Will the U.S. Remain a Democracy?

Benjamin Franklin, a four-hour documentary directed and produced by Ken Burns, first aired on PBS early last month. This blog was inspired by Franklin’s words near the end of that highly informative film. 

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 opened its first session on May 25, exactly 235 years ago. The 55 delegates (from 12 of the 13 states in the new nation) chose George Washington to preside. Other notable delegates were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin.

At 81, Franklin was the elder statesman at the Convention—and arguably the most influential.

When the time came to sign their drafted document, Franklin encouraged his fellow delegates to give the proposed Constitution their unanimous support, despite the fact that he himself did not approve of every aspect of the new plan of government.

Franklin concluded: “On the whole . . . I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention . . . would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to the instrument.”

“A Republic, if You Can Keep It”: these were the words spoken by Franklin as he was leaving the last session of the Constitutional Convention on September 17. It was in response to a question about the nature of the government in the new Constitution. 

The question was about whether the new country would be a monarchy or a republic. That is, would there be a king, or a government elected by eligible voters.

A republic is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law” (Merriam-Webster).

Preserving the U.S. government as a republic seems to be one thing current Republicans as well as Democrats agree on.

In September 2019, when House Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the formal impeachment inquiry of Pres. Trump, she used the words of Franklin to back her arguments.

That same month, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump nominee, issued a book titled A Republic, If You Can Keep It.

Can the U.S. be Kept a Democracy? This is the burning question for the U.S. now. There seems to be little threat to the U.S. remaining a republic. The Republican Party is in support of that—although some question whether there is full support by the most ardent Trumpists. But the matter of remaining a democracy is a more precarious matter.

The Democratic Party is certainly not opposed to the U.S. remaining a republic, but they firmly believe it should be a democratic republic.

It should be noted that “democracy” is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. Accordingly, some present-day Republicans and rightwing “talking heads,” insist that the U.S. government is not and was not intended to be a democracy.

The Democrats, naturally, strongly disagree, as do most political science scholars. The title of a November 2020 article in The Atlantic is “‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument.” But that flawed argument has even been made by U.S. senators.  

In October 2020, Utah Senator Mike Lee (R) sent a series of tweets declaring that the United States is "not a democracy" and that "democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are.”*

Earlier this year, sociologists Phillip S. Gorski and Samuel L. Perry’s book The Flag and The Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy was published. The authors refer to democracy as rule by “the people,” which also includes universal suffrage, human rights, and equality under the law (p. 114).

They declare, “As white Christians approach minority status, white Christian nationalists are starting to turn against American democracy.” They further assert that “white Christian nationalism has become a serious threat to American democracy, perhaps the most serious threat it now faces” (p. 8).

As a White Christian who is definitely not a nationalist, I urge you to join in the struggle to keep the U.S. a democracy—a federal government of, by, and for the people such as Pres. Lincoln envisioned in his Gettysburg Address delivered in November 1863.**

_____

* For example, on Oct. 7, 2020, Lee tweeted, “We’re not a democracy.” That brief statement was “liked” by 31,600 people and retweeted over 4,500 times.

** For more about this, see my June 20, 2016, blog post.

In Criticism of Sens. Manchinema (and Their 50 Republican Colleagues)

This blog article was supposed to be about hope—at least that was my plan for this post. But the hopes of so many USAmericans are at the point of being betrayed by two Democratic Senators and by all 50 Republican Senators, and one of the hopes for Pres. Biden that I wrote about on January 20 seems to have been completely dashed.

The Dashed Hopes for the Biden Presidency

One of the hopes for the Biden Presidency that I included in that Jan. 20 blog post was this: “Restoring political bipartisanship to the Capitol.” But rather than political bipartisanship being restored, if anything, it has even worsened during these nine months Biden has been in the White House.

Another hope I had for the current administration was concerted effort to combat the problem of global warming. That hope has perhaps not been completely dashed, but right now it looks as if there will be far less done in that regard than so many of us hoped for.

The dashed hope for bipartisanship seems almost entirely because of the intransigence of the Republicans, and especially the 50 Republican Senators under the leadership of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

But the hope for significant action in combatting climate change has largely been dashed by Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

Right now, the only bipartisanship that seems operative is that which is killing the Biden agenda, as captured in the following political cartoon by Bob Englehart way back on June 9. 

