We the People: Our Founding Fathers—How Would They View MAGA and President Elect Trump?

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

Through analysis of writings and other historical documents, it is possible to predict what historical figures might think of current events, but it is important to remember that their views were shaped by the events of their times. However, while much has changed over the past 250 years, a person’s character will likely remain unchanged. The following is a brief study of what a select number of our early historical figures may think about our soon to be Trump presidency. These suppositions are based on a review of the opinions of these historical figures. As I examined their views, I was at times surprised by their positions.

George Washington

Our first President had strong views regarding the Presidency and politics. He made a clear choice not to be elected as a king. He did not support political party affiliation. As the first President, he was not part of any political party! He believed that political parties created division. This division was detrimental to the goals of the nation, often serving party goals over national well-being. Washington believed in individual liberties and national freedom. These values would be best protected by a strong central government. It is likely that Washington would have been supportive of President elect Trump’s plans for economic growth and a reduction of government overreach. On the other hand, it is likely that Washington would have found Trump’s attempt at greater centralization of power in the executive branch as an overreach of presidential power. Washington was a strong supporter of checks and balances, as well as protection of civil liberties as expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Washington would likely have been opposed to the elimination or reduction of power in the Department of Education. Washington, along with many others, believed that if democracy was to survive, the nation needed an informed electorate. Therefore, informed voters would demand accountability with a focus on real concerns. Politicians would need to be more responsive to the electorate’s concerns rather than focusing on self-preservation and the party line. A good education is about empowering voters to think critically. Education can empower citizens to make informed decisions and then hold elected officials accountable.

Benedict Arnold

While considered a traitor to the American Revolution, General Arnold was one of Washington’s top military leaders. Arnold’s betrayal was motivated by his personal feelings of a lack of recognition and personal ambition. It is likely that he would find some aspects of Trump’s nationalist and populist rhetoric appealing. Trump’s portrayal as a strong leader and outsider would likely be appealing to Arnold based on his own experiences. Still, it would be difficult to know how Arnold would view Trump’s efforts to centralize power in the presidency.

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was an intellectual who valued reason, liberty and civil virtue. He was known for his pragmatic approach to governance. He had a strong belief in a balance of power to protect individual freedom. As with Washington’s view, Franklin would have supported Trump’s economic vision and desire to reduce government overreach. Both goals fit with his belief in individual enterprise and a government focused on protecting citizen’s rights. Like Washington, it is likely that Franklin would have been concerned about Trump’s possible overreach with an emphasis on centralized power. Franklin, as exhibited in his support of the Constitution, was a strong advocate of checks and balances and the protection of civil liberties. In addition, Franklin’s experience in diplomacy and international relations would probably cause him to be concerned about Trump’s America First and isolationist policies. Franklin would also have been concerned about the intense party loyalty not the interests of the nation.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson’s views are enshrined in what we now call Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson believed in individual rights, a limited federal government, and the agrarian community. State’s rights were paramount over the rights of the federal government. Jefferson would likely appreciate Trump’s state rights views and his focus on economic development. However, like many of his contemporaries, he would be troubled by Trump’s focus on centralized power with executive overreach. As seen in his words in the Constitution, Jefferson was a firm believer in checks and balances.

Aaron Burr

Aaron Burr is a unique figure in early American politics. He served as the third Vice President under Thomas Jefferson. Burr was ambitious and often challenged the status quo of his time. It is very likely that Burr would appreciate Trump as an outsider who has challenged the status quo. His own alleged attempt to form an army and seize control of portions of America within the new Louisiana Territory would likely provide a positive view of Trump’s January 6 demonstration.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton is considered one of the Founding Fathers and was the first Secretary of the Treasury. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton favored a strong central government with a powerful executive branch. Some of his views may have come from serving as George Washington’s chief aid. He believed that a strong government was necessary to control the nation’s finances and support its economic growth. In his view he would likely support Trump’s focus on economic growth and reduction of government restrictions on business. Still, he would also find Trump’s belief in centralized power as an executive overreach. Hamilton believed in a balanced government. He may also have been concerned with Trump’s policies that could increase national debt and undermine the government.

John Jay

Jay was a Founding Father who was responsible for much of the Bill of Rights. He was also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Jay believed in a strong central government, diplomacy, and the rule of law. His views on Trump would likely be mixed. Jay would probably support Trump’s nationalism and economic protectionism. However, Jay would likely have concerns for Trump’s rhetoric and the potential he has shown for undermining democratic institutions– particularly the Supreme Court.

James Monroe

Monroe was the fifth President. His presidency was known for its strong stance on American sovereignty and his efforts to limit European influence in the Western Hemisphere. His strong stance created what has become known as the Monroe Doctrine. While given Monroe’s strong feeling on national sovereignty and protectionism, he would likely support Trump’s positions in these areas. However, like his predecessors, Monroe would find Trump’s divisive language, and his statements undermining democratic institutions, a major concern. Monroe valued unity and stability of government over party.

James Madison

Madison is often called the Father of the Constitution. It is evident from his writings that he was a strong advocate of a balanced government, using checks and balances of power. He believed in individual rights and a healthy federal system. Again, Madison would likely have a concern over Trump’s rhetoric. The divisive nature of his dialog and his willingness to attack democratic institutions, would be counter to his belief in unity and stability in government.

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine was perhaps one of the most significant figures in America’s history. As John Adams said: “[W]ithout the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.” Adams was probably correct. Paine published Common Sense in 1776. Over 500,000 copies were produced in a time when the population of the British colonies was less than 2.5 million. The percentage of readers is greater than the percentage who watch our Super Bowl! It is likely that Paine would not approve of much in Trump’s proposal for governance over the next four years. He would find Trump’s desire for a leaner and less intrusive government a positive position. However, he would likely be vehemently opposed to Trump’s focus on centralized power. Every American should read Paine’s Common Sense. It is as applicable to today’s world as it was in his. This champion of liberty would view Donald Trump and MAGA as a force to be resisted.

Synthesis

As I stated in the Introduction, it is difficult to know what any historical figure might think of modern society. However, personal values probably would not change. Of the ten early American leaders, it is interesting that all ten might support Trump’s general assumptions regarding protection of American sovereignty and his economic positions. However, at least eight would all be concerned about his apparent disregard for the democratic foundations of this country. Of course, this is a logical conclusion since these men were instrumental in creating the United State of America. Burr and Arnold would more likely be supportive of Trump. However, their own ambitions were their downfall. Both were concerned about their own well-being and legacy. It is no wonder that given Trump’s personality, they would likely find much of his agenda palatable.

Conclusions

It would serve us all well if we took time to reexamine the materials left behind by our early leaders. They did not agree on many things but were able to find common values. These men wrote some of the most enduring pieces of literature in our historic time. Thomas Paine’s works were widely disseminated and read by other prominent Americans. The Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights carry their message in precise language. Over the years our own institutions of government have often failed to live up to the vision that was behind the written words. America needs to focus more on providing an education that includes lessons on our early history, not just rote memorization, but an engaged dialog that allows for evaluation and individual interpretations.

America’s Future—A Land Owned by Billionaires and Corporations?

