COMPLACENCY: "potting soil" for dictatorship

 The undermining of democratic government  by corrupt politicians is only part of the story.  Our descent from democratic values and ideals to the fiery depths of the hell-bent Far Right REPUBLICAN extremists under Trump is being supported by ordinary citizens who:        

•          refuse to listen to history or are unable to do so;
•       have abandoned critical thinking in favor of propaganda;  
•       are convinced that their well-being and destiny are tied to one strong leader not to a gaggle of representatives, senators, and justices/judges who have no regard for them but work only for themselves;  
•            are trapped inside a framework of fabricated theories, manufactured issues, and destructive myths. 

We are left with a voting bloc who want their lives to matter, their views to prevail, their enemies to be vanquished, and their revenge to be sweet.  In essence, if they can’t cheat their way to victory or vote their way to supremacy, they will use violence to take control of the levers of power and to install their leader Trump as the Fuhrer who will bestow the blessings of ultimate control and the spoils of absolute power upon them.  They can then order every aspect of living to suit their desires and wishes rather than those of socialist and communist origin. 

1.      White people of European or American origin will bring their assumed superiority to the front of the line from which they will manage all the functioning of society (such as law-making and enforcement, education of the young, the capitalistic economy and personal finance that benefit the privileged (meaning them), and their everyday concerns like sports, entertainment, television programs and the internet.  All others will be treated as second-class citizens with limits placed on them in every aspect of life that impinges upon their superiors.

2.      Their Leader will make all major decisions in their best interests and will be hero-worshipped as the Savior of Anglo-Saxons and Aryans who are meant to rule the world. 

3.      An internal police force, subject to the will of the dictator, will keep law and order by detaining and incarcerating those who disturb or threaten the order of the new society.  Judges will be necessary only to carry-out the will of the Leader and his loyal followers, but juries will not be needed. Certain groups—Jews, gays, people of color, immigrants, the politically disloyal, the physically and mentally defective or disabled (and possibly: single women)—will come under special proactive scrutiny and control.

4.      All actions of “government” will be accompanied by a propaganda machine the aim of which will be to feed the biases and prejudices of supremacists and their lackeys.  The beliefs of the regime and its Leader will be glorified, and their ‘leadership” will be praised in terms that are unimaginable.

5.      Bribery, cheating and influence-peddling will be rampant throughout society as the favors of the Regime are sought, either to enhance one’s status and/or to ward off any obstacles that might arise.      

6.      All vestiges of equality will be removed, and the inequalities of a caste system will prevail.  Freedoms will all depend on the Leader’s wishes: religion will be what he says it is, wages will be set by his decree (there will be no more labor-organized unions); healthcare will be ordered first for the elite and then will be parceled-out and applied where necessary to maintain a loyal following and a healthy leadership.

7.      Political dissenters and organizers will be known as the ‘enemy of the people’ and will be limited by severe measures of repression and suppression.  This will, of course,  extend to any media that dare to speak out against the Regime and its Leader.

8.      All vestiges of socialism will be curtailed or removed: veterans will no longer have their own health or benefit system; nonprofit organizations founded on principles of giving something for nothing in return will become for-profit groups whose charters will include mandated  contributions to the Regime.

9.      Functions of government – like prisons, schools, some military functions, and first responders –will be privatized to earn profits for the Regime.

10.   Voting will be restricted and manipulated, so that ‘elections’ will always show overwhelming support for the Leader and his commissars

The trouble with this recitation is that it reveals only the tip of the iceberg; there is much more hidden underneath, like the treatment of women, physical punishment of children, recruitment of youth to fascist ideas and practices; the denigration of other people and nations, a lingering sense of being spied upon by police and others, and neglect of our environmental crisis.

The very people who support Donald Trump as their Leader are the ones who cannot believe that any of these restrictive events could happen.  And they will not believe it, even though the evidence is already showing itself.  The devotees will not believe it even as it is happening for that is how immersed they are in a world of fantasy and conspiracy theory where planned attacks on reality and truth have left nothing but their hollowed-out heads.  All critical thinking and scientific method have either fled the scene or propaganda has captured and re-directed their brain functions.

It is this phalanx of militant Trump believers that stormed our Capitol, unaware that threatening elected leaders of the people with death or destruction is not the stuff of which democracies are made.  The insurrection of January 6, 2021, was not a patriotic protest because it did nothing to  advance or enhance unity, equality, freedom, justice or pursuit of happiness. It sought the over-turning of an officially certified election  of a new President and Vice President.  That is known simply as insurrection or over-throw: the opposite of seeking or celebrating a greater unity.  That is de-construction, not constructive in any sense, unless you believe that one man has all the answers to all your problems and needs. 

And therein lies the problem.  Look around at history and current events.  Similar beliefs and violent actions have often been the forerunners of dictatorial regimes, such as in Russia, Germany and Italy.  Countries on our doorstep have also been overtaken by violence and propaganda such as Cuba in the 1950s; and several other countries like Venezuela, Chili, Argentina in the 20^th century.  Or look further at Zimbabwe, Haiti, Turkey, N. Korea, China, Japan, the Philippines.  How about Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia?  Dictatorial regimes can grow in any soil, and with similar origins and results.  There is a pattern to them all and that pattern is not based solely on leftist ideologies of socialism or communism, as the Far-Right crowd would have you believe. Unfortunately, that pattern of violent overthrow of legitimate governments finds its roots and fertilizer in the ignorance, complacency and lack of resistance of the citizenry coupled with the violent aggressiveness and ambitions of power-hungry provocateurs.  The reality of that complacency comes through to us in the haunting words of one who experienced it; the words of Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemoller, that we should take with utmost seriousness and resolve:

Is It Too Late for the People to Strike Back?

We are going down a familiar path that has been tread in other times and other places. Trouble is – many of the current pathfinders have no idea where it leads. Enough of them do not care exactly where it leads if they can say they are benefitting from the journey. They trust the Leader of the PAC to get them to a promised land at the end of the journey. Thus, no matter what that Leader says or does, they give him their loyalty, their fealty, and their very souls because they believe fervently that his promises and desires are theirs as well. Without him, there is no pathway for their hopes.

