Trump Presidency: A Bigger Picture

It is unfortunate that voters often do not take into full consideration the damage, problems and difficulties that can extend from one Presidential administration into the future, affecting new generations. There are probably several quite cogent reasons for not “using one’s head,” about this, but perhaps it simply goes back to something I’ve said before on this Blog:  our brains favor making short-cuts to reality.  Too often we fail to take differing types of information as a tool for discovery rather than as a threat to what one already believes or holds as “true” or “false.”

 Commonly referred to as “cognitive biases” (“tendencies to think in certain ways that can lead to systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or good judgment”), the following may be examples of some biases that pertain to being unable to deal with future consequences (many of which have been on display of late in Cleveland):

1) “Confirmation” bias -- a “tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions – but it often limits the ability to take in new data and thereby change old opinions.”

2) “Anchoring” or “focalism” – the predilection for relying too heavily on one piece of information when making decisions: people with this kind of bias often cannot discern or imagine any other solutions. 

3) “Bandwagon effect” – the tendency to do or believe things because others do; related to group-think and herd behavior

4) “Availability cascade” - A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse ("repeat something long enough and it will become true").

5) “Conservatism” - The tendency to revise one's belief insufficiently when presented with new evidence, thus being satisfied with the “status quo”

Just to give you a taste of some of the consequences with which we find ourselves living, that evolved from conservative Republican administrations, let’s start with a military man, very conservative in many ways; a hero to many who proclaimed: “I Like Ike.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower: Even this moderately conservative Republican gave us some long-term results that linger.  His administration allowed the CIA to function as a ‘shadow’ government, disrupting regimes in other countries, e.g. Indonesia, Cambodia, Cuba, the Congo, and most of all, in Iran where Prime Minister Mosaddegh was overthrown (with CIA help) and the Shah was placed in power. Although the CIA today is somewhat more controlled, we inherited both the enmity of certain countries, such as Iran, and the allowance of secretive exploits by the CIA; such as current monitoring of personal phone calls, emails, other communications (and let us not forget the use of water-boarding under George W. Bush-Dick Cheney).  Internal spying on countries both friendly and not so friendly are all extensions of the extra-curricular activities of the CIA and other intelligence branches in this and subsequent administrations.

Beware those who live and die by total warfare against others, including unchecked covert operations – the consequences always come back to haunt us both at home and abroad.

Richard M. Nixon:

We still live with Nixon’s ‘southern strategy’ that changed voting patterns in our South for future decades. His campaign ‘dirty tricks’ also changed voter trust for government into a distrust still exploited today by Right-wing candidates.  National Government has been made into an enemy and that produces the Right-wing push for states’ rights and state takeover of national programs.  One long-term consequence: Medicaid returned to the states will result in current health-directed dollars being re-directed toward state administrative costs, simply because the national administrative structure will be eliminated.

Beware those who see states as the be-all and end-all for governing ourselves.  We have tried it more than once and failed each time, e.g. the early Articles of Confederation had to be abandoned in light of the Confederation’s inability to supply our Revolutionary War troops. Beware the Party that declares the evilness of a central government, without mentioning the inability or failure of states to provide their own citizens with adequate health care, retirement benefits, jobs or education, a clean environment, or a thoroughly modern infrastructure adequate for large corporations that are themselves multi-national.  We must maintain a strong national government to produce outcomes that will address national problems, needs and issues like those just mentioned.  

Ronald Reagan: 

We also live with the consequences of Ronald Reagan having fired striking air traffic controllers thereby emboldening future conservative leaders toward ‘Right to Work’ laws, constant attacks on union activities and the abrogation of employee rights and benefits, such as an adequate health care plan or retirement plan for every worker. 

Beware the Trump backers who tout the businessman image and who say that he loves his workers and learns much from them.  Why then does he oppose unions, a minimum wage (the concept itself), and equal pay for women? 

Trump, and many of his supporters, have inherited or acquired the false assumption that organized Labor is bad for Business.  ORGANIZED LABOR IS NOT BAD FOR BUSINESS; it’s a check on business practices that exploit workers and consumers and a boon to businesses that treat workers with dignity and respect.

Is organized Labor the reason for losing manufacturing firms to other countries – no, that happened because Business decided to exploit the workers in other countries  and because a certain Republican administration set up some favorable conditions under which businesses could leave our shores, make a pile of profit and protect those profits in off-shore non-taxable accounts. 

Is organized Labor the reason why so many employees of private businesses are being summarily fired or laid-off without a procedure in place to protest their forced exit?  Hardly.  Are Labor unions responsible for employee losses of healthcare, pension, and pay check?  No; businesses are taking advantage of the non-union shops and exploiting workers every chance they get, even in the non-profit sector.   

These are just a few examples of negative enduring consequences of voting for Right-wing conservative candidates for President.  There are more actual examples; check them all out at: http://killian.com/earl/presidents.html (from which was gathered some of the material above).

Now striding upon the scene comes Donald J. Trump… who unfortunately embodies every far Right doctrinaire policy and idea that has gone before him, to which he has added more by asserting fascist-like rhetoric and actions that have no place in United States politics.  However, there are enough frighteningly-biased voters and moneyed sponsors behind him that he is now the actual Republican nominee for President of these United States.  

The enduring nightmarish consequences of his possible election are many, but we will mention just a few for your consideration.

