Author: testsite_tjohara

Does Obama care about Obamacare?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Calif., March 24, 2014 — As we approach the first enrollment deadline of the Affordable Care Act on March 31 of this year, we should ask some questions: Is the Administration committed to the ACA’s success for political reasons or because of a passionate belief in the virtue of the Act? Is the President more interested in preserving his legacy or providing better health care to the masses?

Yesterday, March 23, marked the fourth anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — Obamacare. Four years on, the debate rages as to whether patients will be protected and whether health care will become more affordable.

In its inception, the ACA’s mission was to expand access to health care to 50-plus million people — the number of uninsured Americans — while simultaneously lowering the cost of health care and maintaining or improving its quality. As is often the case when political interests collide, many aspects of the mission are lost in the legislative execution.

An underwhelming number of those who previously lacked access to health care insurance seems to have capitalized on the opportunity that the ACA ostensibly provides. The Obama Administration hopes that 6 million will have enrolled by the end of the month. In many regards, costs have risen, at least with regard to non-subsidized insurance coverage, and the quality of coverage, while expanded, may not reflect need; in the interest of equality, differences in gender, age, etc. have been intentionally ignored.

It is also worth noting that insurance coverage has become the focus of the ACA as opposed to the actual delivery of health care, as if the two were synonymous, which they are not.

So, let’s examine the infectious political disease that has contaminated the program to determine whether the situation is terminal.

During the 2008 campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama spoke eloquently about his plan to deliver health care reform. In conformance with his commitment to creating a more transparent and bipartisan Government, he promised to have the health care debate televised and to have the proposed legislation available for public review no less than 72 hours before any vote would be taken.

Had his promises been fulfilled, we may have avoided the bitter gamesmanship and comedy of errors that have plagued the ACA throughout the legislative process and since its passage. Unfortunately, those promises rose only to the level of other campaign promises that are spoken for effect rather than with any intent to deliver upon them.

Republican members of Congress were quick to condemn health care reform even before there was any substance to analyze. They assured us that whatever form it took would bankrupt our country and lead us down the road to socialistic failure.

Their commitment to assuring its failure has remained steady. They have proposed repeals at a rate only rivaled by the growth rate of our national debt.

Never one to allow a divisive political opportunity to go to waste, the Democratic Party seized the opportunity to demonize Republican opposition and leverage its control of the House, Senate, and Administration to cram through a bill filled with pork and favors to supportive lobbies.

The concept of debate surrendered to brute force politics and threats of nuclear options; the concept of providing television coverage gave way to closed-door caucuses; and the term “bipartisan” was transformed into something more akin to “buy partisan” when it came time to secure the necessary votes through backroom deals.

As a result, our nation finally had significant healthcare reform, the administration could claim victory, and the president had a landmark piece of legislation to define his legacy.

More political promises began to flow. “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Despite a stagnant U.S. economy, the administration entered into a $94 million contract with a Canadian firm in October 2011 to develop the Healthcare.gov website. Two years and something north of $300 million later, the president promised that the website would be ready to go on October 1 and that millions of Americans would be able to begin to enroll.

Then, the real world intervened.

While the website launched on time, it couldn’t handle even the modest initial web traffic it attracted. It crashed and burned.

It was later revealed that the administration had been given “stark warnings” of the impending debacle a full month before it occurred. However, there was an ongoing political battle over the budget and debt ceiling, so the warnings were ignored, and the website was used as a political subterfuge to draw attention to the recalcitrant Republicans, who were being characterized as “terrorists” at the time.

Since then, the Healthcare.gov website has suffered a variety of “illnesses” including ongoing volume-handling issues; an inability to process enrollments automatically; security risks with respect to confidential information; a mistranslation of the website for non-English-speaking Americans; and most recently, the incorporation of the wrong year’s poverty statistics that provide the basis upon which subsidies are calculated. In the interim, quickly trained “assistants” were exposed for aiding and abetting the commission of fraud during the enrollment process to help enrollees secure better rates.

Meanwhile, conservative groups have run questionable ads, and House Republicans have monotonously tried to repeal the legislation with no hope of securing a favorable vote in the Senate or having any chance of securing the president’s signature in the unlikely event Majority Leader Reid allows anything to make it through Senate.

Why do Republicans continue to pursue this futile course?

When you don’t have a solution of your own to offer, sometimes it’s politically expedient to attack the opposing Party on an issue from which it will have difficulty hiding.

Clearly, with regard to the ACA, the Democratic Party has little cover. Not a single Republican voted for the bill, and the 34 Democrats in the House who crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans have all but been buried by the Party. Beyond that, no one can legitimately argue that the program has been rolled out intelligently or that it has been a resounding success.

So, what can the Democrats do?

Engage in a game of pretend: Try to distract the public’s attention with other issues; use marketing gimmicks to make the program appear to be functioning; and, find a way to exploit its vulnerability to raise money and support.

The Democratic Party is gifted in this regard. It has historically been successful at sleight-of-hand politics. Otherwise, its blatant failure to advance causes on behalf of minorities and the poor when it has had control of the Legislative and Executive branches of the Government (other than in the most superficial ways), is legendary.

Even the web-based structuring of the ACA’s delivery system serves as an example. If the Democratic Party believes voter identification initiatives are designed “to repress the minority vote” and are “disproportionately burdensome” for the poor, how does it expect these same individuals to have Internet access and computers to be able to enroll through Healthcare.gov? Is the ACA just another racist program? (Just kidding.)

Perhaps what the Party really needs is a videotape upon which to blame the spontaneous failure of the Healthcare.gov website.

As for marketing gimmicks: When was the last time you saw tens of millions of your tax dollars spent on advertising to convince the general public (or a few core demographics within it) that everyone should do the “happy dance” about a Government program? Shouldn’t the legislation speak for itself? Do we really need ads to convince us to enroll (particularly ones that inexplicably incorporate offensive stereotypes without any apparent blowback)?

Then, there is the endless stream of Party e-mails asking for $3 to $5 dollars or for volunteer efforts to make calls to convince people to enroll in “Obamacare.” We are expected to believe that many of these are personally sent to us by the president, his wife, and Vice President Biden. Are we really that stupid? (The question is rhetorical.)

So, when the initial numbers are released after the first enrollment period closes on March 31, what should we expect?

Primarily, expect to be misled. The numbers will neither be as poor as the Republicans will lead you to believe nor will they approach the fantasy-level of performance the Democrats will attach to them.

Then, demand that the numbers be broken down demographically. This is extremely important to understanding the level to which the program is performing.

Age distribution is critical. Any acceleration of Medicare enrollment merely drives our Nation deeper into debt, and keep in mind, unfunded liabilities like Medicare are not reflected in the $17 trillion debt that strikes fear in most American’s hearts.

Correspondingly, someone has to pay more into the system than others extract. Are you listening, Millennials? That would mean you! Healthcare requirements increase with age. If a disproportionate percentage of enrollees are older, healthcare costs will rise rather than fall. It’s called “math.”

Next, look at the racial and economic demographics. Are the categories of individuals you were told would derive a benefit from the ACA actually deriving a benefit from the ACA or is this just another example of bait-and-switch politics?

Finally, determine the voluntary versus involuntary level of paid enrollments. Some States are requiring prisoners to enroll in the ACA (or Medicare). Other individuals, who already had health insurance, lost their insurance because of the ACA and have been forced to enroll in the ACA or face the prospect of a fine and no coverage.

Coerced enrollments do not constitute voluntary enrollments and should not be counted toward the “success” of the program.

Political disease has weakened the affordable health care initiative, and the concept is staggering around and potentially infecting the rest of the economy. While many of the symptoms are obvious, the antidote cannot be discovered without a truthful examination of the facts.

Will the Parties put their selfish partisan bickering aside to allow us to ascertain the truth when it comes to the ACA? Will the President, who wrote his first autobiography before the age of 34 and his second just after turning 45, put his ego aside and provide a glimpse of the bipartisan leadership he promised so we can begin to heal the wounds inflicted by his landmark legislation? Only time will tell.

In the interim, here’s to your health!

