One Man, One Vote Is Now an Illusion

The New York Times and many other news outlets have just reported that Elon Musk spent over $250 million supporting Donald Trump's campaign for president.  The combined campaigns raised nearly $4.7 billion dollars.  The amount of money is obscene.

This is a natural and inevitable outgrowth of the 2010 Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court, which found that corporations and other organizations were citizens and so entitled under the free speech amendment to support political candidates, and that the amount of money they spent in support of a candidate, as long as such spending was not coordinated with the campaign, could not be limited.

This decision has been criticized on various levels, mostly as a blow to democracy because of the increased influence on campaigns by corporations and wealthy donors.  And that is true.  But from a legal standpoint, what's wrong with that? This question has not, to my knowledge, been addressed.

What wrong is that it makes the Supreme Court rule of "one man, one vote" meaningless, an illusion.  What is this rule?  It holds that in drawing congressional districts, all citizens in a state should have roughly equal representation.  

Why is that of crucial importance?  Because ours is a representative democracy and in the House of Representatives, as opposed to the Senate, each person's vote should have an equal value.  Each person should have an equal voice as to the direction of our country.

But what if each person's voice is not in an important sense his own?  What if huge amounts of money are spent to influence his vote, if he is bombarded with advertising to make him vote for one candidate or the other?  The outcome of the election is still based on those votes, but how people vote is greatly influenced by the advertising and emotions that are put in play.

And this is not the marketplace of ideas envisioned by the 1st Amendment.  This is biased marketing that appeals to the emotions, not the mind. Even if "alternative facts" were not part of that advertising, it still would be an appeal to emotion rather than rational thought.

A democracy based on emotion rather than rational thought is a democracy in form only.  A democracy depends on reasoned debate, both by the elected representatives and by the public.  Because reasoned debate is a search for the truth.  Whereas emotional debate doesn't get past the emotions; it is not about the search for truth.  And a democracy based on emotion is likely to attract a demagogue as leader and be in danger of slipping into an autocratic state.  Witness the ascendence of Donald Trump.

There is only one way to reverse the impact of Citizen's United.  Adopting Federal financing of elections wouldn't work because the Court's holding would prohibit legislation that sought to limit donations that were not coordinated with a campaign.  The only possibility left would be a constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Court's decision.  And that is a process that is unlikely to succeed, certainly in our current polarized state. 

So until the Court once again has a liberal majority, or at least a neutral conservative majority, which could be persuaded to overrule Citizen's United, we are stuck with elections that are a contest of mega-donors and often appeal to the darkest forces within us.

The State of American Democracy, the Body Politic

Over the course of almost 250 years, American democracy has often been a raucous place, both at the level of the citizenry and elected officials.   But throughout those years, despite the divisions caused in our country by racism, income inequality, and ethnic bigotry, when it came time for receiving the results of elections, they have always been respected.   Majority rule has prevailed.   

And despite many people, especially Blacks, having ample cause to be aggrieved by the physical, psychic, or economic violence they experienced, America has been a place of overwhelmingly peaceful coexistence, on the surface.   Yes, there have been riots and protests that have resulted usually from cataclysmic events, but these disturbances generally did not result in a hardening of the divisions among us. 

The centripetal force has been greater than the centrifugal force.   One could be cynical and say that the centripetal force was mostly due to the aggrieved's weakness.   While that was certainly a factor, I believe that the fact that people felt that we were all Americans, regardless of our backgrounds and place of origin, and that we shared a history even though it was not really ours, because we believed in the promise of America regardless how distant it was – this was the essence of the centripetal force.   There was at some level a belief in the good-hearted nature of the body politic, there was hope, despite all the nastiness that was observed at an individual or even group level. 

The threat to our democracy now is not coming from these traditionally aggrieved groups, the classic source of revolution, but ironically from those who have been privileged but feel threatened by the aggrieved groups. 

Starting during the Reagan years, the attitude of those on the right began to harden.   The sense of conviviality with their opponents, and later even civility, was lost.   People became angry.

