Politics is smothering good Politicians

 The bodies weren’t even cold when the MAGA crowd started politicizing yesterday’s drone attacks by Iran-backed groups that killed three U. S. military in Jordan and wounded many others.  As expected, Trump immediately blamed Biden’s “weakness and surrender.”  Senator Tom Cotton (and Trump supporter) released the following statement almost immediately following the news of the attack:

 “Joe Biden emboldened Iran for years by tolerating attacks on our troops, bribing the ayatollahs with billions of dollars, and appeasing them to no end. He left our troops as sitting ducks and now three are dead and dozens wounded, sadly as I’ve predicted would happen for months. The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East. Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward unworthy of being commander-in-chief.

 

“On behalf of Arkansans, I extend my deepest condolence to the families of our brave fallen warriors. May God comfort them as He welcomes their loved ones into His embrace. And may God quickly and completely heal their wounded comrades.” 

Nothing wrong with the second paragraph of Cotton's statement, but notice how it comes as almost an afterthought to the political rhetoric of the first paragraph, rhetoric characteristic of many MAGA supporters yesterday.  One would think that someone with Sen. Cotton’s distinguished military service would have more sense.  But no, in the ever-growing insanity of the MAGA cult, politics (i.e. electing Trump) is everything. 

As to retaliation against Iran, there must be a U.S. response, but this is really a very complex issue.  Iran denies it ordered the attack.  We need proof that it did before we respond directly against Iran for that attack.  And whatever action we take must be carefully considered in light of the already potentially explosive nature of the Middle East following the terrorist attack on Israel, Israel’s legitimate response, the prisoners held by Hamas, and the many questions about Gaza.  Just a blind return of fire could cause far worse problems than a delay in order to respond with well thought out action.

But, this inability to think beyond political posturing, rampant on all sides, actually defines the MAGA Republicans today.  Consider the bipartisan immigration bill that was on a likely path to passage until Trump urged Republicans to vote against the bill because he needs to be able to attack his rival Biden over the border crisis. The bipartisan bill would have provided money to Israel and Ukraine in return for Democrats agreeing to several Republican demands that address the border crisis and immigration laws.  As one senator put it, “[Trump] doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it.”

Oklahoma Republican Senator Lankford, who continues to negotiate with Democrats to try to save the bill stated on a Sunday TV news interview:

“It is interesting: Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said: ‘We’re not going to give money for this. We want a change in[immigration] law.  And now, it’s interesting: A few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because of presidential election year,'” 

And what does Sen. Lankford get for his efforts at bipartisanship to solve our country’s problems?  The Oklahoma Republican Party approved a resolution censuring the Senator and attacking him for negotiating with Democrats on a potential border deal.  Just more proof that the Republican party cares little for people affected by the issues it campaigns on but rather simply uses those issues as political talking points to achieve its own power.

This is the new MAGA Republican party, and it has frightening authoritarian tendencies.  This party is led by the presumptive (but hopefully not actual) nominee Donald Trump.  While it is true that Trump’s 2016 presidency did much to improve the day to day lives of many Americans, it also had a dark side.   There is no question that Trump’s words were often acerbic and designed to get a response.  The response, beginning immediately upon his 2016 election was a series of never-ending attacks and allegations, many false and pursued out of seemingly pure hate for the man, but some with at least nuggets of truth to them.  While racial and perhaps other divisiveness became apparent during the Obama years, it increased during Trump’s presidency and continues to this day. 

Both parties have fanned the flames of this atmosphere of anger and overwhelming divisiveness since 2020.  The parties and their supporters have become true enemies of one another rather than simply political opponents and all seem ready if not eager to sue, impeach, censure, or otherwise fully attack anyone whose views or policy decisions they do not like.  This does little for the American people but seems to satisfy some political need within our current leaders. 

Since 2020, Trump and his MAGA supporters seem to be the most eager to stir up hatred and discord against any who are not 100% with them.  Since he lost the 2020 election, Trump has a track record of attacking our Constitution and our very form of government.  His claims of a fraudulent election, his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6 (which I believe disqualify him from holding office) and his unsubstantiated and continuing assertions that Joe Biden was not elected and is not our real president are now joined by his actions setting up the same claims for 2024 as he currently asserts that the only way he will lose is if the Democrats cheat.  These assertions are all attacks on our elections, our institutions, and our rule of law, core elements of our democracy and the America and Americans which these folks claim to love.

But beyond these election related tirades, Trump regularly debases, ignores, and encourages others to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States.  In his many ongoing court cases he consistently ignores the court processes, procedures, and rule of law.  He then verbally attacks the courts, attorneys, and jurors for simply doing their jobs when he does not obtain the outcome he seeks.  Moreover, he uses these serious judicial matters as opportunities for campaigning.  The disrespect (which is  encouraged by MAGA supporters who, for example, urge the Governor of Texas to disobey an order of Stay from the United States Supreme Court), if not violation, of both Constitution and Rule of Law are direct assaults on the core of our democracy.  These disregarders of the Constitution are the same folks who assert they believe in its every word – apparently that’s only when they like what it says.

The MAGA cult wants what it wants, and its political ambitions trump (excuse the pun) any concern for the American people.  Sometimes their needs or desires may benefit, but that is nothing more than coincidence. 

While Trump’s rhetoric has always been acerbic, it has taken an extremely dark and un-American turn. When he says that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” (spoken at a New Hampshire rally December 2023) and then doubles down on that statement when given an opportunity to offer some less repulsive explanation, one can’t help but hear the echo of Hitler asserting Jewish blood was poisoning Aryan German blood.  And when his Christmas message is a hope that his opponents rot in hell, one can see that he is not interested in working across the aisle or finding space for all Americans in this country. (Trump’s Christmas rant included the following: “World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and ‘sick’ as the THUGS we have inside our Country.” The message ended with, “MAY THEY (referring to Biden and Special Prosecutor Smith) ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!”) Such rhetoric, in my opinion, does not belong in America, and certainly not in the mouth of a presidential hopeful.

