THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC - IS IT PARADISE?

In recent weeks, media coverage of the Dominican Republic has intensified—and, unfortunately, much of it has been troubling. Eleven American tourists have died there in the past year, and the nation was thrust into further turmoil when beloved Dominican American icon David “Big Papi” Ortiz was shot in a crowded bar for reasons still not fully understood.

I know the Dominican Republic well. In 2009, I bought a home just outside Santo Domingo in a small beach community. The security in that area was modest—hardly capable of stopping someone intent on harm. But the truth is, those kinds of individuals exist everywhere. From 2009 until I sold the home in 2017, my family and friends spent countless days on that beach. Not once did a guest feel unsafe or encounter anything remotely threatening. And yet, tourists have died, and the media is laser-focused on every detail surrounding these tragedies, including the shooting of “Big Papi.”

So the questions arise: Is the Dominican Republic unsafe? Should travelers rethink their plans?

This is not a debate about crime statistics or public relations talking points. Every country, without exception, faces crime—some more than others, for reasons that can be spun in any direction. Just this week, a close friend asked me whether she should move her upcoming December wedding out of the Dominican Republic. After a candid conversation, my answer was simple: No.

It is heartbreaking that eleven Americans have died. It is heartbreaking that “Big Papi” was shot. These are facts, and their families’ grief is real. But these tragedies alone should not define an entire nation.

Despite these losses, I would not discourage anyone from visiting the Dominican Republic. During the more than three years I lived there as a diplomat, I watched millions of Americans enjoy this beautiful country safely. But—as with any international travel—precautions matter. Research matters. Awareness matters.

I personally know someone who lost a loved one abroad. The last thing any grieving family needs is to be told it’s “fake news.” What they need is compassion, transparency, and a commitment from both Dominican authorities and the U.S. State Department to provide clear answers. Their healing—and the confidence of future travelers—depends on it.

Crime can happen anywhere. Tragedy can strike anywhere. But there are practical steps that dramatically reduce risk. When friends ask me about travel to the DR, I tell them:

• DO NOT leave your all-inclusive resort alone.

• DO NOT wear flashy or expensive jewelry.

• DO NOT drink excessively simply because alcohol is free or included.

• DO NOT take midnight strolls along the beach.

• DO NOT rely on local taxis; they are intended for locals.

If you want to explore—and I strongly encourage you to do so—hire a reputable, English-speaking guide if you are not fluent in Spanish. And always register your trip with the U.S. Embassy. The U.S. Citizen Services hotline is available 24/7 for emergencies.

Any destination can be dangerous if approached carelessly. But with awareness, common sense, and basic precautions, the Dominican Republic can—and will—offer travelers a warm, vibrant, and unforgettable escape.

You can learn more about the Dominican Republic, its extraordinary beauty, and my own experiences there in my new book, Breaking Protocol – Forging A Path Beyond Diplomacy, available summer 2019 wherever books are sold. Visit breakingprotocolbook.com.

International Election Observation - Ukraine

Over the past four weeks, I had the honor of serving as an international election observer as part of the NDI delegation to Ukraine. The first round of the presidential election took place on Sunday, March 31, with an extraordinary 39 candidates on the ballot. After arriving in Kyiv, our delegation spent four intensive days reviewing observer protocols and procedures, meeting with journalists, and engaging with prominent Ukrainian leaders who provided deep insight into the country’s political landscape, party dynamics, and candidate profiles.

Following our briefing period in Kyiv, I was assigned to Odesa, a major port city on the Black Sea and a region shaped by its proximity to Crimea following the annexation. Our preparation in Kyiv offered a strong foundation: we were briefed on key candidates, their support structures, known disruptors, and potential security risks we might encounter in the field. When I arrived in Odesa, I immediately observed that the southern region, and Odesa in particular, is predominantly Russian-speaking, with architecture that still bears the imprint of the Soviet era. We arrived on Friday, March 29, which gave us the necessary time to familiarize ourselves with the polling stations we would observe and meet local election officials ahead of election day.

