Of Gun Violence and the Cloudy Future of the Second Amendment Right?

Keywords or Terms: Tragedy of Gun Violence; US Congress; Vice President Joe Biden; President Barack Obama; Second Amendment Right; Charleston, South Carolina; Primitivism of the conquered; Unwholesome failure of civic sense; Sandy Hook Elementary; Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church; and, Old Wide West

Second Amendment Right in America and the ever so repeated gun violence in the public space, remind us today, again, of carnage in South Carolina, Connecticut, Colorado, Wisconsin, Arizona, Virgina and endless other States and places, where blood of the innocent have been shed for no reason. From Charleston, South Carolina; New Town, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; Oak Creek, Wisconsin; Tucson, Arizona, Blacksburg, Virginia; to many other places that I’ll rather just not mention, before I quit writing and start to cry; before I begin to question the essence of government and politics if they cannot attend to the repeated wounds of a nation; before I start to wonder where are the elders in United State Congress?

We’ve come this place before zillion number of times, and every time, we’ve promised to tackle this problem once and for all. I remember after Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, how Vice President Joe Biden put his integrity on the line and went to the floors of US Congress to see if he could get legislators to come around to doing something about the repeated mayhem. I remember President Obama forwarding specific plan to protect children and communities against gun violence, yet the cry for legislative action in US Congress has gone unheard. Sometimes in life you have to stomach your privileges and rights, so other humans can live. Life is precious; it has no duplicate, once gone, forever, gone! This is why I blame all of us for the deaths yesterday night at, of all places, a Church; a place of worship; the only place I’ve been known to fall asleep, apart from my bed, even during thunderous and moving sermons. My wife will gladly attest to that!

Debating could be fun; it could also be exasperating, when you know the issue at hand is probably never going to be resolved through debates. All Americans have the right to bear arms; so also is the right to live and worship wherever we choose. Yesterday, it was the Church, I remember the elementary school; I recall the movie theatre; did I hear the word, Mall; I’ve even seen a Sikh temple; I’ve known a college campus; and many more places that just make me wonder, is there anywhere safe to go anymore. Gun violence and deaths are now common place to everywhere in the homeland; yet our lawmakers and those who know better would rather we would not talk about: 1) requiring background checks for all gun sales; 2) strengthening the background check system for gun sales; 3) passing a new stronger ban on assault weapons; 4) finishing the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets; 5) giving law enforcement additional tools to prevent and  prosecute gun crime; 6) ending freeze on gun violence research; 7) making schools and public spaces of congregation safe, instituting emergency response plans for all public spaces and nurturing a climate of gun use responsibility; and, 8) ensuring quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people. If you say these eight listings are familiar; yes you are right, they were the last ones recommended by President Barack Obama after the Sandy Hook Elementary gun violence nightmare. Again and again, we are re-reading, re-evaluating, re-sympathizing, and re-imagining, what should never have been; just because, as usual, you guessed it, failed to act. Excuses and inactions have often been our crutches because of our second amendment rights; or, because of our choice to always look away elsewhere; to forget the tragedy of yesterday, yester-month and yester-year(s). At the rate we are going, we are gradually being inoculated against the grief and tragedy of gun violence; soon, we’ll become experts in forgetting the pains of death as a result of gun violence in all public spaces.

Before we get into our usual mode of finger pointing, let us now agree that we have failed as a society to address what is considered nightmares in many countries of the world, and forget the usual western industrialized society epitaph. The historical national divide between those in support of the rights to bear arms and those, who would rather work with common sense gun laws, has once again, reared its ugly head. We have failed to reform our gun laws, legislatively. Common sense tells us we need to move beyond the point of seeing gun violence as a routine order of doing business; however, we have failed to influence each other to see the need for resolution. In order to preserve the rights to bear arms as contained in our constitution, we have found it, uncomfortable to discuss resolution of a problem that constantly nags us and our conscience; a problem that continues to kill us, our neighbors, our friends and our elderly, even in a place of worship, a place expected to be peaceful and full of moments of reflection, not violence.

Lifesaving gun laws and gun violence research have been scuttled. In the case of immediate resolutions to some gun sales and ownership laws, especially those that attempt to curtail movement of guns from the manufactures to those, who are least expected to own guns, let alone use it, we have refused to position ourselves as responsible adults, who find a problem in our communities and move ahead to solve it. The people’s hope and momentum after the last national tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary have been discountenanced and the details of our government action to ensure this same nightmare does not repeat itself, is left in ruins. The willingness to tolerate ownership of guns, assault weapons and associated paraphilia are so inextricable that we have forced ourselves into a corner to believe that our rights to guns and concealed weapon carriage, trump the rights of others to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Regardless of the hopes of communities that have suffered from senseless gun violence, we have failed to confront our unsettling fears; veer away from workable and practical solutions or laws that reclaim our rights as humans, people with red blood flowing in our veins. We have grossly failed to attend to what makes us whimper anytime news like Charleston South Carolina, break. Within the past six years, even with all assurances that President Barack Obama was not coming after our guns, we have ramped up sales for the assault weapons manufacturers, created a generation of uninformed people with very limited control of their behavior, engaging in dastardly acts that make mothers and grandmothers cry with exasperations. The future ability of any incoming President and Congress to do anything about this stale problem, even by crude assessment, is gradually fading to oblivion.

The gun lobbyist groups and manufacturers have been beneficiaries of our failure to act, failure to demand of our legislators to reverse the tide of gun violence, whichever way possible. Concerned opinions of impacted gun violence communities, reflect the need to have some control over the use and availability of guns and armor-piercing bullets in our depressed and sometimes, dilapidated communities. Gun violence is now endemically fashionable; and, our children are watching the adults look like helpless and clueless drifters, unable to chart a course for a better future for them.

No one will deny that the absence of the will to act legislatively in US Congress is real; you can even hear and feel it from our Commander-in-Chief as he delivers the usual condolences to residents of Charleston, South Carolina. Gun Control and Mental Health treatment are undoubtedly central to the resolution of gun violence, especially in many states where mental treatment of the troubled have been discouraged or suspended for reasons of budget shortfalls. The probability of limiting the rights to carry some assault weapons  are somewhat laws in some states; however, there are no enforcement efforts in many, either by law enforcement professionals, or community leadership. Our communities have turned out to be the old Wild West, where gun running and usage are everyday matter of fact. The scope and character of gun violence are well documented, the corresponding need for change in direction in the movement and sales of guns, nationwide, are not out of way. The plight and pains of communities which have gone through the dastardly act of gun violence, are not only felt across the country every time these very unfortunate incidents repeat themselves, but also across the globe. Unfortunately, we have accepted the disgrace of being labelled a gangster society; yet, we continue to lack the spine to call our legislators to do what is right for the welfare of everyone.

