I sit in my living room with a face swelling up from an allergic reaction — to what I do not know. It is accompanied by my sinuses constantly draining down my throat, make it difficult to sleep. I am neither pleasant to look at nor physically comfortable.
Yet this condition pales in comparison to my fears about this country.
I really do not know how to title this, or what picture I should use, so I chose the Constitution. Hopeful by the end both my title and this picture will seem relevant.
I have been pondering long and hard for the past week or so. Even as I experienced the relief — almost joy — in finding employment for the forthcoming school year, and in exploring the possibility of going to Italy for a week to ten days in August (although we might instead spend some time at the Homestead, I found myself buffeted by fear, anxiety, anger, even to the point of despair.
I am not sure I can write about this in fully cogent or coherent fashion. Nevertheless I feel I must let the words flow through my fingers on a keyboard and make them available to other.
I could like Rachel Maddow used to ask that people “talk me down” except that I would rather be honest about what I see and what I fear.
What I offer will not be in any particular order. I will attempt at the end to try to tie it together.
I will understand if you stop reading now, or at any point along the way
What finally pushed me to doing this was watching the first 20-25 minutes of Morning Joe this morning. I will not recapitulate all that I heard that totally missed the point. But let me start with this point:
if you are more concerned that asking Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave a restaurant than you were about allowing homophobes and misogynists to deny access to a wedding cake or insurance that covers birth control, then you are as much a contributor to the dysfunction of American society as is Donald Trump. Rather than criticize the owner of The Red Hen, your focus should be on the actions of Sarah Huckabee Sanders that led to her exclusion — her lies from the podium, her demeaning of reporters who challenge her, and things like that. And you absolutely should challenge her using an official government Twitter account to basically attack the restaurant.
Civility has its times and places, but incivility and even downright rudeness pale in comparison to the open racism, xenophobia and so on put forth by this administration amidst its flurries of lies and distortions.
I am of an age where the Civil Rights struggle dominated much of my adolescence. I was 10 when I first saw segregation in Miami, 11 when Central High School in Little Rock became the focus of the national news, still in high school when James Meredith integrated Ole Miss, just graduated from high school when I participated in the March on Washington for Jobs and Justice on August 28, 1963.
But my growing up was also a time when individual liberties were also more broadly protected. Gideon v Wainwright came down my senior year of high school. Engel v Vitale was issued at the end of the Court term just after the completion of my junior year, when I was already in Interlochen Michigan for my last summer at what was then called National Music Camp. The next few years saw the legislation of the Great Society, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and so on. Even into the Nixon administration, we saw passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and the establishment of the EPA.
But the warning signs were already present. I was born in 1946. In the 60s, before Nixon was elected, we saw Watts, Detroit, Newark, the explosive riots after the assassination of King, the horror of the Chicago Democratic Convention — both outside in Grant Park and inside the convention itself. This was accompanied by the rise of Wallace. Perhaps absent any of these Nixon might not have been elected. Certainly if Bobby Kennedy had not been assassinated, we almost certainly would have seen a second Kennedy defeating Nixon, because Bobby not only inspired people of color (although he went through a long journey on some of the issues) but also Whites in Appalachia and other poor regions, forming a coalition that has never again been fully achieved, although Bill Clinton partially did so.
Trump arises at the end of a series of festering problems over several decades. Too many in positions of political and economic leadership failed to address those problems, which created a space in which even before Trump came down his escalator were already roiling this nation. Even before the rise of the “Tea Party” movement, we saw the breakdown of most of the remaining comity on the Hill. Republicans might point at House Dems denying the seating of a Republican from Indiana who most probably had won a very contested race, or to the time Robert Byrd filled out the Amendment tree for a critical piece of legislation to prevent any Republican amendments to it. But those were one-offs, and the meeting the evening of January 20, 2009 led by Mitch McConnell where Republicans strategized how to obstruct Obama in order to prevent him from success and reelection definitely marked a bridge too far, and yet most Americans never heard about it. Why?
