'SELECT' COMMITTEE SHAM

What did we learn about Benghazi during the recent Select Committee 11-hour grilling of Hillary Clinton?

Not much, because:

• the questions were so often unrelated to Benghazi
• the questioners, at least on the Republican side, were intent on attacking the witness, not in ferreting out the problems and solutions that might actually be related to the attack upon our embassy in Benghazi.
• the questions from Republicans were personal, not investigative
• this was not a serious hearing held by a reasonable and intelligent committee;  but admittedly a political event meant to tarnish the reputation and campaign of a democratic contender for the presidency (confirmed by remarks of at least three Republican Congressmen, including Richard Hanna of NY’s 22^nd Congressional District)

 Apparently, no new information was acquired after 11 hours of testimony, at least according to the Chairman in answer to (or inability to answer) a reporter who asked him to name one new thing learned and he could not do so, after saying that Hillary said nothing new!  Since when is the witness supposed to be in charge of providing something new?  This was the responsibility of the Committee, not the witness.  The Committee did not do its job.

• It was about Hillary’s emails, not Benghazi
• It was about Sidney Blumenthal who wasn’t in Benghazi; wasn’t a government official; wasn’t a State Department member, but a friendly contact of Bill and Hillary who apparently has much to say about many issues
• It was about Hillary’s staff, not about security staff in Benghazi
• It was about the parsing of words, not about the power of actions on behalf of Benghazi staff and their families.

 What did we not learn about Benghazi?  We did not learn:

• what is needed to improve security at foreign embassies and diplomatic locations
• the amount of money being spent on guarding our embassies, or how much more is needed
• how many private contractors are guarding our embassies and how effective they are
• which congressmen have voted for and against cuts in embassy security
• what decision-making process is in place for requesting more security
• how that decision-making process is failing and how it is working well; how it can be improved
• how the ARB report applies to Benghazi and how it can be used to reform the security of our diplomatic people and buildings
• who killed our people in Benghazi; how do we bring them to justice?
• why members of the armed forces stationed in risky countries are not automatically assigned to guard our diplomatic people and embassies
• whether there is any plan to increase the security budget

 What was the purpose of the committee?  Apparently, like some other so-called investigations (e.g. IRS determinations of non-profit status), it was purely political and thus illegitimate.  Unfortunately, it was also expensive, and millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted.

I have seen congressional hearings on TV, and have experienced the operations of some committees before which I had opportunity to testify.  I do not remember anything quite like this!  This was without question, a politicizing of an occurrence that involved a tragic outcome: the death of four members of the diplomatic and security team at the Benghazi facility.  The basic questions that needed to be asked never got much attention:

1. How could this tragedy have been avoided or averted?
2. Why weren’t troops or contractors available to help that night?
3. Why were some of the ambassador’s requests for security upgrades not answered or denied?
4. What constitutes adequate protection for our diplomatic staff and locations?
5. Do we need a better rating system for determining the strength of embassy protection?
6. Should we have a full evaluation of our current State Department on-going plans (and emergency Plans) for protecting our facilities?
7. What happened moment by moment when the compound was attacked (the ARB Timeline could have been used to go through the events step-by-step in order to make recommendations as to what might be done in similar future circumstances)? 
8. What might have been improved or done differently without judgments of character or  personality; what alternative actions might be useful in future circumstances?

 Strangely enough, the Congress already had access to eight separate reports on Benghazi, but it seems they were reluctant about using conclusions and recommendations contained therein to spark some kind of pragmatic and constructive legislative action.

The special Accountability Review Board (ARB) Report made several significant recommendations but at no time did the Select Committee ask the witness how she regarded them, nor did they question her reasons for putting some in effect but not others. Above all, the committee members did not ask her what she would have personally recommended be done in the future.  To be somewhat investigative ourselves, let us look at some of the findings of the ARB.

Their PURPOSE:

“As called for by the Act (Title III of the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), this report examines: whether the attacks were security related; whether security systems and procedures were adequate and implemented properly; the impact of intelligence and information availability; whether any other facts or circumstances in these cases may be relevant to appropriate security management of U.S. missions worldwide; and, finally, whether any U.S. government employee or contractor, as defined by the Act, breached her or his duty.”

Their FINDINGs:

1. The attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine gun fire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars against U.S. personnel at two separate facilities – the SMC and the Annex – and en route between them.  Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks. The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.

2. Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.  Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “shared responsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post… That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.

Overall, the number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing.   At the same time, dependence on the armed but poorly skilled Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17) militia members and unarmed, locally contracted Blue Mountain Libya (BML) guards for security support was misplaced.

Among various Department bureaus and personnel in the field, there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations.

3. Notwithstanding the proper implementation of security systems and procedures and remarkable heroism shown by American personnel, those systems and the Libyan response fell short…  The Board found the responses by both the BML guards and ‘February 17’ to be inadequate.  The Board found the Libyan government’s response to be profoundly lacking on the night of the attacks, reflecting both weak capacity and near absence of central government influence and control in Benghazi. .

The Board determined that U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues, in a near impossible situation. The Board members believe every possible effort was made to rescue and recover Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.

4. The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.

5. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection.  However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.

Their RECOMMENDATIONs:

The ARB made a substantial number of recommendations within the context of six categories.  (I have chosen to include details because they have not been adequately addressed elsewhere.)

OVERARCHING SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Department must strengthen security for personnel and platforms beyond traditional reliance on host government security support in high risk, high threat posts. The Department should urgently review the proper balance between acceptable risk and expected outcomes in high risk, high threat areas.  Assessments must be made on a case-by case basis and repeated as circumstances change.

2. The Board recommends that the Department re-examine DS (Bureau of Diplomatic Security) organization and management, with a particular emphasis on span of control for security policy planning for all overseas U.S. diplomatic facilities. In this context, the recent creation of a new Diplomatic Security Deputy Assistant Secretary for High Threat Posts could be a positive first step if integrated into a sound strategy for DS reorganization.

3. As the President’s personal representative, the Chief of Mission bears “direct and full responsibility for the security of [his or her] mission and all the personnel for whom [he or she is] responsible,” and thus for risk management in the country to which he or she is accredited. In Washington, each regional Assistant Secretary has a corresponding responsibility to support the Chief of Mission in executing this duty. Regional bureaus should have augmented support within the bureau on security matters, to include a senior DS officer to report to the regional Assistant Secretary.

4. The Department should establish a panel of outside independent experts (military, security, humanitarian) with experience in high risk, high threat areas to support DS, identify best practices (from other agencies and other countries), and regularly evaluate U.S. security platforms in high risk, high threat posts.  (The Board defines “high risk, high threat” posts as those in countries with high to critical levels of political violence and terrorism, governments of weak capacity, and security platforms that fall well below established standards.)

5. The Department should develop minimum security standards for occupancy of temporary facilities in high risk, high threat environments, and seek greater flexibility for the use of Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) sources of funding so that they can be rapidly made available for security upgrades at such facilities.

6. Before opening or re-opening critical threat or high risk, high threat posts, the Department should establish a multi-bureau support cell, residing in the regional bureau. The support cell should work to expedite the approval and funding for establishing and operating the post, implementing physical security measures, staffing of security and management personnel, and providing equipment, continuing as conditions at the post require.

7. All State Department and other government agencies’ facilities should be co-located when they are in the same metropolitan area, unless a waiver has been approved.