A Land of Opportunity and a Good Life for Everyone?

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

With the election of Donald Trump as our 47^th President and his plans for America’s future, it is time to evaluate what “America, the Land of Opportunity” meant, what is means today, and what it could be in the future. For many of our ancestors, America was a land of opportunity. But what did that mean? Many immigrants came to this country to find a better life. Economic stability was a goal. Land, housing, food, and an occupation that would allow for a comfortable standard of living were achievable goals. That dream has continued to be the focus of many Americans and new immigrants. As a 3^rd generation descendant of a Swiss immigrant, I know that my grandparents achieved this dream. My parents were also able to offer the same opportunity to me. I have hopefully provided the same for my children. America, since its founding, has become a nation that has grown economically strong. Along with this prosperity, the focus of many of our dreams has changed from wanting our basic needs satisfied to accumulating material wealth. Our government and business leaders view our strength in the Domestic National Product (DNP) reports, where America is number 1 at $29 trillion. But the question might be, is the DNP and our quest for material wealth really what makes a nation great? Can President Trump’s plans make us great again? Aren’t we already the greatest nation if we use the DNP as our measure? Did the average American not know about our country status? In their vote for Donald Trump, many Americans did not feel that the nation was the greatest (MAGA) on Earth!

Other Measures of National Success

Despite the MAGA vote, many Americans often view our nation as one of the greatest. A critical evaluation will show that there are other countries that do a better job with health care, education, and in general, a standard of living. Some other measures where the United States does not fare as well include:

Human Development Index: This index includes life expectancy, education level, and per capital income. In this index, America ranks relatively high with a score of .927 out of 1. The world average is .6. The strength of this index is that it goes beyond domestic national product. The admitted weakness is that it does not consider income inequality, economic opportunities, and health beyond longevity.

Gini Coefficient This statistic measures income inequality. America does poorly on this measure, receiving a score of 39.8 out of a possible 100. Zero means perfect equality in income and 100 means totally unequal. The best score goes to Sweden at 25. It is followed by Japan, then Germany and Canada.

Happy Planet Index This index measures sustainable well-being, considering life expectancy, well-being, inequality, and ecological footprint. America ranks very low on this index at 121 out of 180 countries. The variables that bring our rating down include too many poor people, and a low sense of well-being. Our life expectancy beyond 60 is low, and the percentage of people making less than the median wage is high.

Social Progress Index This index measures social and environmental factors such as basic human needs, foundations of well-being, and economic opportunities. Again, America does not fare well. We are ranked number 25 out of 170 countries. Our scores in the human needs area, well-being, and economic opportunity are low. Countries at the top of the list include Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, and Switzerland.

Environmental Performance Index This index ranks countries based on their environmental health and ecosystem vitality, using air quality, water resources, and biodiversity measures. On this index, America ranks 43rd out of 180 countries. The variables include our air quality, problems with water quality and resources, and biodiversity. The best performances are the countries of Denmark, United Kingdom, Finland, Malta, Luxembourg, and Austria.

What Makes Americans Happy?

This is a difficult question. While it can be different for everyone, there are some common variables that most Americans value.

Strong Relationships Most Americans put family, friends, and their community high on the list of important things.

Good Health This biological reality is essential to a happy life. The ability to have access to good healthcare, a good diet, and exercise are critical.

Balance Between Life and Work While work had for decades been seen as the most important part of providing a secure future, today many young people seek a balance between their personal life and their work.

Financial Stability A steady job provides the greatest feeling of financial stability. The work pay must be enough to meet basic needs without constant stress over how to make the next payments.

Purpose It is important to most people that they have an identified purpose in life. That purpose allows them to work toward personal goals and gives a sense of accomplishment.

Personal Freedom Americans believe it is important to that we can say what we want without fear of punishment. We need to know that we have free will and while we are free to make choices, there is the realization that there are also consequences.

A Positive Environment We all want to live in a safe community. We strive to have clean and friendly neighborhoods.

A Desire for Leisure As noted above there is a need to balance work with life. Most Americans want to enjoy leisure time, whether it is watching a sporting event, participating in a sporting activity, or engaging in other type of activities such as painting, music, or collecting.

Shared Community and Cultural Values Most Americans want to be part of a community of like-minded individuals. These people share cultural and social values and create a feeling of happiness.

What Can Make America Great Again?

The Trump campaign focused on the desires of the American people. The champaign’s primary focus has been on the increased cost of living, fear of crime, and displacement and unfair treatment caused by uncontrolled immigration. These variables address many of the deficiencies in the American happy dream. The need to address these deficiencies is evident when considering measures beyond the GNP.

It may not be obvious, but it appears that much of the decline in happiness and our low scores on the indices beyond the GNP are the result of policy decisions made following WWII. President Eisenhower, in his final address as President, said to be weary of the military industrial complex. He saw economic growth and power in this military industrial arena. What he likely did not foresee was that big business and wealthy capitalists would eventually replace small businesses and middle-class Americans as the controlling interest in this country. President Nixon took two professions and turned their focus to a business model. What we now have is a for-profit health care system as well as a legal profession where many larger firms care more about their bottom line than justice!

It is obvious that many Americans think longingly about the good old days of individual freedom, economic prosperity, and family. However, the current environment, controlled by the quest for the dollar, has left many Americans struggling to achieve the American dream. The gap between a working-class income and the profits achieved by large corporations and the ultra-rich has become ridiculous. I guess if you believe that President Trump, who has surrounded himself with millionaires and billionaires, will make America great, then I have concerns for your dreams.

America needs policies that control the growth of mega corporations and ask the very rich to contribute to the well-being of the country that has made them wealthy. Pay needs to be improved to allow for a consistent standard of living. Health insurance should be overhauled to reflect the best models in other countries. Education, a foundation of our democracy, must be provided to all without being filled with political and religious mandates. School districts should have equality in funding regardless of their locations.

If we can achieve these few, (but politically complicated) goals, Americans will improve in the non-GNP indices as Americans again realize the value of family, a steady and adequate income, and a sense of belonging to a community that is not threatening, but welcoming.

Is It Time to Rethink Our Method of Democratic Governance?

This is NOT 1776!

Is It Time to Rethink Our Method of Democratic Governance?

This is NOT 1776!

Introduction

For many years I have been concerned about the gridlock in government created by “runaway” political dogmatism. I have also been concerned about the election of Presidents who receive the win through the electoral college, but do not have the support of most voting Americans. Our founding fathers believed in majority rule, and several of them (including Washington, Hamilton and John Adams) cautioned about allowing political parties to have too much power. The system created in the 18^th Century worked for many decades, but it has had its flaws. Today those flaws need to be addressed. The following is a proposal to change parts of the system that may be flawed.

The Electoral College—The Facts

Consider the electoral college and the issue of minority presidencies. There have been forty-six presidents, of which five presidents have been minority presidents—John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald J. Trump. A majority president is the candidate who gets the largest percentage of support from the electorate, not the candidate who gets over 50% of the vote. Each election of a minority president has an interesting story. The election in November 2024 may also produce a minority president.

