Powered By Blogger

Publius Speaks

Publius Speaks
Become A Follower

11/25/2012

“Citizens United” Undermines Free Speech

“The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on ‘electioneering communications’ and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).” (Wikipedia).

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is clear that the majority argued that the First Amendment keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and that it is not up to legislatures or courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.  Such hogwash!  Legislatures and courts restrict and regulate speech all the time.  For instance, try planning to foment an action that could be interpreted as terrorism.  Use face book or E-mail to communicate the plan with friends.  The Patriot Act will come into play and you will be arrested.  Try slandering your ex-spouse by calling him a child-abuser.  Will you be liable for slander and will he sue you for slanderous speech?  Is fairness involved?  Of course it is, as there always is in the finding of the courts against a plaintive or defendant in a slander trial, or hate speech trial or false advertising trial.  Try harassing someone by what you say or write. Think you can get away with it by pleading “free speech”?  Not likely. 

Speech is already restricted.  There is no such thing as completely free speech, because some forms of speech can lead to consequences that are criminal.  Take  a perpetrated scam for instance.  Try getting out of that particular criminal behavior by pleading innocence on the basis of free speech.  Think you can say anything you want to, even though it might harm someone else?  Think again.  You can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater if there is none. You can’t slander someone; you can’t scam someone; you can’t claim something for a product or a service that is patently false as in “false advertising.”  Try speaking malevolently about a group of people such as gay persons, or about an ethnic group such as Afro-Americans.  Hate speech is now restricted and penalties are in place.  Try malevolent speech aimed at harming a politician or an office-holder; you will risk being arrested even though you actually never carry out your threats. 

Oh, and try speaking on-line in any way you choose.  There are many websites that do not allow “inappropriate speech” and you risk being disengaged from that site if you insist on violating their restrictions or are reported as doing so.  Free speech?  I’m sorry.  Your free speech ends at the point where it impinges on someone else’s life in a harmful or distorted or abusive way.  “Free” speech is not unlimited speech or  unrestrained speech.  Justice and fairness are always being judged by legislatures and courts.  To say otherwise is simply fantasy.  And, the Supreme Court conservatives are full of such fantasy judgments.

The conservative majority challenged the reasoning in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce  that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the conservative majority argued that the government has no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction: "There is no such thing as too much speech."  Justice Stevens in his dissent argued that independent expenditures were sometimes a factor in gaining political access and concluded that large independent expenditures generate more influence than direct campaign contributions. Furthermore, Stevens argued that corporations could threaten Representatives and Senators with negative advertising to gain unprecedented leverage.

The conservative Justices apparently do not live in the modern world.  To even say that corporate expenditures do not have a risk of corruption or even the appearance of corruption is to believe that corporate money does not have a distorting power at all.  Yet, take a look at corporate advertising in TV commercials particularly.  TV commercials are rampant with psychological gambits that distort reality.  They are rife with claims that cannot be substantiated.  They are meant to persuade and cajole the viewer into a state of belief in what they are selling; what they fear most is that the viewer will not accept the corporate “pitch”.  TV commercials are intended to distort one’s own reality into the reality of the corporation doing the advertising.  They cajole, they distort, they lie, they pander, they tend to “corrupt” one’s own beliefs and principles and actions if they can in order to sell their service or their product.  One might even go so far as to say that corporate speech is all about corruption in the broadest sense:  a corrupting influence.  Corporate ads tend to influence one toward acceptance of a distortion of one’s reality in order to be able to sell us a product or a philosophy or a way of living.

