Events and Narratives in American Presidential Campaigns: Are Americans listening to either of the Presidential candidate for 2016 White House?

KEYWORDS OR TERMS: Campaigns; Hillary Clinton; Donald Trump; Undocumented Immigrants; Conflict of Interest; Clinton Foundation; America Voters’ Priorities; Gun Violence; Safe Borders; Safe Communities; Job Creation; Illusory; Marginalized; US Congress; President of the United States; America Life; Nationhood; Race and Economic Divisions; Mudslinging; and, Harmonious Society

Are American voters listening to 2016 Presidential Candidates – are they paying particular attention to statistics, mudslinging and or narratives coming out of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton campaigns regarding issues of unemployment, immigration, race relations, globalization and reckless gun violence in America? Does Donald Trump sound credible with the message of deportation of “millions” of undocumented immigrants in the first hypothetical hundred days of his administration; or, his two-pronged message on what he intends to do with undocumented immigrants if he had his choice? Are Americans now forgiving of Ms. Clinton’s email scandal or murky waters of what Clinton Charity Foundation has been unto or is currently involved regarding funds changing hands between donors and the foundation? Is the issue of conflict of interest surrounding the Clinton Foundation bemoaning the chances of Hillary Clinton for the White House oval office?

Further, Can Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton mitigate the unprecedented criticisms against their candidacy for whatever reason by critics or independent observers? Are American voters poorly served, over several decades, with ineffective policies on unemployment, justice, trade pacts, gun violence, loose national borders and sometimes inconceivable promises of either of the major political party candidates, to deliver to America whatever may alleviate the stress of life when either candidates get into the White House? Are American voters’ priorities in many realms, economic, social and political, including the burning issues of safe communities, gun violence and jobs creation, being watched or paid closer attention by either of the 2016 White House candidates? With some American firms and companies closing shops and moving overseas, are the doors to economic opportunities permanently being shot against Americans, while their choice to replacing outgoing President of the United States, President Barack Obama, inauspiciously being limited to two candidates with too much personal or political luggage, that Americans would rather prefer other candidates that are not members of the two major American Political Parties; and or, prefer a redo of the 2016 political party’s primaries and caucuses?

Regardless of how either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump crafts their campaign messages, there is this apprehension among some voters that both candidates are probably not the best of choices at this time in American Politics. Further, there are some firm convictions in some quarters that Donald Trump is race baiting while at the same time, peddling fears and discontent among Americans in the public arena. Corollary, there are fears as well in some quarters that the issue of trust in Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the White House oval office, is probably lost with her State Department email issues and most recently, the difficult and unprecedented circumstances that she may have played in furthering the goals of the Clinton Foundation, while Ms. Clinton was the US Secretary of State. In addition, there is the notion that both 2016 White House candidates are hardly discussing or presenting better ways out of the malaise that continue to hold Americans back on the bread and butter issues; with critics of either candidates claiming that for the most part, Donald Trump has been playing political football on the campaign trail, hoping to get back his campaign on the right course after three reorganizations because of many inflicted comments and or tweets from him. Albeit, Hillary Clinton’s proposed policies in some realm of nation building, continue to be patronizing at best; and, almost anything else that her campaign is currently advertising is failing to meet the needs and urgency of some of the national problems.

American voters are weary of difficult pronouncements from the Republican Candidate for 2016 White House that appear not attainable. They are worried that the safe community campaign messaging from Donald Trump’s campaign is nothing but a spin to give hope to an issue that can hardly be resolved, without more proactive and reflective legislation on second amendment rights and gun ownership in America. We understand that for decades the nation has been confronted with gun violence issues; and on many occasions in the past, neither the US Congress or the sitting President of the United States, has been able to actualize legislation that satisfies the biases of the extreme opposition groups to the debate on gun violence and second amendment.

In fact, the issue of gun violence in recent memory has ultimately been perplexing not only to American voters; but also, to the current occupant of the White House, who once acknowledged that the national issue of gun violence has been one of the failures of his presidency. Former and current American political party leaders have failed to address the issues of gun violence and crime in the street from gangs and ruffians, because of some competing priorities, which if you ask many sane minds, would poo-poo any of their biases to stay on the extreme end of solution to this national problem. Prioritized and patronized legislation by Democrats in US Congress to address the issue of gun violence and second amendments were fought actively and aggressively by Republicans in the past seven years and any message of finding a permanent solution to the problem, immediately after a reported gun violence in America, including mass killings of first graders, has always been derailed and somehow illusory. Marginal and sometimes robust opportunities to find a practical and permanent solution to the problem of gun violence through enactment of common sense gun control laws have either received lukewarm response or collapsed in US Congress floor debates, many times over.

A better approach or alternative means of reaching middle ground reconciliations on some very important national issues, have remained unattainable, not because America does not know what to do, but because of the continuous ideological fight between the far right and left and the ever present pandering of lobbyist groups and institutions. Our legislatures have refused to define the goals of having reasonable gun control laws, not just in terms of what solace and or peace it can offer public safety, but also the desirability of such laws in the course of reality of enervated gun violence in our various communities. Turf survival on second amendment issues from opposing debate spectrum appears to be the order of the day. There are many subtle ways that opposition groups have played on the immediate strains and grief brought upon America by gun violence; however, it appears no one must expect immediate solution to resolving the gun violence issues on American streets because of the skittishness of some legislators to do what is right and in the better interest of the public. Americans must not put their hopes on any presidential candidate promising change on issue of gun violence unless a resolution on what reasonable second amendment rights actually entails in current day parlance of American life and nationhood, are thoroughly interpreted and elucidated, and compromise on many grounds accepted as the best option forward, in tempering the constant hostilities between the opposing groups to the debate.