• One or more Supreme Court nominees that will lean the Court to the Right for several generations, thus preventing all progressive values and programs from seeing the light of day.  Meaning specifically, the loss of Roe vs. Wade and the right to a legal abortion.  But that’s not all: it relegates women to criminal status, causes deaths from botched illegal abortions, and relegates women to a less competitive status. 
• An opposition to: bargaining rights, the minimum wage (not just a raise but the concept itself), equal pay for equal work, paid family leave, promises to devastate our work force and their families for many years.  All those white working men who believe Trump will take care of them will be toiling for peanuts.  Trump will betray you just like Reagan betrayed the unions and workers who supported him.
• And guess what?  Under Trump there will be a reduction in unemployment benefits, and no special programs for out-of-work or poverty-level wage earners.
• Other Government Benefits will not be readily available, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, CHIPs, transportation aid, rent subsidies, public housing units, retirement pensions, or social services.  Low-wage earners are going to be out-of-luck.  It would not be surprising to see the return of tent cities, work crews beholden to industry moguls; control of every aspect of the lives of those living mouth-to-mouth in the hands of the privileged bankers, financiers, manufacturers and industrialists.  If you thought government hand-outs to those in poverty were reprehensible; wait until you see what the Trump crowd will be handing out, or not handing out, as the case may be. 
• Just what do you expect will happen when the military and weapons of destruction are allowed to build up to enormous proportions in order to make America feel great again?  Well, it won’t be to keep the peace.  Trump has already threatened to use atomic weapons against ISIS, and some countries like North Korea and Libya and Syria are not on his all-time favorites list either.  Anybody who messes with Trump will experience war as a first response.  But war brings consequences that last for decades.  We are still paying off war debt that has accumulated since WWII, and still dealing with the competition and enmity of former enemies.
• If the last week is any indication, we will have Mr. Trump to thank for a division of groups of people along lines that are designated by his government. His animosity toward Muslims, Mexicans, Syrians, and people of color, plus a few more categories like women and young protestors, tends to make the Wall he wants to build on our southern border a sinister image of walling off or segregating certain portions of our population.  Perhaps internal walling-off will be less by physical walls then by means of restrictive policies, laws, regulations, rules and lack of opportunities.  Why not? several of his Governor colleagues like Christie and Pence (V-P nominee) have already done so!
• Watch out for Trump trying to please Evangelicals by signing legislation that allows religious objections to health care provisions – birth control specifically.  And, watch out for the creeping menace of religion inside government and vice versa (already begun under George W. Bush) to be continued under Donald Trump who wants immediately to remove any restrictions on churches regarding tax exemptions, private school support from tax dollars and eligibility for government grants.
• What about his commitment to “Law and Order?” Does that mean the police will be more militarized and more at war with their neighborhoods and communities rather than fulfilling their role as protectors of the populace?  Does it mean riots in the streets will be controlled by murdering and wounding everyone who “looks like a criminal?”  No one that I know wants to live under such conditions, because it will affect all of society, not just protestors or poor people or racial minorities.  We are in for a dismal future dedicated to law and order rather than to liberty and justice for all.

Just what constitutes “Law & Order”?  Some people say it is the “Rule of Law” in contrast to rule by despots or tyrants, or by the mobs in the streets who believe that they are above the Law.  Broadly speaking, “Law and Order” is basically the condition of a society brought about by the observance of certain legislated rules and laws under strict control by police who have the power to act to prevent crime, to detain and arrest, to bring charges (sometimes of dubious validity), and to bring violators into a court of law.  But, it is strange how ‘Law & Order’ in radical Republican words and phrases keeps sounding like a war on certain folks in certain categories or circumstances. 

Just like the “War on Drugs” and the “Southern Strategy” -- and now the Republican call to “Support the Long Blue Line” of police officers – Trump’s “Law and Order” is nothing more than a dog whistle meant to be heard essentially by white citizens only.  These various nefarious strategies represent Republican attempts to discriminate against people of color and refugees (particularly those with darker skin).  Movements or organizations that protest society’s treatment of these groups, and the protestors themselves who disrupt the order of things with their demands for change, reform and revolutionary actions, will be under constant scrutiny and harassment.  Just like ACORN and Planned Parenthood, they will feel the long arm of the Law and Order police as they swoop down and make arrests on newly “TRUMPED-UP” charges. 

“Law & Order” has little to do with protecting the vulnerable in our society, or those who have no money to spread around, or those who face economic and social challenges every day of their lives. “Law & Order” has little to do with equal justice for all and in fact is code for unequal justice needing to be meted out to those who don’t conform to the white establishment’s rules and standards. 

Remember please, that our Constitution does not contain the phrase “Law & Order.”  It prefers justice, tranquility, common defense, general welfare and the blessings of liberty for all, not just a few.  It does provide for calling forth the ‘militia’ to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions” but it does not define protesting in a non-violent manner as equivalent to “insurrection,” nor does the Supreme Court. 

“Law & Order” remains a dog whistle invented by conservatives to warn the white and privileged citizens of this nation that one or another group needs to be “put in its place.”  That is its essence, its flaw and its preferred outcome.  Anyone who mistakes it for an appropriate ideal to pursue has swallowed a radical Right-wing line that leads us right back to the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynching’s, police shootings, forced segregation and subjugation, and the unjust incarceration of minority men and women. 

Donald Trump takes pleasure in being the “Law and Order” candidate.  Why?  Because it fits with his bullying persona, his business values of cut-throat competition where only the strong survive, and his view of the world which is seen from a Tower bearing his name.  From that Tower, he gets to look down on everyone below, and from that Tower he can pursue whatever he pleases, no matter who it hurts or to whom it is offensive and damaging. 

