Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home -- so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any map of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person: the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.
Of all Eleanor Roosevelt's achievements, the highest and best is her chairwomanship of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. In this role, she oversaw the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the most thoughtful, comprehensive and forthright expression of the freedom and well-being to which every human being is entitled by right of birth.
A repudiation of the defeated Axis powers' ideology of authoritarian domination, the UDHR unabashedly and explicitly proclaims "the inherent dignity [and] the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." More than any other document written before or since, the UDHR serves as a yardstick for measuring policy against the most advanced understanding of people's rights and needs which the world has ever reached. It's our pole star of liberty, equality and justice.
Or, as the Preamble to the UDHR puts it:
The General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.
There's nothing in the UDHR that any liberal or progressive would consider controversial. There's nothing in it that would
be controversial if not for the persistence of retrograde cultural and political forces that, if given their way, would ration liberty, abolish equality and subvert justice.
So we should expect that any Democrat would stand fully behind every article of it.
Right?
Or would that be expecting too much?
Of course the radical, reactionary authoritarians in the Republican Party have no use for the UDHR or for most of the rights it enumerates. Today's Republicans represent the zombie attitudes of the Confederate South, the petulant, privileged attitude of Junker-esque "local notables" who cherish above all else the freedom to dominate and regulate those "beneath" them without being dominated or regulated themselves from outside or above. They howl and cry nullification, secession and impeachment when the other party occupies the White House, although they cheerfully implement the executive agenda when one of their own occupies the White House (and use that seat of power to suppress state law that's more progressive than federal law, despite their "states' rights" rhetoric). It's no coincidence that many of them see the United Nations itself as illegitimate and abominable.
But as we're repeatedly reminded in both word and deed, today's Democratic Party is an awkward brand-sharing arrangement between egalitarian progressives and patrician conservatives (not to be confused with the self-styled "conservative" radicals on the right who itch to uproot those institutions that put Americans on more equal footing), and the party often behaves as though the latter have the majority ownership stake. This occasionally extends to the citizens who express loyalty to the party as well. A progressive who asserts his or her commitment to the sorts of ideals expressed in the UDHR -- ideals shared and promoted by Eleanor Roosevelt, a Democrat -- is liable to find himself or herself invited to pursue those ideals "outside the Democratic Party" by those who evidently believe they have a prior claim on the brand.
Where does this patrician tradition come from? If the authoritarianism of the Republican Party has its roots in the Deep South, and the egalitarian progressive tradition springs from the ways of Yankees and Quakers, the patrician faction in the Democratic Party most likely has its roots in New York: a city of merchants, bankers and landlords who were predominantly loyalist during the Revolutionary War, had extensive ties with Southern slaveholders and supported the Confederate cause right up until the rebels, in an act of foolish belligerence, attacked Fort Sumter. The seat of power of John Jacob Astor, Boss Tweed and Robert Moses. A city historically devoted to religious, cultural and intellectual tolerance but bitterly opposed to any encroachment upon the economic and political prerogatives of the well-heeled and well-connected.
(That Roosevelt herself was a daughter of this tradition is ironic, as her own values went squarely against it: among her other accomplishments, she first distinguished herself in public life as a supporter of labor rights through the Women's Trade Union League, pushing for an eight-hour work day, a minimum wage and the abolition of child labor.)
Without a doubt, the most common source of pie fights on this site is the conflict between those who focus on the social and religious tolerance shared by progressive and patrician Democrats, and who see this as the defining distinction between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party; and those who focus on the economic and political oligarchism shared by patrician Democrats and authoritarian Republicans, and who see this as an intolerable flaw within the Democratic Party.
I'm going to make some assertions about the characters of these factions, some of which will seem arbitrary and biased (in no small part because, in every case, I identify the progressive platform with the pro–human rights position), for the purpose of approaching an answer to the question, "As long as the Democratic platform is a compromise between progressive and patrician positions, are the Democratic and Republican parties different enough?" Naturally, this answer will depend a great deal on the extent to which either the progressive position or the patrician position prevails -- which may or may not be within our power to determine.
