You probably did not think that a key reason why the current Supreme Court is so out of whack with much of America is because of gerrymandering. This is so because the makeup of every Court is determined by the two other gerrymandered branches of government, the executive and legislative.

Twelve of the last fifteen justices have been appointed by Republican presidents, and that is not an accident. With our Constitution, it is virtually impossible not to have partisan Supreme Courts when we choose our presidents and legislators in ways that are mired in a deep gerrymandering pie, or cesspool.

Here’s how it works:

The U.S. Senate is perhaps the most insidious form of gerrymandering that we have. A good working definition of gerrymandering from Merriam-Webster is “the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections.” At the time that the American constitution was created, there were no political parties. But there were political interests. The most significant of these interests was what powers would individual states have as opposed to the federal government.

For example, who would be responsible for determining whether a road should be built, or whether it would be legal for a sixteen-year-old to drink whiskey? Who would be able to levy taxes, or even tariffs? At the time that the constitution was being written, there were two key interests within the states that created the groundwork for gerrymandering:

1. The smaller states such as Rhode Island or Delaware did not want to be overpowered at the federal level by larger ones such as New York or Virginia.
2. The states where slavery was legal and was commonly used wanted to have equal power to the states that did not have slavery.

Many of the founding fathers were leery of direct democracy, meaning direct votes by the people. In order to prevent runaway “popular democracy,” the founders created a Senate to go along with the House of Representatives in the Congress. The Senate was undemocratic in two ways, both of which impacted the Supreme Court.

1. Initially, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, not the people. This would be a way of better ensuring that the interests of the states, as opposed to the people, were represented in the Senate. This was clearly undemocratic, and in 1917, the 17^th Amendment was passed, allowing the people to vote for their Senators. But at that time, “the people” were essentially only white males.
2. Each state has two senators. That ensures that there is equal representation among all the states in the Senate. At the same time, it ensures that at least one house of Congress does not include equal representation of the people. For example, California has a population of nearly 40 million people while Wyoming has less than 600 thousand. For each person in Wyoming, there are over 60 in California. What that means in the Senate is that each person in Wyoming has as much power as 60 people in California. That is terribly unfair, and it means that states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska, etc. have far more power in the Senate than states like California, Texas and New York. The same is true for southern states such as Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina which are relatively small by population. Additionally, these states are no longer politically competitive. Conservative Republicans win virtually all state-wide elections including for the Senators.

Right now, the U.S. Senate is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. But Democratic Senators represent nearly 57% of the population, whereas Republican Senators represent around 43%. If the Senate was democratic, the Democrats would have a large majority. But in today’s real world the Democrats will probably lose seats in the 2022 mid-term election and once again be a minority.

We should also point out that the House of Representatives is gerrymandered in a different way. Take Missouri for example. It has eight Congressional seats. Recently, the state has voted between 50% – 60% Republican. Even at 60%, Republicans should get only five of the seats. However, they get six and some tried to get them seven. Why does it come out this way?

It is because in Missouri the districts are drawn by the state legislature. The Missouri General Assembly is currently veto-proof Republican. What the legislature has done is to draw two “minority majority” districts. This means districts in which some minority constitutes a majority of the voters. In Missouri, it is African-Americans. One district is in the eastern part of the state, St. Louis, and the other in the western part, Kansas City. None of the other districts is competitive.

Similar to the legislative branch, the executive (presidency) is deeply influenced by gerrymandering. The way in which the founding fathers took care of that was by creating the Electoral College. The E.C. is not really a college. It is a barely known organization that only exists every four years, when there is a presidential election. The number of representatives that each state has in the E.C. is somewhat based on population, but not entirely. What is important to know is that when the Electoral College works properly, the electors from each state vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. In other words, the electors in Alabama vote for whomever carried the state and the electors in California vote for whomever won that state.

Where it gets undemocratic is let’s suppose that Candidate A carries Alabama by one million votes and loses California by a 400,000 votes. You might think that Candidate A would be ahead at that point, because she has 600,000 more votes than Candidate ‘B.’ But with the Electoral College, Candidate ‘B’ is ahead with 55 Electoral Votes from California as opposed to Candidate ‘B’ who has the 9 Electoral Votes from Alabama.

The fact that a candidate can lose the popular vote and still be elected president through the E.C. is not just hypothetical. It has happened five times in our history. The two most recent are the two most consequential. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote from George Bush by over a half million votes. However, Bush won the Electoral vote when the Supreme Court made a decision that gave Bush Florida’s electoral votes. That would not have mattered if the decision had been made by the popular vote.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump by more than three million votes. However, Trump narrowly won “battleground states” such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and that propelled him to an Electoral victory.

