Republicanism Rebooted

Republicanism Rebooted: The Beginnings of a Conversation

The enlightenment of the citizenry is critical to a more democratic state.  Democracy requires conversation, a healthy debate of ideas and thoughts. Mediums of information must be the essential source for the foundations of this conversation. Newspapers and broadcast television news historically served this task. Increasingly, the Internet and cable news are replacing traditional print newspapers and broadcast news.  Their evolution has proved problematic. Although the Internet makes it possible to read traditional newspapers from across the nation, there is a rise of start-up journalism with journalists that are often like muckrakers. Their coverage of events often highlights limited informational content. And, cable news networks are increasingly slanted towards a particular political perspective.

Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram and other mediums are also adding to our sources of information. “According to a 2016 Pew survey”, CNN reports “a majority of US adults-62%-get news on social media, and 18% do so often.[1] About 60% of the respondents claim to get their “news” from Twitter. [2] Many of these polled use Twitter or social media as their only source for news and other information.

In essence, our modern information mediums, which we believed would make us more informed, are starting to fail in their missions to provide information with limited degrees of bias.  When making comparative assessments between the modes of information and what the public learns from its media, what is amazing are not the differences of opinion, but the difference of factual content.

What recent elections (primaries and general elections) demonstrate is Americans make poorly informed choices and that the best and brightest are no longer running for the highest office. Let me try to prove this point, without making it too personal.  As previously stated, not all within our contemporary society represent a learned society. It seems that a large segment of the nation does not rely on the news media for information, as real facts are being ignored. Instead, many are using news mediums to confirm badly formed opinions.

For example, in a Virginia newspaper, a letter to the editor praised the President Trump for creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs and for helping to provide all Americans with health care.  A Midwestern newspaper editorial equally spoke about the president creating new jobs and restoring confidence in American leadership, while a letter in another Virginia paper claimed that Bernie Sanders had good ideas but he was a “socialist”.  In the coverage of the special Georgia congressional election, a woman had this comment about the president:  “I don’t think he’s always making the best choices, but at the same time he’s done more in his first 100 days than any president ever before.” And when the Washington Post reporter pressed for details the woman replied: “Just research it,” she said. “I’m not going to get into it, but it’s the truth. It’s factual. Just look it up.”

The freedom that our democracy allows provides freedom of speech, but freedom of speech does not mean to provide information that cannot be supported by facts! Yet, the lack of facts and a clear understanding of the democratic practice are leading to civic conflict and deadly violence.

Everyone understands that the world is changing, and lots of people believe they can help shape its direction. However, the choice of direction is the problem. Some people believe that money solves everything, others seek world peace and there is always a group that favors war.  But, our decisions need to be grounded. We cannot just spout off because we disagree with someone.  And never should we feel justified in physically injuring another person because we don’t share their particular viewpoint.

Very few in America want to contribute their money, heart or bodies to make these changes possible, but they have a lot to say about daily events.  This lack of civic responsibility or limited obligation to the nation is harmful in a participatory democracy. In a true democracy, everyone must play a role in the determination of actions and their outcomes. 

In contrast, to the increasing number of apathetic citizens, every political candidate wants to make a difference. They are people who, for various reasons, decide to seek elective office with the hope that they can make a difference. Political parties have ideologies, but all politicians seek change.  The Founding Fathers hoped that all Americans, but especially politicians, would be “disinterested” persons.  In their minds, a “disinterested” man would not be concerned with personal wealth but solely with the good of all.  A “disinterested” person was making a sacrifice to the nation.  To serve the nation was the highest sign of loyalty.

The fact that too many politicians are more “interested” instead of “disinterested” is the reason why our political system is grinding to a halt.  And it is compounded by the fact that too many Americans are complacent instead of active. As Stanley McChrystal recently wrote in Time, America is in a rut, and a possible solution for a restart is to have every American serve the nation for one year.[3] If all Americans became interested in aiding the nation, the belief is that they would remain committed.  We would all be veterans of the democratic society, and willing to serve again whenever needed or required.

Based on his wealth, Donald Trump seems like a great person to enter political life.  And if you believe that others have entered politics to get rich, then you might believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton should not be in politics.  Unfortunately, neither Trump nor the Clintons are “disinterested”.  All have personally benefited from political engagement.  In fact many politicians have become wealthier from serving the nation.  However, the ways in which their wealth has increased requires individual scrutiny.  Some of the wealth is due to incidental relationships or innocent connections, but in some cases it is due to deliberate action. However, if you feared the Clintons, you should have more to fear from Donald Trump.

