Thoughts from the Middle

American Democracy and Freedom: A Gift that Requires Much Work

By Robert Fischer

Introduction

While I have striven to stay in the middle when presenting topics in the past, I have often failed. The past four years have moved my position to the left in some of my posts. In four years of office, President Donald Trump has managed to trample on the basic foundation of this country—our Constitution. As a Presidential candidate, Trump used the slogan “Make America Great Again.” In my opinion, America IS great! Although there are some who would question the greatness of the United States, we are among the few nations that afford the most individual freedoms. As a nation, our democratic, capitalist, republic has been a model for many other countries.

Our founding fathers created a new system of government unlike any that existed at the time– and perhaps in all of history. During their lifetime, countries were governed by monarchs, and the people were subjects. The founding fathers had the audacity to suggest that the people should be the government. There was no need for a king.

I’m not sure that President Trump views America this way. He seems more interested in his own image and often projects the image of a monarch rather than an elected president. Unfortunately, he has managed to convince a vast number of people that he alone holds the answer to their perceived problems.

The Foundation of Democracy

How do you build and maintain a government of the people when so many fail to understand the basic foundations that this nation was built on?

Historic Experiments and Thinking

What led these founding fathers to believe that thirteen very different colonies could, and even want to, try to govern themselves? The idea of a democracy was not new. The Greeks had tried it on a small city/state level. The Romans had a republic with a senate and emperor.

The founding fathers used these experiments with rule (or at least involvement) of the people over government as a starting point. They supplemented this base with other ideas. These individuals were well educated in 17^th Century philosophy. Writers such as Thomas Hobbs wrote that people cannot govern themselves because they are self-centered and quarrelsome. On the other hand, philosophers such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau encouraged thoughts of rule by the people, questioning the authority of absolute monarchies. Montesquieu went on to suggest a shared government, with separation of powers through various branches of government.

Foundations for the American Experiment in Democracy

Of these 17^th Century writers John Locke was perhaps the most influential. Locke contended that rulers could only rule with the consent of the governed. In other word, the government’s duty is to protect the rights of the governed. These rights included life, liberty, and property. In fact, Thomas Jefferson used much of Locke’s thinking in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

Even though the colonies revolted against the king of England, the English form of government was still the basis for much of this country’s government and law. The Magna Carta (1215) required that the king consult nobles before making major decisions. This right led to the creation of Parliament. In 1628, “commoners” were given a voice in Parliament. And in 1688, Parliament passed the English Bill of Rights, guaranteeing free elections as well as rights to those accused of crimes.

American Democracy Today

Our founding fathers used various ideas to craft a government of the people. While a unique blend of historic ideas, a government by the people and for the people became the primary reality. There were those who didn’t think that the “experiment” would succeed. However, the United States of America has retained our government by the people for over 250 years. But today, the country is perhaps suffering from too much government by a president who thinks he can make all the decisions, and too little active participation by the people. This lack of participation is partially the result of inadequate education about our form of government and the thinking of those who founded this nation. In addition, as a result of a shift in power to the moneyed interests, many voters feel that their votes not longer count. However, the encouraging news is that the Presidential election of 2020 resulted in a massive voter turnout.

The Foundational Principles for American Democracy

The Power of the Constitution

Our founding fathers were some of the brightest people of their time. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of our Constitution, cautioned, “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” George Washington instructed that, “The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be recalled.”

The Assumption of Virtuous People

Both of these men believed in the power of the Constitution and the people. It is the belief in the power of good, moral people that sustains the freedom that we have under the Constitution. Still, there were reservations and warnings from our founding fathers. Benjamin Franklin believed, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Daniel Webster warned, “I am committed . . . to the Constitution of the country. . . And I am committed against every thing, which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy it. . .; and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the government.” Samuel Adams wrote, “. . . if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manner, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.” And perhaps the most important warning came from Thomas Jefferson. “We in American do not have government by the majority— we have government by the majority who participate… All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for the people of good conscience to remain silent.”

Education

George Washington believed in the necessity and power of education. He believed that there “should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing. . . than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?” James Madison agreed. “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I know of no safe depositor of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Franklin is credited with answering a question from a concerned constituent about democracy. He may have said, “We have created a democracy, now can we keep it?”

Keeping the American Democracy Alive — Conclusions

While we still live in a country that values democracy, we must also face the fact that there is much social unrest and disagreement over what the United States stands for. Are we the land of opportunity? Do we welcome the poor and huddled masses? Are we participating in our government by at least casting a ballot? Are we educating our youth regarding the foundation and operation of our government? Do we teach American values through history? Do we still teach about American heroes?

I believe that we have come to a point of self-analysis. Many Americans only see the problems and missteps that our government has made over the course of its existence. Granted, it is important to be critical of the way the Native Americans were and are treated. It is important to remember, not forget, our heritage of slavery and the problems that are still present among black citizens. And more recently, we should not forget that there have been many Americans who failed in their duty to protect democracy. Think about Watergate, the My Lai massacre, Abu Grab, and other misdeeds.

However, we must also not present our nation as somehow failing. We must regain our pride in being Americans. We must continue to work to fix our flaws. We should also honor the people who sacrificed to make this nation great. We must learn to debate and find solutions to our differences. Polarization (far left or right) only leads to a path of self-destruction.

We must remember that despite President Trump’s decisions over the past four years, the United States can still be a world leader and should be a role model We must take pride in this leadership role and continue to evaluate our behavior on the world stage!

Thoughts from the Middle

What Would Hamilton, Jay and Monroe Think of Our President’s Statements Regarding His Self-Appointed Victory?