Criticism of Sens. Manchinema

In the U.S. Senate, 48 of the 50 Democratic Senators have been solidly in support of the President and his agenda. But with no Republican votes on most matters, it takes all 50 Democrats (plus Vice President Harris’s tie-breaking vote) to pass bills that can’t be filibustered.

Senators Manchin and Sinema have been so united in their opposition to especially the costly Build Back Better (BBB) legislation that their names have sometimes been conflated to Manchinema (check out #Manchinema).

Sens. Manchinemas’ main criticism of the BBB bill has been the price tag: they have been unwilling to approve little more than half of what the other 48 Democrats have been willing to support. And, sadly, at this point it seems that the major proposed cut is money to combat global warming.

I find it deplorable that just two Senators can wield so much power on such a critical issue. The long-term future of the country, and perhaps the world, is being jeopardized to a greater or lesser degree by just these two.

And the same two Senators have also been unwilling to consider support of a proposed change in the filibuster rule in order to pass the For the People Act, the voting rights bill which is so badly needed to protect American democracy.

Criticism of the 50 Republican Senators

Among Democrats, and especially those with progressive views, there is strong criticism of Sens. Manchinema—and for good reason. Perhaps it goes without saying, but the criticism of all the Republican Senators should be even stronger.

For example, the proposals in Biden’s Build Back Better proposal would benefit a multitude of USAmericans, not just Democrats. And the global warming counter-proposals are to ward off dire changes that would be detrimental for all, not just Democrats. But there is no Republican support.

And then what about voting rights? Back in 2006 when Bush was President, the Senate voted 98-0 to extend the landmark Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. In 2013, though, the SCOTUS wrongheadedly gutted that bill.

And then on Oct. 20, not even one Republican Senator would vote to even consider Manchin’s watered-down bill to protect voting rights. Manchin promised he would get ten Republicans to vote for the bill, which was less than the original Democratic proposal. But he failed to get even one Rep. vote.

So, yes, I am quite critical of Sens. Manchinema—but even more critical of the 50 Republican Senators, especially because of their unwillingness to help protect democracy in this country.

_____

** On Oct. 21, The Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson posted an insightful opinion piece that is closely related to the above article; you can read it here (with no paywall).

Peril in the Pursuit of Political Power

Peril is defined as “serious and immediate danger.” I think it is not hyperbolical to say that at the present time, the U.S. is facing serious and immediate danger because of the way some politicians and their supporters are pursuing political power to the detriment of democracy. 

Perils of the Past

This nation was founded after the colonists proved to be a peril to the rule of Great Britain’s King George III. The way they pursued and achieved political power may not have been the best way they could have done it, but that is how the U.S. was founded 245 years ago.

The biggest challenge to the admittedly limited democracy established in 1776 was by the formation of the Confederate States of America 160 years ago and the Civil War that began a couple of months later in April 1861.

Then, the democratic rights of formerly enslaved American citizens came under peril again after the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the enforcement of Jim Crow laws that persisted until 1965.

Perils in the Present

Pursuing political power by violent means is prevalent in several countries at present. On Feb. 1 there was a coup, described as a “military power grab,” in the beleaguered Asian country of Myanmar.

More recently, Haitian President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated on July 7. There is also ongoing military conflict between the rebel forces in the Ethiopian region of Tigray and the central government led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

Fortunately, in the U.S. there has not recently been pursuit of political power by means of assassination or physical violence—with the notable exception of the horrendous events at the national Capitol on January 6.

The present peril in the U.S. is largely because of the Republicans currently pursuing political power by dubious means. That, at least, is the considered opinion of the conservative writer and historian Max Boot, who in 2015-16 was a campaign advisor for Marco Rubio.

Boot (b. 1969) contended in a July 15 opinion piece for The Washington Post that “Republicans are increasingly willing to resort to undemocratic, even violent, means to defend conservative, White hegemony.”

Dana Milbank, who also writes for The Post but is definitely not a conservative, also posted on July 15 an opinion piece titled “American democracy survived its Reichstag fire on Jan. 6. But the threat has not subsided.” He asserts that history “warns of greater violence” ahead.