If you think no promise could be enough to assail the challenges of inner city gun violence; or spoon long enough to permit America to sup with the devil regarding correction to inner city gun violence, you probably need not look further than recent gun-related violence, especially in either cases where an innocent citizen was shot while pushing a baby stroller in inner city, Chicago, Illinois, and or, the brutal stabbing and killings of two nuns and nurses in one of the most deprived areas in the state of Mississippi? From the onset of increased gun violence in the past two decades, we have ruled out the possibility of any challenge to our second amendment rights to bear arms. The greatest opportunity for compromise on our second amendment right has been lost several times over; and, much as many communities impacted, have sought help to confront the malaise of gun violence, most have been left frustrated by the antagonistic debates over the possibility of limiting the second amendment right of citizens in a bid to confront exacerbated gun violence in many inner cities. The current White House had issued some executive orders just to keep America safe after the failure of US Congress to pass reflective legislation to address this problem on more than three occasions, immediately after heinous mass shooting events across the nation. Can a new presidential candidate sell the nation a promise to do anything about this problem? For now, probably not. All we’ve heard from 2016 Republican flag bearer is that he is going to roll back those executive orders that have kept Americans safe relatively, once he is elected the President of the United States!

How about the new terrifying over dose deaths of Americans seeking to get high, or seeking a greater buzz, in many American communities? Many people say this is now an epidemic and probably a national calamity. Since solution to this calamity, like that of gun violence, can only come through mutual trust and compromise; it is imperative that Americans with opiate or drug dependency issues, understand there is need to seek and accept help to help them kick the habit. The nation also has an obligation to face the reality that this unconventional problem, just like gun violence, is not going to go away except, we actively respond to it with proactive public health policies and laws, that will decriminalize drug use and facilitate behavioral adjustment and treatment for many to get off opiate addiction; or, fashion out a new direction for the distribution of killer opiate drugs in the pharmaceutical network in America. America can confront this epidemic, not by promises from presidential candidates that may not materialize, because of the recalcitrance in US Congress and failure of some of our legislators to support reasonable legislation, that may correct another anomaly, but rather, the absence of a desire to resort to necessary adjustments that will discourage consumption of opiate drugs or drug use dependency in American communities.

Hillary Clinton recently assailed the character of her opponent on racism and bigotry; while her opponent, Donald Trump countered she is just as guilty of the same allegation, she has fashioned against him. Race and Economic divides have paralyzed many aspects of American promise; however, America is now left with a perplexing challenge of bringing up honest discussions of race relations and the increasing economic divides among social and economic strata. The unforeseeable internal cataclysm or racism that have over the decades cannibalize the psychic of some Americans, have left some very dire and menacing situation on how America moves ahead on resolving issues of racial conflict, or bringing about harmony among her peoples. To some people, racial harmony is just another opportunity to violate long held beliefs and privileges that have benefited the largest fraction of Americans – ‘the White Privileged’.  While the extreme and radical members of this group have maintained that current stratification of the population and opportunities are sacrosanct and must not be challenged, there are many progressives who maintain that the cherished ideal of equality of persons and races as embodied in America’s Constitution, is the ultimate narrative for a solution to the issue of racism and racial inequality. Neither current White House candidates has shown a strong backbone or valuable credentials to address this burning national issue, except for name calling, no actual policy proposal are concretely in offing; and, unless we address this and other socio-economic and political issues confronting America today, we are less likely to achieve the so-called American Dream; or narrative of a free and equal society.

More broadly, the two presidential candidates for 2016 White House oval office, must acknowledge that we need proactive policies and legislation addressing issues of racism, drug addiction, gun violence, immigration, unemployment and economic disparities, to achieve a more harmonious, just and equal society. The nation need insightful policies and legislation, far beyond what is available on the books today, in order to urgently address these problems and or associated dilemma that have prevented the nation from achieving the promises embodied in her ethos. Current presidential undertaking through executive orders fashioned to address issue of gun violence, inequality and bigotry, are just temporary bridges; and the nation owes it to herself to do better; to confront her fears and to build on her potential to achieve a more equal union among the races and economic classes. The new deal of the thirties, helped the nation transition from extreme poverty to home ownership and better health status with the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid. OBAMACARE has afforded other opportunities for a better pluralized healthcare delivery and system. Failure at a reconciliation between extreme groups in addressing gun violence and second amendment rights or, underestimation of the subliminal effect of racism and the ever ready promise from Republicans to abrogate OBAMACARE, continue to compound economic and social freedom; and are parts and parcels of loss of opportunities that could have corrected for economic disparity, health poverty, judicial system injustices and or racial harmony.

Mutual understanding across races, through more exposures to nuances of each race is a reachable dream, not distant as some demagogues would want Americans to believe. After five decades of the Civil Right laws, it appears that some segments of the population have not made up their minds to accept the reality of equality of races and opportunities under the law. We, as a nation, cannot reduce the contemplation of uncertainties of economic opportunities from legislation facilitating equality of races, sexes, religions, national origin and sexual preferences under the law because of the fear of the unknown; or because of our past preconceived notion that having equality of races, will only erode long standing privileges and opportunities that the greatest fraction or specific majority of American population have longed enjoyed. We must challenge ourselves with the words of Bobby Kennedy: “There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.” Let us see the goodness in our fellow men and women, no matter our differences; let us help ourselves by expanding opportunities for all Americans, men and women alike, let use learn about the frustrations and pleasures inherent in denied opportunities for peoples of all races, sexes, national origin, religion and sexual preferences; and, accommodate those who are different from us, in whatever realm; and, make America, a better livable space for all God’s children.

Again, old illusions must be discarded. Fatter paychecks and huge and obscene corporate profits through the enslavement of labor may make corporate America richer and plumper; demagoguery may even look fashionable, appealing and appeasing to a singular segment of Americans in current campaign for the White House oval office; however, all these will never make America Great– indeed, they may end up reinforcing a much negative stereotype of individual races in America; and, result in a less harmonious American Society or Culture. Dependence on exploiting racial tension and differences may seem logical to winning votes in a general election cycle; however, they will never eradicate the extreme tension that seem to degenerate the nation to a less hospital environment and livable space. America must reverse the trend and say No, to politicians who continue to divide us for their selfish end; and, work to bring peace among all the peoples of our nation; and continue to work hard to see that America remains that shinning beacon of hope for every man and woman on the globe.

