Category Archives: Politics

Stone Cold GOP.

Posted on by

I can think of no better way to describe Teapublicans’ failure to extend benefits for the 1.3 million long-term unemployed. After all, these are people who, through no fault of their own, are hanging on by their fingernails. Instead of offering them a hand, Teapublicans seem unwilling to give them anything but some nail clippers.

Nevertheless, Democrats have refused to give up on the unemployed. Not only have they called for an extension of benefits, they have pushed numerous bills that would result in job creation. In response, Teapublicans not only refused to act. They demanded more cuts which, according to most economists, would result in even more unemployed. Worse, as the benefits were expiring, Teapublicans took to the airwaves to blame the victims for their plight and to call them moochers!

By contrast, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy spent a day with the homeless in order to better understand their situation. His “guide” was a homeless man who had overcome a difficult childhood with a drug-addicted father. Having worked many years in sales, he lost his job and his home. He now spends his days looking for work and just trying to survive.

Such stories are not uncommon.

Very few of the homeless are lazy layabouts. Many are addicted or mentally ill. And many others are ordinary people who worked hard, played by the rules and found themselves in financial trouble after losing their jobs or encountering medical problems that they couldn’t afford…often despite having insurance.

For example, one of my friends contracted throat cancer resulting in laryngectomy (removal of the voice box) and causing him to lose his job as a telemarketer. That, in turn, caused him to lose his home. An Army veteran, he was too proud to accept offers to stay in friends’ homes. Instead, he survived by showering and changing clothes at the YMCA, using computers at the public library to apply for jobs, reading, visiting the offices of friends, and riding the buses at night. (The bus became his bedroom.) Once a month, he treated himself to a room at a inexpensive motel. His only source of income was a small (very small) check for a military disability. He wasn’t even eligible for SSI.

My friend despised the stench, noise and prostelityzing of church-sponsored shelters. He thought homeless camps were dangerous. So he lived this way for more than a year before he finally received additional disability compensation from the VA.

Tell me, Teapublicans, exactly what made my friend a moocher? What made him so undeserving in your minds that you would deny him, and people like him, unemployment benefits or other forms of help? What would you have him do? He couldn’t ask for job interviews over the phone. He had no phone, anyway. He couldn’t apply in person. As a black man with no ability to speak, most of those he encountered turned away from him. If he handed them a note, they assumed he was trying to rob them!

Aside from his few friends, the only people who would engage him were children. They were fascinated with his stoma (the hole where his larynx used to be) and with the electrolarnyx (the electronic wand that can be used to produce a robotic-like voice).

My friend’s story was worse than most (he has since passed away), but the point is the same. Most of the people who are now without unemployment benefits have similar stories. And Teapublicans seem to think they are disposable.

Cutting Through The GOP’s Economic Talking Points.

Posted on by

Almost from the first day President Obama took office, conservatives have howled about his economic policies. They blamed him for growing the national debt. They blamed him for record deficits. They created the Tea Party to protest taxes, even though they were at historic lows.They labeled Obama a socialist for saving the auto industry. They called him a fascist and a communist for signing the Affordable Care Act. And they campaigned on the need for government budget cuts in 2010 and 2012.

Democrats countered that the growing debt and deficits were the result of President George W. Bush’s policies. For his part, President Obama refused to place blame on the previous administration. Instead, he pointed to the irresponsible behavior of Wall Street and the resulting economic crash. And though he has cut the deficit faster than any previous president, he has repeatedly stated that unemployment is still too high and the economy too fragile for more draconian cuts.

So what’s the reality? Who’s right?

Bob Deitrick, a principal of Polaris Financial Partners, and Lew Goldfarb, a business attorney, conducted an exhaustive study of US presidencies from 1929 to 2009. That particular time period was selected because each party controlled the White House for exactly 40 years during that time. What Deitrick and Goldfarb found was that Democratic presidents have been better for the economy than Republicans! Their findings were published in the book Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box.

Interestingly, the administration that ranked highest was the JFK/LBJ administration. (The authors combined the two due to Kennedy’s assassination.) In descending order, the next five were Clinton, FDR, Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan.

The book did not cover Obama’s performance since he had not been in office long enough to make judgments. Yet when Deitrick discussed more recent data in a Forbes interview, he declared, “By all measures, President Obama has outperformed every modern president.” That’s because Obama has reduced the deficit from 10 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) at the end of the Bush presidency to just 4 percent today! This is more the result of growth than budget cuts. It’s the result of Obama’s stimulus plan combined with his decision to save the auto industry. And as the economy continues to grow, the deficit is expected to be just 2 percent of GDP by 2015.