On Saturday, we surveyed the city center to assess whether the mandatory campaign blackout period was being respected and whether there were any visible signs of potential disruption or paramilitary intimidation of voters. Election day itself was rigorous. Polls in Ukraine open at 8:00 a.m. and close at 8:00 p.m., and we arrived at our first station at 7:15 a.m. to observe the opening procedures. While the steps are detailed and highly procedural, I can say confidently that the station we observed executed them with flawless precision, full transparency, and a palpable spirit of cooperation.

Once voting began, our role was straightforward but demanding: observe, document, and monitor procedural integrity. For the next 12 hours, our team traveled across Odesa, visiting nine polling stations before returning to our initial location at 7:45 p.m.—just in time to witness the final voter cast their ballot and the closing procedures commence. I should note that Ukrainian ballots are physical paper ballots listing all 39 candidates and measuring nearly the length of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Voting booths look like something from the 1950s, complete with curtains that voters draw closed behind them. The ballot boxes themselves are completely transparent, fully visible to everyone inside the polling station.

The real intensity begins once the polls close and counting starts. At our station, with approximately 2,200 registered voters and turnout above 70%, the process was meticulous. Ballots were poured onto a large central table; each was picked up individually, and the chosen candidate’s name was read aloud. Ballots were then placed into designated areas for each candidate. If any ballot was unclear or deliberately voided, it was examined collectively by the election officials. Only if the entire group reached a unanimous agreement was it counted or discarded as invalid.

Shortly after midnight, the tally was completed, the closing protocols were finalized, and the results were transported to the central district office. We arrived back at the hotel around 2:00 a.m.—just in time for a short rest before departing for the airport at 5:00 a.m. to return to Kyiv for a full-delegation debrief. “Tired” would be an understatement.

Our first-round observations revealed no attempts by malign actors to manipulate the outcome. In fact, what we witnessed was a sincere commitment to transparency and a genuine effort to advance democratic practice. At the post-runoff press conference on April 21, U.S. Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) even remarked that he would support returning to paper ballots and transparent ballot boxes in U.S. elections—a point on which I rarely agree with him. The clarity of Ukraine’s process leaves remarkably little room for fraud. Which raises the question: if Congressman Shimkus is such a champion of election transparency, why did he vote against H.R. 1, the House’s comprehensive anti-corruption and voting rights bill?

The second round on April 21 mirrored the first, with one major difference: I was dispatched to Lviv, an exceptionally beautiful city in western Ukraine often likened to a “mini-Paris” for its architecture and vibrant, youthful energy. The dominant language there is Ukrainian, and while the procedures were nearly identical to those in Odesa, the cultural and political atmosphere felt distinctly different. The outcomes, however, were consistent.

Ukraine has now chosen a new leader: a television actor with no prior experience in government. Across both regions, the sentiment was clear—the incumbent, President Poroshenko, had failed to deliver on key promises, particularly regarding corruption and the aspirations of the 2014 revolution. Zelensky’s campaign capitalized on this frustration, promising to revive the revolution’s energy. When Poroshenko vowed in 2017 to “cut off the hands of those who steal in the army,” Zelensky responded sharply: “Why do your people all have both their hands?”

For Ukraine’s sake—and the future of its democracy—let us hope that President Zelensky can keep both of his.

Immigration.....A Walk In Their Shoes!

On April 23, 2018, the U.S. government ordered the departure of all U.S. government family members from Nicaragua and authorized the voluntary departure of U.S. government personnel due to escalating crime, civil unrest, and limited access to healthcare. This was not a routine precaution—this was an evacuation. Even personnel who remained were encouraged to return to the United States, where they would continue employment but be unable to meaningfully contribute to our mission. When conditions become so dangerous that our trained diplomatic staff must leave, it is clear how dire daily life is for the people who have no option to simply board a flight to safety.

