I recently discussed with some friends and family that
“tradition” does not always provide helpful or efficacious guidance, because some
traditions or systemic practices –like
segregation or unequal pay for women-- produce lasting negative effects upon a targeted or despised
group of people. We might say it is most desirable to follow traditions that
improve the lot of humankind and reject those harmful traditions that show
contempt or disrespect for the welfare of other members of our human race.
It’s not an outstanding proverb, perhaps, but it reminded me
that there are some practices from our past that may speak to our current
existential crisis. IN FACT, let me set
before you three subjects that are growing in their urgency right now and
around which the thread of inappropriate traditions are tightly woven.
1)
VOTING. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia is wrong to
oppose S.1—For the People Act -- and its provisions regarding voting rights and
election protocols. He has embarked upon
a path that leads to destruction of our democracy. He has --in the name of preserving bipartisanship—essentially
joined in insurrection politics being practiced by the Far-Right Trump
Republican Party. He has joined radical Republicans
in their attempts to win elections at all costs and to protect white supremacy. If they can block S.1 and pass a major portion
of the 400+ voter restriction bills in targeted states, these Trumpian
Republicans will achieve their goal of electoral control for the foreseeable
future.
Manchin has chosen to support, not bipartisanship,
but PARTNERSHIP with an anti-democratic movement that seeks the erosion of
democratic ideals. He has made a choice that lends support to the
nefarious pieces of state legislation that are intentionally aimed at reducing
and denying the vote to certain people who happen to vote or lean Democratic in
their ballot preferences. He has chosen
to allow the harmful tradition of voter suppression to proceed unchecked. He has by his words and actions inferred that
he does not honor those who have given their lives in wars and causes dedicated
to maintaining the fundamental right of the People to choose their
representatives and to express their opinions by their votes. By sticking with the illusion of
bipartisanship as a condition for his support of S.1, he has aligned himself with
those insurrection forces bent on overthrowing the constitutional protection or
expansion of that voting right in Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26,
and in subsequent Voting Rights legislation.
Section 1. “The right of
citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition
of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation.”
While the Constitution in each of these Amendments assigns
Congress the power to pass appropriate legislation to enforce their provisions,
nowhere does the Constitution suggest that such legislation is dependent upon “bipartisanship.”
But the Constitution does call upon Joe Manchin, and every
Senator, to do something of solemn import. It requires each of them to take
an oath of affirmation in which they promise to
protect and defend the Constitution “against all enemies.” It does not say “you shall support
only that legislation that is
bipartisan.”
This is the oath Manchin took to protect our Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take
this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which
I am about to enter: So help me God.”
In essence,
neither the Constitution nor the oath of office indicate that the Senator has
the obligation or duty to protect and defend the political concept of
bipartisanship. And that is because bipartisanship is not one of the major goals
or outcomes to be sought by the Congress.
In fact, the major outcomes stressed are put forth in the PREAMBLE to
the constitution and they are:
·
Form a more perfect union (not primarily
between members of the Congress but of the People of the various states and
among the states themselves). A
bipartisan approach among elected representatives leading toward that major goal
of perfecting unity is a desirable strategy but not the only one. In-depth debate, sharing of ideas, majority
vote, committee research, team
consensus, and super majority vote for certain matters such as treaties are all
strategies for arriving at the desired goal of perfecting unity, just as they
are for the other major constitutional outcomes or goals.
·
Establish Justice
·
Ensure Domestic tranquility
·
Provide for the Common Defense
·
Promote the General Welfare
·
Ensure the Blessings of Liberty for
ourselves and our Posterity
Senator Joe Manchin has confused secondary and
strategic objectives with a goal of major or primary import. Bipartisanship is not a goal of major import like
the right to vote and national unity, but is simply one strategy, method, or means
toward accomplishing outcomes of prime
import for the People as set forth in the Constitution and its PREAMBLE.
