Our March 1 discussion centered around the 2019 book We The Corporations, by Adam Winkler. The essential theme of the book is that over the years corporations gradually have gained more and more constitutional rights, and therefore greater power, posing a significant challenge to our democracy.
 
Corporations were originally stockholder monopolies granted exclusive rights by governments for specific public interest purposes. For example, the 13 colonies began as corporations. The corporations were authorized and regulated by charters that defined their scope and purpose and could be revoked if the corporation violated their terms. Business corporations, such as banks and insurance companies were rare. A corporation was considered a legal entity or “artificial person,” but not with the same rights as individuals: they only had the right to own property and enter into contracts.
 
In 1819, in the landmark case of Dartmouth College v. Woodword, the US Supreme Court ruled that states were prohibited from changing the charters of corporations, even when they purported to do so for the public good. After that, private corporations multiplied as investors gained greater confidence that corporate charters could not be revoked or altered by the government.
 
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (1868) was intended to give equal rights to newly freed slaves, but its provision that states cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” was successfully claimed by corporations to give them rights equal to individuals. In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause incorporated the principle of “liberty of contract,” which authorized courts to strike down a number of laws designed to protect workers on the theory that a statute couldn’t interfere with the right of workers and employers to enter into contracts, even though the bargaining power between the two were highly unequal.
 
Nonetheless, even the pro-business Supreme Court of the early 20th century distinguished between liberty rights and property rights, and held that corporations only had the latter. On that basis, the court concluded that corporations had no right to participate in politics, and upheld the Tillman Act enacted 1907, which prohibited corporations from contributing to candidates or political campaigns.
 
In 1916, in Dodge Brothers v Ford Motor Company, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the corporation’s primary duty is to its shareholders, and it was unlawful for the Ford Motor Company to withhold shareholder dividends for the sake of objectives unrelated to increasing corporate profit, such as maintaining a reserve fund for workers in case of a downturn.
 
In 1976, the court in Buckley v. Valeo declared that money is speech, and that the only valid restrictions on campaign contribution and spending are those that prevent corruption. In 1978, in First National Bank of Boston. v. Bellotti (1978) the court struck down a law that prohibited corporations from contributing to campaigns related to certain ballot initiative, based on the theory that such contributions promoted the free flow of information protected by the First Amendment.

In the infamous Citizens United case of 2010 and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court struck down laws limiting donations of corporations to “independent” groups that try to influence elections. Donations were described by the court as “free speech,” and “corruption” was defined narrowly to include only quid pro quo contributions. Of course in reality there are no such independent groups, so this decision allowed almost unlimited corporate influence in elections. This ruling has led to huge increases in political spending groups trying to influence elections, growing corporate influence over politicians, and worsening economic inequality.
 
Nonetheless, there are a number of indications that some corporations are interested in promoting the public good. In 2019, the Business Roundtable issued a statement that that the “purpose of a corporation” should be not only to advance the interest of  its stockholders, but to invest in their employees, protect the environment, and deal fairly and ethically with other companies with which they interact. General Motors has pledged to stop manufacturing cars that run on gasoline within 15 years. In light of the recent events on January 6, a number of large corporations that see themselves as advocating corporate responsibility have pledged not to back politicians who voted to overturn the election results. Will corporate responsibility balance — or even exceed — corporate greed at some point? We will have to wait and see.

The topic of our February 1 meeting was Climate Change. We were honored to have the author of Brighter Climate Futures (2020), Dr. Hari Lamba, join us for our discussion. His book is highly recommended, as it gets into the details of how we can address this urgent problem. The essential theme of Dr. Lamba’s book is to provide a plan for how we can combat all aspects of climate change.
 