He is their common source of hope for a future that puts them in charge, which affirms their lives, but that has no place for people who are foreign beings to them, like immigrants, non-whites, gay people, the vulnerable and disabled, Jews, Muslims, and politicians who ignore them or fail to take them seriously. They know – in their heart-of-hearts – that Donald Trump’s destiny is theirs as well.    

January 6, 2021  -- is their defining moment when their Leader summoned them to perform an action that would supposedly undo a certified election and restore their Leader to his so-called ‘rightful place’ as the sole enlightened Head of an America made Great Again: militarily stronger than ever; freed from socialism, Nancy Pelosi and other Dems, from Mike Pence the traitor, and from the restrictions of non-violent protest.   They responded by the thousands and overran our Capitol, seeking not only to destroy symbols of a Socialist agenda, but to do violence – to kill -- those who represented their foes.

That date marks the one time in American history where a defeated incumbent president fomented an armed insurrection against his legitimately elected challenger. It also marked the first time in American history that citizens came to Washington DC to physically attack their nation’s Capitol building and its elected congressional occupants. But it was not the first time in recorded history that white supremacists, Nazis and Fascists had attacked a legitimate government.

Unfortunately,  the lessons of history have been lost or ignored by a large enough portion of Trump supporters and fascist sympathizers to threaten the continuation of our experiment in representative democracy that has been the hallmark of this relatively young and vigorous nation. Instead, we are on a path to a fascist dictatorship that will bring an end to our constitutional democracy.

And what are those lessons of history that teach us to be wary and to resist with all possible might the denizens of fascist ideology?

Let us limit this particular inquiry to one dictator who represents parallels that must not be ignored, contained in an article from 2017 by  Mark Bickhard, Henry R. Luce Professor in Cognitive Robotics and the Philosophy of Knowledge in the Department of Psychology at Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA).  Bickhard introduces parallels between Trump and Benito Mussolini with this statement:

“Comparisons between Trump(ism) and Fascism have become frequent, and with good reason. These comparisons are strongest between Trump and Mussolini — stronger than with Hitler and Nazi-ism. Detailed comparisons are difficult for at least two reasons: 1) the historical circumstances are quite different and 2) Fascism was never a coherent political theory or philosophy, but, instead, was a populist and nationalist development in Italy that Mussolini did not create but did take over."  Bickhard goes on to say:

               “A comparison between Trump and Mussolini in terms of character and style…is frighteningly strong — and does give some guidance concerning future concerns. This comparison is based primarily on quotes from a book about Mussolini by R.J.B. Bosworth (2010), written without comparisons to Trump in mind.

Bickhard begins with a commonality of arrogant ignorance and incoherence:

“…critical contemporaries noticed the fluctuations in Mussolini’s ideas and the way he preferred to avoid in-depth conversations, sometimes excusing himself by saying that the details should be left to the experts. Here, they discerned, was a leader more interested in imposing his will than in harmonizing his attitudes or policies. Here was a politician more interested in seeming to know than in knowing.” pg. 142

“He understood that a totalitarian dictator had to be, or to seem to be, expert in everything.” pg. 177

“Cowing the press was only one part of building a totalitarian dictatorship.” pg. 177

“The real novelty of his ambition lay in his pretensions to enter the hearts and minds of his subjects, and so install Fascism as a political religion.” pg. 177

“ ‘Reactionary dictators are men of no philosophy, no burning humanitarian ideal, nor even an economic program of any value to their nation or the world. [George Seldes]’ They were ‘gangsters’ more than anything else.” pg. 246

One striking detailed similarity: Mussolini appointed his son-in-law as foreign minister. e.g., pg. 254

Mussolini was infamous for his ultra-thin skin:

“… he would flick through the French press and grow enraged at any criticism of Italy and himself.” pg. 272

“… there were few things which annoyed Mussolini more than overt criticism.” pg. 276. “This emotion [anger] had always been a prominent part of the Duce’s reaction to life .…” pg. 280

Trump and Mussolini share thin-skinned ignorance combined with arrogant contempt:

“The Duce’s version of permanent revolution, it was increasingly plain, was more a story of his own permanent sense that the rest of humankind was not made in his own image (an arrogance which only partially cloaked his own sense of inadequacy …).” pg. 282

“In his diary, Bottai depicted…a ‘man of the banner headline’ at heart…bored by detail or discussion and preferring to ‘let things run of their own accord’.” pg. 302

“… the Duce’s reaction… was, ‘if things go well, take the credit; and, if they go badly… blame others. This…had become the real meaning of the formula: ‘Mussolini is always right.’ ” pg. 303

The following speaks for itself, and speaks volumes:

From A.J.P. Taylor, quoted in Bosworth: “Everything about Fascism was a fraud. The social peril from which it saved Italy was a fraud; the revolution by which it seized power was a fraud; the ability and policy of Mussolini were fraudulent. Fascist rule was corrupt, incompetent, empty; Mussolini himself a vain, blundering boaster without either ideas or aims.” pg. 344

Here from a different book, Mussolini and Italian Fascism (2008), by Giuseppe Finaldi:

“…as it developed in 1920-2, the ingredient that was (almost) unique to Fascism and which gave it an edge over traditional patriotic parties was its willingness to employ violence for political ends. Its ability to give a semblance of political coherence and a plausible set of symbolic reference points to what was essentially reactionary vigilantism allowed the process of law and the functioning of democracy … to be sidestepped with panache.” (pg. 37)

“Just as Mussolini took over the Fascist movement, Trump is exploiting and taking over the ultra-nationalism/alt-right movements. These are the power bases for two dictatorial personalities.”

“Violence is central to the history of all of these movements, and both Hitler and Mussolini came to their dictatorial powers via a relatively singular act of violence: the Reichstag fire for Hitler and the Fascist march on Rome for Mussolini.”  Can we also say that the January 6^th insurrection is such an event for Trump? Yes, but we must be clear that the January 6^th insurrection was also the initiator of domestic  terrorist violence being planned for near future overthrow of the Biden administration.

“We have already seen major attacks by Trump on the judiciary, the press, and moves to undermine and take over the institutions of public safety. The seditious partisanship of the Republicans in Congress ensures that the legislative branch will not be a check — unless that blind support is somehow itself horribly dangerous historical background. Trump may (or may not) be too ignorant to know of that background, but his inner circle most certainly knows of it, and intends it in full. And, of course, all of this is in addition to the subversion of American democracy and of the Trump administration by Putin’s Russia.”