National gun violence has come to a point, where we can no longer question the need to get over our fears and rightly pass and enforce laws that not only keep guns and assault rifles from demented minds, but also require that manufactures stop making these guns. The depth, strength and complexity of resolving our long-held fascination with the second amendment right have failed us woefully; and, we have resolved ourselves to the primitivism of the conquered, unwholesomely refusing to prescribe solutions to what hurts us all. The political and institutional powers are close to absent at this time, else something would have to give, with the insistence and repeated occurrences of these dastardly acts. Anyone attempting to lead this country, must now provide a path for the nation, to once again, address the following questions: How can America welcome a greater level of gun control without necessarily violating the constitutionally protected right to bear arms? How could the nation prevent the repeated gun violence in all spheres of our lives and public spaces? Is the nation not due for a much radical review of protected second right amendment?

The large number of second amendment right enthusiasts, legislators and ordinary citizens, sympathetic to the right to bear arms, must address these questions with a reflection: supposing each of them was at the receiving end of gun violence; supposing each of them lost a family member, a brother, a sister, a father, grandmother, a son or daughter, last night, would they still be holding fast to their unresolved position? Answer to this particular question may help transform long-held beliefs regarding gun ownership, concealed weapon carry permit, sales and use of assault rifles. Who in his or her right mind, buys a loaded gun as a birthday gift for an unstable human being? The fastidious position of many gun enthusiasts and second amendment rights protagonist are not really rooted in unyielding tradition as some may want to believe; the massive failures of the laws on the books and refusal of our legislators to do what is constructive in the wake of the repeated unfortunate events across our country, is the real problem. No one is held accountable for the deaths of the innocent at the highest level of our law making body; and, until we compel or legislators to the rude awakening of the ever so torching and stomach crunching pain that we all feel every time incidents as what happened at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church, yesterday, we will continue to face the horror of our inaction to gun violence, in all our communities.

P.S. These are the lives that were cut short in South Carolina

1) Ethel Lee Lance, 70;  2) Tywanza Sanders, 26; 3) Cynthia Hurd, 54; 4) Depayne Middleton Doctor, 49; 5) Rev. Clementa Pinckney, 41;  6) Susie Jackson, 87; 7) Myra Thompson, 59; 8) Daniel L. Simmons, 74; and,  9) Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, 45.

The Shade Room

Of Donald Trump, Jeff Bush and the Rest: Are Ten Republicans enough for the 2016 Contest?

Keywords or Terms: Republican and Democratic Aspirants; White House Oval Office; Rich and Famous; US Presidency; Aristocratic or Imperial Presidency; American Voters; Political Dynasties; Spousal or Family Lineage Presidencies; Global World Trade Imbalances; Plurality of Opportunities; Mutual Restraints; and, Reciprocal Concession.

The unquestionable dilution of the number of Republicans seeking the 2016 nomination will profoundly change give another week. The number of announcements of candidacies in the past few months for the 2016 contest has offered new political characterization or meaning for those running for the White House’s oval office. “They’re Impressive, they’ve got a lot of youth, they’ve got a lot of energy, they’ve got some significant diversity and they’re no dummies”, if you ask President Bill Clinton?

As other Republicans in the pipeline indicate their intensions or ambitions, American voters are confronted and confounded with the divergence of views and reasons for running for the American presidency. Is the 2016 Republican Party Primary going to turn out to be a confusion; or, will the willowing process that leads to attrition, finally resolve the chaotic band wagering effect that seems to be the current dispensation? Perhaps it is just the perception; however, when last did we have so many Republicans seeking the lofty office of the Presidency? An Aristocratic or Imperial Presidency - with the power to overlord it over the Legislative and Judicial branches - has never been the norm or constitutionally accommodating; however, maybe that is the lure? Why then do we have one of the richest men in America, Donald Trump; and, the third succeeding child in the Prescott Sheldon Bush Dynasty, Jeb Bush, announcing within a space of one week, their intentions to gun for the oval office in 2016?

Perhaps there is nothing much to it; perhaps it is a chance to give American voters the opportunity to have choices; perhaps, it is the season for multiplicities, hence, the number of Republican Candidates as of date, who have shown Interest. However, these presumptions or presuppositions are inadequate; many voters are challenged by the construct of having so many candidates showing interest in becoming the President of the United States, without providing solid advances in their announcements that could be conceived of worthy consideration.

For example, here is a glossary of one-liners in announcements in the past month, beginning with the most recent: 1) Sadly the American dream is dead… but if I get elected President I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before – Donald Trump; 2)  [America] is on a very bad course; and, I have decided to run for the Presidency [as a solution] -  Jeb Bush  3) I want to be President to defeat the enemies trying to kill us, not just penalize them or criticize them or contain them, but defeat them – Lindsey Graham; 4) I’m running for the Presidency [because] this is our fight, we stand together for liberty – Ted Cruz; 5) I’m running for the presidency [because] I’ve led the most successful state in America – Rick Perry; 6) I’m running for the Presidency because I have a deep understanding of how the economy works – Carly Fiorina; 7) I’m a candidate for the President of the United States [because] I believe in our Constitution – Ben Carson; 8) I’m running for the Presidency, [because] working families don’t need another president tied to big government or big money – Rick Santorum; 8) Any drunken redneck can walk into a bar and start a fight; however, a leader only starts a fight he’s prepared to finish – Mike Huckabee; 9) I don’t need any expert to give me a crash course in [foreign policy] – George Pataki; and, 10) We have come to take our country back – Rand Paul

Excluding the ridiculous verbiage from Donald Trump – most successful person ever to run for the presidency, owning a Gucci store that’s worth more than Romney; Jeb Bush’s foot in the mouth statement, we are not going to clean up the mess in Washington by electing the people who either helped create it or have proven incapable of fixing it; and, other very off-the-curve comments from Republican aspirants at each of their launching, one can hardly tell, if these Republican aspirants have a long and lasting interest in helping America confront its socio-economic-political challenges in the next millennium. The need to confront global world trade imbalances, multiple years, against America’s interest; and, the changing dynamics of global terror and terrorism, are stubborn issues demanding an understanding of the intricate nature of leadership and presidential powers. Anyone ready for the job must articulate a new order of thinking, far outstripping one liner comments regarding the responsibility of the Office of the Presidency and or, one’s wealth or past achievements vis-à-vis the constantly changing roles of the occupant of the office.

The complex nature of the international world order has offered unprecedented opportunities and difficulties for occupants of the White House’s oval office. On the domestic front, the need to address issues of widening gap between the rich and the poor and job losses or growing unemployment, due to negotiated trade deals, and the ever so-alarming trade imbalances between China and the US, demand better preparedness of anyone seeking this lofty office. How about the chameleonic global and domestic terrorism issues? It is evident and essential that the occupier of the White House oval office, male or female, understands the interrelatedness of some domestic and international issues; and visualize himself or herself addressing multiple interrelated issues and functions, inherent in the occupancy of the office. Candidly, He or she must be able to build a bridge to the future while at the same time fighting domestic and global terrorism.

