Time for a VISIONARY PLAN

As much as I think we’d like to forget it, there is always something staring us in the face. Mostly, it’s called ‘the future.’  For some, it’s more ominous, like “Armageddon” or “the Second Coming.”  For others, it may be known as the “New Millennium’ or the ‘New Age’ or perhaps in a narrower defining phrase as the ‘New Technological Revolution.”   Whatever one may call it, it has to do with having to face something that is coming.  And, as with many moments in our development and history, it is presenting signs and symbols in the present which some folks decide consciously, or unconsciously, to ignore or to postpone in terms of attention to them. 

Although we hate to admit it, we humans have some strange ways we approach things like the future.  Some embrace it and hope for its speedy arrival.  Some fear its changes and disruptions of the life they have come to know, and they dread it.  Some ignore it and prefer to live more day-to-day without thinking much about the next era, the next generation, the next decade, the next year, or even the next week.  For some, that form of escape is the way they choose to protect themselves from difficult thoughts and issues.  For others, concern about the future is a luxury because they have all they can do just to get through the current day.  Then there are, of course, those who simply minimize the future because they too prefer not to deal with its issues and the changes it represents because they would rather rail and rant about the present.  They choose to act as though the future has nothing to say about how one should transform the present by using new tools and skills that are contained within that future.  Some choose to plan for the future, and even to invest in it, hoping they can ride a future wave to an unexpected shore where they will increase their stature, their position, their fortune, and maybe even their happiness, although that is not always the outcome.

Although people react differently, most humans probably do harbor some hope for the future.  We are resilient, we are positive, we do see some of the possibilities in new inventions (like the wheel, the auto, the airplane; and now: drones, space travel and robots).   

Even as we speak, there are some of our species planning to use driverless transports (Uber), drones (Amazon); to take private space ships to distant planets to start new civilizations.  We Americans are somewhat ebullient in our determination to improve, to invent, to make life better, not just for ourselves but for others as well.  Americans have been on a quest since our beginnings as a nation to make government more responsive to the needs, hopes and desires of all for a better life.  We continue to seek better ways to make the promises of opportunity, protection, safety, a good education, justice, liberty and happiness available equally under the law for all our citizens and residents.  We often welcome changes that go to the heart of who we are as a nation and a people.  We are, after all, not just resilient; we are endowed with certain values and attitudes that tend to lead us to build upon societal foundations rather than to destroy them.

So, what is our status as we face a future that is already showing signs of its presence.  Are we even aware of its impending doom?  Are we aware of how we can use it to our advantage as we help bend the arc of history toward greater justice, distribution of wealth and personal development?  Are we cognizant of dangers we face if the new technology is allowed to operate without some controls?  Do we understand our Mission and Purposes as a nation in contributing to global peace so that all humanity can benefit from what is coming?

I’m sorry to say that we are not well prepared; we are not ready to face a future fourth technological revolution, or a critical global warming that could destroy us all.  We are not prepared because current far Right-wing occupiers of seats in the Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court (and lesser courts), as well as in state Governorships and legislatures are not doing near enough to move us in that direction.  There is an inordinate amount of attention currently being given to concepts and policies that will not add one iota of strength or progress toward human rights, human life or human dignity.

The pretend president, Donald Trump, and his Far-Right minions are so devoid of a Vision for the Future that we have to say that, like clowns, they are performing a farcical skit that only plays to the foolish, like:  the immigration debacle; healthcare reform failure; public education being undermined rather than enhanced; the threat of growing unemployment being fueled by  technologies ignored because unemployment figures are currently low. The Tax Cut bill gave huge permanent cuts to the richest 1% and temporary cuts to the middle class that will be erased by higher health care costs and rescinded deductions for state taxes, charitable contributions and mortgage payments; leaving middle-income taxpayers with little or no gain. 

