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.

The topic of our discussion this month was Do We Learn from History? (Part II)

Our emphasis was Leadership in Democracy. We started our (online) chat with a discussion of a section from our website, thefutureofdemocracy.net, entitled Leadership in Democracies.

The People are the ultimate authority for democratic governments, but people can act or vote in a way that is not in their best long-term interests. The best democratic leadership evokes a vision that includes the needs of all individuals. Effective leadership strives to clarify these democratic values and then works to forge a path toward implementing them.

In democracies we know that we don’t want an authoritarian regime making the major decisions that affect our society and lives. All revolutions have been founded on this principle. But once the revolution is over, determining the direction in which we want to move becomes more of a challenge.

Firm, yet sensitive guidance is needed by those who would lead us. Viable new ideas always must be respected and incorporated into our path. Great leadership maintains the essential vision of democracy while considering alternative paths toward its fulfillment. Democracy is most viable when incorporating the best contributions that each of us is capable of making.

We continued with a discussion of the book Three Days at the Brink by Bret Baier. The three days referenced in the title are the Tehran Conference of World War II attended by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin to plan the final push of the war, culminating in the June 1944 D-Day attack of the beaches of Normandy. Much of the book focuses on Roosevelt’s background, going back to his cousin Teddy and his 1905 inaugural speech made just as the US was becoming the most influential international power.

We have become a great nation, forced by the facts of its greatness into relations with other nations of the earth… We must show not only in our words, but in our deeds, that we are earnestly desirous of securing their good will by acting toward them in a spirit of just and generous recognition of their rights.…
​
Yes, that was given by a Republican, who saw the essential international role of the US as one of leadership working in supportive interaction with other nations.

The leadership style of FDR was emphasized throughout the book. In his inaugural address in 1933, and in his later “fireside chats,” Roosevelt emphasized the need for a spirit of cooperative effort by all Americans to work together to move past the devastation of the Depression.

If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline; because without such discipline no progress is made.

His firm leadership began by created a myriad of programs collectively called the New Deal, that included Social Security and the WPA (Works Progress Administration), although the US did not fully come out of the Depression until the massive spending forced by World War II, which then greatly reduced the entrenched equality that had gotten worse before the War.

Along with Churchill, FDR is credited by many as inspiring his nation in its effort to save democracy. He exhibited a firmness in the face of adversity that inspired the American people despite a number of shortcomings that included the internment of Japanese Americans and failing to take action to save Jews attempting to escape extermination by the Germans.

By contrast we currently have the most devastating pandemic in over 100 years assaulting our country with no clear leadership providing a coordinated plan for action. Each state is left to fend for itself in deciding whether to issue stay-at-home rules and to compete with other states for essential supplies in absence of strong leadership. Despite early warnings, the deadly potential of our current pandemic was ignored by our President until it could be denied no longer, and we all are paying the consequences.

Please check out our blog at renewingdemocracy.org

The topic of our discussion this month was Do We Learn from History? (Part I)

Wyndy Knox Carr, a member of our group and a book reviewer for the Berkeley Times, presented some key points from the Hanna Arendt’s book The Origins of Totalitarianism, which established her reputation when published in 1951. Arendt escaped from Germany during World War II, immigrating to the US in 1941. She attended and famously wrote about the 1961 Eichmann trial which she chronicled in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil. The following is Steve’s summary of her presentation. A collection of Wyndy’s articles can be found here.

You might find many themes from The Origins of Totalitarianism relevant in today’s world.
​

