One Way to Change the System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

According to USConstitution.net:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Francis Stuns With Fundamental Truths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c)  Pursuit of the Common Good. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPUBLICANS CRAVE TOTAL CONTROL

Seats in the Senate
54 / 100
Seats in the House
246 / 435
Governorships
31 / 50
State Upper Chamber Seats
1,134 / 1,972
State Lower Chamber Seats
3,044 / 5,411
 Seats on the Supreme Court
5 / 9

So there you have it:  a minority Party in terms of registered members is in almost complete control of the offices of government on the federal and state levels. 

Gallup reported in 2013 that an average of 47% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were independents who leaned Democratic in 2012, compared with 42% who identified as or leaned Republican, re-establishing a Democratic edge in party affiliation after the two parties were essentially tied in 2010 and 2011.  “In the 114th U.S. Congress, Republicans have their largest majority in the House of Representatives since the 1928 election and a majority of seats in the Senate. The party also holds a majority of governorships and state legislatures.  Specifically, 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers have Republican majorities."

Just in case you've forgotten, here is Wikipedia's brief summary of some of what the GOP supports, in general:
"The party's platform is generally based on American conservatism, in contrast to the modern American liberalism of the Democrats. The Republican Party's conservatism involves support for free market capitalism, free enterprise, business, a strong national defense, deregulation, restrictions to labor unions, socially conservative policies and traditional values, usually with Christian overtones. The party is generally split on the issue of how to deal with illegal immigration."
There is just one office missing for the GOP, and they know it all too well.  The Republican Party will sacrifice anything to grab it in 2016, and if the past two presidential campaigns are any indication, nothing will stop them except the grass-roots support that twice elected President Barack Obama.
 
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that Democrats of all stripes must be especially careful not to under-estimate this supposedly minority Party.  There is already too much self-confidence and virtual silence pervading among democratic leaders who think (wrongly, I believe) that they do not need to get involved just yet; that there will be the right time to speak out and support the ticket, whatever it turns out to be.  Pardon me if I strongly demur on that opinion and attitude.

I believe it is foolhardy (and just plain stupid) to think that the Democratic Party will have an easy victory in 2016, and that we can wait even one more minute to begin an all-out campaign to put forth the kinds of concepts, solutions and values that matter to the majority of people in this country.  It is evident that nascent voters, uninformed voters, careless voters, independent voters and just plain angry voters have been bamboozled into believing that supporting Republican radicals on state and national levels is going to win them something -- a false hope if ever there was one! 

I am of the firm conviction that we Democrats need to make a change that is crucial to our victory and our future.  First and foremost, we need Democratic leaders on the stump immediately to answer (and to present facts about) every BIG LIE the Republicans tell.  Where is the Party Chair; where are the liberal & progressive Senators, where are prominent congressional representatives; where are the governors?  We need voices pounding away and calling out all the Republicans who are now grabbing all the headlines and negatively branding our candidates without any rebuttal.  What are we waiting for: November 2016? 
Second, we need to think both in terms of numbers and in terms of issues and policies.  We need to use the nuts and bolts of grass-roots campaigning to bring out more voters than anyone might expect.  We need to show that we have the will and the numbers to turn back this trend toward ultra-conservative Republican rule and that populist values are in charge.  We have already missed one opportunity to increase our numbers by not mounting a nation-wide voter registration campaign; although the League of Women Voters tried their best to get one going.  We must rely on getting unregistered Democrats, Independents, and un-committed voters to register right now!

What bothers me is that too many party leaders believe that can wait until the last few days before Election Day when a national GOTV effort is usually launched.  Too Late!  We have to start NOW.  Almost every state has a general election voter registration deadline; New York's deadline is 25 days before the election which would fall on October 9, 2015.  (However, if anyone wants to vote in the Primary elections in New York, they must have registered with a Party affiliation by September 29, 2015).  A listing of state registration deadlines for the general election can be found at https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote). 

