Can Democracy Survive Contradictions?

I have just one major question today:  can our democracy survive repeated attacks upon its fundamentals? OR, put another way: Can our democracy survive the acceptance of internal contradictions?  My answer will become clearer by the end of this short piece.

The answer depends on what believers in democratic principles and values do because a lot of verbiage will not help unless strong and effective words are part of court actions or legislation that seek to stop anti-democratic laws and practices.

Let us explore some of the major contradictions that are vying to exist in this democracy:

First: there is no room within our constitutional democracy for voter harassment,  intimidation and suppression.  There simply cannot be both a constitution that makes citizen voting a right and a necessity, AND, on the other hand, a movement mostly in Republican-dominated legislatures and state houses to limit, suppress, and undermine voter registration and participation – all done under the falsehood of ‘preventing voter fraud’ that has never been proven with credible evidence in courtrooms or anywhere else.

Those Republican state office-holders have perhaps not read the Constitution carefully because it clearly says two things:  (1) In Article I, Section 4, state legislatures are granted responsibility for the rather mundane task of “setting the time, place and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives” but it then declares clearly and unequivocally: “but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations…”

(2)  Additionally, five Constitutional amendments use explicit language to deny both federal and state governments the authority to hinder our right to vote:

“The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged (lessened, curtailed, deprived)) by the United States or by any State.... (Emphasis and synonyms added).

Because the “unabridged” universal right to vote is at the heart of our democracy, we cannot allow states to lessen that right. Those who value that right must vigorously oppose all those who seek dictatorial power rather than accepting citizen decisions made by free and unrestricted voters. Anti-democratic voting  abridgement cannot be tolerated in a truly democratic constitutional system.

The Congress has the responsibility for passing legislation that will curtail those abusive state laws. The courts have an obligation to reiterate and cement that voting right and the rest of us have a responsibility to oppose restrictions (‘abridgement’) in whatever forms they exist, including by protest demonstrations, poll watching, and seeing that these anti-democracy insurrectionists are opposed for office and held to account publicly for every non-democratic statement or activity they undertake.

Second, can our democratic system that balances power between three branches by checks on each other, tolerate someone in the presidency who has flouted the laws every chance he gets; who claims to know more than generals and advisors, who wants to “de-construct” the federal government; who believes that ‘de-construction’ extends to privatization of as many government functions as possible; who has used his appointment power to assure loyalists to him occupy as many governing positions as possible in both the Executive and the Judiciary branches; who has used his power of executive privilege to prevent administration members from testifying before Congress; who claims to have absolute power to do what he chooses to do as the Executive; who sets major policy by means of social media and executive orders?  Trump even used his office to incite his Far-Right followers to overturn a duly certified election and to find and punish leaders who followed constitutional rules.

Can a person be allowed to occupy the oval office who violates his oath and the Constitution whenever it suits his ambition to be an undisputed CEO of the U.S, Government? No. Because that is a contradiction and threat to the form of checks-and-balances accountable government we are privileged to have been given, and which we must maintain.

Third, can democracy thrive - or even survive - when its Supreme Court claims to have a solemn right to review legislation to determine its constitutionality, and/or to re-write it according to invented criteria that the Court has uncovered? In other words, can our form of democracy survive when there are few, if any, substantive checks on SCOTUS’ power to set directions for this country, rather than simply ruling on the decisions decided by lower courts?

Can we trust justices vetted and recommended by a Far-Right foundation/think-tank rather than by a panel of their peers? Can we continue to tolerate a prejudice toward big business and property rights rather than toward civil and human rights? Can democracy survive a Supreme Court that claims personhood for corporations for those corporations to be able to use their money as a form of free speech? Such nonsense makes fools of us all (‘baboons’ if you prefer since we have been ‘bamboozled’ once again). Allowing certain groups and parties free rein to bribe politicians, control elections, and invalidate government regulations and restrictions on illegal and immoral practices is not acceptable from any Court. 

The Supreme Court is most aptly named for it now assumes a supreme dictatorial demeanor and ability to control every aspect of our lives, without recourse through our present system. Can democracy survive when one of its branches claims to have the sole power to proclaim what is constitutional  and what is not, and to review laws with the intent of rewriting them to conform with a conservative ideology? Of course not, for democracy puts the will of the People first, which this Court blatantly ignores over and over again. 

Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to pass laws that will bring the Court in line with democratic principles. It must be done, or democracy and the people’s interests will suffer irreversible damage.

Fourth, we must ask if our system is built to filter out the people’s voices, except for voting. In other words, has our ‘representative’ system become more focused on the representatives and their ideological views, than on the people  who  voted them into office? “REPRESENTATIVE” means someone who stands-in for someone;  as a substitute presence for, someone else.

It appears that in too many cases, being a representative in the  Congress has come to mean becoming an entity who stands alone as a fountain of wisdom, power and status in representing what is best for people back home in his or her judgment based more on ideology than on reality!

In other words, there appear to be several important people one must represent as a congressperson – oneself and one’s own ambitions, those who paid the most into his or her campaign, the leaders of one’s Party, and the ideologues who set the narrative (talking points) for the election campaign and its aftermath. Then, come the voters and citizens left back in one’s district the representation of whom has come to mean personal services performed mostly by staff members to help with individual (or community) problems or needs that one’s office may find help toward resolution.

On the other hand, while constituents back home are 60-75% in favor of progressive legislation having to do with significant issues like health care or climate change and may have contacted the representative’s district or Washington office, the congressperson votes the Party line which opposes the wishes of the people. And the people find that letters and phone calls (even protest marches) do little to advance their cause because their ‘representative’ has others to whom he listens because he or she owes greater loyalty to them.

My question is: can representative democracy be truly representative of the people unless the people have on-going mechanisms to make their opinions, ideas, concerns heard and acted upon? Under current circumstances, I think not. 

What are some of those mechanisms that might increase the people’s voice and standing? I have referred to them in various Blog posts along the way, including term limits, citizen advisory councils required for every elected office, citizens in evaluative positions in government through Inspector General offices. Add to that: clearly defined requirements for office and professional vetting of candidates by peers not political partisans, and the reorganization of congressional structures such as Task Forces instead of committees, no filibustering or super-majorities to pass legislation; the use of problem-solving techniques in place of partisan rhetoric to lead to meaningful and pragmatic legislation.

As long as representation is corrupted by political parties, partisan ideologies founded on false premises, personal ambition and conflicts of interest in addition to personal immorality and questionable purposes, we are in danger of losing the ideal of representative democracy.  That ideal once included the vision of a trusted citizen chosen from amongst his or her peers to stand-in for constituents and to formulate legislation that enhanced the people’s welfare and protection. The representative was then seen as going back home after serving a designated term and working within communities to broaden the knowledge and practice of democratic values and to mentor others in the art of representation of the people. Are we still capable of such common sense, or is representative democracy broken beyond repair? Drastic change does not come easily, but hope remains that a start can be made, perhaps by eliminating the filibuster and/or setting term limits.

Fifth, just what is the purpose of having a democracy, anyway? Why not give in to anti-democratic forces and surrender to one-man authoritarian rule? My answer: because authoritarian rule is a failed system that always ends up promoting violence and conformity to maintain loyalty and dedication to the leader and to the regime.

Ordinary citizens are always the losers in an authoritarian government because protection and enhancement of prosperity is always aimed at for the regime and the leader, not for the people. The people are a potential mob that must be guarded against, not provided for unless that provision primarily enhances the regime and its sponsors.  Authoritarian rule by one man is rule by paranoia, narcissism and control. It has little or nothing to do with unity, people’s safety, welfare or equal opportunity to pursue happiness or fulfillment.

Sixth, can democracy exist where unity is purposefully scorned, ridiculed, and denied? Not if unity is the goal of a multi-cultural community or nation. America is founded on the seeking of a “more perfect union.”  Not because it is a nicety, but because it is essential to a form of governance that seeks equality of opportunity for justice, protection, freedom, and prosperity. With such purposes as our major goals, unity is essential to making such values and principles into realities for every citizen.

Democracy like ours cannot survive in an atmosphere of division, favoritism, prejudice and discrimination. Those are the four horsemen of the apocalypse who  come to destroy, not to rescue. A nation built upon the negative principles of exclusion and segregation are doomed to harm and hurt because those negatives deny the values that bind us together as a human family, uniting to persevere against the forces of enmity that keep us all from a united approach to resolving the problems and difficulties of living amid this world’s exigencies.

