Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Why is Roe v Wade Important? It's not what you think.

Photo (C) DepositPhotos.com
Tom Sheppard
10/21/2020

As the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett proceed there has been a lot of chatter in the news about Roe v Wade.  For many years now, as candidates for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) have been considered their stance on the landmark case of Roe v Wade has been used as a litmus test to determine if they would have support from liberals and Democratic politicians.

Most of us hear "Roe v Wade" and we translate that into "Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion."  Unfortunately, we are missing the mark.

Most people know that Roe v Wade is the case where SCOTUS determined that women have a right to abortion on demand.  This 'right' can be phrased as reproductive rights, or the right to control her own body, or abortion rights.

When most of us hear about Roe v Wade, and whether or not someone supports it, our minds are focused on the topic of abortion.  However, the real importance of Roe v Wade is not about abortion.

When politicians focus on the potential of overturning Roe v Wade, they are not actually worried about abortion.  

The biggest issue embedded in Roe v Wade is not abortion.  The biggest issue is whether or not the judiciary branch is allowed to violate the Constitutional separation of powers and create laws in addition to interpreting the laws. 

As divisive and important as is the issue of abortion it is being used to mask this much bigger problem.

Abortion and Inalienable Constitutional Rights

Regardless of the moral issues of abortion, fundamentally it is a medical procedure.  It it irrefutable that the Constitution is silent of medical issues.  It neither grants, nor denies any medical procedure.  In short, our medical care is not one of our inalienable rights.

Similarly, the Constitution is silent on matters of financial security.  While we have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as noted in The Declaration of Independence) nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights is there any acknowledgement that financial security is a basic right.  

Separation of Powers
The biggest issue embedded in Roe v Wade is the separation of powers.  

In a monarchy the king or queen hold all three powers of government in themselves.  The monarch writes the laws, enforces the laws, and interprets (judges) whether or not the laws are being applied correctly. 

The separation of these powers out of the hands of monarchs are the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization.

The importance of the Magna Charta is that King John was forced to give up both judicial power and legislative power.  The right to trial by a jury of peers was a direct removal of judicial power out of the hands of the King.  The perpetual establishment of Parliament was a direct removal of legislative power out of the hands of the King.

When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they built a government that exercised all three of these governmental powers in ways that allowed each branch of government to serve as a check on the power of the other branches.

In recent years we have seen substantial erosion of the separation of powers in several ways.

The Executive Branch Has Legislated
Executive Orders and regulations have the power of legislation.  When they are promulgated as clarification of implementation of legislation that may be proper.  However, in recent years we have seen Executive Orders from Presidents of both parties enacted in the absence of legislation.  The so-called Dreamers Act of DACA is one such order which, strangely, SCOTUS sustained as lawful when a subsequent President attempted to remove it through an Executive Order.

The Legislative Branch Has Executed
Recent years have seen the Legislative Branch enact laws to take over certain powers of the Executive by curtailing the Constitutional powers of the Executive relative to dealing with other nations.

The Judicial Branch Has Legislated
Here is the crux of this discussion.  When the Judicial Branch legislates, there is no effective check on their power by either the Executive or the Legislative except through defiance, censure, or attempts at counter-legislation.

They Key Question in Abortion
The pivotal issue of abortion revolves around the rights of the unborn.  The rights of the unborn hinge, in turn, on the question of when does the unborn become a "person."  Once the point of personhood is reached, then all the protections of rights by the State come into play and the rights of the mother versus the rights of the child must be mediated.  Today, many believe personhood is established at conception.  Others argue it happens only at birth.  Still others take stances in between those two extremes.

This question of personhood was the key issue for abortion debates in states across the US until SCOTUS codified it at the start of the third trimester, based primarily on the notion that from that point forward the unborn might survive outside the womb, albeit with assistance.  This survival concept is referred to as viability.


"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn.Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. [Footnote 1] While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. [Footnote 3-2] Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857, and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante at 119.