It’s possible that two of our worst presidents ever were elected by the Electoral College than the popular vote. These two presidents are also responsible for five of the current six conservatives on the Supreme Court. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito; Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

This is how the Supreme Court became impacted by gerrymandering. Without a gerrymandered presidency and a gerrymandered Senate, the Supreme Court would have been more balanced and reflective of the values of the American people.

To make matters worse, the Supreme Court itself has recently refused to overturn the creation of gerrymandered districts by the states.

The political ramifications of the gerrymandering dynamics is that Republicans are helped in all three branches. Theoretically, the three branches of government are supposed to restrain one another through a system of checks and balances. But that does not work when all three branches are dominated by one party, and that particular party is intent on thoroughly dominating government and extending very few levers of power to minority parties.

How can this change? At the moment, it’s difficult to conceive. Trump Republicans have a number of plans to further a radical right agenda in America. For our government to become more balanced it will require challenging victories by non-Republicans in congressional and presidential races. Stay tuned to see if that happens.

The post The Gerrymandering Virus – It’s Everywhere! appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Our political system is structurally stacked against Democrats. The U.S. Senate gives overweighted power to small states, helping Republicans. The Electoral College is equally advantageous to Republicans.

Republicans have held the White House for sixteen of the 34 years since 1988, yet in only one of those eight elections since then have they won the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2004). There is little that can be done about either of these discriminatory sets of rules, short of constitutional amendments.

There is one area in which Democrats can act alone, and that is how they operate and schedule their presidential primaries. Right now, the Democratic primary / caucus schedule is heavily weighted towards small and predominantly white states. First on the list of contests in Iowa, then usually followed eight days later with the New Hampshire Primary. Both of these contests favor candidates who can attract a lot of early volunteers, because door-to-door canvassing is feasible and effective in such small states with months, even years, of lead time in advance.

For candidates whose predominant appeal is to metropolitan voters in blue states, it is an excruciating wait until primaries occur in such states. By that time, they are often out of the race because (a) they did poorly in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, (b) the media minimizes their chances, and (c) they run out of money.

Democrats could fix this by establishing their own schedule for primaries. One idea that has been suggested is setting up a series of four regional primary days, (a) Northeast, (b) Southeast, (c) Northwest, and (d) Southwest. Or, the regions could be completely different, though it helps to have clearly define geographic areas. Also, the order of the regional primaries could change in each quadrennial election year.

By changing how their party selects its presidential nominees, Democrats would demonstrate to the American people that they truly support democratic processes. It might eventually help in changing the Electoral College and bringing needed reform to the Senate.

Regrettably, when it comes to doing the heavy lifting to modify the Electoral College and the Senate rules, the Democratic Party is the equal to the Republican Party in perpetuating the status quo.

This and other systemic obstacles to Democrats is eloquently stated in Jedediah Britton-Purdy’s recent guest essay in the New York Times.

At a more basic level, today’s Republican Party succeeds only because the Electoral College, the Senate and the Supreme Court all tilt in its favor. That system has handed conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, despite the fact that only one Republican has won the presidential popular vote after 1988.

The Electoral College is like the Senate; it favors small states and is tone deaf to the margins by which candidates win individual states. Wyoming, a Republican state, has equal representation in the Senate to California, a Democratic state. Equal representation, but California has fully fifty-seven times as many people. That means that each person in Wyoming has fifty-seven times as much power in the Senate as individuals in California.

Democrats are nearly as responsible as Republicans for the perpetuation of the antiquated Electoral College. While many rank-and-file Democrats would like to see it abolished, party leaders are radio silent about it. They need to take the lead in either abolishing the Electoral College or passing the National Popular Vote Act in states totaling more than 270 Electoral votes. That act, which has passed 16 states with 195 electoral votes, instructs electors to vote for whomever wins the national popular vote. But that might be dicey now with how Republicans are trying to take power away from the electors and give them to state legislatures in Red States.

So, if Democrats wish to advance democracy without opposition from the Republicans, they may well want to focus on how they plan their primaries. Time is actually short, as plans for the 2024 primaries are already being made.

The post What Dems can actually do without Republicans appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Earlier this month, Heather Cox Richardson reported that both the New York Times and the Washington Post ran op-eds penned by Republicans or former Republicans urging members of their party who still value democracy to vote Democratic until the authoritarian faction that has taken their party is bled out of it.

