Reflections for the Election

I am less than 3 years shy of having spent three-quarters of a century as an American.  I can still remember when I turned 21 and was able to vote for the first time.  I walked several blocks through a pretty seedy part of Detroit to reach my polling place and proudly cast my ballot.  Since that day I have voted in every election – not just presidential or midterm, but local things like schoolboard, etc.  I truly believe it is my responsibility as an American to do so, and I proudly cast each and every ballot.

Today I want to reflect on how this election is different and why, beyond any discrete issue, it is so important to the future of America.  This year it is absolutely crucial that voters understand not just for whom, but more importantly for what they are voting.

I have always been interested in politics – one of my earlier memories is my father allowing me to stay up to watch the nomination of Eisenhower for president.   Growing up there were many political discussions in my family; one thing they always included was the need to be well informed in order to properly carry out the Constitutional duty of voting.  I always try to follow that principle even though it is much more difficult in today’s world.

For most of my life I have been able to rely on a fair and objective media to keep me informed.  For most of my life I had a high respect for the media and its First Amendment right (and responsibility) to gather information and inform the people.  (My second law review publication while still in law school dealt with the First Amendment and specifically with freedom of the press and a reporter’s ability to gather news.) 

The press is sometimes referred to as the Fourth Estate which denotes its influence in the political system.  It has enormous power to frame and advocate political issues.  Until recently it, for the most part, did this in a fair manner.   But that has changed.

Today we live in a world of narrative rather than fact.  People select a narrative that is pleasing to them and support its authors without regard to the factual support or lack thereof for that narrative.  Because the news media now also takes that approach, it is no longer the source for fair and objective factual information. Even the alleged media fact checkers disagree based on bias. It has become more and more difficult for those who seek the facts (not interpretation of or opinions based on them) to find what they are seeking.  That alone affects the nature of this election.

My belief and my personal education about various candidates in the past always led me to the conclusion that they all wanted essentially the same future for America – a betterment and closer approach to the ideals embedded within the Constitution.  The various politicians and political parties may have had different ideas about how to accomplish that, but all those different paths had the same goal in mind and the same underlying respect if not love for America and its founding principles.

When I protested for civil rights and to end the war in Vietnam, I was not protesting against my country or its form of government.  Rather, I was protesting about specific policies within that government.  The protests were a means to an end – a way of making our country better, but not completely different.  In law school, when discussing those protests, one of my Constitutional Law professors noted that many wrapped themselves in American flags, not out of disrespect, but out of respect for the country that allowed us to speak our minds in this way.  That flag, representing America, was the shield that protected our freedom of thought and our ability to speak our views.

In the past voters looked at the planks of a party’s platform – what did each party intend to do for America?   It has always been unlikely that someone would agree with every plank of any party’s platform and so, in past years, informed voters would generally choose the platform and party with which they had more in common.  In the end, the voter knew that both parties had the same interest – a better America – at heart, and that they would listen to and follow the will of the people to get there. There was a unified respect for and pride in our country and that held us together.  Our goals were the same.

That is not so today.  Today there are two very different goals that include starkly different views of what America is and what it should be.  This year’s election is ultimately not about the specific planks in a platform.  This election requires the voter to go beyond the planks and specific policies to see the fundamental and dissimilar view that each party has of and for America.

Looking at various aspects of our nation’s culture and government, the two parties have contrasting views of what should be, many of which I have discussed in prior posts.  These include but are not limited to:  the individual vs. identity groups; self-reliance and self-determination vs. large government control; protection of inherent individual rights as outlined in the Constitution vs. rights created by the government that controls (or takes away) those rights; representative government giving voice to all vs. pure majority (mob) rule which silences the voice of the minority; equal opportunity vs. equal result for everyone; creating opportunity vs. maintaining an underclass of hopeless individuals; rule of law vs. rule by emotion and personality; capitalism vs. socialism.

The bottom line is that the Republican party is generally satisfied with the current governing structures of America.  While they would work to improve them and with that the lives of all Americans, to move ever closer to the aspirations that define America, they would not fundamentally change them.

In contrast, the Democrats generally no longer respect those structures.  They believe the very nature of our country and its governing bodies must fundamentally change. To reach their goals, to create the America that they envision, rather than improving current structures the Democrats would dismantle them and turn them into something else entirely.  