__________

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 Digital News (CDN).

Read more

March Madness: #1 seeds go to the U.S. and Russia in Ukraine

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., March 17, 2014 – March Madness is in the air and spilling into international politics. Is Ukraine the site of the global Final Four, or is it just another early round battle of a few lower seeds that serve as sacrificial lambs for the two heavy favorites? Do you even remember how the countries made it into the “tournament”?

In case you have forgotten, the recent upheaval in Ukraine began when its duly elected President Yanukovych refused to sign a trade agreement with the European Union (EU) in favor of pursuing stronger ties with Russia. In effect, he issued an Executive Order with which his political opposition disagreed. Protests ensued; violence erupted; Yanukovych was forced from office; new elections were scheduled; and the world took sides.

Russia, as you might expect, sided with the ousted regime; claiming that the overthrow of President Yanukovych was an illegal coup d’état. Then, it launched a more subtle coup d’état of its own in trying to wrest the Crimean region of Ukraine. This ultimately led to a separate election in which Crimea’s heavy Russian ancestry voted to secede from Ukraine.

The United States and EU praised the first coup d’état as a democratic revolt. Then, they collectively denounced Russia’s coup d’état-lite initiative and the subsequent “democratic” election that transpired in Crimea as “illegal.”

Are you confused yet?

Apparently, the only consistency of global foreign policies is their maddening inconsistency. Here are the general principles:

  • A coup d’état is a bad thing that flies in the face of democracy … unless it promotes democracy.
  • A democratic election is a good thing … unless it doesn’t go your way; then, it’s a bad thing.
  • Major Powers do not want their sovereignty challenged, but they want the right to interfere in the socio-economic and political decisions of other nations that are somehow superficially deemed to be “less sovereign.”
  • Major Powers do not care about the socio-economic and political decisions of other nations … unless there is money to be made or prestige to be secured from their intervention.

Does this bother you?

Let’s do a little exercise. Let’s substitute the United States for Ukraine.

First, pretend our President unilaterally rejected a trade agreement via Executive Order (not that our President would ever use such a dictatorial power since we’re a Nation of Laws). Then, assume that there is a Party within our country that strongly disagrees with the President’s action and takes to the streets to protest.

Next, as occurred in Ukraine, assume that violence erupts between the protesters and the police (again, this is just theoretical since our country is immune to violence).

Should President Obama step down or be forced from office under such circumstances? Should he be driven into exile and new elections scheduled?

What if New York rejected the action because of its deep commitment to the President and his Party; a commitment that was nearly equivalent to an ancestral level of devotion? Should democracy apply or should the right to an election be denied?

Then, suppose an adjacent foreign country with ancestral ties and pronounced socio-economic and political interests (like Canada) began moving troops on shore ostensibly in support of the right of New Yorkers to pursue a democratic election to determine whether they chose to secede from the Union. To complicate the matter, assume that Canada already had a military base within the State of New York.

Finally: How would you feel if Russia and the EU announced sanctions against Canada? Would it make a difference if you happened to be Canadian?

Of course, this hypothetical could be flipped by substituting Russia for the United States, President Putin for President Obama, and Ukraine for Canada (perhaps wanting to annex the territories extending from Moscow to St. Petersburg for itself after overthrowing Putin).

Are your answers different depending on your nationalistic perspective? If so, is it possible that you may have been swayed by the carefully orchestrated propaganda that dominates the media these days?

If such international crises were addressed with the clarity and purity of purpose of the NCAA’s version of March Madness, would the world be better served?

Try to imagine a global reality in which all countries play by the same rules, the definitions of what is fair and just do not shift based upon imperial design, and the peoples’ best interests prevail over the political and monetary interests of a few.

Instead, we are subjected to a geo-political version of March Madness in which countries are allowed to interpret the rules in any way that favors their interests … and we wonder why justice seems to be so arbitrarily applied.

Only the Naismith Trophy and bragging rights are at risk in the basketball tournament that occupies our attention. Deplorably, lives are at stake in the game our world leaders prefer to play.

Perhaps we can get them to take a page from the NCAA and agree to a set of definitions and rules that apply uniformly. Maybe if we made it fun, they would comply.

What if we created a decision tree with respect to the Ukrainian crisis that only offered two choices for each step of each round of decisions that ultimately culminated in an equitable resolution? Then, our global leaders could “fill out their brackets,” and whoever won the “pool” would be awarded one of those nice shiny medals they so often bestow on their peers. It may not work in the long term, but at least it might provide enough time for the people of Ukraine to settle their own issues.

The alternative is for all sides to throw billions of dollars at the crisis, impose damaging sanctions, and threaten military actions that put us all at risk. Assuming it’s not illegal to take a vote, which approach do you favor?

__________

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 Digital News (CDN).

Read more

Let FREEDOM ring in the Ukraine… and the United States

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., March 10, 2014 – The Ukrainian crisis seems to have caught many Americans by surprise, which is surprising in itself… or perhaps just disappointing. Our Nation and its leaders seem to be captivated by the moment; living in a Twitter-like world that carries an attention span of 140 hours instead of 140 characters. While it is discouraging with respect to our citizens, it is totally unacceptable with regard to our Government.

Given the current economic fragility of most countries (ours included) as well as the political instability that often accompanies such occasions, you might expect our leaders to have anticipated potential crises such as the one in Ukraine. Sophisticated leadership would have orchestrated a thorough assessment of reasonably foreseeable issues and developed preventative strategies along with contingency plans in the event the preventative actions failed.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

The last two Administrations seem more inclined to apply an ad hoc approach to whatever surfaces. This is not to suggest that they haven’t tried to author the best solutions within their grasp when a difficult issue arose. However, they appear to have been preoccupied with the present without having dedicated sufficient resources to anticipate the future.

As a result, the Bush Administration entered into two wars without a clear exit strategy. When the original missions were accomplished, President Bush allowed our Nation to be drawn into a secondary exercise of “nation building;” an approach that may have worked at the end of previous wars, but one which was ill-suited to work within the context of the cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the Obama Administration has continued the theme, particularly with respect to Afghanistan, it has added to the saga by taking very short-sighted positions that appear to be driven by political expediency as opposed to forethought. Since many of the examples occurred more than 140 hours ago and have probably been forgotten, let’s do a quick review.

During the Arab Spring, many of our political leaders “stood in solidarity” with their “brothers” in Egypt, who were trying to establish somewhat of a democracy. When the Mubarak regime was clearly about to fall, President Obama called for him to step down. When Mubarak did, our President was deemed to be quite “presidential.”

It is interesting to note that the Egyptian uprising began on January 25, 2011, and the government toppled on February 11, 2011. The United States quickly called for new elections. However, before those elections were held, we offered Egypt and its then-unknown regime $3 billion in loan guarantees. We also promised a fairly massive number of tanks and fighter jets because nothing says “peace” and “stability” like tanks and fighter jets.

We were assured by the Administration that the Muslim Brotherhood could not possibly win the Egyptian election and that the group was relatively benign anyway. When the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrated more political capabilities than the Administration believed they had and began persecuting non-Muslim factions, we didn’t have a strong “Plan B.”

For those who object to any suggestion that political expediency ever entered into the equation, let’s keep in mind that Tunisia’s government had already been overthrown before the Egyptian unrest began and that Algeria, Jordan, and Oman were also experiencing similar revolts at the time. In fact, Yemen, Djibouti, Somalia, Sudan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Mauritania, Lebanon, and several other countries began experiencing revolutions within weeks of the end of the Egyptian revolution.

Do you recall the Administration’s concern over what was transpiring in those countries? In this case, it’s not a Twitter-like attention span that is impacting your memory.

Luckily, an ad hoc distraction arose in the form of Libya. On March 3, 2011, President Obama demanded that its ruler, Muammar al-Gaddafi, step down when his departure appeared to be as inevitable as Mubarak’s. Unfortunately, Gaddafi’s ego and mental instability exceeded expectations, and the Administration had to build a coalition (which would not have existed had it not been for the United States’ insistence) to provide the necessary military support that led to Gaddafi’s execution.

