choir.  Only the rope gets pulled and, at least right now, it’s pulling way right (Conservative).

Not only have we ended up with many tens of millions of people with anxieties related to national identity issues, but we have also generated run away Capitalism, unfunded entitlements, social-economic imbalance, irrational application of military resources, dysfunctional social justice, and government legislation (Federal & State) which has managed to reduce governance to just so many pissing contests.

Anyone who has read the entries of this blog know I strongly object to the direction we are being pulled by the so-called Neo-Conservatives.  Still I am not blind to the strong motivations of these many idealistic minded and decent, but fearing individuals.  There is a clear historic analogy in my opinion - American history at that. It is the American Civil War. The South was far more idealistic, more motivated, more unified, more dogmatic, and felt more threatened than the North.  

It was the election of Lincoln that was the last straw in an inflexible position for the South.  The election of Obama seems to have resonated in a similar way, and as with Lincoln, unyielding opposition started before Obama had flushed his first toilet in the White House.  Regardless how correct I might feel my understanding of this new divisiveness is, there seems to be no solution to this confrontation that pits brother against brother – then it hit me.  It was suddenly so obvious.

We need a Constitutional Amendment.  Not a permanent Amendment, but one that is self-repealing after 12 years.  The law would be extraordinarily simple to describe and foolproof to carry out.  It is this: once enacted and as of January of the following Presidential election year, no men (males) will be allowed to vote in any election, National, State, or local for the next 12 years. 

All political activity, social order, and law creation would be determined by individuals elected solely by women – 12 years so the law would cover at least two Senate elections in each state. That would do it.  The Country would be back on track, more over it might very well be on a better track than it ever has before.

You laugh (or just shake your head)?  If so, you don’t have the ability to see that our collective ship of state (i.e. all levels of government) has been slowly sinking in a vast pool of testosterone.   

Even the few women who have made the choice of political careers have been adversely affected.  If passed, within maybe 4 years women would hold a majority of political offices, maybe even the Presidency.  In that environment and with that constituency I can see most all of the Nation’s problems we face having a chance of being solved.  

It isn’t because women are smarter than men, more informed, more educated (although that might technically be true), wiser, or even less divisive.  They are not always better than men at what they do (I for one believe men drive cars way better than women – call me sexist).  It is for one simple reason:  most women’s identities are not threatened when faced with a competing idea – as a result, they listen, and often they do so empathetically. There would always be exceptions (think M.T. Green), but those numbers would be dwarfed by the majority.

We would gain a happy mix of practicality, individuality, and a respect for the common good.  For example take the almost intractable social problem of abortion: sure, women would remain divided among themselves on the issue, but they would have the ability to realize the value of reducing the total number of unwanted pregnancies regardless of anyone's position and would created unifying policy to that end. Men would rather go to war. 

Take almost any issue and think about.  If such an Amendment had gone into effect in 2000 I have virtually no doubt that my son would not have had to risk his life for two years in Iraq.

Could such a Constitutional Amendment be possible?  I can’t conceive how.  Still, an awareness of why it would work makes even the concept of it valuable.  Among other things, those so enlightened could vote more women into political office right now.  Perhaps men could just look around and start acting more like women when faced with controversy.  It’s possible.  

I do believe that if such an amendment went into place in 1852 (if Suffrage existed) that the American Civil War might never have happened, and yet slavery would have still disappeared.  There never would have been an epithet that said: the War that pitted sister against sister.