Breeding Ground for Islamic Extremism in the United States: The U.S. Prison System by Mike Broemmel

I have stewed about the subject of this essay for over a year -- particularly since journalist James Foley was beheaded by ISIS in some desolate location in the Middle East. My decision to share my thoughts became certain on September 25th when a woman was beheaded at her workplace in Moore, Oklahoma – truly, in the heartland of the United States.

 I fear that this very well may only be the beginning of violence across the country in the name of radical Islamic fundamentalism – although this case is a bit muddled. The individual responsible for this killing appears to be both a disgruntled employee and very possibly a person espousing the agenda of radical Islamic fundamentalism. I think we are on the verge of seeing “smaller” acts of terrorism across the United States, including individual killings, bombings in the heartland and similar attacks. One need only look to the United Kingdom during the height of the conflict over Northern Ireland for at least some guidance.

 I speculate that the person who beheaded the woman in Oklahoma City will not only have connections to radical Islam, of the type that is leading to unbridled violence across the globe, but that he will have come to those beliefs while incarcerated in prison somewhere in the United States.

 I say this without equivocation: The prison system in the United States (on both the state and federal levels) has become something of an incubator for radical beliefs of different types, including radical Islamic beliefs. 

 There is an oft repeated cliché that people find religion in prison. Some people do turn to faith as a legitimate and sincere means of surviving the incarceration experience. For many an individual, embracing faith does not necessarily carry forth much beyond the prison gates when a person finally is released.

 With that understood, there is also a segment of the inmate population that utilizes religion and religious gatherings as tools to further nefarious activities. Oftentimes, these types of activities pursued under the guise of faith focus on prison-related objectives. For example, a religious gathering in an institution can be utilized as a means of conveying gang-related communications, pass illicit items or contraband and so forth.

 What is more alarming in my mind is the reality that gatherings occur in prison under the guise of religious expression that have criminal objectives that extend beyond the walls of penal institutions. Gangs of all types use these occasions to further criminal enterprises in the proverbial real world, even though they technically are behind bars.

 On Fridays, Muslim inmates are permitted to gather for Jumu’ah, or the Friday day of prayer. The vast majority of incarcerated people who gather each week for Jumu’ah are sincere about their desire to practice their faith while incarcerated. However, a very dangerous minority of incarcerated offenders most definitely are not.

 A fraction of the inmate population are misusing Jumu-ah, and other gatherings in prisons as a means of propagating a radical agenda. I suggest that part of that agenda, in some instances, is a purposeful radicalization of participants to the point that some individuals are leaving prison behind with a mission to pursue the terrorism agenda espoused by groups like ISIS in our country and against our citizens. (I can’t help but wonder as I write whether what has now occurred in Oklahoma City will shed a tiny sliver of light on what I discuss in this essay as a legitimate problem.)

 I must make note that I think penal institutions in our nation have become something of an incubator for Islamic radicalization in some cases because of the draconian sentencing laws which do exist in the United States. The reality is that a considerable percentage of inmates have been sentenced to unnecessarily lengthy terms of incarceration that actually go beyond what is appropriately suited to certain crimes. The reality of sentencing laws in the United States – a nation with the largest incarcerated population on the planet – has led to a profound bitterness and sense of isolation on the part of a segment of the population of incarcerated individuals in the United States. They want to fight back. And, I fear they will through an association with radical Islamic movements.

 Of course, there exist a multitude of other reasons why some individuals are drawn to radical doctrines while incarcerated. Indeed, a book could be written on the subject. Nonetheless, I felt compelled to make note of what I perceive as one of the important factors that drive some incarcerated people to espouse radical philosophies of different types, including those that can and will prove dangerous to the public at large.

 A number of strategies need to be implemented in order to confront the situation that I describe in this essay. What I do not propose is limiting access to true, meaningful religious expression and practice while in prison. Properly pursued, faith experiences in penal institutions can and do have a positive impact on the lives of a percentage of offenders.

 First and foremost, I believe that there needs to be a recognition of the reality of what is occurring right now behind the walls of penal institutions. Second, we also need to revisit the draconian sentences imposed in regard to some crimes to lessen the number of bitter individuals behind bars who can be influenced by radical propositions, including terrorism. Third, we need to beef up meaningful reentry programs for incarcerated persons to better ensure that offenders can better acclimate back into the community in a productive and lawful manner.

 Finally, our nation is not well served by certain budget cutbacks inflicted on the prison system in recent years. We do not benefit from eliminating educational and vocational training programs in prison. We do not benefit from reducing the availability of substance abuse and mental health counseling and treatment services in prison.

 I conclude this essay with a quote from actor Hill Harper: “People always think about what prison is. What prison really is – it's not a physical challenge, it's mental."

