The Soccer Mom Vote

Making a dent

Yesterday evening as I was leaving work, I ran into a friend in the elevator.

"Heading home?" I asked.

"Not tonight," she said, then leaned in conspiratorially.  "Actually, I'm on my way to volunteer for the DNC.  I'll be making phone calls, which I'm not crazy about," she added with a grimace, "but, hey, it's just a few hours."

Then she said something that I've been thinking about all day today.

"If the Republicans win and I hadn't even made an effort to fight them, I'd always regret it. This way I know that I'm at least trying to make a dent when I have the chance."

Now I know not everyone reading this will agree with the political sentiment that my friend expressed, but this post is not about that.  It's about finding ways to "make a dent."

One of the things I really like about my friend is that she is a doer.  She's action oriented, and she really wants to bring about productive change in her work and in her life.  She's inspired me professionally and personally in a lot of ways before -- but for some reason, her off-the-cuff comment really hit me hard in a way I needed to hear.

For nearly my entire life, I've stayed away from political discourse.  There are many reasons for this, but one of the most significant is my cynicism about politics, arising from my belief that there's not much I can do to influence politics with a capital P.

"What can one person do, anyway?" I've wondered to myself.  "Why should I write to my member of Congress about this issue -- I'm sure everyone else has."  "Ah, I'm not even going to vote today.  It's just one vote that won't really matter."  (Actually, I've voted almost every year since I got my voter's registration card, even during non-Presidential years.  But you get the idea.)

My friend's optimism and her willingness to participate in political discourse has reminded me that sometimes my cynicism is misguided.  That apathetic can be kind of pathetic, in that it's not really getting me anywhere, and it's certainly not advancing my community in any tangible way.

So I'm going to embrace the baby steps: a campaign donation here, a letter to Congress there.  I won't be afraid to let my voice, teeny-tiny as it may be, pipe up even if it might be drowned out by those louder and more insistent than me.  Sure, I'm not going to be singlehandedly reforming health care on Capitol Hill... but I've got to start somewhere.

Food contamination: not COOL

Recent incidents related to contaminated pet food, imported seafood, and tainted toothpaste have caused some U.S. consumers -- such as yours truly -- to consider the origins of the products we buy.   

I've briefly considered my own boycott of products from China, such as Associated Press reporter Dirk Lammers did as an experiment last month.  Based on his experiences, however, I'm concerned that I would not have much success.  Navigating the shoe stores and departments at his local mall, Lammers had difficulty finding "Made in the USA" products that met both his requirements (price-based) and those of his teen (color and style).  Moving on to Wal-Mart, he found some more surprises: tennis rackets, Matchbox cars, even Monopoly tokens and dice, all made in China.

In the realm of the grocery store, Lammers found that identifying a country's source of origin can be extremely tricky business.   Many products only listed the product's distributor, not country of origin.   It can be difficult to locate products that are made in the U.S., or to avoid products made in other countries such as China.  (Because, of course, it's not just China. that's the problem, although they are the most frequently cited source of issues these days.)

So what can be done to help us be informed consumers?  Actually, there *should* be a solution underway right now.  Let me clarify: there *would* be a solution underway, if it hadn't been delayed. 

On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (commonly known as the 2002 Farm Bill).  This bill mandates country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for several categories of foods including meats, fruits, vegetables and peanuts.  However, the implementation of the 2002 Farm Bill has twice been delayed -- for everything except seafood -- until October 2008.  There has also been some backpedaling related to the original intent of the bill: some industry advocates and politicians have proposed voluntary labeling rather than making it mandatory. 

Fortunately, this is where we -- as concerned soccer moms -- can weigh in.  The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reopened a public comment period on the mandatory use of COOL for beef, lamb, pork, perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts.  If you're inclined to provide your opinion on this matter, you have until August 20th to comment.  Visit USDA's COOL site for instructions on providing comments via Regulations.gov, submit comments via e-mail, or fax them to (202) 720-1112.  (Note: a USDA mailing address is also available, but as a DC-area employee for the federal government, I don't recommend this approach -- our mail's never been the same following the 2001 anthrax scare.)

So go ahead: read about and decide where you stand on this issue -- I've just touched the tip of the iceberg here -- and provide your thoughts to the USDA and/or your Congressional representative.  It's the COOL thing to do.

