Do our present circumstances dictate our future now or merely draw a picture of a future “now”? This question is particularly relevant as Americans approach a national election in 2020. The Presidential candidates who have already announced provide a pot-pour-ri of visions and policies for America. But none of these perspectives or prospective policies can become America’s future unless they capture the support of the electorate. And, even then, political opposition or unforeseen events may suppress any candidate’s intent once in office.
While the future may be the subject of pundits’ predictions, it cannot be predestined. It evolves in its own manner from the present context. At this writing, Americans face diverse futures with respect to the provision of healthcare, the integrity of government, the problem of income/wealth inequality, the future of immigration policy, the conduct of foreign affairs, the mitigation of home-grown terrorism, and the disastrous consequences of global climate change. Some would deny any problem with America’s current direction. The present Administration has already set its course. But Americans have set new directions throughout America’s history, sometimes gestating change between elections or over much longer periods of time. We are currently preparing for a national election that could give birth to a different course. We can see glimpses of this new path forward already taking shape.
Americans incubate the embryo of political change for months and years before delivering them in the voting booth. That incubation period is born in the hearts and minds of every citizen. It is constantly changing and evolving until consensus is reached by a majority of citizens. Why else are the press and political campaigns addicted to pre-election polls? And why are so many interested parties—domestic and foreign—so intent on manipulating public opinion? Polls and trolls are the bane of modern democracies, for they attempt to either predict or control the future. In this manner, these attempts appease/foment some groups’ fears or satisfy another’s desires. But they should not substitute for the reasoned will of an electorate. The only question is whether reason and free will are the determining factors in an election. Reason builds on a base of fact and valid evidence. And free will depends upon reason and the courage to act. If well-informed voters vote their conscience, then America will prosper, regardless of which political party wins their vote. For a conscientious vote reflects what the body of the electorate finds necessary now—at this point in history—to satisfy its pursuit of happiness. Otherwise, democracy cannot survive. Each election is America’s rebirth into a new future. Will this next election bring forth a stillborn or a promising newborn?
For example, the health insurance industry for years denied coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies had prospered by excluding high-risk customers. As a result, market power and money dictated health outcomes, while the uninsured died or suffered bankruptcy in order to prolong a life. But the electorate began to consider whether healthcare should be a right for all Americans rather than a privilege for those who could afford it or who were fortunate to have employer-supported coverage. This newly reasoned approach to healthcare has gestated over several generations (reference, “The Republican Path to Healthcare”). The Affordable Care Act (ACA) not only eliminated restrictions based upon pre-existing conditions but supported the extension of basic healthcare to include preventive care and treatment for various societal health issues such as prenatal care, vaccinations, diabetes prevention, addictions, annual checkups, and so on. While insurance companies lost a key lever in their control over people’s health, they gained millions of new subscribers, many subsidized by the ACA. At the same time, the ACA extended Medicaid to millions in those states that accepted Federal help. And it also provided additional Medicare benefits while shoring up its future financial viability.
The ACA is an example of a slow-moving tide that took generations to cross a deep sea of public opinion. The electorate now measures healthcare in terms of health outcomes and the universality of its coverage. It has rejected the Republican mantra of “repeal and replace” in favor of a more reasoned approach to “reform and extend” (reference, “Why Repeal and Replace Obamacare”). In reality, “replace” meant a return to the previous insurance industry business model; whereas “reform and extend” implies a path to cheaper and more universal healthcare. Is it reasonable to assume that assuring individual healthcare is more important than increasing healthcare industry profits? This is still a question before prospective candidates for elected office. Will they respond with well-thought out proposals and with good will? Or will they continue the current Administration’s efforts to cripple the ACA: discourage enrollments, reduce subsidies, decrease the mandate penalty to zero dollars, crimp the risk pool, and authorize short term, high deductible policies to individuals with no pre-existing conditions. These efforts have driven up the costs of healthcare insurance for everybody and forced some carriers out of some insurance markets. The Republican Party has voted over 70 times to repeal the ACA without offering any comparable healthcare plan. Can we believe it will now offer any viable plan (reference, “Shim, Sham, or Shame”)? Undoubtedly, powerful monied interests will also attempt to define America’s healthcare system. But what will 2020 voters decide as the best option for the American healthcare system: a return to the pre-ACA health industry model, a new Medicare-like ACA public option, or something completely different, like a new single payor system, sometimes characterized as “Medicare for all”? Can you envision the future “now” for healthcare in America?