8. The Secretary should require an action plan from DS, OBO and other relevant offices on the use of fire as a weapon against diplomatic facilities, including immediate steps to deal with urgent issues. The report should also include reviews of fire safety and crisis management training for all employees and dependents, safe-haven standards and fire safety equipment, and recommendations to facilitate survival in smoke and fire situations.

9. Tripwires are too often treated only as indicators of threat rather than an essential trigger mechanism for serious risk management decisions and actions. The Department should revise its guidance to posts and require key offices to perform in-depth status checks of post tripwires.

10. The State Department must work with Congress to restore the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program at its full capacity, adjusted for inflation to approximately $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2015, including an up to ten-year program addressing that need, prioritized for construction of new facilities in high risk, high threat areas.

It should also work with Congress to expand utilization of Overseas Contingency Operations funding to respond to emerging security threats and vulnerabilities and operational requirements in high risk, high threat posts.

11. The Board supports the State Department’s initiative to request additional Marines and expand the Marine Security Guard (MSG) Program – as well as corresponding requirements for staffing and funding. The Board also recommends that the State Department and DoD identify additional flexible MSG structures and request further resources for the Department and DoD to provide more capabilities and capacities at higher risk posts.

STAFFING HIGH RISK, HIGH THREAT POSTS

12. The Board strongly endorses the Department’s request for increased DS personnel for high- and critical-threat posts and for additional Mobile Security Deployment teams, as well as an increase in DS domestic staffing in support of such action.

13. The Department should assign key policy, program, and security personnel at high risk, high threat posts for a minimum of one year. The ARB suggests a comprehensive review of human resources authorities with an eye to using those authorities to promote sending more experienced officers, including “When Actually Employed” (WAE) personnel, to these high risk, high threat locations, particularly in security and management positions for longer periods of time.

14. The Department needs to review the staffing footprints at high risk, high threat posts, with particular attention to ensuring adequate Locally Employed Staff (LES) and management support. High risk, high threat posts must be funded and the human resources process prioritized to hire LES interpreters and translators.

15. With increased and more complex diplomatic activities in the Middle East, the Department should enhance its on-going efforts to significantly upgrade its language capacity, especially Arabic, among American employees, including DS, and receive greater resources to do so.

TRAINING AND AWARENESS

16. A panel of Senior Special Agents and Supervisory Special Agents should revisit DS high-threat training with respect to active internal defense and fire survival as well as Chief of Mission protective detail training.

17. The Diplomatic Security Training Center and Foreign Service Institute should collaborate in designing joint courses that integrate high threat training and risk management decision processes for senior and mid-level DS agents and Foreign Service Officers and better prepare them for leadership positions in high risk, high threat posts. They should consult throughout the U.S. government for best practices and lessons learned. Foreign Affairs Counter Threat training should be mandatory for high risk, high threat posts, whether an individual is assigned permanently or in longer-term temporary duty status.

SECURITY AND FIRE SAFETY EQUIPMENT

18. The Department should ensure provision of adequate fire safety and security equipment for safe havens and safe areas in non-Inman/SECCA facilities, as well as high threat Inman facilities. (“Inman buildings” are diplomatic facilities that meet the mandatory minimum physical security standards established after the 1985 Inman Report.  SECCA refers to the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 that mandated standards for newly acquired diplomatic facilities)

19. There have been technological advancements in non-lethal deterrents, and the State Department should ensure it rapidly and routinely identifies and procures additional options for non-lethal deterrents in high risk, high threat posts and trains personnel on their use.

20. DS should upgrade surveillance cameras at high risk, high threat posts for greater resolution, nighttime visibility, and monitoring capability beyond post.

INTELLIGENCE AND THREAT ANALYSIS

21. Post-2001, intelligence collection has expanded exponentially, but the Benghazi attacks are a stark reminder that we cannot over-rely on the certainty or even likelihood of warning intelligence. Careful attention should be given to factors showing a deteriorating threat situation in general as a basis for improving security posture. Key trends must be quickly identified and used to sharpen risk calculations.

22. The DS Office of Intelligence and Threat Analysis should report directly to the DS Assistant Secretary and directly supply threat analysis to all DS components, regional Assistant Secretaries and Chiefs of Mission in order to get key security-related threat information into the right hands more rapidly.

PERSONNEL ACCOUNTABILITY

23. The Board recognizes that poor performance does not ordinarily constitute a breach of duty that would serve as a basis for disciplinary action but is instead addressed through the performance management system. However, the Board is of the view that findings of unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in relation to the security incident under review should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations by future ARBs, and would recommend a revision of Department regulations or amendment to the relevant statute to this end.

24. The Board was humbled by the courage and integrity shown by those on the ground in Benghazi and Tripoli.  In particular the DS agents and Annex team who defended their colleagues; the Tripoli response team which mobilized without hesitation; those in Benghazi and Tripoli who cared for the wounded; and the many U.S. government employees who served in Benghazi under difficult conditions in the months leading up to the September 11-12 attacks which epitomized the highest ideals of government service.

Their CONCLUSION:

“The ARB has examined the terrorist attacks in Benghazi with an eye towards how we can better advance American interests and protect our personnel in an increasingly complex and dangerous world. This Board presents its findings and recommendations with the unanimous conclusion that while the United States cannot retreat in the face of such challenges, we must work more rigorously and adeptly to address them, and that American diplomats and security professionals, like their military colleagues, serve the nation in an inherently risky profession.”

MY CONCLUSION:

I have gone on at length here because I am certain that few ordinary citizens have actually read this information, and are therefore unaware of the depth and detail that has already been garnered by a distinguished panel of experts.  The Congressional Select Committee, in stark contrast, chose to deal with nothing but political posturing, innuendo, and potentially slanderous implications.  A serious investigation might well have built upon this ARB Report, particularly concerning the detailed Timeline presented in that Report, and as to the 24 recommendations it produced.

 We are left to wonder whether the radical Right Republicans on this congressional “Select Committee” have any business conducting the People’s business.  Compared to the ARB Report, their “investigation” was an expensive farcical sham, to say the least!

TRY ANOTHER WAY

In the late 1970s, I saw a film titled “Try Another Way.”  The film was, at the time, an introduction to a new training concept for persons who were mentally retarded; a concept created by Dr. Marc Gold.  Although the popularity of the particular training protocol may have faded, the title remains as a symbol of what many Americans eschew:  change, choice, trying something new or actually trying to break old habits and outmoded concepts.  It has stuck with me as a usable concept, and I have repeated it to myself more than once when something I happened to be doing or saying was not working for me or for others.  I am using it today in relation to the issues of the day and to the political processes and concepts we are using to approach those issues and problems.  In general, we need desperately to “TRY ANOTHER WAY.”

Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or conflicts), for example.  Does it seem to you that this follows a consistent pattern, no matter when it breaks out in the news?  One side or the other throws a rock, injures or kills an innocent citizen, destroys some property belonging to, or claimed by, the other side.  Missiles of all kinds then begin to be hurled at each other and people are killed.  Each side carries on escalating battles and a war of words to blame the other.  One or the other side calls for negotiations (sometimes for reparations), then the terms or conditions for such negotiations are hurled about.  Maybe they meet to negotiate; maybe another party like the U.S. gets involved as a third party that arbitrates the discussions.  But someone usually pulls out of these ‘peace’ negotiations, and the matter either simmers, fades away until next time, or evolves into all-out war.  The pattern is always about the same, with variations creeping in that usually complicate the situation. 