By promising to vote against S.1, Joe
Manchin has violated his oath of office and his solemn duty to protect and
defend the Constitution. Here’s how, in
summary:
By voting with the Party that wants to suppress
the right to vote for several
groups, particularly targeting African-Americans, Manchin has undermined the purpose of the Fifteenth (and
other) Amendment to the Constitution which is to protect the right to vote from
restrictions that deny or abridge (“lessen, curtail or deprive”) that right.
By defending bipartisanship instead of the
sacred right to vote, Joe Manchin has chosen party politics and winning
elections as superior to protecting the Constitution, and he should be called
to account for his anti-democratic apostasy., sometimes called by the more accurate term of unconstitutional
behavior bordering on the offence of treason.
One more point: all that has applied to Joe
Machin must be applied to others in democratic leadership in House and
Senate. Allowing Republicans to have any
part in degrading S.1 is a collaboration with the forces of destruction of the
very principles that HR1 and S1 are attempting to engender in our system. Allowing them to lessen any provision of this
Act, or to take any credit for its passage after gutting it, is the epitome of capitulation to the
insurrection tactics of the Trumpian Party.
It is time to invite Republican participation in legislation on a one-time basis. If acceptance is delayed or refused, so is
their chance to participate.
Given the promise affirmed by their oath of
office, Democrats (and all members of Congress) have no alternative but to
protect and defend the Constitution and the laws that support it. Those who have designs on its democratic
foundations must not be allowed to erode its principles . The aim of Trump-pets is not
bipartisanship. Their aim is absolute
power as voiced repeatedly by Donald J. Trump. The oath says, “protect and defend.” It does not say “bargain and capitulate.”
At various
points along the way, the concept of being the stand-in, the voice of, and the
advocate for the People back home has been tinkered with, redefined and
realigned. There are numerous causes,
some listed here briefly without examination or explanation because that would
eat up too much time and space. The
items listed contain some connection to the current situation with Joe Manchin
and others
§
Political parties attempting to gain absolute
power by restricting or suppressing certain voters
§
Corporations and Capitalists lobbying for their
interests and control
§
Supreme Court decisions making false equivalents
of money as free speech and corporations as individuals
§
Outside and foreign interests interfering with
democratic processes
§
Far Right white supremacists, neo-Nazis and trained
militia using violence and domestic terrorism to intimidate legislators (and
voters!)
§
GUN lobby instilling fear of defeat into gun
control advocates
§
Use of congressional committee structure to fan
the flames of anti-democracy and misinformation
§
Special privileges, waivers and perks distract
and pull representatives from their constitutional obligations and tasks,
setting them apart from their constituents
§
the use of a congressional seat as the gateway
to lucrative positions in the private sector
§
The development of more sophisticated (and
biased) polling
§
Gerrymandering, voting restrictions, unproven
fraud allegations and accusations against election officials all affect the
obligation to speak for one’s constituents
§
The closing of the gap in terms of education,
knowledge and experience meant that the People have in many cases surpassed the
intellectual and pragmatic knowledge of their representatives, thus able to
demand more and to criticize their performance as representatives with both
depth and effectiveness
§
Unclear descriptions and inadequate information
provided to newly elected congresspersons; inadequate on-going in-service
training; in many cases, it is experienced staff and personnel who provide
guidance and training, not the other way round.
And so, we return to the basic
questions of representation:
§ who
is being represented in the halls of government? For instance, by Joe Manchin
since it appears the people of West Virginia support S.1. Here’s a mention of that from one reporter:
“MSNBC's Rachel
Maddow showed stunning new West Virginia polling just one day after Sen. Joe
Manchin wrote in an op-ed that he wouldn't support the For the People Act to
protect voting rights and democracy because the bill isn't bipartisan. In his own West Virginia -- one of the
reddest states in the country -- support for the bill is overwhelming and
bipartisan. 81% of Democratic, 79% of independent, and 76% of
Republican voters want the For the People Act.”
§ What changes and improvements are needed, and what
so-called ‘traditions’ are inadequate and even wasteful in these times?
