People Over Politics: A Nonpartisan Analysis of the Issues that Matter Most

By Antony E. Ghee

"[Political parties] are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government..." - George Washington

In what appears to be an increasingly divid

• Language: English
• Publisher: Mynd Matters Publishing
• Release date: Sep 27, 2022
• ISBN: 9781957092430

Antony E. Ghee

ANTONY GHEE has over twenty years of experience as an investment professional, attorney, corporate board member, and officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. He has lived in large urban cities, a small rural town, and abroad. In addition, he has been a candidate for the U.S. Congress. These collective experiences helped shape his views and inspired him to write this book. He recognizes that neither Democrats, Republicans, nor Independents can singularly claim ownership over good ideas and urges that our nation's success-or failure-is a shared responsibility.Antony earned a Masters of Law (LL.M.) in Securities & Financial Regulation from Georgetown University Law Center, a JD from Howard University School of Law, and a BS in Business Administration with honors from Virginia Union University. He is admitted to the Bar in the States of New York and New Jersey and holds several financial licenses and certifications.Antony is also the author of "Fraud, Lies & Greed: Cautionary Tales of How Professional Athletes Become the Victims of Fraud." His other writings have been published in the Journal of Investment Management, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, and Private Asset Management.Antony lives with his family in northern New Jersey.

Book preview

Contents

Introduction

A Word on Words

A Final Thought

Chapter 1: The Fundamentals of Our Founding

Arising from English Common Law

Built for Gridlock

A Divided Perception

The Left’s View of the Founding

The Right’s View of the Founding

Determining the Way Forward

Chapter 2: Political Parties

History the Modern Parties

The Common Thread

Where are African Americans in Party Politics?

Beyond the Slogans

Chapter 3: Voting & Voting Rights

Whose Vote Should Count?

Are Driver’s License Requirements Inherently Racist?

Voting and the Vocal Minority

Chapter 4: Congress

Approval Ratings—A Double-Edged Sword

Why No Congressional Term Limits?

Gerrymandering

Campaign Finance

What does this mean for the 80 Percent?

Chapter 5: The Presidency

The Evolution of Presidential Powers

What Does This Mean for the Voters?

Chapter 6: The Supreme Court

History of the Court

Expansion of Power and Importance

The Left-Right Divide on the Supreme Court's Role

The Impact of Lifetime Tenure

Chapter 7: Entitlements

Social Security

Healthcare

Medicaid & Medicare

Affordable Care Act

Health and the African American Community

Education

School Choice

State of Schools in the African American Community

Chapter 8: America's Infrastructure

Roads and Bridges

Trains and Transit

State vs. Federal Responsibility

Chapter 9: Energy

Climate Change Legislation and Outcomes

Oil & OPEC

Fracking

Continental Pipelines

Results-Based Solutions

Chapter 10: Defense

The Purpose and History of the U.S. Military

African American Contributions to Military History

The Role of Defense in Foreign Policy

Other Countries' Reliance on U.S. Military

Sole Superpower?

Chapter 11: Immigration

Early U.S. Immigration Policy

The Civil Rights Era and the Effect on Immigration

Refugees, Asylum, and DACA

The Left/Right Divide

What the Right Says

What the Left Says

African Americans and Immigration

Looking to Other Countries for Solutions

Chapter 12: The Economy

The Deficit: What is it and Why Does it Matter?

Bipartisan Economic Solutions

Taxes

Makers vs Takers?

Flat Tax Debate

The Tax Preparer’s Lobby

What the Right Wants

What the Left Wants

Chapter 13: Gun Control

History of the Second Amendment

Legal Gun Ownership

Illegal Guns

The Commitment to Self-Defense

What Most Americans Believe

Bipartisan Solutions—What Do We Do?

Chapter 14: Drugs (Use and Abuse)

Early Drug and Alcohol Laws

Vietnam and the Start of the Drug War

Racist Policing and Policy

Modern Usage and the Effect on Poor and

Working-Class Communities

Legalization? How the Parties Treat Drugs Now

Chapter 15: Abortion

Before Roe v. Wade: Abortion in the U.S.

After Roe

Modern Activism

Abortion and the African American Community

What Voters Can Do

Chapter 16: Urban America

African Americans’ Wealth and Home Ownership

Baltimore, Chicago, and Media Silence

The Middle Way

Chapter 17: Rural America Challenges

Dying Rural Towns

The Targeted Destruction of the Independent Family Farm

Chapter 18: Homelessness

Who are the Homeless?

Military Veteran Homelessness

Republican Views on Homelessness

Democrat Views on Homelessness

Outcome-Based Solutions

Conclusion

References

Introduction

star

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise – with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

—Abraham Lincoln

T

he 2016 election serves as something of a Rubicon in the political history of the United States. What came before seems like another time, even for those of us old enough to remember many of the elections that preceded it. For younger people, in particular, it can seem like their opinions of the political process begin and end with 2016.