Milbank (b. 1968) quotes words spoken to him recently by Timothy Snyder: “We’re looking almost certainly at an attempt in 2024 to take power without winning elections.”

A noted Yale historian, Snyder (b. 1969) also said,

If people are excluded from voting rights, then naturally they’re going to start to think about other options, on the one side. But, on the other side, the people who are benefiting because their vote counts for more think of themselves as entitled—and when things don’t go their way, they’re also more likely to be violent.

Promoting the Peril of the Present

The serious and immediate danger of the present is exacerbated not only by Republican politicians, especially by the previous President, but also by the right-wing news media, primarily Fox News and, to a lesser degree, Newsmax and OAN.

There are also numerous websites and broadcasts of people promoting the pursuit of political power by lies and misleading statements.

Recently, I learned of Candace Owens when one of my cousins posted a tweet of hers on Facebook. Owens (b. 1989), who now has her own weekly broadcast on The Daily Wire, tweeted on July 13:

Nobody believes that January 6th was a domestic terrorist attack executed by Trump supporters. It’s outright pathetic that the Democrats keep playing pretend. The conservative movement grows every single day because with time, all of their lies and motives are uncovered.

My cousin and millions like her accept such untruths as well as the perilous propaganda about a stolen election and about the dangers of critical race theory and Covid-19 vaccinations.

And yes, when conservative Republicans cheer because the President’s covid-19 vaccination goal was not met, we know we are living in perilous times. 

Michael Gerson: An Evangelical with Integrity

Today (May 15) is the 57^th birthday of Michael Gerson, the well-known columnist for The Washington Post. Happy Birthday, Mr. Gerson! And thank you for being an evangelical Christian with integrity.

Michael Gerson, the Evangelical

As I have noted a number of times, there has been, and continues to be, considerable criticism of white evangelical Christians (WECs)—and for good reason. But, as I often have said to my “old codger” friends, not all WECs are the same. We must acknowledge significant differences among them. 

There is little question but that Michael Gerson has been a lifelong evangelical Christian. As he himself explained in “The Last Temptation,” an April 2018 article in The Atlantic, he “was raised in an evangelical home, went to an evangelical church and high school, and began following Christ as a teen.”

In that same article, included in full in a 2020 book titled The American Crisis, Gerson states that his experiences as a Christian through the years make him “hesitant to abandon the word evangelical. They also make seeing the defilement of that word all the more painful” (p. 258).

Gerson was named by Time magazine in 2005 as one of “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals In America.”

Michael Gerson, the Writer

Although he has done other things, Gerson is chiefly known as a writer. For example, he was a speechwriter for Bob Dole and a ghostwriter for Charles Colson. Then from Inauguration Day in 2001 to June 2006, he was the White House Director of Speechwriting. As such, he helped write the second inaugural address of Pres. George W. Bush.

After leaving the White House, Gerson wrote for Newsweek magazine for a time, and then in May 2007 he began his tenure as a columnist for The Washington Post.

In 2010, Gerson also was the co-author of the book City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era. The Foreword was written by Timothy Keller, the well-known evangelical pastor, and it was issued by Moody Publishers.**

Michael Gerson, a Man of Integrity

In his opinion pieces for The Washington Post, it seems quite clear that Gerson writes as a man of integrity. Here are examples of what I mean.

On October 28, 2019, Gerson’s WaPo opinion piece was titled, “White evangelical Protestants are fully disrobed. And it is an embarrassing sight.” In that article, he writes, “Rather than shaping President Trump’s agenda in Christian ways, they [=WECs] have been reshaped into the image of Trump himself.”***

Gerson’s opinion piece for January 7 of this year, the very next day after the ill-fated events of Jan. 6, Gerson’s piece was titled, “Trump’s evangelicals were complicit in the desecration of our democracy.”

He pointed out in that piece, “As white nationalists, conspiracy theorists, misogynists, anarchists, criminals and terrorists took hold of the Republican Party, many evangelicals blessed it under the banner ‘Jesus Saves.’” Further on in that article, Gerson wrote,

It is tempting to call unforgivable the equation of Christian truth with malice, cruelty, deception, bigotry and sedition. But that statement is itself contradicted by Christian truth, which places no one beyond forgiveness and affirms that everyone needs grace in different ways. There is a perfectly good set of Christian tools to deal with situations such as these: remorse, repentance, forgiveness, reformation.