The system as we know it was a compromise by our founding fathers in 1788. (Prior to 1788 the President was elected by the Congress.) The young nation was clearly a representative democratic republic. A modification of this concept was the compromise between giving the people the vote but keeping the actual election in the hands of electors. The unstated belief was that many voters did not have the knowledge to cast intelligent ballots. Instead, the better educated electors would select the president. Voters would cast ballots for a candidate, but the actual vote would go to the electors who pledged to vote for a specific candidate.

This flawed system has survived despite over 700 attempts to amend this part of the Constitution. Just four years ago, following the January 6 demonstration at the Capitol, a Gallop poll found that 61% of Americans favored abolishing the Electoral College. This raises the question:

Why should we abolish the Electoral College?

First, the Electoral College of the 21^st Century gives too much power to a few “swing states.” Over the years certain states have garnered the reputation of being either Republican or Democratic. For instance, California and Illinois are generally considered to be in the Democratic camp. Texas is seen as Republican. There are eleven states labeled as “swing” states, meaning the vote could go either Republican or Democratic.

A democracy says that each person has a vote. In America there are more than 330 million people. Of that number, 230 million are eligible to vote. The actual turnout has ranged from a low of just over 50% to a high of just over 80%. During the past two elections, turnout has been around 60%. That equates to around 138 million actual votes. Yet only 538 electors actually vote for the president. That is not a good ratio! Even Donald Trump has said, “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million vote and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win”

Why Should We Keep the Electoral College?

On the other hand, a popular vote has its problems. Some voters and areas of the country do not have an equal chance to be heard. There is a belief in a “tyranny of the majority.” There is some merit in the belief that farmers and factory workers might not be heard over the urban demands of those in metropolitan areas. For example, while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, it is worth noting that she did not win the rural vote. Her popular vote was bolstered by urban areas on the east and west coasts. Perhaps electoral votes should be divided by the percentage of the popular vote that each candidate receives?

In an argument mentioned earlier, the founding fathers were wary of the electorate. They feared an uneducated and uninformed voter. The belief, as expressed by Alexander Hamilton, was that better educated electors would ensure that only qualified individuals would be elected President. Given the current presidential contest, some may question whether Hamilton’s belief is always true!

Congressional Reform

The other issue is a dysfunctional Congress. The current Congress has gotten very little accomplished, primarily due to partisan politics. The ‘party” is more important than the interest of the country. Or perhaps each party believes that only they have the right answer to what is good for the country. John Adams warned early leaders that political parties might one day be a hindrance to good government. Unfortunately, he was correct.

It doesn’t have to be that way. The government established by the founding fathers has stood the test of time. The answer to the gridlock is relatively simple. Each person elected to Congress needs to listen to others’ opinions regardless of party affiliation. A good debater understands both sides of an argument. When this understanding occurs, a middle ground is often discovered.

In researching this piece, I was surprised to learn that the House has been looking at reform for several years. And the Senate has actually enacted reforms. Although, they have not gone far enough to solve the problems. For example, in 1975, the Senate changed the rules on voting to end a filibuster from two-thirds to three-fifths. Later, the exempted judicial and executive branch nominees from filibusters. In the House, the seniority system on committee chairs was replaced by a majority caucus vote. In 2019 the House created a Select Committee on Modernization of Congress, co-chaired by a Republican and Democrat. The purpose of this committee was to bring Congress into the 21^st Century. The Committee mission was renewed in 2021, and the co-chairs established the “Fix Congress Caucus.” The Committee recommended over 200 reforms which have been adopted.

Despite the reforms the idea that Republican and Democrats are enemies has held sway over the past decade. Opposing members are viewed as combatants rather than colleagues. National problems are lost to party politics.

Derek Kilmer, a Democrat and co-chair of the committee, has proposed a way to improve rapport among House members. He has recommended a bipartisan retreat at the beginning of every Congressional session with mandatory attendance. In addition, he has suggested that all committee meetings start with a planning session so that members can begin to trust and respect each other. He hopes that it will allow members to get to know each other as people, not an enemy from some other party. Unfortunately, Representative Kilmer is retiring!

Kilmer’s proposed plan is perhaps impossible, as most recent House and Senate leaders seem to think their job is to keep the parties apart so that there is a clear distinction between goals. This is an important election strategy. Recent leadership seems to prove this point.

Conclusions

Both problems can be solved. However, the will of the people must be more forceful than it is today! Unfortunately, our founding father’s concern over the lack of an informed electorate is still an issue today. Many Americans either fail to take an interest in learning about political issues, or only listen to a very focused and small number of information sources. An amendment to the Constitution to change the Electoral College system is only possible when Americans vote for representation who want this to happen, and then casts ballots at state elections to support the amendment. The dysfunction in Congress should be viewed the same way. Americans need to recruit and elect people who share their values. Political parties shouldn’t be making the selections. This year’s election cycle is representative of voters focused on a small number of biased sources which are working to make their candidate your choice!

Israel, Zionism: The Illogical Battle for Land

Israel, Zionism: The Illogical Battle for Land

Robert Fischer

Introduction

Most people have very little understanding of what is behind the chaos in the Middle East. What we see is a conflict that involves Israel, Iran, sometime other Arab states, and organizations claiming to represent the Palestinian State. What we often do not see is the people who live in these countries. They are the innocent victims of various government efforts to maintain or gain control over what some call historic lands. These people are predominately Muslims, Jews, and Christians. All worship the same God! Christianity was born out of Judaism. Muslims accept Jesus as a great profit. The people can and do get along and live side by side.

Historical Background

So, what is the problem? To understand the present, it is necessary to consider the historical past. The area we call the Middle East has a long, colorful, and violent history. It would take volumes to record it all. The following is a limited timeline for the area which would eventually be called Israel. Originally the lands called Israel were populated by perhaps two groups of people. The north was called Samaria and the south the Kingdom of Judah. Judah was conquered by the Babylonians in 586 BC. Samaria was absorbed into the Assyrian Empire in 772 BC. Some of the people we now refer to as Israelites were exiled to Babylon. Many eventually returned to Judah. In 332 BC Alexander the Great conquered much of the middle east, including the old kingdom of Judea. The people of Judea were split into traditional Israelites and those who were Hellenized. By 64 BC the Romans had conquered Judea, claiming it as a Roman Province in 6CE. The Roman conflict with the Jewish population resulted in the Romans forcing many Jews to migrate. Jews were now a minority in all areas except Galilee.

The point of the preceding information is that there may have been a historic land occupied by Judeans. The Jewish faith was practiced by the descendants of Joseph. However, it would be difficult to claim that today’s Jewish people have a historic right to exist as a nation. This argument would be like saying that the Creek Indians have an historic right to the land of Georgia since they were there long before the arrival of Europeans. Or perhaps a claim by the Roman Catholic Church that the Papal States should be returned to Vatican governance. However, it is historically accurate to say that the Jewish people have always occupied the land. Sometimes they were a nation. Other times they were subjects of a conquering power, and sometimes many of the Jews were enslaved or exiled.

So where did the idea of a Jewish homeland come from and why is it an issue today?