1. One theme of the book is the destruction of the integrity of the individual in totalitarian states. “Racism tends to destroy the body politic of the nation. … Racists … denied the great principle upon which national organizations of peoples are built, the principle of equality and solidarity of all peoples guaranteed by the idea of mankind,” pages 158-161. Arendt ties this to the soul-sapping labor practices of the Industrial Revolution and Automation Revolution where workers were considered little more than adjuncts to machines on the production line.
2. A similar theme was the “pessimistic mood” by workers in Europe from the 1800s on as a result of the Industrial Revolution, amidst “decadence” by some before and after WWI, page 171. This included “Contempt for liberal individualism, the ideal of mankind and the dignity of man,” page 235.
3. Within countries considered democracies there has been decay of the lives of some and “the formation of a new natural aristocracy,” page 173. This included persecution of American Indians and slavery that ignored democratic principles, page 177.
4. A guidebook of imperialism was the 1932 ‘The Government of Subject Races,’ by Lord Cromer. This was applied in South Africa, Algeria, Egypt and India. It provided guidance about how to retain dominance over races that were considered inferior while avoiding any semblance of rule of law. Random actions were seen as the most effective way to retain power over others considered less than equal.
5. The idea of the superiority of one group over another foreshadowed later totalitarian groups that considered “the other” as inferior beings, pages 225, 264-5. Modern nations that consider themselves democratic also have demonized nations they considered not equal to themselves as they have invaded countries supposedly in need of their help such as Iraq and El Salvador. They also have exploited the natural resources of these countries, particularly those possessing oil.
6. Economic globalization followed the domination of colonialism and imperialism by Western Nations in areas such as Africa, page 206.
7. Another theme is “Normalizing” the desire of the young to join “The Mob” by organizers of totalitarian regimes. “These men began to tell the mob that each of its members could become a lofty all-important embodiment of something ideal if he would only join the movement. Then he no longer had to be loyal [to country] or generous or courageous,” page 249. This is similar to the political cults or “mobs” that expect members to follow what they are expected to believe rather than come to their own conclusions based on facts, which is essential for democracy.
8. “Parting from absolute values” of the intrinsic worth of human beings, pages 188-9, encompassed in the phrase of the US Declaration of Independence that “All are created equal.” Dehumanization of people is related to maintaining their economic status far below that of the wealthy.
9. In a “State ruling through an administration that applies decrees…power becomes the direct source of all legislation,” page 243. The role of Congress, elected representatives, and the courts diminishes as executive orders take sway.
10. Totalitarianism preaches globalized hate and fear. People are either “in” our “out” of those groups considered deserving of human rights. This is done by whim or based on the random actions of those in charge. Stalin’s ruthlessness borne of Bolshevism led to his contempt for the Russian people, page 249.
11. The book addresses the tragedy of those who are “stateless and minorities” after WWI in Europe and Central America, fleeing dictatorships, gang and police violence, and sexual trafficking. “Without ties to and the protection of a Sovereign State, those groups (Jews, Slovaks, Rumanians, Poles)… (become) “superfluous” people (pages 261-262) considered “inferior races, page 310.  “Inflation…Unemployment…Migrations…” are three roots of hatred, page 267. People become divided into Us, Them and It.
12. Would-be totalitarian rulers usually begin their careers by boasting of their past crimes and carefully outlining their future ones: “The propaganda of totalitarian movements which precede and accompany totalitarian regimes is invariably as frank as it is mendacious…The attraction of evil and crime for the mob mentality is nothing new,” page 307. Statements come to mind like “I could fire a gun on Fifth Avenue” or “They’re all rapists and murderers” or “Lock her up.”
13. Totalitarianism includes instilling fear in people about telling the truth or refusing to commit illegal or unconscionable acts, and then prosecuting whistleblowers. “It is this absoluteness of movements which more than anything else separates them from party structures and their partiality, and serves to justify their claim to overrule all objections of individual conscience…” (page 249)

Our February topic was Polarity (in the USA and even in the White House)
 
Rob Katz led a discussion on his original paper on the origins of our national polarity.
 
Notes toward an Understanding of Why U.S. Political Parties Are So Polarized
 
The following is a non-comprehensive account of why US politics is so polarized today. Much more can be said about this topic. I also acknowledge that I come from a liberal Democratic perspective and a conservative Republican might have a different take on this history.
 
To begin with, the framers warned about the fracturing of the body politic through what they call “factions.” They initially had a dim view of political parties. But the truth is that all representative democracies have political parties, including the U.S. almost since its inception. The framers themselves helped to found parties, and the fighting between the Federalists, to which John Adams and Alexander Hamilton belonged, and the Democratic Republicans founded by Jefferson and Madison, was highly contentious.
 
Nonetheless, our political parties were not always as politically polarized as they are now.
 