The premise of this essay is that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton hardly share the dream of many voters regarding some national issues that continue to hamper our dream of a more equal union and harmonious society, where we can build on the promise of America excellence and narrative of promise. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton appropriately crystallized the needs of the average American in their current campaign efforts. This is why, we are hearing campaign mudslinging similar or in the nature of: 1) Hilary Clinton once called black youths Super Predators; 2) Donald Trump referring to Mexicans as rapists and drug lords; and 3) Some party’s stalwart discontenting the probable negative impact of derogation comments about minorities. We all know better. Minorities in America of whatever classification or stratification have sacrificed for this nation to be as great as it can be; they have and continue to work hard to reap the promise of a more equal union, where one race does not see itself as marginalized, one religion bemoaned; or one segment perceived as unwelcome and not deserving. America deserves accommodation of all peoples of her constituents; and the root of demagoguery must not be allowed to fester any longer.

Truly, we all deserve to live in a more equal society, protected by equal laws that make all of us know and understand that we have a skin in nation building. Are some races privileged than others? Are some groups less likely to be penalized for egregious crimes just because of the color of their skin? Let us now work to correct the abnormality in the system without succumbing to the mischief of politicians seeking to divide us. Our nation still has a lot of work to do to make America a just society. Corporations need to be better citizens, refusing to move opportunities for employment overseas, under the pretext they would not face higher labor cost and so can sell cheaper goods on the market. Cheaper goods, higher corporate profits are not necessarily the end results of better decisions; nor a companies’ decisions to increase corporate profit by shifting production overseas, ever going to completely put these companies ahead of the competition, while, millions of Americans are being thrown under the bus because no one is asking them the accountability question for being member of Corporate America. Globalization issues and trade pacts like NAFTA and other regional trade pacts continue to be bone of contention; however, they do not offer the full story about the challenge ahead of the nation.

Finally, we must now realize or appreciate the fact that, leaders are priceless; however, politicians running on promises are clearly a long shot at delivering on policies that can alleviate the status of poverty and insecurity in America. Let us now resolve only to give the best and most prepared and cautious the mantle of leadership come November 8, 2016.

Comparison of Acceptance Speeches of the two major political party nominees for 2016 White House

Keywords or Terms: RNC; DNC; Lincoln’s Party; Donald Trump; Cleveland Ohio Convention Venue; Hillary Clinton, Philadelphia, PA Convention Center; Bigotry; Apocalyptic; Inspiring; Smart, Tender and inclusive; Bernie Sanders Championing Voter’s cause; American Political Campaign Observers; Lincoln party; Islamic Religion; Immigration; Police Violence; Collective Efforts; and Party Nomination Process

For about eighteen months Americans have been exposed to a lot of campaign messaging for 2016 White House oval office. The campaigning messaging reached a crescendo on July 21, 2016, when Republican Presidential Nominee, Donald Trump, gave an acceptance speech at the Republican National Committee (RNC) Convention in Cleveland, Ohio; declaring close to what is now perceived in some quarters, as the worst demagoguery coming from a major political party presidential nominee in about half a century. Donald Trump, 2016 Republican nominee for White House, had declared an apocalyptic state of America in his acceptance speech, adding a world of dismay, some say, non-existent state, only perceived in the festering minds of the nominee and his avowed supporters. Mr. Trump had offered what many establishment Republicans considered rather non-traditional estimation of the state of the nation to an extent that some within the party are wondering how did the party get here; how come the party of Lincoln is presenting a non-traditional candidate for the highest office in the land; and, what exactly must the party do to prevent another lose to Democrats in the coming November general election.

The New York Real Estate Mogul’s acceptance speech was both an embodiment of his past rhetoric of fear, hate, innuendos, and apocalypse; and, a sprinkle of quarrelsome nationalism. If you buy into his type of rhetoric, our nation is a world of anxieties and fears, with multiple forms of social ills, that a future without Donald Trump, a man in the mold of Adolf Hitler, is probably inevitable or inescapable; and, unquestionably necessary if our democracy is to sustain and or blossom for another century. His acceptance speech's declarations reflected a desire and affinity to go back to those days, when minorities were mostly second class citizens; with American women left without political voice or right to vote in party politics, state or federal. His speech called for law and order; a political prospect bemoaned by some Republican Party establishment and many Americans, as inflaming public angst in many ways.

Interestingly, the Republican Nominee’s acceptance speech was framed in the context of extreme isolationism from the rest of the world, especially those regions of the world where Islam is practiced. For all intense and purpose, the Republican flag bearer continues to doubt the loyalty of those Americans practicing the Islamic religion; fanning hate to the extent of extreme nationalism that probably excludes the possibility of being considered loyal, if you practice Islamic Religion. No one must now feel safe from probable policies that may undermine new immigrant experience; nor must new immigrants, or those resident in America, feel safe and part of the holistic American exceptionalism experience and experiment. Some cautious American political campaign observers are indicating that the Republican Party nominee is about to take America to a time, where voters are paralyzed by the inertia of the unknown and a fear of unquestionable domination by likes of Donald Trump. A time better forgotten or archaic, when many minorities were classified as goods or properties, and women’s opinions, inconceivable in any serious discussions of social, political, and economic issues. For more reflective observers of national politics, Mr. Trump’s speech appears to have conjured fear mongering, and unfathomable propositions to the extent of elevating one race in America above the rest. Going solely on the content of his rhetoric, listeners to his acceptance speech may surmise that America is about to witness a new direction in the ship of American State; and unless this redirection is led by "Messiah" Trump, it is probably going to be impossible to understand what is meant to be an American in very near future, because of his tone on issues of illegal immigration, police violence, accommodation of those practicing Islamic faith and in-deference to female members of our society.

