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

Is There A Universal Morality?

In our world, we individually experience rites of passage and achieve a meeting of the minds, a collective understanding that a development has taken place. Our understanding is based on knowledge of facts and ideas acquired from both mental and sensory views of life. Even according to the 1901 publication of a noteworthy, yet controversial, Continental Philosopher:

To the extent to which knowledge has any sense at all, the world is knowable: but it may be interpreted differently, it has not one sense behind it, but hundreds of senses…

Consequently, we should defer to our collective appreciation of reality and the law that governs our existence.

We may disagree, one with another, about the law and our governing leaders. If so, we must look to the role in politics and society that law and government permit us. To change law and or society, we may only participate in the specific manner we are allowed. Participation begins with the act of daily self-governance. In doing so, we will together understand and change our lives and world.

In America, we made certain promises at its founding which we are achieving gradually through many transitions in society and government. Ultimately, we seek to create a country of equal opportunity in a popular melting pot of free choice. Ideally, our schools, churches, clubs and places of employment will permit unfettered access and participation in a meritocratically ruled government and society.

In thinking of the recent transition in the American Presidency, we should evaluate governing leaders and the policies they propose by the same standards with which we govern ourselves. In no way may we hold them accountable to standards higher than our own.

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

Must Women of Color Endure Destruction to Succeed?

In the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel, society develops and history unfolds in a difficult and inconsistent manner. Specifically: an event occurs; the event encounters a negative reaction; and in the end progress results from the combination of the two. This is termed the Hegelian dialectic. We ask with respect to the world history of women of color whether and why their gradual social progress has endured such a step forward, step backward process to development?

Access to training and education in all occupations and professions is necessary to permit women of color to support themselves and their families. This training and education has become more available historically yet not without hardships such as inadequate preparation, inadequate funding and inadequate networking post-graduation. The negative reaction to the positive step of access to training and education is cyclical. Without adequate education, participation in society and government is not possible to an extent that equality may be pursued legally, socially and economically. Any subsequent advancement through legal reform is minor in comparison to that accorded the pyramidal strata above women of color who inhabit the bottom stratum, socioeconomically and emotionally.

In America, it has been legally affirmed that racially segregated institutions are improper. They instill a cultural distance, an inability to participate and a sense of inferiority. Yet, social segregation remains in schools, the workplace and social organizations. In religious organizations and social clubs, more appear segregated than not, ostensibly voluntarily. The stigma of racial segregation is upon women of color most of all.

Worldwide, overtime, reforms in laws, customs, and social institutions have occurred and as a result socioeconomic strata blend, academic achievement improves and women of color have achieved a greater sense of participation in society. However, with these positive developments, in the thought of Hegel, negative reactions occur before the positive are again experienced.

True reform should be unilateral with no reverses. Solutions abound as to how the Hegelian negative reaction may be avoided. For instance, America should look beyond the disparateness of its two political parties, a duopoly of two political parties which together dominate elected offices. It is the fact that women of color are elected to government offices more than in the past. And, this is a beginning.

However, in the social sphere segregation remains and the two major American political parties have not addressed this dilemma. For example, the topic of the American Black church is longstanding. Churches should become racially integrated. Integration in religion is a subject the two political parties should discuss as one of cultural and social importance. Party members should express their belief in the significance of integration in religious organizations by both welcoming those of another race into their church and by expressing interest in churches with congregations of another race. Members of integrated churches should be recruited to run for office.

Individually, worldwide, we should expand our own frontiers and explore religious organizations of races other than our own. Religious entities of one race my merge with one of another. In the words of Hegel: “Reason governs the world” through “religious truth” well- known to us. Religion through reason can guide us in social development without corresponding hardship.

Humanity relies upon religious entities and various additional nongovernmental organizations to remedy injustice and lead in suggesting reforms. Many religions guide society in improving its customs, laws and morality. On the subject of the lives of women of color, religion should provide support for social advances and improvements and assist to mitigate Hegelian reverses. For none of us should life be akin to the rise of Jim Crow in response to newfound freedom.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Science and the Right to Abortion

Judicial review in the United States serves a fundamental purpose in American government, it permits the courts to ensure that the acts of the other two branches of government, the legislative and executive, abide the Constitution. In doing so it enables the sovereign citizenry to create a legitimate representative government. As American society develops it changes its views of the nation and the world and, as a result, the laws by which it lives. Over time, the views of its judges as seen in their legal opinions also change.