Since I have
dealt with several of these concerns in the past (see posts at 02/08/2016,
02/28/2017, 06/17/2018, plus 11/19/2018, 09/18/2020 and 02/10/2021, I will
restrict myself to just a few targeted thoughts:
Job
descriptions for Congressmen are hard to find; most are self-constructed. We
need something that covers the basic requirements for all representatives as a suitable
handbook. One handbook of 7 pages gets handed out in orientation; but it deals
mainly with fiscal matters and tells them what and how they can spend.
Here is a
telling Introduction to a Handbook for Congressmen that is a grant project
undertaken by the Congressional Management Foundation. It is a well-researched, well-written, and
fairly comprehensive piece, PUBLISHED in 2018 but not yet an official handout to new
congresspersons. The Introduction to
their handbook suggests this omission is problematic and shortsighted:
“Every two years, more than one
thousand Americans run for a seat in the U.S. Senate or House of
Representatives. They work tirelessly for months—sometimes years—for the
opportunity to serve in our national legislature. Most of them are inspired
individuals committed to making a difference for their constituents, the
country, and the world through public service. Once they arrive in Washington,
they usually have a clear sense of what they want to accomplish, though many
may not be fully aware of the breadth of their new job. What exactly does a
Member of the United States Congress do? In the 2012 Global Parliamentary
Report: The Changing Nature of Parliamentary Representation, the authors note
that “Being an elected politician remains one of the few professions for
which there is no job description, and there are few guides as to whom, how or
what a politician should represent.” Of course, there are many sources of
information about Congress, how Senators and Representatives vote and construct
public policy, how a bill becomes a law, and whole fields of political science
dedicated to analyzing the product of Members’ work, but few address the
basic components of the job. The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF)
decided to remedy this gap by creating a job description, vetted with former
and current congressional staff, for Members of Congress. While such documents
exist for the most common House and Senate personal office positions, until now
none has existed for a Senator or Representative. Though we do not propose it
as the definitive word on the role Senators and Representatives play in our
democracy, we envision it as a means for current and future Members of
Congress, staff, and citizens to think about what legislators do, and serve as
a reminder of their commitment to public service.”
PLEASE
NOTE again: Although published in 2018, the handbook has not yet been
officially sanctioned as something
handed out to all new Congresspersons.‘
In addition, what kind of in-service
training do congresspersons receive other than on-the-job learning? Not much I’m afraid, unless they seek it
out for themselves from the many sources
and resources available in the D.C. area. The
CMF offers a good number of training courses on video or online, all available
through their office. Setting up offices and working with constituents seem to
be mostly aimed at congressional staff
with limited resources related to representatives themselves. Some training materials are also offered by Ethics
Committees of both Houses, mostly in the form of publications.
In my humble opinion, there appears
to be a lack of pertinent training of congresspeople in problem-solving
techniques, in group dynamics and team functioning, in leadership techniques,
and in how to research and how to solicit and use input from constituents. Those shortcomings are evident in everything
representatives do, from Town Halls to committee hearings. HAVING myself undertaken (and instructed
others) in all such forms of training in several venues, I cannot believe we
allow untrained representatives to represent and stand for us when so many of
us are required to approach our jobs with in-depth descriptions, continuous
in-service training and evaluated practices.
Even fast-food workers are required to have certain amounts
of training. And workers in a wide variety of occupations are required to have
a certain number of hours of training before they can be considered for higher level positions. Yet, the representatives we choose to
represent us aren’t even required to learn techniques and skills for soliciting
and utilizing our input. Nor are they required to learn and utilize
proven techniques and best practices to solve the problems that confront
us. In too many cases they are untrained
political hacks or junkies who have nothing to offer us but lies,
misinformation, political propaganda and made-up issues that promise attention
and votes from the distorted and captured minds of human lemmings.
What we desperately need are committed
people trained in new systems, skills, and techniques who know that the source
of real power is available in the people who live each day with the exigencies
of real life. We need representation who
can grow the potential that exists in every group in every part of this
country.