Partly it stemmed from Reagan's famous line that, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  And so the division came to be not just the traditional liberal/conservative argument about big government v small government, but government v private rights, often the de facto rights of white privilege.   

The other factor was the advent of Lee Atwater and his combative, dirty tricks, form of campaigning.   This was the beginning of the Republican's national embrace of the big lie, racial fear-mongering, smears and winning at all costs. 

And so over the next three decades, the Republicans became obstructionists when they weren't in power because they saw that as the best way to win the next election, by making it difficult if not impossible for the Democrats to make good on their promises.   Bi-partisanship was out the door, except when they were in power. 

With the election of Obama, this principle reached a fever pitch.    The epitome was probably Senator McConnell's not giving Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing, flouting all precedent, the excuse being a presidential election 7 1/2 months off. 

The election of Obama did something else.   The election of a Black President enabled the Republicans to really put fear into the hearts and minds of their base – the fear of whites losing their privileged position in American society and workplace.   Now not only were legislators in Washington nasty, people on the streets became nasty. 

But that was all just rehearsal for the real "show" - the election and presidency of Donald Trump.   Trump was able to build on the long held-in-check fears and bigotry of many Americans – towards non-whites, be they Blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims and their distrust of government, and Evangelicals' frustration at being excluded from the halls of power and not being listened to by the larger society – and turn his base and the majority of Republicans into a mob that hates liberals and distrusts the government as an agent of liberals.   He gave bigotry, distrust, and hatred legitimacy; people no longer needed to keep their voices to themselves.

The explosion of social media during this same period provided an unchecked petri dish for the expansion this animus, misinformation, and outright lies into the deepest recesses of the minds of most Republicans.   That this is no longer just the state of what was thought of as Trump's core base can be seen in the fact that 75% of Republicans surveyed by PEW Research in January 2021 believed that the election of President Biden was not legitimate; they bought the Trump argument, they bought the fake news. 

We have reached a point in the public arena where most Republicans will believe anything they are told by Trump, his allies, and FOX News, and will not believe anything the Democrats or the rest of the media says to the contrary.   What is up is down for them; there is no objective truth.  Irrationality has been mainstreamed.

This distrust has even impacted the legitimacy of government and science regarding efforts to control the pandemic.  The misinformation coursing through social media regarding the vaccine is beyond bizarre, yet that is what these people believe.   And when Republican leaders tell them that vaccine mandates and mask mandates are an assault on their Constitutional freedoms, they believe that too.

Trump said once during the campaign that "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters. "   That unfortunately might be true.   It is hard to imagine anything happening that would discredit Trump and his sycophantic allies in the eyes of their base, because all Trump has to do is label the truth "fake news" and his minions will believe him. 

The latest act of hypocritical mendacity by the Republican leadership is that they are calling President Biden to task for not meeting his campaign pledge to control the virus, when it is their stand against vaccine mandates and mask mandates that has removed the only power he potentially had to control the virus.   The large number of unvaccinated Americans, and thus the ongoing surges, is largely a product of their failure to support science and proven epidemiological methods.

Regardless whether Democrats manage to maintain power in the midterms and 2024, it is highly likely, given Republican gerrymandering and the situation I've described, that Congress will remain evenly and combatively divided.   I fear we will have reached a situation in which the electorate, the body politic, is divided more deeply than at any time in our history, except for the Civil War. 

And I can think of nothing that would turn the tide, barring a near-total turnabout by Republican elected officials.   But even when Trump at some point ceases to be in the picture,  and it is inevitable that that will occur, it is pretty clear that they will not lead but instead pander to their base in order to get elected.   They have created a monster and it must be fed.   They have no ethics and they have no shame. 

It seems likely that we are struck with this dynamic until there is a generational change or some major event occurs that shakes up the status quo.   How sad. 