1)  Causes of Global Warming
 
Greenhouse gases concentrate in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun. There are three primary types of greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and wood are the primary source of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. We pump 55 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. Human-caused sources create the majority of methane emissions, accounting for about 64%. Some of the sources are cement production, cows raised for dairy and meat. Food trash that is not composted also is a source. Sources of nitrous oxide are primarily the application of fertilizers in agriculture. Nitrous oxide has 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

3)  Ways to Mitigate the Problem
 
Solar energy is the most viable solution because it can be produced locally and cheaply and is non-polluting. Nuclear power is extremely expensive and results in dangerous waste. Geothermal energy sources can be viable for areas that are close to them. Hydrogen fuels cells already are being used for public transportation in many areas. Forests can be designed with fire breaks to prevent the spread of wildfires. As we move from fossil fuels, we need to include job training in these new industries for those who are threatened to lose their jobs. Because the US is only 5% of the world’s population, it is essential to support the rest of the world, especially developing nations, to get on board with converting to sustainable energy. Carbon sinks are natural areas that absorb carbon dioxide such as forests and coastal marshes. However many of these sinks have been affected by deforestation and other land use changes. Massive fires due to our warming atmosphere are destroying large areas and contributing more carbon into the atmosphere in areas such as California, Colorado, Australia, Siberia, Greece and Brazil. Such deforestation results in destructive mudslides when heavy rains come, further destabilizing natural areas that used to absorb carbon.
 
What we can do as individuals:

1. Install solar panels on our roofs.
2. Purchase energy-efficient appliances.
3. Compost our organic waste which otherwise would give off methane.
4. Travel in energy-efficient ways, like using trains in place of driving where possible.

 
For more information go to Dr. Lamba’s website www.brighterclimatefutures.com, or to 350.org.

Climate change image by Pete Linforth via Pixabay

On January 4, our discussion topic was “Democracy’s Dilemma.” We didn’t know, of course, about the events a couple of day later in DC that would punctuate that theme.
 
We started with a discussion of the book Unfree Speech, by Joshua Wong, a 25-year-old Hong Kong activist who has been imprisoned three times under the incrementally more oppressive pressure from China. Since our meeting, 50 additional democracy activists were arrested in a sweep. The “handover” between Britain and China for the administration of Hong Kong occurred in 1997, with assurances from China that Hong Kong would be allowed to continue functioning democratically. Anyone familiar with China’s record of systematic oppression would not have believed that, but it did take about 20 years for China to begin systematically removing democratic guarantees. As the book recounts, China’s “Great Leap Forward” resulted in the death of 30 million peasants from mass starvation, similar to Stalin’s program that imposed great hardship and mass death in the Soviet Union. We also can expect a gradually more aggressive stance from China toward its neighbors. The grand plan of Xi Jinping, who recently declared himself president for life, is to divide the world into two realms of influence, with him at the head of one hemisphere. Here is the headline from South China News on January 5:
 
In his first order of the new year to the country’s armed forces, Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed the need for “full-time combat readiness” and said the People’s Liberation Army must use frontline frictions to polish troop capabilities.
 
Michael Wong, and many others who still dare press for democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, like Jimmy Lai, who recently was seen in US newspapers being led to prison in shackles, have developed a courage and commitment to freedom. That comes from an understanding of what is required to keep one’s mind free despite having one’s future and life being at stake for not submitting to oppressive authority. It is similar to the commitment of a Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King to decide that maintaining human dignity is worth sacrificing one’s freedom. Most of us take our freedoms for granted as we go about our everyday lives, bothered only by our rather minor inconveniences. Imagine having every major aspect of your life determined by the loyalty you show to a government that you have no role in choosing.
 
Joe Biden has committed to “No More Coddling Dictators,” according to a December 7 New York Times article. Numerous countries have regressed from an original commitment to democracy over the last twenty years. These includes Russia, Poland, Hungary, the Philippines, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, for only a partial list. Over the last four years, the US has lost its position as the main advocate for democracy by ignoring abuses in these and many other countries. We have chosen to leave alliances with other democratic countries which put pressure on dictators and would-be dictators who have, for the most part, been given free reign. In Egypt, human rights advocates recently were arrested while US aid in the billions continues. China, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries now know that they can engage in human rights abuses because of the US hands off policy. Finding the right type of pressure to apply is a challenge, but using economic sanctions, isolation, and other measures has been shown to work. We can hope that the Biden/Harris administration will return to working with our allies to pressure nations that violate human rights to begin respecting the rights of their own people.
 