Obviously, presidents who refuse to cut taxes for the wealthy and who refuse to start unnecessary wars are good for the economy.

Still, President Obama is facing a particularly troubling economic reality – that of income inequality. As a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has shown, from 1979 to 2007, the share of income for the top fifth of our population has grown 10 percent. During the same period, all other households saw their share of income decline by 2-3 percent.

This can be fixed. But it will likely take more than a Democrat in the White House. It will take a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Environmental Suicide.

Posted on by

Many years ago, a scientist named Paul Ehrlich convinced me of the dangers of uncontrolled population growth. He helped create an organization named Zero Population Growth (ZPG) which called for couples to have no more than two children – the number needed to replace the parents while maintaining the existing population. At the time, the world’s population stood at approximately 3.6 billion.

In 2011, the world population exceeded 7 billion!

Even today, few of the world’s governments have taken serious action to limit population growth. Discounting the effects of our never-ending wars, the exception is the one baby policy instituted by China and Indonesia. By enforcing a policy of one baby per couple, the governments hoped to improve economic conditions for their people while preserving dwindling resources. Although the populations of China and Indonesia have continued to grow, by most accounts, the policy has worked. China claims that 400,000 births have been averted. As a result, it recently announced that it will begin to relax the policy.

It seems that one of the biggest obstacles to population control is the lack of access to contraception. Population Action International estimates that as many as 215 million women around the world who want to prevent pregnancy need contraception. Many of these women are denied access to education and contraceptives by religion. This is even a problem in the Americas, especially Latin America.

That’s because the Vatican and other religious leaders have called for a ban on contraceptives and family planning. (It seems they believe that only God can decide the number of children to be born.) These religions often consider science the enemy of faith. Further, many of the same religions tell us that we have nothing to fear from over-population; that if the Earth is destroyed, the faithful will all end up in heaven. Indeed, some religious leaders are anxiously awaiting the “Rapture.”

The attitudes of politicians and corporations are nearly as bad.

In the US, some conservative politicians are trying to ban access to both contraception and abortion. In addition, many corporations see population control and environmental regulations as threats to sales growth. Any real effort to stop global warming would curb the sales of the oiligarchy. And how would corporations continue the escalation of their share prices if they couldn’t clear-cut forests, extract minerals, pillage our oceans, and create sprawling subdivisions?

Large profits require large populations.

Meanwhile, scientists the world over are screaming about the effects of over-population and the increased burning of fossil fuels. They point to alarming evidence that our environment may soon reach a tipping point. They cite statistics of rising temperatures, rising sea levels and shrinking ice shelves. They warn that lost species are like canaries in the coal mine; that the extinction of such species is a precursor to the extinction of our own.

If none of that alarms you, maybe this video will. The scientist in the video makes one of the most compelling (and frightening) arguments yet.

The Conservative War Against Labor.

Posted on by

In the years following the Great Depression, labor unions were popular and thriving. The Wagner Act of 1935, also known as the National Labor Relations Act, guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. As a result, union workers, particularly those in mining and manufacturing, experienced dramatic gains in salaries and benefits, along with safer working conditions.

Corporations didn’t give up these things without a fight. But public sentiment was temporarily on the side of workers and World War II demanded unity between corporations and unions.

The end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War gave corporations a new opportunity to undermine unions with the rise of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) and his House Un-American Affairs Committee (HUAC). Likely emboldened by President Truman’s loyalty program intended to discredit Democratic rival Henry Wallace (former V.P. to FDR, nuclear disarmament advocate and pro-labor candidate) prior to the 1948 presidential election, McCarthy launched a witch hunt in search of communist sympathizers. News of the Soviet Union’s growing nuclear capability spawned a national paranoia that allowed McCarthy to portray labor unions as a communist front .

By the time McCarthy’s lies and un-Constitutional tactics were exposed, hundreds of Americans had been imprisoned, thousands more had lost their jobs and tens of thousands had been investigated. The victims included those who had supported Wallace, civil rights leaders, union leaders…even the unions’ rank and file.

The unraveling of the HUAC may have posed another setback for corporations and the wealthy, but McCarthy’s accusations left many suspicious of organized labor, even as labor unions continued to help build the middle class. Finally, in the 1980’s, anti-union forces suceeded in electing a president sympathetic to their cause – Ronald Reagan. When the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) went on strike, violating a law banning strikes by government workers, Reagan fired all 11,345 members who failed to return to work.