 And, as if to bear witness to the chaos, we see a denial of science and scientific method that can help determine policies based on facts rather than on opinions or hyperbole.  Such behavior has given us denial of global warming and an environmental crisis brought on by human neglect and irresponsible human behavior.  The recent federal government report (Volume II of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, required by 1980’s legislation) spells out very clearly the critical situation that looms before us and which could destroy us if we don’t act immediately to counter its effects.  (Check it out at:  http://www.globalchange.gov/about)  

Although the scientists who presented it denied that anything in the findings had been altered by the WH, the negative attitude of the Trump Administration was vividly illustrated by the fact that the report was issued in the mid-afternoon of Black Friday!  In a Tweet on Saturday, Trump further illustrated his particular (misinformed) attitude, blurting forth: "Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?"  Trump, administration officials and elected Republicans frequently say they can't tell how much of climate change is caused by humans and how much is natural. Trump himself again blurted out to a reporter that he “doesn’t believe it” (the report).  Meanwhile, the public is being denied the protection of government action based on research and factual detail.  What is their Vision for the future of our planet?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Equally apropos is the very negative attitude of ignoring the future technological revolution that will change almost every aspect of our existence. This administration has no Vision, no Plan, no Intention of dealing with anything other than their undermining of democratic values and government of, by and for the People.  They are constructing a national government that will serve as a tool for the spread of their Right-wing ideology, for the aggrandizement of wealth and business, the imposition of unequal Law & Order, the power of a strong military along with a national police force.  Control is their Vision and the use of Power (and Chaos) is their Plan. 

  Perhaps a bit of information about this looming revolution would be useful.  Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, wrote the following in an article titled: “The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond”:

“We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society.

The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.

There are three reasons why today’s transformations represent not merely a prolongation of the Third Industrial Revolution but rather the arrival of a Fourth and distinct one: velocity, scope, and systems impact. The speed of current breakthroughs has no historical precedent. When compared with previous industrial revolutions, the Fourth is evolving at an exponential rather than a linear pace. Moreover, it is disrupting almost every industry in every country. And the breadth and depth of these changes herald the transformation of entire systems of production, management, and governance… these possibilities will be multiplied by emerging technology breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing.”

Schwab raises some concerns:

1.      As automation substitutes for labor across the entire economy, the net displacement of workers by machines might exacerbate the gap between capital and labor.

2.      Rise of a job market increasingly segregated into “low-skill/low-pay” and “high-skill/high-pay” segments, which in turn will lead to an increase in social tensions.

3.      Demand for highly skilled workers has increased while the demand for workers with less education and lower skills has decreased. The result is a job market with a strong demand at the high and low ends, but a hollowing out of the middle.

4.      Helps explain why middle classes around the world are increasingly experiencing a pervasive sense of dissatisfaction and unfairness. A winner-takes-all economy that offers only limited access to the middle class is a recipe for democratic malaise and dereliction.

5.      Many industries are seeing the introduction of new technologies that can oust well-established incumbents faster than ever by improving the quality, speed, or price at which value is delivered (need we name all the retail giants that are closing stores all over this country while Amazon expands?)

6.       There are four main effects that the Fourth Industrial Revolution has on business—on customer expectations, product enhancement, collaborative innovation, and organizational forms. Whether consumers or businesses, customers are increasingly at the epicenter of the economy, which is all about improving how customers are served

7.       As new technologies such as autonomous or biological weapons become easier to use, individuals and small groups will increasingly join states in being capable of causing mass harm. This new vulnerability will lead to new fears. But at the same time, advances in technology will create the potential to reduce the scale or impact of violence, through the development of new modes of protection, for example, or greater precision in targeting.

8.      The Fourth Industrial Revolution will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships. It is already changing our healthcare insurance. 

9.      One of the greatest individual challenges posed by new information technologies is privacy. The impact on our inner lives by the loss of control over our data will only intensify in the years ahead.

10.  The revolutions occurring in biotechnology and Artificial Intelligence (AI), are redefining what it means to be human by pushing back the current thresholds of life span, health, cognition, and capabilities, compelling us to redefine our moral and ethical boundaries.

“We should thus grasp the opportunity and power we have to shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution and direct it toward a future that reflects our common objectives and values.  To do this, however, we must develop a comprehensive and globally shared view of how technology is affecting our lives and reshaping our economic, social, cultural, and human environments. There has never been a time of greater promise, or one of greater potential peril. Today’s decision-makers, however, are too often trapped in traditional, linear thinking, or too absorbed by the multiple crises demanding their attention, to think strategically about the forces of disruption and innovation shaping our future.” (emphasis is mine)

He concludes with what I would characterize as a clarion call to us all (and I intend for it to apply particularly to the newly elected Democrat majority in the House): “In the end, it all comes down to people and values. We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them.” (Schwab) 

In conclusion, let me also raise some questions:

1.      What is the Far-Right’s Vision of health care in a technological world where Nanotechnology and robotics rule, and our hospitals don’t have the most up-to-date technology or enough thoroughly trained bio-tech engineers and personnel to maintain what they do have?

