We Must Reform Our Election System

We have just witnessed the most obscene election in American history.  Obscene in the sense that $2.6 billion was spent on the presidential race.  Obscene in that the Supreme Court’s decision that money = speech gives new meaning to the phrase, money talks.  Obscene in that the Supreme Court’s decision that corporations are people entitled to their right of free speech meant that corporations as well as individuals could spend unlimited amounts of money in support of their preferred candidate.  

Obscene in that the principle of one man, one vote has been distorted because of the power of a small number of individuals and corporations to greatly impact the outcome due to the influence of their advertising dollars.  Obscene because the premise of one man, one vote is destroyed by the elevtoral college system.  Obscene because even in a race with such clear differences between the two candidates and their positions, we have strayed far from the idea that free speech and elections in our democracy is about the contest of ideas.  This was a campaign based on slogans, which are not ideas.  Ideas require understanding, and there was no attempt at any stage of the process to provide voters with an understanding of the competing positions.

If we wish to save our democracy then we need to reform the electoral process.  The underlying principle is simple ... remove the influence of private funds from the election.  The campaigns would be financed by public funds, and outside PACs would be strictly regulated so that no individual or corporation could contribute more than a small amount of money to such efforts.

Such a system would entail a different approach to the campaigns.  No longer would they be premised on huge television ad campaigns with their resulting huge budgets and empty sound bites.  Instead we would have a true contest of ideas.  The candidates would have a certain amount of free air time on the radio and television to present their positions to the American people.  There would continue to be debates, but with a difference.  The moderators would have the authority to challenge the candidates when they provide misleading or factually incorrect answers.

Further, federal elections should be governed by federal, that is to say uniform, rules.  States can make their own rules for state elections, but the rules for elections for federal office should be the same regardless the state ... this includes the form of the ballot and type of voting machines.  Also, redistricting should be done by state nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions following federal guidelines.  Candidates need to be on the same footing everywhere and all citizens must be assured of the uniformity and fairness of the process.  And the electoral college must be replaced by the direct election of the President.

Unfortunately, I can’t imagine such basic reforms ever being enacted by Congress.  The interests arrayed against such reforms are simply too powerful and entrenched.  

But at least such reform needs to become part of the public discussion.  Someone in Congress needs to have the guts make this his or her cause.  And perhaps one day, just as public opinion has evolved on other matters. the public will come to demand such reform and the politicians will have to comply.

How Can Evangelicals Embrace Capitalism and the Republican Party?

Over the past 30-40 years, the Religious Right has gone from total noninvolvement with politics to total involvement to partial domination.  As a general matter, and more specifically in recent years, they have endorsed capitalism and the concept that each person is responsible for himself, they have endorsed a limited role for government, and they have tenaciously fought for the right to life of the unborn and against same-sex marriage or any kind of gay rights that gives homosexuals the approval of society.

As Christians who believe in Jesus, Evangelicals are fond of saying that we need to bring morality back into our government and our private lives, and that we need to bring God back into our government.  But do they practice what they preach?

What is the most central ethic of Christianity, or indeed of all the world’s great religions?  It is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  It is, “Love they neighbor as thyself.” It is viewing the community of man as one of shared responsibility.  From the Old Testament’s, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” to the many affirmative answers to that question in the New Testament such as that we are to “love one another” and that we are to “serve one another,” “bear one another’s burdens,” and “consider one another,” there is no question that to be Christian is to support the idea of a social contract among the citizens of our country.  

In ancient times it must be said that these sentiments were confined to relationships between those who were believers.  But in more modern times, as the world and its religions (not all) have become more progressive in their thinking, these concepts have been broadened to include a responsibility towards all humanity.  For if man is created in the image of God, then are we not all his children, regardless of our religion or lack thereof?  It is in this light that I will examine the positions taken by Evangelicals on several key contemporary issues.  

