It was on July 4, 1776 that representatives of the people of every colony unanimously announced themselves as member states that would form a new nation. Before there was a constitution or a president, there was our Declaration of Independence.
In just one eloquent sentence that declaration laid the philosophical foundation for the United States of America, its Constitution, laws and traditions. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That sentence provides glimpses of the shining city on the hill that Americans aspire to build. As each generation adds to the city, there are debates and battles over laws, the role of government and our vision for the future. Continue reading LET’S CONTINUE ARGUING→
“The economy must serve people, not the other way around.” That is the opening sentence of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement “The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers“. Regardless of your religious beliefs, I encourage readers to look it up on the internet. It’s easy to understand the values being taught but challenging to apply them in our lives, businesses and government. Continue reading THE ECONOMY MUST SERVE PEOPLE→
Sister Jean-Delores Schmidt is a 98 year old nun who serves as a chaplain for the Loyola University basketball team and travels with them. Defying odds and expectations, the team earned a spot in the final four of the men’s basketball tournament. During the celebration, a reporter asked Sister Jean, “What did you give up for lent?” “Losing” she replied with a smile. Think about that for a moment. Continue reading Let’s start winning→
When I’m confused and disappointed by the actions of our elected leaders, I sometimes get the urge to reread our Constitution. Here are thoughts from a recent rereading.
From Article 1 Section 4: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…” Our Congress has the authority to standardize how and when we elect its members. It seems reasonable to conclude that Congress could prohibit partisan gerrymandering.
From Amendment 14 Section 1:“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” Legislative districts are created by state law. Here in North Carolina, the Legislature’s stated purpose in gerrymandering the districts was to elect Republicans to 10 of the 13 seats even though nearly half of voters actually vote for Democrats. They achieved that goal. The law that created gerrymandered districts seems to deny equal protection to citizens who disagree with Republicans.
From Article 2 Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Bribery would apply if a President accepted a bribe. Would it also be bribery if a Presidential candidate or his team agreed to not implement sanctions on Russia in exchange for information useful to their campaign?
The US Supreme Court has received gerrymandering cases from Wisconsin, Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The lower courts are so politicized that news reports generally include whether the judges were appointed by Democrats or Republicans. The implication is that a judge is likely to rule in favor of the party that appointed her or him. That is an awful but sadly credible assumption to make about our supposedly independent judiciary.
If the court rules against gerrymandering, that is likely to result in Democrats gaining seats in the House of Representatives. In addition to being the body that originates federal budgets, the House is the body with authority to impeach a President – an action which a Republican led House might be more reluctant to consider.
If the Senate had approved President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, there would be a 5-4 split of Democrat vs Republican judges. Instead, the Republican controlled Senate refused to even consider the nomination for months – in hopes of winning the presidency and getting a Republican nominee. They succeeded in that; and with the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch there is a 5-4 split favoring Republicans. What will it say about our Supreme Court if a Gerrymandering decision is decided by that margin?
The Presidential election of 2000 may well have been swung from Al Gore to George W. Bush by a party-line 5-4 Supreme Court decision that stopped the Florida vote recount. We’ll never know. Nor will we know whether the US would have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan after 9-11 under President Gore. Such decisions change our history in profound ways.
Underlying many of the suspicions, malfunctions and failures of our government is the increasingly bitter partisan divide. Note however, that political parties are not even mentioned in our constitution. Only individuals, not political parties, have a constitutional right to be on a ballot. To protect their power (and the President), Republicans are now attacking the credibility of important institutions including our FBI, CIA and Justice Department. Russian agents have effectively used social media to discredit those same agencies. How ironic is it to find Republican leadership and Russian espionage agents on the same side?
President Washington warned, in his farewell address, that political parties, “…are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” It’s an apt description of current events.
Nations succeed and become great when most of the people support them and feel fairly treated. When a large proportion feel mistrust and mistreated, nations fail. Rather than “becoming great again”, our nation is in jeopardy due to citizen mistrust of elected officials. My conclusion is that it’s up to voters to save the union. No one else can do it.