In the foreign arena, issues of political geo-strategy, defending Europe in post-industrial or information age, arms reduction and deterrence, maintaining peace in the Middle East, practical internationalism and maintaining America’s National Interests are all in play. Today, the change is moving towards issues of stability in the Arab World, Emerging Asian and African Economies and the slowing or non-performing economies in Europe. The old Southeast Asiatic regional hegemonic doctrine of the last century is dead, and no one must be dragging the nation back, in the context of the Arab World and or Africa. The new President come January 2017, must be able to seize the opportunities which these issues offer; and, cope with the difficulties of proffering solutions to many of them without losing his or her patience; or being perceived as overtly nationalistic. Thus, flamboyance, arrogance, untrusworthiness and loose talks, or inability to hold judgement before all facts are in, are not really qualities America wants in someone seeking to become President of the United States.

Coincidentally, the current spate of Republicans seeking the 2016 White House Oval Office have the American voters debating issues of the probability and possibilities of each of their chances. Some keen political observers are concerned over the occupancy of the oval office shifting between preeminent political dynasties and or spousal lineage, Kennedy’s Bush’s and Clinton’s. The unseeingly preeminence of fame and generational powers are acknowledged in the current context, with the advent of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a 2016 Democratic Presidential aspirant. However, other more conciliatory observers maintain there is not much to fear or worry about, since ordinary mortals as Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, with little name or no-name recognition, have risen from so-called nowhere, to occupy the lofty office. Further, these heroes and past or outgoing occupants of the White House, proved in many ways that money onslaught and traditional support of party loyalists and power brokers can be overcome in a presidential contest for the oval office.  In addition, to the conciliatory observers, President Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama proved once again, what the fore-fathers admonished: a non-monarchial governance and a Republic of the citizens of the United States of America!

If Americans subscribe to plurality of opportunities, and are concerned about dynastic and or aristocratic Presidencies, there are chances for them to nominate candidates away from the Bush and Clinton in 2016. However, if either Jeb Bush or Hillary Rodham Clinton, become each candidate left standing at the end of the primaries for Republicans and Democrats, then the debate at that time will be merely intellectual. The issue for the future may then become how to prevent former spouses and progeny of past senators or senators from becoming the United States President. How to reinvigorate the plurality of candidacies for the White House oval office, without relying on the traditional power houses or families seeking to replace each other, would be a fascinating subject for political scientists and vote pollsters of the future.

Encouragingly or discouragingly though, the spate of Republican candidates for the 2016 are diverse enough for either party to put to rest whatever misgivings opponents of dynasties and fame aspiring to become President of the United States. The challenge today, according to critics of the current spate of Republican candidates is this, if the contest is about doctrinaire conservatism, anti-minority or immigrant prejudices, narcissism, religious awkwardness, maybe these spate of Republican candidates stand a chance. Incidentally, the 2016 contest is going to be more than these. This is probably, one reason, one should be circumspect in completely criticizing the famous, rich and privileged seeking to win the greatest prize in American Politics: the Presidency of the United States. Hopefully, these candidates will be admonished by what Charlie Black, John McCain’s 2008 Presidential Campaign Chairman articulates about a candidate, putting public service ahead of going out and making money and getting wealthy and getting really solid finances. Essentially, this is the ideal; this is what it means to be patriotic and nationalistic. Anything less, is selfish and wrongheaded.

Without sounding as trite on this very confusing topic, my favorite choice of candidate is anyone who is able to articulate a system of mutual restraints on both domestic and international front or issues, because it serves America better and afford for reciprocal concession on issues of governance.

Presidential Ambition of Senator Lindsey Olin Graham Revisited, Retold

Keywords or Terms; Presidential Campaign; Politics and Politicians; Immigration; Social Security; Tax Reform; Hawkish Conservative Republican; Central, South Carolina; Islam; American Muslims; 9/11; Domestic and International Terrorism; Lindsay Graham; Rand Paul; American Patriot Act; Waterboarding; Preventive Strikes; National Security Policy; and Religious Bigotry and Alienation

Of all the announcements this week of a run for the White House in 2016, none is as predictive and fascinating as that of South Carolinian Senator Lindsey Olin Graham, whom we had earlier predicted at the end of January, will be throwing his hat into the race, soon. The Hawkish Conservative Republican finally made his announcement this week, revving like the fume from an exhaust pipe and the aggression of a lion on Monday with the words: “I want to be president to meet our problems head on.” What are these problems you might ask? The Republican Senator, who made his announcement in his hometown, Central, South Carolina, crystallizes them as: terrorism against America has resurfaced and there is an earnest need, scratch that, "Simply put, radical Islam is running wild.”

To Senator McCain’s probable protégé, honestly and realistically, without a perception of taking advantage of the resurfaced threat to America’s security, as President, “[I will] defeat those who are trying to kill us, not just penalize them or criticize or contain them!” Boasting of his national security credentials, the South Carolina senator on Senate Judiciary Committee, wants America to know: "They [America’s Enemies] have more safe havens, more money and capability, and more weapons to strike our homeland than any time since 9/11. They are large, rich, and entrenched. As president, I will make them small, poor, and on the run." Could the senator be playing on the fear of terrorism; or, arousing once more, religious bigotry against Islam or fellow American Muslims?

More significantly are the revolutionary changes that have taken place in the fight against homeland insecurity and international terrorism. Under succeeding Presidencies, George W Bush and Barak H. Obama, America has experimented with a number of strategies to keep American lives at home and abroad safe. No one would doubt the commitment of our presidents to keep America safe; each of the last two, worked so hard, some even say, trashed the constitution a few times with the help of federal agencies, to ensure that American lives are not only safe but also preserved, wherever they choose to go or reside. President Obama just signed the USA Freedom Act, a compromised version of the Patriot Act, with some libertarians, including fellow Graham’s Republican Senator, Rand Paul, who also has his eyes on the White House in 2016, railing against the provisions and extension of the patriot act, even with the new limitations.

It is clear that Lindsey Graham’s Presidential Campaign team will have to work overtime, in explaining what the Senator meant on Monday, by the world is: “exploding in terror and violence.” Such a grandiose statement seeks to seize the opportunity of instilling fear in the populace to the advantage of a campaign; and or, an aspirant. Thus, if it could be assumed that Senator Graham is right on his assessment, perhaps it is time once again, to revisit our national security policy.