Nature’s fury and events like COVID19 are best encountered with a united presence rather than with a scattered presence that is so broken into pieces that it cannot effect a victory over that pandemic because there is no united plan, no common agreement as to remedy and no mutual responsibility for caring for each other except in pockets  where unanimity and teamwork are essential to mitigating the effects of the virus (in hospital ICUs, for example, where doctors, nurses, aides, cleaners, etc. are all working together for the common good of patients).

The politicizing of face masks and vaccinations to divide people into factions rather than to unite them into conquerors of this virus is the prime example of the results to expect from such divisive actions: sickness, suffering, harm, death. The results, the outcomes, of selfish, anti-social, sociopathic attitudes brought to bear on the task of defeating a common enemy like COVID19 tend to result in deadly consequences. Because, very simply, a pandemic will kill until it is disrupted by world-wide common practices that prevent its spread, its mutations, its power. 

War against killer viruses demands the same united front and efforts that world wars against Fascist violence required. Those who fail to promote a united fight must share the blame for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. And now their obstinacy is resulting in the sickness and deaths of school children who are being sacrificed on an altar of political rhetoric and manufactured nonsense of government interference with freedom of choice. Since unmasked, unvaccinated people are those most likely to contract the virus and most likely to die – freedom from life is the one choice now available and no one made that choice except those who refused to unite behind the banner of scientific facts.

 Seeking to divide people into groups of varying acceptability is anathema to democracy. White nationalism, intimidation and denigration of people of color, immigration policies that keep out people of Islam, the criminalization of refugees and people seeking asylum, plus the internal disrespect and degradation visited upon persons of color in every aspect of life are death threats to democracy. Democracy cannot survive the inequities of prejudiced thinking, acting or institutionalization. It cannot survive a virtual caste system. It cannot accept police brutality, or unequal enforcement of laws and court proceedings.

For instance, democracy and equal justice cannot be a reality if Black Lives Matter protestors are treated differently than white Trumper insurrectionists. Where are the arrests of those white nationalists who are threatening the lives of poll watchers, election officials, and other public officials? Why are no actionable arrests being made, but are being deemed unneeded by some local Justice officials?

Democracy based on the equal worth of all human beings and based on the right to equal treatment before the law cannot continue to claim the mantle of democracy under conditions that blatantly ignore or distort those basic principles. Divisiveness is not a positive enhancer of democracy; in fact, it is a threat to its existence. Those who seek to divide us, to deny our multiculturalism,  and to keep America under white Republican Christian rule are the sworn enemies and destroyers of our freedoms and of our principle of a more perfect unity as expressed in that motto: “e pluribus Unum” – out of many, one.

SO FINALLY – can democracy survive continuing attacks upon its fundamental principles and values? The answer is NO IT CAN’T IF WE TRY TO LIVE WITH CONTRADICTIONS OF THOSE PRINCIPLES and VALUES. Since we are in the majority, the failure to push hard against Trumpism and Far Right authoritarianism is an invitation to Taliban-like extremists to attempt a takeover of our government.

BUT the answer is a strong YES, Democracy can Survive IF WE ACNOWLEDGE OUR FLAWS, MAKE DRASTIC CHANGES, AND REMOVE THE CONTRADICTORY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FORCES from local and state public offices and from our local institutions. We must not ignore their threats, nor accept their anti-democratic actions. We must stand against their misinformation and authoritarian philosophy at every opportunity (see the sample letter below for one example of timely response to misinformation) or we shall be devoured by their militancy and their persistence.

 

Sample Letter to Protest Misinformation

Dear Doctor,

During my last visit to your office, I was subjected to an unsolicited and unexpected ‘presentation’ by Dr. _____ ____ regarding the wearing of face masks.  His attempt to separate this ‘presentation’ from the medical portion of my appointment was transparent but did not erase the fact that:

(1) he used a portion of my appointment time (paid for in large part by federal funds) to spread misinformation based on a partisan political agenda, and

(2) made unscientific pronouncements that were unrelated to the purpose of my visit and potentially harmful to me and others.