For Mr. Trump, there is no hope, no confidence, and no other way out to civil liberty except through his prescriptions. It is time to make America Great Again! The Republican Party nominee’s exaggeration of attacks on police as terrorism acts threatening the America way of life was in true display as conceived in Mr. Trump's acceptance speech. His proposed policy to make American Companies who have moved offices overseas suffer some hyperbolic consequences was as admonished as distaste for Islam; and his exposition of a law and order doctrinaire, if not a dogged police state, to enforce public safety, a more than likely probability under a “President” Trump. Further, the 2016 Republican Nominee believes the nation is ripe for a giant wall, built to block illegal immigrants and drug traffics along US Southern Border; a proposal not only of the worst inkling in foreign policy, but one that will definitely engender retaliatory moves from many countries in Southern America, if not the globe. Here comes the reality and possibility of proposals that appear to put members of this nation who do not share the isolationist doctrinaires on pins and needles, regarding Mr. Trump's pronouncements and declarations at the Republican Convention.

With a fervor of belligerence and sometimes erratic nuances, Mr. Trump’s speech attempted to address income growth differentials in America. His attempt and premises to address this problem, as well as those problems of racism, unemployment and challenges of labor laws, were not convincing and were probably close to being elusive; and his relentless bravado as to how deplorable the state of the nation has become, marred any appreciation of what his proposal will be to solve his self-defined national problems. Further, his insinuation of potential solutions to these problems, in his landscape of belligerence statements, provided more clues of bewilderment to potential American voters. In addition, Mr. Trump’s acceptance speech seemed more of a brand of manufactured pandemonium, probably designed to undermine the whole fabric of national unity, to the justification or rise of a not-so traditional major party leadership and President of the United States.

Under a “President” Trump Administration, Americans must resolve to the federalization of some state and local government functions to an extent that, they will probably have to endure a repressive and overbearing federal government; a precursor to what some political pundits are already referring to as the new Nazi brown coats in America. His conservative messaging, pushing ultraconservative policies to a realm of paranoia or brutal awakening, where racial minorities will know their place, or will now have to live in constant fear, real fears and anxieties espoused in ways, that if you are members of either of these classes, minorities and immigrants, man or woman, you would now have to scout for protection to claim a right of American citizenship in the new end time apoplectic America as conceived by the 2016 Republican party flag bearer?

Many of Mr. Trump’s declarations regarding trade negotiations and public safety, deny possible collective consensus regarding the type of leadership and commitment from all Americans to resolve them. From the darker tone of the 2016 Republican Party Nominee acceptance speech, one may readily identify with one of the past rival of Donald Trump, Ohio Republican governor, John Kasich, who once derided what Mr. Trump campaign messaging stood for: pure Nazism. Despite all the mean spirited declarations from sweaty eyed Nominee Trump, his conviction nevertheless showed some determination that make you wonder, if this Republican candidate is not out for a spoiler. The Republican Nominee probably managed to convince many of his usual Republican faithful, with other added outlandish declarations that only people who seek to be boohooed would subscribe. How about the ridiculous hyperbole that: “America is being terrorized by Islamic radicals and illegal immigrants, who are committing heinous crimes with impunity; acts that have stolen too many innocent American lives?”

Unlike Donald Trump’s acceptance speech however, Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech was a breath of fresh air. As if repudiating many declarations of the Republican Party flag bearer’s acceptance speech, the Democratic Party flag declared: “Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart,” … “And just as with our Founders, there are no guarantees. It's truly is up to us. We have to decide whether we will all work together so we can all rise together.” Even when modest deference was given to Mr. Trump’s declaration, if at all, Ms. Clinton reminded her audience that: “America is great because America is good.” As if further concertizing her dislikes of the tone of the acceptance speech of the Republican Party Nominee, Ms. Clinton added the following at various junctions of her speech: “Don't let anyone tell you that our country is weak. We're not. Don't let anyone tell you we don't have what it takes. We do. … And most of all, don't believe anyone who says: 'I alone can fix it.'"

The Candor of Ms. Clinton’s acceptance speech of July 28^th at the Philadelphia Convention Hall, demands a comparable introspection; a candid reflection on what is probably best about America and why any slogan from the republican flag bearer, of Making America Great Again, must be dismissed without much funfair. The former US Secretary of State impressed on her audience, the promise of America for all peoples, men, women, and all residents of the United States. Rather than fanning hate like her Republican counterpart, the first female nominee of a major American political party declared: “We will rise to the challenge [facing America], just as we always have. We will not build a wall. Instead, we will build an economy where everyone who wants a good paying job can get one. And we’ll build a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants who are already contributing to our economy. We will not ban a religion. We will work with all Americans and our allies to fight terrorism.” Discountenancing further some of Donald Trump’s declarations at the Republican Cleveland, Ohio convention, Ms. Clinton added: “[Trump] has taken the Republican party a long way – from ‘Morning in America to Midnight in America.”

Not counting the multiple and diverse voices of speakers before Ms. Clinton’s acceptance speech at Democratic Party convention on Thursday July 28th, including men and women of different races, religions, physical abilities and sexual orientation, the Democratic Party flag bearer acknowledged the achievements of her former arch rival within the party, Bernie Sanders; admonishing him and supporters with the following statements: 1) “I want you to know, I've heard you. Your cause is our cause;” 2) “Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion. That is the only way we can turn our progressive platform into real change for America.” With this type of admonition, she couldn’t be said to have blundered as her Republican counterpart who said: “Safety will be restored”, as if safety went on vacation lately in America. The preconceived notion that the solution to all of America’s problems, including: “the attacks on our police and terrorism in our cities that appears to threaten our way of life” as narrated in Mr. Trump’s acceptance speech is, through force, can hardly be tenable with the tone and imagination in Ms. Clinton’s acceptance speech.

