Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Coming In 2026

All civilizations move in cycles.  Sometimes these cycles are the swing of the pendulum to the extremes of its arc and then back again.  What rises, falls; what falls, rises.  We might like to think of our national story as a straight-line march to and through the “American Century.”  But it has actually been a sequence of major chapters within the Great American Novel through which our erratic story has been told.

It took 168 years to bring America out of its infancy, its Colonial settlement period, from Jamestown in 1607 until the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775.  Quite the long infancy period to get ready for this national adventure.  But when the time came, our forefathers and foremothers were ready.  They moved forward, working (unknowingly) in roughly 50-year major increments.

1776-1826 was our Founding Period, organizing this new American Experiment in popular governance.  It took a Revolution, a Constitution, imagination and deep commitment to move this vague concept into a working reality.  All of the principal characters of this first period were a product of the Revolution and Constitutional Convention, including our first six presidents.  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on July 4, 1826, and John Quincy Adams’ presidency ended in 1828, both events emphatically concluding this period.  But the Experiment in Governance, and the Founders’ goal of national unity transcending the states, had held.

1826-1876 took us into an Expansion and Division Period.  Presidential leadership moved from the patrician Founders to the era of the Common Man.  Andrew Jackson redefined the presidency into a power equal to or greater than Congress, and fought against the wealthy’s backroom hold on national power.  The country moved west and began to fill in the open space that would become the continental United States of America.  Yet this expansion was continually undermined by threats to divide this hard-won unity over the still unresolved Constitutional Convention issues of slavery and states’ rights.  The threats of division came true in the American Civil War (1861-1865), and the subsequent Reconstruction Era over the defeated South.  Reconstruction, and this historical Period, “ended” as a result of the deal-making of the 1876 presidential election.  As it turned out, ending Reconstruction reinstituted the pre-war South, who now fought a rear-guard resistance of continued division lasting through to this day, with laws replacing bullets and legislatures replacing battlefields.

1877 – 1929 was our Capitalist and Labor Period.  An economic division of America.  If you were part of the mega-rich Capitalist sector – the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Fords, etc. – it was the “Gilded Age” of absolute monopolies, boardroom collusion, and rigging the marketplace to obtain spectacular wealth.  If you were in the worker sector, it was about poverty, oppressive work, employment conditions without recourse or protection – ultimately giving rise to the organized labor movement.  Money dominated this period, and money equated to power.  Theodore Roosevelt’s attacks on “financial trusts” served as a speed bump along the road to wealth, but it only slowed, not stopped, the Pullman luxury trains.  Even World War I, which changed the map of Europe and the Middle East, was only a short diversion for America.  The “Roaring Twenties” brought all of America into the frenzied chase for wealth.

1930-1976 began our Middle-Class and Government Expansion Period, when the economic frenzy of the previous Period abruptly ended in 1929 with America’s Great Depression.  The family fortunes from the Gilded Age remained fairly intact through the Depression.  It was the common Joe and Josephine who lost everything, the ones who were the last to arrive at the get-rich party before the bubble burst.  Big-money’s power over the government was checked – though not eliminated – as the federal government’s attention, programs and funding were redirected to the needs and suffering of Middle Americans trying to survive the Depression.  Millions of middle-class Americans fought and won WWII at home and abroad.  Upon the war’s end, new opportunities from government programs created the largest middle-class, consumer-based, sustained economy in our history, redefining government and the face of American society. It was a redefinition that came to include a redressing of civil and economic rights across a spectrum of previously hidden constituencies: e.g. African-Americans, women, the gay/lesbian movement, Native-Americans, the poor.  Lyndon Johnson’s attempt to create a “Great Society” blew up in the 1960s/1970s wake of Viet Nam, the youth movement, and ultimately, Watergate.  Gerald Ford promised us that “our long national nightmare [of Watergate] is over.” But so also was America’s Middle-Class and Government Expansion Period.

1976 began our current 50 year cycle of a simultaneous Retrenchment and Advancement Period. Similar to the previous Expansion and Division Period, it is a time when a deep and contradictory schism has split the citizenry.  It has been a return to times past governmentally and economically, yet concurrently a leap forward in the social order and measures of equality.  Since the Reagan years, we have been on a steady return to the Gilded Age of 100 years ago.  Extreme wealth has returned into the hands of the few, leaving the great Middle Class stagnant economically – if not going backwards from its post-WWII gains.  We neutered the financial controls instituted in the 1930s, and in 2008 unsurprisingly had our worst Recession since that Depression.  (Apparently learning nothing, we are now dismantling the new controls that arose out of that Recession.) Since the mid-1990s, division has been our overriding theme of (non-) governance. The disappearance of bipartisanship has resulted in a virtual end of functioning government and a handover of power to wealthy businesspeople. “Conservative” politicians ascended and pushed for shrinking government’s size while practicing “fiscal responsibility,” but these have proven to be more idealized myths than actuality. Meanwhile, “Liberal” social themes from the prior cycle – civil rights, protected environment, racial integration, economic parity, and gay and gender issues – continued to expand. However, a backlash from social conservatives to this expansion has grown steadily out of a belief that their traditional family lifestyles, and their role in America, is under attack and being lost. The citizenry today is as polarized and paralyzed by two competing views of what America means as much as any time since our Civil War.

