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,