Perhaps it is futile to say “Try Another Way,” but after centuries of conflict, isn’t it about time to attempt some other approaches?  How about NOT reacting to the stone-throwing or the first provocation?  How about not hurling charges at one another?  How about rejecting the concept and tactic of revenge as a workable solution to relationships, either individual or international?

How about starting at a different point?  How about one side or the other giving something totally unexpected to the other as a gift:  land, free access to certain areas, meaningful jobs and job training; a crackdown by each side on splinter groups who advocate annihilation of the other side.  How about common projects that involve people of good will from both sides engaged in a common cause that benefits both sides in the short and long-term? 

Yes, I know these conflicts go back for hundreds of years; I know many Jews and Palestinians hate each other; I know that peace is not easily attained.  But I also know that there are people and nations that have tried other ways of dealing with enemies, and sometimes whole new relationships have begun.  The Marshall Plan began cooperation between Germany and the Allies, particularly the United States; international accords dealing with human rights, advocacy for children, and other UN-sponsored initiatives have led to better relations between countries.  And, don't forget: The Peace Corps, The Oslo Accords; Treaties on reducing armaments or global pollution or helping rid a whole continent of virulent disease of one kind or another.  There are Other Ways for enemies to act toward one another.  President Obama made that plain when he, in the midst of intransigence from old hawks in Congress (mostly Republicans and some Democrats), plus some Ayatollahs in Iran, went ahead with negotiations with Iran and actually developed something new: an agreement on nuclear power.

In foreign policy and foreign relations, we have to keep in mind the adage “Try Another Way.”  It is not helpful simply to insist on methods and terms and processes that have failed in the past and will keep failing us on into the future.  We should probably apply that idea more broadly.  Can we please try something other than belligerence toward every nation that does something we don’t like?  There has to be another way.  How about re-invigorating the Peace Corps instead of reducing its funding? Why not establish this nation as an arbiter and negotiator rather than as the biggest gorilla on the block?  Do we have to keep stockpiling useless and outmoded weapons from another era just to look militarily strong?  Must we carry on wars that have no relation to defending our country?  Fighting 20,000 ISIS militants with troops and planes and tanks and guns on the ground is not my idea of defending this nation.  Yes, ISIS could send or grow a few 9/11 type terrorists here, but stopping them has so far been successful on our part and local metropolitan and state police forces and federal agents and ordinary citizens have prevented them from carrying out their intended plots. 

We are capable of doing this another way; we don’t need troops in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria or Libya or wherever to convince ourselves that they are “defending” our country.  Not really.  They are embroiled in conflicts that have gone on for centuries and in most cases are simply defending the status quo of the country and leaders in whatever country they are active.  Russia is not the only nation keeping dictators and straw men in power.  We have done it over and over.  Time to try another way.  The John McCain and Lindsey Graham approach to every disagreeable incident abroad is passé, dangerous, wasteful of money and lives, and a distasteful attempt at promoting exceptionalism or brute strength, but not a solution to any global problems that currently exist.  We must find other ways to be a “great and strong nation.”
 
Strength is not measured by military might alone.  In fact, a nation that believes it must “defend itself” from every threat made by some tinhorn dictator, terrorist or middle east nation no bigger than one of our states, is not projecting strength, but weakness.  Being constantly afraid of attacks upon us from terrorists or rogue nations is the epitome of a fearful nation, not of a confident world leader.  The whole idea of opting out of world-wide U.N. accords and agreements is not the best way to win friends, or to engender peace.  The Republican concept of exceptionalism once again fails to impress, for greatness grows out of willingness to help, to support, to aid others as neighbors not by attacking everybody as enemies. 


The belligerence of the current Republican Party operatives (and a few Democrat emulators) is not acceptable nor effective nor successful.  Is 14 years at war in a small country like Iraq a measure of a strong and successful nation?  Hardly.  It is a quagmire and an unwinnable war with no legitimate purpose because it fails the constitutional test of Defense of our nation.   Likewise, Afghanistan is nothing but a war of revenge against the Taliban because of the twin towers tragedy.  Did we destroy the Taliban?  No, they are stronger than ever and “they’re back” winning battles for parcels of that country.  Did we accomplish any more than Russia did in that land?  No.  And, we missed the whole point in the first place:  none of the terrorists of 9/11 were from Afghanistan or Iraq; 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon.  We didn’t even settle the score like G.W. Bush said we would.  However, with a new strategy of special ops forces taking out leaders of the Taliban and of Al Qaeda, President Obama actually accomplished the original intent of bringing attackers to justice. 
We cannot claim to be a world leader unless we change our concepts and our tactics.  Isn’t it interesting that some of our Presidents, after their terms, not only built impressive Libraries, but also established foundations and organizations whose main purposes were to aid the countries and peoples of the world community in terms of education, health, economics, entrepreneurship, disease prevention and cure?  Does it not give you pause that what they learned from their terms was not belligerence as a helpful enterprise but the fact that what this world needs is a giving and caring that will build people up rather than tear them down.  I submit to you that this is “Another Way” that works.

That we must find another way is not only true of foreign policy.  Our domestic policies under Republican legislative control are as out-moded, dangerous and unsuccessful as anything they are promoting on the foreign policy side.  This is a Party without a soul; a Party without a policy Plan; a Party without a conscience.  It is controlled by a Right-wing that:

• advocates deceit, violence toward children, gun worship, destruction of organized Labor, and of public schools, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare – that is, destruction of all government-sponsored and operated programs that many people rely on for some insurance of survival or assurance of opportunity
• has openly bad-mouthed just about every minority group.  By not passing a comprehensive immigration bill, they have shirked their responsibility and forced one particular national group – undocumented immigrants from Mexico – into the shadows
• have discriminated against women by refusing to pass equal pay for equal work, by using the ACA as a tool for banning contraception and choice regarding abortion, as well as making life miserable for “welfare queens”  - denigrating single mothers living at or below poverty level – by drastically reducing programs like WIC, TANF, lunch programs, day care, Head Start, and SNAP (food stamps), and many others that affect children and their mothers
• is the party of obstruction, blocking every program, budget and policy proposed by the administration, so that our first Black President will be blamed for all that has not been passed, addressed or solved 
• wants to repeal health care legislation that has helped to insure over 12 million formerly uninsured citizens
• has taken money from the poor and disadvantaged and those with disabilities and given tax breaks to the rich as well as fewer restrictions on businesses and corporations (including environmental restrictions, restrictions on Wall Street speculation that brought on the worst recession since the great Depression).  
• believes that climate change is not occurring except maybe as a natural cycle of this planet
• wants to privatize as many government operations as it possibly can because the 1%  robber barons they support can establish private profit-making businesses, e.g. schools and prisons
• refuses to appropriate funds to re-build and repair our crumbling infrastructure and thereby refuses to create jobs that would enable such construction; or for that matter to create any jobs
• ignores the deaths from gun violence in all areas of our country and refuses to take measures that would curb such violence like closing sales loopholes 
• has chosen something called the “trickle-down theory” which is an excuse manufactured by its operatives to hide their extraction of tax money meant to aid and abet the less than 1% of wealthy individuals and corporations that they subsidize and aggrandize with tax cuts, rebates, subsidies and other special provisions in the Tax Code so that the rich can grow more prosperous while others suffer 
• has advocated all kinds of restrictions on voting by certain populations, especially African Americans