If our pattern of 50-year cycles holds true, then our next cycle is due roughly in 2026, 250 years after our founding.  What will this next cycle bring to us?  Like all others, it will unfold gradually, requiring time for us to identify the themes that are emerging.  Will the next phase cement the Retrenchment we currently find ourselves in?  Or will it push the Advancement forward and begin a new period of social, economic and political movement?  Will America achieve greater heights over the next decade, or start our gradual descent as a leader in world civilization – a descent that happens to all civilizations at some point?

When changes have occurred within our historical cycle, they have usually been forecasted by a rising tension between “the old that is” and “the new that is to be.” The end of the Founding Period saw a disputed 1824 presidential election and the political shock waves of Jackson’s presidency. The end of the Expansion and Division Period came with our American Civil War – our most deadly war – and the utter destruction of the Old South society. The end of the Capitalist and Labor Period was America’s twelve year Depression with its 25% unemployment. The end of the Middle Class Period was Viet Nam, Watergate, and the youth revolution which tore apart America’s cohesion and trust. In each instance, a drastic upheaval was needed to move our “current” into “past” in order to open the door to our “future.”

Today, we see governmental paralysis, the Trump dismantling of the institutional Presidency, the reversal of government’s role in America, and the abdication of international moral and political leadership. The result is a country in an angry divide not seen since the turmoil of 1968 and the immediate years beyond; the parallels between 1968 and 2018 – another 50 year cycle – are unmistakable. According to the Pew Research Center, in 1964 77% of Americans trusted their government all or most of the time. In December 2017, that number had fallen to just 18% (TIME, 6/11/2018). Donald Trump’s presidency is clearly the beginning of our next transition. What is unclear is whether his time will be the blueprint, the model for America’s next Period. Or, whether his excesses ultimately cross a fault line and become the final hurrah of Retrenchment, thereby giving rise to a new period of government and societal Advancement.

I hope to live to see the beginnings of this next American cycle, at least sufficiently to see the direction it will be heading.  It would be nice to have some sense of what kind of country my generation is bequeathing to our children and grandchildren. I certainly will not be around to see the end of this next cycle.  Perhaps the upcoming 2018 and 2020 elections will give us some preview of what to expect; the 2024 election will most certainly commence the opening step.  We should look forward to this next cycle with great interest and anticipation, but also caution.  It will be the next crossroad in America’s journey.

©  2018   Randy Bell      

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

2nd Amendment Myths

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  —2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified by the States and certified by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, December 15, 1791.

Another week. Another mass killing. 17 incidences of school shootings this year alone. Almost one per week. More killing of our young people. “Thoughts and prayers” are everywhere; excuses proliferate; empty promises of action ring hollow; town hall “listening sessions” turn a deaf ear. Nothing is being done because the 2nd Amendment (and the campaign funds it generates) precludes action. All of the excuses for non-action read from an all too familiar script.

“I have an absolute Constitutional Right to own a gun of my choice.” All of our Rights are limited by the government’s overriding responsibility to protect the welfare and safety of the general public. My Right of free speech is limited by libel and slander laws. My Right to practice the religion of my choice requires me to extend that same right to others. My Right to be protected against unreasonable searches is overridden by a judicial subpoena. Reasonable regulations and processes wrap themselves around all Rights to which I am entitled. The weaponry of the 1790s is nowhere close to our killing capabilities of today. Our Rights must exist within the context of today’s realities.

“I am entitled to a gun as part of the defense and protection of my state.” In 1790, no standing federal army or state militia existed, as well as few centralized armories for storing military weaponry. Single-shot muskets were a necessary part of surviving everyday life on the frontiers, and our population was thinly scattered. State and national defense could be more economically and efficiently provided by convening a militia group as needed in an emergency, and then disbanding them until once again needed. The 2nd Amendment was therefore adopted to allow for this military defense strategy. Today, we have one of the biggest standing federal armies in the world, supported by the biggest military budget of any nation. We also now have a permanent “militia” – the standing National Guard in each state controlled by the individual governors. If one desires to defend his/her State today, one can join that state’s National Guard. The reality of 21st century life supersedes the needs and solutions of America 200+ years ago.

“The government is coming to take your guns.” It is the foremost scare-tactic employed by the NRA. Yet it has not happened. It is not going to happen – unless the killing gets so much worse while the NRA continues to resist even the simplest of reasonable fixes. Then there may arise a public desperate enough to stop the violence that they will use any means possible.

“Guns don’t kill people. People do.” If true, should we not then keep guns and people separated? We regulate automobiles, which kill thousands of people each year, and have recently been “weaponized” as another way to accomplish mass killings. We require a license, given upon completion of an exam that certifies “driving competency” and an understanding of the rules of car ownership. We require insurance to compensate those that might be harmed by our failures to drive safely, and revoke such licenses and provide legal penalties for abusing the privilege of driving. Like all Rights, automatic privilege is not the default. Rather, proof of competency is required first. That is why for generations one applied for a gun license, so that desire and authorization could be properly balanced consistent with all other Rights.

“I have the Right to carry a concealed weapon if I so choose.” A private property or business owner also has the right to disallow a concealed weapon on his/her premises. If “concealed carry” with no proof of justification is such a good idea, why do most all state legislatures, the U.S. Capital building, Secret Service protection rules, and public school and governmental office buildings disallow concealed guns – unless their legislatures (who do not allow it in their building) force them to? The hypocrisy of “it’s good for you but not for me” is striking.