President Trump’s remarks about “Shithole” nations and his desire for more immigration from (white) Northern Europe are a perfect contrast to our January 15 national day of recognition for Dr. Martin Luther King Junior – born January 15, 1929. Except for an assassin’s bullet, he might have celebrated his 89th birthday today. Instead he was killed before reaching the age of forty.
Click below to hear singer-songwriter Patty Griffin’s reflection on Dr King’s final speech and what his final prayer might have been before he died
Dr. King is rightly remembered as a principal leader of the civil rights movement that brought legal equality for Americans of African descent, at least on paper. The struggle to fully achieve the promise of equality under the law continues to this day.
Today, I think it is important to remember that in his final years, Dr King had expanded his mission and ministry to encompass two additional concerns: He supported and expanded the peace movement that sought to bring American troops home from our military incursions into the affairs of other nations, principally Vietnam. The second new subject was economic justice. He saw, even in the 1960s, the concentration of extreme wealth among a few privileged Americans while laborers were unable to support families. On the day that he was killed, he was in Memphis to support the demands of sanitation workers for improved wages and working conditions.
Dr King was not abandoning his civil rights mission. He was expanding it. The war affected everyone, regardless of race, through unnecessary killing and through the waste of economic resources that could have been used to improve American lives. Economic inequality and injustice to working Americans affected minorities disproportionately but it was abundantly clear that a permanent, generation-spanning economic underclass existed in every race. Insulting labels from that era such as “poor white trash” and “nigger” have not lost or changed their meaning in the half century since Dr King’s death. They still refer to people who have had few opportunities for economic and educational advancement. They are the victims of an economy and a nation that has no need for their limited skills and little motivation help them find opportunities. How different, really, are the problems of the white Appalachian coal miner, the rural southern black, and the small town and urban workers of all races who lost jobs to automation?
Dr King saw clearly that we can all succeed together by creating opportunities for personal and economic growth through education and social safety net programs. How ironic is it that Norway (the nation from which President Trump would like to have more immigration) has done what Dr King suggested? Proponents of creating those programs here in the US are often derisively called “socialists”. It is precisely because of those socialist programs that very few people want to leave Norway. People like it there. Not only do they share their wealth, they have more to share. In Norway, the average economic output per person is $70, 392 compared to $57,436 for Americans. What a surprise! A nation that strives to provide opportunities for everyone is more productive than one which ignores the needs of its poorest citizens.
Americans have responded to our problems by forming a circular firing squad – shooting (sometimes literally) at each other rather than lifting each other up, as Dr King would have taught. Now we have elected a President and a Republican congressional majority who have cut taxes on corporations at a time when corporate profits are at record highs; cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans at a time when they already own a greater share of our national wealth than at any time on record; and will borrow money that we all have to repay in order to fund their gifts to the wealthy. They also plan to drastically increase military spending for the longest and arguably least justified wars in American history.
Unfortunately, I must agree with President Trump that there is indeed a “shithole”. He and the Republican congress are pushing us into it. We’ll have to climb out using the remaining resources that they haven’t wasted. We can do that if we will quit blaming the victims of poverty for their condition and begin focusing our efforts on creating opportunity for every American to achieve her or his full potential. Success in that endeavor will be the measure of a great nation.
In a conversation about the state of our world, a friend asked what my subject would be for a “Christmas column”. My immediate reaction was cynicism. It seemed unfitting to celebrate Christmas in a world where borders matter more than starving refugees, where the wealthy get a tax cut paid for with borrowed money, and where self-professed Christians in movements like Aryan Nation Church of Jesus Christ and Westboro Baptist Church preach racism and intolerance in Jesus’ name.
A day passed by before it occurred to me that Jesus was born, lived and was crucified in a world not so different from our own. His teaching, preaching and example were about living in a flawed, unfair and sometimes hostile world. What better time and place to celebrate his birth, life and sacrifice than here and now, in our own darkness? The light that he brought to his world can brighten our own.