Trump’s exclusive and authoritarian tendencies are apparent as he tries to push out of the Republican Party any and all who do no swear allegiance to his MAGA regime.  He asserted that all Nikki Haley supporters are now permanently barred from the Republican party which he now refers to as the “MAGA community.”  (So much for the big tent where all are welcome!).  MAGA, in true fascist fashion, does not really care about the people, but only its power and its own ideology. 

And, lest we forget the Democrats, they too are often more likely to attack their opponents as totally evil individuals out to destroy America rather than attack the positions and policies of those with whom they disagree.  President Biden himself has given some pretty dark and angry speeches and his view of opponents as enemy is often apparent.  Expect these type of attacks to become more common as we approach the November election.  

We have a changing world fraught with many crises.  These are not the fault of one person or one party.  The problems and complex and often interconnected.   We need politicians who want to solve these problems, not just use them to blame others for their existence.

The primary political responses to the drone attack simply underscore the overwhelming and devastating role that politics itself has taken in our country.  There are good and bad and mediocre politicians, and we vote in or out those whose policies we do or do not agree with, giving those we choose the opportunity to represent us, the people.  But when it is politics itself that begins governing our country – when decisions are made based not on what is good for the American people but on what effect they will have on the enemy/other party, then we are in real trouble.   This politicization of almost everything smothers the opportunity for real dialog, debate, and solution to this country’s and the world’s problems.

We the people need to begin thinking like Americans who believe in our country and all of its people and who can work together to find solutions to our problems, and we need to demand that our politicians do the same.  We must no longer tolerate a politics that is synonymous with a blood-thirst against those holding opposing views.  And we need to elect politicians who will help us to stand united as one country rather than trying to divide us until we fall.

Horseshoes Anyone? It Depends.

 I find that in political discussions my positions are often opposed by both Right and Left.  A current example:  I adamantly support Israel, its position on the war, on Gaza, and on its right to exist.  I also adamantly support the right to protest in favor of Palestine, Gaza, and against Jews, even though I find such views abhorrent.  I supported the Harvard president in her testimony about the Harvard student protests and oppose Rep. Stefanic and others who are keen on silencing her and other university presidents who testified.  I find Stefanic to be doing exactly what she condemns the Left for doing – trying to silence those views with which she disagrees.

This sort of hypocrisy from both Right and Left which is more and more the norm these days along with the denial from both sides that they do what they condemn the other side for doing, is more than annoying, but even worse is the fact that so few are willing to see or acknowledge it.  The extremes of both sides are dug in against one another and yet cannot see that they and their enemy are more alike than they are different.

Trying to explain this in the context of political discussions with individuals who clearly identify with Right or Left is difficult.  But recently I was reminded of the horseshoe theory of politics, and that indeed is a perfect explanation.  Moreover, it leads me to realize that if this dynamic of our politics continues we absolutely must see the development of a strong third party (perhaps as the two extremes merge into one?) if our country as we know it is to survive.

The Horseshoe Theory

The horseshoe theory holds that the political spectrum, rather than being shaped as a straight line, is in the shape of a horseshoe.  The center of the horseshoe represents the political center and as you move upward toward the end of either side you will move more and more to the Right or the Left until you reach the end of each side where reside the Far Right and Far Left. 

You will note that these ends of the horseshoe bend toward one another indicating, according to this theory, that the Far Right and Far Left, rather than being at opposite ends of a linear continuum, approach and are really quite similar to one another.

While this theory is often criticized for being too simplistic, I think that it is worth thinking about, if for no other reason than to try to objectively view one’s own viewpoint in contrast and comparison with that of one’s own political foes.

What makes the extremes similar while still appearing different?

The commonly used example of sameness is Communism (Left, strong central state, work for common good) and Fascism (Right, strong central state, work for the common good).  There are of course differences: Communist ideals include a classless society with economic equality while Fascism includes a top-down class system and rule by dictator. 

But we can certainly come up with more topical concrete examples. Consider identity politics.  The Left likes to identify people based on certain characteristics and then label these groups as victim or victimizer (e.g. white vs. black, male vs. female, rich vs. poor, etc.).  The Right complains about such identity politics and yet it also uses this approach as it condemns members of groups that advocate (usually progressive) ideas that the Right opposes (thus, enemy groups include LGBTQ, anti-traditional religion, abortion advocates, etc.). 

Again, there are differences, not only with the specifics, but Left identity groups tend to be based upon external and often immutable characteristics  while the Right’s placement of someone in an identity group more often begins with a belief that they hold that is contrary to that held by the Right.  But regardless, the end result is that both Left and Right create identity groups and then either embrace or condemn all those whom they have placed into that group.

For both Far Right and Far Left, a person’s color affects the group’s perception of them.  The Left sees white people as oppressors and racists while people of color are seen as victims of that oppression.  The Right condemns people of color for what they see as taking advantages including jobs, education, etc. from white people due to affirmative action type programs.  Both Far Right and Far Left reduce individuals to a perceived group identity.

Cancel culture and free speech are other areas in which the Far Right and Far Left are more similar than different.  The Left will gladly justify the silencing of those holding views contrary to their progressive values; for example, they will gladly shout down a pro-life or anti-transgender speaker but will assert the rights of protesters to call for the annihilation of Jews.   Meanwhile, the Right will attempt to silence those who protest or support the right to protest for Palestine and Hamas but will demand the freedom of speech for advocates against progressive ideals.  The Right condemns the Left for censorship and silencing in various areas such as vaccine debates.  Yet the Right would silence progressive views by condemning and banning books relating to gender identity.

Both sides will assert the Constitution and the First Amendment free speech right as their support for their approved speech, but they seem to forget those things when they wish to silence speech with which they don’t agree.

In deciding whether Trump should be allowed to appear on primary ballots, the Far Right suddenly ignores their previous demands that the courts and especially SCOTUS be literalists in their reading of the Constitution and not cave to or interpret the Constitution’s plain and clear language to satisfy popular demand.  Meanwhile, the Left is now looking for a simple reading of the 14^th Amendment within the 4 corners of its language.