By Robert James Fischer

Introduction

As the presidential election draws to a conclusion, two opposing views of the executive branch of the government are being presented by our two candidates. On one hand, President Trump talks about curbing the vote in some states, but extending it in others. On election night, he went on national television to declare that he had won when his electoral vote was nowhere near the 270 needed for victory. Over his almost four years in office, he has repeatedly claimed powers for the Executive Branch that are not there. In addition, his rhetoric has empowered radical right groups, often resulting in rioting or other violence. On the other hand, former Vice President Biden is presenting himself as a person who will govern as a national president, not a democratic politician. It is too early to know whether he will work within the confines of the executive branch as defined in our Constitution or seek to expand its powers. However, his years as a representative and senator would indicate that he believes in a representative government, not a closely executive controlled organization.

The apparent differences between the two candidates caused me, as an historian, to consider what our founding fathers intended. While I could refer to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, the best source of information is perhaps the Federalist Papers. This series of essays approached a variety of topics that were significant in the debate about the proposed Constitution and what our nation would become. There are 85 essays, written under the name Publius. In reality, the authors were Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Monroe, with Hamilton writing the majority of the essays.

The Executive Branch and the President

Before considering the presidency, the Constitution makes it clear that our founding fathers considered the legislative branch the most significant. While they envisioned a strong executive branch, they did not want an executive branch that resembled the English monarchy. Therefore the executive branch is covered in Article II, not Article I. The Constitution limits the term of the President to four years. Under oath the President swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. . . “

Article II gives the President the following powers:

To be the Commander in Chief
To seek opinions from his Executive Cabinet members
To grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except for cases of Impeachment
To make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate
To nominate ambassadors, other public ministers and cousuls [sic], judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, with the consent of the Senate
To appoint inferior officers such as courts of law or head of departments if such power is given by Congress
To report on the state of the Union to Congress
To make recommendations to Congress
To convene both Houses in cases of disagreement between them
To receive Ambassadors and other public ministers
To commission all officers of the United States
To make sure that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed

These are the only powers granted to the Executive by the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers and the Executive

In the paper, “The Real Character of the Executive,” one of 11 essays that discussed the executive powers and limitation, Publius explained that the President would not be like the King of England. The President would be inferior to a king. In this text, Hamilton (Publius) discussed each of the above powers, reiterating that while the President (executive) has powers, they are constrained by the Senate or Congress. In the next essay, Hamilton argued for an executive that was sufficiently independent yet sufficiently controlled. He argued that an appropriate balance in government could only exist when each branch had enough autonomous power so that tyranny of one branch over the other could not occur.

In addition to the above Constitutional granted power in Article II, the President also has the power to veto legislation as granted in Article I. Hamilton supported this power, arguing that it provides stability by preventing “excess of lawmaking.” Madison also supported Presidential veto and judicial review as granted in a separation of powers, so that each branch could act independently for the benefit of the country.

However, others opposed an executive not constrained by an advisory board which would have powers to check executive decisions. Persons like George Mason and Richard Henry Lee were prominent in opposing a strong executive branch, and began publishing the Anti-Federalist Papers. Yet the executive branch as envisioned by Hamilton prevailed.

Executive Power Expansion

A result of Hamilton’s argument in favor of a powerful, yet constrained, chief executive has led to the expansion of executive powers, especially in the area of national security. Over the past few administrations, beginning with President Bush following 9/11, the use of executive power and Executive Orders has increased. There are those who believe that this unitary power is essential. They argue that Congress is designed for deliberation, while the executive branch is designed for action.

Executive Constraint

While Hamilton favored a powerful executive, he believed that the executive branch needed to be constrained by the limits imposed by the Constitution. The President is not allowed by the Constitution to work outside the law, whether established by the Constitution or passed by Congress.

Back to the Question

Given the preceding discussion, it is apparent that President Trump has been acting beyond his Constitutional given powers. He does not have the authority to use his office for political promotion. He does not have the power to make unilateral decisions regarding issues such as climate change or treaties. While he can negotiate, the ultimate authority is clearly given to Congress.

How President elect Biden will handle these contentious issues is yet to be seen. Will he seek civil discourse and compromise or will he revert to Executive Orders?

His choice will likely be influenced by whether the legislative branch chooses to work with him, as our founding fathers envisioned, or work to obstruct him. Hopefully, Congress and the President will find common ground which reflects a compromise of what “we the people” want.

The Police and the Use of Deadly Force: Racial Disparity and Crime

Thoughts from the Middle

The Police and the Use of Deadly Force: Racial Disparity and Crime

By Robert James Fischer

Reporting on the Police Use of Deadly Force

It is both interesting and disconcerting to note that even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports on numerous crime related issues in its National Crime Report issued each year, what is notably missing from this report is complete data on deadly force used by police officers. A recent Time article (July 20/July27, 2020) asked the simple question; “Why don’t we know how often police kill people in America?”

There have been three efforts to address this problem of lack of reporting. The first was a provision in the 1994 Crime Bill signed by President Bill Clinton. The second was an effort in 2015 by President Obama to order the FBI to collect use of force data from state and local jurisdictions. And the third was an Executive Order signed by President Trump in 2016 which tied grant funding for various police programs to voluntary reporting. That program finally began in January 2019. However, despite these combined efforts, only 5,043 out of 18,514 law enforcement agencies participated. (It should be noted that although a low number of agencies responded, many are larger agencies, employing 41% of all police officers.) In addition to the government efforts, the Washington Post began a fatal police shooting project in 2015 in an effort to determine the full extent of police involved deaths. This is perhaps the most comprehensive data base covering fatal police shootings.