First, let’s look at capitalism.  While the commonly used phrase “Godless communism” refers to the fact that Marxist communism denies the existence of God and is, or at least used to be, totally against all religion, is capitalism any less Godless in fact or in practice? While it is true that capitalism is not against religion, history shows that the very premise of the capitalist enterprise is Godless in the sense that it is all about making the most money one can for oneself and ones associates regardless at what cost to others.  This is surely not behavior that Jesus would endorse.

In the first half century of the industrial revolution, unfettered capitalism showed it for what it was ... a rapacious system that would stop at nothing to make money.  Whether it was having no care for their workers’ safety, beating them, producing products that could harm the user, or fowling the air and water, capitalism showed a total disregard for the welfare of both its workers and the broader community.  

It is only the presence of government regulation, which began in the early 20th century and has grown over the years, that has resulted in corporations [capitalists] being able to claim to be responsible members of society.  But they are not reformed.  Even today with all the regulation we have, if there is an area where there is no regulation, or it is hazy, or they dislike it, capitalists will do whatever they can get away with regardless of its impact on the broader society or their workers.  It is simply the nature of the beast.  

Bottom line, capitalism has no soul, and since it has no soul it is Godless.  As such, Evangelicals and other Christians should not embrace it uncritically but insist that if it be allowed to continue that it be strictly regulated in order to insure that workers, users, and the broader community are protected.  The role of government here is critical.

Then there is the issue of public morality.  When this issue is raised by Evangelicals, as in “the culture wars,” this means that they are against any rights for homosexuals and they are against abortion. Before commenting on their stands on these two issues, what is troubling is that Evangelicals do not seem to think that public morality includes the concept of doing to others as you would have them do to you, of loving your neighbor as yourself, of feeling a shared responsibility for the welfare of their fellow Americans, if not for all of humanity.  

This is clearly the position that Jesus would take, but not his most righteous followers today. Their emotional, if not rabid, fight on the issues of homosexuality and abortion seems to have blinded them to the true admonitions of their faith.  And so they have become the front line soldiers of the Right, backing the most radical Tea Party and conservative Republicans ... the new Republican Party ... because they have these two causes in common, even though their partners have no interest and disdain government involvement in the broader social welfare.

As regards their campaign against homosexuality, it is troubling on so many fronts that one hardly knows where to begin.  But perhaps most troubling is their, and others’, misuse of the Bible, much as the Bible was used for years to support slavery, segregation, and the submissive status of women.  

The Old Testament certainly has some bad things to say about “men lying with men as with women.”  But one must put this in context.  

The same sections of the Bible also have equally bad things to say about many other acts. In fact, the Bible terms more than 60 actions an abomination.  Included are:  lying (Proverbs 12:22), eating food that isn’t kosher (Leviticus 11), a proud look (Proverbs 6:16), lying with a menstruating woman (Ezekiel 18:6-13), and what is highly esteemed among men (Luke 16:15).  Likewise, it is not the only sin singled out for death.  The Bible says that anyone who curses his father or mother should be put to death (Leviticus 20:9) and that a man and woman who commit adultery should be put to death (Leviticus 20:10.)  In Exodus 35:2, it says that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death.  

Clearly, Evangelicals and the Catholic Church are against homosexuality ... plain and simple.  And so they conveniently pick sections of the Bible to use in support of their campaigns, ignoring the fact that no one today, except perhaps the Jewish ultra-orthodox, would call these other acts an abomination and seek to ostracize perpetrators.

The issue of abortion is a far more complex one.  If one truly believes that life, in the legal sense, begins at conception, then one can understand why that person feels that abortion is murder and should not be allowed.  The problem is that while it is a scientific fact that “life” biologically begins at conception, there is a major disagreement as to when a legal status attaches to the fetus ... when the fetus becomes a human life ... resulting in abortion being illegal.  There really is no resolution to this disagreement.

My take on the issue is more sociological.  There are few things worse then a child being born to parents that do not want the child, for whatever reason.  There are few things worse then children being raised in our chaotic foster parent system, since the majority of unwanted children carried to term are not adopted.  

