Author: testsite_tjohara

Oprah faces racism as Obama focuses on the middle-class

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 13, 2013 – Breaking news: Racism apparently still exists elsewhere in the world while the United States continues to lead in bitter ironies. Given recent reports of racism in our country, one might have reached the conclusion that we had a monopoly on it. Yet, Oprah Winfrey allegedly experienced it recently in Zurich, Switzerland, when she was denied the right to examine a $38,000 handbag. Almost coincidently, President Obama graced us with a rare press conference in which his opening remarks addressed the plight of the shrinking middle class in America just before he left for his vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. Given that chain of events, let’s have a real conversation about poverty and our shrinking middle class.

Starting at the top of the food chain, Oprah Winfrey’s estimated earnings of $165 million in 2011 leads Forbes’ current list of Highest Paid Celebrities. While it represents her lowest earning year by far in recent memory, her $2.7 billion net worth should insulate her from joining the 47 million Americans who now live in poverty

Oprah can obviously afford to buy the Tom Ford “Jennifer” crocodile skin bag (for you PETA enthusiasts) she was admiring in Zurich. In fact, she can probably afford to buy Trois Pommes (the store whose clerk committed the sin of saying that Oprah couldn’t afford it) without giving it a second thought.

Conversely, many of our Nation’s poor can’t afford a decent meal and may not know where they will sleep this evening. Certainly, we can assume that The Dolder Grand Spa, where Oprah stayed, is out of their reach.

Enter President Obama, who began his press conference Friday by saying, “Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking about what I believe should be our number one priority as a country — building a better bargain for the middle class and for Americans who want to work their way into the middle class.” Then, he quickly changed the subject to national security, only occasionally touching upon the economy when it could be used to politically defend his position on the Affordable Care Act, reinforce his position with respect to immigration, and generally attack the Republican Party for its obstructionist behavior.

Shortly after concluding his press conference, the President departed for his vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. Perhaps he’ll bump into Oprah there.

This comes a few days after his trip to California to appear on The Tonight Show and have dinner with a major campaign supporter who is believed to have bundled over $10 million for the President’s last campaign. He tucked in a trip to Camp Pendleton to deliver a speech to Marines stationed there, which gave the excursion at least some tie to the responsibilities of the Oval Office. Total cost: about $1.8 million for the operation of Air Force One alone. Then, add the cost of two flights on Marine One, a 20-vehicle motorcade, White House staff, and Secret Service, and you could buy a lot of expensive handbags.

Of course, that pales in comparison to the eight-day vacation the President and his family took to Africa just a month before. The estimated taxpayer cost of that adventure was around $100 million dollars.

Should Oprah be able to vacation at a luxury spa and buy the handbag of her choice?  Absolutely (…unless you are a strict adherent to the concept of wealth redistribution).

Does the President deserve an occasional vacation? Certainly. Does he also have a responsibility to lead by example? One would hope.

So, let’s examine a few facts about poverty in the United States.

There are approximately 47 million people living in poverty in the United States; nearly one in every six Americans. It represents a number that exceeds the entire population of all but 25 of the other 241 recognized countries in the world. It’s approximately equal to the total population of Spain. It’s 1.34 times more people than reside in our northern neighbor, Canada. And just in case Oprah is interested, it’s 5.8 times more people than live in all of Switzerland.

Breaking it down: approximately 15 percent of our Nation’s citizens live in poverty. We particularly shine when it comes to our children. Twenty-two percent of our children live in poverty, including 39 percent of our African-American children and 34 percent of our Hispanic children.

Speaking of the latter demographics, which no one did during the 2012 Presidential campaign, median income fell 66 percent among Hispanics, 53 percent among African Americans, and 16 percent among Whites during President Obama’s first term. Correspondingly, median net worth fell 67 percent among Hispanics, 59 percent among African Americans, and 44 percent among Whites during this same period, and as you might suspect, unemployment followed a similarly disproportionate pattern.

You might want to ask why neither the Democrat nor Republican Presidential candidates wanted to discuss these numbers during their three debates. Then again, you probably already know.

Obviously, you remember the “War on Women” rhetoric during the campaign. However, were you aware that in 2011, women were 34 percent more likely to be poor than men and that the gender gap had increased 5 percent over the prior year? Of course, free birth control seemed to be a more compelling issue for some people.

The good news is that things could have been worse. You see, our failing Social Security system kept nearly 22 million more people from falling below the poverty level. Otherwise, the number would be closer to 69 million people (leaving only 17 countries with populations greater than the number of our poor).

If our society were to return to the more traditional family model (as some have suggested), the numbers would be even worse. Dual-income families dramatically reduce the number of households that would otherwise qualify as living in poverty.

Additionally, those who argue that we have created a welfare society ignore the fact that over 57 percent of those who benefit from government assistance either work themselves or (as in the case of children) live with someone who works. Those families simply cannot find sufficient work at sufficient pay to survive without some form of aid.

Then again, when the Obama Administration issued a directive stating that the traditional Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirements can be overridden by a Section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315), it gutted a Clinton Administration program that had dramatically reduced welfare by requiring people of able-body and able-mind who received government assistance to work. So, an argument can be made that we have allowed the pendulum to swing toward welfare.

Then, there are those who think that taxing the rich or simply raising the minimum wage would solve the problem. Those individuals are encouraged to do the math and to rethink the potential impact on unemployment.

Now, let’s examine the group of individuals who make considerably less than Oprah and the President but fall short of being deemed as living in poverty: the middle class.

The political Parties used to concentrate their rhetoric on the poor and fight the class battle at that level. Over the past decade or two, someone within the Parties apparently realized that the middle class offers a larger base than the poor and, hence, represents more votes. It also has greater wealth, which means it can contribute more to campaigns. This probably explains why our current elected officials often open their speeches by emphasizing their commitment to the middle class and use terms like Main Street versus Wall Street, etc. to fortify the fallacy.

The fact is that the middle class is shrinking and has been for over 40 years. From the early 1970s to today, it shrank from approximately 61 percent of our total population to 51 percent.

One of the more significant drivers behind the compression is associated with the relationship between productivity and median income. Since 1973, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per household has increased around 46 percent (in terms of constant dollars), while median income in the middle class has only risen 15 percent. The 31 percent differential was retained by those who are categorized as rich (for example: Oprah and the President).

Interestingly enough, Republicans will argue that capitalism suggests that this is as it should be; that money flowing to the rich will be reinvested in the economy to create jobs. To leverage this hypothesis, a capital gains tax advantage has been created to provide a deferential treatment of passive income to encourage its reinvestment.

However, one might ask, “What guarantees that the money will be reinvested?” Is it based upon the premise that greed dictates that no amount of money will ever be enough; that one can never be too rich? After all, handbags are expensive.

More importantly, when was the last time you heard anyone debate how reinvesting the productivity gains more equitably among wage earners might do more to stimulate the economy and grow jobs? The productivity gain is currently redistributed on a 2:1 basis in favor of executives over non-executives (31 percent to 15 percent). What if it were to be distributed 1:1 or 1:2 (executives versus non-executives)?

Either ratio would significantly expand the middle class and narrow the income gap. The question becomes at what point might the associated surge in the demand for products and services be expected to offset any incremental decline in capital investment or even obviate the need for some of it?

Here’s another question. Why don’t we hear those types of debates? Instead, we only hear “cut taxes” or “make the rich pay their fair share.” When are we going to demand more of our leaders?

A profound capitalist by the name of Henry Ford once said, “There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.” We seem to have forgotten his advice.

Today, we outsource the production of our products and services to those who can provide an acceptable quality of goods and services at the lowest cost possible driven by the lowest paid labor we can find in markets that are not necessarily governed by the regulations we impose on our own businesses. Think about that.

We have no cogent economic policy. We have no cogent trade policy. We have no cogent strategic manufacturing or services policy. We have no cogent foreign policy. We have no cogent energy and environmental policy. We have no cogent education policy. We have no cogent social services policy, and we have no cooperation between those who are charged to address these issues.

What we have are speeches filled with platitudes, two dysfunctional political parties, an embattled electorate, a besieged business environment, and a set of “strategies” that can at best be described as ad hoc.

Superficially, the President seems to understand our current challenges. In his press conference, he stated, “…the challenge is we’ve still got too many people out of work, too many long-term unemployed, too much slack in the economy, and we’re not growing as fast as we should.” The problem is that he had to leave on vacation before he could offer us his solutions.

So, in the absence of leadership, this week’s task is to suggest what can be done to correct our Nation’s economic path. What can we do without government assistance to expand industry and stimulate job growth in the United States? What can we do to offer education and training to provide an opportunity for those in poverty to rise to the middle class or beyond? What can we do to decrease the gap between the middle class and the rich without recklessly abandoning the concept of capitalism? The answers are out there, and you can find them … unless you’re too busy shopping for a handbag in Martha’s Vineyard.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more

PITY PARTY: Phony Scandals and Arrogant Attitudes

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 6, 2013 – President Obama and Press Secretary Carney recently dismissed any purported White House “scandals” as “phony.” This set off a firestorm response within the Republican Party, which has been preoccupied with identifying “Obama’s Watergate.” This gives rise to several legitimate questions that deserve to be explored. What constitutes a scandal? Why has the concept become such a fixation among the Parties and pundits? Is there substantive or circumstantial evidence of a scandal (or scandals) attributable to the current Administration? How can both Parties improve from the current environment?

To begin this assessment, let’s look to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for some guidance with respect to the definition of “scandal.”  The most relevant definition is: “a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it.”  “Propriety,” in turn, is defined as “conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech” and “moral” is defined as “conformity to a standard of right behavior.” (Messrs. Filner, Spitzer, and Weiner need not read further.)

So, we’re looking for action (or inaction) on the party of the President or his Administration that “offends conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech or the established standard of right behavior or that which disgraces those associated with it.”

Not to be sarcastic, but if that were held to be the standard, most political behavior would be scandalous.

Therefore, we must explore why the Republican Party seems to be so fixated with identifying a scandal involving the President directly or that may be attributed to him indirectly through his leadership and guidance (or lack thereof).

Here’s a starting point for that discussion: the Republicans are upset that they lost the “trophy” known as the Presidency in 2008 and again in 2012. The actual Office bears little resemblance to what is prescribed under Article II of the Constitution. Instead, it has become the ultimate platform from which to pay back political debts (via appointments) and something akin to a “talking stick” in the Native American tradition.

