How Can We Ever Hope To Bring Americans Together?

Regardless of which candidate wins this year’s presidential election, it’s all but certain that Americans will be more divided than ever. We’re divided by far more than politics. We’re divided by ideology; by media choices; by attitudes toward guns and violence; by attitudes toward the environment; by a woman’s right to decide what is right for her own body; by energy policy; by foreign policy and military intervention; by acceptance and tolerance for those who are different than ourselves; by faith.

As the US, like many other nations, lurches farther to the right, it seems that we cannot agree on anything. One side accepts science while the other relies almost exclusively on faith. One side believes in evolution while the other side believes in creationism. One side works to abate climate change while the other side calls it a hoax. One side embraces other cultures and ethnic groups while the other side chooses to discriminate against them. One side accepts authority and bullying while the other fights against it. One side supports corporatism (aka fascism) while the other supports individuals. One side celebrates wealth and power while the other side celebrates the working class. One side worships individualism while the other side worships community and collectivism. One side demands status quo while the other side demands expanded civil rights.

No matter which candidate wins in November, roughly half of the population will vehemently oppose the winner’s policies.

It would seem that the only thing that can possibly pull our nation together is a disaster – a military or terrorist strike against our nation or a financial calamity on the order of the Great Depression. Ironically, the burst of the housing bubble and the ensuing Great Recession were not enough to create unanimity. Ignoring the facts, each side simply blamed the other for their hardships.

In order to seek more palatable solutions, we must first look at how we arrived at this point. It began with the Nixon-Agnew strategy of divide and conquer. It continued with the GOP’s embrace of southern bigots and evangelicals along with Paul Wyerich’s strategy of voter suppression. It accelerated with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which allowed electronic media to choose up sides and lie at will. And it was cemented by Newt Gingrich’s embrace of parliamentary-style politics which disdained any form of compromise.

So what can we do?

1. To begin, we should all demand more of our media by reinstating a Fairness Doctrine that would require all media, both electronic and print, to operate in the public interest. That means to tell the truth and hold politicians accountable.
2. We should overturn voter suppression laws and make voting easy, maybe even mandatory, for all American citizens.
3. We should bring transparency to campaign finance and overturn Citizens United.
4. We should, once again, make it illegal for corporations to contribute to political campaigns.
5. We should break the lobbyists’ hold on Congress by passing laws to end the revolving door from Congress to lobbying groups, and to limit lobbyist access to Congress.
6. We should end all forms of gerrymandering by passing laws to put control of congressional redistricting into the hands of independent commissions.
7. We should demand that the IRS reinstate restrictions that prevent non-profits from disguising their political focus, thus doing away with PACs and Super PACs.
8. We should institute term limits on all Senators and Congressional Representatives. If it makes sense to limit the president to two terms, it should make sense to do the same for Congress.
9. We should hold the individuals who manage political campaigns liable for lies and disinformation. That would prevent them from avoiding election fraud by simply dissolving the campaign entities following an election,
10. We should demand more of ourselves. We should each seek to inform ourselves about the candidates and the issues in order to meet the expectations of our Founding Fathers by becoming an enlightened and informed voting public.

Even if you don’t agree with these proposals, we must do something. And we must do it now. It may be our only hope for unifying our nation and moving it forward. Indeed, at the risk of being seen as hyperbolic, it may be the only way to avoid another Civil War.

Trump And GOP Evangelicals Versus The Founding Fathers.

It’s difficult for me to write anything that places the Founding Fathers and Donald Trump in the same sentence or even on the same planet. But I cannot let stand the Donald’s unconstitutional call for excluding Muslims from our nation. Nor can I ignore his recent pandering to evangelicals who claim that the Founders intended the US to be a Christian nation. Somehow, he has convinced evangelicals that he will protect their ability to “practice their religion in the public square”; to discriminate; to use government to force their beliefs on others. Their embrace of Trump is especially humorous given the fact that he seemingly considers himself a deity, and that he so obviously worships at the altars of fame, power and money.

Fortunately, there is no need for me to compose my thoughts on the confluence of religion and government. I can rely on much more authoritative sources – the Founders themselves.