On that same website, there is more useful information, such as the fact that "The National Mail Voter Registration Form" is the one document that allows you to register to vote in most states in the U.S., but if you happen to live in one of the few states that do not permit its use, please check with your state election office to find out how to register to vote.  The site also lists suggestions of where you might be able to register to vote in person.
In twenty states, you can register online to vote. Please see the table of states with online voter registration or contact your state election office to learn more.  If you are outside of the U.S., you can get information online from the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) or call an international FVAP hotline.
You can also use the National Mail Voter Registration Form to update your registration if you changed your name, to change your address, or to register with a political party.
I hope these tidbits of information have been helpful.  NOW let's all get busy and get people registered to vote (especially likely democratic voters), because WE MUST turn out big numbers of voters this coming year.

Let me make just one more major point for your consideration: if Democrats don't win back at least one of the two Houses of Congress, and if we lose the Presidency to a Republican, here is what we can expect to happen, based on what the radicalized Republican Party has already proposed, threatened,  passed or litigated, in no particular order or ranking:

1. The Iran agreement will be scuttled; sanctions will be restored; arms will be increased to Israel, and oil fields and refineries will again be targets; thus, 
2. There will be another War in the Middle East within the first two years of the first term of a Republican President, meaning
3. Gas prices at the pump will soar; military spending particularly on private contracts will escalate, and the citizenry will once again suffer the effects of a war economy with private enterprise profiting while the poor and the middle-class suffer the same old same old - wage cuts; slowed economy generally (although not so for defense-related industries).
4. There will be tax cuts for the rich disguised as either a "reform of the tax code," or a "lowering of taxes," or a "whole new system" of taxation, like a consumption tax, or a simplified system of just three tax brackets.  At the same time, the Republicans will seek to eliminate the "death tax," lower the corporate tax, and either lower or eliminate the tax on capital gains, along with a few others, or they will simply establish a one-rate-fits-all or a tax on consumption rather than on income. No matter how this plays out, it will result in more riches for the wealthy but
5. A large tax increase for the middle class which will be paying for the War, the increased military spending, the private contracts to private companies, and the tax cuts for the wealthy corporations and individuals.  But it doesn't stop there...
6. A Republican President and Congress, working together, will act almost immediately to destroy the Affordable Care Act law by legislation, which they have already begun to do, of course.  Did you know that they are involved at the moment in attempting through the court system to destroy the subsidy provisions of the Law in order to gut its intended purpose of aiding those who could not afford health insurance?  This means
7. Higher premiums for all of us because we will be right back to where we were before "Obamacare" -- subsidizing the big health insurance companies by paying more (for ourselves and others) and receiving less in health coverage.  So, not only is your wallet involved, but so is your health.
8. Once health care and health care coverage come under attack, the battle-cry will shift to the "reduction of federal spending" by cutting programs that have any relation whatsoever to liberal-sounding government hand-outs.  The disguises and excuses will be "creation of dependency on government," the need to "cut the deficit," (which has already been achieved by the Obama administration), and the importance of "taking of responsibility" for meeting challenges.
9. The first step will be the devolvement of certain programs to the states, where many such programs will simply whither and eventually die for lack of adequate administrative monies and adequate staffing.  In my opinion, this process may well begin with a several programs rolled into a larger package (including perhaps Food Stamps) that will prepare the way for the entire Medicaid program to be block-granted to the states with little hope for its continuance as it now stands.
10. The second step is to cut back on the Medicare Program, thus proactively laying the groundwork for a no-chance move by the middle class or the working poor to support a single payer system based on a Medicare model.  Every attempt will be made to limit the long-term care aspects to privately run institutions, and to cut as many benefits as possible.
11. The third part of this attack is that on Social Security.  If Social Security has little if any effect on the deficit (funded by a separate tax and held in a separate Trust Fund), why are Republicans so adamant about creating a Social Security crisis, and claiming it is affecting the deficit and going broke?  Three major reasons: (a) it makes the Social Security Trust Fund another so-called failure by the federal government, thus setting up (b) a call for privatizing of social security so the bankers and financiers and brokers can get their hands on those funds, and (c) to protect the wealthy from ever having to support the middle class and the working poor by paying anything beyond a minimum into that system.
12. If you watched the first two Republican presidential candidate debates, then you know clearly that we will be facing a huge build-up of military forces and armaments under a radical Republican take-over.  While these statements reflect the tendency of Republican administrations to emphasize military build-up so that private investors, rich corporations and private contractors can be assured of some lucrative government contracts and government money to be had in all military-related enterprises, the outcome for the United States will be an increasing national debt, and a militarization that is nothing more than a symbol of "mightiness."  It will not produce the kind of efficient and effective forces that can counter radical Jihadists or radical insurgents.  The build-up will simply satisfy the hawkish tendencies of politicians (and of some wealthy corporation heads) born in another century, and remembering great victories in all-out world wars.  There are no such great victories in modern warfare -- everybody loses.

