By Michael Leppert
www.michaelleppert.com

America lost a great woman this week.

I voted against Barbara Bush’s husband twice.  I slowly started liking her throughout her husband’s term, and my fondness of her has continued to grow.  Because of her, I think more of him.  I voted against her son, George W., twice also.  I like him more than I once did as well, though I split much of the credit for that between the first Mrs. Bush and another one.

All greatness aside, she was comfortably familiar to many of us.  She’s like a special lady to me who has been gone for a long time and who I miss terribly.  I bet many of us can say that.

I wonder what Mrs. Bush would say, in private of course, to our nation’s leaders today. If only she could talk to them, and if only they were able to listen.

So, here goes.  Mrs. Bush and Mike Pence sit down and watch the news together for a minute.  And this is what they both see:

The United States joined forces with France and the UK in a mission to bomb Syria.  It was in response to another chemical weapons attack by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on his own people.  It’s barbaric behavior that crosses a line for most.

Mrs. Bush might ask, “is this the beginning or the end of all this?”

Vice President Mike Pence spoke about the attacks while he was in Peru filling in for the president.  Many of his comments sound like they came from someone who was not governor of Indiana in November of 2015. That was the month he decided to block Syrian refugees from coming to the Hoosier state.

Jenna Johnson covered Pence’s trip for the Washington Post and wrote a frustrating article on Sunday.  She reported this statement from him: “Remember to pray for people that are struggling under the weight of tyranny.” Later in discussion with reporters there, he went on to say in reference to our coalition’s bombings that “this was the morally right act to take.”

Mrs. Bush might ask “where are your prayers and morals leading you?”

The premise of Johnson’s article was the confusion that messages like this cause. These compassionate sounding words and the tone in which they are intended don’t match the administration’s actions. However, what frustrated me about her coverage was the lack of emphasis on Pence’s own hypocrisy on the matter.

Less than three years ago, and for almost two years of legal battles that followed, this man wanted to keep Indiana from helping these same people by allowing them entry here as refugees.  It’s as if it is morally correct to respond to the violence they face with violence of our own. But giving them a safe place to exist, of which we have an abundance of here, is not.

Our nation has only allowed 44 Syrian refugees into the country since October of 2017. That is a political decision made at the highest levels of our government by Pence, President Trump, Trump aide Stephen Miller and others.  This is the morally “wrong” act to take.

Mrs. Bush might say to these men, “let’s judge a man by what he’s done.”  She actually did say that one.

America has more to offer Syrians than bombs.  We have the capacity and willingness to care for far more of them than we do right here, where it is safe.  We should.  Let’s offer that help before that tyrant kills more of them, not after.

In 1989 regarding a different crisis, she wisely said “you can hug and pick up AIDS babies and people who have the HIV virus.”  Her words helped us with our fear. We didn’t need to be scared of AIDS victims then, and Americans don’t need to be scared of refugees now.

She might remind our leaders as she had said before to “never lose sight of the fact that the most important yardstick of your success will be how you treat other people…along the way.”  How do we measure toward Syrians?

I bet she would make it simple. Because it is. Blowing things up in Syria because Assad killed children and civilians who we actively chose not to help does not make us morally right.  We shouldn’t pretend that it does.

We celebrate Mrs. Bush on the week of her passing by remembering the best of her. I wish we would celebrate our great people when they pass by renewing our understanding of the lessons they taught.  Hers were so useful and simple.

Simple enough to be understood and used by Mike Pence.

Michael Leppert is a public and governmental affairs consultant in Indianapolis and writes his thoughts about politics, government and anything else that strikes him at MichaelLeppert.com.

Tyrades! by Danny Tyree

According to NBC News, the majority of the Washington, D.C. council as well as the mayor and the “Washington Post” are pushing a bill that would make the District of Columbia the first place in the nation to allow people as young as 16 to vote in federal elections (including presidential races).

A growing number of cities and states are considering their own ways to expand “civic engagement” to younger people.

I’m not one of those “Children should be seen and not heard” curmudgeons. Many 16-year-olds have extensive life experience supporting their families, and I know some high school students whose voting judgment I would trust implicitly; but I still have mixed emotions about upending the status quo.

I guess I’m nostalgic for slogans such as “Remember the Alamo,” “Loose lips sink ships” and “Don’t tread on me.” It’s just not the same to rally around “Let’s swap one arbitrary age for another arbitrary age! And don’t dump that tea in the harbor, dude! It’ll stress the polar bears and stuff.”

Agreed, members of the Baby Boom generation (and surrounding generations) have left the world in quite a mess. We seem to think that money, status and violence are the answer to everything. We’re so dementia-adjacent that we can’t absorb the self-evident truth that running away with your 45-year-old drivers ed teacher is the answer to everything!!!

Should arms negotiators have to worry about polling results from naeB/ve individuals who approach nuclear war with the sage attitude, “You can’t get irradiated if it’s your first time. Or maybe it’s ‘You can’t get irradiated if you’re standing up”?

Undoubtedly, dropping the voting age by two years would bring in some new blood and encourage thinking outside the box. The new voting bloc might find the key to ending world hunger, the key to solving economic inequality, the key to achieving racial harmony. Unfortunately, right now they’re a little preoccupied trying to find the key to mom and dad’s liquor cabinet…

What vast governmental changes would be wrought by an influx of younger voters? Forget tearing down statues; they would probably tear down the Library of Congress. (“It reeks of Permanent Record!”) The Centers for Disease Control would put those wasted West Nile Virus dollars to work eradicating the zit plague. The Environmental Protection Agency would be assigned tasks such as “Please, do something about my mom’s new boyfriend’s aftershave.” Lady Justice would remain blindfolded, but dropping her gown would make for some wicked awesome sexting!

Opponents of the lowered voting age fear a slippery slope of ever-younger voters. Yeah, do we want a campaign season where candidates furtively pass out folded notes that ask, “Do you like me? Mark yes or no”?

I was not reassured by the high school junior who promised me that 16 was as low as it would go. (“My 14-year-old brother’s ‘social engagement’ will remain having his face shoved into my armpit!”)

One thing propelling the rethinking of age restrictions is the eloquence and passion shown by young activists in recent months. A message of “My adolescent brain may not be fully formed, but my opinions sure are!” has a lot of politicians and businessmen shaking in their boots.

But older organizers comfort themselves with the thought, “I’m glad they hate guns. They’d SHOOT us if they ever figured out how we’re manipulating them!”