Response to James Poplar - What it Means to be a Republican October 29, 2020

Response to James Poplar - What it Means to be a Republican

The Republican Party, described by Mr. Poplar, no longer exists. There is no creed, no policy platform. There used to be, as eloquently described by Mr. Poplar and others. The description they offer is entirely palatable in contrast to what is currently happening in the Party. The Republican "creed" listed in Mr. Poplar's piece is viable and worthy of discussion and debate. My hope is that good folk like Mr. Poplar will use their knowledge and expertise to bring the Republican Party back from the abyss and restore its status as a viable conservative governing party.  

The Republican Party is Mr. Trump's Party now. At this year's nominating convention, the party leadership offered no new party platform, and the announcement included the statement to "reassert the party's strong support for President Donald Trump and his administration." 

"Whatever..." is not a policy platform I can support. Chaos is not governance. I'm not the only citizen longing for the Republican Party's return as a viable national movement. Seventy former national security officials from multiple Republican administrations, 225 officials from the George W. Bush administration, more than 30 former staff members and state directors from Mitt Romney's campaign in 2012, more than 24 current and former Republican members of Congress, and several former Republican governors have all turned their support to Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. 

There are many important reasons that I cannot support the Republican Party with my vote, but the most important is simply this. I won't vote for any Republican because for them, some folks matter; some folks don't. 

Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley neatly summed up this attitude as he attempted to explain why it was ok for Vice President Pence to hold a rally in Wisconsin recently amid a nightmarish surge in cases of the coronavirus. When asked if it gave Pence pause about holding a massive rally there, Gidley responded,  "No, it doesn't. The vice president has the best doctors in the world around him." 

The rest of the folks didn't matter. 

I'm voting for a more robust, fairer economy. I'm voting for universal, affordable, quality health care. I'm voting for creating a 21st-century immigration system, a healthy and vibrant universal world-class education system, a restored and strengthened democracy, a strong effort to combat the climate crisis, and the pursuit of environmental justice. I'm voting for reforms to our criminal justice system, protecting our communities, and building trust. I'm voting for a 21st-century infrastructure system upgrading transportation, the energy grid, and universal broadband. 

I will vote for a party that cares about governance, that cares about solutions for problems in our society that are important to everyone. I will vote for a party platform with an eye to the future that is bold and will help us restore our status in the world. Most importantly, I will support the Party that puts a President in office who will serve all the United States. 

I will vote for the Democratic Party. 

Of Impeachment and Bipartisanship

Of course, the impeachment process would be best with bipartisan support. Perhaps Republican critics could show us how. As the President and his supporters in Congress sing loudly for sweet harmony, the line of partisanship is drawn in the sand. The founders required bipartisan support for the impeachment process? Really? Where in the constitution or the writings of the founders is that found? 

Because Republicans insist on bipartisan impeachment proceedings,  they posit that Mr. Trump is entitled to ignore the proceedings. Pointing out the obvious here, but Mr. Trump is not allowed to write his own rules instead of letting the Congress exercise oversight privileges. 

Why not vote on the matter now? In previous impeachment proceedings, there has always been a special prosecutor gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, following leads to present to the full House of Representatives for a full vote. In this case, the Justice Department has declined to investigate or assign a special prosecutor. The House is currently filling that gap with what is, in essence, a Grand Jury investigation. The investigation is underway. The evidence is being gathered in closed hearings to ensure witnesses speak truthfully before the case is presented to the full House. 

Yes, Pelosi could win a vote, but it would be premature to present an incomplete case to Congress. The most significant point, however, is that Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, gets to set its own rules and conduct oversight as appropriate. This power is indeed bipartisan if one simply checks the history of Congressional oversight in the past ten years. 

I’m confident that few or no Republicans would vote in favor of the impeachment inquiry. That’s to be expected from a partisan political party. Of course, they wouldn’t support it. I wouldn’t either unless a convincing case could be made following a complete investigation. Let House finish gathering the evidence and then present it to the full House for a vote. Then we would see if there is bipartisan support. 

I strongly disagree that investigations into misbehavior by the executive branch are “fishing expeditions.” Congress has the power of oversight now and has had it since Congress began. Investigations are not “fishing expeditions” but constitutionally mandated oversight, no matter who the majority party happens to be. 

I’m pretty sure Republicans can do bipartisanship if they so desired. I would love to be wrong, but I expect that Mr. Trump’s enablers will support him right up to and maybe past the moment when he “murders someone on 5th Avenue.” I’d really love to be wrong. 