Most Democrats would say that if they had a choice between the United States being a well-functioning democratic-republic, or the Democratic Party prevailing in about 50% of elections, they would prefer America to be a democracy.

In 2016, when Donald Trump was selected by the Electoral College to be president, a national conversation began concerning how American democracy was becoming more at risk. With each passing day of his presidency, as he said or did one outrageous thing after another, there became more discussion on how his method of ruling was similar to a dictator. Virtually all Democrats, most independents, and a minority of Republicans knew that America would be in for a rough ride with Trump. But as his outrageous behavior escalated, more came to fear for the preservation of our democracy. This culminated with Trump’s refusal to acknowledge that he had lost the 2020 election, and then the planned assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

On the strength of the 2020 election results, Democrats gained control of the federal executive and legislative branches. Even though Joe Biden won the presidency by more than seven million popular votes, absurdly his victory is still being challenged. In the House, the Democrats actually lost seats in 2020 and have merely a eight-vote margin. Because Democrats won the two January run-off elections in Georgia, the Senate is locked at 50-50, with Vice-President Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote. But two of the Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, act like outcasts in the party and are major obstacles to the agenda advocated by most other Democrats.

Progressive Democrats have a very well-crafted agenda designed to effectively move the country forward economically, socially, and promoting human rights. Members of the House like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin, and in the Senate like Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker, are positioned to implement a genuine wave of progressive legislation somewhat akin to the New Deal and the Great Society.

But because of the two Senators (Manchin and Sinema), we’re largely at gridlock. However, two good things may happen: (1) democracy will function as two of fifty Democratic senators can stymie the overwhelming will of their colleagues, and (2) something will pass – a watered down compromise which is a far cry better than had we had Republican rule.

Let’s face it, progressives, we’re not going to have the kind of victory that we wanted. We are hamstrung in effecting more progress because of structural problems in our system; ones that go back to our founding fathers and ones that are continuously being developed by activists on the right. They make it very difficult for Democrats to advance a progressive agenda.

A few of the structural problems in our current system include:

1. The U.S. Senate. A key issue among the founders was whether or not to have a bi-cameral legislature, and if so, how each house would be constituted. In the interest of democracy, the House as based on population. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only eligible voters were white men who owned property. This naturally benefited the larger states. For that reason, states small in population, such as Rhode Island and Delaware, wanted the second house to have equal representation for each state. Thus the U.S. Senate. Fast forward to today and it means that Wyoming and California each have two members of the Senate, but it’s highly undemocratic because the Wyoming senators represent only one-fifty-seventh of the population of the senators from California.
2. Gerrymandering – the drawing of legislative districts in a fashion that favors one party over another. For example, Missouri, which generally votes of 40% for Democrats has only two of eight members in the House (25%).
3. Corruption – while Trumpsters squawk about fraud and fake elections, it is the Republicans who are pushing all barriers to protecting our democracy. When the term ‘truth’ has no meaning to a large segment of the electorate, we run the risk of losing the people’s connection to democracy.

So, progressives would serve themselves well to harness some of their enthusiasm for immediate enactment of the policies of “The Squad” or even Joe Biden. Instead, the focus should be on protecting our democratic institutions at a time when they are under relentless attack from Trumpsters and others on the far right.

As we work at the governmental level to further protect our democracy, we need to work with our schools to reach out into the electorate in order to optimize a population that is empathetic and has the capabilities of critical thinking.

Only with a more aware electorate and a new generation of logical and compassionate thinkers will we be able to protect our democracy. If we can strengthen those two items, then we can adapt the next leg of the New Deal and the Great Society.

The post Time for Dems to Take a Step Back in order to Move Forward appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There once was a time when most Americans revered the Constitution. The charter outlined how we mortals  structured our government so that reason and fairness were two of the guiding principles. But thanks to Donald Trump and the current generation of Republicans, our governmental structure no longer has clear definition. The rules governing what we can do are suddenly whimsical and chaotic. Where there used to be rhyme and reason, now we have fragmentation and dysfunction. Republican presidents, legislatures and judges have replaced the discretion with how we interpret the Constitution with blatant self-interest.

The reason is that Trump and his followers have little respect for preserving and strengthening the institutions and procedures that for so long have protected our democracy. If the rules do not provide most Republicans with unfair advantages, they rebel against the rules and try to change them, throwing caution to the wind.

The U.S. Constitution outlines a few basic principles that control how government in America is supposed to work. Just for quick review, here are the most fundamental of these.

