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!

My Journey from Catholic to a Spiritual Being

By

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!

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,

1. 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.
2. 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. 
3. 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.

Police Reform: Defund or Fund?

By

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!

Republican versus Democrat

By

Robert J Fischer

While the national media has occasionally discussed the growing interest in school board elections and school board decisions, until recently, I had not considered the implications.  As a previous 10 year school board member and board president, I have a fair understanding of the role that school boards play in decisions regarding issues facing local schools. 

When my son told me that the local school board was having problems with recruiting new board members, I wasn’t surprised.  Still, in spite of the controversy over mask mandates and vaccinations, I thought there might be more interest.  My son told me that the pandemic and associated mandates had created a toxic environment in the district.  Individual board members did not want to be caught in the middle of the disagreements, given the degree of hostility. 

Then today I read about school board elections in Wisconsin.  For the first time, I noted the degree to which political affiliations were playing a part in elections.  Political parties were spending thousands of dollars on election materials.  When I ran for school board, the only money spent on my election came from my personal funds.  My platform was not based on political affiliation.  No one asked me about my political leanings.

Today’s “we/they” mentality exhibited in Republican versus Democrat and other dichotomies, while not new, is considerably outside the past norms– and unhealthy for our democracy.  Far too often I hear friends disparage views as “Those Republicans” or “Those damn Democrats”.  While the differences between dichotomous views are normal and generally healthy, nothing is accomplished by rigid inflexibility. 

In my opinion there needs to be more effort placed on finding middle ground, or at least putting the best interests of democracy ahead of party loyalty.  The recent vote on Judge Jackson is an excellent example of narrow partisan politics.  Judge Jackson should have received 100 votes, not 53.  Senator Graham voted no.  His statements reflect that while she is no doubt highly qualified, she is too liberal for a Republican Senator to support.  Although, he has supported her for a superior court judge!

The conflict of political ideology has now reached low level positions, for example, school board elections.  In the past, school board membership was not about party affiliation.  Large sums of political money were not involved in campaigns.  The issues were generally about the personal qualities of those running for office, and statements regarding their personal philosophy regarding education.

We need to relearn civil discourse.  Listen and disagree, but don’t make the issue so personal that you fail to see the other person’s position. Keep dichotomous views, but don’t forget that there are commonalities.  People from other countries are still looking to become citizens while many Americans seem focused on their personal agendas forgetting about the strengths and benefits of living in a society where we are free to express disparate views without fear of physical harm or government censorship!

What Keeps Congress from Passing Sensible Gun Legislation?

Four Years Later

Robert James Fischer

Introduction

In March 2018 I wrote an article on gun legislation.  I asked the question, “What Keeps Congress from Passing Sensible Gun Legislation?”  Four years have since passed.  Deaths by firearms have continued to increase each year, and legislation that would begin regulating firearms has been stalled in Congress.  Thus, I ask the same question again in 2022. 

Gun Violence 2007 – 2022

Virginia Tech (2007); Sandy Hook (2012); the Orlando, Florida nightclub (2016); Las Vegas (2017); First Methodist Church, Sutherland, Texas (2017); Stoneham Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida (2018; Ozark High School, Ozark, Michigan (2022). There were 34 school shootings in 2021. Sixty eight students were killed or injured.  (Education Week, www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-ear-how-many-and-way/2021/03)  Mass shootings at the Tree of Life Synagogue (October 2018), and in El Paso, Texas (August 2019) and major gun violence in Chicago and New York, have repeatedly made headlines. When will Congress finally take action? 

There are 100 gun deaths every day.  American gun homicide rates are twenty-five times higher than all other higher income countries.  And while mass shooting get the headlines, 99% of gun deaths are NOT from mass shootings. (https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america-2009-2019/)

A recent National Institute of Justice publication, The Fright Against Rampant Gun Violence: Data-Driven Scientific Research will Light the Way, reports that “The vast majority of those guns [Used in street crimes] come from illegal sources….”