Reflecting on the event, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan commented, “His [Reagan’s] action gave weight to the legal right of private employers, previously not fully exercised, to use their own discretion to both hire and discharge workers.”

The war against unions resumed in earnest.

Corporations began sending jobs offshore in search of labor willing to work for low wages and without benefits such as health insurance, disability insurance and unemployment insurance. The export of jobs also eliminated the need for worker pensions. (In the years since Reagan’s election, more than 85,000 defined benefit pension funds have been eliminated.) Many of the jobs that can’t be exported, like those at Walmart and McDonald’s, now pay so little that their employees require public assistance. And with fewer workers eligible to pay dues, many labor unions have been weakened.

Meanwhile, management compensation has soared. The savings on labor costs has resulted in million dollar annual salaries and bonuses for executives.

With money comes influence allowing corporations and industries to successfully lobby Congress for subsidies, tax write-offs and lower tax rates. In addition, many corporations have been allowed to avoid taxes by creating Post Office box “headquarters” in off-shore tax havens. The resulting drop in tax revenue led to increased deficits and greater debt. But, rather than rewrite the corporate tax code and raise taxes on those who could afford it, conservatives have seized the opportunity to cut social programs. They not only cut food stamps. They have targeted Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, as well.

Not surprisingly, conservatives have also taken aim at the labor unions which represent government workers, such as teachers, firefighters and police. In particular, they want to eliminate government pensions. The argument is that, if private workers don’t have pensions and benefits, why should government workers? If successful, conservatives will have turned the clock back to the gilded age; the days prior to labor unions; the days of extreme wealth and extreme poverty.

Some say that we already have two Americas. I would argue three.

One is the America of the one percent; those who make lots of money and pay little to no income tax; those who can buy influence by donating to political campaigns and build new businesses with government subsidies financed with the taxes paid by others.

The second is the America of hard work, limited upward mobility and shrinking investments. In this America, you work ever longer hours in order to meet the corporate demands of increased productivity. Each year, you are forced to do more with less. For you, retirement may be little more than a dream. And for your children, college will become a financial burden they may never be able to repay.

The third America is one in which people work for so little money they can’t afford many of the necessities of life. According to the Working Poor Families Project, one in three American families are now among the working poor. One in six Americans and one in four children don’t know where the next meal is coming from, or even if there will be a next meal. In this America, more than 630,000 are chronically homeless and 3.5 million will experience homelessness in a given year. For many of these people, there is little hope that their circumstances will change. They not only lack political influence, many face new laws and obstacles intended to discourage them from voting.

Both President Obama and Pope Francis have recently called economic inequality the biggest problem we face. But President Obama can’t reduce inequality in America by himself. We will need a Congress that represents all Americans. We will need a sympathetic and unified citizenry. And we will need organized labor.

(As a footnote, I should make it clear that, having become part of middle management almost immediately following college graduation, I was ineligible for union membership. But, like most Americans, I was able to take advantage of the improved working conditions, salaries and benefits negotiated by labor unions.)

We Could All Learn From “The Jerk.”

Posted on by

The Jerk, starring Steve Martin, has long been one of my favorite movies. Not only is it filled with great comedy, it is filled with wisdom and life lessons. One such lesson is represented by the scene in which Martin’s character, Navin, first sees his name listed in the phone book. “I am somebody!” he exclaims.

That should be meaningful to all of us since it represents the human need for acknowledgement and respect. In fact, I believe respect is one of the most basic of human needs right after air, food and water. None of us want to think that we will journey through life without leaving a mark or even being noticed. Indeed, many human conflicts could be avoided by simply showing respect for others.

Street gangs are formed as a result of seeking a sense of belonging. Usually, they band together when the individual members feel disrespected by others in their community. And they are willing to fight and die when they are disrespected by other gangs.

Likewise, consumers experience frustration and anger when corporations and other institutions treat them as mere sources of money instead of actually working to fulfill their needs. Workers feel unappreciated and disrespected when they are paid too little money, or when extra effort goes unnoticed. Civil rights issues, such as gay marriage, are as much about respect and fairness as they are about freedom and personal liberty.

The need for respect even leads nations into war when they feel that others are trying to take advantage of them. For example, the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States began as the result of President Truman’s bellicose and belligerent statements that showed contempt for our World War II ally. Truman thought that, since we were the only nation to hold the secret of nuclear weapons, he could use that power to disregard prior agreements and exact new concessions from the Soviets.

In other words, Truman ignored the Soviets’ need for respect.

