Does America Really Share 'Core Values' ?

Before I delve into the edition's topic, I have to say that I'm still a little bit in shock at the outcome of the recent election results. Rarely in my 35 plus years as a political and community activist have I seen such a seismic shift. Most political pundits and pollsters were predicting almost the complete opposite. Perhaps it was a referendum on the Obama Regime's policies. Certainly the scope of the election would indicate so. But then, given that the Governor-elect, Matt Bevin, has long been considered an "outsider"; a "Tea Partier", and an "anti-establishment" candidate, one could equally argue that the election was a refutation of the McConnell controlled Republican Party.

Of course, the top of the Democrat Party's ticket wasn't an especially strong candidate and, as a result, relied heavily on negative campaigning. Nevertheless, other candidates such as Adam Edelen, long thought to be a rising star, is now a bit dimmed. What we ended up with was a near sweep of the Constitutional offices by the Republican Party while the two Democratic wins were razor thin. So, congratulations to all the winners, and a special thanks to everyone who was willing to put themselves out there as a candidate. It's not easy. I know. I've done it a few times.

Moving on to this edition of A/O, did you happen to notice that one of the themes repeated over and over by the Democrat nominee was that Republican Matt Bevin didn't share "our values"? How often have we heard the phrase "our values" being thrown about in political campaigns or debates? It seems to be a catchall phrase used by both political parties for years if not decades, but no one ever seems to try and define just what that means. I wonder why that it is? Could it because no one knows what those "values" are? Maybe they're afraid to mention them because one or two of them might "offend" someone---and that may cost votes or worse! Then again, maybe it's just supposed to be left to our collective imaginations that we have some unspoken national or even regional moral bond.

But if you think about it, that's not quite true. As Americans, we do seem to share some common beliefs. If you take a look at our Founding documents, such as the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, as well as some other key documents and speeches (TR's "Man in the Arena" speech comes to mind), we can glimpse what some of these common core values are, such as a liberty, equality and self-government. As a nation, we have a almost unshakeable belief in a higher power or Creator (74% believe in God or a higher power), who has bequeath to us certain rights (often referred to as "natural or unalienable rights" as defined by individuals such as John Locke). These natural rights aren't due to the good graces of some benevolent government or royal decree. They are ours as a basic irrevocable entitlement based on our common Humanity.

Americans also share a common belief in self-reliance, privacy, equal opportunities to succeed (or fail) based on our own efforts (this is the "pursuit of happiness" portion you've probably read or heard about it). It means that you have the right to try to achieve a measure of self-happiness as you define it, but you have no guarantee that you will be successful. No one owes it to you. This is also part of our collective heritage as Americans of a capitalist or mercantile system. It's not a "anything goes" social or economic system. It implies a level playing field for all participants, which, of course, means equality and equal treatment for all. It also means honesty in our dealings with others, which brings me to an interesting contradiction in our collective mentality. Americans despise cheaters, whether it be in business dealings or sports, and yet there's a part of us which subtly admires the cleverness of the act. Perhaps that's why we can simultaneously like and hate someone like an Al Capone or Barry Bonds or Richard Nixon.

Another thing we as Americans seem to embrace is charity. Americans are among the most giving of any nation (ranked 13th in the world). We spend billions annually---$358 billion in 2014---helping people around the world and here at home (in 2013, the US Government gave $40.11 billion in aid, of which $8.03 billion was earmarked as military aid). We are quite individualistic, especially compared to other nations who think more in terms of the collective good, be it village, ethnic group or nation. It's part of our "up by our own bootstraps" mentality, and yet we tend to think of ourselves are part of various subgroups like Westerners, Northerners, Southerners, or New Yorkers or Californians and so forth.

Some self-identify by race (though frown upon by most), or sexual preference, religion, or even ethic group. Yet, when we travel abroad, we rarely make any other claim than that of being Americans. We are also a very informal. Perhaps that because we see each other as a unique human being; a "one-of-a-kind". It may also be because we, as a nation, rejected any titled sense of superiority of Europe. We tend to measure ourselves by our abilities and our drive to succeed through hard work. We also tend to distrust authority, especially governmental authority. Again, perhaps a holdover from our collective history.

