Yes, Virginia, There Is Hope - The Invisible Majority

Of all the unfortunate results of the 2016 campaign and election, perhaps the worst is that 

the divisive identity politics pursued by both parties resulted in a loss of any feeling that we are one people, one country.  Instead, post-election there are two opposing camps at war; so many angry voices, so much vilification on both sides.  For many it destroyed any sense of hope for our country.

The Clinton campaign will refute this charge, but even with its “Stronger Together” slogan it played divisive politics by consistently demeaning those who were supporting Trump.  And Clinton supporters did not hold back in their vituperative remarks.  

The election thus seemed to show two large disparate vocal groups.  The majority (but not the winners) were vocal supporters for a fair America defined by a fistful of people’s rights, but who seemed to care little for the plight of the American factory worker and to have no use for a reading of the 2nd Amendment that included an individual right to bear arms.  

The very vocal minority (but the winners) were what has been described as anti-establishment, anti-elite.  They were for bringing back good middle-class worker jobs and against globalization.  They were against large government.  The noise of the campaign also made it seem that they were anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic, anti-immigration, and anti-choice (against Roe v Wade).  Some would even claim anti-women.

I say “seem” because while this describes the direction of the two campaigns … the only real game in town voters had to choose from … it does not describe the voters.  Get away from the politics of the moment, and there is in fact a large American majority that crosses party lines and looks quite different from the rhetoric of the two campaigns.  

How is this invisible majority defined?  I think that first and foremost this invisible majority wants three things:

1.  They each want for themselves, as well as for all Americans, the opportunity to partake of the American dream; it should not just be for a select few.  They want America to start building things again and create solid middle-class working jobs.  They do not want to see any group given preference over another.  All should have equal opportunity and advancement should be based on merit and no other factor.  (See discussion below and my post, “Economic Justice for All.”)

2.  They want a secure America … secure from terrorist attacks and secure from everyday violence as they go about their lives.

3.  They want a government that listens to them, that clearly hears them.

As for the other what-I-would-call side issues … abortion, a Muslim registry, undocumented Latinos, gun control … the majority of Americans don’t support Trump’s position.  My proof?

Re choice/abortion, for the last two decades, according to the Pew Research Center, roughly 56% of American adults have said abortion should be legal in all or most cases; 41% have said it should be illegal.  

All Americans are against Muslim terrorists and support vetting new Muslim immigrants or travelers.  But according to a June 2016 Gallup report, only a minority, albeit a sizable one, is in favor either of banning all new Muslim immigrants (38%) or requiring Muslims U.S. citizens to carry a special ID (32%).  That is to me a disturbingly large number but still clearly far from the majority view.

As for undocumented Latinos, polls in recent years have consistently shown majority support for some path to citizenship.  As recently as September 2016, a CNN poll showed that 88% (including 80% of Trump supporters) would be in favor of a path to citizenship for all those who have a clean record, have worked and paid taxes, and speak English.

Then there is the divisive issue of gun control.  Gun owners fear, as a result of NRA fear mongering, that their guns will be taken away, but taking guns out of the hands of hunters and home owners has never even been an item of discussion among gun control advocates.  Virtually all Americans support access to appropriate guns for hunting and self-defense.  So even on the 2nd Amendment, there is broad agreement.  

That agreement extends to limitations on that right, for as with all constitutional rights, this one too is not absolute.  As shown in a 2016 Pew Research Center report, the majority of Americans are in favor of tighter control of who acquires guns and the types of guns. The vast majority favor expanded background checks for gun shows and private sales (88% D; 79% R), laws preventing the mentally ill from buying guns (79%), and a federal database to track guns sales (70% - 85% D; 55% R).  A majority also favors a ban on assault-style weapons (57% - 70% D; 48% R).  

So how come Trump won the election?  Why did all these people who don’t agree with him on so many issues vote for him?

First, as various articles have made clear, they voted for him because they believed he was the best chance for restoring good-paying middle class working jobs.  He clearly heard them and took up their cause.  Democrats have been promising this for years but have achieved little, as Trump kept on accusing Clinton during the campaign.  The jobs created during the Obama administration were not jobs that helped the former middle class worker and the post-recession upswing has not benefitted them.  

Second, the recent uptick of radical Muslim terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. was understandably frightening to many and they liked Trump’s strict talk.  Clinton said almost nothing useful about this subject.  Third, many people, even white educated women, voiced a real dislike for Hillary, which is why even a majority in that cohort voted for Trump.

And finally, and perhaps most decisively, Trump was defiantly anti-establishment, both regarding the Republican Party and government.  Clinton on the other hand is usually seen as the very embodiment of the establishment/government.

So while the election results give Trump a “mandate” to move forward with his economic plans, parts of his national security plan, and his general anti-government perspective, it should not be seen as a mandate regarding human/civil rights-related matters.  Nevertheless it surely will be taken to be a mandate regarding all areas covered by the campaign.  That’s what all winning elections claim.

More importantly, though, the election should not be taken by anyone as evidence that the majority of Americans have lost their common sense, their morality, and have become a bigoted, racist mass.  Of course there are bigots and racists out there; there always have been.  But even among Trump supporters, they form only a small percentage.  I honestly don’t even believe Trump is bigoted or racist; he certainly played those cards to win, but then so have others before him, just not as blatantly.