Taking baby steps

In February, Soccermom Jane asked us to consider what we can do to make the environment better for our kids (and ourselves) through a just little bit of action.   At the time of her post, Jane and her family had already made several lifestyle changes: using cloth diapers, planning to compost garbage, and recycling whenever possible.  Her new goal was to walk rather than taking a vehicle to her son's playgroup in nice weather. 

Jane's post reminded me that even little things can make a big difference.  One of my long-term goals has always been to live a more environmentally-conscious and responsible life, but Jane helped me to think about how I could make a greater impact NOW, even if it's only in a few small ways.  And as I have slowly made changes in my own lifestyle, I have paid more attention to the stories of other people who are taking action -- in small and large ways -- with the environment in mind.  I'd like to share some of these stories with you in the hopes that you find little (or large) bits of inspiration in them as well.

• Back in March, one of my favorite bloggers applauded the new trend among Bay Area restaurants: serving tap water rather than bottled.  Citymama's comment about how much plastic we consume with each case of bottled water turned on a lightbulb in my head -- I'd never really considered how much plastic I use whenever I drink a bottle of water.  She started me thinking about a very simple change I need to make in my lifestyle: investing in one of those reusable water bottles and refilling it from the tap.

• I stumbled across an article about the Little Brown Dress sometime earlier this year.  A Seattle-area artist named Alex Martin wore a simple brown shift dress every day for a year, as a statement against consumerism.  Martin's new project is to wear only clothing that she already owns, or makes herself.  Her project has environmental implications: dressing simply means less discarded apparel to add to our landfills, and potentially less energy expended in the production of new garments.  I'm not ready to give up my wardrobe, but I'm thinking seriously about thrifting and sewing as options to store-bought clothing.

• Speaking of clothing, wouldn't it be great to wear casual clothing to work every day in the summer?  Well, the Ottawa provincial government has told its employees to do just that -- so they keep the thermostat set to a higher setting in government buildings.  The Ottawa government hopes to save money on electricity and bring attention to the issue of climate change.  Another positive outcome? Employees can get away with less dry cleaning.

• No Impact Man is one of my newest daily reads.  This blog chronicles the life of a Manhattan family endeavoring to live for one year without any net environmental impact.  No Impact Man's approach is pretty gung ho: "No garbage. No greenhouse gases. No toxins. No water pollution. No air pollution. No electricity. No produce shipped from distant lands."  He definitely does things I'm not ready to try (no DISHWASHER!?!) -- but other ideas, like the Hipster PDA, are more appealing and more practical for me. 

• Like No Impact Man, the author of Green as a Thistle is committed to "greening" her life, but her pace is much more my speed: one change a day.  This week her changes include feeding her cat locally produced organic foods, taking the stairs instead of the elevator when possible, and watering her plants with greywater.  I look forward to spending more time at her site to see what changes have worked well for her and which have been harder to implement.

Not finding the inspiration you need from the sites above?  Or are you still skeptical that small change really can make a difference?  Check out this great article about why small changes matter.  And remember: even marathon runners started to walk with just baby steps.

Jane, thanks for the inspiration.

Supporting Our Troops

I would guess I'm not alone in saying that I'm not a fan of war.  I'd love for there to be a world without violence over religious differences, territorial disputes, political philosophies, or power struggles.  However, I am a realist: war won't be eliminated in my lifetime, no matter how much we pray for peace.  In my mind, it's an undesirable, but unavoidable, part of life on Earth today.

Although I loathe war, I am a firm believer that we (and by "we" I mean the world community) must support our troops -- whether they are serving at home or abroad, or if they've been injured in the line of duty.   But I've struggled with how to do this in a meaningful way -- the red, white, and blue or yellow ribbon car magnets are a nice sentiment, but I've wanted to do something more specific. 

Finally, I have found my inspiration.  This weekend while browsing the news, I came across an article about a Philadelphia-area mother whose son was killed in Iraq last year.  During the last phone conversation between mother and son, soldier Adam Conboy half-jokingly asked his mother to send a care package with enough bedding for his Marine platoon (40 sets!), to make their sleeping conditions a little more bearable.  Adam jokingly called his idea "Operation Bedding."  He died just six days after that call. 