Recently the Western members of the European Union have been withholding aid from Hungary and Poland due to reversals in their democratic direction. A compromise was reached to restore aid depending on the level of democratic reforms, but the current leaders of those countries are resistant to human rights initiatives, so the outcome still is to be seen. If a coalition is newly formed between the US and its allies it will be a signal to the leaders of countries that have been backtracking on democracy — and perhaps more importantly to their citizens — that the democratic nations of the world are on their side.
 
Reflections on a week like no other
 
We might look at those who invaded the US Capitol on January 6 as true believers who follow the directions of their leader without question. Lemmings will march in any direction they are told to go. But there’s a difference between protesting to express your concerns and rioting to oppress the views of others. Some of the rioters carried the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag of the American Revolution. But that revolution ultimately led to the right of people to choose their own leaders through elections; the recent riots aimed to subvert that right. This incident requires the strongest and quickest response possible to make clear that insurrection is no more acceptable now than it was during the American Civil War.
 
But we might also ask ourselves about our own roles in standing up for democracy. Do we give over our ideas about right and wrong to leaders we have decided to trust and therefore no longer question, or do we subject them to scrutiny? Do we let our politicians do our thinking for us, or work to come up with our own views about what makes democracy work? Do we believe what we are told by one source, or do we seek out multiple perspectives? Are we open to reexamining our views in light of new evidence? Democracy is endangered when independent thinking falls by the wayside.

On December 7, we discussed a proposal by Martin McIntyre titled: “One Human(e) Society.” The group had a mixed reaction to the ideas in the plan.

The essential idea behind this proposal is not to replace the governments of the world, but to establish direct communication about major issues by people over the Internet. Anyone over 15 could join but would need to agree to vote on two-thirds of the ideas proposed.

This proposal was at first created 50 years ago and then updated over the years when the Internet became widely available. Its intent is to enfranchise people around the world who otherwise believe they have no voice in the direction of their countries and the world.

Ideas for action would be brought by members and then voted on. Membership would be anonymous. The issues considered could be any that currently are affected — or neglected — by our governments. These might include areas such as human rights, environmental issues, health benefits, education, water rights, nuclear weapons, etc.

The hope is that if enough people would be willing to communicate in an international communication format like this it would have a number of benefits:
​

1. The society would encourage expression of views by many who now consider themselves disenfranchised, including minorities and young people.
2. It would allow those most disaffected by their domestic and foreign governments to directly state their views about possible solutions to their issues and the direction of their countries.
3. It would have the potential to lessen the likelihood of war by substituting communication among those most likely to be affected.
4. It would encourage those of different political backgrounds to communicate about issues directly rather than dwelling on partisanship or ideology.

Although the results would not be legally binding, they likely would have considerable influence on democratic governments who would have access to the views of a large group of individuals. Moral suasion — along with economic suasion such as boycotts — has worked to change policies such as apartheid in South Africa and poor treatment of farm workers in California.

Ideally, such a system would be conducted over its own dedicated internet network, but that would be expensive to set up, so the regular internet would probably have to suffice at the beginning. That could be subject to hackers, so a stable, hacker-free network could, it is hoped, be established.

Our November 9 discussion centered around the recent 2020 election. Our emphasis was how the election process enhances — or detracts from — the survival of democracy.

The 2020 presidential election has been hotly contested, but there have been others that have caused Americans to wonder if their democracy was on the brink. The 1824 presidential election was decided by the House of Representatives when none of the four candidates received a majority of the electoral votes. There have been four other times when the eventual winner lost the popular vote (1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016).
 
A small contingency can sometimes make the difference. In 2016 many “rust belt” voters were workers who had previously been lifelong Democrats. When they lost their jobs or were forced into positions with reduced pay and benefits, they switched to Trump based on promises that he would remedy their situation. But again in 2020, many of these voters felt ignored and switched back to the Democratic candidate.
 
But the election in the “swing” states still was close, with a margin of less than 1% for Biden in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The popular vote was not as close, in which Biden prevailed by about 5 million votes, or 3%. Democrats lost seats in the US House of Representatives and did not take over the Senate as polls had predicted, so there is much soul searching going on among them. There clearly is something missing in their understanding of a vast number of Americans.
 
