MOUNT RUSHMORE - REVISED

This morning on Morning Joe (June 6, 2012) there was a discussion of what presidents belong at Mount Rushmore.  Much to my surprise, several historians were will to replace the whole lot!  As for me, I would definitely keep Washington and Lincoln. In fact, Washington looks better all the time in that on top of everything else his views on slavery evolved and he planned to have his slaves released upon the death of his wife Martha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery).  To do this, you had to compile funds for them so that they would not be a drag on society, and he had to do this in secret or he might have been assassinated. Of course, American history, and maybe global history, would be a lot different if it wasn't for Lincoln.

I do think Teddy Roosevelt could be replaced and possibly Jefferson.  Teddy could easily be replaced by his 5th cousin Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) who ended up being the father of modern America.

Thomas Jefferson is noted as writing the Declaration of Independence and buying the Louisiana Purchase though constitutionally there was no provision to do this.  I find it interesting that he is a hero to Democrats who have annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations and to conservatives who say they are Jeffersonian conservatives.  Jefferson did believe in states rights.  Jefferson's record on slavery is mixed at best (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery).  He did allow two of his four children by Sally Heming to "escape" and freed the other two upon his death along with a few others, but, oddly did not free Sally Heming (though essentially his daughter did, i.e. gave Sally her "time.").  On the other hand he would not recognize Haiti.  But if you were going to replace Jefferson, who would you replace him with?

Surprisingly to me there are those historians who would say Ronald Reagan.  As I have written elsewhere, I have never experienced the Reagan mystique.*  He is credited with being an advocate of small government though he increased the size the government curing his presidential tenure.  For example he is the only president to increase the number of Federal employees between Johnson and Obama.  He is credited with being a budget balancer though he never came close to balancing the budget.  But his spiritual appeal has captured many, but I would not choose him for Mount Rushmore.  I guess I would leave Thomas Jefferson there, but there is a part of me that is attracted to Lyndon Johnson.  To do this you have to forgive him for the Vietnam war, but Johnson's domestic accomplishments are so great that he could be deserving.  If one is going to forgive Jefferson's record on slavery then one might be able to forgive Johnson's record on Viet Nam.

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/02/ronald-reagan.html,
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/10/ronald-reagan-further-comments.html,
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2012/05/land-mines-in-way-of-becoming-great.html

Note added July 11, 2012:  After thinking this over, I have decided that we shouldn't replace any of those already on Mount Rushmore, but we could add a couple.  After all in more than a hundred years one would hope we have had a couple of outstanding presidents.  So I would add FDR and maybe Lyndon Johnson.  On Morning Joe, Doris Kearns Godwin suggested Johnson's face be in profile to honor his domestic achievements, but not his foreign policy debacle.

IS THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY LEGAL?

The Republican Party has long been the party of the wealthy people to protect and preferably enrich their fortunes. They full well realize that there are not enough of them to win elections so that they have opened their "tent" to some others. Strangely they have attracted a lot of wage workers, even though it is the Democratic Party that has their best interests at heart and the Republican party only pays them attention at election time.* It seems to me that this started when the Democratic Party opened its "tent" to the disenfranchised, namely Blacks, Hispanics and women, but more recently homosexuals. Republicans have also opened the "tent" to a coalition of religious extremists, notably those that describe themselves as "Evangelicals" who are social conservatives and conservative Roman Catholics .

The inclusion of religious extremists had the advantage of taking advantage of a group of very energetic people with religious fervor, to help protect the wealthy (of course some wealthy could be both), but it was also dangerous as we have seen. In the 2012 election cycle, the growth of the religious conservatives within the Republican Party has been phenomenal to the point where the Republican Party now seems to be a party of conservative Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals. It might more properly be called the Christian Right Party, i.e. a religious party. The question is, is a religious party legal in the United States that prides itself on secular political parties and the separation of church and state?

The answer may not be all that clear. Separation of church and state is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, although Founding Fathers assume it to be in the First Amendment, most notably Thomas Jefferson. And it has been used in Supreme Court decisions: "Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.'"**

If these interpretations are correct the modern Republican Party may be illegal because, as a religious party, it does not separate church and state. If it is claimed they are a religious party, it undoubtedly would go eventually to the Supreme Court that incidentally, is comprised by six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. Not all the Roman Catholics are conservative Roman Catholics, however.

Nonetheless, we have had the politicians in Mississippi propose an initiative that life begins at fertilization of a women's egg, fortunately turned down in the referendum.*** The purpose of the initiative was to attack all abortions. The Mississippi initiative was followed by a bill in Virginia where women having an abortion would be required to have an "ultrasound" transvaginal probe of the fetus which after much outrage, especially by women, the governor threatened a veto.**** Texas, however, does have a law that a sonogram (exterior) must be taken, and the woman must listen to the doctor's description of it and. She must then wait 24 hrs before undergoing the abortion procedure.*****

*The Republican Party to appease wage workers has come out against higher education, especially higher education in Ivy League Universities using terms like "elites" and "not real Americans." See The Dumbing Down Of America:

http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/10/dumbing-down-of-america-if-you-listen.html.

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

***http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/mississippi-personhood-amendment_n_1082546.html

****http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479427-virginia-lawmakers-back-off-requiring-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion

*****http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57382162/is-a-required-ultrasound-a-barrier-to-abortion/