Faced with the unthinkable news of her son's death, Adam's mother Mary Conboy leapt into action and founded Operation Bedding (the Adam C. Conboy Memorial Fund).  In lieu of flowers at Adam's funeral, Mary collected money so that she could purchase and send a shipment of supplies to Adam's friends who were still serving in Iraq.  Mary's work in support of the troops continues, bolstered by donations of money, supplies, and volunteer services -- each week she coordinates and sends a shipment of six to ten cases of supplies, ranging from Gatorade to socks to baby wipes.  I personally am amazed at her determination and resolve -- I'm not sure I'd be such a pillar of strength under the same circumstances.

Once I read about Mary Conboy's charity, I decided to do a little more research and see what other opportunities there are to provide support to the U.S. troops.  A quick search on Yahoo shows that there are a LOT of organizations out there coordinating the delivery of supplies, services, and other types of support for our soldiers.  Of course, I don't rely on a search engine to tell me which ones are legitimate charities and which are not -- I'm a bit picky about who I will donate my money to.   So if you're looking for other alternatives to "Operation Bedding," this Department of Defense-sponsored site is a great (and reputable) place to start. 

Next Monday is Memorial Day, when the United States will spend a day remembering those who have died while serving our country in the U.S. military.   Please consider honoring the memory of Adam Conboy and others who have perished through a tangible demonstration of support -- whether it's a donation, a commitment of your time for volunteer services, or a message to the troops.

And because it can never be said too much: I'd like to express my gratitude to all of our military men and women serving domestically and abroad.  Your sacrifices are not taken for granted by me or by my family.  Thank you.

When tragedy sets the platform

Today for my post I'd planned to write about something completely different.  But in light of today's multiple shootings at Virginia Tech, my original post topic is very far from my mind.  So I'm going to try something different, something much more off-the-cuff than my usual posts here.

My family and I have personal ties to the school.  I have close friends who attended there, friends whose children live there now.  Family friends who work in or near Blacksburg.  So it's a very personal thing to me, and I'm not even as immediately affected by it as the students who were on campus today, who may have witnessed the tragedy unfolding or who have lost friends in the shootings.  And it's so horrible to think about the parents who are still anxiously waiting to hear from their children, and who will be hearing the worst news possible from a police officer or campus official.  As a mom myself -- a mom who hopes that Virginia Tech might be on my girls' short list of schools one day -- this thought stops me in my tracks.

Undoubtedly the next few days will be filled with mourning and disbelief.  The nation, Virginia in particular, will struggle to understand a tragedy that really defies logic.  There will be memorials, funerals, remembrances across the state and the country.  We will grieve.

But as we struggle to understand, the tragedy will inevitably become political.  Really, it's already started.  Debates have begun to crop up all over the media, on the TV and across the internet: debates about gun control, about securing campuses, about allowing foreign nationals access to our nation's institutions of higher education.  (Note: there is no evidence yet that the shooter, described as an Asian male, is a foreign national, but discussion of this sort is already happening in the Washington-area media.)  There will be finger pointing, there will be side-choosing.  Reporters, politicians, pundits will opine about why our society needs to do more of This and less of That to avoid future tragedies.

President Bush has already weighed in on the unspeakable events of the day -- as of course he must do, as our nation's Chief Executive.  And I can predict what will happen next: issues surrounding the Virginia Tech tragedy will be used to bolster the political platforms of the candidates for the 2008 Presidential election.  Candidates will make promises about protecting the safety and security of our young adults, securing our schools, protecting our right to bear arms.  They will appeal to our fragile sense of security and rekindle our emotions.  All in the name of winning the vote.   

OK, so maybe I'm cynical and a bit upset right now.  Do you think it's going to be as I predict?  And if this tactic is taken, is it a bad one, or is it fair?  How do you all, as voters, as parents, feel about tragedies such as this being used as the basis for political discussion come election time?  Will the political candidates just be throwing salt on our collective wounds?  Or does this approach provide a necessary conversation about what we need to do, as a nation, to "fix" what's wrong?  And if it's the latter, what kinds of messages would you look for when you head to the voting booth, what kinds of issues need to be addressed?   