There you have it. It appears we do indeed have a certain set of core values which unites as Americans; a belief in individualism and self-government, personal privacy, a level playing field and equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on our own efforts along with "healthy" competition, specific "inalienable" rights such as freedom of speech, religion, movement and thought innate to us as human beings, not to mention a strong work ethic and "can do" attitude, value of our leisure and informality. Some may add to that our sense of the value of our time and thus punctuality, the acceptance and normality of change, ability to own property, a representative government responsible to the people, and a right to participate in the political process as well as civilian control of the military and law enforcement.

So, the next time you see or hear a political advertisement or speech which either stresses their commitment to our shared "American" or "Family" values or their opponents lack thereof, ask yourself whether what's being promoted adds to or takes away from these values. Is what they're promoting increase the scope and power of government or personal responsibility? Does it contribute to creating a level economic playing field for all or does a certain group unjustly benefits? Does what they're claiming takes away from the rights of individual such as increasing surveillance or limiting our freedom of personal privacy; perhaps it creates a "personhood" out of artificial legal entities and bestows on them more rights than on flesh and blood individuals? Is money merely a form of freedom of speech or an economic tool? Should our use of it be restricted or just restricted for some?

As Americans, there is more which unites us than divides us, although to some we must remain divided as much as possible so that we remain distracted from what's really going on behind the scenes and more often than not, in our name...for our own good of course.


The University of Missouri-St. Louis. International Student and Scholar Services:
Key American Values
(July 17, 2013)
http://www.umsl.edu/~intelstu/Admitted%20Students/Visitor%20Handbook/keyvalues.html


Time Magazine: What Are American Values These Days?
(July 4, 2012)
http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/04/what-are-american-values-these-days-2/


Everyday Sociology Blog: American Values: Are We Really Divided?
(March 21, 2011)
http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/03/american-values-are-we-really-divided.html


Gallup Poll: Majority in U.S. Still Say Moral Values Getting Worse
(June 2, 2015)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183467/majority-say-moral-values-getting-worse.aspx


Theodore Roosevelt: Citizenship in the Republic/Man in the Arena
(April 23, 1910)
http://design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Citizenship_in_a_Republic.pdf

Newspaper Endorsements: Not Worth the Ink

The following is a reprint of an article which I've published in one form or another every election cycle since 2001. This is as important for our present as it is for our future. Please consider sharing with your family, friends, and contacts.

There was a time when newspapers were the ever vigilant "crusaders" of public interest, albeit self-appointed and as often as not, the creators of their own hype (see "Yellow Journalism"), however, society grew up.

Today, we have instant access to information the world over, and with it, the ability to do own investigation of candidates and the issues which are important to us.

For years, I campaigned for release of unedited transcripts of candidate interviews and full disclosure of the interviewer's names and political affiliations. The public has a right to know exactly what the candidate said, what their positions are, as well as the slant the article, or so-called "endorsement", was written from. I've been involved in politics for over 35 years. To many times over those years I've come across candidates who were misquoted, misattributed, or the "correct" answer inserted while the gaffs were carefully removed. Today, we have a partial solution with a few of the interviews being taped and made public unedited, but not full disclosure from those doing the interviews or making the endorsements. That remains hidden. You, the voter, have a right to know.

As I have done for years, I urge readers to take a few minutes to do their own research and make their own decision about who to vote for. The Voter Guide is one such resource for you to consider. If you find that you happen to agree with a particular candidate's positions mentioned , fine. Then support that individual as a volunteer, with a financial contribution or with your vote. But do so as an informed voter. Don't let anyone think for you. Ever. The role of the media is to present the facts in a impartial, balanced and fair manner, not to attempt to manipulate or sway public opinion to suit its own political agenda, even if they think it's "for your own good". Only you can decide what's in your own best interests. Can you imagine Fox, CNN, ESPN, CBS, ABC, or even Public TV making a political endorsements? Neither can I. Forget about your newspaper's endorsements. Remember that endorsements are merely personal opinions, and not always the most informed ones at that. Think for yourself. Do your own research. And then vote. America is counting on you.