Trump as Pandora - The Unleashing of Evil

None of the hate and bigotry, the meanness and self-centeredness, that has become a prominent aspect of our society, our body politic since Trump ascended to the presidency  was created by Trump.  These feelings and tendencies have always existed across a broader section of our society than we would care to admit. 

But until Trump, these feelings were held down by the vast majority of people because such feelings were not approved by society, or better put, by society's leaders - neither those on the left or on the right.  Even before the term "politically correct" was coined, voicing such feelings was not done, except among friends.  Only those on the fringes of society voiced such feelings openly and freely. 

Thus our society with its laws and public presence had the facade of a body politic, of people who agreed to disagree, of a social contract.  Even an underlying racism was held down in most parts of the country.  And that facade was strong enough to withstand the pressures of events, even riots. 

But that has all changed.  Trump has opened the proverbial Pandora's box.  And all the venomous feelings that had been held down were given fresh air to breathe and permission to let themselves be heard.   

Trump as President, as this country's leader elected by basically half of the people, saw that his route to power and control was to give voice to these long-denied feelings.  It doesn't matter where Trump stood on these issues as a person.  He knew that by harnessing the energy of these pent-up feelings that he would have the undying loyalty of his base and thus the support to be the autocrat that he was. 

Trump was defeated in the 2020 Presidential election by a good, decent man, who good, decent people rallied behind.  But the fact that half of the people again voted for Trump is not just a consistent sign of our divided politic (the popular vote in most presidential elections in recent times has been very close), but it shows that half the people were more attracted to than repelled by his venom. 

And the actions of Republican elected officials in both state legislatures and Congress show the power that he still wields due to the continuing undying loyalty of not just his base but the majority of the Republican Party.  A just released, well-respected, Monmouth University poll found that 65% of Republicans believe that Biden won because of voter fraud. 

I wrote more than 15 years ago that the new radical Republicans have become masters of the Big Lie, and like Joe McCarthy they had no shame.  That perspective within the Party has morphed into a monster that is out of control, that knows no bounds. 

Last December I wrote a post, "Where Do We Go from Here?" and stated, "Even if Trump ends up in jail, convicted of tax fraud or whatever, it won't make a difference to his minions.  Indeed, they will just think he was unjustly convicted; a victim of the very establishment that he fought against."  There is nothing one can do in the short term to disabuse people of their faith in Trump.  

In world history, leaders who held such sway over their people, such as Hitler or Mussolini, only fell from power because they lost a war.  Even after that, many people continued to revere them as leaders. 

I fear that once Pandora's box is opened there is nothing that anyone can do, beyond hopefully the passage of time, that will return us to a civil society, where we believe that we are all true Americans, where we all agree to disagree, where we support the integrity of our democratic institutions, and where we let the majority rule.  Until such time, it's going to be a bumpy ride. 

Republican Representatives and Senators Must Be Held Accountable

When Congressmen take the oath of office, they swear that they will "support and defend"  the Constitution.   A central part of the Constitution concerns our electoral process.   It is a core element of our democracy and the peaceful transfer of power.

If there were indeed evidence of fraud, and the courts for some reason refused to acknowledge that evidence, and so they objected to the votes of electors on solid ground, they would be doing their job because a fraudulent election is not in furtherance of our democracy. 

However, that is not the case here.   In no court case, in no appeal to their supporters, has anyone connected with Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the election brought forth one shred of evidence of widespread fraud.  Wild conspiracy theories, yes, but no evidence.  

Despite the lack of evidence, three contested states obliged the President and conducted recounts or audits.   The results were unchanged; no fraud, no missing ballots, were found.   And in two of those states, the Secretary of State that was responsible for overseeing this examination was a Republican.   Every court that heard Trump's complaint of fraud smacked the complaint down, often quite forcefully, and many of the judges who so spoke were Trump appointees. 

Yet in the face of this universal proof and judgment by the responsible officials that Trump's allegations were baseless, more that 138/121 Republican Representatives, roughly 60% of  the Republican caucus, and 8 Senators voted to object, to not accept, the votes from Pennsylvania and Arizona, respectively. 