Meanwhile, the newly elected House of Representatives seems to be re-imagining the founding vision of American democracy by restoring the power of the vote. Its first official act was the passing of HR1 as a strong initial step towards reforming campaign financing and securing voting rights for all. As I suggested in August 2015, Americans have always expected their government to be a “protector of the American way of life” (reference, “American Revolution 2016“). But, in recent decades, we have begun to believe that “government is the problem,” that the “system is rigged” against the less privileged amongst us, and that our elected representatives use “politically correct” statements to conceal their self-serving intent. Many voters in 2016 agreed with this analysis, but not with my prescription for change. A large plurality—though not a majority—of Americans voted for a disruptor instead of a reformer as their chosen change-agent. A disruptor, as we have witnessed, chooses to work outside of a system rather than to reform it from within. But the American system was designed to be self-correcting. Since it is built around checks and balances and adherence to the rule of law, working outside of this system is the same as working against it. Dismantling institutional norms of ethics and standards, authorizing nepotism, ignoring legal—even Constitutional—restrictions, and substituting personal goals for the general welfare undermine American democracy rather than serve its evolution. More to the point, a disruptor invites corruption and violation of the integrity demanded of a democratic republic. When an American Administration operates outside the law and institutional controls, it allows sycophants, opportunists, and sleaze to infest government and thwart the will of the governed.
Perhaps Americans will now reconsider whether our system of checks and balances should not only endure but be strengthened. Removing the excessive influence of large public campaign donations is a first step to eliminating corruption in government. In addition to the House’s action, several state legislatures have attempted electoral college reform. In a creative application of the 12th Amendment, they will vote all their electoral college votes according to the national popular vote. * Will these campaign and electoral reforms appeal to the electorate as a reasonable way to advance and strengthen our form of government? Will America once again rise to reclaim Lincoln’s vision at Gettysburg, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” Is a new future “now” on our horizon?
After World War II, America experienced a massive growth in the middle class. There were far less mega corporations then than now. And labor unions encompassed a major portion of the work force. Today, .01% of the population control 60% of the nation’s wealth and labor unions represent less than 12% of the work force. In 70% of the states, 40% of our fellow citizens cannot afford to buy a home. In addition, 40% of full-time workers earn less than 15$ per hour. Whether you accept those government statistics or not, many who read them also live them. If you are not one of those people, then drive through the poorer sections of one of our major cities or many parts of rural America. If you live in a “better” neighborhood, check out the gardeners, housekeepers, and repairmen. They do not live in your neighborhood. They live paycheck to paycheck. And they worry about the future of their children: will the best public schools be available; will college be affordable. My father was a mail carrier who put his son through college. My current mail carrier regrets that he cannot do the same for his daughter. Frankly, a time traveler from the mid-20th century would not recognize the America of the 21st century.
How did this face of America change in the space of two generations? How did we develop this bifurcated economy? Well, it changed almost unperceptively over time. Despite elections, most Americans have lost an effective voice in their government. High paid lobbyists too often dictate the Congressional agenda to suit the monied interests of corporations and/or the super-rich class. It was only a matter of time before the Presidency would fall into the same hands. The current President, for example, acts in support of his own wealthy class while falsely claiming a majority support that has never existed. Is it not obvious that we must address income and wealth inequality in America both to break the stranglehold of power and money and to restore faith in our democracy? When elected officials truly dedicate themselves to the general welfare, then they will begin to address the needs of our educational system, of infrastructure, of job training and opportunities, of climate change preparedness, of a safe and habitable human environment, and of healthcare reform. These needs exist for all Americans. Subverting national resources to serve the interests of billionaires and large corporations does not serve the general welfare, especially when the Administration vows to cut federal spending for a myriad of social programs that enhance the lives of all Americans. Recent tax policy, for instance, only serves those invested in capital. Most Americans do not own stock, a home or, at best, more than a minority interest in a house. They are saddled with rising rents or mortgage payments. The current President’s tax and government policies do not serve their interest. Not only are their voices not heard, but their rights as citizens are ignored. This Administration belies Lincoln’s concept of “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Which vision of the future will unfold in the next election: Lincoln’s or Trump’s?