“But.” the reader may ask, “isn’t your statement about what the invisible majority wants off the mark?  What about the fact that so many Blacks are adamant about maintaining affirmative action and so many whites, especially middle class workers, are adamantly against it?”

No.  Remember that my statement starts with what everyone wants for themselves; that’s the starting point, the reference point.  Blacks feel as they do because despite our laws on equal opportunity, there has never been anything close to equal opportunity for Blacks in this country, especially the poor.  It starts with  poorly funded and neglected inner city schools and continues with the existence of discrimination in much of the job market.  

Whites on the other hand feel as they do because affirmative action has resulted in Blacks with less qualification still getting job preference 50 years after the civil rights laws were passed.  They may be considered part of the “privileged class” because they are white, but they do not feel privileged.  Many are suffering economically and angry that they see attention being given only to others’ rights, not theirs. 

If, as I say in that statement, everyone had true equal opportunity, I think all would feel that the only consideration in education, hiring, and advancement should be merit, not color.

Recognizing that Trump supporters are not the bogeyman, everyone on the progressive/center side of politics should be not only open to, but arguing for a new Democratic politics that reaches out to and forms a bond with the average Trump voter (many of whom were formerly mainstay Democrats).  This means foregoing identity politics and recognizing that we are all in the same boat and we all either swim or sink together.  And it means recognizing the things in Trump’s agenda which we can and should support because they are good for America. 

We need to say to Trump voters, “We support Trump’s efforts to create good-paying middle-class working jobs.  We support his efforts to restore and improve the country’s infrastructure.  

We feel for workers whose lives have been shattered and who have not been listened to.  We understand that we must make government more responsive to the people.  We know you are not racists or bigots.   You are upstanding citizens and we apologize that anyone has characterized you otherwise.

But there are dark forces out there which must be countered, and so we ask you to stand up as Trump supporters and make clear that:

- You support an earned path to citizenship for undocumented Latinos who have clean records, have worked and paid taxes, and speak English, 

- You oppose a Muslim registry of U.S. citizens, 

- You support reasonable efforts to stop the sale of guns to those who have evidenced that they cannot be trusted with the power of guns, and 

-  You unequivocally disapprove of any violent acts and vandalism taken by individuals/vigilante groups against Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, LGBT people, Jews, or any other group.”  

I have not included abortion rights or other women’s rights issues in this outreach request because Trump voters’ support of these issues is not as great and I don’t think anything should distract from the large agreement on these other very important issues.

Whether white middle class worker, or black inner city dweller, or rural farmer, regardless what color, gender, faith, walk of life, ethnicity or sexual orientation, the government and the economy should be there for each and every one.  Everyone is entitled to equality and respect.  Everyone should have access to equal opportunity (whether people take advantage of it is their responsibility).  There is no inherent conflict between group interests here.  

That is the mandate of our Declaration of Independence.  And that is what we should be fighting for.

To Republican Senators Who Rejected Trump: Don't Abandon Your Principles

Everyone assumes that Republicans have control of the Senate and that Democrats will have to resort to endless filibusters in attempting to stop those aspects of Trump’s agenda that denigrate or attack specific groups of American citizens on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.  But there is another possibility, which strangely I have not seen discussed in the media nor regarding which I have received any petitions.

Four Republican Senators publicly disavowed Trump prior to the election … Gail Collins (ME), Ben Sasse (NE), Jeff Flake (AZ), and Lindsay Graham (SC) … saying that he was unfit to serve as President, that he would divide the country, that he did not respect human dignity, and did not represent their party.  What should they do now?

Trump is making a show of reaching out to those who slammed him, such as Mitt Romney, but it is only show and indicates no moderation of his positions and attitudes.  His true intentions are shown by the consistency of his character, the major appointments given his cronies, and most scarily his naming Steve Bannon, the racist, anti-Semitic alt right guru of Breitbart News, as the White House’s Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor.  (News Flash: Trump tells The New York Times that he disavows the alt right and that Bannon and Brietbart are not alt right or racist.  So much for honesty.)

The four have a critical decision to make now which will impact the future of this country and the welfare of their fellow citizens.  The new Senate will have 51 Republicans (including them), 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.  Thus Trump/

Republicans only control the Senate by a 2-vote margin.  The four have the power to nullify that.

Will the four have the courage of their convictions?  The most courageous position for them would be to switch their party identity to Independent (there is precedent for this).  They wouldn’t have to caucus with the Democrats, which they would probably be uncomfortable doing.  Just changing to Independent, and not caucusing with the Republicans, would deprive Republicans and Trump of a majority and thus control of the Senate and its committees.  Since they didn’t vote for him for President because they thought he was unfit, this would seem appropriate.

However, they are life-long Republicans, hold the Party (at least in its former iteration) dear, and so switching would be unlikely.  The next option, still courageous, would be for them to work with Trump and the Republican majority when they can morally support measures before the Senate, but clearly indicate, ideally upfront and in concert, that they will vote with the Democrats to block measures that are morally unacceptable.

The last option, which would show no courage whatsoever, would be to cave in to Trump’s bullying and act as part of the Republican majority regardless the measure.  To vote in lock-step with the majority leader as they did during the Obama administration.