Also, to highlight the fact that the New York patrician ideology is a distinct tradition of its own, and not just a centrist "Third Way" compromise between "blue" liberal Democrats and "red" reactionary Republicans, I'm going to represent it not with cliché purple but with Dutch orange.
The UDHR was poetically compared by René Cassin, reviser of the first draft, to the portico of a classical temple, with a foundation, four columns and a pediment. The first two articles constitute the foundation:
Progressive Democrat |
Patrician Democrat |
Authoritarian Republican |
1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood. |
yes |
yes |
no |
2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. |
yes |
no |
no |
Here's what I see as the first fundamental problem besetting the Democratic Party: The patrician tradition discriminates on the basis of wealth and rank, as well as on the basis of political and other opinions that criticize the privileges of wealth. For instance, during the Occupy Wall Street protests, the New York Police Department visibly and repeatedly violated the human rights of the protesters in Zucotti Park, at the behest of patrician city, state and federal officials. This tradition also looks the other way when financial corporations manipulate and abuse customers on the basis of race, denying these customers the justice they're owed.
This lack of commitment to Article 2 means that the patricians' ability, and by extension the Democratic Party's ability, to recognize and observe all the other rights to which we're entitled is constructed on an unstable foundation, and we can't lean on it as much as we might hope.
The next nine articles -- the first column -- enumerate the legal rights of the individual:
Progressive Democrat |
Patrician Democrat |
Authoritarian Republican |
3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. |
yes |
yes |
no |
4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. |
yes |
yes |
yes |
5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. |
yes |
yes |
no |
6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. |
yes |
yes |
yes |
7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. |
yes |
no |
no |
8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. |
yes |
no |
no |
9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. |
yes |
no |
no |
Here the patrician tradition differs from the Confederate tradition. The Confederate tradition deliberately designates certain groups as fair game for any sort of mistreatment. The patrician tradition offers unequal protection under the law, but it's less a matter of certain groups' having no rights than of certain other groups' being protected by privilege. If your exercising of your rights offends your boss, or the mayor, or the executive-financial elite, you may be arbitrarily detained or assaulted. You may be defrauded by a mortgage corporation and never gain access to legal recourse that would allow you to save your home. It's not that the law gives you no protection, but that it gives those who may prey on you more protection than it gives you.
The second column consists of civil and political rights:
Progressive Democrat |
Patrician Democrat |
Authoritarian Republican |
12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. |
yes |
no |
no |
13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. |
yes |
yes |
yes |
14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. |
yes |
yes |
yes |
15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. |
yes |
yes* |
yes* |
16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. |
yes |
yes |
no |
17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. |
yes |
no |
no |
Patricians fare better in their support of these rights -- though so do Republicans. Where they both fall down is in their support of the surveillance state and of property seizure in the War on (Selected) Drugs. Also, each gets an asterisk on Article 15 for supporting the right to a nationality in every case except that of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. (Republicans should perhaps get double-dinged on Article 12 for making "attacks upon . . . honor and reputation" an integral part of their political discourse, but this diary isn't about them.)
The third column comprises spiritual, public and political freedoms:
Progressive Democrat |
Patrician Democrat |
Authoritarian Republican |
18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. |
yes |
yes |
no |
19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. |
yes |
yes |
no |
20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. |
yes |
no |
no |
21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. |
yes |
no |
no |
Patricians fall down on the freedom of peaceful assembly, which they've regarded as a threat to their dominance; and on the right to take direct part in government, which they've resisted since the days of Alexander Hamilton. Although disinclined (nowadays) to engage in direct electoral fraud, patricians still control access to the ballot through a combination of onerous petition requirements and the flooding of the field with money, which they use deliberately to keep others out of power.