Case in point: approximately 80 percent of senior White House appointments and 50 percent of the Ambassadorships in the current Administration have gone to individuals who bundled $500 thousand or more for the Party during the Presidential election cycle. Additionally, the position commands the attention of the media and the world but, in the last few Administrations, has served more as a delivery mechanism for the Party as opposed to the individual who holds the Office. If you disagree, check the White House log to see what the President does with his time. It is dominated by speeches, fundraisers, social events, and campaigning on behalf of other Party candidates.

The Republicans want to get the power of the Presidency back so that they can exploit it in the exact same way. Perhaps there really is a scandal in Washington, D.C. It just may not be among the ones that are being highlighted.

The Republicans could be developing alternative solutions that are superior to those that have been offered by the Democrats (it wouldn’t take much). However, it apparently is easier to inflame emotion by claiming that every failure and poor decision of the Administration is tied to evil intent rather than the ineptness of a team that is woefully lacking in real-world experience (note: fundraising does not constitute real-world experience). Besides, inflamed emotions often lead to campaign donations and uninformed votes.

It is conceivable that this Republican fascination with scandals is linked to the Party’s last real success: George W. Bush’s victory on the heels of the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” President Clinton faced two charges of perjury: one based upon his alleged false testimony in his civil deposition, and one based upon his alleged false testimony in a criminal Grand Jury hearing. The House decided that perjury in a civil matter does not give rise to sufficient concern and voted in favor of impeachment only upon the alleged criminal perjury and obstruction of justice.

While most Senators ostensibly agreed that President Clinton lied under oath and tried to influence the testimony of other witnesses, the Senate acquitted him of perjury and obstruction of justice because it did not believe his behavior “threatened the Republic.” Still, his actions had stained the Office and provided the Republicans with a basis for their next campaign: George W. Bush is not Bill Clinton.

Eight years later, the Democrats seized the day and ran a campaign that was essentially founded upon the premise that Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. In 2012, they created a nuance: Mitt Romney is George W. Bush.

In the interim 12 years, neither Party bothered to frame specific, actionable plans to move our Nation forward. Again, it’s easier to vilify the opposing Party and to make empty promises than it is to identify problems and define solutions to them.

While this may explain the Republican Party’s tendency to attach the “scandal” label to a wide variety of political faux pas, we should also assess the Administration’s assertion that all such claims are “phony.”

The dictionary specifies that something is “phony” if it “is not genuine or real (and) is intended to deceive or mislead.” Where can one even begin with respect to applying this standard to either Party or, more specifically, to the current Administration? To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “Phony is as phony does.”

Let’s explore another word before we continue: “integrity.”

“Integrity” is defined as the “firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values; incorruptibility.” While “political integrity” had nearly become an oxymoron by 2008, we were promised “Hope and Change” by then-Senator Barack Obama. While the Republican Party has shredded its credibility by affixing the word “scandal” to every issue that has arisen, the Administration has demonstrated a strange detachment from the word “integrity.”

During his 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama made over 500 specific pledges during that campaign. According to PolitiFact, as President, he has delivered on less than 50 percent of them.

Perhaps having learned a lesson, he dramatically scaled back his new campaign promises in 2012. He became a master at lowering expectations while convincing the masses that any ongoing failures or shortfalls that might usually be attributable to an Administration were not his responsibility. However, let’s review a few of the more well-defined promises of the original era of Hope and Change.

In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama vowed to “turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington” and pass a bipartisan agenda in Congress. He also pledged to create “the most transparent Presidential Administration ever.”

It is virtually impossible to have a serious discussion about the Obama Administration’s effort to achieve bipartisan accord in Washington, D.C. Generally speaking, one does not build bridges with dynamite. The Administration’s tactics would more accurately be described by the slogan “Hope and Blame.”

It broke from the tradition of respecting the Office by not denigrating the prior Administration. Instead, the Obama Administration aggressively blamed the Bush Administration for nearly everything during the initial years of its first term.

This is not to dismiss the contributory negligence of the Bush Administration, which had failed miserably (particularly during its second term). It had earned criticism even if protocol called for professional restraint. However, experienced leaders know that they cannot accept the authority of their positions without embracing the responsibility that goes with it.

For example: President Bush accepted the fact that it was his responsibility to deal with a recession that was emerging as he took office, which was exacerbated when the Internet Bubble burst a few months after his inauguration. Then, the attacks on 9/11 occurred and further decimated the economy followed closely by the debacles of Enron, WorldCom, etc. that had been building long before President Bush was ever sworn into office. It’s difficult to suggest that the Bush Administration wasn’t dealt a difficult hand to play, yet it is difficult to recall any ongoing condemnation of the Clinton Administration.

When the “blame Bush” narrative began to wear thin, the Obama Administration’s attack shifted to the TEA Party and Republicans. Not surprisingly, this litany of blame did little to “turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington” or pass a bipartisan agenda in Congress. Instead, the two sides became entrenched in an obnoxious display of Party politics.

Now, let’s examine the promise of “transparency.”  That story doesn’t begin well either.

On the campaign trail, then-Senator Obama promised that lobbyists would not become members of his Administration. Once elected, an extensive number of exceptions were made.

We were also promised that lobbyists would no longer be welcomed in the White House and its visitors’ log would be released to prove that this rule was being enforced. The log worked, but the concept didn’t as the meetings were moved to a coffee shop across the street.

Then, consider the seemingly endless stream of what the Republicans characterize as “scandals:”

  • The President’s propensity to unilaterally decide what laws should be enforced by the Department of Justice (e.g., immigration, DOMA, etc.);
  • The Administration’s participation in crony capitalism (Solyndra, et al.);
  • Its inability to curb abuses of power (e.g., IRS, DOJ, etc.) or profligate spending by its Departments and Agencies (e.g., GSA, VA, etc.); and
  • Its tolerance of potential violations of Constitutional rights (i.e., the questionable use of subpoena power to investigate the AP and other members of the Press, the NSA’s capturing of private information without probable cause, etc.).

Add the Embassy attack in Benghazi and the tragic end to “Fast and Furious,” and you have a continuing course of conduct that might actually encourage witch hunts.

Next, consider the Administration’s response to the investigations that corresponded to these incidents.

Executive Privilege has been invoked on behalf of the Attorney General in an incident in which the White House was purportedly not involved. Misrepresentations have been made by Administration officials under oath, and there is evidence that testimonies have been suppressed. In addition, there isn’t enough ink to list the number of times that information requests have been ignored, stalled or only partially fulfilled. Then again, perhaps the latter is because so much ink has been used to redact the subpoenaed documents. It is difficult to argue that this is the behavior of “the most transparent Presidential Administration in history.”

Before we conclude, let’s define one more word: “truth.”

Along with “integrity,” this word may no longer bear relevance in Washington, D.C., but in the event it does, it is defined to mean “the body of real things, events, and facts; actuality.”

So, without attaching the political hyperbole of “scandal” to any of the following issues, let’s quickly review “the real things, events, and facts” to which the People deserve uncensored and unspun answers.

  • Benghazi: four Americans are dead; it clearly wasn’t a spontaneous demonstration caused by a video; investigations have been impeded by heavily-redacted documentation, etc.; lower-level personnel have been blamed; some procedural changes have been made to prevent a recurrence; almost a year has passed without any meaningful resolution;
  • Fast and Furious: one American is dead (along with an unknown number of Mexicans); the program has been discontinued; investigations have been impeded by heavily redacted documentation, etc.; lower-level personnel have been blamed; some procedural changes have been made to prevent a recurrence; several years have passed without any meaningful resolution;
    IRS: political groups were targeted during an election cycle; investigations have been impeded by heavily redacted documentation, etc.; lower-level personnel have been blamed; some procedural changes have been made to prevent a recurrence; several months have passed without any meaningful resolution;
    Freedom of the Press: communication records of AP and a Fox News reporter were investigated by the Department of Justice on a basis that appears to have been overly broad and, in the case of the reporter, possibly based upon the falsification of an affidavit (signed by the Attorney General); what appear to have been misrepresentations were made under oath (including some by the Attorney General); investigations have been impeded by heavily-redacted documentation, etc.; lower level personnel have been blamed; some procedural changes have been made to prevent a recurrence; several months have passed without any meaningful resolution;
  • Pick the situation of your choice and anticipate: a loss of life or rights, or an abuse of power or funds; investigations will be impeded by heavily redacted documentation; lower-level personnel will be blamed; some procedural changes will be made to prevent a recurrence; time will pass without any meaningful resolution.

Do any of these constitute “scandals” that are likely to result in impeachment (the apparent Republican goal)? No. Should the facts surrounding them be of concern to all citizens? Absolutely.

Let’s dismiss the hysterics around removing the President from Office or forcing him to step down. Nixon’s culpability in Watergate was tied to his direct and indirect influence over the surrogates who authorized, planned, and committed a felony break-in. No such evidence has been presented with respect to the President’s involvement in any of the alleged “scandals” at that level; none whatsoever. The closest known and most disturbing involvement of the President in any of these debacles is tied to what appears to have been his indifference toward what was transpiring in Benghazi on the eve of his trip to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraising event.

Unless new evidence arises that connects the direction or influence of an impeachable event to the President (under the Clinton standard of “threatening the Republic”), the Republican rhetoric needs to stop. Correspondingly, Democrats would be well advised to stop pretending that the issues are not worthy of proper investigations.

The Obama Administration has demonstrated a remarkable ability to tightly control the message it delivers to the public. However, it seems devoid of that capability with respect to managing its internal functions. If the President took an authoritative lead in demonstrating his support for more bipartisan and transparent behavior throughout the Executive Branch, perhaps the Legislative Branch would feel compelled to follow.

In the end, we need to remind our elected officials that this is the United States of America, not the Divided States of America. Let’s start by asking the Republican Party to retire its use of the word “scandal” and by asking the Democratic Party not to arrogantly dismiss otherwise serious issues by labeling them to be “phony.” While we wait for the Republicans to recover from their anger about their loss and the Democrats to rise above gloating over their win, what else can you recommend?

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more

Filner, Spitzer, Weiner: War on Women or Ethics?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 30, 2013 – Have we fallen so far as to accept the unprincipled behavior of our political officials and candidates? Has the concept of responsible leadership yielded to our temptation to embrace those who have attained some level of celebrity status (whether positive or negative)? Given our recent choices, the answer would seem to be “Yes.” The question becomes: does it need to be this way?

