new year's gratitude

After this past grueling political campaign year we need to pause and reflect in gratitude for all we have in this land we call home. We have had harsh words, and endless political ads on radio and TV and billboards. But we had no military hardware involved, no social upheavals, no threat to public safety caused by uncertainty over legitimacy. I know... we do have the birthers still, but they are marginalized ....a laughing stock to most.

It is not the same in the rest of the world. I can illustrate by citing three countries and their current crises:

•  In Egypt there is contention over a new constitution and new president Morsi.  
•  In Venezuela there is uncertainty over who will replace Hugo Chavez, should he die, and  what will happen in the power vacuum that most likely will occur. 
•  And in Syria there is open civil war, with a power vacuum most likely developing as well, since President Assad's days are clearly numbered. The citizens of that country have been repeatedly bombarded by their own government and many thousands are refugees in other countries.

In light of that we should be thankful that we have a system of government that, while it is not perfect, has served us well for over 200 years. We have peaceful transitions from one administration to the next. We have established procedures that all agree on, both for who governs and how they do it. We fight  our political battles with words, not guns. Our conflicts are in Congress, not in the streets. And at the end of the day, the losers swallow their pride, instead of bandaging their wounds or burying their dead.

We have a new year and a renewed government. There are many issues to discuss and debate. We will not agree on everything, and we will not like all the outcomes. But at the end of the day we are all Americans and we are committed to peaceful resolution, not painful revolution. We have been given a great gift. Let us not squander the opportunity we have to participate in the political process, nor neglect to remember how blessed we are to be able to do so in peace.

wag more ,bark less..part one

We are a very polarized nation right now. Not just because there are differences between us but because many of those differences have been reduced to slogans, signs, and shouting. There is a wide chasm between those on the right and those on the left, with many feeling they have been dropped into the abyss between. And while some would attempt to build a bridge others (on each side) are trying to burn it down. Did we forget we are all Americans, members of one nation?

Part of the reason is that we see political differences as having moral components - a right and wrong answer, and no room for compromise or accommodation. We have let our emotions run wild and put our minds on hold. Not that passion is not important. But without a rational/reasonable mind to establish boundaries our political discourse runs amok.

It is time for all of us to go back to basics and figure out what we believe politically, why we believe it, and realize that in our pluralistic democracy it is okay if we disagree, as long as we do it peacefully. I will attempt, in this three part blog series, to outline what I see as the two major current lines of thought on politics, and the reasons why. This is not to say that these are the only ways, since I believe that there is a continuum of thought that stretches from one side to the other. But it is meant as a starting point for discussion. I will also let you know where I stand and why.

I believe that most people see government in one of two ways,conservative or liberal/progressive, generally. I believe this is based at least in part on their worldview - how they categorize people. This is formed partly from personal and family experience and partly from their spiritual views, whether individualistic or organized-religion based. Their worldview influences how they view the role of govt,interpretation of the Constitution,the functions and limits of govt,and their involvement in it.

I believe there are several questions that we need to ask ourselves to examine the foundations of our own political philosophy. Ask yourselves these questions and then in the next two parts I will discuss how and why I see the two sides answering these.
1. Worldview...how do you view the world,specifically how do you divide up or categorize the people in it? Is it good vs bad? Have's vs have-not's? Fortunate vs unfortunate? Or something else?
2. What is your concept of God/higher power? For those who believe in God,we see an ultimate authority and the way we view God influences how we view our relationship to any other authority. Legalism or grace, justice or forgiveness, what is the attribute that predominates in your mind?
3. Role of government -what is it , a separate entity, or part of or an extension of us(we the people)?
4. How do you interpret the constitution..is it fixed in time, or a living document that flexes to handle the changing times?
5. what areas do you see the government having a proper role in , what not, and why?
6. what role do you see for the different branches of government , especially the courts?
7. what is the relationship between the government and the people...is it a contract or a compact?
8. and, finally, just what do you think is meant by "we the people"?

Most of what we see in political debate today would have us believe that there is a fixed wall between left and right and no way to bridge it. I believe, however, that most people are somewhere in the middle and don't know what they believe or why. There is much passion without thought, which some use to their own ends. There is hope for dialogue and solutions if we first understand where we are coming from and try to work things out instead of always fighting inflexibly.

To quote a recent bumper sticker "Wag more, bark less"....it's not just for dogs:)

SCOTUS

SCOTUS is the acronym for Supreme Court of the United States, also known simply as "the Court". Periodically there are vacancies in its membership and the President is called on to nominate, and the Senate to consent to, a new justice. We are that point in our history again and I thought it was a good time to briefly comment on my views on the Court and why careful consideration is important to American freedom.

Many will rail against "judicial activism" and urge support for a "strict constructionist"...also railing against "unelected" deciders of law and those who argue for the view of the Constitution as a "living document". To them I say, activism is vital to our national health and ,yes, the Constitution is a living document that we need to continually re-evaluated through the years. The Founders were not psychics - they could not spell everything out because they did not know what would come up. So they built in flexibility in the document so that it ,and we, could adapt to changing times.

The three branches of government- legislative, executive, and judicial -have separate and distinct functions and areas of power, and also have ways to check the power of each other. This is to prevent over-reach by any and to keep government balanced. As far as the judiciary is concerned their area of power is the interpretation of the law. They are charged with the duty to uphold the Constitution by making sure that all the actions of the other two branches (plus the local and state versions of those branches) are in agreement with the rules of the Constitution , because it is the supreme law of the land.

In order to do this the Court may strike down laws or other governmental action as unconstitutional. It does so in response to cases appealed to it from lower courts. These are brought by ordinary citizens who have not found relief from any other source. We work under the mantra of "majority rules, minority rights". The will of the majority acts through the legislative branch and that is vital to a stable country. But when the rights of a minority are being trampled on it can easily become a "tyranny of the majority" - think of slavery and racial segregation/discrimination that went on for decades even after slavery was outlawed. This is where the Court steps in.