American Citizens versus Congress

National polls indicate that 90 – 95% of Americans support some type of gun control legislation.  The Preamble to the Constitution starts with “We the People.”  As part of an established representative democracy, I would expect that our elected representatives would in fact represent the People.  Instead it appears that money from the NRA, and other pro-firearms/munitions lobbies, carry the day!!  The People as a whole should still control what happens in our country, not the moneyed special interests.  The 2017 list of legislators who have taken significant contributions from the NRA is shocking.  According to a 2012 study, 88% of Republicans and 11% of Democrats in Congress had received NRA contributions at some point during their career.  In 2017 the New York Times reported that over their Senate careers Marco Rubio had received $3,303,355, Joni Ernst $3,124,273 and Rob Portman $3,061,941.    (See www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/;  www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-; https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators)  

What is the solution? 

The answer is complicated, considering the lobbying efforts of the NRA and other interest groups.  We do have laws to regulate firearms, but they are often vague or not adequately enforced.  I believe that Congress needs to provide the leadership on this issue.  Thus far they have not!! 

Here are a few suggestions:

1. Educate our citizenry about the 2^nd Amendment with special emphasis on the first clause on regulation.  In other words, we do NOT need a civilian militia today, and the regulation of firearms needs to be established as a governmental Constitutional duty.
2. Make clear that ownership of hunting weapons and certain handguns is within the purview of 2^nd Amendment rights.  However, other weapons, such as automatic, semiautomatic rifles and certain handguns, are not! Of the 32 mass shooting since 2000, an overwhelming 25 involved semiautomatic weapons!
3. For those who are gun enthusiasts and feel the need to experience the “thrill” of firing automatic, semiautomatic, or other restricted weapons, application for permits to own these weapons may be considered.  However, those who qualify for ownership will be required to keep their weapons at gun clubs or ranges, where they can be locked in a vault when not in use at the range. 
4. Emphasize the need to support federal, state and local law enforcement in the enforcement of current gun laws.  Hire additional personnel if needed.
5. Allow local jurisdictions to establish gun regulations that might further restrict when, where, and how legal guns may be used.
6. Publicize the progress made in reducing crime.  Promote programs that reduce the fear of victimization, making clear that the major concern should be on reducing the number and types of guns on the streets– which in turn will further reduce violent crime.
7. Concealed carry presents special problems.  I haven’t seen any data which would support the contention that concealed carry has resulted in increased shootings.  However, open and concealed carry needs to be restricted to traditional handguns and hunting weapons.  No more AK-47s or AR-15s! No more machine or automatic pistols with enhanced magazines!  And let businesses and other establishments continue to prohibit weapons in their place of operation.

I believe that this proposal will move America in the right direction.  It restates the right to bear arms, but clarifies regulation.  The proposal presents a solution that is positively received by the 90 – 95 percent of the American public who want gun regulation.  The NRA needs to be reminded of its original charter and the real focus of the 2^nd Amendment.  Response to public outcry should ultimately result in gun control legislation, and the NRA will lose its overpowering influence over our legislators.  For more on the 2^nd Amendment, see my blog, robertfischerthoughtsfromthemiddle.blog.

Summary

Congress needs to be held accountable. When 90% of the American people want gun regulation, and Congress does not vote accordingly, something is very wrong in our democracy! Sadly, after James Brady was shot in 1981, major efforts were made by the citizenry to lobby for better gun legislation.  Congress passed the Brady Bill, signed into law in 1993.  However, due to NRA lobbying, the portion of the Bill regarding compulsory background checks was found unconstitutional in 1997.  Here we are 41 years later, still without adequate gun control legislation.   

It is the responsibility of Americans to make sure senators and representatives represent us — not interest groups.  Use the resources available to determine how senators and representative vote.  Do they vote in accordance with your views?  If they don’t, contact them and share your views.  If they do not vote in a many representing your views, then the next time they are on the ballot, vote for their opponent. 

How to Best Measure a Country’s Prosperity:

Gross Domestic Product or an Index of Happiness

Robert James Fischer

Introduction

In my last short essay, I wrote about the need to look into the future when making decisions today.  Decisions need to be made for the good of humanity and Mother Earth.  However, the focus today is primarily based on economics.  The question is— Do we need to focus on money or is there a goal that better serves the whole of humanity and Mother Earth?