Our Nation currently has three outstanding examples of the impact of clinical narcissism in American politics: San Diego Mayor, Bob Filner; New York City Comptroller candidate, Eliot Spitzer, and New York Mayoral candidate, Anthony Weiner. Based on their personal histories, these three would be well advised to get in line in front of the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion, respectively, if they ever visit the Wizard in the Emerald City. Filner needs to “get a clue” (just ask Nancy Pelosi), Spitzer appears to only care about himself, and Weiner tends to hide behind the political skirt of his wife.

Before we examine the individuals, let’s first discuss the “Rule Book” that politicians follow when confronted with such crises. There are five stages to negotiating sexual faux pas within the political arena that essentially parallel the Five Stages of Grief: Denial; Anger; Bargaining; Depression; and Acceptance. Politicians may rearrange the order depending upon the evidence and the advice they receive from their strategists, but they experience each of the Stages. If you were a politician, here is the road map you would follow.

Stage 1 – Denial

It is important to initially ignore the issue to see if it goes away. Maybe the accuser lacks solid evidence (i.e., some people dry clean their clothes). Perhaps the Press will be disinterested. It’s even possible that some other crisis will arise (or can be manufactured) that will render the scandal irrelevant.

In the unfortunate event that at least one of these scenarios fails to materialize, refuse to answer questions … preferably in a dismissive tone that suggests that such questions do not even merit a response.

If the pressure continues, deny that there is any basis for the allegations. You may rest assured that loyal supporters and members of your Party will be eager to claim that it’s just a conspiracy created by the opposing Party to besmirch your reputation.

Stage 2 – Anger

When articulating your denial, be sure to act shocked and appalled. Say that you “need to get on with the People’s business,” and “this is just a distraction manufactured by your opponents.”

Again, you may count on your supporters and members of your Party to reinforce the legitimacy of your anger.

Stage 3 – Bargaining

If the Press actually pursues the story with the vigor intended under the First Amendment and public sentiment begins to shift, seek counsel and start negotiating behind the scenes.

Speak with current Representatives about censure. Speak with former Presidents about impeachment. How did they “live to fight another day” or serve another term (not within the context of prison)?

A key determinant will be whether your Party still supports you.  This may depend on a number of things.

Have you been an important shill for your Party (i.e., willing to argue the Party’s position regardless of its legitimacy)?

Do you have incriminating evidence on politicians (or fundraisers) in high places? Now is the time to play that card.

Does your Party need your vote to force its platform upon the People? Remember: it doesn’t matter what your Party thinks of you as long as they can “own” your vote.

If none of these circumstances apply to you, your Party will abandon you like rats fleeing from a sinking ship. Its members won’t want to suffer “guilt by association.” Instead, they will try to leverage your disaster to further their political careers by excoriating you in public.

Stage 4 – Depression

Once your Party abandons you, you’ll begin to experience depression; not the same type of depression your behavior has brought to others, but the type of depression associated with knowing that you’ve been caught and that even your skill at misrepresenting the truth may not be enough to save you from a fate worse than death: the loss of the power that feeds your ego.

Stage 5 – Acceptance

Your only recourse is to “come clean.” Admit that you have failed the People. Emphasize that you are “only human” (even though your past behavior may not support that suggestion). A substantial segment of the electorate has been conditioned to believe that type of mea culpa and even begin to feel sympathetic toward you.

Then, wait a few years (or weeks) and try to return to public life. Voters have relatively short-term memories other than for names, and you have name recognition.

Your opponents will undoubtedly raise your past failings, but you can reprise your mea culpa and even run ads that emphasize how you were disgraced. After all, you’ve probably sought professional help and you’re a “new man” who has “put his problems behind him.”

Now, all that’s left to be done is to roll out a political spouse who will state, “You know, I’m not sitting here like some little woman, standing by my man like Tammy Wynette,” before behaving exactly in that way because too much power and money are at stake.

Now that you have this understanding, let’s examine how our current crop of politicians has responded to the test.

Stage 1 – Denial

Filner, Spitzer, and Weiner all passed with flying colors. Each initially ignored the allegations against them, and when they did address questions concerning those allegations, they did so in a dismissive or contemptuous manner.

Stage 2 – Anger

Weiner perfected this Stage. He blamed Andrew Breitbart for fabricating the story. He also claimed that someone had hacked his Twitter account and extracted pictures of his private parts from his computer’s hard drive (hoping the public would ignore the question of why he might have had such pictures on his hard drive). He even spent tens of thousands of dollars to hire a private investigator to investigate the matter.

Spitzer also did an admirable job in this Stage. Unfortunately, he did not score as high as Weiner because his normal demeanor is condescending to the point of making it difficult to distinguish it from feigned anger.

Filner fell short of the mark with respect to the Anger Stage. Consistent with the Scarecrow suggestion above, he accelerated his Stage 5 mea culpa by releasing a DVD in which he apologized for having “diminished the office.” He stated that he was “embarrassed to admit that I have failed to fully respect the women who work for me and with me and that at times I have intimidated them.” He added, “I am also humbled to admit that I need help (and) I have begun to work with professionals to make changes in my behavior and approach. In addition, my staff and I will participate in sexual harassment training provided by the city.”

Since then, Filner announced that he will be taking two weeks off for “intensive therapy,” which might set a record for affecting significant behavioral change in a 70-year-old man.

In each individual’s case, supporters and members of his Party dutifully asserted that the accusations were false and were nothing more than a conspiracy set forth by the opposing Party. Apparently, the Scarecrow has a lot of competition.

Stage 3 – Bargaining

Filner currently holds office, so one can only speculate as to whether he will be able to negotiate a satisfactory settlement to his present situation. However, you can rely on the fact that he is seeking a deal.

In an unrelated incident, Filner allegedly approved a necessary permit for a particular project after the developer made a $100,000 donation to two of the Mayor’s favorite causes. When first discussing this issue, he said, “What we’re trying to do is make sure that people that get things from the city understand that they also have to give things back. You don’t get free things.” The FBI is now investigating that particular transaction for the Department of Justice. In the interim, it might be reasonable to assume that Filner will not step down as Mayor unless he gets something in return.

With respect to Spitzer and Weiner, they failed to successfully negotiate graceful exits and were forced to leave office in disgrace. Their personalities probably didn’t help them in this regard. Both had made a relatively long list of enemies by verbally assaulting influential people for their own political gain.

Spitzer’s fatal error may have been in aggressively attacking Wall Street when he served as the State of New York’s Attorney General and, later, as Governor. He forgot that both Parties are involved in a form of political prostitution when it comes to their respective donor base. As the saying goes, “Payback is hell.”

Conversely, Weiner was an “attack dog” who was willing to argue and condemn any viewpoint that was inconsistent with that of his Party. Coupled with his Party’s minority in the House and his wife’s long-term affiliation with then-Secretary of State Clinton, this normally might have been sufficient to provide him with some bargaining power. However, he had also been critical of the Administration, suggesting that it hadn’t been aggressive enough on the issue of healthcare reform. When combined with his relatively ineffective record as a legislator and the nature of his Twitter perversion, his Party saw him as expendable.

While Senator Schuman has demonstrated some degree of loyalty to his protégé (Weiner) by refusing to comment, most other Democratic members of the House and Senate have decried the behavior of former Representatives Filner and Weiner.

House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi stated, “It is so disrespectful of women, and what’s really stunning about it is they don’t even realize, they don’t have a clue. If they’re clueless, get a clue. If they need therapy, do it in private.” The fact that she served with Filner for 20 years and Weiner for more than 12, apparently without ever noticing or hearing about their peculiar behaviors, leads one to hope that there is at least one clue left for her.

Similarly, Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did not find time to comment on the misogynistic behavior of Bob Filner until late last week. Given her propensity for evoking the mantra of a War on Women, it is amazing that it took her so long to join the discussion.

Stage 4 – Depression

As he is still in office, Mayor Filner may not yet have come to grips with the inevitable depression associated with Stage 4. To a degree, he seems to be stuck in the denial of Stage 1. He appears to think that his commitment to two weeks of “intense therapy” will be sufficient to convince people that his previous 70 years on Earth can be overcome by this microwave version of behavioral change. It might also be because he’s actively engaged in the bargaining cycle of Stage 3.

Weiner and Spitzer seemed to have negotiated past the depression Stage quickly.

As we learned recently, Weiner apparently found comfort in reverting to his prior behavior when confronted by “a difficult time” in his marriage. Apparently, the citizens of New York City need not be concerned about Weiner’s fitness for office if they believe their city will be free from any “difficult times” during his term as Mayor.

To his credit, Spitzer may have skipped Stage 4 altogether. Despite his particular peccadillo, his ego was assuaged with two opportunities to serve as a host of primetime shows on CNN. It’s difficult to be depressed when you’re independently wealthy, when the media celebrates you as one of its own, and when you still believe the world revolves around you.

Stage 5 – Acceptance

Mayor Filner has already admitted to his behavior (or at least alluded to it) on two separate occasions. He may have recognized that the reputation of his accusers does not provide him with the leeway that Spitzer and Weiner may have enjoyed.

To date, seven women have accused Filner of sexual harassment ranging from inappropriate touching and sexual innuendos to demeaning treatment in the workplace. He is currently being sued by his former Communications Director and has been accused by the city’s Chief Operating Officer (retired Navy Rear Admiral), the head of the San Diego Ports Tenants Association, a Dean at San Diego State University, a prominent businesswoman, and others. Filner is simply living in an alternate universe in which he believes he still deserves to be Mayor and can serve effectively in that capacity.

Eliot Spitzer is legitimately intelligent. After providing the obligatory apology and leaving the public eye for a brief period of time, he used CNN to rebuild his brand. Then, he entered a relatively uncontested race for a position that is well beneath the past offices he held, potentially introducing a sense of humility in his character. Next, he ran a well-orchestrated mea culpa ad in which he stated, “I failed … big time” and added “When you dig yourself a hole, you can either lie in it the rest of your life or do something positive. That’s why I’m running.” People respond to the underdog theme. They like to give someone a second chance, and Spitzer knows it.

On the other hand, Anthony Weiner chose to run for the high-profile position of Mayor of New York City. The recent admission of his relapse falls in stark contrast to his wife’s assertions that “Anthony has spent every day since [the scandal] trying to be the best dad and husband he can be. I’m proud to be married to him.” It was almost painful to watch her read from a script in a relatively emotionless voice that “I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe in him, and as we have said from the beginning, we are moving forward” … until you realize she trained at the feet of a Master in this regard.

Of course, any staunch Republican who is reading this is probably enjoying the evisceration of these Democratic “leaders.” Here are two words for you: Mark Sanford. He may not be “news” at the moment, but he certainly deserves “dishonorable” mention.