I welcome the chance to have this conversation.  As much as I don't want this tragedy to be exploited for political gain, I hope -- I sincerely hope -- that we can learn something from what has happened in Blacksburg today.

And the survey says?

75% of moms in North Carolina don't care about the Presidential election.   35% of high school children couldn't describe what Dick Cheney looks like.  52% of senior citizens think Barak Obama is a relative of Osama bin Laden.

Shocking statistics?  You bet.  But don't be too worried, because I just made them up.

Darrell Huff, author of the bestselling book, How to Lie With Statistics, offers the following advisory statement when interpreting statistics:  "Even if you can't find a source of demonstrable bias, allow yourself some degree of skepticism about the results as long as there is a possibility of bias somewhere. There always is."  Huff's book is geared toward helping readers to interpret -- with the appropriate critical eye -- the statistics they come across in academics, in the workplace, and in marketing, among other contexts.  But his philosophy is also quite apt for the world of politics. 

One important part of being an informed citizen in today's world is to be able to judge the validity of information that we read about and hear.   In order to be critical thinkers we must conduct a careful analysis of data, facts, and interpretations presented by the media, by our teachers and mentors, by coworkers, by friends and family -- and of course by politicians and social activists.

We have to be critical thinkers.  We have to understand the ways that we can be lied to with statistics and with the selective presentation of information, so that we can separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. 

I know a little bit about this subject -- just enough to be dangerous -- since part of my former job was analyzing the way in which my place of employment proposed to collect information from, and present information to, its audience via statistics.  So in the spirit of Darrell Huff's book, I offer Nancy's Guide to Critical Thinking, or How Not to Be Fooled By Statistics.      

• Carefully consider cause and effect when you're presented with a so-called "causal relationship."  For instance, what if I told you that for this blog entry, I took a random poll and found that 50% of the respondents have a cold right now?  What if I also told you that the same 50% of respondents had spent an hour or more outside shoveling their cars the day before the survey?  Would it be appropriate me to assume that exposure to the bad weather caused their colds?      

• Consider that the approach used to collect the information might have skewed the results.  If a pollster frames a question other than neutrally, it may impact the way people respond.  For example, if he queries people leaving a restaurant with an ominous tone, and asks a negative question (“You didn't order one of those odd-sounding veal dishes, did you?”) he may get a different answer than if he phrased it more positively ("Did you try their delicious veal tonight?") You may not be able to detect what approach was used in conducting a poll, of course, but keep this potential bias in mind. 

• Look at the scope of the information and how it's represented.  A narrowly focused survey might give a sample that’s not representative of the population.  For example, if I ask 300 people in my county to respond to an election question, I would get a VERY different answer if I conducted my poll in my very liberal hometown as opposed to in the very conservative town on the other side of the county.  If I were to advertise the survey results as indicative of or representative of the opinions of my entire county, that would be inaccurate.

• Cast a wary eye at graphics.  The use of pictures, tables, and simple graphs is a popular way to represent public opinion and survey responses. However, the figures can often be too simplistic to show the data in a meaningful way.  For example, consider a U.S. map that's color-coded to indicate how much people in each state like coffee, where states colored green love coffee, states colored yellow like coffee, and states colored red hate coffee.  You have to wonder how the opinion of an entire state was reflected in this way -- were people surveyed, were their coffee-buying habits analyzed, were the number of Starbucks stores each the state counted?  And since "like" and "love" are such subjective terms, how can you really portray the difference between how much people in New York liked coffee versus people in California?

• Listen for when there's a careful choice of words.  The words that are chosen to describe a news story or event are often carefully selected to have an impact on the readers -- this is of course obvious when it comes to headlines.  But this also holds true when people speak about high-profile events, particularly when it's in their best interest to portray a specific perspective, but they don't want to lie outright.  One instance of this that stands out in my memory is when then-President Bill Clinton made a statement in response to the charges that he'd had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky.  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," he said, then paused before he added, "Ms. Lewinsky."  I remember joking with my husband at the time that he might have been looking at some random woman in the audience when he uttered the first part of his phrase "...with that woman." 