Because I have already commented several times (see 11/20 & 23/2016; 7/9/2017; 1/13/2019; 2/29/2020; and 2/20/2019 for an early prediction of Trump coup attempt) on the similar pattern behind such fascist-like movements, I will not attempt to name further parallels other than those with Mussolini. The warning signs along the path to destruction of our democracy by followers of a self-anointed Leader like Trump should be crystal clear.  (I have warned readers regarding Donald Trump, and even opined  that “the Donald” was well on his way to illustrating fascist  characteristics even before he was sworn in as president -- “Fourteen Reasons to be Anti-Trump” – parts I and II – 11/21 & 11/23/2016).  Yet, it has taken an inordinate amount of time for leaders, officials and commentators to call Trump exactly what he is: a fascist dictator-type intent on taking over the absolute powers of despotic governing through violent means if necessary.

One man’s belief in his own infallibility means all his followers are by definition, plain dupes.

One man’s total arrogance leaves no room for others’ opinions, feelings, circumstances or welfare

One man’s inability to be wrong means someone must take the blame for his screw-ups; sometimes who ever happens to be nearest the center of power or those with certain characteristics such as dark skin or an Eastern religion

 One who believes he has all the answers to every question, issue or problem has no regard for facts or science, the arts or the humanities, or for laws; and those who labor in those fields must produce praise not criticism for the Leader or they become his enemies

One who believes himself to be the center of the universe has no concept of family – whether biological, community, state or nation as family-like, except as a proving ground for the strict father who rules all things and trains children (and Citizens) to be obedient, responsible, superior, and prosperous.

Those who continue to coddle and support Donald Trump in his ascendancy toward dictatorship deserve everything that comes their way, and it will just as it already has:

--millions of unnecessary deaths from COVID 19 because of incompetent administration of Trump-run government and arrogance toward science and scientists

--erosion of rights like the attack on voters, on freedom of the press,  freedom of religion and right to address grievances with government not only by protests across the country being put down by police and national guard, but by the almost total obliteration of consumer advocacy boards

--health care for millions threatened by lack of competent research, analysis, and policy proposals that would enhance healthcare, but rather by overt and covert opposition in Court and executive management to a system (ACA) already in place and working.

--Planned intentional abuse of children at southern border, and by budget cuts and destructive policies toward public education and special needs of children

--policies implemented to punish democrats and independent progressives  will eventually work against the Far Right, like tax cuts that fade out by 2025, or private school vouchers, or lack of foreign workers who took on jobs most Americans were not doing, or privatization of schools, prisons, and other government operations.

--the attempted punishment of one group that ends up hurting the Trump base, like sending criminal elements to sanctuary cities where Trump supporters also live

--ending voting as we know it, by placing restrictive measures on groups that tend to vote democratic will eventually lead to removal of that inconvenient process for all, including Trumpers, as the wannabe dictator decides it is time to seize absolute control.

And that’s not all, because Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have already been mentioned as targets; as have those who administer or who undergo abortions; those who seek gun controls; those who support gay marriages; those who do not support Trump foreign policy.

Violence is endemic to fascism and will become chaotic and warlike; criticism is anathema and will bring repercussions; disloyalty will be found in ways unimaginable right now; incarceration will explode as new enemies are defined and tracked down; and the old beliefs will come under criticism as though they are harmful – like teaching certain subjects or saying certain words, or working for oneself and family without due homage in the form of payments and bribes… 

We are on a path to destruction that should have been learned from history but evidently has not as cultist worship of the new Il Duce, the rejuvenated Hitler, the envier of dictators has not waned among his dupes. Like the German people of the 1920s and 30s, they have been bamboozled by horrendous falsehoods;, false assumptions, false promises and false hopes. They have been led to a false conclusion that lies are truth and that taking power is the goal for which we should strive. There is no mention of public service, family values, equal rights or justice. There’s only talk of a strong Leader (FUHRER) who will lead us to a promised land.

The wanderers down this path have no understanding of the fraud, the criminality, and the brainwashing they have supported and will have to endure for they have chosen to ignore the teachings of history. Arrogance, self-worship, absolute power, segregation of groups, and criminality are not the builders of family, community, democratic government or of paradise.

Read the signs – they are trying to warn us of what is to come!

What is most troubling is that Republicans have worked for many years to close certain doors to prevent effective counteractions against this takeover of democracy. Those doors are fast closing and will be finally locked in 2022 and 2024, as the radical Republicans take full advantage of the operations in which they have engaged, ever since Barry Goldwater became their presidential candidate in 1964. They have:

--undermined the political power of labor

--placed restrictions on groups that usually vote for Democrats, thus reducing the total popular vote providing better chances for gaining blocs of state Electoral College votes

--formed groups and organizations aimed at the spread of common talking points that are  pure propaganda

--brought together wealthy and powerful sponsors in regular meetings to strategize on winning votes and supporting candidates

--packed the Supreme Court and lower courts with Trump sympathizers

--emphasized the winning of state houses, state legislatures and the packing of the courts along with local community offices of all kinds

--perhaps most importantly, they captured the process of drawing congressional districts every ten years according to census numbers, which in 2020 they truncated by having control in the states and districts which enabled them to control re-districting commissions and census processes

 Without going into all the closed-door scenarios, let me be perfectly frank with you. Republicans have boxed us in. There are very few open doors through which Democrats can walk to assure majorities in House and Senate. The Supreme Court’s far right majority have shredded the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Republican majorities in states are rapidly changing election laws in favor of themselves, and legal doors are barely ajar to pressure for legal actions that might stay or stop the Republican juggernaut. The tendency of Democrats is to use what is available like big legislative initiatives, sanctions against lying dishonest lawyers and class action suits on behalf of disenfranchised voters in certain friendly areas. And then there is always the direct-action method of non-violent protests, and the winning of elections by more phoning, more flyers, more house-calls and more TV ads.

 

HOWEVER, none of these traditional methods may work without massive efforts to out-perform anything ever done along these lines. And that is probably not going to happen in 2022 during a non-presidential election. We are left with challenges that may be daunting -- the challenges of innovation and creativity. What can Democrats and Progressive creatively and effectively do to win the House and Senate majorities?

--keep going to court to sanction Republican lawyers and to object to unfair and untenable district gerrymandering?

--continue ”field hearings” by congressional committees?