While the former Republican Governor of South Carolina recently won election to a vacant seat in the House of Representatives, he is quite familiar with the five Stages we have discussed. He was caught having a tryst in another country proving that we are in danger of exporting everything to other nations these days. Perhaps for effect, he even began the trip that led to his downfall on Father’s Day.

His “Appalachian walk” through the denial Stage was short-lived only because he was caught at the airport deplaning from a flight from Argentina. That also killed any chance he had to act angry.

However, he was able to return to it when he claimed, “There’s been a lot of speculation and innuendo on whether or not public moneys were used to advance my admitted unfaithfulness. To be very clear: no public money was ever used in connection with this.” Unfortunately, he later had to say, “I am going to reimburse the state for the full cost of the Argentina leg of this trip” after a reporter gathered damaging facts through the Freedom of Information Act.

Sanford almost immediately entered the bargaining Stage during which he successfully avoided impeachment proceedings. However, he was censured and fined tens of thousands of dollars for ethics violations.

Any further depression he may have suffered probably came at the hands of his now ex-wife, who divorced him in an act of independence that demonstrated she was not the “Good Wife” (politically speaking) to which Anthony Weiner’s wife referred in the latter’s similarly titled article in Harper’s Bazaar.

This opened the door for Sanford to propose to his Argentinian paramour (who is now his fiancée) and to successfully return to politics this year. Apparently, everyone enjoys a love story.

Sarcasm aside, we have a serious issue in this country. We have been conditioned to accept less than we deserve. New York City has over 8.3 million residents, and San Diego has nearly 3.2 million. Do Spitzer, Weiner, and Filner represent the best leadership these cities can offer?

Our political system attracts narcissists who need to “win” their elections to validate their existence. They are willing to do whatever it takes to “win,” and once in office, feel justified in abusing their power to reinforce their image of themselves. Along the way, many innocent (and some not-so-innocent) people may get hurt.

So, how do we overcome this issue?

First, stop confusing a person’s name recognition with the “content of their character” (to paraphrase Dr. King). By definition, a “celebrity” is a person who is “widely known.” The term does not define one’s moral or ethical strength nor does it necessarily reflect a positive talent. It merely means the person is famous or infamous in some regard.

Celebrities, such as professional athletes, performers, movie and television stars, and political “leaders,” are often viewed as role models: people who are to be emulated by others. While these individuals may not aspire to be role models, they must accept the fact that the decision is a societal one. While we can only cast “dollar” votes with respect to most of these role models (i.e., choosing whether to attend their games, concerts, shows, etc.), we can exercise a greater degree of control over our elected officials.

Political groups have tried to use pledges in the past to exert pressure on elected officials to further specific elements of a political agenda.

  • What if the “pledge” was non-partisan?
  • What if it inured to the benefit of the People regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or political affiliation, etc.?
  • What if the “pledge” was mandatory rather than permissive so that every elected official was required to sign it?

An Ethics Agreement represents a single, simple solution that would address the issues of political corruption, misrepresentation, and moral turpitude that plague our political system. Its operation would be uncomplicated:

  • If you choose to run for public office, you are required to commit to a clear set of guidelines.
  • If you violate those guidelines, you will immediately be relieved of office and will not be eligible to serve the People again unless you are exonerated or acquitted of the related charge.

Is this harsh? Not really. Is it practical? Yes.

It’s actually a relatively common practice in the private sector in the form of straight ethics agreements, confidentiality agreements, patent and invention agreements, drug-free environment agreements, etc. The only difference is that our elected officials control their own destiny unless we pressure them to change.

Let’s assume that we would all be better served by a political environment that was bound by ethics. Your assignment (in the Comment Section below) is to articulate what limitations you think should be incorporated into an Elected Officials Ethics Agreement. Our politicians are unlikely to regulate their own behavior absent our assistance. Let’s show them that we care. Let’s end this War on Ethics.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more

George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin and Equal Justice

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 26, 2013 – America has been captivated by one of the few real forms of reality TV: the presentation of evidence in a court of law during an actual criminal trial along with the associated arguments of opposing counsel. While the media profited from this low-budget production, there may be a question as to whether society profited as well. Perhaps we can gain such a benefit from an examination of whether equal justice applies to all.

One may argue that the core values of our Nation are articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Specifically: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

While these words do not bear any particular legal significance, they define certain concepts that lie at the foundation of our justice system. If we truly hold “these truths to be self-evident,” then the suggestion that “all men are created equal” gives rise to the assumption that all men should be judged under an equal application of the law.

Each of us should have the opportunity to live our lives freely and in a way that allows us to pursue happiness as we individually choose to define it unless our choices harmfully infringe on those same rights as they are enjoyed by others. One should be able to go to a store to buy candy and a drink without fear of reprisal. One should be able to participate in a community watch program and ask a question of a stranger without fear of reprisal. One should even be able to enjoy the news media of one’s choice without fear of bias (unless one seeks bias to reaffirm one’s own accumulated prejudices).

With regard to the latter, you will not find yourself lacking in choice.

Unless you have been living in a cave or actively seeking to remain uninformed, you are undoubtedly aware that George Zimmerman was recently on trial for his involvement in an altercation that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin. Mr. Zimmerman was charged with Second Degree Murder and, later, with Voluntary Manslaughter; charges of which he was found “not guilty” by the Jury that was seated for the case.

If you fit nicely within one of the two extremes the media and other organizations constructed, you either were concerned with whether George Zimmerman would receive justice or whether Trayvon Martin would receive justice. However, let’s step outside of those emotional boxes to engage in a factual discussion of whether equal justice was administered to the parties involved.

Within this context, the purpose of our criminal justice system is to provide uniform enforcement of the laws that are designed to maintain social order, protect and preserve life and property, fairly determine whether a crime has been committed, incapacitate and potentially rehabilitate the perpetrator of such crimes, deter future violations by that individual and others, and to exact what might be considered to be a reasonable degree of retribution on behalf of a civil society.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the gravity of any potential accusation and included certain protections against the abuse of investigatory and prosecutorial powers within the Bill of Rights’ Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments.

Correspondingly, our criminal justice is structured to require the clearing of increasingly higher evidentiary burdens within each of its steps (i.e., arrest, indictment, and prosecution). The reason for this directly relates to the consequences of each step. Specifically: an arrest may lead to a restraint of one’s freedom to move about freely (an element of Liberty), and it may carry a negative connotation that might impact one’s choices (i.e., Liberty and “pursuit of Happiness”); a successful indictment, which comes about by a Grand Jury’s consideration of the facts only from a light that is most favorable to the Prosecution, is likely to deepen the consequences associated with an arrest; and a successful prosecution may lead to incarceration (i.e., the loss of Liberty) and, in some instances, even the loss of Life.

Each of these hurdles has been placed before the State to protect and preserve our unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” in recognition of the importance of these Rights and in recognition of the State’s potentially superior resources as compared to the average citizen.

Our system also carries a presumption of innocence, which must be overcome by the Prosecution in its presentation of evidence by a standard that is described as “beyond reasonable doubt.”

When an affirmative defense is asserted (such as self-defense in this case), the initial burden of proof resides with the Defense to demonstrate that there is a reasonable possibility that the Defendant acted in self-defense. Once that possibility is established, the burden shifts to the Prosecution to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the Defendant did not act in self-defense.

Under our adversarial process, the attorneys for the Defense and the Prosecution are charged with using their best efforts to argue as advocates (i.e., in this case, on behalf of George Zimmerman and the State and, tangentially, Trayvon Martin, respectively). You may rest assured that both sides want to “win” in our system…sometimes to a disturbing extent.

“Winning” a case when the law and the facts are favorable to your side is relatively straightforward. However, the circumstances do not always provide this luxury.

To paraphrase an old law school adage: if the law is on your side but the facts are not, argue the law; if the facts are on your side but the law is not, argue the facts; if neither the law nor facts are on your side, make an emotional argument. How did the attorneys frame their arguments during the Zimmerman trial?

Additionally, this trial gave rise to strong emotional beliefs among the general population that had little to do with trial law. There were divergent views on George Zimmerman’s state of mind at the time of the shooting. From an evidentiary standpoint, the jury was required to weigh the factual and circumstantial evidence that was presented. Was there evidence that George Zimmerman had “profiled” Trayvon Martin (either racially or with respect to criminal intent), and if so, how might that have impacted the event? What precipitated the event? Who initiated the attack? Was George Zimmerman, in his own mind, reasonably in fear for his life?

How strong was the forensic evidence? How credible were the witnesses who offered their accounts? How did the evidence conform to those accounts? How did the evidence and the Jury’s assessment of credibility align with the very specific instructions given by the Court?

Step back from whatever emotional biases you may have and place yourself in the position of the Jurors; individuals who swore to receive the evidence and apply the law without prejudice. Whether Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman received equal justice under the law must be measured from that perspective.

Put aside the rhetoric from the Left and the Right, which prefer to prejudge such cases before they are tried, and evaluate the process: arrest, indictment, prosecution. Did it comply with our criminal justice system? If not, how did it fail to comply and how can the system improve?

Certain evidence of the past actions of the accused and the victim was precluded from introduction at trial. This routinely occurs to prevent prejudicing the Jury. Unless such evidence goes directly toward proving a continuing course of conduct, it should not be admitted.

What was particularly interesting in this regard was how the polarized camps of public opinion were offended by the exclusion of evidence they deemed favorable to their position. Yet, they expressed little concern for the evidence that was excluded that might be deemed favorable to the other side. It suggests a bias that only embraces a system of justice that conforms to preconceived positions. In effect, if you agree with the verdict, it was a good one, but if you disagree with the verdict, it was a bad one. Ask yourself: Is that indicative of equal justice?

In the comment section of this column, you are invited to offer your position as to whether equal justice was served in the arrest, indictment, and prosecution of George Zimmerman. You are encouraged to view the question from the Defendant’s perspective as well as from that of the State and victim. Were the basic protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments preserved for the accused? Was the victim’s and society’s interest protected by the arrest, indictment, and prosecution?

In a collateral discussion, what was your impression of the media’s impact (or attempted impact) on the case? Should the incident be isolated to its own specific facts or is it endemic to a greater issue within our society? Should there be any political ramifications to the trial and, if so, what are they and why are they appropriate?