Evangelicals, however, do not deal with this issue.  They speak merely of God’s gift of life.  And so if their will were law, hundreds of thousands of children each year would be sentenced to a living hell while their parents would be dragged down into a variety of wrenching problems.  It’s all fine and well to speak of the responsibility of the mother or parents.  But ultimately, the burden of the Right to Life position would fall most squarely on the children.  And I for one would say that it is better not to be born, than to be born unwanted.  Life is hard enough without that burden.

But the issues of abortion and homosexuality are digressions.  The point is that if one wants a more moral nation, a more moral government, a nation under God, then many aspects of our system need to be changed.  First and foremost would be changing from a capitalist system in which everyone is chiefly out for themselves with no sense of responsibility for their fellow citizen to a system of regulated capitalism and a commonly accepted social contract with government performing its function of leveling the playing field, guaranteeing that all have the opportunity to pursue their “inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  

The Democratic Party, in its own sometimes fumbling way, is trying to reach for that more moral nation.  As such, it deserves the support of all God-believing people and secular humanists alike.

What If All Religions Viewed Other Religions As Equal?

First let’s start with some basic facts.  For millennia now, three of the world’s major religions have believed in one God. Whether one is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, when one speaks or prays to God, one is praying to the same being. Indeed, the ancient history of these religions are to be found in the same story.  Where they separate is in their belief of who the true prophet of God was and then they further separate based on the institution that best represents the faith or the sub-prophet that is more worthy of adoration.

Religions, from the earliest times to the present, exist to make the universe, nature and man sensible to man, setting up an orderly relationship between nature and man, and between man and man. As such, religion has been central to the core identity of its adherents, be they individuals or nations. While in the modern world, the ties of religion have been markedly reduced for many people as they have found other ways of explaining the universe and man, it continues to be a primal force for probably the vast majority of mankind.

It is this primal identity with religion coupled with the belief of most religions and sub-sects that they are the true and only source of communication with God ... the exclusiveness of religion ... that has made religion, either on its own or as a tool of nationalist leaders, the cause of much conflict, persecution, and death over the centuries. Indeed, it is safe to say that religion has either been the cause of or lent itself to the cause of more human misery over the ages than any other force. How ironic and how sad. 

And we’re not only talking about conflict between Christians and Jews or Jews and Muslims. As we know all too well, there has been deadly conflict between Protestants and Catholics (most recently in Northern Ireland), and between Shia and Sunni (still ongoing). And while the conflict between ultra-orthodox Jews and all other Jews has usually not been deadly, the conflict is intense.

All of these religions have an institutional authority, some more formal and absolute like the Catholic church.  Conflict has continued over the centuries because the people in leadership positions have seen it to be in their religion’s or sub-sect's  best interest to foment discord and conflict with the members of other religions or sub-sects.  

Now of course, such individuals always speak in the language of faith ... that God has ordained whatever the object is.  But really it is man who has ordained these conflicts and positions just as it was man who created each of the religions or sub-sects in the first place, whether it was the result of a received vision or otherwise.

If someone truly believes in God ... and remember here that we are in all cases referring to the same God ... can he or she honestly believe that God would wish such misery on the members of another religions? If man is made in the image of God, then even those who don’t believe in Yahweh, let alone those who believe in a different prophet, are still his children.  Do Christians believe that Jesus would do what they have advocated over the centuries? True, the God of the Old Testament was often wrathful and jealous, but for most people, Jews included, that God of the ancient Hebrews has been replaced by a loving God.

My point is that all it would take ... and I know this is an over-simplification, but its impact would be enormous ... would be for the leaders of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and their sub-sects to come together and say, in the presence of the leaders of Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, 

“Enough is enough.  We all believe in the same God.  We are all children of the same God.  We may have our own prophets, our own rituals, our own institutions, but there is no question that it is against the will of God to continue to fight with one another.  We choose to reject the conflicts and forgive the misery that has been inflicted over the centuries.  What is past is past.  And beyond our religions, today we join with leaders of the eastern faiths ... Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism ... and say with them that from this day forth, we declare an era of peace and respect between us and all other religions.  