The fourth column includes social, economic and cultural rights, to which patricians show the least commitment:
Progressive Democrat |
Patrician Democrat |
Authoritarian Republican |
22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. |
yes |
yes? |
no |
23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. |
yes |
no |
no |
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. |
yes |
no |
no |
25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. |
yes |
no |
no |
26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. |
yes |
no |
no |
27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. |
yes |
yes |
no |
Patricians have shown little or no commitment to improving the employment rate, working conditions or wages to "just and favorable" levels. Not only have they not defended workers' right to join unions, they've often joined Republicans in attempting to bust them. They've joined in the austerity crusade and helped to unravel the social safety net. They've promoted an education agenda that's focused on "job readiness" and private-sector profit opportunities, not on the full development of the human personality. And they get a question mark on Article 22 for their attempts to weaken Social Security. In their human rights edifice, this is barely a column at all -- more like a skinny metal pole where a column ought to be. Though, at least, it's cheerfully painted.
Finally, the last three articles form the pediment that the columns support and that, in turn, holds them together:
Progressive Democrat |
Patrician Democrat |
Authoritarian Republican |
28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. |
yes |
no |
no |
29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. |
yes |
no |
no |
30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. |
yes |
no |
no |
It's disappointing to have to observe that the patrician human rights edifice, like the neo-Confederate one, has no pediment at all. For economic and financial reasons, patricians excuse the human rights regimes of countries like China and Saudi Arabia and push for trade agreements that elevate the desires of corporations and obscenely rich individuals over the rights and needs of working men and women and their families. They impose limitations on our rights and freedoms for the sake of protecting their power, privilege, wealth and convenience, in many cases
contrary to morality, public order and the general welfare. And they provide legal and rhetorical cover for the entities that benefit from and perpetuate this unjust, inconsiderate system.
I don't think I've drastically misrepresented the positions and policies of such patrician figures as Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, Chuck Schumer and, though it pains me to say it, Barack Obama. I've tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, yet I had to assign a "no" to each article that's been provably, tangibly violated under these Democrats' watch.
What this leaves us with is a wing of the Democratic Party that's willing to grant us equal rights to life, liberty and security; that opposes slavery and torture and recognizes people as people, not things; that will allow us to move from place to place within the country unimpeded; that acknowledges the right to marry and to own property; that respects our freedom of religion and freedom of speech (as long as we speak for ourselves, by ourselves); that will allow us to be artists and scientists and will safeguard our copyrights . . .
. . . and that's it. That's all it can guarantee us.
That's disturbing, when you think about it. Especially since a couple of those things are so uncontroversial, even Republicans agree with them.
Where is the real difference between patricians and Republicans? On whether human beings are born equal and should treat one another as brothers and sisters; on respect for life and liberty, without racial or sexual discrimination; on torture, gay marriage, freedom of religion, the arts and science.
These are significant differences, but are they enough?
More important, is this weaksauce commitment to what was developed nearly 70 years ago as an international consensus -- our pole star of liberty, equality and justice, our best, most advanced understanding of human rights and needs -- what we should allow to define the Democratic Party? And not just the Democratic Party, but whether an individual who is more deeply committed to human rights is welcome within this party?
Are there really people here who would kick Eleanor Roosevelt out of the party for being too much of a purist?
When I express my opposition to Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, it's because I believe that -- even as far as the Republicans have gone off the deep end -- the conflict between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party pales in significance next to the conflict between equality and domination, between the fulfillment of our rights and honoring of our dignity and their disappearance. I don't want to be dominated by neo-Confederate authoritarians; I also don't want to be dominated by Wall Street patricians who'll let me make art, sleep through church and marry my boyfriend just as long as I don't rock the boat.
I was not born to be dominated.
None of us was.
Instead of settling for the patrician agenda, let's demand that our party follow the example of Eleanor Roosevelt. We can never reach the North Star, but it's there for us to steer by, if we care enough to.