They must  be held accountable.   They must be censured, at a minimum.   Really they should be impeached, but that won't happen if for no other reason than the number of people to be charged is huge and the result would be extremely disruptive to the work of Congress. 

And what about those Congressmen who actively engaged in urging the crowd last Wednesday to commit violence against the government?  As reported in The New York Times, Rep. Mel Brooks told the crowd before going to the capitol that they should "kick ass" and urged them to "fight for America. "  Representatives Taylor Greene and Boebert, speaking before the surging crowd, both referred to the day as "Republicans' 1776 moment."  All three were inciting the crowd to commit violence against the government, in violation of their oath of office. 

They and any other Republican congressmen who engaged in such statements should be impeached.   What they did amounted to treason. 

Now it is also reported that some Republican Congressmen may have led insurgent groups on tours of the capitol the day before the riot.   This allegation is now under investigation.   If found to be true, they should also be impeached for aiding and abetting the insurrection.   At a minimum they must be censured. 

It is a sad day for our democracy when elected members of Congress actively engage in the destruction of our democracy.   It is all too scarily close to the action of the Nazis as they rose to power legitimately through the democratic electoral process and simultaneously engaged in violence and sabotage to destabilize the government. 

The 2020 Election Is about the Survival of American Democracy, of Historic American Values

The title of this piece may strike the reader as over the top, but it really isn’t.  Because it isn’t about whether the form of democracy will survive.  It probably will despite some dark words from Trump at one point about his supporters not accepting a narrow loss.  This post is about whether the concept of democracy that led to the founding of our country and our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution … will survive.

This concept is what ultimately made America great, made us a beacon to the world.  I love Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.”  Unfortunately, he has no idea what made America great.  It wasn’t our power, our military, our economy, or our strong middle class.  Though of course in once sense it was.  But what enabled our country to have that power, to develop in this manner compared to other countries, whether democratic or communist, was the concept of American democracy.

What are the key elements of that concept?  Note: These elements, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been or be true on the ground, but they have enabled people to have faith and hope and accomplish what otherwise would have been impossible.

Equality:  We all know that the belief in equality was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence although its practice was significantly restricted in the Constitution.  But the concept was there and it was that light that guided us towards the ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage.  We still have far to go, but that light is still guiding us.

Indeed, it is this central aspiration of equality that drives the other key elements of American democracy.

        Citizenship:  We are all equal citizens of the United States.  Certainly that wasn’t true at      the start, when voting was limited to males who owned property.  But over the years,          America moved more towards the ideal.  Today all adult citizens, whether you were born here or immigrated, have the right to vote.  The concept of one “man,” one vote is central.

        We are equal citizens also in the sense that we all have equal rights, and we each have the right to pursue these rights.   That is why if exercising your right restricts another person’s right, you cannot due that.  That concept is the basis for all our laws, both criminal and civil.  We do not live in an anarchy; one can’t just do what one wants to do.  Even if you are exercising a constitutional right, you cannot in so doing harm another person or restrict that person in exercising their right.  No right is absolute

        Upward Mobility:  We have no caste system in this country.  From a structural standpoint, there isn’t anything that anybody cannot do.  Someone from the poorest layer of society can rise to be President or head of a powerful corporation.  And this mobility is not just theoretical; it has been seen as a reality countless times in all areas of commerce, the arts, the professions, and politics.  Again, this is true for native born and immigrants. and more recently people of color.

        Unity with Diversity:  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as with any large groupings of people, people have from the start had disagreements, both within the groups but especially between the groups.  One immigrant group vied against another.  And as immigrants became established, they had problems with the next wave of immigrants.  Often even those from the same country.

       Yet despite the animosity and distrust and at times violence between groups, when the country called, all felt that they were Americans.  They may have been hyphenated Americans, they may have felt that they weren’t getting their fair share, they may have felt discriminated against, but they identified as American and were proud of it.