The Carter Effect: What to Look for on Election Day 2014 in the U.S. Senate Races by Mike Broemmel

A tremendous amount of media attention has been paid to which party will control the U.S. Senate following the 2014 election cycle. Writing this on the weekend before Election Day, the tide does seem to be in favor of the Republican candidates in the key races that will decide which party will hold a majority when the new Congress is seated in January 2015.

In a moment, I will make my own predictions regarding the victors of key races and what the final tally will be in the new Senate. However, before I take that step, I want to address what I have called the Carter Effect since 1980. I have yet to hear one commentator or pundit address the matter of what I call the Carter Effect in any manner whatsoever. And, I maintain this is a significant failure in the analysis of the 2014 battle for the U.S. Senate.

The Carter Effect arises from the presidential election campaign of 1980, between incumbent Jimmy Carter and former California Governor Ronald Reagan. Right up until Election Day, the media called the race too close to call. Indeed, the internal polling in both campaigns throughout the latter days of the campaign supported the proposition that the race between Carter and Reagan was too close to call.

When the votes were tallied, Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States by a landslide. (Four years later he would be reelected by the largest landslide in American history.) Reagan won the election with a lead over Carter of nearly 10 percent. Reagan won 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 49. In short, there was nothing “too close to call” about Carter – Reagan race.

What I call the Carter Effect is what skewed the polls right up until Election Day. In the end, exit polling and other research revealed that a surprising number of Democrats voted for Reagan. In addition, a significant number of these Democrats who voted for Reagan did so quietly. When questioned in pre-election polls, they dutifully reported that they were voting for Carter. They even kept their decision to vote for the Republican Reagan a secret from friends and family members. I rather imagine a good percentage of these Democrat Reagan voters made the decision to vote for the Gipper in the voting booth itself.

This set of facts is the Carter Effect. And I strongly maintain that it is occurring and will continue to occur in the 2014 U.S. Senate election campaigns. (I say is occurring because of early and mail-in voting and will continue to occur because of those who will actually vote on Election Day.)

I suggest there is a significant percentage of Democrats (including true progressives) who are very concerned about the manner in which Barack Obama has conducted the affairs of his office. There is a large number of Democratic voters who understand that Democrats and Republicans alike both share the blame for the dysfunction on Capitol Hill. As an aside, polls consistently demonstrate that about 20 percent of Democrats feel Obama has not served the interests of the American people well. I suggest that the total number of Democrats who truly recognize the shortcomings of the President is closer to 40 percent.

The difference between the Democrats that disclose their feelings openly to pollsters and the number of Democrats truly distressed with the conduct of Obama in office but who keep their feelings to themselves is where the Carter Effect number is found in the race for the U.S. Senate. I estimate that approximately 5 percent of Democratic respondents in polls that report they will vote for the Democrat U.S. Senate candidate actually have or will vote for the Republican choice.

In the final analysis, not only are races trending towards Republicans across the country, when the Carter Effect enters into the mix, the GOP has locked up the U.S. Senate – and significantly so. As I write this two days before votes are tallied, the following states are considered toss-ups: Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire and North Carolina. I maintain that by including the Carter Effect in the analysis of these races, none of these states are in a toss-up status and the GOP will take all of these seats.

As an aside, Arkansas and Kentucky are said to be leaning but not safely in the Republican column. I suggest the GOP will take both seats on Tuesday. Only one other seat currently held by a Democrat is in the leaning column: Virginia. I think a possibility exists for the GOP to take this seat but I am not banking on it.

When the dust settles on the 2014 race for the U.S. Senate, the Republicans will have 55 seats to 45 for the Democrats.

I close with some parting comments on individual races:

Alaska

Republican candidate Dan Sullivan continues to maintain his lead against incumbent Mark Begich, which has been consistent for some time. The only reason Begich won the seat six years ago was because of the unwarranted criminal prosecution launched against the sitting Senator at that time. Sullivan wins.

Arkansas

Republican Tom Cotton has been widening his lead against Democrat Mark Pryor. In recent days, Pryor has started to flail like a drowning man. Cotton wins, and I am predicting handily.

Colorado

Democrat Mark Udall should have cruised to an easy victory. When voting ends, the reality of how badly his campaign was mismanaged by his campaign leadership will set in. Republican Corey Gardner has run a solid campaign and continues to widen his lead. Gardner wins – and it will not be a particularly close race.

Georgia

Republican David Perdue and Democrat Michelle Nunn have been locked in a close race. But, when the Carter Effect is brought into the calculation, Perdue wins and may be able to avoid a run-off by collecting over 50 percent of the vote.

Iowa

Republican Joni Ernst has been pulling slowly away from Bruce Braley. This is a close race. Ernst wins.