Out of the 2016 Republican field, Trump was the least qualified to be president. He was the most “interested” person in the field. A quick investigation of his past illuminates that Trump had five deferments so he was not eligible to be sent to Vietnam, but the larger issue is that he avoided serving the nation on any level so that he could maintain and enhance his wealth.[4]  Donald Trump, the socialite billionaire, has been a “sideline critic” for decades.  As early as the 1970s, his sole contribution to the nation was giving money to Republican and Democrats who might support his issues, and buying space in major newspapers to criticize politicians and policies. On paper, Trump was a life-long Democrat, who realized that in heavily Democratic New York, supporting Democratic causes would benefit his businesses. When Trump considered a political life, he realized that his political fortune could only develop as a Republican so he switched parties.  None of his decisions were based on ideologies, but rather making money.

Trump’s past (both factual and fictional) represents the continuation of power in the hands of the wealthy white male.  And rather than surrender any of his potential income to become president, he refused to divest from any conflicts of interest. To the contrary, he rejected a blind trust and in handing his businesses over to his sons, he maintained control of his financial empire and found ways to continue to profit even while in office. Ironically, his selection of a cabinet is based on the same “wealthy disinterested” principles.  However, many members of the group are not advocates of the public good and have taken actions to harm the majority of those that they serve.

A woman, like Carly Fiorina, running for office might have been more “disinterested” simply because she would bring a different gendered vision to the electorate.  Traditional male candidates like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie, and Ted Cruz, and non-candidates like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg would have been better candidates and could have been “disinterested” to a far greater degree.

The political issues of taxes, economy, healthcare, education, national security, and environment can be approached from interested and disinterested methodologies.  A tax cut, for instance, is only fair if each segment of the population receives some level of benefit.  Clean air and water, as well as better healthcare and education, benefit all. We may not all need the services equally, but they should be made available if or when we need them and also available for future generations. If everyone had to serve in the military, even for a year, the nation would be better prepared and better served.

With that in mind consider that four previous presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama) pressed for a national day of service and stressed a reinvigoration of the ideas of the Peace Corps for all young adults.  Other industrialized nations have similar ideas and many have implemented them to great success.  Measurements of national loyalty are higher in those nations than they are in America. 

So now let me return to a more directed argument. Of the three categories that I mentioned above, money and war are the most important in the mind of President Trump.  He is not, and cannot be a candidate of peace. Simply put, in our president’s mind, selling weapons of war is an aspect of helping the economy.  Arming the Middle East will eventually cause a war that America will ultimately support with soldiers and dollars.  Although he claims “America First”, America cannot ignore a problem that it helps to create.  The “isolationist president” has already escalated America’s involvement in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The plight of veterans will continue to be exploited but with little return to those who serve. Trump cannot be “disinterested” as his goals for national success mean harming a specific group in the population.

Let’s explore this concept a bit more. It is a fact that the employment situation in America is undergoing decades of transition. Manufacturing jobs in America have been dying for decades.  Most of the things that Americans purchase are not made in America.  People, in other countries, earning substandard wages make these items, from computers to sneakers.  Their wages are often so low that they would be considered a pittance in the US.  America is no longer a producer but rather a consumer.  It has become the land of ideas and technology.  That belief is held by every one of the people, Republican or Democrat, who ran for president in 2016.

The goal of every American president is to create a lasting economy, a quality standard of living, and to keep the nation safe. It is a hard task, but it remains the key goal of every administration. Being “disinterested” in this case means that you might have to support policies that protect consumer interests over those of the manufacturers or support policies that favor workers over employers. This practice began with the Populists who supported rural interests and then it moved to urban settings with the Progressives.  The Progressive values grew under Republican and Democratic administrations leading to the creation of “America’s safety net.”  They are the core values that established modern America, including medical reform, educational reform, legal standards, workplace safety regulations, unemployment insurance, and Social Security.

The desires and goals of employers and corporations are often in conflict with these core values. They, in response to government actions, have been forced to raise wages, provide benefits and pay employee taxes. In some cases, this has meant that profitability has been stymied and the stock market has suffered. But the nation has gained more from these actions than it has lost.  The workforce is more secure, safer, better educated, better paid, has a better standard of living and is able to retire to a better life because of “disinterested” policies and politics.

 

Reforms are valued in a democracy, and they have done a great deal to improve the “standards of living” that most Americans expect. If these regulations that protect workers and force employers to provide a safe environment for workers, competitive salaries and benefits, and provide protections for consumers are removed, corporations will benefit through higher profits and most likely the public will suffer. The responsibility of the disinterested politician is to continue to press for reforms that put the people first and still address the needs of corporations. This is another tough task, but it is a necessity in ensuring democracy.

One of the key issues during the campaign focused on clean and dirty energy.  Candidate Trump promised to support dirty energies over clean ones, and promised to return unemployed workers back to physically demanding, unhealthy and unsafe mining jobs. This was a break in tradition as Presidents Bush and Obama had favored the production of clean fuels over dirty ones.  This is especially telling given President Bush’s connections to the oil industry. There are glaring dangers associated with mining industries, including coal, steel and petroleum, which have made automation a cheaper and safer alternative to manpower. As a result, many of these jobs have been lost and will continue to decline. Yet, candidate Trump continued to promote these industries, insisting he would bring jobs back.

