Tag Archives: Democracy

Holding My Breath

Last week, as I previously noted, I spoke to a Unitarian Universalist congregation about Project 2025. (I posted those comments here.)

Ever since I was Executive Director of Indiana’s ACLU and was first asked to address a UU church, I have enjoyed speaking to UU congregations. They tend to be composed of people committed to civil liberties, respectful of science, and welcoming of a wide variety of perspectives. As their “Welcome” text confirms, UU’s believe that religious faith is uniquely personal, and that attitudes of openness and tolerance are important. I particularly like the “covenant” this congregation recites, which affirms that spiritual growth provides the grounding for peace, ethical living and community service.

Prior to my talk, there is usually a reading, and I was so impressed with this particular one that I asked for a copy. This was a reading that directly addressed the fundamental issue of tomorrow’s vote, which, as the author said, will really be a vote on another covenant– the covenant we Americans have made with each other.

Democracy–as the reading pointed out–isn’t just a word or even just a system of government: it’s a “living, breathing promise.” A covenant.

This promise of democracy is one of collective power and shared responsibility. Many understand that this covenantal promise is not without its challenges. Democracy asks us to engage in issues, to participate in bringing about change, and to care deeply about one another. It is cultivated in small, consistent actions–in the conversations we have, the ways we listen to and learn from one another, as well as the votes we cast. It demands that we see beyond ourselves, recognizing the dignity of every person, and honoring the rich diversity of our lives.

This reading was part of a church service, so care was taken to avoid endangering the congregation’s tax exemption by the endorsement of a political candidate–there was no direction to “go thou and vote in such and such a way.” Instead, what struck me forcefully about this description of the choice we face was its emphasis on community, on the obligation that we humans have to care for each other.

That emphasis really highlights the vast difference between Trump’s MAGA Republicanism and the Harris campaign.

As the multiple Republicans who have endorsed Harris have pointed out, this election is not about our policy differences–it’s about saving the American Constitution and the rule of law, the essential foundations of the covenant described in the reading. Ours is a covenant that requires us to care about other people, to accept a commitment not just to an abstract nation, but to our fellow Americans.

Traditional Republicans and Democrats may have wildly different opinions about how to demonstrate that commitment, how to honor that covenant, but we recognize that it binds us. We may disagree about economic or social policies, but we share a fundamental belief that government exists to create a just environment that facilitates the human flourishing of all of us–including the neighbors who don’t look or think or worship as we do.

Tomorrow’s election is between all the Americans who believe in that covenant and want to protect it, and those who don’t. It really is that simple.

The Republican Party many of us once knew and respected has been replaced by a malignant cult in Donald Trump’s image, and the members of that cult reject the very idea of a democratic covenant. They are not motivated by care for their neighbors. They contemptuously reject the “demand that we see beyond ourselves.”

The brief closing paragraphs of the reading were poignant: they read

It is clear that at the heart of this democracy is the promise of the people–our hopes and dreams. We are the democracy and the stewards of this promise: the practitioners of this sacred work.

As Unitarian Universalists, we believe democracy is more than a political system; it is a shared journey, a collective responsibility, and a profound act of faith in one another. May we walk this path with grace, with purpose, and with phenomenal commitment to the common good.

That commitment–to America’s democratic covenant, to each other, to the common good–is what is on the ballot this year. That’s the choice to be made by We the People.

This Jewish atheist is praying with the Unitarians….

Comments

TPM Says It All

I often refer to Talking Points Memo, one of the most credible and professional online sources of information. But the other day, the site’s Morning Memo blew me away–it was as if David Kurtz, the author, was describing my own fears and moods as we count down to November 5th.

The country is poised at a great fork in the road, with a historically significant decision to be made between democracy or authoritarianism, pluralism or cultism, the rule of law or Trumpian retribution. Yet the national political conversation, the news coverage of it, the pace of daily events doesn’t seem to be rising to the momentousness of the occasion.

It was different in the tumultuous summer of two attempted assassinations against Trump, Biden’s surprise withdrawal from the race, the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, and the political conventions. That period felt as historic as the decision voters would make in November. But since then, things have settled into a odd limbo, like we’re all waiting out the clock until Election Day, resigned that a sufficient number of our fellow citizens may in fact decide to ditch the American experiment as we know it, imperfect though it’s been, in favor of some kind of gaudy neofascist kleptocracy.

Kurtz writes that everything seems “frozen in place until a decision is made on whether democracy is the way to go.” Frozen in place is precisely the way I’ve been feeling–as though I am in suspended animation until I know whether the world I will leave to my grandchildren will be habitable and governable–whether I will leave them an admittedly imperfet society that is nevertheless working toward greater fairness, or one hurtling into another Dark Ages.