Using the same tactic on August 18, 2011, President Obama called for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down. That scenario still hasn’t “played out” as planned, but because it was more than 140 hours ago, no one seems to notice.

Interestingly, no one also seems to remember the President’s strong words with regard to Libya on March 28, 2011, when he said: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

As the war rages on in Syria and revolutions continue in a number of other countries, perhaps we are unaware that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands more may face the same fate… or maybe we have just forgotten.

If not political expediency, what is the explanation?

This brings us to Ukraine:

  • Why could we not have anticipated the revolution and its possible consequences?
  • Why do we appear not to have taken steps to dissuade Russia from taking advantage of the conflict?
  • Why do we seem to be reacting to Russia’s aggression rather than proactively deterring it?
  • Why does Russia seem to have a strategic response planned to counter our reactive steps?

You need not even be a student of international politics to have known that a Ukrainian revolution was probable. If you watched boxing on HBO, you should have known it was coming.

Vitali Klitschko, a leader of the opposition, also happens to be one of boxing’s legitimate Heavyweight World Champions (along with his brother Wladimir). HBO has often discussed his political involvement.

If you aren’t a sports fan, you may have caught Klitschko’s interview on 60 Minutes in 2004, when he alluded to his interest in running for office and pursuing change in Ukraine.

The point is: You apparently had a better opportunity to be aware of what was transpiring in Ukraine if you watched television than if you were a member of our State Department … and that’s a travesty.

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, I created an approach called the FREEDOM Process. Its premise was that our Government would better serve the People if it developed interrelated strategies in anticipation of opportunities and threats rather than continuing to respond to circumstances in a linear fashion as they arise.

“FREEDOM” is an acronym that stands for Foreign Policy, Resource Policy (i.e., Energy and the Environment), Economic Policy, Education Policy, Defense Policy, Operations Policy (i.e., those issues that go to the operating efficiency and effectiveness of Government), and Medical Policy (i.e., those issues that impact health and quality of life such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.). The concept is not only a guideline for our elected officials, but it also provides a methodology by which every citizen can better understand the problem/decision analysis that should support our Nation’s actions at home and abroad.

Not every policy needs to be impacted by every strategy, but each should be tested before a final strategy is embraced. For example: In the case of the Ukrainian revolution (which should have been anticipated), a cohesive blend of cogent Foreign, Resource, Economic, Defense, and Operational policies would have dramatically improved our ability to proactively influence the outcome.

A well-articulated Foreign Policy would define our thresholds for intervention. It would be strengthened by a coherent Resource Policy that would recognize the considerable effect of energy resources on both our Economic Policies as well as those of other countries (a critical element of the Russia/Ukraine conflict).

Correspondingly, our Defense Policy would be positioned to be supportive of the objectives of our Foreign, Resource, and Economic Policies, while our Operations Policy would streamline our ability to respond in the event that our proactive solutions failed to achieve their objectives.

This approach would accomplish two things:

  1. It would anticipate potential problems and either prevent them or allow our Nation to respond to them more effectively; and
  2. It would create a more consistent and defensible approach to our interaction with other countries.

The first element is obvious, but the second merits comment.

Our recent Administrations have interfered in the natural evolution of sovereign nations in an inconsistent manner. For example: We support the Ukrainian people’s right to decide whether they wish to continue under their established form of government or replace it with a new model, yet we claim that it is unconstitutional for a subset of the Ukrainian people who live in the Crimea region to make a similar choice.

Apparently, we support movements that establish democracies unless they are inconsistent with our political or economic interests. We give money to one ($1 billion in the case of Ukraine) to support its right to self-determine its government but tell the other (the Crimea region) it has no such right.

This shouldn’t really surprise anyone. After all, we don’t even support the concept of a democracy in our own Republic. As was discussed in this column during the past two weeks, we limit political choice and have skewed ballot access and other critical aspects of our system to ensure that the power resides within the two major Parties and, in turn, within the pockets of those who support them.

If you are comfortable with ad hoc leadership and a limited choice, there are many other countries in which you can reside to live under that model. I would prefer to see a return to FREEDOM in the one called the United States. Tweet that!

__________

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 Digital News (CDN).

Read more

3 Steps to Fix the Political System the Parties have Broken

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., March 3, 2014 – Our political system is dysfunctional if not completely broken. It has become so corrosive that many citizens have abandoned any hope of changing it for the better. Others are inclined to commit their blind allegiance to a particular Party; convinced that it occupies the moral and intellectual high ground while the other Party is comprised of only slightly-evolved Neanderthals. To paraphrase Eldridge Cleaver: Neither behavior represents part of the solution, but rather, both are part of the problem.

It is particularly important that we begin to address the issue today. 2014 is a mid-term election year. If we don’t begin to pay attention now, 2016 will be upon us before we know it, and the stakes will be even higher then.

Luckily, the solution is completely within our control. However, we must first understand what has created this political disease before we reveal how to cure it.

SYMPTOM #1: The 2014 campaign season will be launched with primary elections that the public will largely ignore.

Many citizens have been conditioned to believe that primary elections aren’t “real” elections and that they only need to vote in general elections. Now, think about the consequences of that belief.

If it describes you, you will have essentially entrusted your vote to those who are more zealous about politics. Then, realize that “more zealous” often translates into “more extreme.”

While the words “more extreme” may somewhat reflect the concerns you have about our current political environment, they are music to the ears of the Parties. If the Parties are only required to pander to their “more extreme” elements, it will actually be easier for them to position arguments, enflame emotions, and attract money and votes for their candidates during the primaries.

Keep in mind: The result of a primary directly limits the choices you have in the general election. You may be upset with the direction our Country is heading, but the Parties will only offer candidates who will perpetuate the status quo.

Have you ever heard the phrase “garbage in; garbage out”? That’s exactly why primaries are important.

If you only have the opportunity to choose between “the lesser of two evils,” you are really being presented with a Hobson’s choice from a Party perspective. If you lean Left, you have to vote for the Democrat in the general election because the Republican simply must be worse. Conversely, if you’re a Conservative, you have to vote for the Republican because the Democrat cannot possibly represent a better alternative. After all, that’s what the Parties have conditioned you to believe.

Notice there was no mention of an independent or Third Party candidate who might actually represent the best interests of the People rather than a Party. That’s because those types of candidates rarely make it through a primary. If those who call themselves “Independents” ever chose to “get off the sidelines” and cast their votes en masse in the primaries, we might begin to see the makings of a political revolution; one in which you would have a true choice between candidates in the general election rather than the controlled choice you have now.

SYMPTOM #2: The mid-term general election will be treated by many as only slightly more important than its primaries.

The revered television series All In The Family hammered home the message in a classic episode on October 30, 1971, when Archie Bunker said, “I save my vote for the biggies” (meaning he only voted in Presidential elections). Later, he found himself unable to vote because his registration had lapsed.

Given the embarrassingly low percentage of Americans who traditionally exercise their right to vote during mid-term cycles, both Parties must be replete with their own versions of Archie Bunker.

This particular symptom parallels the problem described with respect to primaries only with a greater impact. It means tens of millions of Americans are forsaking one of the most critical rights we possess: the right to freely participate in the final choice of political representation; a right that billions of other people around the world would do anything to possess.

Apparently, the conservative and progressive Archie Bunkers among us do not find mid-terms to be worth their time, or they have been led to believe that it is okay to assign their responsibility to the “majority.”

It is possible they missed the part of the Declaration of Independence that comes immediately after the listing of some of our unalienable rights; the one that states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Given the decline of our education system, perhaps the dual concept that addresses the purpose of our Government and the source from which it derives its power is too difficult to grasp. Maybe the first three words of the Constitution can provide a degree of clarification.

That document begins with the words “We the People” … not “We the Democrats” or “We the Republicans.” The Constitution is about us, and it focuses and limits the authority of the Government to serve us. It is not about maintaining and expanding its own power or the power of the Parties.

When you don’t vote, you virtually assure that the Parties will remain in power … and nothing will change.

SYMPTOM #3: “If you don’t vote for a Party candidate, you’ll be wasting your vote.”