And then on May 3, Gerson’s opinion piece was “Elected Republicans are lying with open eyes. Their excuses are disgraceful.” (More about this later.)

And please note: Gerson still is listed as a Republican, so he not only is an evangelical Christian with integrity but also a Republican with integrity. This country badly needs more WECs and more Republicans like Michael Gerson.

_____

** A good reminder in a May 7 tweet by Tim Keller: “Less than 2/3 of evangelicals in the US are white and less than 10% of evangelicals in the world are American. (And not all white US evangelicals are the same). So, when you say, 'evangelicals have done this' or 'claim this'--keep this variety in mind.”

*** For those who cannot access The Washington Post articles by Gerson because of a paywall, click here to see those opinion pieces by Gerson. (If you don’t have time to read all three, at least see the first one, which was posted on May 3.)

Was Jesus a Socialist?

Breitbart News’s daily emails of “Latest News” often includes something labeled “Social Justice Jackass.” Under that label on Sept. 2 were these words (and this link): “Rev. William Barber: ‘Jesus Is a Socialist.” So what about it? Was Jesus a socialist, or is Rev. Barber a “jackass,” to use Breitbart’s inelegant word? 

Cartoon by Bill Day, 2009

Barber’s Assertion

Most of you know of William Barber II, the Disciples of Christ minister who has been president of the NAACP's North Carolina state chapter since 2006. (If you need to review a bit about Barber and what he has done, check out my 9/15/16 and 5/5/18 blog articles.)

The link Breitbart gave was just a short snippet of a longer interview with Barber and his friend Jonathan Wilson-Hargrove by Joy-Ann Reid on her regular Aug. 31 AM Joy program on MSNBC. (Here is the link to the whole 7.5-minute segment, including what Barber said in an Aug. 23 talk.)

Even the Brietbart website accurately states that Barber said that “if caring for the sick and poor is socialism then ‘Jesus is a socialist’”—and that is enough to label Barber (and maybe Jesus?) a “social justice jackass”??

When I printed off the Breitbart.com article more than a week ago, over 1,000 comments had been posted there. (I didn’t print them all!) The first ones that I read were almost all negative toward Barber and what he had said.

For example, “If idiots like Barber think Christ was a socialist, why do socialists recoil at his name?” He is “a Trojan horse sent to do the bidding of evil.” And, “Rev. William Barber is a MarxistAss clown.” Also, “For sure the ‘Rev.’ does not know what he’s talking about.”

The Republicans’ Strategy

It seems quite clear that Republicans, on both the national and more local levels, are using socialism as a “scare word” for political gain. Harry Truman denounced that use of socialism back in 1952 (see this Snopes article).

Just last Tuesday in North Carolina (hear here), DJT said that a vote for any Democrat in 2020 is “a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American dream.” Mark it down: this will be what we will repeatedly hear between now and Nov. 3, 2020.

Also last week, Missouri Governor Mike Parson kicked off his 2020 bid for re-election by warning against the “rise of socialism.” (The Kansas City Star article about this is here.)

This is all a part of the strategy to demonize or ridicule Democratic politicians and to win votes for GOP candidates. That was doubtlessly the intent of Breitbart’s calling Rev. Barber a “social justice jackass.”

The Plight of the Poor

Journalist Errol Louis (born in Harlem in 1962) recently wrote an op-ed piece titled “‘Socialism’ isn’t a boogeyman in an unequal world.” If you’ll notice, most of those who denigrate socialism in this country are white. By contrast, according to a June 2019 Pew poll, 65% of black Americans and 52% of Latinos have a “positive impression” of socialism.

The theme of the Summer 2019 edition of Plough Quarterly (published by the Bruderhof) is “Beyond Capitalism.” In the powerful opening editorial, Peter Mommsen (who is white) writes,

Socialism’s champions know how to take effective whacks at capitalism, and they get at least one thing right: the fact that we live in a society of immense affluence and desperate poverty is a public sin with which no person of good will can be at peace.

Because of great economic inequality — and the looming risk of catastrophic climate change! — something is badly needed. If Jesus wasn’t a socialist, maybe what he taught and the way his first followers lived do point to what is so badly needed today.