On the other hand, it is also safe to recognize that the Senator is probably attempting to differentiate himself from other far-right, or hardliner candidates on the Republican Campaign trail. With Graham’s campaign message, there is a presupposition that the last two US Presidents have not done enough to disarm homegrown terrorists and international terrorism. Republicans would say President Obama has not done enough, and Democrats will point finger at the overzealous efforts of water-boarding by President Bush’s Administration; and, libertarians will highlight the trashing of constitutionally protected rights of Americans by the Presidency, for the continuation of many provisions of the American Patriotic Act, by both Presidents. Furthermore, there is every reason to doubt the first Presidential Campaign message of the South Carolina Senator, Lindsey Graham, who is fascinated with confronting radical Islam with military force.

In the confusion of the Presidential launching of the unmarried fifty-something senator of the Palmetto State, there is all reason to doubt the authenticity of Lindsey Graham’s Campaign Message, considering some Republicans see him soft on immigration, social security and tax reforms, with some of them insisting that the Senator sounds very much like Democrats on climate change; and spending, through his suggestion that the rich must pay a little more in order to help the poor. A Republican moderate, assuming the word means re-conciliatory on issues of passing congressional legislation; a long shot candidacy, assuming you taking into consideration, the star qualities or powers of other candidates on the Republican Campaign trail.

Notwithstanding the reservation(s) in some quarters, there are two dimensions to consider in this Presidential Campaign message: 1) Is there a need for reform of America’s National Security Policy in light of candidate Graham’s assertions; 2) Is there room for reflections, presupposing that his message carries with it, element of religious bigotry against American Muslims?

The most significant factors influencing future national investment on defense and spending will depend on the degree to which Americans see the presupposed emerging threats from domestic and international terrorism. It is premature, if not bigotry, to assume that Islam equates terrorism; and Muslims all over the world are to blame as they are all bent at destroying America. 2016 Presidential Candidate Graham believes that the world, is; “exploding in terror and violence”, and the only solution to this malaise is to send American Military to the Middle East to fight ISS or radical Islam. No one is doubting that there are existentialist reasons to combat domestic terrorism and international terrorists; however, very few will associate terrorism with the practice of Islam. Further, while some may disagree along the line on how best to fight terrorism, domestic and international, there are ample reasons to believe that the past two presidents after September 11^th, 2001, have put a lot of efforts to combat attacks from terrorist groups and persons across the globe.

The initiatives to fight terrorism, domestic and international, by both President W. Bush and H. Obama, have introduced some level of new thinking into the efforts, exponentially. This new thinking, as much as they are criticized by either libertarians, Republicans or Democrats, foreign allies and sometimes partner-countries, should be seen as genuine effort to address a problem that no one today, has a definite and complete answer to: why do some people engage in dastardly act of terrorism, domestically and or internationally? Why do governments, direct and or indirectly, finance global terrorism? Until we are able to resolve these questions, association and blaming one religion, hardly seem a useful direction. New thinking must envision that, a common security reason, safety for everyone, is necessary, if not totally sufficient to guarantee a reduction in domestic and global terrorism. If there are proposals and policies to counter the gradual expansion of terrorist networks and groups fascinated by dastardly acts, let’s put them in place to prevent future mayhem at home and abroad. No responsible politician should use this very grievous issue as a pedestal for presidential ambition.

It is entirely possible that, even once we achieve success at combating this global canker-worm, another enemy will arise that will have a domestic and or international dimension. It depends on the willingness and eagerness of Americans, to pull ourselves by the bull-straps and direct our frustrations on the culprits, the financiers and their leg armies, who continue to destroy lives and disrupt governments across the globe. The greater the underlining reasons, why a sub-urban European Kid or his friends from inner city Boston, Massachusetts or St. Paul’s, Minnesota finds solace in leaving the convenience of his or her neighborhood to find their dreams in a world they have never met or lived, is actually the duzzy? The inflow of new peoples into America may appear as a problem; however, that hardly seems the case, there are new immigrants entering Europe every day and there are people of many other faiths coming into America that have not only assimilated, but has become model citizens, some Muslims others, Bhai’s, Seeks, Zoroastrians, Hindi, Jewish and many more faiths.

Significant to our present and future security goal, including fighting domestic and international terrorists, are fundamental restructuring of the way we have often addressed minorities among us, during wars: Japanese Americans during the Second World War; and, American Muslims, during the current rise of global terrorism. While it is unlikely we can completely resolve the impact of the current malaise by encouraging the involvement of every American in fighting domestic terrorism and many foreign governments in fighting global terrorism, we must still make the efforts because all our lives depend on it. There is no need castigating everyone who look alike as the same; or everyone in a religion, as the devil. If we have to reform our national security by increasing spending to combat terrorism in our federal budget, so be it; if we are to build greater public consensus towards increasing spending on international surveillance and preemptive strikes, so be it. However, we must never turn against ourselves in fighting an enemy, many of us, including those practicing the Islamic religion, hardly or completely understand.

The most viable manifestations of a candidate’s campaign message to address a national problem is its efforts to prescribe workable and non-discriminatory assertions – that is, how it speaks to the issue of terrorism, without labeling many who can hardly define the problem. I am postulating that Presidential candidates resolve to carry messages of hope, not of disunity; one that is based on realistic assumptions, not inflammatory assertions that demonize a selective few; a message that introduces competitive strategies to make use of our advancements in technology and substantial lead in understanding the world’s environment, to combat the new enemy, global terrorism; and, a promise to never relent, until the problem is resolved or eradicated across the world.

Realistically, this is a very difficult proposal, because of the nature of politicians and politics. However, this must never prevent us from trying or encouraging our politicians to move in the direction that prevents alienation of fellow Americans. We are in the nasty season of politics season, we must never allow the nastiness to degenerate to politically infeasibility or difficult situation, where some of us, are perceived as the enemy within.

Conservative Evangelic Religious resurgence in American Presidential Campaign: What Reverend Huckabee 2016 launching bid means?

Keywords or terms: Reverend Huckabee; Jerry Farwell; City of Hope, Arkansas; Evangelical Religious Conservatives; Presidential Campaign;  Republican Party; Extremism; Religious Right; Stumbling blocks; Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender - LGBT; Caitlyn Jenner; Neo-Conservative Religious Groups; and, Alienating Voters.

Seldom in recent presidential campaigns has the attention of the public been drawn to the impact of Evangelical Religious Conservatives on American politics; or precisely, on the possible flag-bearer for a major political party? Not since the 1984 Jerry Farwell’s, founder of Liberty University, an Evangelical Southern Baptist televangelist conservative commentator, who vehemently denounced LGBT lifestyle, castigating it as a way to an apocalypse. Jerry Farwell, like Reverend Huckabee, hold very contrarian view of LGBT lifestyle to the extent that you come to believe it was and is, personal for both. How Reverend Jerry Farwell or Mike Huckabee would react to our new Ms. Caitlyn Jenner; or, is there no place for transgender in our present or future America? You come to realize rather quickly, that Reverend Huckabee’s candidacy for the 2016 White House race, launched about three weeks ago, is symptomatic of the 2004’s Farwell Moral Majority Coalition denouncement of anything that has to do with alternative lifestyles.