General George Washington, hero of the Revolution and the nation’s first president:
“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated.” – letter to Edward Newenham

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.” – letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore

“… the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.” – letter to Touro Synagogue

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” – letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia

John Adams, revolutionary leader and the nation’s 2nd president:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” – A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” – 1797 Treaty of Tripoli

James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”, author of the Bill of Rights and the nation’s 4th president:
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” – A Memorial and Remonstrance

“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing [sic] that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” – letter to Edward Livingston

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” – letter objecting to the use of government land for churches

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the nation’s 3rd president:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” – letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” — letter to Alexander von Humboldt

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” – letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper

”I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” – letter to Elbridge Gerry

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” – Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, political theorist and diplomat:
“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” – letter to Richard Price

James Monroe, Founding Father and the nation’s 5th president:
“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties.” – First Inaugural Address

Thomas Paine, Founding Father, political theorist and philosopher:
“We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive sins. It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that she kept up her temporal power.”

Other Founders:
“Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.” – Roger Sherman in Congress, 1789

“Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.” – Oliver Wolcott at the Connecticut Ratifying Convention

“The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.” – Charles Pinckney at the Constitutional Convention

“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.” – Elbridge Gerry

Has The Democratic Party Awakened From Its Coma?

The recent filibuster calling for a vote on common sense gun safety gives me hope. It forced a vote which will put each member of Congress on record and make them accountable to their constituents instead of the NRA. After all, a whopping majority of Americans favor universal background checks. And an even greater majority favor blocking the legal sale of guns to potential terrorists who have been placed on the no-fly list.

That offers hope. But will Democrats show the same intestinal fortitude on other critical issues? Will they stand for income and wealth equality, including a living wage for all workers? Will they stand up for racial justice? Will they fight for equality of all people, regardless of gender, color or sexual orientation? Will they stand against Republicans who want to take food away from impoverished children? Will they stand up to the fossil fuel industry to address climate change? Will they stand against voter suppression? Will they stand against the corruption and waste of military contractors? Will they stand up for a woman’s right to control her own body?

Certainly, Democratic politicians have long given lip service to such issues. But they have seldom shown the courage of their convictions – to fight the good fight even if it risks their re-election.

This timidity has been used against them for decades. Republicans have long realized that Democrats can be steamrolled; that they’re willing to compromise, even if it means compromising their strongly-held beliefs. It has caused them to lose the respect of many voters who view them as spineless and weak – unable to get things done.

You see, many voters don’t look at the reasons behind legislative failures. They don’t understand the power of the filibuster and the willingness of Republicans to block Democratic initiatives even if it means damaging the nation. The voters only see failure. They see a party unable to keep its promises.

Hopefully, the Democrats’ strong stance on gun safety will mark a change that will benefit us all.

Rethinking Our National Motto.

“E Pluribus Unum” (Out of many, one) was the motto chosen to represent our nation in 1776. It was suggested by Pierre Eugene du Simitiere to the committee responsible for developing the Great Seal of the United States. It not only gave reference to the fact that our country was born out of 13 separate colonies, it represented the great diversity of the new nation. Unfortunately, Christian conservatives, capitalizing on the fear of a “Godless” communist Cold War opponent, voted to replace the motto in 1956 with “In God We Trust.”

The message it sends is dramatically different.

Does it really matter? After all, it’s only four words. The answer to that question is, most definitely, yes. You see, I worked in the advertising industry for more than 40 years. Much of that time, I was charged with creating mottos or slogans – a few words that clearly define a brand. That’s what the motto does. It defines the brand of the United States, suggesting that we are governed by faith (I would describe it as blind faith) over reason. How else can you explain the indifference of so many toward issues such as climate change and gun violence? These are not matters for God. These are problems caused by human behavior. And they are problems that we, as humans, must solve. They are problems that require an understanding of science, logic and reason. Unfortunately, too many seem to believe that such problems are too big or too complex for us to solve. They choose to ignore the problems, believing that if we pray hard enough, God will solve the problems for us.

Our Founding Fathers would not have done so. Prioritizing enlightenment and reason over blind faith, they chose to take matters into their own hands – to create their own destiny. If they had left it up to prayer alone, we would still be part of the British Empire. The Founders were also sensitive toward people of many faiths. That’s why the Declaration of Independence never actually refers to God in the traditional sense choosing, instead, to use more inclusive words such as “Creator” and “Nature’s God” – choices that could encompass people of all faiths, as well as those who belonged to no church at all. Neither did the Founders mention God in the Constitution – likely because many of them were, in fact, deists (people who believe in a higher power, but disdain organized religion).

E Pluribus Unum was all-encompassing. It told the world that the United States of America embraces all cultures, and that we could all work together for a common goal. By contrast, the current slogan implies that, if you do not believe in God – the approved Judeo-Christian God – you are somehow less of an American.