We therefore say to our followers: may you love your fellow man regardless of their religion, or indeed regardless whether they believe in God. May you always follow the Golden Rule and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

And so the world would come to a point where all religious conflict, or religious-abetted conflict, would be a thing of the past.  No longer could a nation claim that God was on its side and not the other’s.  The waging of war would be made much more difficult for political leaders if the world’s religions took the position I advocate in a steadfast and very visible way.

What Obama Should Have Said But Didn't

Opening Statement:  I want to be a president for all the people, whether rich or poor, Democrat or Republocan ... not just the 54% that don't receive any government benefits.  I will not write off any American.

Entitlements:  Just a few weeks ago, Governor Romney, in a private gathering of donors, sounded very different from the way he is sounding tonight speaking to all of you. He said that the 46% of Americans who receive government benefits feel like victims, that they have become dependent on government. It sounded like he felt they were losers.  I strongly disagree.  The seniors who have paid into Social Security all their lives, the injured veterans coming back from Iraq and all our wars after having fought for their country ... these are people who have paid their dues, they are indeed entitled to support from the government at this point in their lives.  What about the poor?  The poor who have never had a fair chance to get ahead because of poor schooling, a government obligation, deserve the support of the government to help them pursue their dreams of life, liberty, and happiness.  That is why President Clinton turned welfare into workfare.

The Role of Government: As it says in the Declaration of Independence, the role of government is to "secure these rights" ... meaning the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, government's role is to create a situation where everyone has at least an equal opportunity to pursue those rights. The government needs to be there for all the people, and especially those who are at a point in their lives when they are facing hardship and are vulnerable ... whether it is from old age, from natural disaster, from injury received in defense of their country, from unjust discrimination, or being born on the wrong side of the tracks. That is the ethic of the American sense of government, the American social contract.     

Health Care:  No, Governor, you're wrong.  We do not have the best health care system in the world.  Far from it.  Despite spending more money by far on health care per person than the rest of the world, the United States consistently scores near the bottom of the pack of industrialized countries on almost every measurable outcome of national health. That is why the board, that you are so fond of mentioning, was created.  While places like the Cleveland Clinic and several others have instituted practices that have delivered better health care at lower cost, the rest of the health care industry has not embraced those examples and so our costs keep rising while we have unsatisfactory health care outcomes. This is clearly confirmed in a recent report by the Institute of Medicine.  The board was created so that these excellent health care practices developed by private clinics would be mandated for the entire health care industry.  So that we can at the same time significantly lower costs while improving people's health.

Closing:  I have tried to be the President for all Americans.  Countless times during my first four years, I have reached across the aisle on all the major issues to try to work with Repulican legislators.  But in virtually each and every case, the Republicans just said, "no."  They have stated very bluntly, as did the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, that their sole goal was to see that I would be a one-term president.  Every decision they have made was to weaken me by weakening the country. During the Republican primary season and at the nominating convention, Governor Romney sounded like the most radical of the radical Tea Party Republicans.  He wrote off almost half of America's citizens, half of you. Tonight he tried to make you believe he is now once again the old caring Mitt Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts. I ask you ... who is he?  How will he really govern?

Romney Shows His Dark Side

Whatever else one could say about Mitt Romney … that he was a flip-flopper, an opportunist, that there was no “there” there … one couldn’t say that he was a nasty man. One felt that he would do or say anything he had to to become president, but that he would stop short of being nasty.

Well, that barrier has fallen.  On the stump the other day, Romney said that no one had ever asked him for his birth certificate … that everyone knew without question where he was born, where he was from.  How despicable!

Clearly, this was a reference to the Obama birth certificate canard.  Although obliquely, Romney with this statement signaled to the “Birther” movement that he was one with them.  And he signaled that no blow would be too low for him to throw in this election campaign.