• Understand key assumptions before reacting.  Would you be shocked to read an article that said 60% of female children wear thong underwear?  Perhaps so, but would you be less shocked if the survey defined "children" as girls ages 10-19 as opposed to "children" ages 4 to 12?  How about if you read that "a majority" of teenagers in your school district have tried cocaine?  Your reaction might be a little bit different depending on the definition of "majority" -- certainly, there is a significant difference between 51% and 95%, but both could technically be considered "a majority."  Of course, a respectable information source makes the assumptions behind its statistics readily available, but in some cases you need to delve deeper into the fine print to find these things.   

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.  And I'm sure you do a lot of critical thinking already, particularly if you're a regular contributor to and/or reader of this site.  But I hope I've provided some food for thought, because there's a 95% chance that you'll run across some meaningless statistics today.

(Oops, better make that 100%!)

When character matters

Some of my favorite bloggers have recently discussed a Washington Post column related to women and voting.  Linda Hirshman's column, "You've Come a Long Way, Maybe" opines that women have never been a strong force in getting a candidate elected to the Presidency.  Part of Hirshman's theory on why this happens is that women do not follow the news and political happenings themselves, but rely significantly on their husbands to tell them what to focus on come election time -- thus, they are last-minute impulse voters.  Hirshman also feels that women do not pick a strong policy stance and vote according to the issues important to them; "Instead, they vote on... elusive factors such as personality."  In other words -- they vote for the person, the character -- not the platform.

I found some of Hirshman's observations quite maddening, such as her informal survey of Washington-area stay-at-home moms.  (Unscientific, indeed -- just because a handful of the women she talked to read People and Real Simple doesn't mean *all* women avoid news stories and political information.)  And insinuating that Hillary Clinton might be an intriguing candidate to women because she has suffered, soap-opera like, at the hands of an unfaithful husband?  Please.  I outgrew soap operas in my teens.

However, from a personal perspective, I can't argue with some of Hirshman's observations about how women might view political candidates differently than men when deciding to vote.  I don't vote based on policy issues alone, but actually do consider a candidate's character when I am deciding what candidate to support.  Granted, I don't consider ONLY character or personality when trying to determine who to vote for -- but I believe it is an important factor in my final decision, even when compared to a particular politician's stance on policy issues. 

What are my motivations for choosing to consider the "elusive" factor of character when I enter the voting booth? 

Candidates and elections are full of shades of gray

Because I am not a party-affiliated voter, I am more inclined to consider character as a determining factor in my vote.  For example, when I am not solidly smack in either candidate's camp with respect to policy issues -- perhaps I like one candidate's views on issue X and another candidate's views on issue Y -- I might select a candidate with the more palatable character. 

Hirshman would argue that this makes me wishy-washy in terms of taking a stance on political issues -- that, like other women, I'm not a "rational policy actor" who will "make firm policy commitments and back the candidates in the direction [I] want it to go."  This may be true, according to her definition -- but I don't think it's that simple.  I found myself nodding my head at one of the comments Hirshman received in the online discussion of her article on the WaPo: 

Couldn't it be possible that women ARE interested in these big foreign-policy issues, but don't like the way they are framed and talked about? The male perspective still is in control, with the result that politics is a horse race, foreign policy is a shout-fest, and everything comes down to winning or losing, not shades of gray.

I am sure there are other women like me -- attuned to the "shades of gray" that are inherent in discussions of policy issues.  Perhaps you're not exactly "for" or "against" gun control, but believe that some more moderate stance is appropriate.  Maybe you believe in universal healthcare, but don't like the way that either presidential candidate frames and tackles the issue.  When the candidates and political parties tend to represent themselves according to the extremes, where does a moderate fit in?  How do we vote?

I'll tell you how I vote: all other factors being equal (or the good and bad being equal, in many cases), I will vote for the candidate with the best character.  Not the one that's made racist remarks, or the one accused of sending inappropriate e-mails to the underage daughter of a campaign worker. 

Personal integrity is an important value of mine

I feel strongly about personal integrity in my everyday life.  I have the utmost respect for the coworkers, family members, and friends that exemplify the values I believe strongly in: consideration for others, a good work ethic, a commitment to living a moral and socially responsible life.  I try to serve as a positive role model for my girls, to show them they are part of a broader community and must act as a responsible member of that community. 

And really, what's wrong with bringing that viewpoint into the voting booth?  Why is it bad to vote for a person that exemplifies strong character?  Do you think this country would possibly be in better shape today if more people voted for the candidate with integrity rather than the one that would protect their pet projects?