Above all, please note that this "dirty dozen" just scratches the surface.  There is much more to come your way -- some not quite so transparent or well-defined openly -- but they are going to affect your life if the Republicans ever get hold of the Presidency while holding on to all the rest they now possess.  They know it -- they can smell the power.  Why do you think there are so many Republican candidates?  They know what an outrageously powerful position he (or she?) will occupy.  We are not talking Reaganesque or Eisenhower-like power.  We are talking Putin-power!  Ever hear of the "Imperial Presidency?"  Backed up by Republican office-holders in the majority everywhere one looks, this Republican President has the potential of being the most powerful Potentate ever produced by a seemingly democratic nation.

Even Carly Fiorina talks openly on the debate stage of calling the leader of Iran to let him know what might this nation possesses and what power she will project.  Trump feeds this power-hungry obsession with his constant chatter about "winning" and "deal-making." And don't forget that Joe McCarthy look-alike imperialist named Ted Cruz who exudes a no-compromise demeanor on everything on the far Right.  He is a "Dominionist" Christian, dedicated to the proposition that elite Christian leaders must be in place for the final Armageddon.  His very soul is embroiled in no compromise, no quarter given, no mercy on the cast-offs.  He is dedicated to a philosophy and theology that fits into the elitist over-powering destroyers of evil (and of non-believers) who will be in charge on the Last Days.  His philosophy is dangerous in the extreme (for more on this, see my Blog posts of 10/6 and 10/13/2013).

So, what else can you expect from this power-hungry group.  First, just a few reminders of the "attacks" that will continue, on:

• Organized Labor -- Minimum wage increase will be attacked and so will bargaining rights until employers have inordinate amounts of control over employees, such as who gets paid for overtime.  If you don't get it, just try to appeal a firing without cause in your non-union shop.  Any union worker who votes Republican has sold his or her soul and livelihood, and deserves the inevitable consequences
• Women's Health and Rights -- no exceptions on abortion; no family leave time; no pensions; more health care restrictions with loss of ACA; de-funding of Planned Parenthood centers that primarily serve the preventative health needs of disadvantaged women.  Where will they go now for cancer screenings and pre-natal care or other lab tests and treatments?  Are Emergency Rooms ready for the onslaught?
• LGBT and Gay Marriage -- unending attacks and a likely attempt at a constitutional amendment that enshrines marriage between “a man and a woman.”  To a man (and a woman) the 11 Republican candidates oppose marriage equality.  Many right-wing politicians are now speaking out in biblical language about the sin of sodomy and the punishment that God will impose on sodomites.
• People of Color -- use of greater police interventions will become the norm; militarization of police forces will increase; use of "informers" will become a warrant-less means used by police to attack more than that pro tennis player; the right-wing judges to be appointed by a right-wing President will continue to erode civil rights, especially of those of color (and will eventually erode the rights of all).  The right to no arrest or home entry without a valid warrant; the right to an attorney; the right to refuse identification or to refuse to answer police questions; the right to a fair trial and a fair hearing on over-charged charges; the right to question your accuser (secret and protected informants) -- all of these are being threatened as we speak, but none more than voting rights of a growing number especially among certain groups like African-Americans and young people.
•  The Middle Class -- has it ever occurred to you that there might be a reason that the middle class is being attacked, other than the usual complaint of a widening income gap?  Try this on for size:  the middle class is very large while the elite who aim to control the levers of power in this country are small in numbers.  First, what a competitor must do is to cut the middle class down to manageable portions by taking out some of its largest props like Social Security and Labor unions and health care. 
  Second, to reduce the potency of a united middle class, the elite must encourage internal warfare within that same large group so that portions of it are unalterably opposed to other portions (it just so happens that fomenting religious disagreements is a great catalyst in such an effort).
  Third, desperate people are much easier to control.  People living from paycheck to paycheck; people worried about paying the rent or feeding their families; people working more than one job who are constantly tired; people just trying to make ends meet are not apt to care about what Congress is doing, or what decisions the SCOTUS makes or what the President - whoever he is (and many don't even know) -- attempts.  It is not of concern to desperate people.  And the category of desperate people is growing because many can't buy a house, others can't afford a car; some can't see how they will afford college for children; some have health concerns that are eating up their already-stretched budgets.  The greatest cause of desperation may be the more than common fact that many are falling out of the middle class into poverty or near poverty: a place they have never before experienced. 

