A Better Way to Respond to Emigration Crises

Over the past several years, almost 5 million Syrian refugees have fled their battle-torn country for safety in other countries.  Most have gone to neighboring countries, overwhelming their resources.  Roughly 500,000 have fled to Europe creating, together with another 500,000 refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries, the well-reported refugee crisis there.

This is a crisis on several levels.  It is an obvious humanitarian crisis as the refugees have left their country not willingly but of necessity for their safety, and they really have no place to go.  And it’s a crisis for the countries to which the refugees flee because the large numbers both overwhelm the resources of the host country to care for and integrate the refugees and unsettle the established social context of the countries.

The current lack of anything that could remotely be called a “system” has been a disaster for all concerned.  The international community, i.e. the United Nations, needs to come up with a better system.

Prior to WWII, during parts of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th, there were massive waves of migration from various countries in Europe mostly to the United States.  These migrations did not become refugee crises because at that time the United States and other countries receiving the refugees needed them to populate their countries.  

However, by the 1930s, when German Jews tried to emigrate from Germany to other countries, most had set up strict quota systems for immigration because they were no longer open to masses of new migrants.  And so, for example, by the time my father  started trying to leave Germany in 1937, there was NO country to which he could go.  All the doors were closed, even countries such as Australia and Bolivia.  Luckily he finally managed to get his family out, but many were not as fortunate.

After experiencing the huge numbers of refugees created by the havoc of WWII, the United Nations in 1950 created the High Commission for Refugees to help care for refugees from conflict.  And it has done the best it can, given its limited mandate, to ensure that refugee asylum rights are protected and that they do not live in squalor; that they have some modicum of orderliness in their lives.

But experience has shown that what refugees need is to be resettled, not just housed someplace in temporary housing until the crisis that caused them to flee is over and they can return to their homelands.  The current problem in Europe is that, with the exception of Germany, the countries are not prepared to take in so many refugees, either politically or logistically, and so the refugees suffer.  The scope of the problem is just too large.

What is needed is a new international compact in which the signatories agree that in cases where civil war or persecution creates a mass of refugees they will accept refugees and resettle them according to an established quota system based on the country’s population/size and economy, or whatever other factors are considered appropriate.  Yes, that means that many refugees would not get to go to their country of choice, but a country cannot be expected to put its own economy and social peace in jeopardy by its humanitarian response to a refugee crisis.  European Jews were willing to go to any country that would take them.  Modern-day refugees need to be asked to accept similar conditions.

The other piece of the puzzle needed in such a new compact regards the transport of refugees to their new homes, whether from the crisis point or a neighboring country.  We have seen the horror, deprivation, and exploitation refugees suffer when they have to flee across water, whether from Vietnam, Cuba, North Africa, or Turkey.  Somehow, the compact needs to deal with this issue.

The world is a community of nations and people.  We are all ultimately God’s children.  And we all have a social obligation to care for our fellow man.  It is past time for the United Nations to fashion a system that works for both refugees and receiving countries.

A Plea to the Conscience of Conservative Republicans and Independents

The question for you on Tuesday is:  do you vote for Donald Trump because he’s the Republican candidate and just hold your nose, or do you vote for Hilary Clinton because, although she’s a Democrat and a disliked Clinton at that, her presidency would clearly be in the better interest of the country than a Trump presidency?

What is a presidential election about?  Is it just about winning, like many things in our culture?  Or is it about something bigger … doing what is best for our country?  Clearly it is or should be the latter.

There was a time in the not so distant past when one could make a very legitimate case that the election of either the Republican or Democratic candidate would be in the best interest of the country.  They each would do things differently, have different agendas, but they were both solid, good, level-headed people who you knew without any question wanted what was best for the country.  They had strong egos, lord knows, but in their minds the election wasn’t about them, it was what they could do for the country.

Let’s look at this year’s candidates in this light.  First, Donald Trump.  Donald is as far from level-headed as one could get.  He has an incredibly thin skin and he’s a bully.  It is all about him.  Is this the person you want as Commander-in-Chief and responsible for our safety as well as the welfare of you, your children, and everyone in this country?  