Upon their action depends the fate of the nation not just for the next four years but perhaps for the foreseeable future.  Each of these Senators will have to decide what to do.  The issue cannot be evaded.

How to Respond to the Election?

After the dismaying election season and the heartbreaking election results, my first response was that I needed to start planning to leave the US.  The country is broken in so many ways.  The rage unleashed by Trump against Latinos and Muslims is scary.  As is his contempt of women and the “elite,” meaning educated liberals.  Given the darkness of his campaign, I saw things could easily move in an even more unpleasant direction.  

And incoming reports confirm my fears; just since the election, hate crimes are on the rise, committed by people often invoking his name.  And the FBI just reported that hate crimes were up 6% this past year.

During a morning meditation though I asked myself what a spiritual person should do.  What did spiritual, good people do in other situations where people were persecuted?  And I thought of the people who at great risk hid Jews or helped them escape from the Nazis.  I thought of the Danish citizens who marched with yellow stars on their coats.  I thought of churches here who offer sanctuary to undocumented aliens.  I thought of what Pastor Niemöller said in Nazi Germany, “First they came for the Communists, and I did nothing,  Then they came for the Jews, and I did nothing.  Now they have come for me, and it is too late.”  I knew I had to do something.

At the same time, I was aware that millions of Trump supporters have been suffering terribly for decades as a result of jobs lost overseas and wage stagnation, their middle class world shattered.  That they rightfully felt neglected by the political establishment, and their anger was a reflection of that suffering.  They need help as well.

Each of us, in ways small and large, can act to let those being attacked as well as those who have suffered know that they are not alone.  

As for myself, I realized that this disaster presents a once in a lifetime, perhaps once in history, opportunity for America to get past its internal problems of racism and all forms of bigotry and inequality.  And so I came up with the idea of starting a nonprofit, American Solidarity, which would, in concert with other national organizations, organize mass non-violent rallies across this country for people to stand in solidarity with Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, LGBT people, and women, as well as the white displaced worker.  To show that you can’t rebuild America physically while leaving its social fabric frayed.  Go to www.american-solidarity.weebly.com.  

I purposely am not calling these gatherings “protests” because that’s not the spirit I want to project.  Why?  One has to understand a basic fact regarding Trump: if you criticize him in any way, he will respond with vitriol and disdain.  And so all the ranting protests, regardless how large, will not move him an inch and actually be counter-productive.  He feels victimized by the establishment, by moderates and liberals, and so this type of protest will only feed that perception and strengthen his resolve to go his own way, supported by the alt right.   

Instead, I want these rallies to be dignified statements of solidarity with all those being attacked as well as the millions of blue collar workers who have been suffering terribly.  

What we need is a Gandhi/MLK moment.  This is a time for all 63,000,000 of us who voted for Hillary as well as millions who voted for Trump out of economic despair, not hatred, to come together and say to Trump, “yes, rebuild the country’s infrastructure, create jobs, but be, as you pledged, the president of all Americans.”

White Working Class - The Republican Base?

While reading a recent New Yorker, I came upon a sentence that made me stop in disbelief.  “The base of the [Republican] Party, the middle-aged white working class, …”

I was aware that many working class whites had become Reagan Democrats and that many were at the heart of the Tea Party’s strength.  But that things had gone so far that this part of the traditional Democratic base had now become the Republican base stopped me in my tracks.  Was this true?  What in the world had happened?  

As I thought through my answer to this question, I sadly realized that it was true and how it came to be.  The factors:  economic woes, race, class/elitism/intelligence.

The Democratic Party has been the party of the “common” person for most of its history in that it has championed the rights of the worker, immigrants, and the poor, but not Blacks.  Whereas the Republican Party has been the party of the moneyed establishment and was (and still is) steadfastly against any advancement in the rights of the lower classes, including workers.  Not surprisingly, the Democrats were rewarded with the loyal votes of white working-class America.

The first break in this alliance came with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the leadership of President Johnson and the Democrat-controlled Congress.  Working class whites in the South, together with many white collar whites, left the Democratic Party in droves and became the key to the solid Republican South.  The percentage of working class whites voting Democratic in 1960 and 1964 was 55%; in 1968 and 1972, 35%

While this situation improved during the 70s because of Watergate and a sharp recession, the defection returned with the presidential candidacy of Ronald Reagan.  White northern and midwestern working class men had begun feeling the pinch of stagnating wages and the loss of jobs.  They were attracted to the “can do it” energy of Reagan, his patriotism, and just him as a person.  He was not an intellectual; he was someone they could relate to.  The Democratic candidates during the period, by comparison, did not have charisma, nor exude energy, nor were they flag-waving patriotic … and they were definitely intellectual and spoke like it.

The economic problems of the white working class also increased their resentment over Democratic support for things like affirmative action, welfare, and women’s rights.  They saw the Party as going to bat for everyone but them.   And so again in 1980 and 1984, working class whites voted Democratic only 35%.

While Bill Clinton (who was more down-to-earth and not so intellectual) did somewhat better, the numbers again went down with Al Gore and John Kerry.  And that has continued in 2008 and 2012 with Obama.

Pre-Civil Rights Act, the issues binding the white working class and the Democratic Party were economic.  In that period, Democratic progressivism was mostly about economic prosperity.  Post-Civil Rights Act, the issues driving them away were their worsening economic situation and the Democratic’s new emphasis on social liberalism, including most recently the advancement of gay rights.