1940–1980: Age of (Relative) Consensus
 
Considering our historical divisions, the political consensus achieved during and after World War II was exceptional in American history.
 
World War II as a Unifying Force
 
It shouldn’t be underestimated how the unity the country experienced in the war extended beyond the war. Senators and Congressmen who had fought and sacrificed in World War II were more inclined to put country over party. As Ira Shapiro said in The Last Great Senate: “Men who fought at Normandy or Iwo Jima or the Battle of the Bulge weren’t frightened by the need to cast a hard vote now and then. Seeing Paul Douglas or Daniel Inouye or Bob Dole on the Senate floor living with crippling injuries or pain, and the other veterans fortunate enough to have escaped unscathed, set a standard of courage and character for those who followed them.”
 
Moderate/Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats
 
During this period, the parties were not ideologically homogeneous, and there was considerable overlap between them. For historical reasons, the Republican Party had strong moderate/progressive wings. The party of Lincoln, the Radical Republicans, and Teddy
 
Roosevelt had within it a strong sector that viewed government intervention favorably to improve people’s lives and protect them from capitalism’s excesses. The fact that political leaders living in big cities chose the Republican Party as an alternative to corrupt Democratic political machines (famously, Fiorello LaGuardia against Tammany Hall) helped to reinforce this progressive tendency within the Republican Party. So too did FDR’s resounding reelection victory in 1936, which led establishment Republicans to basically accept many of the New Deal reforms, such as Social Security, the minimum wage, regulation of the stock market and banks. On the other hand, there were many conservative Democrats, particularly in the South, due to the lasting legacy of slavery and racism.
 
Period of Robust Economic Growth Shared by the Middle Class
 
The period of widely shared prosperity in the 30 years after the war helped support a consensus for relatively progressive policies.
 
1980–2016: The Consensus is Undone
 
Civil Rights
 
The extension of Civil Rights to Blacks in the South and elsewhere, as well as other minority groups, although an extremely positive development, led to the gradual migration of the South from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Civil Rights legislation was initially enacted with bipartisan support (another example of post-War bipartisanship) but starting with Nixon’s Southern Strategy in 1968, Republicans made a conscious attempt to pursue White voters, using proxies for race like law and order, the crack epidemic, welfare queens, and other dog whistles. As late as the 1990s it was still possible for Democrats to be elected to statewide office in Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee. No more. (But there is beginning to be a resurgence among Democrats in parts of the South, partly due to northern migration and increases in Latino vote.) The migration of conservative Democrats to the Republican Party helped make it a more uniformly conservative party.
 
Race still remains a potent and divisive issue. One question asked by pollsters to gauge racial attitudes in 2010: “In recent years, do you think too much has been made of the problems facing Black people, too little has been made, or is it about right.” Among Tea Party s supporters, 52 percent said “too much,” compared to 19 percent who were not Tea Party loyalists.
 
The Reinforcement of Free Market Ideology
 
Starting in the 1970s, with the famous Powell memo, business groups that had accepted to some degree government regulation and labor unions became increasingly hostile toward any incursions on corporate power. Business and conservative groups like the Koch brothers spent billions to attempt to discredit New Deal reforms in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation. Corporate funded think tanks sought to minimize the role of government in the economy, and justify privatization. Public choice theory, for example, denied essentially that there was anything that could be identified as in the public interest, and argued that government entities were merely out to advance their own private interests of getting reelected and increasing their budgets. Free market fundamentalism became the new dogma, and both parties to some degree bought into this doctrine. After the overwhelming defeat of the old New Dealer Walter Mondale to Reagan in 1984, many Democrats were eager to move towards some imagined center. But whereas the Democrats would appoint judges and regulators who would honestly police big business, and balked at huge tax cuts for the rich, the Republicans increasingly had no such scruples and would become a party completely in step with the wishes of its corporate donors. The influence of wealthy donors became even greater after Citizens United allowed greater corporate cash in political campaigns in 2010.
 