With the former Governor of Arkansas appealing in the “name of your children and grandchildren” for campaign contributions, the 44^th Governor of Arkansas anchored his bid for 2016 White House, on the need to break the cycle of poverty and fight the rise of alternative lifestyles. Saying: “America will never break the cycle of poverty by pushing people to their minimum wage, but by empowering them to reach their maximum wage.”  His declarations at the launching of his campaign, like his religious convictions, are closely reminiscent of a Social Cultural War. Interestingly, the campaign and launching were coming out of the City of Hope, same City where good old President Billy Clinton came out. Governor Huckabee’s pronouncements in his home state, put forefront, once again, evangelical religious conservative ethos, one that many Americans far from that culture or religion, very well feel is limiting or wholesomely unwelcoming. Could Governor Mike Huckabee pull this one off, this second time around?

Just as Jerry Farwell was the leading force behind the political rise of religious right in early 1980’s and 2004, FOX-TV News host Mike Huckabee and supporter of the Common Core Education Standard or curriculum, entered the 2016 Presidential Campaign race with the following denouncements: 1) any pressure from America on the State of Israel to cease building bedrooms for their families in Judea and Samaria, than Iranian’s pursuit of the nuclear bomb; 2) “unbalanced” trade deals that could shrink job prospects and the middle-class; 3) any attempt to erode Social Security and Medicare Benefits; 4) abandonment of Biblical principle of natural marriage; and, 5) dynasty presidency,  where it seems one family or couple rotate the presidency among or between themselves. Any of these denouncements could have stood in for whatever Reverend Jerry Farwell stood for - literary interpretations of the words of the Bible. Reverend Huckabee religious conservatism upset or shook up the array of 2008 Republican candidates seeking the White House oval office, just as the coming out of Caitlyn Jenner shook the Internet and News media yesterday; however, the question this time around is: Can Huckabee burnish a political legendary of a time past?

Like Jerry Farwell, Mike Huckabee is against abortion, evolution, alternative lifestyle, LGBT. However, unlike Farwell, the persona of Huckabee is hardly radiating of hatred and outright degradation of other people who are not Christians. The visceral hatred from conservative evangelists to any outsiders to their religion and culture, make us want to delve further on some of Reverend Huckabee’s messages at his launching; and, explore the subject of the separation of state and religion, once again. Further, with recent week’s gang violence, many of whom wore Christian Crosses and Emblems, and the outing of some neo-conservative groups regarding attacks on Islamic mosques, the question of separation of state and religion, is once again as important as it was for our forefathers. Can America survive if relevant religious groups and our persons continue to interject their beliefs into governance? Can America stay true to the provisions of her constitution if party stalwarts, power brokers and candidates seeking the highest office in the land, espouse beliefs and convictions, which relegate many to the outsider status?

Since it is unlikely that an American Presidential candidate - as history has shown, can amass enough votes in a general election to win the grand-prize of American politics, if s/he makes religion the central piece of her/his campaign message, it is a one-dimensional risk that may ground the purpose of any campaign. Nonetheless, this is exactly what it seems Reverend Mike Huckabee has done? The candidacy of FOX News host interjects issues considered as rather too divisive or controversial to a Presidential Campaign that is already very much confusing. The venerable Reverend and former governor of the state of Arkansas committed this political sin at his Hope City Presidential Campaign launching; and, only time will tell, if he would be able to get away with it on his ride to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For general debate sake, since the governor’s complete commitment to his religious and cultural ethics has not diminished his success in past executive position(s), why should he expect his very outlandish declaration for the 2016 Presidential Campaign bid, to handicap him as his party’s flag bearer, or deny him the ultimate prize of the 2016 contest? In fact, going by his personal declaration that his experience as a minister has afforded him special insights to executing executive functions, why must anyone feel or think contrarily that this same experience and current campaign message will not only win Huckabee the White House; but also, make America a more civil and religious society, where the faith and conviction of her seating President, transform the whole issues of poverty, income inequality, trade deficits, police brutality, and social injustices? How can the experience of a Governor who once commuted twice as many prisoners sentenced than three of his predecessor executives in Little rock, Arkansas, fail to accomplish and resolve all the mistrusts and suspicions of the judicial system, the negotiations for peace between Arabs and Jews, the declining productivity of the Euro-zone, the Canadian Oil Pipeline Project, and unresolved national immigration issues?

Governor Mike Huckabee, once wrote:  “My experience dealing every day with real people who were genuinely affected by policies created by government gave me a deep understanding of the fragility of the human spirit and vulnerability of so many families who struggled from week to week. I was in the ICU at 2 a.m. with families faced with the decision to disconnect a respirator on their loved one; I counseled fifteen-year-old pregnant girls who were afraid to tell their parents about their condition; I spent hours hearing the grief of women who had been physically and emotionally clobbered by an abusive husband; I saw the anguish in the faces of an elderly couple when their declining health forced them to sell their home, give up their independence, and move into a long-term-care facility; I listened to countless young couples pour out their souls as they struggled to get their marriages into survival mode when confronted with overextended debt.” This declaration appears so messianic, some gullible supporters of the venerable Reverend’s candidacy, May very well wonder, why other people do not see in him, what they have. The choice of conviction and declarations of some leaders are so encapsulating that a few people who are carried away by the lure or charisma of these leaders, may just fail to objectively understand a different universe, from where they exist. How about Ms. Caitlyn Jenny’s 9:17 AM – 1 June 2015 Twit: [I’m so happy after such a long struggle to be living my true self. Welcome to the world Caitlyn. Can't wait for you to get to know her/me?

Neon- conservative religious values have a place for some people; however, how about others who hardly cares? How about those who maintain that, whether you are atheist, Catholic or Protestant, LGBT, Feminist, Muslim, Jewish or any other religious denomination, you should be welcomed at the table of American Democracy? Some rather pertinent questions from the so-classified outsiders to neo conservative religious groups are: 1) is the 2016 Presidential aspirant, Mike Huckabee, going to force his neon-conservative religious, ethical and social values on all Americans? 2) Can non-religious or ethicist, stand a chance in the meting out of justice under and Huckabee Administration? 3) Will LGBT communities be protected under an avowed antagonist of their lifestyle? 4) Will evangelical religious conservatives prompt decisive geopolitical upheaval across the nation? 5) Given the fact that foreign policies cannot be operated on the basis of religious beliefs and convictions, what alternative strategies will be followed in an era of global religious anarchy and cultural chaos? These are issues that must be resolved by American voters, who may be considering voting for, or contributing to the campaigns of the Reverend Christian Brother from Hope, Arkansas.

