Why I am Not a Republican

Because, undoubtedly, the World (and by "the World" I mean the entire Universe), has been waiting for me, Galileo Feynman, to describe my political views, I thought I'd outline why I am not a Republican.¹ The abbreviated version is that the Republicans get too much wrong. Factually wrong. Philosophically wrong, well, yes, but if your philosophy does not square with the facts, then the philosophy the must go. There are things the Democrats err on, too, but overwhelmingly the problems lie with Republican policies.  Here's a list:²

• A History of Reducing Taxes for the Wealthy Over the last 50 years our nation has repeatedly reduced taxes on the wealthy.³ This is a fact; taxes have steadily gone down for 50 years. Today the highest tax rate is 1/2 of what it was in 1980 and about  1/3 of what it was in 1963. Nonetheless, the Republicans claim that the wealthy still pay too much in taxes. Tax rates in the United States are lower than most other westernized nations, and far lower as a percentage of GDP. The wealthy also receive tax breaks other taxpayers cannot. There is a direct correlation between the highest tax rate and how effectively our government functions.⁴  There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unfair about taxing higher amounts of income at higher rates.⁵ The Republican position is factually inaccurate and fiscally irresponsible. 
• Opposing Reform and Regulation of Financial Institutions The savings and loan crisis of the mid 1980's, the corporate accounting and securities frauds of the late 1990's to 2001, and the banking, mortgage, and securities meltdown of the late 2000's were all due to lack of (sometimes outright removal of) financial oversight of financial institutions due to efforts of Republicans. Lack of sufficient financial services oversight led to the current worldwide financial crisis. Yet after a little time passes the Republicans, while initially acknowledging the mistake, seem to "forget" history, and aggressively fight attempts to impose oversight over the system, and when they've failed, seek removal of those laws claiming they "hurt business." Their view is that this is good business is wrong.
• Failing to Rein-in Runaway Military Spending Our nation, the wealthiest and most powerful in the world, spends far far more overall, per capita, and as a percentage of GDP, on military spending than any other westernized nation on Earth.⁶ Let me emphasize that again: far more. It's not close. We spend about as much as all other nations in the world combined. Military spending constitutes more than 60% of our nation's discretionary spending. This situation, frankly, is absurd. There is no legitimate threat to our country warranting this level of spending. No one is about to invade us. These expenditures could bankrupt us; the Republicans lead the opposition to military cuts.⁷
• Opposing  the Stimulus Package As I write the United States is slowly, ever so slowly, climbing out of a deep worldwide recession. Four years ago (really much more) it was evident that the G.W. Bush economic approaches had put the US economically in the toilet, the nation needed a large stimulus package, and the Republicans opposed it .⁸ Our stimulus was too small, but it was something. Europe did not take this approach overall, the prime exception being Iceland. Europe is still deep in the toilet, except Iceland. The fact is Republicans policies got us into this mess and continuing to follow them is idiotic.
• Opposing Health Care Reform The United States spends far more on health care and has worse health outcomes than most other westernized nations.⁹  Something is wrong. Reasonable policies have been put in place to correct this which the Republicans have aggressively opposed. Numerous independent organizations have looked at this and estimated that costs ultimately go down (one purpose, after all, is to bring health spending under control) while health services improve. Why would the Republicans oppose health care reform?  This I believe is a situation of following the money.
• Denying Global Warming (and Opposing Necessary Action to Address the Problem) At this point, few sane people could doubt that global warming is real.¹⁰ Debate, if any, might still be had over the causes -- is it primarily natural or man-made? -- and the long term consequences -- how big a problem is this? Yet, regardless of the causes or the full consequences, there are some consequences that must be addressed. There are reasonable things we can do to reduce the problem.  It is irresponsible to do otherwise.  Extremist Republican viewpoints and rhetoric have gotten us into this position and are still preventing meaningfully solutions.
• Opposing Necessary Environmental Regulations (and Failing to Safeguard the Nation's Natural Resources) Republicans have a pronounced practice of opposing most environmental regulation and allowing consumption of public resources by a few. Now, I don't doubt that there are environmental zealots who overreach in their desire to protect animals and the natural world. Yet those zealots' misconduct does not justify not protecting our mutual air and water. It does not justify giving away public land or allowing it to be stripped of resources. Large mining and logging interests use our lands at minimal cost.
• Opposing Health Regulation and Inspection The safety of our food, drugs, and material goods depends on independent oversight. Providing that oversight is an important governmental function. Citizens/consumers cannot do this themselves; it is difficult or impossible to do. Republicans oppose much of this oversight and have seen it grossly underfunded. Which is sad, because it is such a small part of the federal budget (about $2.5 billion out of more than $500 billion in non-defense federal discretionary spending (more than $1.2 trillion overall)).
