He says, “It’s my right to order a wedding cake with two grooms on the top, a symbol of our gay wedding.”

The proprietor says, “It’s my right to choose the people to whom we want to sell cakes, as well as those to whom we do not want to sell cakes.”

This conflict involving a gay couple from Indiana and a local bakery has become a classic scenario of conflicting rights in America. Perhaps more important than this particular conflict is how it defines the major political divide that separates America into two distinct and fiercely opposed tribes of people.

If there is a key word that draws the ire of Americans and separates them into distinct groups, it is ‘mandate.’ According to Webster’s, the definition of mandate is ‘a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one.’ Most Americans, in fact most of humanity, like mandates when they establish rules to our individual or personal liking. The reverse holds true as well; if we don’t like it, it’s a bad mandate.

In earlier human history, the world was largely bifurcated between those who issued mandates and those who followed them. Life in America now is very different as the two sides of our political polarity (right wing and left wing) have times when they hold more power than the other, and consequently when they can be the issuer of mandates.

Mandates are not all the same. It is helpful to divide them into two categories. The distinction between the two largely defines the differences between the Republicans / Trumpsters and Democrats / Progressives.

1. Those mandates that protect the liberties of individuals.
2. Those mandates that protect the common good for society as a whole.

It is the Republicans who seek mandates to protect their own personal interests. They want to have the right to refuse to bake or sell that wedding cake to a gay couple. They want to ensure that they can purchase and own powerful guns and do so with a minimal paper trail. They want to own cars that are fast and cheap and that include minimal required safety features.

Progressives largely want mandates that make our society healthier and safer. They want protection against fraudulent behavior by institutions and individuals. They want vaccinations to be mandated so that diseases such as COViD-19 or smallpox can be eliminated. During a pandemic, they want everyone to wear masks to minimize the spread of the virus. They want infrastructure to be built with full safety measures embedded in the construction.

At times, the populace is split close to 50-50. Recently, a poll on vaccines requirements conducted by CNN / SSRS showed the following results about mandated vaccinations:

1. Acceptable Way to Increase Vaccination Rate …….. 51%
2. Unacceptable Infringement on Personal Rights ……49%

This survey also reflects how dramatically the nation has moved since the time when the polio vaccines or measles immunizations were mandated for children before they could enroll in public schools.

There are times when the positions of conservatives and progressives flip-flop. The most obvious case is abortion. To progressives, it is clearly a personal right; one in which the woman should be empowered to make the decision in consultation with a physician and anyone else whom she thinks can lend helpful advice.

To conservatives, abortion becomes a religious issue in which “God’s will” says that abortion should be illegal. Progressives view the conservative reasoning with a little more skepticism. They believe that in many ways conservatives oppose allowing women to have control of their reproductive rights, because they feel that the male-dominated government institutions should have control over the rights of women.

Additionally, one could argue that progressives’ support of abortion rights is consistent with their view that it is most important to protect the common good of the society. Abortion rights is one means by which we can minimize the number of unwanted children born into our society.

Neither conservatives nor progressives have an exclusive handle on the word mandate. They each use it to their own advantage; to further their views on a variety of issues.

We all try to use words to our advantage; often to give ourselves, and others like us, a presumed moral high ground. Mandate is one of the key words utilized by all sides of the political spectrum to try to advance their interests. It is another reason why we need to be especially careful about the language that we use in politics.

The post Why the Word ‘Mandate” Is so Tricky in our Political System appeared first on Occasional Planet.

You may have heard of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs. He cites five levels of growth, beginning with what a newborn infant needs and moving on to self-actualization, which is the top level of the pyramid. Maslow describes self-actualization this way:

This level of need refers to what a person’s full potential is and the realization of that potential…the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be. Individuals may perceive or focus on this need very specifically. For example, one individual may have the strong desire to become an ideal parent. In another, the desire may be expressed athletically. For others, it may be expressed in paintings, pictures, or inventions.

As you can see from the pyramid above, self-actualization comes after love/belonging and esteem. Maslow asserts that one cannot achieve self-actualization until he/she has secured the previous four needs.

What does this have to do with politics? In order to address this question, I have created a comparable hierarchy of public citizen needs.

The parallels between the two pyramids are as below. The explanations in the third column are important.

The key component is that, for a public citizen to be fully actualized, he or she must have the ability to go beyond personal and group loyalties and to move to an awareness and concern for the common good. When progressives are not burdened with impulses to be snarky and nasty, they set the example for how to care about the general good. They want human and economic rights to be protected for all citizens, while working toward justice and fairness in the rules and laws that govern our society. They make every effort to not make decisions based on personal or parochial interests but rather on what proves the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Reaching the highest level, “caring about common good,” generally requires an individuald to look both inside and around themselves. They must feel comfortable taking risks and sacrifice personal gains for the well-being of others.