Kansas

One of the strangest races of the year. Incumbent Republican Pat Roberts is facing down an unaffiliated opponent in Greg Orman. This is the closest to a true toss-up Senate race in the country a few days before the election. I do predict Roberts – barely – pulls it off.

Louisiana

The campaign of incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu may have imploded a couple of days ago with her statements regarding racism and sexism in Louisiana. She was trailing before that event. The race will go to a run-off in early December, but Republican Bill Cassidy wins.

New Hampshire

Incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen will feel the full effect of the Carter Effect on Election Day. A race she should have easily won now finds her looking down the barrel of defeat at the hands of former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. Brown wins.

North Carolina

Democrat Kay Hagen, the sitting Senator, has been locked in a neck and neck battle with Thom Tillis. Tillis seems to be pulling away and has had some very effective ads in these final days. Tillis wins.

Six Joan Crawfords by Mike Broemmel: Original Comedy Satirically Skewers Theater and Middling Actors by Paul Sheridan

Six Joan Crawfords is a new comedy written by playwright Mike Broemmel. Six Joan Crawfords premieres at the West End Theatre & Arts Center, located in the Denver-metro area. The satirical comedy represents the fourth full length play by Broemmel to be produced in the past three years. Six Joan Crawfords joins The Row, The Baptism and Goddess People in the Broemmel catalog of full length, three-act plays.

I interviewed Broemmel at a popular Denver restaurant called Racines. Broemmel ran late, arriving a half hour past our appointment start time. Apologetic, Broemmel was tardy because in the midst of the inaugural production of Six Joan Crawfords, a novel he wrote was released internationally and necessitated his presence at a television interview that ran over time.

My first question after we settled into our lunch was whether Six Joan Crawfords was based on any real life experiences. Without hesitation, Broemmel replied in the affirmative.

“A couple of years ago I was involved in producing Steel Magnolias at a theater in Denver. Truly, one of the worst experiences of my time in theater. In a nutshell, the play ran horribly over budget. In the end, a couple of co-producers of the play, including me, agreed to pay actors the balance due on their stipends from our own pockets. We actually started doing that. But, before we could proceed very far in the process, I was subjected to the most unprofessional barrage of dreck from these actors.
One called me a flesh eating something or another. Another sent bizarre and scathing emails. Another sent me dozens of harassing emails. The production team ultimately decided we would pay the balance due these actors when another production had excess funds available. We concluded we weren’t going to be attacked and insulted by these actors in the most unprofessional manner imaginable and then hand over our personal money to them,” Broemmel said.

Broemmel went on to note that the arrogance of some of these actors was at the heart of his creation of Six Joan Crawfords. “Some of these actors didn’t turn in particularly strong performances. In fact, a couple of them – particularly one in the Dolly Parton role of Truvy – were horrible. But, the weaker the actor, the greater the diva-ness in that production,” Broemmel said.

I asked for names. Broemmel made the point that none of the actors in the referenced production of Steel Magnolias were notable and names would be meaningless. “I honestly don’t remember their names. I will mention one name however, a name I do remember because she has been harassing me steadily for months. Her most recent claim to fame is some project in which she makes fun of mentally ill, homeless women. Her name is Lynne Jordan and she was the marginal actor in the Truvy role in Steel Magnolias. Making fun of homeless, mentally women is just beyond acceptable and underscores her level of unprofessionalism,” Broemmel said. “She literally makes my skin crawl.”

In addition to writing, Broemmel speaks at conferences and conventions on a number of topics, including the ups and downs of his own life. “I also speak on mental health issues, including reform of the mental health treatment system. I have zero tolerance for anybody like Lynne Jordan who thinks making fun of a mentally ill or homeless person is appropriate,” Broemmel said.

Over our lunch, Broemmel made mention that he wanted to make something productive out of the experience of working with a number of unprofessional entertainers. “I finally decided writing a comedy was the answer. In fairness, I also skewered the playwright in Six Joan Crawfords,” Broemmel added.

In addition to writing the script for Six Joan Crawfords, Broemmel is also directing the play. “This marks the first time I have directed my own work. I was hesitant to direct. But, I am finding it to be a truly enjoyable experience. The reality is that the cast of Six Joan Crawfords is both very talented and very professional,” Broemmel remarked.

During our interview, Broemmel almost seemed more eager to discuss his latest novel, entitled The Shadow Cast: 10^th Anniversary Edition. “The original Shadow Cast was published in 2004, 2005,” Broemmel said. “In many ways, The Shadow Cast has been and remains my favorite project.”

When it comes to writing short fiction, Broemmel has been described by critics as “the 21^st century’s answer to John Steinbeck at his most nitty-gritty.”