Crime and instability across Central America span multiple sectors and stem from decades of deep-seated corruption within both public institutions and private industries. These forces extend far beyond gang violence; they reflect generations of systemic dysfunction that ordinary citizens have been powerless to escape.

The United States has long intervened in Latin America—often supporting dictators who protected our commercial and military interests at the expense of their own citizens. Under these regimes, corruption flourished and the innocent paid the price. Our government contributed to the erosion of these societies and helped create environments where criminal networks could thrive. While the United States is not solely responsible for the current instability, we undeniably share a measure of accountability. Now that these nations no longer provide the strategic benefits they once did, are we prepared to turn our backs on the people whose suffering we helped create?

Donald Trump and his advisors promote a nationalist vision of America as a Christian nation. What they fail to grasp is that diplomacy does not allow do-overs. International relationships are built over decades—sometimes centuries—and when you assume the presidency, you inherit the full weight of that history. Responsible leadership requires recognizing past actions, acknowledging accountability, and building foreign policy with an understanding of how those actions continue to shape the present. Democracies do not get to erase their past. And if the United States truly embraces Christian values, we cannot abandon those who are simply trying to live another day. We cannot rip children from the arms of parents whose only “crime” is attempting to survive.

Can we open our borders to every individual seeking entry? Of course not. But we can offer compassion, protection, and practical support to those who have no other refuge. That is, after all, the foundation of Christian teachings.

These immigrants are not running to the United States to steal jobs or exploit social programs. They are running toward safety—toward hope—because we are the most powerful nation on earth and we are their closest neighbor. They have nowhere else to turn. We must revisit our foreign policy in Central America and prioritize not only financial assistance but meaningful partnership, guidance, and long-term development. A stable and prosperous Central America is not simply a humanitarian ideal—it directly benefits the United States and future generations of Americans.

In the meantime, take a moment to imagine what life is like for these families who risk everything for the smallest chance to survive. If we can approach this issue with empathy—even briefly—we may begin to find solutions that honor both our values and our responsibilities.

OXFORD – THE JOURNEY CONTINUES

Returning to Oxford for Module 2 was filled with anxiety and mystery unlike my initial journey.  My first sojourn to Oxford was filled with excitement and a sense of accomplishment of having been accepted to this prestigious institution.  I now faced the initial assessment after having experienced Module 1 and spending five short weeks at home reading and attempting to comprehend a series of frameworks to which I had never been exposed.

During our course intermission I had the opportunity to engage with several members of my cohort during online and conference call study groups.  We had lengthy discussions about our course material and experiences during our first module and shared our understanding of the frameworks.  Interestingly these calls ended with a consensus despite exploring a variety of positions on the application of the frameworks to which we were exposed.

My study group calls were like riding a rollercoaster vis-à-vis my feelings.  I would end one call with a self-confirmed notion that I had a complete understanding of the material and how to apply it in an actual business climate only to end the following call with a total and complete conviction that I was drowning.  I was convinced that I was the only person in the entire cohort who had no understanding of the material and every other colleague of mine had a complete grasp of these concepts, I was surely doomed to fail! Possessing a bit of a flair for the dramatic no doubt.

After getting my acceptance letter I was so excited that I immediately made all of my travel arrangements for the entire year I would spend traveling to and from Oxford.  As I was preparing to travel back to Oxford for Module 2 our class representatives began forming plans for a study group that would take place the afternoon before the assessment on day one of the module.  WAIT! A final study group, I can’t attend a final study group I am going to be traveling.  True panic ensued and I was close to complete meltdown mode.  After a delay with my flight and negotiation with the airline I was able to adjust my schedule to join my group in Oxford.

Study group complete, a few of us decided a relaxing dinner and a good night’s sleep was in order.  The dinner was relaxing and the discussion primarily avoided any of the subject matter for the assessment the next morning.  We are all experienced professionals and at this point if you had not prepared then the onus and outcome is on you.  The morning arrived and following a solid breakfast I donned my sub fusc and arrived with my fellow cohorts for our assessment.

