The Need for Mass Outrage, Civil Disobedience

There was an opinion piece in The New York Times recently that criticized President Obama for wagging his finger at the younger generation who get off on being judgmental and insist on purity.  “That’s not activism.  That’s not bringing about change,  If all you’re doing is casting stones, that probably won’t get you far.”  The opinion writer was very offended and criticized the older generation’s way of doing things.  She embraced the power of social media.

This is a hard one. We, young and old liberals/progressives, want to effect change. That's the bottom line. The question is how best to get there. 

There are situations where a zero tolerance approach is appropriate, where we should express our outrage, en masse. In the street, not just on your screen.  Sometimes, enough people expressing outrage can by its own power effect change, either by toppling those in power or having those in power accept change. 

More frequently though, the world is so complex and resistance to change so strong that even masses expressing outrage in public protest will not in and of itself effect change. But that mass expression of outrage is still important, for only then can people with access to power follow up by arguing for change, at least incremental. 

Indeed, I would argue that we need more mass expressions of outrage, such as we had against the Vietnam War.  And it can’t be just once and done.  There must be an extended series of protests.  Those in power must see that the opposition has staying power; that they haven’t spent all their energy on one demonstration and then it’s back to business as unusual.

Now when it comes to negotiating with those in power, you have the best chance of success when they don’t have their backs up.  The problem with many young progressives and some older ones too is that they don't just state the facts, they don’t just argue, they bully and are full of hatred. 

That is not the way to influence people. A good example of this is Rep. Ilhan Omar. I agree with much of what she says, but as I've said in previous posts, she often says it in a way which is counter-productive. She is her own worst enemy, in terms of being effectual. 

Obama's point was not to castigate those who argue for change. His point was that one needs to do so in a way that will effectuate change. Sometimes, perhaps often, that will require compromise. And that should not be a dirty word. You do not sell out if you compromise. Rather, if you insist on purity, you will almost never effect change and thus truly betray your cause.

Republican Flimflammery

Not surprisingly Republicans have put on their witness wish list Hunter Biden.  But his testimony is irrelevant to the issue at hand … whether Trump is guilty of abusing his power.

Even if Biden was guilty of conspiracy, that would have no bearing on whether Trump committed an impeachable offense by withholding foreign aid unless the Ukraine investigated a political opponent, Biden.

And so the witness request should be denied, for this clearly stated reason.  If Republicans really want to pursue the matter, they should refer it to the Justice Department, which is the appropriate forum.

OMG, Could Republicans Not Care About Abuse of Power?

I just had a startling thought.  I have always thought that the reason why most Republicans in Congress were dismissive of the Democrat’s push for impeachment was that they just didn’t think there was iron-clad proof of Trump’s abuse of office and obstruction of justice.  No matter how clear it seemed, they just wished away the facts.

But I just thought, what if it isn’t a matter of proof.  What if they don’t feel that any of the actions Trump is accused of, even if proven beyond a doubt, would constitute an abuse of power, an impeachable offense?  What if they felt that even if Trump was using foreign policy for personal political gain, even if there was a quid pro quo, that that would be ok.  As Trump has said, he did nothing wrong.  What if they felt that even if Trump was obstructing the justice process, since he claimed he did nothing wrong, he didn’t have the mental state of obstructing “justice.”

If that’s true, then besides fearing the wrath of Trump and his base, they feel the impeachment process is a sham because they don’t think the actions Trump is accused of rise to the level of an impeachable offense.  If that were true, that would explain why no Republican voted in favor of the public impeachment inquiry resolution in the House, despite satisfying all their demands:  open hearings, the right to subpoena witnesses, and due process for Trump.  Forget about making any comparison to the charges against Clinton; reason here would have no value.

If that is the case, then there is no hope of getting more than a handful of Republicans to vote for impeachment, and other than Romney, no Senator will vote to convict.  It will end up appearing to Trump loyalists, and probably most Republicans, as a partisan effort.  This would be very bad for the country, for our democracy.  Trump has been saying that the Democrats are just trying to undo the results of the 2016 election, to thwart the will of the people, and that is precisely how it will appear to many.

If that’s the case, Nancy Pelosi was right about not wanting to move forward with impeachment.  

It is now really up to the American people.  They must call and write their Republican representatives and say that they are disappointed if not outraged that they wouldn’t even endorse a public and fair inquiry into these serious allegations.  For the good of this country, this cannot remain a partisan matter.

How to Move Republicans on Impeachment

As  the evidence mounts regarding Trump's abuse of office, the big question isn’t whether Trump has committed impeachable offenses, the record is clear on that, and will become even clearer and inescapable in the upcoming hearings.  The question is how many Republicans in the House will vote to impeach.