It is past time to try Another Way on domestic policy and programs.  It is proven over and over that putting Republicans in office DOES NOT equate to lower budgets, balanced budgets, less bureaucracy, a reduction of the deficit, or prosperity for all.  Instead, almost always, it amounts to welfare for the rich, nothing for the poor, build-up of the military, war, higher taxes for the middle class, and economic recession or disaster.  So it comes down to one obvious thought – we must Try Another Way!  We have to discharge these destroyers of the middle class, deniers of climate change, purveyors of discrimination and war-mongers.  It is time for the changes advocated by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley: 

• Challenge the NRA and their premises and get gun owners who hunt, target shoot and compete in sporting contests into some other organization of their own making that does not lobby on behalf of gun-makers, nor advocate on behalf of mass killers. 
• Let us again break up banks into commercial and savings banks and not allow them all to eat us up with market speculation or outrageous fees or interest rates that discriminate against the poor, the student, and those of minority communities who are often denied personal loans or mortgages. 
• Free tuition at public colleges and maybe even more! 
• Raise the cap on FICA tax. 
• Strict controls on pollution from factories;
• Rebuild bridges, schools, roads and public buildings;
• Give the poor the tools, the resources and the backing to make their own communities come alive; support community action again.
• Since empty houses have long far-outnumbered homeless people in the United States, and emergency room and jail visits for the homeless are costing more than providing housing, let’s follow the suggestion of Roots Action and demand that people living without shelter be provided shelter in our empty houses.
• Raise Social Security benefits, lower taxes on the middle class and finally pass a single payer health care plan.

There may be an endless list of other ways that we can progress in this country, and the Democratic Party is the home of that list!  And yes, we can pay for all of it, but the rich must pony-up their fair share!

We cannot proceed any further down the road to destruction.  We are vulnerable as a country to another recession, to the destruction of fundamental rights by a Supreme Court full of Republican sympathizers who render decisions based on Republican policy and ideology rather than on constitutional principles and provisions.  We are vulnerable to the creation of an elite aristocracy that tell us what to do and when to do it (they’ve already begun that process by capturing and funding candidates sympathetic to their views).  We are vulnerable to destruction of a vital middle class, so that all of those in the other 99% of the population will struggle mightily for every success and bit of happiness they can wrangle from a broken and rigged economy.

So voters – Try Another Way!   Don’t be bamboozled by what Republicans and their minions say – pay attention only to what they have done and are programmed to do!   They are programmed to despise government structure and process except when it is useful for imposing their will!  Electing Republicans to any state or national office in this atmosphere is equivalent to risking your future on people who want to completely control that future, and who want to produce outcomes other than the welfare, liberty and common good of the vast majority of our People. 

One Way to Change the System

We are stymied. It’s not a pretty picture, this blockage. One large root of our lack of change and reform lies embedded in our Constitution. We, the People, are fundamentally prevented from initiating meaningful reform in any area that involves changing the Constitution. The American gentry who were essential in the formation of our unique democratic Republic, made very sure of one thing. They made sure that this country would reserve certain powers to the “better sort” of people and would, at the same time, restrict those of lesser light from gaining a foothold on power. Just how did they arrange such barriers to prevent drastic change unfavorable to their class? Here are five very telling provisions written in to the Constitution to protect the “ruling class.”

1) They restricted voting and eligibility for public office to white men who owned property, and excluded Native Americans, slaves and women from meaningful participation in the new government

2) Because the Senate was seen as their key to maintaining control of the excesses of the people’s representatives, the Founders made sure that members of the Senate were elected not by the people but by the state legislatures which were mainly composed of gentleman farmers and successful merchants . Why else would the founders strengthen every Senator’s hand by making his term 6 years as opposed to a term of just two years for a Representative?

3) The President and Vice-President were to be elected by an unusual process involving intermediaries known as Electors. Each state legislature was given the responsibility of determining the method by which these Electors would be chosen. Of the states that participated, the clear majority chose the legislature to appoint (at least some of) the Electors who ended up being either of a similar class and background, or beholden to people bound by a common bond and loyalty. There is a helpful chart on the methods used to choose Electors for the very first election of George Washington to the Presidency (see usconstitution.net/).

4) Not only was the Senate intended to hold popular movements and unruly legislation in check, it was provided with powers that were distinct from those given to the House of Representatives. It is the Senate that makes the final decision on the guilt of a President who has been impeached by the House. It is the Senate that has the power to advise the President and either consent or not consent to Treaties, and to the appointment of Ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices, and other government officials. With presidential Electors and Senators representing a “ruling class” so to speak, there was just one final mechanism of control needed.

5) The leaders found just such a mechanism in the very process by which the Constitution can be amended and ratified. With ‘checks and balances’ built in at other points, one would not expect provisions specifically meant to protect an elite group but that is most evident in the very processes by which the founders chose to allow changes to the Constitution. For it is the amendment and ratification process, placed in the hands of the national and state legislatures, that essentially blocks participation by the ordinary citizen. The enormity of the numbers required to initiate and ratify amendments indicates the lengths to which the elitists went to assure that changes to ‘their’ founding document would not be hastily or easily made. As it has worked out, there have been just 27 amendments over the last 225 years, and the second mechanism of a constitutional convention has never been used! The first Ten – known as the Bill of Rights – were promised by the Founders in order to get the original Constitution passed and ratified. The Bill of Rights was quickly ratified by December 15, 1791. The 27th amendment took over a century and a half to ratify (sent to the states for ratification September 25, 1789 and finally ratified by the last required state on May 7, 1992)! It is a cumbersome process, and just to remind you, it is here recalled to mind:

Article V – “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution; or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by Convention in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”


For those of you who still maintain an idealistic view of our Founding Fathers and their motivations, let me provide some background from a book titled: “The Radicalism of the American Revolution” by Gordon S. Wood. He begins in an unfamiliar place – that of inequalities that existed everywhere in 18th century life. Although eighteenth-century Americans were “without nobility, or orders of gentry, there was evidence everywhere in the colonies of “how necessarily some differences of rank, some inequality must and ought to grow up in every society.” Thus, there was one great division that cut through colonial society to an extent that overwhelmed all other divisions “even the one between free and enslaved...” It was that between extraordinary and ordinary people, between gentlemen and commoners, between patricians and plebeians: “that some were gentlemen and most were not; some were polished and literate but most were rude and unlettered.” The many were often called “The Mob”, “The Vulgar” or “The Herd; the elite few were referred to as the honorable, the excellent, the noble or royal. And lest you think that this attitude escaped our Founding Fathers, let me list some thoughts from them that have not been widely quoted.

George Washington called ordinary farmers “the grazing multitude.” Colonel Landon Carter, head of one of Virginia’s distinguished families, “saw little to respect among ordinary people and thought that some of them were ‘but idiots’.” John Adams early in his career referred to ordinary people as the “common Herd of Mankind.” “Common persons, he said, “have no idea of Learning, Eloquence, and Genius,” and their “vulgar, rustic imaginations” were easily taken over. As Gouverneur Morris, signer of the U.S. Constitution, declared, “they have no morals but their (own) interests.” Alexander Hamilton called the commoners “the unthinking populace” before he went on to praise the elite “whose minds seem to be of a greater make than the minds of others and who are replenished with heroic virtues and a majesty of soul above the ordinary part of our species.” It seems to be quite general among the “better sort” like many of the Founders, that the gentry and aristocrats in society were considered to be the ones who made things happen; men of extraordinary character “destined in war, the arts, and in government to be the source of achievement and works of genius.” Even Thomas Jefferson, who penned the great Declaration that all men are created equal, thought that the ordinary people most often seen by travelers – “tavern keepers, Valets de place, and postilions” – were the “hackneyed rascals of every country” who “must never be considered when we calculate the national character.”