Yes, I do think voting exclusively based on a candidate's character and integrity is naive.  If a Presidential candidate has little to no experience in the global policy arena, he or she probably will not be successful in the Oval Office regardless of how considerate, honest, and hardworking they are.  But if we all demand that our political leaders demonstrate great personal integrity along with their other qualifications, perhaps we will end up with a higher caliber of leader in our political system.

It's all about people anyway

Hirshman would probably take the stance that elections should be about the policy, the issues, and not so much about the "personal" factors.  But in my mind, elections SHOULD be more about the people, less about the issues.  Why consider a candidate solely based on how he or she looks on paper (e.g., in the media and political publications)?  If you were hiring an employee for a new position in your company, would you make a job offer based on the experiences listed on her resume, without bringing her in for an interview to make sure she "clicks" with other members of the team?  Of course not, because personality is an important factor in determining workplace success.  Thus, why should we remove the human element from our election decisions?  If we vote strictly on policy issues we risk doing just that.

Let's face it, aren't people at the core of all the issues anyway?  Why debate about war as an abstract (in terms of timelines, dollars, and resources) when we should be focusing on the human lives that hang in the balance?  How can we discuss healthcare as a broad topic without considering the faces of those who rely on the healthcare system to keep them well?  We can't, really.  I know *I* don't want a candidate whose values and integrity I don't respect to represent all the people affected by these issues.

So, Ms. Hirshman -- sorry to rain on your parade, but at least one woman out here has been deliberately considering character when heading into the voting booth.  And despite your theory that Hillary Clinton may have to launch attacks against her opponent to garner the female vote in this election, that particular strategy won't win me over.  Because character DOES matter to this voter.  And I may be the only one that feels this way, but I don't think so.

Rocking the vote

I've previously alluded to my late awakening with respect to politics.  In high school and college I would listen to the news, but not place any real significance on stories related to domestic or foreign affairs -- unless it was a story that impacted me directly.  It wasn't until I started living on my own that I began to develop a real world view.  That was about the time that Rock the Vote (RtV) was beginning to gain momentum.

Does anyone else remember RtV ads on MTV in the early 1990s?  I recall Madonna, Woody Harrelson, and members of the Red Hot Chili Peppers (among others) encouraging me to get out and exercise my right to vote.  RtV at that time was groundbreaking in its focus on how to get the largely untapped youth demographic (ages 18-25) passionate about politics and interested in voting.

While browsing the news a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to learn that RtV is still around, over a decade after it was first founded.  Unfortunately, RtV's road has been a rocky one over the past several years: the organization has fielded criticism stemming from financial and leadership issues, claims of ineffectiveness, and charges of reported bias toward a liberal agenda.

Even though RtV is still alive and kicking, I can't count it to be the thing that will get *my* kids interested in political and social activism -- and not just because of RtV's problems described above.  The idea of using influential celebrities to encourage political activism is a solid one, but I believe an interest in political and social issues must be established before the age at which kids recognize (and strive to emulate) famous actors and singers.

So, with or without RtV, how can I make sure my kids are engaged in political and social issues?  How do I provide them with the motivation to get engaged when they are young, so they don't become a political late-bloomer like their mom?

With ideas gleaned from the resources linked below (and help from my husband J and friend Nicole Soccermom), I've come up with a basic list of strategies to use with my girls, who are now 5 and 2.  This will be my game plan in raising two politically and socially aware citizens:

Start small and grow up.  We don't have to introduce politics to our children by making them recite the Preamble to the Constitution when they are learning to talk (though Schoolhouse Rock is great for that!)  We can teach them gradually, and build later lessons on the early concepts.  For example, many simple behaviors can eventually morph into an opportunity to teach social and political concepts: teach your small child not to litter; as your child grows, encourage him to pick up litter that he comes across in his daily walk to school; perhaps as a teen your child would then be motivated to organize a litter clean-up activity within his school. 