Go back to Reagan’s administration. His head of the FCC, Mark Fowler, did away with the fairness doctrine, which unleashed owners of broadcast media to tilt the public discourse. Combine that with the lifting of limits of media ownership that occurred since and first you get Clear Channel, owner of tons of radio stations, refusing to play recordings by the Dixie Chicks because of Natalie Maines’ criticism of George W. Bush, and now Sinclair Broadcasting, owner of many, many network affiliate television stations, both having identical statements read by news anchors across the country and at least on NBC affiliate refusing to run Jacob Soboroff’s powerful Dateline Special on what is happening to families at the border that otherwise aired last night.
For a very long time, the only channel one got in airports and many other public venues was Fox News, which also further negatively distorted the public discourse.
All this is the fabric upon which our current horrible situation is projected.
So here are some immediate reactions to recent events.
The distortion of Congressional oversight, especially in the House under Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy, and Robert Goodlate, is perverting justice and real accountability.
The unwillingness of the House — or Senate — to challenge patently illegal and often unconstitutional actions by this administration allows for public wealth to be transferred to private persons and entities, and denies Americans the right to decide spending and actions through their elected representatives, even if in the case of the House and state legislatures (especially N Carolina but also MIchigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and to a lesser degree Virginia) those legislative districts, state and Federal, are badly gerrymandered to not be representative of the population of the state as a whole (and of course the citizenship question on the census is designed to further perpetuate this). I wonder for example where there is authorization or appropriation for airplane flights to transport children taken from their parents at the border, for contracts running through 2022 for private organizations to house them, for the use of private prisons to hold those awaiting hearings for deportation.
I also wonder where there is accountability for clear violations of the Constitution. Here I refer not merely to the President and his family violating the emoluments clause, but — remembering that any treaty ratified by the Senate is considered part of the Constitution until the Senate disavows it — international conventions on things like asylum.
I have taught government for many years. When I am not teaching government, I am usually teaching American History. I am well aware that our history is full of problematic actions by our government. We have too many examples of separating children from parents — in slavery, in te use of Indian Boarding Schools. In the past we taught explicitly Protestant religion in public schools, one reason Catholics founded their own system of schools. We have a history of religious bigotry even in place where we pretend we were celebrating religious freedom. Maryland’s Act of Toleration prescribed death to anyone who denied the Holy Trinity and Jews were denied the right to hold public office in the state until the Jew Bill in 1826 gave them (but no one else) that right. We still had established religions in states, supported by tax dollars of ALL residents, until Massachusetts finally disestablished in 1833 (New Hampshire moved in that direction in 1819, but I believe that technically the law was not fully changed until 1877). We put American citizens in concentration (not extermination) camps because of their race and heritage. We regularly see those who proposed denying rights to those who oppose them politically (gerrymandering is only one method: voter id laws is now the more common method, combined with making it more difficult to vote; and strip away rights of appeals, of access to counsel, use of high bail to incarcerate before conviction, etc.).
I am aware of the historic failings of American society. Yet what I see now scares me.
Many people have commented on the recent Trump tweet about denying due process to “illegal” immigrants, but missed a key part of that tweet, where Trump talked about an “invasion.” As a teacher of government and as a student of American history that word caught my attention. Allow me to offer the relevant portion of the Constitution, the 2nd Clause of Article I, Section 9:The
privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
This is a restriction on Congress. There have been cases dealing with how far a President can go going back to the Civil War period. In Ex Parte Merryman then Chief Justice Taney ruled that Lincoln could not suspend habeas in Maryland (done to prevent secessionists whom Lincoln had arrested to prevent them from going to Annapolis to vote to secede) but it is not clear if Taney did so in his capacity as Chief Justice or as a serving judge in Maryland- in any case, Lincoln ignored the order. Also tangentially relevant is Ex Parte Milligan, in which SCOTUS ruled (but not until 1866) that a person could not be tried in military courts/commissions when civilian courts were open and functioning. It is worth noting that in 2006, SCOTUS ruled in Boumediene v Bush that prisoners at Guantanamo could not be denied habeas.
In the Civil War era cases, it should be clear that Congress had the right to suspend habeas because there was an insurrection.
I know that most people argue that Trump’s tweets show a total ignorance of constitutional principal, but the use of the word “invasion” troubles me -I have no trouble believing that Trump may have been told (?by White House Counsel?) of the limits of suspending habeas and by using this word he is establishing the predicate to ask Congress to suspend habeas. But would it be just for those coming across the border? Is it too far fetched to consider that were Trump looking at the possibility of losing control of both House and Senate he might move for such power now? After all, does not he admire Erdogan in Turkey, who took a very similar approach to guarantee his control of power. And remember, a recent poll showed a majority of self-identified Republicans willing to suspend the 2020 election to keep Trump in power.