Take cigarette advertising from our recent past.  It tried to make you want to smoke, not by lauding the contents of the cigarettes, but by distorting your own view of reality.  The tobacco industry sold much more than cigarettes; they sold a style of life; they sold sophistication; they sold a distorted reality that one could be considered to be like the Marlboro Man; they sold the idea that smoking was healthy and showed smoking doctors to prove it.  Cigarette advertisements, and their progenitors, were the epitome of distortion and corruption.  My mother died at age 52 from a cerebral hemorrhage because her life and her beliefs were corrupted and distorted by the tobacco industry.  She knew tobacco was not her friend; that it was contributing to her ill health.  But she still sent me to the store for a carton of cigarettes whenever she was running low (two packs left in the old carton).  She was addicted to tobacco because the industry sold her the lie that smoking was not injurious to health.  The conservative Supreme Court Justices have perhaps forgotten the corrupting influences of the tobacco industry who kept Congress, state legislatures, and even the courts “in line” with their lies and distortions by spending great amounts of corporate lobbying money until finally it all came to a conclusion that could no longer be hidden or ignored:  too many were dying of smoking-related causes, and scientific reality caught up to distorted reality.  

But somehow the conservative Justices missed the boat by arguing that corporate money does not corrupt the market place of ideas, or that governments should not decide whether large expenditures of money by corporations distort an audience’s perception, or that only a “quid pro quo” constitutes corruption, or that there is no such thing as too much speech.  Too bad they forgot all the legislation that resulted from the lies and distortions by the tobacco industry.  Too bad they forgot all the court decisions that shot down laws made under the influence of tobacco industry lobbying money that distorted reality.  Too bad they forgot the summary judgments issued by the courts against the tobacco companies for their lies and distortions.  Too much free and unfettered speech by means of corporate lobbying is worse than “quid pro quo” because it goes to the corruption of reality, beliefs and principles of sound living.  Free and unfettered speech can destroy as well as preserve or innovate.  It is the mission of the legislatures and the Courts to determine which is which, as they finally did with the curtailing of false advertising by Big Tobacco. 

Fortunately, Justice Stevens in dissent reminds us of the nature of corporations.  Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside of profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.  Hooray for Justice Stevens!

The conservative judges also asserted that the public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of that information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption.  What fools these mortals be!  Reliable evidence and information is not what corporations are peddling.  Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Whatever are not in the business of providing reliable evidence so that the public can make informed decisions.  In fact, the “Bigs” do not want the public to be well-informed lest they make decisions that do not turn a profit. 

Natural gas extraction from the earth is now a major issue because Big Energy sees big dollar signs whenever they discover more shale deposits from which they can draw natural gas.  Unfortunately, the process by which that gas is being extracted (“hydro-fracking”) has not been proven to be environmentally safe for the people who live on the affected lands.  The chemicals used in the extraction process are potentially hazardous to drinking water, land use, and human consumption of produce grown near those fracking sites.  Are the corporations involved providing all the information necessary for the public to make a decision about hydro-fracking?  Not on your life.  They are instead using corporate money to lobby for drilling rights, to promote hydro-fracking as a safe procedure, to distort the results of studies of the effects of such extraction, and above all to convince the public that job-creation is more important than environmental safety. 

The corrupting influence of the Natural Gas companies is reminiscent of Big Tobacco, but more so of the Chemical company involved in the Love Canal debacle of decades past (1970s) when a local newspaper brought to light that a 36 square-block area of  the city of Niagara Falls was contaminated with 21,000 tons of toxic waste buried underground by Hooker Chemical (now Occidental Petroleum Corporation) in the 1950s.  Liability for the toxicity was denied by Hooker Chemical until the deaths and birth defects became overwhelming enough to spur real investigations and a finding of negligence and the settlement of subsequent lawsuits brought by individuals.

The corrupting influence of corporate speech begins with the distortion of information, not with a quid pro quo.  That is what the Justices missed.  They themselves distorted the issues in this case in order to protect the coercive and blatantly distorted speech of the corporations.  There is no such thing as undistorted speech from corporations that deal in profits, selling, and marketing.  Distortion is their bread and butter.  It is how they get us to buy, and to feel good about spending our hard-earned dollars.  The conservative Justices are naïve in their belief that there is no corruption or appearance of corruption when distortion and coercion are at the heart of corporate speech and influence. And why is that?  Justice Stevens in dissent alludes to the reason:  corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending "more transactional than ideological".

Apparently, the majority opinion also relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance cases of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda. The majority argued that to grant First Amendment protections to media corporations but not others presented a host of problems, and so they concluded that all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions. 

