Anti-Choicer’s Demeaning View of Women and Doctors

I was reading about the current Supreme Court case over Idaho’s abortion ban and the Federal Law requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions.   Idaho’s ban only allows abortions to save the woman’s life and not to protect her health.  The issue is that this is not an easy nor clear cut call.  It is often a judgement call.  Further, letting a health issue go on can also result in the woman’s death.  Just maybe not at that moment. 

Reading this and considering the similar issue we had here in Texas in which the Texas Supreme Court supported a draconian understanding of the abortion ban, it struck me that the anti-choice people, in addition to having a poor knowledge of the medical side of abortions and why they might be needed, also have a very poor and unrealistic view of both women and doctors.   The way they try to strictly limit any decision making on the part of either also makes me think that they believe that abortion is popular with both.

For example, unlike in any other medical question, they try to take this judgement call totally out of the hands of the doctors and their patients.  During the time our Texas ban was being played out in court I saw several Anti-choicers say that the mother’s life was not in immediate danger and so she did not qualify for the exception.   Or that it was not certain that her life was in danger.  That the abortion should not be given until the mother’s end was certain and soon. 

From such things I get the impression that the Anti-Choicers believe that every woman actively wants to have an abortion.  They go out and get pregnant just so they can then get an abortion.  Some, the real thrill seekers, will wait until their eight month or so to get one.  After all, everyone knows how much fun being pregnant is.  And then the rush of having that abortion after carrying that child for 8 months!  After all, it’s my body and I’ll do what I want with it, and I think having an abortion would be fun!

Oh, and the doctors.  I get the impression that instead of trying to do what is best of the woman they think doctors just love to give abortions.  Oh dear Mrs. Watson.  You have a bad case of acne.  You need an abortion.  I’m guessing that they think doctors get frequent abortion points from the AMA.  Or that they have an oh, I need extra money to buy a new car, so let me find a pregnant woman to perform an abortion on.  Gotta find pregnant woman,  gotta find a pregnant woman. 

While probably not this consciously bad, the way they approach this in regards to the pregnant woman and the doctor displays a startling lack of trust and respect for both parties; treating both more like disobedient children who act without thought and without good reasons.

This becomes especially clear when the decision on getting an abortion is contrasted with any other medical condition, question or need.  This level of scrutiny is not present for heart surgeries, kidney transplants, tonsillectomies, knee surgeries, and any other medical procedure.  For all other medical issues the assumption is that the patient and doctors are acting in good faith and are capable of making good choices.  Not so for abortion though.   

In no other medical condition is there this level of disrespect, disregard, and distrust for both the patient and the doctor.  It is insulting to both.  Then add to that the bounty hunter provisions that so many of these laws have, actively looking for any who dare transgress what the Anti-Choicer believes. 

This coupled with their refusal to understand (it is not ignorance for many, but a refusal to see the clear implications and reality) the biology of pregnancy and abortion as well as impact on women in all aspects of their lives, is why their views and campaign based upon those views are so dangerous.  Both to the women who are pregnant and to society at large.  As we can see playing out now. 

There is the IVF controversy resulting from the Alabama Supreme Court ruling finding that embryo’s are people and deserving of the full protections of the law for people.  A ruling based upon those refusals to understand biological reality that so many of the Anti-Choice have.  And this from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.    

Black women are three times as likely, and Hispanic women twice as likely, to seek abortions than white women. And half of all women who get abortions live below the poverty line—many of them in states that limit or are seeking to limit abortions, explained Bell. 

Being denied an abortion comes with substantial health risks—especially for vulnerable groups. The risk of maternal death is 15 times higher for carrying a pregnancy to term than it is for abortion, and pregnancy-related complications are 2 to more than 25 times higher for pregnancies ending in birth compared to abortion, Bell explained.  “We have maternal mortality rates that are in some cases twice as high in restrictive states as they are in supportive abortion states,” said Bell—and those restrictions undermine the delivery of basic services, Bell added

And then there are the financial and social costs to the individuals, their families, their communities that abortion causes. 

All because a group of people with flawed views of biology have decided to totally disrespect both women and medical professionals.  And just as with similar flawed thinking with the COVID and vaccination deniers, nothing good is coming of this.  People are being hurt financially, in regards to their health, and even dying.

This is another example of how resolute ignorance always harms both individuals and society. We seem to be having more and more of such examples lately.

Read Full Post »

Breaches in the Wall of Separation

Currently we are riding a wave of threats to our liberties coming from the religious right. A woman’s right to control her body, struck down.  Tennessee passing a law allowing public officials, government officials, to refuse to perform gay marriages due to that official’s religious beliefs.  And Alabama’s ruling that a fetus is a person, even using quotes from the Bible as part of its reasoning. 