Both sides also regularly use ad hominem attacks (directing their opposition and anger against the person rather than the position maintained by that person).  Again, while the precise form or will differ language (e.g. racist, communist, fascist, deplorable, plain stupid etc., all of which and more I have personally been called by both the Left and the Right), the bottom line is that both sides find it easier to engage in name-calling rather than to engage in a rational discussion about their differing views, a discussion in which they begin by acknowledging the other’s right to hold a view different from their own.

A horseshoe?  It depends.

Whether this horseshoe theory works depends on what you are comparing.  If you look at the specifics you can conclude that the theory fails – the sides are nothing alike.  Certainly shouting down a pro-life speaker is nothing like trying to silence someone who yells “from the River to the Sea.”  The words are different, the issue being addressed is different, the people involved are different.  And you may agree with one speech but disagree with the other.

And yet, if we go beyond the surface, they are far more alike than different.  In both cases there is an attempt to deny someone their First Amendment right to speak their opinion.  It denies others of hearing that opinion which in itself goes against one of the cornerstones of our democracy: our form of government demands a free marketplace of ideas where all will be heard and individuals will be left to make up their own minds rather than be told by government or some other majority what they can, cannot, and must believe and what they can and cannot say.

Beyond ignoring this core principle, it also violates the tolerance that is a necessary characteristic if our free society is to succeed.

Claudine Gay was attacked for saying “it depends on context” in regard to whether the pro-Palestinian protests violated her school’s code of conduct.  But that is exactly what a good American should say.  As a mentor of mine recently stated:

[S]everal decades of "critical thinking" being taught in junior and senior high schools didn't seem to deal appropriately with the meaning of "critical" in the context.   The guy who taught my [children] in the so-called "gifted" program would just review whatever he had heard on NPR on the drive to school.  

Remember my admonition to [pre-law] students - every question you are going to face should be answered, in the first instance with two words - "It Depends".   Instead each side gets its thinking orders from Fox or MSNBC and then proceeds to see everything through that lens.  All surface.

In the case of the protests and conduct codes, one would have to look at the actual activity and the language of the codes to understand whether this was within the context of speech which, though abhorrent, was within the First Amendment rights of the students to utter, or was this more, perhaps combined with actual violence or immediate threats thereof?  If we allow the silencing of speech alone, no matter how abhorrent, in essence we are advocating the end to the protections of the First Amendment for all Americans. 

It all depends. Not just determining free speech rights, but in determining most of the underlying issues of our day and of our country.   It does often depend on context.   But core rights such as free speech should not depend upon one’s view or on the speech being uttered.  Yet for too many on both the Far Right and Far Left, freedom of speech depends upon what is being spoken. 

That hypocritical ability to view the same core concepts differently depending upon what one is seeking to accomplish is the similarity that drives the two political extremes to become almost as one.  While their stated goals may be different, their means are the same and both conflict with our core democratic principles.

Think

Good Americans think.  They ask why.  The extremes of both the right and the left are too wrapped up in themselves and their mandatory causes to understand the phrase “it depends.”  They don’t think, or if they do, they don’t understand that issues can be more complex than a simple yes or no, black or white, up or down, day or night. Yet if they apply this thought process to their own views as well as those of others, they may realize that they are often doing exactly that for which they condemn their opponents.

So, if we go beyond the surface, if we look beyond the overt details to the deeper concepts directing various actions, we will likely see far more similarity than difference between the two extremes of the political spectrum.

I think it is that deeper conversation that desperately needs to be had in America today.  People need to think and ask why rather than simply accept what they are told and the soundbites they repeat from their chosen news source.  That conversation can only be had if the conversants understand the why underlying the positions they assert.  Otherwise, when their position is countered they likely feel threatened because they don’t really understand the position that they are parroting and so a simple contradiction of their position and memorized phrases becomes almost a contradiction of themselves.  It is impossible to reason and explain a position that is merely memorized but not understood. 

When the focus becomes upon only the surface dissimilarities rather than the suggestion of complexity, any hope of real understanding is likely to dissolve and become something akin to a playground dispute.   If forced to look at the deeper concepts the response is likely either to attack not the ideas of the counterargument, but rather to attack the bearer of the unmemorized, considered idea, or to simply run away.

The Parties – not for most Americans

The horseshoe theory is a somewhat simplistic way of viewing politics and political parties, but it is a good place to begin to review one’s own views as well as those of one’s opponents.

Both the Republican and the Democrat parties currently seem in large part controlled by their extremes. It would be more likely that they merge into one than that they actually distinguish themselves on underlying principles.  In the end, both sides seek power to control the rest of society – individual thoughts, beliefs, and actions would all fall under their control.   While what might be allowed or condemned would differ, both would take away individual right and responsibility to choose.  That is not American, not traditional and not progressive.

Indeed, both extremes are more than willing to dismiss the Constitution, the rule of law, and any number of core American principles to ensure that all individuals conform to what they think is proper and good.   That is not America, traditional or progressive.

I think that, divorced from their chosen Right or Left newsfeeds, most Americans would fall somewhere near the middle of the horseshoe, rising a bit to the Right on some things, to the Left on others.  But we have given those Americans (including myself) nowhere to go.  If both the current major parties are but two sides of the same extreme then Americans are almost forced to take sides against one another rather than work together for solutions to serious problems. 

We need a middle party.  A strong middle party, not just a third party stealer but a real party that represents the vast number of Americans who find themselves standing on one or the other end of the horseshoe – a place where they really don’t want to be.

2024

It is almost, but not yet, too late for the appearance of a candidate who fits more to the middle of the horseshoe.  It could come from a third party or it could come from one or both of the major parties.  Donald Trump or Joe Biden (or hopefully both) could be replaced by candidates more representative of the middle, candidates who have slid down from those horseshoe extremes to a point of moderation that allows them to represent the policy positions of their party in reasonable ways, avoiding the extremism and lack of cooperation and compromise that are the destructive stance of both parties today.