Because that concern isn’t hyperbole. That is the choice we face. As Kurtz put it,

Compiling Morning Memo each day has been harder in recent weeks than ever before, not because there is no news but because there’s little that seems to capture the present moment in full, which has forced me to think hard about why, instead of building to a crescendo in November, we seem to be slouching toward a potential second coming of Trump.

He conveyed his “unpleasant sensation that we’re walking eyes wide open into the abyss.”

It is a mark of the poor health of our democracy that democracy itself is on the ballot at all. A choice between democracy or not democracy isn’t a choice but an existential threat that doesn’t sustain or nourish civic life. The social compact has already been broken when we can’t agree that free and fair elections are a universal goal or that we abide by the results of those elections or that the rule of law should apply equally to everyone. We can’t even agree on whether an auto-coup by a sitting president is a good or a bad thing – or a thing at all.

As the essay repeatedly reminds us, Trump and Trumpism pose an existential threat to American democratic institutions–but the reality and immediacy of that threat tends to obscure what we have already lost–what the last 8 years have cost us, the “vibrant and essential public debates left to molder while we confront the more immediate threat; time, energy, and resources diverted from supporting the best of who we are to fend off the worst of who we can be.”

The current moment is so strange and attenuated in part because the robust public debate we’re accustomed to is shorn of any real meaning when one party to that debate doesn’t give a fuck about debating. You can’t debate democracy with people who don’t believe in democracy, or debating, or empirical evidence, or anything approximating truth or reality.

The essay mourns the multiple ways that the persistence of older journalistic constructs has operated to normalize Trump–how it has created false equivalencies, and allowed anti-democratic forces to denigrate, undermine and delegitimize democratic institutions.

What that has left us with is a curdled public discourse in which the pro-democracy side is mostly yelling at each other about what more can be done to stop Trump; holding up scorecards like figure skating judges on the effectiveness of this or that anti-Trump strategy; assessing the purity of each other’s anti-Trumpism; and railing against democratic institutions like the media for wilting in our hour of greatest need. Not all of those are bad impulses, and to be clear they are not the cause but rather a symptom of our current predicament. It’s what happens when the “other side” rejects democracy as a means of resolving these differences. It’s like having a public debate against an abandoned lectern.

I’m holding my breath…

Comments

The Scorecard

There’s a standard sentence in investment prospectuses: past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

That is obviously a fair point when you are considering the purchase of stock; it’s far less persuasive when you are casting a vote. In fact, when one candidate is an incumbent, checking past performance is usually an excellent guide to the positions that candidate will take in the future.

Recently, an article in The Indiana Citizen highlighted a Common Cause scorecard on an element of past performance of Indiana’s Congressional delegation–their votes to protect the country’s democratic institutions.

The fifth biennial scorecard compiled by Common Cause rated seven of Indiana’s nine U.S. representatives and two U.S. senators as doing little to preserve democracy during the 118th Congress.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog, focused on 10 democracy-related bills in the U.S. Senate and 13 in the U.S. House, covering such topics as voting rights, election security, ballot access and ethics reform for the U.S. Supreme Court when rating the federal lawmakers in its 2024 Democracy Scorecard. Then the organization examined the record of every congressional member to determine whether he or she took a “pro-democracy” stance on these issues.

Reps. Frank Mrvan and Andre Carson, Democrats representing  the 1st and 7th congressional districts, respectively, were the only members in Indiana’s congressional delegation who achieved near-perfect scores. Carson took a pro-democracy position on 12 of the 13 bills while Mrvan took a pro-democracy position on 11 of the 13 bills, according to the Common Cause scorecard.

Unsurprisingly, three Hoosier Republicans –- Sens. Mike Braun and Todd Young and Fifth District Rep. Victoria Spartz– rated a zero. Braun is currently running for Governor, and Spartz–despite indicating earlier that she didn’t intend to run again– is once again a candidate for the 5th district seat.

The other six members of Indiana’s congressional delegation – all of whom are also Republicans – received low scores, although not zeros. Reps. Rudy Yakym, of Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District, Jim Banks, of the 3rd District, James Baird, of the 4th District, Greg Pence, of the 6th District and Erin Houchin, of the 9th District took pro-democracy stances on just one of the 13 bills. Retiring Rep. Larry Bucshson, of the 8th Congressional District, earned a score of 2 out of 13.