The land where Jesus lived was ruled by the most powerful military force of its time, the Roman Empire. They allowed significant local autonomy as long people paid taxes to the empire and didn’t attempt insurrection. Regional government was based on Jewish religious laws under Roman supervision. Political and financial power were often abused. The temple tax, owed by everyone, enriched the high priests. It also paid temple employees including musicians, janitors, decorators, guards and those who sold animals for sacrifice. They sustained the mystique of the temple and the belief that High Priests could influence God through rituals. Little tax money trickled down to the poor.
There were a lot of itinerant preacher/teacher/rabbis in Jesus’ time. People were angry, especially in rural areas where taxes were collected to support Rome and Jerusalem while poverty reigned locally. Jesus directed his ministry to the poor, the working class, the disenfranchised, and much of the time he simply ignored Rome and Jerusalem. He recruited fishermen, laborers, and other common people as followers.
Stories of his work include miracles to benefit the sick and poor. The lepers who were healed were outcasts under Jewish law. The prostitutes (identified as “sinners”) with whom he reportedly dined at a tax collector’s invitation are thought to have been hired as after-dinner entertainment – women who had only their bodies to sell.
Jesus did far more than heal and feed people. He taught a better way of living that became a movement. It was based on two principles – love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Today people sometimes debate what “God” and “neighbor” mean. Nevertheless, Jesus’ teaching is so clear that we can apply it to our 21st century lives.
It’s almost as important to recognize what Jesus didn’t do as what he did. Did Jesus ever pray for rain in the desert, military defeat of the Roman invaders or other intervention in daily life? He taught others to pray for enough food to get through the day, forgiveness of sins and recognition of temptation – nothing more. He never tried to enforce his values through civil laws. People were free to follow or not. He never asked for contributions to build a cathedral, a megachurch or even a small one. Nor did he urge placing a monument to the Ten Commandments at every courthouse.
Jesus cared about individuals but he also spoke to and about government when he overturned the money changers’ tables where the poor were legally cheated by a government sanctioned religion. He engaged in civil disobedience to save the life of a woman caught in the act of adultery. The prescribed penalty was for her to be stoned to death. Jesus halted the stoning with this challenge, “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Who was this man who changed our world so much? Once, when he was asked, he replied with a question of his own, “Who do you say that I am?” Do you say he is Son of God, Messiah and Savior? Or is he a teacher whose powerful ideas will, if we follow them, allow us to live peaceably together?
Regardless of our 21st century answer to his question, his birth, his life and his sacrifice are worthy of celebration. By applying his teaching today we can bring light to a dark world.
Are we willing?
Permission for use of this Hugh Haynie cartoon was granted by the Special Collections Research Center, Swem Library, College of William and Mary
Most of the time we Americans are not even aware of our freedom. It surrounds us in seemingly endless supply, like the air that we breathe. But if there’s no air to breathe we quickly become uncomfortable and do something about it. If we see another person choking, we try to help him breathe. Just as we defend our right to breathe, we should defend each other’s freedom.
Non-conformity is sometimes admirable, but it has consequences. Others are free to disapprove, dislike, and not associate with you. That’s their right. Unless you are protected by a union or employment contract, most states allow private employers to fire you or refuse to hire you for expressing views that they don’t like. There are circumstances where that makes sense. An employer might have a policy that prohibits wearing lapel pins supporting political parties, candidates, or causes at work. Its purpose might be to keep everyone’s attention focused on producing good work rather than the distraction or offense to customers that might accompany the pins.
With those thoughts in mind, let’s look at the case of Colin Kaepernick, the NFL, and President Donald Trump. The controversy began more than a year ago when Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, didn’t stand for the national anthem. He had done the same thing before two previous games, but the press didn’t take notice. On the third occasion, he was asked about it and he gave an extensive post-game interview.