We can only hope.

Our Core is in the Constitution

When people, on either side of the political aisle, begin demanding that everyone agree to a particular value or virtue system, or claim that rules of law are really establishing religion, I throw up my hands in despair that so few really understand what our democracy is or how it works.

Contrary to what many would have you believe, America is a secular country.  Although built on Judeo-Christian values, a cornerstone of our democracy is that this country would not establish or mandate religious beliefs and would allow its citizens to follow whatever faith they chose, including no faith at all. 

Our Constitution envisions our government of/for/by the people as being based on common values that may or may not belong to a religion; the key is that the rules that the people through their representatives enact are secular and apply to all regardless of individual beliefs.   It is the people who create the rights and the rules.

Thus, when SCOTUS (a panel of 9 unelected individuals) usurped the people’s power and declared a right that previously had not existed, they were wrong.  It was the people’s right to grant or not grant an abortion right and to determine any limitations on such right.  Regardless of the Justices’ personal beliefs (many are indeed Catholic), in Dobbs they correctly put the people in their rightful Constitutional position to determine what, if any, right to abortion should exist. 

Our Constitution also requires the people’s understanding that a pluralism of beliefs means that no one will get all that they would like and that everyone must be tolerant of the beliefs of others.

Religious virtues often underly a secular government

A free society’s laws and government reflect the beliefs, values, and mores of that particular society.  As a society evolves, as its values modify or change, so will its governing rules.  Those rules will, however, continue to reflect the voice of all of the people.

It is in authoritarian governments that there is less likely a distinction between a mandated belief structure and mandates for societal behaviors.  That is because in such societies the people are not free to think and believe as they wish; rather, the governing body will mandate thought, belief, and behavior. (As an aside, it is really impossible to force someone to hold a particular belief; a government can mandate behavior that would reflect that belief, but there is no guarantee that a person who follows those mandates actually holds the desired belief.)

Most religions, regardless of their specific beliefs, emphasize something greater than oneself.  Religions, through their core documents (Bible, Koran, etc.), establish rules and sets of values.  The reasons for an individual to subscribe to the virtues of their religion include promised rewards for such virtuous behavior that are not immediate and perhaps not even during this life.

Concepts such as “do onto others as you would have them do onto you” and “treat your neighbor as yourself” appear in some form in most religions.  These concepts encourage one to think beyond oneself.  Such thinking is essential for a society to survive. 

It is these sorts of religious values that become reflected in the government and the society that any group of people create, whether it be a family, a recreational club, or a country.  Unless a society is established as a theocracy that will use the religious rules for the governing rules of the community and require all to be of the same faith, there will essentially be two sets of rules:  the religious rules that will guide the faithful, and the secular rules, generally reflecting those religious virtues, that will guide the secular society.

America’s secular government has Judeo-Christian underpinnings

This country was founded based on Judeo-Christian rules because that was the foundation of the culture of its people.  Those values are key underpinnings in the Constitution and the other secular rules of our society.  But this country is not a theocracy.  It is secular.

Judeo-Christian beliefs, like most religions, place emphasis on something greater than oneself.  As long as most of the American people held similar values the rules of our society worked.  Some held those values because of their religious faith, some simply held those values as their guidelines for living.  But if one does not believe, for whatever reason, in those common values, then rules based on the values will become meaningless.

We really have two guiding sets of rules that are in many ways intertwined, but in the end are separate because of the brilliance of our Founders.  The problem is that the secular rules are based upon the culture and society of those who create them.  One needs to understand these values and generally subscribe to them to understand our secular system and to subscribe to it.  And therein lies the problem.

Houston, we have a problem

Today we are facing a situation in which the underlying beliefs and values of the American people are not in accord, are not even similar, and while the core beliefs of some remain reflected in our governmental structure and laws, for others that structure and those laws are completely foreign to or at odds with their belief and value systems.

Today, fewer and fewer people hold faith in the Judeo-Christian God, or in any Greater Being for that matter.  Therefore, they are also far less likely to subscribe to the rules and mores of a secular society that is based on those beliefs.

Today much of our culture is focused not on something greater but instead revolves around the Self and its need for immediate gratification.  How we got to that point requires volumes to understand with lots of blame to go around, but we are indeed there.  As such, our secular rules and institutions that are based on a bigger picture and concern for the greater good are in large part meaningless to many. 

Many of the Left and the Woke, in satisfying their own immediate desires, ignore rules that interfere with those desires.  They see the values underlying those rules as antiquated and not relevant to themselves.  And, because they think everyone should accept what they do and the values and beliefs underlying their actions, they impose their needs on everyone else, demanding that anyone with conflicting beliefs give them up or be silenced.  Many of the conservative and religious Right also demand that everyone accept and believe as they do. 

The lack of tolerance in our nation today is astounding and potentially fatal. People on all sides misunderstand their place in society as well as the core rules of our democracy and perhaps most importantly the tolerance that it demands.

This is not really a political problem, though it plays out in our politics.  This is really a problem of the soul.  But politicians and those interested in their own power use this value vacuum to their own advantage.  And in so doing they display their ignorance of and disdain for our democracy.

Do we have a core shared value?

Before we can fix our problems we must understand that any culture, any society, must be based upon shared beliefs.  Right now we have two competing belief systems that are not compatible.  Unless we (re)discover a core principle that we all share, we are probably done as the great nation we once were.

Can we exist with very different underlying life concepts and values? The Constitution would direct us to say yes.  It allows for diverse views, for the beliefs of all to be heard and prohibits the federal government from suppressing those diverse beliefs and views.  But to do this requires a tolerance, a willingness to accept that others may not be like us, may not think like us, and never will.  While each of us may want to live our life one way, we must accept that some may disapprove of that and choose to live their lives in other ways. 