Given all of this I thought it appropriate to again go over why the separation of church and state is not only important but also critical to the protection of all our rights.  I did so once using history to show why.  This time I plan to use current examples, namely China, India, Israel, and the US. 

China

Some, perhaps many, will be quick to point out that China is not religious.  It does not endorse Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, or any other religion.  It is an atheist state.  Which is exactly the point.  It proclaims a position on something considered religious – whether God exists.  While in one definition of the term secular China is indeed secular.  However, in another definition, the one I am using, it most definitely is not. 

What many do not realize is that there is a difference between being secular and being atheist.  Secular actually comes in three types.  However, in regard to government, it means that that government takes no stance on purely religious issues. They neither promote nor discourage any one religious view.  Even atheism.  And it is that meaning that I will be referring to in this blog when I say secular.  Let me also mention that as with all human institutions, there is no perfection.  There are several secular governments but some are more secular than others.  And many proclaim themselves to be secular but are not.

China though is not a secular government.  It officially describes itself as being atheist.  And although they recognize five religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism – party officials have to be atheists.  And even the officially recognized five religions are closely monitored and restricted.  And if your religion is not one of these five – well, good luck. 

Through the years Chinese actions in regard to religion have changed.  However, they have always been regulated and those considered dangerous condemned and outlawed, while atheism has always been favored. 

The current government of China is “urging all religious groups in China to adapt to socialism by integrating their doctrines, customs and morality with Chinese culture.”  They also have to pledge loyalty to the state. 

They have tightened controls on all the official religions – detaining Uyghurs (Muslims) in Xinjiang and cracking down on underground Quran study groups,  reinforced its ban on unauthorized Protestant worship sites, forcing house churches to join a state-run association and detaining Protestant religious leaders who refuse to cooperate and other actions.  They have though been more lenient towards the native religions – Buddhism and Taoism, allocating money for different projects relating to these two religions. 

So, unlike in secular governments, religion and religious thought and belief is heavily regulated.  Limits are applied to speech and to associations.  All flowing from the lack of separation of church and state.

One point of interest here.  Laws against homosexuality are often said to be related to religious beliefs. Yet, in China, an atheist state, while it is legal to be gay it is still illegal for them to marry or to have civil unions.  Further there are no protections against discrimination in regard to housing and employment, conversion therapy is allowed, gays are not allowed to donate blood.  And can only adopt a child if they are single.   

India

India is officially a secular state.  It says so in its Constitution.  However, in that same Constitution the government is allowed to interfere in matters of religious belief and actions.  Some of this though was necessary and good, such as the abolition of the untouchable caste, and opening up the Hindu temples to lower castes.  Others though, such as the partial funding of religious schools as well as religious buildings are not, are dangerous cracks in the wall of separation. 

An even more dangerous crack in that wall is their allowance of the individual states to make their own laws regulating religious institutions.  And unless they conflict with the central government laws, they stand.  This has led to a variety of laws in regard to religious rights within India, and greater breaches to the wall.  These laws include 11 states outlawing religious conversions.

This mix means that India is more of a quasi-secular state than an actual one.  And just as in the US, there is a conservative religious movement working to have India declared a Hindu nation, with motions to have their Constitution reflect this.  It is no surprise that there has been a rise in religious violence, – Muslims mainly, but also against Christians and Dalits.  As exemplified by the many violent acts during the recent inauguration of the Hindu Ram Temple. 

Israel

Israel is not a secular state.  It proclaims itself a Jewish state and Jews are favored over other groups within Israel.  It does not allow civil marriages and non-religious divorces, the Chief Rabbinate controls all Jewish weddings, divorces, conversions and answers questions on who a Jew for purposes of immigration is.  The ministry of education oversees both the secular and religious schools of all faiths, giving them only a limited degree of independence along with a common core curriculum.  And although it protects some faiths, others are not so favored.  Including some Jewish groups. 

However, despite all of this, it does come closer to realizing the protections within its political structure for other religions than either India or China.  But that is trending downwards. Especially the rise of the religious right in Israel, the rights of non-Jews is becoming more precarious.

Even worse it is this religious belief on the part of the Jewish religious conservatives that is one of the main reasons why Israel continues to expand into the West Bank and controlling Gaza, with the claim that they both are part of the Israel in the Bible. 