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

When SCOTUS decided Roe v Wade they established a right which had been rejected as such by the Founders.  From the previous quote, the research of Justice Rehnquist revealed that the Founders reasonably knew about laws on the books controlling abortion, yet they did nothing to establish it as a legal right.  I will grant here that at this point in time the rights of women were largely neglected.  They had no vote and their property rights were often violated.  So, it is arguable that, in this instance, the right to abortion was being ignored. 

If a woman's right to abortion were the only issue with Roe v Wade, I would happily leave it there and focus this discussion on the crux of that matter, i.e., when does the right of a woman for an abortion conflict with the right of the child within her to not be deprived of life without due process?  That is the real question behind the question of viability and personhood.

To be blunt, science cannot answer the question of personhood.  Science is unable to accurately determine when a 'fetus' becomes a person.  Religion too has difficulty in this arena.  Short of God granting a direct and incontrovertible revelation detailing when the spirit becomes a permanent tenant in the body there is no way for us to know when the transformation occurs from mere flesh and bone to a living soul.

The debate over personhood is critical because personhood is necessary for legal acknowledgement and protection of rights.  In other words, the right of a woman to end a pregnancy infringes on the right of a child to life at the moment the child becomes a person.  If that personhood doesn't occur until birth, or if it occurs at conception, then the rights of the woman must be balanced against the rights of the person being born.

Some of the research by the majority opinion on Roe v Wade makes it clear that religions too, including Christianity and Judaism have differed in their views over time.  Traditionally, they focused on the moment of birth, or when the baby "quickens" and begins to actively move and respond to external stimuli while still within the womb.  The focus on personhood at conception is a relatively recent standard for religion.

Because the debate over personhood is so critical (and essentially unknowable) it becomes a matter of conscience and is appropriately left to the People to decide as they debate, implement, and amend laws intended to protect the right to life of an unborn child within their various states, or even at a national level through the Congress of the United States.

They can change these laws as their understanding changes.  They can elect or throw out representatives who support or oppose their views, and thus the rights of women and unborn children can be dictated by the collective conscience of the People.

When SCOTUS ruled in Roe v Wade, they took this debate out of the hands of the People.  Rather than letting the People use the legal means available to them through our Constitution, by judicial fiat SCOTUS wrote law to establish a legal thresholds for abortion across all the States at once.  

In Roe v Wade SCOTUS ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy it can be terminated at the will of the woman without any prohibition.  During the second trimester some concerns had to be addressed, and during the third trimester the only justification was the choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn.  

Justice Rehnquist's dissent puts the point on this issue.  "The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment." [my emphasis]

To be clear, the real reason why Roe v Wade is important to liberals is not because of abortion.  Liberals want Roe v Wade to be considered inviolate because it establishes a precedent of judicial legislation. 

Two Steps to Monarchy

The United States of America rebelled against Great Britain because they felt that their rights were being trampled upon.  When the Founders crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it was to establish a government which would protect the rights of the People from injustice by their government.  They rejected monarchy, democracy, pure republicanism, and other forms of government and instead opted for a Constitutional Republic.  

A republic allows the people to elect representatives who govern on their behalf.  A Constitutional Republic limits what those representatives can do in the name of the the People.  Unfortunately, as our country has grown is size our government has also grown in complexity.  The size of the Executive Branch has grown along with our country and the need to execute the laws has morphed into the creation of regulations which have the force of law.  This has led to the rise of an army of government bureaucrats whose sole reason for existing is to create, administer, and adjudicate the regulations of our government.

At any point we are just two steps away from being hurled from being a constitutional republic into becoming a de facto monarchy.  Those two steps are the absorption of the powers of government from one branch of government into the other. 

There are some who argue we are already dealing with lots of little monarchs in the form of unelected government bureaucrats who can write regulations, enforce those regulations, and rule on the proper application of those same regulations.  https://youtu.be/ZwmUH5AGydQ 

https://youtu.be/ZwmUH5AGydQ
Source: PragerU

Fortunately, Congress has enacted laws which can be used to limit regulations allow Congress to review and strike them down, although it hasn't happened very often.

However, when the judiciary legislates, there is no one outside the judiciary who has the power to nullify or roll that back. Congress can pass laws to contradict or clarify, but a legislative judiciary can simply ignore all that and rule according to their own whims, rather than limiting themselves to their legitimate role.

