Thoughts.com Blogs - Voting ths Election?

View Blog

Voting ths Election?

THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN HISTORY
Temperance and the Psychology of thoughtful Choice

William J. O’Mara PhD, Organizational Psychologist and Ethician
The Center for Ethical Global Enlightenment

November 4, 2008; a date that will live in history. The most important election on record is before us. What are we to assess to be informed deciders at this incredible time of change, war, fear and economic crisis? Two sides are battling it out for our vote: An African-American candidate for president, the first ever in our history, with his white, male, Catholic, long term Senator running mate from Delaware, and their Democratic Party philosophies. A popular senior statesman, war hero, and long term Arizona Senator and his running mate, the Governor of Alaska (our most environmentally rich state), the first Republican woman running for higher office, and their Republican Party affiliations. This is a very exciting, unprecedented, and extremely challenging time for each of these four candidates. While being incredible because of their diversity, it has brought up issues of fear, bigotry, and upset on a level never before seen in US history. What a wild ride we are seeing…. the emotional issues are flying. What a call for calm thoughtfulness.

In this article I will look at considerations in the decision making process and encourage a deep look into our psyche, history, hearts, minds, and future to assist each of us in deciding what is best this election season, with so many political complexities confronting us. Note: I am a registered Independent. I like both Obama and McCain very much, as men and as leaders. I will strive to be balanced in my sharing, so that, while I have a view, my intent is to help the reader see new perspectives.

Before I get to the key issues, let me make a preliminary point about the process of electing and running government. I wonder about our two party system. Why are there only two key people running for the highest post in the land and why are the two always tied to the two main political parties? Are we missing something? This to me is a big red flag in our political process. Our two party system is flawed, and I want to talk about why, for it is a critical consideration to all that I will discuss….

The “2” party system creates, as any professor of group dynamics could tell you, what is known as the in-group and out-group dilemma, where cohesion to extreme points of view often germinate and wars often bubble as the groups polarize and fight to gain their way. Unless there is temperance, wisdom, and compromise in the groups’ leaders, group think takes over, polarization escalates, smearing ‘the other guys’ blossoms and nothing gets done. This we have seen for several decades in Congress and in the election process. I believe there was positive intent with our forefathers in creating a two party system (checks & balances, election simplicity, etc.), if it was even done consciously (I am not a government history scholar). However, in today’s world, our country would be better served by having more political parties or, better yet, no political parties where everyone is independent. In my opinion, this would break the stalemate and diminish the intense negativity and hatred currently seen between groups. I know this idea is difficult and would necessitate huge changes.

The best example of this is McCain himself who is a Republican but really votes his own way according to his conscience, and often fights Republicanism and has even upset his own party. Hence, the ‘Maverick’ label, which is a wonderful place for a leader to be… following his own truth. Yet, now that he is running for President, the pressure is on from his party, and his inconsistencies with the Republican “base” on economic and social policy, for which he is their nominee, has lead to what commentators call erratic behavior. I believe it is just tension between his own true views and those of the ‘party’ with which he may not always agree. McCain appears to me to be more truly an Independent, and if he ran as one we would see a completely different and more confident McCain. The Republicans, short of a true conservative leader, picked a man who is not truly aligned with them. It shows and it hurts. Obama too, but to a lesser degree, would be better served as an Independent, so he would not have to follow the ‘party’. Generally, he has shown to be more aligned with democratic principles and votes more along party lines. There is no way to know if and where he would differ if there was no party affiliation.

Removing the “2” parties has great merit, an issue that Ralph Nader has been making for years. Such should be explored so that candidates can be free to vote their conscience and help facilitate a more positive working relationship between leaders in government before, during, and after elections. Wouldn’t it be incredibly positive for our nation and the world to not have any more group dynamics issues destroying our nation: name calling, stalemates, fighting, and filibusters between Republicans and Democrats? I pray that we find a way to bring it about.

What matters, though, is what you think…. Do you, the voter, think we would be better served without political parties? How is the two party system skewing the presentation of the candidates, the truth of who they are, putting pressure on them, reducing an important opposing view of a 3rd or 4th candidate, as well as the already noted shenanigans of in-group/out-group battling?