1. Checks and balances. Each level of government has three branches: (a) executive, (b) legislative, and (c) judicial.
2. Levels of government. We have our national government, the federal government, the fifty states, and tens of thousands of local governments. Presumably the states are the most powerful because they came first. But the federal government has certain clear rights over the states, such as control of interstate commerce or the power to print money and control banking.

Local governments are closest to we the people and that gives the localities certain inherent advantages. For instance, public schools are controlled by local communities. Yet, the states give charters to local governments including school districts and thus the states can dictate a great deal about how we live, work and play.

Historically, the constitution has helped bring order to how our legislators pass laws and executives enforce the laws. But deciding who makes which rules can be extremely complicated. For two centuries, our constitution was helped by a strong measure of common sense among the electorate. An informed electorate with belief in the Constitution helped in determining which branches of government, or which levels of government (federal, state, or local) would make which decisions, and what would be the parameters of those choices.

Now we are finding that all levels and entities of government are wildly scrambling to advance their own power, regardless of the principles of the Constitution or historical precedent. In the world of the truly absurd, we currently find that the governor of Florida (Ron DeSantis) is telling public school districts that they cannot mandate students and teachers to wear masks to school to provide more protection from COVID-19. This is the kind of problem that historically has been solved by agreements largely forged through precedent and a commitment to promoting the common good. A school board would have control over the day-to-day operations of the school, and currently almost all local boards in the United States want to provide as much safety as possible for students, teachers, administrators and other staff.

But Republicans like DeSantis want to maximize the power of their offices and positions, showing little regard for America’s historical relationships branches and levels of government. Our system is now confusing, unpredictable, arbitrary, and capricious.

The answers to the “Who Decides” questions are not easy. The Trump era can show us how far off any beaten path we can go with these questions. It is enough to make your head spin. But that sort of dizziness has been avoided for most of the lifespan of our country because there were sound rules in our Constitution, and behavioral norms kept anyone from pulling DeSantis tricks.

Federalism was a brilliant idea conceived by our founders. It helps us determine publicly beneficial answers to a myriad of questions about “Who Decides.” But it is based on good will among citizens of different political persuasions. We will never recover from the damage of Donald Trump and his legions until they recognize the importance of governing by the rules that have provided us with a large measure of stability for most of the past two and a half centuries. Regrettably, the record of politicians gone wild in acknowledging their mistakes and reinstating the basic principles of governance is not good.

Progressives will need to reach out to others to try to forge relations built on reason and concern for the common good.

The post Republicans are destroying our founders’ Federalism appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you were divorced in 1876 and were considering re-marriage next year, do you really think that voters in the state in which you live would be the proper authority to determine whether or not it is a good idea? Well, if you add the interests of a billionaire to the equation, this is precisely what you get, at least in Missouri.

But first, think about this issue from a bird’s-eye perspective. Suppose that two people had been married years ago and divorced not too long after that. Since that time, they have often had conversations about re-marrying, but it never got very far because one was far wealthier than the other and each of them owned their own fiefdoms and were not eager to share control.

But then, a group of people who are vaguely familiar with both of them decide that they have the power to decide whether or not they should get remarried. Many of these people had never met either of them, but once somebody decided to make it financially beneficial for them, they took it upon themselves to be the arbiters and would decide about a remarriage.

In the case of the proposed reunification of St. Louis City and County, Rex Sinquefield is a very interesting civic booster in and around Missouri.  He had 18 cleft palate operations before the age of 5 and spent much of his youth in a local Catholic orphanage. He is a real rags-to-riches story, becoming an “index-fund pioneer” and has had assets over a billion dollars since 1980.

One thing that he clearly remembers from his youth was his mother complaining about having to pay a 1% earnings tax in the city of St. Louis. He seems to have not lost one bit of his anger about this particular tax that has been very helpful in funding the cash-strapped city of St. Louis.

How did this get him into the divorce business? It’s because he is creative and as crafty as a chess-master, which he happens to be. Since 2010, he has looked for ways to allow St. Louis and Kansas City jettison the earnings tax. And just recently, he found a new way to try to make that happen. His strategy involves a remarriage of the city of St. Louis with its surrounding county, thus voiding their divorce that occurred in 1876.

Through a complicated set of maneuvers, the earnings tax would be abolished in St. Louis if the re-marriage occurs. It has to do with an obscure legality whereby the St. Louis City would become a different classification of city in Missouri should there be re-unification.

So, what exactly is Sinquefield trying to do? Well, he wants voters in Missouri to vote in November 2020 on an initiative to reunify the city and county. But, what makes this odd is that the decision would be entirely in the hands of the people of Missouri. So, 6.1 million people would be making a decision about something that would have direct impact on only the 1.3 million people living in the city of St. Louis and its surrounding county.