Long standing tradition is important and legal precedence is as well. These are vital to preserve, for the sake of a stable society, and thus conservatism has its place. But liberalism does as well, coming from the same root as liberty, and seeing that only in growing are we truly free. It is akin to matters of faith where some are mired in legalism...those who won't do anything unless they firmly believe God has spelled it out as okay. Versus those who believe that God has set us free to live , giving only simple guidelines, and that if it is not specifically denied as bad we can try it. Sticking to traditions in law makes as much sense as in matters of faith. The faith version of this is the proverbial 7 last words of the church "we've never done it that way before".

I believe that the Court stands as the defender of the powerless against the powerful. But you say, don't citizens have recourse through Congress? Yes, the ballot box and Congressional phones lines/emails are open for all and we can make our views known. But when the majority opinion is destructive of the rights of an individual where are they to go but to the Court?

Just after Pearl Harbor there were thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were interned in relocation camps because they were deemed, solely on the basis of their race/national origin to be suspect in their loyalty to the US. Not for anything they had done but of who they were. They had no recourse in Congress, popular opinion of the majority was against them, so the only way to seek relief against unfair treatment was to go to the Court.

Unfortunately, this is one of the times when the Court failed. In Korematsu v US (1944) the Court decided that the exclusionary zones on the West Coast, excluding those of Japanese ancestry, were constitutional. The Chief Justice even said that the defendant was not excluded because of his race! It took us almost 40 years to apologize and say that the decision was wrong. Similarly it took over 50 years to determine that "separate but equal" rationale for racial segregation in schools was wrong (Plessy v Ferguson 1896 to Brown v Board of Education 1954). And it took Constitutional amendments (13th,14 th) and the Civil War to fix the situation and finally outlaw slavery after the disastrous Dred Scott decision in 1857. So it is important for the Court to get it right.

Some in our country would like to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court, even some (Texas GOP platform) who would like to do that in cases involving the Bill of Rights! My friends, the Bill of Rights is toothless without the Court. The right of legal counsel when on trial (Gideon v Wainwright 1963) or advice of legal rights when arrested (Miranda v Arizona 1966) were both strengthened by the Court. When popular opinion in reaction to current events (think 9-11) looks for scapegoats among the powerless there is great need for an entity like the Court to stand up in defense.

Some have said that the Court must be impartial. One justice nominee, who is now the Chief Justice, said it was to be an umpire, calling balls and strikes . This envisions a level playing field between the parties to a case. This can hold when there are two individuals involved. But when the case involves the law-making or law-enforcement group (like Congress, President,etc) versus an ordinary citizen, there is no level playing field. So the Court must take steps to re-examine the law and the Constitution and find out if there is to be relief for that individual. Law-makers and Law-Enforcers need no defense - they have the power. It is the individual who needs protection for his/her liberties.

For those who would blanch at a "re-examination" of the Constitution let me give you a parallel situation. For those of you who are people of faith, relying on a scripture for divine guidance. Have you learned all you can from your first reading of it, or do you often have the experience that you see new things/new truths or understand more each time you re-read it? I know I do.
Is it because God changed? No, it is because we have grown and times have changed and we need a fresh understanding of divine will to apply to our new situations. It is much the same with the Constitution. It has not changed, but the times and we have , and there is always a need to further our application of its principles and laws to the times we live in.

The same judicial nominee/now justice said that benefit of the doubt should go to the lawmaker/law enforcer. No, that is not how our system of justice works and he should know better. The benefit of the doubt should always go to the one accused "innocent until/unless proven guilty". An activist Court is a hallmark and defense of individual liberty and we should demand and celebrate that -today of all days.

Happy Fourth of July everybody! :)

government

John Adams once wrote "Government is nothing more than the combined force of society, or the united power of the multitude, for the peace, order, safety, good and happiness of the people".
Quite a contrast to the famous Reagan quote of "government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem"

I think a too many people, especially on the right, identify with the sentiments of Reagan versus Adams. We have lost a sense of "we the people" and have an "us vs them" mindset. I hear it in the constant complaint of those who oppose the current attempt at health reform. They say they don't want government-run programs, like the very notion of government running something makes it bad. Aside from their obvious blind spots (national defense, drug laws, etc) they have developed an attitude that borders on anarchism. They use quotes like ,"government is best which governs least" by Thomas Jefferson (it actually was Thomas Paine who said it), and balk at anything being done by government doing anything except national defense.

They figure that if things were just left up to the states everything would be fine. I do not think any person of color would agree with that, since left to the states there would still be segregation at least , if not outright slavery. It was the intervention of national government that ended both of those, one requiring a civil war. Even at the state level, here in Washington , the state legislature is discussed in some quarters (Republicans) with such contempt that it is a wonder that anyone from the right takes the time and effort to participate.

The tea party and town hall rucus is a legitimate expression of popular views, but some of the language is downright dangerous and begs borrowing a phrase from post-911 questions "why do they hate us"...I would ask, why do those on the right hate government?....and there are some out there who evidence that hatred....when you think about it...they hate our government.

No one wins when anarchy comes and we must guard against it....We the people means "we" and we need to play our part responsibly, not just grumble against what we don't like.
There is a quote, by Thomas Jefferson, which has been used by the tea party crowd , which people should think about before they use here and now, think about the context. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure." it was said in 1787 in response to the Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts. What were a few lives lost?, Jefferson asked. Later Jefferson supported the French Revolution, with all the chaos and bloodshed that occurred (in contrast to our own Revolution) . Is that what these people really want?

Not I.