        This shared sense of citizenship led to what’s called the American social contract.  Under that contract, in exchange for the benefits of citizenship, all citizens agree to obey the laws and to share the burden of government through the paying of taxes, each according to his ability.  And when there was a military draft, all participated (except draft dodgers) and supported America, even at the cost of their lives.  Under this social contract, we are  not just responsible for ourselves; we have a distinct responsibility for the welfare of the whole and thus for all Americans.

         In the first half of the 20th century, workers gained significant rights in their employment.  In the second half, overt forms of discrimination that had been practiced against some groups, like Jews and people of color, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  This does not mean that some level of us v them didn’t exist anymore; it certainly did.  And people were still discriminated against.  But it was far less.  Political correctness has been given a bad name, but there is much to be said for people feeling that it is not socially acceptable to have or utter certain thoughts, or take certain actions.

         In the halls of Congress, this unity/diversity was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.

But several decades ago, things began to change.  Ronald Reagan ushered in the “me” generation and a broad distrust of government … “government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.”  As the years passed, Republicans in Congress became less civil.  They went from having a conservative outlook on what government’s responsibilities were to being antagonistic towards government and the people of color and others that government helps.

Now the Trump presidency has dropped all pretense of being committed to democracy, to governing for all Americans, to being a unifying force.  Instead he has provoked and manufactured grievances that have exacerbated the already existing divisions in our society, to the point where we are polarized as possibly never before.  Where Trump supporters and those on the progressive left truly hate each other.  Where talking and compromise is no longer an option.

The dynamics of American politics and group interaction have deteriorated to such an extent that it raises serious question whether something can return this country and its people back to sanity and respectful coexistence.  But we must try.  The Democratic Party must make returning this country to its true roots the central platform of its 2020 campaign.  It must present a cohesive, positive, vision that speaks to all Americans.  It must drop the strategy of identity politics.

As I’ve suggested in the past, the best way of doing that is to turn America’s focus to the Declaration of Independence and base the Party’s vision on those words which are familiar to every American.  It is those words that are the heart and soul of the concept of American democracy.

I therefore suggest the following mission/vision for the Democratic Party:

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

• each and every American has the best chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”; 
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration … “to secure those rights”, within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and 
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.

This statement will speak to all Americans.  Most specifically, it will speak both to those aggrieved Midwestern whites who voted for Trump in 2016 and to those disillusioned blacks who did not turn out to vote for Hillary.  

There is no need for identity politics.  For there is no real conflict between the interests of the various groups in our society, so long as no group is greedy.  The right mix of policies will provide all groups with the opportunity they deserve in our democracy.  What they make of that opportunity is then up to them; that is the American way.

All the policies of the Party must flow from this mission statement.  Whether the issue is health care, immigration, education, jobs, defense, civil rights, or religion … the Democratic position must further the greater opportunity of all.  For a more detailed explication of this concept, see my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto.

ATTN: Liberals and Conservatives - What Is the Role of Government?

In these days of enraged people on both sides of the political spectrum, it would be helpful to take a deep breath, step back from the battle, and ask the question, “What is the role of government?”  Specifically, our government.  In answering this question we look to our founding documents.

According to the Constitution the purpose of government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”  If we look at the Declaration of Independence the role is defined more broadly, which is “to secure” the unalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  I say more broadly because everything stated in the Constitution is necessary if one is to be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Clearly the role of government is an active one.  Words such as “insure,”  “provide,” “promote,” and “secure” are all verbs denoting an ongoing active responsibility.

There are two aspects of the role as stated in both these documents that deserve focus.  First the Constitution refers to promoting the “general Welfare.”  This is clearly a statement that government must look to the welfare of all its citizens, not just some.  It is the general welfare that is important, not just the welfare of some segments of society.  Taken together with the Declaration’s statement that “all men are created equal” and have “unalienable rights,” our founding documents clearly stand for the value and the rights of each and every citizen, of all segments of society.

The second aspect I will focus on is that both documents state that the role of government is to “secure” what the Constitution broadly characterizes as “the blessings of liberty,” and which the Declaration more particularly describes as the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

To what extent has our government lived up to its responsibilities as set forth in our founding documents?  