Is Donald a good person?  Would you hold him up as a role-model for your children?  Donald has spent his life with only one goal … to make as much money and attract as much attention to himself as possible.  Now there’s no moral sin to being rich, or seeking riches.  But when one does so to the exclusion of concern for other people. when there is no socially redeeming aspect of your life, then that is a sin.  And that is the case with Donald.

Then there’s the question of whether he is a good citizen.  It’s probably safe to say that most rich people, hell most people, try to pay as little taxes as they can get away with.  They do not really view taxes as being a responsibility of citizenship, of paying one’s fair share to help the larger body politic, their fellow citizens.  They pay taxes grudgingly as something one has to do, or else!  

But if someone is running for President of this country, should he or she be someone who has this attitude?  Who says, “Hey, I’m just doing what the law allows me to do?”  The answer should be, no.  Someone running for President, who is seeking to lead this country, should be a role model regarding the responsibilities of citizenship.  And clearly Donald Trump is no such role model.

I could go on and on listing the reasons why a Trump presidency would not be in the country’s best interest, but I think these are really the main points.  We have had numerous candidates and presidents that were not well-disposed to people of color, just none that have been so openly hateful in their speech.  We have had a number of  candidates and presidents who were womanizers, philanderers.  Not just Bill Clinton; the list is filled with many otherwise good people.  But in each of these cases, the people were otherwise good, level-headed people who, if one took off one’s partisan hat, one would have to say acted in the best interest of the country.

Now let’s look at Hillary Clinton.  Hillary is certainly level-headed.  One may disagree with her conclusions, but she is always level-headed.  She has been prodded and provoked for years, but she has always remained level-headed (to my knowledge).  A sharp barb may escape her lips, but that’s about it.  I don’t know if she holds a grudge, but I do know that she doesn’t seek revenge.  She is not a bully like Donald.

Is Hillary a good person?  Would you hold her up as a role-model for your children?  I would answer that question, yes.  Although she is certainly ego-driven, and has made lots of money from her political-celebrity status, she has always had at the top of the list  of things driving her a concern for the welfare of those less fortunate … whether women, children, or people of color as well as working men and women.   Quite the polar opposite of Donald.   And she has worked tirelessly on their behalf.   Clearly, she’s not a revolutionary a la Sanders with her ties to Wall Street, but that does not diminish her work.  It just limits her.

Is Hillary a good citizen?   Both Hillary and Bill Clinton, while having gotten quite rich, do pay their fare share in taxes.  They are in an income tax bracket where had they so desired they could have instructed their tax planners to devise legal ways to pay much less, but they … as opposed to Donald … chose not to go that route.  She and they both understand the responsibility of citizenship.

Finally, I want to make the point that for someone of Trump’s low ethics to besmirch the ethics of Hillary is truly chutzpah!  Everyone should take whatever he says with a huge grain of salt.  Plus, LATE BREAKING NEWS, the FBI has just told Congress that they found no evidence in the new cache of Clinton emails that she was guilty of wrongdoing.

So ask yourself the question when you vote on Tuesday: which candidate’s presidency would be in the best interests of the country?  And vote accordingly.  Not according to your partisan position, but for what’s best for the country.

The Unspoken Scourge of Not Feeling Respected

Much has been written and spoken about the problem of increased income inequality in this country.  It has caused huge distress in the lives of many people and has weakened the social fabric of our society.

But there is another type of inequality which is just as prevalent and perhaps even more devastating … the extent to which people feel respected, valued, acknowledged.

Everyone wants to be respected, valued, acknowledged.  It is a basic human need.  It feeds our self-respect.  And self-respect, positive self-esteem, is critical to our having a healthy relationship with ourselves, our families, and the world around us.  Without self-respect we are sitting ducks for a host of negative emotions that cause us to suffer emotionally.  

As bad as physical suffering is … whether it’s from hunger, disease, or an accident … emotional suffering is even more debilitating.   If one is emotionally strong, one can weather most physical afflictions.  But if one is emotionally week, full of fear and self-doubt, insecure, then every day is filled with experiences that reinforce the feeling that there is no place for you in this hostile world, that you are nothing, that make one question the reason for one’s existence. 

