Embodying Civic Engagement

On January 26th, Phil Rutledge died.

 

I doubt if many of the people reading this knew Phil, although he was an immensely accomplished public servant and scholar. Phil was a black man born in 1925 in Dawson, Georgia. He later moved to Jacksonville, Florida, which he left to join the Navy after refusing the demand of a white man that he give up his seat on the bus they both were riding.

 

Phil’s life was a string of distinctions: an undergraduate degree in Political Science and Sociology, a Masters of Public Health, and a series of increasingly important positions in government, beginning with posts in Detroit city government, then moving to the Department of Labor during Lyndon Johnson’s administration, and Health, Education and Welfare during the Nixon administration. A list of his civic contributions and honors fills four pages.

 

The  credentials and accomplishments impress, but they leave out the essence of the man Phil Rutledge was: a good, profoundly gentle human being, a man who responded to hate with logic and scholarship. I never heard him raise his voice; I never saw him too busy to help a colleague or a student. He was already an emeritus Professor at SPEA when I joined the faculty, a towering figure in academic organizations, and a tireless worker for better understanding among those of different races, religions and orientations.

 

Phil believed in the power of scholarship to improve government and in the power of government to do good. He wasn’t naive. He knew that government power could be—and often is—misused. He was a great civil libertarian. But he also had faith that good government was obtainable, that good people and good will could solve problems. He believed in social equity and fair play, in a whole that really did transcend the sum of its parts.

 

Most of all, Phil preached the importance of civic engagement by the university and those of us who teach here. He believed in using our skills to serve the community, to make  things better than they are. He believed in the possibility—if not the reality—of a fairer system, a more level playing field, a society where human dignity is respected—and he spent his time trying to make it so.

 

Phil Rutledge was a model of what citizenship should be. His professional accomplishments (particularly given the barriers black men of his generation had to overcome) were impressive, but those accomplishments were “extras.” The lesson he gave us was more elemental—and more attainable. He didn’t return hate with hate; he didn’t let a system that was weighted against him keep him down. He got up every day and was a good human being, a good member of society, and a profoundly engaged citizen.   

 

In our current, poisonous political environment, where public service is discounted and cynicism is too frequently justified, we all need to remember—and emulate as best we can—the good guys who are working for a better world. Like Phil Rutledge.     

 

Comments

The Nanny State–On Steroids

Op Ed Submission                                                        Sheila Suess Kennedy

January 21, 2007                                                          500 words

 

A Nanny State on Steroids                                                                                

 

You might think the Bush Administration would reconsider some of its more “creative” constitutional positions in the wake of the midterm elections. You would be wrong.

 

On January 11th, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Stimson criticised law firms for offering pro bono (free) representation to detainees being held at Guantanamo. Stimson not only suggested that such representation amounted to “helping terrorists,” he went further. He urged the CEOs of corporations who employed them to “make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms.”

 

And how do we know the detainees are really terrorists? Because the Bush Administration says so.

 

A letter signed by 100 law school deans criticized Stimson’s remarks as “contrary to the basic tenets of American law,” and reminded the Administration that providing such representation protects “not only the rights of detainees, but also our shared constitutional principles. In a free and democratic society, government officials should not encourage intimidation of or retaliation against lawyers who are fulfilling their pro bono obligations.”

 

The Defense Department subsequently repudiated the remarks. But Stimson is still there, and if he has been punished in any way, it hasn’t been reported.

 

If there are any doubts that Stimson’s sentiments are widely shared within the Administration, Alberto Gonzales has been busily putting them to rest. In recent testimony before one Senate committee, Gonzales insisted that Federal judges are “unqualified” to make rulings on national security policy, and should simply defer to the will of the President. At another hearing, Gonzales disputed the existence of the time-honored right to habeas corpus, arguing that habeas is just a “default rule” that can be waived in the interests of national security by the Commander-in-Chief. 

 

Gonzales seems confident that  Presidential power trumps that of both the courts and Congress; last June, he was quite matter-of-fact when he told another Senate committee that the President had personally killed a Department of Justice internal investigation into the process that justified the NSA domestic spying program. Apparently, once the President decides something is legal, it’s legal. (He is, after all, the “decider.”)   

 

And then there was the Signing Statement that accompanied the President’s signature on a postal reform bill on December 20, in which Bush claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant. That claim was not only contrary to the bill he had just signed, but contrary to existing postal law, leading one commentator to call the Administration “a nanny state on steroids.”