• Opposing Effective Drug Legislation (and Spending Billions on an Ineffective "War on Drugs") The "War on Drugs" has failed. I don't think there is a lot of doubt about this. It really was (and still is) a bad idea since it replicates the mistakes of prohibition, provides for the financial wherewithal of brutal criminals, pushes ineffectively against human addictions without treating them, and does so mostly to further moral prerogatives. This foolish effort costs us about $40 billion annually. (NB: that's 18 times the total annual budget of the FDA.)  What would help us is to aggressively regulate drugs, provide ready treatment for abuse, and impose and collect taxes on their sale. 
• Opposing Any Right to Abortion and, specifically, opposing Roe v. Wade  In Roe v. Wade the United States Supreme Court held that women have a right to abortion only when their fetus is not viable. Republicans misrepresent the holding in Roe. Indeed, they now take the extremist view¹¹ that women have no right to have an abortion under any circumstances.¹² They are wrong on the law (and perhaps as a tacit admission of that seek a constitutional amendment on abortion), and, when they say "life begins at conception," misunderstand the basics of conception and the natural world.¹³
• Opposing Gun Control The Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.¹⁴ It does not prevent requiring trigger locks, background checks, limitations on transfer, taxation, storage requirements, display requirements, limitations on number, ammunition limitations, or prohibition of things other than personal arms.  The Republicans, nonetheless, have taken a rabid approach to gun ownership far beyond the Second Amendment or reason. The result is that we live in a dangerous society, a society where people can freely carry hidden weapons, where the police are required to be heavily armed, where children frequently shoot themselves and others,¹⁵ and where criminals have easy access to vast amounts of powerful weapons. Our current heavily armed lifestyle is insane.
• Starting the War in Iraq The Republican's argument for starting the Iraq War was, "trust us, this is necessary." They chose to throw the dice on the question of "weapons of mass destruction"; they lost.¹⁶ Yet I am less interested in the fact that they got their bet wrong than that they bet at all. Gambling on the facts on a matter of this magnitude was startlingly irresponsible. The cost of the war in the lives lost, the more than $500 billion of expense it entailed, the broad financial frauds it engendered, and the damage to the prestige of the United States are at the feet of the Republicans.
• Opposing Nuclear Arms Treaties while Promoting SDI Nuclear war is, perhaps, the only real military threat the United States currently faces. The damage that such a war would do to our country -- and the world -- is beyond imagination. Yet multiple warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles still exist and are still active in the thousands.¹⁷ Republicans have opposed aggressive reductions in arms, believing it is a sign of weakness, while pushing development of "tactical nuclear weapons" to be used on battlefields and the boondoggle of the Strategic Defense Initiative ("SDI" or "Star Wars") which was intended to shoot down Russian and other missiles using lasers.¹⁸ Given the danger nuclear weapons pose if  used, non-proliferation and reduction should be prominent goals.
• Failing to Adequately Fund Core Scientific Research (Notably on Stem Cells but in Other Areas as well) Republicans disfavor publicly funded scientific research in numerous areas, such as environmental and climate issues, and some criticize basic scientific research that lacks immediate application. Most important among these failures is the Republicans opposition to stem cell research -- an area where they oppose development of knowledge on purely ideological grounds --  yet understanding and using stem cells is crucial to biological and medical science. 
• Pandering to Anti-Intellectualism (and Failing to Value Education) Many (certainly not all) Republicans have begun pandering to anti-intellectualism, spurred on by the anti-intellectual attitudes of the Tea Party, the rants or Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the prominence of ignoramuses like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. Among other consequences of not valuing intellectual pursuits, the Republicans do not value education highly and have opposed high funding levels for public education.
• Denying Evolution (and Seeking to Have "Creationism" Taught in Schools) The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming. There is no scientific basis (and ipso facto no factual basis) to somehow "disbelieve" in evolution. Those who do disbelieve in evolution do so on religious grounds or, sometimes, because they do not understand evolution.  Evolution is not a religious theory. "Creationism" is a religious theory. It has no place in public schools or in an educational system based on facts. Evolution does, of course; it is a cornerstone of biology. Most Republicans believe in creationism, disbelieve in evolution, and want creationism taught in schools. It's not only bad policy but stupid.
• Seeking Public Funding for Private Parochial Schools Republicans continue to seek public funding for religious schools. The mechanism de jure to publicly fund parochial schools is vouchers. This, indeed, is the only practical reason for vouchers (because otherwise there could be direct grant to private non-religious schools).  