Conclusions

Judicial legislation is a serious threat to our rights because it violates the separation of powers in the US Constitution.  It removes one of the essential checks and balances designed to protect us from a rapacious government.

The real importance of Roe v Wade is not whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion.  The real importance, and the reason liberals use it as a litmus test, is that the way the decision was framed was a broad act of judicial legislation.  As such, it is a key lever progressives want to keep using to subjugate individual rights and individual will to their own will and whims.  When a candidate for SCOTUS embraces Roe v Wade, they aren't embracing abortion.  They are actually embracing judicial legislation.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Friday, October 16, 2020

Two Things You Can Do to Make the World a Better Place Today

Tom Sheppard
10/16/2020

Many people today are very agitated about the state of our nation and the world. Everyone has their own reasons for being distraught. Some are so upset that they are taking to the streets in protests. Others are engaging in violent and riotous behavior, either believing that violence is the only way to effect change, or because they feel others have no right to their own views or property.

For many Americans taking to the streets is either too extreme, ineffective, or dangerous. They feel helpless in the face of these strong storm winds of change. Typically, the silent majority remains silent, speaking only through their votes, rather than carrying placards, or guns, in the streets.  However, times like these seem to require more than just silently casting our votes, because many interpret silence as acceptance.  That implicit acceptance feeds their belief that they are a majority rather than a minority view.

The reality is that the protestors and violent actors represent a small, but very vocal and active minority in this country. The majority of people believe that change can, and should be enacted through non-violent, civil means.

What is Fundamental Change?

While some of those espousing the need for change are calling for "fundamental" changes in this country, the majority of people are understandably reluctant and resistant to fundamental changes in our country. They have good reason for their reticence.

The phrase "fundamental change" literally means changing our foundations.  To be clear, the foundation of our nation is the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional Amendments.  So, anyone calling for fundamental change is calling for the abolition of the US Constitution either in whole or in large part.

The publicly stated premise of the need for this fundamental change is a false charge that the United States is fundamentally flawed and supports racism and other unjustices through the very concepts, ideals, and organization framed in our Constitution.

When you liken the Constitution to the foundation of country you can fully understand what people like CNN correspondent Don Limon means when he talks of "burn[ing] it all down."  If you want to replace the foundation of a building, in most cases, you have to tear down the whole building and start over.  This is exactly what these activists are talking about.  What is more, the new foundation they want to install is Marxism, also known as communism, socialism, statism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism, etc.

Institutional Racism Has Been Removed

I stated above that a key driver of demand for all this change is a false charge of fundamental racism.  This cry of fundamental racism is an extension of a similarly false charge of systemic racism pervading our nation and its institutions.

I say these charges are false based on the mountains of evidence which refute these charges.  Although there is not sufficient space in this short column (or in a whole library) to demonstrate all the evidence refuting these claims I will provide a few counterpoints to support my belief that these are false charges.

The Declaration of Independence which set forth the guiding principles which led to the creation of our Constitution boldly declares that, "all men are created equal" and all have the same rights. Further it states that the source of these rights come to individuals by right of birth, not dispensed or revoked by any government of men.  These declarations exempted no one.  

While it is true that the protection of these rights was imperfectly implemented in the Constitution, those imperfections which supported slavery and the limitation of rights based on race were cured with both the blood shed in the US Civil War and legislation in subsequent years including amendments to the constitution ensuring equal rights for all citizens without regard to gender, race, or religion.  The fact that those imperfections were cured within the current framework demonstrates that the foundation is both strong and worthy of continued support.

Racism Persists

While it is inarguable that racist and sexist behaviors continue to persist in individuals and even in some societies and businesses, the purging of racism and sexism from the halls of federal, state, county, and city governments across the United States of America is clearly demonstrated in both statute and court cases where such anti-social behaviors have been punished with both criminal and civil penalties.  Likewise court cases demonstrate that the weight of law has been consistently been brought to bear to rectify racist and sexist discrimination in both public and private institutions and societies wherever it has been found.