Now, reports are emerging of a “purge” of U.S. Attorneys, most of whom were appointed by this Administration, and their replacement under an obscure provision of the Patriot Act that allows the President to bypass the usual Senate hearings. When questioned by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the White House informed her that at least ten U.S. Attorneys would be replaced in this fashion. No one knows why, although there is speculation that some of those being forced out have been reluctant to follow Administration orders.

 

Checks and balances, anyone?

 

 

Comments

Not So Goode

When James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and the rest of the Founders devised our system of representative democracy, they envisioned a system where persons—okay, men—of temperance, substance and education would hold public office.  

 

They clearly did not envision Representative Virgil Goode.

 

There has been quite a reaction to Representative Goode’s letter decrying the election of Keith Ellison. Ellison, who now represents Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District, is a Muslim. Goode’s letter criticises Ellison for taking his oath of office on the Koran, and warns darkly that his election is a harbinger of the dreadful things that will happen unless Congress restricts immigration. 

 

Critics of Representative Goode have made two related charges: that he is ignorant, and that he is a bigot.

 

I don’t know whether Representative Goode is a genuine bigot or simply sounds like one. The accusation of ignorance (as opposed, one assumes, to stupidity, which may or may not be equally implicated) rests on several facts that the Congressman is either unaware of, or conveniently overlooking. First, Congressional oaths are not taken on holy texts—neither bibles nor Korans nor any other. Secondly, Congressman Ellison is not an immigrant, nor is he the son, grandson or great-grandson of immigrants. His forebears have been in the United States for 250 years. And thirdly, the United States Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office, and protects religious liberty. To put this in language even Representative Goode can understand, liberty means that people are free to hold beliefs other than those held by Virgil Goode.

 

Goode has refused to retract his remarks. Ironically, in a response to the widespread criticism, he reportedly said, “I wish more people would take a stand and stand up for the principles on which this country was founded.” Given the Congressman’s tenuous hold on American history, it’s a remark calculated to make high school government teachers across the nation sob uncontrollably.

 

What seems to have eluded Congressman Goode is the nature of “the principles on which this country was founded.” Even when America hasn’t lived up to those principles—and we frequently haven’t—the  official American vision has been one of a society in which group identity is legally irrelevant, a society where an individual’s conduct is the only proper concern of government. In America, individuals are supposed to be rewarded or punished based upon their behavior. Race, religion, gender and similar markers of group affiliation are simply irrelevant to our legal status. No matter how meaningful those affiliations may be to us personally, the government may not award or restrict our rights based upon them.

The human animal seems to have been hard-wired to see the world as “Us versus Them.”  That’s okay—whether we like to admit it or not, most of us do categorize the world through that lens. The genius of America is that we define “them” by their behavior, not their identity.

 

I hate to tell you this, Congressman Goode, but in my lexicon, you are definitely a “them.”

 

 

 

 

Comments

The State of Our Health

Governor Daniels has proposed a 25-cent cigarette tax to fund health insurance for at least some of Indiana’s children who are currently uncovered. It’s another proposed “patch” for our costly, byzantine and inefficient medical system, but it would be something. Real reform would never pass.

 

Americans don’t want “socialized” medicine—but of course, that is what we have now. Only we have socialized our system through insurance companies rather than through government, and have thereby managed to get the worst of both worlds—highly regulated care that is over twice as expensive as the next most expensive country’s.

 

Forty-six million Americans are currently uninsured; another forty million will experience lapses of a month or more in any given year. Half of all personal bankruptcies—costing businesses millions—are due to medical bills. Because we make medical insurance an employer responsibility, the cost of American goods is inflated—over two thousand dollars of the cost of each General Motors car covers health care.      

 

What if we had a “single payer” system like several in Europe—a system that covered everyone, was funded through taxes and administered by existing insurance companies?

 

There would be an immediate payoff in economic growth. Health insurance (for companies that can still afford it) is the single largest “drag” on new job creation. Aside from the cost of the insurance itself, administering benefits consumes untold hours of HR time. Smaller companies—the real engines of economic growth—are increasingly unable to offer health benefits, putting them at a competitive disadvantage for good employees. If we de-coupled health insurance from employment, companies would be able to add workers and increase wages.

 

Individuals would save money, too, and not just on uninsured medical expenses. Automobile and homeowners insurance premiums would decline, because underwriting would no longer need to take the costs of medical care into account.

 

But what about the price tag? Most health economists believe the additional taxes needed would be minimal, and not just because there would be economies of scale. Right now, between programs like Medicaid and Medicare and coverage for public employees—police and fire personnel, public school teachers, and millions of municipal, state and federal employees—government is already paying for the health care of 45% of the American population. Just  standardizing that coverage would save billions.