After hearing a casual comment from one of your staff that “he does this with lots of patients,” it is my estimation that this behavior also amounts to a repudiation of ancient and modern doctors' oaths all of which share an overriding concern for the welfare of the patient and a determination that the knowledge or practice of medicine should never be used to do harm either to patients or to others in the community.  The recent surge in COVID variants, the “breakthroughs” for a portion of those vaccinated, and the rise in the death rate (especially among objectors to masks and vaccines) have all tended to confirm the harm that misinformation has visited upon us.

Politicalizing the wearing of face masks is bad enough, but the spreading of unscientific misinformation by a certified medical specialist calls into question the medical information or treatment protocol he might propose in relation to his specialty. 

Having considered this over a suitable period of time, I am writing to inform you that I have concluded that Dr. ____’s behavior was both unacceptable and potentially harmful.  Because such behavior was allowed to represent this entire practice, I have decided to terminate my relationship with “__________” and to seek services and treatment elsewhere.

I do want to thank you for your particular attention to my difficulties during my time as your patient.  I much appreciate your professionalism and proficiency and regret that Dr. _____’s  behavior has disrupted and tainted the efficacy of what I considered a viable and successful medical practice.  

Sincerely, 

Afghanistan: Lessons Learned?

Sorry for my hiatus from the realties of the present moment.  Have meant to write before now, but every topic chosen has demanded more focused research than I have the time or energy to undertake.  The end of the military mission in Afghanistan has nurtured this writing, above all, to express sorrow for lives lost and harmed by this war, particularly in its final days, and to remind ourselves that their sacrifices and their service place some obligation on the rest of us to gather lessons learned from our losses.  And to always remember the ultimate sacrifice bestowed by those who gave their lives.

 =========================================================

The seeds of failure in Afghanistan were planted not at the end of our engagement under Commander-in-Chief Biden, but at the beginning under Bush who called for the “defeat of terrorism.” How many times does history have to ‘speak’ to us before we listen and heed the lessons and the warning signs about such broad and interminable quests?  Must we always respond to acts of belligerence  against us with the same military policies, strategies and tactics? And then find after years of war that they are not working against enemies that use quite different tactics, as happened in Viet Nam.

Mary Kaldor of The Guardian claims that “the main lesson from Afghanistan is that the ‘war on terror’ does not work.”  To a large extent that is true-- a military response using traditional approaches does not always work to combat terrorism, which happens to be spreading to more countries not fewer.  In Afghanistan, our presence alone appears to have exacerbated Taliban violence when their tactic of personal assassination of leaders in several areas, including the judiciary was increased.  Apparently, that was enough to scare off the Afghan government, whose president fled the country after absconding with a reported fortune in what was probably mostly American aid money.

If one more lesson should be drawn it is that a traditional military response, and traditional aid packages,  are not always effective and that it would seem to be time to re-think our overall mission in and to the world community. 

Just who are we, anyway?  The world’s policeman?  The world’s leading bankrolling nation, or just plain “world’s leading nation” (and just what does that mean)?  As we have indicated elsewhere on this Blog (August 16, 2020), we lead the world in very few areas of endeavor.  So just what do we offer? – are we the leading nation-builder?  -- what a disaster that turned out to be!

As no expert in foreign policy, but with some expertise in domestic policymaking and programming, I suggest that we begin to consider foreign roles for our nation that emulate some of what we have valued in dealing with the exigencies of domestic policy. It is my opinion that our major purposes and priorities are already written for us by our Founders in the Preamble to our Constitution.  Why not use them as well for the under-pinning of foreign policy?      

FIRST, our government has a responsibility to form a more perfect union.  When applied to the international community, it looks like we have an obligation to bring people together in ways that unite rather than divide; to confer and to consult rather than conflict and combat.  To be specific, we need to take much more seriously our roles in fighting diseases like COVID19 together, in making peace together; in combatting global warming together, in working together to combat international problems like refugees from oppression.

We should not be withdrawing from alliances and agreements that acknowledge such but should be seeking to increase the effects of united actions that bring benefits to more people on this globe.  HOWEVER,  we should not push our own agenda as the only one worthy of consideration but should seek common ground on which many can tread without being told what to do but being solicited instead for their solutions and strategies.  Learning to listen and to accept the opinions and innovations of others is an attribute to be much desired in a leader.  If the US wants to be a world Leader of note, we must learn to demonstrate our total willingness to hear and act on what other nations can contribute.  Thus, diplomacy becomes a major area of expertise that the USA must emphasize and use long before using military intervention.  Thus, involvement in worthy U.N. endeavors must be one of our priorities, improving on its record of humanitarian assistance another goal.   