With this all this group party politics tug of war in mind (which none of us can really do much about right now but keep our eyes open, not allowing ‘party’ to overly sway us), lets get down to the nuts and bolts of the key issues in deciding. In my profession, as an Organizational Psychologist and Ethics Professional, I am often called upon to be an impartial mediator where it is essential for me to see both sides of a story. There are always varying perspectives on any issue and this is good. What can be disconcerting is that I rarely see others in our Democracy able to see both sides and break out of their own particular mindset and open up to new knowledge essential to sustaining our collective way as a nation(a common criticism of the current President Bush). We are so often the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and think of others who are different as wrong. I encourage us to open to an all-sides way of considering. The driving force that serves me, and I believe all positive democratic thinking in this regard is thus, “No matter how thin you slice it (an issue), there are always at least two sides”. This is true of even most ‘facts’ and ‘statistics’ that I have seen; they are malleable to the cause one is speaking to, seldom useful without a specific context and source in which to compare someone else’s equal but different statistics on the same issue. There are always at least two intelligent positions on everything and generally really good proof (read: facts) to support both. The key to being a wise participant in governing, in my estimation, is working with all sides well. Can we hear them all without judging and then sit with the sides until we are clear which is inclusively best for us and the nation as a whole? Otherwise, we are not thinking. We are unconscious. We want our way and to kill the other guy. That’s not good.

I want to suggest that we all be suspicious of anyone using the word “fact” to persuade you to their ‘side’. Mainly, when a debater says “fact”, in my experience, he means opinion, but wants it sound more solid than that. Take that into consideration when you hear an argument, and feel, assess, research, and ponder what is really true and who/what makes the most sense beyond the emotion backed by supposed ‘facts’ (read: opinion). If stating a fact, the debater should say the context of the fact and their source, to have even a first level of credibility (that it has backing and can be open to scrutiny). Otherwise, it’s opinion and that’s ok, as long as opinion is called opinion and not fact.

CNN and the various news channels now have ‘fact’ checkers after each debate to show us just how many times each candidate has stretched the truth. It’s astounding that in the last debate, they found that each candidate had ‘stretched’ a number of facts regarding each others record. Each accused the other of voting or not voting for something that they themselves had also voted or not voted for, but without giving full disclosure of the context of the votes. In some cases the so-called facts that they were stating were blatantly false. Equally fascinating is this: journalists were recently asking Gov. Palin about the legislature in Alaska finding her guilty of ethics violations, and she repeatedly responded by saying, “I thank the legislature for absolving me of all ethics violations”. She was, as the investigative report stated, found guilty of violating Alaska state ethics laws! Additionally, Obama, in his own method of denial or hiding, supposedly did not fully disclose all information on the Bill Ayers issue, thus keeping McCain harping him about it. However, the luxury of being ahead in the polls doesn’t require him to need to address it so urgently, therefore making McCain look a bit silly to keep after him. It’s crazy out there!

The second level of credibility is met when ‘facts’ can be verified with most reasonably known data/reality while acknowledging that, what ever your point, it is not the only way. Hence, debate and finding middle ground is good; it is the only way to come across as intelligent, reasonable, and responsive to the whole. Obama, I might ad, appears to come across more responsive and flexible in this way than McCain. So we must have some healthy skepticism of any and all with regard to what we hear. We must be weary of accepting a polarized position, a smile and a good feel, or a fear tactic. We must go deeper. We must even be fervent to hear a point of view openly that we had previously dismissed. Remember, it was once a ‘fact’ that the world was flat, the earth was the center of the solar system, women were property and had no rights, smoking was good for you, etc. Be thoughtful, dig deep. The idea that facts are not always facts, or that facts change, or that even that with the facts there are other points of view, is essential for critical thinking. This is especially true when emotion is flamed: ancient hatred for blacks, elderly, women, or religious groups can enter the picture and skew our thinking. Are we deciding or deferring to fear or past ways? There are always many sides. In this imperfect world, find out what maters most to you and which of the candidates will best deliver what you want in the spirit of serving the whole.

Taking some time to reflect is crucial at this time. Looking at our family, past, and how we think can be part of this pursuit to personal truth. As I have done mine recently, I see my past family tree of thinking, so to speak, and how it has skewed me to think in certain ways: My father’s father came from Ireland to America during the Ireland’s Potato Famine, and as Catholics in a new world, they endured many hardships while trying to find a way of life. They found a way to get ahead and developed a personal and world view in alignment with their own growth. My mother’s father came to America from Ecuador and told everyone that he was Italian to avoid discrimination. He was frightened in the new land of strangers and worked a low paying job to just get by, as almost all immigrants had to. This makes one ask, in a country of immigrants, minorities from other lands, who is the majority? Is there a majority? Who was my grandfather so scared of? We are all from somewhere else (with the exception of the natives who walked this land before us) and our journeys have shaped us all in different ways. Consider the journey of African Americans, especially. Think of the melting pot we are across all the 50 states: all kinds of views, religions, colors, and ethnic heritages, etc. My grandparents and parents all were influenced by the forces of our history and the times of the first half of the 1900s.