HOWEVER, IF enough citizens
continue to vote to place untrained, untested, uncommitted do-nothings into
public office we shall deserve the autocratic violence that often emerges from the
depths of such inanity, just as it did on January 6th. We have a responsibility to probe our
candidates and their positions thoroughly and to reject those who are not
adequately prepared to stand for us in the halls of government. It is no longer
viable to vote along Party lines or for someone who seems to be a “nice
person.”
Traditional attitudes about
representation must be cast aside and new criteria demanded for all public
servants. The election of Donald Trump
and his idolatrous followers should inspire us to move beyond our current
inadequate requirements for public office candidates and incumbents.
3)
CHANGE. Finally, we take up the topic of CHANGE. Change is usually thought of as a
throwing out of traditional matters and
the beginning of anarchy resulting from taking risks with new and untested systems. Part of that is true, but change is much more
than that. For me, it has often involved
the re-discovery of classic truths that had seemed to be diminished or lost.
Real change often involves deep
examination and some risk in finding and promoting classic values and tenets in
new forms. It can involve
experimentation and some failure. It requires some optimism and critical
analysis. It is not easy; it is hard work
because real change involves threats to the myths, prejudices, and biases, lies
and bamboozles that we have accumulated over a lifetime, and to which many
cling with unyielding tenacity.
In our current situation, real
change, as it often does, must involve the criticism and rejection of the false
values and lies that have arisen as weapons employed to stop all proposed changes. There can be no real change until the big
lies, distorted actions, autocratic beliefs and despotic behaviors are
thoroughly publicized, refuted, and rejected. Because of their volatility and toxicity, they
cannot simply be ignored, diminished or written-off as one-time errors in judgment. They must be constantly displayed as anti-democratic
and as omens of destruction of our form of governing.
There is still much to do in that regard and
hearings before congressional committees, select committee reports, special
commissions and other investigative entities must not be delayed nor truncated. This exposure of truth must occupy us for the
long haul because the effects of despotic Trumpism is not short-term. Its
wide-ranging effects will plague us over long periods and we must not let up on
efforts to wipe out this political virus.
We cannot allow their lies to overcome the enduring truths of our
democracy.
When we see our world dying in front
of our eyes both physically and ethically, we cannot continue to accept the
flawed systems and practices that are now the potential destroyers of this
nation’s government. The pandemic, the
pending destruction of our planet and the denigration or assignment to a caste of
certain people of this earth are not acceptable traditions and must be
expunged.
One of the classic truths that
must be reinvigorated is that we are the stewards of this world and all of us
are partners in that effort. The
environment and the world are ours to kill or to develop. THE WINDOW OF CHOICE is rapidly closing; we
must decide NOW to save our planet and reject those who continue to profit from
destructive exploitation of traditional uses of elements that are poisoning our
environment. It is past time to set end
times for use of destructive fossil fuels and deadly by-products and to set implementation
deadlines for alternative resources that
will not be harmful to our existence.
A similar crisis exists in terms of our
ethical view of life. We cannot continue
to ignore the damage being done to bodies and spirits by lies, misinformation,
the denigration of persons of minority status and people of different
abilities, appearances, and customs. The de-humanizing of people is as
destructive as environmental assault.
And then, there is the whole area
of human welfare and justice. When
certain systems, beliefs and practices put human values and lives on hold or
under assault, in-depth change must happen to undo such practices and processes
lest we lose that which makes us other than animals.
We are teetering on the edge of
destruction of more than we realize, and no amount of false information or
conspiracy theories will save us from that destruction. It is only deep-seated change based on
self-evident truths that can make a difference.
Real Change begins with re-discovery of essential and fundamental truths
and values. That is our mission in this
crucial time.
We could perhaps start where this
nation started when it declared independence.
