The Unconscionable Republican Health Care Proposal

According to The New York Times, reporting on the CBO report on the Republican’s American Health Care Act, the impact of the Act on Americans in their 60s would be catastrophic.  In addition, millions of the poor who benefited from Medicaid expansion will loose their insurance.

The proposed law bases subsidies for people not on their income … like just about every other subsidy system in the world does … but on their age.  So for example, a 21 year-old would have a net (after subsidy) premium of $1,450 a year.  A 40 year-old would have a net premium of $2,400.  A 64-year old would have a net premium of $14,600!

So a 60 year-old, low-middle income person earning too much to be eligible for Medicaid and too young for Medicare, would be stuck with a huge bill that he could not afford.   All commentators assume that such people will opt out of the system which will leave them uninsured.  If the Republicans create a high-risk pool, which in the past was typically very expensive and provided bad coverage, that would not be a practical option. 

For the Republicans to do this to 60-year-olds in order to keep premiums down for the young, encouraging them to buy insurance, is evidence, if that were needed, that Republicans lack a social conscience.  It is unconscionable.

For the Republicans to also gut Medicaid expansion resulting in millions of the poor losing their insurance while at the same time providing for a $600 billion tax cut over 10 years for wealthy Americans, as they would no longer be subject to the taxes that had been assessed to pay for Obamacare subsidies, so that the net effect of the act is still a significant budget saving for the government, is more proof of their lack of social conscience and is unconscionable.

In their press conferences, they of course do not mention these details.  Instead, they emphasize the CBO finding that overall rates will go down, after initially rising for a few years.  And that the Act would result in savings of $337 billion over 10 years.  This is deceitfulness at its worst.

All middle-aged and older Americans, and the poor, should bombard their Congressmen with calls and emails telling them to vote No on the American Health Care Act.

The Responsibility Crisis

There is a crisis in the United States (I cannot speak of other countries) of a failure to take responsibility for the impact of one’s actions on others.  This crisis occurs at all levels … the individual, family, business, government.

What lies at the core of this crisis?  The “me” syndrome.  

Man has, of course, always had a side of him which is self-centered.  Hence the exhortation of all religions and spiritual practices to think of others, not just oneself.  

But during the progressive phase of American politics, starting with Teddy Roosevelt until the Reagan years, there was societal peer pressure to consider the impact of our actions on others.  That was the basis for the government’s regulation of industry which had been rapacious, totally unconcerned with its impact on its workers or the general public.  That was the basis of the institution of the Federal income tax.  These measures did not negate self-interest, but placed on the balance scale the greater good, the interests of the average person.

When JFK was inaugurated, he asked Americans, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”  That was the very embodiment of the progressive perspective of shared social/civic responsibility.  Contrast that to what Reagan said in the 1980 Presidential debate, “Are you better of today than you were four years ago?”  This was all about “me.”  

For the “me” generations that followed Reagan, this became the perspective with which all things were viewed … “Is it good for me?”  Whether it was good for anyone else became irrelevant.  This is how, even on the Democratic side, we got stuck in identity politics.  It’s all about whether something is good for me.

Over the ensuing decades the weight on the balance scale of “me” v “others” has become ever heavier.  Politically it has gotten to the point where our country is beyond being deeply divided, where there is only rage, no compassion, towards the “other.”  And so our very democracy is threatened.  It also threatens the environment and our most basic social institution … the family.

Let me provide some examples, beyond the obvious political ones, of how this crisis pervades all aspects of our life.

1.  The individual level:  The most obvious place to look for examples here are man’s interaction with the environment.  While indigenous people have always been very aware of their interconnected relationship with the environment and have treated it with respect, that is not true of “civilized” mankind.  

In the early stages, it was only those who moved into cities and thus lost contact with the land who thought nothing of the pollution that came with civilized life.   The impact of this thoughtlessness was the Plague, which devastated Europe on and off for centuries.  

Since the industrial revolution, however, the impact has been the steady destruction of the environment … the pollution of the air and water and the cutting down of forests.  The scale of this combined with the huge growth in the world’s population due to advances in hygiene and medicine have resulted in what is being called “global warming” or “climate change” … neither of which phrase is satisfactory … which will drastically change life as we know it within several generations.