A Big “Christmas” Hoax

Mid-day on December 20, DJT tweeted, “We are delivering HISTORIC TAX RELIEF for the American people!” That was followed by a GIF showing a present opening with the words “Tax Cuts for Christmas!” bursting out of a box. This, I contend, is all a big “Christmas” hoax.

An Early Celebration

DJT and the Republicans in Congress celebrated “Christmas” five days early, after passing the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” Then on Dec. 22, DJT signed the massive bill into law.

The vote on the tax reform bill was 51-48 in the Senate—all the Republicans against all the Democrats. In the House, the vote was 224 to 201 with all the Yes votes being by Republicans and the No votes being by all the Democrats and 12 Republicans.

How in the world could there be 249 Congresspeople opposed to what is touted as a wonderful Christmas gift to the USAmerican people? And why do most polls show that more Americans oppose the newly enacted bill than approve of it?

Yes, the “tax cuts for Christmas” were celebrated by DJT and the GOP days before Christmas this year. But one wonders how much celebration there will be by most USAmericans by next Christmas or in the years following.

Who Celebrates?

It is evident that there are reasons for some to celebrate this new tax bill. Corporations are jubilant over the reduction of their tax rate from 35% to 21%, a huge drop—although many corporations already pay around 21%, or far less (see this report).

The wealthiest people in the land also celebrate the passing of the tax bill for several reasons. “Final Tax Bill Includes Huge Estate Tax Win For The Rich” is the title of a Dec. 21 article on Forbes.com.

Among other super-rich people in the country, DJT and the Trump family are, no doubt, celebrating their personal gain as well as their political gain from this bill. “Trump stands to save millions under new tax measure, experts say,” is a recent article in the Washington Post worth noting.

Last Wednesday DJT said, ““I promised the American people a big, beautiful tax cut for Christmas. With final passage of this legislation, that is exactly what they are getting.” Well, that’s at least true for Donald, Jr., Ivanka, and others of the Trump clan. They certainly have reason to celebrate. But many do not.

Who Won’t Celebrate?

There are many serious problems with the newly-passed tax bill, including (1) most likely a large increase in the national debt, (2) an increase in taxes for the poorest 1/3 of U.S. taxpayers, and (3) a large decrease in the number of people who have health insurance and a large increase in the cost for many who do have insurance.

While the numbers for the final bill are likely slightly different, the CBO Report of Nov. 26 indicated that the Senate version of the bill would show an increase in taxes for people (units) with income of less than $30,000—more than 1/3 of the taxpaying units.

By contrast, those with incomes of more than $100,000 –fewer than1/4 of filers—would get tax reductions of from 10.6% to 27.5%.

Those figures are for 2019. They get much worse for the poor and much better for the wealthy by 2025. (Here is the link to the PBS NewsHour article consulted.) 

So, yes, the new tax bill seems to be a “hoax” as a Christmas present, especially for the poor. But the wealthy will fare well, as is cleverly depicted by this cartoon by Pulitzer Prize winning editorial cartoonist Jack Ohman:  

Is Politics Trumping Concern for the Planet?

“Politics is generally a mediocre to horrible platform for change.” That was a statement left by an anonymous person on my previous blog article. I am not sure what all the writer was suggesting, but how else can important changes be made in society?

 In this country, and many others, all major legislation that has made great and important changes for the betterment of society has been passed through the political process.

 One hundred and fifty years ago, in December 1865, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, and slavery was officially abolished.

 That Amendment, however, was defeated the first time it was voted on in the House of Representatives: in June 1864 it fell thirteen votes short of the two-thirds needed for passage.

 That vote was along party lines. No surprise there. But later it received sufficient votes in the House and significant change came through the political system.

 Eighty years ago, in August 1935, the Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt, and Social Security has become one of the most appreciated of all government programs. But there was considerable political opposition at first.

 Many Republicans and some conservative Democrats were fearful about the program's influence on the economy, and some objected because they thought the program was socialistic.

 After a week’s debate in June 1935, the Social Security Act was passed in the Senate by a vote of 77 yeas, 6 nays, and 12 not voting. Five of the negative votes were by Republicans, but a majority of those not voting were Democrats. But here again, long-lasting, significant change came through the political system.

