America’s gun debate is framed too narrowly to be helpful; advocacy for gun legislation isn’t only about preventing school shootings, nor does it seek to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. Legislation does more than command or prohibit behavior, it formally declares social priorities, what is acceptable to a society and what isn’t. Laws reflect, and in myriad ways shape our social values. Focusing on the cultural implications of gun legislation, or lack of it, provides a deeper and more productive focus for a national conversation. Continue reading “Guns”
If you did agree, my Republican Friend, to have the dialogue I invited last week, what might we talk about and how? Continue reading “The Conversation”
Have you noticed that even after taking control of the government, Republicans are still not building or creating anything? One could almost understand their constant obstruction to anything the Obama Administration wanted to do since they hated him so much and couldn’t get much past the Dems in the Senate and Obama’s veto. But now, with control of the White House and both houses of Congress, their only agenda is to dismantle, repeal, exclude, and withdraw. What’s up here? Is there anything about this country and our society they do like? Continue reading “Have you noticed?”
Dear Old Friend,
We never talk about anything even remotely political anymore and I’ve been struggling for an explanation. I don’t know about you, but I miss our old conversations, the way we used to banter about our Parties’ differences in debates that were at once humorously predictable and mostly earnest. We probably could have switched sides we knew each other’s positions so well. I don’t think either of us ever expected to change the other’s mind, but in some way I think we kept each other honest. And that was good, wasn’t it? No matter how long we argued, our differences never interfered with our friendship.
Something has changed. Continue reading “Letter to My Republican Friends,”
Newton’s third law of motion speaks to politics: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Science isn’t alone in recognizing this critical phenomenon. Scripture warns, As ye sow, so shall ye reap and Buddhists see the eventual cosmic balancing of deeds in Karma. But 15th century historian and politician Machiavelli might have nailed the inevitability of retribution most poignantly when he advised, If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. In other words, you’d better finish your enemy off or he’ll be back to get even. Unless Republicans have a plan to eliminate all the Democrats they might want to consider changing course a little. Continue reading “For Every Action…”
Vince Lombardi is often quoted as saying “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” (It was actually UCLA Bruins coach Henry Russell who said it but, hey, facts today can be whatever you want them to be.)
It seems an obsession with winning has grabbed our politics and shaken all interest in governing and public service right out of it. And it’s not just winning, but winning at any cost. Continue reading “Winning Isn’t Everything”
In 2017 I will continue to work on local civic efforts to foster dialogue and strengthen democratic processes. It’s what I do, one way I can try to help. But there’s a voice in my head asking if it’s too late.
Mine has been a profession and career steeped in the workings of our Constitutional democracy. That experience has clarified two things: Solving complex problems between strong competing people without violence, the very essence of democratic self governance, requires a willingness and ability to subjugate anger and aggression to a disciplined process like negotiation. The other is that civil processes and institutions, like settlement agreements and the courts themselves, will not work or endure without voluntary acceptance of their authority.
Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt spent 20 years studying the breakdown of democracies in Europe and Latin America, and in the process identified warning signs of the rise of anti-democratic politicians. Among them are the failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and denial of the legitimacy of elected governments. In a December 16th opinion piece in the New York Times, Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy, they point out that a well designed constitution is not enough for a stable democracy.
Democratic institutions must be reinforced by strong informal norms. Like a pickup basketball game without a referee, democracies work best when unwritten rules of the game, known and respected by all players, ensure a minimum of civility and cooperation. Norms serve as the soft guardrails of democracy, preventing political competition from spiraling into a chaotic, no-holds-barred conflict.
Voters this year chose a candidate who smiled on violence at his rallies, threatened to jail his opponent, and said he would not accept the legitimacy of the election if he lost. They voted to disrupt the “status quo,” to upend the American “political establishment,” and to challenge “political correctness.” As Democrats mourn the loss of civility, resist the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, climate accords, and Social Security, and object to the nomination of cabinet heads whose most relevant background in some cases is a history of opposition to the mission of the agency they’ve been tapped to head, to those concerns the response of Trump supporters has been “We won, get over it.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump mocks our U.S. intelligence agencies and rejects (without evidence) their conclusion that Russia, a country in which he has significant business interests and whose president he openly admires for his “firm control” over his people, hacked American political websites to steer the election to him. He is celebrated by white supremacists, scoffs at objections to his integrity-shaking conflicts of interest, and prefers his private security force to the Secret Service. He avoids national security briefings, promises tariffs that risk a global trade war, and tweets cavalierly about renewing a nuclear arms race. To whom or what does Donald Trump pledge allegiance?
“Get over it” is a disingenuous response to these circumstances. To any patriot they warrant concern and vigilance.
Maybe it’s because I am old enough to have heard my father talk about his personal experience liberating a German concentration camp after WWII, and to have friends whose family members were “exterminated” in those camps, that I don’t find the president-elect’s idiosyncrasies charming, amusing, or harmless. Instead I find myself wondering when Germans knew they had lost control of their democratic political process to a rising politician who would become a world class dictator, or when European governments finally realized that appeasement had only enabled him.
True, we’re not Germany, but there has always been a strong streak of authoritarianism in America. In a January 2016 article in Politico Magazine, One Weird Trait that Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter, political scientist Matthew MacWilliams reported that his survey of voters (in December of 2015) found education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables he looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism and fear of terrorism, with the former being far more significant than the latter. This does little to quiet the voice in my head. Authoritarians supporting a narcissistic, autocratic leader (Please don’t balk at those descriptors, they are fair and accurate and important.) in control of the United States government is a combination that should at least give everyone pause.
I get that it’s hard to tease apart honest policy debates from systemic threats to democracy, but I believe that’s what we need to do. The assumption that our Constitutional rules and institutions will always protect us from tyranny is misplaced. We, the people, ARE those institutions! And I’m sorry, my Republican friends, but you’re in charge here. If you fail to resist the understandable temptation to ignore, excuse, and support Donald Trump’s anomalous and dangerous threats in order to ride this train of political opportunity to the promised land of conservative policy conquest we could all end up in deep trouble. When I see you stand against Mr. Trump’s indefensible extremes in the defense of our national interests and democratic norms perhaps the voice in my head will finally stop.
In the meantime I will keep working on ways to facilitate public and political dialogue. It’s long past time that conservatives and progressives stop demonizing each other and denying the value and truthfulness in our respective world views and policy preferences. Structural problems like gerrymandering need to be attended to and the flames of partisan antagonism need to be cooled; these are reforms we can probably manage. What we might not survive, might not be surviving, is the unchecked rise of authoritarianism that disrespects and disregards national interests, institutions, and values and the norms that protect them.
Shortly after the election a very thoughtful friend had reached a breaking point. After carefully studying the campaigns she concluded that sexism was at the heart of the constant harangue of HRC’s personality, face, voice, and ambition. My friend is a feminist, and she was angry.
“You’d better look out,” she warned, “I’m coming after the patriarchy.” That was fine with me. But, as she roused her determination and her fury she went a step further: “I’m coming after you men!” As she continued I could feel a defensive anger rising in myself, and warned back, “I am on your side on this issue, but if you keep attacking me as a man you’re going to lose me as an ally.” Continue reading “Love the Sinner”