In the late 19^th century, Jewish thinkers in Eastern Europe sought ways to move beyond their oppressed status. Some of these leaders suggested that Jews should embrace the nations where they lived and work to excel as people of those nations. However, Rabbinic Jewish leaders continued to promote the Biblical stories of exile. The way forward was to remain true to their historic Jewish roots. The Jews would live in their exile nations but remain true to the Jewish traditions. A third path was championed by Theodor Herzl and was called Zionism. This 1880s movement called for a binational Palestine. The Jews and Arabs would occupy the Palestinian territory as equals. The problem with all three approaches was a continuing anti-Jewish thread in many European nations, and Russia in particular.

The British colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain sought to solve the problem by suggesting that a nation be created for the Jewish people in what was known as the British colony of Uganda. Herzl presented Chamberlain’s plan at the Sixth World Zionist Congress in 1903. He presented the proposal as way for the Jewish people to escape antisemitism. However, strict Zionists insisted that their historic land was given to them by the God of Abraham, and they would only be interested in returning to Israel. The British Colony of Uganda also opposed the idea. The proposal died. However, the Jewish Territorial Organization was established with the purpose of finding a solution to the Jewish problem.

Then during WW I, the British needed allies to assist in the war effort against the Axis, particularly Turkey. Enter Sir Thomas Edward Lawrence and his work with the Arab tribes. The British promised Arab allies that they would have an independent and united Arab country in order to gain their support against the Turks. At the same time the British also promised to create a Jewish national home as conceived in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Jewish immigration into Palestine increased through the 1930s. The large numbers of Jewish people entering Palestine caused major conflicts with the Palestinian Arabs. From 1936-39 the Arab revolt resulted in significant attacks on both Jews and the British.

The problem was exacerbated with the growth of the Nazi Party, and their anti-Jewish program became the Holocaust. Following the defeat of Germany, many Jewish people were displaced and had to be absorbed into the European world or migrate to America. The other option was to migrate to Palestine where other Jewish people were already living.

What Went Wrong?

That solution may not have been so bad. However, the British Palestinian protectorate was also the home of Herzl’s Zionism dream. With the rather rapid arrival of Jewish immigrants, many Palestinians were displaced. Zionist militias violently displaced over 800,00 Palestinians. Fear of a Jewish takeover resulted in unrest and conflict between the Jewish people and the native Palestinians. The British, under the new leadership of Queen Elizabeth, was recovering from its war costs. Prime Minister Churchill and the new Queen differed in their opinion regarding the British territories. The Queen began the process of divesting direct control over many of its provinces. Palestine, with its internal conflict, was deemed a situation that needed a solution. Therefore, the nation of Israel was created in 1948 within the Palestinian Protectorate. The creation of Israel was supported by the United Nations and seen as a solution to the Jewish problems as well as a way to reduce the Palestinian/Jewish conflicts. The Partition Plan called for splitting Palestine into two states with slightly more than half the land proposed as a Jewish state. While the Jews accepted the Partition Plan, the Arab League did not. This was the beginning of the civil war between the Jews and Arabs. As a result of the 1948 Arab Israeli War, Israel achieved a significant victory, claiming all of Palestine except the West Bank and Gaza. Seven hundred thousand Palestinians were forced to leave Israel.

The Arab Objectives and Conflict

Thus began the Arab efforts to keep Palestinian territory for Palestinians. In 1956, Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Joined by France and Britain, Israel invaded Egypt. The Soviet Union and United States brokered a peace agreement. The canal was reopened in 1957. In 1967 the “Six-Day-War” began after Egypt blocked shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel attacked Egyptian airfields and invaded the Sinai Peninsula. Jordan joined forces with Egypt. Israel dominated the fighting, having destroyed most of Egypt’s air force. In 1972, Black September attacked the Olympic Village in Munich, where Israel’s athletes were housed. Eleven Israeli were killed. In 1973 the Yom Kippur War occurred when an alliance of Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the Yom Kippur Holiday. The United States came to Israel’s aid and the invaders were ousted.

The Great Hope for Peace

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter forged a peace agreement between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Israel would withdraw from the Sinai and the Palestinian would have self-government in the West Bank and Gaza. Ten years later, Palestinians, still hoping for real self-government, rebelled with protests, and civil disobedience. Israel reacted with a military crackdown. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) continued to cause unrest wanting Palestinian autonomy. In 1993 the PLO, under Yasser Arafat, and Israel, under Yitzhak Rabin, agreed to a process to allow for Palestinian self-rule. The Palestinian Authority was created with the PLO as the negotiating partner. But the issue of Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank were left unresolved.

The Beginning of “The Hatfield’s and McCoy’s

In 1995 Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Jewish national who opposed the two-state solution. Unrest continued as the Jerusalem and settlement problems were not resolved. In 2006 the Hamas organization, a militant group, won legislative seats in Gaza. This led to friction with the Fatah Party (successor to the PLO) in the West Bank. Then in 2007, Israel, in reaction to the Hamas power in Gaza, imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip. Israel also increased its control over the West Bank where more than 500,000 Jews were living in illegal settlements. In 2008, Israel attacked Gaza following a rocket attack by Hamas where they used weapons supplied by Egypt. Tension never lessoned. In 2012, Israel killed Hamas’ military leader. Hamas responded with a series of rocket attacks. And in 2014, Hamas captured and killed three Israeli teenagers. In 2017, President Trump recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, causing outrage among the Palestinians. In 2018, Gazan protesters began subtle attacks into Israel. Israel responded with a raid into Gaza. Hamas fired rockets into Israel in retaliation. In 2021, Israeli police raided the al-Aqqa Mosque in Jerusalem, following weeks of tension and protests. Hamas again fired rockets toward Jerusalem. Israel retaliated with airstrikes in Gaza. In 2022, West Bank Palestinians began a series of attacks. Israel responded with the “Break the Wave” operation in the West Bank. In December, Benjamin Netanyahu was sworn in as prime minister for his sixth term. The government he heads has been described as the most far-right Israeli government since the creation of the nation. In January 2023, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) raided Jenin. The Palestinian response occurred the next day. All the “tit-for-tat eventually led to what we see today!

So Where Are We Today?

The conflict rages on! Innocent civilians have been killed on both sides. However, the greatest casualties are among the Palestinians. The Netanyahu government seems intent on putting an end to the “feud’. His goal is the elimination of all those in political/military power who oppose the idea of Israel. The two-state solution is no longer an option. Within the last few days, Israel has informed the United States that it will seek peace only when Israel is allowed to maintain a military/police presence in the Palestinian areas and Lebanon. They are also demanding that the Israeli Airforce be given permission to operate in Lebanon’s airspace.

The goal seems simple, but too many innocent civilians, now including Lebanese Christians, have died. The final question must be– How long will the United States continue to supply Israel with the weapons it needs to conduct their campaign. Of course, the United States must consider the Iranian threat and its support of Hamas and Hezbollah, but at what cost?

What Has Happened to Education in the United States? Education and Democracy

Robert Fischer

Education and Democracy in the 17^th and 18^th Century America

Education is the process whereby a society teaches its members the knowledge skills that are necessary to function in that culture. There are two broad categories of education. Formal education or schooling is provided in a formal setting teaching prescribed topics. The second category is informal education. This is education gained through experiences. Much of this informal education is found in the home or workplace.