One must remark that political opinions in the United States have been modified extensively to the extent that the public has completely changed its mind on many important life defining issues. As a result, certain laws and legal opinions contradict preexisting ones. For example, the legality of racial segregation became the right to racial, integration. The illegality of contraception became the right to birth control. The illegality of racial miscegenation became the right to interracial marriage. The illegality of abortion became a legal right to private abortion. The illegality of sodomy became the right to homosexual relationships. The illegality of homosexual marriage became the right to same-sex marriage.These changes in American law occur concurrently with noteworthy developments in social customs, science and technology that render the population able to envision present society in a new manner. Some regard these legal developments as not occurring with sufficiency to be adequate or just.

With respect to the legal recognition of a right to abortion by the judiciary in 1973, many social and scientific developments have taken place prompting judicial restrictions upon this right in 2022. In example, in vitro fertilization is a very common practice. As a result, issues before society are when a right to life begins and whether one’s power to create this life is accompanied by a power to destroy it. Contemporary opinions also include those arising from whether there is a governmental power of capital punishment or a private right to assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

American society must address the legal question of what constitutes life and what are its attributes. Could the concept of in vitro fertilization include a right to property? In discussing abortion, America must reconcile its power to begin and end life with newfound scientific developments.

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

Is the United States of America under Siege?

Following the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, in the ordinary course of legislative business, one must ask the place of this event in history. To what does it give rise, where does it lead America, and what does it indicate for its citizenry?

One could argue that there is too much hostility within the American majority, too much dissension, for America to continue with a republican form of government, for the United States Constitution to remain. A democratic military relies upon patriotism and a caring respect for government. Its military is derived from the majority population. If the majority no longer believes in justice and freedom under the U.S. Constitution, the military will not possess the moral force to protect the government from threats both at home and abroad.

The storming of the American Capitol was a rebellion, a failed revolution. The cause cannot be deemed that of madness or irrationality. Rather, it must be acknowledged to be an expression of a competing ideology. For, regardless of the methodology of the acts of violence against a government, such acts embody and express an ideology.

Consequently, diplomacy is required to reach agreement and compromise, to heal a country and the world. Denial of the existence of the beliefs and positions of the rebelling entity begets further uprisings and intermittent rebellion. An inclusive truce is necessary. Moreover, in the world’s history, uprisings, rebellions and revolutions, including the American Revolution, have long been subjected to the ad hominem of madness and irrationality, without their being evidence of proof other than reference to acts embodying a competing ideology.

Why Did the Attempted Revolution Occur?

Throughout the world’s existence, history’s development and progress has exhibited great hardship and horror. The storming of the American Capitol could be an example of the development of the world by means of such hardship and horror. Many deem this to be development through the reason and spirit in history, the Hegelian dialectic. According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in the world there is the existence of the status quo; the critique or destruction of the status quo; and then the collective synthesis of a new, positive result in history. One would attribute to this phenomenon, the slow but developing and evolving state of human progress.

In some sense, Hegel deemed this the actualization of the known and preexisting universe and cosmos by the spirit of history. Yet, those living in each intermittent era of unknowing naivete ask why the negative, destructive critique of the status quo is necessary to evolve and develop, regardless of the result produced. Does it have to do with human nature and the mind of man? Does reasoned critique possess limits necessitating a reliance upon negative destruction? If a destructive negation is not necessary, perhaps society should strive to divert destructive animosity toward reasoned discussion.

In the thought of Hegel, we ask what is the positive result of the negative undoing and destruction of the U.S. Capitol. Does the storming indicate that, in addition to criminal penalties, some form of political reform will or should result? Could the rebellion give rise to either the creation of third and or fourth political parties, or a parliamentary form of government?