Many people wonder why depression is such a common phenomenon.  Why alcoholism is so widespread.  Why drug addiction has taken such strong root in both the inner city ghetto and in rural areas across America.  

The answer I think is clear.  The vast majority of people are not shown respect, are not valued, are not acknowledged in their everyday lives, whether in the workplace or in the home.  Many have the constitution to keep fighting on, to keep battling the forces they feel are arrayed against them.  But for many, their energy sapped, facing overwhelming fear and insecurity, they cope instead by escaping their suffering, escaping their reality, in the only ways available to them … alcohol or drugs.  Many others are not strong enough to even seek escape … I know it sounds strange, but that does take strength … and so they wallow in depression.

What is the basis for my saying that the vast majority of people are not shown respect, are not valued, are not acknowledged in their everyday lives?  One marker is to look at how much people earn, which is certainly taken as an indication of how one is valued in our culture.

Certainly those at the top of their field, whether it’s entertainment, finance, business, or the professions, are given this mark of value … large, and at the highest levels obscene, amounts of money.  The top income category, the top 1%, would certainly fall within this group.  

I was originally going to say the top 10%, but I was surprised in doing research for this post that the cut-off for the top 10% is a household income (that’s both spouses combined) of $113,000 according to Slate; $140,000 according to The New York Times.  That’s certainly not rich by any standard.  And people with those incomes are not likely to feel very secure, highly valued or respected.  The cut-off for the top 1% is a household income of $394,000 according to Slate, $383,000 according to the Times.  Lower than I would have thought, but certainly enough to be considered slightly rich these days and probably in a position in one’s work where one feels secure. respected and valued.

That means that 90 - 99% of people in this country probably do not feel respected, valued, or acknowledged.  That is a terrible state of affairs and explains many of the problems that our society is experiencing.

This estimate meshes with the anecdotal information one hears about the extent of lack of respect shown in the workplace.  As well as my own personal observations over the decades. 

When I did research, however, to see what the data was on this, I found surprisingly that the data regarding workplace satisfaction/respect showed quite the opposite.  But the data are so contrary to what one observes in everyday life that I doubt their validity.   And so my thinking remains unchanged. 

For example,  in one survey 88% of U.S. employees report overall satisfaction with their jobs!  In another survey, 85% of Millennials say they are treated with respect at work.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 29% of employees feel valued in their jobs.     

I’ve worked in many job settings, and relatively supportive ones at that, and I would say this data is far off the mark in reflecting the reality of how people feel in their jobs.  If you take the often unsupportive or corrosive situation in many job settings, as well as the discrimination faced by people of color and women, the numbers would be even worse.  Not knowing how these surveys were conducted, I cannot explain the results.

But back to the narrative.  A reader may say, “That’s just the way life is; it’s inherent in human/societal relations that some are respected and valued and some aren’t.”  However, it wasn’t always this way; certainly not with such extreme differences and inequality.  To understand how we got this way, we need to understand where we came from.  

The Development of Cities: For 50,000 years, we - meaning all humans - were aboriginal people, like Native Americans, who lived a communal life.  Everyone in the village had their place, everyone had their purpose, everyone was valued, with of course the inevitable exception.  This is not to say that everyone was equal, they weren’t, but all were respected and valued because everyone contributed to the greater good.  

Then around 4,00 B.C. cities began to develop in some cultures and the communal aspects of life ceased to be.  Instead, a class structure developed resulting from the culture of individual responsibility and private property.  This class structure with its concomitant income inequality resulted in some being considered very worthy, some worthy but less so, and then there was the mass of people who were considered to be unworthy rabble, mischief makers, people of low or no morals.  This inequality of respect seeped into all areas of societal life.  Here you had respect inequality on a large scale.  

Immigration, Loss of Homogeneity:  The one factor that still bound people together in most countries despite large income inequalities was their homogenous nationality and often religion; the us v them factor.  This was largely absent in the United States even in the 19th century where roughly 25% of the population was equally divided among immigrants and former slaves.  There was not just disdain but much hostility towards both groups … they weren’t just poor, they were a mass of “them” and considered dangerous. 