Equal justice in the criminal (and civil) system demands that justice be applied equally. Lady Justice must be blind to race, religion, political affiliation, socio-economic status, or any other point of differentiation among the individuals involved. She may not peer from beneath her blindfold in an attempt to tip the scales. Please be sure to offer your perspectives as if her role were yours. State your premise, support your position with facts, and remain respectful of those who express an opinion that differs from yours because in this forum, we do not need to reach a unanimous decision, but we do need to demonstrate the ability to engage in critical thinking and civil debate.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more

THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH: Perspective or Presumption?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 23, 2013 – On July 19, 2013, President Obama chose to speak at a Press Conference about the African American community’s possible perspective of the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Almost immediately, those with a strong predisposition to the Left hailed his speech as one of the most important of his career, while those who lean as heavily toward the Right denounced the speech as racially divisive. As is usually the case with extreme viewpoints, each position offers a modicum of truth filtered through a lens of political prejudice. The opportunity to make progress is often lost because bias is frequently communicated with more vigor than rational thought.

Let’s start with the possibility that the President’s speech might be one of the most important of his career. Then, we will discuss what elements might have been divisive or at least not fully reflective of an unbiased position.

President Obama is often mentioned as a great orator. Yet, we often only observe his ability to deliver the ideas and words of others; carefully written scripts that are read from a TelePrompTer that reflect his strategists’ interpretation of how to present favorable poll data as authored by a team of professional writers. We rarely have a glimpse into the President’s own thoughts and feelings.

In that regard, this was an important speech. It provided insight into a more authentic version of the President; a version that exposed his personal experiences and beliefs. He offered a thoughtful, relatively well-balanced perspective of why the African American community (his term) has become so transfixed with the incident that led to the death of Trayvon Martin.

The President opened his remarks with a sincere expression of sympathy to the Martin family and a well-deserved remark about “the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation.” This is a family that has lost a son and still has called upon individuals to temper their actions and express themselves in a peaceful manner.

Then, the President paid deference to our judicial system. He stated: “The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works.” It would be difficult to argue with the accuracy of that statement.

President Obama then entered into the main focus of his speech by saying, “…I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.” It was at this point that he began to reflect upon the circumstances of the incident.

The President said, “You know when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”

From another perspective, if one were to eliminate race as a consideration, any one of us (including the President) could have been Trayvon Martin. We also could have been George Zimmerman. Within the context of our criminal justice system, that is exactly the neutral position that we should assume.

The President continued: “And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.”

President Obama then offered some thought-provoking examples. “There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.”

He then reached a conclusion when he said, “… I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.”

The President’s conclusion is probably correct. However, should it be the conclusion that is reached, or is it driven by a biased perception?

The President had days to think through the examples he chose. Yet, his examples were delivered only from the perspective of “African American men.” Perhaps it was because he was reflecting upon his personal experience or because he felt that it was more specific to the circumstances of the shooting incident. However, let’s examine his examples from a broader perspective.

The first example involved security profiling at a mall. Consider the following: If an African-American businessman, dressed in a suit and tie were shopping in a mall and another man (pick the ethnicity or race of your choice) was in the same area of the mall dressed in a far less sophisticated way, who would mall security likely follow? Add a few tattoos, an unshaven beard, and clothes that might be due for a wash to the description of the second individual, and watch the profiling begin. You can apply the same scenario to the President’s other examples as well and see an interesting pattern develop.

This is not to ignore or condone profiling that occurs singularly on the basis of race but rather to consider the examples from a broader perspective.  We live in a society that inherently “profiles” individuals based on visual cues. We need to acknowledge it and determine what can be done to bring rational thought to this reality.

The President’s next two examples (i.e., “walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars” and “getting on an elevator and (seeing) a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off”) are not necessarily racially-specific. Almost every man, regardless of race, has experienced these reactions.

Perhaps this occurs because women may have a heightened sense of vulnerability in the isolated presence of unknown men. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s preliminary figures for 2012, approximately 82,000 forcible rapes occurred in our country (or roughly one every 6.5 minutes). Add the 751,131 aggravated assaults and 354,396 robberies that were committed that year as well, and you might begin to build an appreciation for the fact that women intelligently lock their car doors and react with a defensive posture in elevators.

Truth be told, many men follow similar patterns of caution and self-protection (i.e., locking their doors; stepping back in elevators with an increased sense of awareness; subtly checking their wallets in crowds, etc.). As the old adage goes, “It is better to be safe than sorry.”

Proponents of the President will argue that these experiences are more prevalent in the African-American community. Critics of the President will argue that this mindset only further separates the races and promotes additional distrust.

There may be an element of truth in both arguments. However, a different approach would be to acknowledge the experience within the African-American community but to recognize that it is shared in other communities as well. Then, we might be able to begin to engage in a productive discussion of how our social issues can be improved.

A number of detractors of the President claimed that he did not acknowledge the excessive level of crime within the African-American community.  This is not true. The President specifically said: “Now, this isn’t to say that the African-American community is naïve about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact…”

He then qualified his comment when he continued, “…although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history. And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.”

As George Santayana once wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” In that regard, the President’s reference may have been relevant to provide a historical perspective upon which others may build an understanding of the African-American community’s response. Unfortunately, that assumes that the entire African-American community viewed the incident identically, which it did not.

A segment of the African-American community did not embrace the idea that race was relevant to the incident that led to Trayvon Martin’s death. One may not have gathered that fact from the President’s speech.

President Obama went on to state, “I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”

As the President suggests, “context” is important and it can be frustrating when it is denied. The President made a generic statement about the “challenges” that exist for “African American boys” with whom he has self-identified. Yet, he overcame these challenges, secured an outstanding education, and ultimately became President of the United States. This was a missed opportunity to emphasize what can be achieved when one does not bow to the perception of barriers. Perhaps another of Santayana’s passages is apropos, “A man’s memory may almost become the art of continually varying and misrepresenting his past, according to his interests in the present.”

More importantly, President Obama is a Harvard-educated attorney. He had previously described the nature of the criminal justice system and how it had been applied in the trial of George Zimmerman. It seems irresponsible for him to suggest “that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”

There are a myriad of facts that, if altered, might have created a different outcome. Race is the least relevant of them.

Consider the irony of how the circumstances may have changed had George Zimmerman simply locked his car door (the typical scenario that the President had described earlier). Correspondingly, what would have happened had Trayvon Martin simply continued to his father’s home?

What makes the actions of the participants far more relevant than their race is that each action represents a choice. One’s race offers no such choice.

Society can learn from tragic incidents such as the shooting of Trayvon Martin to build a better future, or it can merely record them and use them as an excuse when they reoccur in the future. We have an opportunity to examine what went wrong and what better choices could have been made, or we can focus on the participants’ race, which cannot be controlled in the future any more than they could be controlled in this instance.

President Obama went on to discuss the need for a non-violent response. He set an appropriate expectation with regard to any intervention by the Department of Justice (emphasizing the majority of any related legal issues reside at a State or local level as opposed to the Federal level).

The President touched upon the need for all levels of government to work with law enforcement to “reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.” He also encouraged us to examine State and local laws (such as “stand your ground”) to determine “if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.”

President Obama then called upon “business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed.”

It will be interesting to see how this suggestion is perceived by the President’s proponents and opponents. He seemed to be distancing himself from a Federal solution, which might appeal to his opponents since they often express their concerns about the size and scope of Government. Conversely, while his comment addressed the plight of “African-American boys,” it ignored the female side of that community as well as the children of all other races and ethnicities who may similarly suffer from the lack of encouragement and opportunity. That may not stand in good stead with those who normally support him.

President Obama concluded his remarks with an acknowledgment that we need to have productive discussions about race and how we might mitigate the impact of prejudice within our society. He also complimented our emerging generations for making better strides in this direction than the generations that preceded them.

So, let’s take the discussion to the next level as suggested by the President. Rather than defaulting to the political position of judging whether his speech provided an appropriate perspective or just fostered a racial presumption, let’s discuss what steps can be taken with or without Government intervention to improve our society. For example:

  • How can we inspire our emerging generations to demonstrate respect for themselves as well as respect for others?
  • How can we teach our emerging generations to make intelligent choices in their lives and accept responsibility for their choices?
  • How can we provide nutrition and housing for those who need assistance while providing a pathway to self-reliance?
  • How can we improve the quality of our education and training programs?
  • How can we create more job opportunities, provide more training, attract more business to the United States, etc. to revitalize the economy?

Please share your ideas, offer your solutions, or engage in a discussion with others in the comment section. Over the ensuing months, we may explore many of these issues in a more focused way, but for now, let’s see what ideas may surface.

We often become enamored with incidents such as the confrontation between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Perhaps it is because they stimulate such an emotional response at a visceral level. Too often, we do nothing … only to have similar events occur in the future. Let’s begin a discussion that may help break the cycle and underscore the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal.”

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more

A CIVIL ASSESSMENT: The Cure for Partisan Politics

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 9, 2013 – This is an introduction to a social experiment in which you are invited to participate. How often have you read an Op-Ed piece by a purported “expert” with whom you clearly disagreed? How often have you felt that the “expert” was biased and presented only those facts that supported his or her opinion? How often have you believed you could have done a better job?

Well, now is your chance!

WHAT: The Communities section of The Washington Times, under which this social experiment will be conducted, is somewhat unique. It is not subject to the editorial board of the news organization (i.e., it is an open forum in which the views of the writers need not reflect the views of The Washington Times). In effect, it merges Freedom of the Press with Freedom of Speech.

In that regard, rather than constructing an argument and offering it for your comment (which is reflective of what is normally done), I thought it might be interesting to break from tradition and create a model in which you shared your opinion without the intervention of mine. Rather than serving as the “expert” who reaches a conclusion on your behalf and with which you may only agree or disagree, I would prefer to provide you with a safe environment in which you can frame your own opinions and support them with facts.

HOW (and WHO):  A Civil Assessment will be structured to raise an issue and perhaps suggest several points of view. It will entrust you with the opportunity to reach your own, well-reasoned conclusions and to express them in the Comment section. I trust that the Comment section will be far more interesting and informative than a typical article because it will represent a cross-section of opinions as opposed to the point of view of a single individual.

In fact, you will be the author of this column’s true content. Your contributions will be a far more relevant representation of the diverse opinions that may be held than any simplistic poll could ever establish. You will not be left with a foolish Yes/No option or a naïve multiple choice question. Instead, you will be challenged with “filling in the blanks” … an open-ended scenario that will encourage you to research the subject and share your independent thoughts.

For this social experiment to succeed, there will be one critical rule: you must demonstrate respect for the thoughtful opinions of others. If you prefer to mindlessly attack another person’s position because it does not conform to yours, please excuse yourself from this forum and embarrass yourself somewhere else.