This is a lesson that should be considered as we enter negotiations with Iran and as we press for new trade concessions from China. It’s what both Democrats and Republicans need to consider if they are to accomplish anything that will benefit our citizens during the next session of Congress. It’s what we all need to keep in mind as we interact with each other. Not just during the holiday season, but year ‘round.

As Aretha Franklin sang, “R-E-S-P-E-C-T…I got to have a little respect.” It’s what everyone needs and deserves.

Prisoners Of Greed.

Posted on by

Contrary to popular belief, crime does pay. But not in the way you think. It’s not necessarily the criminals who profit. It’s the corporations that imprison them. You see, more and more of our states are replacing state-run prisons with prisons run by private corporations. And since the US has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners and only 5 percent of the population, prisons have become a very big business.

Although crime is generally going down and the number of prisoners is shrinking, thanks to intensive lobbying efforts, we are still building more private prisons. To make matters worse, the prison corporations have contracts that dictate that they will not accept any prisoners with chronic illnesses. Their contracts guarantee 85 percent to 100 percent occupancy. Yet it has been shown that private prisons cost significantly more per prisoner than public prisons.

But cost is only one of the problems associated with private prisons. It has been reported that 78 percent of those entering prison have drug problems. Indeed, addiction is one of the contributing factors to most crimes. Yet only 6 percent receive treatment while in prison despite evidence that every dollar spent on drug treatment saves $18.02 in the cost of enforcement, court cases and incarceration.

50 percent of those in prison have committed non-violent crimes, many of them minor. But, because of its Three Strikes and You’re Out law, California has some people serving life sentences for such crimes as stealing a $69 jacket. This is not only inhumane. It’s ineffective. Criminologists know that the peak ages for crime are between 16 and 25. They also know that there is an optimum amount of punishment needed to prevent recidivism. That time varies according to the crime and the individual. If you keep someone in prison for too long, they are more likely to be violent when they get out. And since 93 percent of prisoners will eventually be released, you can see the potential for problems.

If you treat people like animals, they tend to act like animals.

Nevertheless, many politicians continue to push for more severe sentences and harsh conditions for prisoners. The mentality is to house criminals rather than rehabilitate them. Criminologists can prove that such policies don’t work. But their knowledge is often rejected because politicians have found that being “tough on crime” helps their chances for re-election.

Further, such “get tough” policies are good for the profits of private prison corporations. And the private prison corporations often contribute to political campaigns.

Unfortunately, our enormous prison population is damaging our country. It has not only harmed our human rights reputation around the globe. It has destroyed families and entire communities. 1 in 33 school children in the US have at least one parent in prison. 1 in 4 Americans have a felony record.  Moreover, a study by the Pew Research Center found that if you arrest 500 people in a community of 100,000, you disrupt the entire community. Yet there are many communities in which we have arrested as many as 750.

Criminologists know that the best deterrent to crime is certainty of punishment more than the length and severity of punishment. But our politicians pay no attention. We also know that education prevents crime. Yet we now pay 40 percent more for prisons than we do for education.

Our priorities could not be more upside-down.

The Privatization Fraud.

Posted on by

For many years, the GOP has called for smaller government while, at the same time, extolling the virtues of privatization. GOP politicians have pushed for private schools through tax incentives and vouchers. In many states, they have turned the operation of prisons over to private, for-profit corporations. And thanks to the GOP, many of the operations once provided by military personnel are now provided by private contractors, such as Halliburton and Blackwater.

More recently, the GOP has pushed for privatizing Medicare through a voucher system and privatizing Social Security through private financial institutions.

The argument is that private companies can always perform tasks better and cheaper than public institutions. But before you jump on the privatization bandwagon, maybe you should ignore the rhetoric and look at studies which compare the costs and quality of services provided by private institutions with those provided by government.

Let’s begin by comparing charter schools with public schools. A 2009 report entitled Multiple Choice Charter School Performance in 16 States by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University found that only 17 percent of charter schools performed better than public schools while 47 percent performed at roughly the same level and 37 performed worse than public schools! This is in spite of the fact that charter schools often get to select students and usually provide few of the extra-curricular activities that public schools do.