Although there has always been much political talk (pre-Trump) about our pride in being a nation of immigrants (somehow slaves are usually left out of such statements), there has always existed among the population, at least below the surface or in private company, a great deal of negativity towards them.  That’s why political correctness is both necessary as a guideline and why it is detested by many.

Modern Capitalism:  Then there is the factor of modern capitalism.  After the industrial revolution, capitalism developed into a system in which everyone except management was a fungible cog in the production process.  Every employee was there to be made use of, exploited, to enlarge the profits of the employer.  The resulting hostility between worker and management, even after the introduction of labor unions and the improvement of workers’ conditions, was part of the whole.

Adding to the feeling of use and abuse is the continuing presence of discrimination against people of color and women.  And whereas in former times job security was something one could count on, in recent years loyalty between management and workers, both blue collar and white, has almost evaporated.  As a result, even those who are making a “decent” salary often do not feel respected or valued.

Modern capitalism and the industrial revolution also introduced the phenomenon of rising expectations for those less well-off.  Now most people feel that they are entitled to and should have the means to acquire most of the accoutrements of contemporary life.  And so everyone tries to make it.   Of course, the vast majority don’t, which sets up frustration and anger at the larger society and government for propagating this illusion that everyone can make it, but doing little to ensure it.  Another reason for people not feeling respected and valued.

I have not spoken thus far in any detail about the problem of lack of respect in the home.  There appears to be no data on this, but certainly anecdotal information would indicate that whether between spouses, parents and children, or children, feeling that one is not respected or valued is not uncommon.  

Family life was probably never idyllic once we moved from communal to independent/competitive societies.  But modern capitalism has undoubtedly increased problems in the home in at least two ways.  First, the strains that work places on the psyches of men, and women, have to be felt in the home resulting in parents being more self-absorbed and less understanding of and available to their children.  Second, the ascent of the “me” generation in the early 80s has likely resulted in a home life which is less communal, less respectful of others.  Finally, while probably more a function of modern society than capitalism, it’s reasonable to assume that the lack of respect for authority that has taken hold in the U.S. has increased the lack of respect felt by children towards parents.

Is there a way back from this precipice we’re standing on?  We cannot return to pre-capitalist or pre-historic communal life.  But the answer is yes.  One major factor in the extent to which people don’t feel respected is discrimination.  In earlier posts, for example “Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System,”  I wrote of the need to develop true equal opportunity to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.  That is also what’s needed to bring the nation back from its current state of serious polarization.  Because one can only create true equal opportunity if all the vestiges of racism, bigotry, and misogyny are put behind us.  And with that would come an increased feeling of respect by those who have historically been discriminated against.

That would, however, still leave the broader issue of a lack of respect, or value, or acknowledgement of others that is part of our modern capitalist system and society.    To instill a culture of respect will require training at all levels, from schools to corporations, of the need even in the midst of competition to treat all fellow human beings with respect, to show them they are valued, and to acknowledge their work.  To be aware that most people do the best they can and so deserve respect for their intents, regardless how well they do.  This is true both in the workplace and at home.  Capitalism/competition and employee respect are not inherently mutually exclusive concepts.  Respect within families is inherently natural.

Until we have both true equal opportunity and true respect in the workplace and in the home, America will be at great risk for becoming a failed nation, torn apart by its internal divisions.

The Presidential Election: Where Is Our Country Heading?

The purpose of democratic government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure the rights of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  We may have never pursued this perfectly, certainly not for all the people.  But we have now, unfortunately, reached a point in our history where the best interests of the people, securing their inalienable rights, is no longer the driving force behind government.  

Our government has stopped being “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  Instead, it has become a government which, while elected by the people, primarily serves the interests of corporations and the rich.  

This is true of Congress.  Legislators, both Republican and Democrat, have become so dependent on the financial donations of corporations and the rich to run their election campaigns that they provide a ready and willing ear to corporate lobbyists.  (It should, however, be noted that while Democrats have fallen into the same trap, they do still promote the public interest, just not as unequivocally as they should.)  

It is also true of Federal regulators.  These government employees are supposed to protect the interests of the public but instead, as we’ve learned, often become so close to the corporations they are supposed to regulate that they are more interested in protecting them than the public.