2.      What about infrastructure repair – how can we use modern technology and AI to improve our bridges (and their maintenance) as well as all our buildings, including schools; what must be done so those buildings can withstand ever-increasing cataclysmic weather events?

3.      Where are the Government Task Forces or Commissions that should be studying and reporting on what universities, public and private laboratories and corporations are doing to advance daily life through the targeted use of new technologies?  Is all the attention on the future going to be spent on business and economics or are we will we also envision what we can do to incorporate the new technology into our governmental service systems?

4.      What will happen if we base our current economy on new jobs while many of those jobs are disappearing and will become extinct within a relatively short span of time because the new robotic technology is going to wreak havoc on jobs that can be done by robots or robotic mechanisms?  Witness driverless taxis, trucks and autos.  Witness the building of more human-like robots that will start to replace humans in numerous interactive situations. Witness the construction of robots that will be able to develop and learn new concepts on their own.

5.    How will government need to re-invent itself to be able to respond to the break-neck speed of these new developments? For instance, now that Donald Trump’s unrealistic promise to bring manufacturing jobs back to the nation has been somewhat shattered, how will his administration deal with the devastating news that five GM plants will be closing very soon along with 6 models of GM autos biting the dust, and GM jobs going to other countries? 

6.    In 2020, will the perverse prevaricator, Donald Trump, base his campaign on negative politicizing of future developments in economics, industry, business, jobs, and the environment so that his base and enough other non-thinkers will begin to harbor such great fears of the future they will vote for him to protect their jobs and their livelihoods from the scary unknowns of the new revolution?  Yes indeed, he will do exactly that. (read more about it at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/opinion/trump-industrial-revolutions.html)

7.   What about privacy?  Is that universal alert system Trump and his minions developed about one-way messaging, or are we being targeted for ‘monitoring’ by this wannabe dictatorial regime?

The new cohort of progressive Democrats must deal with the concerns and issues about our future immediately upon taking office.  We don’t have the luxury of waiting to see what the future brings.  The future is here, and it is already impacting lives.  We must get on top of the issues now or suffer the lies of Donald Trump inducing more fear into the hearts and minds of his followers and others about the future.  He will appear to be the hero, fighting the future’s fearful changes so that the weak will be comforted and the non-critical thinkers will be satisfied.  Trump can win another 4-year term if House Democrats fail to show the People how the 4^th Industrial Revolution can be constructed and utilized to benefit our lives. 

There must be a Vision of the Future and an extraordinary Plan for addressing this fourth technological revolution.  But first, we must address issues that have been blocked and undermined by this and other ultra-conservative GOP administrations.  We must start putting the advantages and the tools of the technological future to work on health care, the environment, immigration, infrastructure repair, racial and economic divides, regulation of the financial sector, plus income disparities and electoral reform so that the positives of revolutionary change can begin to work for us right now!  In other words, Democrats, we need a Plan; we need priorities made clear; we need leadership that has the Vision necessary for shaping the present in light of the future and shaping the future according to our democratic values and our promotion of inalienable human rights.

We have had such visionary Plans before; we are not unused to thinking boldly when circumstances demand it.  We know about the long-range vision and plan for the Women’s Vote; the Civil Rights Movement; the Plan of Protests to end the Vietnam War.  We know what it takes to clean-up issues that have moldered and smoldered over decades.  We know how to gather and to mobilize resources in the quest of extraordinary future Visions and Goals.  Remember, if you will, the Plans for rebuilding our country (and others) after the great World Wars; recall the Marshall Plan or FDR’s New Deal.  How could we forget the Plan to put a Man on the Moon before the decade was out; or the Plan to find a cure(s) for cancer?

    

A final thought:  it might behoove the new Democratic majority in the House to put everything into the context of what the future holds, and what positives it can bring, as well as revealing the goals and actions we must pursue to meet and to harness what the future revolution portends.  We need to demonstrate over and over the negative attributes and outcomes that the Trump administration has been foisting upon us.  Let us show the deep contrast between Trumpism and what our Vision of government is in terms of every issue and every action that is needed.  Above all, we should not make ‘oversight’ the only purpose for committee hearings – that is too easily construed as ‘revenge’ and ‘foul play’ that Trump can characterize to portray himself as ‘victim.’