Back to Separation of State and Religion. Our constitution mandates the separation of state and religion; the need for a secular state, asking that the social roles of the Church or any other place of religious worship, be distinctly separate, including funding and use of state funds. This definite distinctions, categorized by different groups and sometime nations as secularism, religious liberty or pluralism, is so much part of the foundation of modern day American Democracy, as the apple pie. But many neon-conservative religious groups and aspiring political candidates, national, state and local, are simply incapable of accepting this very distinction. This has important implication for a Presidential Candidacy, or any political office candidacies, built on religious and social conservative values.

Given the fact that a Presidency or its party membership cannot discriminate against a set of people on the basis of their religious affiliation or conviction, and some will like to take it as far as their sexuality, it is very challenging to see a situation where consensus can be built on the narrow interpretation of religion in the lives of all Americans. Further, given the fact that it may be rather difficult to harness enough fellowship or voters, when your presidential campaign message(s) is built on evangelical religious and conservative ethos, it follows that the only alternatives to a campaign like Reverend Mike Huckabee’s, are to depend only on the goodwill of the number of people or voters that share same premises. This could have an adverse impact on the campaign primary results in many states of the union, especially in many religious liberal states as well as conservative ones.  For those voters who are tuned to Governor Mike Huckabee’s political campaign messages on neon-conservative religious values, his oratory are God sent. For those in other religions, Jews and Gentiles, the message(s) could be as infuriating as an infringement on constitutionally protected rights.

These considerations, in turn, underline the relative reservation of many political candidates to build their campaign for a political office on the narrow definition of the place of religion in the lives of their constituencies. The narrowness of defining one’s presidential campaign message on an issue or issues that are collectively or disparately divisive is as risky as playing a lotto or bingo at my friend’s neighborhood casino. The disproportionate possibility of losing your chances are greater when your campaign message(s) points finger in the eyes of some indecisive voters, those whose goodwill, you are actively courting or seeking to win the ultimate prize.  In effect, the fact that Governor Huckabee has built his campaign on the narrow message of evangelical conservative religious values, puts his candidacy at a disadvantage or risk.

Admittedly, that also implies that he stands greatly to win a windfall from many voters who share his conviction and places their religious values, over and above, party affiliation and or national identity. American voters are independent thinkers and are able to make good choices in their own interest. It is gradually becoming evident than in years to come, the United States will become a more diverse, religious, ethnic, gender, and or sexual orientation society. For the contest of a high profile office as that of US Presidency,  aspirants would more or less, have to build a bigger tent, one as inclusive as including the preferences and choices of Ms. Caitlyn Jenner and more; my apologies to the Republican National Conference. The effective result of that accommodation, is the odd of having a better chance at winning the political trophy. The analogy that comes to mind is not that a candidate must not seek to differentiate his campaign messages, but rather, that those messages cannot be as alienating, as to prevent voters from considering their candidacy or creating revolts that could directly or indirectly, undermine the candidacy. Candidate must never forget, the goal is to win general election into the elected office, not make enemies along the way! 

Minority Republicans, Carlo Fiorina and Ben Carson, declaring candidacy for 2016 White House Race: where did the Republican majority failed to communicate the Mundane?

Keywords or terms: Carol Fiorina; Ben Carson;  Minority Republicans; State of Texas; Paranoia; Presidential Campaign;  Republican Party; Extremism; Racism and narrowed vision of the extreme right; White Anglo-Saxon Male Privileges and the Republican Party; National American Free Trade Agreement; Immigration Reform and Control Act; Stumbling blocks; and American Political Development

The instrument of collective authority and accountability are often essential to a thriving democracy. If residents of the State of Texas believe that routine military exercise and training are precursors to declaration of martial laws and takeover of the State of Texas by the Federal Government, then we need to redefine collective authority and accountability in the context of our democracy to all Americans, no matter where they reside in the union. Further, if the narrow vision of the extreme right have exposed more Americans to doubt the authenticity and purpose of routine military administrative actions or permeated to a consciousness level or psyche of paranoia in the State of Texas, it is time to revisit definition of powers at the federal, state and local government as they relate to governance in our democracy.  In addition, if the governor of the State of Texas is unable to shed more light on what the military communicated with his office regarding the on-going military exercise, then the misrepresentation of the ongoing exercise by anyone, for whatever reasons, must be a thing of concern for all Americans.

Could the current Republican propaganda on multiple far-right media outlet or platforms, be it on FOXNEWS or other far-right radio outlets, degenerating to intractable ignorance in the Texan populace; or, a case of misguided misinformation floating around the state as gospel truth? Could the structure of governance in Texas Assembly be meeting new challenges, including unfounded rumors mongering designed to cause disarray and misdirection during a time of relative peace in America? Is there an effort to weaken the credibility of the federal government, just because of unfounded grievances against the current occupant of the White House and President of the United States by a few anarchist or American Taliban?  Could Texas Governor Greg Abbot activation of Texas State Guard to monitor US Military exercise and Senator Cruz’s quick missive to Pentagon be construed as the height of ridiculousness or unconsciousness? These are rather pertinent questions that must be explored; however, for more juicy stuff, I’ll like you to reflect on the announcement this week, that two minority Republicans, minority in the context that their sexuality and race is inimical to their self-identified political association or ambition; they are Republicans. Who? What?

Yes, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Neurosurgeon Ben Carson, declared their candidacies for the 2016 White House race early this week. The first on ABC Good Morning show and the latter, on a local Ohio Television Station, WKRC-TV. The declarations of both candidates and their chances of ever being the Republican party flag bearer, is as remote as Texas succeeding from the Union and the Pope getting wedded to a beautiful convent nun, independently or simultaneously. Not that both events could not occur; however, the chances of either taking place is as remote as being stricken by a lightning thunder on an early frigid winter morning. You see, these two candidates are talking and campaigning to a base that, by choice, have already ruled minorities or females as incapable of holding the mantle of leadership in their party. Forget the lofty idea of diversity in the party, or bigger tent, metamorphosing around the Grand Old party. The truth is “it ain’t ganna happen!”

With a twitter announcement of New Possibilities and Real Leadership, the $21.4 million golden parachute former Hewlett-Packard CEO, sixty-year-old college dropout, with a ghost written book in her kitty, declared her candidacy, with some choice words for the former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.  If a former CEO, who laid off over 30,000 Americans from work because of her ambitious acquisition of a competitor, Compaq Computer;  a gross mistake, if not felonious executive decision, because she got paid off to get rid of her in the office, wants to become the President of the United States, then anything is possible in America. The tax dodgers, the fascist anarchists, the Cuban-American Ambassador of a tax dodger and the bare-knuckled bridge-gate godfather of New Jersey, all have a place here. Welcome to the America of all possibilities!