We must be able to tolerate and accept the true principle of diversity in a pluralistic society.  We must accept, indeed applaud, that not everyone will agree, that we will not always win our arguments, and that we cannot force our values upon others.

But what about when those values are in direct conflict?  Again, our Constitution guides us.  It gives to the people, through their representatives, the decisions of what laws we need to govern all of us in our interactions and behaviors; we decide what rules we need to keep the peace while being tolerant of those who would behave and believe differently than us.  We decide how we can maintain order without mandating beliefs.  We have done that for nearly 250 years and we should not give up without trying to continue.

But people need to understand that even if their personal belief is that Self is God, they must co-exist with others and that in an orderly and peaceful society they will not always be able to have instant (and sometimes never will have) gratification of all their needs and desires. 

Back to the Constitution

If we consider the values of our Constitution, we will find that it can indeed sustain us and save America in the process.  But we need to understand what it is and what it is not. 

The Constitution grants us our freedom to be ourselves, the individuals whom we are meant to be, but only if we agree to have tolerance (not necessarily acceptance) for the different, contradictory, and opposing views of others.  Just as the federal government cannot create our rights and freedoms nor take them away, we must agree that we will not impose our views on others – explain them, yes; advocate for them, yes, but impose them as mandatory, no. 

We must agree not to relinquish our power to politicians, or others, who would use it to control us.  We must remember that our power lies in the voice of all the people, not in a political party, the press, or other powerful entities and not in only one viewpoint.  We must accept our power and the responsibilities that come with it.

Once we agree that we are different people with different beliefs, values, and backgrounds we can begin to work on common goals that benefit all of us.  But this requires an amount of selflessness that is not natural for many of us today.   We must agree that we will have concern for the greater good.

If our shared belief is in our Constitution and our people, then we will be fine.  But if we choose the selfish path that we are on, even our Constitution cannot save us, for selfishness cares nothing for anyone but one’s self. 

The Founders gave us a great gift, let us not destroy it but instead continue to use it to make our “more perfect union” more perfect every day.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

An important theme seems to run through several recent Supreme Court decisions: that the power in this country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.  Too many seem to have forgotten this and simply stood by as various governmental bodies seized more and more power that is not rightfully theirs.  The Court did much to right the ship of state in its decisions released this month.

• The Court did not evade its own usurpation of the people’s power.  It acknowledged that it had overstepped its authority when it created an unstated constitutional right out of thin air.  It reversed its error and returned the power to create a right to abortion to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)
• On its last day of this term, the Court ruled that governmental agencies (in this case the EPA) do not have expansive, unlimited power to make environmental mandates absent a grant of that power to the agency by the Congress (which is the voice of the people). (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency)
• In ending President Trump’s remain in Mexico immigration policy, the Court noted that federal law allows such discretionary actions by the Executive.  Because such policy is discretionary, and because the people have chosen a different Executive, it follows that such policy or change in policy reflects the voice of the people. (Biden v. Texas)
• In deciding that a school coach has the right to kneel and pray following a game, the Court reminded us that we have the freedom to exercise religion and that it is not the job of governmental entities to seek out and deny such acts that are not intended to impose a particular religion on anyone.  The Court held that the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.  That is, again the Court reminded us not only of our rights and the limitations on government to interfere with those rights, but also of the duty of those who live in a pluralistic society to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)
• The Court also held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for tuition assistance violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, again protecting the people’s right from government intrusion.  (Carson v. Makin)
• The Court held that representatives of North Carolina’s state House of Representatives and Senate could intervene in voter ID-law litigation.  As such, the people, through those representatives, will have their voices heard.  (Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP)
• The Court held that a state firearm regulation requiring “proper cause” to carry, prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here, the Court did as the Constitution expects and requires:  it protected the enumerated rights of the people from intrusion and limitation by the government. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen)

Of course the Court decided more than the above cases, and the summaries of those noted above are brief and simplified; all opinions contain far more detailed legal argumentation and reasoning as well as dissenting or concurring opinions that offer further commentary on the majority decision.

Do I, do most people, like the result of every case?  No.  But the Court's job is not to do what is popular but to read the Constitution and remind us of what it says and make sure that by following our Constitution and rule of law that we maintain our carefully constructed democracy.

I rejoice in the fact that at the end of this term the Court provided us with a number of opinions to remind us of the power structure in our government of/for/by the people.  The governmental institutions exist to serve us, not to control us.  We the people hold the power.  We have certain rights, some enumerated in the Constitution, some which we can ourselves create through our representatives and the political process.  But the rights are ours, not the government's to create, grant, or remove. 

Of course, the exercise of our power requires work.  While protests and demonstrations are a way of voicing opinions and desires in the public square, the way to make those desires a reality as a part of our government and our rule of law, is to work through our elected officials to shape our government.  That begins when we cast our vote.  It requires us to be informed of how our government and our political process works and to understand the ways in which we can exercise our voice.  It also requires us to be gracious when we do not get our way and to understand that we cannot have the diversity and pluralism that make this country great without also exercising tolerance of those with whom we disagree.

I am grateful to the Court for reminding us of these things.  I am grateful that the Framers were wise enough to include a non-political branch of government which can keep us focused on who and what we are and ease us back on course when we forget what our democracy is or how it works. 

I only wish that those who are attacking the Court for judgments the results of which they find displeasing, would understand what the Court’s role is and respect it.  How different the behavior of our current president from that of President Kennedy when faced with a decision not to his liking that prohibited prayer in public school.  The following is from President Kennedy’s News Conference on June 27, 1962:

 QUESTION: Mr. President, in the furor over the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the schools, some members of Congress have been introducing legislation for Constitutional amendments specifically to sanction prayer or religious exercise in the schools. Can you give us your opinion of the decision itself, and of these moves of the Congress to circumvent it?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: I haven't seen the measures in the Congress and you would have to make a determination of what the language was, and what effect it would have on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made its judgment, and a good many people obviously will disagree with it. Others will agree with it. But I think that it is important for us if we are going to maintain our Constitutional principle that we support the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them.