 

On the contrary, let us show the positive changes we can produce by bringing together experts in the private and public sectors to study and to demonstrate the progressive outcomes that the new technologies can bring to our lives right now by starting experimental and demonstration programs and creating new policies to illustrate what can happen.  Whatever oversight hearings are necessary, let us put them in the context of a Vision for the future of government and services; the same is true for renewable energy and other actions necessary for saving and improving our environment.  We are under an immediate imperative to save our planet from human toxic gases and other pollutants.  Democrats have everything to gain by putting their upcoming work and legislation into the broader perspective of a Vision and a Plan.  Let steps we take now begin to construct and fulfill our Vision and Plan for the future while they also enhance our present circumstances.                

 I leave you with some words and phrases – in no particular order -- that might inform such a Visionary Plan: 

        and        

         

    

       

                                      

Let's NOT Get Too Excited About COMPROMISE!

I do hope you’ll forgive me, but the mainstream media needs to dig a bit deeper when it comes to talking about the post-election.  Yes, we need to work together.  Yes, we need to seek common ground.  Yes, there are ways that a divided government can manage to work toward some common goals. 

However, all that is in doubt if we don’t look much deeper into the processes and procedures by which we get to common ground.  For common ground can only be brought forth by a defined common Mission and common Purposes.  I have already spoken briefly about how the new House majority should concentrate on setting-out a broad national Mission and broadly-defined Purposes, followed up by each unit, committee, contractor, department, office, etc. being required annually to set action goals and budgets in the pursuit of those common Purposes. In other words: start by changing how the House operates and then maybe we can broaden the recognition of what must be done and can be done.

What concerns me today is that I am hearing over and over on mainstream media the refrain that we must learn how to “compromise” in order to come to agreement on any issue, like infrastructure repair and re-building.  I hear this from politicians, political science professors, government experts in journalism; from many sources. 

 I am here, as one lowly voice in the social media world, crying out to say NO! Compromise is not the complete answer; not even the best answer!  In our current divisive climate, it may not be viable at all!

 Compromise is but one way of several to reach common ground, and to move forward toward agreed-upon implementation of whatever common ground is reached. But, let us explore the concept a bit.

“Compromise” is defined variously:

Oxford:           noun: “an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions”; something like a Peace Agreement or Trade Agreement, perhaps, usually involving concessions, terms and accommodations; settling dispute by mutual concession; “meeting halfway or finding common ground"

Dictionary.com: “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands”

Thefreedictionary.com:  “something that combines qualities or elements of different things;” e.g. an incongruous design that is a compromise between high tech and early American

Wikipedia: “to compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand.  In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms – often involving variations from an original goal or desire.  Extremism is often considered an antonym to compromise, which may be associated with concepts of balance and tolerance.

In the negative connotation, compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a "surrender" of objectives, principles, or material, in the process of negotiating an agreement. In human relationships, "compromise" is frequently said to be an agreement with which no party is happy because the parties involved often feel that they either gave away too much or that they received too little."

Thus, my conclusion that compromise is not always the best concept to use when attempting to find common ground because compromise can end up epitomized by blandness, hollowness, appeasement and loss of principle.

On the other hand, compromise as a working concept for finding common ground is probably in play much of the time when any negotiations or melding of concepts is necessary.  So, we cannot rule it in as the only way to find common ground, and we cannot rule it out whenever two parties are seeking common ground.  In other words, it is a handy tool to have at one’s disposal when the situation (the context) calls for its use.

What other actions or concepts can we use to move toward common ground?  I have already mentioned a few like teamwork and the defining of a Mission and Purposes for the newly elected cadre in Congress, or for Congress itself.  Let us keep those concepts in mind as we list other concepts, like:

MAJORITY RULE:  one way that Congress uses, along with most organizations, is to vote on everything with prior agreement that the majority will rule and whatever is under consideration will stand by the majority vote.   We already know some of the limitations of that concept!  It always leaves some individuals or groups disgruntled or angered over their losses.  It especially doesn’t work well when the sides are pretty much equally divided by principles and ideology, and the vote is sometimes lost and sometimes won. 