One cannot just blame industry for this.  Every individual that consumes what industry produces is an integral part of the problem. We continue to produce mountains of non-recyclable trash that get dumped into land fills.   Gas-guzzling cars, SUVs, and trucks continue to be big sellers.  Indeed, our very continuing to drive is part of the problem.  I live in New York, a city with a usually efficient and vast public transportation network, and yet the number of cars on the roads is incredible.

All of these actions are an example of people thinking only about themselves, their convenience, their comfort.   What makes their immediate life better.  Not what would be in the greater good.  Or even what is in their own and their children’s long term best interest.

2.   The family level:  As I walk around the neighborhood where I live, I pass by day-care centers where the “parking lots” are crammed full of strollers.  I see nannies everywhere (always people of color) tending to other (white) people’s children.  I see dog walkers taking care of other people’s dogs.  

Now the reader could well say, “Where’s the problem?  This shows that parents want to provide their children with good pre-school opportunities for development while they are away at work.  And they want to provide their pets with fresh air and exercise while they are away at work.”

This is no doubt true.   But our system of substitute parenting or substitute dog-walking can never take the place of the real thing.  Day-care for toddlers, or the use of a nannie, cannot take the place of the love and care and teaching of a parent.  A dog being walked with 4 others on a leash does not get the exercise that a dog gets when he’s walked by his owner, let off the leash to run, play fetch, etc.

We tell ourselves, and society fully agrees, that this is an accommodation that allows both parents to work, which is necessary for their financial well-being as well as woman’s feeling of self-worth.  It is also necessary for the constant expansion of our consumer economy and thus the profit of big business.

But all this is nothing but rationalization.  Denial.  Avoidance.  When two people decide to have a child, that should be accompanied by an acceptance of the responsibility to the child entailed by that decision.  

In my book, Raising a Happy Child, there is a chapter entitled, “To Have a Child or Not.”  It deals with the need to make a conscious decision, after deep discussion, that both parents are ready for their responsibility to the child.  In a later chapter, the specific issue of both parents working is raised.  

I put it this way in the book.  “Although the financial imperative is often inescapable, you should stop and think and discuss with your spouse/significant other how critical it really is. … There’s a difference between keeping food on the table and a roof over your head, and being able to afford discretionary niceties or maintain your career.  When you balance the welfare of your child with bringing in more money or maintaining your career trajectory, which is of greater importance?  … Remember that having a child was a choice you made; your child had no say whether to be born or not.”

Most people unfortunately make even a decision such as whether to bring a new child into the world based on what is in their interest, what is their need.  Certainly for lesser decisions, they also take little account of the need of anyone else, whether a spouse, child, or dog.  Obviously the issue of care for your dog is on a different level, but the same principle applies.  

3.  The workplace level:  It will be no surprise to anyone that the workplace is full of “me” attitude given the atmosphere of competition and vanishing job loyalty/security.  That’s not a good state of affairs, but the harm is mostly to the individuals, not the greater good.

But where the self-centered perspective does do great harm to the greater good is the attitude of big business towards their workers, their consumers, the general public, and the environment.  Through a combination of the nature of the corporate beast and the pressure on corporations by investors to constantly increase profit,  corporations today have one concern and one only … how to improve their bottom line.  

The interests of their workers, consumers, the general public, and the environment have no relevance when making corporate decisions, unless those interests can operate to increase corporate profits.   Thus the greater good and the environment are routinely violated for the sake of corporate profit.

4.  The government level:  Need I say anything here about how self-centeredness by politicians and countries, a lack of responsibility for others, damages the greater good?  Whether we look at the current Republican feeding frenzy brought about by their ascendancy to total power or whether we look at our actions in undertaking the Iraq war, these are just two of many examples of the harm done to the greater good by just thinking what is in my interest.

Nothing will turn this habit-energy around unless we as individuals and our leaders see the damage and danger in making decisions based on the “me” perspective.  That ultimately it is in every individual’s and every country’s enlightened self-interest to take responsibility for the impact of our actions on others.  

Why?  Because if we are doing well, but everyone around us is doing poorly or if the environment is degraded, then that makes the world that surrounds us uninviting if not unstable and dangerous, which in turn makes our lives constricted.  That is not the definition of freedom.

What we need is a massive re-education effort.  Basically, a return to the maxim at the core of every religion and spiritual practice:  do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  It is not only important for our spiritual well-being.   It is important for our practical well-being and freedom.

Democrats Must Save America from Self-Destructing

I have never seen such an apparent deep split in the American people combined with such rage and intolerance towards the other side’s point of view.  This exceeds even the emotions generated by Vietnam.  Indeed, the ubiquitous nature of this rage is possibly worse than anything America has ever encountered.