In the course of 243 years, America has expanded its citizenship and/or voting rights to include all races, women, immigrants, and asylum seekers. But this expansion of citizenship and subsequent rights has not been without pitfalls. The Civil War and the Women’s Suffrage Movement stand out as painful leaps forward in our history. But America still battles with human rights issues from racial prejudice to religious intolerance, to misogyny, to white supremacy, to class privilege, and so on. At this writing, Americans are witnessing the worst civil rights violations since the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II. Our government is responsible for violating the rights of immigrants and their families on our southern border. We attempt to deny them abortion rights, asylum, due process, and the sacred right to hold and care for their own children. At least the Japanese internment camps kept families together. But we have separated children from their parents and held them in separate internment camps where many still await assignment to foster care. The potential for long term psychological damage to these children is high. But their treatment is just one more example of current human rights violations that include DACA children and TPS victims (see “Bon Mots or Deceits”). This non-white purge continues at this writing with the newly announced plan to deport 4,000 Liberians who were welcomed to America in 1991 as their homeland was torched by civil war. Every Republican and Democratic President since then has protected these refugees from deportation by renewing their special status termed the Deferred Enforced Departure (DED). This purge is not only a denial of our shared human nature but a negation of America’s progress towards its vision that “all . . . (humans) are created equal.” How can we accept this recidivist vision of America or even consider it as our future?
Our fellow revolutionaries, the French, gave us the Statue of Liberty. Engraved in a plaque at its base, are the words of Emma Lazarus, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free . . . Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Instead of “a golden door,” do we now offer an impenetrable border, the gates of an internment camp, or summary deportation? Is this the picture of America’s future?
Will the future America lead the world via peaceful alliances and fair-trade policies that bind world powers into interdependent relationships? Or will America’s interference into the domestic affairs of other nations lead it into regime change, revolutions, foreign military interventions, and the creation of more ungovernable nests of future world terrorists? The forces that determine the actions of nations are not always logical or even moral. America’s foreign policy, on the other hand, must be rational, humane, and, at minimum, explainable. But it must also encompass historical relevance and diplomatic contexts. We must elect leaders who grasp the nuances of diplomacy in our international affairs. Real diplomacy involves negotiations with foreign dignitaries, not Presidential twitter proclamations behind bedroom doors. The “only I can” syndrome is the self-aggrandized fallacy of monarchs and despots. It should not exist in a representative democracy with well-informed democratic institutions. America cannot become the international bully that must have its way without consideration for the well-being of the international community. Nor can it ignore the prospect of a renewed nuclear proliferation with the advent of unstable or increasingly antagonistic nuclear powers. America can neither be an isolated power on the world stage, feared and resented by other nations, nor a quirky partner, untrusted by its allies. In the present context of human history, the global community is either on the cusps of coming together or breaking apart into new or historically engendered conflicts and violence. As a military and economic power, America cannot avoid playing a part on this stage. What role do Americans want their country to play in this global community? Can they still embrace Reagan’s vision of the “shining city upon a hill? **
Ronald Reagan, like several Presidents before him, was the victim of an assassination attempt. The irony here is the contrast between his “shining city” vision and the reality of senseless violence in America. After Al Qaeda’s attack in 2001, America armed itself against foreign terrorists. But we ignored the more serious problem of homegrown terrorists. Gun violence is rampant in our country and the most overlooked example of terrorism. Cities like Chicago are literally under siege. Congressional representatives from both Parties have been shot within the past decade. And some of our congressional representatives are now openly identified with white supremacists. Of course, not all gun violence is associated with hate groups. But those who espouse anger and hate can give impetus to those prone to violence. During the term of our first Black President, hate groups proliferated across America. And now, encouraged by the current President’s often demeaning rhetoric toward racial groups, there has been a continued increase in hate groups throughout America, increasing 30% in just the past year and now numbering 1,020. *** Our non-white, Muslim, and LGBT children are attacked verbally and sometimes physically. And all our children are threatened by gun violence, as witnessed by many school shootings over the past decades. It is especially difficult to rid the image of Sandy Hook from our collective memory—that is, the massacre of innocents just beginning to learn their three “r’s.” If we cannot get past hateful rhetoric and the well-financed gun lobby, we will never have respectful dialogue or reasonable gun control laws. Moreover, no rational arguments will prevail unless we elect politicians who share our outrage and commit to providing the necessary moral leadership. Should we and can we create a less discordant, more peaceful, and humane future for America?