From the viewpoint of the survival of democracy, the main issue of our time is whether the US President honors the traditions that have enabled our 240-year-old republic to survive. To many of us, in this election the US has just been pulled back from the precipice of autocracy into which many other previous democracies have descended, including Russia, Poland, Venezuela, and the Philippines. Now many wonder if Trump will concede his defeat. While it is legitimate for a candidate to contest an election when a legal issue arises during or after the election that could affect the election's result, as was the case with the Bush v. Gore in 2000, the Trump campaign doesn't appear to have this issue. The decision to litigate the election if Trump lost was apparently made before the election.
 
For democracy to survive, there needs to be a commitment at the top to the principle of universal respect. The president needs to serve the US Constitution rather than his or her private interests. But our current president has repeatedly used his office as a conduit for personal gain. He is benefiting by foreign visitors staying in his hotels and his own family has formed the core of his paid advisors. In the mode of autocracy, he has fired over 100 advisors who have dared question him. Many voters were turned off by the negative tone of Trump toward anyone who disagreed with him, even some of his own party. Some have remained compliant as democracy has gradually been eroded and may not notice if we altogether lose it.
 
We discussed what makes people stay with a candidate regardless of moral failings or the degree of divisiveness inspired by that candidate. Is our innate tribalism a factor in turning a blind eye to leaders once we have committed ourselves to them? Is there a “father figure” element — or blind trust — to our letting others do our thinking for us? Is “group thinking” — simply believing what those around us or those we admire believe — a factor?
 
Democracy — Greek for “government by the people” — requires us to commit to the principles of equality and fairness if we are to move forward rather than regress. This takes soul-searching on the part of each of us as to whether those who would lead us are committed to these principles. Yet the “Better Angels of our Nature” (Lincoln) often seem to remain buried beneath the surface. Only by civil discourse and returning to acknowledging the needs of all Americans will we be able to move our democracy forward.

Our September topic was “To Keep or to Cancel, how Best to use the Past as our Guide.”
 
This discussion was inspired by our current intense national debate about whether we should keep or “cancel” people, views and mementos that make us uncomfortable. This includes those who write or say things that we consider inflammatory or with which we disagree, and to monuments that represent episodes from the past that we believe should no longer be honored.
 
We discussed an article entitled “Industry and Economy during the Civil War,” that pointed out the considerable differences in size and wealth between the sides in that conflict. The North had a population of about 22 million to 9 million for the South, about a two to one differential. The North also has a thriving economy which expanded during the war, while the economy of the South dwindled because of shrinking markets and problems with sale and distribution of the mainstay of their economy, which was cotton. After the war many Southerners believed that the North had totally ruined their livelihoods and bucolic lifestyles, whether real or imagined. Then the “carpetbaggers” came in from the North after the war to aid in rebuilding efforts by educating former slaves and bolstering the economy, but also were believed by many to profit by exploiting the South during Reconstruction. This created a resentment toward the forced change for many Southerners that still resounds to this day.
 
We moved on to an article by a spokesperson for the Black community who now lives on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia. She writes about her resentment of the long line of monuments to Confederate heroes, including Robert E Lee, on her street.
 
An article in the Atlantic entitled “A Taxonomy of Fear” addressed what many call the “cancel culture.” According to the author, “Institutions that are supposed to be guardians of free expression — academia and journalism in particular — are becoming enforcers of conformity. … It is our moral and strategic obligation to vigorously defend the principles of a free society.” The author is particularly critical of the forced resignation of James Bennet as editorial page editor of the New York Times after he ran an article by Tom Cotton, Republican Senator from Arkansas, suggesting that the military should respond to civil right demonstrations when they turn to riots. So, for the author, the issue becomes whether we should engage in “safetyism” to avoid offending some by censoring those with views we oppose. And of course we must consider to what extent, if any, extreme views should be censored. An example is that Nazi symbols and denial of the Holocaust in modern Germany are subject to punishment. If we are supportive of expression by those whose views are repugnant to many, are those who support such speech liable to “contamination by association?”
 