• Denying the Separation of Church and State Outside of education (as well as within education, above) Republicans continue to mix religion with government, from placing copies of the ten commandments in courthouses and government offices, to beginning meetings with prayers, to allowing public facilities to be used for religious purposes. The First Amendment of the Constitution begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... ." This applies to the states as well as the federal government. Our nation is non-denominational, Republican pretenses to the contrary.
• Opposing Gay Marriage and Gay Rights When I see two women holding hands and obviously in love, or two men, I feel joy and delight. It's the same feeling as when a man and a woman obviously in love. And why should it be different? Yet, I can understand that not everyone shares my feelings. And the thing is, if you are not gay and not about to enter a gay relationship, as I am not, you don't have to. No one is forcing anyone to accept gay relationships for themselves. But why should we deny others the joy and happiness of being together? Simply stated, people who oppose gay marriage misunderstand the concept of freedom. Freedom means you can do as you please if not hurting others, and others can, too. Religious or personal dislike is not a basis to deny anyone liberty or happiness.
• Opposing Women's Rights and Equality It may seem like old news that the Republican Party opposes the Equal Rights Amendment¹⁹ which would have guaranteed equal legal rights for men and women. In fact, it hasn't always done so. Until its national presidential convention in 1980, support for the amendment had been at least nominally part of the Republican platform. The amendment has a long history -- it was first proposed in 1921 -- and in the first thirty years after it was proposed some groups opposed it as rolling back special protections for women (notably in the workplace). During the last 30+ years conservative groups have opposed it under the pretense that it enacts gay marriage and allows abortion. It doesn't do that -- but I acknowledge I wish it did.
• No Longer Prominently Supporting Civil Rights Laws There was a time -- in the mid-1800's -- when the Republicans were the leader in fostering Americans civil rights. (That, BTW, was the same era that the party was not a "states rights" party.) They were responsible for the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, now 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which has become the primary mechanism of enforcing civil rights in the United States. Simply stated; those are no longer the way things are. 
• Opposing Criminal Justice Reform and Supporting the Death Penalty The criminal justice system in the United States is broken. It works only to keep people off the streets, and in this respect it sweeps broadly. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.²⁰  Let me say that again: the highest incarceration rate. Not just the most number of people incarcerated, but the highest rate of incarceration among a population of any nation on Earth. Since 1980 the U.S. prison population has increased five fold, from less than 500,000, to about 2,500,000 inmates. Costs for prisons (and the criminal justice system in general) are rising rapidly, and breaking many state budgets. The biggest failure in the US criminal justice system is the death penalty, which does not deter crime²¹ and is extraordinarily expensive to implement.
• Fostering a Ludicrous Immigration Policy (and Being Anti-Immigrant) It's a truism worth repeating that the United States was founded by immigrants. From the early colonization by English, Africans, French, Spanish, Dutch, and Swedes, through the waves of Germans, Irish, Scots, Chinese, Italians, eastern Europeans, Japanese, Indians, southeast Asians, refugees from Arab countries, and so on, we have repeatedly been fed by people fleeing the shortcomings of another country to find hope in ours. Latinos face this same situation. The people who come here seek to make their lives better, and that has always made our nation better. Republican opposition to ready immigration and the extraordinary wastefulness of their efforts in this regard smack of xenophobia and cultural bigotry.
• Advocating Discredited Views of Federalism As noted below, the Republicans have gone from  supporting federal power to opposing it, and from opposing deferring to "states rights" to embracing that concept. Our governmental system was founded, in fact, as a formal rejection of the broad states rights policy, a policy which was enacted in the Articles of Confederation and then replaced by the formation of the United States as a federalist nation, rather than a weak federal confederation, via the United States Constitution. The present Republican view of federalism treating the US as essentially a confederation of states is historically untenable.  
• Following a Cynical Approach to Government, to Policy, and to the Polity Republican pundits and politicians have repeatedly tried to paint all government as disfunctional and morally wrong, to evade and distort the facts, and to substitute straw horse issues to rail against when their policies fail; Republicans have stalled judicial nominees and the judicial nomination process; they have acted as obstructionists in the Congress instituting a record number of filibusters; they have appointed numerous panels to "investigate" the Democrats all while have a phenomenal number of ethical lapses themselves; they have broken cooperation pledges; and they have done this while saying that their primary goal is to bring the Obama administration down. They often look down on the people they represent and seem to have little respect for their ability to remember prior Republican misconduct and failure, praying on ignorance and bigotry rather than facts. So, no, I am not a Republican.