In short, the history of our nation shows over and over again that our system of government is very effective in the ongoing perfection of the defenses of our rights.  

A More Perfect Union

Some seek to discredit the Constitution and our national foundation by pointing out the flaws of the founders.  Noting how some of their behaviors were in greater or lesser degree in conflict with the ideals they embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The notion here is that their creation could not be less flawed than the founders.

The reality is that the founders were not perfect.  Many of them had aspects of their lives which were not in full harmony with the principles they put forward in the framing of our government.  As noted above, some of their imperfections were passed on through the Constitution.  

While individuals have the option of repenting and changing their behaviors to align their actions more closely with their principles, those attacking the foundation of our nation would have you believe that no such means to remedy defects exists for our government.  However, as I mentioned above, those means not only exist, they have been applied and continue to be applied.  

Because of its amendments, our Constitution today is a more perfect document than it was when it and the The Bill of Rights were ratified back in 1787.  

Our founders declared their intent was to create "a more perfect union."  What the created was not perfect.  It was, however, more perfect than what it replaced.  And since then, it has been perfected further.

The world today is so much better than it ever has been before because of the existence and rise of the United States of America.

To this point in my column I have explained why our union does not require fundamental change.  What follows is to help to take action to protect our foundation from those who want to burn down our nation and rip up the US Constitution.

Action #1 - Stop looking to government to solve societal problems.

Those who are seeking to "burn it all down" are rationalizing their efforts on the basis that the government is not adequately addressing societal ills.  This argument rests on a false foundational premise.  It assumes that it is the role of government to cure the ailments of our society.  

The problem with this assumption is that our societal ailments are neither more nor less than manifestations of our own human imperfections and bad actions driven by ungodly defects in human nature.  When I say ungodly, I mean that literally. 

Ungodly defects in human nature are those motives, thoughts, and actions which are in conflict with the best attributes we believe are inherent in deity, e.g., love, charity, kindness, generosity, etc.  Any efforts which profess to be attempting to rid us of these ungodly defects are reflexively wrapped in a mantle of altruism because they appear to be aimed at making us better people and thus making the world a better place.

Government Cannot Change Human Nature

Unfortunately, there is no government or economic architecture which has ever been devised and tested in the history of this world which is capable of transforming human nature into a more godly version of itself.  That is the realm of religion, not government.

The reason governments fail to effect this transformation is because they, necessarily, are only able to control the outward behaviors of people and cannot force thoughts and beliefs to change on demand.  Those which have tried, notably communism is in this camp, have used mass extermination to eradicate those whose manifested thoughts and beliefs, or behaviors, failed to conform.

In contrast with the universal failure of government in this regard, religion has achieved the transformation of man's nature on several individual and at least two documented collective occasions.  However, the ability to sustain a community of such transformed individuals has been, at a minimum limited by individual life spans and sometimes they were exterminated by those with differing beliefs or agendas.  

Successful Individual Transformations Achieved by Religion

According to Buddhism, the Buddha successfully transformed his nature, and then taught others.

According to Islam, Mohammed's nature was changed as he became the prophet, and he then taught others.

Judaism and Christianity teach that Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Peter, Saul/Paul, and John the Revelator all overcame the defects in their human nature to transform into the kind of people we should be.  I omit Jesus of Nazareth from this list because although "he learned wisdom" in this life, his disciples believe he was perfect from birth, rather than achieving some transformation during his mortal life.  It is his nature that Christians seek to emulate.

Successful Collective Transformations Achieved by Religion

According to the Old Testament, not only did Enoch achieve personal transformation to the point where he "walked with God,"  the entire city of Zion, people led by Enoch, achieved that transformation to the point where all of them were "caught up into heaven."

The New Testament records a period where the disciples of Christ, for a time at least, achieved a very happy state where they had all things in common and had no poor among them.