“That statement has always been the one I find most flattering,” Broemmel said. “I’m really pleased that this book is being released 10 years after it first hit the shelves.”

The play, the book are not the only things on Broemmel’s desk at this juncture in time. He is one of two principals involved in the opening of the new West End Theatre & Arts Center in the Denver metro area. He has four new plays in development, one of which will be produced later in 2015 and the remainder that will hit stages in 2016 and 2017: The Hours of Anne, Miss Trent, Cells, Dinner Party and Hitler’s Popcorn. The four plays by Broemmel that have already had premiere productions are now being staged in different locations across the United States and United Kingdom. He is also spearheading a new reader’s theater program for economically disadvantaged children in several different cities.

Broemmel has a trio of novels on the block for publication during the remainder of 2015 and into 2016: Vine Dancing, In the House of Stolen Light and Lauderdale Tales. A set of non-fiction books on marketing and media relations are also in the hopper for publication. Perhaps most significantly, Broemmel’s memoirs – a project that has been almost 15 years in the making – is slated for publication internationally in 2016.

“I guess I am kind of looking forward to the release of the memoirs because it is my chance to really lay out my life story in my own terms,” Broemmel said. “Plus, I think a book about the ups and downs of my own life will be helpful to other people.”

Following our interview, Broemmel was going to a theater in the Cherry Creek North District of Denver for festival of Tennessee Williams plays. “I actually am playing Tennessee Williams. I was invited to be a part of the festival as an actor, and am very flattered to be part of the productions,” Broemmel said. He went on to explain that his role of Tennessee Williams marks the first time he has been on stage as an actor since 1981.

He joked that he thinks he was type-casted for the role of Tennessee Williams. “I’ve watched several television interviews of Tennessee Williams and I have to say I sound kind of like him,” Broemmel noted.

At the end of our lunch interview, Broemmel said he was very proud of Six Joan Crawfords. “Now that I have seen actors perform the script, I am very pleased with the final product. I can honestly say it has turned out to be a very funny play. I’d never written a comedy before and I was very apprehensive about the process and the final product,” Broemmel said.

 

 

The Impact on Ethical Communication Practices of Less Frequent Cordial Friendships Between Public Officials in Washington, D.C. - An Analysis of Trends from 1980 to 2014

By Mike Broemmel
Thesis Statement
The sharp decrease in personal relationships, defined as “cordial friendship,” among the governing class in Washington, D.C. plays a significant role in the decline in ethical communication among elected and other governmental officials.
Introduction
            Cordial friendship, for the purposes of this analysis, is a relationship that is not necessarily close, but nonetheless sincerely gracious and generally warm. Individuals in a cordial friendship enjoy the company of their cohort and seek out that individual at professional and social settings as well on a one-on-one basis. In simple terms, individuals that are in a cordial friendship “enjoy each other’s company.” (Spencer, 2006)
            Cordial friendship contemplates something beyond civility, although civility as defined and contemplated by communications and behavioral theorists is a part of this type of relationship. Those in a cordial friendship conduct themselves civilly in relationship to one another and a relationship exists between them. Civility can (and should) exist beyond the confines of a relationship. (Forni, 2002)
Background
            Over the course of the past 30-plus years, there has been a growing professional and personal disconnect among elected officials in Washington, D.C. A similar personal disconnect is also evident among the staffs of elected officials in the nation’s capital. In the 1980s, not only did these officials in the same political party develop personal relationships (cordial friendships) and socialize outside of the workplace, these types of connections reached across party lines as well. As a consequence, the commitment to ethical communication transcended professional associations and included a personal component that existed because of these cordial friendships. Indeed, ethical communication between these various officials arguably was more a result of these personal connections than any perceived set of professional norms. (Matthews, 2013)
            In the 1980s, public officials did not necessarily forge close friendships but rather truly cordial ones. The relationship between President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, Jr., epitomized this type of cordial friendship that permitted the commitment to ethical communication in the political arena. This cordial friendship concept is perhaps best explained by the son of the former speaker, former Massachusetts Lt. Governor Tip O’Neill, III.
            “No, my father (Speaker O’Neill) and President Reagan weren’t close friends. (But), famously, after 6 p.m. on quite a few work days, they would sit down for drinks at the White House. President Reagan knew my father treasured Boston College, so he was the centerpiece of a dinner at the Washington Hilton Hotel that raised $1 million to build the O’Neill Library there. When Reagan was shot at that same hotel, my father went to his hospital room to pray by his bed.” (O’Neill, 2012)
            By the turn of the century, friendships and consistent socializing between officials of different parties became ever more infrequent. Indeed, by the 2014 election cycle, intra-party personal relationships (cordial friendships) and socialization became far less commonplace than was the case in the 1980s.
            Cordial friendships between public officials are so rare at this juncture in time that when President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner finally connected socially, for a round of golf on June 18, 2011, the “event” made international headlines. (Katrandjian, 2011). This get-together is the closest the current President and House Speaker have had to the drinks-after-work at the White House that occurred scores of times between Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill. Obama and Boehner have not come together again informally and socially since their four hour golf date.
My Personal Ethical Approach to Ethical Political Communication in
a Cordial Friendship Context
            I consider myself fortunate to have become involved initially in politics on a national level in Washington, D.C, during a period of time in which cordial friendships and associated ethical political communication thrived. I reference the historical period of the early 1980s. My own career trajectory during that time period exemplifies how strong the cordial friendship phenomenon was during that time period.
            My first position of employment in D.C. was for a firm heavily involved in energy related legislation that was founded by, headed up by and staffed nearly exclusively with Democrats. The senior partner of DiSalle and Staudinger was the former Democrat governor of Ohio who seconded the nomination of John Kennedy as that party’s candidate for President at the 1960 convention. As I recollect, I was the sole Republican at the firm (and a low ranking staffer too boot). The Democratic firm primarily represented the interest of Louisiana-based oil and gas companies. As an aside, in 2014 I cannot imagine the existence of a firm owned and staffed by Democrats that represented Louisiana oil and gas interests. The divide in D.C. is so profound that it extends to the manner in which special interests are represented and by whom.
            I seamlessly moved from my position with the Democrat lobbying and public interest firm to work on the White House Staff in the Office of Media Relations for Republican President Reagan. The fact that I was coming from a position at a Democrat firm was not an issue in the interview process nor when I joined White House staff. In this day and age, this type of transition would be unthinkable in most cases
            During this time period in the early 1980s, I developed a large number of cordial relationships with public servants from both major political parties. In addition, I also developed more significant personal friendships during this time period as well. In the case of cordial relationships and personal friendships, these relationships developed with no regard to political party or positions issues.
            We had lively debates – but we had these jousts while having drinks or dinner after long days at work. Rarely did an evening go by that we did not gather at one or another of the popular bistros or watering holes in Georgetown or elsewhere in D.C. On weekends, we would take day trips together and engage in other types of social activities. While the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives were having cocktails at the White House, hundreds of “low ranking Munchkins” were congregating in friendly manners across the nation’s capital.
            As a result of these cordial friendships, my own standards of ethical communication in the political arena were fashioned. The same can be said for my colleagues at that point in time. These ethical communication standards included:

• consideration of divergent points of view
• active listening to the viewpoints of others
• collaborative efforts when it came to political issues, including problem solving
• respect for differences of opinion and perspective
• honesty when discussing political issues
• avoidance of anger
• support of other’s endeavors unless absolutely politically impossible

          During the early 1980s, the widespread existence of cordial friendships among public servants worked to ensure the overall promotion of democratic ethics. Similarly, the existence of cordial friendships aided in the furtherance of utilitarian ethics in the realm of political communication as well. However, even in a climate in which cordial friendships existed, the ultimate objective of Kantian ethics was satisfied in isolated circumstances when it came to political communication and discourse and the end result of most public policies. These three ethical paradigms and their relationship to ethical political communication in an environment with and without cordial friendships is discussed more fully later in this article.
            By the early 1990s, a shift in the development and existence of cordial friendships in the D.C. political arena became apparent. Although cordial friendships were possible and existed, by this juncture in time, these connections tended to be intra-party. In other words, rather than public servants of different types connecting and socializing across party lines, cordial relationships became ever increasingly a function of relationships among people within the same political party.
            Coinciding with this shift was a movement within the Republican Party in which self-identified Christian conservatives made an active push for control of the internal apparatus of the party structure itself. (I recall in 1992 arriving at a morning national GOP committee meeting which historically would have been an eye-opener breakfast featuring “adult beverages.” In its place, a prayer meeting was conducted. Although this may seem unrelated to the issue of ethical communications and its relationship to cordial friendship, this shift marked in my mind marked the decline of broader friendships within the Republican Party itself – which is discussed shortly in this paper.)
            Although not as extreme in the early 1990s, the Democratic Party experienced a shift towards the left. Prior to this time, a group within the Democratic Party called the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was gaining steam. The group brought together moderate to conservative Democrats who were willing to work across the aisle with moderate Republicans. One of the “poster politicians” for the DLC as an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton.
            In his own race for the presidency in 1992, Clinton was forced to shift towards the left in a manner somewhat like what occurs at the other end of the spectrum in the GOP. (It must be noted that the rightward tilt within the GOP has been more extreme – in my opinion – than the comparable trend leftward within the Democrat Party.)
            From my vantage point, by the time of the 2008 presidential election the existence of cordial friendships among public servants and political operatives in the same party had become the exception and not the norm. Cordial friendships between Democrats and Republicans were virtually non-existent.
            The associated decay in communication ethics was apparent, from my perspective (still in the trenches). In 2008, I was working on behalf of the Democratic ticket through a political action committee established by the AFL-CIO. My colleagues had absolutely no friendships of any type with individuals active in Republican Party politics. Additionally, I found that they did not feel any real constraints when it came to the manner in which they would rhetorically attack the opposition. In simple terms, they seemed to have adopted the concept that “anything goes” and that was “just fine.”
            In my encounters during the course of the campaign, I found the same type of unbridled rhetoric flourishing from GOP activists. The absence of cordial friendships, and its associated civility, seemed to eliminate any ethical process for filtering campaign rhetoric. (Forni, 2002) Moreover, from the prospective of both the Republican and Democrat activists, the opposition was demonized and seemed to be so classified without any regard for the specific individuals that made up that opposition.
            Although I did not specifically realize the paradigm I was utilizing, during this campaign I applied a democratic code of ethics to my decision making process regarding my involvement in that campaign. (Arnett, 2009) I ultimately elected to work exclusively on ballot initiatives in the United States as opposed to candidates. The rhetorical intensity and “nastiness” was far less intense. Indeed, by the time the Democratic National Convention rolled around, I elected not to attend because of my personal feelings regarding the manner in which the overall presidential election campaign was being run by both major parties.
Democratic Ethics, the Decline of Cordial Friendships and
Ethical Political Communication
In considering the decline of cordial friendships among public officials in the nation’s capital, and the associated political communication process, key democratic ethical goods generally are not satisfied. Seven key goods generally are considered promoted through a democratic ethics scheme:

• public decision making
• freedom of speech
• collaboration
• openness to new ideas
• justice
• public over the private
• respect for differences

(Arnett, 2009)
            The manner in which the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, underscores how the key “goods” of democratic ethics were not satisfied. Each of the primary goods are considered in turn.
            In the final analysis, public decision making was not a key component of the passage of the ACA by Congress. In fact, primary sessions involving the law were conducted behind closed doors with only the majority party present. (The Democrats argue the Republicans refused to attend; the Republicans argue they were barred from attending.) In the end, the law was never brought to a true up or down vote in the United States Senate. Rather, it was “passed” by the Senate using a procedural technique theretofore reserved for budgetary issues and not to enact major laws.
            Freedom of speech was stifled in a number of ways. Lawmakers were limited, and in some cases prohibited all together, from making statements on the floor of either chamber. Full and free debate about the law was impossible among the public at large because the text of the legislation was not even made public until the eleventh hour. Finally, and notoriously, no Member of Congress read the legislation before they voted yay or nay on it.
            There was no meaningful collaboration between Members of Congress with differing perspectives on the legislation. Indeed, this is not only true between Republicans and Democrats but within the majority party itself. On related notes, there was little respect for differences (some would argue there was none at all) and there was no significant openness to new ideas (again, some would argue that there was none).
            Failing to abide by a scheme that recognized these essential goods of democratic ethics would have been inconceivable in the 1980s, inconceivable during an era in which cordial friendships exists among public servants. The interpersonal relationships that existed between Members of Congress (across party lines) and, perhaps more importantly, among Congressional staff members would have encouraged and not impaired the achievement of the basic or key goods associated with democratic ethics: public decision making, collaboration, respect for differences, openness to new ideas and so forth.
            Injecting even a more rudimentary type of friendship, of the kind defined by “cordial friendship,” acts at least to some degree to prevent abuses in the decision making process. In other words, when Members of Congress and their staffers had cordial friendships with their cohorts or colleagues that were far less likely to engage in behavior that run afoul of the goods enumerated in a democratic ethical code. (Greene, 2008)
Utilitarian Ethics, the Decline of Cordial Friendships and
Ethical Political Communication
            In analyzing the overall decline of cordial friendships among public officials in the nation’s capital, and the associated political communication process, the key beliefs underpinning utilitarian ethics generally are not met. Four primary beliefs generally are associated with utilitarian ethics:

• greatest good for the greatest number
• least amount of pain
• good is whatever brings the greatest happiness
• teleological (consequences of the means in relation to the ends)