This is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to Republicans. They can get four-fifths of the way up the pyramid. It is easy for them to care about their own country and their own religion as well as other group affiliations that are “theirs.” But when it gets beyond oneself, that is where growth tends to be stunted. The graph below illustrates:

This is why we have members of the so-called “Freedom Caucus” advocating shut-downs of the federal government and Groundhog Day repetitions of trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act (without offering any alternative solutions). They simply do not care about the common good. Other Republicans may not resort to such extremes, but they repeatedly block attempts to weave a tight safety net for those among us who need help.

More and more is being written about the Republican brain. There is general agreement that the cut-off for many Republicans is taking the final step to an awareness of what is the common good and how that must be a cornerstone of political decision-making.

What is still baffling to this writer is why and how the mainstream press refuses to point out this dichotomy and operates with false equivalencies between progressive and conservative positions. Perhaps the movie “Truth” about Dan Rather and Mary Mapes of CBS News will present some insight on this issue.

The post Maslow’s hierarchy of needs vs. the Republican pyramid of political values appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In June 1963, President John F. Kennedy addressed the nation, urging Congress to pass a comprehensive civil rights act. Setting the stage for the action that he wanted to take, he said, “We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.”

This is the type of rhythmic prose that Kennedy and chief speech-writer Theodore Sorensen wrote. But a basic premise has to be questioned. How clear is the Constitution? If it was really clear, would we even need a Supreme Court to interpret it?

Part of the answer is that Kennedy chose to wax poetic rather than to be precise in his language. The Constitution is not clear, and the confusion within it has contributed to everything from the American Civil War to the nearly 100 cases that the Supreme Court must adjudicate each year.

Instead of looking at the Constitution as engraved in stone, we may more accurately view it as an organism that is constantly morphing. Everything is subject to review, and the motivations behind requests for change can be both noble and ignoble.

The preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The catch-all phrase in the preamble is “promote the general Welfare.” A fair question to ask now is how helpful is our Constitution at promoting the general welfare. Since the Constitution enumerates the powers of the judicial branch (federal courts), legislative branch (Congress) and the executive branch (Presidency), there are numerous ways in which the general welfare can either be promoted, or in what seems to be more frequently the case, not promoted.

If we are to analyze how the three branches of government are not succeeding in promoting the general welfare, we must establish what is the meaning of the largely interchangeable terms, general welfare and common good?

A flip, but perhaps, reasonably accurate answer to the question is an adaptation of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s response to a question about pornography, “I know it when I see it.” And with the “common good,” we know it when we see it. This still leaves considerable uncertainty and confusion, but two recent Supreme Court cases have been decided ways that, to a reasonable, person are clearly deleterious to the common good. Whatever their “constitutionality” might have been is clearly superfluous to the “common good” needs that had to be met.

The first case is the infamous Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ruling of 2010. In this instance, the Court was asked if there could be limitations on political spending, particularly by corporations, labor unions, and Political Action Committees (PACs). The Roberts Court essentially ruled that corporations are people and are free to donate as much as they want. Perhaps in an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment, this was true. But we have always placed reasonable limits on the First Amendment, such as the prohibition from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The reason we do this is to protect the common good.

It is quite clear that unlimited money in politics does four things that are detrimental to the common good:

1. It distorts exposure of the candidates to the public, with priority going to those who have the most money.
2. It favors candidates who are close to the moneyed interest
3. It reinforces a system of individuals and corporations “buying” political favors from elected officials.
4. Perhaps most insidiously, it favors candidates who are comfortable asking others for money.

When people ask why we have such poor elected officials, the answer often is that we have “the best that money can buy,” but not the best that a real democracy can elect. The Citizens United ruling is clearly detrimental to the common good.

The second Court case is Shelby County (AL) v. Holder. In this 2013 case, the Roberts court ruled that a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is “unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.” In plain English, what this means is that there is no longer sufficient data to demonstrate that African-Americans face discrimination, particularly with regard to voter access. Since that ruling, many states have instituted modern day poll taxes against African-Americans, other minorities, and the elderly. If the absurdity of that notion wasn’t clear in 2013, it certainly is in 2015. The data that the Court used is clearly negated. Occurrences in Ferguson, MO and numerous other municipalities in the United States have shown that equal rights are hardly here. The Court’s decision clearly aided Republicans (whose constituency is largely made up of people who have few hurdles to clear to vote), rather than Democrats, who typically represent minorities, the poor, and the elderly.

Virtually any case that goes before the Supreme Court involves difficult constitutional questions. There are plausible interpretations for either side. What we have seen most recently is a turn by the Court toward making decisions that are consistent with their individual political preferences. That is essentially what happened in Bush v. Gore in 2000, and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as much as said so. The problem with that decision and many since is that the justices had a very conservative view of the common good, one that favored the wealthy over most of the rest of America.

If the battles before the Court are going to be about what is the “common good,” then it is all the more important that the American people elect progressive presidents and members of the Senate so that the Court can work for America. The issues of poverty, inequity, environmental protection, health care, and many more are far too important to be left to the parsing of Supreme Court justices over a document that easily lends itself to contrary interpretations. The common good that progressives see is one that will be beneficial to all Americans, including the wealthy. The Supreme Court, as with the legislative and executive branches of our government, must change to view its work as promoting the common good. If that does not happen, we cannot expect the change that America needs.