But is what we are seeing and hearing a true reflection of the underlying reality, free of the passion of the moment?  If you ask people, whether on the Right or the Left, in red states or blue, what they feel about America, the answer will likely be very similar.  On the one hand, they love America for the rights we are guaranteed, the freedoms we are given to pursue our lives.  This universality is not just the stuff of folklore or political snake oil salesmen.  It is solidly based on our founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  

On the other hand, people are distraught, nay outraged, because they feel those rights and freedoms have been withheld from them while granted to others.  Each aggrieved group perceives that their rights are being denied or threatened by the exercise of some other group’s rights, or the government is favoring the other group over them.   And they are intent on claiming the rights and freedoms due them.

For example, Blacks are aggrieved because despite our laws on equal opportunity and treatment 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, a function of government discrimination, and continues with the existence of private discrimination in much of the job market.  

Whites on the other hand are aggrieved for several reasons.  They see affirmative action resulting in Blacks with less qualification still getting job preference 50 years after the civil rights laws were passed.  They take affront at being labeled part of the “privileged class” just because they are white whereas they most certainly do not feel privileged.  Many are suffering economically and angry that the government’s free trade policies have sacrificed their jobs for the benefit of big corporations and their investors.  And to add insult to injury, while feeling neglected and ignored by government, they see that same government supporting the rights of people of color and the LGBT community.

Honestly, both sides are basically right in their perceptions.  Both have been treated poorly by the government.  Yet I firmly believe these conflicts are not inherent in the nature of things.  There is no reason given America’s resources and wealth and our democracy’s principle of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” that everyone’s rights and freedoms cannot be met.

Why then have these problems existed for such a long time?  What is the source of this inequality, this discrimination, this neglect?

The problem is that we have a system of politics and a society that has been and remains stuck in a pre-democracy dynamic in which the have’s and the have-not’s were in constant struggle.  Where people of one persuasion or interest were in conflict with those of another, each trying to gain the upper hand.  Where one had to fight to get anything; there were no rights.  Certainly no universal equality.

It is a system and society not in sync with the “new” Enlightenment philosophy of equality expressed in our founding documents.  Indeed, those documents themselves, while they spoke of an aspirational equality, carried forward a decidedly unequal social system by leaving it to the states to decide matters such as slavery and the status of women.

While the law has evolved over the years to better reflect the philosophy of equality, and while society has also in many respects become more expressive of the principles of equality, there remain deep-seated antagonisms and distrust based largely on race/ethnicity and privilege but also gender and sexual orientation.  Our politics and society are still far from Martin Luther King’s dream “that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ … When all of God’s children … will be able to join hands and sing, ‘Free at last!  Free at last!  Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

For most of the 20th century, politicians did not overtly play to these antagonisms.  But during the last few decades, the Right began directly flaming this distrust for their benefit.  In our most recent election, Donald Trump masterfully played on the failures of our political system and people’s distrust to create a firestorm of rage that swept him into office.  In response, the left has unfortunately responded in kind.

Both sides have now assumed an “you’re either with us or against us” attitude and vilify the other.  There is no search for commonality or compromise across the political chasm (what used to be called the political divide).  

The danger of this rage has frequently been commented on, in recent op-ed pieces such as Sabrina Tavernise’s ”Are Liberals Helping Trump” and Nicholas Kristof’s “Fight Trump, Not His Voters” in The New York Times, as well as my posts here.  We are coming dangerously close to self-destructing.

Interestingly, all of these articles are addressed to progressives, both on the supposition that they should know better and be able to rise above the fray, but also because their actions are ultimately counter-productive.  They are driving moderate supporters of Trump … yes, there are many millions if not tens of millions of them … more into Trump’s arms.  Indeed, I believe they are pushing Trump himself more into the arms of the far Right because he has no place else to turn to for support.

Yet there is no question in my mind, despite the intolerance displayed on both sides, that the vast majority of Americans have an essential commonality.  See my post, “Yes, Virginia, There Is Hope - The Invisible Majority.”  Bottom line, 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 group.  They want an America secure from terrorist attacks and from everyday violence.  They want a government that listens to them.  The vast majority do not support a Muslim registry and they approve of an “earned” path to citizenship for undocumented Latinos.  And as has become very clear, they want access to reasonably priced, high quality, comprehensive health care.  A clear majority, even of Trump voters,  support reasonable gun control efforts.