In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves and I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us.

I would hope that as a result of this decision that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us will support the Constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it, which is theirs, and given to them by the Constitution.

If only our current President, our politicians, and all of our citizens would understand the great gift that we have in this country and that we have the Supreme Court to remind us when we forget.   These opinions should wake us not to fear but to joy in our rights and our responsibilities.  It is our duty to work constructively together through our elected representatives to create the rules that this great nation deserves.

I am both thankful and proud that I am a small part of our country’s legal system.  Like everyone, I do not always agree with the Supreme Court, but I do respect it.  And now that it has blatantly reminded us that we the people have the power, rather than disrespect or work to destroy this great institution I wish the people would understand that they do not need to destroy in order to simply seize the power that they already hold. 

Don’t Be Fooled

More precisely, don’t let the politicians and their minions fool you.  They want you to be upset over the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.  They want to use this for their own political gain, to garner votes for themselves.  They want to make this a really big deal, but really it is not. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal.  Be clear on that.  (My previous post on 6/24 addresses the opinion itself and includes a link to the full opinion.)

All the ruling does is give the people back their voice that is rightfully theirs.  The people themselves, through their elected representatives in each state may now determine their abortion rules or lack thereof.  The power is rightfully theirs and the rules of the states will be diverse reflecting the diversity of our country. 

All that the Supreme Court did was read the Constitution and return the power to the people where it belongs.  The people of each state, exercising their voices through their elected reps, can and will choose a variety of limitations ranging from total bans to no restrictions whatsoever.  Most will likely not stray too far from what has existed under Roe.   This is the way democracy works.  Rather than being angry, everyone should rejoice in their power and if they do not like their state's rules, they can use their voices through their state representatives to change them.

I would hope that in addressing possible state regulations that the legislators and people of each state do not simply react with emotion, fear, and hate, but sit down and spend time researching the many ramifications of abortion laws and listening to the many views that exist.  I would hope that there will be a tolerance of views that are different from one’s own.  Following are some initial thoughts for such discussions.

First, what is abortion? 

I think we have to begin there.  Abortion kills a preborn human.  That preborn child can be called an embryo or fetus depending on its stage of development.  In humans, the embryo is medically defined as “the developing individual from the time of implantation to about the end of the second month after conception.” From the third month to the point of delivery, the individual is called a fetus.  

So, beginning with conception we have a human organism, a human life.  Though not fully formed, it is unique and it is alive.  We have to acknowledge that regardless of stage of pregnancy, abortion ends the life of this unique human organism.  Abortion is quite simply the taking of a human life.

Is ending the life of a pre-born human acceptable, and if so, when?

Acknowledging that abortion is a killing, the people must decide if this is ever acceptable.  Generally we protect life.  Rules are sometimes, but not always, absolute.  Every state has statutes addressing various forms of homicide.  Some will be various degrees of murder, others will be various degrees of manslaughter, and others will be justifiable homicides.   

The people, through their representatives must decide whether they want an absolute ban or an absolute 9+ month permission for abortion.  If neither absolute, then it must be decided what will and what will not be allowed.

Restrictions and permissions might focus on the point during pregnancy at which the abortion is performed and/or the reason for the abortion.  It should be clear that such allowances are exceptions to the general rule that all life is to be protected. 

For me, the idea of setting a specific and perhaps arbitrary time during the pregnancy before which killing is OK and after which it is not does not comport with this country’s basic belief in the value of life.  Many will have religious beliefs that oppose taking a human life.  Some will believe there is a point before which the child is not well-enough formed to be of value.  These are emotional issues, but they must be considered so as to hear all sides and beliefs as well as the science related to such things as when a fetus can feel pain and when it is viable.

If not time, what circumstances should allow an abortion?

Abortion is seen by many as simply another form of birth control.  It is not. 

Most abortions terminate the lives of children conceived during consensual sex.  Should children so conceived be allowed to be aborted simply because they are not wanted by the mother?  This brings us to the tired phrase of “a woman’s right to choose.”  Should she be entitled to engage in consensual sex and then, if she becomes pregnant, be allowed to abort (i.e., kill) her child?  Or does her “right to choose” occur at an earlier stage?

To say that in such consensual cases the woman was not capable of making the choice to have or not to have sex is demeaning to women.  What happens is that the woman is either unaware of or willing to ignore the possible consequences of that act.  If unaware, we need to do a better job of educating our daughters (and sons); if unwilling to take responsibility for her act and its consequences then we also need to do a better job of teaching our children that acts have consequences and that they cannot do whatever they want with impunity; they cannot disregard the effects of their actions on others (including a child that they might conceive).  Abortion is not just another form of birth control, and we need to teach our children that you can’t just dispose of a life because it is inconvenient for you.

But what about rape and incest or circumstances where the child will have significant medical issues or the mother’s life is truly in danger?  These are exceptions that prove the more general rule.  These are the circumstances that might make a specific abortion acceptable in the same way that certain circumstances make a homicide justifiable.  But abortion should not be generally accepted simply in order to allow it in these small percentage of the unwanted pregnancies that now end in the death of the child.  Any exceptions should truly be exceptional.

Who has the right to order the killing?

Another tired phrase is “my body, my choice” which is often combined with “abortion is reproductive health.”  

Beyond the idea noted above that the woman’s choice comes earlier in the process, the reality is that there are two bodies involved here: the woman’s body which is the carrier for the second new human’s body.  Both must be considered.   In this country we do not give any one group of people the right to murder another.

As to reproductive health, again, that involves the health of the woman before pregnancy along with such things as birth control.  Once she begins the reproductive process the health of both her and her child must be considered.  Indeed, the CDC includes both maternal and infant health in its discussions of reproductive health.

Once there is a pregnancy there are two lives to consider.  But there are also others:  the father, perhaps siblings of the preborn child, and other possible family issues.  The pregnant woman may be carrying the child, but that person is also the child of the father, carrying his as well as the mother’s DNA and family legacy.  Should the father have a voice?  And if so, when?  Personally, I think the child consensually conceived is of both father and mother and neither should alone be allowed to terminate that child’s life.