The article quoted Aaron Dusso, chair of the Department of Political Science at IU-Indianapolis, and his reference to the 2018 book, “How Democracies Die.” That book was published in 2018 by Harvard University political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, and it was widely reviewed and discussed. It focused on measures of democratic health, and especially on four major threats to democracy– rejection of democratic rules; denial of political opponents’ legitimacy; tolerance of political violence; and willingness to curtail freedoms, particularly of the press. Since 2016, MAGA Republicans have increased their support for all four, ramping up efforts at vote suppression and gerrymandering, supporting Trump’s “big lie while making phony claims about non-citizens voting and his threats to jail political opponents, telling pollsters that violence “may be necessary” and unremittingly attacking the mainstream media.

Elected GOP officials aren’t doing the people’s work, either.

The scorecard is rating the members of the 118th Congress, which Common Cause called “one of the most dysfunctional in American history.” Through Aug. 15, 2024, just 78 standalone bills – or 0.5% of all the bills introduced in the 118th Congress – have become law, according to Common Cause. This compares to the 116th and 117th Congresses, in which 2% of the bills introduced became law and the 114th and the 115th Congresses in which 3% of the bills passed to the president’s desk.

In fact, Common Cause asserted that in its first year, the 118th Congress turned in the least-productive first year performance of any Congress in nearly a century.

Dusso pointed out that politicians typically act and vote in ways they think their constituents want. When lawmakers continue getting elected, they are justified in thinking that they are fulfilling voters’ wishes.

“It’s probably our fault that this is what’s happening,” Dusso said. “We’re willing to tolerate these types of things and we continue to elect individuals and we continue to elect a Congress that isn’t able to pass bills in any real serious way. And, that doesn’t seem to be changing anytime soon.”

I know Aaron Dusso to be a brilliant scholar, but I’m hopeful that his last sentence is wrong–that this will be the year when We the People begin a long-overdue change, the year we eject incumbents who have failed to respect either the Constitution or the democratic process.

Mike Braun and Jim Banks are clearly unworthy of the promotions they seek, and the others who have failed to protect American democracy should not be returned to Congress to do more damage.

We can do better.

Comments

Deconstructing Liberty

There are so many words we Americans throw around, assuming we are communicating–assuming that my understanding of term X is the same as your understanding of term X. Often, the similarities in understanding are sufficient to allow us to communicate, at least superficially–but sometimes, it’s worth delving into the nuances of words the meanings of which we take for granted.

Like “liberty.” 

An article from Civic Ventures pointed to a reality that many economists have noted (a reality of which most of our politicians seem unaware): genuine liberty requires a measure of economic security. The expression of even the most basic civil and democratic liberties depend upon a basic floor of economic security–you are unlikely to indulge your right to free speech or participate in democratic deliberation if your entire life is spent scrabbling for food and trying to keep a roof over your head.

The article begins by quoting Nobel prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz on the effect of income inequality on democracy:

“As income inequalities grow, people wind up living in different worlds. They don’t interact. A large body of evidence shows that economic segregation is widening and has consequences, for instance, with regard to how each side thinks and feels about the other,” Stiglitz writes. “The poorest members of society see the world as stacked against them and give up on their aspirations; the wealthiest develop a sense of entitlement, and their wealth helps ensure that the system stays as it is.”

And because that gap between the haves and have nots has become so vast, he writes, something much more significant than personal wealth is at stake: Our very democracy is imperiled.  “Democracy requires compromise if it is to remain functional, but compromise is difficult when there is so much at stake in terms of both economic and political power,” Stiglitz concludes. 

Stiglitz also points out that economic security is an essential component of freedom. It doesn’t matter how “free” you are from government intrusion “if you’re one $500 expense away from total economic ruin and your rent goes up by hundreds of dollars every year. “

The article goes into a lengthy discussion of America’s economy, explains the successful performance of a variety of measures initiated by the Biden administration, and ends with a very important point:

After the success of the Child Tax Credit, it’s become clear that direct cash payments with no strings attached are a much more successful poverty reduction program than vouchers or other kinds of means-tested relief programs. There’s still a lot to debate about guaranteed income programs—I’m particularly concerned about them being misused as subsidies for low-wage employers—but it’s clear we’re entering a new phase of the public guaranteed income discussion. 

The question is no longer about whether it makes good sense to make direct investments in people. Now, the conversation is turning to how and when we make those investments happen.