--train our own poll watchers?

--run great candidates for local and state offices?

--practice targeted vote-getting in every race?

--go into the streets to recruit new voters from targeted groups?

--convince more corporations to withdraw federal support for people and entities that support voting restrictions and/or despotic actions?

--know how many votes are usually needed to win a local or state office and target the pledging of that many votes (plus a 5% margin)?

--go after the youth vote in high schools and colleges; as well as in youth ‘hangouts’ for every office at every level?

--find pockets of unregistered or inactive voters and target them for registration voting?

--get local non-profit agencies involved in registering voters?

--do something unexpected like taking local redistricting commissions to court for unfair practices; or, giving away free ice cream to children who show up at an ice cream truck with a parent who doesn’t vote ? (it’s not a quid pro quo or incentive since the recipient of the free ice cream is not a voter)

--use places as registration venues that most likely have a clientele that rarely votes?

--support federal actions to investigate Republican efforts to overturn election results (as in Arizona), to pass election reform measures, to render the Electoral College useless, to undo the Senate filibuster and to find ways to use  (or not to provide) federal money to penalize anti-democracy forces, and support the removal of GOP co-conspirator, Joe Manchin, from all Senate committee assignments along with reducing his staff/office budget?

 Remember, this is not a normal time for soliciting votes or doing campaigning – it demands new strategies to defeat the anti-democracy fanatics and to demand accountability for their illegal acts and for the promulgation of harmful false information. Planning for the elections of 2022 must happen now because there is no greater issue than the maintenance of our democratic system. The violent domestic terrorists of the Far Right are intent on seizing power, and they will be enabled to do so if they are met by inaction and complacency from democrats, progressives and independents.

 ADD ONs:

After finishing this post, other thoughts came forth of actions that are already happening or planned in relation to voting restrictions and other matters.  Maybe a broader application is needed, for example:

--how about emulation of Texas Democrats bringing concerns to D.C.; are there other government and non-government groups who can do the same?

 --are there other states where recall elections are allowed?  how about recalling state senators and governors who pass laws that deprive people of their rights?

--how about getting issues on the ballots in all states in 2022 that hold state leaders accountable for their actions, or that place voting restrictions on those who support or pass restriction on others?  can we require hard-to-get voter IDs for state leaders or militia members or gun dealers, owners, etc.?

--send teams from blue States (under contract of some kind if possible) to fake-audit states to audit the fake auditors? 

In other words, every state that restricts voters has automatically become a national  responsibility/burden and must be held accountable for actions that impinge on the rights of the People                                                                                           

SCOTUS Strikes Out!

 Wait a minute – the attack upon voting rights is not as simple as the SCOTUS wants to make it.  The recent Supreme Court decision upholding Arizona provisions of law (see Alito’s rendering if them immediately below) that place limits or restrictions on voters to “protect against fraud” in elections, is not  just anti-democratic.   It is not solely a question of voter suppression although that will be its immediate effect.

No, its seriousness goes much deeper.  Let’s explore a few of the clues contained within Justice Alito’s brief for the Court majority. It goes to the heart of FAMILY and COMMUNITY VALUES.  Conservative Justice Alito outlined the AZ law's provisions as follows:

“First, Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. See §16–122; see also §16–135. If a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted”

“Second, for Arizonans who vote early by mail, Arizona House Bill 2023 (HB 2023) makes it a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot— either before or after it has been completed. §§16–1005(H)–(I)“), the phrase “in that” is “used to specify the respect in which a statement is true.” New Oxford American Dictionary 851.  Alito then propounds the following:

 “…equal openness and equal opportunity are not separate requirements. Instead, it appears that the core of §2(b) is the requirement that voting be “equally open.” The statute’s reference to equal “opportunity” may stretch that concept to some degree to include consideration of a person’s ability to use the means that are equally open. But equal openness remains the touchstone. Pp. 14–15. (3) Another important feature of §2(b) is its “totality of circumstances” requirement. Any circumstance that has a logical bearing on whether voting is “equally open” and affords equal “opportunity” may be considered. Pp. 15–21”

“The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. And small disparities should not be artificially magnified.”

“Section 2 of the VRA provides vital protection against discriminatory voting rules, and no one suggests that discrimination in voting has been extirpated or that the threat has been eliminated. Even so, §2 does not transfer the States’ authority to set non-discriminatory voting rules to the federal courts. Pp. 21–25. (c) Neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA. Pp. 25–34

“(1) Having to identify one’s polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the “usual burdens of voting.”

s. Considering the modest burdens allegedly imposed by Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, the small size of its disparate impact, and the State’s justifications, the rule does not violate §2.

“(2) Arizona’s HB 2023 also passes muster under §2. Arizonans can submit early ballots by going to a mailbox, a post office, an early ballot drop box, or an authorized election official’s office. These options entail the “usual burdens of voting,” and assistance from a statutorily authorized proxy is also available. The State also makes special provision for certain. See §16–549(C). And here, the plaintiffs were unable to show the extent to which HB 2023 disproportionately burdens minority voters.

Even if the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate a disparate burden caused by HB 2023, the State’s “compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures” would suffice to avoid §2 liability. “

“a State may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within its own borders. Pp. 30–34. (d) HB 2023 was not enacted with a discriminatory purpose, as the District Court found.”

“The court found HB 2023 to be the product of sincere legislative debate over the wisdom of early mail-in voting and the potential for fraud. And it took care to distinguish between racial motives and partisan motives.”

In response, let us look more carefully at the values this decision undermines.

1)     If you believe in protecting your family and your community, this decision says that small disparities should not be artificially magnified.”

In other words, when a family member or your community experiences a small setback in their lives because of government interference or mandate, you shouldn’t get upset.

Is that the way that strong fathers (or nurturing parents) conduct themselves, by ignoring small interferences with their family members’ prosperity? I doubt it. 

Yet here is the Supreme Court denying the importance of strong protection for voters who are members of families and communities. 

One strike against conservative value by a conservative Court.

2)     If you believe that interference of government with your self-interest and your ability to prosper (or your pursuit of fulfillment/happiness) is of primary importance, then this decision is not in your favor.  Look what it says:

      the State’s “compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures” would suffice to avoid §2 liability. “

“a State may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within its own borders.