A Civil Assessment is meant to reflect what its name implies: a civil assessment of issues that welcomes divergent opinions based on fact rather than emotion. Our Nation’s Founders were relatively gifted in this regard. They drew upon the teachings of Bayle, Locke, Newton, Spinoza, Voltaire, and others from the Age of Enlightenment.

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were among those who carried the torch of Enlightenment within the United States. Additionally, one of our Nation’s early political parties (the recently resurrected Whigs) followed these same tenets and were graced with the likes of Henry Clay, Horace Greeley, Daniel Webster, four consecutive Presidents, and a gentleman by the name of Abraham Lincoln (before the first iteration of the Party dissolved). Who will step forward to assume this role today?

I, for one, would like to learn what your opinion is of the challenges that our elected officials find so insurmountable. How would you define the problem? What is the root cause? What alternatives exist? What solutions would you propose and why? How would they be implemented? Have you considered the adverse consequences of a mistaken decision? How have you planned to recover from such a scenario should it arise?

You need not address every single aspect, but your input is important. The last time I looked, the Constitution began with the words “We the People.” It is time for the People to voice their opinions.

WHEN:  I shall do my best to raise an interesting issue for your consideration every Tuesday. If you would like to be informed automatically when each new article posts, just follow any of the social media links listed at the bottom of this column, and please encourage others who might be interested to do the same.

WHY:  I have written two prior columns for the Communities of The Washington Times that have been captured below for your convenience. The first was a satirical rendering of our political system entitled, The Common Sense Czar. The second was a far more serious column entitled, A President for the People, which was a platform from which I shared observations and solutions from my 2012 Presidential candidacy.

I suppose that many of you are asking “What presidential candidacy?”

In November 2011, I announced my candidacy for the Office of President of the United States. My goal was not to become President since the Parties have erected nearly insurmountable barriers to preclude any legitimate candidate from threatening their duopoly. Instead, my objective was to create a more informed electorate for it is my belief that the erosion of our political system can most efficiently be reversed by individuals who have the courage to cast an informed vote.

We live in a politically volatile environment that has been inflamed by open animosity. The two major Parties have brilliantly executed a “divide and conquer” strategy that has driven our Nation apart and mired us in a state of perpetual crisis. By creating a “We/They” mentality and exploiting negative emotions (e.g., fear, greed, etc.), the Parties have been able to engrain deeply seated beliefs that condition political behavior in a way that inures to their benefit. Ardent supporters donate massive amounts of money “to the cause” and vote exclusively along Party lines. Even those who are not as committed to the Parties can be swayed to conform by the perpetuated myth that no other alternative exists.

For the latter type of individuals, the Parties construct a Hobson’s choice. Pompous refrains of “You’ll just be wasting your vote” and “We know our candidate isn’t very good, but the other candidate is so bad that you can’t let him (or her) win” can be heard echoing through our political halls during each election cycle. Translation: “Forget that we may be offering you weak candidates or an irrational position on an issue; ignore the fact that better alternatives are available; just do as you are told and surrender your vote to us … it’s easier than exercising independent judgment.”

The system itself tends to attract followers to political office rather than leaders. The Parties draw candidates who are willing to conform. These candidates are typically focused on “winning.”  As a result, they must be willing to sacrifice their ability to lead independently in return for the obscene amount of money and infrastructure they believe will be needed to “win” their elections.

“Winning” takes precedence over nearly everything at the major Party level. Of course, the argument will be made that unless a candidate “wins,” he or she cannot serve. The reality is that even if they win, they cannot serve because they must dedicate a disproportionate amount of time to repaying political favors and raising money for their next campaign (note: conservative estimates suggest that 50% to 75% of a federally elected official’s time is spent fundraising, running for re-election, or running for another office). As a result, our politicians spend more time raising money and “fixing the blame” than they do fixing our problems. For them, it is politically more efficient, and only the People suffer.

We can do better!

While I offered solutions rather than sound bites during my Presidential campaign, the most valuable part of the experience was being able to interact with individuals in open Q&A environments. It was never my intention to convince people that my positions were necessarily correct. Instead, I offered insight into the thought process I used and the factual basis for my proposals so that voters could more thoroughly vet my leadership skills and understand how I might approach an issue. I thought the American people should have the right to test the breadth and depth of a Presidential candidate at least once in their lives rather than be asked to render judgment based on self-serving ads, stump speeches, and highly contrived debate formats.

The response was overwhelming among those who fell within the limited reach of my campaign.

We discussed our Nation’s most challenging issues and did so in a civil manner. We exchanged ideas openly and without any threat of being shouted down by “the opposition.”

In that regard, I had an unfair advantage. I had no “opposition” because I simply ran as a citizen rather than as the candidate of a given Party. There was no inbred hostility toward me fanned by the flames of partisan competition.

An interesting thing happens when people lose the ability to stereotype a candidate: they have to actually listen to what the candidate says and then form a rational opinion about his or her position. Correspondingly, the candidate receives the gift of being exposed to the thoughts of others rather than being starved by a diet of information that merely conforms to a particular Party’s platform.

I am convinced that the collective thoughts of our citizens far surpass the intellectual capabilities of any given leader. While it is estimated that I spent 12,000 to 15,000 hours over a four-year period researching issues and preparing for the unique nature of my candidacy, I continually was exposed to new ideas and interesting viewpoints during the campaign. That rare experience gave me greater confidence on some occasions and a more refined perspective on others. It is an experience I would like to share with you.

IN CONCLUSION:  I suspect that participation in A Civil Assessment will grow over time. We will be building a forum within a traditional media outlet that has not existed in the past. You will be one of its Founders, and as a Founder, I hope you will work to spread the news of the forum to others. The success of this initiative will be entirely based upon its ability to attract well-reasoned contributions across a wide bandwidth of individuals.

Properly orchestrated, our discussions could even give rise to an important movement (the nature of which I will leave to you). If you find value in this endeavor, please “like” and “share” it within your social networks. The faster we can grow its viral base, the more rapidly we will be able to effect positive change for our country.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more

GUN CONTROL: Is the target practical or political?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., January 17, 2013 – The one thing that is predictable about our major Parties is their ability to politicize important issues to a degree that impairs rational discussion. The current debate over gun control is just one more illustration. Gun control activists have seized upon recent tragic events to push forward their agenda, while gun advocates have raised the specter of tyranny to argue against it. We would all be better served if the actual problem was well-defined, the root causes were identified, and non-partisan solutions were evaluated.

During the past year, there were a series of events that demonstrated an appalling lack of concern for human life.

On July 20, 2012, a well-armed gunman entered into a theater in Aurora, Colorado. He used a 12-gauge shotgun, a semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine (that jammed), and a handgun to kill 12 people and wound 58 others. A media frenzy ensued. It emphasized the deranged appearance and conduct of the accused shooter.

The political response was as follows: flags were ordered to be flown at half-staff on Federal buildings; the major Party candidates suspended their advertising in Colorado for a few days; and President Obama flew to the State, gave a speech, and was photographed with some of the wounded as well as with State officials.

A little more than two weeks later, a gunman entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, and used a semi-automatic handgun to murder 12 people and wound four others. A media frenzy ensued. The emphasis was on the possibility of the incident being a hate crime.

The political response was as follows: flags were ordered to be flown at half-staff on Federal buildings, and President Obama offered his condolences.

Then, on December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, after killing his mother in her home, and he used three semi-automatic weapons (a rifle and two handguns) to kill 20 children and six adults. A media frenzy ensued. However, this time it exceeded all prior proportions and exhibited a limited respect for privacy.

The political response was as follows: gun control proponents called for a renewed ban on assault weapons and extended clips; Senator Feinstein introduced such a bill on the first day of the new Congress; previous shooting victim and former Representative Gabrielle Giffords initiated Americans for Responsible Solutions (a gun control PAC); President Obama formed a Gun Violence Task Force led by Vice President Biden; and approximately one month later, Vice President Biden presented his recommendations and the President took executive action on 23 of them.

It is difficult to legitimately differentiate the victims. They all lost their lives. However, it took an unfathomable attack on innocent children to provide the impetus to actually take action, and that is a sad indictment of our current political environment.

Massive amounts of money and rhetoric will be thrown at the issue. One Party will decry the inhumanity of the other and the impediment to progress that it presents. The other Party will claim the existence of a dictatorial overreach that threatens our very Republic. Both sides will be wrong, but neither will care. They are more concerned about posturing “wins” that can be leveraged to secure an advantage in the 2014 mid-term elections.

America will continue to suffer.

One side will claim: “Guns don’t kill; people do.” The other side will claim that the existence of guns facilitates the killing. Both sides will be correct to a degree and wrong as well.

Guns are inanimate objects. To paraphrase Newton’s First Law, objects that are at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Guns, in and of themselves, do not commit crimes. However, to deny their contribution to any crime in which they are used is to deny that reality as well.

The traditional Second Amendment argument is an interesting one on several levels. Its actual language states: “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.” Until the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the meaning of the Second Amendment was subject to interpretation. After that ruling, individuals have been deemed to have a constitutional right to possess firearms unconnected with military service and to use such firearms for any lawful purpose. Therefore, unless amended, the law is settled in the United States with regard to an individual’s right to legally own firearms.

The question becomes whether such a right is subject to limitation, and rationally, the answer has to be “Yes.”

In colonial times, the necessity of “bearing arms” to rise up against tyranny made perfect sense. There was a relative parity of weapons. Citizens and military personnel were similarly armed with minor exceptions. That is clearly not the case today.

Unless one wants to argue that citizens should be able to secure fully-armed F-22 Raptors and small thermonuclear devices, it is irrelevant to believe that their possession of even fully-automatic weapons would make them competitive in a military confrontation. As a result, the real point of discussion should center on how to facilitate the freedom to possess firearms for display or for their knowledgeable and safe use for sport, hunting, personal protection, and any other lawful purpose.

It should be noted that in each of the aforementioned tragedies, the weapons and ammunition were acquired legally and the weapons themselves were registered (although in the Newtown incident, the purchases were made by the shooter’s mother, and the weapons were registered in her name).

Given the speculative range of actions that were attributed to President Obama, he was surprisingly restrained within the context of the 23 executive actions he actually took. He was more sensitive than usual to the restrictions imposed on his Office under Article II of the Constitution and paid deference to the legislative authority of Congress under Article I.

However, perhaps the most shocking element of the President’s executive actions lies within the fact that it has taken so long for such recommendations to surface. Many of the recommendations expose what should be an embarrassing failure of common sense.