Kaepernick made it clear that he believes America is not living up to our ideals. He contended that racial inequality is still institutionalized and that abuse of African-Americans by police is often tolerated by our government. He said he would resume standing for the anthem when those concerns were addressed. He emphasized that he meant no insult to our flag, anthem or service members; pointing out instead that he wants our government practices to live up to the values that our military defends.
Colin Kaepernick acknowledged that he could be fired for his actions: Q: “Do you think you might get cut for this?” Kaepernick: “I don’t know. But if I do, I know I did what’s right and I can live with that at the end of the day.” He was cut from the team, accepted that fact, and continued working on issues that he thought were important. To at least some small degree, he was achieving his goal of encouraging conversations across racial lines about inequality.
The conversation exploded when President Trump, behaving as if he was elected Bully-in-Chief rather than President, insulted Kaepernick and other NFL players who had adopted his form of quiet protest, calling them “sons of bitches” and telling NFL owners to fire them or watch their businesses “go to hell”. Trump lied when he claimed that the protests were against our military and our flag. Kaepernick and other protesters had made it clear from the beginning that the protests were about perceived racial injustice. Trump ignored concerns about racial equality and changed the subject to patriotism. When a President of the United States lies some of his loyal base will believe whatever he says. Others in Trump’s party may simply stay quiet – exactly the kind of inaction that Kaepernick is protesting.
Our President has behaved as a shameless bully and liar, dividing us into factions and urging his supporters to impose their will on others through the power of government and employers. It’s dangerous to our constitutional democracy when our President uses his power to try to silence others. At the core of American freedoms is the right to be a nonconformist – to believe, speak, and live according to your own conscience. Whether I agree with Colin Kaepernick or not, it is my duty as an American to defend his right to speak and to demand an apology from President Trump for his lies and his language.
The President’s actions bring this adage to mind. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” We Americans need to move ahead with serious conversations about race relations. It appears that we’ll have to do that in the face of presidential opposition rather than with constructive presidential leadership. That, perhaps, is why so many NFL players and owners have linked arms – showing the way to honest conversation and teamwork – and standing up to the biggest bully on the block.
As preface, let’s acknowledge that consideration of abortion arises at a very difficult time in a woman’s life. Our question is, “Who will make the decision, the woman or the government?” Our judgments about her choice or her conscience are merely opinions. Who decides?
For historical perspective, abortion is recorded in the earliest human histories. Plato, for example, noted the ability of midwives to “…cause miscarriages if they think them desirable…” Herbs, drugs and physical procedures for abortion have been generally known and widely used in every culture. There is occasional documentation of moral or religious objections but historically, abortion was widely accepted without legal regulation or intervention. The greatest concern was the risk posed by procedures and toxic herbs used to induce abortions.
Since that time, misogynists and religious zealots have been fighting to re-impose their will on pregnant women. Our Republican President and Congress are among them. They certainly have the right to believe and teach whatever they choose; but they have no right to limit a woman’s full control of her own body. That is where the battle line is drawn.
It is the nature of freedom that a person may do things – even make mistakes – which the majority of society disapproves. For example, we allow parents to feed their children so much junk food that they are grossly obese, diabetic and destined for a life of disability before they start school. We don’t put the parents in jail for it. Meanwhile religious zealots, obsessed with other people’s pelvic morality, insist on controlling one singular and personal aspect of a woman’s life – her pregnancy.
Among the zealots are those who put a velvet glove on the iron hand of tyranny by saying that they would allow abortion in cases of rape, or when the woman’s life would be endangered by the pregnancy. Their self-righteousness leaves them with no doubt that they know better what is right for her and her body than she does. They reserve to themselves the right to judge her motives and to require that if her sexual encounter was consensual then she will be denied an abortion. Can you think of any other issue where laws might delve so intensely into personal matters?
Invariably we wish that whatever problem caused a woman to decide for abortion had not occurred. With that in mind, we should acknowledge and celebrate the fact that the abortion rate in America is now at or near the lowest level in our history. That success is due in large part to good information about birth control and inexpensive access to it. But our nation is divided, even on that.
