Is There A Panacea For The Masses?

World history contains reference to the many forms of communication shared. The lyre player, knight, storyteller, dramatic troupe, athletic league, not to mention pamphleteer and more. All impart a unique view of current events. The number and diversity in these forms ensure that there is access to information.

The question arises: how should these various forms of communication be governed? We ask what is the proper purpose of the regulation? And, how extensive should this regulation be?

The extent of regulation should depend upon the purpose of the information. Is it intended as a panacea, a manipulation. Or, does it reflect the obligation of certain nongovernmental institutions to provide sufficient information for the public to maintain its representative democracy.

To review and decide upon rules governing our information, both leaders and the public must define the concept of manipulative panacea. Is the purpose of the information moral, legal and rational? All regulations should place a duty to safeguard the public from communication that improperly influences and deludes more than informs.

Improper influence and delusion is often imperceptible. Thus upon whom is the burden to decide whether something constitutes honest information, regardless of whether in the form of musical performance, drama, athletics, printed material or other forms of communication?

In the thinking of some we do not begin as we become. We are formed and develop as we learn, absorb and reflect. This we do individually and collectively as we communicate. Perhaps purpose and intent and not content should govern our expressions of community.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

A Natural Aristocrat for DNC Chair

In selecting the next Chair of the Democratic National Committee, democrats should learn from mistakes made in the most recent election this past November. The losses, president and below, are not solely the fault of current Chair Jamie Harrison. If any reason is to be cited, perhaps Harrison did not stress upon party members the importance of supporting candidates like himself. And, the next Chair should do so. A well-educated, wise, and worldly Democratic Chair would attract similar candidates.

Need we do much to remember the roles of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy in history, not to mention Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Democrats must admit that both Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden are not historical figures. Jamie Harrison would present a better candidate.

Democrats possess an opportunity in recently announced DNC Chair candidate Ben Wikler, currently Democratic Chair in Wisconsin, to elect a DNC Chair who may be held accountable to a known standard of ability. He and Jamie Harrison should be compelled to bring forth candidates, local to federal, similar to themselves. The nation must rely upon learned elites as its source of governance. This presidential election did not do this and qualified candidates further down the ballot lost.

Partisanship is not the issue. Rather it is the essential principle of democratic government, that of leadership by a natural aristocracy, derived from its populace with an equal access to education and information. Both Harrison and Wikler are meritocratic leaders. It is possible that more candidates of similar quality will announce for the position as Chair. However, Democrats, and all Americans, must abide by the manner in which a democratic society must be governed.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Where Is The American Governing Meritocracy?

America was founded upon a principle of equality of opportunity. It is world history that provides an appreciation of this ability to participate in society and government. Those well steeped in the thought, languages and literature of their era were learned scribes, tutors, and writers, from Ptahhotep, to Plato, to Shakespeare, to Beauvoir, and beyond. They are members of a historical meritocracy.

America must derive its leaders and elected officials from this stratum to form a governing natural aristocracy. In the words of founder Thomas Jefferson: “[t]he natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts and government of society.” America’s political parties, citizens, and residents do not benefit from governing leadership that is not of the natural aristocracy. Average Americans cannot rise to the level required to govern an ever more demanding world. The political parties must empower its intellectual elites, both within as party leaders and as nominated candidates.

Reliance upon a governing meritocracy requires that society not engender a sense of personal inferiority within its working class. Becoming an intellectual must be feasible for all with the required ability. Respect must also exist for craftsmanship and industrial production. America needs to recognize those meritocraticaly able in all occupations in order to provide self-governance and participation for all. Self-government is an indication of individual achievement and success in a democratic society. It requires adequate education, economic self-sufficiency, and a sense of respect and integrity so that one may maintain trust in government. Personally, I have found that discrimination undermines self-confidence and creates a sense of inferiority, especially when reinforced with an emphasis on the newly declared impropriety of affirmative action. This harm long ago found resulting from racially separate but disputedly equal academic institutions one must wonder might currently exist in racially segregated yet ostensibly separate but equal religious communities.

A meritocratic leadership based upon self-government requires an equal access to education. Disparities in wealth have created an admission gap with wealthy families investing more in college preparatory resources resulting in a far higher level of admission to elite colleges and universities. To provide equal opportunity, government investment is needed in public college preparatory schools of the type that have long-existed in the United States but in insufficient numbers. Such an equal access to education allows the natural aristocracy to assume positions of leadership in both the private sector and in government.