As I entered the examination hall with other cohorts and students from other courses taking place simultaneous to our class, there it was a sea of non-descript desks all accompanied by a single chair, all of them identical.  It reminded me of a large high school gymnasium built in 1960 and as a result of this familiar institutional setting I exhaled and found comfort in the feeling I have been here before.  Arriving with a feeling of despair I soon realized my flair for the dramatic was wasted energy as I turned over the page with the assessment questions. I discovered the cohesiveness and open communication developed among my classmates had adequately prepared me for the task at hand.

Though my assessment evaluation will be forthcoming at this point I am glad to have crossed yet another hurdle in life and that is I experienced a test at one of the world’s most notable universities and survived, the journey continues!

Reaching - An Oxford Experience

There are times when life presents you with a curiosity and opportunity collectively and the end result leads to something very special.  I have experienced this scenario a few times in my life but most recently it required an expertise level completely out of my wheelhouse.  If by definition of being compensated means being a working professional then by definition I retired a few years ago.  Since that time I have been pursuing interests that are passionate to me primarily in the humanitarian sector working with non-profits and NGO’s. I have spent the past several years working in the diplomatic arena on initiatives impacting marginalized groups in developing democracies and had the opportunity to travel throughout the world meeting with influencers, government leaders, elected officials and even Prime Ministers and Presidents strategizing on plans to pursue equality for all people.

None of these experiences typically leads one to a pursuit of educational advancement, however I have rarely followed a typical path.  Last summer I relocated back to my home in the United States after living abroad for three plus years.  Though I love playing golf, tennis and reading there is only so much of that one can do before the mind begins to beg for challenges, so I decided to return to school.  Following my undergraduate degree from a public university I immediately entered the workforce.  My plan had always been to go to law school but unfortunately at the time resources were not available to me to pursue that goal.  After 30 years in the public relations and sales industry I decided to return to the educational environment and accomplish what I had wanted to achieve 30 years ago.  I live walking distance to a prominent university in my hometown and began to explore options for attending a program there, but as I began my research I realized I was restricting myself instead of reaching for something greater.

I started exploring the idea that if I could attend any university I wanted, anywhere in the world, what would that look like?  And so I discovered Oxford University and the Diploma in Global Business.  I researched the program and the Said Business School discovering not only is the program extremely distinctive but the learning environment and tools at your disposable for achieving success are extraordinary and the educators and staff are extremely responsive and encouraging.  I have completed my first module and unlike being thrown into the deep end of the pool and expected to swim, we were thrown into the deep end of the pool with the most amazing lifeguards and are being taught how to swim.  The University of Oxford is an amazing environment providing encouragement and resources at every turn.  The program is clearly designed to provide you with the tools to achieve success and advance your personal goals and initiatives.  I entered the first module on day one with a huge amount of apprehension and anxiety only to exit it with the excitement that our entire cohort is developing a network of educational and professional excellence on which we all can build our dreams for the future.  The University of Oxford, the City of Oxford, the Said Business School, the staff, my fellow classmates and our fellow alumni is a community I already feel very much a part of and a responsibility and dedication to contributing my very best.  As I move forward in DipGB2018 I extend my most sincere wishes for our collective success and making a contribution that will benefit a better future for all of you.

Ambassador Brewster Responds to President Trumps Immigration Policy - Embajador Brewster responde a la politica de immigracion de Trump

The United States executive branch of government or more commonly known as the White House is continuing to move toward a more isolationist approach to immigration and in recent weeks it appears to be gaining momentum.  President Donald Trump has made aggressive approaches to alter current immigration polices for no other reason than an attempt to negotiate an archaic campaign policy at the expense of human compassion.  He promised to build a wall along the border between the Unites States and Mexico.  A few days ago President Trump began referring to a long-standing U.S. immigration policy promoting family reunification as “chain migration”.  Mr. Trumps specific terminology is being used in a defamatory and insulting tone to cast objectivity on those being marginalized by his new proposed immigration policy. According to Ambassador James Brewster, the former U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, he says, “President Trump once again is showing his racism toward other cultures and trying to shut our borders to those values and ideas that created the worlds greatest nation”.  His expression of contempt and disapproval for human beings who have no other purpose but to build a better life for themselves and those around them is beyond being psychopathic it is honestly non-human. 