SECOND, our nation is mandated to find methods and practices that will enhance domestic tranquility, provide for the General Welfare, and establish JUSTICE.  Can we say that our nation is highly committed to peace-seeking, boosting the general welfare and establishing Justice?  Such roles perhaps come down to healing or enhancing human life and human rights.  What we are not called to do is to force our concepts of these values on others, but to demonstrate their validity in our own spheres of internal community-building, and then extend their good outcomes to the world community. 

In other words, we have no business criticizing or sanctioning other national governments while our own is lacking in several areas of building ideals into realities.  For instance:

1.      Discrimination related to Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation, Religion and National origin

We have not only approved of and sanctioned certain forms of discrimination, we have built inequities and deficits into our system of governance and into our institutions as well.  If we are not taking definitive steps to undo those inequities, our emphasis on equal rights, equal justice, and equality of opportunity ring hollow as we attempt to bring (impose?) universal rights and freedoms to other nations.

Let us realize that all the forms of discrimination practiced in our society have an impact on our ability to spread our ideals to international status.  While we still have the ability to spread ideals and values, we are hindered in influencing the actual practices of non-discrimination.

We cannot continue to play “the leader” on the world stage until we address voting rights, poverty, the income gap, immigration, climate change and institutional racism.  And we cannot make real progress until we admit that our ideals are relevant but many of our practices are flawed.  We all know areas that need to be addressed: police brutality against people of color; homelessness, immigration policy that denigrates persons seeking new lives; inadequate housing, restricted voting, tax breaks for the rich and added burdens for the poor – and so on.    

 2.      Protection of Human Rights—we cannot ask others to abide by certain criteria if we are failing to fulfill the promise of equal rights in terms of free speech, free press, non-violent protests, practice of religion and more. The U.N. Declaration of Universal Rights should be our guide and our inspiration to launch cooperative ventures on securing those rights on a wider basis throughout the world.  It is not our calling to sanction others, but to encourage ourselves and others that the enhancement of universal rights is one more step toward world peace.  (See my posting of  8/1/2016 and 6/19/2018 for further discussion).

THIRD, the preamble to our Constitution envisions government as a dedicated Protector, providing for the common defense and securing the promise of liberty for ourselves and our Posterity. We need to ask ourselves: Is it possible to act and react in a hostile environment in ways other than with military might and a general attitude of belligerence? Can we react to terrorists in any other manner than with belligerence of counterterrorism?  Maybe it depends upon the crime being perpetrated.

Of one thing I am certain: we need no more wars declared by presidents seeking to justify themselves as strong, powerful, unintimidated leaders.  We must reclaim the important role of Congress in giving voice to the People and due consideration to any declaration of war. There should never be another war without specific congressional approval and oversight.

FOURTH, there is, of course, the importance of seeking justice for people wronged by terrorism both foreign and domestic.  But maybe there is also room for another lesson from Afghanistan:  Imposing our need for justice, or our form of governing on a host country is not going to make for equal partners in whatever measures are needed.  Giving money and equipment, and training to host forces, can solve little unless an agreed-upon mutual plan is in place  and seriously evaluated on a regular basis.  And such Agreement must include commitments by the host nation to the provisions of that Plan and Agreement.    

If a host nation and army cannot demonstrate achievement of planned goals, then the money attached to those goals, and the goals themselves, must be modified.  All joint arrangements in another country should be instituted by contractual obligations and responsibilities agreed to before money and equipment flow and before American lives are endangered.  We are not a money-machine nor a world bank, nor a provider of humans for sacrifice. Instead, we must become contractual partners in any foreign war or theater where our resources are tied to a mutually-arrived-at plan that can be carried out or adjusted to fit circumstances.