On the vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry today, not one Republican, not even those on the three committees that have been investigating, not even Francis Rooney who had said he was open to impeachment, voted to authorize the impeachment inquiry.  To do otherwise would have invoked the wrath of Trump which they clearly don't have the guts to do.

But looking down the road, how can Republicans be moved to vote, yes, on impeaching Trump?  Certainly, it is critical that the hearings be as fair and open as possible.  The process should provide Republicans with no cover whatsoever.  

Also, if the public sees the hearings as being very fair, then Republicans outside of Trump’s solid core base will lean more towards impeachment.  Emboldening more Republicans to vote yes.  

Hearing from the public will be of critical importance to Republicans on this issue, just as it was on Obamacare.  Even after today's vote, it is critical that Republican reps be called or written regarding people's outrage that they would not even vote to authorize public hearings, given the safeguards for due process that were built into the resolution.

Finally, while keeping their prospects for reelection out of the equation is not realistic, their oath of office and civic duty must be called upon.  That can only come effectively from fellow Republicans.  To date, the sole Republican standing up for his country and justice is Mitt Romney.

Regarding the subpoena power, one thing that Democrats cannot allow is for Republicans to muddy the focus of the hearings by questioning whether Biden or his son did something improper.  That is irrelevant.  

Even assuming for arguments’ sake that they did, that does not change the fact that Trump used foreign policy for his own political gain.  If they charge the Democrats with protecting Biden from corruption charges, Republicans should be directed to the Justice Department which I’m sure would be happy to look into those allegations, if they aren’t already.  That is also the proper forum.

Enabling China’s Totalitarian Government

Mighty American companies, one after the other, bow down and sell their soul to China in exchange for a fistful of dollars.  The latest being the NBA’s acquiescence to China’s demands as noted in The New York Times, “American Basketball,”  October 13.

How sad it is that American companies are so hungry for ever greater profits from ever greater sales that they will sacrifice their principles in order to please the Chinese Communist government and thus have access to the huge Chinese market.  

The Chinese government is not evil on the scale of Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s Cultural Revolution.  But they are every much as totalitarian.  Anyone in China who dares to buck the Chinese government is treated like a criminal and taken into custody by the government with no rights.  

The fate of a democracy activist, or a religious activist, or a persecuted minority such as the Uighurs, is not that different in today’s China from what it was in fascist Germany or Russia.  They perhaps don’t fear death, but imprisonment at will is the norm.

Our opening up to China has in retrospect been a huge mistake.  We thought that exposure to Western products and ideas and increased prosperity would slowly bring a soft revolution in China; that people would demand not just economic freedom but political freedom.  

But while China has embraced a type of capitalism, our role in the economic transformation of China has created a monster that threatens our economy and our geo-political interests around the world.  American companies and farmers have become enablers of China’s totalitarian government.

It is past time to rethink our engagement with China, not for the reasons given by Trump, but because we are enabling a totalitarian government.  The dream of a soft revolution is just that.   What to do at this point is a huge question that requires careful and knowledgeable thought, so I am not going to make any suggestions, except to say that Trump's trade war is not the answer.

The Delusional President

President Trump is known for thinking that he has exaggerated talents and abilities.  But in a recent tweet he has topped himself.  In responding to criticism of his decision to withdraw troops from Northern Syria and allow Turkey to conduct a military operation there to get rid of the Kurds, he said the following:

“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!),”

“In my great and unmatched wisdom” is so over the top, it would be laughable if the speaker wasn’t the President of the United States.  It sounds like something the Wizard of Oz would say, or Mussolini.  Totally delusional.  This is certainly not an impeachable offense, but it does show why Trump is unfit for the office and should have been removed through the 25th Amendment procedure.

But there’s more delusion.  He will totally destroy and obliterate the Turkish economy?  And he’s done it before?  This is truly scary stuff.

But beyond the evidence of delusion, what’s disturbing about this episode is that it is being reported in the press, including The New York Times, as evidence that Trump pivoted on the issue after receiving a barrage of criticism from Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  

But he and his administration didn’t pivot.  His statement is just blather.  How can anyone take it for a substantive statement?  And all the Defense Department said was that they and the President made clear to Turkey that the U.S. does not endorse a Turkish operation in Northern Syria and will not support one or be involved in any such operation.  

Note, they did not say that they would stop any Turkish operation, against the Kurds or otherwise.  And now that the Turkish military operation is underway and openly aims at wiping out the Kurds, all Trump said was, “It’s a bad idea” and that we can’t have these endless wars; and the Defense Department just reiterated what they had said previously.  We have abandoned our allies.