Maybe the former first lady and Upstate New York Senator’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Party Convention should be summed up in one of President Obama’s observation regarding the Republican Party flag bearer: "He’s not really a plans guy. Not really a facts guy, either. He calls himself a business guy, which is true, but I have to say, I know plenty of businessmen and women who’ve achieved success without leaving a trail of lawsuits, and unpaid workers, and people feeling like they got cheated." Further, the suspicion of the Republican Party Nominee’s prowess in business dealings by skeptics, especially Democrats, can no longer be seen far from his ambition for the White House oval office. A fear of the worst of intentions on the approach for taking on American problems as contained in the Republican Nominee declarations at the Republican Cleveland, Ohio Convention, was shot down by Ms. Clinton: “And most of all, don’t believe anyone who says: “I alone can fix it.” … Really? [Trump] alone can fix it? Isn’t he forgetting? Troops on the front lines. Police officers and fire fighters who run toward danger. Doctors and nurses who care for us. Teachers who change lives. Entrepreneurs who see possibilities in every problem. Mothers who lost children to violence and are building a movement to keep other kids safe. He’s forgetting every last one of us. Americans don’t say: “I alone can fix it.” We say: “We’ll fix it together.”

Ms. Clinton wants Democrats and American voters not only to be circumspect of the declaration of 'I alone can fix it' campaign messaging of her Republican rival, she wants the voters to: “Remember, Our Founders fought a revolution and wrote a Constitution so America would never be a nation where one person had all the power." The conjecture of Mr. Trump’s declaration of being the only one that can fix America’s problem and his overtures to the Russians in a subsequent speech a little over a week after his acceptance speech, revived a further apprehension of the true intentions of Donald Trump as a party's flag bearer: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." For many intelligence experts and some independent observers, Mr. Trump crossed the line with that overtures; he is not only fanning hate in his campaign for the White House, he is encouraging spying of Americans by a foreign country; in this case, the spying of the flag bearer of a major American Political Party, Ms. Hillary Clinton.

Conclusively, it is justifiable to believe that Mr. Trump’s acceptance speech garnered the spirit and purpose of his campaign, since June of 2015. Many of his campaign messaging have had mostly nationalism flair, including exclusions of many groups, women and minorities, race, religion and national origin. His stance against anyone who does not share the notion of America first doctrinaire in all aspect of things, is very obvious; and his belief in self as the only and ultimate solution for America's broader challenges, borders on the precipitates of narcissism. Further, his brand of campaign messaging that sets groups against each other are well documented, and his acceptance speech has not deviated from most of his past declarations during the Republican Party's  primaries and caucuses leading to party nomination; no attempt at pivoting to the center as is usually the case for many past party nominees that have sought to broaden their base of support among independent voters. No matter how narcissistic and abhorrent his declarations may seem, including many of his tweeted political messaging, he comes across as a quixotic leader, who has reshaped or intends to reshape his political party forever; and with his distancing and thumbing nose at power brokers and Republican Establishment, he has shown he is ready to take the party in a different direction, better imagined than welcomed.

In the opinion of 2016 Republican Party flag bearer for the November general election, the refusal of needed party reforms by establishment Republican politicians, and the crookedness in the nomination process or system, demand someone of his kind to straighten the unwholesome shenanigans that party members are accustomed to in the past. Mr. Trump has not only stirred the Republican pot, he wants to put America first, insisting in his campaign and acceptance speech that, many of the problems the nation faces, including violence, war, poverty and defining terms of trade pacts, come out of past indiscretions of conventional American Politicians, which he is not. To prevent the country from sleeping further into abyss, Mr. Trump is offering  his party and America, his supposedly successful business acumen and leadership, believing those are the missing pieces in the puzzle of resolving America's social, economic, and political challenges, or making America great again!

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s DNC acceptance speech is a prototype of transformation, including defining an impressive resume, explaining where she stands on policy issues contrary to her Republican counterpart; and, denouncing the arrogance and bigotry message of Donald Trump. As if building on the collective wisdom of group effort, the Democratic Party nominee proposes, we will fix whatever problem America has together; rather than the position of Mr. Trump: “I alone can fix it.” Ms. Clinton relishes in the aspirations of Democratic Party establishment for America and wholeheartedly subscribes to the essence of collective wisdom in resolving America's challenges as a nation. She will like to borrow a leaf from the experiences and hopes of the last two Democratic Party Presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. While talking about the historical implications of her novel nomination as a major party flag bearer, in the context of gains in women suffrage, she proposes a reflective leadership in America's White House; and, would never subscribe to  the lone wolf approach as proposed by her arch rival of the Republican Party. Luckily, she has a friend in the outgoing Democratic Administration and front row seat with a former Democratic President in her potential undertakings.

In addition, a probable Hillary Clinton's Administration, will likely be one of many firsts; a first female president, first spouse president and one that welcomes inputs from two former Democratic Presidents in recent memories; which may further ensure a successful White House in the coming four years, if she ends up winning the general election. For her, America has moved closer to keeping her promise ninety-six years ago, when she accepted the nineteenth amendment to the US Constitution; and her presidency will be a consummation of various efforts and actualization of many American women's dreams to change the political landscape. Just as she beamed and relished in the ovations  of the Democratic Party Convention speech, she recognizes that her ascendancy would only be for the reason of actions of multitudes of actors, who have gone to bat for her, and the inkling of Bernie Sander's campaign efforts to make her own campaign tougher, resilient and probably exceptional in the coming contest. As one experienced the diversity of speakers represented at the Democratic National Committee Philadelphia convention on behalf of Hillary Clinton, one can only imagine the probable inclusiveness of her coming administration. To many of her supporters and speakers at the convention, Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is the promise of coming together of greater ideas and commitments to build better capacity and support for addressing whatever challenges may be ahead for America.

Contrarily or unfortunately, her rival's narcissistic and somewhat nationalistic campaign efforts, which open gates to an unknown or uncharted waters, probably stands a chance at success of winning the US Presidency, if Democrats do not do a good job at letting the American voters know the differences. With less than four months to the November general election, the political future of the nation may depend more on how Democrats are able to redirect their campaign messaging, such that it appeals to a greater diverse population, who will in turn show up to vote for Hillary Clinton in November 2016 general election day. The anxiety and fears now peddled by Mr. Trump’s campaign messaging, which are resonating with multiples and multitudes of Republican base, may just qualify him for the needed number of electoral college, if Democrats are unable to properly define his brand of bias and nationalism. Finally, maybe it is just good enough to believe or romanticize in the luck of Clinton's Vice Presidential choice, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, who's never lost a political campaign contest in his life time. A November victory for the Democrats may just be resonating out of this kind of luck and the promise and success of the Clinton-Kaine ticket, guaranteed.

