Words'nTone

As a Community Action Agency we produce a community assessment every three years (with annual updates).  This process is quite an undertaking.  It consists of survey data (of clients, frontline staff, other agency staff, agency Board members), recent local newspaper articles, demographic data, the most recent census data, focus groups, relevant collateral information (other surveys, too), and research, as well as just plain research on the subject of poverty, the poor, trends, and relevant studies.  In fact I spend time researching those who research our locale and region—real estate companies, the local and State Board of Educations, the regional Workforce Investment Board, and when I can find it, business research from companies who might be planning to do business in our area or build (such as MacDonald’s, hotels, manufacturing companies, shopping stores, etc.).  And, of course I run many searches on www.census.gov (American fact finder).

Last fall (2007) I produced our most recent Community Assessment—this year I have updated it with recent and relevant material.  From this process I produce a rather lengthy paper—this year it is over 45 pages long.  But it can all be boiled down to my top ten priority list of “Greatest Need Areas” or the top ten greatest gaps in service (depending on how I refer to it).  This will be our agency’s top ten list of areas that need to be addressed to meet people’s needs.  Of course there is a difference between a general need assessment and a specific one.  Mine deals specifically with the needs of low-income and economically at-risk populations.  (The difference can be seen in that a recent and local general needs assessment produced as its top two needs areas “traffic congestion” and “personal stress,” whereas the top two need areas related to my research related to the low-income population (this year) are “access to affordable healthcare” and “access to affordable childcare.” Politians take note!)

My point however is not this process or my conclusions—which I do believe are relevant for this political season—but in focusing on the top, say, five greatest need areas relevant to Americans, I have a suggestion to those running for high office.  Although the top five will change somewhat from region to region, probably county to county, I understand this is a nation-wide general election, so what I think here is a national need assessment of the top five issues facing Americans as a whole.  And my point—I think our two major candidates for the presidency of the United States should have five specific debates on how they’d address the top five issues or need areas facing Americans.  I suspect they already know what they are—healthcare, education, national security, the economy, and cost of energy (list not in order of priority).  I am guessing from what I have read…and I think I am pretty darn close here.

I say five two hour long debates.  Some of the format can be structured like the current presidential debates (blah blah blah), but I’d leave room (at least an hour) for open back and forth debate (like that one episode of West Wing in its last season—fantastic!).  Let the candidates articulate how they’d seek to address each issue and address why their opponent’s approach or lack of is not going to work as well or at all.  (And how’d they pay for it too!) Focus on one area at a time, not on talking points like “the war in Iraq,” or “the oil companies,” or “family values”…you know catch words that are designed to hit emotions in the audience, but mean nothing in turns of actually actions or steps…I mean real discussion on the top five things that people face everyday and what plagues their minds about the future.  I know this won’t happen.  It will make the candidates vulnerable.  And a particular candidate might not be given to such standing debate…but if I were a candidate, I’d take that risk…I’d even schedule one of these each week in the fall and ask the other to just show up—the press will follow and so will the crowds.  Let’s see if any of these guys read my blog.  Both Barak Obama and John McCain should be reading my blog!

Hmmm. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with approaching the presidential debates from the standpoint of “need.” My reason for saying this is that governments were not instituted to meet people’s needs but to secure their rights and maintain justice and order in society. This is consistent with the Declaration of Independence, which states, “...To secure these rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is also consistent with biblical statements concerning the God-ordained role of government, including 1 Peter 2:13-15 and Romans 13. In addition, some of the needs you mentioned, including education, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government but are more appropriately addressed by the states and/or local governments. Unfortunately, this fact hasn’t stopped the federal government from intruding into those areas.

I don’t understand...Presidential candidates should not investigate what concerns Americans and then take positions on them...I don’t understand.  I think that the top five areas of which most Americans have their biggest concerns are--healthcare, education, national security, the economy, and cost of energy.  We as Christians ought not to be splitting our existence into “spiritual” vs. “material” (which is just pure gnostism, not Christianity), nor embrace a dualistic faith (a debate for another time).  I am not gonna argue with you on whether education is a national issue (but I didn’t even list that as a top five concern for debating, although that’s a good one two--let a candidate argue that the federal government ought not to be concerned about education...that is a perfectly legitimate position), but certainly security and the economy are issues related to both justice and the pursuit of happiness.  But we are Christians, not Americans first, and that means we should expect that our government do justice which means a whole lot more than making sure a poor person is treated fairly in court.  Anyway...of course the candidates ought to debate what concerns Americans and a conservative candidate may argue for less government than another...if that’s the position one has, but still...an issues oriented debate would be a lot better than we usually get.

PS regarding...“...To secure these rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”...these “rights” are not isolated to the private sphere, but certainly are relational...so some entity--apparently the Federal Government--has some resposibility to enforce, regulate, mind the store on how all these “rights” integrate with 300 million people...at least they have some say...so I’d like to know how a candidate will address what matters to Americans as those concerns relate to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” before I give my consent (my vote).

You did mention education, in the following sentence: “I suspect they already know what they are—healthcare, education, national security, the economy, and cost of energy (list not in order of priority).” And I agree with you about basing the debates on issues that are of concern to Americans; I just wasn’t comfortable with the idea of framing them in the context of “needs.” I think that too many Americans look to government as the entity that is responsible for meeting their personal/material needs, and that’s God’s role. God, not the government, is our Provider (though of course, He often provides through His people, so as such we are responsible for caring for our neighbors who are in need in whatever way we can).

Also, in terms of your PS, I love the idea of framing the debates in the context of our inalienable rights. That was very well stated!

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.