He is here, the “smartest” brown-skinned former neurosurgeon from Baltimore, Ben Carson. The candidate who wants to undo the glorious effort of President Barack Obama, the Affordable Care Act. With Carson, big government is going to be a thing of the past, a neophyte who acknowledges he is never going to be politically correct, never going to be politically expedient, wants to parlay his academic success and modern-day speaking evangelism for a ride to 1800 Pennsylvania Avenue. His ambition is as huge as the globe; however, the chances are as slim as the spec of a needle’s eye. The nationally acclaimed Republican with “preponderance” support from the tea party wing of the Republican Party, is set to get rid of social programs that create dependency. It isn’t that Dr. Ben Carson could not be a formidable candidate; it is his stars that is against him. “He ain’t just got the zing with the establishment Republican Party, the White Anglo-Saxon male voters that seem to hold the power in the Republican Party of today.”

While both CEO Carly Fiorina and Neurosurgeon Ben Carson are the first female and black to indicate interest in the 2016 contest for the White House, the perception that they both bring diversity to the Republican party fray of candidates, is rather mundane and essentially, a none starter. Let’s debate Racism and Sexism in the next few paragraphs and you’ll understand why the Diversity Candidacy of the CEO and Neurosurgeon are non-starters in current day Republican Party.

To explore these two hot topics, I will default to the subject of immigration, one of the pending issues that will come up in the presidential debates in the 2016 White House Race. The unattended consequence of the unresolved national immigration issue probably has its roots in racism; if not sexism. Regardless of what any Congressional Republican may say, the effort to resolve this problem at the national level, has been fraught with right wing hardliner’s perception of what a liberalized immigration system will mean. The fact that the current occupant of the White House, President Obama, had resorted to using executive powers to move the debate ahead, is one very important reason, why many White Anglo-Saxon, the rich base of the Republican Party, will fight tooth and nail, against a minority, female or male, occupying the White House oval office in 2016.

Advocates of national immigration reform, documented several instances of racist and discriminating undertones that the effort at reforming America’s immigration had taken, most recently. Defenders of minorities interests, Latinos and many under-represented groups, some undocumented and living amongst us, established one fact, it is not the dependence or perceived consequence of the 1993 National American Free Trade Agreement or the debacle of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act that are the stumbling blocks to resolution of this problem, it is the inherent belief among many in the Republican Party, that a new reform is unfeasible, because the potential beneficiaries of the reform are too dependent on social  welfare programs and crime.  Contrary to what national statistics say, the predominate movers and shakers in the Republican party, are not about to welcome new social welfare programs’ dependents’, when they are still working overtime and overdrive to win-off  dependent citizen minorities, including the poor and elderly, from these social welfare programs.

CEO Carly Fiorina and Neurosurgeon Ben Carson will have to go the length of signing an undertaker statement with the preponderance group in the Republican Party, the White Anglo-Saxon Male, vowing never to sign into law, congressional legislation that regularizes twelve million undocumented US immigrants, for them to get their vote. Organized struggle and activism by interest groups within a party, often have a sway, in who ultimately become the party’s flag bearer. No one is doubting the sincerity of the Republican Party to empower the minorities amongst them; however, the concept of diversity is relatively new to the party; and, it is going to take more time for the party to measure up to the big-tent philosophy that it has often longed for, since a realization of the majority-minority shift in population dynamics; and the likely trending, not certain as of date, that it is probably the burgeoning minority populations in America that are more likely to determine who ends up in the White House, in the near future. This very real but difficult fact to accept is probably, why a minority Republican candidate stands rather slim chance, ending up as the party’s flag bearer in general election.

In entirety, the notion that a minority will end up lording it over the White-Anglo Saxon male is so tormenting and excruciating, some of them will hardly acknowledge the present occupant of the White House, twice-elected in general elections, as the President of the United States. But alongside this, is the fear of dealing with a female power, the testosterone raising in the male specie and the religious puritan upbringing of many White Republican Anglo-Saxons, make it rather unsettling, to have a female in the helms of affairs of this nation. To accept a female Republican flag bearer, is to reduce somewhat in size the ego of the White-Anglo Saxon, that have dominated the flag bearer nominees; and hence, the President of the United States in the past two centuries. However, it is even more important to recognize that the establishment Republican, feels somewhat of a threat at this time, with the excellence in governance and successes of the forty-forth President of the United States, President Barack Hussein Obama.

In terms of overall chances, the scale of preference is still with the White Anglo-Saxon male wielding the power of office of the presidency. To say that this is not the preference of the establishment Republicans, is to ignore the strength of tradition – or accept a minority male as an award winning neurosurgeon or a female CEO becoming the President of the United States. To repeat, campaign teams of Fiorina or Carson, must come up with the ingenuity of crafting their message(s), that they re-assure the predominant Republican Anglo-Saxon White male, that he will not be losing his current privileges; and or, eroding his power any further in the party’s stratosphere and national political arrangement or discuss. If either is going to end up as the Republican Party flag bearer, a sense of present power to chart the future of the Republican Party must be negotiable; however, except one is living in illusion, the current White Anglo-Saxon male is hardly ready to subject himself to this perceived humiliation. One will like to believe that these apprehensions are not true, that all races and sexes within the Republican Party are treated equitable; however, the size of the sacrifice that the candidacy of Fiorina or Carson is calling the establishment Republican White Anglo-Saxon male to make or bear is probably too much at this time of America’s political development.

The Myth about Bernie Sanders’ Versus Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential Candidacies: Listening across Ideologies?

Keywords and Terms: Candidate Bernie Sanders; Candidate Hillary Clinton; Elizabeth Warren; Martin O’Malley; Presidential Campaigns; Leftist ideology; Progressive Values; Trans-Pacific Trade Pact; Overhauling Tax Rules and Regulations; Climate Change Issues; Social Security Expansion; Citizen United; Older population and working poor; party-level campaigns; Intra-Party Competition; Wage-Disparity; China; Mexico; and, America’s Economic Security