So not only is Romney an opportunist … witness his most recent proposal that states be given the right to control drilling and mining on federal lands … but far worse than that (for among politicians this character trait is not unusual), he has shown that he has no shame.  And that should be beyond the pale, certainly for someone aspiring to be president of this great nation.

Republicans’ Seven Biggest Lies

The propaganda theory of “the big lie” is that if you tell a lie big enough often enough, people will begin to believe it, and the Republicans are masters of this tactic. The Republican Party has been selling the American public a bill of goods and unfortunately the public is falling for the scam. They want the average American to think that they are going to protect their interests and that the Democrats will ruin them.  This is a classic “big lie” if ever there was one.

Their “argument” is based on the following subsidiary lies, which fall predominantly into two categories … the economy and health care/Obamacare:

Lies About the Economy

Lie #1: The financial crisis and joblessness is the fault of big government, of government regulation.

            Fact:  The financial crisis was caused by rich investment bankers and mortgage brokers trying to find a way to make a fast buck at the expense of ordinary Americans or small-fry investors. It happened because people in the financial industry are greedy and cannot be allowed to regulate themselves.

Lie #2: The financial crisis continues because of the failure of the Obama stimulus package and the increasing government deficit.

            Fact:  The Obama stimulus package, while not creating many new jobs, resulted in preventing the elimination of millions of jobs, especially state and local jobs.  This kept the country out of a second Great Depression.

            Fact:  Once the stimulus funds were spent, Republican-led efforts to slash the budget in order to cut the deficit have made the jobless crisis far worse by reducing support for state and local governments, causing increased unemployment in that area that the stimulus had prevented and stalling the recovery.

            Fact:  The deficit, while large and undesirable, is more of prac†ical concern to investors in government bonds, and interestingly rather than fleeing from US bonds, investors continue to flock to them as a safe haven in this volatile global financial market.

Lie #3: The key to getting the American public back to work is cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, as well as cutting the deficit.

            Fact:  Cutting taxes for the rich only helps the rich get richer.  There is no trickle down effect, as was proven during the Reagan years.   Reducing corporate taxes only results in corporations and their investors making more money; it does not encourage investment and job creation unless the tax cuts are specifically tied to that effort. Corporations are into doing more with less labor; they have no interest in job creation or giving raises.  It’s not that they don’t have the money … they are sitting on $1.74 trillion … yes trillion … dollars of cash.

            Fact: Income inequality between the very rich and the rest of us is worse now than at any time in US history.  And income stagnation for the average American is a real crisis. 

            Fact:  Cutting the deficit by cutting funding for all sorts of programs and support for state and local governments will only make the job situation even worse by increasing layoffs at all levels, as it has already done.

Lie #4:  The answer is not the government; government is the problem.

            Fact:  The crisis was caused by market forces working in a for-all-practical-purposes unregulated atmosphere.  Its only guide was greed.  Even Alan Greenspan has admitted that his theory that the market would be self-regulating was an error.  The answer to protecting the American public from this type of thing happening again is regulation of the financial sector that has teeth in it.  The Republicans are dead set against such regulation. The Democrats support it.

            Fact: We got out of the Great Depression through massive government spending including the WWII effort.  In a financial crisis, the private sector has no interest in investing.  Their only concern is protecting or growing their profits.  Thus they find ways to do less with more, which is great for their shareholders, but bad for the American worker.  We need more government stimulus, hang the impact on the deficit, in order to get the unemployed back to work.

The Lies About Health Care/Obamacare

Lie #5: Obamacare will get between you and your doctor and reduce the quality of your medical care.

            Fact: There is nothing whatsoever in Obamacare that would do this.  It is built on the existing private insurance system. It is not a “government takeover” in any sense, which Medicare actually was, although interestingly everyone loves that.

Lie #6:  Obamacare will force individuals to get health insurance. The implication of this is that individuals who cannot afford health insurance will be forced to buy it or suffer a penalty.