To begin the process of healing, to prevent the chasm from growing even larger, I proposed in the referred-to post, as well as at www.americansolidarity.org, that progressives reach out to Trump supporters.   To not demean them.  Specifically, I suggested the following:

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 don't have

    a criminal record, have worked and paid taxes, and speak English, 

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

    - 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,  

     - 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 support either changing or replacing Obamacare if that will provide improved 

     access to reasonably priced, high quality, comprehensive health care for all Americans.”

I stated in my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths, that America stands at a crossroad.  “There is a radical movement afoot to fundamentally alter the balance that our system has struck between private rights, the public good, and government.  The issue is not simply big versus small government, high versus low taxes.  At risk is the heart of our democracy, our historic values.”  

Until this past election, we were still at the same crossroad.  The 8-year term of Barack Obama did not, as many had hoped, change the dynamic of the aligned political forces but instead intensified them.  With the 2016 election, though, we have gone past that crossroad and are headed down a very dark path.  

There is a saying in the law that, “reasonable men may differ.”  We as a people need to find our way back to being “reasonable” men, with those on the left being able to agree to differ with those reasonable men who voted for Trump.  And vice versa; it does take two to tango.  We must seek out those areas where we agree. And where we don’t, we should agree to disagree … civilly.  

In a post of mine, “Darkness Before Light,” I argued that, as I have observed in 12-step programs, perhaps we needed to hit rock bottom before people are not just open to seeing the light but understanding that we must head towards the light, resolving these centuries-old antagonisms, if we are to survive as a nation.  Interestingly, at the end of Ms. Tavernise’s op-ed article noted above, she quotes a woman who is a registered Democrat but voted for Trump and is worried about the level of rage that is abroad in the country.  “Change doesn’t occur until you hit rock bottom, like an alcoholic, on his knees, begging for help.  I think we still have further to go.”  As I said in my post, I hope that is not the case.

We cannot allow our anger … yes, as a progressive I too am angry … regarding the 2016 campaign, the current President, his administration, nor radical Republicans in Congress, to lead us astray, to divert us from the American way.  That way, the way of our democracy, requires that all men be treated with respect.  Fight for what you think is right, but treat the opposing force with respect.  Name calling does not bring us any further towards our goal of a more just America. 

Returning the Country to the People Scorecard - A Proposed Weekly Democratic Leadership Press Conference/Program

Donald Trump promised the American people that he would return the country back into their hands.  His cabinet appointments, however, show clearly that he is doing just the opposite.  

It’s not so much that his appointments are either billionaires or extremely rich.  It’s that, like so many in their class today, they have no interest in protecting or advancing the welfare of the average American.  Their interest is either cutting government spending or, in the case of Betsy DeVos, gutting public schools, regardless of who that harms, or removing regulations that are necessary to protect the average person from corporate predation. These are all people who have shown that they are actually antagonistic to the mission of the departments they head.  He has put the foxes in charge of the hen house.

Democrats need to find a mechanism for keeping this betrayal by the President and Republicans in Congress of his commitment to the people front and center for the duration of his presidency.  To this end, I propose that Democrats hold a weekly press conference/program to detail the President’s and Congressional Republican actions that betray that commitment or are otherwise harmful to the average American

There is precedent for this tactic.  Back in the early 60s, when the Republican minority debated how they could maintain their influence at a time of Democratic dominance, they came up with the idea of a weekly leadership press conference.  It may sound dull on paper, but what became the Ev Dirksen/Charlie Halleck program provided the Republican minority a weekly national forum during the 60s.  The program was widely respected and quoted both by network news programs and the print media.

By virtue of their leadership positions, two of the people who would take part in the proposed press conference are of course Senator Schumer and Representative Pelosi.  However, because they represent New York and California, I recommend adding to the press conference roster a senator and representative from the heartland.

The makeup of the participants is very important.  The point of the program is to try and reach the people who voted for Trump.  Which means breaking through the alternative facts that they will be fed and their blind faith in the man.  Having two exemplars of the bi-coastal liberal establishment host the press conference would defeat the whole purpose.

The format of the program is very important too.   It should not just consist of talking heads.  Instead, the information should be presented in a conversation format.   And no snide or belittling comments should be made.  As the saying goes, “The facts, ma’m, just the facts.”  Points need to be made clearly; demeaning comments actually distract from the message.