That Declaration contained some items that need re-discovery such as in
Its second paragraph:
“WE hold these truths to be
self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.” A good
place to begin the renewal of our system and our values.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS enlarges on
these self-evident inalienable rights that likewise need recovery and
revitalization, like freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, a free
press, the right to speedy trial by jury. Others range from not incriminating oneself
to peaceful assembly and petitioning of government for redress of grievances. The right to keep and bear arms needs
continued debate and litigation to mitigate acts of mass violence that are
close to epidemic proportions.
We need to start, quite simply, with
repeated displays of self-evident truths. Why aren’t we following the example
of the Lincoln Project and producing their kind of hard-hitting ads against the
Trump agenda and legacy? Is it too much
to ask of the DNC and DCCC that they undertake a similar project and the
fund-raising to support it?
Second, is it too much to ask
those same organizations (and others) to start a nationwide project of training
for candidates and potential candidates,
poll watchers, election board members, etc., so that we can develop a candidate
pool and election experts who can apply their superior tools and approaches to
problem-solving and practical proven methods of initiating real change that
affects people where they live?
Third, is it impossible to begin
to play some “hard ball” with states and individuals who use lies, conspiracies,
or blocking strategies to prevent progress or to promote regression to
anti-democratic functions? Is there no
ability to slow or deny certain federal funding, or expected favors, or to
reject grant applications and deny fund requests? Is it possible to take such actions like this
to engender state legislature rejection of voter suppression legislation in any
form?
Don’t like it? Neither do I, but neither do I like the anti-democratic attacks and insurrections being used by radical Republicans to destroy our democracy. Are there crucial times when we must do things we don’t like to bring about desirable outcomes while being especially vigilant about this spilling-over into partisan vengeance? Do the ends ever justify the means? Trumpians believe they do when personal power is at stake. What about when our society, our government and our planet are threatened with total destruction – does that justify drastic hard-ball measures against the perpetrators of decay and destruction? The debate goes on, but one thing is certain: accountability is not optional -it must be imperative !
In conclusion, whatever happened to the entrepreneurial spirit of risk or investment? Whatever happened to the American spirit of experimenting and creating new things? Where did that neighborly spirit of helping others in crisis or in difficulty hide itself? Who decided that government is an enemy, or that policework is equivalent to “order” and “enforcement” rather than to the well-being and guardianship of all? Where is that spirit of supporting the “underdog” or welcoming the oppressed of other lands? And where did we put that characteristic of ours that so captured the imaginations of others around the globe – that American optimism and voluntarism that was always seeking to improve, to make better, to make progress – where is that gratitude that motivates us to keep America Beautiful, Bountiful, and welcoming -- a place of opportunity and new beginnings, of second chances and of the spirit of building new hope, new things, and new lives? I sincerely believe that much of this is what the Biden administration aims to “bring back better.”
Are we preparing ourselves for
that mission? OR, have we allowed the
forces of erosion to triumph over our ideals, our optimism, our indomitable
spirit of getting up, brushing ourselves off and starting over? Have we allowed the forces of inaction, privilege,
and profit to undo our environment, our values, and our resilience? Have we given over our fundamental ideals to
erosive forces that want to substitute political power and violent control for
equal opportunity, rule of law, and a continuing movement toward progress in
human dignity and well-being?
The Key is not to accept the lies
that lead to erosion, degradation, and destruction, but to confront and deny
those forces as soon as they make an appearance and on a continuing basis. The Key is to search for classic fundamental values and ideas and to
make those our guiding principles in every realm of human existence and
endeavor. It is time to resurrect not to
insurrect; time to speak-out, not to hush up.
Time to experiment and innovate, not to equivocate and denigrate. Time to renew by total rejection of erosive
forces plus critical acceptance of the values that re-invigorate, re-claim and
renew our underlying self-evident and enduring truths of equality, justice, and
opportunity for fulfillment (‘happiness’).
HOW?
You ask. Attempts to provide specific
and pragmatic answers appear in almost every post on this BLOG. Feel free to explore by consulting the
Contents page.