So it was then; so it is now. There are still among us those who believe in an Elite, an aristocratic plutocratic cabal of ‘worthies’ -- the privileged few -- who must be paid respect and obeisance so that they may lead us all to greater exceptionalism. All the more reason to emphasize the egalitarian aspects of our founding and of our development as a democratic republic that has periodically emerged to ensure the rights and freedoms and opportunities of all its citizens. One of the ways to do so in our time would be to change that remnant of elitism known as the amendment/ratification process enshrined in our Constitution. But first, let us re-iterate that many constitutional amendments have been proposed and have been set aside; an easier way to amend might just bring out the worst of proposals as well as the best. Is it worth the risk?

According to USConstitution.net:

“In every session of Congress, hundreds of constitutional amendments are proposed. Almost never do any of them become actual Amendments. In fact, almost never do any of them even get out of committee.”

It is interesting to see some of the types of proposals our legislators have brought forth. “Proposed amendments are a reflection of the mood of the nation, or of a subset of the population. These lists are not detailed examinations of the proposed amendments, the bills that carried them, or the process they went through. If a further examination is desired, a search of the Thomas database can be done.”

Please note that some amendments are proposed over and over again in different sessions of Congress. For the sake of brevity, the 102nd Congress is used as a ‘baseline’ and each subsequent Congress has only new ideas for amendments listed. Some having to do with ‘nuts and bolts’ operations have been eliminated by me for the sake of more brevity.

109th Congress (2005-2006)
To ensure reproductive rights of women
To force the Congress and President to agree to a balanced budget, with overspending allowed only in the case of a three-fifths vote of Congress
To ensure that all children who are citizens have a right to a "free and adequate education"
To specifically permit prayer at school meetings and ceremonies
To allow non-natural born citizens to become President if they have been a citizen for 20 years
To specifically allow Congress to regulate the amount of personal funds a candidate to public office can expend in a campaign
To make the filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution
The "Every Vote Counts" Amendment - providing for direct election of the President and Vice President, abolishing the Electoral College
To clarify eminent domain, specifically that no takings can be transferred to a private person except for transportation projects
Providing a right to work, for equal pay for equal work, the right to organize, and the right to favorable work conditions

108th Congress (2003-2004)
To lower the age restriction on Representatives and Senators from 30 and 25 respectively to 21
To ensure that citizens of U.S. territories and commonwealths can vote in presidential elections
To guarantee the right to use the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto
To restrict marriage in all states to be between a man and a woman
To remove any protection any court may find for child pornography
To place Presidential nominees immediately into position, providing the Senate with 120 days to reject the nominee before the appointment is automatically permanent

107th Congress (2001-2002)
Calling for the repeal of the 8th Amendment and its replacement with wording prohibiting incarceration for minor traffic offenses
To specify that progressive income taxes must be used
To specify a right to "equal high quality" health care
To limit pardons granted between October 1 and January 21 of any presidential election year
To require a balanced budget without use of Social Security Trust Fund monies
To allow for any person who has been a citizen of the United States for twenty years or more to be eligible for the Presidency
To force the members of Congress and the President to forfeit their salary, on a per diem basis, for every day past the end of the fiscal year that a budget for that year remains unpassed

106th Congress (1999-2000)
To provide a new method for proposing amendments to the Constitution, where two-thirds of all state legislatures could start the process
To allow Congress to enact campaign spending limits on state and federal elections
To declare that life begins at conception and that the 5th and 14th amendments apply to unborn children
To prohibit courts from instructing any state or lower government to levy or raise taxes

105th Congress (1997-1998)
To force a national referendum for any deficit spending
To provide for the reconfirmation of federal judges every 12 years
To prohibit the early release of convicted criminals
To establish the right to a home
To define the legal effect of international treaties
To clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires school prayer

104th Congress (1995-1996)
To clarify the meaning of the 2nd Amendment  
To force a two-thirds vote for any bill that raises taxes
To repeal the 16th Amendment and specifically prohibit an income tax
To provide for removal of any officer of the U.S. convicted of a felony

103rd Congress (1993-1994)
To allow a Presidential pardon of an individual only after said individual has been tried and convicted of a crime
To allow Congress to pass legislation to allow the Supreme Court to remove federal judges from office
To provide for the recall of Representatives and Senators
To remove automatic citizenship of children born in the U.S. to non-resident parents
To enable or repeal laws by popular vote
To define a process to allow amendments to the Constitution be proposed by a popular ("grass-roots") effort
To provide for run-off Presidential elections if no one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote
To prohibit abortion
To bar imposition on the States of unfunded federal mandates

102nd Congress (1991-1992)
To disallow the desecration of the U.S. Flag
To allow a line-item veto in appropriations bills
To expand the term of Representatives to four years
To prohibit involuntary busing of students
To make English the official language of the United States
To set term limits on Representatives and Senators
To repeal the 22nd Amendment (removing Presidential term limits)
To guarantee a right to employment opportunity for all citizens
To grant protections to unborn children
To provide for "moments of silence" in public schools
To allow Congress to regulate expenditures for and contributions to political campaigns
To provide for the rights of crime victims
To provide for access to medical care for all citizens
To repeal the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms)
To prohibit the death penalty
To protect the environment
To repeal the 26th Amendment (granting the vote to 18-year olds) and granting the right to vote to 16-year olds
To provide equal rights to men and women

It is important to make a few comments at this point.

• there is some risk in making it easier to amend and ratify amendments
• this list indicates that there are ideas floating about that simply are not worthy of consideration
• mistakes can be made by trying to legislate morality
• opening the flood-gates to amendments from the citizenry is fraught with negative complications

On the other hand:

• only 27 amendments have made it to the finish line
• the people deserve some major role in maintaining our democratic Republic and popular amendment of the Constitution has been proposed more than once
• using a new amendment method does not automatically mean that there will be chaos, especially if time spans and checks and balances are built-in
• if our citizens are capable of organizing to do good, then they can organize to present workable and effective changes to our Constitution
• there are many more knowledgeable and responsible citizens in the general population than there are representing us in the Congress or in state legislatures
• it is time to end the elitist control of what gets changed and what does not; the people must have a voice in the on-going life of the Constitution and of our way of governing

Thus, we come to the major point that needs to be made:

As long as the constitutional amendment process remains solely in the hands of legislators, the will of the People for systemic change and reform will be easily thwarted.

It is, and has been, my opinion that Progressive efforts to overturn shaky Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United, Hobby Lobby and several that have negatively affected equal justice (such as Whren vs. United States and Armstrong vs. United States - see my Blog post of 5/21/2015), are not necessarily doomed to failure, but the energy behind them should be reserved for the broader battle of changing the Constitution to allow for a third popular method of amending our Constitution. As long as we are going to fight for constitutional reform, we might as well concentrate our efforts where we can bring about the greatest change.

I have written on this topic before (5/26/2014), and have already proposed some general elements for such an amendment to the Constitution, and herewith submit a few more practical guidelines:

1. any amendment offered should concentrate on one topic so as not to confuse the issue being addressed
2. the wording of any proposed amendment should be uniform throughout the states
3. some common sense “checks and balances” should be included in the new amendment process
4. time frames assigned to steps to be taken would be helpful in allowing time for reflection and debate, and moving the process to conclusion
5. the proposal for method should be based on procedures already familiar to the voters
6. this new amendment process should be reserved to the people, with office-holders at state and national levels prohibited from using the petition process (they have the original methods all to themselves!)