And, as to those not inclined to attend college, all natural talents must be valued and serve as the basis of a meritocracy. For, attribution of a sense of value broadly across all expressions of ability will mitigate the present departure of many young people from scholarship to social media. Meritocracy should provide, in combination with the theory of self-government, a means for every individual to engage in self-evaluation and determine one’s interests and abilities at as young an age as may be possible, both vocational and professional.

In looking for our ruling meritocracy in the results of the recent election, one may look to the candidates leading the ticket in the Presidential election: President-elect Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. But, arguably, one must first ask whether President Joseph Biden would have been elected to the presidency if he had not previously been Vice President under President Barack Obama, unquestionably a natural aristocrat, even after having served many years as a publicly well known Senator? Does Vice President Kamala Harris differ from President Biden? Do we have to admit that they are not natural aristocrats? And, must we also admit that President-elect Donald Trump arguably is one? Are we empowering a meritocracy?

In conclusion, in this election, was the Democratic Party merely akin to being a child appended to the hip of the Republican Party as the ruing class. The Democratic Party must consistently designate its intellectual elites if it is to gain financial independence and exist as an effective independent entity. America requires competitive political parties that respect talent and ability in all expressions. And, America must recognize that it promised itself upon its founding that representation in a democratic republic is by its natural aristocracy.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

The Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission of Ohio Issue 1, November of 2024

How do we evaluate the fairness of proposed reforms? Historically, we see ourselves anew and think empathetically that we are in the place of those whose condition is being remedied.

The Ohio Issue 1 Citizens Redistricting Commission creates a different method of redistricting Ohio for the purpose of General Assembly and Congressional elections. Issue 1 removes the persons currently empowered to serve as the Ohio Redistricting Commission by the Ohio Constitution: the Governor, Auditor of State, Secretary of State, an appointee of the House Speaker, an appointee of the House Minority Leader, an appointee of the Senate President, and an appointee of the Senate Minority Leader. In their place, Issue 1 would name 15 Ohio citizens who: (1) are not elective or appointive officials and (2) in the previous six years, have not: (a) held elective or appointive office in Ohio; (b) been a candidate for elective office in Ohio; (c) been an officer, paid consultant, or contractor to a political party, political action campaign, or campaign committee; (d) been a staff member, paid consultant, or contractor for an elected official or candidate; or (e) been a registered lobbyist or legislative agent with the State of Ohio or the federal government. These disqualifications apply to the immediate family members of the citizen commissioners as well. Citizen commissioners will represent the two largest political parties and independent voters based upon their previous primary ballot selections.

The citizen commissioners must not, in general, possess interests that conflict with the redistricting process. For, they are prohibited from holding elective or appointive office in Ohio for the six years following certification of their commission ‘s redistricting plan.

The redistricting plan of the Citizens Commission is subject to judicial review and must comply with the U.S. Constitution and applicable federal law, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The proposed redistricting method of Issue 1 is, thus, accountable to the judiciary and constitutional principles of due process and equal protection of the law. Court action is a more speedy path to justice and fairness than would be awaiting the next feasible popular ballot approval of General Assembly elective officials or the redistricting plan itself. And, the citizen commissioners are selected by a panel of retired judges. Former judges often are active in the practice of law and subject to professional rules prohibiting even the appearance of impropriety in their conduct, no less actual conflicts of interest.

When we seek to begin a new governmental structure, we should consider our personal situation. If we were potential candidates without knowledge of our political party affiliation or socio-economic status, would we deem the proposed Citizen Commission fair and just in its consideration of districts for candidates? This view is that of American philosopher John Rawls in his theory of the “veil of ignorance.” For Rawls, we at no time know our future, what our social and political standing will be. Consequently, we seek governmental reform that assures equal government. In evaluating Ohio Issue 1, and all redistricting proposals, including that currently in place, we should envision that we are both the voter and the candidate whose district is to be drawn.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Utopia?

Will any society ever achieve perfection or an ideal structure of government? Many philosophers and political thinkers have offered utopian theories. How do we define a democratic utopia in the modern era, and how would it be expressed in practical politics, namely, in individual participation through self-government and self-expression?

Is it necessary for political candidates and elected officials to possess individual theories and understandings of what constitutes an ideal government and an ideal society? Citizens and governing officials look at democratic society from the “grassroots up” to the world above. Yet, perhaps we should also share in the belief that society and government be viewed from the top down, and that each of us should possess an individual understanding and opinion as to the manner in which we think society and government should be structured. Our choice of candidates would then be based upon whether their view of the world is close to our own.

Regardless of the place of one’s political opinion on the ideological spectrum, from radical to conservative, our individual participation in an election might be determined by our sense of what our society should be. For each of us, perhaps, utopia is our view of the ideal world.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Shouldn’t We Rely Upon Natural Aristocrats To Maintain A Democracy?