 The Supreme Court is telling you that the State’s interest is paramount, not the voter’s interest.  Is that okay with you?  Doubtful -- if your ability for prosperity (or happiness) is thereby affected. 

Just think about it: this conservative Court is telling you that the State’s interest trumps your interest in running your own life, taking your own responsibility, and prospering by using your own capabilities to the maximum.  The Court says it’s okay for the State to control your march toward independence and fulfillment even if no good reason other than "equal openness" exists. 

Put another way, it means that the conservative Court has given the green light to search out fraud or illegal misdoing in your affairs even though there is no evidence to back-up that suspicion. 

Strike two against conservative principle by the conservative Court.

 3)      If you believe in overcoming the “burdens of life” and demonstrating strength, resolve and tenacity are your virtues then this decision is not in your favor.

Listen to what it says:

“Neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA”

“Having to identify one’s polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the “usual burdens of voting.”

Considering the modest burdens allegedly imposed…”

 The Court is telling you that “usual or modest burdens” imposed upon you by outside forces are okay even if they limit your ability to carry-out a demonstration of your right, your power, or your personal commitments and responsibilities.

 Is that what you are looking for: an imposition of regulations on your life and your work that impose just a “usual or modest” restriction or “burden?”  A burden you may find to be restricting your march toward prosperity.  Such a burden could also affect your salary, your perks, and your profits.

 Any small or usual burden imposed by the State can grow into a large obligation and become an interruption of one’s goals and intentions.

 This decision by the conservative Court opens up all kinds of possibilities for placing or ignoring regulations and laws that restrict one’s finances and business.

 Take, for example, the charging of property taxes in certain areas where property owned by black and white homeowners in contiguous areas are startlingly different for similar homes.  In some areas of Detroit, the difference is that black owners are assessed at 50% higher rates.  Given the Supreme Court’s basis of “a usual or small burden” to determine the validity of voter restriction, is it just a matter of time before those out-of-kilter property rates for black homeowners are rendered totally acceptable because the burden for them is the usual cost of owning a home? You can probably count on it…    

It is the third strike against conservative values by this conservative Court, leaving me to wonder whether the proclivity to side with the State rather than the voter is a bad omen for the strong-willed man (or nurturing parents) who want to protect the family, personal assets, and future well-being.

 In other words, Alito’s brief is not just about restricting voters.  It leaves in tatters the conservative principles underlying a righteous journey toward prosperity.  It undermines conservative principles of

o   protecting your family

o   keeping government out of your life and business, and

o   moving ahead with your moral aspirations toward a fulfilling life if it decides that  small burdens of controls, rules and regulations can be borne by you.  

In other words, the State can not only impose regulations and requirements on voters to prevent a fraudulent activity, but it could also take after your enterprises if it thought they might be fraudulent or maybe illegal.

Conservatives and Progressives alike have been bamboozled by this conservative Court because the values and principles by which it functions have been undermined.  And you thought this was simply about voting rights….

Wrong – it is an attack on some family and community values that you have always understood as your moral foundation.   Too bad you didn’t see it coming, but don’t fret – there will be more to come because this Court doesn’t want to protect your rights or your ambitions.  Its mission is aimed toward protecting power, authority, and its own status as the only interpreters of the Constitution with the acquired ability to formulate (or re- interpret) ‘corrected’ laws from established ones.  If you have not already read Justice Kagan’s dissent it is advisable to do so.  She gets to the heart of the matter when she says:

"Maybe some think that vote suppression is a relic of history — and so the need for a potent section 2 has come and gone. ... But Congress gets to make that call."  "That law, of all laws, should not be diminished by this court."

The Court is not just protecting State authority, it is protecting its assumed powers as the one branch of government that controls the intent and the constitutional integrity of laws, thus bringing to the fore, an assumption of primacy it does not have, as Kagan implies. It is Congress, after all, that has the constitutional power to formulate laws.  It is the Court that has the role of judging whether laws meet the standards of the Constitution or the intent of the original legislation.  The Constitution does not grant SCOTUS the power to legislate new law or to base its judgments of intent or constitutionality on rampant conspiracy theory or on phraseology that begets abuse by state or federal governments. 

In this case, the Court has rendered a verdict based on a false assumption -- that discrimination against minorities has  disappeared enough -- to have rendered section 2 of federal voting law null and void, refusing to consider whether actual  and “usual” burdens placed on some voters are indeed consequential, and thus contribute to some voters’ inability to locate their polling places and arrange to get to them.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority have crowned themselves as interpreters of social history, while ignoring the protests and expressions of racism and xenophobia that are everywhere in current society.  Their failure to protect the most vulnerable, to unburden the most afflicted or to recognize disparity and lack of opportunity based on race , is what can happen to principles and morality when maintaining the Court’s power to say what is valid law and what is not takes precedence over the real-life exigencies and burdens facing real people.

We are now at the mercy of a Court majority that places the will of the People in a secondary position while assuring that States, corporations and a wealthy white aristocracy have the upper hand and can maintain control over all matters political and economic.     

The Supreme Court under conservative theorists has long demonstrated its anti-democratic and anti-minority biases and has often created havoc and chaos because of decisions couched in language that attempts to hide or at least cover-up its betrayal of democratic principles and ideals, and its moral indecency.  (For more on this subject, consult the series of books by Thom Hartmann entitled “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America”)

   

REINVIGORATING CLASSIC VALUES

I recently discussed with some friends and family that “tradition” does not always provide helpful or efficacious guidance, because some traditions  or systemic practices –like segregation or unequal pay for women-- produce lasting  negative effects upon a targeted or despised group of people. We might say it is most desirable to follow traditions that improve the lot of humankind and reject those harmful traditions that show contempt or disrespect for the welfare of other members of our human race.

It’s not an outstanding proverb, perhaps, but it reminded me that there are some practices from our past that may speak to our current existential crisis.  IN FACT, let me set before you three subjects that are growing in their urgency right now and around which the thread of inappropriate traditions are tightly woven.

1)     VOTING.  Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia is wrong to oppose S.1—For the People Act -- and its provisions regarding voting rights and election protocols.  He has embarked upon a path that leads to destruction of our democracy.   He has  --in the name of preserving bipartisanship—essentially joined in insurrection politics being practiced by the Far-Right Trump Republican Party.  He has joined radical Republicans in their attempts to win elections at all costs and to protect white supremacy.  If they can block S.1 and pass a major portion of the 400+ voter restriction bills in targeted states, these Trumpian Republicans will achieve their goal of electoral control for the foreseeable future.   