This is an example of the conflict between the “interested” and “disinterested” candidate.  In fact such “interested” actions could be seen as reckless. National statistics demonstrate the various safety issues associated with mining including the connection between mining and numerous diseases like “Black Lung,” and mining accidents that result in the loss of life.  It is a very dangerous occupation. Yes, it pays well, but the entire nation pays the cost of miner hospitalization and accident care. No one, especially not a president, should support risking lives in the mines, nor force corporations to bring these jobs back.  What we as a nation should hope for are new opportunities for these workers to get training, support and suitable employment in new fields.

Support of the gun lobby and the Second Amendment also reveals the role of “interested” parties.  Politicians, including the president, denounce the shootings that are taking place in Chicago and other cities that are often taking innocent lives.  News reports often highlight the number of gun-related deaths in the nation and the fact that America has more gun related killings than any other developed nation. In urban areas, children are often killed or maimed when gunmen aiming at others miss their targets. Recently in Times Square when a gunman opened fire on a crowd, the well-trained New York City police missed the criminal and their bullets hit fleeing bystanders. Yet, in light of the Virginia Republican baseball team shooting, several elected officials stressed that they would start carrying firearms. Here was the critical conflict between gun-owners and non-owners approaching the subject of deranged shooters. Would an armed congressman have done a better job of subduing a gunman than the Capital Police? Would an armed patron have stopped the carnage in the Pulse nightclub without injuring innocent parties?  Should all Americans support open carry laws?

A similar argument could be framed around the Paris Climate Accords where the nation’s environment, instead of that of the larger world, could be the focal point. The disinterested politician would admit that global warming or climate change is real.  The disinterested politician would support new sources for clean energy.  He or she would admit that America is one of the major polluters on this planet, and that it makes sense for Americans to protect Americans.  It could even be America first and the world second, but that action is required.  In contrast, an interested politician would denounce such policies and suggest that they are hurting American citizens and workers.  The interested politician would press onward with the destructive policies and practices that are leading to environmental issues at home.

So the realities of “America First” are not the focus of the “disinterested” but of the “interested”. Yet the very Americans who were disenchanted with the status quo are cheering for the president at all of his rallies and are excited by his angry tweets.  However, the status quo remains in place. Some things, though, are changing. The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest Americans, for example, continues to expand. Forbes, Reuters, PBS, and the Brookings Institute all predicted the increase of income inequality. Within the nine months since the election, the wealthiest Americans have witnessed tremendous economic growth.[5] Unemployment, not surprisingly, remains the same. 

Businesses are seeing a rapid increase in profits as existing reforms and regulations are relaxed or removed. Corporations are doing better in this new political climate, but neither the workers nor the majority of citizens are benefiting. Health care is not being reformed, and the proposed national health care insurance legislation is a tax cut for the wealthy. School reform is attached to vouchers, dissolving the Department of Education, and the elimination of the Common Core. None of which will insure that we have the world’s best educational system.  Infrastructure redevelopment is not taking place, and the administration’s proposals are suggesting that redevelopment should be privatized. 

By supporting polluting industries and refusing to clean up its atmosphere, its rivers, lakes, and surrounding oceans, the sources of our drinking water oceans, and removing toxins from the soil, the United States is acting against the best interests of its citizens.  Since tainted drinking water was discovered in Flint, Michigan other cities have detected high amounts of lead in their drinking water, especially in schools. This should be a call to action.

What we are experiencing is a national dilemma. Americans have lost sight of what makes our nation a republic. Its democratic ideals are lost to partisan fighting and a public that is either apathetic or willing to fight over differing viewpoints.  I don’t know if this was the goal of the Russian plot, but whatever is happening is clearly working.

The facts should demonstrate that voting is not enough to maintain a democracy. Greater degrees of involvement are required from all Americans. The divides in the nation grow daily. And there is no potential political solution in sight. The return to American republicanism starts at the bottom, not at the top. We should not solely find fault with the president or congress. We have only ourselves to blame.

---

[1] Jason Steinhauer, “The Twitter problem that could change history” CNN Mobile July 2, 2017 8:48 am.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Stanley McChrystal, “Every American Should Serve For One Year” Time June 20, 2017.

[4] Trump had four deferments for college and after he graduated he had one for bone spurs. The last deferment raised the issue if Trump was a draft dodger.  And to be fair, many have also accused Bill Clinton of escaping Vietnam by accepting a Rhodes Scholarship to study in the United Kingdom and George W. Bush by joining the Alabama National Guard.

[5]  On June 19, 2017 CNBC reported a $400 trillion increase in the stock market since Donald Trump was elected. See http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/wilbur-ross-trump-has-driven-the-stock-market-to-4-trillion-in-gains.html accessed July 25, 2017. On March 17, 2017 Forbes indicated that the average billionaire has seen his/her wealth grow by 16% since the election.