It therefore seems incorrect to propound a symmetrical theory of polarization, i.e. the Democrats moving further to the left, the Republicans farther to the right. In fact, at least on economic issues, Democrats moved closer to the center in the Clinton and Obama years, while Republicans move toward an ever more doctrinaire conservative partisanship. Democrats who thought moderate, market-based proposals would garner some Republican support in Congress, e.g. the Affordable Care Act modeled after Mitt Romney’s reforms in Massachusetts, and cap and trade legislation to address climate change, were instead met with virtually unified Republican opposition.
 
The Rise of Social Issues
 
Starting in the 1960s, and increasingly in the 70s and 80s, social issues, and the “culture war” became increasingly prominent, with polarization around noneconomic issues such as abortion, gun control, “religious liberty,” law and order and affirmative action. Sometimes, as in the latter two issues, apparent policy divides thinly concealed racial resentment. (See above.) Furthermore, in contrast to WWII, the Viet Nam War was deeply divisive, exposing a fault line between counter- and traditional culture that still runs through our society. The fact that social issues rose to prominence at the same time as free market ideology is no coincidence. The Democratic Party to some degree abandoned the role it had assumed during the New Deal as the party of the working class, and was not willing or able to counter the trends in globalization and the weakening of organized labor that led to wage stagnation, increasing inequality, and a weakening public sector. Thus, both parties became to some degree (though the Democrats less so) instruments of corporate power, and voters increasingly distinguished between the parties on the basis of social issues rather than economic ones. These social issues tend to be fought out in absolutist terms and contribute to polarization, e.g., abortion is mass murder, and gun control violates precious Second Amendment rights. Republicans have long realized that they can’t win elections based on their free market ideology alone, which is not of obvious benefit to most people, and so have used social issues to capture voters not inclined by their economic interests to vote Republican.
 
The Rise of Cable News, Social Media, and Other Polarizing Media
 
Much has been said about this. In the 1980s, the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated by the Reagan administration. This led to the rise of ideological talk radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) capable of galvanizing conservative opinion. Then there was the ascendancy of cable news, which led to the rise of Fox News serving as a megaphone for the conservative Republican line. By the late 90s, what David Frum called the “conservative entertainment complex” was in full swing, helping to drive the discourse in the Republican Party. The pundit/entertainers like Bill O’Reilly and Limbaugh were interested in stoking conflict and provocation to attract a loyal audience, were contemptuous of compromise, and were far more interested in entertaining than in having a working government. Their influence among the Republican base made pragmatic compromises by conservative politicians far more difficult. These trends only got worse with the rise of social media, and websites like Breitbart. The left also got its own websites like Vox etc. Now, people could live in a news world that would entirely enforce their worldview. People were entitled not only to their own opinions but their own facts. People would inhabit news environments in which the idea that their opinions were right and that of the opposition wrong was constantly reinforced, and the listener/viewer/reader was continually being told, subliminally, that they were better than groups that thought differently from them.
 
The Gingrich Revolution
 
As conservatism took over the Republican Party, and a new generation of politicians who’d grown up in the conservative movement took command, the culture of compromise in Congress gave way to a new type of partisanship and intransigence. Newt Gingrich introduced the practice of having Congressmen go home to their districts over long weekends, so that they would not socialize with members of the opposing party. The contrast between Ronald Reagan, who talked like a conservative but was willing to make deals and compromise with Tip O’Neill and the Congressional Democrats, gave way to the likes of Mitch McConnell, who declared in 2010 that his main priority was to make sure that Obama was a one term president, which he sought to accomplish by opposing any legislative initiative Obama proposed.
 
With the triumph in the Republican party of free market ideology, social conservatism, the influx of conservative former-democrats, and demands of unswerving party/ideological loyalty, moderate Republicans were increasingly crowded out of their party. They either retired, or were defeated in primary or general elections, or switched parties (e.g., Arlen Spector).
 
2016 and Beyond
 
The Rise of Trumpism
 
Trump did not challenge Republican orthodoxy when it came to tax cuts for the wealthy, gutting environmental and consumer protection regulations, and appointing judges that were pro-business and conservative on social issues. He did depart from that orthodoxy in his skepticism of free trade, which he shared in part with the left, and an anti-immigration ideology tinged with racism, which he shared with the radical right. That kind of nationalism, together with his own confrontational personality, manipulation of broadcast and social media to rile up his base at all costs, plus his contempt for truth, constitutional limits on his power, and of the rule of law, has dramatically increased polarization.
 