A number of Confederate symbols have been removed over the last few months in the wake of the recent Black Lives Matter movement, including the statue of a Confederate soldier near the monument to Robert E. Lee which was the subject of a “Unite the Right” rally in which a life was lost in Charlottesville, Virginia, two years ago. We reviewed an article by W. Fitzhugh Brundage, a history professor at the University of Virginia, in whose view the “heritage protection laws” in the South “protect and perpetuate the racist commemorative landscape.” His solution is that these monuments should be moved to museums with a commemoration of their racist intent that then should be used to teach us the lessons of racism.
 
Our last article was “The Massacre that Emboldened White Supremacists,” about a little-known incident in Colfax, Louisiana, where in 1873, 150 Blacks were shot and burned. The plaque that commemorates that slaying honors the “heroes” — three white men — who died in the riots, and is one of many that still stand in commemoration of the resistance of the South to Reconstruction after the Civil War, despite two Constitutional Amendments intended to instill equal treatment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
 
Our discussion included some history and views of our current racial predicament. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as free state to maintain the balance of power in the US Senate. When Lincoln ran for president as the nominee of the new Republican Party he at first only opposed the expansion of slavery into the new territories. Toward the end of the Civil War, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves, but the aftermath led to economic devastation for the South and resentment that lingers, for many, to this day.
 
The South is an enigma. There was, in the minds of many Southerners, an ideal world that was taken from them and for which they still long. Thus extreme resentment affects their thoughts and actions. But the flip side of this is that there really is such a thing as Southern Hospitality rooted in the slow Southern lifestyle which extends to people of all races as long as they don’t challenge entrenched ideas. I (Steve) have experienced this on a number of visits. Please don’t cancel me for saying so.
 
Our next meetings, September 30 and October 5, will focus on the upcoming elections, first on local than national issues, where we will review the recommendations of a number of organizations and come up with some of our own.
 
Your (constructive) thoughts always are welcome.
 
Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org

The focus of our August 3 discussion was Law and Order. We reviewed a number of articles about ways to make our laws — and law enforcement — function so that everyone receives equal treatment, which is a fundamental premise of democracy.
 
We started with Chapter 9, Justice, from Steve’s new book, Truth and Democracy. Equal justice for all is the principle behind our laws. This applies to those who are accused of crime as well as victims. But laws alone do not ensure justice. To bring it into practice those who enforce our laws must believe in the principle of equality, whether they are politicians, police officers, or members of the public.
 
We reviewed the recent US Supreme Court decision about whether the President needs to provide his tax returns to those conducting a criminal case. This would be required of ordinary citizens, but the President claimed immunity. The Court decided in favor of prosecutors, because, in the words of the two Trump appointees: “In our system of government, as this court has often stated, no one is above the law. That principle applies, of course, to a president.”
 
There is a great deal of tension in our country — and other countries — about unequal treatment of minorities by police. Defund the Police has become a slogan of many who are frustrated by this issue. We reviewed some of the ways that changing — if not eliminating — funding for police might work. In Camden, New Jersey, the police force was disbanded in 2011 after what many in the community considered overzealous policing, but it also was due to the financial crisis of the time. After “community policing” took the place of the old police force, homicides and complaints against officers were greatly reduced. The new department was trained to de-escalate tense situations and hand out less tickets for small infractions, which mainly go to minorities. Most people in Camden now see the police force as more fair and effective.
 
One of our members who is a mental health professional presented the view that police are not suited to dealing with many of the people with mental health problems they are called on to handle, and that it would be better to use trained mental health professionals. Although a number of members of the group felt the slogan "defund the police" was misleading and politically unpopular, people were open to rethinking the functions of the police and of transferring some of their duties to mental health and social service professionals who were better trained to handle and less likely to escalate some of the crises that now are assigned by default to the police. Many police departments and officers agree.
 
We also considered two articles about whether community mental health services can alleviate crime. According to the Brennan Center for Justice: “Community organizations have an important role in lowering crime rates.” Another article, “Whatever Happened to Community Mental Health?” described the emergence of these program under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and how federal funding has been greatly reduced since that time for programs where people are locked up rather than treated.
 
Another area of concern we discussed was the poor police response in places like Oakland to non-emergency calls like robberies, and the fear that police defunding would give robbers a free hand.
 