If the ballot initiative was modified so that rather than letting the voters of Missouri determine if there will be a re-marriage, instead it authorized the two courters to decide for themselves, then this would be an excellent idea. Yes, it would not be an arranged marriage; instead, each party would have his or her freedom of choice.

If it were not so deceitful, the idea would be tantalizing. Missouri, which historically has discriminated against its two major metropolitan areas, would have a chance to empower them. Ultimately, if government is going to work in the future, the states are going to have to fade away and newly constructed metropolitan and rural authorities will be able to shape their own futures. But that is not what this is about. Nice try, Rex. Let’s hope you don’t fool too many.

The post Even in Missouri, arranged marriages should be outlawed appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Remember when Michelle Obama said in 2007, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” She took some flak for it, like Cindy McCain saying, “I have and always will be proud of my country.” But Cindy McCain may not be that familiar with the African-American experience. Michelle Obama was expressing a feeling that comes at one of the points where the “long arc of history may be bending towards justice.” Give her a break. After all, that didn’t last too long.

I heard something at Doug Jones’ victory party in Alabama last night that gave me pride. It may be the first and possibly the last time. The crowd started chanting, “U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A.” I normally find that chant to be boorish, snobbish and inappropriate. It is like the bully prancing around the playground telling everyone that he or she is the greatest. There is no modesty involved. I must wonder what athletes from other countries think about the chant when they hear it at the Olympics, or elsewhere. It’s so, “In your face.” Even if the venue is not the Olympics and it’s a rally in the U.S., it almost reflects the pleading of a child who can’t find other sources of self-esteem.

But hearing it from an Alabama crowd was different. In recent decades, we’ve come to learn that the Civil War is not over, or if it is over, it seems that the Confederacy won. So, instead of singing the Alabama fight song and waving Confederate flags, we heard Jones supporters saying something that might reflect a profound change in loyalties. They were proud to be citizens of the United States, not just Alabama. That’s one of the beauties about races for federal office; they give the winners opportunities to do something that can truly advance the quality of life in our country as a whole. It’s not parochial about their state. That perspective often leads to a “race to the bottom.”

Doug Jones wants to restore fund for CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program). That’s a true dollar and cents issue, and one that impacts all needy children in America. His words are steps towards improving quality of life, and clearly demonstrating that Democrats are more interested in the economic needs of people in lower-income brackets. The Republicans have tried to snooker people into thinking that is their concern, but look at their tax plans and you see who they clearly favor.

Another great point from last night was when Charles Barkley was first dropped the cliché, “the great people of Alabama,” and then corrected himself. He said that he wanted others to know that there are some great people in Alabama, but there are also rednecks and knuckleheads. Kudos to Barkley. Instead of the lame connotations of any state being great, he acknowledged that it is a fabric of mixed characteristics. It is a work in progress and blindly praising the state can offer excuses to not deal with real problems. Barkley has previously hinted at running for office in Alabama; he seems to have at least one foot in the sea of reality.

Finally, there is Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill. Here is a man who voted for Roy Moore, because he felt that it would be better for the U.S. Supreme Court and other issues. But when the votes were counted, he sounded as respectable as any Secretary of State could. He made it clear that Jones’ 1.5% margin was three times larger than the 0.5% difference to trigger an automatic vote recount. He said that the people of Alabama had spoken. He clearly outlined how certification of the election would proceed.

He seemed to take his office seriously. Even when Chris Cuomo needled him this morning about his vote for Moore, he maintained his integrity. It’s all something to think about. Life may not be as simple as we often characterize it.

So, congratulations to Doug Moore and those in Alabama who want the state to be a full participant in helping the United States address its economic and social issues. But with the shift of eleven thousand votes, it would be Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Roy Moore who would be crowing. It’s a ‘W’ for the Democrats, but tenuous at that. If Alabama is in play, it’s like the rest of the country. Democrats clearly have the high ground when it comes to policies, but they still have a lot of ‘splaining to do. Victory can be fleeting.

The post Beyond the hype, some nuggets from the Alabama Senate Race appeared first on Occasional Planet.

So, we are largely a nation of test-takers rather than critical thinkers. This can tell you a lot about the obsession so many have with the American flag and the national anthem.

We have a two-pronged litmus test on something called patriotism. Do we revere the American flag and stand at proper attention for the singing of the national anthem?

There is so much more to life than being beholden to the term patriotism. If you want some intelligent conversation about it, listen to CNN’s Alisyn Camerota and John Berman’s discussion this morning on New Day with Bob Costas about patriotism, Trump, the NFL, and much more.