The Democratic Party: Back to its Roots?
 
Although it is much debated whether the Democrats should move dramatically leftward, or more moderately so, it seems the real question is whether the Democratic Party will return to its New Deal roots: Will it be a party that focuses on government intervention to improve the economic well-being of the average person? The Democrats success in 2018, emphasizing the protection and improvement of the Affordable Care Act, in contrast to Republicans who sought to eliminate it, is perhaps a sign of what is to come. Democrats can again shift the focus from social to economic issues, as well as the environmental issue of climate change that voters increasing view as a threat to their wellbeing.
 
One model is Sherrod Brown, the senator from Ohio who won in 2018 by 7 percentage points in a state that Trump carried by 8. The state has a strong strain of socially conservative voters and Brown has been consistently liberal on abortion, civil rights, and gay marriage. But he has also been progressive on working-class issues, advocating renegotiation of trade deals, support of organized labor, and talking about the dignity of labor. He was able to persuade enough working-class people who cared more about economic issues than social issues that he was genuinely on their side in order to win his reelection handily.

When is impeachment justified?

As we all know, President Donald Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives in December and is being tried in the Senate to determine if he should be removed from office.

At our January meeting, we reviewed the perspectives of the US founders about impeachment, but we started with the Farewell Address of George Washington, which was delivered to Congress before he left office in March, 1796. Many people are aware of Washington’s skill as a general, but not of his eloquence as a speaker and as an inspiration for his generation and those to come. Washington was perhaps the only US President solely devoted to the principles on which the country was founded and not beholden to any political party. He refused a third term to ensure that the country would remain a nation of principles and laws, and not centered on a single ruler or dynasty. During his presidency, political parties already were in place starting in 1792 — the Democratic Republicans under Jefferson and Madison, and the Federalists under Hamilton. Washington implored the nation to above all remain attached to “the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts.” He minded Americans to work together to preserve their freedoms as “You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.” Above all, he considered it imperative to put principles first in “carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.” He was particularly concerned about partisanship and wary of political parties: “Let me warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of party generally. … A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.” I think we can agree that, for the most part, this warning has been ignored throughout our history with the all-consuming presence of political parties rather than devotion to the principles of our founding “common cause” — continuing right up to our own time.

The idea of impeachment only came up as the Constitutional Convention was winding down in 1787. George Mason of Virginia was concerned that the president could become a tyrant and that there would be no way to remove him from office under the provisions in the current draft that only included “treason and bribery.” What about, he asked, “attempts to subvert the Constitution?” His solution, which was widely debated, was to add the phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Others thought that the impeachment power could become a tool for weakening the presidency. Governor Morris of Pennsylvania and others feared that the threat of impeachment would make “the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach.” Other fears were that the president would bribe electors to gain office or become subservient to a foreign power. The idea of impeachment for abuse of power was borrowed from English law with which the founders, having been English citizens, were familiar. Ultimately the provision was passed 8 votes to 2.

The Federalist Papers were written by three founders — Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay — in support of the Constitution which was written in 1787 and being sent to the colonies for ratification. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton stated that breaking a law is not necessarily an adequate reason for impeachment, but some acts may lead to justification for impeachment, whether violation of the law or not, such as “abuse or violation of the public trust.” Hamilton questioned whether impeachment trials might be conducted by bodies other than the Senate, such as the Supreme Court or an independent body. The language agreed upon by the founders, after much debate, was: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” (Article II, Sec 4) Hamilton argued that despite the impreciseness of the procedure, the Constitution should be ratified.

Only three presidents have, to date, been impeached, but none have so far been removed from office. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for obstructing reconstruction efforts after the Civil War by Congress "to protect the rights and safety of black Southerners.” (Madison and Mason on Impeachment, Erik Trickey, smithsonian.com, October 2, 2017) Bill Clinton was impeached in 1988 for lying to Congress about his alleged affairs. Richard Nixon resigned before a likely impeachment in 1974 for involvement in the Watergate scandal. And now Donald Trump has been impeached for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress in December, 2019.

Stay tuned.