How many times have you heard someone say, “If you don’t vote for a Party candidate, you’ll be wasting your vote”? Worse yet: How many times have you told someone that?

The more you’ve heard it (or said it), the more embedded it becomes as a belief. It’s called behavioral conditioning: Introducing a thought and reinforcing it until it becomes a belief that can alter your behavior.

The Parties have become masters at exploiting negative emotions like “fear.” They position the opposing candidate as nearly satanic. Then, they suggest that he or she must be stopped. Next, they try to dissuade you from to considering any alternative other than theirs because “you’ll be wasting your vote” … and you comply.

If it sounds sinister in a political sense, that’s because it is.

The two major Parties have worked diligently to create a political duopoly that inures to their benefit rather than to the benefit of the People. They have constructed an impressive array of hurdles to preclude competition.

The first is applied at the State and local levels. It deals with erecting barriers to ballot access that are significantly higher for independent and Third Party candidates than they are for Party candidates.

If that hurdle is cleared, the Parties throw money at the problem. They control a major portion of traditional media through ad buys and access, which is designed to suppress the visibility of any alternative candidate.

If such a candidate continues to gain traction, the Parties have to rely on their ace in the hole: The behavioral condition they’ve developed over decades that suggests that an independent or Third Party candidate “can’t win” and that you would be “wasting your vote” if you were to cast it for such a candidate.

Please note that there is no logic behind that assertion. If such a candidate got the majority of the votes, he or she most certainly would win. The statement is simply reiterated to shape your beliefs …and it is your beliefs that drive your behavior.

So, here is the question you should be asking yourself.

Which is the greater waste: To vote your conscience for the candidate whom you believe will do the best job for the People … or to effectively surrender your vote to a Party that has trained you to believe you have no other choice?

Think about that.

We are not compelled to favor sound bites over solutions or promises over performance. We are not required to elect those who comply with the will of their Party as opposed to those who would exercise independent judgment. We’ve just been conditioned to behave that way.

However, the fault does not reside with the Parties. It resides with us.

We have allowed them to convince us that, in the Land of Liberty, we don’t have the right to exercise free will. We have allowed them to instill the belief that we must choose between “the lesser of two evils.”

THE CURE

In reality, there are only three things that are required to “cure the disease.”

First:  Each of us needs to commit to exercise our right to vote rather than delegating that responsibility to others.

Second:  Each of us needs to recognize that our right to vote carries with it a civic responsibility: The responsibility to become informed.

Third:  We need to find the courage to cast such an informed vote.

2014 is another election year. Please make a commitment to vote. Then, honor your responsibility to become informed. Finally, when you enter the voting booth on November 4th, demonstrate the courage to vote for the candidates whom you believe represent the best interests of the People … rather than just the best interests of a Party.

If we all followed these three simple steps, we might be pleasantly surprised on November 5th and once again begin to see real political progress in our great Nation. The choice is yours. Don’t waste it.

__________

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 Digital News (CDN).

Read more

Will we survive the real Cold War?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., February 24, 2014 –  With the recent Olympics in Sochi, Russia, many of us are reminded of the Cold War: A political, ideological, and economic struggle for supremacy between two superpowers. Oh … not the one between the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and the United States; the one that’s still raging between the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The other Cold War began in 1947 at the end of World War II and concluded on December 26, 1991, when the USSR was disbanded. That pales in comparison with the “D and R” Cold War, which has been going strong since 1854 when the Republican Party was founded principally by the anti-slavery faction of the Whig Party to offset the pro-slavery circle of Southern Democrats and their Northern Democrat allies.

Much like that other Cold War, both Parties believe they occupy the intellectual and moral high ground on every issue. However, nothing could be further from the truth. One cannot solve our Nation’s problems by viewing them through a politically biased filter. Yet, that is exactly what our current Party paradigm requires.

Both Parties try to define our problems in a way that is most flattering to their respective ideologies and most emotionally enticing to the categories into which they have carved our Nation’s population. It’s rich against poor, Wall Street against Main Street, men against women, gays against straights, Blacks against Whites against Hispanics, etc. The more they can divide us, the more they can control us. Never mind that they can’t clearly articulate what the fundamental issues are that are eroding our quality of life.

Even if they could define a problem, it’s almost beyond comprehension that either of the Parties would be able to identify the actual root cause. That would expose them to accepting a degree of culpability. Witness the recent Government shutdown. Both sides claimed the other caused it while ignoring the fact that either could have prevented it.

Then, when it comes to an assessment of viable alternatives, neither side likes to concede that the other Party may have an answer. Each tends to only explore solutions that fit its agenda; disregarding the possibility that the other may have something worthy of consideration. As a result, we are rewarded with decisions that reflect the best interests of the Parties as opposed to the best interests of the People.

Is there any wonder why our Government has become so dysfunctional?

Luckily, there is a solution. Find common ground.

Impossible you say? Your side is right and the other is wrong. That’s how we got to where we are.

There actually is a relatively simple solution. Every elected official takes an Oath of Office.

The President states, “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Correspondingly, every Member of the House and Senate, states, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Both Oaths require those who take them to “faithfully” perform the responsibilities associated with their respective offices as opposed to bowing to the will of their political Parties.

Both Oaths also require a commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. The original document is only four pages long, and it has only been amended 27 times. Surely, every one of our elected officials can come to understand what’s in it and how it narrowly delimits their roles.

If our elected officials took their Oaths of Office seriously, neither their political affiliation nor their personal opinions would ever interfere with their obligation to serve the People. Their Oaths of Office only require faithful service and adherence to the Constitution and its associated Amendments.

While the Constitution may be subject to interpretation, there are certain elements that are relatively straightforward.

The Preamble doesn’t begin with the words “We the Democrats” or “We the Republicans.” It begins with the words “We the People,” and it does so for a reason. It also doesn’t split “the People” into categories or a caste system. That practice was invented by the Parties to divide our Nation rather than unite it because it’s easier to solicit donations and votes through negative emotion rather than rational thought (i.e., “Contribute to our campaign and vote for us because the other side is against you”).

The Constitution provides another big hint by creating a separation of power in its first three Articles.

It leads with the Legislative Branch in Article I because the House and Senate provide the closest link to the will of the People and the States. The House was elected by popular vote and Senators were originally appointed by their States.

It wasn’t until the Seventeenth Amendment was passed in 1913 that States’ interests were effectively neutered to solve an ill-defined problem in the wrong way. The change was made to prevent money from unduly influencing the appointment of Senators.

Today, the House and Senate are nearly mere images of one another in the way their members are chosen. In other words, money is used to create an undue influence with respect to who wins each auction election.

Many of our issues would be resolved if Congress were to look to Article I for guidance with respect to its responsibilities and associated authority. Article I, Section 8 in particular suggests that Congress’s power is limited to those issues that “provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.” There is no provision for crafting legislation that is designed to favor particular constituencies upon which the Parties rely for donations and votes.

If our Representatives and Senators simply honored their Oaths, we would not be stuck in the political quagmire that describes our current political environment. Correspondingly, if the President were to look to Article II for guidance, we might have a smoother running Government.

No mention is made of circumventing the Legislative Branch in that Article. Instead, the President is to exercise civilian power over the Military, preside over the administration of legislative directives through his or her Cabinet, oversee foreign affairs, and make certain appointments (predominately with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate). Include a few Presidential pardons, and you have a fairly good understanding of what the President’s responsibilities are under the Constitution.

Even our non-elected Justices take an Oath that parallels the other two: “I, (Name), do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (judicial position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Article III provides for the establishment of an autonomous Judicial Branch as the final check and balance with respect to power. The Judicial Branch would function far more effectively if Presidents proposed appointees on a basis of merit rather than political predisposition and if the Senate approved or disapproved such appointees upon the same grounds.

Accordingly, the Judicial Branch would better serve the interests of the People if its votes on controversial issues were construed within the context of the Constitution as opposed to being influenced by the opinions and political beliefs of the Justices themselves. Like Article II, Article III never anticipated any legislation being delivered by any authority outside of Article I.