First, let’s get one thing straight … regardless the political party in power or the era, the United States has harbored huge inequality, not just regarding wealth but well-being.  This is true despite all the social welfare programs that were enacted in the 20th century.  While one can talk about the poor being worse off or better off under a particular administration, and one can say that materially the poor are better off in modern times than ever, their state of well-being remains a negative one.  (Perhaps this is why so many of the poor don’t vote; why they say it doesn’t make a difference who is in power, which liberals find maddening.)  

Why is life for the poor degrading?  Widespread discrimination, unequal access to quality education, substandard housing to name perhaps the most important factors.  This negative well-being has in turn spawned an environment of gangs, violence, and drugs which haw made a bad situation that much worse.  Note:  it is not poverty itself that makes life degrading, it is these attendant factors.

This is true regardless whether one is looking at people of color or whites, urban or rural.  And, to counter a widely held perception, while the majority of those living in poverty are people of color, 44% are white.  In 2018, the figures were white - 44%, black - 23%, Hispanic - 28%, and Asian - 5%.  Yes, blacks disproportionately commit more crimes and engage in drug trafficking, but they also suffer disproportionately more discrimination, bad education, and substandard housing.  Many whites blame blacks for inflicting the drugs and violence environment on themselves, but such accusations totally overlook the role of the white-imposed reality of life for blacks in America.

Bottom line.  Government has not promoted the general welfare.

From the foregoing, it is also clear that government has not secured the “blessings of liberty” for a large proportion of Americans (40 million people live poverty, 12.3% of the population).  The charge is not that government hasn’t provided these blessings, because that is not government’s role.  

It’s role is to secure the “right” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   What does that mean?  It means that government has the responsibility for insuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to pursue their right to life, liberty, and happiness.  What an individual makes of that right is his or her responsibility.  

So for example, it is government’s role to insure that the education provided in all schools is of equivalent quality.  That is sadly far from the case.  It is government’s responsibility to insure that there is no discrimination by educating children and adults about equality, passing appropriate laws, and vigorously enforcing them.  It is government’s responsibility to insure that no one lives in substandard housing through building codes, etc. that are vigorously enforced.  Then there is the right to vote.  Before the Voting Rights Act of 1964, Blacks were routinely denied the vote in much of the South.  In recent years, Republican forces have been attacking this right in a deceitful way which primarily impacts poor people of color in order to reduce Democratic voter turnout.

While government has certainly made advances in addressing these issues, most have been half-hearted.  None have come even close to fundamentally changing the status quo.

The one area where government’s effort to secure a right has been to a large extent successful has been in the area of access to health care.  Through Medicaid, the vast majority of people living in poverty have health insurance.  There are still problems of health care access, especially in rural areas, but this nevertheless has largely been a successful effort.  And it has been made even more so with the passage of Obamacare and its expansion of Medicaid.

So what do we do with the basic fact that our government is not truly fulfilling its role.  It’s doing many things it should be doing, and probably very little of what it does is unnecessary, outside the area of defense.  But when it comes to promoting the general welfare and securing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens, it has barely scratched the surface.

Why not?  It isn’t for lack of resources.  But it is a matter of priorities.  What I’m referring to is not really even on the list of priorities.  And that is for two very different reasons.  

For conservatives, they just don’t see the role of government as being more than providing for our defense, insuring domestic tranquility (i.e. order), and letting business and people be free to do pretty much what they want to do without government “interference” (that’s their definition of the blessings of liberty).  They are comfortable with government subsidizing business and farmers (a subset of business) in many ways; it’s individuals that they don’t think deserve government support.

For liberals, while they see the role of government very differently, as a source of help for those who need it, changing the fundamental status quo is not on their radar.  Whether that’s because they don’t see it as a viable option, or because it’s not something that has even entered their thought process, it’s just not there.  They are mentally and spiritually limited by the world as they know it.  They are not visionaries.  And what this country needs is visionaries.