(Arnett, 2009)
            In applying utilitarian ethics to the state of political rhetoric, communication and discourse in light of the decline of cordial friendships, I also suggest that the key beliefs associated with utilitarianism are also not being met. I concede that there exist a variety of reasons why political communication and public policy outcomes are not meeting the key beliefs associated with utilitarian ethics. However, I contend that the lack of cordial friendships is a key factor.
            In this day and age I am no longer convinced that the majority of public servants and political operatives have as their objective fighting for causes that result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. (Arnett, 2009) Rather, I suggest that the objective is to advocate for the greatest good for a select swath of constituents (and constituents does not necessarily mean the voting or general public). In addition, I think we have moved into an era in which public servants and political operatives actually latch on to public policy positions in order to cause damage to the opposition. Had cordial friendships remained commonplace, these types of malevolent machinations would not be occurring to the degree to which they do in 2014.            
Kantian Ethics, the Decline of Cordial Friendships and
Ethical Political Communication
            Kantian ethics center on the idea that one absolute right exists among human beings. The one absolute human right, according to Immanuel Kant is the right to be left alone. (Wood, 2007). In the overall analysis of the presence of cordial friendship underpinning ethical political communication, and the decline of that type of friendship among D.C. public servants, the right to be left alone oftentimes is not achieved in either situation. In the matter of applying Kantian ethics to political communication and the end result of debate and discourse, the presence or absence of cordial friendship seems to be of little impact when it comes to the achievement of the Kantian ideal of being left alone. (Arnett, 2009)
            In my analysis of the decline of cordial friendship and Kantian ethics, I ultimately concluded that the presence or absence of this relationship has no impact on the one absolute human right set forth by Kant. In our system of government, whether the political climate includes cordial friendship or not, there are stark limitations on when, where and why an individual in the United States truly is going to be left alone.
Conclusion
              In my final analysis, I do feel the virtual absence of cordial friendships among public servants and political operatives, particularly in Washington, D.C., has been a significant contributing factor to the decline in ethical communication in the political arena. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he “never considered a difference of opinion in politics … as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” As far as public servants and political operatives as a whole are concerned today, it is the only litmus test for friendship. As such, it has rendered ethical political communication the exception rather than the rule.
References
Arnett, R. C., Fritz, J. H., & Bell, L. M. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forni, P.M. (2002). Choosing civility: The twenty-five rules of considerate conduct. New York: St. Martins.
Greene, J.O, & Burleson, B.R. (2008). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Katrandjian, O. (June 18, 2011). ABC News. Washington, D.C.: American Broadcasting Company.
Matthews, C. (2013). Tip and the Gipper: When politics worked. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
O’Neill, T. (2012, October 5). Frenemies: A love story. The New York Times, p. O-1.
Spencer, L., & Pahl, R. (2006). Rethinking friendship: Hidden solidarities today. Princeton, NJ:     Princeton University Press.
Wood, A. (2007). Kantian ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A Sneak Peak at Goddess People: A Dramatic New Play by Mike Broemmel - Reported by Paul Sheridan

I interviewed Mike Broemmel while he was in Ft. Lauderdale to meet with the production team for one of his latest plays, Goddess People. The subject of my interview was this play that Broemmel currently is writing. Despite the fact that the script is not completed, the play is slated for premieres in the three U.S. cities in the spring of 2015, which begged my first question about feeling the pressure. Goddess People opens in Ft. Lauderdale, Scottsdale and Denver in April and May 2015.

“I suppose having an incomplete play slated for production in a few months is less than ideal,” Broemmel remarked. “On the other hand, I would rather have something I’m working on slated for production as opposed to be working on something that might never find a theater and an audience.”
Goddess People represents the third drama written by Broemmel, following The Row and The Baptism. The Baptism will also run in Florida in 2015. According to Broemmel, Goddess People presents a unique challenge to him as a playwright.

“The play unfolds in real time, over the course of 90 minutes. Therefore, I lack the luxury of being able to move the plot forward with time hops. Telling a tale in real time is not as easy as it might sound on first blush,” Broemmel said.

Although he refused to reveal a great deal about the plot, he did explain that the inspiration for the play grew out of the death of journalist James Foley at the hands of ISIS terrorists. “I had to write an article about that horrendous execution of a good man,” Broemmel said. “What struck me about James’ final moments was the fact that he maintained a sense of courage and dignity that really left me in awe. It really hit home to me how differently one individual to another faces his or her ultimate demise.”

According to Broemmel, Goddess People is set in a shop in an unidentified location. As the play unfolds, it becomes apparent that the six cast members are trapped in the shop and possibly facing their own ultimate endings. “Goddess People brings together six very different people in a shared experience that may be a course to their own ultimate endings,” Broemmel said. He made it clear that the play is not a thriller or a shoot-it-out thriller. “If anything, Goddess People is something of a quiet play, a somewhat contemplative play, about six people coming to terms with life and perhaps even death.”

In his first play to see the stage, The Row, Broemmel took on the subject of capital punishment in an up close and personal way. In The Baptism, a tense drama, Broemmel addressed intolerance taking to the extreme. “I actually had reservations about bringing The Baptism to the stage because of the way the story unfolds. It is a difficult production for an audience in a number of different ways,” Broemmel said.