In spite of the rosy words surrounding him from other convention speakers, Donald Trump has been named in at least 169 federal lawsuits, according to a LawNewz.com investigation. “They read like a history of Trump’s business failures, successes, and bombastic personality.  The federal lawsuits… date back to 1983 and involve everything from business disputes, antitrust claims and, more recently, accusations that Trump’s campaign statements are discriminatory against minorities. He’s been sued by celebrities, personal assistants, prisoners, people in mental hospitals, unions, and wealthy businessmen.”

The White House and the Oval Office are meant to be different – the ‘Peoples House’ it has been called, where some earlier-day Presidents used to welcome crowds of people who were looking for help, redress of grievances, or maybe a special government hand-out.  In modern terms it is meant to be the place where the People’s business is transacted in ways that will benefit them, bring justice, and solve problems, dependent to a great extent on the attitudes and beliefs of the one who holds the Office and on those he/she appoints to play a key role in the mission and purposes of the administration.

In view of the useless, negative and meaningless rhetoric of Trump family members, politicos and others, on the campaign trail and in the convention hall in Cleveland, it all comes down to this:  Donald Trump has demonstrated that he is not fit to be President of the United States.  The directions he has proposed are contrary to our cherished ideals of liberty and justice for all; of providing opportunities for the vulnerable; of protecting all people equally; of meeting the legitimate needs of our people, and of providing for the General Welfare of all of the people within our borders (not just citizens), plus honoring treaty provisions of common defense for the nations of NATO. 

The fact that his acceptance speech contained just one ‘concrete’ proposal for change -- building that wall on our southern border – is demonstration enough that he is unqualified for this office.  Rather than propose specific steps to be taken to change policy or regulations (beyond Obamacare repeal and two treaties re-negotiated) he made it abundantly clear that everything depends on him as the change Agent, as the Facilitator, as the Negotiator.  That is equivalent to authoritarian leadership -- the strongman who has charge of everything and everybody. 

Beware the meaning of Trump leadership – being the Champion, the Voice, the ‘Only One’ who can make something happen.  Democracy does not work that way, and Donald Trump is spouting fascist ideology of the cult of ‘der Fuhrer.’   The continuing consequences of putting such a cult leader in charge of our government are found in the histories of many nations across our globe.  Democracy is “messy” but authoritarian leadership is brutal and lethal.

In conclusion, let me share with you a comment from Newsvine (dated June 20, 2016  by someone who identifies himself as "jim32780") that sums up some of the reasons why, despite the lies and innuendos heaped upon Hillary Clinton during these last few days by Republican attack-dogs, we must vote for Hillary Clinton for President.  It tells exactly what we are voting about: not personalities, but progressive issues, values and actions.

 “I don’t see this election as voting for Clinton.  I see it as voting for The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Voting Rights Act, Food Stamps, Minimum Wage, Union Rights, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Roe v. Wade, Marriage Equality, the Department of Education, National and Community Services Act, union activities by federal employees, environmental research at the Department of Energy, USAID, intercity and high-speed rail grants, Community Development Fund, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years that will overturn Citizens United, plus whatever Senator Sanders can get done with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President.

If Trump is elected, all that is gone.  It’s not about Clinton.  It’s about over 80 years of the Progressive Movement that we’re in danger of losing because we’re not looking at the bigger picture.”

WE HAVE to INTERACT, DEBATE and TAKE ACTION

 The tragic events of this last week smashed any thoughts of a respite from discussing violence.  We are in the midst of what happens when rhetoric becomes over-heated, when individuals of one racial group are targeted as 'criminal,' based on a profile of stereotypes that render them "guilty" and dangerous simply because of their skin color. That is what happened in Baton Rouge and in St. Paul, Minnesota – innocent men’s skin color sentenced them to death by rogue police officers following “protocol.” Question is: what protocol?  Is it the unspoken one that proclaims: ‘Blacks are criminals so shoot them if they don’t comply with every order, and maybe even if they do.’  Is that the protocol being followed covertly by some police departments, or is it simply an attitude prevalent among some police in some cities? 

The situation is bad, and tragic.  Not only do we have “lynching” of black people by rogue cops killing innocent men like Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, now we have the reactive shooting of police by a rogue lone wolf who happens to be Black, and a veteran.  We mourn the loss of each individual, whether suspect or first responder, and pray for their families who are suffering under the burden of those losses right now.  Now, let us back up and apply the brakes a bit.

v  We need to avoid irresponsible talk of the beginnings of a race war, or a war on cops.  We need to admonish media outlets that publish over-blown headlines and stories, just as we need to eschew the prejudiced meanderings of blowhard politicians, like Rudy Giuliani who has made a blatantly stupid statement that the “Black Lives Matter" movement is inherently ‘racist.’  Not only has he thus made the victims of white racism blameworthy for claiming an equal standing with all other lives, but with a  typical white superiority, he denigrated and devalued the BLM movement and its members by proclaiming that 'all lives matter’ and that the BLM group should not emphasize just their own race. 