As for prisons, a 2012 study by the Tucson Citizen found that private prisons cost the State of Arizona $3.5 million per year more than public prisons even though private prisons do not take high security prisoners or those with chronic illnesses. Ironically, the one exception is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Tent City. Like the name suggests, Tent City is a series of canvas tents in the desert with no heat or air conditioning. The bathrooms are portable toilets. Prisoners are made to wear pink underwear. And prisoners are served two meals a day. One meal consists of milk, juice, porridge and a hard roll. The other consists of a green baloney sandwich. Yet, despite the primitive conditions, Tent City costs more per prisoner than any other jail or prison in Arizona. Worse, recidivism is 14 percent higher than the national average.

Sheriff Joe may be the self-proclaimed “nation’s toughest sheriff” and an extreme conservative, but he is a failure as a steward of taxpayers’ money.

Nevertheless, the biggest waste of money is the privatization of our military. During the early stages of the Afghan war and the Iraq war, the Department of Defense (DoD) awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton for everything from food service to transport and supply. In addition, the DoD handed out lucrative contracts for security services to Blackwater. The expectation was that privatizing such services would cost the US substantially less and allow the DoD to focus on military operations. But, after examining the DoD’s own documents, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) found that private contractor employees cost 2.94 times more than an average DoD employee performing the same job!

According to POGO, in 2010 the DoD spent $254 billion for contract employees compared to $108 billion for civilian personnel directly employed by the DoD and $150 billion for military personnel.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. After all, the primary difference between a service provided by government and a service provided by a corporation is profit. The corporation must deliver profits in order to pay dividends to shareholders. And the corporate CEOs tend to pay themselves salaries that are many times those of government leaders. In most cases, the only way private corporations can compete with government is to reduce the scope and quality of service.

Imagine what will happen if they ever get their hooks into Medicare and Social Security!

Why We Can Never Return To The Nostalgic Post-War US Of The Baby Boomers.

Posted on by

The Baby Boomers who comprise the majority of the Tea Party movement fondly recall the world of their youth; a world of cheap gasoline, muscle cars, rock ‘n roll, full employment and US world dominance. They want that world back. And they are convinced that the only thing standing between them and the world of their youth is a liberal, out-of-control government that wastes their money on freeloaders.

I have bad news for them. That world no longer exists. And it’s never coming back.

You see, following World War II, we were one of the few countries that had not suffered significant destruction. While much of Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Belgium, Poland, Great Britain and the Soviet Union had been flattened, the US was essentially unscathed. That led to unprecedented industrial production and wealth for the US. We produced an astounding 50 percent of the world’s goods and services…goods needed to rebuild much of the world. We held two-thirds of the world’s gold. And Americans were looking to the future by investing in education and infrastructure through increased tax rates.

For those in the US, life was good. Really good!

Now contrast that situation with today’s economy. Instead of making the materials to rebuild other nations, we must now compete with them. Instead of exporting manufactured goods, we have been exporting middle class jobs. Taxes are near 60-year lows, reducing revenues and forcing our government to borrow money in order to maintain our crumbling infrastructure. We are recovering from the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression and two unfunded wars. And, according to Teapublicans, it’s all the fault of President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Say what?

The nostalgic world of the fifties and sixties was not the norm and never could be. Moreover, Americans got fat (literally) and lazy. We also got greedy. Instead of investing in our future, we cut taxes. Instead of maintaining our manufacturing base, our corporations became engaged in a race to the bottom looking for impoverished populations they could exploit in order to lower their labor costs. Instead of forcing multinational corporations to pay the true cost of energy and transportation, politicians enabled the export of jobs through government subsidies. And instead of promoting hard work and the American Dream, we eliminated estate taxes allowing the wealthy to create dynasties leading to unprecedented income disparity.

Truth is, today’s situation is the result of decades of bad political decisions…most originating during the Reagan administration. Doubling down on those policies, as the Tea Party demands, will not help. Instead of taking us back to the days of Leave It To Beaver, they’re more likely to take us back to the days of Oliver Twist and Scrooge.

Public Versus Private. Corporations Versus People.

Posted on by

Ever since President Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” conservatives have attributed virtually all of our problems to the federal government. They believe that the government cannot do anything well. As a result, they have continually cut taxes in order to starve the government of revenue, making it less effective and less efficient so it better lives up to their expectations.

At the same time, conservatives have pushed to privatize many government functions. Private, for-profit contractors now handle many of the functions that our military once did, including food service, transportation, supply and security. Both state and federal governments have awarded contracts to private prison corporations. Public education now competes for funding with private charter schools. Even our most sensitive spying and surveillance programs have been outsourced to private companies as evidenced by the revelations surrounding Edward Snowden.

But are these private entities really better than the government? Is the government really the problem? Much of the evidence says no.