We are in uncharted territory.  All one can do is pray, God preserve the United States.  Follow through with impeachment.  And if that fails, vote Trump out of office in November 2020.

What are American Values?

Politicians of all stripes are talking about American values these days.  That they should be voted for rather than their opponent because they will preserve and protect American values.  But what are American values?

I have never written a post defining American values because they have always been so clear to me that the thought didn't occur to me.  Talk about begging the question.  Obviously this is a topic on which there are deep divisions.  You have fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives in their perspective on our founding documents.  And certainly what individuals define as American values is not only changing, it probably never had the clarity that I find in our founding history.  Perhaps that's because I have always focused on the aspirations of the Founding Fathers and our founding documents, not all the compromises that were necessary.  And the values of individuals are greatly affected by the values of the society they keep.

First, “American values” must be distinguished from the values of the American people.  To me, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent, of lasting meaning.  The values of people instead change as the times change, as the culture changes, as the political temperament changes.  And so there have been numerous articles reporting how American values have changed, citing polling data.  This is important information, but not the definition of American values.

This is the description of a ship adrift at sea, not a grounded fortress.  I would therefore argue that “American values” instead refers to the values inherent in the very existence of this country as stated in our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Those values are our grounding; the source of America’s stability and greatness.

That, however, does not answer the question, for depending on how you approach those documents, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you can pretty much find what you want … up to a point.

For example, the Heritage Foundation scholar Matthew Spaulding wrote a book in 2009 titled We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, which sees our founding documents as decidedly conservative.  He finds that the Progressive (Republican) movement of the late 19th century, FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and the new progressives have eroded the principles of our founding documents.  He finds that what many consider to be the maturation of the principles contained in those documents, the concept of a Living Constitution, our becoming truer to the ideals of the Founders, to be instead examples of the perversion of our founding principles. 

There is no question that there is plenty of language in our founding documents to support a conservative interpretation.  In my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto, I stated that while the words of the Declaration of Independence were and remain revolutionary, and are profoundly liberal, “in their interpretation lies the core of both the Liberal and Conservative ideologies  that have run through American political life and the tension between them.”

Perhaps never has the tension been greater than now.  The main problem stems from the conservative emphasis on the rights of each individual, especially as granted by the Bill of Rights, whereas liberals stress the concept of equality and the implications of each person having equal rights.

There can be no question that in our legal system no rights are absolute.  No one, by exercising his right to pursue life, liberty, or happiness can infringe on someone else’s right to do the same.  All of our laws and regulations, both civil and criminal, are examples of proscribing action that would harm an individual or the general good.  That is the impact of our system of equal rights.  

For example, everyone has the right to drive, but you must pass a test to prove that you can drive a car safely so as not to injure other people or yourself.  The automobile is a potentially deadly machine.  The same reasoning should apply to gun ownership.

Even the hallowed right of free speech is not absolute.  For example, not only can you not cry “Fire” in a crowded theater, but you cannot slander another person.  False advertising is illegal because someone depending on such claims could be harmed.

But conservatives keep acting as though rights, at least those conferred in the Bill of Rights, are absolute, whether it’s freedom of religion, or free speech, or the right to bear arms, which only recently was held by the Supreme Court to apply as an individual right rather than the right of states of have militias.  But that perspective is totally opposed to our history and our system of laws.

So, given that “American values” means the values that are the essence of our founding documents and given the explanation above of the American legal perspective on rights, what are the core American values?

Note: These values, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been true at the time of our founding or be true on the ground now, 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 American values/elements of American democracy.

     Equality of 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, though attempts by some States to restrict voting rights is still very much with us.  

     We are also equal citizens in that we 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.  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 become 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.

     E Pluribus Unum - Unity with Diversity:  Although the latin phrase refers to the 13 colonies, the sentiment applies more broadly.  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as one would expect, there have been disagreements from the start between different factions or groups of citizens/immigrants.  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 shared 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, whether through the paying of taxes or by answering a military draft.  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 Blacks, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  The movement always being towards more equality, more unity.  Yes, bigotry and discrimination still exist; we are still a work in progress.

     In the halls of Congress, this diversity with unity, this regard for equality, was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.   Clearly this is no longer the case.

These are the American values that politicians should refer to.  All the other values that are often cited … for example, individuality, free speech, religious freedom, the right to bear arms … are only able to be properly understood within the context of these core values.  Taken out of that context, they are a prescription for anarchy not democracy.