  • Can anyone believe that it should require a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system or to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations?
  • Can anyone believe that it should require a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system or to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations?
  • Can anyone believe that States require incentives to share information with the background check system?
  • Can anyone believe that law enforcement does not already have the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun?
  • Can anyone believe that the Attorney General should need to be directed to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun “to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks?”
  • Can anyone believe that the ATF has not already provided guidance to federally licensed gun dealers on how to run background checks for private sellers?
  • Can anyone believe that the President of the United States has to encourage law enforcement to maximize its efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime?

These are but a few of the recommendations that pass as necessary leadership directives in today’s political environment. One has to wonder what ostensibly responsible officials are doing in their spare time.

Several other “actions” appeared to be more closely tied to the support of the President’s faltering healthcare initiative than to proactively address violence in America.

There were actually a few directives that seemed worthy of inclusion.

A Presidential Memorandum was issued directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. If executed in an efficient and cost-effective manner, this could actually have merit. If not, it could become yet another colossal waste of time and taxpayer money.

The President also made commitments to finalizing mental health parity regulations and to launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius and Education Secretary Duncan on mental health. These two elements at least superficially acknowledge the fact that mental health may be part of the equation.

While gun control may address the low-hanging fruit associated with our Nation’s challenge with violent crime, it merely alleviates the symptom rather than cures the disease. Mental health is far more likely to be the root cause.

Again, guns are a tool. They can be safely used by those who are trained in their use and who respect those parameters. They become an instrument of violence when they are placed in the hands of those who either lack adequate training or who lack the mental capacity to value human life.

Until we begin to more effectively address the training issue to prevent accidents and we begin to identify the drivers in our society that desensitize certain individuals to the killing of another human being or that glorify it as a way to draw attention to a desperately flawed personality, we will continue to suffer the needless loss of life.

Perhaps we have chosen to emphasize gun control because of the cultural relevance of guns within our Nation’s history, but even the elimination of guns will not resolve the real problem. A current, high-profile trial features a Defendant who is accused of stabbing her boyfriend 27 times, slitting his throat, and only then shooting him in the face. The final use of a gun was irrelevant to the victim, who was already dead. September 11th also serves as a reminder that even otherwise innocuous instruments can be used as weapons of mass destruction.

We may also be preoccupied with gun control for reasons more associated with the partisan divide. The issue serves to polarize the factions of both Parties and stimulates a release of passion and money that can be used to maintain and expand political power.

A more bitter pill may be that we focus on gun control because it diverts our attention from a far more painful admission: that we have created a society that celebrates violence. We see it in our games, in our movies, and on television. It has become an essential element of media that sensationalizes the acts and the perpetrators in return for the ratings these stories bring. It is an unvarnished and unrehearsed version of grotesque entertainment that represents the only true form of “reality TV” that exists.

Good deeds go unreported, but no mass murderer will be denied his or her 15 minutes of fame.  Disturbed individuals seek a pathway to be noticed, which may explain the escalating nature of these crimes.

Conversely, individual crime has become so commonplace in some areas as not to merit coverage. In 2012, 512 people were murdered in the City of Chicago alone. While most of these individuals died in isolated instances, it seems inappropriate to give their lives any less weight than we give to the lives of those who are killed under more socially traumatic circumstances.

If we unite in this cause, we can form a more perfect Union that can promote our general welfare by crafting sensible laws that provide for our common defense in order to ensure domestic tranquility so that we can secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves, our children, and our future generations. If we can learn to value each other as equals and to work toward these goals, we will undoubtedly improve our ability to protect and preserve life, to preserve Liberty, and to pursue happiness as we choose to define it. If we look hard enough, we can probably find a few documents that will guide us along the way.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more

EMANCIPATION: 150 years old and needing expansion

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., January 1, 2013 – On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It was neither a law nor an unbridled condemnation of slavery as written. Instead, it was a carefully timed document with limited scope. Yet, it was sufficient to turn the tides of the Civil War in favor of the Union and to serve as the impetus for the Thirteenth Amendment. On its 150th anniversary, it would appear that a second Emancipation Proclamation might be in order.

A historical perspective is in order.

While President Lincoln was adamantly against slavery, he was without constitutional authority to address the issue directly. At the time, the Constitution was “pro-choice” when it came to slavery; allowing each State to determine whether it would permit slavery within its borders.

The President also had political challenges: four of the Union’s border States permitted slavery and Northern Democrats strongly supported it (Southern Democrats had already seceded). President Lincoln feared that those groups would have turned against the war had he pressed for the abolition of slavery when he first took office.

During the early months of the Civil War, the Confederacy was using slave labor to support its efforts with resounding success. The importance of disrupting this advantage had become increasingly apparent.

The first opportunity to address the issue arose when the Confiscation Act of 1861 was passed on August 6th of that year.  Under that Act, the President, as Commander in Chief, was given the power to seize any property that was being used by an enemy to wage war against the United States. Ironically, because slaves were considered to be property, the Union’s military forces were now able to “seize” slaves without any obligation to return them to their owners.

“Seizing” slaves is somewhat of a misnomer as the vast number of these individuals were escaping and fleeing to the North. In another stroke of irony, these former slaves became the property of the United States.

While the political scenario was evolving, President Lincoln actually had to countermand a field order issued by Major General David Hunter that declared slaves in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina to be “forever free” (General Orders No. 11). The President reserved the responsibility for any such decision to his Office.

In that same proclamation, it was further resolved “That the United States ought to cooperate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State, in its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system.” Interestingly enough, none of the three States previously mentioned accepted the President’s offer. Given the more recent behavior of State governments, one can only wonder if any of those States would have fallen to the temptation if today’s standards were applied.

By the summer of 1862, Republicans were applying considerable pressure to the President to shift the focus of the Civil War away from secession to one of abolishing slavery. While he had been hesitant to do so earlier in fear of fracturing the Union by alienating Northern Democrats and the four border States, the time was now right.

A second Confiscation Act was passed on July 17, 1862, which served as a precursor to the Emancipation Act that was to follow. It allowed slaves who escaped to the North to be declared captives of war but otherwise set free, and it gave the President the power to employ them in the Union forces.

However, this second Confiscation Act most certainly did not call for equal rights and even contained a provision that authorized the President “to make provision for the transportation, colonization, and settlement, in some tropical country beyond the limits of the United States, of such persons of the African race, made free by the provisions of this act, as may be willing to emigrate, having first obtained the consent of the government of said country to their protection and settlement within the same, with all the rights and privileges of freemen.”

Finally, on September 22, 1862, the President made his intent to emancipate the slaves directly known and, in a preliminary proclamation, declared that his edict would go into effect with respect to any State that did not take action on its own within 100 days. Thus, on January 1, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.

It should be noted that for political reasons, the Emancipation Proclamation only addressed slavery in the States that had seceded. It ignored the slavery that was still in effect in the border States that remained part of the Union as well as those areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control. This was done to avoid any issue of constitutionality as well as to appease the Northern Democrats, whose support the President would continue to need. Emancipation was also conditioned on military victory.

The latter point served as an additional inducement for Confederate slaves to flee their masters and to fight for their freedom. This depleted the Confederate military of its labor pool and reinforced the Union with nearly 200,000 new troops. It also gave the North the moral high ground.

To address the issue of constitutionality, the Republican-led Senate overwhelmingly passed the Thirteenth Amendment on April 8, 1864, and by January 31, 1865, the dissent of Northern Democrats had dissipated sufficiently to allow that Amendment to pass the House of Representatives by the required two-thirds vote. When three-quarters of the States ratified the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865, slavery was finally eliminated; a well-earned victory that President Lincoln was only able to enjoy for the final three months of his life.

So, how far have we come?

Today, we have a President of Euro-African heritage. Many consider his election to be the final step in demonstrating how far our Nation has come. The reality is that had we come far enough, his election would not be worth mentioning.

President Obama received approximately 95 percent of the Black vote in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012. These figures are disproportionately high with regard to any demographic and are prima facie evidence that race played a role.

In a truly evolved society, race would no longer be relevant. It would not be used as a criterion for political consideration. It would not be a basis upon which some might challenge a decision nor would it be the basis upon which legitimate challenges were summarily dismissed.

Our society still suffers disparities that are implicitly based on race. During the most recent election, there was a dearth of discussion pertaining to residual discrimination. One Party assumed that it would receive an overwhelming percentage of support from minorities, while the other Party assumed that it could not do anything to prevent that anomaly. Both Parties preferred to sweep the real issues under their respective carpetbags.

For example, from 2008-2012, median income fell approximately 66% among Hispanics, 53% among Blacks, and 16% among Whites; median net worth fell approximately 67% among Hispanics, 59% among Blacks, and 44% among Whites; and with respect to Americans living at or below the poverty level, approximately 27.4% were Black, 26.6% were Hispanic, 12.1% were Asian, and 9.9% were White.

These facts are compelling. They should disturb us. However, what should disturb us even more is that they were not even addressed by either Party during the last election. We are left to assume that the parties either do not care or would just prefer to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

Unfortunately, in the real world, problems cannot be solved until they are defined and openly discussed. In our current political environment, that is unlikely to occur. The discussion of such issues would expose the fact that they exist, and people might begin to start “connecting the dots.”

In turn, a more informed electorate might begin to ask questions. Why do such differences exist? What is their root cause? What can be done to correct them? Why hasn’t anything been done to correct them?

These are uncomfortable questions for traditional politicians who play by a different set of rules; who have different healthcare programs than we do; who have different retirement programs than we do. These are questions that expose why the concept of emancipation needs to be expanded well beyond race.

If we can boldly address these issues, perhaps we can finally put race behind us. If we are lucky, we may be able to simultaneously address the gender biases that still prevail in our society. After all, women of any color did not receive the right to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920, a full 50 years after Black men received the right to vote (under the Fifteenth Amendment), we still are trying to create equal pay for equal work for women, and a woman has never been elected President of the United States. Then we can perform the final act of emancipation: emancipation from the two political Parties who have accomplished so little at such a great cost to the People. The examples are too numerous to detail. Suffice it to say that the recent fiasco called the “fiscal cliff” and the repeated failure to address the national debt ceiling in a timely manner are merely symptoms of the disease. Add the $2 billion price tag the Presidency now carries and you have clear and convincing evidence that the dollar has been radically devalued under their watch.