 

Medical costs in the U.S. include paychecks for thousands of employees in doctors’ offices and hospitals whose only job is to comply with conflicting insurer regulations, submit or reject claims and collect—or argue about—amounts due. (Thirty percent of total U.S. healthcare costs are administrative; meanwhile, much-maligned Medicare keeps its overhead under 3%.) Eliminating insurance companies’ marketing costs and negotiating with drug manufacturers and other medical vendors for lower prices would generate huge savings. Costs also decline when people  get timely care, rather than costly emergency room attention when they can no longer ignore the problem.

 

A cigarette tax is like giving aspirin to someone whose appendix has ruptured. There’s momentary pain relief, but he still needs an operation.

 

 

 

 

Comments

A Turning Point?

The November elections delivered a long-overdue message to Washington—Americans are coming back to their senses. And whatever your political party preference, if you are reading this column in this newspaper, that message should have sounded sweet to your ears.

 

The repudiation of Bush Administration policies certainly relieved people like me, who have watched with growing alarm as Incurious George insisted upon driving America off a very steep cliff. But the real sign that “the times they are achanging” came in the results of various state referenda. Yes, several same-sex marriage bans passed, but the margins were considerably smaller than in previous election cycles, and for the very first time, one such ban was actually defeated at the polls. And in a red state to boot, as Arizona voters went to the polls and voted against that state’s proposed amendment.

 

The return to social sanity wasn’t confined to Arizona, or to same-sex marriage. A near-total ban on abortion was overturned in North Dakota, and voters in Missouri and elsewhere across the country refused to buy a “morality” that equates a mass of cellular material with a suffering human person, and supported embryonic stem cell research. Furthermore, by handing control of both the House and Senate to Democrats, and thereby changing legislative leadership, they effectively voted to take global warming and judicial selection seriously.  

 

Most of all, the vote on November 7th signalled a retreat from the moral unilateralism and arrogance that have characterized this Administration, largely because those characteristics got us mired down in Iraq, but also because of a dawning recognition that moral arrogance and immature religiosity is the root cause not just of our diminished standing in the world, but also of much of our internal civic discord.

 

Little by little, it has dawned on Americans that genuine, authentic religion is characterized by humility and compassion and respect for the deeply held beliefs of others. Authentic religiosity is not compatible with the theocratic tendencies exhibited by many on the Religious Right that are so enthusiastically represented by the Bush Administration.  Although by lumping all believers together, he painted with an unnecessarily broad brush, Sam Harris put it well in an acerbic exchange over “intelligent design”with right-wing apologist Dennis Prager. Responding to Prager’s assertion that “believing that the world just happened” is arrogant, Harris wrote:

“No one knows why the universe came into being. Most scientists readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not. One of the extraordinary ironies of religious discourse can be seen in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while condemning scientists and other nonbelievers for their intellectual arrogance. … And yet, there is no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer: The Creator of the Universe takes an active interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell…An average believer has achieved a level of arrogance that is simply unimaginable in scientific discourse—and there have been some extraordinarily arrogant scientists.”

Of all the harm done by those who exhibit such extreme versions of religiosity, the harm suffered by gay and lesbian citizens is arguably the greatest, because the religious right is willing and eager to use the power of the state to disadvantage those who offend their particular religious convictions. Don’t fool yourself into a belief that these religious warriors will be content with simply denying same-sex couples the right to marry. In states where their bans have been passed, they have then gone to court to argue for an expansive reading of those measures in order to deprive gay citizens of employment benefits, legal protections against abuse, and a variety of other rights. Scratch off the surface of one of these self-styled “godly” folks, and you’ll find a clone of Fred Phelps.

Any gay or gay-friendly activist who has debated one of these ideologues can attest to the frustration of that exercise. It’s like arguing with a brick wall. Policy arguments are met with self-satisfied, if unresponsive, retorts all of which boil down to “because the bible says so.” When confronted with biblical interpretations other than their own, these folks simply dismiss them as false. And how do they know which interpretation is true and which false? They “just do.” It’s breathtaking—and maddening. And these last few years, it has sometimes seemed as if these zealots were multiplying.

If I am reading the electoral tea leaves correctly, however, they not only aren’t multiplying, but the tide is turning. The pendulum is swinging. The grownups are reasserting control. Pick your metaphor.

As for me, I’m wallowing in an emotion that has been all too rare since 2000—a good mood.

Comments