So what are the appropriate steps that should be being taken to prevent the total subversion of our Republic? In the past civil disobedience was a regular tactic, but remember that many people objected to those who did such direct action. And according to ML King Jr., in his Letter from Birmingham Jail,
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.
King goes on to say
The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.
Perhaps refusing to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders or shaming Secretary Nielsen at a Mexican restaurant might seem improper, impolite, even counter-productive, to some, but these are baby steps compared to what King and others went through to force negotiations to move towards guaranteeing even basic rights for a significant portion of the American population, almost a full century after the Amendments intended to do that had been ratified as part of the Constitution.
We are seeing moves towards direct action. We have seen a blockade at a government office in Portland. We have airlines refusing to transport children torn away from their parents. We have seen Congressmen and Senators demand access to the facilities holding separated children.
But it is not enough.
If we are going to save the Republic as more than a fiction — that is, not having yet a hereditary rule — and keep it as a liberal democracy, do we not need to be ready to shut down things to force “negotiation”???? While I recognize that Trump is NOT a negotiator in any sense of the word, there are still people upon whom he would have to rely who still seem ready defend to the Constitution, if forced to. That includes many of the serving flag officers in the military and Secretary Mattis. There are still some very conservative Judges and Justices that would draw the line at tyranny. The leadership of the FBI has not yet been totally distorted. Many career people in the Department of Justice surely realize what is at stake.
What we cannot allow to continue is the incremental eroding of democracy and liberty
We cannot afford the continuing transfer of wealth to the already wealthy and powerful and in the process severely hurting the neediest among us.
I again remind readers of the words of Hubert Horatio Humphrey:
It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
By that standard, the current administration totally fails that test, and anyone in the Congress that continues to enable, by action or inaction, by words or by silence, its continued depredations, and anyone who carries out its illegitimate activities as a member of the executive branch, should be public shamed.
So should anyone in the media who engages is “whataboutism” or who refuses to immediately challenge untruths and distortions — by the President, any members of his administration, any Congressional types enabling him, any advocates like Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, or people from various organizations who offer the administration’s untruthful talking points or who defend the indefensible.
I am a Quaker. 8 days ago I posted this piece in which I discussed the conflict I felt between my obligation as a Quaker to “answer that of God” in each person I encountered and words and actions that to my mind were clearly not “of God.” For those of you who are not religious, think of the notion of universal good it if helps. I also noted that while I might choose not to use force to defend myself, I was prepared to use even deadly force to protect those entrusted to my care, specifically my students, to whom I guarantee at the start of the school year that they will in my classroom be physically, emotionally, and intellectually safe. That does not mean that they will not be challenged.
Those entrusted to my care
I am a part of “We the people of the United States” and as such have entrusted to my care the protection of the Constitution, I document I overly agreed to protect when I enlisted in the US Marine Corp 55 years and 2 days ago. Now I must decide how I go about fulfilling that responsibility.
I have come to the conclusion that to answer “that of God” I must challenge untruth and distortion wherever I encounter or perceive it. Sometimes that might be a quiet word, sometimes it might rise to what Kind described as direct action. If I do not challenge and confront, I am allowing that NOT of God and thereby betraying my responsibility to answer that OF God.
In choosing to follow this path I may make myself something of a pariah to some. Looking back, I remember how that was true of many in the Civil Rights movement, for a very long time.
I have lived 72 years.
I do not know how much longer I may have. I hope to teach for at least five more years. I want to continue to think and write and reflect and engage with others and try to make a difference.
I knew men who were imprisoned because they refused to violate their consciences. I knew others, from WW II and from Vietnam, who because they chose alternative service rather than going into the military were forced into doing work intended to be humiliating and demeaning, although for them they fulfilled those responsibilities with humility and dignity.
I am going to attempt to follow my conscience.
I do not know what the costs may be for me. That is inconsequential.
What matters is the cost to me if I do not follow this path, if I do not do what I can in my actions, words, and living, to try to “preserve and protect” the Constitution of the United States, and some sense of a nation that actually cares for all of humanity.
Peace.