That conversation should include a recent, fascinating interview of philosopher Elizabeth Anderson in Persuasion. Anderson has long been focused on the workplace, and the relative absence of workers’ rights enjoyed by non-union employees. She  echoes Stiglitz’ concerns about the effects of economic deprivation on democracy, and the individual’s ability to participate in political activity on anything remotely like an equal basis:

One of my agendas is to get us thinking more systematically about class inequality, because recent political discourse has been mostly focused on race, gender, sexual identity and sexual orientation issues. And one of the things I want to do is bring class back in. Looking at class, I think, provides us a better basis for building cross-cutting coalitions along the other identities. But also because we’re in a state now where our class inequality is quite extreme and it’s getting worse. And that’s not just a matter of how much money people have, but about their political power. In practice, a society which has lots and lots of billionaires is never going to be able to insulate politics from the overwhelming power that money supplies—political power, political influence. And so we have a threat to democracy here.

Read together, these articles–and really, hundreds like them–focus on a very troubling aspect of America’s current reality. We have millions of people who are effectively disenfranchised by poverty. They may have rights “on paper,” but the constant struggle to put food on the table precludes any enjoyment of those rights, and similarly precludes any meaningful participation in the democratic process. 

Do the working poor really enjoy “liberty” in any meaningful sense?

Think about that–and re-read my arguments for a UBI…

Comments

An Excellent idea

As I’ve consistently pointed out, those of us who are concerned–okay, frantic–about the state of democracy in contemporary America need to do more than share our gloom with others on social media. We need advice about specific steps that would help ameliorate the situation.

Recently, I offered two sets of specifics: one, by Jennifer Rubin, enumerated what journalists ought to be doing (although logic tells me that most established media outlets will ignore those recommendations, it’s important that citizens recognize deviations from best practices). The other was my own attempt to suggest steps each of us can take.

Today’s post focuses on advice to educational institutions–especially universities, although it might be possible to adapt the recommended program for high school seniors. I came across it in a column by E.J. Dionne, who tells us about a program at a “small, distinguished college that has provided a model that other universities should study and adapt.”

Since 2008, Occidental College in Los Angeles has offered students a chance to join a “Campaign Semester,” in which they dedicate themselves to a political campaign of their choice in presidential and midterm years. Students spend 10 weeks working their hearts out in the field and then the rest of the semester reflecting on what they learned and engaging in the academic study of elections.

The program is the creation of Peter Dreier, an Occidental professor for more than 30 years who spent much of his pre-academic life in federal, state and local politics. Along with professor Regina Freer, Dreier supervises students’ independent study projects and runs the seminar they join after their return to campus.
Its origin owes a lot to former president Barack Obama, who attended Occidental before transferring to Columbia University. Obama’s 2008 campaign inspired a lot of young people, especially Oxy’s students, many of whom approached Dreier to learn how they might work on the campaign.

Dreier suggested they take a semester off, as he did to work on Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 presidential effort, but quickly discovered that parents and many students were committed to a four-year college schedule. Campaign Semester was born out of a desire to square this circle.

The program allows students to work for either party, but they have to get involved in a contested race–one where the campaign itself will matter and especially one in which students will have to engage citizens with views very different from their own.

The process, Dreier said, requires learning “the skills that it takes to talk to people that you don’t agree with and persuading them.” Paradoxically, perhaps, partisan campaigns might have a better shot than universities at teaching the need to reach beyond comfort zones.

Dionne quoted one student who participated in the program’s first class and had volunteered for Obama’s 2008 campaign, calling her “a starring example of the program’s impact.” That student is now a state representative in Minnesota. “The nuances of policy can be learned in the classroom,” she said, “but the heart of politics — building a shared vision for improving people’s lives — can only be learned out in the field.”

As someone who spent 20+ years teaching university students about policy, I can echo this sentiment. Even in classrooms with students who have different political opinions, forging “shared visions” rarely occurs. Students can be taught to be civil and courteous about their differences, they can be introduced to the considerable technical concerns that policymakers face (and about which they are too often clueless), but those lessons take place in an environment far removed from the day-to- day realities of a political campaign, where getting your candidate’s message out requires a campaign plan geared to the constituency, the recruitment of volunteers, and funding sufficient to allow communication with voters.

Furthermore, much as it pains me to admit, most elections aren’t won or lost on the basis of policy disputes. (Thanks to the Supreme Court and the Dobbs decision, the upcoming election may well be the exception that proves that rule, but only because of the enormous negative effect of that decision). Some combination of a candidate’s persona–charisma, openness, even looks–will play a significant role. These days, partisan passions and grievances matter even more. Unfortunately, American elections aren’t academic debates in which logic and realistic self-interest compel a voter’s support.

Those realities about the democratic process simply cannot be communicated in a college classroom. Internships with campaigns can help, but relatively few students participate in such internships.

Dionne is right–Occidental’s program should be widely replicated.

Comments