As of October 5, 2017 there were approximately 690,000 registered “Dreamers” in the United States.  These are human beings who voluntarily registered their illegal status with Homeland Security with the understanding by doing so they would avoid the risk of deportation and ultimately find a path to legal resident status in the United States.  Unfortunately by executive order President Trump has rescinded that promise by the previous administration and has demanded that the U.S. Congress negotiate a new path of legalization for these young people.  The challenge is President Trump is demanding that as a part of this legislation an agreement is made to fund the construction of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  This leaves a very uncertain future for those “Dreamers” who trusted the U.S. government to protect them providing they cooperated by self-identifying their status.  As of October 5, 2017 the United States is no longer accepting new DACA applications and beginning early this year the clock will start ticking for those who are currently registered and their deportation will become imminent. 

This past week President Trump declared that, “Chain migration is a total disaster which threatens our security and our economy and provides a gateway for terrorism,” he said, referring to the current system that allows many immigrants to sponsor their extended family members including spouses, children and parents.  Of all the domestic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil involving mass shootings not a single one was a result of family reunification immigration policies.  Not ONE!  According to Ambassador Brewster, “President Trump is wrong in saying that family reunification is a threat to the United States.  Immigration from countries such as the Dominican Republic is what makes the U.S. a strong and stable democracy”.  There is a fear-based culture that has concerned themselves with the untruth that every immigrant in the United States can bring every blood relative to the United States and this is simply false. There is a very strict application process and required documentation that must be presented to not only begin the process of immigration but also it can take as long as twenty years for the final process to come to fruition.  Under the current U.S. immigration system, not every relative can be sponsored for a green card. For example, uncles, aunts, cousins and grandparents are not eligible for green cards through family-sponsored immigration. Only parents, spouses, children and siblings of U.S. Citizens and spouses and children of green card holders (lawful permanent residents) are eligible. Second, of those family members, only spouses, unmarried children under 21 and parents of U.S. citizens may be sponsored for a green card without being subject to any quota.  All other applicants are subjected to certain annual numerical caps. The comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate last year further restricts family-sponsored immigration by eliminating the ability of U.S. citizens to sponsor their siblings and adult children over the age of 30.  In addition, it establishes a merit-based point system whereby intending immigrants can accumulate points for English language proficiency, education and skills, towards getting a green card. Ambassador Brewster says, “Dominicans should know as well as all others around the world the immigration rhetoric coming from the White House is not in line with the values of the majority of Americans.  All countries should be inclusive societies, not exclusive Mr. Trump”.  If these measures become U.S. law it will continue to restrict the opportunity for those applicants hoping to immigrate to the United States. 

“It is the diversity and inclusion of our society and all societies that make our countries strong.  Trump is wrong and does not stand for the values of the majority Americans. Family reunification has always been, and should continue to be, a cornerstone of our immigration system.  But how we define “family” is as equally important” said Ambassador Brewster.  We need to continue to promote the idea of what being a “Dreamer” is, not just for immigrants but also for Americans instead of promoting that we all become afraid of inclusion.