 Members of the National Woman's Party picket the White House,

 Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-31799 DLC

American Minorities and Police Accountability: The Task Ahead for whoever ends up being the forty-fifth President of the United States?

Keywords or Terms: American Minorities; Policing; Dallas Texas; St. Paul Minnesota; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Second Amendments; Secular Humanism; Diversity and Humanity in Policing; Psychology of Policing Minorities; Accountability; Black Lives Matters; Philando Castile; Alton Sterling; Loren Ahrens; Michael Smith; Michael Krol; Patrick Zamarripa; Brent Thompson; and Dallas Police Chief David Brown

Although the deaths of two black men in the past fortnight arouse raw emotions and protests by the public, it may be worth a brief moment to consider post events’ debates on the issue of using excessive force in policing, especially when it comes to American Minorities; and, the probable impact of reprisal killings of five police officers in the City of Dallas, Texas.

The legality of using excessive force in public safety, even in time of wars, was long settled in 1952 by the President of the World Court, Sir Humphrey Waldock. Unlike the random violence of reprisal killings, the use of force in policing is relatively accommodated, when there is: 1) an imminent threat of injury or deaths to the public or nationals; 2) a failure on the part of local, state and or federal law enforcement agencies, including a foreign territory or state to protect itself against further violence; and, 3) an obvious weighted measure of the likelihood of violence spreading beyond the confines of the immediate events, atrocities of killings and or hostage taking. There was no failure on the part of the Police in Dallas, Texas, nor St. Paul’s, Minnesota and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to protect itself against further violence; however, the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, flunked the first and third test.

Based tentatively on the released videos viewed by millions across the globe, excessive or fatal force was applied in policing Philando Castile, resulting in his demise for driving, or being an occupant of a car with busted tail lights; an issue that has raised a red flag in police accountability. Further, excessive force was used in policing Alton Sterling, the “CD man” outside a convenience store in Baton Rouge Louisiana; another issue raising a second red flag on police accountability. Both victims were considered model citizens in their respective communities; and, depending on which American pressure groups you belong or default to, either deaths may be termed unnecessary death, or justifiable homicide.

Accosting Police officers in either cases may argue that excessive force was necessary, to prevent further violence, because either citizens had constitutional right to carry gun or a permit to bear one; and, may choose to use the weapon at the time of interaction with the police. Second, the accosting police officers in both cases may advance the argument that they found themselves in situations in which they had no other option but to use excessive force; although this argument will be lightweight or far-fetched. Attorneys or families representing the interest of Castile and Sterling may counter with the argument that the safety of the public was not in question, neither were the actions of both men involved in fatal shooting so egregious that the use of fatal force was the best and only available option. In both police interactions, first at Baton Rouge and second, St, Paul, Minnesota, the safety of the public was not in evidentiary jeopardy, neither were there weighted measures of likelihood of violence spreading beyond the confinement of possible atrocities, nor were the behavior of the accosted citizens, so intimidating to the police officers to warrant the use of excessive fatal force. Conclusively, absent any other documented or consequential information from both videos of use of fatal force by police, there were no imminent threats to public safety, neither were there eminent reasons to believe that the use of force was the best option to effect public safety. All these arguments and or positions will be sorted out before a judge and jury in the coming months.

Where these arguments, or positions, are going to be tough, conflictual and or problematic, begins with three liberties and constitutional questions that have bedeviled the process of policing Americans: 1) the right of citizens to bear arms under the second amendment; 2) the secular humanist concept of diversity as articulated in US Civil Right laws, or found in the romantic notion of a rich and diverse America; 3) the psychology of policing minorities, especially, black and brown members of American population. Police Journals are full of scholarly discussions on the subject of police use of force to effect public safety. Unfortunately, scholars disagree sharply on when the use of excessive force or fatal force is necessary in accosting suspect or effecting public safety. For readers who are not scholars of policing or criminal justice, the violation of human rights, possible allegation of racism and infallibility in policing minority groups in America is open to interpretation or levitation.

Does it matter if the use of force leads to increasing number of minority deaths, or will fatal shooting of American citizens in a routine traffic stop amount to a violation of police ethics or standard decorum of normal policing? Only the courts have the legal power to effect death after a conviction before a jury of citizens peers. It is important that uniformed police officers affecting public safety, do not resort to fatal shooting as first order of action in a routine police stop or interaction with citizens, except where the life of the police officer or the public is in imminent danger. Some ultra conservative police unions and police protection groups suggest that Americans need not be concerned with routine policing that results in fatal shooting of citizens, where there was a disrespect of police directives; incidentally in both cases here, there hardly appear there was either a disrespect of police directive or refusal of arrest that led to the use of fatal force.

But it does matter whether police use of excessive force comply with the rule of law, police ethics and professional decorum. It matters precisely because we are a democracy guided by the rule of law, with both geopolitical and philosophical reasons not to resort to the use of fatal force in policing citizens; or defaulting to considering citizen’s race, religion, national origin, and other superlatives, in policing America. No Democracy may flourish in a lawless state; and the way citizens are policed, determines if the principle or rule of law, fairness and transparency, are allowed to flourish. To rise above suspicion, police actions must adhere to steps, ethics and principles of accountability, going far beyond shooting citizens for reasons of busted tail lights or selling CD’s and Videos in a neighborhood store.

Second Amendment Rights:

United States would be free of violence once she articulates that protected rights under the constitution, the first amendment right to protest, the second amendment right to bear arms and any other amendments, are sacrosanct; and rarely in any situation, would police brutality be accommodated; and or, mowing down of police officers be part of the equation in public safety. It is imperative that policing rules adhere to the highest standard, absent the use of fatal or excessive force, except where the loss of lives is potentially involved; and although errors may occur in the process of effecting public safety, uniformed police officers must realize they could be held accountable for their actions, when it appears a line has been crossed that hardly contributes or ensures public safety. This element of accountability serves as a protection for police officers who uphold the standard ethics of their jobs; provides some comfort to citizens who fear their welfare is rough shadowed by police actions in many instances; and, alley fears of many who may identify elements of prejudice in the way police conduct their business, a few of which has resulted in questionable fatality.