The white working class has always been conservative on social issues.  During the past 40 years they have also come to feel that the Republicans will do a better job with the economy.  And so even though the Republican Party has never shown any real interest or caring for the plight of the working class and instead has done the bidding of corporate America, whose interests are usually diametrically opposed to that of the working class, we see this continued phenomenon of working people voting against their economic interests.

There is evidence that with the Trump candidacy this trend will only increase.   Through his outrageous statements regarding Latino immigration as well as his support for protectionist policies to protect American jobs, he may be attracting even greater white working class support.  

For example. it was reported that in one depressed county in Pennsylvania, working class white Democrats are “flocking to Trump.”  Before the primary, 4,647 Democrats and independents in Luzerne County switched their registration to Republican, nearly four times the number of Republicans and independents who changed their registration to Democrats.  One caveat about this example, since Luzerne County is in the coal region, Hillary Clinton’s ill-advised and much publicized comment about putting a lot of coal miners out of work may have more to do with this switch than Trumps comments.  Nevertheless it is troubling.

In the forward to the 2011 edition of We Still Hold These Truths, I noted the following about the plight of the working class.  (Many today may be surprised to hear blue collar workers referred to as part of the middle class, but for decades they were because their unions provided them with very-well-paying jobs.)

“The middle class is made up mostly of nonprofessionals … people with only a high school degree. As manufacturing and other middle class jobs have disappeared, their standard of living and the quality of their lives has been drifting downward. The recent recession only exacerbated the trend. In March 2011, 12 percent of those with only a high-school diploma were unemployed compared to 4.5 percept of those with college degrees and 2 percent for those with professional degrees. The greatest impact has been on men … in 1967, 97 percent of men 30-50 years old in this cohort were employed; in 2010, just 76 percent were. Not only has this resulted in economic problems for these men and their families, these pressures have brought about greater interpersonal stress, with a resulting increase in divorce rates and other examples of social dysfunction. The greater income inequality that developed during this period has also resulted in heightened actual and felt lifestyle differences between the middle class and those with more income and education.”

I wrote then that the world the working class knew since WWII has been turned upon down resulting in them being scared, angry, and alienated.  I chided Democrats for not highlighting this important shift in the American social fabric.  They talked about the need to protect the middle class (everyone always does), but the evisceration that had already occurred was not mentioned … Democrats had and have not shown that they feel the pain of the working class …  and practical measures to reverse the trend are not much of anything.

This year, Hillary (assuming she is the nominee) must show that she feels the pain of the working class.  She must distance herself from her Wall Street backers and show that she is willing to fight for measures to protect workers and bring back jobs, even if those measures are against corporate interests.  Although at this point it may well already be too late.  Hillary has been around long enough that people already have a very fixed opinion of her which new-sounding words from her can probably not effectively overcome.

Also, as I have been urging for years, Democrats must expose Republicans for the hypocrites they are.  They never have and they never will do anything to support the American working class.  Trump may make noises that appeal to the working class, but his policies are not Republican Party policies and they will never be enacted.

Even if Hillary can win without these votes because of the changing electoral demographic, the American worker cannot be left in the dust. They are in pain.  They are a natural part of the Democratic Party’s constituency.  Their well-being is important to the economic stability and health of our society.  Republicans will in the end do nothing to help ease their pain.  Democrats must step up to the plate.

What Drives Policy Decisions? - The Theory v The Reality

Since the establishment of representative democracies, the role of government has been to promote and secure the safety and well-being of their people.  As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the first official document stating this concept of government, “That to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  That is at least the theory on paper.

From the beginning, a tactical problem was encountered in that the interests of all the people are rarely, if ever, in agreement.  Added to this complexity are the varied interests of organizations and corporations which, while creatures of the law, nevertheless should also be promoted by government since the law provides for their existence because they are thought to contribute to the good of the whole.  

To deal with this multiplicity of interests, the concept arose of government promoting the greater good.  The question is always whether a policy is in the interest of the people as a whole, or at least not contrary to their interest.  

For example, if a policy is good for wealthy individuals but harmful for the rest of society, then it is not in the greater good.  Likewise, policies that favor particular corporations to the detriment of the public are not in the greater good.  The old saying, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country,” was debunked many years ago.

However, corporate and public interests are not always at odds.   A policy that favors particular corporations could be in the interest of the people because, for example, it is directly tied to creating jobs or encourages the development of products at a reasonable cost that are needed for the welfare of the people.  

One used to say that policies that promote robust corporate growth are on their face for the greater good because that means more jobs and better wages.  However, in modern times that is not the case.  Policies have fostered corporate growth and profit, but workers have not benefited and even been harmed, either because jobs were sent overseas or because wages stagnated.

Needs and interests are not just competing but are often in conflict.  In its effort to promote the safety and well-being of all, government’s policies need to be balanced so that at a minimum all have their most critical needs met and have the opportunity to prosper.

But what is the reality of government decision making?  While the people do vote for their representatives, it is the corporations through their lobbyists and campaign donations who have control of government.  It is true that Democrats are more attentive to “the public good” than Republicans, but even they are deeply influenced by corporate interests which, while not wiping out their support of various programs or efforts, does often weaken the programs’ effectiveness by lessening their impact on corporations and the corresponding protection afforded the public.