Given the divisiveness that has permeated every aspect of the American experience, reclaiming the original motto would help us reclaim our identity. It would show that all Americans count; that we are willing to pull together for the common good.

Sometimes the best way to move forward is to first take a step back.

Mass Shootings Now Define Our Civilization.

Since the tragedy at Columbine, I have written blog posts calling for common sense gun safety. I have written and called my congressional representatives asking for universal background checks. I have taught self-defense classes debunking the notion that guns are a defensive weapon. I have demonstrated that carrying a gun does not protect you against an armed assailant who has the advantage of surprise. I have explained that being in a crowd of armed people makes you less safe. I have passed along academic studies that show that more guns equal more gun violence. I have tried to debunk the notion that an assault weapon is good for anything other than killing people. And millions of like-minded people have spoken out against gun violence.

None of it has worked.

Since Columbine, we have seen an average of more than one mass shooting (defined as incidents in which at least 4 people are killed or wounded) per day in the US. We’ve seen more than 100,000 shootings in our nation each year. We have seen lunatics with legal access to guns kill men and women. We’ve seen them murder theater-goers, church-goers and party-goers. We’ve seen them target black people, brown people, white people and gay people. We’ve seen them shoot doctors, nurses, lawyers, judges, teachers, government workers and a congresswoman. We’ve even seen them murder school children!

Over all that time, I’ve seen people use the 2nd Amendment to defend the rights of any individual to gain access to weapons of war. I’ve seen the NRA bribe legislators and congressional representatives to create even greater access to such weapons. I’ve heard political leaders foment hate, then call for national prayer when people act on that hate. I’ve heard so-called religious leaders (and I use the term loosely) claim that mass shootings are God’s vengeance for abortions, for accepting gays, for legalizing gay marriage, for allowing transgender people to use the bathroom. I’ve heard friends and relatives claim that mass shootings are merely the price we pay for freedom.

For whatever reason, we’ve been convinced to view gun violence as a matter of politics; as a matter of religion or policy. It is not. In fact, it’s the very essence of who we are as individuals. It defines our society.

If you think discrimination against others for any reason is acceptable, you cannot call yourself religious. If your pastor damns any group of people – whether they are people who look different, pray differently, love differently or have different beliefs – you do not belong to a church. You belong to a cult of hate. If you support politicians who privately accept money from the NRA to vote against gun safety bills then publically pray for the victims of gun violence, you are an accessory to murder. If you think someone who performs a legal medical procedure should be stopped at any cost, you do not understand what it means to be an American, because you neither believe in democracy nor in the rule of law. If you think those who speak in favor of discrimination and hate speak for you. If you are someone I know who actually believes any of these things; if you prefer to embrace hate rather than kindness, I cannot call you a friend.

I’m not even certain that I can call you human.

Understanding The Trump Phenomenon.

The success of Trump the candidate seems to have confused liberals and conservatives alike. But it’s really not that difficult to understand if you look at the underlying causes.

First, there is great dissatisfaction among many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides see growing poverty and a struggling middle class while, at the same time, a privileged few are thriving. Both see a dysfunctional Congress that now represents only a fraction of its constituents – those with the money and power to call in political favors.

As a highly accomplished con man, Trump has tapped into the voters’ smoldering anger toward government, fueled by Fox News Channel and virtually the entire radio spectrum of rightwing, hate radio. Using a tactic perfected by unsavory dictators, he has successfully focused the blame for our problems on outsiders and those on the fringes of our society. He has convinced a substantial portion of our population that the nation is struggling as the result of Mexican immigrants, Muslims, China and “political correctness” – an oversensitivity for minorities, Muslims, immigrants, women and the disabled. That has invited angry white men to dig out their Klan sheets and to say whatever racist, sexist things that cross their degenerate minds.

Far from being the successful business leader his supporters believe him to be (he is one of the few to ever lose money as the owner of a casino), Trump is really only accomplished at the arts of persuasion and branding. He refuses to deal in specifics, understanding that emotions matter more than facts or even truth.

Capitalizing on what I would call the Kardashian effect, Trump understood that his celebrity and outrageous statements are good for media. As a result, he has been able to manipulate the media’s greed to the point that CNN and even the so-called liberal cable network, MSNBC, were willing to spend airtime focused on an empty Trump podium waiting for Trump’s latest rant than to cover a policy speech by Hillary or a large rally for Bernie.