Finally there is the fact that their religious identity conflicts with their identity as a democracy.  Currently that is not a pressing issue. Although it means that if Israel does formally make the West Bank and Gaza strip part of Israel they will be faced with a decision.  Name do they allow the Arab and mainly Muslim inhabitants to vote with the very real possibility that items related to Judaism and government may be changed?  Do they also formally make them second class citizens without the right to vote?  Or do they do a massive deportation?   None of those are good options, but that is what Israel will be facing someday, even without annexing the West Bank and Gaza. 

The United States

I came across this description of the state of secularism (from the above link about secular) in the United States and liked it.

“The United States is a secular country in theory, but it falls short in actual practice. The U.S. is a self-described secular state and is often considered to be constitutionally secular. The U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Additionally, keeping with the lack of an established state religion, Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

On the other hand, many official U.S. materials still include clear references to religion. The Pledge of Allegiance includes the line “one nation under God,” which is undeniably non-secular. Also, the phrase “In God We Trust” appears on all United States currency (both coins and paper bills) and became the official United States motto in 1956. While religious references such as these are common in many countries, their presence inspires understandable debate about the separation of church and state, as well as whether the U.S. is truly devoted to secularism.”

There are many threats to rights from many different directions and with many different motivations and causes. Breaking the wall separating religion and state though is a common route for such threats to become reality.  That is because it involves matters of conscience and morality, and beliefs that most consider very important.

Once a state starts to identify with a religion then anyone not of that religion becomes, at the very least, slightly suspicious since they are not a good “insert name of state here”.  Worse case, they are persecuted.  Their speech is limited, their ability to associate with others limited, their ability to build houses of worship limited, their ability to hold office limited, their ability to marry and raise children limited.  Eventually these limits turn into being jailed, or forced to move to camps. 

When religions is used as the primary basis for passing laws then we see what we are seeing play out in the US – book bannings increasing, restrictions on bodily autonomy, making the fetus equal in the eyes of the law with a person, allowing government officials to refuse to marry gays, etc. 

The separation of church and state is not only important for the right of individuals to believe as they think best but also to protect us against unnecessary laws based upon other’s conscience. It is why there has to be a secular basis for laws.  It may coincide with a particular religious view – in fact it most often will. With several religious views in fact. But the basis for the law has to be secular not religious 

People look at the small things that encroach upon that wall of separation –  police cars with “In God We Trust”, a cross in a public school classroom, allowing students to fly the Christian flag on the public school flagpole, opening public meetings with a prayer, etc. – and think this is minor.  It is not a big deal.  However, it is through such small things that rafts are created that lift some people above others – those of the right religious beliefs.  The rest get left behind to swim, or more likely, sink. 

As a bit of an aside, for those who call us a Christian nation and who say our country was founded upon Christianity, you need to consider why I chose this time to write my blog.  My idea for this blog actually came about when listening to a Christian religious talk show discussing how the government of India was no longer protecting the religious rights of non-Hindus and of the dangers of “Hindu Nationalism”.  I think they should have used a mirror during that discussion. 

Read Full Post »

Governmental Birds and Bees – Where Do Rights Come From?

Where do rights come from?  Are they God given?  Arise from Nature?  The whims of government or humans? From religion?  The answer is none of the above.  Rights are, instead, social constructs meant to foster more stable societies, ones that are likely to lead to more general satisfaction among its members. 

Before explaining this let me first make a prediction.  Many are going to say that this definition of rights is nothing more than whims of government and people.  That it is totally subjective without anything objective to it. 

No, it does not mean that. 

I am always slightly amazed that people think that if something doesn’t have a physical body and is not composed of molecules and atoms it is not real. Or that if something does not have a hard and fast trigger – like gravity and stepping off a cliff – then it is not real.  Or if something has fuzzy edges and can change it is not real and has no objective existence.  Sorry, but reality is both bigger and more complex – and more wonderful – than that limited view.  Being objectively real does not come in just one form. 

So what are rights and in what way are they real.

One relevant aside here.  Many people have a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept that something can have fuzzy edges and be without hard and fast triggers and yet still be real and objective.   Let me give an example of exactly this by using individuals. 

People like to stay warm.  When it gets cold, they wear more clothes, stay inside more, turn up the heat.  Now, none of those actions are hard wired.  People can still choose not to do any of those things.  Yet it would be a safe bet to predict that the vast majority of people will chose to at least one of those things. 

Those actions are not hard wired into our nature.  What is hard wired though is an aversion to being cold.  The reason that is hard wired into us is because those of our ancestors who did not have this aversion froze and died. 

What specific temperature people will find cold will vary – it is fuzzy.  How they react and what they do will vary.  Again fuzzy.  No hard and fast triggers, but variable ones with variable responses.  But a very limited variability.  And the fact that the very vast majority will act in ways to be less cold is an objective fact.  Fuzzy without hard and fast triggers, yet still objectively real. 