The Data

Officer Involved Homicides

The Washington Post has recorded over 5,000 fatal police shootings since initiating the project in 2015. The project relies on media accounts of “fatal in the line of duty police involved shootings.” There are several consistent findings. The annual number has remained steady, around 1,000 incidents per year. While over 45% of those shot by police are white, the data indicates that blacks are killed at a higher rate. While blacks make up approximately 13% of the population, they are killed at over twice the rate of whites. Of the total, 95% are males, with the majority between 20 and 40 years of age. While shootings occur across the United States, it is no surprise that they occur more frequently in larger cities.

Other notable trends:

Police shootings of unarmed persons have declined since 2018.
In the first two years of the study, 86 people were killed because they were using “lookalike” guns.
Approximately 20% of the time, officers’ names are not disclosed.

Arrests for All Crimes

The FBI gets reports on all crimes from all police agencies. Their annual publication, Crime in the United States is an excellent source for crime data. In 2018 the FBI reported a total of 7,710,900 crimes. Sixty nine percent were committed by whites, 27% by blacks, 2% by American Indians, and less than 1% each by Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Whites make up 76% of the population, Blacks 13%, American Indians 1.3%, Asians 5.9%, Pacific Islanders 0.2%, and Hispanics 18.5%.

Crimes and Police Shootings

When comparing crimes committed and persons killed by police officers, a logical conclusion is that the percentage of individuals killed by police officers should be similar to the percentage of those involved in criminal behavior. Using the known statistics from the Census Bureau, the FBI, and the Washington Post, a comparison across race is possible. The following table shows race as a percentage of the population, participation in criminal activities by race, and percent of victims of police shootings by race.*

Race % Population % Criminal Involvement % Victims of Police Shooting

White 76 69 45

Hispanic 19 1 17

Black 13 24 27

Asian 6 1 1

Native Am. 1 2 1

Other 1 1 1

*PERCENTAGES are rounded up

The Black Anomaly

While I am in total agreement with the concept “Black Lives Matter,” I do not agree with the focus being solely on police officer involved shootings and the Black community. As a society we should also be focusing on the problem of fatal shootings of Blacks by other Blacks. For example, the homicides in Baltimore, Detroit, and Chicago are predominately Black on Black. In 2016, according to FBI statistics there were 17,250 homicides, of which 2,570 were known black on black.

Tio Hardiman, the Executive Director of Violence Interrupters, an organization attempting to decrease violent crimes in our cities, has said “… it’s a Black man’s responsibility to reduce the gun violence in their communities.” Hardiman believes that much of what is happening in the inner cities is the result of learned behavior, passed on from generation to generation.

Hardiman is a Black man from Chicago who believes that waiting for others to solve the violence issue is not going to solve the problem. (Louis Casiano, Stephanie Pagones, (www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-homicide-victimes-black-police-data-show, July 2020)

Thus, the police should not be singled out as the sole cause of this discrimination. As a former Chicago police officer has said, the police do not randomly show up; they are called to, or see, crimes being committed. As the above table indicates, a disproportionate amount of crime is attributed to Blacks. It therefore holds that if the police are responding to those crimes, they will likely also encounter a disproportionate number of hostile reactions that could lead to the offender’s death.

What. then, are the reasons that our Black population is overrepresented in crime statistics?

The answer to this question is not simple. However, a quick look at poverty provides a partial explanation of this complex issue. While 7.3% of the white population live in poverty (defined as a single income of less than $11,770 or a family of four making less than $24,250), 18.5% of the Black population live in poverty, and 15.7% of Hispanics live in poverty. The percentage among all other races is less than 10.5%, except for Native Americans who represent the highest figure—25%.

Summary

Other reasons involve social, economic, cultural and psychological factors that are complex and interactive. But let it suffice to say that the issue of police shootings of Black people is a complex one that cannot be explained simply by racism among the law enforcement profession. “Black Lives Matter” should focus on all cases of violent deaths in the Black population, as well as on solutions that address all socioeconomic, psychological, and cultural factors.

Thoughts from the Middle

Food for Thought

COVID-19: How Serious is this Virus?

By Robert Fischer

While I have been busy working on my next major Thoughts from the Middle article, I have also been thinking about COVID-19. On one hand, we have President Trump and many of his followers who seem to have little care for the consequences of the virus. On the other side, we have Vice President Biden and the majority of the medical community Who are very concerned. President Trump is very concerned with the impact of the virus on our economy. He does not want to “shut down” business or social interactions. At the present, it is apparent that the shutdowns have had an adverse impact on many businesses. Vice President Biden promotes wearing a mask, social distancing, and proper hygiene as a means of handling the COVID crisis. He promotes the belief that if the virus is controlled, the economy will no longer suffer.

Where does the truth lie? It is my opinion that the Biden approach makes perfect sense. If the virus is controlled, businesses can remain open. People can have social contact. Schools can be opened. Follow the CDC guidelines as a nation and the virus will be contained, a vaccine will be distributed, and while businesses, social interactions, etc., may be reduced until the virus is controlled, the United States does not need to “shut down!”

Why should we, the people, care? I did some basic math to find the answer to that question. As of 2019, the population of the United States is 330,000,000+. The extreme prediction for deaths from COVID in 2020 is 410,000. Thus, we are dealing with less than 1% of the population. Should such a small percentage be a major problem? Should we shut down for so few deaths? While this is one way to view the statistics, another is to consider the following comparison to the number of deaths due to wars in the United States (I have excluded the Civil War):

War Deaths

Revolutionary War 4,435

War of 1812 2,260

Mexican War 13,283

Spanish/American War 2,446

WW I 116,516

WW II 405,399

Korean War 36,574

Viet Nam 58,220

Gulf War 383

Iraq/Afghanistan 6,773

If you leave out WW II and the Civil War, the loss to the United States in all the other wars combined is 304,990. That is tragic, but less than the total estimated civilian loss from COVID in 2020. If considered from a humanitarian perspective, I believe that consists of far too many deaths.