A result of this perversion of government’s purpose can be seen in the increased income inequality that we face today.  There has always been and there will always be income inequality.  It’s in the very nature of things … some people will be rich and others poor.  But from the end of WWII to the early 1970s, incomes grew rapidly across all income groups. 

Beginning in the 1970s, however, income growth for the middle and lower income groups either stagnated or slowed sharply while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.  For example, average real wages for the bottom 90% of working Americans only rose from $28,500 in 1979 to $33,200 in 2014 (a 16% increase).  By contrast, average real wages of the top 1% of Americans rose from $269,000 in 1979 to $671,000 in 2014 (a 249% increase).  Since the top 1% have substantial income over and above wages, the true inequality is even worse, with average total income for the bottom 90% still being around $33,000 in 2014 while the average total income of the top 1% was $1,200,000.

  

What role did government have in this increase in inequality?  Globalization of the economy, which is a primary cause of the increased inequality, was fostered by government policies together with changes in technology.  

Second, and less discussed, was the loss of power of labor unions.  This resulted partly from the loss of manufacturing jobs due to companies’ moving jobs off-shore (a major detrimental impact of globalizations) and partly from the increase in anti-union “Right to Work” laws in much of the country (an additional 7 states including for the first time, “rust-belt” states).  

In both cases, government policy supported the interests of corporations in obtaining cheaper labor and thus increasing profits.  Other government policies, such as deregulation (pursued by both Republican and Democratic administrations post-Reagan) and significant tax cuts for the rich under Reagan and Bush II, furthered the accumulation of wealth at the top of the wage spectrum.

The impact of this increased income inequality has been anger towards government for what the formerly middle class views as a lack of concern by government regarding their plight.  They blame government, and to a large extent rightly so, for their financial distress.  Government in this case really is the problem, in that it has acted at the behest of big business.  But it is also the potential solution.  However, government has not done anything to date to really improve their lot.  Lots of talk but no action.

And so in this presidential election season, we have seen two phenomenon.  On the Republican side, Donald Trump, campaigning as an anti-establishment avatar, has stoked the fears and angers of this large group of mostly white voters and has reaped the benefit of their vote, and thus the Republican nomination, against a crowded field of far-right but tainted-by-government candidates.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders also campaigned as an anti-establishment avatar,  seeking to upend the influence of corporations and put “the people” back in the forefront of government policy.  His campaign was much more successful than anyone every dreamed, but he had the misfortune of having just one opponent who, although few felt strongly about, was strongly supported by the party establishment and was considered safe by most.  And so he lost.

Of all the candidates, only Bernie Sanders offered the possibility of a truly transformative Presidency.  Because only he had at least the potential of getting the large mass of people who usually don’t vote … because they feel the government has no concern for their problems … to vote and thus win back the House as well as the Senate.  

So regardless whether Trump or Clinton wins, the future does not look good for the American people.  If Trump wins we will have a bully blowhard as President who depends on his instincts, not his thought (or the thought of those around him).  He will try to dismantle most of what President Obama accomplished for the American people.  I could go on and on, but I won’t.  If Clinton wins, government will be mostly business as usual both because of her ties to the business establishment and the fact that at least the House will likely be in the hands of Republicans, which means she will not be able to move her policy agenda with much success.

In either case, the primary direction of government will not have changed.  Although clearly a Trump presidency would be far worse for the American people and the country than a Clinton presidency.

Bernie Sanders was calling for a soft revolution, and that is what this country needs at this point in time.  We need a major shakeup in the direction of government.

Thomas Jefferson famously said that a democracy needs a revolution periodically to keep it alive.  Certainly we have come to the point where that is what our country needs because our democracy has become one in form only, not in substance.  

We must return to a government which is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,”  Corporations should certainly have a place at the table, in recognition of their importance to the economy and the welfare of all, but they should not be in the driver’s seat.   We have long since learned the emptiness of the phrase, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”

Jamming ISIS’ Message on the Internet

Over the course of the past year, we have witnessed a startling increase in terrorist violence undertaken either by organized groups of people or lone individuals under the influence of ISIS’ message of hatred and war against the “crusaders.”  