A Look Back

Capitalism has been a dominant economic model for centuries.  Invest in a product or service, sell the service or product, and make money.  The model has been so pervasive that most countries use the dollar value to measure a nation’s prosperity.  The model works well for many people (certainly not for minimum wage earners) as long as there are buyers, and persons who can successfully convince buyers, to purchase a company’s product or service.  Economic growth is only possible by increasing sales.  Sales mean prosperity for the company and its stockholders/investors.  Others make enough money to purchase needed and desired products.  On the whole the global economy, at least in recent times, has profited from this model.  However, most companies today have forgotten that Henry Ford best understood this model when he paid his workers a wage that would allow them to buy his automobile.  Today, many workers struggle, while the top 10% (managers and investors) prosper.

As long as the world’s population continued to increase, it was possible to increase sales.  The system relies on adding more people at the bottom of the sales scheme.  However, this model of growth in sales is in jeopardy.  World population growth is decreasing, and in many countries, populations are declining.  American’s birth rate for 2021 was actually lower than our death rate.

The Alternative—Economic measures versus quality of life metrics

Money isn’t the only way to measure national success.  In 2006 the Legatum Institute had begun publishing its Prosperity Index. The Institute is a British based think tank focusing on the advancement of learning about political, social and economic policy.  It is committed to creating pathways from poverty to prosperity, transforming society. (li.com) The Index combined traditional economic indicators with other factors.  In 2008, following the lead prepared by the Institute, then President Nicolas Sarkoszy of France commissioned a study on alternatives to Gross National Product and Gross Domestic Product measures. Another recognized leader, then Prime Minister of England David Cameron, proposed a measure of national well-being.

While it would be nice to believe that Cameron’s measure of well-being is groundbreaking, it is not.  As early as 1781, during the Enlightenment, Jeremy Bentham proposed a philosophy of utility to assess the merits of a nation’s actions in relationship to citizen happiness.  However, the difficulty in measuring happiness was and still is difficult.  Measuring economic factors was and is much simpler.

Robert Kennedy said, “Our gross national product… counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them.  It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of natural wonder in chaotic sprawl…  Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play.” (Remarks at the University of Kansas, March 18, 1968) According to Justin Fox of the Harvard Business Review, Kennedy captured the three main problems with the GDP:  1) It is a faulty measurement.  2) It fails to account for sustainability. 3) A nation’s progress and development is better gauged by other means. (Justin Fox, “The Economics of Well-Being,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2012.)

By the 1980s, economists such as Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winner in Economic Sciences, started to distinguish between commodities, which are easily measured in the GNP or GDP, and capabilities which are not.  By 1990 a university Colleague, Mahbub ul Haq (also co-author of Sen’s work) noted, “Many things of value in life cannot be captured by the GDP, but they can be measured by metrics of health, education, and freedom.  The two friends collaborated to develop the Human Development Index (HDI).The HDI, first published in 1990, put America (ranked first by GDP) in 10^th place, behind Japan, Canada, and Australia.  Other countries such as Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and China received high rankings, far above their GDP.

The United Nations has published the HDI every year since 1990.  Today, the Index includes 189 countries.  It incorporates three factors of human development:  1) a long and healthy life, 2) knowledge, and 3) a decent standard of living.  Variables that were considered in 2020 were:  life expectancy, mean years of schooling for children, mean years of schooling for adults, and gross national income per capita.

An HDI above .8 is considered very high.  A score between .7 and .799 is high.  A score of .55 to .699 is medium, and a score below .55 is low.

While the Index has been criticized, the United Nations has taken the criticisms seriously and has continually adjusted the indices to reflect needed changes.

For more information on the HDI, see the United Nations report, Human Development Report 2020 (http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020.pdf)

Today

While the United States is currently ranked number 17, down 3 places from 2014, it lags behind in the inequality-adjusted index, placing 23^rd.  The countries ranked ahead of the United States in rank order are:  Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Iceland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Singapore, United Kingdom, Belgium, New Zealand, and Canada.