 First of all, Mr. Giuliani, you don’t understand the term “racist”, and second, if we follow your logic, we should not allow organizations like: B’nai B'rith International, Hispanic Associations, Italian-American, Ukrainian-American or Polish-American clubs or associations, or the NAACP  -- all of which (along with many other ethnically- and racially-oriented associations) dedicate themselves to the advancement of their lives and particular culture.

v  Fortunately, we have many responsible and rational white and black folks who are already emerging to stand by each other in this critical time.  Protests and some reactive violence will probably persist, with blame coming at them from all sides, but let us refrain from over-heated rhetoric that exacerbates the situation.

v  Rather, let us take time to dig at root causes of hatred; prejudice; racism (see my postings of 12/7/2014; 5/21/2015; 6/22/2015; 7/12/2015).  We cannot continue in a state of denial and inaction.  The passing of Time will not solve our problems surrounding race relations because they are too deeply ingrained in our institutions.  I used the word 'dig" on purpose for that implies some very basic work on the part of all of us.  If we don't engage in the hard work of revolutionary change, we shall inevitably inherit the destruction of our democratic ideals, rights and freedoms simply because we cannot survive the cancer of racism that threatens all of our core values.

v  A Washington Post database has been keeping track of police shootings that have resulted in a suspect’s death.  In 2015 that number for Jan-June was 415; right now for the same period in 2016 that number has already risen to 512, and is probably still on the rise as we speak. (For all of 2015, total killings of suspects equaled 990). In contrast, shootings of police officers by suspects was 7 for the first six months of 2015, and 13 for the same period in 2016. Within the statistics is something that must be granted full attention.  Black suspects are 2.5 times more apt to be shot and killed by police than white suspects.  The broader question that begs an answer still remains: comparatively, how much is an African American life worth in our society?  Or, put another way, Do Black lives matter equally with all other lives?   

v  It is past time to approach every individual as:

1) a unique individual

 2) as a person with potential that must not be lost

3) as someone worthy of dignity, respect, fairness, and charitable (not charity per se, but caring or positive) attention to personal well-being

4) as a human being whose life matters, and who deserves rights, privileges and freedoms (as well as responsibilities) inherent to that status.

v  Perhaps it is more than past time to look again at what our own origins as a nation tell us about treating others with dignity and respect.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

• “all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  But there’s more that we sometimes ignore or shove aside:

• “governments are instituted among people to secure these rights, and those governments derive their powers from the “consent of the governed.” Moreover, when government becomes destructive of these purposes,
• ”it is the right of the People to alter or abolish that form of governance and to institute and organize principles and powers that seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness,” with the proviso that “long-established governments should not be changed lightly or for ‘transient’ (passing, temporary, not lasting; transitory) causes.”  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations shows a pattern toward reducing those rights under an absolute Despotism,
• “it is the duty of the People to throw off such governance and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Interesting isn’t it?  The clues to our purposes are all there in the very document that originally declared independence from Great Britain.  Maybe Bernie Sanders read over these same words and knew that what we must have is a revolution; not simply an evolution.  Just in case you have forgotten, here are some of the insufferable acts of Tyranny that were cited against George III, King of England at that time.  Now substitute the current Congress or certain state Governors and Legislatures for the King, and you might have a clearer vision of what we face now (examples in parentheses), and why revolutionary action is needed:

• Refused assent to laws needed for the common good, and other laws for the accommodation of large districts of the People (minimum wage increase; workers’ compensation for longer period; equal pay for equal work; hard-hit wards in New Orleans (as result of Hurricane Katrina) still rebuilding, mostly with private money; Flint Mich. still begging for help with infrastructure, as many more towns and cities will soon be doing).
• Used methods and procedures to fatigue legislators (the Senate filibuster and made-up rules of procedure used to delay and postpone action))
• Refused for a long time to cause others to be elected (or appointed in case of hundreds of Obama nominees held up in Congress)
• Obstructed the Laws of naturalization of Foreigners, refusing to encourage migration
• Obstructed the administration of justice by refusing assent (to appointments)
• Established Laws that are unclear in terms of judicial powers (search & seizure; stop and frisk; coerced confessions; minimum sentencing; three strikes (felonies) and out)
• Gave assent to, and support for:
• quartering large bodies of armed troops among us (like major city militarized police forces?)
• protecting them by mock trials from punishment for any murders they commit
• depriving us in many cases of trial by jury (heaping on multiple charges to force plea bargains; killing of ‘suspects’; over-burdening of public defenders)
• imposing taxes on us without our consent (taxes caused by undeclared wars; by bailing out banks and finance companies; by allowing extraction of special subsidies for a privileged few from tax revenues)
• abolishing our most important laws (assault weapons ban; voting rights pre-approval for certain states; voting rights circumscribed)
• altering fundamentally the forms of our government (pushing states’ rights; nullification of federal laws; devolving national programs, such as Medicaid, to the states where they can’t be sustained; 50+ attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act; attempts to abolish regulatory enforcement agencies such as the EPA, and consumer protection agencies)
• repeated petitions from the People rejected and made worse by repeated injury of citizens (equal pay for equal work; gun violence control – could not even get Congress to pass bi-partisan No Fly-No Buy legislation to prevent those on no-fly list from purchasing a gun)
• Deafness to the voices of justice and consanguinity (‘affinity’; ‘relationship’) (constant in both Congress and state legislatures: listening primarily to the wealthy or the elite; not calling anyone to testify on effects of bills on the People; advocating repeal of Obamacare without listening to those who will be most affected: the poor).

The basic questions surrounding our present situation become more focused when viewed in the light of our original “Declaration of Independence.”  It is not that we must overthrow another nation’s government in order to institute our own.  It is not simply that we must treat people with more respect and charitableness (which, nonetheless, is wholly necessary!)

The real question is: can we acknowledge our failings as a representative democracy and as a Republic that derives its very existence from the will of the People?  Can we re-form, re-format (re-organize) our government(s) and our institutions so that they encompass and imbue the basic revolutionary principles of our Founding? 

Bernie Sanders and his followers say it can’t be done without a real Revolution.  The Black Lives Matter movement has its doubts as well.  Progressive groups keep hammering away at reform on key issues.  The Democratic Platform will be one test of whether or not there will be real change proposed by Democrats.