I grew up in the later part of 1900s in a somewhat affluent suburb of NYC. My parents, both from very humble beginnings, mom from a very poor background, were both die-hard Republicans, which always perplexed me for I understood that it was the other party who generally advertised themselves as the ones to aid the less fortunate. I went to college in New Orleans and lived in various parts of Louisiana, North Carolina, and California. I was privileged through work to travel to many places across the globe, being subject to many ways of life and many opinions. Yet, no matter what wonderful and diverse experiences I have had, more so then either of my parents, I still don’t know what I don’t know. Meaning, I don’t know what its like to work a farm in Iowa, or be a single Mom in Alabama, or an Asian immigrant far from home in Northern California, or a young black man seeking to find his path in Chicago, or to be a senior citizen. Hence, like all voters, I am a product of my past, what I was subjected to and what I wasn’t… Biases, prejudices, intolerances, and just not knowing (not having walked in others’ shoes).

Now with all that is before us (the election and more), I have started to question this past and its power over my decisions, and have asked those around me to do the same…. Can we stretch and hear new perspectives, can we think?! For example, I recently asked my mother, why has she always voted for one party her whole life. Every four years she will do her country honor by voting for our President and each time for the same party without exploration as to why she was doing so. I was especially curious since her parents were poor immigrants, a populace which mostly votes Democratic. My mom has voted Republican for over 50 years without variation to candidate, issue, or presentation. I find this kind of consistency remarkable. When asked, she told me that the reason she did was because her husband, my father, voted that way. I said, “Wow, really?” Is this how it works, we follow the tribe? I have asked others and have often gotten a similar response. Possibly thousands or millions of others may vote the way that they do because their dad did or their social group does, etc. Whether it is an unconscious tendency to vote Democratic or Republican or any other way, I say we need to awaken from the cloud and think. I suggest that we all may need to start considering what we truly value and have the courage to break free of any reins that may bind or blind us from what we really believe and want in our own hearts. When my mother speaks deeply about what she cares about most (helping people, fairness, immigration compassion, economic support, women’s rights, etc), her values are almost entirely aligned with the other party, not the one for whom she has voted her entire life and often quietly questions. A little education shocked her to this pattern in her choices. For the first time in her life she may vote her conscience and values rather than her past. Now if she votes for McCain, Obama, or some other, no matter. That’s her choice and I love her either way. The point is, how brave it is to think! And if we continue to vote as we have, at least we could argue, after some reflection, that it was thoughtful. Maybe we all can encourage such courage of reflection.

This is something that I believe our fore-fathers knew well when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We knew early on that we must honor not only our diversity, but debate to find thoughtfulness. Education, learning, and listening are vital. This is the essence of freedom, which took people from King George and a form of dictatorial fascism telling them how to think. One great American once said that a thoughtful electorate is what makes us Americans, but are we a thoughtful electorate? This kind of truly democratic government based on freedom to think, choose, and vote wisely is still so rare in this world that I’m not sure that all people in the U.S. fully appreciate the amazing gift it is to actually choose. In spite of special interests, lobbyists, polarization from the two parties, and obvious corruption, we do much more right than wrong. The only place we can ultimately go wrong is to go unconscious, to do what we’ve always done, or to not think, challenge, and progress.

Choosing well requires diving deep within one’s self to understand what you truly value and would die for on the one hand, and then paradoxically to be just as passionate and flexible enough to work and live successfully with others who may think very differently than you do.

Thinking and working with others of differing perspectives is revealed as a wild concept when actually put into practice. Balance and Temperance are the key tools to making it work, without which great tragedy can occur. Recall the French Revolution, or better, the Russian Revolution, where a people in mass were so poor and so angry (while their leaders were so rich and well off), so polarized, not listened to, and not supported with temperance that they collectively assassinated the Czar’s family, including women & children, in cold blood.