Finally, Article V provides a rigorous standard through which we can amend the Constitution. It is not an impossible standard given that it has been met 27 times. However, we have become lax in its application.

It has become far easier to blur the distinctions between the legislative power of Congress, and the powers that reside within the Executive and Judicial Branches of our Government. Sadly, that fact has become a weapon of mass destruction utilized by both Parties in their never-ending Cold War.

I can only hope that someday, we hold them all accountable to honor their Oaths. It may be our only defense against the annihilation of our Republic. What do you think?

__________

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 Digital News (CDN).

Read more

GEORGE WASHINGTON: America’s last non-partisan President

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., February 17, 2014 – While many Americans wonder where the apostrophe goes in President’s Day, the official title of the holiday is George Washington’s Birthday. What better way to celebrate the occasion than to interview George Washington?

How would he view the United States today? What advice might he offer?

[The following is an interpretation of how such an interview might go, almost exclusively using his actual words (which are italicized for clarity).]

TJ: President Washington, it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to interview you.

George Washington: The pleasure is mine, and please call me George. The Presidency is neither a position to which I aspired nor a capacity in which I currently serve.

“I had rather be at Mount Vernon with a friend or two about me than to be attended at the seat of government by the officers of state and the representatives of every power in Europe.”

TJ: I’m already beginning to detect a significant difference between you and political leaders of more recent vintage, who expect their former titles to be acknowledged for life.

George Washington: “Remember that it is the actions, and not the commission, that make(s) the officer, and that there is more expected from him, than the title.”

TJ: So, you believe that even the President is simply a civil servant of the People.

George Washington: [He smiles and nods affirmatively] “America…has ever had, and I trust she ever will have, my honest exertions to promote her interest. I cannot hope that my services have been the best, but my heart tells me they have been the best that I could render.”

“I have diligently sought the public welfare; and have endeavored to inculcate the same principles in all that are under me. These reflections will be a cordial to my mind as long as I am able to distinguish between Good & Evil.”

TJ: That’s very admirable. However, as with any elected official, your positions must have been challenged at times.

George Washington: “It is with pleasure I receive reproof, when reproof is due, because no person can be readier to accuse me, than I am to acknowledge an error, when I am guilty of one; nor more desirous of atoning for a crime, when I am sensible of having committed it.”

Then again, “I shall not be deprived … of a comfort in the worst event, if I retain a consciousness of having acted to the best of my judgment.”

TJ: That’s interesting. Today, it‘s more common to deny knowledge of duplicitous behavior than it is to take responsibility for it.

George Washington: I have always found that “Example, whether it be good or bad, has a powerful influence.” Perhaps the People will learn a valuable lesson from those who fail them.

Additionally, I led during a time that demanded responsibility. “To form a new government requires infinite care and unbounded attention; for if the foundation is badly laid, the superstructure must be bad.”

Besides, “A people contending for life and liberty are seldom disposed to look with a favorable eye upon either men or measures whose passions, interests or consequences will clash with those inestimable objects.”

TJ: Our dominant political Parties do not seem to place a premium on setting the bar high in that regard.

George Washington: “I was no Party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if Parties did exist, to reconcile them.”

TJ: The Parties exhibit no interest in reconciliation. In fact, they are more inclined to foster a divisive environment.

George Washington: “(While Parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely…to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the People and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

TJ: That is precisely the challenge we face today.

George Washington: “Differences in political opinions are as unavoidable as, to a certain point, they may perhaps be necessary; but it is (regrettable) that subjects cannot be discussed with temper on the one hand, or decisions submitted to without having the motives, which led to them, improperly implicated on the other; and this regret borders on chagrin when we find that men of abilities, zealous patriots, having the same general objects in view, and the same upright intentions to prosecute them, will not exercise more charity in deciding on the opinions and actions of one another.”

TJ: Exactly! We would be far better served if our elected officials would agree to discuss issues in a civil manner rather than choosing to denigrate one another.

George Washington: As I have often said, “The most certain way to make a man your enemy is to tell him you esteem him such.” Is there any doubt as to why you cannot achieve bipartisan accord?

“… Party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it…But such…is the turbulence of human passions in Party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.”

“I am sure the mass of citizens in these United States mean well, and I firmly believe they will always act well whenever they can obtain a right understanding of matters; but…where…great pains are taken to inculcate a belief that their rights are assailed and their liberties endangered, it is not easy to accomplish this; especially, as is the case invariably, when the inventors and abettors of pernicious measures use infinite more industry in disseminating the poison than the well-disposed part of the community to furnish the antidote.”

TJ: Your comment about “victory more than truth” being the goal is one of our harsh realities, and the “poison” of which you speak is driven by money in today’s political environment. As a result, the Parties strive to polarize the populace.

George Washington: “When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly.”

TJ: Well said, sir.

Our major Parties also have a predilection for negative campaigning. Do you have an opinion in that regard?

George Washington: “Serious misfortunes, originating in misrepresentation, frequently flow and spread before they can be dissipated by truth…To speak evil of any one, unless there is unequivocal proof of their deserving it, is an injury for which there is no adequate reparation.”

TJ: Beyond the Party paradigm that is testing our Republic, we also face some pragmatic challenges with the economy being at the top of that list. What advice can you give us in that regard?

George Washington: “As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear.”

TJ: We haven’t been particularly good when it comes to avoiding the accumulation of debt. Conversely, we have been embarrassingly proficient at laying such debt at the feet of our posterity. What would you suggest to reverse these trends?

George Washington: Follow this principle, “To contract new debts is not the way to pay old ones.”

TJ: That seems simple enough.

We also seem challenged to host a functional Legislative Branch while maintaining its separation from the Executive Branch. How do you feel about that struggle?

George Washington: “The power under the Constitution will always be in the People. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and, whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be recalled.”

TJ: We have developed a habit of re-electing rather than recalling our representatives despite such circumstances.

George Washington: Then, the fault is your own.

TJ: I can’t argue that point, but how should we be applying the Constitution?

George Washington: “Let the reins of Government…be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.”

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be…wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

TJ: How do you feel about the use of Executive Orders to override or modify legislation?

George Washington: “Laws or ordinances unobserved, or partially attended to, had better never have been made.”

“It is important…that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”

TJ: Those are interesting observations. While they may be obvious to you, we no longer teach Civics in our public schools, so such concepts may appear to be foreign to many of our citizens. What importance do you place on understanding how our Government works and what responsibilities we each bear?

George Washington: Allow me to put it this way: “In a Republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important, and what duty more pressing on its Legislature, than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the Country?”

TJ: Your point is well taken.

In the limited time we have left, are there any other thoughts you would like to share?

George Washington: Many of your current problems seem to stem from the truism that “Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.” Identify men and women who have that virtue and elect them as your representatives

“I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is the best policy,” and I believe that “Truth will ultimately prevail where there (are) pains taken to bring it to light.”

With truth comes knowledge, and “Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.”

Also, beware of those who use fear to solicit money and support. You will discover that “Good company will always be found much less expensive than bad.” More importantly, “Associate with men of good quality, if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.”

And remember, “The best way to preserve the confidence of the People durably is to promote their true interests.”

TJ:  You have an extraordinary grasp of leadership. We could use a leader like you. Would you ever consider serving as President again?

George Washington: No.

My friends and I left you with a Republic with the caveat Benjamin expressed: “If you can keep it.”

“I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.” You must continue to earn the right to enjoy the Republic.

As another friend of mine with your initials once said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.”

I was this great Nation’s only independent President. Perhaps you should revisit that concept.

TJ: The thought has occurred to me.

One more thing …

George Washington: What’s that?

TJ: Happy Birthday, sir.

George Washington: Thank you. Just don’t ask me to blow out all the candles on the cake.

__________

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 Digital News (CDN).

Read more

MR. PRESIDENT: Use your pen and phone for election reform

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., February 10, 2014 – Our election process is broken. In truth: We no longer hold elections; we conduct auctions. We have tragically allowed the Parties to craft the best Government that money can buy.