The confirmation process that the Senate is currently going through provides an excellent starting point for highlighting that betrayal and the part that Congressional Republicans are playing in that betrayal.  And for matters like the House Republicans voting to remove restriction on mountain-top removal and stream protection, it provides an opportunity to discuss just who benefits from this.  Will this really save jobs or just enrich the mining companies?

I strongly urge the leadership to entertain this idea and move forward with it. 

The Two Ultimate Lessons for Democrats from 2016

Democrats are trying to figure out what to do, what to change in their game plan, to regain Congress in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.   There are various scenarios that people are putting together on how they can turn things around.

I have written after past elections, and I wrote in a post after this one, “The Perennial Search for the Democrat’s Mission,” that Democrats need to drop identity politics and instead come up with an all-inclusive, cohesive vision of America’s future that people will respond to.   They must be clear where they want to take America and how they’re going to get there.  And that path must include a better life for all Americans.

But there is an even larger lesson to be learned; a point that distinguished the Trump campaign from all the others, including most past campaigns as well.  Trump won because he made people believe that he listened to them, to their suffering and questions, and he took up their cause with great vigor, a vengeance, fighting the establishment to right the wrongs.  

His anti-establishment and anti-elite rant was so appealing because many white working class people felt, with good cause, that the establishment had failed them despite having mouthed platitudes to them for decades … rural Americans had hardly been addressed at all.  And the elite who run the establishment were not in touch with their (white Americans’) suffering as opposed to people of color or other minority groups who they perceive as getting lots of attention.

If Democrats want to once again become the majority party, the party of the people, the lesson is not, as some are saying, that they need to listen and respond to the suffering of the white working class.  Yes, they definitely need to do that.  But they need to do that in the context of listening to all the people.  

Democrats need to show that they are there for everyone and that they can deliver for everyone.  They have to show that it doesn’t have to be one group’s interests v another’s.  They need to come up with a cohesive vision that works for all Americans and which all Americans respond to.

That’s why I’ve proposed the following Mission for the Democratic Party:

"To bring to life the promises set forth in our Declaration of Independence.

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

* each and every American has the best chance to experience the promise 

‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 

certain unalienable Rights … Life,  Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’;

* government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration …  

‘to secure those rights’,  within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and

* all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts 

 to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”

Democrats have gotten too cozy with big money, big business, big banks.  You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t please those interests and the people at the same time because unfortunately the goal of big business is all about making money.  Sometimes their interests are not in conflict with the general good, but often they are.  There is no social conscience or social purpose involved in corporate decision making, unless it helps them make money.

And so, in other posts of mine such as, “What Drives Policy Decisions? - The Theory v The Reality” and “Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System,” I urge Democrats to shake up the status quo of how the country is run.  To change it from money/big business-centric to people-centric.  Obama pledged to get rid of the overwhelming influence of lobbyists and big business/banks, but he ended up doing neither.  

Bernie Sanders had the right idea.  His movement should not be allowed to become a mere footnote to this period of Democratic Party policy development.  Instead, it should be the core of a well-thought-through soft revolution that truly puts the country back in the hands of the people rather than big business.  Big business will still have a place at the table as they are an important part of the well-being of our country; but they will not be a controlling force. We must reestablish “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” 

Trump campaigned on doing just that … putting the country back in the hands of the people.  But his cabinet appointments show clearly that he is doing just the opposite.  He has put the foxes in charge of the hen house.  And the Republican-controlled Senate supported those appointments against almost unanimous Democrat opposition.  Democrats need to label Republicans for the hypocrites they are and remind the American people of this betrayal and its implications on a regular basis.  This cannot be a forgotten moment in history.

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.

The Importance of Separation of Church and State

The founders of the United States were deeply religious.   But they were not narrow-minded or bigoted in their religious thought.  They were students of the Enlightenment.  And so in writing the 1st Amendment they saw to it that the government would neither pass any law respecting the establishment of religion, thus forcing it on people, nor one prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

As worded, the amendment is all about prohibiting what the government can do.  In interpreting the amendment, the courts early on looked to a January 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson which stated that the language in the amendment “built a wall of separation between Church and State.”  This phrase echoed a statement made by Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America who spoke of “a wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”

President Trump is correct that the prohibition on election activity by churches is a result of a law pushed by Lyndon Johnson.  It impacts all non-profit, 501(c) 3 organizations, not just churches.  There is no existing constitutional law/case mandating this prohibition.