Luckily, we in America have had some degree of temperance in our history, and most people have experienced a fair government and a wonderful standard of living compared to the rest of the world. Yet, as of late, over the past decade, it’s becoming rare to see temperance in America, and this should concern us. Temperance is a noble path; it takes deep thoughtfulness. Isn’t it strange that now, in 2008, still so much intolerance and rage exists toward others? People, even in my own family, are screaming out all sorts of epithets of hate: nigger this, jew that, kill this one, screw that one… as if there is war with these people who are our neighbors. So insane, so ignorant.

Our country is a hodgepodge of immigrants and religious refugees from every part of the world. America is a true evolutionary experiment in diversity: A rainbow republic. No one is better than anyone else. We all matter and we all must be considered or the whole collapses. Read the constitution if you think there is one color, religion or group more superior, or if those who think differently should be persecuted. Or, read Jared Diamond’s book, “Collapse” referring to why great empires of the past have faltered, if you think hatred and division is the way. We are one, needing to ask, “How can we work together to preserve our freedom to think, vote, earn, live?” Such freedoms are not guaranteed, they are earned.

The past can die hard, but maybe it is time to learn to be thoughtful. Will you join me in encouraging all in your circle to be deeply thoughtful? This is the most important election in History.

Let me now go through what I know of as the main issues on most peoples’ minds through the lens of Thoughtfulness (things to consider deeply) and Temperance, a term once coined by Ben Franklin to illustrate exactly that of which we speak when we work with others of a divergent view: consideration, restraint, fairness and balance with complex issues so as many people as possible are served, not just one individual or group… This is what creates democracy versus monopoly. My intent is to offer perspective to consider, albeit mine, one man’s. Find as many perspectives as you can and think!

The Economy:

In a way, this is actually the easiest of the issues to grapple with, and the one leading most voters to move to the left during the current economic crisis. When times are tough, Democrats generally create programs to be fiscally sound, help the middle class, create jobs etc. FDR and Bill Clinton are examples of leaders who brought forth such democratic principles. I would suggest that after 8 years of the Bush Presidency, with his low approval rating and the crisis in the markets, it will be nearly impossible for a candidate from his party to be elected. Change now is seen by many Americans as “give the other guys a chance”. It is the every 8 year or so swing, swinging most drastically when times are bad.

Moreover, the Republicans’ traditional economic focus on hands-off governing, non-regulation, big business knows best, free market philosophy, while appealing to some seeking to protect/preserve their wealth, is neither intelligent, supportive, nor helpful to the overall populace that a thoughtful person would consider. Considering temperance, it makes absolutely no sense to vote a Republican politician to be president, when their party line, in effect, is to do nothing economically when people need support (except possibly give tax breaks to the top 1%), under the guise that the ‘market’ and the CEOs of big companies can self regulate and keep our society’s best interests in mind. That’s a swamp land sales pitch. Isn’t the function of government to support? If not, why have government at all if what we need it to do (defense, economic support, public works, etc) all magically worked perfectly by itself?

President Bush, a conservative Republican, has exacerbated the challenge during these last 8 years that many people are beginning to have with Republicanism as a whole. He is leaving office having created much bigger government, enacting huge government bailouts of private financial institutions, and having created the largest debt and deficits in history, after President Clinton, “a wretched tax and spend Democrat” left a balanced budget, and left not a deficit but a surplus! This point, I think, should not be underemphasized. Yes, there has been a costly war over the past 6 years which can change many things, but even still, you can’t necessarily believe the often spoken Republican chants that they will reduce government and government spending or that government can’t be trusted. More people are beginning to believe, as noted by Obama’s current lead in the polls, that Republicans can’t be trusted.

I like the campaign line, “government can’t be trusted”. This is an interesting point, for aren’t McCain and the Republicans seeking to lead this very organization called government? So, if my Aristotelian logic is correct, they are saying “put me in charge of something you should not trust.” Does that make any sense? Wouldn’t that make them un-trustworthy, too?

Another perspective in this regard is the U.S. Military. Our men and women in uniform have done us proud for hundreds of years, a point that Republicans often espouse with pride and with good reason. My dad and many of my family members have served us well. Yet, aren’t the branches of the military government agencies?

So, is government good or bad, can it work or can it not? Or, is it only good in some instances? It is worth investigating and studying where and how it can work well, as the concept of government support, regulation, and universal health care (a concept that every other respectable Democratic nation in the world has found a way to do) are before us. Is the government really so bad? Or can it be good?