And what about society in general and our obligation and responsibility to protect all life?  Every one of us bears some responsibility in the creation of any right to abort.

Criteria

If abortion is not completely banned or allowed up to and including birth with no exceptions, then there must be criteria for allowing exceptions to whatever rules exist prohibiting abortion.  It is not just the mother, or mother and father, but also the child that must be considered.   Beyond the interests of the parents, the best interests of the child must be considered; those interests do not usually include death.  The exceptions of things like rape; incest; etc. might fall into an exceptional category making certain abortions justifiable even though they take the life of the unborn and innocent child.  But convenience of the parents, or interference in their careers, lifestyle, finances, etc., should not create the extraordinary circumstances that any exception should require.

Facts, Emotion, and Reason

Right now, everyone seems to be coming to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is no more.  Emotions are running high.  Sadly, those emotions are being manipulated by politicians and the media as they feed the public fiery rhetoric filled with false facts. 

Feelings are emotional interpretations of events.  The events themselves are generally neutral.  That is the case with this decision – it basically just reasserts the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government with power left to the states and the people.  There are those who want you to believe that is evil, but actually it is empowering.  The key question that everyone must ask is “Are your feelings your own or are they being manipulated?” 

Then, we need to put those emotions aside, listen to those with other views, examine in detail all relevant facts, and move forward with reasonable and rational abortion rules that consider and protect everyone concerned, including the unborn children.

Think and Understand before you React

 In deciding Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. today, the Supreme Court did nothing more than read the Constitution and enforce it.  That is, the Court did its job.

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. holds: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Constitution provides specific rights to the people and protects those rights from the government.  It establishes specific federal powers and ensures that those “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (10^th Amendment to U.S. Constitution)

The Constitution is neutral on the question of abortion – neither pro-life nor pro-choice.  It does not address abortion and as such leaves to  the people the question of whether and to what extent a right to abortion exists.

As Justice Kavanaugh stated in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, the Constitution does not prohibit the establishment of additional rights, but those not found in the Constitution cannot be created by the government nor by the Court, but rather must be created by the people through their representatives.

The Justice wrote:

In arguing for a constitutional right to abortion that would override the people’s choices in the democratic process, the plaintiff Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its amici emphasize that the Constitution does not freeze the American people’s rights as of 1791 or 1868. I fully agree.  To begin, I agree that constitutional rights apply to situations that were unforeseen in 1791 or 1868— such as applying the First Amendment to the Internet or the Fourth Amendment to cars. Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights—state and federal, statutory and constitutional.  But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments. See generally Amdt. 9; Amdt. 10; Art. I, §8; Art. V; J. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 7−21, 203−216 (2018); A. Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography 285−291, 315−347 (2005).

So, before you run out to celebrate or protest that “abortion is now banned” (which is not the result of Dobbs) you might be wise to actually read the Constitution and also read the incredibly thoughtful opinions that together make up the 6-3 decision in Dobbs.  Those opinions explain thoroughly and clearly the sound reasoning behind the Court’s decision.  

         

                     

A link to the full U.S. Constitution and its Amendments can be found here:  US CONST 

A link to the Dobbs decision can be found here:  DOBBS 

The point is, that the rules about abortion are up to the states.  In each state the people, through their representatives, can enact rules and regulations.  Such rules and regulations are for the people and not the Court to create.  In our democracy this is how the voice of the people works and it is how we retain and maintain our government of/for/by the people. 

The voices of those who care about abortion issues should be directed to their state legislatures.  As noted in the Dobbs opinion, the various states have always had differing opinions and rules about abortion, and that is likely to continue following this overturning of Roe.

This democratic process works, even if more slowly than some would like.  It protects us and it is the best form of government that you will find.  So, before trying to destroy it, its Constitution, and its institutions, before trying to radically change to some other governing process, take the time to understand what you already have, because you may not know what you had until its gone. 

Biden Knows What He Is Doing, And He Is Doing It with Glee

Yes, Biden’s behavior clearly exhibits major signs of senility, but until he is removed from office via the 25^th Amendment or otherwise, he is responsible for what he is doing.  And what he is doing is upending the core principles that make America what it is.

Gleefully dismantling the Constitution

Biden and his administration admit that their attempted use of OSHA to enforce a vaccine mandate is a workaround the Constitution, essentially admitting that they know they do not have the Constitutional authority to create such a mandate.  Yet they do it anyway.

But this is not the first or only attempt on Biden’s part to circumvent the Constitution.  Biden admitted that it would be unconstitutional for him to have the CDC mandate an eviction moratorium, yet he did so anyway.  He has claimed total federal authority over states in regard to abortion by having his Attorney General file suit against the state of Texas.  Perhaps most egregious is his support for packing the Supreme Court – turning it into a political body and thus destroying the checks and balances between the three branches of government.  Those checks and balances are a critical piece of our Constitution and its protections of our rights.

Biden attempts to justify his failure to follow and uphold the Constitution by blaming things like the pandemic or Trump or the people who oppose his various policies, but these are all just smoke that cover his unprecedented and unpresidential power grab.

First, let’s remember that our country is based on the idea of limited federal government.  The Tenth Amendment provides that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  The Constitution explicitly grants each branch of the federal government a limited set of carefully defined enumerated powers, while reserving most other powers to the states.  Some clauses such as the Commerce Clause have been interpreted in a way that gives the federal government broader control over some issues, but the basic principle of a limited federal government has not changed.   

The federal government cannot exercise unlimited control over the states.  Not even in an alleged attempt to stop a pandemic. 

As an aside, it is hard to argue that the Biden OSHA mandate is realistically about protecting our health when all non-citizen border crossers (legal and illegal) are exempted, all employees of businesses with less than 100 workers are exempted, all retirees are exempted, all members of Congress and their staffs are exempted, and other exemptions continue to be revealed.  Moreover, Biden asserts that the intent is to protect the already vaccinated from the unvaccinated; one wonders: If such protection is necessary, then what is the purpose of a vaccination anyway?  The pandemic is nothing more than a cover for an unconstitutional power grab.