So too with so much else of human beings, especially those regarding our constructs such as ethics and morals.  Including as well the idea of rights.  And just as creating clothes and wearing them, as well as using fire and finding homes that provide cover arose partly as a response to our hard wired need not to be cold, so too did our creation of rights arise from our hard wired evolutionary nature of being social animals. 

Rights are human constructs, arising from our evolutionary derived human nature. Without humans there are no rights.  Just as without humans there are no books, no religion, no science. 

Further, rights are specific to governments and the relationship between a government and its people.  And just as with humans, without a government there are no rights. 

Finally, governments are necessary.  Humans are social animals.  That is one of our primary survival strategies.  Without forming and living in groups humans would be extinct.  And when there are groups of differing people living together there has to be some means of resolving disputes, assigning work, distributing resources, and providing supports.  These means can be informal and implicit, or more formal and explicit.  With the increase in size of these groups from a collection of family groups to tribes to cities to city states to nations these systems became, of necessity, more formal and complex. 

These large groups are a recent thing in our history – out of homo sapiens 200,000 years on this planet only in the last 12,000 years have we as a species developed larger groups than the kinship groups.  As a result we are still figuring out the best ways to create and maintain such large groups.  What worked for smaller kinship groups did not work for the larger mixed groups. 

While our need to form social groups is part of our nature, the specifics of how to do so is not.  We are not ants or bees.  That means that we find out through trial and error what ways of forming and maintaining large groups work and what doesn’t.  Find out what ways to reduce and resolve inevitable conflicts both within the group and outside of it.  Ways to provide supports and needed services to those who live within that group.  It is a messy process and one that is still very much on -going.  One fairly recent innovation in doing all of this is the rise of various types of democracies.  And along with democracies came the concept of Rights.   

The function of both, broadly speaking, is to protect those who are members of that society, and to allow them a voice. In a way this is actually something that our original societies already had, consisting as they did of smaller family groups.  Everyone’s voices could already be heard and considered by the others.  That got lost though as larger societies were created.  Not purposely so, but just as a result of the changes needed to unite different kinship groups with different beliefs and ways of doing things into one identity. 

However, the traits that caused us to form groups in the first place – empathy, a sense of fairness and justice, and others – also caused governments, these larger groups, that did not find ways to listen to the voices of their people and did not protect them to become unstable and difficult.   And their citizens to suffer.

Rights then are human social constructs meant to protect those things that people have found of overwhelming importance, as well as those necessary for the support and promotion of a democracy.  Or of their government even if not a democracy – although off the top of my head I cannot think of any other type of government that is not a democracy that has a good record on rights or that does more than just give lip service to Rights.

Rights are also still in the process of becoming.  And I think, given time, will eventually be not only given lip service to but also applied and followed by almost all the countries in the world.  It has only been 12,000 years since humans first started forming large groups.  Only a few hundred years since the concept of human rights really started to gain ground (there were precursors to this that go back almost 3,000 years).  This is short by the standards of life and history.  For being such fuzzy and imprecise human creations, they are doing well.  

I should, though, also mention in closing that though human rights, in a sense, are inevitable, that the when and where they become real differs.  And gains can be lost.  Remember this, Rights are a human creation and need to be promoted and protected by humans.  The moment they are not they die.  Furter, remember that we as individuals live human lifespans, and not that of history and evolution.  If we want our moments and those of our fellow humans to be good and well we need to act and not become complacent that history is on our side.  History is dependent upon our actions. 

Read Full Post »

Democracy Does Not Trump Rights

The other day I came across this story about how a small school district in Texas, the LaPoynor school district, had been raising a Christian flag up the school flagpole every day.  When challenged on it, and told it violates the separation of church and state and was thus unconstitutional, they, reluctantly, took it down.  However, after a great deal of protests by many of their students the school district came up with another idea that would still allow them to fly the Christian flag most days.  From the Texas Tribunes article: 

“After the controversy about the Christian flag, the district formed a group of students to serve as a committee that selects what flag flies on that third pole. The group is made up of the student from each grade level with the highest grade-point average and meets on a monthly basis under the supervision of a district parent, according to Superintendent Marsha Mills.

The group has chosen different flags, including one for Breast Cancer Awareness Month and one with the district’s mascot. It raises money to purchase any new flags, Mills said. But the Christian flag seems to be a frequent choice.”  

There are several important problems with this reasoning though. 