Education in the colonies and early America was far from consistent or formal. The northern colonies were heavily populated by Puritans who valued education, with 70% of men being literate. For Puritans, education was needed so that their congregations could read the Bible and be involved citizens. Massachusetts mandated that every town of over 50 families support an elementary school for boys and girls, and towns with over 100 families support Latin to prepare boys for the ministry and law practice. Subjects for both boys and girls included reading, writing, and religion. Girls, in some cases, were taught sewing and social “graces.” Boys were allowed to continue anywhere they learned advanced math, Latin and Greek.

While Elementary schools for both girls and boys were common in the northern and middle colonies, the southern colonies did not value literacy for the poor or working class. Education for the wealthy, provided by private schools, was normal. Middle class children were often taught at home by literate parents. There were few secondary schools, and most were in the larger colonial towns. Education was geared towards males who might eventually go on to college or become business owners.

Secondary education was rare, the exception being in larger towns such as Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and Charleston. Subjects might include more Latin, accounting, surveying, other languages, and navigation. Vocational education was probably more common during this colonial period.

Colleges were even rarer. All the colonial colleges were in the middle or upper colonies and were small. Only white males were admitted. The curriculum was set on ancient languages, history, math, and theology. Most graduates became ministers. By the end of the colonial period, the law had become popular.

The only college for women was in French Louisiana (not part of the colonies). Ursuline Academy graduated women one who would later become the first female pharmacist. The Catholic school was also the first to provide classes for African and Native Americans.

This was the status of education as our founding fathers struggled to create a new nation. Given the support that many of these men showed for an educated populus, what did they envision as an education for the masses? The new government set out to standardize spelling and instill patriotism. In New England the teaching of religion was still paramount. By the mid-1800s, many wanted a free and compulsory education. This desire was not realized until the end of the 1800s. This changed the focus of education for the wealthy to all Americans. Education now focused on not only the basics of social survival but included courses to stabilize national unity and teach new arrivals “American” values. The changing social structure, moving from rural to city (industrial) required reading, writing, and math skills. College education was still reserved for the wealthy class.

Education in the 20^th Century

By the beginning of the 20^th century, public education was available with almost 80% of the young population in school. However, 2/3 of the schools were small, multi-grade rural schools. The curriculum focused on math and grammar. The teachers were dedicated but had little formal education. Teaching techniques frequently involved only memorization through repetition. Larger communities with more students often had schools grouped by age. The urbanization and industrialization of the nation created new demands. Added to this shift in culture was the great influx of immigrants looking for a new start. The inadequacy of the education system created a public demand for education reform. A more efficient education system was needed. In addition to traditional education, there was also a demand for vocational programs to prepare individuals to work in the skilled trades.

Despite the improvements in education during the first several decades of the 20^th century, fewer than 15% were educated beyond grade school. It wasn’t until the 1940s and 50s that the numbers attending high school would increase.

The Second World War saw major changes in education. The draft rejected five million recruits because they could not read or write. The problem clearly showed that education varied greatly, depending on where you received an education. As young males went to war, the demand for technical training programs for those left behind to fill their jobs increased.

Following the end of WWII, the Servicemen’s Read-justment Act (GI Bill) supported college education for those that served. Millions of Americans now received college degrees.

Education for the Baby Boomer

During the 1950s rural country schools were being consolidated into community schools. Most states required the completion of 8^th grade as a minimum requirement. Most teens attended high school. The emphasis was on either vocational education or college preparation. In most cases, less than 25 percent of a high school graduating class went on to college. By the 1960s those that did pursue a college degree could expect that less than 30 percent of those who entered college would graduate. For the most part, good jobs awaited the college graduate. With the high number of baby boomers, universities could afford to be tough and selective.

This trend continued through the early 1970s. However, by the end of the 70s and into the 80s the number of degree seeking quality students began to decline. The colleges, for the most part, were faculty/student oriented. However, by the 1980s the emphasis shifted to a quasi-business model. With the emphasis shifting from an educational focus to a numbers/monetary interest, many schools began to look for new ways to bolster their enrollment.

This shift in emphasis started a downward spiral in educational quality. College/university graduation rates have risen to over 60 percent. Graduation GPAs have increased from an average of 2.5 to 3.25. This leads to the question of “Are students better prepared and smarter than their 1960s counterparts?” I highly doubt it. The other side of the change was the need to recruit students from nontraditional social groups. The diversity of education is a positive from this trend. More minority students were admitted to colleges. However, this policy often overlooked academic abilities, creating a need for special remedial and support services.

What does this have to do with Democracy?

Given the emphasis that our founding fathers placed on an educated electorate, it is important to consider how various phases in the education of Americans shaped our politics. It is impossible to consider all the dynamics in this short piece. So, let us consider how our current educational system has impacted politics in the 21st century.

Students today have less exposure to civics and history. These are two very important topics, given the nature of our democratic/socialistic republic. Unless citizens understand where our nation came from and how our government was designed to work, the “noble experiment,” as Benjamin Franklin called it, will eventually fail. Given today’s governmental gridlock and the lack of consensus building, America may have reached a turning point.

We need to provide an education that supports our history, explains our social system, and explains our civil processes. We also need to educate people on how to evaluate the information that they consume. What is good research? What is propaganda? Which media outlets can be trusted, and which should be read with skepticism?

Only with an informed and critical electorate can America retain the democracy envisioned by its founding fathers.

Unless we reform education to include these important topics on a priority basis, America is at risk of losing its democracy. Government reform may be needed. However, it cannot occur until the electorate takes their responsibility seriously, holding their representatives to account.

We the People and Our Choices

We the People and Our Choices

Robert James Fischer

As the November presidential election gets closer, it becomes critical that We the People consider what kind of president we want. This country is a representative democratic republic. The people are the government only when we all participate in electing the right people to represent our views. Along with this fundamental foundation is the belief that the majority rules. When our position is not part of the majority, it is our obligation to accept the rule of the majority. When a part of the minority position, the next election provides an opportunity to change votes and perhaps win the argument.

With the preceding in mind, it is very important that we each consider our choices in casting a ballot. While the presidential election is critical, state and local elections are important too. Take time to know who your candidates are. Where do they stand on various issues? What does their history tell you about their integrity? Are they involved in politics for their own self-aggrandizement, or do they care about their constituents? Who is supporting them? If it is an organization, what is their agenda?

Consider the support that the Christian nationalist movement has given to many Republican candidates. What does this group represent? In my opinion, I am very bothered by their agenda. (See the film – Bad Faith) In discussions with friends and family, I have often corrected those who believe that our founding fathers were all Christians. Actually, the most prominent were deists. The Constitution was written to provide for separation of religion and government. The English, French, and other European experiences with state religions did NOT turn out well. Our founding fathers clearly wanted a republic where freedom of religion was the rule.