“I need a gun for self-defense against a criminal.” Shooting another human being when being attacked requires training, experience, and mental calmness. In the hands of an amateur, such a self-defensive move can be more dangerous than from an attacker. Just ask any war veteran or police officer what that takes. Watch videos of inexperienced police officers caught up in a moment of escalating excessive force. Or ask Trayvon Martin, the young man in Florida killed by a self-styled “community watch volunteer” who panicked in the heat of the moment.

“Given my circumstances, I have a need for a gun.” For many people across the country, this is certainly true. The isolated resident in rural America can be highly likely to encounter dangerous wildlife that can harm persons, property or domestic animals.  There are also still many Americans who hunt game in order to feed their family. However, few of those situations require a military assault rifle either for defense or food gathering. A hunter who needs an automatic rifle to kill a defenseless deer is a danger to human life and should not be allowed in the forest. In the cities, there are few dangerous wildlife roaming the neighborhoods. In the infrequent times when that does happen, there are animal control or police professionals properly trained to deal with those instances.

“Mass shooters are mentally ill.” True, but how easily can we identify those with such illness? How do we feed that information into a system and process by which we can intervene quickly to prevent them from obtaining the weapons? This is especially difficult given that there are so many avenues for obtaining a gun that do not require the buyer to be identified.

“If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.” This argument has been on bumper stickers for 70 years. Yes, some criminals will obtain a gun regardless of what we do or put into place. Nevertheless, we prohibit robbers from stealing. We prohibit tax evaders from not paying their share. We prohibit dealers in illegal drugs from poisoning our population. We prohibit business people from selling defective products. We do this even though there will always be those who choose to ignore those laws and inflict wrong on their neighbors. Do we simply throw up our hands and legalize all acts because some will not cooperate? Our laws define our expectations, which the majority of the people will observe. We should institute appropriate gun laws even while accepting that some minority of people will choose not to honor those rules.

“To prevent school shootings, we need to arm the teachers.” Teachers teach because they love their subject area, want to share it with inquisitive minds, and enjoy the satisfaction of seeing their students succeed. They did not get an education degree and teaching certification to become part of an armed defense force. Any more than the lawyer, the grocer, the manager, the movie theater operator, and the owner of Trump Tower took their job expecting to strap on a gun as they leave for work each morning. Protecting children in the school is the state’s responsibility for the safety of all citizens. We should not be spending millions of dollars in new gun sales for this inappropriate “solution.”

“These mass killings happen from copycat killers seeking notoriety.” Often true. Which is why the news media needs to quit glorifying these killers. Mass killers are typically people who feel powerless in their everyday world, and who see these acts as their one chance to get even – their road to fame, their opportunity to exert “power.” Plastering their face on our televisions screens, and telling their detailed life story, is exactly what they want. It is all about gaining attention through notoriety. The massive publicity about this “nobody” hidden in the shadows lays the groundwork for the next episode.

“I am not responsible.” It is the shared defense offered up by the gun manufacturer, the gun dealer, the trade associations and NRA, the elected legislator and politician, the paid lobbyist. Also the parent, the sibling and friend, the social worker, the lawyer and the courts, the law enforcement officer, our collective society as a whole. We say, “we are with you – the survivors,” but we are not. We promise to take action, but we do not. Collectively, we de facto accept the killing of our children in the classroom because we accept doing nothing to stop it. In the end, it has little to do with the 2nd Amendment. People continue to die, to be shooting targets in what has become an epidemic slaughter that can happen anywhere and any time. If all of us are not responsible, then who is?

© 2018   Randy Bell       

Friday, May 11, 2018

I Meets We

I am a human being. I am told that that means I am a completely unique entity. I exist inside a physical form unlike any other; even each identical twin has some distinguishing characteristic that sets them apart. Over time, that form continuously changes, yet there is always an “I” inside that continues on unceasingly. The human form is operated by a brain that makes all the other parts go, oftentimes seemingly without any overt assistance from me. It continues doing so until at some point in time the physical form collapses and comes to its inevitable end.

There is also a non-physical me that rides along “inside” my human form, but that transcends that form. If I should lose a leg, or contract a disease, that alters my form. But the I inside continues on, adapting as necessary to new conditions of physical existence, but still “I” nonetheless. Wrapped up inside of me are all the non-physical components of my life: my inherited ancestral consciousness of fears, love and survival; the experiences of my lifetime; the memories, which fade in and out over time; the thoughts and beliefs developed; the inspirations and talents that await expression and fulfillment. In the sum totality of the parts that I am, I am truly unique.

Notwithstanding my uniqueness, I continually seek to find my place to flower and grow in the greater world that envelops me. In that outer place, I am barely unique at all; I share a commonality with all other forms of human life. Each of our physical forms began from the physical union of our male and female parents; we are all therefore concurrently some part male and part female. Collectively on this planet, I am but one component of over seven billion other human beings, and one of approximately 3.5 billion of my designated gender. I am merely one of 325M Americans, 36M people over 65, 10M residents of my state, and 250K of my city. I am simply a one-line entry in the vast pages of census records.