The issues just enumerated here appear almost daily in print and cable news. But, in terms of global impact, they are dwarfed by the larger issue of climate change. From as far back as Rachel Carlson’s treatise on the environmental damage caused by pesticides (“The Silent Spring”) to the unnatural history described by Elizabeth Kolbert (“The Sixth Extinction”) and to the war between capitalism and the climate described by Naomi Klein (“This Changes Everything”), the present course towards destruction of a habitable environment and its potential harm to humanity has been clearly presaged. That destructive course, however, predates by billions of years our unavoidable extermination by the devolution of our solar system. Instead, we are on a chosen path to a premature end—paradoxically, our own species’ suicide. As we exterminate all life on our planet, we seem immune to the reality that humanity cannot survive without this planet’s eco-system. While this self-imposed expiration may seem a distant fate, we ignore the omens already at hand in catastrophic fires, floods, storms and the increasingly frequent announcements of floral and animal extinctions. Are they the canaries in the mine? Is this the future we predestine for our immediate offspring and their descendants? Our progeny will be challenged to survive an environment in which they were never genetically evolved to exist. Unlike the ice age, humanity will not emerge from caves into a more welcoming environment. Unless global warming is mitigated within the next generation, its effects will be irreversible. And that prospect explains the title of Naomi Klein’s book.
Will the science supporting climate change be recognized by all our elected officials; and will they come together to reverse the momentum towards global warming and begin to mitigate its deleterious effects? Will we elect representatives who admit our species responsibility for the sixth mass extinction and for advancing the end of the Holocene period in which our species and cultures have thrived for the past 10,000 years? Are the record numbers of climate refugees fleeing Central Africa a portent of a future exodus from the South and Central Americas during the lives of our children and grandchildren? Whatever vision Americans may have for the future, it cannot be that of an uninhabitable earth. That future “now” should be so foreboding as to force carbon reduction now.
In conclusion, will America continue its progress toward universal health care or retrench by limiting or reversing that trend? Is this the point in American history when Americans abandon the vision of our founding fathers and turn to government by dictate or, worse, by corrupting or self-serving influences rather than by informed consensus and by rule of law? Will the productivity engendered by capitalism and market competition increase the wealth and well-being of the many or just the few? Is it possible that a nation once proud of its ability to assimilate immigrants will not only close its borders but terrorize, punish, and deport them without due process? Can Americans live with the prospect of becoming a pariah amongst the nations of the world where diplomacy is a zero-sum game that America must always win? How can Americans continue to accept hateful and discordant public discourse while their cities become terrorized by gun violence and their leaders engage in vitriolic arguments and uncompromising disputes? Will Americans’ “general welfare” be served best by deregulating market forces that pollute our air, water, and land rather than preserving the natural resources that serve the health and well-being of all Americans? Further, will the national government wake up to science and begin to mitigate the effects of climate change and to prepare for a carbon free economy?
Too many questions? Of course. Welcome to your citizenship role in a democracy. We have more than a year to develop answers. Now is the time to weigh facts, consider arguments, and determine the best policies that address the issues and serve the general welfare. At the same time, we must choose representatives we can trust to support those policies in office. With respect to the Presidency, we must look for somebody with the courage to rise above partisanship and with the humility to wield power with restraint and compassion.
The Presidency is an almost impossible job where “the buck stops,” both figuratively and literally. It is more than one person can bear alone and requires a team of experts to offer counsel. The person we elect to be President must adhere to the Constitution, make decisions with a view to their long-term consequences and their overall effect on the general welfare of all. Whoever holds the office must be able to articulate a vision all Americans can support. The “bully pulpit” is not for demagogues who spout taglines and propaganda. It is that exclusive venue where a President can educate, persuade, and inspire. But a President is still just a reflection of America and of a moment in time. That person may have more impact on our future “now,” but will be elected by who we are now. His/her integrity may well mirror are own or lack thereof.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* Currently the states taking this tack account for 189 electoral votes. If enough states join this quorum to add another 81 electoral college votes, they will control the 270 votes needed to elect a President. It will then become impossible for a Presidential nominee to win a national election without garnering the popular vote.
** l would encourage my subscribers to read this speech delivered on January 24, 1974. The occasion was the return of three war heroes from Vietnam, one of whom was John McCain.
*** This number is documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and has been traditionally used by the FBI in monitoring these hate groups for potential violent behavior.