Manchin has chosen to support, not bipartisanship, but PARTNERSHIP with an anti-democratic movement that seeks the erosion of democratic ideals.   He has made a choice that lends support to the nefarious pieces of state legislation that are intentionally aimed at reducing and denying the vote to certain people who happen to vote or lean Democratic in their ballot preferences.  He has chosen to allow the harmful tradition of voter suppression to proceed unchecked.  He has by his words and actions inferred that he does not honor those who have given their lives in wars and causes dedicated to maintaining the fundamental right of the People to choose their representatives and to express their opinions by their votes.  By sticking with the illusion of bipartisanship as a condition for his support of S.1, he has aligned himself with those insurrection forces bent on overthrowing the constitutional protection or expansion of that voting right in Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26, and in subsequent Voting Rights legislation.

Section 1. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

While the Constitution in each of these Amendments assigns Congress the power to pass appropriate legislation to enforce their provisions, nowhere does the Constitution suggest that such legislation is dependent upon “bipartisanship.”

But the Constitution does call upon Joe Manchin, and every Senator, to do something of solemn import. It requires each of them to take an oath of affirmation in which they promise to  protect and defend the Constitution “against all enemies.”  It does not say “you shall support only that  legislation that is bipartisan.”

This is the oath Manchin took to protect our Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

In essence, neither the Constitution nor the oath of office indicate that the Senator has the obligation or duty to protect and defend the political concept of bipartisanship. And that is because bipartisanship is not one of the major goals or outcomes to be sought by the Congress.  In fact, the major outcomes stressed are put forth in the PREAMBLE to the constitution and they are:

·        Form a more perfect union (not primarily between members of the Congress but of the People of the various states and among the states themselves).  A bipartisan approach among elected representatives leading toward that major goal of perfecting unity is a desirable strategy but not the only one.  In-depth debate, sharing of ideas, majority vote,  committee research, team consensus, and super majority vote for certain matters such as treaties are all strategies for arriving at the desired goal of perfecting unity, just as they are for the other major constitutional outcomes or goals.

·        Establish Justice

·        Ensure Domestic tranquility

·        Provide for the Common Defense

·        Promote the General Welfare

·        Ensure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity

Senator  Joe Manchin has confused secondary and strategic objectives with a goal   of major or primary import.  Bipartisanship is not a goal of major import like the right to vote and national unity, but is simply one strategy, method, or means toward accomplishing  outcomes of prime import for the People as set forth in the Constitution and its PREAMBLE. 

By promising to vote against S.1, Joe Manchin has violated his oath of office and his solemn duty to protect and defend the Constitution.  Here’s how, in summary:

By voting with the Party that wants to suppress                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      the right to vote for several groups, particularly targeting African-Americans, Manchin  has undermined the purpose of the Fifteenth (and other) Amendment to the Constitution which is to protect the right to vote from restrictions that deny or abridge (“lessen, curtail or deprive”) that right. 

By defending bipartisanship instead of the sacred right to vote, Joe Manchin has chosen party politics and winning elections as superior to protecting the Constitution, and he should be called to account for his anti-democratic apostasy., sometimes called  by the more accurate term of unconstitutional behavior bordering on the offence of treason. 

 

One more point: all that has applied to Joe Machin must be applied to others in democratic leadership in House and Senate.  Allowing Republicans to have any part in degrading S.1 is a collaboration with the forces of destruction of the very principles that HR1 and S1 are attempting to engender in our system.  Allowing them to lessen any provision of this Act, or to take any credit for its passage after gutting it,  is the epitome of capitulation to the insurrection tactics of the Trumpian Party.  It is time to invite Republican participation in  legislation on a one-time basis.  If acceptance is delayed or refused, so is their chance to participate.

Given the promise affirmed by their oath of office, Democrats (and all members of Congress) have no alternative but to protect and defend the Constitution and the laws that support it.  Those who have designs on its democratic foundations must not be allowed to erode its principles .  The aim of Trump-pets is not bipartisanship.  Their aim is absolute power as voiced repeatedly by Donald J. Trump.  The oath says, “protect and defend.”  It does not say “bargain and capitulate.”

 2)     REPRESENTATION.  There is a major question that needs to be discussed and answered carefully if we expect to save and improve our system of representative democracy. Our system is supposedly built upon the People, the citizenry, the electorate.  The representatives of the People are meant to ‘stand-in’ for those citizens; in slightly different modes it seems.   The Founders established a bi-cameral legislature with one House representing the average citizen and the Senate  making sure that states large and small have equal voice and vote, with the added characteristic perhaps of greater maturity, education and experience that would tend to produce in-depth debate,  a broader perspective and hopefully wiser counsel for the states, the Congress, and the President.  It was a somewhat daring move for this nascent country attempting to build and to maintain a unity that would strengthen its place in a more authoritarian context.  The bicameral system of representation has at times worked as envisioned and failed miserably at other times.

At various points along the way, the concept of being the stand-in, the voice of, and the advocate for the People back home has been tinkered with, redefined and realigned.  There are numerous causes, some listed here briefly without examination or explanation because that would eat up too much time and space.  The items listed contain some connection to the current situation with Joe Manchin and others

§  Political parties attempting to gain absolute power by restricting or suppressing certain voters

§  Corporations and Capitalists lobbying for their interests and control

§  Supreme Court decisions making false equivalents of money as free speech and corporations as individuals

§  Outside and foreign interests interfering with democratic processes

§  Far Right white supremacists, neo-Nazis and trained militia using violence and domestic terrorism to intimidate legislators (and voters!)

§  GUN lobby instilling fear of defeat into gun control advocates

§  Use of congressional committee structure to fan the flames of anti-democracy and misinformation

§  Special privileges, waivers and perks distract and pull representatives from their constitutional obligations and tasks, setting them apart from their constituents

§  the use of a congressional seat as the gateway to lucrative positions in the private sector

§  The development of more sophisticated (and biased) polling

§  Gerrymandering, voting restrictions, unproven fraud allegations and accusations against election officials all affect the obligation to speak for one’s constituents

§  The closing of the gap in terms of education, knowledge and experience meant that the People have in many cases surpassed the intellectual and pragmatic knowledge of their representatives, thus able to demand more and to criticize their performance as representatives with both depth and effectiveness

§  Unclear descriptions and inadequate information provided to newly elected congresspersons; inadequate on-going in-service training; in many cases, it is experienced staff and personnel who provide guidance and training, not the other way round.