The Radical Right says we are going in the wrong direction; that we need to return to a time when the federal government was under strict controls and the states were the powerhouses of our system (if they were so important, how come the Founding Fathers changed from a confederation of states to a federal system?)  Others are opting for law and order; the NRA advocates arming everyone they can to fight the forces of evil (unfortunately those forces defined by some as everyone who is non-white; gay and un-American, plus a rogue federal government in its enforcement role); some want an oligarchy (rule by an elite few) and an economic engine that is unrestricted by any government controls (regulations).  There are some on the Right who have even advocated secession of certain groups or states; some have simply tried to nullify federal laws they don’t like.

Underneath it all, we find the destructive forces of racism and violence, division and discrimination motivating people to resolve whatever issues they envision or encounter in a destructive manner.  Those forces exist on both sides of the spectrum, from the rogue police who kill innocent people simply because they are of color; and those who kill police because they are sick and tired of being denigrated by the police and society in general. 

What do we do with such division, hate, misunderstanding, ignorance and bigotry?  We do what Martin Luther King, Jr. did; what Gandhi did; what Mandela did; what Rosa Parks did.  We do what Lincoln did; what Kennedy and LBJ did; what revolutionaries have always done.  We return to our roots to start over and to build upon the ancient truths that serve as the foundation stones of our lives and our institutions.  We question everything in the light of our founding principles and truths.  We ask the People what they believe and what they want and need, leaving no one out or left behind. 

We begin to build something new based on our debates and discussions.  We hold neighborhood, community, city-wide, area-wide, statewide, regional and national forums, both formal and informal, so that we can talk to one another; and more - so we can get to KNOW one another on a more profound level – as individuals with unique thoughts, ideas, opinions and, most importantly, good will! 

If we don’t listen to one another and talk with one another, we will be forever caught in the formal media and social media trap of merely reading words or seeing pictures that appear on a monitor – no real encounter, no real interchange, no real conversation, no real knowledge of one another – it’s all virtual reality perhaps substituted for relationships.  How many have mistaken the tools of information-gathering and ordering for the essence of living where there is actual live communication and involvement with other human beings? 

Communication at its foundation is something we do as a live interchange with someone else by which we give something of value to another; a part or share of ourselves.  It is like a gifting of self. Granted it is of immaterial things like knowledge, thoughts, opinions, ideas, hopes, qualities – but nonetheless, it is a giving of one’s persona as experienced through those personal items.  We cannot hope to give of ourselves in this way to others unless we are actually in touch with others – we must have real interchanges, real confrontations, real debates – with real people or we will not come to a real and viable outcome. 

So, the first step in our plan is communication – giving of ourselves in real time and presence to others and building strong bridges across the divides.  The problem is, we continue to receive rhetorical platitudes, but no actual plan of action.  The rest of this posting is about taking action in a positive way nationally.

In an interview with Lester Holt of NBC NEWS, Hillary Clinton discussed some of what I am writing about today.  So Hillary – what’s the actual plan?  Can we have a national Plan in place by November 8^th when we vote?  How do we get people talking about revolution?  I would suggest that Bernie and his wife could be your ambassadors for interaction and revolution (radical change in values and institutions).  How about getting something started with that announcement?  

I think the second step is to involve every institutional entity in this country in internal discussions and forums on what it is they are fundamentally supposed to be doing – what is our mission and purpose – and more importantly: how does our mission and purpose relate to carrying forward and enhancing the purposes and principles underlying our foundational documents and judgments?  Or, we might want to start the other way around: what is our particular organization, institution and/or organized entity (including corporations) not doing to practice and bring to effective reality, the principles of our form of democracy? 

In other words, it may be useful to look first at each  group’s negative aspects that ignore, denigrate, or empower negative and destructive principles, purposes and behaviors in relation to equal justice, rights, freedoms, and responsibilities.  Then move to consider what can be done to overturn those negatives and to move each organized group into greater compliance with democratic principles.  Invite and engage non-members from the affected community in this process.

The third step?  I think it will have to address our national mission and purpose.  I would propose that our federal government begin by actually debating the mission and purposes of our foundational documents.  The Congress could hold hearings on several crucial subjects like: equal justice – what does it entail?  Equal rights – what are they and how can we protect and enhance them?  The opinions of the People – how can we make sure that all the voices are heard and acknowledged in our democratic system?  How can we promote the fundamental right of the vote?  It’s time for Congresspersons and Senators to stand for something.  Let them express their most cherished thoughts and beliefs, but not as though running for office; instead, as though the life of this government is at stake.  Let’s have a referee who will preside and enforce the rules of debate and comment, calling out members who cross the line from debate and discussion to political rhetoric.  The rules for the Presiding referee to follow should be prepared before any discussion commences. 

At the same time, let us have the departments and offices of governments at national, regional, state and county/city levels engage in discussion and debate about the same general issues I have proposed for private organizations and governmental entities.  Their task should be to determine how their particular entity both blocks and furthers the principles of our founding documents and subsequent major judicial decisions.

Somewhere in this plan, I believe we need to make room for a year-long process leading up to several White House Conferences on the main subjects of mission and purpose of our government and our institutions, complete with actual proposals for changes, amendments, new laws, and policies.

I believe such a process is a necessity but would not be without difficulties.  It is not only necessary, but imperative, given our current circumstances of division, discrimination, bigotry, elitism and demagoguery, and outright murdering of innocent people.  But, more to the point, we are failing in the most important basic principles that form the foundation of our democracy.  It’s past time for this national discussion and debate.  Otherwise, we shall continue down the road to destruction, simply because we have provided no way to address our concerns and our reasons for being.  It is the challenge for our times, with our broad and varied population, with our numbers, and with the apathy that exists in some quarters. 