Abortions will continue because the reasons why some women choose them have not changed since Plato’s time. But if Republicans have their way, abortions won’t be legal and safe. If religious zealots are allowed to impose their will through force of law, they won’t stop with abortion, and you need not bother ask for whom the bell will toll. It will toll for freedom.
Allegations of cheating and foreign influence in our recent elections abound. Many Americans suspect that elections and consent have been stolen. What has happened to “consent of the governed” ?
Our Declaration of Independence explains the importance of consent: “… all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” The first purpose of government is to secure the rights of citizens. The authority of government is derived from “consent of the governed”. Under our constitution, voters consent to be governed under laws passed by election winners. Consent means majority consent, not unanimous consent. Non-voters gave tacit consent by not participating.
Why do citizens across our political spectrum believe that consent of the governed is being undermined by cheating, rigging and outside influences? Here are examples, some of which focus on North Carolina, but similar conditions exist in many states.
Our intelligence agencies say that Russia hacked into computer systems of multiple candidates and both major political parties. The CIA concluded that they used stolen information in an attempt to manipulate our presidential election.
Disinformation has become a science used not only by Russia but also by non-governmental political interest groups. Consider clandestine videos that were expertly edited to make it appear that Planned Parenthood offered to sell aborted fetuses. The untrue charges were amplified on social media and cable news channels in ways that made them seem credible and then used in election campaigns. Allegations that Hillary Clinton was running a child-sex ring out of a Washington DC pizza parlor seemed ridiculous; but they were spread by Republican sympathizers and did affect public behavior.
North Carolina provides examples of flagrant offenses against consent of the governed. Republicans used unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud to justify new voter ID requirements. It was subsequently proven in court that the legislature unconstitutionally gave intentional preference to forms of identification that minorities are less likely to possess as compared to white voters.
By gerrymandering North Carolina’s congressional districts for partisan advantage, Republicans won ten of 13 seats (77%) with only 53% of the votes. They intended exactly that result, publicly predicted it and bragged about it. CLICK HERE to see the Republican website that explains the gerrymandering strategy with which they maintain control of the House of Representatives and state legislatures. Their manipulations result in the “consent” of Democrats and black voters having less influence on elections than the consent of Republican and white voters.
Here are results of gerrymandering in some southern states
Do you wonder why some people burn American flags or refuse to stand for the nation’s anthem? The root cause of their grievances might be that “consent of the governed” has been systematically and intentionally denied through actions like those I’ve described. That same kind of grievance led to the Declaration of Independence.
There are things that we can do to correct our problems. We can make voting easier through automatic registration of eligible voters, easy access to early voting and easy access to voting by mail. We can increase confidence in our elections by maintaining a paper trail and record of every ballot so that recounts are meaningful, easy, and fast whenever they are needed. We can ban redistricting for partisan, ethnic, economic, religious or cultural advantage. We can reject negative campaigns and character assassination by supporting candidates based on their positive plans for action and their character.
First and foremost, we must elect candidates who value the consent of ALL of the governed. Changing election laws for partisan or personal advantage is immoral, unethical and unpatriotic, even if it is legal. Some who care more about winning than about the principles of self-governance believe that their causes are important enough to justify “whatever it takes to win”. Such thinking should be unacceptable to free people. Protecting “consent of the governed” is more important than any one cause.
Consent of the governed will be effective only if we voters pay careful attention and cast our votes judiciously. If we don’t care enough to do that, we will enable manipulation of our consent and we will reward leaders who divide rather than unite us. No matter how depressed or exuberant we feel about the outcome of this election, the future remains in the hands of voters if we will fully exercise the rights that we have inherited from prior generations.
CLICK HERE for expert opinion of North Carolina’s election integrity.
CLICK HERE for comparison of US election integrity to other nations.
CLICK HERE to see the nature of problems with US election integrity.
CLICK HERE to see how Republicans have used gerrymandering to dominate the southern United States