Current State of the Democratic Party - a response

Dear reader, You should go read this so this response makes sense. Thanks!

 Points taken. Now counterpoint.

The Republican Party is currently an ideological outlier, “the most extreme party coalition since the Civil War.” Their crusade against “socialism” echos the ancient fears of the John Birch Society railing against communism and the USSR, neither of which have any relevance to the current political environment.

Indeed, fear-mongering “socialism” is a terrible way to develop policies for governance and is mostly a deflection away from the agenda of the current Republican Party. Do a quick check of your family and friends, especially if they are baby boomers. How many of them enjoy the benefits of Social Security and Medicare? How many of them enjoy clean water and sewer systems, roads, weather reporting, the internet, the benefits of public education, and medicines and vaccines that keep us healthy? (This is a very brief list of the benefits of good governance.) These government programs have contributed to the quality of life we, as citizens of this country, have learned to expect and enjoy. This is part of our Freedom! Democrats will always support the expansion of these freedoms to everyone in this country.

The Green New Deal and Medicare for All are supported by Democrats and offer a vision for the future. No one left behind. Period.

Open borders, gun confiscation, late-term abortion, and the “abyss of socialism” are radical right-wing constructs, false representations of these significant and complicated issues. The current GOP is adding a layer of extremism and raw emotion to these issues. This makes it very difficult to talk about them much less develop coherent policy, again obscuring their agenda. 

The economy? Good for a few, not so good for the many. Minimum wage? Good for the many, not so much for the few. Standing on the world stage: Ignoring historical alliances, plunging the Middle East into chaos, cozying up to autocrats and dictators around the world, working hard to isolate America from its Global partners?  Leadership by tweet? Not exactly a show of strength and confidence.

I agree that the Democratic Party seems radical in comparison to the Republican Party, but it’s because the GOP has gone so far to the right. When referring to the Democratic Party as extreme, remember that the exact opposite has occurred.

"... shall not be infringed?" Not So Fast...

A response to “The Right to Bear Arms,” September 2, 2019, submitted to the Daily News Record as letter to the editor. 

“…shall not be infringed” is a fragment of the 2nd Amendment enshrined in the NRA offices. As a propaganda tool, it has been successful by advancing gun sales in support of the gun manufacturing industry. This simple phrase underpins the entire argument of gun enthusiasts. No commercial enterprise, private citizen, or political organization can interpret or change the meaning of the constitution to suit its marketing or ideological agenda. 

The Founders never “absolutely” intended to guarantee ownership of firearms for personal protection. The Supreme Court has expanded the NRA version of the 2nd Amendment several times over the years to include this provision, but as yet have not prohibited the regulation of firearms in the name of public safety.

No regulation or gun control law can stop all gun violence. No traffic law can stop all the speeding, drunk, or reckless drivers. No law ever passed has ever ended crime. The goal of gun control legislation is to REDUCE gun violence, just as the point of laws is to REDUCE crime and protect the public.  

We have many gun control laws on the books. Unfortunately, they have been carefully crafted to be unenforceable. Gun companies are protected from lawsuits. The CDC was prohibited from researching gun violence in 1996 and still doesn’t do research because of perceived threats from the NRA-sponsored gun lobby. Background checks are not yet universal and have numerous loopholes. The gun used in the recent mass shooting in Odessa, Texas, was purchased in a private sale, no background check required. Funding for enforcement of current laws is insufficient for adequate enforcement. 

Mass shootings are not an epidemic, but school shootings since Columbine in 1999 have terrorized students, parents, and school systems. Even new school buildings are being designed to slow down shooters to the detriment of the actual education of children. It is now commonplace for schools to hold live-shooter drills which only remind students, teachers, and parents of the perceived danger, making learning more difficult. Because of the recent spate of shootings, many are fearful of going to a Walmart or the local mall without fear.

Confiscation is thrown up as a “slippery slope” argument. The only policy proposed by any Presidential candidate involves mandatory buy-backs of military-style weapons. What does Mr. Muterspaugh mean by “will be met by resistance?” Armed revolt against the government of the United States of America? To threaten those whose duty is to enforce our laws? How is this a common-sense argument? 

Full disclosure, I would like all firearms to disappear. I support all gun control legislation that would diminish the frequency of gun violence in our country. I am one voice calling for the United States of America to take its proper place in the civilized world as an exceptional nation. One that cares about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all its citizens.