I have certain spiritual, political and social opinions that may be similar to the opinions of others, but likely different in their combined totality that makes up a belief system. I live a daily life partly unique to I, but one that is also continually engaged with some portion of WE each day. I am fully dependent upon others for the food, water, shelter, transportation, and entertainment that sustains I. I am interdependent with all living things, both human and non-human, in the air, earth, and resources I share with WE. In this larger perspective of my existence, there is not much overly unique about I at all. If I am birthed, then I will engage in some experiences unique to me, as well as experiences that are common to some others even though I may interpret them uniquely to me. I will live within the law of continuous change that governs the life of all things. After an accumulation of those experiences appropriate for me, I will then die.

This is the struggle we constantly face. Which are my uniquely “I” experiences, and which arise from my being part of WE? When should I defer to the greater good of WE, and when does WE need to back away and leave space for I? Both the I and WE aspects of me need to find expression, our time to be nurtured in the sunlight of humanity. Without such balancing and nurturing, the individual human being withers, and gradually societies die. There are no absolute rules to direct us to easy answers for this balancing, just informed thinking and mature judgement to guide us through the difficult tangles of our personal decision-making.

Most all of our human, cultural, political and societal conflicts that arise are due to this continual effort to balance our see-saw choices between I and WE. For example, in my society I am told that I have a guaranteed right to own a firearm. But I also have a shared responsibility to help keep others safe. Is not my Right to own a gun subject to certain limits in order to meet my responsibility to ensure the safety of WE?

I have the Right to determine the unique religious beliefs most appropriate for I. But am I not also obligated to extend the same respect and unfettered capability to WE?

In the privacy of my home and place of worship, I am granted the Right to practice my faith as I see fit. But when I meet up with WE in the public place, where each of us is constitutionally equal to one another, am I not also obligated to refrain from inflicting my religious practices and symbols onto WE?

Behind the wheel of an automobile, I am king of the road. But am I not also obligated to limit my speed and keep my car well-maintained to ensure the safety of those WE who are also on the road?

In the marketplace of things and services, I have the Right to engage in the career or commerce that most fulfills the dreams and capabilities of I. But am I not also obligated to give those gifts of things and services to all who seek them without discriminating among the WE? Does private property exist in the public place?

As a parent, the decisions about my child reside in the judgment of I. But when I choose to withhold treatment that can kill the child, or abstain from vaccinations that can prevent the infection of others, am I not also obligated to keep We free from the threat of that illness?

I have a Right to speak the thoughts and opinions of I, no matter how odious to the conventional norms of WE. But when my words are intentionally designed to cause mental pain, or perhaps endanger the physical well-being of WE, or to thwart the aspirational goals of the society of WE, is such speech still to be protected?

I and WE live within every one of us. Each is in a perpetual dance for expression, often one in conflict with the other, sometimes each in harmony with the other. In those times of conflict, can I and We seek to find the harmonic expression? Which version of me will step forward in any given situation?

©   2018   Randy Bell   

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Promises Not Yet Kept

“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on,
the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”
—Senator Ted Kennedy,
1980 Democratic convention concession speech

To be an American is to be an optimist. How else can you explain the whole of American history, from its original settlement to its Revolution and Constitution to its becoming the most powerful and inspirational nation in the world? It has never been an easy journey, but it has been a continuous one, always moving towards “something better for myself and others.” But an optimist can also simultaneously be a realist. How else can you explain the idealism of the Founding Fathers juxtaposed against the necessary steps to start an independent country and a radically new form of government? Or adopting a Bill of Rights for the individual citizen while instituting a strong central government of national laws? Or Abraham Lincoln bending those laws to hold our country together against the divisive issue of the slavery of other human beings? Our idealism inspires us to determine where we seek to go as a country, and to believe that we can get there. Our realism shows us how to get there, which demands that we continually measure how far we have gotten and how far away still is our destination.

Our Declaration of Independence states our inspirational goal in its first paragraph: “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” It affirms that as an American we all start out with an equal shot at those inalienable rights. It does not guarantee that each of us will accomplish those goals, but America is obligated to give us that chance at it. To that end, our Constitution provides a framework for how these rights will be effected: by forming “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for our common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

If our aspiration is clear, the same cannot be said about its realization. In the everyday lives of the people, our shortcomings glare in the spotlight of history and current events. That requires us to make a full accounting of our progress, because we have fallen short of our goals. We do this accounting not to minimize or denigrate the very real and substantive accomplishments we have made as a nation over the years, but to refine our current targets and to reenergize our efforts.

The most glaring shortcoming started in our beginning with the importing of hundreds of thousands of African men and women, and subsequently their descendants, to be slaves in the economic service of Colonial masters. Another major shortcoming was written into that Declaration of Independence, which said that “all MEN are created equal,” not only skipping over the enslaved Africans but also the half of our country made up of women. It also skipped over a good number of free men who would come to be deemed as unsuited for full civic rights due to a lack of education, or property ownership, or some other contrived qualification.

So the tug-of-war between our national inspirational self and our actual realized self was there from the beginning. Over the years, we continued to alternate between establishing barriers to the full rights of citizenship, and then to selectively tearing down those barriers. From the barriers set in place to the Africans and to women, we would move on to building barriers to Native-Americans through broken treaties, land seizures, and their forced removal to new, confined reservations. Reservations that would be illegally reclaimed when previously unknown economic value was discovered on the lands (e.g. gold in the Black Hills; oil in Oklahoma). Next would come barriers for the Spaniards and Mexicans who originally occupied the lands of the Southwest and California.  The welcomed anticipation of U.S. citizenship from Mexican dictatorship devolved into yet another version of “native” subservient status.