I presume that patriotism has something to do with loving your country and serving it as well. But when you think about it, if serving your country does an injustice to our global society or it simply does not make sense, are we supposed to blindly follow?

Think a little more. A flag is a piece of woven cloth. How it looks is …. how it looks. In the case of the United States, the symbolism of thirteen stripes of the original thirteen colonies and the fifty stars for the current fifty states is a good piece of near-trivia to know. But if you drill down on this, you recognize that nearly half of the original thirteen colonies were denizens of slavery. And among the fifty current states, our original sin of slavery has influenced enough people in our national government to gridlock measures to improve quality of life. So, if we’re talking about the substance of the U.S. flag, there may be more imperfections than we want to acknowledge, particularly if you’re African-American.

Yet it is so hard in this country to move away from revering a flag and toward having an honest conversation that includes critical thinking. So, we don’t, and we distill honoring the flag to supporting the military. And yes, it’s good to honor the soldiers, because many are brave and honorable, and most have been sent on fool’s errands because we don’t think through the consequences of our policies.

We as individuals, we as a country, we as citizens of Earth, are ever-changing works in progress. As stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

That’s a tall task and one that will challenge each of us our entire lives. We don’t have time to waste on bragging about ourselves and dwelling on symbolism while ignoring quality of life issues.

Oh, and by the way, it’s a game that conservatives love to play. It’s called the politics of distraction. Think about the flag and the anthem, and then don’t do squat about addressing poverty, human rights, a clean environment, and international peace.

If you graduated from high school, you spent 10,000 hours in classes. Is the best you can do to have a fixation about a piece of cloth while ignoring quality of life? It’s time to move on. We can do better, and it’s good that we have some in our society who are currently reminding us of that.

The post Really, all we can do is fixate on a flag and an anthem? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Kate Bolduan, a very respected journalist on CNN, seemed to fall into a Republican trap on how to frame health care policy. She was interviewing Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) about their new proposed Republican health care plan, one which would send money from Washington to state capitols where legislators and governors could presumably decide what to do with their new resources.

The problem was with the inadvertent way in which Bolduan referenced the plan as she interviewed the two senators.

Her opening query was to Senator Graham. She asked, “Senator Graham, in a nutshell, you’re taking Obamacare money and giving it back to the states.

The linguistic problem is with one word, “back.” How could the federal government give back to the states something that the states never had? The money that the federal government has used to finance the Affordable Care Act have come from a number of sources, but none of them are the 50 states.

Individuals and even corporations have paid a number of taxes and fees to the federal government. But states rely entirely on whatever taxes, fees and subsidies that they receive.

It is true that states have been the recipients of largesse from the federal government. Medicaid is an excellent example of this. But it is difficult to find any case in which empowering the states with money has served the public better than when it is administered by the federal government in Washington, DC. The main reason why states receive federal dollars is because of pressure from “states’ rights” federal legislators (usually from the old Confederacy), who prefer to undermine measures that extend human rights, civil liberties and our social and economic safety nets.

When Senator Cassidy was asked if this plan passed the Jimmy Kimmel test, he said, “Yeah, because you’re giving money back to the states to make sure that those who have needs, are able to have their needs addressed.” Cassidy is trying to legitimize the meme that somehow money in the Affordable Care Act belonged to the states. In fact, it never did and it never should. Sending federal money to the states for health care is a way for Republicans to cut costs by encourage a “race to the bottom” among the states to see who can provide the least amount of care, and probably at an inflated price.

I doubt that Kate Bolduan wanted to take an adversarial position in favor of Republican plans for health care. But by taking one of their political memes and treating it as being neutral, she did just that. Kate deserves a “do-over,” but let’s hope that she can catch herself on this one in the future.

The post Media falls into Republican meme on health care appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On July 2, 2017, the New York Times published a special section: an annotated version of the United States Constitution. The special section, says the Times in its introduction, comprises “a slightly abridged Constitution, printed one large, dramatic sheet, as well as an introductory essay, a timeline, and annotations to help elucidate the document’s meaning.” The annotations come from a variety of observers, Republican and Democratic representatives [Bernie Sanders, Dana Rohrabacher, Cory Booker and others], historians, journalists, law professors [Laurence Tribe], authors, and former government officials [Janet Napolitano and others].

I have now read it, in all its unwieldy, small-type glory.  I encourage everyone to take a look at this ambitious project. Unfortunately, it’s available in print only [at this writing], and you’re going to need to brush up on your map-folding skills to handle it. But it’s worth reading. I won’t do it full justice in this post, but I’m offering a selection of quotes that I found particularly intriguing and informative.