Give kids a community view.  A sense of community is a critical foundation of many social institutions, including schools, churches, non-profits, (and even soccer fields!)  We are connected to our neighbors in both a local sense and a global one, but if kids don't learn early how their behaviors can impact others (positively and negatively), they are unlikely to evolve from a "what's in it for me" kind of attitude.  We, as parents, must explain the significance of our kids' roles as part of larger communities -- within the family, town, region, state, and/or nation.  When kids can see beyond a narrowly defined world view, they are less likely to be complacent about social and political issues.

Keep them informed.  It's nearly impossible for any of us to be involved in political and social issues if we don't keep up with what's going on in the world.  For this reason, it's important to ensure that our kids understand what's happening in the world around them -- with the content they are exposed to at age-appropriate levels, of course.  Since my oldest daughter is just learning to read, she's not at the point yet where she can follow her own news stories (and I prefer not to expose her to TV-based news) -- but soon I will be searching for a kid-friendly source of news to serve as a basis for family discussions. 

Set an example.  Our kids are more likely to be passionate about political and social issues if we demonstrate that we are, too.  On Election Day, take them to the polls when you vote, and explain who you are voting for.  Write letters to your Congressional and State representatives, when appropriate, to express your views on issues impacting your community.  Participate in community meetings and hearings, and bring your kids to listen to the discussion.  Volunteer for causes that you are passionate about.

Supplement classroom learning.  Sure, our kids get a lot of their civics lessons in the schools, but it helps them to absorb their lessons better if they are supplemented with family-based activities.  Traveling with your kids to visit historical and political places of interest is a fun way to combine learning and pleasure.  We are fortunate to be within an hour's drive of Washington, DC, with its wealth of federal government offices -- I look forward to bringing my girls to the White House, Congress, the American History Museum, and other sites as they grow.

Encourage critical thinking.  Foster an environment of open discussion when discussing political and social issues -- this encourages kids to think broadly about issues when forming their opinions, rather than adopting a narrowly focused mindset.  Don't be afraid to share your own views, but play devil's advocate sometimes so that your kids can understand the complexity of these issues.  Be careful to emphasize differences between personal opinion and fact, and teach your child to back up their position with factual statements rather than emotional ones.  This will teach your kid to hold her own in a political discussion or debate (and prepare her for the analysis she'll need to deploy in her history class essays!) 

Feel free to provide feedback and/or add your own ideas in the comments!  And don't forget to rock the vote with your kids -- whatever your approach.

--
Resources for additional information:

Ben's Guide to U.S. Government for Kids: The host for this site is a cartoon Ben Franklin, who provides lessons on U.S. government for different grade ranges.  With a daughter entering kindergarten next year, I browsed the K-2 material and found it informative, objective, and age-appropriate.

Elephant, Donkeys, and Pundits, Oh My! Talking to Kids About Politics: This article from AboutOurKids.org features recommendations for talking to children about politics, organized by age group.  It's brief, but full of helpful advice.

The Democracy Project: This PBS Kids website describes, in simple terms, the role of government in our lives.  It also includes a mini lesson about the importance of voting.

What Kids Can Do: A teen-focused site which emphasizes civic engagement, philanthropy, and community activism. 

The right to health

When I first heard about The Soccer Mom Vote, I was intrigued, but mentally decided that I wouldn't be a good candidate to write over here.  I tend to describe myself as apolitical, because I have strong feelings about certain issues but have not made up my mind about others, and because I avoid party affiliations. 

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that my voice might be an important one to share.  I'm sure I am not the only voter in this country who doesn't define herself squarely in one party or another but is still passionate about social, environmental, and political concerns.  So this forum will be my soapbox -- or better yet, my sounding board, where we can discuss and relate and share and learn from one another.  I am thrilled at this opportunity.

I have a personal interest in a fair and equitable healthcare system for the United States, due to a rare disease that requires me to receive an exorbitantly expensive treatment once a month.  For life.  A treatment which I literally could not afford without my health insurance. 

But I am one of the fortunate ones in this country.  I have excellent insurance, partially subsidized by my employer, and a plan that covers me and my family.  We are able to choose our providers to a large extent.  We do not have to worry about referrals.  We have not been refused treatment.  We do not have a lifetime cap on costs which would require us to switch insurance companies and possibly be denied coverage due to preexisting conditions.

Many, many individuals and families in the United States are not so fortunate. 

Sometimes people have to "float" without coverage for days, weeks, or months before their new coverage kicks in.  They must hope and pray that they will not get sick enough to require treatment, or that they will not suffer from an accident or injury that will require hospitalization.