The status quo of having prejudice, hatred and or violence driving policing; and or, killing police officers as retribution for police shootings can hardly be accommodated on the realm of public safety. Further, the mentality that police officers, out of convenience, easily resort to fatal violence, would always be frowned upon for a number of reasons, including the potential of lawlessness or vigilante justice by citizens and or groups who feel they are being targeted; and, the efficacy of operating a democracy with the rule of law being paramount. We may be sad for having police officers lose their lives to unwarranted violence, or retribution killings, with members of their families sharing in grief and risks of their profession. It is also very depressing to think that Castile and Sterling may have lost their lives to police excessive use of force or police brutality. In both cases, the issues of excessive or fatal force are untenable and negate principled interpretation of the laws of the land.

Diversity and Humanity in Policing

By now, there needs to be an open discussion of ethics, race issues and the right to bear arms by ordinary citizens with respect to policing and public safety. On the question of ethics in policing, humanist ethics - ethics of man, by man, and for man, men and women of the police forces, like all citizens, often make choices and assert themselves in whatever endeavor they are engaged. The assurance that police officers will conform to a set of policing ethics that would not endanger citizens cannot continue on presupposition that everyone would hold themselves to the highest standard of behavior; and, that all law enforcement officers commit themselves to the highest moral principle in providing public safety, whether there is a camera or no camera in documenting citizens’ interaction with police. Without conformity or assurance to the highest etiquette in policing, no one may guarantee safety of all Americans with the new development of policing minorities of color.

Unfortunately, just as many police officers believe in ethical transparency in policing, and many citizens share this philosophy, there are others among us, citizens and police alike, who are still grounded in ethical relativism; that the nature of ultimate reality, differs based on situation or persons involved in police interactions. The police officers involved in the use of force that led to the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, may be in the right, may argue that their use of fatal force in both instances may be unfortunate; however, they are based on prior experience in policing minority population in both respective cities. They may advance the argument that citizens asking police officers to exercise better judgement or restraints, are not faced with the day-to-day activities of policing, and could neither understand the risk and danger associated with a split second failures from paying attention in an interaction with the public. Police officer(s) advancing this latter argument or, who are gong-ho on holding their grounds on whatever measure in providing public safety, may advance further that ethical judgement in policing may be subjected to relative interpretations: will an accosted suspect resort to fatal violence if the police does not; or, would he or she conform to police directives when accosted by police officers? Yes, ethical judgment is necessary in the context of policing; however, it is essential that police officers interacting with the public, maintain standard principles. The use of force must still be within nationally acceptable policing guidelines; and if a police officer perceives danger in extraneous circumstances, the use of fatal force must always be the last resort, not the first; and preferably within national policing guidelines.

While Police officers who wrought fatal violence on the public may hide under the precept of relativism, insisting at all cost that their action in all circumstances are justifiable; and most of the recent events, while suspected aberrations in some quarters, are still within the prerogative of public safety. Relative to specific situations, while providing public safety, many citizens at the receiving end of police violence and brutality, especially many men and women of color who have died, and their families, demand justice on the ground, that objective reasons must be the salient criteria or acceptable efficacy in use of fatal force in policing. Suspicion may be an acceptable parameter for policing; however, neither racial, religious or national origin profiling of citizens, are acceptable factors in stopping, frisking or using fatal force in the course of police interactions. As articulated by humanists, policing must be conducted or based on insight, humanity and prudent reasons within the guidelines and provision of national standards and provisions of the rule of law. Police officers must learn to face their fears, or perceived fears of a certain segment of the population, on verifiable and acceptable universal morality and standards, never giving to prejudices or preconceived notions of what they imagine a suspect has done or is likely to do; or what had transpired in similar cases of interaction of particular segment of the population with the police. Verifiable reasons of violence may be acceptable in case of repeat offenders; however, a citizen interacting with the police officer must be given the benefit of doubt or innocence. Prior records of similar events or people, profiling of citizens must never dictate interaction between citizens and police, whether African American, Asian-Americans, Mexicans, Native Americans or Whites. It is only when police allow ethical judgement to become the focal point or parameter in police-citizens’ interaction, will the police find reciprocity of truthfulness, trust, honesty, sincerity and collaboration in effecting public safety.

Using robotic bombs to take out Micah Xavier Johnson may have been prudent to enforce safety and security of residents of Dallas, Texas, on that horrible night last week; however, this same reason, could hardly be justifiable, if Mr. Johnson was sitting or driving a car with the broken tail lights or selling CD’s at the Convenience Store. Unfortunately, the loss of additional lives happens to be the end result with Mr. Johnson decision to take the law into his hands. The traditional assumption that all police officer will live to the highest standard of ethical behavior when confronted with the same situation appears not to have been borne out with instances of policing all Americans, especially with the case of men and women of color. That is why the use of fatal force in policing Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, continues to be a matter of concern for many citizens.

Ethical impulses could not exist within reason and are often sought in irrationality; police officers confronted with a situation in which they had to accouter men of color have often resort to impulses that men of color are going to do them harm, and out of irrationality, many have used fatal force in taking out many good and law abiding citizens. This is why we now have a trust issue in policing minority men and women of color, with the following sad and questionable killing by police of the following: 1) Aiyana Stanley-Jones: while sleeping, an innocent 7 years old sleep; 2) Akai Gurley :while walking a flight of stairs in an apartment building; 3) Alton Sterling: while selling CD’s before a convenient store to make ends meet; 4) Amadou Diallo: while holding his wallet; 5) Corey Jones: while waiting for roadside assistance, bothering no one, by an undercover officer; 6) Eric Garner; while selling loose cigarettes around the corner; 7) John Crawford III: while holding an air rifle in a Walmart store; 8) Jonathan Ferrell and Renisha McBride: while seeking help for a broken car after a car accident; 9) Michael Brown: while walking down a neighborhood street; 10) Philando Castile: in a traffic stop for having suspected broken tail light, just as the police officer witnessed him bringing out his wallet to get his ID; 11) Rekia Boyd: while partying with friends and associates; 12) Samuel DuBose: while being pulled over for routine traffic stop; 13) Sandra Bland: while making an alleged improper lane change before shot by a cop; and, 14) Tamir Rice: while playing with fake gun in a community park.