Many Republicans would agree with me on some of the above. So, too, many Democrats would disagree with me on some of it. My goal is not to be a Republican or Democrat; it is to get things right. If there are material errors, demonstrate them, and I'll change my views. The facts as I am aware of them -- and I've carefully looked at the facts -- simply do not support the Republicans on most issues or their approach on policy.

___________________________

¹ That I am not a Republican because of shortcomings in so many policies they espouse is a backhanded way of saying that as a practical matter I am a Democrat. In the United States where I live you can, as a practical matter, be a Republican or a Democrat. No other viewpoint is politically meaningful. My positive beliefs are (or will be) explored elsewhere in detail on this blog -- it's a key reason it exists -- but, speaking of Republicans, let me put it briefly this way: I believe in Republicanism for what it was, more or less, under Abraham Lincoln: I believe in freedom and equality, and, as noted above, I believe that government done right fosters liberty and opportunity. Many seem to have forgotten that Lincoln's Republicans wanted a strong federal government; a war was fought over the issue, and we, as a nation, won. (NB: the Republican Party was formed to oppose the notion of "popular sovereignty," a catch phrase in the  1840's to 1860's meaning local ability against federal power and was intended to extend slavery; it was a view partly reflected in the Dred Scott decision and ultimately embodied in the reopening of some territories to slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Lincoln's debates with Stephen Douglas were primarily over this issue, which was a "states rights" issue about the expansion of slavery. The Republicans now happily embrace notions similar to "popular-sovereignty," and I don't think it could be legitimately denied that they have sold out their roots. Many "states rights" advocates seem to have forgotten the failure of our nation under the Articles of Confederation, which reflected the "state's rights" view, and the enactment of our Constitution in response to this.) I share aspects of belief with Roger Williams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Frederick Douglas, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin, among many others. That's just a list of names, of course -- and only names of United States historical figures at that -- so it hardly gives you my full views. As I began by mentioning, this blog in part exists to elucidate those.
² There are many subjects that I have not included in this list but might have. They include, among other things and in no particular order, Republican over-reaching on intellectual property rights, both in scope an duration, and, tangentially related to that, failure to protect or respect citizens' personal privacy; Republicans' willingness to allow broad searches and seizures in the name of security and, in this respect, Republicans' frequent use of fear as a too ideological tool; Republicans' willingness to use torture and harsh interrogations as investigatory methods; Republican support for extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, and the killing of leaders and citizens of countries as to whom we're not at war; Republicans' view that corporations should be treated as "people" under the Constitution;  Republicans' unwillingness to rein in campaign expenditures and PACS; Republicans' desire to eliminate the estate tax; Republicans' failure to support programs for poor children; Republican's claim that the United States is a "Judeo-Christian nation" and their failure to respect citizens who are not practicing Jews or Christians; Republicans' one-sided support for Israel and failure to address mistreatment of Palestinians; Republicans' lack of governmental support for the arts; Republicans' lack of support for improvements to our nations' telecommunications systems and roadways; Republicans' hands-off approach to utilities and failure to treat monopolistic utilities as public entities; Republicans lack of support for governmental attention to alternative energy solutions; Republican antipathy to governmental participation in markets; and Republican attempts to privatize core governmental functions (like running schools and prisons) even when doing so is much more expensive to the public. Many of these can also be lain at the feet of many Democrats.
³ Here's a chart from Visualizing Economics showing the changes in the top income tax rates over time, as well as corporate taxation, and capital gains treatment, and comparing them with different President's terms (click to expand):