While the influence of corporations has been a recurring issue during our history, it is only in the post-WWII era … remember President Eisenhower’s admonition to beware the growth and influence of the military-industrial complex … and even more so beginning with the Reagan years that corporate influence has become so predominant as to render our representative democracy to a large extent illusion.

To understand the terrible human cost of this development, let’s look at some examples of both domestic and foreign policy.  (Although the Declaration of Independence only deals with the relationship between the American government and its people, these same principles should govern foreign policy decisions by government because ultimately the people are affected.  And also because this is what we say we stand for.)

The most horrendous example in recent foreign policy was of course the Iraq war.  Although the talk was to save U.S. citizens from Saddam’s missiles and the Iraqi people from his tyranny, the reality was that the invasion of Iraq was to enhance corporate interests by gaining control of Iraqi oil and establish a friendly base in that economically and militarily strategic part of the Middle East.  But when we left Iraq, not only had we not gained our corporate and geopolitical goals, but we left a people who were worse off in almost every aspect than they were under Saddam.  

Perhaps worst of all was the impact on our own people.  The war created another generation of severely damaged, both physically and psychologically, young American men and women.  And it had placed such a burden on this country’s finances that it made future needed investment in our people and in our infrastructure almost impossible.

A more recent example where the welfare of a foreign people was not the concern is Syria.  The U.S. has long wanted to be rid of Assad in Syria.  Not for any concern for the welfare of the Syrian people, but because during the cold war and its aftermath, Syria under Assad was in the Russian sphere of influence and not friendly disposed to American interests, both corporate and geopolitical.  So when the rebellion started, we gladly lent some aid, even though the fight was again not so much to better life for the Syrian people but to change who or what group was in power and control.  Certainly, the Syrian people have done nothing but suffer during this rebellion because no one on either of the various sides really has had any concern for their welfare.  

True, as regards the American people, the Syrian conflict has not had much impact because the U.S. does not have boots on the ground and the cost of our “aid” has been relatively modest.  It appears the government has at least temporarily learned the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, we have accepted almost no Syrian immigrants, which is a matter I will not go into here.  That burden has been left to Europe.  But the policy approach to the extended Syrian conflict has nevertheless been an unmitigated human disaster.

Domestically, while the impact of a decision-making process concerned more with corporate geopolitical interests than with the welfare of the people has had effects arguably not as dramatic or violent as these foreign policy examples, the effects have been in other ways even more devastating for the American people.

The two domestic examples I will site are the background and aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the politics of transportation policy/energy policy/global warming.  Since the Reagan years, when government was declared to be the problem not the solution, there had been a steady increase in the deregulation of business, which regulation had been put in place to begin with to protect the people.  But regulation interfered with business and their profits, and so it almost became un-American.  

One of the hallmarks of deregulation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prevented banks from having both banking and investment operations.  Glass-Steagall was passed during the Depression in an effort to prevent banks from diverting bank assets into speculative operations, to keep them free of the manipulative methods and volatility of the investment market … for the good of the people.  Banks had long chafed under these restrictions, and under the leadership of Republican Senator Phil Gramm the act was repealed and the legislation was signed into law by President Clinton, who had many Wall Street advisors surrounding him, in addition to having received massive amount of campaign donations from Wall Street.

The result was the development by the biggest banks of a whole host of unscrupulous and manipulative investment strategies that benefited their bottom line and amassed huge wealth but screwed the public, even including at times their own customers.  When the bubble inevitably burst, several banks and the economy came crashing down and would have entered a severe depression, were it not for the government bail-outs.

Now one might have hoped that in the aftermath of such clear unethical behavior the government would reimpose strict rules on investment banks.  But even with a Democratic-controlled Congress in the Obama’s administration’s first 2 years, it was a fight to get the Dodd-Frank Act passed, and in the end it was not as strong as it could or should have been because of Democrats’ desire to not “unduly” harm banking interests.  The Act has been further weaken by prolonged fights over implementing regulations which have also turned out often to be far less strict than they should have been.

As for the interrelated policies regarding transportation, energy, and global warming, corporations have again been in control.  Transportation policy has always been a function of what is best for those being regulated (auto manufacturers, railroads, airlines), not the people.  The result is a terrible transportation system which is outdated, environmentally inefficient and provides bad service to the public.  Energy policy likewise has been a creature of corporate wishes, for the most part.  Under Bush II, Vice President Cheney even took the unbelievably bold public move of convening a meeting of energy execs to devise the administration’s energy policy.  No one representing the public was present.  The result not surprisingly was a policy which did not protect the interests of the public nor did it even give a nod towards the issue of global warming.

With regard to global warming itself, I will only say that while there has been to-date a confluence of corporate opposition and, given our addiction to cheap energy, people opposition to necessary measures, there is no doubt in my mind that even had there been a strong and vocal majority in favor of such measures, the corporate world still would have managed to water down almost anything that passed.

As I have said at the conclusion of many prior posts, our system of representative democracy is broken.  The reasons are various, but certainly the outsized influence of money and corporations on policy is a major factor.  The system can only be fixed, and the people’s welfare be protected, with a soft revolution in who has power in Congress.