And that is pretty much the problem with majority vote on matters that affect lives of the American people:  there are designated winners and losers, when what we need most of all are unity, equal opportunities for all, and government that seeks the welfare of all of its people.  Majority vote, like compromise, should be used when and where appropriate as a means to a fruitful end; e.g. as a means of finalizing something that has not been activated, but must be done.  

 CONSENSUS: is something difficult to use without some familiarity with the concept and the process. It is probably used most successfully in small groups or teams where agreement is paramount.  Once again, definitions are in order. 

Oxford: “a general agreement” or a “consensus view;” everyone’s viewpoint is taken into account, and harmony or like-mindedness are stressed.

Wikipedia: “Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole... even if not the "favorite" of each individual. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together.^[1] It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision.

If Congress were to use the constructs of bi-partisan teams or task forces to get things done for the people; i.e. to solve problems, to increase opportunities for life enhancement, or to find usable innovations, this method of decision-making might work.  Bi-partisan teams or task forces meant to research and report back on alternative approaches, working examples, or innovative solutions, might well agree to use consensus as their modus operandi for making decisions. 

Consensus-building is more than just making decisions.  A lot goes into the process of reaching consensus and I found that Wikipedia had a good story to tell about their own staff process of coming to consensus on what goes into their articles and what does not.  Here, in brief, are elements of their process:

·       All edits (read: positions, facts, opinions, hypotheses) should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus.

·       most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. Often, a simple rewording will satisfy all editors' concerns. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation

·       When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.

·       When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, formal mediation, and arbitration). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively.

By soliciting outside opinions

·       When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. 

·       With our modern means of communications, you would think that information-gathering and collection of a variety of opinions would be paramount in congressional offices.  But, are we searching broadly enough?  Are we using biased Think Tanks for collection of information, or are they being used to produce ideological slants on every possible issue?  Whatever happened to seeking opinions and ideas from the original Think Tanks – our colleges and universities? 

 Other decision-making processes exist and are viable even for a Congress to use if they could find a way to make that decision in the first place!  Here are a few:

·       Using a consultant-driven process whereby expert information and professional techniques are brought to bear on making a decision.  Many cities and communities opt to “bring in consultants” to help them in their major decisions; sometimes good decisions and outcomes result; sometimes not so much.

Congress uses Committee hearings most often as their “consultations”; but unfortunately, consult with lobbyists paid by special interests who are simply out to influence decisions in a rewarding way so that the source of the information is also the benefactor of the outcome of legislation or resolution. This latter process is the worst way to make decisions that truly benefit the ordinary citizen, and the people as a whole.

·       Trial and Error or the “experimental process is another way to make decisions.  It comes down to funding and supporting innovative programs or services that sound good but have had several objections or negative opinions against them.   However, there is a general feeling that something might work.  Conducting an experiment or first step for a year might enable enough support that a decision could be favorable.  It works in private businesses and services, why not in the national government?  Are we afraid to experiment and research in order to make better decisions?  Probably…

·       Pros and Cons is another way to make decisions, particularly between two competing or equally regarded alternatives.   This is a fairly well known and often used technique, yet we have to wonder if Congress ever employs it given their inability to come up with many decisions of real substance.

 Congress showed its worst possible process for decision-making during the Senate hearing related to consent to the nomination of Judge Cavanaugh as a Justice of the Supreme Court.  It demonstrated lack of preparation, lack of research, the lack of criteria for approving a judge, the lack of materials – written or recorded-- that should have been available to all before the hearing began.  It represented an abdication of responsibility that Congress do due diligence whenever any nominee or citizen offers information relative to the decision needing to be made. It lacked any sense of teamwork; consensus, or common ground.  It showed, above all, that we lack good government when persons elected to responsible positions cannot even prepare themselves for good decision-making because they lack the basic training, basic skills, and sense of common purpose that lead to good decisions.

Compromise under these circumstances is not the answer. Congress must change its rules, its processes, its decision-making techniques and its attitude toward law-making because in the last two years, we saw absolutely nothing of substantive outcome. Too many principles have already been compromised and undermined by Trump and his captives in Congress.  The newly elected Democrats need to get busy right away to drastically change what passes for a national Legislature meant to protect and defend the Constitution.  They must ensure that the People of this nation can rely on having their welfare and happiness be the top priority of this and every Congress. And, it is certainly not too much to ask that training in decision-making and problem-solving techniques be required of every member, because, as I said:  compromise is probably not the most viable alternative under current circumstances.