But, do we really have a choice?  Without a national discussion, we will continue to hear the voices of demagogues, candidates, pundits, corporate moguls, plus the views of extremists on both sides, all the while silencing the concerns of millions of voters and citizens who are trying desperately to tell their representatives things they seem not to want to hear: sensible gun violence controls, fair and comprehensive immigration policies, climate change, equal justice. 

Revolution comes in many ways: sometimes quietly and without warning; sometimes out of growing chaos; other times out of revolts of various groups (like unions in Poland); often out of despair, frustration, unemployment, unequal access to opportunities; too often out of the neglect of a true mission and purpose; and, often enough, out of the force and the burden of one burning issue or one overriding concern. 

What I propose is that a revolution be allowed to occur out of citizen participation: debate and discussion of who we really are and what we are really meant to be and to do.   South Africa did some of that in their peace and reconciliation movement.  We have had experience with it to a degree in the Women’s Rights movement, the Labor Movement and the Civil Rights Movement. 

But, we have perhaps gone so far off track now that we must plan and organize to a degree not seen before. In order for a national discussion to go as deeply as possible into our heritage, our founding principles and our demographics we must make this into a revolutionary referendum on Who We Are?  Why We Exist? And What We Need to Change Dramatically in order to actually be who and what we claim to be.  Otherwise, we shall have no choice but to (as the Declaration of Independence reminds us) “suffer while evils are insufferable, (and) to right ourselves by abolishing the forms to which (we) are accustomed.”

Can we do this?  Can we actually have a national discussion about topics like constitutional imperatives; racial and cultural divisions; equal justice; the responsibility of corporations? 

Can we find ways to restore ordinary citizens to their status as the force behind government – to their rightful place as the consenters and the deciders?  Can we talk in-depth about inclusion, participation and activism? 

Can we deal with the demands of the 21^st century and agree on what schools must do once again to provide an effective quality education for all? 

Can we find solutions to the issues of gun violence, climate change, bargaining rights, and religious freedom restrained by the establishment clause?  Can we talk about life and abortion and other social issues like our approach to crime, violence and incarceration?

 I don’t honestly know for sure, but I have had the privilege of taking part in a national process involving discussion and debate leading up to a White House Conference on Aging.  It was interesting, engaging, exciting, and best of all, successful.  Many real and viable suggestions for change on all levels of government were made.  The Congress even passed legislation to put a fair number of the suggestions and proposals into effect. 

We do have models to guide us, and YES, WE CAN DO THIS, if we can just find the leadership, the plan, the incentive, a viable process and the will and commitment to make it happen.  If challenged to participate, I’m ALL IN!  How about YOU?    

 

Independence from the NRA

July Fourth - Independence Day – is usually a time to think and act upon our heritage, our national purposes and our patriotism.  I have written about that before (see “INDEPENDENCE DAY” - 7/4/15).  While today’s posting is the second in a series on gun violence control, it deals in the broadest sense with our Heritage, national purpose and patriotism because it goes to the heart of what it means to be an inter-dependent society, and a unique example of a democratic community in which freedoms and rights are not to be used to harm or injure others, nor to over-ride the basic priorities of equality, liberty and the pursuit of well-being and of life itself.

Let us begin today by not assuming that all restrictions on guns are attempts to curb gun ownership, or to put undue burdens on gun owners, or to confiscate guns.  Those are simply smokescreens that the NRA uses to capture the attention and monetary support of 2^nd amendment purists who see nothing else but strict interpretation of that Amendment.  In the face of such rhetoric, one can only point again to the words used by one of the most conservative Justices ever, Antonin Scalia, when he wrote the majority opinion for the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited (emphasis mine). It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

With those words in mind, let us remind ourselves of the current federal and state laws (something we looked at in greater detail last Post), particularly as concerns registration and licensing.  (A more detailed and viable summary can be found at The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence at www.smartgunlaws.org)

“A limited system of federal firearms registration was created by the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.  The National Firearms Act (“NFA”) was enacted in 1934 to impose an excise tax and registration requirements on a narrow category of firearms…  With its provisions effectively limited to pre-ban machine guns and transfers of short-barreled rifles and shotguns that are specifically authorized by the Attorney General, the registration system created by the National Firearms Act falls far short of a comprehensive registration system.

“There is no comprehensive national system of gun registration.  In fact, federal law prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.⁵”

Summary of State Law
Six states and the District of Columbia require registration of some or all firearms. Hawaii and the District of Columbia require the registration of all firearms, and New York requires the registration of all handguns through its licensing law.¹⁰ Hawaii, New York and four other states also have a registration system for certain highly dangerous firearms, such as assault weapons.  (For more information about such laws, see their summaries on Assault Weapons, 50 Caliber Weapons, and Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines).

Additional states require the reporting of firearm sales and transfers to a state or local agency, which maintains these records.  For information about such laws, see the summary on Maintaining Records & Reporting Gun Sales. California and Maryland also require new residents to report certain firearms that they bring into the state.

Conversely, eight states have statutes prohibiting them from maintaining a registry of firearms except in limited circumstances.

The Law Center makes the bold claim that:

“Licensing and registration laws make it more difficult for dangerous people to obtain guns and help ensure that firearm owners remain eligible to possess their weapons. Firearm registration laws can lead to the identification and prosecution of violent criminals.  Registration helps law enforcement quickly and reliably trace firearms recovered from crime scenes.  Registration laws are most effective when combined with laws requiring licensing of firearm owners and purchasers.