Successful Individual or Collective Transformations Achieved by Socialism

  • The Soviet Union - NO 20+ million killed (just by Stalin) trying to make it work.
  • Cambodia - NO 2+ million killed trying under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to make it work.
  • Cuba - NO with nearly 100,000 dissidents dead, the country still looks like it is living in the early 1950's, at best. 
  • Venezuela - NO 7,000+ dead by "security forces" with violent unrest and rampant poverty
  • China - NO 45+ millions killed already with tens of thousands more in "re-education" camps right now.
With this sort of proven track record shown in this scorecard you would think that socialism in all its forms would be dead and buried, never to rise again.  However, like some shambling, shuffling, half-decayed horrifying walking-dead zombie in a B-grade film socialism continues to rise up and threaten the lives of us all.

If the zombie of socialism were as blatantly distinct from our current government it would be easy to hunt it down and kill it.  However, at least since FDR's New Deal, socialism has been making massive inroads into the American government.  So many socialist solutions have been implemented to lesser degrees that nearly the whole economy and government has been converted over to socialism piecemeal.  Don't believe me?  Take a good hard look through this lens.

Anytime government is tasked with doing something for people which they should be doing for themselves, that is a form of socialism.

Social Security is Socialism

The Great Depression threw many people into poverty and highlighted the fact that many of the elderly lacked sufficient means to support themselves in their waning years.  In response, Congress passed the Social Security Act and FDR signed it into law on August 14, 1935. The underlying notion of Social Security is that we somehow have a life-long right to economic security and everyone around us is responsible to protect that right.

Economic Security is Not a Right

Take note that economic security was not listed in The Declaration of Independence as one of our inalienable rights, nor did it appear in any form in The Bill of Rights, or any constitutional amendment.  The notion of this "right" is based on the idea that it is the "right" thing for us to care for the less fortunate among us.

This is not only a perversion of transforming morally right behavior into a legally defensible right it uses immoral means to support this morality.  In the past, impoverished people, if they were unable to rectify their own situation turned first to family and then to the community through private charities.  

Private Charity Beats Government Programs

Private charities and families rely on morally impelled charity to help the impoverished.  Government uses forced taxation and income redistribution, which are immoral means to try to remedy a moral wrong.

Healthcare is Not a Right

Medicare and Medicaid likewise are state sponsored charity.  Both are aimed at setting right a morally wrong situation where people are unable to afford their health care.  In fact the whole notion currently being promoted around "Medicare for All" is just a logical extension of this usurpation of private charity by the state.  Are you seeing a pattern here?  

Congressman Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist and erstwhile Presidential candidate has proclaimed that from the socialist view private charities should be abolished.  The socialist view is that all "charity" is handled by the state by using tax dollars pulled from the pockets of working people.

When President Johnson declared the "war on poverty" he integrated a whole new raft of government programs to "right" a moral wrong of people living in poverty.  He attacked the problem through taxes and government programs instead of promoting what was already working to reduce the number and percentage of people in poverty - self-reliance, hard work, thrift, and the safety net of the nuclear family.  The results speak for themselves - destruction of the nuclear family among the poor, rising poverty levels, rising crime rates in poor areas, and the list of human misery just keeps mounting with every new wrong that socialists want to make right with the power of government. 

How can you determine if a politician or social movement is promoting good or bad solutions?  

Use the simple question, will the implementation of this result in increased dependence on government or increased emphasis on self-reliance?  

Take note, I ask you to consider not just the hype, but to consider how it will look once it is implemented.  If it is the former, oppose it.  If the latter, support it.  

Here are some practical ways to implement Action #1.

Read and analyze party platforms (national and state) to uncover whether the party philosophy trends toward reliance on government or self-reliance of individuals.  Most parties post their platforms online now so they are relatively easy to find.

Read and analyze proposed and actual legislation and ordinances to uncover whether they tend to increase the intrusion of government into private lives or to protect individual and states’ rights.

Study the effects of existing laws and ordinances to uncover whether they tend to support self-reliance and individual industry or government dependence.  Look at key demographic trends before and after a given piece of legislation was introduced.

For example, if you look at poverty rates in the US, particularly in the Black American community you will see that the rates were falling steadily for many years prior to LBJ's War nn Poverty.  After, the rates leveled out, instead of continuing to decline, and have begun to climb. 

