Democracy Newsletter: May 2023By Steve Zolno Hopefully you have seen Rob’s post from last month about fair treatment for transgender individuals. For me, that brings up the question of whether laws alone can establish fairness, or we need to look beyond them to have the type of society in which we want to live. Our laws are based on a morality that we assume members of our society have in common. ![]() A difference between us and other creatures is that we recognize a need for consistent behaviors. From the earliest times, people created rules, and then laws, to enable them to live together. This is the basis upon which societies are built. Laws are an attempt to provide guidelines for acceptable behaviors and consequences for violations. But autocratic leaders often are immune to following them. Because there have been laws in all societies as far back as we can see, we must assume that there are people whose actions fall outside their moral codes. Some questions we might ask:
Laws became codified in early societies, such as those of King Hammurabi of Babylon, which are the oldest complete codes yet discovered. Those codes — and similar ones from that time — provided specific punishments for infractions, including the famous phrase “an eye for an eye.” They also stated that their moral principle was “to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak.” In democracies, laws are written by representatives of the people and are assumed to apply equally to everyone. As I’m sure you have noticed, there is no end to our lawmaking process. New laws continually are being created and old ones revised to fit circumstances that previously were not considered. This creates careers for lawmakers. But are we clear about the intent of our laws? Do we want to punish people for violations, to create a better society, or both? Will we ever get to a point where we have enough laws to guide us, or is there another approach that might help us realize our intent more efficiently? Within each of us lies an ideal of how we want to be treated, and thus how people should treat others, if we are to live together successfully. Laws in democracies are an attempt to approach this ideal. But as we all have seen our laws — and each of us — often fall short. ![]() What if our democracies emphasized working together toward common goals rather than competition? What if our educational system encouraged responsible behavior toward others? What if in our everyday interactions we focused on the value of other human beings? Many of our laws assume the worst about people: that they are capable of operating only from the view of their own limited self-interest. But when I begin to see my self-interest tied to that of others, and operate from that principle, a win-win outcome may be possible. I begin to operate from a view that seeks outcomes that benefit us both. You might be thinking: “Human nature is basically selfish. No one would be willing to take that view.” That would be a reasonable assumption based on our experience. But perhaps, just in our own lives, we could begin to choose to look at others more as partners than as adversaries. Perhaps we could take the first step toward creating the morality we hold in our minds, at least in our own interactions. You may consider it naïve to expect changes in our basic societal perceptions. Slavery, and then segregation, once were assumed to be essential to the functioning of a large segment of society, and now most of us realize that those institutions, and the views on which they were based, no longer serve those on either side of the divide. Our society once held homosexuality to be a mental disease, but observation in place of prejudice eventually upended that view. And though many see transgender individuals with suspicion, or even contempt, our society may be coming to the realization that all sexual orientations and gender identities are valid. Many intolerant viewpoints once backed by laws were overturned as we opened our minds and hearts and their error became apparent. Even during the times in which these mistaken views dominated our culture, there were those who saw beyond them and worked — privately and publicly — to overturn them. Perhaps there are those in our day who see that all views and laws based on blame and recrimination only lead to the perpetuation of the hate we want to eliminate. Of course some laws are needed: Serious anti-social behavior must result in isolation of the perpetrator, but our ultimate goal must be reintegrating the individual into society rather than sticking a label of blame on a person for life. We don’t need to change the world to alter our perceptions and interactions. We can take the view that seeing others as not quite as human as ourselves impedes the ability of our world — and each of us — to move forward. We can consider the possibility that how we see people may be only half-truths, and perhaps the other person also is a human being trying to succeed in a competitive world. Perhaps there is more to others — and of us — than we usually allow ourselves to perceive. The type of morality by which we live affects us personally. If we hold others in esteem we have a personal experience of esteem; if we hold others in contempt we experience contempt. So perhaps when engaged in conflict we can refocus on a direction that suits us mutually rather than only our side. Perhaps as we interact in a way that considers the needs of all we can find a viable path forward. Perhaps as we do this, we will get less of what we think we want but more of the peace of mind we seek. And perhaps we will begin to experience more of the freedom that democracy promises. Steve Zolno graduated from Shimer College with a bachelor’s degree in Social Sciences and holds a master’s in Educational Psychology from Sonoma State University. Steve has founded and directed private schools and a health care agency in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is the author of six books. Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment.