Conclusions

Unfortunately most people do not recognize the term Human Development Index (HDI).  Most countries are still tied to the GNP or GDP measures.  However, with 189 countries (out of 195 worldwide) contributing to the UN’s HDI, there is a growing interest in measuring success in human rather than monetary terms.

Rights and Responsibilities

Robert James Fischer

Introduction

Social media platforms are filled with such a variety of rants and opinions aimed at swaying beliefs that it is easy to get lost in the excitement of the ideas being discussed.  Sometimes that excitement is positive and sometimes it is negative.  In past pieces I have suggested various ways to evaluate the truth in the information that is being consumed.

This post will not rehash these suggestions.  What may be of greater importance is how the reader thinks when finished consuming information, particularly information concerning the environment and the plight of others that occupy this planet.  This post will focus on our responsibility to our children, grandchildren,  greatgrandchildren.  What kind of world will we leave them based on our decisions today?.

I quote an Indian Proverb: 

“Treat the earth well:  it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children.  We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” 

Do listeners and readers understand that the conclusions and decisions they make, based on their beliefs , have an impact beyond their own lives?    From the pronouncements of, “I have and know my rights,” rather than “I have obligations,” there is currently a “here and now” mentality.  In other words, too many Americans are concerned with what is happening now, putting little or no thought into the world that they will leave behind.

As early as the 10^th Century, the Iroquois nation taught their children to think seven generations into the future when making decisions.  How do my actions today impact the world that future generations will inherit?  Do Americans even think about the unforeseen long-term consequences of their actions?

Our Legacy

Early success in the American colonies was based on the exploitation of the resources on the vast new continent.  Fur, lumber, minerals, and agricultural products were all shipped to colonizing countries in Europe.  There was no thought by the colonizing countries, or their continental representatives, about the impact on the future.  Early capitalism and its profits dominated the decision making.  Even indigenous people were not immune from the lure of European goods.

Later in the history of the United States, the desire for profits motivated mining enterprises, the railroads, and timber companies to recklessly attack the land in search of these profits. Streams were polluted, forests destroyed, animal species decimated, and disenfranchised persons exploited. 

Today

The prosperous became wealthier at the expense of others and of “Mother Earth.”  Unfortunately, current thinking has not changed. Large moneyed interests still exploit the environment for profit.  There is little concern for the impact of pipelines, fracking, surface mining, and human suffering as long as there is money to be made.

The fact is that money has become the measure of national success.  The GDP and GNP have been used as a yardstick to measure success since WW II.  Making money drives most decisions.  As the old saying goes, “If you want to know who is making decisions, follow the money.”  As a result of businesses’ focus on profits, they continue to exploit resources and make few, if any, plans for the future. 

A Paradigm Shift– Back to the Past

It is well past time that the people on this planet consider what is most important.  Maslow said that humans need food and clothing, safety, love and belonging, self-esteem and self-actualization in order to be happy..  Is it possible to live on this planet realizing the happiness that Maslow’s needs suggest without killing the planet?  After all, It is Mother Earth that provides shelter and feeds us, and provides song birds, beautiful flowers, and much more.  The Iroquois Nation was right.  Decisions made today have an impact on our future generations..  Our leaders need to be held accountable, thinking at least seven generations into the future

It is our responsibility to know the attitudes and voting records of those that represent us at various levels of government.  The ballot box remains our strongest source of power over decision making!

Thoughts from the Middle

Civics Education

By

Robert Fischer

“Democracy must be born anew within each new generation, and education is its midwife.” John Dewey

To be honest, I have procrastinated on this article.  Writers block is real.  I struggled to find the words that adequately convey the serious nature of civics education. 

Introduction

How many of you have taken time to read our Constitution?  If you were lucky, you were probably required to become familiar with at least parts of it when you were in either junior high or high school.  You may have even taken a Constitution exam in order to graduate.  I am not too sure how many of us remember what we were taught, and actually practice, civic involvement.  I am even more concerned that the younger generations, who had less exposure to civics, are letting our democracy slide into the hands of the few.  What has happened to civics education and citizen activism? 