Liberals - A Crisis of Faith

Have you noticed how Republicans constantly base their positions on the Constitution?   When was the last time you heard a Liberal/Democrat base his positions on the Constitution or other founding document like the Declaration of Independence?  

One major exception was the 2004 Democratic nominating convention when Barack Obama based his entire speech on the Declaration, and most speakers that followed mentioned the Declaration as well.  (Coincidentally, I had sent my then-new book, We Still Hold These Truths, to Terry McAuliffe, the DNC Chair at the time, several weeks before and he had responded with interest and said he would forward the book to his program people.)  But that was a flash in the pan, even for that election season.

Liberals seem to have given up on the Declaration and the Constitution in arguing their case, giving those precious documents up to the Radical Right.  Perhaps it’s because they can’t get around the fact that slavery was embedded in the Constitution and that women didn’t even get the vote till 1919.  (They should read my post, “All Men Are Created Equal?”  September 30, 2014.)  They seem to think they can sway their audience just by talking about what’s right, what’s needed.  But that doesn’t provide them with ammunition against the Constitution-based arguments of the Republicans.

As I argued when I originally wrote the book, Democrats need to inspire and arouse the American people, not just the Democratic faithful, by developing a cohesive vision of what we think a better America would look like and how we propose to get there.  And we must communicate that vision effectively and passionately in a way that the average voter gets. It can’t just be a grab-bag of policies.  

We must create a counter-movement to the Radical Right.  Certainly, given the fear, anger, and distrust that is out there now, plus the fact that the Koch brothers have hijacked the middle class revolt, this is even more critical.

Luckily, there is at hand an overarching perspective at once so familiar yet profound that the American people will immediately get it … the words of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, … Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ...”

These words are the core morality, the heart, the soul of American democracy.   This is America’s common faith.  And an integral part of that faith is government’s responsibility for creating a context in which each American has an equal opportunity to pursue those rights.  

It’s about the people … as Lincoln put it, government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  But it’s not just about rights, there’s also an implied shared responsibility, where all citizens have a duty to support the government’s efforts to promote the public good, each according to his ability. 

All the domestic policies of the Party naturally flow from these core American concepts.  And it is those policies that make the Democratic Party “life-affirming” and “pro-family”.  It is those policies, which respect the value of all human life and the environment, that make the Democratic Party a party of faith – not Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim, not Buddhist … but deep faith.   And while rooted in our past, this perspective compels policies that meet the needs of our economy and society now and in the future, in a world where many of the assumptions of the past are no longer valid.

This is a call to arms for all Liberals.   Return to your roots.  Return to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and reclaim those documents for yourself and for the American people as profoundly liberal documents, not the narrow conservative ones as depicted by the Republicans.  And, they must label the Republicans for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people. 

Watch the YouTube video: What Do Democrats Stand For?

Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System

America has a failed economic/social/political system.  I did not use the word “broken” because America has never reached its promise, never fulfilled its potential.  What is the promise of America?  It’s found in the words of the Declaration pf Independence … “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

We are a country of great wealth, the strongest economy in the world, and yet we live in a country where a vast portion of our population have never tasted the fruits of equality and where income inequality is greater than it’s ever been.  We live in a country where for a vast portion of our population, because of the lack of meaningful equal opportunity, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are almost meaningless, a cruel tease.

First, let’s be clear what is meant by “equality” and “all men are created equal.”  When the writers of the Declaration used that phrase, they were speaking in a spiritual sense, not a practical one.  It was a statement of the Enlightenment’s vision of natural rights, as elucidated by John Locke, among others.  

Obviously, all men are not created or born equal because they are born to vastly different circumstances, whether to poverty or wealth, whether disabled or healthy, whether black or white.  What the Declaration meant is that all men (and women) come out of the womb equal in the sense that they all have the God-spirit inside them, they are all of equal value.

And because they are all of equal value in the eyes of their Creator, they all have and deserve an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This equality does not mean that they all have a right to have or achieve the same status and wealth, but that every person has an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  

What each person makes of that equal opportunity is that person’s responsibility.  But it is the system’s responsibility to insure that everyone have that equal opportunity.  That latter thought is expressed in the Declaration when it says, “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”

How has our system fared in that regard?  In answering this question, I shall limit myself to the period post-Civil War, post-14th Amendment, post-19th amendment.  Clearly, before those points, even viewed in a strictly legal sense,  the vast majority of the population was in no sense equal, either because they were female or they were black.

First, though, the question must be asked, what is necessary, what is the foundation that an economic/social/political system need provide, in order for there to be meaningful equal opportunity?  I think the following:

• The laws must provide for equal opportunity.
• Social authority and peer pressure must not tolerate any deviation from equal opportunity and discrimination must be denounced as unacceptable.  
• All children, regardless of background, must have an equal education opportunity both with regards to its quality and to its accessibility.  
• Recognizing that a certain minimum standard of living is necessary for a person’s feeling of self-worth because it enables them to secure safe housing and sufficient food, the system must provide a method to secure that standard of living for those who cannot obtain it of their own accord.
• All people must be guaranteed access to adequate health care; if you do not have your health, you cannot make full use of equal opportunity.
• The system must foster a sound middle class, which is often a launching pad for further upward mobility.  