In the mid-1800s through early 1900s, barriers were focused on immigration status. First came the Irish escaping the potato famine; then came the Asians seeking work; during and following WWI came the Eastern Europeans; and in the 2nd half of the 1900s came the Middle Easterners and Central Americans. In spite of Lady Liberty’s welcoming words, each group encountered new barriers directed at them. Each was met with some forms of cultural, economic, employment, housing, education, safety, religious, and civil liberties exclusion rather than the embrace of freedoms. Immigration and ethnic exclusions often went hand-in-hand with the great economic divide between the super-rich and the destitute poor from the 1880s on.

In spite of breaking down many of these barriers, these exclusions still exist today for far too many of our diverse Americans. Each of these groups can rightly claim “progress made” over the last 150 years; each can also point to the incompleteness of that progress. Today’s battles for women are focused primarily on issues of equality, comparable workplace pay, safety from sexual assault, and control of their own medical and physical decisions against rules established predominantly by men. For African-Americans and Latino-Americans, it is a return focus on voting rights and economic opportunity – a regression from 50 years of progress made. Religious neutrality for all Americans is under siege. Resistance continues against gender-neutral equality in lieu of traditional social relationships.

It is often hard to understand why we continue to put such barriers to human growth in place – barriers often instituted by people whose ancestors were once barred themselves. It is as if extending the American benefits to others is seen as a net loss to the extender, when in fact the giving ultimately comes back around to ourselves. Yet when we may be prone to feel discouraged by what seems to be a never-ending effort, we do well to remember the progress made: the ending of slavery by law, and by war at the cost of 600,000 lives; universal free public education; women’s right to vote; Social Security and Medicare underpinnings for the young and the elderly; the G.I. Bill’s pathway to the middle class; Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s; the ban of discrimination in housing, employment, education and public accommodations; the Constitutional decision for the legality of same-sex marriage; college enrollments mirroring the demographics of our population; the rise of minorities into the middle class.

It is all in process, but it is a process of progress. It should not have to be this hard. But perhaps for some greater purposefulness, it may need to be. Nevertheless, we commit to continuing to move forward.

“Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it
because it stands on the shoulders of that generation.
You will have opportunities beyond anything we've ever known.”
—President Ronald Reagan

Thursday, March 22, 2018

America's International Surrender

“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations;
 cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

George Washington, Farewell Address

For its first 125 years, America lived a very internally focused life. Memories of continual wars for empires in Europe and the Middle East were still fresh in American minds. America instead concentrated its energies on becoming a legitimate country, creating its new democratically elected government, establishing its laws and institutions, and expanding its reach across the continent with new member states. Foreign wars intruded on occasion: we successfully fought the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Given the geographical isolation provided by the vast Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, we minded our own business and avoided the destructive entrapments of other countries.

That began to change around 1900 when big businesses saw new opportunities for profit by gaining control over foreign resources and markets. It would be an economic conquest, principally into South & Central American nations and the Pacific islands. Sugar, rubber, and produce were among the bounty; buying up local businesses and properties were the weapons. When America defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War, America gained new resource-rich colonies principally in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. A new “American Empire” had begun, in spite of vigorous objection and debate by many concerned Americans. Businessmen held the power; they brought several presidents on to their side; the U.S. Army subdued and controlled the foreign territories – often brutally – against local insurgents and revolutionaries seeking freedom from our domination. President Theodore Roosevelt’s Panama Canal epitomized the whole adventure.

We continued to avoid entanglements with European conflicts until near the end of WW1, when Germany attacked U.S. ships and threatened war against us. We reluctantly entered the fray; our presence turned the tide to victory with our allies. Then we packed up and went home, disillusioned by the whole adventure. President Woodrow Wilson tried to use the occasion through his “14 Points” to create a new League  of Nations for peace, but Americans wanted no part of it. They had done the job that needed to be done, and went back to their isolationist views.

Unfortunately, the “war to end all wars” did not. “America First” isolationists held the day through the 1930s Great Depression amid new rounds of wars breaking out across the globe. That changed with Pearl Harbor and a total commitment to defeat the Axis forces. A year before WW2 ended, President Franklin Roosevelt began to look ahead and plan for a post-war world that would begin to end the centuries of misery and desolation from constant conflict. Further, America – which had led the way militarily – would now lead the way toward peace. The deaths of millions of soldiers and civilians – many suffering horribly cruel fates – demanded a new direction. And a new leader.

First came rebuilding the rubble and devastation of Europe to remove a principal motivation for war. Japan’s government was reconstituted to forbid future warring. Standing military alliances were created to ensure permanent protection for diverse member states. Democratic governments replaced despots and returned power to the citizenry. Global colonies of Europe and America became independent nations. International trade and financial structures were expanded; nationalist barriers were reduced. Poverty as a principle cause of war was recognized. America – the wealthiest and strongest post-war country – supported these noble efforts financially through gifts of foreign aid, and militarily by strategically distributing its troops across the globe. “The America Century” began.

As with most noble causes, it was not all smooth sailing. The “cold war” with Russia dominated many foreign strategy decisions for 40 years. We aligned ourselves with too many minor despots who played us for money vis-à-vis Russia. We occasionally threw our weight around and acted as the “bad big brother,” too often telling other nations what to do instead of working with them. Clandestine operations against governments we did not like (e.g. Iran, Chile) put us at odds with our promises. A “draw” war in Korea, then Viet Nam, and now Afghanistan and the Middle East, have left many Americans exhausted with our international role.