In addition to Goddess People, Broemmel also has a comedy heading to the stage in 2015 entitled Six Joan Crawfords. “Honestly, after what really have been three tough dramas, a comedy is a welcome break,” Broemmel noted.

 

Mike Broemmel Authors Media Relations Strategy Book for Small Businesses

Mike Broemmel, a media relations expert who began his career in the White House Office of Media Relations during the Administration of Ronald Reagan, is the author of The 10-Point Press Release Plan: Profitably Promoting Your Small Business. The book, available exclusively from Amazon in ebook form, provides guidance for a small business owner on how to craft and create an effective press release.

Amazon has announced that the highly regarded and critically acclaimed ebook will be available through August 2014 at a reduced price of $2.99. The book can be ordered at http://www.amazon.com/. (http://www.amazon.com/10-Point-Press-Release-Plan-Profitably-ebook/dp/B00EMP4Z64/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405311603&sr=8-1&keywords=broemmel.) Other books written by Mike Broemmel are also available through Amazon, including short fiction for which he has also garnered critical acclaim.

In addition to writing, Mike Broemmel lectures on a variety of topics, including media relations and crisis management and crisis communication. More information on Mike Broemmel is available at http://mikebroemmel.com/. Mike Broemmel can be followed on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MBroemmel.

The 10-Point Media Release Plan: Profitably Promoting Your Small Business

The 10-Point Press Release Plan: Profitably Promoting Your Small Business, written by Mike Broemmel and published by Torchmark Media, is available in digital form from Amazon.com. The 10-Point Press Release Plan: Profitably Promoting Your Small Business is a one-stop resource designed to assist small business owners in cultivating meaningful connections with the media. Through the The 10-Point Press Release Plan: Profitably Promoting Your Small Business by Mike Broemmel, a small business owner or manager will be able to produce effective press releases every time.

"Being a small business owner myself, I understand how important it is to develop effective and inexpensive ways to promote a particular venture. With this in mind, I created the 10-Point Press Release Plan," Mike Broemmel explained.

Mike Broemmel has extensive experience in the media relations arena. He actually began his career working in the White House in the Office of Media Relations during the Administration of Ronald Reagan. In addition, he served as the director of marketing, public and media relations for a corporation with international operations.

"I have spent a significant part of my professional life dealing with the press," Mike Broemmel noted.

The 10-Point Press Release Plan: Profitably Promoting Your Small Business is available now for only $2.99 and can be ordered directly from Amazon.com.

The Shadow Cast: 10th Anniversary Edtion by Mike Broemmel Released

The Shadow Cast: 10^th Anniversary Edition brings to bookshelves a collection of short stories that won Mike Broemmel critical acclaim ten years ago. The release of the original Shadow Cast resulted in critics and others calling Mike Broemmel the 21^st century’s answer to John Steinbeck at his most nitty-gritty.

The Shadow Cast is a collection of twenty-two short stories … but a book debunking any claim that a whole cannot be greater than the sum of its parts.

Each tale in Mike Broemmel’s new anthology can proudly stand alone in the greatest tradition of story- telling; but read in sequence his painstakingly ordered works pack the punch of an epic novel. They present an unbroken saga of stark, simple truth that is all but unique in the annals of fiction.

According to the original editor of The Shadow Cast, Neil Marr:

People, places, periods develop and seamlessly intertwine, story-by-story.

The Shadow Cast is an insightful record of a reality we never realized existed before Broemmel. The shadow may sometimes represent shelter and escape, sometimes the umbrella that obscures so many of our quiet doings. The cast? The cast is you … you and that guy down the road apiece. It’s about how you manage to share this world with him and her as earth bound companions, fellow mortals.

Broemmel penned The Shadow Cast during a particularly challenging point in his own life. When there was nothing but a stub of a pencil and a few squares of toilet paper to turn his thoughts into shades of black and white, that’s what he used.

The result is this book with its humble clarity and the act of contrition of a human being whose heart might be outweighed only by his talent.

But don’t leap to the flawed conclusion that what you are about to read reflects bitterness or numbingly agonizing memoir of Broemmel’s trials and tribulations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gritty and honest as these stories are, they are nothing if not a celebration of the indomitable human spirit. The spirit of the fading actress, the hapless lover, the forgotten inventor, the heartless businessman, the crippled, the crazed, the clumsy, the dastardly and the destitute all find a home here where nobodies become somebodies in the hands of a master of literature.

Because, you see, Mike Broemmel has discovered a vital truth – the harder you gaze from the shelter of an umbrella, the more likely you are to see the clouds break … and those first shafts of sunlight that dry the rain – and the tears.