It is time to reissue the Emancipation Proclamation without the political limitations of the original one. We should demand an Emancipation Proclamation that says that no man or woman regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. shall ever again be held in slavery or involuntary servitude by the Democrats or Republicans or their political heirs or assigns. From this day forward, we shall truly be free to build a meritocracy upon which our futures shall be dictated not by the pronouncements of our political officials but rather by the talent, effort, and determination we are willing to display. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. concluded in his famous “I Have A Dream” speech, “… when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every State and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, Black men and White men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!’” Think about what a wonderful start to a new year that would be.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more

Replace the Fiscal Cliff with a political one

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., December 20, 2012 – As we hurtle toward the fiscal cliff that our elected officials created, we should ask ourselves why we tolerate it. Why not create a political cliff for those who would risk the economic safety of so many American families?

The Democrats and the Republicans in Washington, D.C., act as if only political capital is at stake. They seem to lack an appreciation for the real capital that is on the table; the capital of every family in America.

The term “political reality” is an oxymoron. Our elected officials live in world in which they construct a separate set of rules for themselves and then pretend to care about the rest of us. It is time to end that charade.

While our elected officials are insulated from the health care and retirement issues we face, they profess to care about our best interests. Here’s a suggestion: save the rhetoric and actually do something to address the issues that plague our Nation.

President Obama pretends that “raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires” is the answer. In the words of former President Clinton, “Do the math.” The President’s proposal would only cover about 5-10 days of spending at our Government’s present rate.

This isn’t to suggest that the President is the only one who needs a refresher course in reality. The Republican Party’s position is that any tax increase on the wealthy would negatively impact job growth. This is simply a political fallacy.

The truth is that smart business people do not hire new employees just because they have extra cash. They hire new employees when there is a demonstrated market need for such expansion. If the Republican claim was correct, our Nation should be thriving since there has been about $3 trillion in investment capital sitting on the sidelines for the past four years.

Let’s examine a few more ridiculous assertions on both sides of the aisle.

The President and his cronies like to apply the term “millionaires and billionaires” to anyone making $250 thousand or more per year. Again, to quote former President Clinton, “Do the math.”

One must wonder whether these elected officials have ever paid attention to the unique economic circumstances of different parts of our country as they traveled about at taxpayer expense.  On December 14, 2010, I wrote an article entitled Taxing Our Patience. The following excerpt from that article makes the point by comparing the economic reality of two fundamentally different cities.

“According to various cost-of-living calculators that are available on the web, if you live in Manhattan, you’d have to earn $639,671 to have the same buying power as a household with $250,000 of adjusted gross income in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Said another way, a household that earns $97,707 a year in Fort Smith has the same buying power as one that earns $250,000 in Manhattan … pre-tax. Remember: the Manhattan household is considered to be ‘rich’ and can be taxed well in excess of the rate that would apply to the ‘middle-class’ household in Fort Smith … (and if you live in Fort Smith you can) enjoy the same tangible rewards as your counterpart in Manhattan … plus, you can avoid the stigma of being called ‘rich.’”

It is the political equivalent of malpractice to either be too ignorant to recognize this disparity or too indifferent to care, and it is about time for there to be a political consequence associated with this type of leadership.

The Parties also waste time pointing their fingers at each other and continuing an interminable campaign that should have ended on November 6th.  Arguing over the fiction that “taxing the rich” would actually have a discernible impact on our Nation’s debt and economic growth, the Parties are placing their political bets and hoping that the other Party will be blamed if the fiscal cliff isn’t averted. Unfortunately, the “chips” they are using are essentially the poor and the middle class in our country.

The Republican leadership doesn’t want to risk the ire of its fiscal conservatives by bowing to the President’s demand to “increase taxes on the rich.” Correspondingly, the President has stated that he will veto any bill that does not impose such a tax increase.

Now, think about that.

The Republicans are willing to sacrifice the poor and the middle class in an effort to protect the upper 2% of income earners whom the President defines as “rich,” and the President is willing to sacrifice the poor and the middle class if he doesn’t get his political win. How can either egotistical position be defined as being in the best interests of the People?

It is also disturbing that our elected officials have chosen to address the purported fiscal cliff at the eleventh hour. It is not as if they were unaware that the problem existed. It has just been more politically expedient to avoid it until after the election.

The President has often stated that he “inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.” Rather than debating the issue, let’s just assume that his observation is accurate. Doesn’t that mean that he must have known that we were approaching a “fiscal cliff” of some magnitude when he took office?

Even the most benighted members of the two Parties had to recognize that we would approach a fiscal cliff at some point. Worst case: the Simpson-Bowles Commission cited the problem over two years ago, yet our elected officials chose to ignore it.

Perhaps that last statement is a bit too harsh. After all, our political leaders did discuss raising the national debt limit in the summer of 2011. They solved that problem by setting the stage for the fiscal cliff that looms before us.

I wrote a series of articles in July of 2011 that unfortunately predicted exactly what was to transpire relative to the debt ceiling (i.e., Debt ceiling negotiations: Pelosi, Boehner, Obama & Reid play Liar’s Poker – on July 12th; The debt ceiling war: Cut, Cap, Balance versus Cut, Tax, Spend – on July 20th; and Washington, D.C.: The capital of compromise – on July 29th). The prediction was that some resolution would be reached no later than August 2, 2010; just in time for the President to fly to Chicago for the two, huge fund-raising events that were being staged around his birthday on August 4th.

This is not to suggest that my predictions should be heeded. After all, the Parties seem to be more inclined to hope that the Mayans were right and that the problem will resolve itself on December 21st.

In any event, here is my prediction with respect to the fiscal cliff.  Our elected officials will return home for Christmas but demonstrate their concern for the American people by returning to try to resolve the fiscal cliff. The President’s family will head to Hawaii without him; thus, allowing him to demonstrate his commitment to the People by remaining behind.  Nothing of any real consequence will happen because there isn’t enough time to actually do something meaningful. At best, our officials will all “kick the can down the road” and, of course, claim victory.

Don’t worry! The term “fiscal cliff” was invented to strike fear in your heart so that it could be exploited by the Parties among their polarized constituencies during the most recent election.

As reported in other publications, the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office have noted that the Government has approximately $2 trillion in unexpended funds on hand with nearly $700 billion of it unassigned. In addition, the Government Accountability Office has prepared reports in each of the last two years that identified more than $650 billion in redundancies, overlap, fragmentation, and ongoing waste (i.e., GAO-11-318SP and GAO-12-342 SP). Our elected officials have simply chosen to ignore these facts.

Correspondingly, if you would like to see a Balanced Budget Amendment to prevent further problems from arising, there is no need.  I offer you the following excerpt from the previously cited Washington, D.C.: The capital of compromise.

“22 USC 286 authorized the United States to accept membership in the International Monetary Fund. Then, in 1978, Public Law 95-435 was passed to amend 22 USC 286. Tucked away in Section 7 of Public Law 95-435 is the following condition: ‘Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts.’”

If that sounds like the Federal Government is supposed to operate on a balanced budget if it is to remain a member of the International Monetary Fund, that’s because that’s what the law says. Our elected officials have just chosen to ignore it since 1981. So, here is a suggestion. Let’s enjoy the holidays and accept whatever feeble solution the President and Congress offer. Then, let’s commit to creating a “political cliff” and begin to push our elected lemmings toward it. Unless the Mayans were correct, 2014 isn’t too far away to get the attention of the first wave of vulnerable politicians.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: Relevant but ignored

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 19, 2012 – Seven score and nine years ago, President Abraham Lincoln brought forth on this continent an address he believed the world would little note. Yet, that very address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, was to become the standard against which all political speeches thereafter would be measured. Those 278 words still resonate with those who love this country, and they provide guidance for our current troubled times that pale in comparison to what our great Nation was facing on November 19, 1863.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” the speech began.

We sometimes seem to forget that our Nation was “conceived in Liberty;” a concept that gives rise to the fact that individual rights were paramount. Our Founding Fathers were offering the world a new choice: a Nation in which the Government would work to preserve the rights of its citizens rather than one in which the citizens worked to preserve the power of the Government.

In contrast, we have become increasingly dependent upon our Government; allowing our Government to grow in power at the cost of individual Liberty. To add insult to injury, we pay to have it done.

We also seem to bear false witness to the fact that our Nation was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Our political parties prefer to ignore that particular proposition because it is at odds with their best interests. If everyone was provided with an equal opportunity and our country was to become more of a meritocracy, it would diminish the power of the parties. It would reward individual choice and serve as a catalyst for others to chase their dreams and pursue their own destinies rather than rely on the promises of the parties.

Instead, the parties reinforce differences to preserve their constituencies. That is why their rhetoric is framed around race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, education, economic status, etc. It divides people into categories that can more readily be controlled by the suggestion that such categories’ members are not being treated equally.

President Lincoln then stated: “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.”

By contrast, we are now engaged in a great civil discord. Unlike the war that President Lincoln was describing, 620,000 lives won’t be lost nor will 412,000 people be wounded in the fictional confrontations the parties are orchestrating, but our Liberty is every bit as much at stake.

The parties prefer to fight imaginary “wars” that are again devised to fracture the electorate. The “War on Women,” the “War on Catholics,” the “War on Education,” etc.… you get the idea; all devised to polarize political support that translates into money and votes.

President Lincoln’s next words provide a more appropriate perspective of our current struggles.

“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

These words should remind us of all who have fought in the past to preserve our Rights as well as all who currently serve our Nation in this same capacity. We would be wise to learn to question the coincidence of military decisions that seem to parallel election cycles (i.e., a troop surge near the 2010 mid-term election; a troop reduction near the 2012 Presidential election; a proposed troop withdrawal near the 2014 mid-term election; etc.). These brave individuals have “consecrated” our Liberty, and it should be “far above our poor power to detract” from their sacrifice on our behalf.

“The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here,” President Lincoln added without a grain of self-indulgence. Compare and contrast that with the pontifications of many of our political leaders today, who must collectively suffer from “I-strain” from their overuse of that particular pronoun.

In conclusion, President Lincoln added: “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

We, too, should be dedicated to continuing the “unfinished work” for which so many have fought. Rather than ignoring our responsibilities by failing to pursue rational solutions to our Nation’s most pressing issues, we should be “dedicated to the task remaining before us.”

We should no longer tolerate excuses. We should no longer tolerate blame. We should no longer tolerate burdening future generations with our failure. Most importantly, we should no longer tolerate abandoning the principles upon which our great Nation was founded just to satiate the political expediencies of the parties.

If we follow this path, President Lincoln will have been proven to have been correct in his final analysis. “This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Lincoln is more than a Steven Spielberg movie or a Bill O’Reilly book. We should pay attention to what he said and how he said it nearly a century and a half ago.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Read more