Finally, let me lay out for you in a list format what many may not realize will be coming along with the denouement of total Republican control, made real by a GOP presidential victory in 2016.  Of course, this is not a definitive list, for it seems that these Right-wingers come up with something new almost every day!
Forcing the Christian evangelical religion upon every American by various and nefarious government-backed schemes such as displaying the Ten Commandments on public property, requiring prayer in schools or influencing the curricula of public schools at all levels
Using the 1st amendment to allow corporations to use religious belief as a license to discriminate against gays or against women who use contraceptives or who knows what is next: perhaps against anyone who had an abortion; how about ultimately against anyone who believes something contrary to the vendor's beliefs?
Privatizing everything possible: schools, prisons, some military tasks, even the Post Office!
Ending all talk of election reform with increased gerrymandering of districts, larger campaign funding maximums for individuals, more freedom for candidates to interact with their PACs, and the end of all talk of overturning Citizens United.
Undercutting all talk of "climate change" and "alternative fuels" by increasing our production and dependence on oil, coal and gas; by de-funding the EPA; by extending climate change denial talk to foreign countries in terms of treaties and agreements and international meetings
and don't forget all those cuts in programs that Republicans have been pushing since they took control of Congress (and before in most cases):
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting
    National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities
    Legal Services Corporation
    Hope VI Program
    Amtrak subsidies
    Community Development Fund
    Technology Innovation Program
    Grants to States for Weatherization
    New Starts for Transit
    Intercity and High Speed Rail grants
    Volunteer Programs under the Corporation for National and Community Services
    Applied Research at the DoE
    Energy Star Program
    Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the UN

What we heard last Wednesday evening from the Republican presidential candidates only serves to prove my point:  this is not just about winning an election.  This is about the future of this country and about the use of governmental power on behalf of the people's welfare, not on behalf of elected officials and their corporate and individual funding sponsors.  This is about the use of POWER.  Republicans want that power in the hands of a few elite person and industrial entities.  Progressives want that power in the hands of servants of the people and of the People themselves. It is a fundamental difference in the social-political-economic philosophy and activism of the Right and the Left; of Republican and Democrat; of those who serve to crave and to profit themselves, and those who crave to serve and profit the People. 
Numbers don't lie--- we must turn out a huge majority of democratic voters and take back the Senate, and keep the Presidency.  Anything less will be a disaster, just like the "Reagan Revolution" that has negatively affected this country's standing and well-being for over 30 years.  We cannot survive intact a Right-wing takeover that leaves us with the disaster of concepts that have failed before and will fail us again. The election of 2016 will be the decider of more than four years in the oval office; it will be the determiner of the direction of this country for at least the next decade and probably more.  

COMMUNITY BUILDING

I must admit, I like to parse words.  I like especially to explore definitions that may have been overlooked or somewhat lost in the shuffle of everyday discourse.  Today, I’d like to look at a word that gets used a lot to describe a group, mainly perhaps a government or political entity; that word is “community.” 