And now, we all are bearing the consequences of the decision of the five conservative Justices.  We now have unrestricted third-party political advertisements by corporations and individuals through the advent of Super PACs.  Unfortunately, those advertisements are not meant to support a particular candidate or a particular issue, but are overwhelmingly negative in nature, meant to distort one’s view of whatever issue or candidate the donor opposes.  These advertisements follow a pattern of distortion, misleading and false information, outright lies, and innuendo.  They are not in any way constructive.  They are a form of corruption.  That is, they distort the process of sorting out the best candidates; they distort the character of the opposition, and most of all they are secretive.  There is no requirement that the perpetrators of such ads must come forth to approve the ads or to reveal their intent, or even to say who is funding them.  One of the aspects of “secretiveness” is that of concealment; another is that of “not open”.  The majority of Justices has willingly consented to a falsity, a covering-up, a reduction of the amount of information that they said would contribute to the public being able to make informed decisions.  So here they are contradicting themselves, and providing the very means by which corruption can take place. 

In spite of the Justices’ decision, corruption is not the main problem.  The main problem with the free political speech granted to corporations (as individuals) is that their ability to spend enormous amounts of money on political advertising is a distortion, and indeed a corruption, of the right of other individuals to an equal quantity of free speech, and to the equity of one‘s vote.  By granting free speech rights to corporations, and allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money, the Supreme Court has unwittingly distorted and minimized the free speech of all those who cannot afford to equal those expenditures.  In other words, the Court has given an enormous advantage to the rich that is not available to others.  They have distorted the electoral process so that “one man, one vote” no longer has meaning.  It is now one substantial corporation or rich person against whom only a huge association of other persons can stand.  Our speech, our voices, our political clout has been undermined by a Court decision that by its very nature, introduces inequity into the electoral process.      

The conservative wing of the SCOTUS missed the point of this in more ways than one.  They said that corporate spending was not corruptive.  They claimed it does not even approach the level of the appearance of corruption.  But the very nature of corporate advertising is to distort and corrupt.  The justices said that we should have all the information we need to make political judgments, but they missed the point that corporations tend to limit the amount of information provided the public so that the public can be lured into their reality.  The five conservative Justices unwittingly allowed secretiveness to conceal, not only truth, but the perpetrators of negative and false advertising about candidates and issues.  They thus introduced into the electoral process the very thing they had touted: the concealment of substantive information from the public. 

In my opinion, Citizens United is not just a bad decision; it is a corrupting decision because it distorts the electoral process and destroys the one person, one vote principle.  Ill-conceived is too polite a phrase for this failure to understand the coercive power of money, and the corrupting influence it has on our electoral process.  Citizens United must be over-turned!

11/19/2012

How Did We Get Here?

Just when did the purpose of the federal government become the protection and support of big business, and of the richest among us?  When did the federal government become the Department of Business?  When did the focus of the federal government become the tax rates for the rich rather than a fair tax code for all?  When did the focus shift from caring for the poor, the downtrodden, the homeless, the veteran, the disabled, the widow, the orphan and children to an all-out subsidization of big oil, wall street and big banks?  When did the shift  occur that discredits civil rights and labor rights in favor of breaks for big business, small businesses, hedge funds and CEOs?  Does it matter that it is now unclear as to the basic Purpose and Mission of our federal government?

I think it matters a great deal.  I think it matters that the middle class is experiencing more difficulties in a recession than are the richest 2%, who have seen their income increase while that of the vast majority of those below $250k has remained stagnant.  I think it matters when government attacks the bargaining rights of unions.  I think it matters when health care reform is made into a debate about everything other than heath care: death panels, unelected advisory boards, government takeover, and religious freedom.    I think it matters when education of our children is not given top priority by government at every level.  One program dedicated to “Race to the Top” is an inadequate response to our inadequate public education system. 