Christian nationalists support the concept of a Christian nation. They lament the demise of “Christian values.” Also within their agenda is a return to the days of a male dominated, racist ideology. Many believe in the old saying that a “hard working” Christian American can achieve the American dream. This appears to be the position held by Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate J. D. Vance. A good overview of the Christian nationalist movement can be viewed in the film Bad Faith.

As I write this piece, it appears that the presidential choice will be either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. In my previous writings I have attempted to stay neutral. However, I cannot stay neutral in this presidential election. While I understand the desire for a return to what some see as a better time, America has been and is GREAT! We the people have evolved. For example, more rights have been afforded to all people in more recent years. While poverty is far from irradicated, the general standard of living for most Americans is good as compared to most of the world. I do not wish to return to a jaded view of the past, where women could not vote, or get a credit card without a male cosigner, or where minorities were not afforded their civil rights.

I look forward to an America that welcomes migrants and offers the same opportunities to all people. Except for the American Indian, all Americans are the product of immigration. However, Donald Trump is preying on the fear of losing the “American dream. “ He talks about hate and fear. He has clearly talked about revenge on those who have the courage to challenge his views. There is a reason that most of his former cabinet members, including his vice president, do not support his candidacy.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris is a forward-thinking person. She understands that migrants have been the backbone of this country. She believes in the values that have moved this country out of Jim Crow and the subjugation of women. She has strong moral values without promoting the Christian nationalist agenda.

There is NO choice! Kamala Harris should be our next president. Donald Trump should be in prison!

Thoughts from the Middle

It’s Not the Age, It’s the Character that Counts

Robert James Fischer

We all age differently. Some have arthritis, others can still play pickleball at 85. Age isn’t really a factor in politics. If cognitive abilities remain, other physical diminishments really are of little consequence. And even with slowed cognitive abilities, good decisions can be made. But, considering all the information that an older person has gathered, it sometimes takes extra time to retrieve specific information.

On the other hand, character is something that is well defined before the end of our teen years. People who do not develop accepted societal values will likely not develop them as they age. In practice, those people learn how to mask their weaknesses. They often become con artists or are involved in other non-socially unacceptable behavior. Moral people tend to continue to care for others. They use their strong societal values to improve society rather than looking to their own needs.

Why does this matter in the political arena? Over the years, history has shown that those who have served our country with policies that have improved life for our people have been persons with strong positive values— Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt, J. Kennedy, Obama and Biden, to name only a few. On the other hand, some who have served did not possess the character to sacrifice their own well-being for our nation. They were more interested in serving their own interests—for example, Burr, A. Johnson, Harding, Agnew, Nixon, and now Trump. Thankfully, a much shorter list!

History does teach us lessons if we would only pay attention. Not that long ago the presidency of Richard Nixon taught a nation a hard lesson on personal greed. Many Americans are too young to remember the Watergate scandal and the treachery behind Nixon’s desire for power. There are many similarities between Tricky Dick and Donald Trump. America needs to understand that persons like Nixon and Trump may make grand statements about their love of America, but they are only using citizens to maintain power and stroke their own egos. As a recent pundit remarked. There are millions of Americans who are in need. They are looking for someone to lead them out of poverty. Person’s such as Nixon and Trump prey on this desire and promise a better way. They want your vote to maintain their own power and stroke their ego.

In the coming months Americans will need to decide whether or not character counts. History tells us that it does. In November don’t let the false belief that age is a problem cloud your judgement. Biden may be a few years older than Trump. But they are both old men! The real choice is about character. Who has shown a love of country and an ability to compromise? Remember that Biden was friends with John McCain! Who cares more about their own ego and maintaining power? Consider the fact check that Trump’s own cabinet and vice president don’t want him back in office.

The choice is clear!!

Thoughts from the Middle

My Journey from Catholic to a Spiritual Being

Robert James Fischer

After publishing my last “Thoughts from the Middle” which contained a critique of Christianity, I received a few comments asking me what I believed. The following is the story of my journey from devoted Catholic to the person that I am now.

I was baptized in a Catholic Church in Prairie du Chen, Wisconsin. Of course I had no idea what any of this meant as a baby. I have little recollection of going to church, but I’m sure that my parents attended regularly.

It wasn’t until I was seven that my parents decided that it was time for my brother and I to begin learning Catechism in preparation for our first Communion. At St. Anthony’s in Davenport, Iowa, we learned about the Holy Trinity (God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost). I could understand Jesus since he was an actual person, but God was a mystery. However, one time the priest showed us a picture of God– a collage made up of many persons. That image has always stayed with me as a representation of my view of God. Finally, there was the Holy Ghost. I couldn’t begin to understand this concept. Neither could my brother. He also couldn’t understand the idea that heaven was in the sky and hell was under the earth. I really didn’t think much about it. It was magical, much like the wonderful Bible stories that we would learn.

We learned the birth story, the stories of Jesus and his ministry, his crucifixion by the Jews, and his resurrection and ascension into heaven. We were told of the miraculous intersession of Mother Mary. We learned of Jonah and the whale as well as other stories of intrigue. At age ten we were asked to confirm our faith through the Confirmation process.

By now I was paying attention. Our family moved and we began attending St. Mary’s in Wilton Junction, Iowa. We had weekly Confession on Friday, and Sunday mass followed by Sunday school. During the summers I attended summer Bible camp, taught by the nuns from the Quad Cities. I decided to study to become an altar boy and even considered my possible future as a priest. By the time I was in eighth grade I had a plan– that is, until I met a girl. Being a good Catholic boy, I decided that it would be best to seek council from my priest. I was about to begin dating and wanted to make sure that kissing my soon to be girlfriend was not a sin. Father gave me the following advice. “Kissing is not a sin as long as you think of your mother when you do it.” Needless to say, I couldn’t follow this advice, and I soon decided that being an altar boy, and ultimately a priest, was not for me.

I continued to attend church and Sunday school. But by the time I was a senior in high school, I was becoming more cynical about the Catholic Church. The mystery and pageantry of the Latin service, and the beliefs that I was taught, were being questioned. I remember thinking that the Shroud of Turin was definite proof of Jesus. Still, researchers questioned its authenticity. At the beginning of my senior year, a new girl arrived at my high school. I quickly became friends with her as she also attended St. Mary’s. We dated throughout the school year and during that time; I came to learn that her stepmother often abused her verbally and physically. I couldn’t believe that a good Catholic woman would resort to such things. I also found that as a Catholic, I was not welcome at a friend’s Lutheran wedding. How could God allow such discrimination among Christians?

After graduation, I attended college at Western Illinois University. As a good Catholic man, I found St. Paul’s. I did attend a couple of masses during the first few weeks of the semester, but soon found that it was easier to sleep in on Sunday. Through my studies in history and geology, I also found that much of what I had believed as a Catholic was challenged by the historical records and geology. The Book of Genesis was a problem, since geological studies found that the earth was much older than the Bible implied. The Earth could not have been created in seven days. Other Old Testament stories also failed to fit my logical thinking. Still, I did come to believe that the Old Testament also told a story of places and people that actually existed. The New Testament was another issue. While the historical record indicated that there was likely a person named Jesus, it did not suggest that he actually performed miracles or physically rose from the dead.