Many of these are deaths could have been avoided if only all Americans had adhered to the CDC guidelines! In addition to deaths, the medical community is only now finding that for many there are long term health issues. So called “long haulers,” suffer from chronic fatigue. Others have heart and lung damage. There are also cost considerations and the unnecessary risk to health care workers who are exposed to the virus.

I hate wearing a mask! I hate not being able to hug my children and grandchildren! I don’t like not being able to have friends over except under CDC guidelines. Still, if we had all adhered to the guidelines, businesses that are now closed might still be open and we would have had far fewer deaths.

Thoughts from the Middle

Leadership: The Good and the Bad

By Robert James Fischer

What is Leadership?

When we think of great leaders, people like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King often come to mind. The term “leader” is difficult to define since it is often used along with power, management, control, and other terms familiar to the study of government and business. However, there are some common denominators. Leadership is a group phenomenon that involves the process of influence of an individual over a group. Thus it goes without saying that there is NO leader without followers.

Is someone who uses their power (authority) and control, using rewards and punishment to gain compliance with their wishes, a leader? Ask the subordinates! The the perception of followers is important. Is it possible for some people to view a person in authority as a good leader, and yet others to view him/her as a bad leader? Certainly! Consider some American leaders of the past few decades. Was Richard Nixon a good leader? It depends on who you ask! The same might be said of Jimmy Carter, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.

Is there a measurement that accurately measures the various view of a specific leader?

Yes. Public opinion, supported by the weight of historical perspective (long and short term), is the best way to determine if an authority figure is “good” or “bad” for the majority of those impacted.

As a retired college professor who taught leadership courses in an academic setting, and leadership programs for sheriffs and police chiefs, I have come to the conclusion that good leadership is partially measured by the integrity and ethics of the individual during a given event or time. But what does this belief mean in today’s environment in the United States? I believe that the current environment, (which includes COVID 19 and its related problems, political polarization, increasing economic disparity, and racial unrest), requires a strong and ethical leader.

The question is, do we currently have strong, ethical leaders running our nation? There are certainly some who fit this mold. Still others fail miserably. Ethical and strong leadership was, in my opinion, exhibited by some former Presidents such as Barrack Obama and George Bush. (although, some would disagree with this assessment). On the other hand, given his handling of the previously listed issues, I believe that while President Donald Trump views himself as a strong leader, he is unethical and lacks integrity. Likewise, Mitch McConnell, while able to maintain control over the Republican Caucus, fails both the and integrity criteria. The blatant use of his position to control what the Senate hears (i.e., bills) constitutes misuse of his power, since it is far too often used for only political gain and not for the best interest of the nation.

The American people need to do a better job of assessing the personal qualities of those we elect to represent us in shaping national policies. But, this is not easy considering all the “mudslinging” and misinformation presented by some media. As a nation of many different views, we will likely never agree on what is best, but we should be allowed to freely discuss our views and options. Citizens need to learn how to evaluate candidates and possess the skills to identify accurate information versus “fake news”. It is only through clear, open, and honest discussions and the ability to identify creditable versus non-creditable news sources, that a democracy can survive.

The following is a re-post with a couple of additions that I decided were necessary based on comments of a professional friend. The additions are meant to clarify a couple of my statements.

Thoughts from the Middle

Politics, American Values, and the 2020 Presidential Race

By Robert James Fischer

Background

Our founding fathers believed that all Americans should have a vote in determining who sets the direction of this country. The definition of “all Americans” has shifted over the years, adding freed slaves in the 19^th Century and women in the 20^th Century. The idea of “one person one vote” may have changed, but the underlying belief that all voters would cast informed ballots has not. Thomas Jefferson voiced the belief that education was important for making informed decisions. As Americans enter their choice for President in November 2020, I ask these questions: (1) Will all, or at least most Americans, cast ballots? (2) Are American voters casting votes based on reasoned thinking and accurate information?

Reality Today

These two questions are important. While a majority of eligible voters cast ballots in presidential races, almost 40% do not. In addition, while our education system may be better today than it was in the 1700s, I question whether the average voter is truly informed. The media (meaning all types of media) presents some powerful messages, but many of the messages are biased or even totally false. An informed voter should learn how to best determine the real truth. It is crucial that an informed voter should be able to critically sort unbiased from that which is biased or untrue. Our current President’s staff, and the President himself, have often talked about alternative facts or “fake news.” I am not sure what they mean by alternative facts. Facts are facts! Facts are based on supporting data and/or additional reliable corroborating information. There may be alternative views and interpretations, perhaps even “fake news,” but a fact remains a fact. The information that Americans consume is so important that our intelligence community has warned that Russia, China, and Iran are attempting to influence the election through various media outlets. Social media posts by various groups from these countries make statements in support of either President Trump or Joe Biden.

What Should a Concerned Citizen Do?

Voting

It is not easy to get people to vote. Volunteer who canvas to “get out the vote” can make a difference. During this time of social distancing, the best option might be working a phone bank in support of your candidate. Regardless of voters’ preference (Trump or Biden), we need to hear from as many voters as possible if our presidential choice is truly a democratic one.