This violence has many negative impacts beyond those who are killed or injured by the attacks.  It unsettles the broader population, making it fearful of “strangers” in their midst and opening up their minds and hearts to very anti-democratic measures to counter this threat.  It thus tears at the fabric of our societies and threatens the very basis of modern democracy which is tolerance for all and the protection of minorities against the discriminatory whims of the majority.

In both the U.S. since 9/11 and across Europe for decades, far-right politicians have appealed to these fears, stoked them in order to further their own quest for power.  Once they were outliers.  But no longer.  Their words are finding a growing receptive audience as the population becomes increasingly spooked by the violence.  Whether these politicians are sincere in their misguided beliefs, as neo-Nazi’s and many others are, or whether they are deceitfully manipulating people’s fears, which I believe is the case with Donald Trump, makes no difference.  The harm done to our democratic societies is the same.

This violence thus presents one of the greatest threats to democracy in our time.  The question must therefore be asked … why is this happening now?  Have our societies broken down?  Is it because we have all these Muslim immigrants amongst us?  Are these immigrants people who want to harm the very countries that accepted them when they fled their own homes?

No, these are not the answer.  The answer is that we now have the internet.  And with the internet, groups such as ISIS can easily spread their hate and campaign of war into all corners of the world.  Vitriolic videos can be accessed from every computer.  Granted, there needs to be some fertile soil for their message, which comes in the form of people who are desperate, who feel discriminated against, who feel alienated from the larger society.  While the mass of Muslim immigrants clearly do not feel that way, it just takes a few, and without question those individuals exist 

But regardless, without the internet and these individuals’ resulting exposure to ISIS’ message, we would not be experiencing this epidemic of “home-grown” violence.  This is an indisputable fact.

Ergo, the U.S. government has every justification, for security purposes, of somehow jamming ISIS’ message on the internet.  I am not a technical person and so I do not know how or if that is possible.  But there is no question in my mind that we will not experience any peace or security until we find a way to stop the internet from being used to wage war against us.  

This is not a question of free speech or the exchange of ideas protected by our Constitution.  This is a matter of war; make no mistake about it.

American Middle Class Workers Shouldn’t Be the Fall Guy for Everyone Else’s Prosperity

The impact of trade agreements is becoming central to this year’s presidential campaign.  A New York Times editorial “Rage Against Trade” (August 7) says that the rage is misplaced because although trade has cost some jobs through cheap imports, the main factor in the loss of factory jobs has been automation.

While the point about automation is well-taken, the editorial makes no mention of the loss of jobs caused by shipping American jobs overseas, which has been made possible to a large extent by these trade agreements, as well as improved technology such as container ships which have reduced transportation costs.  It’s not the cheap imports from Asia, as such, that has hurt the American worker, it is the loss of jobs caused by American firms replacing American workers with Asian workers; the imports are the products of American companies made overseas.

The companies are doing well, only American workers are suffering.  According to a 2012 Wall Street Journal analysis, “Thirty-five big U.S.-based multinational companies added jobs much faster than other U.S. employers in the past two years, but nearly three-fourths of those jobs were overseas.”  For a more detailed analysis, see the excellent article by Robert E. Scott, “Offshore Production Has Really Hurt U.S. Manufacturing” in The New York Times, online, March 17, 2016.

And this competition for their jobs from overseas workers has enabled American corporations to provide only token raises to middle class American workers for decades.  These workers have not just been hit by a loss of jobs.  Those that still have jobs have seen their wages stagnate since the mid-70s.

I am not an economist.  There is no question that trade agreements benefit consumers through the availability of cheaper products which also keep the inflation (and interest) rates down.  And they certainly benefit producers and their shareholders.  

The only group left holding the bag is the middle class, mostly blue-collar, American worker.  Their plight is huge, and not just financially but socially/psychologically.  Beyond their personal plight, the negative drag of their loss of income on the overall economy is not insubstantial.  And as we’re seeing this year, the political ramifications are substantial as well.

I don’t know what the alternative is at the stage of the game.  I do know that we cannot, as Trump suggests, just rip up these trade agreements and walk away from the concept of global trade.  That would certainly bring our economy down, which would be bad for everyone including the aggrieved white, non-college-educated, American middle class worker.

I do know that this major group of American workers … and their families … cannot continue to be the fall guy for corporations getting richer and consumers benefiting from cheaper goods.