In spite of our failures and continuing problems yet to be solved, there have been many successes. There has been no breakout of a major land war except in the volatile but contained Middle East arena. Health, education, and income statistics globally are all to the better, though much still needs to be done. The European Union has transcended a thousand years of conflicts. The Berlin Wall came down; the USSR broke up into separate independent nations; Northern Ireland is finally at peace. Notwithstanding their birth pangs, new nations have come onto the scene asserting their distinctive identities. We see many other success stories – both big and small – happening alongside the steps backwards. Whatever relationship strains continue to arise, we are still talking more than we are shooting at each other.

The key to these and future international successes is contained in three words: Stability, Cooperation, and Leadership. World security and international finance hate surprises. Stability calms people’s concerns, allows them to reasonably forecast the future, and permits plans made to become plans accomplished. Stability requires Cooperation, the majority of people heading towards the same general destination, helping one another out, even if moving separately. Cooperation requires at least one standout leader: pointing the direction; marshalling the effort; offering a plan or method; inspiring by example. 12 post-war U.S. Presidents in sequence made that commitment to Leadership, however flawed some of their detailed plans. On balance, the world is in a better place thanks to each of their collective efforts. It is against this backdrop of consistency that our international role must be measured.

Thus came Donald Trump, our 13th President in this sequence. In his first year in office, under the mantle once again of “America First,” American Leadership in the world has been pulled back. State Department positions and foreign embassies are unfilled. Cooperation has been replaced by “go it alone,” leaving Stability hopelessly mangled. Donald Trump has turned the established world framework upside down. He prefers 1:1 deal-making rather than multi-lateral coordinated actions. We are scraping multi-national trade agreements (e.g. NAFTA; TPP); as a result, other nations are going it alone, signing agreements among themselves without American participation. We abruptly recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital after 70 years of consistently not doing so, a move condemned by most of the world and damaging negotiations for the elusive Middle East peace. We are the only nation among 200 not participating in the Paris Climate Accord, even though America led drafting the initiative and no nation is forced to accept climate mandates. We have threatened to unilaterally cancel military commitments (NATO; SEATO; various Russian missile agreements; Iran nuclear limitations).We are instituting new trade tariffs “to protect American jobs,” even though they will ultimately make foreign goods more expensive for American consumers and will protect virtually no net American jobs. We were once the welcoming beacon of hope for refugees and immigrants looking for a better life for themselves and their families. Now we are shutting our door to their creative talents based upon their racial background, falsely accusing them of all being “terrorists.” We treat Russia with kid gloves even as we pull the rug out from under our principal allies.  In the void of our Leadership departure, China and Russia are happily positioning themselves to fill the gap we are leaving behind.

It may all play well with the American home audience for now. But nervous world leaders are already quietly writing us off, ignoring us, going their own way. We have traded Stability for chaos, and given up Leadership to be a follower. The full ramifications of our abrogation of Leadership will not be clear for a while. When they are clear, it will likely be too late to recover.

Each nation is at its own unique position with respect to its development and maturation. Therefore progress in our global civilization is inevitably erratic. But for the last 75 years, America has been able to reasonably articulate and embody where we all need to go together. 50 years from now when historians review the American Story, they will likely point to 2017 as the beginning of the end to America’s preeminence. No country’s prominence in the world lasts forever, as the forgotten empires of Greece, Rome, and England demonstrate. It seems quite surprising to see America’s time for world Leadership come to such a deliberate but early end.

©   2018   Randy Bell   

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

The Arming Of America - Part 2

Part 1 of this essay ended by posing the question, “So in the face of this super-imposing Goliath, what can a young David do?” Let us consider ten possible answers to that question, a mix-‘n-match stew of potential actions an individual or group could take.

Build Alliances: Find and partner with anyone who shares your concerns. Emphasize linking with other survivors and families of victims. Along with the 3000 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, it is estimated that since the Columbine school shooting in 1999, around 150,000 people have been directly involved in a shooting episode in their school. Many of those people are now voters; many are parents; some are nearing middle age and positions of leadership. Tell their stories. Keep the conversations personal; those are the most effective. And remember … not all NRA members support the extreme views of their leadership. There are many responsible hunters and recreational sportspersons, both NRA members and not, who support keeping inappropriate firearms out of the hands of the unqualified. Find them; connect with them; listen to them; find some common ground.

Raise a War Chest: If the NRA is going to spend $50M, then $100M in counter-fundraising is needed because they have a head start. The rich who say they side with this cause need to pool their money in one place – not spread it around – to become an even bigger Goliath. More Mike Bloombergs need to pony up, and those people are out there. The goal is to take away a politician’s financial incentive to be funded by the gun manufacturers / NRA, versus being funded by “the good guys.” Politicians’ loyalties run shallow, so a better offer can and needs to be made.

Non-billionaires can contribute what they can, and/or organize fundraisings, to support the existing organizations doing the best they can with woefully under-matched funds (e.g. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Americans for Responsible Solutions [Gabby Giffords]).

Open Disclosure: PAC contributors like hiding in secret. Push for state-level legislation requiring PACs to disclose the principal donors paying for their advertising. This will never pass Congress, so follow California’s lead for new model legislation to shine the spotlight on these backers.