            Fact: One of the main drives behind the enactment of Obamacare was to provide health insurance to the millions of Americans who don’t have it as part of their jobs and who can’t afford to buy it.  It does this by subsidizing health insurance for those who can’t afford it. The individual mandate will provide health insurance and proper medical care to millions of Americans who currently can’t afford access.

            Fact: Republicans have for the last 20 years urged the individual mandate as part of any health care reform.  It was central to the bill that Governor Romney supported in Massachusetts. Now they are against it solely because it’s a Democrat-passed program.

Lie #7: Obamacare will ration health care.

            Fact: There is nothing in Obamcare that would ration health care. There are measures in the law that encourage the medical profession to apply their group knowledge more consistently so that everyone gets the best care and money is not wasted on unnecessary or counterproductive procedures.

            Fact:  Contrary to the statements of Republican talk show hosts and some Congressmen, there is no “death panel” in Obamacare. What the law does encourage is for doctors to talk about end of life issues with their patients so that the patients’ desires regarding various levels of medical effort will be known and respected.

Bottom line … Republican politicians and radio talk show hosts have presented a Big Lie to the American public. And by saying it over and over again, and by the Democrats not effectively countering the lie, a large segment of the American public has come to believe the lie. But in fact, Republicans are only concerned with protecting the interests of the rich and corporations; they have no concern for the average American. It is instead Democrats who are fighting to protect the well-being of the average American.

There is no question that government is not the entire solution … the private sector and individuals have a major role to play … but government is certainly a necessary part of the solution.

A Troubled Republic On This July 4th

As we celebrate this July 4^th, the state of our republic is troubled. Two core principles of American democracy are under attack … the role of government and the democratic process. And the attack is cynically being waged under the banner of protecting our system and our rights from the power of government.

As we all know, the Declaration of Independence’s most famous line is, “All men are created equal,” and that they have “unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Less commonly known are the words that follow … “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” In other words, the role of government is to act in a way so as to secure the rights of the people to equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Both of these thoughts were truly revolutionary in a world where governments were in the hands of and benefited solely those with power and wealth. This new view of the role of government and the equality of all people was the cornerstone of the American republic, despite the fact that it would take almost a century for African-Americans to become legally equal and another 50 years for women.

Over the course of the last century, after suffrage was made universal and all citizens were finally deemed to have the rights embodied in the Declaration, the role of government in securing those unalienable rights for all evolved of necessity to helping the less fortunate through a variety of government programs.  Prominent among them have been universal education, Social Security, labor laws, government welfare, and Medicare/Medicaid.

Without these programs, government recognized that the legal equality of all people was meaningless. People needed to be given real equal opportunity to pursue their rights. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed on this basic principle, but would of course regularly disagree on the particulars of government programs to secure that equality.

With regards to the process of our democracy since universal suffrage, it can best be summarized by the dictum, “One man, one vote.” This means that every citizen of voting age should be able to vote and that each person’s vote should count the same.

Viewed in this light, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United makes a farce of our democratic process by caring only for form, not substance. If those with wealth and power have the ability through television advertising to in effect control an election because of the disproportionate influence of such advertising, then those with wealth and power have achieved their aims through the back door.  Who votes is of little consequence if the real power lies elsewhere.

Only if candidates are on an equal or relatively equal financial footing can there be the fair contest of ideas that is essential to our democracy and to the efficacy of freedom of speech.

The health of our economy and the business community is of vital importance to the health of our country and the welfare of its citizens. But we have long since passed the day when one would say, “What’s good for General Motors, is good for the country.” The same criticism holds true for the radical pro-business, anti-government policies of the Koch brothers, the Tea Party, and their Republican allies. Our democracy depends on a balance between private rights, the public good, and government.

We are as Lincoln said, a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Let us not pervert that heritage by making our system a government “of big business, by big business, and for big business.” Let us learn from the past, not return to it.