That brings us to my admittedly amateurish attempt to put something in writing that might be the basis for an amendment to involve the initiative of the People in our constitutional amendment/ratification process. But not before I refer you to something that already exists known as the popular or populist amendment process based on the populist theory of the Constitution written about by Constitution framer James Wilson and examined at some length in The Constitution: a Biography by Akhil Reed Amar.

This idea of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution which asserts that its power comes from the People; it functions at the People’s behest and for their benefit. Thus, if the people want to make a change to their Constitution, all that is lacking is a process, as the principle of possession and control were settled long ago in the Preamble and the contents of that document. I believe we already have certain clues as to how this could be done, but am not skilled enough in the law to construct a definitive amendment. So here are my thoughts for your consideration:

1)  Let us make use of the petition process which is already well-established in our political processes, and sanctioned by the Constitution in the First Amendment.

• any citizen should be able to initiate an amendment petition – an individual, group or organization, but not state or national office-holders
• circulate the petition to like-minded groups and organizations within one’s own state and to other states
• enlist the aid of one or more nation-wide organizations to spearhead a collaborative effort in every state
• gather support for the proposed amendment by collecting signatures from voters and supportive resolutions from local government entities
• once a petition contains the signatures of 1/3rd of eligible voters in a state, it shall be transmitted to the designated official in each state who will verify the signatures within 45 days of receipt and certify the petition to the state legislature; each state legislature shall then have 60 days to consider the proposed amendment, offer its own amendments to the proposed amendment, and then transmit the proposal and suggested amendments with its recommendation for or against passage to the Congress of the United States
• within 120 days after receipt of the recommendations and suggestions of 26 states, Congress, or a joint special committee thereof, shall periodically and systematically consult with representatives and sponsors of the original petition drive in order to review all state suggestions for amendments, as well as its own recommendations, and those of other appropriate committees; the Select joint Committee shall then present to the full Congress, with the concurrence of the original petitioners, the proposed amendment in final form.

2)  Let us also make use of a ballot referendum or initiative which is standard in at least 26 states.
Eighteen states even have ballot initiatives involving direct votes on state constitution amendments.

• The Congress shall then debate and pass a joint resolution with its recommendation for approval or disapproval of the amendment. Notwithstanding the outcome, the joint resolution with the final form of the proposed amendment shall be submitted within 21 days to the Archivist of the United States who will submit the proposed amendment to the States within 30 days ( including a legislative history and information packet relevant to the amendment) for placement on each state ballot in a special nation-wide election called for the purpose of voting on the proposed amendment, or at the next general election; said election of either type shall be held within three months from the receipt of the letter of notification from the Archivist.
• The results of each state’s referendum on the amendment shall be formally transmitted to the U.S. Archivist with an original or certified copy of the State’s action, within 21 days of the election . When the Archivist certifies that 3/5s of the states (30 states) have certified the passage of the proposed amendment by ballot referendum, the Archivist shall certify that the amendment has passed and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is then published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large, and serves as official notice to the Congress, the States and to the voters that the amendment/ratification process has been completed.

3)  The total process might take anywhere from 9 months to two years (including an extra fifteen months for the initial petition phase, if needed); still long enough to debate, discuss, publicize and test while short enough to maintain interest and commitment.

I do hope you find this worthy of your consideration and maybe even of a broader consideration and debate. After all, isn’t it time to assert that the Constitution does belong to the People and that it is our civic responsibility to preserve, defend and enhance it to the benefit of the People?

Pope Francis Stuns With Fundamental Truths

I am amazed by reactions of people to simple truths.  TV commentators, pundits, ordinary people in attendance at recent events were amazed, stunned, awed, and emotionally overcome by the Pope’s words and gestures.   The Holy Father was doing nothing more than emulating the simplicity and demonstrative actions of the person whom Francis is pledged to emulate and follow as his example.  The Pope seems to be acting in a way that strips away the doctrinal accretions attached to the Christ, the Son of God and the Holy One, returning us to a simpler figure; an historical Jesus as some writers refer to him.  With all that has been added to that life and persona, it is difficult to find the Son of Man: the carpenter’s son, the teenage mother’s son, the itinerant teacher, the story-teller, the child born poor and isolated, the leader that men and women chose to follow and love because of his message lived out in his actions; the compassionate healer and giver of hope, the champion of children and the vulnerable; forgiver of people who made mistakes or committed unlawful acts, and of those who have forgotten why they are here on this earth.  Pope Francis delivered a message in words and deeds that perhaps cut through the doctrinal accretions and stunned our senses.

What am I talking about?   I’m talking about universal moral truths that we tend to forget when our leaders deny them.  I’m talking about a political situation where  unalienable rights get lost in an atmosphere of domestic and global threats.  I’m talking about political diatribe, animosity and arrogance so profound that the lives and destinies of individual human beings are wounded and sometimes destroyed.      When the Pope demonstrated the power of human encounters and compassionate embrace of individuals, he vividly reminded us that there is a simple and yet profound truth in why we have government in the first place. So let us take another look at what Pope Francis indicated or implied about some of the fundamental tenets of our democracy.

The Purpose of Government is not simply to impose law and order (although that is an important function, as the Pope indicated).  It is rather to “keep alive a sense of unity by means of just legislation.”  He added: “Legislative activity is always based on care for the people.” And more specifically: “to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the... demanding pursuit of the common good.”

His words (perhaps intentionally) return us to consideration of our own immortal and foundational words transcribed in both our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution’s Preamble:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

We have an obligation, as does the Congress, to evaluate and assess our current political situation through the lens of such truths.  If fair and  just legislation is so important, what must we do about all the legislation which supports the opposite?   Does Congress have an obligation to the People to at least discuss and debate terms like ‘justice’, ‘equality’ and the ‘common good’?  Let Congress present not just a fiscal year budget, but let them present a blueprint of what they would like to accomplish in terms of enhancing citizen’s lives during their terms in office.  Let them tell us about their guiding moral principals.  Let us hear what outcomes they believe would relate to their stated values.  We desperately need this kind of “dialogue”-- which the Pope encouraged -- because right now, it is not clear at all how most legislation (and the lack thereof) fits into a moral framework
that emphasizes the enhancement of human life not just the battle against sin or sinfulness.

I am not advocating that our government endorse any particular religious belief.  I am not advocating that government enshrine the Golden Rule into its very structure.  I am not touting the Pope’s views as the only principles that can be seen as a moral framework for legislation.  I am, however, looking at his admonitions as universal principles related to human existence.  They are not what make us religious, but they are what make us human.  Unity, care of people, and the common good are not religious in themselves, although they may be based on a moral framework that comes out of religious belief, but could have easily come from a humanistic philosophy as well..  There is a monumental difference between the dogma surrounding and informing the abortion debate, and the universality  of the Golden Rule as a guide for human actions, not as a particular doctrine required as part of a total package of a religion. 

So, I am not asking that a particular religious belief be imposed by our government.  I am simply asserting that the moral principles demonstrated by this Pope are helpful in illuminating and re-asserting the kind of universal principles that underlay our founding as a nation.  Along with other important universal truths, they should be tested and evaluated for efficacy.  In the end, every representative of the people brings to the table a set of moral guides that he or she ostensibly lives out.  It is that moral framework that we need to examine for guidance in protecting and insuring the unalienable rights and equal protection of our laws, and the well-being of our citizens.  What determines the validity of our actions as a democracy is not what is religious but what is morally imperative.  I believe the Pope spoke to that imperative by re-iterating the importance of the following three examples.