The jury is still out on whether or not privatizing our military is a good idea, but there have been numerous embarrassing incidents in which private contractors were accused of committing war crimes. As for private prisons, studies have shown that they cost far more per inmate than public prisons, even though private prisons refuse to accept high security prisoners and those with chronic illnesses. And a study by Stanford University has shown that private charter schools perform no better than public schools.

Moreover, the 2013 Customer Rage Survey by Customer Care Measurement and Consulting and the Arizona State University W. P. Carey School of Business found that the percentage of people with customer service problems grew from 32 percent in 1976 to 50 percent in 2013. And 56 percent of those who complained in 2013 remain unsatisfied. Most telling is the fact that 98 percent of the most serious customer service problems involved private companies. Only 2 percent were associated with the government!

How can that be? Is it possible Reagan was wrong?

The truth is, our government is ultimately accountable to us. It may seem big and uncaring, but one election can change everything. On the other hand, today’s giant financial institutions and multinational corporations have little accountability to customers. Certainly, you can move your account from a large bank to a smaller one, but the likelihood is that it, too, is controlled by a large holding company. You can switch insurance companies and find that the new company is just as difficult to deal with as the previous one. Likewise, you can get rid of your cable company, but your satellite provider may not be any more responsive. Indeed, it may be worse.

The problem is not a matter of public versus private. Most customer service problems stem from bureaucracy – both public and private.

But our most serious problem involves both public and private institutions. It centers on the alliance between government and large corporations based on disproportionate access and influence. Consider, for example, the alliance between the George W. Bush White House and Richard “The Dick” Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, which was awarded billions in no-compete military contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan; or the alliance between Ohio congressional representatives (both Republican and Democrat) and the Ohio contractor for Abrams tanks which was awarded a contract for additional tanks that the Army neither wants or needs; or the alliance between Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s staff and a private prison company which led to the company receiving multi-million dollar contracts for private prisons. There are many, many more examples.

Not surprisingly, many of the government’s most outspoken critics are conservatives who will gladly spend money to enrich their districts, their states, their corporate friends and themselves.

Mourning Mandela.

Posted on by

It has been said that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. No statement more accurately describes Nelson Mandela.

Mandela began his career as an activist by non-violently demonstrating against South African apartheid. When the white South African government responded with exceptional brutality, Mandela and his followers reluctantly turned to terrorism. But rather than kill people, their intent was to blow up buildings in order to make a statement and disrupt the government.That led to Mandela being tried for conspiracy to overthrow the government and being sentenced to life in jail. With most of the world supporting sanctions against South Africa and, with Mandela as a symbol for freedom, the government was eventually forced to release Mandela and apartheid finally came to an end.

Yet Mandela’s political career was just beginning.

Having won freedom for himself and his people, Mandela directed his energies toward healing the wounds of apartheid. He was elected president of South Africa and, rather than seeking retribution for the crimes of the previous government, Mandela promoted national unity. Is it any wonder, then, that Nelson Mandela is now celebrated by most of the world?

That was not always the case.

Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Richard “The Dick” Cheney and other conservatives considered Mandela a terrorist and placed him on the terrorist watch list. Although Reagan publicly spoke against apartheid, he vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. His veto was over-ridden by Congress. But Reagan defiantly refused to implement many of the sanctions against the South African apartheid government, and Mandela was kept on the US terrorist list until July of 2008.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who follows today’s GOP.

Since implementation of the Southern Strategy beginning in the late 1960’s, the GOP has almost completely rejected its glorious past as the party of emancipation, consistently coming down on the wrong side of history. The GOP refuses to vote for comprehensive immigration reform. It has fought against gay rights and gay marriage. It has relentlessly attacked a woman’s right to make medical choices regarding her own body. Republican legislatures have pushed through unnecessary voter ID laws in order to restrict the voting rights of minorities.

Despite Mandela’s victory over discrimination, despite his Nobel Peace Prize, despite worldwide acclaim and despite the sorrow so eloquently expressed by people the world over, even now, some in the GOP refuse to acknowledge his greatness simply because Mandela believed in economic equality as well as racial equality. That made Mandela a communist and a danger to the wealthy and the powerful, a claim that defacto GOP leader, Rush Limbaugh, recently leveled against Pope Francis.

The fact is, Nelson Mandela fought the good fight. He helped to liberate tens of thousands of people. He inspired millions more. We should all strive to do even half as much. Most especially those in the GOP.

“Death is something inevitable. When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace. I believe I have made that effort and that is, therefore, why I will sleep for the eternity.” – Nelson Mandela