To achieve many of its goals, the Democrats must ignore aspects of our Constitution and cannot continue with our three separate but equal branches of government.  The Democrat vision provides much less voice to the people and much more to the control of the party and its government.  This would require removal of an independent and non-political judicial branch – hence the Democrat plan for Court-packing to create enough political judgeships so that their party would never lose a political case.  It would require more secure control of a Democrat voting bloc in the Legislative branch – hence their plan to create 2 new states giving a larger seat count to Democrats in the House and the Senate.  And it requires an assured voting bloc for those things over which the people maintain control – hence create 11 million new voters indebted to their party by giving unqualified citizenship to 11 million illegals. 

Of course, these may be short lived goals – there could come a time that these Democrat blocs would turn Republican.  But if the Democrats are able to seize control then they can make enough significant changes that a shift against them would make no difference.  If they do it right, the Constitutional guarantees that protect us will no longer have any force.  

And that is why this election is so very different.  The question of what kind of healthcare we will have pales against the question of whether we will have America as we know it or not.  This is why it is so important that people become educated about the true facts behind what each party seeks, and why it is so frustrating that we can no longer count on the media to inform us. 

Yet every voter must find a way to look beyond the surface beauty of the Democrat narrative to see the real and sometimes not so pretty consequences that lie beneath.  Some may prefer the Democrat narrative and be able to ignore the inconvenient facts that the Democrats and the media are not disclosing.   They may eagerly await a dismantled and different country.  

Personally, I love America with all its warts and blemishes.  I love its Constitution and its form of government, its rule of law.  It is a place where we can truly become the full individual that we are meant to be.  This is the America that I want my descendants to experience.

It is essential that people recognize the two different Americas that are on the ballot and truly know and understand for what they are voting.    This election is different because we are not voting about which way we will get to the same place, but rather to which place we are going. 

I ended yesterday’s post with a personal statement about my vote this year.  I repeat it here:

As I have said before, I am not a member of any political party and have voted for both Republican and Democrat candidates in the past.  But this year I believe that America’s future is fully dependent on our vote.  Because I believe in our Constitution and our Democratic Republic, because I value our democracy and how it allows every individual to determine his or her own beliefs and values and allows each of us to speak freely those beliefs while requiring tolerance of those who hold different views, because I believe that Democrat policies will truly weaken if not destroy many of the crucial foundations of our society, for those reasons and more I am voting Republican this year, and I urge everyone who holds America dear to do the same.

Defining Issues - Thinking

How can we have discussions about important issues – issues that have more than one possible solution – if we can’t even define what those issues are?

This is really a question related to logic, and the reason it is a problem is in large part because a vast majority of people today seem to want to make decisions based, if not solely, at least primarily on emotion and not on clear thought.

For example, recently after the President’s speech announcing his intent to declare a border emergency, a local TV station posed this question to its listeners:  “Do you want a border wall?" Now, that question can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” though such answer would not address the depth of the situation or the answerer's support and reasoning for the answer.  But it clearly asks the recipients of the question to state their position on the wall.  Not on the emergency declaration.  Not on how they feel about immigrants themselves.  Not on what they think of President Trump.  Not on how many Democrats previously have made statements in support of the wall.  Not on what a physical barrier should be called.  Not on whether those who enter the country illegally should be treated differently from those who enter legally.  Etc.  Yet the answers given were often to one or more of these other questions, rather than to the question asked.   If a discussion had ensued between those answering, the participants would have been discussing different issues; like a tower of babel there would be no real understanding and hence no real resolution of any of the issues that individuals thought they were discussing.

All of the above are relevant to the broader immigration debate, but if we are ever going to have such a debate, we must clearly identify the pieces and their corresponding question that go into that debate and are parts that must be resolved before the larger, overall question can be resolved.  We cannot have a discussion where one participant thinks they are discussing one point while another thinks they are discussing a very different point.

Staying within the same general area of immigration and the wall, but with a different focus, people may wish to debate the President's emergency declaration.  But if they wish to have a productive discussion they must understand precisely what they are discussing.  Is it about the 1976 National Emergency Act itself?  Is the question a comparison of this declaration with previous declarations including the 31 still in effect? Is it about the 1982 statute that gives the President a number of emergency powers including the power to authorize and construct military construction projects using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions?  Is it whether Congress should revise this statute and if so, could that retroactively affect the President's powers under a current declaration?  Is it whether it is a “military construction project” to build a structure that defines at least parts of a country’s border so as to at least in part prevent illegal entry into that country? 