How do we develop visionaries in the population and in our politicians?  It starts by not accepting the status quo, by understanding that there is something basically wrong with the way things are and have always been.  That what is going on is contrary to the basic tenets of our founding documents.  It means going back to the content of our education system as it pertains to civics.

But that is not going to happen.  And one reason why is that, as noted, you have such diametrically opposed intellectual approaches to our founding documents.  For example, on the one hand you have the thoughts expressed in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, published in 2004, which present our founding documents as primarily liberal in spirit.  On the other hand, you have Mathew Spaulding’s book of the same title, published in 2009, which argues for a conservative reading of those same documents.  And he castigates progressives for perverting those documents.

I don't think there is anything one can do to convince a Spaulding or any of his followers that the liberal interpretation of our founding documents is correct.  However, one can focus liberals/progressives on the fact that their position is supported by these documents.  And one can educate independents.  

I find it amazing not only that the Democratic Party has never taken my book to its heart and used it productively, they’ve never really taken notice of it, but that they haven’t come up with anything to counter Spaulding’s argument.  They have walked away from our liberal birthright and left this elemental source of strength to the conservatives.

This is what must change if there is to be any hope of bringing the force of our founding documents to bear on this central issue of social justice.  Only then will we have a chance to end discrimination, provide equal access to education, end the blight of substandard housing for the poor, insure voting rights for all, and correct many other wrongs.

Collins' Tragic Error on the Kavanaugh Vote

Part of the tragic error of Senator Collin’s thought process is that the issue and the hearing was not part of a criminal process concerning the guilt or innocence of Judge Kavanaugh.  It was about whether he should become a Supreme Court Justice.  

Therefore the maxim “innocent until proven guilty” is not relevant.  The fact that Ms. Ford’s accusations were not corroborated (in this brief, woefully inadequate, investigation) is not relevant.  If she was a credible witness, which most agree she was, then that at a minimum raised a doubt about whether Kavanaugh in fact did assault her.  Her charge was only refuted by Kavanaugh himself and his friends.  

That measure of doubt should have been enough to keep him off the Supreme Court.  The image of the Supreme Court is of critical importance to its effectiveness in our system of government.  That she felt that the FBI investigation had been adequate is hard to understand. Then there is the matter of Kavanaugh's apparently lying under oath about the extent of his drinking and his decidedly unjudicial demeanor at the hearing.

All together this should have resulted in Senator Collins deciding that regardless his credentials and his other qualities, he should not be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Then there is the Senator’s confidence in Kavanaugh’s judicial thinking.  Senator Collins explained carefully that from her conversations with him she was confidant that he would not overturn Roe v Wade.  He felt that the case was settled precedent.  She also felt he would not throw out Obamacare.

How foolish of Senator Collins!  How many times have lawyers/judges used legal double speak in recent times to make Senators feel like they were mild-mannered men who would do no harm to the public good, who honored the Constitution and precedent.  And yet once on the bench, they showed their true colors and consistently voted their ideological bias; they did not judge a case based on its facts and they did not honor precedent.

It is true that it has at times been important in the past to overturn precedent, such as the case of Brown v Board of Education that declared segregated schooling unconstitutional; separate was not equal.  This was necessitated by progressive changes in society’s attitudes towards people of color and what defined the common good.

The court voted as it did not because of the justices own ideological preferences but because of the change they saw in the country and the need to lead the country to a more just future.  If Roe is overturned, it will instead be precisely because of the ideological preferences of the justices and a vocal minority of the populace.  Surveys show consistently that the vast majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose.

The future of our democracy will in many ways be impacted negatively by Senator Collins’ vote.  That she was so full of herself that she gave the speech she gave was not an indication of a woman of strength and intelligence, although it sounded like that, but rather an indication of her weakness and her inability to truly understand what her role was in this moment.  Senator Murkowski on the other hand understood the moment.