Bottom Line: I, for one, can not in good conscious vote for anyone whose party line is, in essence, telling me that they will do nothing to regulate markets (free market) or support citizens for the money that we pay to them in the form of taxes. The nonsensical non-thoughtful Republican economic positions to this Independent voter will be the down fall of McCain and possibly the entire Republican movement unless temperance is found within the party.

Voting: Which of the candidates aligns and will act to support your view of a fair and prosperous economy?

The rest below have taken a bit of a back seat recently but are still incredibly important….

Abortion:

Abortion may be the most challenging issue of our generation with which to find collective peace. Like with most ethical, moral issues, there are intelligent, passionate people on both sides of the debate and the ‘answer’ (because we live in a large pluralistic society) needs to come from temperance, considering all people as best we can. I salute all who have grappled deeply with this, not only from a personal or religious point of view, like former Mayor Giuliani, a Catholic, who is pro-choice against his religious views in his view to serve the many, or many women, whose bodies men are so fond of debating about without knowing what its like to be pregnant, who are pro-life. And also from the perspective that democracy requires that we consider the whole. Finding that temperance place requires hard work by many serious people to serve the highest good of all, not just the majority or some.

As I see it, neither extreme view holds water on this or any of the intense issues upcoming. Anyone holding ‘extreme’ views, while having the freedom to do so, loses power in the overall debate. They come across selfish, arrogant, unyielding, and uncaring to the whole. For example: No thoughtful person, even under the backing of their religion (especially considering that we are a country of multiple divergent religions and our constitution mandates religious freedom) could successfully argue that abortion be completely banned (Extreme View 1), for it is never as easy as saying it is always wrong. We went through an abortion ban before, and, for those who remember, the suffering was by far worse for women and children. This can be compared to the thought that ‘Prohibition’ in the 1920s would stop people from drinking. It didn’t. It was worse. Absolutes are never easy. Like, “thou shall not kill”. While noble and true, if brought the absolute, could cause all 300 million Americans to show up on at the White House demanding now that all wars involving the USA end immediately. And we are involved with many. Also consider euthanasia, capital punishment, animal slaughter, and many acceptable variants of ‘killing’ existing all around us. If we really believed ‘thou shall not kill’, would we be morally outraged until the government yielded and never allowed killing ever. How many murders does the average teenager watch on TV each year? Thousands. Yes, ‘thou shall not kill’ is true and beautiful. However, clearly there are times when we accept it for some reason (war), almost flippantly in some cases, and in others we are outraged (abortion). Time to be deeply thoughtful…

The common qualifiers for acceptance of abortion often include rape, incest, poverty, disease. Etc. These factors make it reasonable to any thoughtful person to suggest that there are instances where one could see abortion as just a termination of pregnancy, especially when done early in the pregnancy and as compassionately as possible, to actually serve a higher moral good. What makes it difficult is who decides. The argument of creating a higher moral good is not easy. Mercy slaying of a famous horse at Belmont Park who just broke her leg after a huge national race is an example of killing for higher moral good. Capital Punishment is another example, where we legally kill a person for his or her crime of killing a person(s). Yet, there is a long precedent in America that temperance can and does happen, when we are deeply thoughtful and together agree to accept some degree of sacrifice as long as we believe (society generally believes) it serves some degree of higher moral good (war, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc.)

Unlike malicious 1st degree murder which is seeking to inflict harm, abortion is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, seeking to reduce harm, while acknowledging, of course, that there is a sacrifice. This understanding is absolutely essential to any debate on this topic. This issue relates to a woman's body where she must have a personal choice to thoughtfully consider all that is involved in a way that serves her, her family, and the child as first priority, and while the needs of society/religion/others are vitally important, they must, in the view of the thoughtful person considering all, not be forced upon her. Rowe vs. Wade and the trimester guidelines for abortion support this and would appear to be the temperance compromise that, while not perfect, serves the greater good. If you disagree, you must have a proposal that is truly better for all considered (in most cases) in a democratic society. That’s why it’s tough. Is there one that is truly better than the other? Note that leaning on the side of women’s / individual’s rights consistent with considering the unborn child’s rights, is particularly important to offset our long history in America (and abroad) of abusing women and their rights. The films, ‘The Duchess’ and ‘Norma Rae’ are two of many examples of the abuse of women’s rights.