1)  UNITY.    Unity is not found in promoting ‘sacred cows’ or absurd criterion or discriminatory laws.   Unity is found in promoting and engaging in common causes that enhance the lives of all our citizens.   

Our Tax Code is a legislative monstrosity which has built-in such a complicated series of provisions designed to disrupt unity through favoritism, that it could rightly be called the most destructive of unity of all the codes or laws we have produced.  It is a testament to inequality,  injustice and ineptitude.  So, if unity is a fundamental goal and mission of government, we need to start right here in fashioning an approach to taxation that promotes equality, unity and justice.

Instead, we hear from the Republican majority in Congress, and from that Party’s candidates for President, that one of their most important agenda items is the passage of legislation that will either substantially cut the income taxes of the richest 1% or will establish some sort of “flat tax” that will give that small group an advantage that outweighs anything that will accrue to the other 99%.  This provokes the thought that the major purpose of most of the legislation that has produced the tax code, has been influenced by some special interest, and not so much by the general welfare or the common good.  For instance, movie companies, professional sports teams, oil companies and hedge fund managers have all benefitted from particular provisions within the tax code.   

That is not to say that there haven’t been some provisions for the broader spectrum of tax-paying citizens, and those too poor to pay any taxes.  We do have certain deductions that were originally designed to aid the middle and working cohorts in the population – medical, state tax, mortgage interest deductions, etc.  But again, those provisions are only really appropriate to a small percentage of filers, as it turns out that only 16 % of filers making between $25-30,000 actually take deductions; most just take the standard deduction.  The Income Tax Credit for poorer families and the tax credits or “subsidies” for health coverage of some under the ACA are examples of attempts to help other than the very rich and the well-off.   

But taken as a whole, the Tax Code is a tribute to all those who believe that the rich and the very rich are those who make society function and that they deserve all the breaks that can be given. A moral framework based on compassion for children, the poor and the vulnerable such as the orphan; based on a Golden Rule that calls for treatment of others just as you want to be treated do not play a large role in the Tax Code.  In fact, most legislators act as though these principles do not exist.  If the Republican majority are, as they claim, guided by religious and moral principle in regard to abortion and gay marriage, why are they not guided by moral principle when it comes to devising ways to help the poor, the disabled, the vulnerable, the children and the elderly cohorts of our society?

Another example of legislation that essentially promotes disunity is any legislation that restricts abortion or restricts marriage as “matters of conscience” for it is fraught with the danger of government support for one belief system over another.  Such legislation immediately provokes controversy and division, rather than unity, and it perhaps always will do so because it is equivalent to the imposition of one belief system onto all others by law.  Hobby Lobby, the clerk in Kentucky and the attack on Planned Parenthood are prime examples of what establishment of religion does to a country.  It immediately produces, not the unity it attempts to impose, but the divisiveness that prevails between religious communities and their belief systems. 

The Pope is in a bind here and I think he knows it.  He represents both the largest denominational supporter of the anti-abortion position at the same time he preaches and encapsulates the unity of peoples.  It is a difficult position, but I am grateful for his attempt to draw attention to the sanctity and the transcendence of all life as the overarching concept that must guide social legislation.  It is an overriding concern and something many anti-abortionists and theologically-deprived politicians have shunted aside.  In other words, we must find a way to eliminate religious doctrine from our legislation and to substitute instead the criteria of unity, justice  and freedom.  We cannot continue down the path of being dictated to by religious zealots who don’t care a fig for unity.   

The Pope attempted to broaden this discussion to a concern for all life, and that is laudable, but does not resolve the abortion issue.  In my estimation, we must start over to determine a whole new vocabulary.  We cannot continue to load our debates with phrases like ‘partial birth abortion’ and ‘baby killers’  mainly as rhetorical weapons.  The rhetoric on both sides is charged, loaded and negative.  Above all, it is political and serves primarily to win or lose elections.  Instead, we must ‘disarm’ the debate and try to find a more legitimate  way to talk about life in utero and life beyond that point. 

I believe we must begin our protection of life by enhancing life.  And that means beginning with the mother and father –their lives need protection and enhancement or that of the child cannot be all it should be.  This is where the purveyors’ of protection of the unborn go wrong.  They put all their life eggs in one basket – protecting the unborn but ignoring the Pope’s (and the Judeo-Christian ethic) call to treat all life as precious.  It is evident most glaringly in the contrast between the Pope’s urging of protection and care of families and the right-wing’s obstruction and destruction of programs and activity on behalf of families, such as world-class education, research on childhood diseases, Pell grants, jobs, universal day-care and pre-school, food stamps and enhanced nutrition programs in schools.  Complete and utter opposition to women’s health issues, represented by attempts to destroy the ACA and to close Planned Parenthood centers throughout the nation, only adds to the falsity of ultra-conservative claims to care about protection of all life. Of course, we could take this further to ask where pre-natal care and early childhood enhancement programs stand in legislation they propose.  How about nowhere. 

The Right-wing-captured-Congress has chosen a quite different path.  They have no intention of extending, protecting and enhancing, life beyond the womb.  It costs too much they say, and those who receive handouts don’t deserve them anyway. Congress denies special benefits for the poor on the basis of lack of money and character flaws in the recipients, and seeks only to maintain a tattered ‘safety net’ that is inadequate to the task.  So how can they, at the same time, justify the protection of unborn life when we have no idea how costly and worthy or unworthy that life may turn out to be?  In other words, if cost and worthiness of recipients are the criteria for social protection and special help for the living, how can they not apply the same criteria to the unborn?  Does that mean that all unborn fetuses are equal in potential and quality, but living persons are not?  We cannot continue such absurdities.  We have to find common ground for protection and enhancement of all life. 

A third example is legislation that discriminates against a whole group of people whether it be about labor rights, gay marriage, about voting rights or immigration.  The Republican Congress has made its “creds” with arch-conservative legislation attacking organized Labor by eliminating the ability to bargain effectively, encouraging stagnation of wages, rejecting a nation-wide minimum wage raise, promoting right-to-work laws and by reducing and eliminating pensions and giving employers almost total control of employee benefits.   

And if that’s not enough, this Congress has systematically reduced the ability of certain people to register and vote with both planned restrictions like photo ID requirements and unusual restrictions like closing polling place bathrooms to the public.  These voting restrictions have placed extra burdens on the poor and working poor, even on lower income middle class folks; they have discouraged already reluctant voters from even registering to vote.  They have made an absolute right to cast a ballot into a game of maybe you can or maybe you can’t: it all depends on how much you want to go through all the hoops to cast your vote.  

Plus, instead of fulfilling their legislative duty of preparing a Plan for people of other lands to become citizens of this country, the Right Wing Republicans have blocked a sensible plan, passed some time ago by the Senate.  Instead, we hear talk of nothing but criminality, illegality and the need to build walls to keep “undesirables” out.  Just how do so-called Christian legislators reconcile such vitriol and loathing with the Golden Rule or the compassion of Jesus for the ‘foreigner’. Jesus even used the Good Samaritan parable to say more about being a good neighbor than one might think: the parable is actually about a foreigner --a Samaritan-- rendering neighborly aid to someone outside the circle of his own people – most likely a Hebrew (probably despised by most Samaritans!).   

b)  Care for the People.  Pope Francis made a special point about legislation being for the care of people. Does that mean that Congress should begin with a primary objective of caring for people?  Does it translate those words in the Preamble to our Constitution into a general axiom that union, justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare and the blessings of liberty should all be seen in the light of caring for people?  I suspect that is what he intended. 