⁴ As should be obvious, as far as government goes, you get what you pay for. A government that is well funded is able to provide good services; one that is driven to poverty provides poor services. This is not rocket science. The table above, for example, shows that higher tax rates helped us climb out of the depression, recover quickly from World War I and then World War II, and led to periods of great prosperity in the United States. Drastically cut tax rates eventually harmed us greatly. the idea that adequately funding government wastes money is badly misinformed.
⁵ Progressive income taxation -- that is, a sliding tax rate where higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate -- has repeatedly been upheld under the United States Constitution, and survived challenges that it is supposedly unfair. (I should note that there are websites out there (like the humorously named American Thinker) -- and a wide body of tax protester materials -- that have silly theories of why it's illegal or unconstitutional. In short, as a lawyer I can tell you they do not know what they're talking about.)  Here's the principal reason why: everybody gets the benefit of lower tax rates for the lower amounts of income one earns. If hypothetically the first $10,000 of taxable income is untaxed under a progressive system, then its untaxed for everybody.  If the next $10,000 of taxable income is taxed at 10%, then its taxed at 10% for everybody. If the next $10,000 of taxable income is taxed at 90% then its taxed at 90% for everybody. So, under this system if you had $30,000 of taxable income, only the taxable income over $20,000 would be taxed at 90%. These rules not only apply across the board, i.e. their equally applied so fair, but they show the complaint isn't really that others are taxed at a lower rate -- they weren't -- it's that one's own income is taxed at different rates as you earn more. Complaining about that is sorta nutty. Just to verify for you, here are the US tax tables.
⁶  Here's a chart from The International Institute for Strategic Studies -- it's part of a larger set of charts, and I encourage you to look at them all (at the link) since they are very clear:

⁷ Ironically, what would "win" for the "American way of life" is simply the American way of life itself. For most people in most countries want to live like Americans. As we buy and sell goods and services with them, and as they become better off and more educated, they are less interested in hating America and hurting us, and more interested in having stuff and living good lives. The US. can win in the marketplace. It does not need to blow people up. That not only hurts them, it hurts us.
⁸ Among other things, the Republicans opposed aggressive funding of TARP and a bailout of the United States automobile industry, most of which was repaid ahead of schedule.
⁹ There are numerous charts available that, based on established data, show the United States's spending on health care. Here's a one showing expenditures versus life expectancy for various "first world" countries:

This graph makes a compelling case that substantial health care reform was (and maybe still is) necessary.
¹⁰ Regarding the reality of global warming, here are the land-sea temperatures over the last 120 years (via Wikipedia):