On the other hand, no one is suggesting that institutions should be built where 24 hours per day we can murder any fetus or child that is unwanted (Extreme View 2). No Pro-Choice person would ever suggest such; that would be insane. There needs to be thoughtfulness. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice must find a way to live together.

A reasonable position is one that does all that we can to minimize abortion as an “easy out” solution to every unwanted pregnancy (creating irresponsible sex), but also allows women to choose what is best under the many qualifiers, particularly if it is done with compassion in the first trimester. Again, no one’s external view or religion should be forced upon her. That would be abuse to women to justify a group’s extreme position. Is that right? This being said, the data for the number of abortions in the U.S.A. is staggering and needs to be addressed with love, compassion, education, and whatever means are necessary to reduce abortion while retaining a temperance position of honoring the woman and her child.

Bottom Line: There are reasonable opposites/exceptions to every ethical position in the world that I have ever seen. Intelligent, thoughtful people and temperance leaders must account for this whenever coming up with law to serve the whole. Think: Is the death of any of the 4000+ US soldiers in Iraq, a morally questionable war, the same moral equivalent of a mother who is aborting a 5 week term fetus because to continue the pregnancy will harm her? What are reasonable exceptions for many of our desired moral absolutes? Where it does make sense to compromise for the greater good?

Voting: Which of the candidates aligns and will act to support your view of a fair, all inclusive view on the abortion issue?

Most of what I want to say on the rest of the key issues is addressed in general in the abortion discussion: the ideas of thoughtfulness and higher good, Temperance. So I will try to keep the rest short.

The War in Iraq

As for war, the thoughtful person would be against war, for killing is wrong by most moral standards, unless it is clearly in the highest good (ie: fighting genocide, self defense). Once we get in a war for the right moral reasons (to defend and protect) there is international law that we should follow to keep the moral high ground, working with allies and the U.N. to quickly come to resolution, always seeking to minimize loss of life. As for Iraq, we should start the process of giving security responsibilities of Iraq back to the Iraqi government while maintaining some degree of social and military assistance in congruence with the judgment of our ground force & political leaders. Consider this: we started an unjust war with no ‘factual’ support of Iraq’s involvement in 911 and ‘preemptively’ attacked a nation for the first time in our history that did not attack us, an ally or threaten a 3rd party. This is a moral scar on our nation’s soul. We were mad and scared and wanted revenge. Still, there is no justification for what we did. We did not use temperance. We can’t remove every dictator we don’t like in the world. I believe that we owe the Iraqi people our support. We must leave them better off, done as thoughtfully as possible, while returning the majority of troops home and sending the best and rested to the remaining fronts elsewhere, to finish the job.

We should give our military focus entirely on finding Bin Laden and his team, if that was the focus of the ‘War on Terror’ to begin with, and fight the terrorists in Afghanistan and wherever else needed. We must also escalate diplomacy world wide in the many conflict hot spots. We should help where we can, stay close to allies, support each other in our global community, keep the moral high ground, be strong as well as compassionate, and rebuild the reputation of U.S.A. as beacon of light for all to see. When our reputation sinks, our national security is imperiled. I also agree that we should create a Department of Peace and use the best technology the world has to offer: prayer, communication, wealth development, tolerance, and education for peace worldwide. We spend 80% of the U.S. federal budget on defense, but how much on peace? Maybe we should adjust the numbers a bit if we want peace. Where the attention goes, the energy flows.

Immigration

As a child in the 60s and 70s, during the cold war, I never understood why, if a prominent Soviet/Russian dancer wanted to defect to the US, we all applauded, and said sure, come on over, we want you! Then years later, when I lived in San Diego, seeing the weekly border patrol chases and shootings, I wondered, why is it so different now? Why can’t a Mexican defect to the same open arms? Are Russians welcomed, but not certain ethnicities like Mexicans? I don’t understand. Yes, new policies are needed (or clarification and following those we already have) as to how foreigners are to enter our country, become citizens, and how many we can actually handle taking in each year. California, as with all Border States, is overwhelmed with the influx of non-citizens and the cost to the state governments is beyond prohibitive, even with the new ‘cheaper’ labor and new consumers buying argument. Additionally, with so many people finding a way in, how many might be a threat to national security (i.e. terrorists)? Tough border patrol is needed, including some kind of 'fine' and resident process for those already here illegally. A lot of work is needed here. Our next President must have the wherewithal to get us there.