That principle puts a far different spin on legislating.  If one were to look very closely at the underlying primary objectives of current legislation it might be difficult to find such caring.  Instead, it appears that there are several other objectives at play.  The first is the care of a certain portion of the people: the richest among us.  Republicans are not shy about the place of the 1% of citizens – they are the elite who are the only ones worthy of leadership because they are the best educated, the most successful, the wealthiest, and the ones through which good things like success and jobs and material goods can flow to others if they will only follow the examples of the 1%.  It is, of course, pure poppycock, as they used to say.  No one has proven that such is the true order of things.  The “trickle-down theory” in economics does not work and never has, simply because the 1% with most of the money do not like to have their money re-distributed to other people.  They have told us so, they have demonstrated it over and over – they generally oppose laws that burden them with taxes or with restrictive regulations that prevent them from doing as they please with the money they have earned.  The one thing they always forget is where their money came from in the first place-- from a public willing to buy or lease or support whatever useful product or service a company or individual offers.

Care for the people is also not very evident in that Tax Code we mentioned because it is here in the coffers of the IRS that the greatest scam ever perpetrated upon the People is played out.  While you as ordinary citizen pay your full amount of taxes to the IRS  with little to subsidize you except a few deductions (which most don’t take), there is this thing happening to your tax dollars before they ever get appropriated from the U.S. Treasury to support all the federal government programs and services that you find essential (schools, defense, social services, research, health, safety, etc.).  There is this thing called “tax expenditures” or “extraction.”    

Written in to that Tax Code monstrosity is the legal leverage for certain individuals and corporations to pull out of that pot of tax income certain rebates, subsidies, deductions and exclusions that never see the light of accountability or the strictures of oversight.  Just think of it: in that 70,000+ pages of the U.S. Tax Code, because of the largesse of our representatives on both sides of the aisle, there have been hundreds of special provisions written in that essentially take from 98% of us and hand it to the likes of Shell Oil and GE and Koch Industries and major league sports team owners and hedge fund managers and many more, billions of those tax dollars that you have so loyally paid all these years (and what’s worse, you are never allowed to say a thing about it.)  Is that called “robbery” anywhere else?  At the very least, it is called “welfare for the rich.”

So in this atmosphere of caring for the elite, the rich, the privileged, is there any room for  “caring for the people” as a primary motivator and incentive behind legislation?  Apparently, there is, but it is limited to sporadic episodes of bi-partisanship, partnership, and concern.   “Care for the People” “Feed the Hungry” “Support the Poor”  “Black Lives Matter” “Save the Children”  -- it’s not as though we don’t know what we need to do to legislate care for the people.  We do know.  Our state and national legislatures are simply filled right now with men and women motivated by  other priorities and other values, and for some unknown reason, enough voters have bought into their rhetoric to put radical conservatives in charge even though they are dedicated to values that demean us all, such as gay bashing, destruction of health care reform, voter oppression, the diminution of women, hatred of foreign-born, and opposition to programs for the poor and middle class.  They don’t want “care for the people” to interfere with their hegemony.  They want total control so that they can dictate to unsuspecting docile voters all of the cultural and economic norms that are required to have a government responsive to an elite, not to a mob.  That control will extend to privatization of many public services so that whatever is done for the people can also be made profitable!

c)  Pursuit of the Common Good. 

It is perhaps quite fair to ask: what is the “common good?”  What for that matter is the “General Welfare?’'  I like to start with what a dictionary has to say, because so often hidden in either current or more ancient definitions or usages is something ignored or forgotten.  Something in common is generally something shared; more likely something belonging equally to several or many persons.  Moreover, it can mean belonging or pertaining to the whole community; the “public.”  It is therefore, something quite opposite from “exclusive’ or ‘aristocratic.’    

There is a somewhat archaic word that was more often used to describe the common good and the public welfare; it was the word “commonweal,” from which “commonwealth” is derived: the whole body politic in which the supreme power is held by the people who are united by common interest and common cause.  The general Welfare falls along the same lines except that it is concerned more specifically with the general well-being of the public which might include sign-posts like prosperity, success, happiness, and that archaic word again: ‘weal’ – faring well.  Our government is meant to base itself on an equal share in well-being; having equal opportunity to share in prosperity, success, happiness or well-faring (see my recent Blog post for 6/15/2015 for more on this topic). 

We can probably agree that we are close enough to acceptable definitions for ‘common’ and ‘general welfare”, but what defines that last word – ‘good?’  That is a question for the Ages if I ever heard one.  Lacking time and space, we cannot explore all the philosophical definitions that have been advanced in answer to that question,.  But we can return again to what Pope Francis was trying both to say and to demonstrate: that the “Good” is related first to a transcendental love expressed in countless ways toward others on this earth, under-girded by the Golden Rule – “Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You!” or “Love your neighbor (just) as (you love) yourself.”  So what would the ‘Pursuit of the Common Good’ look like if we took the Pope’s vision of fundamental truths seriously? 

Pope Francis has raised the issue of ‘community morality’ as the very essence of the Gospel and of life, and that is what is clearly lacking in those who act as though they are religious, but who miss the essence of living a moral life that equates with community caring rather than with an individual righteousness.    The Pope put it very succinctly when he addressed the Congress and laid before them several gems of truth which he felt they must consider as representatives of the people.  They include:

• “You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of politics.  A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk.  Legislative activity is always based on care for the people.”
• “Building a future of freedom requires love of the common good and cooperation in a spirit of ...solidarity.” 
• “A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, ideology or economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms.” 
• "The contemporary world demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide us into camps of good or evil.  In the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within.  To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” 

“Our response must instead be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice.  Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples.  We must move forward together as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.”

• “All political activity must serve and promote the good of the human person and be based on respect for his or her dignity.”  “It follows that politics cannot be a slave to the economy and finance.”
• Politics is...an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good, that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life.”
• “We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible, as we educate new generations not to turn their back on our “neighbors” and everything around us... rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity (assistance; supplement).”
• The Golden Rule points us in a clear direction.  “In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities.”

This last is perhaps the most inspiring and thought-provoking concept of the Pope’s expressed admonitions and universal principles.  It is a platform on which our Congress might be able to build a Plan of Action for just legislation.  Essentially, it brings us to a place that says: to have what is most desirable we must first seek ways to provide that same benefit or quality to others, without bias or unjust discrimination.  Maybe we should put it this way:  before voting for any legislation, Congress members should be required to ask:   Would I approve this for myself and my family?  Would this piece of legislation provide them security, an enhanced life, better opportunities?  If they can’t answer with an honest yes, then they should reject the legislation.  In order to make this standard effective, every piece of legislation for which they vote must not allow any exemption for Congress members, their families or their staff from any of its provisions.  Let Congress give away to others what they desire for themselves and their families.  It’s only fair and just. 

Perhaps it is high time that we called for a thorough review of government-sponsored legislation and programs against such moral criteria – rather than the prevailing criteria of how much it costs, or the flaws in those targeted, or the effects upon special and monied interests. Could we move forward as a nation if we based our legislation on such criteria?  I do not know, but isn’t it worth a try to undergird our democracy and legislation with something other than unjust, unfair, unworkable and unacceptable amoral criteria?  I think it’s at least worth some discussion and debate.