In his introductory essay, historian Gary Wills gives a detailed account of the Constitution’s origin story and attempts to put the words and intent of the Constitution’s writers into contemporary context. Or, as the NY Times editors write in their introduction, “How might these words, written in the time of George Washington, guide us in the age of Donald Trump?”

Child of The Enlightenment

Wills reminds us that “America was the first major country founded on the principles of the Enlightenment:’

The founders were at the forefront of science in their day. They would have been astonished had they foreseen a president and his government defying science in matters like evolution and global warming.

Wills also underscores the uniqueness of the secular nature of the US Constitution—the separation of church and state in the First Amendment:

This is the one entirely innovative element in the Constitution: Everything else—separated powers, federalism, the single executive, bicameralism, and independent judiciary—had been known in theory or practice, or both. Only this was truly new. Ours was the first nation started without the assistance of an official deity or cult.

Will adds, provocatively, the “the disestablishment concept was in fact so new that many people have questioned whether Madison really meant it.”

That is why so many logical consequences of separation between church and state have in practice been denied—resulting in “exceptions,” things like tax exemption for churches, state slogans like In God We Trust, legislative and military chaplaincies…”

The Dark Conclave

Wills’ description of the process by which the framers created the Constitution eerily foreshadows [and some would say justifies] much of the secrecy we are seeing in Congress and the executive branch today. He writes:

The framers of our new government were so conscious of their break with the past that they knew they had to sneak it past the very bodies that had authorized their meeting, the states that had sent them as delegates to Philadelphia…The only way to avoid [being recalled] was for…the participants to swear themselves to secrecy, and Washington himself would severely enforce the pledge…

When the convention was over, the records of the procedure were committed to Washington, with the understanding that he would hide them at Mount Vernon. Madison refused throughout his lifetime to release his own detailed diary of the sessions.

Wills also puts the founders’ wariness of direct elections into a modern context, particularly with respect to the selection of federal judges:

The original intent of the Constitution was to keep the judiciary independent of popular pressure…That is what was so bizarre about the opposition to hearings on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Republican senators like Mitch McConnell said that the nomination could not even be considered until “the people” had some say on the matter through the 2016 election…This was flatly contradictory to the Constitution’s clear intent, which was to isolate the Supreme Court from every kind of direct vote.

Guns and Slaves

Many 21^st Century arguments about the Constitution center on the Second Amendment, whose grammar [that second comma!] and wording are confusing, and which has been used to maximum effect by the National Rifle Association to sell guns and ammunition.

Wills points out an issue that is too often ignored: “…just how far the poison of slavery pervaded the Constitution… the Second Amendment was also intended to protect slaveholders, who used militias to keep a firm grip on their slaves.”

The Second Amendment …was not meant to let individuals prevent federal “tyranny”—how could it? By training our rifles or handguns on the Army, Navy and Air Force? It was meant to guarantee the legality of a “well-regulated [that is, state-controlled] Militia to handle the states’ internal problems, especially the problems of a large slave population.

What other observers say

What do other contemporary readers of the Constitution say about it in the context of today’s issues? The New York Times asked and got a wide variety of answers, some of which will confirm certain points of view, others of which will infuriate. Here are just a few:

Congressman Mike Lee [R-UT] on Article I, Section I:

“All legislative powers granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”

Lee says:

This clause grants lawmaking power to Congress so the people can keep an eye on their government. Sadly, in the 20^th century, members of Congress started to give away lawmaking authority to the executive branch, because they did not want to be held accountable to the people for unpopular laws. As a result, most of the regulations that govern our lives today were created by bureaucrats. Even though they work in the public interest, they are not accountable to the people…The bureaucrats who have de facto lawmaking power are the “swarms of others” the founders protested.”

Congressman Adam Schiff [D-CA] on Article I, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have the power to declare war.”