Facts

On the other hand, trying to determine what is true about each candidate takes time. Voters should not accept posts on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) as carte blanche!. In order to determine the verity of a media post, consider a quick check for facts at websites such as Verify.org, Factcheck.org, Politifact.com, Snopes.com., and others. These sites provide a brief overview of the statement and then determine the degree to which the statement presents the truth.

Reality versus Fantasy

Let’s look at what we know to be factual. Simply stated, we have two very different men running for President of the United States. Joe Biden is a career politician. Donald Trump is a real estate developer, television media entertainer and President of the United States. On the surface, many would opt for a successful business person over a career politician. The word “politician” usually brings to mind someone who tells you what you want to hear when they are running for office, but soon forgets those promises after they are elected. However, these stereotypes are not necessarily accurate.

Joe Biden

Joe Biden has served as a Senator from Delaware from 1973 to 2009. He has run for President in 1998 and 2008, and served as the 47^th Vice President from 2009 – 2017. During his career, he has supported or sponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. He supports

overturning Citizens United,
tax credits for students,
carbon emissions cap and trade,
increased infrastructure spending,
mass transit,
renewable energy subsidies,
student loan forgiveness,
reversals of Republican tax cuts for the wealthy,
building upon the Affordable Care Act through a public health insurance option, as opposed to a single-payer system,
decriminalizing cannabis on a federal level and a state’s right to legalize it on a state level,
Same sex marriage,
Roe v. Wade decision,
repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump became president of his father’s real estate business, expanding the business to include building or renovating skyscrapers, casinos, hotels, and golf courses. He owned the Miss Universe pageant and produced the television program “The Apprentice”. While building the Trump business, he has filed for bankruptcy six times and has been involved in over 4,000 legal actions. (some personal, such as the Jean Carroll sexual assault allegations, and some related to his business).

Since 2016, President Trump:

signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that may bring financial relief and increased business to American farmers.
supported and received 12 weeks of paid family leave for federal employees
managed to reach trade deals with China that lifted what was viewed as an unfair tariff on American tax payers .
established a new branch of the military – Space Force.
made animal cruelty a federal felony,
demanded transparency with full disclosure of costs charged and paid by insurance companies,
forced delinquent foreign counties to make contributions to NATO ($530 Billion),
expanded civil rights protections against anti-Semitism.

President Trump also claims the following achievements (some true, some partially true, and some false):

Rolling back “costly and burdensome” regulations on the development of energy sources
Expanding access to health care choices and attempting to lower drug prices
Economic growth and increased employment opportunities
Reducing “red tape” in federal regulations
Negotiating better and balanced trade agreements
Attacking the opioid crisis
Defending the right to life and religious freedom
Expanding national security
Upholding the rule of law
Rebuilding our military
Restoring American leadership across the world
Increasing support for veterans
Transforming the federal government and improving accountability and accessibility

Truth or Lies?

A simple check of our fact checking sources creates a clearer picture both President Trump and Vice President Biden.

President Donald Trump

According to the Washington Post (July 2020), the President has made more than 20,000 false or misleading statements. Fact Checker claims that the President made an average of 12 false or misleading claims a day during his first 827 days in office. By the time he reached 1,200 days in office, he was making an average of 23 false or misleading claims each day. His most repeated claim (360 times) is that the economy is the best in our nation’s history. While the economy was doing well pre-COVID 19, historically the economy was stronger under Eisenhower, Johnson, Clinton, and even Grant. His second most repeated claim is that the border wall is being built. As of this writing, while much existing fence has been upgraded, only 3 miles of new fence has been added. He also claims to have passed the largest tax cut in American history. This, again, is historically not true. Ronald Reagan and Barrack O’bama’s tax cuts were larger.

Vice President Joe Biden

Joe Biden has a long political history, While being portrayed as a man of integrity and honesty, It is easy to find inconsistencies in his statements as his political positions shifted over the years. A look at his decades of political service reveals that he has exaggerated, misstated, and lied on many occasions. Joe Biden has a history of bending the truth. Biden has claimed that as soon as the Iraq war started he came out against it. He also claims that he has been “labeled one of the most liberal members of Congress.” According to Politico, these statements are not true. In 1987, while running for President, Biden claimed to have 3 undergraduate degrees, and had a full ride scholarship to law school. Again, not true. He does have a duel degree in history and political science with a minor in English. He also claims a working class background that includes ancestors who worked in the coal mines in Pennsylvania. Again, not true. More recently, Biden claimed that following his service as Vice President, he was hired as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. While he was hired to make speeches, he never taught students.

What to Make of This?

I think it is important to remember that all humans occasionally exaggerate, and sometimes get information wrong. Joe Biden seems to fall into this category. He admits to his mistakes. However, it is another thing to be the type of person who consistently tells great untruths and when confronted, still maintains that the statements are true. This is President Donald Trump. A recent example was the exposure of blatant lies in Bob Woodward’s taped interview with him.

While I generally do not take a side in these articles, I simply cannot stand on the sidelines and accept that President Donald Trump is the kind of person that I want as our nation’s leader. How can you trust a leader who lies about “facts” and blatantly lies to the American people about an extremely important topic such as COVID-19? (One example of this was his suggestion that the injection of Clorox could treat a COVID infection.)

While Vice President Joe Biden may not be a saint, he has proven over his almost 50 years of public service to be a stable, caring person. I do not believe that his constituents would have continually re-elected him, had he been the type of liar who now inhabits the White House.

In conclusion, I defer to Bob Woodward from his book Rage:

“For nearly 50 years, I have written about nine presidents from Nixon to Trump—20 percent of the 45 U.S. presidents. A president must be willing to share the worst with the people, the bad news with the good. All presidents have a large obligation to inform, warn, protect, to define goals and the true national interest. It should be a truth-telling response to the world, especially in crisis. Trump has, instead, enshrined personal impulse asa governing principle of his presidency.