The 1964 Civil rights laws and as amended in 1972, articulate the protection of minorities among us, because of the past experience of centuries of discrimination. The land mark discrimination law, outlawed discrimination in all realm of social life, including enjoyment of full and free lives as American citizens. The law was not meant to divide but to end all forms of divisions. Thus, policing disparately under any ground, by any police officer, that leads to an unusual loss of lives, including consecutive multiple deaths of minorities within two weeks, would reasonable contravene the civil rights law. The law was not meant to completely correct every moral failing of Americans, through legislation; however, it was meant to address provable harm to body politic where there has been suspicion of unusual violation; two in this case, involving the recent deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling.

Psychology of Policing:

The greater psychology of American policing is data driven; and the narrative begins with, not proven, but mostly suspected incidences of criminal acts in many deprived neighborhoods and communities; most of which are occupied by citizens of color around the country. Yes, there are alarming statistics of minority on minority crimes; however, isn’t this the same reason for policing of all citizens. Using the handicap argument that there are rising minority on minority crime as a crutch is a failure of the mind in identifying and defining the purpose of American policing. Police officers putting on their uniform everyday are called to serve the public, not decimate it. Policing is a higher order of calling, just like serving in the military; and, to paraphrase Biblical John 15:13, no other love hath a police officer, man or woman, to lay down their lives for their community. It is a honorable job not meant for just anyone, but a few chosen ones who understand the selflessness and confidence society repose in those wearing the blue uniform and badge with pride.

American Police officers believe that based on the incidences of crime statistics, there are higher ratio of minorities of color in neighborhoods or regions of higher incidences of crime. Nothing could be further from the truth; as Washington Post longitudinal data from 2014 -2016 (news reports, public records, social media and other sources) indicate a disputable contrarian, regarding the criminality of minority groups and put in focus the need to question unnecessary use of fatal force in policing men and women of color. Compared with mainstream American Population, 2016 killings, at least the case of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, mirror so much the experience of 2014 Ferguson, Missouri Killings of Michael Brown, which has resulted in the acquittal of the police office, which resulted in the Black Lives Matter movement, a movement that has devoted itself to raising the awareness of police accountability in policing of American Citizens.

Except American Police defaults to the Biblical Christianity psychology that, all of us are sinners, and the killings, whether justifiable or unjustifiable, are protected under the Judeo-Christian ideology on which American Nation or democracy is founded, there can be no other reason for continued disproportionate killings of minority men and women of color through the use of excessive force by American police. Yes, practicing Christian Policeman or Women may need to get in touch with the inherent goodness of anyone to build societies, rather than decimate or destroy it through the use of unnecessary force that result disproportionately in more of men and women of color  dying compared to mainstream population in course of their interaction with police.

The trigger happy policemen, a few with psychological problems, may want to re-evaluate their desires to curtail freedom of men and women of color by inflicting violence or engaging in vicious circle of violence that damage the body, spirit and psyche of many Americans. The ‘rebellion’ from the Black Lives Matter group, one driven by the strain of minds and spirits to find solution to the inexplicable deaths of fellow human beings; not necessarily a confrontation with the style of American policing, can also be imagined in the realm of finding answers to questionable deaths of other beings; and, the frequency of use of fatal force in random policing of Americans. Many in Black Lives Matter group, are saying, we are not okay with the way minority men and women of color, are being importunately policed; some often resulting in fatalities that are heart wrenching. The twist now is for the totality of the thousands of American police precincts to look themselves in the mirror and ask: Can we articulate the very deepest of human psychological problems, guilt, in situations where the community we are policing are dying in our own hands?

If Christianity, Islamism, Judaism, Sikism, Obatala, Osun, or whatever religion you believe, is superior to the materialistic worldview, so should any police officer practicing any of these religions, reflect ever so often the pedigree  of their religion in keeping the people and communities safe. If men and women in American Police Uniforms, caught or about to be caught, in one of the inexplicable deaths of one of the minority men and women through their own act or style of policing, would it be too much, if other Americans who truly believe in the spirituality of the fallen man or woman, ask the inevitable question, is killing of that other man in the hands of police keeping public safety; is it offering humanity a spring of water welling up to eternal life as prescribed in the scriptures? If many minorities are too scared of being killed by the cops, should it not be the duty of police to ask themselves, are we treating everyone equally and unsuspecting, no matter their race, religion, nationality or sex?

The truths and the words may be hard to see or come by, they may even test us, but mourning of fellow Americans are equally so dilapidated for everyone, including those wounded from the mayhem in Dallas, Texas; however, the truth is, we all have to look inwards, we have to reflect so much on how America polices her citizens. Just as many are saddened and terrified by unspeakable violence from the hands of Micah Xavier Johnson, so also are many Americans seeking answers to those videos showing the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. Just as be wielding are the deaths of five fine and judicious officers in the Dallas City Police Department, Loren Ahrens, Michael Smith, Michael Krol, Patrick Zamarripa and Brent Thompson, so also are many terrified that this same unfortunate events could have happened to any one of us. Maybe the consolation for now, would be found in the message of Dallas Police Chief David Brown, as he mourns the deaths of his five officials at the open air memorial service: “Let us change the truths to love; as we deal with the preponderance of violence on Americans streets, let’s keep loving each other until kingdom come.” This may only be the formidable and forcible future about American Policing.  May God Bless the United States of America.

                                                        ROSA PARKS (b. 1913 –  d. 2005)

                                                PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPH – 1950

                                        Source: Library of Congress – Visual Materials