Meanwhile, President Obama recently proclaimed, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.” Having already demonstrated that he’s not afraid to issue Executive Orders at a pace that exceeds that of his often-maligned predecessor, we should take him at his word.

Then, rather than debating whether the President is granting himself the same license he once so fervently criticized (i.e., “These last few years we’ve seen an unacceptable abuse of power at home. We’ve paid a heavy price for having a President whose priority is expanding his own power,” then-Senator Obama said in 2007), perhaps we can take advantage of it.

While the cash squandered on the 2014 mid-terms will pale in comparison to the profligate spending that awaits us in 2016, this might provide the perfect opportunity to call upon the President to use his “pen and phone” in a manner that would actually benefit the People.

Logic supports the request as well. After all, President Obama is arguing that he is compelled to take action in the absence of a truly functional Legislative Branch. Why not take steps that could successfully restore Congress to a higher level of performance? That would certainly be consistent with “providing Americans the kind of help they need.”

Besides, prior to President Obama’s 2008 election, the most money ever raised and spent on a Presidential election by two candidates was $717.9 million (Bush and Kerry in 2004). Senator Obama topped that total figure by himself in 2008 by spending approximately $745 million only to dwarf that number in 2012 when he spent approximately $1 billion to get re-elected to a position that pays $400 thousand per year. He clearly should understand the problem.

According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, the Democratic and Republican Parties are estimated to have spent about $6 billion dollars in the collective “auctions” in which their candidates participated in 2012. This trend has created an economic barrier to the entrance of Third Party and independent candidates who might actually bring solutions to the table rather than sound bites.

Instead, it assures that the same non-functional officials will be re-elected to office. Consider that with an approval rating in the low teens, 90 percent of House members and 91 percent of Senators running for re-election were returned to office in 2012. Public office should not be for sale, nor should it go to the highest bidder, but in today’s world, that happens more often than not.

A “freshening” of President Reagan’s 1987 speech in Berlin seems appropriate:

“We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and open elections go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Parties can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. President Obama, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the United States, if you seek liberalization, pick up your pen and your phone. Mr. Obama, open our elections. Mr. Obama, tear down this wall!”

Mr. President: What an inspirational act it would be if you were to use your expanded powers not to favor your own agenda but to return integrity to our political system. Try to imagine how positively our society and economy would respond to an Executive Order that eliminated the obstacles that have been placed in the way of our Nation’s elections. Mr. President, tear down that wall!

According to the website of the Federal Election Commission, from 1907 until 1966, efforts were made to limit the influence of wealthy special interests, regulate campaign spending, and deter abuses through public disclosure of campaign finances. In 1971, Congress consolidated its reform efforts by enacting the Federal Election Campaign Act to control Federal candidates, Parties, and PACs. Then, in response to alleged abuses during the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress established the Federal Election Commission, which went into effect in 1975.

Somewhere between then and now, we lost our way.

The FEC is supposed to function as an independent regulatory agency (i.e., not tied to the Cabinet). Its six Commissioners are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. The law had the foresight to limit each position to a single six-year term and to preclude any one Party from having more than three Commissioners at any one time.

Unfortunately, rather than exploring the possibility of having independent or Third Party Commissioners, you and your predecessors have defaulted to having three Democrats and three Republicans serve concurrently. As a result, the rules remain radically skewed toward retaining the status quo.

So, Mr. President: How about picking up that pen and phone of yours? Help bring about “Change We Can Believe In” to the election process at least in terms of campaign finance reform … because “We Can’t Wait!”

Perhaps you could begin by shuffling the deck of the FEC’s Commissioners. We know how the game ends if the deck remains stacked. Why not allow us to see what would happen if the Parties didn’t control the rules at the Federal level?

We might see a dramatic reduction in the campaign contribution limits as a result. Correspondingly, this could have a variety of constructive impacts.

It could lead to a more level playing field in which positive ideas would play a more significant role than the number of negative ads a candidate might run. It could also bring an end to those embarrassing $40,000-a-plate dinners that demonstrate a complete insensitivity toward the plight of the poor.

If you need some math to convince you, one $40,000-a-plate dinner represents approximately four-times the annual income of an individual who qualifies as impoverished under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ 2014 guidelines.

Would a little more math help?

The $2 billion that Mitt Romney and you cumulatively spent on your 2012 campaigns would have fed, clothed, and housed nearly 21,000 indigent families of four for the entire four-year term for which you were competing (or nearly 336,000 poverty-stricken Americans if you only wanted to cover all of their expenses for just one year). Just triple those numbers if you want to determine the impact the campaign committees and Super PACs of both Parties could have had if they had the courage to participate in elections rather than auctions.

While you’re at it, please call for an end to “bundling.” This might have the collateral benefit of forcing future Administrations to make senior staff and Ambassadorship appointments on a basis of merit instead of as a repayment for a political debt.

During your two terms, approximately 80 percent of senior White House appointments and 50 percent of Ambassadorships have gone to people who bundled $500,000 or more for your campaign. How much better might Washington function if we tried to attract our best and brightest talent to serve our interests rather than simply rewarding those who solicited massive sums of money for their Party?

If there’s any ink left in your pen, you may want to create a regulation that recognizes that only citizens can vote; therefore, only citizens should be able to contribute to political campaigns. This would eliminate the charade of allowing corporations, unions, and PACs to pretend to accurately represent the interests of their constituents. Besides, each citizen already has a voice in the form of a vote as well as the free will to individually contribute to a campaign should he or she choose. Additional representation by some other organization is not required.

Of course, unless we begin to make Supreme Court appointments based upon judicial merit rather than partisan tendencies, we can no longer rely on the Court to make intelligent decisions. The Justices may confuse a legal entity with a real person … or deem a penalty to be a tax. However, that is an entirely separate issue.

It might also be interesting to only allow citizens to contribute directly to the campaigns of specific candidates rather than to a Party for distribution at its discretion. Then, candidates would have to stand on their own merits rather than being propped up by funding they receive from their Party.  Citizens could still contribute to the Party of their choice, but the Parties could only use such funds to support their positions on the issues.

This would also eliminate the money laundering that goes on during the campaigns to circumvent contribution limitations (i.e., the splitting of donations between a particular candidate and his or her Party only to have the Party redirect the funds back to the benefit of the candidate). All you have to do is declare that each campaign committee must remain autonomous of every other campaign committee.

Correspondingly, this would preclude one elected official’s campaign committee from donating to the campaign committee of another elected official. You wouldn’t believe how often the recipient coincidently takes a position on a bill that’s favorable to the donor.

If you could make one more phone call, please make it to the Justice Department. Tell the Attorney General that, to preserve the Republic, it is necessary to concurrently protect the right to vote and to hold valid elections. All eligible citizens must retain the privilege to cast a vote. Please note: “Eligible” is the operative word.

As a commission co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter (D) and former Secretary of State James Baker, III (R) concluded in 2005, we must find a way to fairly require voter identification that does not penalize any class of citizens. Defaulting to the claim of “racism” in today’s technologically advanced age should be an embarrassment to your Administration, and it merely perpetuates the racial divide. Third-world countries do a better job of attracting voters to their polls and verifying eligibility than ours does. That has to stop.

There are many more things that can be done to restore faith and trust in our political process, but your hand must be cramped from writing and your cell phone may be running out of battery. So, let’s just start with these.

Every President of the United States is either remembered or forgotten historically. Those who are forgotten suffer that fate for having failed to significantly impact our Nation’s history. Those who are remembered earned their reputations in either a positive or negative way.

If you wish to mitigate the negative impression that exercising unilateral action can otherwise leave, then use such authority to do something positive for the Country; something that is not tied to the political agenda of a particular Party but rather is only focused upon the best interests of the People. You may rest assured: Election reform would create a more lasting legacy than healthcare reform … and the roll-out would be far easier.

Thank you for listening, Mr. President.

__________

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 Digital News (CDN).

Read more

A discussion about the world today…with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., January 20, 2014 – As we celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it seems appropriate to consider what guidance he might have for us today. The following is an interpretation of how such an interview might go, almost exclusively using words from his most famous quotes (which are italicized for clarity).