Schiff says:

More than 15 years ago, Congress authorized force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The 60-word authorization remains the basis for military action against terrorist organizations around the world…These include groups that didn’t exist in 2001, whose connection to the simple language of the original authorization is tenuous at best. It is incumbent on Congress to play the role that the framers intended…

Senator Robert Menendez [R-NJ] on the 14^th Amendment:

“Section I: All persons born or naturalized in the United states, and subject to the jurisdictions thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States…”

Menendez says:

…In recent years, the debate over immigration reform has given rise to attacks on the 14^th Amendment and on the millions of American-born children of undocumented parents across our country. Ending birthright citizenship would not fix our broken immigration system. Rather, it would give rise to a permanent underclass of undocumented individuals and their descendants…

Op-ed Columnist Ross Douthat on the 27^th Amendment:

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

Douthat says:

This might be the last amendment ever added. That sounds extreme, but consider: It has been 46 years since an amendment of any real controversy has been ratified, and the prospects for one gaining two-thirds support in both houses of Congress and then limping through the states grow dimmer with every year of polarization. Meanwhile, our political order is increasingly adapting itself to a world in which the text of the Constitution cannot plausibly be changed. Whenever the textual straitjacket seems to binding, the presidency simply claims new powers or the Supreme Court issues creative reinterpretations of earlier amendments, and Congress shrugs and lets the executive and judicial branches fight things out.

A lot has happened to the Constitution since the founders first put quill to parchment. The pendulum has swung from assault to defense and back again. Some say that the beauty of the United States Constitution is in its vagueness: You can interpret it to mean almost anything, especially because it was written in the differently nuanced language [and inconsistent spelling] of its day, and because it leaves the details up to lawmakers, judges, Presidents and Congresses. Is 21^st century America about to experience an unprecedented constitutional crisis? That remains to be seen. As Gary Wills sums it up:

…Madison said that the key component of all government was “virtue.” Unless people are willing to choose good arbitrators and submit to their disinterested judgments, there can be no enlightened progress. If the people really want a mean and selfish government, one that speaks only for a faction, then the voting process, no matter how refined, will let them have it. We have witnessed this abroad, when we encouraged democracy in other countries, only to see democratic tools used against democratic values. Perhaps we will one day witness it at home.

Or perhaps it’s already happening.

The post Highlights of NY Times’ annotated Constitution appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Several weeks ago, I flew into Washington, DC, much as I had done for the first time back in March, 1963. Flying over government buildings and monuments, I felt the same emotions overcome me as they had when John F. Kennedy was president. But now the reality seemed to be seriously tainted.

Long before going to Washington as a fifteen-year-old, I had been concerned about problems facing the United States and the world. When I thought of solutions, my mind immediately looked to DC for answers to our domestic problems and the United Nations to hopefully play a key role in solving international issues.

When in Washington, it wasn’t just seeing the White House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court. It was walking by the Department of Justice (where JFK’s brother, Robert was Attorney-General), the Department of Health, Education & Welfare, the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture, even the Department of Commerce and the FBI. When I returned to Washington for college in 1965, the Great Society was being enacted and that lead to more departments aimed helping us solve a problem such as Housing & Urban Development, Transportation and Education. Not too many years after that, even Republican Richard Nixon presided over the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and expansion of the Office of Economic Opportunity (War on Poverty).

Two rhetorical questions were always present for me:

1. Wasn’t it obvious that our country had lots of problems, most having to do with poverty and racial strife?
2. Since we are a country, don’t the solutions naturally come from our seat of government in Washington, DC?

I thought that in 1963 and still believe it. But as I flew into Reagan¹ National Airport, I could not understand how hundreds of Republican members of Congress see the same views as I, yet they look at the city with disdain. They neither seem to care about the problems we have (witness wanting to cut $800 billion from Medicare to provide tax relief for the wealthy) nor do they see their jobs as Members of Congress as being central to solving the problems (witness their love of shoving responsibility from DC to inept state governments). How could you be elected to a job where you could do so much for your country, so much for your district or state, and instead you want to destroy what is helping the disenfranchised and you want to take the word “hope” out of our vocabulary?

Through the years I have taken students to Washington, DC. We have always looked at it as an opportunity to learn about what the federal government does and what it could do to improve quality of life. We have tried to challenge students with questions that require critical thinking. Hopefully they could become part of the solutions to our many problems, and in reflection, it seems that quite a few of them have.

I worry that school trips to Washington, DC now focus more on the military and a conventional definition of patriotism. That is disconcerting because if students do not first experience Washington, DC without a sense of hope and commitment to positive change, then we are indeed in deep trouble.

Because Republicans focus almost exclusively on individual liberties (except for the ones they don’t like such as a woman’s right to choose) at the expense of promoting the common good, they have been tearing apart our social and economic safety nets. The legislation and court rulings that they have undone can be repaired in time. But the damage that they have done to a sense of hope and vision as to how we solve our national problems is more insidious. Maybe we must go back a few decades and take a page from Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. and “keep hope alive.”

¹ How can you name an airport after a president who broke the Air Traffic Controllers Union?

The post What Republicans have done to our Nation’s Capital appeared first on Occasional Planet.