It is telling that a key indicator of poverty is whether or not there are two parents in the home.  Prior to The War on Poverty, the percentage of single mothers in the Black American community was less than 10%, now it is well above 50%.  It seems pretty clear that the economic incentives in this legislation had the effect of encouraging out-of-wedlock marriages and the dissolution of the nuclear family.  

The results have been devastating the the Black American community, locking multiple generations into poverty and enforcing the soft bigotry of low expectations to exacerbate the problem by discouraging academic achievement by children.

Study and analyze both the voting records and pronouncements of candidates and politicians to uncover where their words and deeds align with the protection of individual and states’ rights and encourage self-reliance or government dependency.

Action #2 - Make Your Views Known

Exert your influence to encourage the cause of liberty, self-reliance, charity, and decreased worship of government as the cure for all our ills. Bear in mind, this step is neither passive nor free of costs.  The biggest costs may be the loss of friends and the vitriol of those who disagree with your views.  Whenever you take a stand, there are inevitably those who will oppose you.  These days, that opposition has proven to be particularly nasty and uncivil.

Whether or not others become uncivil is irrelevant. If you want to maintain the moral high ground that comes with supporting our unalienable rights (and their attendant responsibilities) you need to maintain high standards of civility and decorum.  Descending to the level of those who oppose you degrades you and your position, creating a semblance of moral equivalence between the principles you promote and those you oppose.

Use social media appropriately – don’t go negative.

Most of us are far too familiar with how nasty people can be on the internet.  Don't be one of those folks.  When you use social media, keep it positive and uplifting.

Many years ago while I was serving as a missionary, one of my trainers pointed out a very important principle to me.  He taught me that there are two ways to attempt to win people to your view. 

One way is to tear down the view of others while touting the brilliance of your view.  He pointed out that this seldom works because it puts people on the defensive.  They tend to become reactive and are so busy thinking of how to defend or attack that they often quit listening to the positive points you are trying to make.

The alternative is to largely ignore the view of others while simply talking up the good points and benefits of your view.  Many times, this wholly positive approach disarms them a bit and draws them in to look at your view more deeply and begin to ask questions.

To that end, here are a few rules of the road to remember:
  • Make sure your posts and comments encourage support for your views without denigrating others
  • Make complimentary comments, likes, follows, and shares of posts which support your views without denigrating others.
  • Engage in civil discourse instead of uncivil discourse.
Please note, avoiding denigrating other view points does not mean avoiding disagreeing with them.  I am not calling for the total avoidance of conflict.  Rather, I am calling for the use of constructive conflict instead of destructive conflict.  

Constructive conflict is conflict that doesn't leave people damaged in its wake.

Civil discourse means learning how to disagree without being disagreeable. 

  • Use facts as much as possible. Don't blindly repost memes either for or against.  Make the time to do a little research and try to verify facts before sharing them.
  • When you move from fact to belief, state it as a belief.  This clarity bolsters your use of facts and deprives opponents of the opportunity to justifiably call you out for substituting beliefs for facts.
  • Do not use insults or name-calling (ad hominem attacks).  When you resort to hurling insults at your opponents it is because you have lost your ability to use facts and reason and are resorting wholly to emotion to exert influence.  While emotion has its place, all too often it leads people into indefensible and ill-considered positions.
  • Engage with and support political candidates and parties that align with your views.

Consider Running for Public Office

Having run for office I can tell you it is no picnic.  It takes some money, good support, and a lot of hustle.  As nasty as it may sound, running for office is all about marketing, and you are the product.

Perhaps the worst aspect of running for office is the very negative views many people have about politicians.  As soon as you run for office, you are now a politician.  All those unkind things you may have said or heard about lying, dishonest politicians will now be said to you and about you.

Look local first. School Board, City Council, Mayor, County Council, County Clerk, etc.

It sounds trite, but it is true, the higher you go in politics the less you can actually affect.  You can have the most significant impact at the local levels rather than at state and federal levels.

Summary

Two things you can do to make the world a better place today are to stop looking for a governmental solution to societal ills and make your influence felt in a positive way.  These are pretty simple, but not particularly easy steps.  However, you can do them and they will begin to immediately make your tiny corner of the universe a bit better.


See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God