A Brief History

Our founding fathers envisioned a democratic nation where the average citizen participated in the election of representatives who voted their constituents’ views.  They repeatedly stated that a public education to prepare our youth for active participation in our self-government was essential to the survival of a healthy democracy.  Citizens should be able to debate using critical thinking.  Name calling and “one lane” thinking were not considered to be valuable skills!  These great minds wanted our educational system to teach responsible and informed engagement in government affairs.

George Washington said, “A primary object . . . 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?” Thomas Jefferson believed that an educated population was essential to keeping the government in check.  He said, “ 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 [freedom of choice], 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.”

Civics Education Today

Our founders wanted not only an electorate that would understand the concepts of self-government, but who also could be critical in their thinking, and able to debate issues with passion– not anger.  One sided belief was not good for the country.  Fifty years ago, it was not uncommon for American high schools to have three civics oriented courses.  (http://neatoday.org/2014/90/02/the-testing-obsession-and-the-disapperaing-curriculum-2/)

Today, most schools only have one civics course.  All 50 states require some form of government class; however, many of these offerings are nothing more than preparations for state mandated constitution tests.  The attention is on rote memorization rather than meaningful interaction with the subject matter.  Students should be required (or at least encouraged) to look at pending legislation, learn to debate (seeing both sides of an issue), study superior and Supreme Court decisions and their impact, and perhaps volunteer for community activities. 

What Can Be Done?

The National Education Associates suggests the following actions:

• Provide formal instruction in government, our history, and democracy that is more than rote memorization to pass a Constitution test.
• Include discussion of current events in classroom discussions.
• Find ways to allow students to experience what they learn in the classroom – e.g., simulated elections and debates.
• Encourage community involvement.
• Expand the role of student government organizations.  Give the students real issues and real power to find solutions.
• Support teachers who talk about politics and current events.

Unless we provide the information and tools needed to make our democracy work, we will end up losing that which we cherish most — our freedom.

The Consequences of Non-Action

We are already seeing the consequences of our failure to maintain adequate civics, history, and social sciences in our curricula.  Social media, one sided (biased) publication, blogs, and media companies have been all too successful in selling misinformation.  These successes are obvious.  Unsupported views regarding COVID 19 are not only widespread, but also accepted as “gospel” by many.  The same may be said of the “Great Lie!” regarding a stolen election.  The power of the success can be seen in efforts to overturn state elections in the case of the “Great Lie,” and the widespread use of alternative medication such as hydrogen peroxide, animal de worming medication, and Clorox to treat COVID.

Many people do not know how to evaluate information.  Instead the mantras formed from this misinformation are “I know my rights!” “I have my freedom of choice!” and other statements that indicate a failure to understand the whole of our founding fathers’ thinking. While the Constitution (Bill of Rights) sets out the rights of the people in relation to their government, it is also clear that the rules which govern our nation are established by the majority over the minority.  Compromise was often the best way to establish law. Without this understanding there is no democracy.  Minority views must be acknowledged, but the law stands until there is enough support to have it changed. 

It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the safety of its citizens.  This is accomplished through laws and directives.  The mask mandates and vaccination guidelines regarding COVID have been established to protect the majority of Americans.  Election laws have clearly established that the Electoral College voted for President Joe Biden.  Donald Trump lost. 

Failure to accept directives regarding COVID, or the results of the Presidential Election, is pushing Americans toward a state of anarchy. 

The Potential Remedy

If America is to remain a great democracy, the precepts established by our founding fathers must be secured.  In order to achieve this, our schools must return to placing proper emphasis on civics, history, and social science.  Our future generations must understand how our government is designed to work.  This includes not only their rights, but also their obligations, and our system of rule of law. They must have an appreciation of our history.  This includes both great achievements as well as failures.

For further discussion on this issue consider reading, “Universities Are Shunning Their Responsibilities to Democracy,” The Atlantic, Ronald J. Daniels, October 3, 2021.