And so, we return to the basic questions of representation:

§  who is being represented in the halls of government? For instance, by Joe Manchin since it appears the people of West Virginia support S.1.  Here’s a mention of that from one reporter:

“MSNBC's Rachel Maddow showed stunning new West Virginia polling just one day after Sen. Joe Manchin wrote in an op-ed that he wouldn't support the For the People Act to protect voting rights and democracy because the bill isn't bipartisan.  In his own West Virginia -- one of the reddest states in the country -- support for the bill is overwhelming and bipartisan. 81% of Democratic, 79% of independent, and 76% of Republican voters want the For the People Act.”

 SO – Who is Joe Manchin representing?

 §   what continuing mechanisms exist for obtaining the opinions and concerns of the constituents; and how is that data used?

§  What  changes and improvements are needed, and what so-called ‘traditions’ are inadequate and even wasteful in these times?  

Since I have dealt with several of these concerns in the past (see posts at 02/08/2016, 02/28/2017, 06/17/2018, plus 11/19/2018, 09/18/2020 and 02/10/2021, I will restrict myself to just a few targeted thoughts:

Job descriptions for Congressmen are hard to find; most are self-constructed. We need something that covers the basic requirements for all representatives as a suitable handbook. One handbook of 7 pages gets handed out in orientation; but it deals mainly with fiscal matters and tells them what and how they can spend. 

Here is a telling Introduction to a Handbook for Congressmen that is a grant project undertaken by the Congressional Management Foundation.  It is a well-researched, well-written, and fairly comprehensive piece, PUBLISHED in 2018 but not  yet an official handout to new congresspersons.  The Introduction to their handbook suggests this omission is problematic and shortsighted:

        “Every two years, more than one thousand Americans run for a seat in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. They work tirelessly for months—sometimes years—for the opportunity to serve in our national legislature. Most of them are inspired individuals committed to making a difference for their constituents, the country, and the world through public service. Once they arrive in Washington, they usually have a clear sense of what they want to accomplish, though many may not be fully aware of the breadth of their new job. What exactly does a Member of the United States Congress do? In the 2012 Global Parliamentary Report: The Changing Nature of Parliamentary Representation, the authors note that “Being an elected politician remains one of the few professions for which there is no job description, and there are few guides as to whom, how or what a politician should represent.”  Of course, there are many sources of information about Congress, how Senators and Representatives vote and construct public policy, how a bill becomes a law, and whole fields of political science dedicated to analyzing the product of Members’ work, but few address the basic components of the job. The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) decided to remedy this gap by creating a job description, vetted with former and current congressional staff, for Members of Congress. While such documents exist for the most common House and Senate personal office positions, until now none has existed for a Senator or Representative. Though we do not propose it as the definitive word on the role Senators and Representatives play in our democracy, we envision it as a means for current and future Members of Congress, staff, and citizens to think about what legislators do, and serve as a reminder of their commitment to public service.”

PLEASE NOTE again: Although published in 2018, the handbook has not yet been officially sanctioned as  something handed out to all new Congresspersons.‘          

In addition, what kind of in-service training do congresspersons receive other than on-the-job learning?  Not much I’m afraid, unless they seek it out  for themselves from the many sources and resources available in the D.C. area. The CMF offers a good number of training courses on video or online, all available through their office. Setting up offices and working with constituents seem to be mostly aimed at  congressional staff with limited resources related to representatives themselves.  Some training materials are also offered by Ethics Committees of both Houses, mostly in the form of publications. 

In my humble opinion, there appears to be a lack of pertinent training of congresspeople in problem-solving techniques, in group dynamics and team functioning, in leadership techniques, and in how to research and how to solicit and use  input from constituents.  Those shortcomings are evident in everything representatives do, from Town Halls to committee hearings.  HAVING myself undertaken (and instructed others) in all such forms of training in several venues, I cannot believe we allow untrained representatives to represent and stand for us when so many of us are required to approach our jobs with in-depth descriptions, continuous in-service training and evaluated practices.

Even fast-food  workers are required to have certain amounts of training. And workers in a wide variety of occupations are required to have a certain number of hours of training before they can be considered for  higher level positions.  Yet, the representatives we choose to represent us aren’t even required to learn techniques and skills for soliciting  and utilizing our input.  Nor are they required to learn and utilize proven techniques and best practices to solve the problems that confront us.  In too many cases they are untrained political hacks or junkies who have nothing to offer us but lies, misinformation, political propaganda and made-up issues that promise attention and votes from the distorted and captured minds of human lemmings.

What we desperately need are committed people trained in new systems, skills, and techniques who know that the source of real power is available in the people who live each day with the exigencies of real life.  We need representation who can grow the potential that exists in every group in every part of this country.

HOWEVER, IF enough citizens continue to vote to place untrained, untested, uncommitted do-nothings into public office we shall deserve the autocratic violence that often emerges from the depths of such inanity, just as it did on January 6th.  We have a responsibility to probe our candidates and their positions thoroughly and to reject those who are not adequately prepared to stand for us in the halls of government. It is no longer viable to vote along Party lines or for someone who seems to be a “nice person.” 

Traditional attitudes about representation must be cast aside and new criteria demanded for all public servants.  The election of Donald Trump and his idolatrous followers should inspire us to move beyond our current inadequate requirements for public office candidates and incumbents.

3)     CHANGE.  Finally, we take up the topic of CHANGE.  Change is usually thought of as a throwing out of traditional  matters and the beginning of anarchy resulting from taking  risks with new and untested systems.  Part of that is true, but change is much more than that.  For me, it has often involved the re-discovery of classic truths that had seemed to be diminished or lost.

Real change often involves deep examination and some risk in finding and promoting classic values and tenets in new forms.  It can involve experimentation and some failure.   It requires some optimism and critical analysis.  It is not easy; it is hard work because real change involves threats to the myths, prejudices, and biases, lies and bamboozles that we have accumulated over a lifetime, and to which many cling with unyielding tenacity. 