 In the case of so many Southern Democrats voting against the 13^th Amendment, most probably truly opposed freeing the slaves. And in the case of Social Security, the vote on which was not completely partisan; those who opposed it likely really did think it was not viable fiscally—or that it was socialistic.

 But what about current issues—such as legislation designed to combat global warming? On December 12, an historic agreement was made at the COP21 meeting in Paris. As Thomas L. Friedman wrote in his Dec. 16 op-ed piece for the New York Times, the Paris Climate Accord is “a big, big deal.”

 (COP stands for Conference of the Parties, referring to the countries that have signed the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; the COP in Paris was the 21st such conference.)

 The Paris agreement was highly praised by President Obama and political leaders around the world. It also received high praise from Pope Francis (him again!). In his address at the Vatican last Sunday, Pope Francis praised world leaders for reaching the historic agreement.

 Almost immediately after news of that significant agreement by 195 countries was announced, though, Republican politicians began to denounce it.

 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said that President Obama is “making promises he can’t keep” and should remember that the agreement “is subject to being shredded in 13 months.”

 Such statements are surely made for political reasons rather than because of concern for the welfare of this planet and its inhabitants.

 In almost all of the world’s countries, while there may be disagreement about solutions there is almost universal agreement among politicians that global warming is a real problem.

 Only the U.S. has strong opposition to combatting global warming—and that is mostly because of opposition to President Obama, it seems.

 One cannot help but feel that Republican politics is trumping needed concern for the planet and our future.

What are Republicans Thinking?

This article is not about Republicans in general. Rather it is particularly about the Republicans in the U.S. Congress.

The record of these Republican Congresspersons over the last three years has been quite consistent: they have almost unanimously opposed nearly everything the President has proposed.

There has always been political division in the country, but perhaps there has never been as much polarity as there is now.

In the Senate, the Democrats became so frustrated last week that they even used the “nuclear option” and changed the rules for approving nominations for executive and judicial positions.

That was not necessarily a good thing. But neither is the ceaseless obstructionism that led to that extreme, and possibly unwise, decision.

In particular, I am raising the question about what are Republican lawmakers thinking in their ongoing, obdurate opposition to positions that the large majority of U.S. citizens, including Republicans, are for.

Consider four such issues: (1) legislation to outlaw hiring/firing discrimination against gays/lesbians, (2) immigration reform, (3) background checks for those who want to purchase guns, and (4) raising the minimum wage.

(1) On Nov. 7, the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) by a vote of 64-32. (One of the negative votes was by Republican Senator Blunt of Mo.) But at this point, Rep. Boehner has refused to bring the bill up for a vote in the Republican dominated House.

A recent Gallup poll found that nationwide ENDA is supported by 63% of the citizens nationwide, with only 31% opposing it. Even among Republicans, there were 58% in favor and only 36% in opposition.

(2) Back in June, the Senate passed an immigration bill by a 68-32. (The negative votes were all by Republicans, including Senator Blunt.)

But it has yet to be approved by the House, even though earlier this year a CNN poll showed that 84% of the public (78% of the Republicans) backs a program that would allow undocumented workers to stay in the United States and apply for citizenship if they have been in the country for several years, have a job, and pay back taxes.

(3) The tragic school shootings at Sandy Hook were nearly a year ago. There were outcries across the nation for more stringent gun control. In April the Senate bill to extend background checks received 54 votes—but was killed by a Republican filibuster.

A subsequent Gallup poll then indicated that 65% of Americans thought that Senate bill should have passed; only 29% thought it shouldn’t have.

(4) Back in March, Senator Harkin (D-IA) proposed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, calling for an increase from the current $7.25 to $10.10. This month after passing ENDA, the Senate began to consider Sen. Harkin’s bill along with other possibilities.

This month, a Gallup poll indicated that U.S. citizens favor raising the minimum wage to at least $9.00 by a margin of 76% to 22% (and 58% to 39% among Republicans). But the Senate has yet to come up with anything that they think will be able to clear an expected Republican filibuster.

So here are four hot issues with overwhelming public support for change but which are opposed by Republicans in Congress—which leads again to my question: What can they be thinking?

And how can they claim to be representing the citizens of the country when they keep opposing what a large majority of the citizens are for?

Of course another pertinent question is this: Why do people keep electing lawmakers who do not vote according to the desires of the majority of the American people?