If third parties are cultivated, ideology through rebellion could express itself lawfully in the form of party platforms and representatives in elected office. If transition into a parliamentarian form of government, the United States would no longer rely upon a separately elected executive with a greater concentration of power in the form of a right of veto over the legislative body. Parliamentary government would require a significant reform of American government. Yet, rebellion and attempted revolution are significant acts.

There must be a humane and positive response by government and society to the rebellion, regardless of what one believes to be its cause. Rebels seek an answer to their demands. They seek their definition of justice. We cannot loft above them an ideal, utopian definition of justice which has been long deemed beyond reach by the world’s greatest elected officials, academics and philosophers. We must seek and strive toward a viable definition of justice: the right of all people to political participation through peaceful expression.

If America abided the principles and text of the Constitution, specifically, and rule of law, generally, differences and disagreements would be settled in the context of traditional political debate and law making. The United States must maintain the quality of its existence as a representative democracy governed by a natural aristocracy. It must act according to law and include the concerns and needs of all within the course of day-to-day debate. Ignoring any segment of the public results in an emotional response such as rebellion. Providing justice to all will avoid such in the future.

America should not attempt to avoid Hegelian peaceful critiques of the status quo, for debate and critique are the basis of the American political system. But, Americans must channel critique within structural modes of expression. From the ordinary member of the public to those occupying the highest office in the land, political participation and the ability to self-govern combine to avoid the recent cathartic event witnessed in the storming of the American Capitol. For, no rebellion or revolt takes form in short order. No one person could be responsible for persuading so many to act against their country. Revolt and rebellion result from a long felt disheartening of many people with their country. The only remedy is to provide a sense of enfranchisement and receptive, meritocratic government.

As J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur stated: from soil values grow. American democracy is premised upon the dignity of the individual and respect for all. A storming of the bastion of the people’s government indicates that an overwhelming number of citizens require that government be restructured to meet their needs. The United States needs to bring democracy closer to the soil of America.

Third Parties May Be an Answer to America’s Current Debate

Third parties are often factions that leave major parties over certain issues. America must discern the grievances possessed by America’s rebels. They ostensibly are supporters of former President Donald Trump. However, such violence coalesces and surrounds more than one person. It evolves over time and involves a plentitude of issues. The Capitol revolt was not the temperance party, the women’s suffrage movement or Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party. These ideological expressions were serious and longstanding. Yet, they did not reach the level of violence as the recent storming of the American Capitol. Consequently, the deep seated, violence inducing concerns and grievances of the Capitol rebels rely on more than what might be offered by one person. For, in expressing their grievances, they sought to destroy the very government former President Trump represents.

Permanent realignment of the two major political parties in America into third parties may require some phenomenon such as a rebellion or near revolution. Broad based, grassroot rebellion expressed in the form of movements such as the Capitol rebels could coalesce to form a third party. Some of the rebels could be akin and ideologically similar to the Libertarian party which acknowledges an expression of faction and inter-party strife within the two major parties in America, with the Libertarian party combining fundamental American ideals with conservative economics.

Despite the dramatic events of January 6^th, would the Capitol rebels fail as a third party as have most others in American history? The two major parties in America could adopt the ideological grievances and positions of the Capitol rebels and thus lessen any incentive to form new parties. Yet, the Capitol rebels may be so long underrepresented in politics and government that they cannot avail themselves of traditional forms of political participation that a political party offers. Perhaps, for the sake of democracy and diplomacy, citizens who agree and are sympathetic with the positions of the Capitol rebels should lead a new party to which the rebels could belong. This would transcend typical obstacles to formation of a third party such as inadequate financial resources and local and state support. And, a greater increase in popular participation in politics would benefit the emergence of a new party.

The Capitol Rebels Are Due the Benefits of Political Association

Regardless of punitive sanction, the civil self-government of the Capitol rebels should be cultivated. Political parties provide an opportunity for self-expression and civil debate in pursuit of principles and public policy goals. Parties provide a didactic function in educating their members in the art of civics and government. Most importantly, parties foster trust among members by encouraging members to self-govern in a trustworthy manner. Political parties permit representation in a republican form of government. Political parties diffuse the tyrannous majority. This is the guidance the Capitol rebels need.