I tried to reconcile my religious beliefs with the historical and geological records. I rationalized that seven days was actually millennia, and that the Jesus of my faith had to be taken on faith since the historical record did not support the New Testament narratives. But my faith was fading. During my senior year, I met my first wife. She attended the United Church of Christ where her parents were active. We were married in their church. However, neither of us attended church during our marriage. During this thirteen year period, I really did not think about religion.

In 1978 I met a colleague who was an ex-Catholic priest. He had left his calling to marry. Over the next few years we had a number of good conversations about religion. Perhaps the most important take away was his statement that during seminary, priests learn about the meaning of the New Testament stories– that most are parables, not to be taken literally. The other lesson was his belief that most ministers and priests do not preach that these stories are just parables. Many parishioners believe in the literal nature of the Bible stories, and it would not be good for the church to alienate those with such strong faith beliefs. Thus, my faith continued to change.

After thirteen years my wife divorced me. I was very lucky that I soon met the love of my life. She grew up attending services in the United Church of Christ. I learned that she had had a crisis of faith and turned to the Unitarian church for a short time. When we met she was attending the Methodist Church. However, since her uncle was a minister of the United Church of Christ, we were married in that church. After we were married I began to attend the Methodist church with my wife. I became involved with church committee work and as an occasional security consultant.

At that time, I really didn’t think much about theology. I did continue with my community volunteer work as well as my work with the church. However, when my oldest daughter was to be confirmed, I received a wakeup call. On the day of her Confirmation, she asked to talk with me. She told me that she wasn’t sure that she could confirm her total faith as taught by our church. I was somewhat surprised. However, knowing that she had been exposed to alternative views, such as Buddhism, by her biological father, I shouldn’t have been surprised. After carefully thinking through what she had said, I told her that she should follow her heart. I also told her that accepting the Methodist point of view through Confirmation was not a lifelong commitment. She was confirmed.

Once again, her question had made me think about my own commitment to my Confirmation in the Catholic faith. I again started to ask important questions about the theology that I was taught. This started me on a quest to find answers. I began reading such books as The Bible as History, James, The Gospel of Mary, etc. I discovered authors such as Bishop John Shelby Spong, Father John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Stephen Patterson. Soon after, I found myself drawn to a new Bible study, “The Historical Jesus,” organized by our Associate Pastor. The group was eclectic, filled with persons also seeking answers to the same questions that I had. Two members of the class were actually Roman history professors. Their contributions added a dimension that cannot be overlooked. With my history background, I was determined to find out more about the historical Jesus.

While I had been reading some books on various aspects of Jesus and his life, I had not taken time to understand the Christian movement following his death. So I began reading all the works that I could find on the early Christian movement. One particularly good book by White, The History of Christianity, provided a picture of competition among the various followers of Jesus. There are scholars who believe that James, the brother of Jesus, provided the most accurate view of Jesus’ teachings. He preached his brother’s message of service to others within the Jewish community. However, he was faced with competing messages preached by Paul and Peter. Paul was dominating in the Greek regions, while Peter became the leader in Rome. Eventually Peter’s message became dominant when Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity as a favored religion for the Roman Empire.

While I had learned about the Council of Nicaea, I had failed to register the date in my mind. Over 300 years after Jesus died, the Bishops of the Catholic Church were still arguing over what was true doctrine. Some Bishops died during the years leading up to the establishment of the New Testament. Great writings were excluded from the teaching of Jesus. Why? Men were the deciders of what would be included in the New Testament, not God. Of course, you could argue that these Bishops were divinely inspired. However, I didn’t accept that.

In addition, a number of other religions inspired by Jesus were marginalized, and their followers persecuted, over the years leading up to and after the Council of Nicaea. Some of these religions still exist. They still believe in Jesus. In fact, I learned that the Muslim faith believes that Jesus was a great profit. But Christian faiths cannot accept the view that Jesus was simply a man, not the son of God.

Some of my other readings included Einstein, who wrote about the “God particle.” He believed that there is something shared by all things composed of energy. This unexplained force is present within our molecular structure. Leon Lederman also wrote about this concept in his book, The God Particle. Others like Mathew Fox discussed the concept of many paths in humankind’s journey to discover God. He explained that perhaps “God” exists in some fashion, but different religions follow different paths to get to God. Today, I believe there is something that binds all living things together; call it God if you want. I believe that all that we learn during our lives continues on as the energy that is described by Einstein as the “God particle.” I believe that there is a connection between our mortal lives and the spiritual existence of those who have gone before us.

I do not believe in salvation theology– that Jesus died to save us. I also cannot accept that he physically rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. I do believe that if we live a good life, we will have our reward in the commonality of existence following our deaths. I believe that hell is what we make for ourselves when we know that something is wrong.

In conclusion, I believe that each person has the right to find comfort and peace in their individual beliefs. Faith is powerful. While I no longer believe what I learned as a Catholic, others find solace in these teachings. However, I believe that if Christianity is to remain viable, it needs to focus on the example that Jesus set for living a good life. But other aspects of the New Testament should be treated as stories, NOT reality. American church membership dropped below 50% in 2020, down from 70% in the 1990s. This trend will continue until churches change!

Education & Christianity

Thoughts from the Middle

Robert James Fischer

I have been struggling with how to approach my next two topics. The first is a continuation of my discussion on education. The second is a follow-up to much earlier pieces on religion. I have been reading, analyzing, and processing, but I am still having a problem addressing these two issues through research. Thus, the following two articles are not based on research, but instead, on my own opinion.

Education: What are Americans doing right and what have we missed?

American education has been, and should continue to be, the greatest asset to our nation. Our founding fathers recognized this and over the decades, American education eventually grew so that most children would complete high school. Experts in education (and those in positions to do so—i.e., school boards or state government) have added subjects, deleted subjects, increased school hours, started education at an earlier age, and expanded education beyond the classroom to include all type of extracurricular activities. For the most part, this has been good.

However, given the increased emphasis on individuality and recognition for all, we have created an environment where many young people fail to understand that we cannot all be great scientists, doctors, or recording artists. We have failed to teach students that we all have strengths and weaknesses. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, it was important to give everyone a trophy for just showing up. That was a mistake!

We also made a mistake by telling our children that they had unlimited rights. A right to their own individual experiences would have been enough. However, in teaching them about their rights, we have often failed to teach them about their obligations to society and respect for others. Subjects like civics, social studies, and history were minimized; and thus their importance in shaping minds and establishing respect for our society were not considered. In fact, I highly doubt that most Americans have read the Constitution. And sadly, many individuals pick and choose parts of the Constitution that meet their immediate concerns for self. For example,

The Constitution guarantees “the right to bear arms.” True! However, it also allows the government to establish certain limits. For example under the “well-regulated militia” clause the government can regulate the types of weapons, etc.
Freedom of Speech: Protection from government censure is a fact. However, it does not extend to statements that create panic. For example, yelling “Fire, fire!” Freedom of speech does not apply to restrictions on speech which private organizations might establish.
It is also apparent that many Americans fail to understand that “We the People” are responsible for our government. When we fail to elect good people to office, we fail ourselves and other citizens. A look at many of our legislators makes it clear that voters fail to consider the quality of the person that they elect. At the federal level, we now have established liers, narcissists, and “political hacks” representing their interests, NOT ours!