Is it possible for a democratic nation to survive when governed by an average or mediocre leader who is surrounded by above average, intellectual advisors? Does the public defer and act each day under the mind of the leader or that of the leader’s staff? In reviewing America’s current election season, perhaps we should ask if the complexity and sophistication of the nation mandate the election of candidates with the greatest academic achievements, ability, and accomplishments. Leading a nation does not involve the same skill set as does political warfare. Americans have seen what happens when persons other than its natural aristocrats are elected. Periodic corrections are required by a well-versed staff to which the elected leader defers rather than with whom the leader consults and confers. Essentially, any elected leader should be qualified to serve on the cabinet or staff of the leader. The roles should be interchangeable. If not, the self-governing people have no mentor.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Natural Aristocracy In A Time Of Digital Technology

Transitions in history often occur when scientific and technological development create social change. Our 21^st century of the postmodern era portends such social change. The digital technology before us and continually advancing, whether it be mobile phones, social media, websites, virtual reality, cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, or the myriad not mentioned and not yet invented, are a social conundrum. In implementing this new technology, a safeguard is required to provide government by society’s intellectual elite.

The objective of every democratic republic is a society of individuals treated equally by governing law. Equality is not economic; it is in the right to participate equally and to be accorded due and just reward for one’s ability. In the wisdom of a British philosopher and politician of old, Edmund Burke, this was, and should ideally be, government by a natural aristocracy. It arises from the population of the republic, from the citizens academically cultivated who defer their social doctrines and privileges to those of their country.

The American democratic republic, as well as those around the globe, rely upon an effective self-governing citizenry. This citizenry arises from a society of individuals whose ability to self-govern is cultivated from their early years. Self-government and participation in society depend upon academic institutions and cultural attributes that are both inclusive of all and supported by a national government that is derived from the country’s natural aristocracy.

Today, we look to our social melting pot, as popularized in the theater of the early 1900s. We use our governing democratic institutions to cultivate children into adults, both as citizens and immigrants, to place the role individual in society first and foremost before all other affiliations. Each individual must learn to self-govern and participate in the various strata of society and the governing institutions as a self-governing individual. Cultural and social duties and privileges are subordinate to the obligatory patriotic devotion to one’s country cultivated in children and adults.

In enjoying the advancements of our increasingly more computerized society, we should ensure that social and governmental advancements parallel all scientific and technological advancements. We must guarantee that no harm results. In benefiting from new technology, we need not experience the historical dialectic of: advancement – destruction – development.

Democratic republics are not founded upon tyranny, irregardless of whether an autocrat or the public majority. The invention and application of digital technology must be accompanied by education for all and government by the republic’s best and brightest representing the people. Only when a natural aristocracy governs is a democracy a country of equals.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

A Right and Obligation to Participate

We all deserve representation. The current distress ending in violent unrest indicates a lack of adequate political representation. This is evident in a growing increase in the divide between the haves and the have nots in an increasing number of personal attributes. Many are without an access and understanding of emerging technologies, funding and access to higher education and health care. This is most evident in America’s rural and inner-city communities.

The rights we all possess go back to the early days of the Magna Carta, 1215. These fundamental rights of the individual are now deemed possessed by all within our global community, only after periods of time in which evolving and developing societies came to realize that these rights did not belong to a limited few.

In order to avail oneself of the various rights we possess as individuals, we must be able to self-govern and reach informed decision making about our place in society and our choice of governing leaders and government structure. Identifying our public responsibilities and obligations requires that we imagine that we are behind the John Rawls “veil of ignorance.” This is a circumstance in which we do not know our own place in society. And, we must determine the threshold socio-economic level we require for subsistence and survival.

In the thoughts of Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the greatest threats to democracy is pauperism. We must admit that pauperism exists on a global scale. Tocqueville believed that pauperism is best overcome by the guidance provided to the public by the productivity and efficiency of a capitalist economy.

In Tocqueville’s day this guidance was provided by local financial institutions. Small financial institutions located in individual, political subdivisions, close to the public, instill values required to adequately participate in society and a representative democracy. Currently in America, local branches of financial institutions impart capitalist ideals of self-sufficiency and money management through financial counseling. And these institutions guide small account holders in their use of emerging technologies and personal accounts, from making deposits to money transfers and investment. According to Tocqueville, these activities encourage principles of self-sufficiency and upward mobility. For Tocqueville, this was more feasible in rural communities where small farmers needed guidance with harvest management to avoid the force majeure, boom to bust circumstance of inclement weather. Cities for Tocqueville were more difficult. Industrial economies of the 1830s resulted in cycles of unemployment with periods of low product demand and an ever-increasing urban population that could not support itself. Modern financial institutions, now, provide an economic didactic to entrepreneurial development, emerging technologies and failing, outmoded industry.