ESPANOL

La rama ejecutiva del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, mejor conocida como la Casa Blanca, continúa avanzando hacia un enfoque migratorio más aislacionista, la cual parece estar ganando impulso en las últimas semanas. El presidente Donald Trump ha adoptado enfoques agresivos para modificar las actuales políticas de inmigración sin otro motivo que un intento de negociar una política arcaica a expensas de la compasión humana. Prometió construir un muro a lo largo de la frontera entre los Estados Unidos y México. Hace unos días, el presidente Trump comenzó a referirse a una política de inmigración estadounidense, existente desde hace mucho, que promueve la reunificación familiar como “migración en cadena”. La terminología específica que está usando el Sr. Trump en un tono difamatorio e insultante sirve para arrojar objetividad sobre los marginados por su nueva política migratoria propuesta. Según el Embajador James Brewster, ex-Embajador de los Estados Unidos en la República Dominicana: “El presidente Trump una vez más pone de manifiesto su racismo hacia otras culturas, tratando de cerrar nuestras fronteras a los valores e ideales bajo los cuales se fundó la nación más grande del mundo.” Sus expresiones de desprecio y desaprobación para los seres humanos, que no tienen otro propósito más que el de construir una vida mejor para ellos y para quienes los rodean, es algo peor que ser psicópata, y honestamente es inhumano.

El 5 de octubre de 2017, había aproximadamente 690,000 Dreamers (“Soñadores”) registrados en los Estados Unidos. Estas son personas  que registraron su estado indocumentado de manera voluntaria con el Departamento de “Homeland Security” (Seguridad Nacional) en el entendido de que así evitarían el riesgo de deportación y, finalmente, encontrarían el camino hacia el estatus de residente en los Estados Unidos. Desafortunadamente, por orden ejecutiva, el presidente Trump ha anulado esa promesa de la administración anterior y ha exigido que el Congreso de Estados Unidos negocie un nuevo camino de legalización para estos jóvenes. El desafío yace en que el presidente Trump exige, como parte de esta legislación, que se llegue a un acuerdo para financiar la construcción del muro fronterizo entre los Estados Unidos y México. Esto ocasiona que el futuro para aquellos “Dreamers” que confiaron en que el gobierno estadounidense los protegerían, se torne incierto. A partir del 5 de octubre de 2017, el gobierno estadounidense ya no está aceptando nuevas solicitudes de DACA y, a principios de este año, el reloj comenzará a correr para aquellos que están actualmente registrados y su deportación podría ser inminente.

La semana pasada, el presidente Trump declaró: "La migración en cadena es un desastre total que amenaza nuestra seguridad y nuestra economía y abre la puerta al terrorismo", dijo, refiriéndose al sistema actual que permite que muchos inmigrantes patrocinen a sus familiares, incluyendo cónyuges, niños y padres. De todos los ataques terroristas internos en suelo estadounidense que involucraron tiroteos masivos, ninguno fue el resultado de políticas de inmigración de reunificación familiar. ¡Ni uno! Según el Embajador Brewster, "el presidente Trump se equivoca al decir que la reunificación familiar es una amenaza para Estados Unidos. La inmigración de países como República Dominicana es lo que hace que los EE.UU. sea una democracia fuerte y estable.” Hay una cultura basada en el miedo, bajo la falsa premisa, de que cada inmigrante en los Estados Unidos puede traer a cada pariente de sangre a los Estados Unidos, lo cual es completamente falso. Hay un proceso de solicitud muy estricto y la documentación requerida que se debe presentar para iniciar el proceso de inmigración  puede tomar hasta veinte años para que el proceso final llegue a buen término. Bajo el actual sistema de inmigración de los EE. UU., no todos los parientes pueden ser patrocinados por una tarjeta verde o de residencia. Por ejemplo, tíos, tías, primos y abuelos no son elegibles para tarjetas verdes a través de la inmigración patrocinada por la familia. Solo los padres, cónyuges, hijos y hermanos de los ciudadanos estadounidenses y los cónyuges e hijos de los titulares de la tarjeta verde (residentes permanentes legales) son elegibles. Segundo, de esos miembros de la familia, solo los cónyuges, los hijos solteros menores de 21 años y los padres de ciudadanos estadounidenses pueden ser patrocinados por una tarjeta verde sin estar sujetos a ninguna cuota. Todos los demás solicitantes están sujetos a ciertos topes numéricos anuales. El proyecto de reforma migratoria integral aprobado por el Senado el año pasado restringe aún más la inmigración patrocinada por la familia al eliminar la capacidad de los ciudadanos estadounidenses de patrocinar a sus hermanos e hijos mayores de 30 años. Además, establece un sistema de puntos, basado en el mérito, que intenta que los inmigrantes puedan acumular puntos por dominio del idioma inglés, educación y habilidades, para obtener una tarjeta verde. El Embajador Brewster manifiesta: “Los dominicanos deberían saber tan bien, como todos los demás en todo el mundo, que la retórica sobre el tema migratorio que proviene de la Casa Blanca no está en línea con los valores de la mayoría de los estadounidenses. Todos los países deberían ser sociedades inclusivas, no exclusivas, Sr. Trump.” Si estas medidas se convierten en leyes de los EEUU, continuarán restringiendo la oportunidad de los que aspiran a emigrar.