When his performance as president is taken in its entirety, I can only reach one conclusion: Trump is the wrong man for the job.” (emphasis added).

Thoughts from the Middle

Politics, American Values, and the 2020 Presidential Race

By Robert James Fischer

Background

Reality Today

These two questions are important. While a majority of eligible voters cast ballots in presidential races, almost 40% do not. In addition, while our education system may be better today than it was in the 1700s, I question whether the average voter is truly informed. The media (meaning all types of media) presents some powerful messages, but many of the messges are biased or even totally false. An informed voter should learn how to best determine the real truth. Our current President’s staff, and the President himself, have often talked about alternative facts or “fake news.” I’m not sure what they mean by alternative facts. Facts are facts! There may be alternative views and interpretations, perhaps even “fake news,” but a fact remains a fact. The information that Americans consume is so important that our intelligence community has warned that Russia, China, and Iran are attempting to influence the election through various media. Social media posts by various groups from these countries make statements in support of either President Trump or Joe Biden.

What Should a Concerned Citizen Do?

Reality versus Fantasy

Joe Biden

overturning Citizens United,
tax credits for students,
carbon emissions cap and trade,
increased infrastructure spending,
mass transit,
renewable energy subsidies,
student loan forgiveness,
reversals of Republican tax cuts for the wealthy,
building upon the Affordable Care Act through a public health insurance option, as opposed to a single-payer system,
decriminalizing cannabis on a federal level and a state’s right to legalize it on a state level,
Same sex marriage,
Roe v. Wade decision,
repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Donald Trump

In 2020, President Trump signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that may bring financial relief and increased business to American farmers. He supported and received 12 weeks of paid family leave for federal employees. While current relations with China are strained, President Trump managed to reach trade deals with China that lifted what was viewed as an unfair tariff on American tax payers. He also established a new branch of the military – Space Force. He also made animal cruelty a federal felony, demanded transparency with full disclosure of costs charged and paid by insurance companies, forced delinquent foreign counties to make contributions to NATO ($530 Billion), and expanded civil rights protections against anti-Semitism.

President Trump also claims the following achievements (some true, some partially true, and some false):

Rolling back “costly and burdensome” regulations on the development of energy sources
Expanding access to health care choices and attempting to lower drug prices
Economic growth and increased employment opportunities
Reducing “red tape” in federal regulations
Negotiating better and balanced trade agreements
Attacking the opioid crisis
Defending the right to life and religious freedom
Expanding national security
Upholding the rule of law
Rebuilding our military
Restoring American leadership across the world
Increasing support for veterans
Transforming the federal government and improving accountability and accessibility

Truth or Lies?

A simple check of our fact checking sources creates a clearer picture both President Trump and Vice President Biden.

President Donald Trump

Vice President Joe Biden

Joe Biden has a long political history,.while being portrayed as a man of integrity and honesty,. It is easy to find inconsistencies in his statements as his political positions shifted over the years. A look at his decades of political service reveals that he has exaggerated, misstated, and lied on many occasions. Joe Biden has a history of bending the truth. Biden has claimed that as soon as the Iraq war started he came out against it. He also claims that he has been “labeled one of the most liberal members of Congress.” According to Politico, these statements are not true. In 1987, while running for President, Biden claimed to have 3 undergraduate degrees, and had a full ride scholarship to law school. Again, not true. He also claims a working class background that includes ancestors who worked in the coal mines in Pennsylvania. Again, not true. More recently, Biden claimed that following his service as Vice President, he was hired as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. While he was hired to make speeches, he never taught students.

What to Make of This?

I think it is important to remember that all humans occasionally exaggerate, and sometimes get information wrong. Joe Biden seems to fall into this category. However, it is another thing to be the type of person who consistently tells great untruths and when confronted, still maintains that the statements are true. This is President Donald Trump. A recent example was the exposure of blatant lies in Bob Woodward’s taped interview with him.

While I generally do not take a side in these articles, I simply cannot stand on the sidelines and accept that President Donald Trump is the kind of person that I want as our nation’s leader. How can you trust a leader who lies about “facts” and blatantly lies to the American people about an extremely important topic such as COVID-19. (One example of this was his suggestion that the injection of Clorox could treat a COVID infection.)

Deadly Unrest — Guns and Violent Protects

Thoughts from the Middle

Deadly Unrest – Guns and Violent Protests

By Robert James Fischer

Introduction

David Dorn, David McAtee, Chris Beaty, Drian Murrell, Italia Kelly, Marquis Tousant, Patrick Underwood, Calvin Horton Junior, James Scurlock, Javar Harrell, Barry Perkins III, Jorge Gomez– names that most of us do not recognize. Who were these people, and does it matter? These are persons who were shot during protests following the death of George Floyd.

Who would be armed at protests? Peaceful protests do not require the need for guns! Who then carries a firearm to a peaceful protest? The answer is obvious: Armed agitators or self-appointed “militia” who claim they are protecting the community.

While the “militia” will quickly point to the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution, in today’s world, being armed with and AR-15 or similar semi- or fully-automatic weapon is not what our founding fathers visualized when they passed the 2^nd Amendment.

The United States has more weapons per capita than any other nation on this planet. Why? Why do we allow for every citizen to not only own a firearm, but to own weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing another human being?