VOTING RIGHTS

As noted here last time I posted, I have found it difficult to focus on one issue while so much is happening around us.  As a result, I have failed to publish my thoughts for awhile.  

Today's post about election reform is an attempt at trying to deal less with peripheral issues but to stay on one point while raising questions that beg answers in future posts, and from newly elected congressional representatives  as well.  So -- if you're willing -- come read what is offered!  Thanks.

TIME to be BOLD:  START WITH VOTING RIGHTS!
As you probably did, I read and saw narratives this past week that both disturbed and perturbed me.  Of course, with Trump as our illegitimate President, we have to absorb something every day that attempts to corrode our beliefs about our “representative” democracy!  Let me take you back about five years to something very disturbing that appeared in 2013, connecting directly to the voting results in certain states for African Americans.

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

The New York Times

By Adam Liptak  June 25, 2013

“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval. The law had applied to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia (emphasis added).

The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.

   Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. Justice Ginsburg was joined in dissent by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

‘Our country has changed,’ Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. ‘While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.’

The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determined which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting procedures, like moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts.

Section 5, which sets out the pre-clearance requirement, was originally scheduled to expire in five years. Congress repeatedly extended it: Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years. But it relied on data from the 1975 reauthorization to decide which states and localities were covered.

The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is ‘based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.’

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg summarized her dissent from the bench, an unusual move and a sign of deep disagreement. She said the focus of the Voting Rights Act had properly changed from 'first-generation barriers to ballot access' to 'second-generation barriers' like racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority. She said the law had been effective in thwarting such efforts. ‘The court errs egregiously,’ she concluded, ‘by overriding Congress’s decision.’

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that ‘Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but, must do so based on contemporary data.’   ‘Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,’ he wrote. ‘It cannot simply rely on the past.’

The Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the law in earlier decisions, saying that the pre-clearance requirement was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks.”

In spite of the view expressed in the article that, even in 2013, it would have been difficult to pass new Voter Rights legislation, in my humble opinion, it should be the first priority of the new Democratic House of Representatives to at least begin the process.  

There must be more than just a forlorn or defeatist attitude toward the possible loss of races that African Americans (and others) experienced because of unfair voting rights blockages erected by states that have continued along this path.  The point being this: certain states have not grown out of egregious practices and laws that discriminate against certain minorities.
  

There is ample evidence that the same old Jim Crow attitudes exist behind those restrictions, and that newer, more current restrictive devices have been invented and put in place in certain states and localities to maintain a white nationalism and local hegemony of “whites only” in political offices. Restricting IDs to certain state-issued types, requiring exact addresses contrary to tribal custom in certain states, holding out certain registrations because of typos or other easily corrected errors, allowing voter registration restrictions such as having no registration offices in a town or area, and most egregious of all, in my opinion: allowing someone to run for national office while at the same time holding a state office that controls voting (as in Georgia).     

The need for a newly crafted amendment or a new Voting Rights Act cannot be ignored.  This past Tuesday, we experienced what happens when a Supreme Court is not checked and balanced by legislative action. The invalidation of Section 4 of the VRA created and allowed obstacles just too high for history to be made in certain southern states (Georgia, Texas and Florida), although more counting is underway. The Times article reminds us in passing that Congress did not bother to respond to an earlier invitation from SCOTUS in 2009 to amend the VRA:

“The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an opportunity to make adjustments. Congress, Chief Justice Roberts noted on Tuesday, did not respond.”  

In case you have forgotten, something also happened in 2010 to increase the likelihood that Congress would not respond to this invitation. The 2010 mid-term elections of Obama’s first term occurred and Republicans gained control of the House; in 2012, they also captured the Senate and continued, in every possible way, not only to denigrate President Obama personally, but to block his legislation, budgets, and appointments, especially that of a more liberal nominee, Merrick Garland, to the Supreme Court. 

Let us fervently hope that this new House, with Democrats in the  majority, will not ignore the necessity of acting with immediacy and purpose to offer an amended Section 4 to the VRA that will ensure, not only the unacceptability of discrimination in registering and voting, but the illegality of even so much as proposing any measure that would deny the urgency and force of the 15^th amendment that guarantees our right to vote.