TJ: Dr. King, it is a pleasure to speak with you.

Dr. King: The pleasure is mine. Please, call me Martin.

TJ: Thank you, sir. You have had a profound effect on our Nation. While most Americans associate you with your civil rights efforts, many do not recognize your passion for the causes of education, peace, and life in general. You also have been quite astute in your observation of politics.

May we touch upon those subjects?

Dr. King: Most certainly.

TJ: Let’s start with the civil rights issues you championed. Because of your efforts and the eloquent “dream” you shared with our Nation, we have made significant strides in the area of civil rights. Yet, we still have miles to go on that journey. What do you think we need to do in that regard?

Dr. King: I would redirect our attention to the dreams you mentioned.

“I have a dream that one day this Nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal’ … that (we) will one day live in a Nation where (we) will not be judged by the color of (our) skin but by the content of (our) character”

“With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our Nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free …”

TJ: During the 1960s, we experienced riots while trying to make progress toward those dreams. Do you see that as a necessary evil?

Dr. King: “A riot is the language of the unheard.”

“The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win, and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.”

Conversely, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.”

“We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.”

“I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality… I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.”

TJ: If truth and unconditional love are the keys, how should the law play a role?

Dr. King: I believe “A right delayed is a right denied” … and that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Therefore “Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and when they fail in this purpose, they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”

“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”

In some circumstances, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law.”

Correspondingly, there is a need to resolve our issues through intelligent understanding and civil discourse. “The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace, and brotherhood.”

Once again, “At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love.”

TJ: You continually reference “love.” Would you expound upon that?

Dr. King: “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.”

TJ: How do we educate people to begin to understand the importance of suppressing anger?

Dr. King: “The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.”

I fear that “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”

“We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

TJ: Beyond the significance of your last statement with respect to civil rights, it would also seem to apply to the conflicts we see throughout the world. What is your perspective in that regard?

Dr. King: “The past is prophetic in that it asserts loudly that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.”

“Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies – or else? The chain reaction of evil – hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars – must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.”

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”

“We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the positive affirmation of peace.” This is because “Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.”

“It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.”

TJ: Will our politicians ever recognize that fact?

Dr. King: (After a wry smile …) In the world of politics, “Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.” “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

Personally, “I am not interested in power for power’s sake, but I’m interested in power that is moral, that is right and that is good.” Unfortunately, the same may not be said for many of our politicians.

“Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.”

“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.” However, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

“A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.”

TJ: Do you believe our current hyper-partisan divide is adding to the problem?

Dr. King: Do you remember “That old law about ‘an eye for an eye’ leaves everybody blind(?) The time is always right to do the right thing.”

We should “Never succumb to the temptation of bitterness.” The “Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.”

“We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.”

“If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values – that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control.”

“Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.” Our political Parties must do the same.

TJ: But the Parties work hard to shape the beliefs of their followers to attract money and votes.

Dr. King: That may be true, but “A lie cannot live,” and ultimately, “Seeing is not always believing.”

“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

TJ: That may be easier said than done. Politicians are hesitant to stand up to their Parties.

Dr. King: Yes, but “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy” … and “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”

“History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”

“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” This is as true for our politicians as it is for the rest of us.

Remember, “The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict” … and “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.”

TJ: How do you maintain hope?

Dr. King: “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.”

“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable… Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”

“An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.” I truly believe that “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

“Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better,” and so it shall remain.

TJ: What advice would you offer to help us through these challenging times?

Dr. King: “All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.”

“We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear.”

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”

We must remember that “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.”

“We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.”

“The art of acceptance is the art of making someone who has just done you a small favor wish that he might have done you a greater one.”

And in the end, “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”

TJ: Is there hope for an idealist like me?

Dr. King: (Broadly smiling …) Of course, TJ. “Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted,” which seems to describe you well.

TJ: Any final thoughts?

Dr. King: “There is nothing more tragic than to find an individual bogged down in the length of life, devoid of breadth” … for “The quality, not the longevity, of one’s life is what is important.”

TJ: Thank you, Dr. King.

Dr. King: Please … call me Martin.

__________

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 Digital News (CDN).

Read more

THE LEADERSHIP CONUNDRUM: Are we being led by followers?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., January 13, 2014 – Our Nation is being crippled by its inability to distinguish between titles and leadership. In the public and private sectors, we bow to titles such as President, Vice President, Senator, Representative, Governor, Chairperson, CEO, Director, etc. Yet, titles do not ensure that the individuals who bear them have the ability to lead. After all, they are only titles.

As a result, our Government and many of our major businesses often mimic powerful ships with broken rudders. The title of Captain, even when bestowed upon someone who likes to stand at the helm, may be meaningless when it comes to turning the ship.

The Business Dictionary offers a reasonably good definition of “leadership” It defines it to be:

“The activity of leading a group of people or an organization or the ability to do this. Leadership involves: 

  1. establishing a clear vision,
  2. sharing that vision with others so that they will follow willingly,
  3. providing the information, knowledge, and methods to realize that vision, and
  4. coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members and stakeholders.”

Think about the elected officials and corporate executives you know.

  • Do they establish a clear vision, or do they offer only muddled concepts and theoretical generalizations?
  • Do they share their vision in a way that encourages others to willingly follow, or do they try to force their vision upon those who may disagree?
  • Do they provide the information, knowledge, and methods that are necessary to realize their vision, or do they use their authority to compel its acceptance?
  • Do they coordinate and balance the conflicting interests of all members and stakeholders, or do they blame others and use their “power of office” to overcome objections and competing interests?

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy: They may be a leader in title only if the latter is more descriptive of their behavior than the former.

The Business Dictionary goes on to state: “A leader steps up in times of crisis, and is able to think and act creatively in difficult situations.”

Notice that leaders “step up in times of crisis.” They do not create crises nor exploit them for political or personal gain.

How many elected officials can you name who have started or extended conflicts, damaged our economy and masked social issues with programs that pandered to their constituencies, made appointments and decisions to repay political debts, and/or otherwise exploited their offices to create a political advantage?

Just out of curiosity: How many Democrats are only thinking about Republican examples, and how many Republicans are only thinking about Democrats at this point? Take a moment to reflect upon how that phenomenon contributes to the problem.

Correspondingly, how many senior executives can you name who have blamed their predecessors for their companies’ challenges, reorganized their businesses to disguise issues rather than solve them, acquired more successful niche companies only to replace the acquired companies’ management teams with their own less successful ones, and/or hired or made promotions based more upon relationships rather than performance?

“Too many” might be the most prevalent answer.

As the Business Dictionary also states, leadership requires the ability “to think and act creatively in difficult situations.” Consider what we typically see in the world of politics and in certain private-sector scenarios.

In the public sector, the Parties attract followers rather than leaders; individuals with narcissistic tendencies, who are so desperate to “win” that they are willing to surrender their ability to lead independently in return for the millions of dollars it now takes to compete for public office. Rather than “think or act creatively in difficult situations,” they are expected to conform to their Party’s platform.

Image consultants shape the appearance of our candidates and tell them how to dress. Political strategists parse poll data to determine the positions that will be taken, while professional writers craft the talking points that will be repeated and the speeches that will be read.

Production managers even orchestrate the “human wallpaper” that will appear behind our politicians during their orations; blending races, ethnicities, sexes, and any other visual characteristics into the background that might add credibility to the empty words that will be recited.

The only thing that will be missing is authenticity. We will never know the breadth and depth of our political “leaders,” who they are, or how they think.

The Parties will lead us to believe that, in a country of more than 310 million people, only two individuals are qualified to hold office. Then, each will spend millions of dollars on advertising gimmicks designed to extol the virtues of their candidate while denigrating the capabilities of the opposition. In the end, a relatively uninformed electorate will cast its votes to determine who qualifies as the lesser of two evils.

The 2014 mid-terms are only likely to reinforce this pattern.

Real leadership isn’t even at issue during most election cycles. The promises that are made to win are often meant to be broken. Until the Parties and their puppets are made to pay a price, political history will continue to repeat itself.