“States with some form of both registration and licensing have greater success keeping firearms initially sold by dealers in the state from being recovered in crimes than states without such systems in place.²  This data suggests that licensing and registration laws make it more difficult for criminals, juveniles and other prohibited purchasers to obtain guns.” 

The Center suggests the following as a framework of legislative actions and provisions that might get us to a point where these outcomes are general and viable:

• Registration required for all firearms prior to taking possession, or, in the case of firearms already owned or brought into the jurisdiction, immediately after the firearm is brought into the jurisdiction
• Registration to include: name, address and other identifying information about the owner of the firearm; names of manufacturer and importer; model, type of action, caliber or gauge, and serial number of firearm; and name and address of source from which firearm was obtained (Hawaii, District of Columbia)
• Registered owners are required to renew registration annually, including submitting to a background check (D.C. requires renewal every three years; New York requires handgun licensees to recertify their licenses every five years)
• Registered owners are required to report any loss, theft or transfer of the registered firearm to law enforcement within a short time of the event and to turn in their registration card or certificate upon loss, theft or transfer (District of Columbia)
• Registered owners are required to store all firearms safely and securely
• Additional restrictions may include limitations on where registered firearms may be possessed and to whom they may be transferred (particularly relevant for certain classes of firearms such as assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, and large capacity magazines)

Some Other Suggestions of reasonable and sensible reforms include:

1)      Ban large capacity ammunition magazines. Large capacity magazines, some of which can hold up to 100 rounds, are the common thread uniting all of the major mass shootings in recent history [pdf]. These magazines were prohibited under federal law until Congress allowed the 1994 assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.  It’s time to bring it back.

 

2)      Require a background check every time a firearm is sold.  Under existing federal law, a prospective purchaser only has to undergo a background check when buying a gun from a licensed dealer. If a person buys a gun from a so-called "private seller"—as is the case in an estimated 40 percent of gun sales every year—no background check is federally required. A background check requirement alone isn't enough—more also needs to be done to ensure that the names of persons who are prohibited are appropriately entered into the system.

3)      Give ATF the resources it needs. Better enforcement of existing law is an important piece of reducing gun violence, which is why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) needs to have the resources and permanent leadership to enforce existing federal firearms laws effectively.  For starters, the Senate ought to have promptly confirmed President Obama's nominee for ATF Director instead of blocking approval for FOUR YEARS!

 

Second, the Bureau should be given the resources to crack down on dishonest firearms dealers. ATF has the resources to perform an inspection, on average, only once every decade.  As documented by the Washington Post, that's only one of the many resource limitations that are preventing ATF agents from more effectively preventing the widespread trafficking of crime guns.

4)      Improve access to funding and data for researchers.  As the New York Times reported recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once played a key role in supporting research into the public health concerns surrounding gun violence and the development of effective firearms laws. That was until Congress singled out guns in the CDC's funding bill: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control…may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Researchers are also denied access to data tracing the origins of firearms recovered in crimes by what is known as the Tiahrt Amendment, that restricts and conceals trace data from public view.

When the freedoms, liberties, property or lifestyle of some threaten to cause harm, injury or hurt to many others, there have to be penalties, restrictions, regulations or limits by which we can all live together in tranquility, solidarity, safety and well-being. It is common-sense, but it is also related to a contractual theory of governing that underlies much of what we are about as a representative democracy and a Republic.  In that vein, I submit to you some penalties and requirements that some states have promulgated, or are considering:

• Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't
• Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information
• Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check
• Require Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows
• Require Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales
• Grant Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits
• Prohibit Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns
• Require Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement
• Allow Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws
• Allow Inspections of Gun Dealers   

We need to put gun registration and licensing in the context of other areas where licensing and permits and registration are common.  That is, there are certain responsibilities placed upon government to regulate those occupations, products and services that might bring harm, injury or even death to citizens and consumers.  These fall under the general areas of Domestic Tranquility and General Welfare of the people, both of which our Constitution’s Preamble says are part of the broad purposes of that document.

Two of the most maligned departments of the federal government are the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).   

The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices, cosmetics, animal foods & feed and veterinary products. Under their jurisdiction comes the licensing and registration of vendors and products.   Likewise, the Environmental Protection Agency was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations, as well as licensing and registering vendors and products.

Both of these agencies are indicative of the broad spectrum of registration, licensing, and issuance of permits that goes on every day.  It is one of the necessities of living in a contractual relationship with others under a constitution that calls for equal justice, equal rights, and the on-going quest for a more perfect Union.

So, how about looking at this whole gun issue from another angle:  treating guns like we treat other products such as automobiles (another form of weapon or at least a potentially dangerous projectile) or perhaps as we treat certain drugs that are potentially harmful, dangerous and injurious.  As citizens, we accept and even request restrictions on potential violence, destruction and injurious results in these other products; how come guns as products are excluded from any restrictions?  The simple answer is the NRA’s power as a lobby.  But I maintain that it is more specifically due to the confusion that the NRA willingly creates by using the term “gun rights.”  In other words – and this is CRUCIAL:  a right to ownership of guns (protected by the 2^nd Amendment) is entirely separate from the issue of the safety, viability, potential danger, and potential defects of a product: the actual guns.  Ownership of guns is the protected right; the gun as a manufactured product has no rights.   Any such manufactured product found wanting in certain areas, can (and should) be restricted by government in its role as protector of the general welfare, of domestic tranquility and of equal application of justice for all.  Moreover, any potential or actual use of such a product in the commission of a crime or to do harm to another must be regulated, restricted or banned, and then appropriately punished. 

The following thoughts and proposals are thus offered in the context of what we already accept as reasonable restrictions on potentially dangerous products, and their potentially dangerous utilization, in our daily living.