The Illusion of Choice: Surveys and Polls

A few nights ago the AFL-CIO called me with one of those pre-recorded surveys designed to sound like a "real" person was on the other line. I'm fine with that. I actually don't mind answering their questions (at least some of them. They are certain questions that I

won't answer such as household income). Nevertheless, this survey centered on the upcoming Governor's race.

The survey started off by thanking me for my willingness to participate and added that I had been "chosen" because of my political participation in the past. While I didn't realize there were folks keeping track of my previous political involvement, I decided to play along. The first question asked me if I was aware that Republican Matt Bevin and Democrat Jack Conway were running for Governor of Kentucky. However, no mention was made of the Independent, Drew Curtis, which I found odd.

The next question asked me if I was Democrat or Republican or unsure. As everyone knows, I'm a Independent, so I guess that puts me in the "unsure" camp. Apparently whoever put the survey together doesn't consider Indies as a valid political philosophy or is aware that Independents are the largest voting bloc in America. The next question asked me if I leaned Republican or leaned Democrat. Well, like most Americans, I'm a Centrist. Is that Left leaning or Right leaning I wondered? Fortunately, there was a third choice----unsure, which was apparently inserted in case the respondent couldn't make up their mind whether they preferred to be accused of being a "Socialist" or a "Nazi". The reason I selected "unsure" is simply because I don't believe the political Left or the Right has got it right. Like most people, I support the Left on some issues, mostly social and the Right on other issues such as small government and tax overhaul.

I was then asked who I voted for in the last presidential election---Democrat Barack Obama or Republican Mitt Romney or the ubiquitous "some other candidate" as if there was really just two choices but if I had to be difficult, I could pick someone else. I really had a hard time trying to imagine who in their right mind would admit voting for Barack Obama these days but then again, who in their right mind would admit voting for Mitt Romney? It reminded me of being a kid and having to chose between chocolate or vanilla ice cream when all I really wanted was strawberry. So, I dutifully picked "some other candidate".

I guess they weren't satisfied with my answers, and so in another attempt to pin me down, I was asked who I voted for in the last race for governor---Democrat Steve Beshear or Republican David Williams, or (again) "some other candidate"? Well, once more, I opted for the latter just to maintain the consistency. After all, if I was going to buck the system, I wasn't going to be wishy washy about it. The survey closed with the usual questions "for statistical purposes" so they can attempt to identify their demographics (which is kind of interesting. If I was "selected" because of my past political activity as they said at the beginning of the survey, wouldn't they already know my demographic values?). I was asked to select an age range, which I did. The worse thing about that was that I was second from the last grouping ("65 or older"). That sure didn't help with my self-esteem. It made me feel as if I was slowing being ushered of the stage! Anyway, they asked my race (including "other" and "decline to say" which I thought was pretty cool). I was then asked to identify my gender. Apparently you still have to chose between male or female. (sorry Bruce...err...Caitlyn), and my zip code. I was a little surprised they didn't ask for my highest level of education completed, but maybe "skoolin" isn't considered an important value in determining potential voters for Governor.

This wasn't the only gubernatorial survey I've received recently. A few days before this survey, I received a "live" phone call from a somewhat husky sounding female who was calling on behalf of the UAW. I have to admit, this was a much more pleasant phone call. I guess that's because I was speaking with an honest to goodness human being, which made me like my opinion was a bit more important than the pre-recorded ones I get from an autodialer. I suppose that's also because I can ask questions back, which I consider important given my quizzical nature. The caller thanked me for taking the time to answer their questions, and volunteered that I was chosen because I was identified as "politically active", as well as "Democrat leaning" and a union official, which I found interesting on several levels.