Or families can be denied health insurance altogether.

Sometimes emergency rooms refuse treatment to individuals because the doctors don't think a patient's insurance will sufficiently cover their services.  People have to sell off all their worldly possessions to pay for medical treatment, or must incur serious debt to pay off medical bills. 

And heart-breakingly, insurance sometimes doe not cover treatment even in the most desperate of circumstances.

You might have assumed that many of the United States' uninsured are the poor and/or unemployed citizens and residents of this country.  But there are some sobering statistics about America's healthcare system and who exactly are the nation's uninsured.  In a fascinating article on this subject, Dr. Mike Magee of "Health Politics"* breaks down the numbers:

There are approximately 290 million U.S. citizens, [of which] 244 million, or 84%, have health insurance, and approximately 46 million, or 16%, are uninsured.

[The] 46 million number pertaining to the uninsured is somewhat misleading... First, it includes only those without insurance for 12 months. If you count all who went without for at least 1 month in 2005, the number jumps to 64 million uninsured. Second, it says nothing about quality of the insurance. And as insurers and employers are rushing to embrace consumer-directed health plans with high deductibles and health savings accounts, the risk of losing it all is rising for the American family. Third, the number doesn’t include an estimated 7 to 10 million illegal immigrants who function in the U.S. under the radar screen, arriving at the nation’s emergency rooms when they’re sick and desperate.

So many people and families without insurance.  Avoiding the doctor's office or hospital until they are close to death's door, and then wondering how they will foot the bill.  Worrying about family members who suffer through illness and injury untreated.

And the issues faced by individuals and families that DO have insurance are still too numerous to count.  For most Americans, health insurance is inextricably tied to one's employment.  It is not designed to be portable as individuals move from one job to another.  So a person losing his job often suffers a double whammy: loss of income due to unemployment and loss of insurance due to the severing of their healthcare. 

America's health care system is reactive rather than proactive.  It's not uncommon for emergency rooms to treat the heart attack victim repeatedly, rather than implement wellness visits to ensure that the individual is following a recommended dietary and exercise regimen.  Proactive health management can address glaring problems in the community such as poor nutrition, lack of exercise, and mental health screening to detect depression and other issues before they become a crisis -- but it's still not widely utilized or accepted.

Conditions for medical professionals impact the quality of healthcare provided.  An ongoing nursing shortage in this country has left the nation's nursing core overworked and burned out, and subject to leaving the profession to find a less demanding career.  Medical malpractice costs have crippled physicians and affected insurance costs. 

Workers everywhere struggle with not having enough sick leave or family leave.  Many hourly wage earners get no sick days, so they must carefully weigh the impact of a day's wages lost against going to work while they are under the weather.  If they work, they run the risk of infecting others, but if they don't work they lose that valuable paycheck. 

Even salaried workers with benefits struggle with having enough sick leave.  New moms who have just returned to work (after a too short maternity leave) must often take unpaid days off when sick, or work through illnesses -- their meager leave is often used to stay home with their sick children.

Our healthcare crisis is is a huge and complex problem, and I'm not sure any one person has all the answers.  Some people believe that universal healthcare is the answer, pointing to the successes of a single healthcare system as implemented in other countries.  Detractors of this approach say that universal healthcare can exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots, because those with access to resources can bypass the regular system and pay for their own high-quality care. 

I am still trying to understand all the complexities of this problem, as well as potential solutions.  However, it helps if we all can be informed consumers of healthcare and work toward bringing about a better solution for the nation.

Some good sources of information on this subject:

Families USA is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that strives to achieve better healthcare. It addresses issues regarding the uninsured, prescription drugs, and Medicaid.

Patient Advocacy Resources: this site includes an online guide for patients and their families, which tells consumers what they need to know from their doctors about their health, including lists of questions people should ask before surgery and regular check-ups. Also explains the rights people have as patients and as human beings.

Universal Health Care Action Network (UHCAN) is a nationwide network that promotes comprehensive health care for all through education, strategy development and advocacy.

The American Medical Student Association's page on Universal Health Care features a number of resources, including a helpful overview of health policy.

Read.  Become informed.  Come back and discuss.