Political parties embrace general philosophies and thus permit inclusion of as many people as possible. As a result, over time America has evolved into a two-party system. The party of traditional moral values and business interests is the Republican, and the party supporting working class labor and minorities is the Democratic. To transcend this duopoly, third parties must draft a broad-based philosophy that is not a single-issue attraction. In what way do the two major parties not offer ideals, principles and ideology appealing to the Capitol rebels so that a third party would not be a viable alternative?

Is the American experiment in democracy more democratic, more fair and more just with two, adverse political parties willing to expand and be more inclusive? To return to sound and civil government, America must enumerate the possible philosophical bases for third parties, including the Capitol rebels.

In what way do the Capitol rebels represent diversity within the United States? Are they urban and rural, of higher education and not? What are their unifying principles and concerns? In what way did the ideology of Donald Trump find expression in the rebellion of January 6^th? Could the Capitol rebels support the theories of meritocracy and natural aristocracy upon which the United States is founded? Promoting a third-party expression of fascist rebellion could be avoided in a free democracy. Listening to and incorporating itinerant concerns into the political structure would be preferable to forcing violent forms of expression. Third parties possess grievances often expressed through violence when the subject of structural exclusion.

Supporters of former President Donald Trump indicate that they are considering forming a third “Patriot Party.” This demonstrates the perceived need for structuring the public support he possesses into a viable form of expression. Whether one considers Donald Trump to be a “cult of personality” leader or not, he cannot utilize his support unless it assumes effective form. Also, he must create a generational legacy amassed around his positions, opinions and ideology that transcends his being deemed a mere one election figurehead.

Perhaps, the Capitol rebels will create a fourth party. Another grassroots movement may become as entrenched and as well-known as the Patriot Party. Would such a fourth party readily follow on the coattails of the Patriot Party if it quickly announced its existence?

Former President Donald Trump holds grassroot Republican support and must maintain its trust. He must do so by cultivating civil participation. A rebellion or attempted coup is an indication that the cultural voluntary servitudes of entertainment and athletics are no longer an effective panacea. They are enjoyed but do not support or supplant reasoned self-government. Rebellion indicates the cry for a remedy, and the rebels themselves have no answer. Exchanging attributions and projections of blame by governing officials will only result in continued public negativity. People must be encouraged from a grassroots level to engage in traditional political participation.

Representative Democracy Is the Answer

As a republican form of government in the modern era, America is a great, expansive experiment. In merely three hundred years, it has demonstrated a slow but effective development toward justice, fairness, equality and inclusion. A small yet painfully effective rebellion cannot undermine three hundred years of history. Rather, violent uprisings indicate a need for even further progressive democracy.

A democracy must be premised upon trust held by the people in each other, among themselves as they engage in self-government, as well as trust evoked by the government between it and its citizenry. A political party must similarly remain true to its principles and party platform. Promises unkept are hypocrisy. In the recent era of duopoly, no competition exists between the parties. They each have turf dominated by party leadership and no incentive to honor promises made each election. As a result, elections flip flop with exchanges in elected figureheads with no real change in power possessed.

As a result, the U.S. Capitol was stormed by the partyless and unrepresented. They are ostensibly amassed by and the adherents of Donald Trump. But, do they know anything more than that he sought their support. What specifically do they stand for given that they sought to destroy the government they sought for him to lead? The only answer for the rebels is their participation in the American government in some structured form. And, this means participation in the form of a political party, one currently existing or a new, third party. Or, do they remain American citizens who feel that they will always be outside the bounds of government, always unrepresented.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Judicial Determination of City Council Suspensions is a Good Thing

City of Cincinnati Council Member Betsy Sundermann has offered an amendment to the City Charter which would permit the Cincinnati City Council to sanction council members for alleged criminal activity. The proposed amendment is a comprehensive and extensive exercise of Home Rule. The amendment contends that the current disciplinary procedure is lengthy and complex, and that the proposed Charter amendment will provide an efficient and expedient method for removing council members. However, the proposed amendment overlooks several fundamental democratic principles.