0 Comments
Democracy Newsletter: April 2023![]() By Robert Katz The treatment of transgender people is one of the most active fronts in our never-ending culture wars. Any nuance gets lost on both sides of the debate. At the risk of being caught in the crossfire, this post attempts to formulate a sensible framework for understanding this issue. My starting point is the affirmation of two principles. First, people should be able to express their gender identity as they wish, not in conformity with other people’s ideas. That principle is rooted in the fundamental right to express oneself linked to the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech. Second, gender dysphoria, the strong sense of belonging to a gender other than the biological gender into which one was born, is real. The causes of gender dysphoria are not well understood, but seems to have a physiological basis, at least in some cases. From this emerges the principle that people experiencing gender dysphoria should be given “reasonable accommodation,” a term that comes from the law of disability discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of disability cannot be addressed by treating disabled people the same as the so-called able-bodied. Schools, workplaces, and other public spaces must reasonably adapt to their needs in order to give them an opportunity to participate in society and reach their full potential. So it is with transgender people: we are obliged to reasonably accommodate them so they can live in alignment with their gender identity and still be fully functioning members of society, countering a tendency to marginalize them due to their unusual physical circumstances. The recent spate of legislative proposals in Republican states are rooted in denial of these principles. Their animating idea, genuinely believed in or professed out of political opportunism, is that the law should define people’s gender according to their biological sex “without regard to an individual’s psychological, chosen or subjective experience of gender,” as a recent South Carolina Republican resolution reads. According to an article in the New York Times, in addition to bathroom and sports bills, a new wave of over 150 anti-trans bills proposed in at least 25 states include bans on transition care into young adulthood, on drag shows, and on teachers using names or pronouns not matching students’ biological sex. As with other issues, like climate change, structural racism, and who won the 2020 presidential election, some Republican politicians hope to parlay evidence-free bias into a winning political strategy. Nonetheless, the affirmation of the two principles above don’t resolve all transgender issues. Inasmuch as the transgender agenda asks not merely for freedom of expression, but for societal accommodation and medical intervention, it raises a number of issues that can’t be dismissed as simply transphobic. For one, how do we know when medical intervention is appropriate, and what kind of intervention? Our answer to these questions may depend on how we interpret transgender demographic trends. According to one study of the U.S. population, 1.4 percent of 13- to 17-year-olds and 1.3 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds identify as transgender, compared with about 0.5 percent of adults. To what extent is this difference accounted for by the fact that trans-inclined adults have been inhibited by social pressure from living as their authentic selves, and to what extent is the difference an artifact of social influences to which people under 24 are exposed? If the later, then perhaps stricter protocols for medical intervention, particularly for minors, is called for. Then there are questions around which accommodations are “reasonable.” For example, while the issue of transgender competition in women’s sports has been amplified by right-wing hysteria, there are plausible arguments for placing some constraints on that competition. The ardently feminist Women’s Sports Policy Working Group, for example, although in favor of some transgender women’s participation in recreational sports, have raised concerns about the advantages that transgender women’s athletes who have gone through puberty as males may retain, and have proposed some limitations on their participation in girls’ and women’s sports at the competitive level. You may disagree with their position, but it isn’t reasonable to simply dismiss it as the product of bigotry. Questions about reasonable accommodation extend into areas of language. Using a person’s preferred gender pronoun seems to me unproblematic. But do we need to socially ostracize anyone who doesn’t use “pregnant people” and “people who menstruate” to refer to biological women? Do we all need to fall in line with the decision in some quarters of academia and the media to use “Latinx,” a term favored by only 4 percent of the people in the country who identify as Hispanic? The Republican wager that anti-trans legislation will have political benefits may pay off, at least in the short term. According to a 2022 Pew Research Poll, although 64% of respondents were opposed to discriminating against trans people in employment and housing compared to 10% in favor, they believed, 58% to 17%, that trans athletes should compete on teams that match their sex at birth, 46% to 31% that health care professionals should be prohibited from assisting people under 18 to transition, 41% to 31% that trans people should use the bathroom of the sex assigned at birth, and were evenly split on whether parents who help their children transition should be investigated for child abuse. And this gets to a reality not often acknowledged in liberal circles — that to many people, transgender is a strange phenomenon because it is far outside their personal experience. Prejudice stands ready to supply the answers where experience can’t. There is a tendency among some militant advocates to dismiss any questions and concerns about the accommodation of transgender people as simply transphobic. Transgender advocates may succeed in making certain spaces like universities safe for trans folk, and may intimidate some who express heretical opinions. But as the above survey indicates, they may not be able to translate their dominance in some corners of society into actual political power. And not only is the transgender project placed in jeopardy, but Republicans are using its unpopularity to thwart a progressive agenda that would address climate change, racial justice, and economic inequality. Persuasion on transgender issues will not be possible until advocates realize that at least some questions about the accommodation of transgender people are legitimate and should be addressed, even if they passionately believe that they have the right answers to those questions. Robert Katz served as a staff attorney and supervising attorney at the California Supreme Court from 1993-2018. Before that he was in private practice representing public agencies, and worked as a newspaper reporter covering local government in Santa Cruz County. Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment. Democracy Newsletter: March 2023An excerpt from Steve Zolno’s new book, The Pursuit of Happiness. “Available wherever books are sold” as of March 15, 2023 ![]() At the time of the founding of the United States, every other country was under autocratic rule. The word “democracy” had not been used for over 2000 years. That term, meaning “rule by the people,” came out of ancient Greece, while the Romans later used the word Libertas, or freedom, to describe what they considered an essential principle of their republic. During the US Revolution, most people thought only of overthrowing British oppression and had no idea about what would be the best way to govern the new nation. This is typical for revolutions. The US Founders were well-educated and mainly from upper classes. Many were slave holders, yet they considered themselves oppressed by the British King. They were inspired by such writers as the Englishman John Locke who insisted that people have the right to overthrow oppressive government, and the Frenchman Charles Montesquieu who proposed that a separation of powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government is needed to keep one branch from becoming too powerful. At first the US was a loose association of states under the Articles of Confederation. Eleven years later it became clear that a strong central government was required for the nation to succeed, and the Constitution was born. Since that time over 100 countries have tried to install democratic governments, many with limited success. One of the most famous phrases in democracy is from the Declaration of Independence. It states that human beings are entitled to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These terms are not well-defined in the fairly short Declaration, but the phrase has inspired people for nearly 250 years to believe that these qualities are their due. We will briefly discuss each in an attempt to clarify what the writers may have had in mind. We might think the meaning of “Life” to be obvious. But does it simply mean a right to stay alive, or does it refer to a life of quality and recognition for the value of each individual? Most likely everyone who has been inspired by those words would agree it means the latter. And what is meant by “Liberty?” We can surmise that the term refers to an ability to determine the course of one’s own life rather than have major decisions decided by others. Of these three the phrase that seems to have the least clear meaning is “The Pursuit of Happiness.” This was the most fought-over. Did the US Founders intend for denizens of the new country to determine their own paths to the extent possible? Did they assume that the pursuit of happiness was equivalent to freedom? Most of us probably would agree that democratic governments are more likely than autocracies to afford people an opportunity to pursue happiness. Millions of refugees from autocratic regimes have sought to live in democracies since they came into existence. Those who live under autocracy seek democracy not only for political freedom but because many autocracies lack economic opportunity, and in many the bulk of the population is mired in poverty. But once we have secured our life and liberty, are we free to pursue happiness? And do those of us fortunate enough to live in democratic countries even agree about what happiness is? Is it the accumulation of goods, involvement in meaningful relationships, or is it freedom to pursue our own path? These are some of the directions that happiness could take. We might also ask if there is an underlying quality that unites our experiences of happiness that lends meaning to the term. And perhaps more importantly, do we have control over our happiness, or are we always at the mercy of the situations of our lives? Even within what we consider democracies, there are those who would move their countries in the direction of being more autocratic. If we want to preserve democracy it is essential that we identify and combat those elements before they become prevalent. A group of oligarchs attempted to seize power in ancient Athens, and the Emperor Augustus ended the Roman Republic. In the United States there was an attempt to overthrow the presidential election by an insurrection. Efforts by those of authoritarian minds and their followers always are a threat to “rule by the people.” But one person cannot overthrow a government without a large group of followers. So what is it in the human personality that seeks democracy when subject to autocracy, but for many, seeks autocracy when living under democratic rule? Is there a conflict within each person, or just different preferences among different people? Democracy and autocracy are determined not only by the government in a country or state, but by the nature of its institutions. A truly free country has a free press that explores and exposes shortcomings wherever they find them, including the government. A truly democratic country has a balance between branches of government so that no one person or group can dominate and deprive people of their rights. A country that intends to maintain democracy has educational institutions that train students in what democracy means. It creates a model for how individual freedom is built by encouraging free and creative expression. Its educational institutions not only train students in the lessons of the past but encourage them to consider how best to move democracy forward. They expose them to a variety of views so they can come to their own conclusions about how best to nurture democracy. Clarity about the nature of democracy and how best to preserve it is the greatest lesson our schools can impart. But above all, democracies that endure have the bulk of their population committed to the idea that “rule by the people” means a government that represents and serves all of the people. Countries where that understanding is not prevalent often have had their democracies overturned. We who live in democracies see autocrats around us trying to use their influence to permeate the globe. This applies not only to autocratic states, but to countries that pretend to be democratic while moving toward greater oppression. It can be seen in censorship of the press and manipulation of what students are taught. If we are to preserve our democracies, there must be a clear plan on the part of democratic governments to make a statement that autocratic rule is not permissible. This could include sanctions on leaders put in place on a scale of the degree of freedom a country provides and that hopefully do as little harm as possible to residents. The democratic freedoms of everyone worldwide are connected. If we abandon those who are oppressed anywhere, we are opening a gate for the spread of autocracy everywhere. Going back to the pursuit of happiness, the guarantee of democratic freedoms is an ongoing effort that always will be with us. There is an element in everyone that seeks models for how to act and another element that wants freedom to chart our own course. When we consider those we choose for our leaders, it is essential to determine if they are committed to the tenets of democracy, which include recognizing the value of each individual and an appreciation of the potential contribution of everyone. Leaders who denigrate others appeal to the autocratic side of our personality to gain support, and once in power demand allegiance to themselves — even from their followers — rather than to the principle of equal treatment for all. While we work toward our democratic ideals, we can focus on the happiness that democratic government allows us to pursue. If not, the most essential promise of democracy will have been wasted. Understanding what happiness really is and how best to bring it into our lives is not only a worthwhile pursuit but an indispensable element of making democracy work. Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment. Democracy Newsletter: February 2023By Robert Katz As we mark the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I note that the supporters of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision revoking the constitutional right to an abortion, have sought to draw celebratory parallels between that decision and Brown v. Board of Education. This was the case that recognized the principle that “separate but equal” treatment of Blacks and Whites in segregated schools was incompatible with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Brown, Dobbs overturned a foundational precedent that had been in force for decades, and according to anti-abortion proponents, established an important right — the right to fetal life — denied by the discredited precedent. The Dobbs opinion itself referenced Brown a number of times, and Mitch McConnell said of the Dobbs decision: “The Court has corrected a terrible legal and moral error, like when Brown v. Board overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.” But the differences between Brown and Dobbs far overshadow their similarities. There is the much-discussed issue of how these decisions used history. The Brown court refused to be bound by the views of those who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The vast majority of those legislators almost certainly would have approved of racially segregated schools. In contrast, the Dobbs court found the fact that abortion was widely criminalized in 1868 to be decisive. Had Brown followed the Dobbs court’s method of constitutional reasoning, it would have upheld Jim Crow schools. ![]() However, I would like to focus on another critical difference — the conditions under which the precedent was overturned. In Brown, the court was undoubtedly influenced by the changing attitudes toward race in the US. Having just fought a war against an enemy whose core ideology was extreme racism, and in which Black Americans served valiantly, the post-war period saw a reevaluation of racial attitudes. According to polls undertaken by the National Opinion Research Center, in 1942, only 42 percent of people believed that Blacks were the intellectual equal of Whites. By 1956 that number had risen to 78 percent. In 1942, 30 per cent believed that schools should be integrated; the percentage rose to just under 50 in 1956, and to over 60 per cent by the 1960s. The Brown court was not only influenced by changing attitudes toward race, but as these statistics suggest, helped to further catalyze that change by putting its imprimatur on the doctrine of racial equality. Reality has a way of intruding, however belatedly, on myth, and the myth of Black inferiority gradually gave way to the reality of Black equality. By contrast, views on abortion remained fairly constant in the 30 years prior to the Dobbs decision. According to the Pew Research Center, 61% of those polled in 2022 believed that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, about the same percentage as those polled in 1995, with some fluctuation. Unlike racial attitudes, there was no corresponding shift in attitude away from abortion rights. The differences between a 15-week-old fetus and a newborn infant are significant, physiologically and neurologically. One can argue about the moral significance of those differences, but nothing we have learned about the science of fetal development since the abortion right was recognized in Roe has been cause to reevaluate one’s position on abortion. ![]() What made Dobbs possible was not shifting societal attitudes on abortion but a decades-long campaign on the part of right-wing politicians and their attorney counterparts to appoint antiabortion judges to the United States Supreme Court. As has been much discussed, the Federalist Society, since its inception in 1982, has played a preeminent role in choosing federal judges. After their initial disappointments in the appointments of moderate Sandra Day O’Connor, sometimes moderate Anthony Kennedy and the downright liberal David Souter, the Society developed a sure-fire vetting process, generally recruiting from among their own ranks. Since the appointment of Clarence Thomas by George H.W. Bush in 1991, no Republican president has appointed anyone not affiliated with and/or blessed by the Federalist Society. When it came to the Trump presidency, the predominance of the Federalist Society in choosing judges was on full view. In exchange for social and religious conservatives overlooking Trump’s many personal failings, he outsourced the vetting and selection of judicial candidates to the Society. Aided by Mitch McConnell’s infamous constitutional hardball, Trump got an appointment that should have been President Obama’s, then a second appointment with Justice Kennedy’s strategic resignation, and a third with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing on the eve of the 2020 election to cement the Dobbs majority. So, the success in overturning Roe, unlike the success of Brown, is not a story of society’s evolution on the abortion issue, but of consummate political engineering to change the high court’s personnel. It is said that the process of judicial decision making is fundamentally different from politics — that judges must at least appear to be interpreting rather than making law. But it is clear that the overturning of Roe did not really occur in the judicial chambers of the Supreme Court, but upstream, in the precincts of the Federalist Society and the decisions of Republican presidents and senators. And unlike Brown, a decision that is now almost universally accepted and praised, it is most unlikely that Dobbs, a decision that never even acknowledged the enormous burden that abortion bans place on women’s liberty, will ever enjoy such widespread acceptance. Its legacy instead is likely to be the further politicization of the High Court and degradation of its reputation. Given the right-wing playbook of exerting political power to appoint ideological judges, there likely will come a time when the Democrats will be in a position to answer politics with politics in the form of increasing the number of members on the High Court or requiring that Supreme Court justices are rotated out of the court after a term of years. Whatever form it takes, Democrats will follow the path laid out by Republicans that the key to success in the Supreme Court is to choose, by whatever means are expedient, the right Supreme Court justices. Robert Katz served as a senior attorney and supervising attorney at the California Supreme Court from 1993 to 2018. Before that, he was in private practice representing public agencies, and worked as a newspaper reporter covering local government in Santa Cruz County. Sources: Mitch McConnell quote: https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/09/opinions/scotus-dobbs-faulty-comparison-brown-snyder/index.html National Opinion Research Center survey: https://www.norc.org/PDFs/publications/NORCRpt_119.pdf Public Opinion on Abortion (Pew Research Center): https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion Federalist Court (Slate.com): https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/01/how-the-federalist-society-became-the-de-facto-selector-of-republican-supreme-court-justices.html Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment. Two Types of LeadersIn our time, and all times, there have primarily been two types of leaders. Early in the human story, according to most anthropologists, members of small tribes participated