In the lead-up to that pivotal election, there was a great deal of debate amongst pundits over why people vote the way they do and whether or not their voting habits align with their interests. Jonathan Haidt, author and professor of psychology at New York University’s Stern School of Business, took a different perspective. He said, Politics at the national level is more like religion than it is like shopping. It’s more about a moral vision that unifies a nation and calls it to greatness than it is about self-interest or specific policies.¹

I wish I could disagree with him.

The idea that a political party should be worshipped like a religion has only grown more common in the last two decades and, since 2016, more fervent. After all, few religions will openly express that all members of literally every other religion are evil or, at the very least, immoral. But you find no such compunction when it comes to members of a political party referring to members of other political parties. False narratives encourage people to believe that all Republicans are racist and singularly focused on maximizing their personal wealth at all costs. In response, competing agendas would have you believe that all Democrats are socialists, unpatriotic, and want to destroy the American way of life. Such narratives and broad-based generalizations are not only false, but destructive. Predictably, the rhetoric far too often leads to Americans voting for political candidates who are on their team rather than those who actually have a platform that will benefit their interests.

Even worse, it far too often divides families and causes long-standing friendships and relationships to deteriorate. That’s the problem with political dogmatism. Emotion replaces rational thought, and inevitably we forget that political parties don’t care—people do!

The choice of political party affiliation has become an extremely sensitive issue in social circles. A 2018 Axios poll asked around three thousand adults to select words they would use to describe members of the opposing political party. Survey participants were not asked about specific persons, but rather their overall opinion about every member of the opposing party. I doubt you’ll be shocked by the results. Fifty-four percent of Democrats and 49% of Republicans described the opposing party’s members as ignorant. An additional 44% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans described the opposing party’s members as spiteful.

But what about positive attributes? What about descriptors such as kind, thoughtful, or fair? I won’t bore you with the full list, but the highest percentage on either side for any of those words…was just 4%.² In these divided, tribal, and toxic times, it shouldn’t be surprising that most Americans are voting for their team, rather than their interest.

It seems that many people affiliate with political parties based on the loyalties of their family members and friends and not necessarily based on a thoughtful values-based assessment. Interestingly, some people remain loyal because they fear they will be ostracized from their social circles. So, even as the parties—and the world itself—changes, many people will continue to vote the party line. No doubt, this way of thinking has contributed to rising tensions in modern-day political discourse.

If you’re concerned that the purpose of this book is to convince you to change your party affiliation, don’t be. Quite the contrary. My goal is to highlight the destructive nature of political polarization and emphasize that no single political party represents the totality of your specific goals and ideals, or the vision you may have for your life and our country. You will realize that it is in your interest to vote based on each candidate’s platform, rather than the parenthetical letter—R or D—next to their name. Ideally, you’ll also take a moment to reassess any broad-based assumptions you make about others based solely on how they choose to vote. Ultimately, it will be up to you to assess the topics discussed in this book and decide for yourself where you stand based on your values, experiences, and goals.

I wrote this book for all Americans who despise today’s hateful rhetoric and quarreling and don’t wish to be stigmatized by their party affiliation or simply because they chose to support a particular candidate. If our nation is to thrive and regain its standing on the world stage, we must be united, notwithstanding inevitable disagreements over policies and tactics.

In certain instances throughout this book, I place special emphasis on African Americans, who are far too often overlooked or taken for granted in the election process. The diversity that exists within the Black community is often ignored, with political strategists from both parties seemingly deciding in advance that they either have the Black Vote locked up or they don’t stand a chance at securing a critical mass of support from Black voters. As such, many of the topics covered in this book will accentuate the impact on African Americans.

A Word on Words

Yehuda Berg once said, Words have energy and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate, and to humble. I agree. In fact, I am convinced that part of the problem with our soured discourse—perhaps the largest problem in my opinion—is that words are misused or redefined by candidates and the media for politically-motivated reasons. The lack of consistency in how we define and use words can, in itself, create conflict. Thus, to avoid any confusion, I will define a few popular terms that are often ascribed to people based on their political leanings. All definitions referenced below are derived from traditional sources such as the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I acknowledge, however, that authors of other publications or the creators of social media platforms you follow may use them differently.

Conservative/Right-Winger: Conservatives are often affiliated with the Republican party and are inclined to preserve existing conditions and institutions, have an affinity for tradition, and believe hierarchy is a natural and preferable state of being.

Nationalist: Nationalists strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of other nations. The idea of American Exceptionalism—that the U.S. is inherently different than other nations—is often held by Nationalists. Please note a Nationalist is NOT the same as a White Nationalist, which is a term for militant white supremacists who promote and advocate for enforced racial segregation.

Liberal/Left-Winger: Liberals or left-of-center philosophy generally promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and freedom from intrusion in private lives. Liberals have traditionally been affiliated with the Democrat party. However, self-identified liberals have become more prevalent in the Republican party since 2016.