As a matter of fact, I recently attended a meeting with representatives of a community foundation and of a community development organization (on whose board of directors I happen to serve). Sure enough, the meanings and derivatives of the word “community” were bandied about as a natural outgrowth of our common mission to serve and to impact our communities and our constituencies. What follows is a compendium of some of the common concepts discussed, along with a few of my own musings. I do hope it provokes a positive response in terms of your own concerns about your community and its concerns, problems, needs and whatever dynamics happen to exist where you live or work. First, it is necessary to lay some groundwork. How about a dictionary definition of “community”:

“1. a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and have a cultural and historical heritage”

So far; so good, and pretty standard.  Generally, we live in such defined communities: hamlets, villages, boroughs, towns and cities.  Of course, there are some who live in more isolated circumstances, and their “community” may be less-well defined.  It is, perhaps, whatever they wish to make of it.  Our country has almost always had the former constructs, and the latter individualized farms and homesteads were perhaps more common in our early history, as more and more emigrants, settlers, exiles, adventurers and just plain curious folk began to settle this colonial possession, relying perhaps on land grants, land speculations, and public purchase of lands;  many taking part in building communities.

It is perhaps the sharing of a cultural and historical heritage that was of great importance in the building of colonial communities, and perhaps even more so in our later national history in the 19th century.  According to Wikipedia, “Historians estimate that fewer than 1 million immigrants came to the United States from Europe between 1600 and 1799.  The country’s first Immigration Act of 1790  limited naturalization to "free white persons"; but was expanded to include blacks in the 1860s and Asians in the 1950s. In the early years of the United States, immigration was fewer than 8,000 people a year, including French refugees from the slave revolt in Haiti. After 1820, immigration gradually increased. From 1836 to 1914, over 30 million Europeans migrated to the United States.  In 1875, the nation passed its first immigration law, the Page Act of 1875.  The peak year of European immigration was in 1907, when 1,285,349 persons entered the country.  By 1910, 13.5 million immigrants were living in the United States.

Migrations from Europe, especially in the 19th century, created certain ethnic enclaves in many eastern cities.  In this geographical area, we recognize the importance of certain ethnic groups in giving flavor and identity to certain of our cities and towns.  Utica and Rome are both known for Italian heritage and background.   Again, from Wikipedia:

“Italian Americans are the largest ethnic group in Oneida County, as well as in some counties in the Hudson Valley that are closest to New York City. Irish Americans represent the largest ethnic group from the Capital District, Syracuse, Binghamton, and the rest of the Hudson Valley, with Irish population consistently above 15% in most of upstate New York (reaching over 20% in the upper Hudson Valley), compared to less than 8% in most of New York City.  Buffalo also contains a notably large contingent of residents with Polish ancestry. African Americans, while not as numerous as in New York City, make up at least 25% of the residents in cities such as Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany. There is also a significant presence of the indigenous Six Nations in the region, who retain several reservations: the Seneca nation and Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians in Western New York, the Onondaga nation south of Syracuse, the Oneida nation of Oneida County and the Mohawk nation in Franklin County. Members of the Six Nations also live in the cities of Upstate New York.”

HOWEVER, the point must be made that long-standing ethnic enclaves have not only contributed to the building of community and of communities, they have also contributed to a status quo that has sometimes resisted the inclusion of newer cultural and ethnic groups in local institutions, organizations, and  community leadership.  The diversity of a city like Utica, NY represents its heritage, its strength, and its promise.  But a reluctance to recognize and embrace change in demographics or dynamics; a comfortableness with the status quo, and an unawareness of concerns, needs and issues outside of one’s insular world, can also contribute to a controlled structure that has difficulty with community-building, inclusion and unity.  And therein lies a challenge.