¹¹ I haven't harked in my post on the idiocy of Missouri Representative Todd Aken's statements on August 19, 2012, that pregnancy does not arise from rape because "if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." The Republican party immediately tried to distance itself from these comments and to get him to withdraw. And, as a poster to MetaFilter pointed out shortly after Aiken's comments were made, they are but the latest in a long strong of similar inane comments by folks who oppose abortion, such as Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum saying that a baby born of rape is a gift from God, Idaho state senator Chuck Winder suggesting that rape is an excuse women use to get abortions, United States district court nominee James Holmes claiming in 1997 that "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami," California state representative Henry Aldridge claiming that "[Women do not get pregnant when raped because] the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work," Pennsylvania state representative Stephen Freind saying "the odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are] one in millions and millions and millions," and the Christian Life Resources website arguing through an MD that "[forcible] rape pregnancies are rare" in an article that attempts to define away the issue and does not bother to show what it implies (that it's supposedly harder to get pregnant through rape) because it cannot.
¹² Except for rape or incest, some assert, though it is hard to see how that the anti-abortion theory that "life begins at conception" squares with a rape or incest exception anti-abortionists sometimes allow. Does God supposedly not bless babies who are the products of rape or incest? Are they less human?
¹³ The notion that there is a black and white line where "life" begins is factually unsupportable. To the extent the "right to life" crowd bases their argument on the existence of such a line, they're wrong. And, of course, while one can create a line by definition, that does not make the line a part of the natural world. Both the sperm and ova are alive, of course, before conception. When their DNA merges they do not form an independent entity capable of independent existence. Instead, the zygote is merged with the woman's uterus, functions as a part of her body, and depends on her, as part of her, for survival. Eventually, after months, it is capable of independent survival, if given extraordinary health care after leaving the womb. When does a fetus advance to the point where we should recognize it as an individual human warranting protection?  Roe v. Wade holds that when a zygote or fetus cannot survive out of the womb even with extraordinary care, then societal interest in protecting the life is de minimis, and a woman's right to control her own body is paramount. Roe estimates this to be the first trimester, and the federal government and States cannot forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy during this period . During the second and third trimesters the state's interest in protecting life increase (one might say they quicken, but that's a bad pun though to an old term indicative that human life begins at conception is not a historical notion) and governmental regulation is weighed against the personal rights of the woman, steadily becoming more deferential to protecting life. This is a fair balancing of protecting individual human life and protecting an individual's freedom. That Republicans oppose it is a good reason not to be a Republican.
¹⁴ Muskets! I say muskets because in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified muskets were the only "arms" that existed (including some primitive muzzle loading rifled muskets). If terms of the Constitution are limited to the use they had when adopted -- as some conservatives argue -- there isn't much of a right to bear "arms." We can accurately say that the ratifiers of the Second Amendment had no concept of automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, easy load ammunition cartridges, readily available ammunition, hollow point bullets, explosive shells, not loading through the muzzle, not taking several minutes for each shot, being able to shoot accurately, being able to short over great distances, being able to use a sight or aim with a laser, or, in fact, of anything other than hand made hand held arms. But we must also understand that the Second Amendment was enacted in light of a citizen revolution against the crown of England, and it, in fact, reflects the right to possess arms from the English Bill of Rights of 102 years earlier, rights that were undoubtedly put in place to prevent the tyranny of the king in England. Outlawing all guns is not consistent with our Constitution, nor are many suggesting it. What the Constitution does not forbid are reasonable regulations and laws regarding use, ownership, and maintenance of firearms or indeed any law that does not forbid "bearing" firearms. There is no legal requirement our society be armed to the teeth.
¹⁵ If you have a hankering for recurring sadness, do a Google search for something like "child shot handgun." It's one tragic news story after another.

¹⁶ Although there were many misrepresentations leading up to Iraq War, the key misrepresentation underlying the invasion was not that "we think they might have weapons of mass destruction," it was "we know they have weapons of mass destruction." [NB: I've always been a little puzzled by the vague phrase "weapons of mass destruction." Most explosives, regardless of payload, are literally weapons of mass destruction. that's the point behind an explosive. Oddly, the Bush administration did not definitively say "they have chemical weapons" or "they have nuclear weapons;" it said, "they have weapons of mass destruction." Use of such a vague phrase should be a red flag.]
¹⁷ Here's a chart summarizing the world's nuclear stockpiles; it's prepared by the Federation of American Scientists, the leading public source for such information (please see the full table for its footnotes and descriptions.):

¹⁸ It must be recognized that, while Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan signed nuclear non-proliferation pacts -- SALT I and START I, respectively -- these were watered down agreements and more aggressive attempts to regulate and reduce nuclear arms were deep-sixed by Republicans. Putting the budgetary disaster of SDI to the side, it served to escalate arms development and threats of war. The Republican policy on these issues has largely been crafted by a group called the Committee on the Present Danger. This group features "neocon policy wonks" such as Kenneth Adelman, who were responsible for such fine work as the policy behind invading Iraq. The Committee still exists. Its current membership includes is a laundry list of conservative extremists and, according to Wikipedia, includes business interests advocating military expenditures like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Boeing Corporation.  I do not propose any sort of conspiracy theory by noting the involvement of the Committee on the Present Danger. To the contrary, its work and influence, which has been substantial, is fairly public; I write to note its involvement, agenda, and mistakes.
¹⁹ The text of the ERA is as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

²⁰ Here's Wikipedia's chart showing US state and federal prison population changes:

²¹ There are three statistical ways one can examine whether the death penalty is a deterrent: (1) compare murder rates between states that have the death penalty and those that do not; (2) compare murder rates between the US and countries that do not have the death penalty; and (3) compare murder rates within a state at a time it had the death penalty with when it did not (correcting if appropriate for national trends in murder rates if you wish since this is a comparison over time). All three measures show no deterrent effect. Why? The fact is that most murders are "crimes of passion," not carefully thought through schemes. The schemers don't plan on getting caught, and the remainder aren't mulling over the penalty. If one is serious about reducing murder, one does not rely on the death penalty to do it; one reduces the easy accessibility to handguns.