Trump has benefited from the chronically short attention spans of the public – a public unwilling, or unable, to research or to comprehend the issues. A public that disdains nuance and complicated answers for complex subject matter. An impatient public that views the world as black or white; good or bad; right or wrong. He has also benefited from a political environment based on tribalism – knowing that even those members of his party who despise him and everything he stands for will eventually fall in line to support him. And he has seemingly embraced the strategy of former GOP strategist, Paul Weyrich, who correctly posited that suppressing the vote – even if it means alienating a majority of potential voters – benefits Republicans.

Finally, he has benefited from a chronically disorganized and divided Democratic Party – a Party that lacks clear, decisive leadership; a Party that, without control of the media, has struggled to articulate its accomplishments and its message; a Party that has made it easy for people like Trump, Cruz, Ryan, McConnell, et al to promise everything, but deliver nothing.

Trumped-Up Presidential Qualifications.

Given that Donald J. Trump will soon be named the Republican nominee for president, there’s more than a little irony that, when we describe something that has been fabricated, concocted or fictitious, we commonly use the words “trumped-up.”

In fact, nothing could better describe the qualifications of the Republican nominee.

Yes, Republican voters have winnowed through all of their presidential hopefuls and decided that the best option to become leader of the free world; the best candidate to represent our nation; the one to implement changes in our economic system; the one to negotiate treaties and trade deals with other countries; the one to have access to our nuclear codes is The Donald.

They have decided that substance, facts and reason no longer matter. For them, it’s enough that Trump has promised to “make America great again.”

They have anointed Trump as their presidential candidate despite his history of more than 3,500 lawsuits – mostly against those who dared to disagree with him or to say or write the truth about him. They have voted for him despite the fact that he judges all women through the misogynistic eyes of a beauty pageant owner. They have selected him despite his reputed mob ties. They have touted his business acumen despite the fact that he has filed for bankruptcy four times; despite the fact that much of his financial success is based on tax avoidance and government subsidies; and despite the fact that he would actually have more money today if he had simply invested his inheritance in an index fund.

Republicans have convinced themselves that Trump is trustworthy and that his support cannot be bought because he is independently wealthy. Yet he was caught exploiting veterans. He and his failed Trump “University” are currently being sued for fraud. He is being investigated for bribery of state officials. Unlike every other presidential candidate for the past 40 years, he has refused to release his tax returns. And, when the Panama Papers were released, his name was reportedly mentioned hundreds of times in connection with offshore tax havens.

Trump supporters have deluded themselves into believing that the Donald is immune to corruption because he is “self-funding” his campaign. However, he has quietly accepted campaign contributions and used them to pay his own corporations for travel, hotels, even his New York campaign headquarters, thereby lining his pockets.

Many poor and middle class Americans seem to think that Trump cares about workers, yet it has been well-documented that a new hotel in Dubai bearing his name is being built with slave labor. They seem to think that he will end illegal immigration despite the fact that he has hired undocumented workers for his own projects. They believe that he will negotiate more advantageous international trade deals despite the fact that many world leaders find him abhorrent.

Republicans say they admire Trump’s “authenticity” despite the fact that he consistently fails most every fact check. (Thus far, during this presidential race, he has lied more than all of the other candidates combined.)

Trump supporters admire his aversion to political correctness which, in reality, is nothing more than being polite. He has freed them to say and do virtually anything they please, exposing a substantial undercurrent of racism in his campaign. He has emboldened and encouraged his supporters to commit acts of violence against protesters. And, not surprisingly, he has accepted endorsements from known racists, even leaders of the KKK.

Through the entire primary campaign, Trump has spoken in grandiose terms about his plans. Yet he has offered few specifics, and the few he has put forward have been proven completely unworkable. For example, his budget plan would add trillions to the national debt. Is it any wonder, then, that former Presidents and Secretaries of State (including those from Trump’s own party), military leaders, leaders in the intelligence community, business leaders, even the conservative Wall Street Journal have warned against voting for Trump?

In reality, Trump is the sort of divisive, narcissistic, self-aggrandizing bully not seen on the world stage since Benito Mussolini – the man who quite literally created fascism. (Think that’s too harsh? Then I’d suggest you compare videos of Mussolini with those of Trump – Il Duce versus Il Douche. Try to convince yourself that the postures, the attitudes, the smug expressions and the pouting lips aren’t identical.)

Supporters say they want to elect Trump because he’s different. He certainly is that – different, as in totally unqualified, as in wholly lacking the knowledge and temperament to be president. One can only conclude that America has gone mad – at least a significant portion of it.