I haven't been a registered Democrat since 2003 when I was forced to switch due to some unremitting harassment the local party refused to address for not actively supporting my 2001 Metro Council opponent (he had switched from Republican to Democrat at the behest of the State Democratic Party even though he had never been involved in politics or a consistent voter. In addition, I had been asked to run for Metro Council by the local Democratic Executive Committee and other local party leaders). I had been a long time mid level officer in the local Democratic Party organization and a prominent community activist, however, the state party leadership didn't think I could be controlled and wanted someone else. I had also been the state chairman of a national writers union for several years and served on the national steering committee as well as having served on the veterans and Victory Pac committees plus the AFL-CIO Central Labor Council (my wife is also a retired Teamster). After that, I was aggressively recruited to run as a Republican for State Representative in 2004 against a sentimentally popular but unproductive Democratic incumbent of some 30 years (though I lost the race, I came within 1500 votes of winning in a strongly conservative Democratic district, which resulted in him opting not to run again). However, I've been "clean and sober" from any political party since around 2008, though I've kept my contacts on both sides.

Nevertheless, the questions were much like the other survey I mentioned, however, I did get to ask a few questions of my own. Specifically, I asked what kind of responses they were getting. She said most people had indicated little interest in the race. Most were focusing on the presidential election, especially on Donald Trump. She added that "The Donald" seems to have tapped into an underlining current of distrust bordering on distain for the federal government and especially on Obama. She also mentioned that of those who were keeping up with the gubernatorial race, most of the respondents held negative opinions about both Jack Conway and Matt Bevin. I asked about their feedback regarding the Independent, Drew Curtis (I had noticed that no mention of the Independent was made in either survey). She said that a number of those familiar with the race mentioned that they supported or leaned toward the Curtis. A few who didn't recall Curtis' name also indicated they wanted to know more about the third candidate.

Obviously, there's a couple of factors going on here. First, neither Bevin or Conway are particularly strong candidates. Conway has run for just about everything but keeps losing. People just can't relate to him and Conway, no matter what office he's running for, comes across as a spoilt rich brat with a sense of entitlement. Matt Bevin seems to be popular with the Kentucky Tea Party set and the anti-Mitch McConnell and anti-GOP Establishment clique. However, Matt just seems to be unable to get his message out to a wider base, especially across party lines. Perhaps part of this is because people in general are sick and tired of "good ole party boys". They see both parties as inept, out of touch, corrupt, beholden to the corporate oligarchs and one percenters who are running America now. Of course, both parties continue to lose members while third parties and especially independents are growing. Indies are now the largest political segment of America, followed by Democrats and more distantly, Republicans. Within ten years, Indies are expected to outnumber Democrats and Republicans combined.

I guess the reason why neither survey (and I suspect this holds true for other surveys being conducted on the governor's race) mention the Independent's name or positions is because the race between Conway and Bevin is tight, and just perhaps, the sponsors of the surveys are trying to make voters think they only have two choices for governor. Perhaps too they are attempting to condition voters into choosing an "R" or a "D" as if that's all that matters when the reality is just the opposite. Even when it comes to debates, third party and independent candidates are rarely invited as if they candidacy is publicity stunt. Few people realize that the national Democratic and Republican parties have worked out a deal to keep everyone else out of the limelight and off the stage ever since they were grossly embarrassed by Ross Perot's performance. The corporate news media plays along and downplays, ignores, and makes fun of just about every third party or independent who comes along. It's like being onboard the Titanic and throwing ice cubes at the approaching iceberg! All the Indies and third parties are truly missing is charismatic candidates with a good campaign organization. Of course, they're going to need money, however, the corporate oligarchs who control the power in this country also control the money flow in politics (remember the Citizens United misruling by the not-so-Supreme Court?), but it can still be done.

I think it's time that the average voters takes third party and Independent candidates more seriously. Obviously, like most of us, they're are just as fed up, turned off, and discouraged by our broken political system as everyone else is, except they're willing to step forward to try and do something about the mess both parties and their benefactors have created. Most are closer to our ideals about common sense government than either party and let's face it, with more people leaving the other two parties and registering as Independent, the political tide is on their side. Besides, if the corporate news media and both political parties are so opposed to them, they almost have to be the better choice by definition! Finally, remember that the only endorsement which ultimately matters is your vote.


Drew Curtis for Governor
http://drewcurtis.nationbuilder.com/

Matt Bevin for Governor
http://www.mattbevin.com/

Conway Overly for Kentucky
https://conwayoverly.com/