The Charter amendment would eliminate the current right of voters to sue a council member for removal from office when the council member may have received illegal compensation for official duties, been interested in the profits of a city contract, have acted in a capacity in addition to being a council member with respect to work of the city, or been guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance in office. The proposed Charter amendment replaces this procedure with one that includes several potential sources of political impropriety.

The amendment permits City Council to suspend one of its own members under a state or federal indictment or charge of a crime of moral turpitude by vote of Council. A council member facing suspension is subject to the unfettered discretion of City Council, for the proposed procedure does not offer a standard governing Council’s suspension power other than the alleged misconduct of the council member.

Rather, the amendment permits a suspension to be determined by a mere majority vote of Council as if it were any other ordinary legislative act of the representative body. Matters such as suspension from office should be subject to a standard striving toward nonpartisanship. Since suspensions are not mandatory or automatic, the disciplinary procedure should seek to prevent the possibility that a suspension may be based upon reasons other than the alleged misconduct. By way of example, in the instance of the United States Congress, each House may expel a member only upon a two-thirds vote. Similarly, the Senate may convict an executive or judicial official on trial in the impeachment process only upon a two-thirds vote. Council must even itself admit that important, extraordinary and extreme acts such as the Charter amendment by emergency ordinance being used to initiate this disciplinary reform may only be approved upon a two-thirds vote of Council. Even the present authority given to municipalities by Ohio Revised Code Section 731.45 to expel one of its own members for disorderly conduct requires a two-thirds vote. Yet, Council asks for the power to oust one of its own by only a majority vote.

The two-thirds, supermajority standard for important measures was chosen historically for two reasons. First, measures which transcend and supplant the will of the people, such as suspension of an elected official, should require more than an ordinary exercise of the power of the representatives. And, second, a supermajority places acts initiated for mere political objectives beyond the reach of collaborative faction. Suspension should not be a political matter.

In addition to the probate court removal power the Charter amendment seeks to replace, the primary disciplinary method under Ohio law is also judicial. It provides that suspension from office before a council member is proven guilty undermines our democracy unless done by the highest court in the state with the assistance of a lower court in filling any vacancy. This is closer to an innocent until proven guilty standard.

This primary disciplinary procedure only permits a council member’s suspension from office if the council member is charged with a felony under state or federal law and the alleged crime relates to performance of the council member’s official duties or is adverse to the rights and interests of the public at large. It also requires participation by two branches of Ohio government, the Attorney General or the Council’s county prosecuting attorney in the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court in the Judicial.

Under this method, the Attorney General or Council’s county prosecutor determines whether the alleged felonious conduct relates to the council member’s official duties or is otherwise adverse to the public. If, so the Attorney General or prosecutor informs the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who then convenes a special commission of three retired justices or judges, one of the same political party as the council member in question. The special commission then makes a preliminary determination as to whether the council member’s conduct adversely affected the member’s office or the rights and interests of the public, and, consequently, whether the official should be suspended from office.

If the special commission finds that the allegedly illegal conduct does not pose a threat to the member’s office or the public interest, the council member is not suspended from office. If, instead, the special commission reaches a preliminary finding that the council member’s conduct does adversely affect the office or the public rights and interests and that the council member should be suspended from office, the council member is given an opportunity to appear before the special commission and contest the preliminary determination of suspension. The special commission makes a final determination after the meeting and the council member is suspended immediately if the special commission finds that the council member’s conduct was adverse to the office or the public’s rights or interests. The final determination of suspension by the special commission has the same force and effect as a court judgment. The council member may appeal the special commission’s finding to the Supreme Court. The official remains suspended until there is a reversal by the Supreme Court or the council member is found not guilty of the allegedly illegal conduct.

Judicial determination of suspension of a legislative official possesses the traditional “checks and balances” of dividing government to avoid abusive concentrations of power and to mitigate partisan exploitation. It seems unwise to replace a judicial determination of suspension with a procedure that could result in a partisan vote of the legislature within which the member in question sits.

One would hope that one motivation for the proposed Home Rule amendment is not to lessen the burden on the judicial docket, generally, and with respect to suspension cases, specifically. We need a preventative solution to the problem of corruption in government, greater care in local government, not merely a transfer of power for remedying corruption.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Judicial Determination of City Council Suspensions is a Good Thing