in decisions about the rules they would follow and who would lead. Survival depended on leaders considering the best views of tribe members as they forged a path forward. As tribes grew into nations, a central leader or ruling family emerged. This provided an enhanced chance of survival because large social units guarantee greater protection and security. But the needs and priorities of people were sublimated to the whole. They were forced to give up individual freedoms and lost the ability to provide input on the rules that would govern them. Most autocratic nations have a history of attempted — and often failed — rebellion because of the impulse toward freedom and recognition within every human being. ![]() In Athens around 600 BCE, some rulers realized the disadvantage for those at all economic levels of growing inequality. Small farmers needed to borrow from the wealthy and often could not pay their debts during poor harvests. The result was perennial indebtedness that benefited no one. This led to a reversal of the debt system. More members of society were allowed to participate in the rule making process. Only those chosen as community leaders were included in decision making, but that challenged the idea of an absolute ruler. This was the beginning of democracy in ancient Greece and Rome. But both struggled between democratic and autocratic systems, with some leaders advocating for government by the people and some seeking to promote a single ruler or themselves. Much later, in 1215, a group of English nobles forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. This was the origin of limits to absolute authority that began the democratic thrust in the Western world. Since then there has been a conflict between leaders who champion democracy, which means “rule by the people,” and leaders who promote the dominance of some over others. The debate about whether people are capable of governing themselves goes back at least to ancient Greece, where both Socrates and Aristotle feared rule of the mob. They favored enlightened rulers who would hopefully treat people fairly. In the US, since its founding, there has been a gradual movement toward treating people equally or by “rule of law,” despite huge setbacks and resistance. The most famous phrase in democracy is the part of the Declaration that states “all men are created equal.” But that phrase is easier to state than to follow and not all leaders — even in countries that consider themselves democratic — have been guided by it. Leaders who promoted democracy were ahead of their time. They focused on the long-term perspective that it only can exist where everyone is considered valuable and treated equally. Their hope was to build a more inclusive world and end the need for war. Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson come to mind. But while we may believe that we, and those we think of as being like us, are valuable human beings, there always have been those who consider themselves and their own group more deserving of privileges than others. When looking at history, some basic themes emerge. Truly democratic leaders remain committed to the principle of respect for every human being. They may forget this principle at times as they engage in partisan activities, but ultimately come back to it. They are found at all levels of leadership — from local organizations to national government. Effective leaders focus on working with others toward solutions. Ineffective leaders focus on blaming others for their society’s woes or lack of progress. Effective leaders have — and share — a long-term vision of how to move toward a world where the rights of all are respected. Leaders of an autocratic mindset focus mainly on the short-term perspective of how they can allow themselves and their cohorts to remain in power. No one can come into a position of leadership — or stay there — without popular support. Democratic leaders have compassion and concern for the lives of everyone which is expressed in their actions. Autocratic leaders only receive the support of those who believe that some should dominate others. Leaders who believe in democracy understand that human beings, though imperfect, need to bond together to get their needs met and promote policies toward that end. Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment. ![]() On December 5 we had a special presentation by Claude Fischer, sociology professor at UC Berkeley, about his book Made in America (2010, University of Chicago Press). The intent of the book is to chronicle the reality of America’s past based on the actual lives of its people, rather than in broad historical generalities. This was done by examining records that were written by or about those who dwelled in what now is the United States going back to colonial times. A quote from Page 5 summarizes the intent of the book:
The question the author aims to answer is: “How has American society changed or not?” since its founding. Some myths that exist in our time may not be accurate, such as the ideas that we have turned from religion over the years, or we have become more violent, or that we are less caring toward each other than we once were. He states that what has made the US unique — and still does — is the shared idea that we are individuals who participate voluntarily in community and that individuals succeed through a voluntary — not forced — commitment where each does his or her share to advance the whole. Early in our history most Americans were dependent on others as indentured servants, women, or children. Only white, property holding, men had “competency,” or autonomy and independence as others depended on them for sustenance. Over time, more Americans were able to participate as productive members of society. In earlier times, life was more of a struggle for the average person than it is today. People had many children, and the childhood death rate was high. Over time, with improved hygiene and general prosperity, people lived longer, which freed them to pursue improvements in their lifestyles. Average Americans also experienced more security over time with the gradual introduction of more government intervention to protect working class individuals. Anti-trust and labor laws were enacted around the time that the 19th turned into the 20th century. After the Great Depression resulted from broad market over-speculation, more government programs were put into place to prevent people from spiraling into intense poverty, such as work programs, and to protect workers in retirement, such as Social Security. Banks were more regulated to prevent them from speculating with the funds of their customers. Persistent poverty then was attacked by legislation such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s, which also saw the enactment of the Clean Air and Civil Rights Acts. Over time, with greater mass buying power, more goods became available that people eventually took for granted. In Colonial times, clothes for most were handmade and worn until they became threadbare; beds, tables and chairs were considered luxury items. By the 20th century, electric lights, cars, and telephones were considered necessities even by those considered to be at the poverty level, as were computers and cell phones in the 21st century. Toward the end of the 20th century, Americans lived less in the public sphere and retreated more into private life as they gathered around their TV sets with their families. Self-improvement, once the realm of only the wealthy and literate, became the vogue for average Americans, as many became familiar with the views of Freud and Benjamin Spock. Thus, based on research into the lives of Americans over the first two-and-one-half centuries a few trends become clear:
One more important aspect of studying and surveying our culture is the issue of whether greater general prosperity over time has led to greater happiness. Results show almost universally that “average American happiness … stayed flat. … Beyond a basic level … more money does not make people happier.” Of course, this is not only an American phenomenon, but if accumulating greater wealth and possessions is not the key to happiness, with the US being the richest country on Earth (according to the World Bank), one must wonder what is the key. Perhaps that realm lies in another area of study. Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment. ![]() The topic of our meeting was conspiracy theories. We discussed the book The Nature of Conspiracy Theories by Michael Butter at Tubingen University in Germany, who also is the co-editor of a large compilation of essays entitled the Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. The author states: ”The popularity of these conspiracy theories shows that revelations concerning alleged plots by countries, intelligence services, international institutions or groups of powerful individuals are no longer confined to subcultures, but now are reaching a wider public.” In other words, conspiracy theories are held by such a large segment of the population — both here and in Europe — that they have become mainstream. Theories are, of course, efforts to explain reality in a way that makes it comprehensible. But those who promote conspiracy theories, according to the author, are less interested in truth than in finding people to blame for assumed large-scale plots that attempt to control the world. We began our discussion by asking our members to consider the question: “What is truth?” This produced a number of responses: “consensus,” “empirical science,” “facts” and “it is derived from multiple sources.” This demonstrated the challenge to even knowing what is true. ![]() Group members stated that, in providing information about the world to the public, news sources at one time strived to be objective. But with the advent of cable television — and then the internet — those who wish to push a partisan view easily can find audiences that are willing to believe what they are told, and often rely on an information source that reflects the views that they already hold. For example, if viewers are aligned with one political party or viewpoint, it is easy to get them to listen only to “news” that vilifies the other side. This prevents users from getting a more balanced view, or aligning their ideas with a more objective “truth.” The extreme example of that is what happens when people become convinced that there is a deliberate plot to conspire against their best interests. This can be the result of feeling hopeless and that there are no solutions, especially in government, to their dilemma. It leads to trying to determine who to blame for their situation, and since they believe the government has failed them, there must be intentional elements, or even a conspiracy among agencies, against them. This can become paranoia on a mass scale, but paranoia becomes a conspiracy theory, and an alternative reality, when held by enough people. Of course, there are valid views held by some that there are people aligned against them. That was the case with Blacks in the US from the end of the Civil War, and according to some, is continuing into our own day, which many believe holds Blacks back educationally, financially, and in employment advancement. But this theory — whether currently true or not — can be debated among people with the aid of facts and statistics, as can possible solutions to the problem. The difference between this hypothesis and conspiracy theories is that those who hold them have already made up their minds that there is no solution to the issues they discuss, which causes conspiracy theories to be long-lived until they are replaced by others. A false premise behind conspiracy theories is that they “are based on the assumption that human beings can direct the course of history.” This would need to involve a global network that is impossible to construct. They are not theories in the scientific sense — subject to revisions — because “conspiracy theorists almost always know who the culprits are before they begin their investigation.” Those who hold these extreme inflexible beliefs begin to consider them part of their identity, so challenging them, in their minds, becomes a personal attack. The author states that social media outlets like Twitter exacerbate the problem: “What Twitter calls for are brief soundbites and unsubstantiated claims — in short rumors.” The real problem is that many people are willing to believe unsubstantiated claims because it provides simple answers, and then they see no reason to pursue a more balanced truth. “Many important issues are no longer debated by society as a whole. Instead, sub-publics have turned into echo chambers or even filter bubbles. Arguments from the outside no longer can penetrate or are no longer taken seriously. This is a serious problem for democratic societies.” The solution? “A highly desirable goal would be to teach more people social literacy at school and university. We all have to learn, and must go on learning, to discriminate between reliable and unreliable sources of information, and to recognize the difference between someone’s personal YouTube channel or blog and the website of a quality newspaper. We need to learn and, above all, teach young people how the Internet works and how it generates meaning. … After all, if societies can no longer agree on what is true, they will not be able to resolve the pressing problems of the 21st century. Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment. ![]() The focus of our October discussion was a book by Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath entitled The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution (2022). It was summarized for us by Rob Katz. The book is not about creating a new Constitution, but focuses on how the Constitution has been interpreted at many points in our history to establish greater economic justice. The point of the US Revolution was to overthrow oligarchy, but early in our history a new ruling class was quickly established. Various movements and leaders periodically challenged our oligarchical trends, particularly under the administrations of two presidents named Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt sought to break up monopolies, and FDR argued that it was a constitutional necessity to overthrow “economic royalists” and build a “democracy of opportunity” for all Americans. The book argues that “we cannot keep our constitutional democracy — our republican form of government — without (1) restraints against oligarchy, (2) a political economy that sustains a robust middle class and (3) the constitutional principle of inclusion — across lines such as race and sex.” The authors tell us that “The principle upholders of the Constitution are not the courts but Congress and the legislatures and executives … the Constitution imposed affirmative obligations on all branches of government, but especially the elected branches, to pass and implement the legislation needed to enforce the Constitution.” It is up to the courts to support the intent of laws created by the other branches, but not to impose their own interpretation. The phrase “political economy” is essential to understanding our present crisis. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx held economics and politics to be inseparable. They wrote about how those with economic power control our political system. In the twentieth century, mainstream economics became more technical, concerned with growth and divorced from the value questions regarding distribution of political and economic power. The Right, on the other hand, had a vision of political economy that included low taxes and deregulation, and fostered economic redistribution in favor of the oligarchical class. Our country has a long anti-oligarchical tradition. The US Constitution abolished abuses such as hereditary offices that were common in colonial America (and in England) and prohibited titles of nobility and primogeniture, which was passing on of estates and wealth to the oldest son. Thomas Jefferson, who is revered by conservatives for his supposed small government positions, argued for legislation that would guarantee every man in Virginia 50 acres of land, and also for providing basic education and permitting students from all classes to receive higher education. Andrew Jackson made a stand against oligarchy when he vetoed a bill that would have renewed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States (1832), as he invoked “equal protection of the laws,” which, for him, concerned economic classes, not race. Jacksonians supported the “principle of Equal Rights … which lies at the bottom of our Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln supported the free labor system of the North, as opposed to the slavery system of the South, making the claim that the free labor system presented all workers a chance to advance themselves. After the US Civil War, there was a discussion of redistributing slaveholders’ land to former slaves which never became law, but the Freedman’s Bureaus established schools and material assistance including homesteading on public land, to newly freed slaves to ensure equal citizenship under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments. Later in the 19th century, large corporate monopolies gained great power, which was fought by the Populist and Progressive movements into the next century. The 16th Amendment (1913) established the Federal income tax, and the 17th (1913) provided for direct election of senators, rather than being appointed by their legislators. The right of women to vote was established by the 19th amendment (1920). The rights of workers to fair pay and safe work conditions — and the elimination of child labor — was a significant emphasis of that period. ![]() But the Supreme Court, as it has for most of our history, maintained a more regressive view. It ruled in Lochner v New York (1905) and other cases that the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed that all citizens would not be deprived of liberty without due process of law, incorporated the principle of “liberty of contract” that restricted the government’s ability to regulate the conditions of employment, ignoring that workers often had little ability to bargain with their employers. These rulings meant that states were, in many cases, prohibited from legislating limits on working hours and other conditions of employment. FDR was concerned that The Wagner Act (1935), which created the National Relations Labor Board to enforce employee rights to collective bargaining, also would be overturned. But public opinion, reflected in FDR’s landslide re-election in 1936, may have persuaded the Court to uphold this landmark legislation. During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, anyone proposing legislation that was seriously pro-worker or favored redistribution of income was in danger of being labeled a communist. This moved economic rights for workers a step backwards. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed discriminatory voting practices, including literacy tests, as a prerequisite to voting. However, the Johnson administration failed to address trends such as automation that were leading to a decline in the good-paying working-class jobs that were the basis of post-war prosperity and could help raise the economic fortunes of Blacks and other minorities that had suffered from discrimination. Starting in the 1970s, and particularly in the Reagan years, there was a steep decline in union power and membership with Democrats unwilling to defend union rights. An increasingly conservative Supreme Court promoted corporate power. The movement toward “limiting government” protected the rich and undermined efforts to include those previously excluded from equal economic consideration. The authors suggest that the political left now must counter with its own constitutional economic program, that would include a wealth tax, greater enforcement of antitrust laws, and reinvigorating labor law to empower unions. Next month’s topic: We will discuss The Nature of Conspiracy Theories by Michael Butter. Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment. Mandate for DemocracyOur group has studied and discussed democracy since 2006. This month we have been working together to create a Mandate that addresses how democracy should function that will continue to be updated over time. It includes essential democratic principles and how those principles should be enacted in our politics and lives. We will be seeking ongoing input from the public, so this is an opportunity for everyone to be directly involved in democracy in a real way. As far as we know, there has been no other effort in recent times to state the guiding principles of democracy that includes input from numerous individuals. Our intent is to create a living document that expresses an understanding of how democracy should function by those who compose and sign it that includes continual revision as our understanding evolves. Examples of situations that have enhanced or altered our views of how democracy should function include the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and the recent world-wide pandemic. ![]() Everyone can review the Mandate on our Web site and sign it, or suggest changes and then choose to sign or not. They can remove their signatures if they believe that ongoing changes no longer reflect the true function of democracy as they see it. Most often the energy and comments of those who want to reform democracy are focused on what is wrong, but rarely has a statement included the direction that democracy should take. Criticism is easy — we all do it — but finding common ground for a direction forward is much harder. That is why we are so polarized — we know what we don’t want and who to blame but rarely focus on the clarifying the direction in which we want our democracy to go. The Mandate is a forward-looking document that describes the essential vision of democracy and how we can move toward enacting that vision. How does the process work? Please review the Mandate for Democracy at thefutureofdemocracy.net/mandate.html. Using the form at the bottom of that page, state that you would like to support it and/or suggest changes that you would like to see which more clearly express your idea about how democracy should function. Our committee, which consists of long-standing members of our group, will consider your changes and let you know if they are accepted. If you want to sign, indicate your name, where you live, and your vocation. What is our intent in creating the Mandate for Democracy? When people who live in democracies express their views of how their governments and citizens should combine efforts toward a common vision — rather than only stating what they see as wrong — the more likely that democracy will move in the direction of being “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” as expressed by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address. As more people back this idea it can begin to end the polarization we see all around us that threatens the continuation of democracy as we know it. Another purpose of the Mandate is to provide clear principles to guide us as we consider which candidates and propositions we are going to support. If you believe in democracy — a word coined by the ancient Athenians for “rule by the people” — then join our effort to clarify its direction. After you have done that, let others know that you support the Mandate and why. Our Mandate for Democracy is available for your review here. Ballot-box photo by Element5 Digital via Unsplash.com. Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list. Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment. Our discussion focused on what we can do to keep democracy viable in light of strong elements in our society that seem to be moving us closer to autocracy. We discussed the idea of a Mandate for Democracy to be designed by members of the group and signed by people who back it. We considered a number of essential principles for which we might advocate. Participants discussed the essential role of dialogue to identify areas upon which we agree and then build toward a consensus on broader issues. There is a need to reach agreement on actions based on common principles and to follow through on those agreements. ![]() An essential emphasis of any legislative solution must be returning to the democratic principle of one person/one vote. This is an area, like slavery, in which the US founders fell short, but for their times they were radical and progressive. The group agreed that the majority of voters concur on most core issues, but these often are framed in an either/or way. In the area of climate, for example (the term climate change already is a loaded concept), no one wants extreme temperatures, floods, rising oceans, or fires. The problem is how to address people's interests and concerns, and solutions to them, rather than seeing everything through a divisive lens. Political donations by wealthy industrialists placed into ads convince voters to work against their own interests. Limits on voting in some states also threaten democracy. Some group members told us they had done cold calling to other states advising voters how to get around restrictive voting laws such as limited polling places and curbs on last minute registration. Members expressed concern that Democrats don't have a strong united front to sell their accomplishments, whereas Republicans have identified a number of fringe issues, such as abortion and guns, to unite their voters. Democrats represent many ideas that most people seem to like, such as health care reform, environmental causes, and recognition of the need for vaccines. They recently passed a number of bills that were signed into law, including an infrastructure bill, funding for VA coverage for veterans exposed to toxins while on duty, and a STEM bill to provide grants for "groups historically underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics." A Senate bill to raise taxes on wealthy corporations, allow the government to negotiate prices of prescription drugs, expand the Affordable Care Act, and create jobs through climate change incentives, appears likely to become law. An assault weapons ban was passed in the House of Representatives that, however, appears unlikely to pass the Senate. But Congress has historically low ratings because of a public perception that they get little done (82% disapproval). The Supreme Court also has a low public perception (25% approval). Some of our members emphasized how new political parties — or the threat of them — have inspired changes in our political structure or even affected elections. Ross Perot, for example, who started the Reform Party, got a large percent of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996, which may have affected the outcomes of those elections. Democratic Socialists have influenced how people vote due to their large following. A concern was expressed that in upcoming elections, third parties or discontent among youth could affect the Democratic vote. Members also expressed concern that, due to the upcoming election, there is little time to get voters on board to support candidates who represent key values such as saving the environment and reproductive rights. One member suggested that a fair voting system would include a ranked-choice structure. (“A ranked-choice voting system [RCV] is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.” —from Ballotpedia) However, for federal elections this would require a constitutional amendment. Solutions to environmental issues include electric cars, improving and using public transportation both within and between cities as is done in many European countries, and government backing for alternative energy sources. Many people who profess to oppose abortions will use them when needed for their own families, so it primarily is a wedge issue of politicians to get votes. It also ties into what the Catholic Church preaches, although it seems that most members don't oppose it in practice. Abortion restrictions can be a threat to the lives of pregnant women who have fetuses with abnormalities that are unlikely to be viable. Pregnant young girls may not be able to sustain a birth which also is a threat to their lives. Those in areas of the greatest poverty tend to have the most children that they have difficulty feeding which further entrenches their poverty. This is why birth control is related to poverty and holds hope for a possible way out. The question came up as to whether the majority of people really do believe in democracy, or whether they only believe that the phrase "We the People" refers to themselves and those who share their world views. We discussed that at the core of democracy is the idea of humanistic values: every person is worthwhile and worthy of respect regardless of the qualifications in gender, race, religion, level of income and other areas. It is up to those of us who believe in these values to support and disseminate them. This is the core understanding of those who believe that democracy is valid and must be maintained. Democracy cannot work if we — and others — believe it is to be upheld only for us and those who think and look like us. Despite how difficult it may seem, for democracy to work we must uphold the value of everyone, even those with whom we disagree. Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, and Guide to Living In a Democracy. Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment. |
![]() Steve ZolnoSteve Zolno is the author of the book The Future of Democracy and several related titles. He graduated from Shimer College with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Sciences and holds a Master’s in Educational Psychology from Sonoma State University. He is a Management and Educational Consultant in the San Francisco Bay Area and has been conducting seminars on democracy since 2006. Archives
April 2023
Categories |