An encouraging example of valuing the common good more than other qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court is described in Believer: My Forty Years in Politics by David Axelrod. He describes Senator Barack Obama’s consideration of whether or not to vote to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

“I spent time with Roberts, and came away convinced that he is qualified in every way,” Barack said to us. “He’s obviously bright. He knows his stuff. But I also have this nagging feeling, based on his opinions, that anytime there’s a contest between the powerful and the powerless, he’ll find a way to make sure the powerful win.

Barack Obama was one of 22 senators who voted to not confirm John Roberts.

The post Should the common good trump the Constitution? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I saw an essay called “Just Curious: What Made Americans so Fearful and Stupid as They Are Today,” and it struck a chord. I first began to ask questions about why and how societies survive, succeed and then disappear when I signed up for an anthropology class in 1972. Eventually, I drifted into a history master’s program looking for answers specific to the U.S. There are lots of theories about the rise and fall of civilizations. There’s the “great leader” theory. There’s the “weakness within” theory. And, of course, there is the over-extension of resources and reaching the limits of what is possible.

I read a book called Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in an Age of Show Business by Neil Postman back in the 90’s. Maybe I shouldn’t have read it, because it has influenced how I see everything that has happened in our country since then. Maybe I’m seeing through “corrective lenses” when I say this, but I remember being proud of working hard and rewarding myself only after getting the job done. Maybe it was the WW II work ethic. We felt part of something bigger than ourselves when we all pitched in. I can’t imagine a president today asking anything of us. It seems today’s culture is all about personal happiness, enjoying ourselves, shopping, consuming, and spending insane amounts of money on sports tickets.

What do you think? I know the world has changed and we are part of a global economy now. But can’t we at least find a way to work together to fix those things we all share and need?

My hope lies in the younger generation. They see climate change for the danger it is. They aren’t hypnotized by distorted views on social issues. They are connected by social media to friends all over the world. They travel more than we ever did. And that’s a good thing.

I just wish we could pass on a society that will make them part of something larger than themselves.

The post Whatever happened to working together for the common good? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“They’re trying to take away my Second Amendment rights,”  say many gun rights advocates. But what do they mean by that? I doubt that a cogent expression of their thoughts would be:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (some commas and capitalization discretionary)

That is the official wording of the Second Amendment, and to many it is extremely confusing. Does it mean that individuals should be allowed to have guns in order to be part of a well-regulated militia? If so, is this militia supposed to fight on behalf of the government or should it be a “citizens’ army” to protect individuals from a too-powerful government?

Or is the militia component really superfluous, because the Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This interpretation would mean that individuals have the right to bear arms, period.

And what about the arms? What kind of arms do people have the right to bear? This is not stated in the Second Amendment.  In fact, there is no hint as to whether there should be any limitations on the types of guns. And let’s remember that when Second Amendment was written in the late 19^th Century, the firepower of the weapons was just a pittance of the strength of today’s armaments. Would the Founding Fathers have said that people have the right to bear nuclear weapons?

We must also keep in mind that, in the late 19^th Century, most of America was rural. That was the predominant culture, and individuals had a more clear need for guns in order to protect themselves from dangerous animals and other threats that were common in isolated areas.

What to do now

The Second Amendment is confusing. Our national debate over guns is fought in the context of a great cultural divide over what role guns should play in our society.  What we need more than anything is clarity. Specifically, that means that we need a new Second Amendment.

Below is a proposed new Second Amendment. It will be more specific that the current one. The more details, the more choices there are to be made. So, this will not be a final version of the Second Amendment, instead it will be a broad outline. Perhaps this can be the basis of some further discussion on the Second Amendment.

1. Regulations regarding the possession or use of weapons shall be framed so as to provide a reasonable balance between the rights of individual citizens and the common good of the American people.

2. Individuals shall have the right to possess and use weapons so long as they:

• Have not been convicted of a crime of violence.
• Have not been convicted of a crime in which they were in possession of a weapon.
• Have not been diagnosed as having a psychological disorder that would make them likely to use a weapon in an act of aggression.
• Have undergone a thorough background check by federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or it successor agencies.

3. The Congress of the United States shall have the obligation to pass legislation outlawing those weapons that it deems to be unsafe for society if they are in the possession of individuals.

4. States shall have the right to further refine those weapons that are permitted in different areas of the state. The states should recognize that in certain areas the balance shall be more in favor of individual rights and in other areas the balance should be in favor of the common good.

5. All levels of government shall have the right to pass legislation invoking penalties for individuals or groups that possess or use weapons contrary to this Amendment.

The city of Chicago has nearly two deaths by firearms every day. Many rural communities have not had a killing by firearms for decades. Our goal must be to make policy that is maximally responsive to the needs of people in different demographic and cultural communities. Rewriting the Second Amendment would be a good place to start.

The post Rewriting the Second Amendment appeared first on Occasional Planet.