Economic Justice for All - Why and How

We live at a time where there is no greater challenge for America (yes, even greater than the terrorist threat) than forging a nation of greater economic justice and income equality.  The existence of a large portion of the population struggling to keep their financial heads above water - who 40 years ago were solidly middle class and prospering - and another large segment who are poor and without opportunity -  as they have always been - creates a drag on our economy, a drag on the social fabric that holds us together as a nation, and a drag on the democratic strength of America.

The Declaration of Independence famously says that all men are created equal and that they are all endowed with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Less well known is the fact that it further states that it is government’s purpose to secure those rights.

Thus whether from a sense of America’s founding values, a general sense of social justice, or a practical desire to strengthen America economically, we must find ways to reverse the trend of the past 40 years, recreate a robust middle class, and for the first time provide real opportunity for the poor to rise up from poverty.

Some will say that these are lofty goals and beyond our current means, that we are a country in financial stress with a huge debt.  To answer that I would say that we are a very rich country and there is in fact no shortage of available funds to meet these goals without further increasing the debt.  It is a question of priorities.  It is a question of how much revenue is raised and how that revenue is spent.  It will no doubt mean having to increase our revenue as well as shift current government spending patterns.  So be it.

Given the importance of the proposed actions to the health of our nation, such changes are not just warranted they are necessary.  If we want America to be strong as a nation and for its people to be strong in body and soul, then we must act.

What are the practical ways in which such a policy commitment to the American people would be carried out?  The people deserve to know.

1.  Through renegotiating international trade deals and changing the tax code, we will both shift many lost jobs back to the United States as well as encourage the creation of new manufacturing middle-class jobs here.  Our current free trade agreements and tax code have worked to increase the wealth of corporations while destroying much of our middle class by shipping their jobs overseas and either leaving them unemployed or underemployed in low-paying service industry jobs.

2.  We will embark on a massive infrastructure replacement program which is desperately needed to ensure a strong America.  Virtually anywhere you look, our infrastructure is both outdated and in dangerously bad repair.  By replacing this failing infrastructure with technologically advanced systems we will strengthen America, we will create new business for a multitude of American companies, and we will create jobs for millions of American workers.

3.  Through increased investment in education in areas of our cities and country which have historically suffered from a lower rate of investment and quality than those areas of greater affluence,  we will create the first generation of American children who truly will be able to experience equal education opportunity.  No child deserves to be left behind.

4.  No American, regardless of color, should be discriminated against.  It is anti-American, based on both the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  The laws already on the books against discrimination and ensuring equal opportunity must be more vigorously enforced.  Employers and institutions should be required to have plans in place that strongly discourage discrimination.  (This is already required by some states; it should be Federal law and thus uniform.)

In limited areas however, such as education, where Blacks and other poor people have not had access to equal education opportunity, we need to continue affirmative action to help bring the country into balance.  But once the education initiatives outlined above have been put in place and a generation of children have benefited from them, there would be no further justification for affirmative action.  Each person should be judged on their merit.

5.  To pay for these programs, in addition to shifting current budget patterns, additional revenue will need to be raised, as noted above.  A large portion of that increased revenue should come from higher income and other taxes (such as luxury) on the very rich.  

Let me be clear … it is no sin to be rich and the ability to become rich is a strong motivator in our society to perform well and succeed, which in turn benefits society in many ways.  However, there comes a point where a person has acquired so much wealth where not only does one have more money than one knows what to do with but where, from a social contract standpoint, it becomes obscene.  Such income should be taxed at a high rate.  Citizens who have profited to such an extent from the opportunities afforded by our economic/political system have a social obligation, as citizens, to pay back to the system to ensure that it stays strong and that more people come to have such opportunities.

Besides being what I think the country needs at this point in time, if Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party adopted such a slogan and program as a key element of the 2016 campaign (yes, many of my points are already included in the 2016 Platform, but a platform is cumbersome), it would go a long way … assuming it was presented enthusiastically, vigorously … to blunting Trump’s claim to be the savior of the forgotten.  It would maximize her chances of not just winning, but winning big and Democrats’ regaining the Senate and perhaps even the House.