Gun Ownership, Violence, and the American Way

Of all the countries on this globe, no nation has more gun violence than the United States. Why? The answer that is commonly given is that it is our heritage. The gun “won the West!” While it is certainly true that American frontiersmen would not be without a gun and most farmers had at least one gun for protection against varmints, the gun was viewed as tool rather than something purchased merely because a person wanted to have one. Guns were not prolific until the 1980s when gun manufactures discovered a sporting and enthusiastic audience among the American public.

As a police officer in the early 1970s, I carried a Smith and Wesson .357. The persons that I encountered in my work in Oklahoma, where open carry was allowed, might have a rifle or shotgun in a truck-mounted rack or a .38 in a holster on their hip. However, today’s officers often face persons carrying semi- and fully-automatic rifles and pistols with munition clips of 30 rounds. The availability of weapons is a problem created by marketing on the part the gun manufacturers. This includes the NRA and other groups which focus on a “fear factor”—the fear that somehow our government wants to confiscate our weapons, and also that there are many “bad people with guns” who can only be stopped by “good people with guns.”

While the NRA has stated, “Guns don’t kill, people do!”, the truth is that people find it much easier to kill using a gun than using their fist, knife or a club. Furthermore, they are not as likely to kill a person if they don’t have a gun at the ready.

21^st Century Americans and Gun Laws

A Quinnipiac Poll conducted in 2019 found that 66% of Americans support stricter gun laws. Among gun owners, 50% also supported stricter laws. Ninety seven percent of all Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. An ABC/Washington Post poll, following the February 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shootings, found that 77% of those surveyed believed that Congress failed in its duty to enact legislation regulating firearms. Furthermore, 62% directly blamed President Trump. Unfortunately, the debate about regulating guns tends to run along party lines. Polls generally show that while 71% of Democrats support stricter gun control, only 29% of Republican do.

The Consequences

While many Americans find it hard to say that there is a direct cause and effect link between gun ownership with few restrictions and gun violence, the data seem to support the idea that the number of guns owned along with fewer restrictions indeed creates more gun violence. The number of mass shooting over the past two decades, the number of firearm related deaths in some of our largest cities, as well as the shootings at peaceful demonstrations over the past several months, all support the need for greater regulation of firearms. .

Is There a Solution?

Obviously, there is a solution. It just takes the will of our elected representatives to make it happen. First, the Second Amendment should be clarified to reflect 21^st Century life. The focus should be on “well regulated,” the first part of this amendment, as a stipulation of the right to bear arms. In other words “regulation” is the key word. Historically, the 2^nd Amendment was written when local militia existed. Today the militia has been replaced by a federal standing army and the National Guard units.

The question then becomes, “What regulations are reasonable?” I believe that shotguns and certain rifles are useful for hunting and in the case of pistols, protection of property. However, I personally see no reason for owning fully automatic weapons, or other weapons beyond those needed for hunting and basic protection of self and property. Even the Old West had examples of peace officers, such as Bat Matterson and Wyatt Earp, imposed a “no firearms” ordinance for those who entered the city limits. And even today, restrictions exist on what type of firearm can be used for hunting certain game animals. Restrictions for hunting also include the number of shells that a magazine can contain. If this is true for hunting, certainly it should also pertain to violent human injuries and deaths!

If we regulate firearm sales and ownership Americans would most certainly see a reduction in gun related deaths.

Impeachment

Thoughts from the Middle

Impeachment

Robert J. Fischer

It has been some time since I have written. I apologize to my readers; however, I have been having some major health problems. But, I am now compelled, due to a general lack of understanding, to weigh in on the current Impeachment investigation.

The Impeachment Steps

There are four different parts to the impeachment process:

Accusation of misdeeds or crimes
Impeachment inquiries (investigation)
Articles of Impeachment (indictment)
Senate Hearing (prosecution)

The first part is a complaint or accusation of misdeed(s). This is like a 911 call or a report of something that needs to be investigated. Often the accusers are not identified.

The second part is the investigation (impeachment inquiries) of the accusations by the House. This is much like a police investigation of a possible crime scene. It does not require that anyone outside the investigative body be informed of the process or findings. The formal investigation will determine whether Articles of Impeachment should be drafted. This is much like the process involved with the States Attorney and/or the Grand Jury. The various House Committee investigations (similar to the police investigators in a criminal inquiry) and other information are considered. At this point there may be some disclosure of the information that is being evaluated while a continuing investigation is conducted. This process allows the accused to see some, if not all, of the information that the process has gathered. In criminal cases it is called disclosure.

Third, after the investigation has been completed, formal Articles of Impeachment (comparable to an indictment in a criminal case) may be filed if the evidence supports the accusation of a crime. If the evidence is not substantial, Articles of Impeachment should not be filed.

Finally, the Articles of Impeachment are sent to the Senate where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over a Senate Hearing (a trial-like proceeding). As in a criminal prosecution, testimony is heard from the House as well as the accused. The Senators evaluate this testimony and vote on the Articles. The standard of proof required for impeachment and conviction is left to the discretion of the Senate, Some argue that there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Others argue for a preponderance of the evidence. A two-thirds majority is required to support an Article of Impeachment.

Impeachment as Envisioned by the Founding Fathers

What is Impeachment as our founding fathers saw it? The Constitution limits the basis for impeachment to “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” They did not define the meaning of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The idea that criminal conduct was the only grounds for impeachment was not the way many of the signers viewed this clause, and as we will note later in this piece, impeachments were often brought for reasons other than criminal behavior.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, stated that the misconduct of public men (in other words, the abuse or violation of some public trust) could be an impeachable offense. Therefore, impeachable behavior could include behavior that violates an official’s duty to the country. Such conduct may not necessarily be a crime.