We then reviewed an article about a town where de-escalation training has been put in place: Huntsville, Alabama. A black man called the police after his wife, apparently with a mental health issue, threatened his young daughter with a knife. This situation ended without anyone being harmed, although the Minneapolis officers accused of murder in the George Floyd case also received similar training.
 
One of our members contributed an article about the recent California Use of Force law, which “replaces a general reasonableness standard with one more focused on whether a suspect poses an immediate threat of grave harm.” This change came about in 2019 and we still have yet to see if it results in less accusations of unnecessary force by officers.
 
We then discussed a chapter from Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, “Harlan, Kentucky,” where families engage in long-term feuds in the manner of the Scottish clans from which they descend and vigilante justice often rules. There is no appeal to outside law enforcement, only to their own resources, which are based on a community-sanctioned norm of revenge.
 
Perhaps the most important question in our era of outrage is where do we go from here? Knowing what we don’t want is important, but then we need to know what we want to put in place instead. Here are some areas to consider. (1) In the area of police reform, funding should go toward what really improves the system. Police need to be seen — and see themselves — as guardians of the communities they serve, not just as overseers who pluck out bad apples. Training toward that end would include practice in actual positive interaction with community representatives, not just academic training. Mental health professionals also could be engaged in crisis situations so that police are not expected to act beyond their expertise. (2) There are many inequalities in our society. Those who believe that they do not have equal opportunities consider the system unjust. Our current education system often doesn’t lead to skills that enable a person to earn a living. Viable skills are an essential part of having a sense of pride and willingness to consider oneself a contributing and responsible part of the community. This is turn leads to a reduction in crime. (3) Often overlooked is how we treat each other in our society. If we learn to treat others with respect from the time our education begins we are more likely to see others as valid individuals who are equal to ourselves. If we believe that some people are better than others — for any reason — then we become caught in the syndrome of inequality that affects our actions. In treating others with respect we experience respect for ourselves.
 
There recently has been much talk about what some term as “cancel culture.” For many this means ridding society of reminders of oppression, such as the Confederate Flag. So we must ask ourselves if we want to be rid of every remnant of inequality and those who represent it, or do we need reminders of the past so that we don’t repeat our mistakes. For our September meeting, the topic will be To Keep or to Cancel: How Best to Use the Past as Our Guide. Our focus will be on how history can guide our actions without our forgetting both positive and negative incidents that provide examples for what to do — and what not to do — in the future.
 
Your (constructive) thoughts are always welcome ​(see Comments below).
 
Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org

The focus of our July 6 discussion was Changing the World. Our readings included descriptions of a number of societies that one might consider ideal or utopian, as well as the section on International Relations from Steve’s new book, Truth and Democracy.  
 
We started with a statement from Herb, a member of our group, who has extensive experience in the engineering field. His essential argument is that it takes considerable planning and commitment to implement our ideas. Just stating them is never enough to make them a reality. Knowing what we want and how to get there is more important than just knowing what we don’t want.
 
We then discussed a chapter from the book The Nordic Theory of Everything: “On Not Being Special,” which describes the difference between attitudes and public institutions in the US and Scandinavian countries, which are described in many surveys as being the happiest on earth (see this CNN article). According to this chapter, written by a former Finnish resident, life in Nordic countries is much less stressful because people don’t need to be continually worried about earning a living, getting ahead, paying for education, healthcare, and retirement. On the other hand, the author describes a sort of blandness or lack of purpose that comes from not striving to get ahead and having all essential needs provided — perhaps a bit like living in a cocoon. There seems to be a culture of self-denigration to keep people from getting too competitive and striving to look too good next to others. Trying to be exceptional seems to be against the Nordic DNA.

Because we have been brought up in a culture that teaches the importance of “getting ahead,” more and more people are getting further behind, with the rest in a continual state of fear about whether they have enough to sustain themselves and their families. But perhaps we should be wary of a state of mind that tells us that there never is enough, no matter how much we accumulate. As recent events make clear, with riots across our nation, there are many who consider themselves economically and socially disadvantaged. For our economy to remain viable, we must commit ourselves to creating a more just society with opportunities that equally benefit everyone.
 
