We are told that we are on the wrong trajectory.

We are foreclosing. Recessing.

We are unhappy about the direction of the country.

We are told we need a change.

When times are tough, it seems there are two ways Americans can go: we can
polarize and itemize, pick and choose our Constitutional issues and vote
according to uncompromising ideals, or we can band together, fortified by our
cohesive strength, and help to lift each other up.

In my lifetime, I have seen the country do this once, in the aftermath of 9/11.
My parents and their parents have seen similar moments of grief and hope
interspersed throughout the last century, turning points when great
accomplishments were made possible by the people’s belief in a common cause.

It seems to me that we may be on the cusp of such a turning point in this election
year, and that if pushed hard enough, we may find the gumption to not only push
back, but push forward.

With this in mind, it is my firm conviction that Americans can and will sacrifice on
a personal level in order to obtain some societal gain—we have done so
numerous times in the past eight years, forfeiting civil liberties in the name of
national security, and young soldiers’ lives in the name of Iraqi freedom. We
have shown that in order to strengthen ourselves as a whole, we are willing to
give as individuals, and in that vein there is no reason to assume that the
pressing and urgent issues at hand today cannot be solved by and large by we,
the people.

Al Gore and his $300 million Alliance for Climate Change ad campaign tell me
every evening during my binge reality TV time that there is no more pressing
moral issue than solving the global climate crisis, and to some extent, I agree.
We didn’t wait for someone else to guarantee Civil Rights, or storm the beaches
at Normandy, or send a man to the moon! the spots proclaim, evoking the
capacity of American innovation and our self-image as the world’s moral and
scientific leader. Who else but us could tackle such an issue, and show the world
how it’s done?
There is perhaps no better way to mobilize the American masses then to play to
our egos, and so I say: Well done, Al!
Now all we need is the solution.

It seems obvious, though important, to point out that in order to “solve” this
problem, one variable must be emphasized, and that is the burning of gasoline.
Simply put, this variable must be reduced (or, ideally, eliminated) in order to quell
global warming.
To those that believe that global warming is an over-hyped myth, a media
phenomenon created to scare us off oil, I say that you’re entitled to your opinion,
and that really, it doesn’t matter. Oil is simply too expensive and too limited to
continue to be the crux of our fuel economy. It is going to run out, and most of it
is controlled by nations unsympathetic to our issues with gas prices. Even it you
don’t think it’s an environmental problem, you can’t deny it has become a
massive economic problem. Thus, the argument stands: we must reduce our
reliance on oil.

In America, a land largely dominated by and designed around automobiles, this

variable not only affects the economy and the global oil market, but more
importantly, it affects almost every citizen who needs to get to work, pick their
kids up from day care, or buy a carton of milk, and to that end it is largely an
individual variable, multiplied by the millions of cars that hit the road every day.
Again, this all seems obvious, and it brings me to my obvious conclusion: that in
order to solve this problem, we are going to have to drive less.

I say “drive less” instead of “drive differently” because auto manufacturers,

though clearly working toward the possibility of hybrid/electric/corn-fed cars, have
stated time and time again that the transition will inevitably be slow, arduous, and
wrought with opposition, which it certainly has been to this point. With that in
mind, until the “gas variable” is reduced by fuel-efficient or environmentally
friendly cars (presumably when they become the industry standard, are
affordable, and make up the majority of cars in the country, a transition that at the
current rate could take decades,) we must then decrease it by the only means
available, which means on that individual level of driving less, if at all.
Here’s where that individual sacrifice idea comes in.

Solutions to problems of this nature are often arbitrarily decided, in order to be

more fair—things like the military draft, the random audit, and the speeding ticket
are largely luck-of-the-draw, but serve a compelling societal and governmental
interest. You may not be the one chosen, but someone has to be.
In this instance, I think it best to go the way of the draft, which discriminates
based on sex because of the interest of the armed forces in maintaining a male-
dominated, physically tough fighting corps. The sexes are usually seen as equal
under the law, but sometimes, differentiation is acceptable.

And now, I’ll go ahead and say it: women are terrible drivers.
Even though men get into more accidents every year, I have no doubt that those
accidents are largely caused by women. Have you ever been on a freeway
behind a minivan? Or in a carpool line? I mean really.
(I should make it clear that I am a woman, and my own driving ability is no
exception.)
With this in mind, I find it only fitting that the less adept, and less likely users of
automobiles (men drive more, which also explains having more accidents,)
should stop using them altogether.
And so we come to a logical solution: In order to solve global warming and the
growing oil crisis, women should no longer be able to drive.

By taking away a woman’s right to drive, we will HALVE the number of drivers
polluting, congesting and generally mucking up our nation’s roads. We will see
increases in carpooling and ride sharing, and voters will support (in many cases
demand) the expansion and improvement of public transportation systems. With
demand for gas dramatically decreased, oil companies will be forced to lower
their prices, assuaging demands on drivers’ pocketbooks. And I guarantee a
more than 50% decrease in auto-related fatalities.

Now, there will naturally need to be some exceptions to this rule. I propose this
ban on women drivers only expand to “private” drivers, of their own cars—that is,
bus drivers, Fed Ex employees, etc, will still be able to drive company
transportation as a part of their jobs. 16 year-old girls will still be able to obtain
licenses to this effect, but will no longer be able to drive themselves to school.

I have no doubt that many people will express outrage and disbelief at this idea,
but really, if you think about it, it’s a lot less ridiculous than allowing Prohibition,
or for that matter, the Patriot Act. Naturally this will require a restructuring of
many lives, and for some, it will not be easy. The rewards, however, will greatly
outweigh these inconveniences. Aside from the obvious environmental and
economic benefits, an increased public interest in transportation will lead to
better, more cohesive communities, where people carpool and ride the bus
together. Women will walk more, and get more beneficial exercise- can we solve
the obesity epidemic as well? Why not! This solution will positively affect many
aspects of an individual’s life, but requires only one sacrifice.

Now, naturally there needs to be some degree of give-and-take. As women will

be sacrificing a right that they have previously enjoyed, it seems only fair that
men do the same during the interim of this experiment. I propose the following
sacrifice for many of the same reasons as I proposed the first:

Men may drive more, but they vote less. Also, women were denied the right to
vote for over a century of this nations’ history. Men are less likely to become
personally involved in political action, and tend to be more out of touch with
current issues.

So, it seems, the natural counter to the women’s sacrifice is for men to lose their
right to vote.

Again, this will serve a compelling societal interest— as men will need to express
their political views in terms of persuading women, dialog will open across the
sexes that will ensure more discussion of issues too often put on the back
burner, such as education, health care and the environment. Advocating and
perpetuating war, issues so often prioritized by men, will seem less relevant in
the face of a domestic-minded electorate. Because they will not be heard on
election day, men will have to become more politically involved outside of the
voting booth if they want their voices heard.
The balance of power, thrown off by women loosing the right to drive, will
undoubtedly be leveled out by their increased importance in the democratic
process.
Will everyone be happy about this compromise? Of course not! But the more
important question is WILL IT WORK?
Clearly, it has enormous potential.

There are real, serious problems at work in our country, and it is apparent that
we Americans are capable of great personal sacrifice in order to overcome them.
We must band together to heal and strengthen this nation, and we must turn to
radical solutions if we are to enjoy the effects of change in our lifetime.
So you:
Stop driving!
And you:
Stop voting!
And together, we can set this ship aright.