1.   Legal equal opportunity.  With the glaring continuing exception of sexual orientation (and gender identity), Federal law and most state laws provide that discrimination is illegal in all areas of the public sphere … employment, housing, entertainment, restaurants, etc.  By executive order, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in federal employment.  And by virtue of the Supreme Court decision, discrimination in marriage laws is now illegal.

2.   De facto discrimination.  But despite all the laws on the books, de facto discrimination towards blacks and towards other people of color is rampant.  Discrimination towards women is not uncommon, and certainly pay equality is not a general practice.  

Part of the reason for this continuing discrimination is our history … old attitudes die hard …  but the other part is we cannot say that “social authority and peer pressure” do not tolerate discrimination and denounce it.  Some social authorities do, and in some communities peer pressure does, but as a general matter, discrimination is the elephant in the room.  It’s there but few care to discuss it.  Those in power in our society appear to have little or no interest in ending this discrimination.

3.    Equal opportunity of education.   Before children even enter school, a significant factor impacts their educational opportunity … the extent to which they are exposed to basic learning skills, including reading, during their pre-school years. Not surprisingly, inner city children living in poverty suffer most from a lack of such exposure. We cannot change the family circumstances into which a child is born, but we can insure that every child receive full exposure to learning skills through pre-school programs.

Regarding primary and secondary education, there is huge inequality in the quality of education between states, within states, and within metropolitan areas.   The reason is that very little funding comes from the federal government (10%).  The rest comes from state and local sources, with local property taxes accounting for 50-70% of available funding in most localities.  Thus, the funding available varies greatly depending on the wealth of the school district’s residents.  

While quality of education is not solely dependent on the amount of money spent per student, it does have a real impact.   The other significant factor impacting quality is the attitude of teachers.  Many teachers in inner city school seem to view their students as hopeless and so put forth little effort beyond crowd control.  

The combination of these two factors delivers a double whammy to inner city school children.  The average high school graduation rate in the 50 largest cities was only 53% according to a 2009 report.  And for those who did manage to graduate, without a solid primary and secondary education the thought of higher education is so far out of reach it isn’t even a dream for most.  

That such students are in fact, however, not hopeless is shown by the ample examples of schools run with a different attitude that achieve "amazing" results with underprivileged children. 

4.   Minimum standard of living.  The Federal government spends a huge amount of money (11% of the Federal budget) on a variety of programs to provide financial assistance to those in need, primarily to families with dependent children.  This funding is augmented somewhat by the states.  With regards to food stamps, it should be noted that a large percentage of recipients work … the working poor.  But despite all of this spending, not only do we have a stubborn poverty rate that hovers around 14%, but the living conditions that most people in poverty encounter are horrendous and homelessness is a serious problem.  

What has gone wrong?  I understand the problem is complex, but rather than spend money on education and jobs to bring people into the workforce, we have doled out money to people and thus not surprisingly their status has typically not changed; they have become more dependent, not less so.  And there is no talk of fundamentally changing the system to help raise the poor out of poverty.  The reason … those with power in society really aren’t interested.  Clinton’s workfare program was a farce.  All the Republicans want to do is cut aid.  They seem to think that if you’re poor, if you don’t have a job, it’s your fault.  You’re lazy.

5.   Universal health care.  Despite all the effort to pass Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act, and the increase in the numbers of insured Americans that resulted from that measure, we still have a very inefficient, cumbersome system that relies primarily on private insurers.  And while many more are insured now, the plans that they can afford are mediocre in their coverage and many who previously had better employer-sponsored plans now find themselves with either plans that cost them more or provide less coverage and thus ultimately cost them more if there is a health emergency.  

This criticism is separate from that of our health care system which has so many serious problems that it is almost dysfunctional.  We continue to have both a health care system and accessibility to it that is substantially inferior to most of the other industrialized countries.

6.   A sound middle class.  This is the one area where the United States really used to excel.  We had a large sound middle class.  But then globalization and the trade agreements that fostered that movement resulted in millions of jobs leaving the U.S.  This was great for multi-national corporations, but bad for workers.  As a result, many formerly middle-class men are now unemployed, or they have found work at only a fraction of their former wage, or if still at their former jobs their wages have stagnated since the mid-70s because of overseas competition.   

Why would successive administrations, both Republican and Democrat, support this disastrous movement?  Because power in the U.S. lies with the major corporations and they wanted to be free to move jobs where labor costs less.  And because economic theorists said it was the right thing to do.  There has been no movement to either build new middle-class wage jobs or bring old ones back.  What effort there has been recently is to raise the wages of service workers, as in the fast food industry, to a living wage, which is important but does not create a middle class

Bottom line on all these fronts … our economic, social, and political system is controlled by powerful corporations and people with substantial wealth.  These forces have shown no interest in the betterment of their fellow citizens.  Their only interest is their pursuit of ever more wealth and power.  As a result, the Republican Party has no interest in the issues I’ve raised.  And Democrats, while they have an interest, lack the courage to stand up to these interests and call for a massive restructuring of how our government provides for the common good and helps those in need.  

And so the rich and powerful have gotten richer and more powerful, while the poor and middle class have gotten poorer and more powerless.   The problem is not so much one of insufficient funds or sources of revenue.  The problem is “the vision thing,” a lack of leadership and skewed priorities.  A disconnect from the promise of our founding documents.