Fight From Within: The NRA claims “5M” members. If you are already a responsible gun owner and not a member, then consider joining them. Yes, this may sound counter-intuitive. But the NRA claims to represent “gun owners,” but in fact they represent only some gun owners. Join the organization, and then work to change it from the inside. Open the books, change the extreme leadership, engage conversations with other members to search for the middle ground. The downside is new short-term membership money for the NRA. The potential upside is long-term control and redirection of the organization away from its entrenched leadership. Be that insurgent “fly on the wall.”

Boycotts: History has shown that boycotts and public pressure campaigns towards business corporations on social issues can sometimes be successful. Dick’s Sporting Goods just announced a unilateral decision to stop selling assault rifles, and you can boycott those stores that include guns as part of their floor space. Also mount campaigns towards major corporations to disconnect any relationship they may have with the NRA, as the First Bank of Omaha (America’s biggest privately-held bank) and Enterprise Holdings Inc. (Enterprise, Alamo, and National car rentals) recently announced. Letters to big corporations can sometimes still be effective.

Marches: By all means, march. Public demonstrations make a difference by showing raw numbers. It keeps an issue visible and alive. Expect a lot of lip service in response, because no politician or business likes the optics of arguing with grieving parents and siblings and friends. Back in the office and the boardrooms, nothing will likely change. March anyway.

Disarm the Rhetoric: Expect the tired old “war horse” arguments (mentioned previously) to be rolled out at every opportunity. They are all refutable, for reasons that will be described in a subsequent essay. Just know that when you hear them, it tells you who the speaker truly is, and that s/he is not really in the conversation versus speaking someone else’s “talking points.” Nevertheless, have your responses refuting these excuses at the ready. Stop talking in the negative about “gun control,” etc. Replace these with positive messages (e.g. “stop the killing”; “gun safety”; “common sense gun ownership”).

Legislative Priorities: Pick THREE, and only three, very specific priorities for action. In every communication with a legislator or candidate, ask them: a) whether they support each of them, and if not, what instead; b) what they are actually doing – concrete actions – to effect these priorities. Ignore the fuzzy non-answers and “we’re studying this” response. They are simply trying to distract us and get themselves off the hook in the moment, and do not deserve our support. Keep these priorities very simple (e.g. minimum age limit to purchase; eliminate bump stock accessory; background checks for ALL gun sales from ANY source). Too many priorities, and/or too difficult issues, will simply make it easy to bog the process down, ignore the proposals, and continue to do nothing. If a politician cannot clearly and publicly sign on to three simple and specific priorities without qualification, s/he will never do anything of real substance.

Contact Your Legislator: President Trump, should he try, will find out very quickly what President Obama learned: very little about gun regulation can be done by the Executive Branch alone. This is due to numerous laws preventing them from acting passed by prior Congresses that essentially neutered federal agencies from effective oversight. So efforts need to be focused on Congress and state legislators.  That is where the NRA and NSSF are focused.

Write your Congressperson (snail mail is often more effective than email); visit their offices; make phone calls; sign online or paper petitions. They may choose to not open their mail, or shut down their email account or voicemail. But keep trying. Their strategy will be to wait you out until you give up. Which of you will have the greater patience and perseverance?

Voting: Many battles will be lost. But this time some may actually be won. In the end, it will come down to employing the strongest of all tools in the kit: voting for candidates who truly support our interests. That means getting involved in the boring, tedious work of politics and campaigns. If eligible to vote, then do so in each upcoming election (primary and general). If not, volunteer to work on campaigns, organize discussion forums, hand out information, work voter registration tables. It is all about showing up. Gun violence has been and is a national concern, but it has never been a defining election issue. This year, it needs to be made a litmus test for one’s vote. Off-year elections – and 2018 is one – historically have a notoriously low turnout dominated by the extreme and passionate voters, while others sit home. If this current effort and momentum cannot be maintained until November 2018 – for nine more months – then this in fact is yet just another die-on-the-vine moment.

Pragmatically, it is unlikely that any real change in federal or state legislation will happen in 2018. Most politicians will elect to sit tight and wait until November to see whether this momentum is real or not. So a 3-step approach, using the action steps described above, needs to be employed. 1) Make guns an overriding priority issue for elections by showing visible strength in numbers; 2) Identify on which side of the fence each politician is; 3) Vote out the detractors, vote in the genuine supporters. If this happens in sufficient numbers, then the change we are awaiting for will come in 2019 with a new Congress and new state legislatures.

All that said, know that this is not really about fighting a logical argument. It is not about trying to change political opinion. It is not about trying to raise a collective conscience. It should be about those things. Instead, it is actually about trying to overwhelm cash, and political funding, and business economics that are against the cause for responsible gun ownership and a reduction in the current unrestrained arming of America. It will require a total commitment to reverse the benefits of the NRA/NSSF support and convert it to be a liability in the voting booth. But that is the only way things will change. Our idealism must motivate and energize us. Realism must guide us. God speed us in this critical endeavor.