However, that is not to say that there exists no basis in the constitution for such prohibition at least as it pertains to churches.  Certainly not if we look at the intent of the founders, which is the standard in vogue with conservative jurists, including the current Supreme Court nominee Judge Gorsuch.

A wall is only a solid wall if it is two-sided.  The government is restricted regarding what it can do that affects religion and people’s free choice.  And churches, which is to say religion, should be restricted from engaging directly in political matters such as campaigns.  

Why?  Churches should not be sullied by engaging in politics.  As Roger Williams eloquently said, the garden of the church needs to be separated from the wilderness of the world.  Encroachment of the “wilderness” comes not just through laws that might restrict or command religious practice, which is the literal meaning of the 1st Amendment, but through the church becoming entangled in the wilderness.

I see this reading of the 1st Amendment as being an important part of protecting religious freedom.  Churches do have free speech and can speak out on any issue concerning the public or the state.  And indeed they use this right very effectively and appropriately.  Churches should be a moral authority.  But to take that one step further and allow churches to actively support specific candidates or parties, which is what President Trump wants to allow, would lead churches and religious organizations down the proverbial slippery slope and create a problem.

For centuries, churches were not involved in politics both because they thought that the world of politics was sordid and because there was no need to.   Freedom of religion was set in the Constitution.  

But at some point in the 1980s, Evangelical leaders started getting concerned that their values, what they felt were American values, were being undermined either by liberals or by less religious people.  And with the encouragement of Republican operatives, they got involved in politics.  To protect the America that they felt was the true America.

And here one sees clearly the problem.  This is not about freedom of religion.  No one was telling Evangelicals that they couldn’t do or practice what they felt were the standards, the commandments of their religion.  This is about one religion wanting to impose its view of morality upon the entire society, not by forcing everyone to join the same religion but through the law.   Which is in effect against the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

As generally recognized, the establishment clause "not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion." 

Or more recently, when they offer services to the public through their businesses, they want to be able to discriminate regarding who they serve.  But we have a law in this country.  It is part of the civil rights laws that if you serve the public you cannot discriminate in who your serve.  Period.  That doesn’t keep you from practicing your religion and remaining true to your beliefs.  That is something private.  It just stops you from forcing your morality on others when you put yourself out as a purveyor to the public.  Because then it impacts other people. 

If churches start campaigning for candidates, which has already happened despite the Johnson Amendment, then when a candidate is elected and recognizes his debt to these churches, the person is likely to propose actions, as has President Trump, which please that group even as it tramples on the rights of others.  

His vow to find a conservative jurist committed to overturning Roe v Wade was an effort to win the evangelical vote by getting the organized evangelical church and other organizations to support him and campaign for him.  And now he has carried through on that promise, despite the fact that as recently as 1999 he said that he was “very” pro-choice.  

Likewise there have been articles written about memos circulating in the White House that would turn back the rights that have been recognized for LGBT people, again despite the fact that as recently as November 13, 2016 he said that he was “fine” with gay marriage and that the matter was “settled.”

The influence of churches in campaigns is bad for our freedoms and ultimately religion.  Our system of rights maintains that we all, not just a few, have rights.  And the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment are indeed the strongest.  

But even they are not absolute.  No one can exercise a right if in so doing they infringe on the rights of another person.  That is the basis of all laws and regulations that impact people’s rights.  There is a greater good that is always considered.  That is as true for the freedom of religion and for the other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  If one religion does not respect the rights of others of another religion or no religion, that is a sad day for religion in our democracy.

There is one more reason why Trump’s idea is a bad one.  America has been blessedly free for most of its history of the open religious antagonism and warfare that plagued Europe for centuries.  Yes, there has been anti-semitism in various forms, as well as anti-catholicism.   But there has not been open hostility between the various religious establishments.

If churches start being involved in campaigns with those supporting the winner benefiting in some way and having their view be ascendant, there is much more likely to develop the kind of deep-seated animosity that was a feature of European history for so long.   These feelings may be below the surface in America, but they are there and it wouldn’t take much to raise them to a different, vocal level. 

The Johnson Amendment should not be repealed and churches/religious organizations should voluntarily refrain from campaigning for individual candidates or parties for the reason that it is just not seemly.   To quote Roger Williams again, “There should be a wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.

I urge the President to reconsider his support of churches’ campaigning in support of specific candidates or parties.  And I urge Congress to maintain the Johnson Amendment in force.