In the real world, circumstances give rise to leadership. Those who “step up in times of crisis” to resolve “difficult situations” are true leaders regardless of whether they have been given a title that suggests it. If you doubt the truth of this statement, how many past Presidents of the United States can you actually name and discuss with any degree of specificity? Forty-four individuals have held that title, but how many exhibited the behavior that distinguished them as leaders?

Similarly, in the private sector, the Boards of publicly-traded companies are frequently stacked with “name” members; individuals who are well-known or who bear a perception of skill through the titles they hold (or have held).

Does this guarantee that these Board members will be effective? No. Does it mean that the “corporate fraternity” that sometimes leads to incestuous profiteering might be preserved?  Yes.

Many of these Boards have adopted the same mistake that has sky-rocketed the cost of professional sports. They believe they are competing for talent, so they hire “proven” executives at ever-increasing levels of compensation (for fear of losing them to the competition).

Many of these executives come from very successful companies. That is why they are in “high demand.” It also may explain why many of them struggle when confronted with “difficult situations” since they may never have experienced them. The Bill Gates and Steven Jobs of the world had to “think or act creatively in difficult situations” at one point in time. Many “successful” executives have never faced such a “trial by fire.”

Conversely, other executives may have demonstrated the ability to deliver spectacular short-term results in “difficult situations” but moved on to other organizations before the long-term consequences of their actions could be measured.

Cutting costs to enhance profitability is easy in the short term: Eliminate labor. After all, Wall Street apparently adores mass firings.

Unfortunately, the real measurement of leadership skill lies within one’s ability to create long-term value. Strangely enough, that skill contributes to job growth and economic expansion in a way that many of our elected officials can only pretend to understand.

Correspondingly, over the last few decades, our Nation has experienced an undeniable and unsustainable increase in income disparity. President Obama even underscored the problem in a recent speech; although he chose not to emphasize how dramatically it has worsened under his Administration.

What if we were to apply the principles of leadership to “think (and) act creatively in (this) difficult situation”?

Rather than naively trusting clueless politicians to “redistribute the wealth” through ill-conceived programs, taxation, and regulation, let’s apply free market rules in a novel way. Let’s teach shareholders that they actually own the corporations in which they have invested and have the ability to control the Boards that approve the exorbitant compensation packages we discussed earlier.

What if they organized and demanded that Boards stop escalating executive salaries out of fear? What if they charged Boards with the responsibility to identify emerging talent; individuals who have demonstrated true leadership skills through their innovative vision and ability to create long-term value (often without significant resources)?

The Boards just might discover the next generation of thought leaders like Gates and Jobs at a far lower price point than they have been paying to recruit “big name” executives (many of whom fail).

If the Board members fail to do this, we can vote them out, just as we do with our ineffective politicians. Okay. That’s a bad example.

Seriously though, the capital savings (i.e., trading a $50 million dollar compensation package for a $5 million one) could be redeployed within the companies to grow jobs, enhance productivity, or pay dividends that could be reintroduced into the economy … all those things our Government has failed to achieve in the last 50 years since its “War on Poverty” began.

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 have lost sight of that truism.

Instead, Wall Street has become driven by numbers without realizing that the numbers are driven by people. Similarly, our elections have become auctions, which have given us the best Government that money can buy.

How long will it take before we fix our public and private sector rudders and find the next wave of leaders who can steer our ships? If we don’t change course soon, we may ultimately find ourselves lost at sea.

__________

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 Digital News (CDN).

Read more

If I Threaten You, Will You Donate Money to Me?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., January 10, 2014 – If the title seems absurd, just pretend I’m a political Party. I am often amused by the fundraising tactics of the two major Parties. I am also bitterly disappointed that so many Americans continue to fall prey to them.

The Parties have established a rich tradition of stooping to new lows to extract money from the hyper-partisan elements of their respective bases. Of course, they occasionally try to sell hats and t-shirts to raise money. They also like to play upon our need to feel connected with our Presidents by invoking us to “sign a birthday card” to the President or former President (or one of their next-of-kin) or by suggesting that “the President wants to have dinner” with us. However, there’s always a monetary solicitation attached at the end.

The Parties also like to beg for money when “the FEC-mandated end-of-month (or quarter) deadline is coming up.” They apparently hope we won’t recognize that there isn’t anything particularly compelling about the deadline; it just ends one reporting period before the next one begins. Yet, we’re led to believe that a cataclysmic disaster is about to befall the Party if our check doesn’t clear in time.

However, the most distasteful tactic is when the Parties choose to flagrantly exaggerate or misrepresent facts to conform to their chosen narrative. The rhetoric is predictably disgusting and disingenuous.

The DNC’s “War Room,” along with Organizing for Action (OFA) and MoveOn, have trotted out the following within the last few months.[1] Some represent timer-honored phrases; others are new and particularly appalling. Each is designed to strike a nerve.

  1. Tax breaks for the rich…
  2. Leave millions of Americans uninsured…
  3. Disgraceful attack on thousands of patriots by a coward…
  4. Launched an all-out assault on our right to vote…
  5. (From) Trump’s Muslim ban to his deportation raids to health care repeal…
  6. Brutal deportations are tearing apart families…
  7. This…is the latest Republican attack on working families…
  8. Trump has refused to use the term white supremacist or to condemn white supremacist violence…
  9. It’s become clear that Donald Trump has allowed white supremacists and Nazis to find a home in the Republican Party…
  10. Trump must fire the white supremacists who work for him…

For its part, the RNC hammered on phrases that are designed to elevate conservative angst.[2]

  • This is our chance to fire liberal Senators running in ten states the President won…
  • Democrats are doing everything in their power to obstruct our AMERICA FIRST agenda…
  • The Fake News Media has done everything in its power to distort our actions, criticize our every move, and even stoop so low as to deceive voters…
  • Liberals in the Senate have made it their sole mission to OBSTRUCT the Silent Majority…
  • Let’s remind every single Senator the American VOTERS want this beautiful, impenetrable wall constructed…
  • Together, we’re DRAINING THE SWAMP and getting things done in Washington, even though liberals are trying to obstruct us at every turn…
  • We need to keep fighting the liberal obstructionists who want to see the people FAIL…
  • Our historic election was a referendum on the coastal elites who think they know how to run our lives better than we do…
  • The media hates people like you and me…

While the RNC’s tone might seem slightly less aggressive, the Parties’ roles have simply shifted due to the change in Administrations.

During the Obama years, the RNC attributed “all things evil” to the President and his Administration. Every misstep or alleged scandal brought calls for a special prosecutor. According to the RNC, the man needed to be impeached for nearly every action he took. Almost without question, many Republicans would have readily applied the words “Not my President” to Barack Obama had they been clever enough to coin the phrase.

Correspondingly, the DNC’s mantra during those years was one of condemning “Republican obstruction.” After all, those nasty Republicans were on record as saying their original goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term President; something today’s Democrats would never say about President Trump (try not to laugh). Evidently, there is a political distinction between the words “obstruction” and “resistance” even when they are used in a synonymous manner.

Today, Republicans envision themselves as the maligned and oppressed Party that’s trying to do what’s right for America, which is exactly how Democrats viewed themselves for the past eight years. Each Party in power pretends that it would easily solve our Nation’s problems if it weren’t for the obstruction/resistance of the other Party.

What would happen if we no longer accepted the swapping of words and tactics when a change in Administration occurs? What would happen if we chose to ignore the Parties’ feigned outrage? What would happen if we saw their fearmongering for what it is; an attempt to manipulate our behavior?

More importantly, what would happen if we simply refused to fund them?

Perhaps, they would have more time to honor the responsibilities with which they’ve been entrusted. We might even learn what a representative form of government can accomplish when it focuses on delivering solutions that are in the public’s best interests rather than those of a political Party.

Let me know what you think… and please send money. If I’m not overwhelmingly rich by the end of this month, life as we know it will cease to exist and I may be compelled to call people names and hatefully smear those whose opinions differ from mine.

[1] All excerpts are taken from recent solicitation emails from the DNC or its affiliates.

[2] All excerpts are taken from recent solicitation emails from the RNC (with capitalization as it originally appeared).

__________

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