Still, there are very few places that I would rather live. Our general standard of living, even for the poorest, is better than that of many other nations. Our freedom to express our opinions openly without fear of government reprisal is to be cherished. The importance of understanding that the majority rules doesn’t mean that you can’t have a differing opinion and work to change the status quo to reflect your views. For example, consider the marijuana issue. For years, marijuana was not a problem. Then came the “reefer madness” craze where marijuana was considered to be a great evil. But, today, marijuana is known to be a drug that possess moderate risk (similar to Valium), and is a possible medical treatment for a number of illnesses.

Our schools are one means to improve our level of understanding of society and evaluate information that is now abundant through the internet and social media. Students need to understand their responsibilities to other Americans. In other words, students need to:

understand how great this nation is, given all its accomplishments and missteps.
know how legislation is shaped, how to protest peacefully, and how to lobby for change.
understand the social and cultural changes that have and will continue to occur.

Let us not continue to bury our minds in past and current paradigms. It is time to consider the subjects that address our nation’s growing divides. We also need to teach our children to question what they see, hear, and read, but to do it through proper research.

Saving Our Christian Heritage

Our founding fathers were well aware of the need to keep religion and government separate. And while most of our nation’s citizens were Christians some of our founding fathers were critics of religion. It is also important to note that historically religious, preference was a major social issue, often resulting in discrimination. Catholics were not welcomed in Lutheran churches and vice versa. Still, the basic tenants of Christianity across various denominations were essentially the same. Mary was the Mother of God. Jesus was God’s son. Jesus died for our sins. If you led a good life, you would go to heaven. If you were not baptized, you were not saved. Of course there were also other beliefs particular to various denominations, but the central issues were not to be questioned.

I grew up Catholic. Perhaps my downfall was a great education. When I started studying geology in college, I realized that the Biblical timetable did not correlate with the geologic evidence. Even earlier, I had questioned how heaven could exist. But I did love the idea of Jesus as a Jewish rebel. I loved the New Testament passages relating to how we should live. There was much good in what I learned about our responsibilities to humanity.

So, what happened over the past several decades? Church attendance has dropped. There are fewer people who claim to be Christian, but do believe that they are spiritual. What happened?

Perhaps it was education. Mystical beliefs become hard to “swallow.” For example, while most of us likely believed in Santa Claus when we were children, we outgrew the belief. In his place, many have come to believe in the spirit of giving. The same might be said of virgin births, risen bodies, and the Trinity—God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. As an historian, I can support the fact that there was a Jesus. But I cannot support the premise that he was somehow God’s son, who died for our sins so that we could get to heaven. But I can believe that Jesus was a social activist. Roman historians indicate that he was a problem for the Romans in Israel, as well as the Jewish leadership, which prospered under Roman rule. I can also believe (without direct proof) that there is likely more to our lives than the years that we spend in our physical bodies.

If Christianity is to survive as an important part of the social fabric, it must change its focus from the mystical world of the New Testament stories to the reality of Jesus as a revolutionary, fighting for social justice. The wonderful stories of Jesus’ birth, youth, miracles, and sermons should not be discarded. However, as young Christians grow up, they must learn that the stories represent a philosophy, not an historical reality. Just as most of us understand that George Washington probably didn’t chop down that cherry tree, we must understand that Jesus was not born of a virgin and did not physically rise from the dead.

When church leaders can focus on the wonderful moral lessons taught by a loving Jesus, the place for modern religion will be made solid. We need moral heroes, and Jesus is certainly a fine example of a person who dedicated his life to helping the oppressed, loving everyone, and living a simple life rather than accumulating material possessions.

Thoughts from the Middle

Police Reform: Defund or Fund?

Robert J. Fischer

While I have hesitated to get involved in the discussion of police reform, after many discussions with former colleagues, I believe that we should all ask governments if, when considering the problems, they have looked carefully at previous government studies and projects. Most of my morning coffee colleagues are experienced criminal justice practitioners with backgrounds such as police officers, training instructors, and research consultant for various law enforcement agencies.

We are in agreement that most of the crime issues faced today are not new, but rather have been issues that have always been problematic. Controlling crime requires understanding of issues such as police training, law enforcement/minority relations, and social welfare issues as they pertain to police officers’ jobs. It is likely that many have never read Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, 1967. This research was a blueprint for addressing many of these problems. In addition, the federal Police Corps program (in the late 1990s) is another program that deserves a second chance. This program was aimed at standardizing and improving police training, and is still an excellent model for today. The program allows for increased education and training with broad criteria, while still allowing the states to retain training oversight. It allows for the intended local police department as envisioned by our founding fathers, who did not want a federal police force.

While various efforts have been made to reform police training, most have fallen short. The cost of education and training is predominately placed upon cities, counties, and the states. Many of these entities are unwilling or unable to pay the price for enhanced training. Furthermore, it has always been an enigma that a hair dresser is generally required to complete more hours of training than a police officer who must have the ability to make life or death decisions. While each state sets the number of hours required for both professions, the range for hair dressers is 1,000 – 1,500 hours, whereas the range for police officers is only 480 to 960 hours! Another fact is that hair dressers are required to pay for their own training. And while some state allow for individuals to attend police academies at their own expense, this is an exception. Thus, funding for police training is a major obstacle.

The problems associated with policing have not changed substantially over the past 50 years. If there has been a significant change, it involves the number (and types) of firearms that now exist. Fifty years ago, a police officer might encounter an occasional armed criminal. Today, the encounter is likely to involve a sophisticated firearm. This change has made policing much more dangerous. Thus, the need for more training is critical to providing safe and citizen oriented police services. The officer must not only know how to deal with dangerous persons, but must balance this need with the ability to handle community problems, and citizens with emotional problems and stress, on top of mundane tasks such as traffic enforcement. This need for training across a broad spectrum of knowledge and skills has become more obvious over the past few decades. And in the last few years, George Floyd and others have often been victims of improper or poor training.

Given the push back that often comes from county and city governing boards, increasing the number of hours of training is likely a “no starter” given the present models. The cost is simply too high for many communities. Officer salaries, benefits, tuition, boarding, and other expenses make it difficult for communities to increase budgets for additional hours.

The federal Police Corps project, as it was developed in Illinois, presented a solution to the cost problem. In addition, it addressed many of the issues cited in the Challenge of Crime in a Free Society –preparing an officer with communication skills, an understanding of social issues, and training needed for crime intervention and arrest. The program was designed around a four year college degree which incorporated an academy experience. The total cost of the program was paid by the student. The successful graduate was able to enter a police career at no cost to the hiring agency. Graduates were sought by many Illinois police agencies. Unfortunately, no legislation was introduced to change the Illinois police training act and with the sunset of federal funding the program was eventually abandoned.

Conclusion

There is a way to train police officers that is cost effective and focused on the issues that police officers routinely face. Couple the Illinois pre-service training concept with gun control legislation and many of the problems associated with crime in America could be significantly reduced!