Universal Health Care

Simply put, all evolved democracies have universal health care and we should too. We can’t go on as it is. It’s a moral imperative that we not let our people continue to suffer. We need to find a way. If we can have the U.S. Marines, arguably one of the finest organizations in the world (and government!), why can't we find a government way to run and oversee a successful universal health care system?

Energy Independence

The next president must create a 10 year plan to lead us to energy independence, for jobs, wealth preservation, and definitely for national security. Nothing short of this will be acceptable. Who do you really trust to do this? Vote for him!

Gun Control

Did you think our forefathers would have added a few word to the 2nd amendment(* See Appendix) if they know about Uzis and automatic handguns that could shoot up a whole school and leave a dozen young kids dead in 3 minutes? One shot muskets could only do so much harm back in the 1780s. For our NRA brothers, of course have a gun, rifle, etc. …. just how far do you take it with the technology so advanced? When does a gun actually become a WMD (a small scale weapon of mass destruction) and is clearly unsafe for someone to have or a national security issue. I certainly don’t want some person down the street from me ‘legally’ stock piling an arsenal of automatic weapons greater than our city SWAT team. We need to use temperance to create policy to control, reduce, make illegal, license more thoroughly any one getting an automatic weapon that is really a small scale WMD, so that an angry unloved teenager with a bad day can’t take his WMD out and kill a lot of school kids coming off the school bus in a very short period of time. Ok?

Foreign Policy

Let’s make friends again! People like a friendly America that does the right thing and helps others as well as watches out for its own. The past years of isolationism, intolerance, protectionism, and the ‘us against them’ mentality has hurt us badly. Who do you really trust to do this? Vote for him!

Regulation

Use temperance and common sense. We have 3 branches of government to create, make, and interpret laws to protect us. Can we use some common sense here to protect our markets, economy, environment, labor, trade, etc.? I know that my Republican friends always worry about too much regulation. I do as well. However, is too little regulation better? We have to find a better way. See the Hudson River clean up for a success story.

Jobs, Education

We need to create a job investment program nationwide, supported by creating the finest in progressive education programs in the world. If a country out educates us, they will out compete us. If we don’t create incentive to create and keep jobs here, they will go to the lowest bidder in some 3rd world country who pays .50 cent an hour. Where is the market fairness? How can we survive and thrive with no jobs? We cannot.

Bottom Line: Is there any other way? Think it through….. for you and for the whole.

Voting: Which of the candidates aligns and will act to support your view making as many of these happen for you as possible?

Thoughtfulness, Temperance…
Take your time, be brave. Just a few days to go... Happy voting.

God Bless,

Bill O’Mara

About the Author: Bill O’Mara, Ph.D., has been a pioneer in the think deeply and ethically movement for many years and is considered one of America’s most gifted leadership teachers. He is founder of Enlightened Leadership Way – a Centre for Leadership Studies; and is a senior consultant of executive development/leadership training for a major hospitality company. Dr. O’Mara has an advanced degree in Organizational Psychology as well as certifications in Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Holistic Health, and is a qualified Reiki Master. His first book, The Godspell Solution, is considered a modern day philosophical classic. His last book, The Path of the Enlightened Leader, is a breakthrough in the genre of ethical effectiveness in business. He has led workshops, retreats, and gatherings all over the USA for the past 22 years. He is an award-winning corporate speaker, athlete, coach, martial artist and ethician is available for select speaking engagements and consultations. billomara@earthlink.net

The Amendments Note
The following are the Amendments to the Constitution. The first ten Amendments collectively are commonly known as the Bill of Rights. History
________________________________________
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
________________________________________
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
________________________________________
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
________________________________________
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
________________________________________
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
________________________________________
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
________________________________________
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
________________________________________
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
________________________________________
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
________________________________________
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
________________________________________
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
________________________________________
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The Electoral College
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
________________________________________
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
________________________________________
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
________________________________________
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
________________________________________
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
________________________________________
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
________________________________________
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished. Ratified 1/16/1919. Repealed by Amendment 21, 12/5/1933. History
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
________________________________________
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
________________________________________
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933. History
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
________________________________________
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933. History
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
________________________________________
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
________________________________________
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia. Ratified 3/29/1961. History
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
________________________________________
Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred. Ratified 1/23/1964. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
________________________________________
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967. Note History
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
________________________________________
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
________________________________________
Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Ratified 5/7/1992. History