Biden took an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet he completely ignores and violates it.  He proudly acknowledges that he is doing so.  And while he destroys the very core of our democracy, he angrily attacks those who object as he sows and cultivates dissension and hatred.

Gleefully creating a country whose people are dependent on authoritative government

Along with seizing unconstitutional power, Biden’s authoritative regime seeks to create rules and programs that will establish a dependency of all of us on the federal government.  The problem with these socialist style programs, however, is that they are paid for by the people’s tax dollars which, in large part due to the dependence on the programs they are funding, often run out.

Marc Short, Mike Pence’s former chief of staff, stated, “I think if you look at the number of the amount of spending over the last year between the COVID tax relief, the infrastructure package and now this [3.5 trillion spending bill], you'll be talking about $12 trillion dollars, which in essence would be one hundred thousand dollars given to every family in America if you were to send direct payments.”

Think of that.  Think of the taxes, the debt, the money printing that will need to happen.  These bills and others in the works by the Left would govern your life from pre-birth to death and beyond.  The Left would have guaranteed incomes, guaranteed health, guaranteed childcare, guaranteed transportation, guaranteed housing, guaranteed meals, pretty much everything you might need or want guaranteed by the government. 

Of course, the quality or amount of each thing guaranteed is not guaranteed and will of necessity diminish with greater demand and/or fewer tax dollars.  And when you have given all your money to the government you will be forced to take whatever it is they choose to give you.

Beyond dependence on the government via a variety of “assistance” programs, the government creates more and more rules to govern every aspect of your life.  These rules will make all the decisions for you so that you do not have to.  The rules decide what you can and cannot do/say/eat/believe, etc.  They remove the difficult anxiety of some decision making and cause more than a few to think that they are just one regulation away from total bliss which only a big government, authoritarian “nanny state” can provide.

They will do this in the name of concern for your welfare, but what these “nanny state” rules really do is take away your key freedom of choice. 

In this country we have individual freedoms protected by our Constitution.  The concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility are key to America’s greatness and her survival and are also the antithesis of big government.  Authoritarian regimes tell their citizens how and what they can think, do, believe.  In America we have the freedom to make those decisions for ourselves.

The pandemic (like any good crisis) has not gone to waste for the Left and the Biden administration.  This administration would have you confuse freedom with safety and happiness and keep you in a state of anxious fear.  Using uncertainty and fear they have been able to create a climate in which many are more willing to relinquish personal freedom for safety and certainty.  Those who do not are characterized and criticized as selfish.

With such fear and then personal shaming the Left believes you will more willingly turn your freedom over to the government for their false promise of happiness in return.  But it doesn’t work that way.  When we relinquish our personal liberty, we relinquish who we are and instead leave it to an authoritarian government to define us.

While of course we need some government rules and regulations, we also need to retain our freedom and our responsibility so that we can continue to have a government of/for/by the people rather than a government of authoritarian control.

Biden clearly does not see it that way.  He gleefully would cow everyone into submission to his vision of whom you should be and how you should behave.  If you do not comply, he calls you selfish and pits the more compliant citizens against you (for example telling the vaccinated that those who have chosen not to be vaccinated, perhaps because of serious health reasons, are threatening the vaccinated even with murder).  Biden often equates his dissenters with terrorists.

Don’t fall for it.  Freedom may not be safe or easy or certain; it by necessity includes uncertainty and the anxiety that comes with being responsible for one’s own life choices, especially when those choices are not clear or easy.  But freedom allows you to be who you are rather than simply an animal confined within the cage of government control.

Gleefully putting American values last

Honor and exceptionalism are words that have often been used in conjunction with America.  “American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States is inherently different from other nations. Its proponents argue that the values, political system, and historical development of the U.S. are unique in human history, often with the implication that the country is both destined and entitled to play a distinct and positive role on the world stage" (Seymour Martin Lipset).

While not perfect, America has generally been seen as the “good guys”, the country that stands for such things as human rights, individual liberties, honesty, and honor.  Biden seems to think all that is a joke. 

Within our country Biden is dismantling not only our Constitution but is also demeaning and destroying concepts such as personal liberty, personal responsibility, individual achievement, and equality (the fact that “equity” is the antithesis of “equality” has been the subject of previous posts).  He has destroyed jobs and is destroying the economy while inflation is out of control.  Despite his claims for unity, he puts divisive identity politics on steroids as he pits every group he can define against one another. 

But he is also destroying this country on the international stage.  He presents an administration of apology, weakness, and concession rather than one of pride and power.  And honor he gleefully trashed as he completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal, then repeatedly lied about what he had done, and then ignored and left as essentially prisoners of war an undetermined number of civilian American citizens.  Honor be damned, Joe seems proud of what he has done.

Save America from Biden

It sure seems like Biden hates America; he is certainly doing everything he can to destroy it.   His power grabs are clearly authoritarian.  His diminishment of us puts us in danger internationally.  And he seems to immensely enjoy what he is doing.

As a leader he is a terrible example.  He cannot uphold his oath of office.  He lies about everything.  He laughs at America and its people and calls them names.  Yes, he seems to enjoy what he is doing.

It is hard for me to write this, because to cover all Biden’s un or anti-American behavior would take far too many pages for a blog post, and yet I know and fear that most Americans are in large part unaware of his actions and his lies due to the media’s protection and lack of negative coverage of him.  So we just let him go on with his dishonest and destructive behavior while those who are looking see America falling.

The blood of a dying America is on Biden’s hands, but also on all those who fail to see what is happening, who gladly turn over their rights and freedoms to a man who does not respect them but will simply use them for his own delight and power.

Biden knows exactly what he is doing, and he is doing it gleefully.  But do you know what he is doing, and do you care?