Fear of an inability to provide for oneself and participate as an equal member of society generates protest, and rebellion, both at home in America and abroad. As an initial step, perhaps we should look to the sources of this insecurity and ask how would we respond if we were sitting in the place of the insecure and what the public response should be. What would I, as an individual and participating member, require to engage in informed voting? Perhaps Tocqueville and Rawls offer a beginning. And, in the thoughts of J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur: from soil values grow.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

A New Melting Pot

The present dissension in our ever so diverse society should not allow individual affiliations of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, and or sexual orientation, etc., transcend our fidelity to citizenship and equality under the rule of law. Individuals will always possess unique group identities that separate them one from another. But as stated in The Melting Pot, written by playwright Israel Zangwill and first performed to rave reviews by President Theodore Roosevelt in Washington, D.C. in 1908, individuals can amalgamate into a melting pot of citizens who maintain and express their pluralistic selves. Yet, each citizen would respect the culture of all under one government.

Our modern democracy should provide that all cultures are neither preempted by government nor society so long as respectful of democracy. The continuum of political affiliations from left to right should also freely express their opinions in this manner. Civil discussion and debate are the requirements of a democratic society.

Neither we nor our leaders should allow our pluralistic identities determine our decisions and opinions. Rather, in a democratic society we participate in our political community and do so in a way that places the principles governing our republic above all else. The doctrines incumbent within our group identities must defer to these founding principles.

Citizen participation should be facilitated by reasonable means. Many do not participate for want of knowledge. They do not know how a vote may be cast. Similarly, private and public leadership should consider public opinion regarding life’s issues and concerns. Civil and respectful public expression should be encouraged and not ignored. Most importantly, it must be included in private and governmental decision making.

Within the melting pot of the twenty-first century, we seek a social contract of a just society under our democratic government by imagining that we, ourselves, do not know our respective future condition, our position in society, or our own self-interest. We then seek laws and governing institutions that safeguard the position of the least well-off in society as that becomes our point of self-interest. For, social unrest occurs when our social contract is disregarded, and there appears to be no other means of effective popular expression.

The melting pot requires that public and private leaders guide citizens in their ability to place citizenship above personal identities. Policies and decisions should reflect the myriad of identities in society.

Philosophy, Law and Politics

Partisan Politics Be Damned!

I am no longer registered to vote in the United States. I formally resigned my registration in writing last year. I decided that I could no longer be silently accountable for the opinions of any one candidate or office holder for whom I may have voted.

My own political views are not of any one political party nor of any one political party platform. Last year, at 56 years of age; as a lifelong Democrat; as a former student President of the Wellesley College Democrat Club; as an eldest child and only daughter of a retired History teacher who “rubber stamps” the Democratic Party sample ballot at the polls, and who once served as a Democratic Ward Chairman; and as, myself, a former Democratic Precinct Executive who served by appointment in an unrepresented district in which I did not reside and, consequently, in which I could not stand for election, I formally switched parties and now pay national dues to the GOP (the “Grand Old Party” or the Republican National Committee).

I believe that the Republican Party in America professes and is held accountable for a belief in fundamental principles and the rule of law. Thus, their members must offer arguments and critiques based upon an assertion of fundamental principles and reasoning, supported by fact. My personal views and opinions will always differ in some respect from those of others, regardless of political party. Yet, neither candidates nor the rank and file members of any political party should deem themselves possessing a right to deny the necessity and merit of method, regimen, logic, and procedure, for without these guiding principles of democratic society and government, we will not have justice, equity or fairness, no less an equal right of participation.

American Democrats do profess these notions. Though, even with the Clintons, Obamas, and U.S. Attorneys General Reno, Holder, and Lynch, American Democrats expect to be believed and supported merely upon offering time honored liberal sermonizing, without reasoning, without a demonstration of fact, and without a suggestion of specific future action, conduct or policy reform proposals to support their time honored liberal sermonizing. For all the Democratic colleagues across the nation, one would imagine that every Democrat standing for election might easily obtain a great, new legislative proposal for his or her back pocket that could be brought before the public for discussion during the campaign season. The long honored Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd carried a popularly available edition of the American Constitution in his breast pocket. Where is theirs? Most Republicans are not so flawed.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.