FIFTH, one more thing we learned about this conflict: you cannot simply train a small fighting force and expect a universal result.  The people – the larger population--must see their role and responsibility in what is happening.  Why wasn’t there a plan in place for training civilians in ways for them to resist the Taliban?  Why weren’t annoying mechanisms like confiscating or disabling motor bikes, slitting tires or planting small  bombs  part of a plan for involving and training the people to resist during initial phases of this war?  I dare say that we failed in recruiting  the people of Afghanistan to this war because we operated from a centralized concept of governing and decision-making rather than considering the local tribal nature of decision-making in Afghanistan society. 

We ignored not only their history but their religious and societal differences and proceeded as though the American  model was the only sure way to conduct this war.   How did that work out?  We should have consulted Great Britain and Russia plus a few other smaller countries who have also failed in Afghanistan to win wars on their own terms.

The story of the Afghanistan War was being written long before this evacuation occurred.  The loss of this war was determined when American government ignored the history and religious divisions of this nation; when it ignored the expulsion of other great nations of the past.  We failed when we accomplished the goal of finding Osama bin laden and eliminating him.  Instead of saying “mission accomplished” and leaving the scene, we stayed there  trying to nation-build!  We failed because four different administrations attempted to eliminate all Terrorists to establish a viable democratic-like government that could defend itself. We ended up with neither.  And now, we are seeing the rise of ISIS-K who are said to feel that the Taliban are too moderate a force, so they bombed the crowd at Abbey gate of the Kabul Airport and killed or injured 37 Americans military and many more Afghans. 

We need to learn from failure in Afghanistan, but just as well, we must not assign failure to one administration.  President Biden did not start this war; he did not order its continuation, despite a torrent of criticism.  If anything, he recognized that we must end our involvement and had the courage to stick to his conviction that it was time to leave NOW.  And he headed up the most immense airlift ever undertaken to bring out over 127,000 Americans and Afghans.  It was another example of Joe Biden organizing government to do what needed to be done quickly and effectively. 

The Republicans who attempt now to place all blame on him for not getting out sooner or for not planning withdrawal sooner, or for glitches in execution; these are the same moronic hypocrites who pushed former presidential pretender Donald Trump, not only to prolong this war, but to ignore COVID, to put Governors in charge of soliciting needed equipment and supplies, and to allow the unmitigated flow of misinformation regarding the pandemic.

President Joe Biden has once again shown these Republican misfits how to make government work .  These grumblers know that Bush and Trump (with some of them agreeing) share much of the blame for the major failures of this 20-year War, simply because they were so mired in outmoded ideology and policy that they were totally incapable of creative innovation and effective operation of government resources.

What may be more to the point is that Republicans are so committed to private industry that they have allowed certain industries like Lockheed-Martin to make enormous profits off war contracts.  How many decisions about keeping troops in losing situations like Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan can be traced to just such chicanery?  I don’t have that answer (and neither is it generally advertised) but here are some interesting links to articles on war profits:

             How the defense industry helped prolong the war in Afghanistan – Responsible Statecraft

            https://inthesetimes.com/article/military-contractor-caci-international-weapons-military

We need to re-think our approach to world community participation.  We are not the only “leader of the free world”, nor are we the only nation designated to help build other nations; nor should we assume it is our role or obligation to mete out justice for crimes against humanity. Our presumed purposes and roles are just not working and must be evaluated, debated and adjusted to meet our national goals and world-wide needs, according to our basic constitutional values outlined in the Preamble. 

Can we be Uniters, Justice-makers and Peacemakers, boosters of the general welfare of societies and Protectors of people and their liberties?  We won’t know until we try! And we won’t ever know by being less than we are called to be or by thinking we know what is best for places like Afghanistan!

We do have an opportunity however, because of the evacuation of Afghan families to the U.S. and elsewhere to return to our role as humanitarians. Afghans who helped us during the ‘war’ as translators a well as other personnel, and their families, have left their homes and records and possessions behind as they are air-lifted to the USA and other countries.  They need our help and they need it right away.  This is the time to bring out one accepted definition of who we are.  The usual charities are ready to assist—the Red Cross, www.savethechildren.org/us/where-we-work/afghanistan, International Rescue Committee, Mercy Corps, etc.  The list is virtually endless so contribute today if you can – these families gave up their homes, their livelihoods, their extended families  – all because they chose to work with Americans.  We can’t ignore that kind of sacrifice and bravery.