And, within the broad topic of immigration, underlying all questions about the wall and border crisis are the bigger policy questions of whether or not to have open borders and if borders are to be controlled what is the best way to do so and what requirements and restrictions should be placed on those wishing to enter the country.  Answers to those broader questions direct answers to more specific questions and so must be defined and debated as their own issues.

Complex issues have many complex sub-parts.  This is not only true for immigration.  It is true for any question that has more than one possible answer or solution and about which people wish to discuss and debate those possible resolutions.  Before the broad and bottom line question can be resolved, its many sub-parts must be addressed and resolved.  To do that, people must be informed about and understand the facts, laws, and other relevant information about each piece.

And, there is the problem!   When people make decisions emotionally or based on prefabricated conclusions, there is no need to consider facts.  There is no need to be fully informed or to use the mind to consider the many significances of varying interpretations of facts and the many possible consequences of varying ways of addressing those facts.  It is much easier just to react with a sound-bite and conclusory stance on an issue.

Here are some recent examples.  

     It feels good to say we will let everyone come on in to America, that we are thus caring about humanity.  Hence, one takes a stand against a wall or for open borders or against an emergency declaration without full consideration of the relevant facts or the likely real world current and future consequences of those positions.

     It feels good and conforms with the progressive script to say Amazon like all big corporations is evil, so kick it out of your town without any consideration of the people who might have found a good income from new jobs created (never mind a total misunderstanding like that of Ocasio-Cortez of the fact that a tax break is not money in hand that can be handed out to people  - see Meet the Press interview with DeBlasio in which he explains that Amazon would have brought in 27 billion in jobs and revenue and out of that Amazon would have received a 3 billion tax break, but that none of that money currently exists, contrary to AOC’s assertion that the city already had and has 3 billion to give away HERE ). 

     It feels good to say Trump should be removed from office, so never mind the fact that the 25^th amendment is not the way to go about it (Constitutional Law Scholar Alan Dershowitz has repeatedly explained that invoking the 25th Amendment to remove would be a fundamental misuse of its original purpose.   See HERE ).

     It feels good to denounce Trump supporters as racist and homophobic, so don’t wait for facts before attacking them and blaming Trump for an alleged attack on Jussie Smollett.  Then follow Pelosi’s example of quietly deleting your tweets and statements once the allegation becomes questionable.  (see more generally this blog dated January 23 “Quietly Delete”  HERE )

     And, more broadly, it feels good to denounce Trump and his supporters without actual consideration of their actions, of the President’s actual accomplishments, the facts on things like unemployment, the economy, foreign relations.  It is simply enough to not like the President’s looks or demeanor, or to simply accept assertions and conclusory sound-bites of anti-Trump media and Democrats without individual thought and objective consideration of evidence.

When we react to problems with emotion, based on a preconceived and generic conclusions, we don’t think.  And when we don’t think about such things as understanding all the evidence and all the consequences of various courses of action, then we end up making poor decisions often with unforeseen and negative consequences.

Our form of government, a Democratic Republic, requires people to be informed and to use their minds to critically consider options and courses of action.  It does not demand that emotions be excluded from consideration, but emotions are simply one facet of a problem which should be considered objectively with all other evidence as one uses one’s mind to think about and fully understand an issue.  We cannot react to and make decisions about important policies based simply on a gut reaction or by mere acceptance of someone else’s conclusion without our own examination of relevant facts.

This of course takes work.  Our form of government takes work.  It is easy to have a simple democracy of mob rule where the voice (and rights) of the minority and the individual can be silenced; it is easy to have a dictatorship where one is simply told what to think; but our form of government recognizes, appreciates, and protects the individual. (For more on forms of government see this blog dated 8/10/18 Here)  

Our Democratic Republic assumes that the individual will be a responsible member of the community who will do the work necessary to be fully informed and will do the mental work necessary to understand that information.  Only then can one understand the many facets of an issue and have a productive discussion with others about that issue and how best to resolve it.  In order to continue to enjoy the freedoms and protections of our form of government, we must all do this work.

We, today, are faced with many complex issues.  We can continue to address them with emotional anger and reaction, or we can do our job as citizens of this Democratic Republic and become informed about the many complexities of important issues and discuss those complexities with rational thought and understanding.  By doing the latter we increase our odds of arriving at solutions whose consequences are positive both today and in the future.