©   2018   Randy Bell   

Sunday, February 25, 2018

The Arming Of America - Part 1

“The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud … on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”
Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1969-1986,
appointed by Richard Nixon, conservative Republican, gun owner

It has been gut-wrenching once again to watch this latest episode of inexplicable mass violence: the shooting of high school students and their teachers in Parkland, Florida. We have heard the usual “hearts and prayers” messages – now so trite they have become virtually meaningless. The calls for new gun laws have also become a virtually meaningless exercise. And our new common foe – the mentally ill – are blamed even as we cut mental health budgets and loosen their ability to buy a firearm. Some are still willing to point to any culprit besides the real  one: the unrestrained arming of America.

Nevertheless, it is refreshing to hear a few exceptions this time. A small number of Republican politicians saying “enough” and breaking with their party line. Or the major Florida Republican donor saying “no more donations” until something – anything – is done. Or the voter who mailed a check to her Congressman in the amount of “hearts and prayers” written on her check to illustrate the tone deaf hypocrisy of their words. And then there are “the kids” themselves, the Parkland survivors and their compatriots.  Young people are the disproportionate share of the victims of these shootings, predominantly perpetrated by other young people who are not always mentally ill. (To the extent that any killing, and any other forms of violence, are not inherently mentally ill.)

These articulate young people are promising to make their own run at Change. Maybe they can succeed where Newtown and Las Vegas and other parents could not. I wish them well in their efforts. I am not one who seeks to stomp on people’s enthusiasm and idealism. But I do believe in knowing one’s opponent well before you go into a debate with them. So students and others taking up this cause, be aware of what the landscape for your venture truly looks like. We need to steel ourselves for the long hard road to be traveled. Examine closely the playing field and the numbers; we need to know what we are up against. Remember that this is not just about school shootings – as horrific as those are. Aurora was a movie theater; Orlando a night club; Las Vegas an open-air concert. All Americans have a reasonable right to live in a safe environment.

The backbone of resistance to any gun legislation of any kind comes from two principal sources. The first is the National Rifle Association (NRA), the high-profile public face of “gun rights” ostensibly made up of everyday gun owners. The second is the National Shooting Sport Foundation (NSSF), a low-profile gun industry trade group (based in Newtown, CT!) made up of: businesses who manufacture firearms; sellers and dealers of firearms and accessories; recreational sporting facilities.

The NRA is notoriously secretive about its actual financial and membership numbers. As of 2016, they claimed that over 20% of American adults own a gun, and that “5M” of those are NRA members (unverified). They raised approximately $350M in revenue across all of its various sub-entities, including an estimated $130M from member dues. It is estimated that they spent around $3.6M in direct lobbying fees, and almost $600K in direct donations to political candidates (amounts being limited due to federal campaign contribution restrictions). But indirectly (primarily through their secretive PAC operation), they spent around $50M in advertising and support for their preferred candidates, including $30M to support Donald Trump and $20M to GOP Senate candidates – including $6M to Senator Burr (NC) and $2-$3M each to Senators Rubio (FL), Blunt (MO), Young (IN) and Portman (OH). Those outsized donations do not come without expectations for services in return. If those services are not delivered, the NRA keeps their politicians in line by threatening to support another candidate in their GOP primary that will be dominated by voters further to the right. So far, they have gotten a good return on their investments based upon the votes and speeches of those politicians.

The NRA’s gameplan is simple and consistent. First and foremost, fight EVERY restriction or limitation that is proposed; allow no crack in the armor, no matter how seemingly trivial. When a shooting tragedy occurs: a) express concern; b) blame the shooter; c) offer token support for some action step (e.g. “arm the teachers”); d) work behind the scenes to kill any really substantive proposal; e) generally lay low, and wait for the public outcry to subside and move on to other issues. On an ongoing basis, keep flooding the airwaves, public discussions and advertising with a fixed stable of old warhorse slogans and code phrases: “The 2nd Amendment”; “Our Constitutional Right to Bear Arms”; “guns don’t kill people, people do”; “they are coming for your guns”; “it’s a mental health problem”; “laws won’t stop criminals from getting guns”; “arm yourself to protect yourself  (teachers, homeowners, businesspeople).” These and other knee-jerk fear words and excuses are long-practiced and deeply embedded in the political conversations. But their simplicity, and constant unanswered drumbeat, is effective.

The NSSF claims 12K member organizations, raised $36M in income, and spent $3.5M in political lobbying, and gave grants totaling $236K to local gun organizations and projects. It claims that the firearms industry collectively has a $51B impact on the American economy and supports over 300K jobs. Those numbers are a definition of “big business”; the NSSF will fiercely protect that business, and the jobs they represent, however they need to.

It is the reality of this economic / political juggernaut that America is up against. The battle to be fought for sanity tactically has to recognize the linked interconnection of: 1) the firearms industry’s sales revenues, combined with 2) that industry’s (and others’) political donations shepherded through the NRA to key federal and state politicians to obtain legislation that will shield their legal liabilities while maintaining / increasing their sales, with 3) the inherent priority of their funded politicians to be reelected and retain their (and their Party’s) base of power. It is not a battle over morality, common-sense, safety, constitutional rights, or rational debate. One still needs to debate on those points, but understand that they are not mind-changers. Rather, it is about cash, power, and winning elections. Like it or not, as nonsensical as it may seem, that is the ground on which one must fight the battle. It is this linkage that has to be broken, because if one link fails to hold, the whole structure collapses.

So in the face of this super-imposing Goliath, what can a young David do? That discussion will be the focus of the forthcoming Part 2 of this essay.

©   2018   Randy Bell