The purpose of impeachment, as viewed by our founding fathers, was not punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment served to effectively maintain a constitutional government by removing individuals unfit for office. To repeat, grounds for impeachment include abuse of the powers of government office, or a violation of the public trust.

Impeachment – Used over the Decades

Impeachment is such a serious process that the House of Representative has only impeached a total of 17 individuals. Officials have been impeached and removed from office for a number of reasons, including drunkenness, biased decision-making, inducing parties to enter financial transactions, behavior that reflects badly on the office, and other criminal and non-criminal behaviors. Three of the articles against President Andrew Johnson were based on: 1) rude speech that reflected badly on the office, criticizing Congress and questioning its legislative authority; 2) refusing to follow laws (especially the Tenure Act); and (3) diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act. Each of these action brought the presidency into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace.

Over the years, Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment:

(1) Improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;

(2) Behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and

(3) Misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

As for criminal conduct, in 1974, the House Judiciary Committee rejected an article of impeachment against President Nixon alleging that he committed tax fraud. primarily because The fraud related to the President’s private conduct, not to an abuse of his authority as President. However, the Watergate burglary was rightly a matter of criminal behavior. However, President Nixon resigned prior to the filing of Articles of Impeachment.

Impeachment– Donald Trump

As I write this piece, I can’t help but note the parallels between the accusations against Presidents Andrew Johnson and Donald Trump. Both have harangued members of Congress. Both interpreted laws as they felt fit, thus ignoring lawful requests. Both have used monies allocated for specific military purposes for their own projects, and recently testimony seems to indicate that President Trump used his office in a number of inappropriate ways.

It seems clear to me that Articles of Impeachment are inevitable. It will certainly be interesting to see how the Senate Hearings (trial) play out. It is my opinion that the evidence is clear! However, party politics often overrides the facts. Andrew Johnson was found not guilty.

The United State of America: Republic, Capitalist or Socialist Nation?

Thoughts from the Middle

The United States of America

Republic, Capitalist or Socialist Nation?

Robert J. Fischer

This article was prompted by recent comments made about our government and various political candidates. Based on these comments, it is apparent to me that many, if not most, Americans do not understand the nature of this country’s political/social makeup. We are in fact a capitalist, socialist, republic. Unfortunately, terms such as socialist and capitalist are often used in a negative way. It might be helpful at this point to define some terms. It is also important to realize that these concepts are on a continuum and may co-exist with each other.

Definitions

Anarchy — a state of disorder due to absence or no recognition of authority.

Capitalism — an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Communism —a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Also called Marxism.

Democracy — a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Fascism — an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Republic — a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Socialism — a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Historical Context

Our founding fathers struggled with the problem of how to govern. Some advocated a continuation of the monarchy. This advocacy continued through the revolution, with some promoting George Washington as a potential king. Some wanted a loose confederation of states. Others wanted a republic based on the Roman model. The Republic model was eventually adopted. The new country would have a democratically elected representative government headed by a president. The issues of capitalism and socialism as political systems were not considered.

The nature of the social system in place at the time of the revolution was based on the colonies as economic enterprises funded by the English wealthy merchant and aristocratic classes. Thus, the social structure in each state was generally based on commercial interests—agriculture in the south and industry/crafts in the north. Whether or not we admit it today, the revolution was fought over commerce. Capitalism was the apparent system. The concepts of communism and socialism did not exist.

Still, the social structure of the time required that the government provide certain tax paid services. These included fire watches and security patrol/night watch personnel. Almost all other services were provided by local merchants and property owners. When transportation needed improvements, the government eventually established “post roads.” Before the concept of socialism/communism was even introduced, the good of the people was supported by the government in limited areas—early forms of what would later be called socialism.

What this means is that our capitalistic republic has been (as have most republics) providing government services in what we would call a minimal form of socialism. As the country grew and became more prosperous, some of the “people” wanted the government to provide additional services. The hungry should be fed, the homeless should be provided with some form of housing, and the sick should be guaranteed basic medical attention. From these demands, which were promoted by the people voting for representatives who shared their values, the United States gradually moved in the direction of socialism.

There are also those who see the movement toward socialism as outside the realm of our government. Instead, they are focused on the role of the business sector in providing support for the needy. They believe in self-sufficiency. In the last several decades this idea has become known as “trickle down” economics. If the capitalist is doing well, so too will those who work in the system.

On the liberal side, those who want more from the government find capitalism as indifferent toward the needy. They often attack conservatives who support the capitalistic system as greedy. Trickle-down economics does not work, and the rich are the only group to gain from it.

The Situation Today

Today, the U.S. is best described as a capitalist, socialist republic. In spite of all the criticism from both sides, the system still works. It takes capital to invest and pay taxes in order to offer certain government services. Most of us can agree that we need schools, military, police, fire, safety, and public roads. Some would also continue to support regulation of the transportation industry, food and drugs. But, there are still others who see regulation of firearms; agriculture practices, and individual choice as outside the realm of government responsibilities.

The most important thing to remember is that the Constitution’s preamble states that the purpose of the government is to:

establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility,
provide for defense,
promote general welfare, and
provide security for the blessings of liberty.

These words imply a broad role for government. Since it is “we the people” who control the representatives who make the rules, we get to decide what an appropriate government role is. The whole population will likely never agree, but we are a democracy. That implies that the majority sets the rules. The rules have shifted over the decades as different groups have formed alliances and furthered their concepts of what is acceptable.

Socialism in its extreme will likely never be the political driving force in this nation. But, neither will pure uncontrolled capitalism. We are a Capitalist, Socialist Republic!