Volume 9, Issue 15
Corporate leaders have now taken on the cause of political objectives. There is nothing wrong with corporations serving the greater benefit of quality of life. Green space, paid parental leave, and the arts are but a few of the meritable corporate social responsibilities benefiting a city. However, when Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, and Major League Baseball involve themselves in election laws of Georgia, they become part and parcel of a political party.
The election laws recently passed by the Georgia legislature had little to do with voting rights and more to do with political party procedures. The issue revolves around voter identification. Should someone be required to have a verified ID to vote and should their signature be verified? Progressives say such laws are restrictive and discriminatory. Conservatives claim that identification is necessary to eliminate fraud. Neither are totally accurate. Signature verification can be onerous. And, as long as citizens are honest, a person’s signature should be good enough. What’s really at stake is the political parties’ turnout processes. Democrats want same-day registration voting, no residency requirements, and no signature verification. This, along with universal mail-out ballots, augments their voter turnout efforts. Republicans stand on institutional standards that a person must be a confirmed U.S. citizen to vote. Progressives are caviling towards any voting requirements. The differences between party operations are the subject of its own thesis. The point is, elected officials should determine election law.
Non-elected corporate leaders who are basically ignorant of party power politics of either party should not distort or interfere with the democratic legislative process. Georgia did just elect two Democratic U.S. Senators in January runoff elections.
The courts were designed to be a forum of blind justice. All citizens are to be treated the same. Every person is innocent until proven guilty. The judicial process has been held as sacrosanct. Now, leaders at all levels threaten the courts if they do not render verdicts acceptable to their political and ideological viewpoint. Maxine Waters, Congresswoman from California, called for more demonstrations and confrontation if Derek Chauvin was not found guilty and/or responsible for George Floyd’s death. The judge entertained a motion for mistrial because the jury had access to her public statements. President Biden was more restrained and respectful of the jury. He did not make his feelings known until the jury was sequestered and in deliberations.
Courts of law should be free to render justice based upon the Constitution and rule of law, not popular public opinion.
Now, tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google censor public free speech. They decide, as non-elected officials, who has the right to speak and what issues will be ventilated. Pornography and hate speech should be suppressed. However, it is the legislatures and the courts, through the constitutional process, that should decide what is pornographic, what is vile, and what is unacceptable ideologically. Facebook has no public license regulated by the government like ABC, CBS, and NBC. They are a private corporation who can decide for themselves moral turpitude.
Therefore, when corporate leaders enter the political debate without clarity of judgement, the courts are intimidated by elected officials, and when tech giants who control social media censor opposition debate, democracy is circumvented. The usurpation circle is closed, constitutional individual protections are threatened, and America becomes a country of totalitarian corporate oppression, much like a totalitarian communist state. Corporate leaders throwing their weight behind certain political movements are dangerous. Why? Because corporations have a conflict of interest. They exist to make a profit, and this objective may be in conflict with public service. They are held accountable by their stockholders. They will always lobby government for favors. That is why all laws should be resolved by elected officials held accountable by the people.
The trial of Derek Chauvin, in spite of all the pressures from outside forces, delivered the proper verdict today. In my opinion, there is no excuse for holding George Floyd down for 9 ½ minutes. He had been secured and was not a threat. The extent of the ordeal illustrated intent. The prosecution was criticized by some in the media for saying that the trial was about Derek Chauvin and not police in general. Liberal elites wanted the trial to be about all police. Not all members of the police force are racist. There has to be reason in dissecting the emotional issues at hand.
The prosecution got it right. The jury got it right. The country was served.
The societal issues facing our country are personal in racial persuasion. They are familial in moral values. They are generational in economic equality. They are denominational in secular and religious faith. We are mindlessly allowing the destruction of the very constitutional fiber that holds our democracy together. Rather than trust the philosophical process that was so revolutionary in 1776, yet proven so successful the past 244 years, we have begun to distrust ourselves. We have lost confidence in the concept of three separate branches of government working together, through checks and balances, to ensure that a government by the people serves all the people.
We have replaced the constitutional process of weighing the benefit of different ideological perspectives for a common national purpose with self-interest only. The United States of America is not just the great melting pot of immigrants. It is also the melting pot of ideas forged for the foundation of individual prosperity.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, in reflecting upon President Biden’s decision to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, wondered if, after 20 years, we had made any difference in Afghanistan’s future. Afghans have been unable to reconcile tribal differences. They remain divided as a society, both in purpose and recognition. They are a nation of unceasing internal wars. Death and martyrdom are more appealing than compromise or common purpose. Friedman went on to contemplate America’s future. Will our divisions become so entrenched that we devolve into tribal autocracy wherein common purpose has no cause and the melting pot has no value?
Seeing each other in common destiny, respecting the constitutional process to resolve differences, and believing that freedom, supported through democracy, fuels universal opportunity, is the essence of the great experiment so revolutionary, and yet so successful.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?