The Triumph of Injustice is by Saez and Zucman, at UC Berkeley, who have collaborated with Thomas Piketty, author of Capital in the 21st Century which we discussed in the past, but the theme essentially is the same:

​These views are very much along the lines of the warnings of Robert Reich, who also works on the Berkeley campus, in his film Inequality for All (2013), but is based on updated research that shows inequality moving in an accelerated direction.
 
The solution that the authors suggest is moving back to the tax rate once considered normal before the massive cuts that began in the 1980s:

​From Sharon in our group:

We also briefly discussed mutual aid societies, which can take any form and have been in existence as long as people. They support individuals in meeting their common needs. We might consider families or their extensions mutual aid societies at the most basic level, or frontier organizations where neighbors help each other build homes, or membership organizations like credit unions. Lacking a vibrant monetary system, an alternative economy may work based on everyone contributing their efforts toward the common good.

The last article in our packet was “Crumbs for the Hungry but Windfalls for the Rich.” According to this article the bulk of the benefits of the current assistance programs are going to those who least need it, similarly to the government programs put in place during the 2008 Great Recession.

Our next meeting will be on July 6 at 7:45 p.m. Pacific Time (online). The topic will be How to Change the World, admittedly a broad emphasis, but our focus will be on how to move toward meaningful change in democracies to better serve the needs of all who live in them. We will consider some models used by governments and organizations to improve the lives of the people they serve. Of course the question we must consider is “would these techniques work here?” To join us contact Steve at thefutureofdemocracy.net.

The focus of our May 4 discussion was Government Surveillance. Our lively discussion centered on Edward Snowden’s book: Permanent Record (2019).
 
First, a little background: Edward Snowden worked for CIA and NSA from 2006–2013. His book states that during that period: “I participated in the most significant change in the history of American espionage — the change from the targeted surveillance of individuals to the mass surveillance of entire populations.” (P. 1) His concern is that the US government has gone from using surveillance to enforce laws in specific cases to having the capacity to spy on anyone at the will or whim of government officials. The system had gotten to the point where a permanent record could be kept of “everyone’s life.” (P. 3)
 
The main questions we discussed were (1) what, if any, should be the limits to government surveillance? and (2) should Snowden have gone through the regular channels of bringing his complaint up the chain of command before revealing the government domestic spying program to the press? Perhaps the biggest issue for many of us is: Does the US government have justification to spy on its citizens at all and, if so, what can we do about it?
 
After 9/11, according to Snowden, the government was given the capacity by law to intercept conversations between the US and foreign countries, but illegally expanded this capacity to spy on US citizens as well. When brought to court by those who believed their privacy was violated, the government stated that such programs were top secret or denied that they existed at all.
 
The country became divided between “Us” and “Them” according to Snowden at the urging of George Bush, who justified the programs by claiming that if anyone opposed government spying, that person was helping the “enemy.” (P. 80) Let me add that Dick Cheney also was a big advocate of this program.
 
There is a sad aspect to Snowden’s situation. He states: “I had hoped to serve my country, but instead I went to work for it. …By the time I arrived, the sincerity of public service had given way to the greed of the private sector.” (P. 111) Regardless of whether we consider his actions justified, from his view he sacrificed his future to confront what he considered the abuses of our government that needed to be exposed. He still resides in Moscow as of this day, where his passport was revoked en route to Ecuador, which was sympathetic to his cause.
 
A large part of our discussion revolved around whether a person who sees abuses by their government should go through the chain of command in reporting the situation, or if urgency can justify exposing the issue to the public. Think about the whistleblower who brought a complaint about Trump’s conversation with the president of Ukraine. He did go through proper channels, but if that route was blocked would he be justified in bringing his concerns to the press and/or public? Should Daniel Ellsberg have released the Pentagon Papers, that showed the US losing in Vietnam while sacrificing American lives? What are the principles we rely on to determine the right path in exposing government secrets?
 
Regardless of whether we think his actions to expose the US surveillance program was justified, Snowden makes a compelling argument regarding authoritarianism: “Authoritarian states are typically not governments of laws, but governments of leaders, who demand loyalty from their subjects and are hostile to dissent.” Perhaps the biggest question of our time is whether we are moving in the direction of authoritarianism in once-democratic countries around the world, perhaps even our own.