After all, as long as we continue to use 19th century categories, symbols and methods, we are failing our 21st century children and youth.  Desks in rows, having to be called upon after raising a hand, not using computers in every room, vacations following an agrarian calendar, teachers acting as proctors and founts of wisdom at the head of a class rather than as enablers and facilitators in the middle of a community of learners and teachers, is not conducive to experiential or long-term learning.  The lack of teamwork in classrooms-- including aides, parents, students and mentors -- is an absolute denial of the way that most institutions function in this century.  On the other hand, the lack of individualized education plans for each student says that group-think and narrow one-size-fits-all grading and class assignment fit our modern needs.  It does not, because it misses the uniqueness and individuality and particular skill set of each individual.  The need for individual attention within a team concept is something our current education model does not even address.   

I think it matters that decisions are being made, particularly in Congress, based on what the power-brokers in the form of lawyers and lobbyists and money-raisers, want for their clients.  And those clients are not primarily non-profit organizations looking for reforms.  They are primarily members of financial institutions, large business interests and associations or coalitions of like-minded or similar interests.  They are not there for broad-based purposes.  They are there to promote their very narrow interests which will enhance their revenue, their power, or their prestige.  Let’s take a look at the top groups spending the most on lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.  In 2012, the top twenty groups included:

Lobbying Client                                            Total
US Chamber of Commerce                      $95,660,000        
National Assn of Realtors                        $25,982,290
Blue Cross/Blue Shield                            $16,238,032
General Electric                                       $15,550,000
Google Inc.                                              $14,390,000
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America  $14,380,000
AT&T Inc.                                                 $14,030,000
American Hospital Assn                           $13,275,200
National Cable & Telecommuns Assn      $13,010,000
American Medical Assn                            $12,980,000
Northrop Grumman                                 $12,980,000
Comcast Corp                                         $12,420,000
Boeing Co                                               $12,010,000
Verizon Communications                         $11,670,000
Lockheed Martin                                     $11,518,870
National Assn of Broadcasters                $11,220,000
Royal Dutch Shell                                    $10,860,000
Southern Co                                           $10,500,000
Edison Electric Institute                          $10,130,790
Exxon Mobil                                              $9,870,000

Over a longer period, 1998-2012, things didn’t change much, with a very similar list during that longer time:  US Chamber of Commerce,  General Electric,  American Medical Assn.,  American Hospital Assn.,  Pharmaceutical Rsrch. & Mfrs. of America, AARP, National Assn. of Realtors, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Northrop Grumman, Exxon Mobil, Edison Electric Institute, Verizon Communications, Boeing Co., Business Roundtable, Lockheed Martin, AT&T Inc., Southern Co., National Cable & Telecommunications Assn., General Motors, National Assn. of Broadcasters.

The point being this:  our representative form of democratic government is under attack by these special interests and may be too far gone to be retrieved.  This topic was addressed in an article by Paul B. Farrell for Global Research, September 03, 2009.  His assertions were:

-- “Lobbyists now run America, own America, rule America. Forget the 537 politicians you thought we elected to the White House, Senate and Congress to run America for us. No, they’re mere puppets, pawns for the “Happy Conspiracy,” an oligopoly, plutocracy, cabal, monopoly all-in-one — a private club of America’s richest few on Wall Street, in Washington and in Corporate America.”

-- “Voters and elections are irrelevant. Lobbyists decide what’s in the best interests of this elite club”

-- “There’s a huge, highly paid army of mercenary lobbyists in Washington. Registered lobbyists may be 42,000 versus a mere 537 elected officials. American University political scientist James Thurber says there are actually 261,000 members of the “influence-lobbying complex” running your government. Many are former congressmen, senators and staffers. Others are ad hoc mercenaries, like the 350 hired by the GOP just to kill health-care reforms at a cost over a million bucks a day.”

-- “Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans will never hear about all the day-to-day shenanigans: the buying, selling and bartering of sweeteners, earmarks, votes and senatorial seats. Most of the behind-the-scenes deals never cross the radar of Middle America.”