Within that word “community” are two words that present the aspects of that challenge: one is “commun” (“common”); the other is “unity.”  So let us not overlook the dictionary definitions that pertain to them:

“2. the community, the public.  3. agreement; identity”

We are not looking here at “common” in the sense of vulgar or ordinary or of inferior quality.  Not at all.  We are concentrating on the qualities of “belonging equally’ ‘ making ‘common cause,’ holding something ‘ in common,’ and denoting  ‘of the people, for the people and by the people’.”  The roots of our Republic, of our Democracy, begin with the public nature of community.  It is the people who matter; who are the foundation and the roots of it all.  When building community, we cannot forget this concept, for too much attention to the physical structures of buildings and organizations, or to niceties and decorative add-ons and flourishes of excess, or to programs with little impact beyond a small enclave, are not always integral to the building of a community (not that they can’t be important to the enabling of people sometimes).  Rightly, you might ask at this point:  well, what is at the heart of building community identity and well-being?  Let me suggest a few thoughts on this before I refer to materials that may help with more thoughts and answers.

Ask the People.  Is this so difficult that we choose not to do it?  So many organizations, so many institutions, so many programs forget this one very fundamental principle.  If your “community,” whatever and wherever it is, is planning to do something or call for something that affects people’s lives, then first ask the people who will be affected what they think, what they want, what they need, what their dream/hope/desire/best-case-scenario is.  If we based our community-building on the community itself rather than on the opinions of the supposed leaders/representatives of the community or on the loud-mouths with their own agendas of profit or aggrandizement or just plain stubbornness, we might see real identity, real change, real progress and even improved lives.

How do we ask?  Well, probably not by sending out surveys in the mail that ask questions suited to answers already pre-determined by the sender!  But there are legitimate uses for surveys, and questionnaires and interviews and polls.  But here’s the rub.  Most people are not going to take time from their self-perception (deception?) of lives “too busy” to sit down, answer 50 questions and then mail back a questionnaire.  The personal touch is preferable if you can get volunteers or paid personnel to go door-to-door; do a phone bank or hold a public meeting. 

More preferable, perhaps, is to associate a survey or question-asking or poll-taking with something else, so that the targets of the survey are already engaged and just need to be enticed further to give answers. 

• give out something free at an event where you have a booth and ask only that people answer a few questions before they receive their free gift
• get someone else to sponsor your event who can draw a clientele to their product, and then direct them to your survey as part of their promotion
• “capture” participants in a way that almost requires them to answer your survey before they can leave
• make sure you have a part in a community event that is a big draw for people you are also trying to reach
• use your imagination

Build Bridges.  You simply can’t get the various groups of people (“cohorts”) to respond, to give input, to participate, and to join in a common cause if they don’t have the bridges to cross or the structures through which to communicate.  In other words, one of the failings of our institutions and organizations is the tendency to have an ‘open door’ policy, but to forget to construct the path to the door or the “doors."  Or, to rely on statistics like census data that are impersonal and often estimated in terms of current numbers.  Numbers cannot tell personal stories, and personal stories are the vehicles of personal circumstances, needs, hopes, promises and successes.  We must build-in to our governments and our schools and other public institutions, as well as into our private and philanthropic organizations (even our businesses), structures that enable (not just ‘invite’) desired participants.  Inviting people to participate is tantamount in many cases to shouting at people with acrophobia to cross a bridge that is 80 feet in the air!  They aren’t going to do it!

So OK, what are some examples of bridges that can be built:

• small groups of people who gather in private homes to discuss topics of the day
• regular meetings of targeted cohorts with leaders of organizations to discuss and plan for better outreach
• promotion of regular training sessions for jobs usually unavailable to certain groups
• leadership training for young people emphasizing skills, not personality or qualities
• on-going “advisory’ and ‘planning’ groups that are formed and operated by participants but listened to by organization leadership with actual implementation of best suggestions
• involvement in organizations, groups and events already being held by targeted groups
• promotion of members of targeted cohorts for public office and for roles in community organizations
• support of community issues and projects important to the targeted cohort such as a community center; jobs; transportation; day care

Promote Common Cause/Unity.  From way back there in the War on Poverty days, we learned early on that working for change, reform or just plain recognition is doomed to failure without a common cause or unity on certain issues of real concern to most of the members of a target community.  Those causes must be worked out by the people themselves, with any assistance they may identify and recruit.  For such a thing to occur, there must be:

• a hashing-out period where the people decide what cause or causes to pursue
• strict adherence to the causes with variations approved only by the community
• an understanding that some things will just not be won the first time around, so a decision as to what is non-negotiable and what is negotiable must be made and carried through
• a trusted core of representatives to work out the plan
• alliances or agreements nurtured with those in power
• a coalition of like-minded but diverse individuals and organizations formed to give strength to the community cause: collaboration and common cause are vital to community-building
• symbols that illuminate the cause or causes appearing everywhere possible
• symbolic actions that promote the causes
• keep the larger community informed and keep recruiting followers – doesn’t hurt to ‘cultivate’ a few ‘followers’ in media outlets

Community Service.  One of the most under-rated yet most effective means of building bridges, common cause and community unity all at the same time involves community service.  Those who advocate for change and problem-solving and community-building must take responsibility for their own needs, gaps, and short-comings.   The community being built must include what I like to call a “Good Works Corps.”  Volunteers from every cohort in the community can be recruited to perform some action that meets some of the very problems and concerns that beset the community.  As well, the Corps can address issues of the larger community by serving in unexpected capacities to give back to the larger community surrounding them.  The Corps is another visible symbol of community, unity and common cause, but it is displayed in a way that benefits the larger area.  It is not the most difficult thing in the world, but it does take time, effort, energy and commitment.  Here are some thoughts:

• the Corps should not be limited to just young people or older people; it should encompass as many age, ethnic, racial, and other cohorts as possible; although age units within the Corps might serve particular populations or age-related needs
• it’s mission and purpose should be broad enough to lend a hand where needed, and to identify areas of need that are not being addressed
• the Corps does not need to work alone on its own projects but can lend a hand to existing agencies and programs to supplement and aid what they already do: "Habitat for Humanity” and "Big Brothers-Big Sisters" come to mind
• a resource for accomplishing this whole idea might be the Corporation for National and Community Service out of Washington, DC and connected to the federal government
• in fact, the use of AmeriCorps volunteers granted out of this agency might be the key to starting and organizing a “Good Works Corps.”
• What might the ‘GWC’ try to do?  Whatever it might be, let the Corps organize itself and make its own decisions as to what it will do, and what it can’t do; another chance to engage in Leadership Development based on skills rather than attributes of personality or background

Celebrate and Recognize.  A forgotten aspect of community-building sometimes is a very important ingredient.  The community as it builds must take the time to recognize it’s successes and it’s short-comings.  One way to do this is to publicize and invigorate the efforts of the community by inviting the target community and members of the larger community to celebrate. 

• Neighborhood parties, recognition ceremonies, special days in the calendar, special events in the community – they can all be occasions for celebrating and communicating the target community’s advances and developments.  One sure way to involve the larger community is to recognize and honor one of their own as a supporter, contributor, sponsor of whatever the target community is doing.  Using that as a drawing point, the target community can then celebrate it’s own successes within the same event by telling stories, honoring outstanding volunteers and leaders, recognizing hours served, etc.  Above all, don’t limit celebrations to the target community itself – get the larger community involved to some meaningful end.
• Don’t forget to evaluate the effort.  Get people together to say what needs to be improved.  Bring complainants in to thoroughly review complaints. Try some written evaluations just like surveys.  Find ways to get feedback on what works and what doesn’t, and then get suggestions for improvements.
• Finally, don’t slough-off on the statistical data-gathering.  Get someone to volunteer their time to record what kind of hours volunteers are putting in and what kinds of changes have occurred.  You need actual data to convince supporters, donors, grants-makers and the larger community leadership and citizenry that an impact has been made and that your community has moved ahead.  Invite them to come along.  And, don’t forget to wear those T-shirts and give out those key-chains and other symbols of your efforts and successes! 

Finally, you might find the following site an interesting and informative read.  It contains a comprehensive detailed account of steps needed in building healthy communities:

 http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/overview/model-for-community-change-and-improvement (if clicking on the link doesn’t work, try holding down the Ctrl key while clicking on the link)

Whoever you are, you can be a part of a community-building effort and make an impact on its health and well-being.   You just have to let someone know you’re ready!  If you can’t find a community development agency or service program in your area that can accommodate your desire to serve, contact me at impublius2@hotmail.com and I’ll try to find a spot for you to start.