1)      Just as we have registration required for every car, we should register every gun, renewable every 3-5 years.  Those found with unregistered guns (or without ownership title) should be fined (or perhaps jailed, if warranted) and guns impounded until registered.  I would suggest that background checks continue to be required before any gun is able to be purchased, that guns given to someone or exchanged on a private basis be accompanied by a re-titling and re-registration process similar to car ownership titles.  Just as car dealers often perform the actual paperwork with DMV, so gun dealers might be allowed (encouraged?) to perform this service with an appropriate government agency, if feasible.

2)      Just as we have inspections of cars every year, we should do a similar thing for guns, but not on an annual basis.  We should continue the practice of some police departments for a turn-in of registered and unregistered guns on a periodic basis; no questions asked.  We should also require an inspection of safety devices, and triggers (to make sure that none are “hair” triggers), as well as locks (as we do of pollution control devices on cars) made mandatory for all guns.  Perhaps such inspections could be required every three years.  Guns that fail could become temporarily registered for 10 days during which time they can be fixed, re-inspected, and re- registered.  Guns used only for collection and/or display should probably be exempted from this process, although a special certification could be issued.

3)      Just as we have “learner permits” and driving tests before someone can register a car, likewise we should require certification of training that covers safe and proper use of a gun.  Plus, certification (or permit) from a responsible party such as state police or mental health practitioner that the applicant is mentally fit to own and utilize a gun, would be desirable.  Standardized tests could be part of this process.

4)      Just as we have traffic laws, rules of the road, and driving regulations, we should consider the same for gun ownership and on-going registration.  Similar to requiring the re-certification of certain drivers, we should require re-training, re-testing and re-certification by a professional when certain behaviors, violations, or complaints are introduced.

5)      Just as we have a “traffic court” in many jurisdictions, let us consider establishing “gun use courts” to handle infractions related to gun ownership and gun use.

6)      In all this, it is necessary of course, to determine how much should be mandated in federal laws, and how much should be mandated by State laws, and how much leeway states should have in the implementation of certain of these provisions, i.e. inspections, registrations, certifications and which state or local agencies of government should be involved.

Just because there is a second amendment that allows for ownership of guns does not negate the larger issue of the rights of everyone to live without fear and in safety.  The right to own guns does not negate the fundamental and superior right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to freedom and justice for all; to the pre-eminence of life above property or to the safety and security of government protection of the general welfare of all citizens.  Free speech is also a constitutional “right”, but it is not unrestricted.  In fact, one cannot slander others, use hate-filled speech against others, or yell a false warning of FIRE in a crowded theater. 

Yet we cannot get a Congress (filled with Republicans who support restrictions of all kinds on voting, abortion and women’s equal rights among others) to support any restrictions on guns as products, or as lethal weapons that can negate the rights and lives of other citizens.

By advocating for no restrictions on gun ownership or guns as products, the NRA ends up using the second amendment to advocate for violence, doubling down on that nefarious construct by advocating that concealed carry by more and more people can stop, rather than exacerbate, mass killings!  That is wrong; it is destructive of all that underlies our system of contractual government.  The fact that the NRA has a lobbying arm that is also a front for gun manufacturers, receiving monetary support from the very industry they are sworn to protect, is nothing short of bribery and a kick-back scheme.  They are guilty of selling a second amendment right to the highest bidders, of pimping for their contributors, and of unwitting complicity in the 117,000 deaths of men, women, and children every year by gun violence. 

As the direct descendant of many gun makers on both sides of my family, and as the grand- nephew and nephew of three ancestors who were superintendents at large gun manufacturing plants (in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York), it is a wonder to me that the good men and women and young people who are responsible gun owners (and members of the NRA), and who often favor sensible gun controls right along with the general public, do not take it upon themselves to form an alternative organization to the NRA.  Perhaps such an organization could once again primarily promote responsible gun ownership, gun sports, hunting, target shooting competitions, training for new gun owners and maybe even launch a rival effort to propose sensible gun violence prevention measures to ensure the safety and well-being of all. What better time than Independence Day to embark on such an adventure?

Why don’t the hunters and sportsmen, the skeet-shooters and target-shooters step forward to say ENOUGH!  Give us back what the NRA has stolen – the artistry of a champion target shooter in the Olympics; the artistry of the gun-stock maker; the artistry of the gun-lock maker; the artistry of the collector who knows who made every gun, who designed them, even who owned them or used them. 

ENOUGH.  Take back the controls – do not allow:

·         concealed carry anywhere at any time, or

·         self-defense out of fear/prejudice/hate, or

·         big ammunition clips, or

·         semi-automatic guns or assault rifles

to define you as a gun owner just because you are an NRA member. 

ENOUGH – don’t let the those who want to protect themselves from phantom government agents and imagined government takeover of your guns become your mentors. As we do in so many other areas of our lives, let us treat licensing and registration and owner titles as reasonable contributions to the welfare and the tranquility of our nation.  

ENOUGH – don’t stay associated with the violence of guns; bring back the artistry.  Put the emphasis of government back where it belongs – on the pursuit of secure and prosperous life and happiness and well-being for our fellow-citizens, not the odious killing by guns of 117,000 people per year! 

ENOUGH – above all, don’t allow the gun rights fanatics to turn you into one more unwitting accomplice in the shooting massacres that continue to happen now on a very regular basis.  Assault weapons must be banned from sale to citizens just as other lethal weapons are not allowed for general sales. (Seen any neighbors with tanks, atomic bombs or ICBMs lately?).

ENOUGH! – it’s time to declare your INDEPENDENCE from the NRA!