Leftist/Progressive: Progressives are generally associated with the Democrat party but are not necessarily liberal. Progressives generally espouse left-wing philosophies that involve implementing social reform, social justice, and top-down policymaking to enforce an equal outcome among disparate groups.

Democratic Socialist: Democratic socialists support political democracy (free and fair elections) but a socially-owned economy. They argue that capitalism is ultimately incompatible with freedom and believe the government should provide essential services (e.g., healthcare) to the public for free, or at a significant discount.

Socialist: Socialists share many beliefs with Democratic Socialists, but they do not believe in free and fair elections. Within a socialist system, the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. American freedoms such as freedom of speech are not compatible with this philosophy.

Communist: Communism adheres to a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production and there is no right to private property. This is the final stage of society in Marxist theory in which class distinctions cease to exist, and economic goods are distributed equitably according to the state’s perception of individual need.

Anarchist: One who believes in a society of complete freedom for individuals without government or any established order.

A Final Thought

Regardless of your race, ethnicity, or sex, it is likely that your views on substantive issues of policy are split between the parties. For example, on the role of the Supreme Court, you may find that your views are fully aligned with the traditional Republican principles, while on matters of our nation’s defense, you may find the Democrat party better reflects your expectations of America’s role in the world. In either case, you will find no disapproval from me if that should be the case. You are uniquely American and entitled to your own views, values, and beliefs.

My sincerest desire is that the content found within these pages helps you gain a better understanding of the issues impacting our country. Then, when you cast your ballots every two to four years, you will look beyond the red or the blue, the elephant or the donkey, and vote for the candidate whose plan and platform most closely aligns with your values. Understand that no single party holds a patent for good ideas. Progress for our country, and in our respective communities, requires that we evolve beyond a politically polarized existence and find the common ground that strengthens our foundation. It is time that we put people over politics!

Chapter 1

The Fundamentals of Our Founding

star

You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.

—John Adams

T

o understand why the United States government is structured the way it is, you must first understand the world in which it was created. Democratic republics are quite common in the world today, and many nations have enviable legal systems that, like ours, are designed to protect the rights of its citizens. In that context, it can be easy to take for granted—or even forget—that the United States Constitution and its subsequent Bill of Rights were revolutionary in the late 1700s.

Arising from English Common Law

The United States was originally a set of thirteen colonies of the British crown, meaning that its founding fathers were British citizens by birth. They were well-versed in the British legal tradition, which was based on the Magna Carta, written way back in 1215—some 561 years before the United States was founded. The Magna Carta was the first document that we are aware of to state that all people had rights, whether king or pauper. However, the application of that law left something to be desired in the eyes of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and the other founders of the United States.

The British Empire was (and is now in its present-day form of the United Kingdom) a Constitutional Monarchy, though at the time, the sovereign had considerably more power than it holds today. England was a Christian country, and its king was believed to be chosen by the Abrahamic God. Thus, to go against the king meant going against God. Under those circumstances, it is easy to see why many people believed the English Common Law didn’t quite protect the rights of the common man as much as it was supposed to. The king had supreme authority!

The idea that rights are given to people by their creator, not by the government, as stated in the Constitution, was not only a revolutionary idea, but a treasonous and potentially blasphemous one. The framers wanted to make it clear that no king, no parliament, had the right or authority to deprive a person of their life, liberty, or to obstruct their ability to live their life as they chose (barring due process in the criminal justice system, of course). In English Common Law, you lived and died at the pleasure of the king. Likewise, you prospered at his pleasure. So, if you fell out of the king’s favor…you were lucky if you only lost your home, your land, and all your possessions.

However, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, though mostly Christian, did not solely use Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs in crafting the United States Constitution. The central principles undergirding our Constitution—negative rights, delegated powers, checks and balances, and federalism—were also influenced by the ideas of philosophers from the European Enlightenment period, which emphasized notions of liberty, individualism, and separation of church and state, amongst other ideals.

A primary influence was British philosopher John Locke and his ideas on natural rights. The founders, like Locke, believed these natural rights, and the protection thereof, were the whole reason governments should exist. This means the founders believed it is the government’s role to protect these natural rights—life, liberty, and property. As Locke himself stated: Because we are all equal and independent, no-one ought to harm anyone else in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.³

Locke and others of his time also influenced the idea of negative rights, meaning you have the right to be free from attack, the right to be left alone, essentially. This is in contrast to positive rights, which are rights to funds, goods, or services provided by others. Locke and other philosophers of the Enlightenment period also inspired the idea of the separation of powers and checks and balances. Based on these ideas, and in a radical departure from any government structures that existed at the time, the founders decreed a separation of and independence between executive, legislative, and judicial branches to avoid the eventuality of one branch ruling over all others.

Built for Gridlock

Founder James Madison went into great detail regarding the inspiration for and the implementation of the separation of powers, going so far as to emphasize that slow, hindered deliberations—what we commonly call gridlock—were ideal for preserving liberty and independence in the long term. He explained the rationale behind the intentional gridlock in Federalist No. 51:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government.