In an interesting section of the article, Farrell lists 16 principles by which these lobbyists operate.  A few more compelling of these, include:

Lobbyists must nudge voters to elect “friendly” politicians. Lobbyists must invest millions to elect officials favorable to special interests.
Lobbyists protect special interests using taxpayer money. The wealthy will have ready access to the assets and credits of the Treasury.
Lobbyists amass extra capital anticipating a new meltdown. Plan ahead for the next recession by stockpiling benefits for your clients.
Lobbyists hire new blood directly from inside government. The contacts of senators and congressmen are worth millions to clients.
Lobbyists reward politicians, treat them like co-lobbyists. Everyone in Washington wants to get rich off big government, help them.
Lobbyists must defeat programs unfavorable to clients. Programs that weaken the power of the rich must be aggressively defeated.
Lobbyist clients’ interests come before public interest. Principles of fiduciary duty mean clients take precedence over public needs.”

So, the answer to the question -- when did the purpose of government change from protecting the rights and lives of all of us to the subsidizing and enhancing of the rich and of large corporations? -- must probably go without an exact in-depth answer.  Special interests have been active in lobbying and influencing the operations of government since the very beginning of this nation.  However, according to Farrell:  “modern lobbying actually began in the mid-1970s with the innovative ‘earmarked appropriations,’ federal funds directed by Congress to private institutions when no federal agency had proposed spending the money.”

The important question is more pointed: how do we get money out of politics?  In reality, we can’t.  But we can begin to limit the money allowed to influence elections and legislation.  Public funding of all elections, limits on total expenditures for every office and strict limitations (or abolishment) of PACs and super-PACs are all appropriate ways to limit the influence of special interest money.  It would help to reform elections and government tremendously if the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was overturned by a constitutional amendment.  Within that amendment would need to be the abolishment of PACs and Super-PACs, and all third party advertisements.  Then we would need to move to allowing “equal time” -- free rebuttal to on-air attacks on one’s person or character.  Hopefully this would help to reduce the acceptance of scurrilous ads in the first place by TV and radio stations.

Next, we must put limits on terms of office for legislators, clearly limit lobbyists’ access to congress and the executive branch, and demand that lobbyists identify their clients. We must do this on the basis of the concept that unfettered access is equivalent to the diminution of free speech on the part of the rest of us.  Next, we must turn to the “revolving door” and prevent congressional members and their staffs from taking a lobbying job within 12 years of leaving office.  In fact, Congress has become a training ground for future careers in lobbying and in other businesses where legislators have been actively involved.  This using of public office for future personal gain is a travesty of “public service.”

Finally, we must eliminate all “earmark” legislation by constitutional amendment. We must set in stone penalties for “insider trading” based on knowledge received through the legislative or oversight processes, and for “conflicts of interest” through appointment to committees that conflict with individual interests and investments.  Penalties must be attached to all actions that abrogate rules and ethics of the Congress or other branches of government, and be strictly enforced.  We do not have time to allow delay on these reforms.  We are too close to the destruction of our form of representative government to allow any intransigence or blocking of these reforms to occur.

How did we get to this point?  We got here through a series of  missteps that went unheeded.  We got here because the citizenry failed to keep tabs on its representatives.  We got here because the public was too trusting that its representatives were trustworthy, instead of recognizing the potential of every human being for flawed actions.  We got here because the people failed to find ways to oversee their own elections process and the process of governance.  We got here because government manipulation for profit became the standard practice of too many powerful individuals, associations and corporations.  We got here through legislative practices like earmarks, and failures such as lack of election reform, that flew under the radar of the voting public.  We got here through neglect, and apathy, and cynicism and greed.  We got here because of our insistence that public schools not be required to prepare students for their role as citizens.  We got here through inattention to the vital role of “the people” as the source of governmental power. 

We got here through an inability to sort out facts from myths and illusions.  What does that mean, you may ask?  We have allowed to be created certain myths that keep us from acting decisively on behalf of our best interests as citizens.  Here are just a few:

1)    that elected officials have some sort of wisdom, experience or expertise that sets them apart, resulting in less scrutiny by us, and the acquisition of power and special privilege by them;
2)    that “the American People” speak with one voice usually through the official speaking at the moment, which leads to illusory and manipulated thinking on the part of the electorate;
3)    that “compromise” is always in our best interest when the truth is that compromise is often a watering-down of principles and needed solutions;
4)    that a “two-party system” is best for our country, when we know that narrow opinions and options often lead to ineffective or minimalist solutions and actions;
5)    that a “strong military” is indispensable, leading to all kinds of abuses and over-reaching in terms of letting of contracts, wasteful spending, bellicose policies and armed conflicts;
6)    that “religion” is indispensable to government, leading to all kinds of attempts to force upon individual citizens the particular views of a religion or denomination, resulting in conflicts over doctrines or practices that have no place in political legislation, i.e. to force one view of abortion or contraception upon the citizenry through legislation or constitutional amendment is abhorrent in a government that was founded to protect religious liberty for all and to prevent the establishment within this nation of one particular religious viewpoint or practice;
7)    that corporations are equivalent to individual citizens, and that their monetary support of political entities must not be abridged, because it is a form of (free) speech protected by the constitution, leading to the horrendous abuse of the political system evident in the 2012 election., during which the secret contributions of a small number of millionaires attempted to influence the outcome of numerous elections through scurrilous negative advertisements. 
8)    that our election system is “open and free”; it is neither, and recent attempts by over half of the state governments to suppress the votes of minorities, women, young people, and inner city residents is a testament to the inadequacies of our electoral process; as is voting on a Tuesday.  If ever a situation demanded a national set of guidelines and practices, this is the one.

The list of myths and illusions is much longer, but the time for getting beyond them is growing short.  We cannot nurture our great republic without the reforms that must be made to salvage our democratic ideals.  In every generation or so, there must be attention to the elemental principles of our system of government.  The change in purpose and mission that has occurred in our federal and state governments is but a symptom of the fact that reform is imperative.  This is that time, and we must be the catalysts.

11/10/2012

Will the GOP Ever Change?

The Republican Party just got swamped, and they still don’t believe it!  As has been said by many a pundit, demographics had a lot to do with this.  But it was the ignoring of the demographics that really hurt.  The GOP continues to live in a parallel universe that does not any longer exist in the real world.  I, for one, hope they stay there, because far be it from me to want to help them recover from their blindness or their myopia or their ignorance.  But, I do not believe for a minute that the likes of the Koch brothers will stop pushing their agenda wherever they get the chance: in the states and local governments, for instance.

I suppose one has to agree that it is not just the ignoring of demographics that hurts the GOP; it is primarily their policies and attitudes that keep them from influencing the electorate much beyond the white men who are overwhelmingly dedicated to their bellicosity, their fear-mongering, their rugged individualistic approach to all things (social Darwinism), and their jingoism which attempts to declare exceptionalism when we are behind other developed nations in practically everything from education to environmental protection to oil independence to health care to entrepreneurship to research and development.  In fact, it’s difficult to find any major area of nation-building in which we do hold the lead, except the power of our military and our weaponry.  Is that what attracts these white men to the GOP: dominance through military power?  Or, is it the simple fact that these are WHITE men, as opposed to men of color?  It’s probably both for some.

So where is the Republican Party going to adjust itself?  Are they going to support a balanced approach to solving budget and deficit/debt issues?  Probably not without the caveat of no tax increases for the wealthy.  Are they going to stop treating women as second class citizens, and support the Ledbetter Act for equal pay for equal work?  Are they going to stop trying to define “rape” for women so that victims cannot  be seen as other than willing (“she wanted it”)?  I doubt it. Will they stop trying to dictate women’s health issues like contraception availability? Are they about to give a break on abortion or will they continue to seek to make abortion completely illegal, with no exceptions for rape or incest or health of the mother?  You know as well as I do that, as long as the Party caters to right-wing extremists and evangelicals, the push for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion will not go away. 

How about immigration?  Will the GOP be able to give up the mantras of “protect our borders”, “no amnesty” and “illegals” in order to construct reasonable immigration laws that allow for children of adults who brought them here illegally to become citizens?  Will they support a plan for non-citizens who fled  across our borders for work and hope for a better life, to have opportunity to go through a reasonable process to become citizens?  Will they be able to appeal to the Hispanic voter with the same old rhetoric that insults and demeans and chastises Latinos who want to be a part of this country?  I doubt it.  They fail to see that even “illegals” have something to offer this nation.  They are not just “takers”; they are, in most cases, people looking for a better life, and are willing to give back to a country that will nurture them toward that better life.  The Republican Party can not seem to let go of it’s harsh rhetoric in order to advance the cause of expanding the life-blood of this nation:  its immigrants. 