For those who likened Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ announcement of his 2016 run for the White House as a volcanic eruption within the Democratic Party or among progressives, it may be time to think again. For progressives, it is more like a call to listen across ideological lines regarding economic and social issues that continue to divide us. The issues of income inequality, racial opportunity inequality, climate change, over-burdening taxation regulations, expansive and expanding gaps in socio-economic indicators, that continue to befoul the dynamic and bluntly spoken Independent Senator from Vermont, are genuine; and for all intense and purposes, are reasons why Bernie Sander’s candidacy cannot be written-off; and, roars up against the establishment candidacy of Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Moreover, it is probably in the overall interest of all Americans that Sanders’ candidacy is calling for the woman in the mirror, the establishment candidate, to reflect once again. While Sanders’ Candidacy is perceived in some quarters as having the potential of drawing Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy towards the left, there are no direct correlation to this inclination; rather, it is an opportunity for Democrats to look at those issues that seem to be papered over among progressives, in the national discuss, as we progress towards the 2016 nomination. Many leftist believe, while Republicans do not have answers to many of these problems, or are refusing to acknowledge them, there is a vacuum, a paucity, in communication even among progressives regarding the urgency or attention these problems deserve on the national stage. To some leftists, there is hardly anything wrong with an insurgent democratic candidacy; and better yet, there is hardly anything unappreciated of a candidate who believes that social security must be expanded and taxation of the wealthy is in order, to ameliorate poverty among the working poor, women and elderly.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ candidacy for the 2016 Presidential Campaign, launched on Wednesday, April 29^th , in the Capitol, based on a populist income inequality platform, wants to thwart the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, overhaul tax regulations and rules that allow American Companies to invest overseas, draw attention to Climate Change issues, and address the Citizen United Ruling from US Supreme Court. A self-described Democratic Socialist, who believes in standing up for the middle income earners in America, is tired of American Corporations shifting jobs overseas in order to dodge paying IRS taxes. Acknowledging that it may take close to a billion dollar to win a general election, a privilege that his candidacy cannot amass, Senator Sanders agrees that, it is probably an uphill battle and improbability to launch a credible national campaign to topple a candidate financed by the enormous wealth of donors as the Koch Brothers in the Republican Party. 

It is whimsical, if not awkward and cryptic, to assume that a candidacy like that of Sanders’ may win a general election in America of today; however, for a candidate who Associated Press reported as saying, he is ensuring that someone in the race is holding Clinton’s feet to the fire, on those issues that are important to the left, what are few banters or fights between two heavy weights in a family. Americans, progressives inclusive, must recognize that fierce interparty competitiveness would only enhance the chances of the party’s flag bearer come a national contest, not diminish it. For the candidate, who admonishes himself for running outside the two-party political system and prevailing over Democrats and Republicans in Vermont’s Senatorial races, no one must think his candidacy is inconsequential.

A reflection on how far an insurgency candidacy like Bernie Sander’s will last, can be garnered from the experience of Jack Kemp’s or Jean Kirkpatrick’s run for the Republican nomination in the 1984 White House race. Ronald Reagan was the assured establishment candidate for the Republican nomination, during the final balloting exercise however, candidates Jack Kemp and Jean Kirkpatrick still sustained one vote a piece, while Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush howled away two thousand two hundred and thirty one votes.  Establishment supporters of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for 2016 probably and tentatively constitute over ninety percent of Democratic delegates; however, there is room for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Martin O’Malley to wiggle one or two ballots at the end of the exercise. Yes, Hillary Clinton like Ronald Reagan, will still carry the day; however, they both wouldn't, without a fight from other promising and astute candidates. The party-level campaign for nomination, is often an opportunity to give a voice to the voiceless, an opportunity to have democracy at play, where candidates, who for any other reasons of handicap, are able to make their point and have their say, in an often cut-throat, winner takes all competition, that is characteristic of the party nomination process.

For example, the morning after the party nomination process, the looser often seeks comfort in the fact that he or she gave it his or her best. There is often some sense of accomplishment at that point, at least the flag bearer does not see himself or herself as winning the nomination on a platter of gold. Subtle rebellion within the party often subside after the nomination process and the flag bearer wins new converts, who may have wished alternative candidate to be the flag bearer. Imagine what this could do for pressure groups within the Democratic Party seeking support for women health initiatives like quality maternity care, preventive health services, birth control insurance coverage and an emergency rape kit in all hospitals. If Hillary Clinton is temperate in supporting these initiatives, so as not to be seen as deferring to women issues on a national platform, or if she chooses to be more centrist in order to win national votes, the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Martin O’Malley may force her to negotiate on what goes on the party’s national platform. This is what grassroots democracy is all about.

Insurgent candidacy forces the party nominee to respect the competition’s ideals, even if she or he despises the competition that leads to victory. She or he may not want to be bothered by the theatrics that involve running against other candidates that may share some of her inherent values within the party; however, the competition and associated press appearances, newspaper interviews, talk shows appearances and intra-party debates that are seen on the television at the individual party level, seem often to embolden the party’s eventual nominee, and prepare her or him for the national contest against the opposing national party’s candidate. The usual premonition that intra-party’s competition bloodies the eventual party nominee, while may be true for some candidates, it has often prepared others better to withstand the brutal and challenging inter-party competition on the general election day.

“Bernie-Sanderism’ then, is an act of defiance, a candidacy thumbing its nose at the establishment candidate, one billed on leftist principles, that the Brooklyn-born Senator from Vermont, can take home as a badge of honor. The seventy-three year-old, second term senator can pride himself, even if he loses to Secretary Clinton, and say, ‘You see, my candidacy was built on solid Social Democratic principles one that puts the American workers, women, the poor and elderly on center-stage to ask pertinent questions as: 1) Are you on the side of working families who suffer as a result of disastrous trade agreements that often off-shore American jobs to China or Mexico? 2) Is there still room for the middle class in this widening income disparity war? 3) How many labor and tax laws are still enforceable in America and is the party’s flag bearer ready to see that enforcement of labor and tax laws are essential to combating the growing income inequality in America? 4) Will evolving understanding of the impact of Citizen United Ruling from US Supreme Court help the public see where this is taking our Democracy? And, 5) are Conceptual uncertainties tarnishing the debate over America’s Economic Security?

If it is plausible to argue that Bernie-Sanders’ candidacy will lead to inexorable change in the platform of the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party, it is possible to advance the thesis that listening across ideological lines, is essential for addressing the mammoth issues or problems facing America today. Modest assumption that the United States Congress is expected to work more cooperatively, once the race issue is extricated from consideration of the occupant of the White House, may gain greater credulity, if one buys into the argument that the present day dysfunction in US Congress may be adduced to the race of the current occupant of the White House.  However, many progressives know that this is not true, America is a nation of complex incongruences that continue to evolve and often impacting attitudes and shaping the actual experience of resolving political, economic and social problems. That is why, it is important that each of the major political party has contestants vying for the status of the flag bearer, not just one, pre-ordained candidate, as is the case with the 2016 Democratic Party.

With the entry of Senator Bernie Sander into the Democratic Party nomination process, it is probably safe to conclude that the debate(s) for the party’s flag bearer position will take a turn for the better. Ideological and Philosophical issues will be trashed out at the party level, so also, will ideological-philosophical power-sharing, strengthen the eventual party’s nominee. Shaping and changing the party’s platform to accommodate plurality of all constituencies, will assist Democrats to better manage or fight back interruptions from Republican Party. Can party-level insurgency resolve the old-age question: giving everyone an equal chance of being heard and represented may ultimately control the influence of money in party politics?  Can constructive and effective engagement within party, strengthen the party’s chances in the general elections? These are important questions which the entry of the Independent Vermont Senator into the Democratic Party Presidential nomination race, is about to answer.