Our Society in Danger

Recently, two new books that explain the danger the Trump presidency poses to the survival of our democracy have attracted much attention:  Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy, and Clear and Present Danger: Narcissism in the Era of Donald Trump.  Briefly stated, the first argues that the large polar-opposite groups that have developed in response to Trump have weakened the balanced middle upon which our democracy depends.  The second argues that when a narcissist is in charge, his demands will be mirrored by the people and in part draws on the narcissism already present in the people.  Since narcissism is about demanding acclaim and obedience and refusing to be challenged, while disregarding others, democracy suffers.

Neither book, however, discusses a fundamental change that is occurring in our society that abets both the polarization of increasing numbers of our citizens and the increase in narcissism in the general population.  That change is the evolution from a society that at least preached the ideal of selflessness to one in which self-centeredness is, if not the ideal, certainly the prevalent norm and socially acceptable. 

I would not be so foolish as to claim that at some point in the past the United States, or any country, was one where the concept of selflessness ruled and was the norm in practice.  It is the nature of human development, based is it is on learned insecurity, to provide fertile soil for the self-centeredness of the ego to thrive.  

That said, however, the leadership of this country, both political and religious, has for most of our history sent out a clear message that the ideal was to have concern for our fellow man, to view ourselves as part of a community with citizenship bringing responsibilities as well as rights, to be selfless.  Selfless does not mean to not act for one’s own benefit, but rather to not act solely for one’s own benefit, to be aware of the impact one’s actions have on others.

The Declaration of Independence, our founding document, states that each person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Which means that if you exercise your right in a way which infringes on my right, there’s a problem, and so one must be selfless in the sense I have described.  

The Constitution together with its Amendments in many ways furthers this concept of the rights of all within the context of a community.  Perhaps the most direct expression of responsibility for our fellow citizens is the Income Tax which was authorized by the 16th Amendment.  This Amendment codified the aspect of the American social contract that holds that all citizens are responsible for contributing to the greater good, each according to his/her ability.

Beginning in the early 20th century, during the era of Republican Progressive leadership, government began enacting laws and regulations which basically said that the rich and powerful, namely large corporations, had to include consideration for their workers, their customers, and the general public in the way business was conducted.  It was no longer acceptable to have the sole perspective of making as much money as possible.  Business had a social responsibility; it was part of the American social contract.

One of the most well-known examples of this message of selflessness was JFK’s statement in his Inaugural Address, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  This was not, as is sometimes thought, a turning point but a reaffirmation of the highest ideals of our American democracy.

The turning point, however, in the road from selflessness to self-centeredness came with the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  In his campaign, he asked the simple question, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago.”  Now people have always, as the saying goes, voted their pocketbook.  But asking this question crystalized all the issues down to one simple thing … how am I doing.

Then came his inaugural pronouncement that “government is not the solution; it is the problem.”  He felt that everyone was quite capable of running their own lives and doing well on their own.

Well, as we know from our past and the past of all civilizations, if you leave it up to the individual, the result will be self-centeredness and a significant proportion of the populace will not do well.  Only the moral authority of religion and government has been able to somewhat curb that tendency and bring people, whether whole-heartedly or begrudgingly, to accept their broader responsibility.

He stated that “we the people” are the solution, not the “elite” who run government.  That, however, was in truth more a criticism of the political parties than the concept of government.  If government is not currently an expression of  “we the people,” or in Lincoln’s terms “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and I totally agree that it is not, the answer is not to tear down government but to reinvigorate it.

In the years since Reagan, the self-centeredness of individuals in our society has only increased.  To a large extent, that increase has been caused by the compulsive use of technology (computers, smartphones, social media) by people and their resulting tendency to not connect with the broader society or even a more immediate one, such as family.

The advent of Donald Trump has brought all these tendencies to a crisis point.  So that the relevant question truly is:  how can our democracy not just survive but thrive again?  The answer is through leadership, political and otherwise, that has moral authority.  The American people are good people, but like all humans their better tendencies need to be fostered rather than their baser instincts.