Instead of fixing blame and shame, how about we approach this in a more positive way: give people who have come here illegally the chance to show their patriotism.  Instead of talking amnesty, let us talk of service and sacrifice.  Let us allow non-citizens the chance to show what they have done for this country, or can do for this country, in terms of service in the armed forces, service in their communities, efforts to lift others as well as themselves.  Let us ask a reasonable number of years of community or national service from them instead of ten years of processing their “papers”.  I’m tired of negative approaches to issues.  Can’t the Republican Party find positive initiatives in these policy areas?  Probably not, as long as the right-wing nuts are in charge or are being catered to. 

Is the Republican Party prepared to face facts?  That is the real question regarding climate change.  It is always easier to live in a world of denial of evidence.  But that is not the real world.  Here we are in the midst of a planet that is giving us signals as to its ill-health, and half of the population is simply ignoring the signs and the evidence.  The deniers would rather stick their heads in the sand and hope for the best, rather than face the reality of our planet’s situation.  Is it not possible that the planet is sick; is it not possible for us to be facing a catastrophe of our own making?  Is it possible that our industrial waste and gasses and soot and chemicals and nuclear wastes have NOT injured our planet?  That is the real question.  Those people who have been the victims of environmentally-caused disease and cancer,  may already have an answer.  They know the toxic effects of our industrial waste and effluence.  They know what chemicals can do that lie buried but not inert.  They know what smoke of any kind can do to one’s lungs.  They know the result of nuclear leaks and explosions. 

We stand at the precipice of further destruction of our planet.  The weather patterns are changing; icebergs and glaciers are melting; the oceans and seas are rising; storms are record-setters;   Yet the GOP refuses to face the inevitable.  Romney wanted in his Plan to eliminate all regulations related to controlling carbon emissions.  The Republican Party platform wanted to put environmental regulation with the states.  The thrust of their environmental platform was to protect economic development over the protection of our planet. Our planet is displaying symptoms that cannot be ignored, anymore than we would ignore a lump in the body that appears all of a sudden.  Will the GOP change its attitude toward environmental policy?  Not likely.

Maybe they will appeal to a broader constituency by making some attempt to improve the health care system.  There are some signs that they are not going to attack Obamacare in the same way they did in Obama’s first term.  There was even some recognition from Speaker Boehner that this is now the law of the land and that there may be some parts of it that are worth keeping, even supporting.  Wow!  But, what will they do to further reform the health insurance business?  What will they do to increase the coverage of Medicare and Medicaid?  What will they do to the insurance exchanges that are soon to be structured in each of the states (something they should support considering their mantra about states being the right places for most innovation and oversight).  I confess I don’t really know.  One thing I do know: many Republican Governors will be happy to accept federal support when it comes their way under the Affordable Care Act.  But taking initiative to improve the quality of healthcare?  That’s something else.  I see nothing on the horizon that will do that from the Republican side.  Tort reform is not an answer, nor is opposition to boards of experts who would make suggestions for improvements in Medicare and health care delivery.

Can Republicans ever deal fairly with any of this?  I don’t know, but I know some in the past who could.  Where are those people?  That is the real question.  For the Republican Party is at best its own worst enemy.  It needs to change; to move away from right-wing rigidity, and come back to the real world.  But that may be impossible without a civil war within the Party.  The Republican Party has to move back from the right-wing; back to a more moderate stance on almost every issue.  And it cannot do that with the Tea Party radicals hanging around its neck. 

It’s more than demographics.  It’s more than rhetoric and talking points.  It’s true reform that is needed.  Policies must be re-examined in light of what is occurring in the real world: the world of facts and empirical data.  The Republican Party has to move to the Center or even to the Center-right.  But that means jettisoning the right-wing nuts in the Tea Party.  And, right now, they are the “base.”  Is a new Party necessary?  Probably.  Certainly, new policy innovations are imperative.