This problem is far-reaching, extending into all areas of government responsibility, not just those affecting the poor and middle class.  As has become increasingly clear to me through my writing, regardless what the issue … the environment and energy policy, tax fairness, globalization, financial institution regulation, our archaic transportation system, replacing/repairing our infrastructure, education, health care, civil rights, foreign policy, and defense … it all comes back to real power residing with powerful corporations and the wealthy, not the voters who elect their representatives and the President.  We have a democracy in format, but not in substance.  

Money and power have of course always been a factor in American, and indeed all, politics.  It’s the nature of the beast.  And it’s also appropriate.  Business and finance have an important role to play in the health of our economy and should be supported.  

But the grip on power and influence by major corporations and the wealthy has increased greatly over the course of the last decade or more to the detriment of the common good.  Our system has lost its balance.  The Supreme Court decision in Citizens v United will surely aggravate the situation.  

If we are to reclaim government of the people, by the people, and for the people. then we must find a way to get big money if not totally then mostly out of politics.  Public financing of election is one obvious way.   There may be others, but that is not the topic for this post.

This will require an aroused electorate, because this will be the first test of the power of the people v the power of corporations.  (See my post, “How the Koch Brothers Hijacked the Middle Class Revolt and How To Take It Back.”)  Only if there is a popular movement so strong that members of Congress know that if they do not implement the will of the people they will be turned out of office does this have a chance of getting passed into law.

The Common Good Always Trumps Individual Rights

The current crop of Republicans, a radical, rabidly conservative group, take as their jumping off point a very unnuanced view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  To them, rights, if not specifically qualified in those documents, are absolute.  So whether it’s the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration, or whether it’s the right of free speech or the right to bear arms in the Constitution, no limitation on those rights is warranted (unless of course it limits the rights of opponents and so suits their purposes.)

And one must say, the words certainly sound absolute.  But let us consider their context.  First, the Declaration of Independence - the mother, if you will, of all our founding documents.  What does the Declaration say about rights?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The context of this recitation of rights is that all men are created equal and that all have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, unless you believe that the Founding Fathers meant to set up a state of anarchy … with everyone exercising their liberty, doing whatever they wanted, without restraint … one can’t believe that they meant that no bounds could be placed on the exercise of these rights.  

Why?  Because when you have a community of people it is inevitable that at some point the free exercise of one person’s liberty and pursuit of happiness bumps up against another’s … either harming another or impinging that person’s exercise of his liberty.  Since the Declaration states that all men are created equal and all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the system can only work if one says that each person has this liberty so long as it does not harm others or impinge on the rights of others.

This last proposition is in fact the basis for all government laws and regulation of any type.  Whether it’s criminal laws, traffic laws. zoning ordinances, building codes, the Clean Air Act, banking regulations, etc. … all of these derive their legal basis from the basic proposition that neither an individual nor a corporation can act as it will, if such action harms another or the public welfare.

Then there are the sacrosanct rights enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.  But even the most jealously protected right of them all … the right of free speech … is not absolute.   Not only can one not yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but the laws of libel and slander prohibit both written and spoken words that are defamatory, malicious, and false.  There are false advertising laws, which prevent corporations from misleading the public.  The list goes on and on.

As for the right to bear arms, even assuming for the moment that the Constitution indeed grants that right to an individual (until recently the courts had not so held), it would be ludicrous to argue that the government can place no limitations on a right which has not just the potential, but as we see almost daily causes others grievous injury and death. Yet to the NRA and its supporters, and the majority in Congress which is either beholden to the NRA or scared of its power, virtually any regulation whatsoever, no matter how reasonable and called for, is anathema.

As recently as a generation ago, conservative Republicans understood that while they had their ideologically preferred way of addressing issues, they shared common ground for the most part with Democrats in understanding what the great public issues were.  They understood that we lived in a country where citizens had both rights and responsibilities. Where we all played our part, each according to his abilities, in supporting the government in its role of securing the rights of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As it says again in the Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”

That is the purpose of government.  The mantra started by Ronald Reagan and taken up by the Tea Party Republicans that, “government is not the solution; government is the problem,” is at odds with not just our founding documents but our history.  

Indeed, it is at odds with the history of the Republican Party.  It was often Republicans that pushed for government action.  Whether it was the Republican President Lincoln pushing to end slavery or the Republican President Theodore Roosevelt breaking up the huge trusts of the day, such as Standard Oil, Republicans have a long and proud history of arguing for government action to protect those less powerful., to insure that all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When it comes to the rights we have, no one should shrink from vigorously protecting his or her own rights.  However, everyone must understand that with the exercise of rights comes a responsibility not to harm others or impinge on the exercise of their rights. When it does so, then the common good demands that such exercise of an individual right be regulated so as not to harm others.  The common good always trumps the exercise of an individual right.*

*A note of clarification.  In light of recent events around the world, and the comments of several readers, I need to clarify that if the exercise of one's right, such as free speech, offends another or the majority, those others are not harmed nor are their rights in any way impinged.  And so there is no justification for restraint in that situation.  When I speak of the common good, something far more concrete is meant ... like breathing clean air, drinking clean water, not having to fear violence, not being cheated.