In our current situation, real change, as it often does, must involve the criticism and rejection of the false values and lies that have arisen as weapons employed to stop all proposed changes.  There can be no real change until the big lies, distorted actions, autocratic beliefs and despotic behaviors are thoroughly publicized, refuted, and rejected.  Because of their volatility and toxicity, they cannot simply be ignored, diminished or written-off as one-time errors in judgment.  They must be constantly displayed as anti-democratic and as omens of destruction of our form of governing.

 There is still much to do in that regard and hearings before congressional committees, select committee reports, special commissions and other investigative entities  must not be delayed nor truncated.  This exposure of truth must occupy us for the long haul because the effects of despotic Trumpism is not short-term. Its wide-ranging effects will plague us over long periods and we must not let up on efforts to wipe out this political virus.  We cannot allow their lies to overcome the enduring truths of our democracy. 

When we see our world dying in front of our eyes both physically and ethically, we cannot continue to accept the flawed systems and practices that are now the potential destroyers of this nation’s government.  The pandemic, the pending destruction of our planet and the denigration or assignment to a caste of certain people of this earth are not acceptable traditions and must be expunged.

One of the classic truths that must be reinvigorated is that we are the stewards of this world and all of us are partners in that effort.  The environment and the world are ours to kill or to develop.  THE WINDOW OF CHOICE is rapidly closing; we must decide NOW to save our planet and reject those who continue to profit from destructive exploitation of traditional uses of elements that are poisoning our environment.  It is past time to set end times for use of destructive fossil fuels and deadly by-products and to set implementation deadlines for alternative  resources that will not be harmful to our existence.

 A similar crisis exists in terms of our ethical view of life.  We cannot continue to ignore the damage being done to bodies and spirits by lies, misinformation, the denigration of  persons of  minority status and people of different abilities, appearances, and customs. The de-humanizing of people is as destructive as environmental assault.

And then, there is the whole area of human welfare and justice.  When certain systems, beliefs and practices put human values and lives on hold or under assault, in-depth change must happen to undo such practices and processes lest we lose that which makes us other than animals. 

We are teetering on the edge of destruction of more than we realize, and no amount of false information or conspiracy theories will save us from that destruction.  It is only deep-seated change based on self-evident truths that can make a difference.  Real Change begins with re-discovery of essential and fundamental truths and values.  That is our mission in this crucial time. 

We could perhaps start where this nation started when it declared independence.  That Declaration contained some items that need re-discovery such as in Its second paragraph:

“WE hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  A good place to begin the renewal of our system and our values.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS enlarges on these self-evident inalienable rights that likewise need recovery and revitalization, like freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, a free press, the right to speedy trial by jury. Others range from not incriminating oneself to peaceful assembly and petitioning of government for redress of grievances.  The right to keep and bear arms needs continued debate and litigation to mitigate acts of mass violence that are close to epidemic proportions.

We need to start, quite simply, with repeated displays of self-evident truths. Why aren’t we following the example of the Lincoln Project and producing their kind of hard-hitting ads against the Trump agenda and legacy?  Is it too much to ask of the DNC and DCCC that they undertake a similar project and the fund-raising to support it?

Second, is it too much to ask those same organizations (and others) to start a nationwide project of training for  candidates and potential candidates, poll watchers, election board members, etc., so that we can develop a candidate pool and election experts who can apply their superior tools and approaches to problem-solving and practical proven methods of initiating real change that affects people where they live?

Third, is it impossible to begin to play some “hard ball” with states and individuals who use lies, conspiracies, or blocking strategies to prevent progress or to promote regression to anti-democratic functions?  Is there no ability to slow or deny certain federal funding, or expected favors, or to reject grant applications and deny fund requests?  Is it possible to take such actions like this to engender state legislature rejection of voter suppression legislation in any form? 

Don’t like it?  Neither do I, but neither do I like the anti-democratic attacks and insurrections being used by radical Republicans to destroy our democracy. Are there  crucial times when we must do things we don’t like to bring about desirable outcomes while being especially vigilant about this spilling-over into partisan vengeance?  Do the ends ever justify the means?  Trumpians believe they do when personal power is at stake.  What about when our society, our government and our planet are threatened with total destruction – does that justify drastic hard-ball measures against the perpetrators of decay and destruction?  The debate goes on, but one thing is certain: accountability is not optional -it  must be imperative !

In conclusion,  whatever happened to the entrepreneurial spirit of risk or investment?  Whatever happened to the American spirit of experimenting and creating new things?  Where did that neighborly spirit of helping others in crisis or in difficulty hide itself? Who decided that government is an enemy, or that policework is equivalent to “order” and “enforcement” rather than to the well-being and guardianship of all?  Where is that spirit of supporting the “underdog” or welcoming the oppressed of other lands?  And where did we put that characteristic of ours that so captured the imaginations of others around the globe – that American optimism and voluntarism  that was always seeking to improve, to make better, to make progress – where is that gratitude that motivates us to keep America Beautiful, Bountiful, and welcoming -- a place of opportunity and new beginnings, of second chances and of the spirit of building new hope, new things, and new lives?  I sincerely believe that much of this is what the Biden administration aims to “bring back better.”

Are we preparing ourselves for that mission?  OR, have we allowed the forces of erosion to triumph over our ideals, our optimism, our indomitable spirit of getting up, brushing ourselves off and starting over?  Have we allowed the forces of inaction, privilege, and profit to undo our environment, our values, and our resilience?  Have we given over our fundamental ideals to erosive forces that want to substitute political power and violent control for equal opportunity, rule of law, and a continuing movement toward progress in human dignity and well-being?

The Key is not to accept the lies that lead to erosion, degradation, and destruction, but to confront and deny those forces as soon as they make an appearance and on a  continuing basis.  The Key is to search for  classic fundamental values and ideas and to make those our guiding principles in every realm of human existence and endeavor.  It is time to resurrect not to insurrect; time to speak-out, not to hush up.  Time to experiment and innovate, not to equivocate and denigrate.  Time to renew by total rejection of erosive forces plus critical acceptance of the values that re-invigorate, re-claim and renew our underlying self-evident and enduring truths of equality, justice, and opportunity for fulfillment (‘happiness’).  

HOW? You ask.  Attempts to provide specific and pragmatic answers appear in almost every post on this BLOG.  Feel free to explore by consulting the Contents page.