“Es la diversidad y la inclusión de nuestra sociedad y todas las sociedades lo que fortalece a nuestros países. Trump está equivocado y no representa los valores de la mayoría de los estadounidenses. La reunificación familiar siempre ha sido, y debe seguir siendo, una piedra angular de nuestro sistema de inmigración. Pero cómo definimos ‘familia’ es igualmente importante,” dijo el Embajador Brewster. Necesitamos seguir promoviendo la idea de lo que es ser un “Dreamer”, no solo para los inmigrantes sino también para los estadounidenses en vez de tener miedo a la inclusion.

America’s Current State of Affairs

America’s Current State of Affairs

The list of controversial policies seems endless, and these are undeniably troubling, anxious times. Controversy—often by design—is divisive. It creates a sense of instability among the general population and is used by those in positions of influence to keep their opposition off balance. When deployed strategically, controversy can be an effective tool to distract competitors in business or athletics, shifting focus long enough to create an opportunistic environment in which one can flourish.

We have lived through difficult eras before, but during those times we had faith in our leaders—faith that they would guide us with purpose, helping us emerge stronger and more determined to improve the world. We believed in the institutions they served, trusting that history and precedent would guide them toward outcomes that reflected wisdom and collective benefit.

Today, traditional media, social media, bloggers, writers, editorialists, and journalists remind us daily of the widening divisions not only in the United States, but across the globe. Power and influence are no longer consistently used for the greater good. Instead, some elected officials are exploiting them for personal gain and to exert control over the very people who entrusted them with authority. Most recently, power and influence were weaponized to dismantle procedural norms in one of our most revered legislative bodies—the United States Senate.

“Them” and “we” have become weapons in our modern vocabulary, casting blame and driving us further apart, even though, ultimately, there is only we. We share one planet—made smaller every day by instantaneous communication and satellite imagery. Yet we have reached a moment in history where the pursuit of power has overshadowed our willingness to extend a hand to anyone with even the slightest difference of opinion. Diplomacy and dialogue have been set aside, replaced with antagonism and an absence of adult communication.

Wars were once fought to maintain stability and protect freedoms, yet today too many are launched for personal gain or control, benefiting powerful elites while ordinary people die as a consequence of their ambitions. A few weeks ago, my pastor reminded our congregation: “We are safer when we are friends with our neighbors rather than fearing them or viewing them as enemies.” Simple words—but profound. If we cannot build friendship with our neighbors, whether they live next door or across the world, we risk turning them into adversaries.

The future of our democracy—built and sustained over 238 years—is being undermined by leaders who are no longer looking forward, but instead remain obsessed with resurrecting policies of the past. Never before have those in power been so fixated on dismantling the progress of previous administrations. Change is inevitable. Evolution is necessary. Effective leaders must adapt if they are to remain relevant and serve their constituencies—even when change is uncomfortable. But erasing history destroys the very foundation upon which a better future must be built.

Dialogue is the answer. And dialogue requires both sides to engage. Otherwise, we are left with finger-pointing and name-calling—the tactics of schoolyard bullies whose only true objective is power and control.

Is this America’s current state of affairs…?

Curated Insight Blog Post – Bob J. Satawake, 2017