First, the equating of Breast Cancer Awareness and mascots with religion.  Religion and religious beliefs have a much more emotional and greater importance to people and their lives than the other causes mentioned.  It is why there is a freedom of religion.  It is why wars have been fought in which religion played a prominent role.  Religious belief is why people were and still are persecuted, exiled, martyred, and killed.  Supporting Breast Cancer awareness is not and has never been a reason for such. 

Further, this guise of fairness and democracy is actually a disguise. One that hides a push for making one religious view dominant over all others.  Consider, how many Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, and other religious beliefs do you think there are in the student body?  Some, yes.  But not enough to have the numbers to vote against the raising of the flag.  Further, given the sentiment within the school and community, and in the face of possible/probable harassment, condemnation, bullying, would they dare do so?  Think about the meaning in practical terms of those who differ of the following statement from the article: 

But back in East Texas, there does not appear to be enough concern over the flag for students to mount such a battle. Parents in the district say they are in support of the Christian flag and do not know of anyone who is upset about the religious symbol.

“I believe in Jesus Christ, and I would not let my children go to school somewhere that does not believe in Jesus Christ,” said Ashley Hamby Brauher, who has three children in the district. “I support the flag 100%.

This tactic of using voting to overcome Constitutional Rights, especially the separation of church and state, is one that is also in play in another area in schools – counselors.  The Texas Legislature recently passed a law allowing school districts to vote on allowing chaplains to serve as school counselors.  Chaplains who are not required to be trained as counselors.  However, as many of its supporters have said, since they are helping bring God back to the school they will obviously improve it, and reduce the amount of violence and drugs.  Their words reveal their real motivation, the promotion of a particular religion.

This all illustrates a very basic and deep misunderstanding of what rights are and how they relate to democracy.  Rights are there to put limits on democracies.  Limits that protect the words and actions and lives of citizens.  This protection cannot be overridden by voting.  Otherwise, it becomes mob rules, with those, the often many those, who are not part of that mob either politically, religiously, socially, becoming its victims. At best relegated to second class citizenry in which they are not free to speak their minds, to associate, to promote their candidates and views, to practice their faith or lack of faith.  At worst, they are persecuted, jailed, exiled, or killed. 

Those of us living in the United States all identify ourselves as Americans.  It is an identity that is supposed to transcend religious belief , social status, politics, and the rest.  By the way, transcending does not mean that it is more important to a person than a particular belief, only that they can hold and practice that belief and also be an American.  This is one reason the separation of church and state is so important.  Otherwise, anyone who is not a Christian would not be a true American.  You do not foster unity and identity by excluding unnecessarily. 

Here is a small personal example from my wife of how it feels when it doesn’t.  It happened just after 9/11.  She was working for the city of Fort Worth at the time and the city decided to hold a memorial service to both provide support for its employees and to foster unity in the face of this tragedy. 

She and a couple of her workplace friends attended.  One of them was Hindu.  American diversity in action.  Until a pastor took the stage to lead everyone in a prayer.  It was a very Christian prayer, complete with references to the Bible and Jesus and ending in an in Jesus’s name.  No other prayers were given.

Both she and her Hindu friend felt excluded.  They were shocked at this and no longer felt a part of a greater whole.  That their beliefs were seemingly not as important and were not as American as this particular version of Christianity.  They seemingly did not need to be supported by those who were the right sort of Americans.

Perhaps a small thing you might think.  But of such small things larger attitudes are created.  That cultures are created. Exclusionary ones that will eventually lead to persecution.  Imagine how such small things accumulate – Christian flags at school, Christian prayers at school, untrained pastors as school counselors, and so forth.  The message received that it is only Christians who are allowed this and no others. 

It is through such things that us becomes divided into us and them. And them eventually become seen as a threat to the state since they are not of the same religion as the state.  A look at history clearly shows this.  Instead of a United States of America we would become a United Christian States of America with anyone who was not Christian not considered a good American and viewed with suspicion. 

And this is why Rights always trump democracy.  And always must. 

Of course, if rights must be protected from the whims, thoughts, and actions of the majority, that brings up the question of what are rights?  Interestingly enough, that is the subject of my next blog. 

Read Full Post »

The Constitution, Rights, and Abortion

After having done the last three blogs on various aspects of the Hamas/Israel war I think it time to move on to a less controversial subject – abortion. 

I recently read this column by Mark Davis titled “The Republicans Can Still Win on Abortion, But Messaging Matters”.  He starts it with these words:

“For more than 50 years, we pro-lifers argued that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional and should be overturned. We were correct for every single day of that half-century, not because of our anti-abortion opinions but because there simply never was a right to abortion in the Constitution, where matters unmentioned are left to the states. The overturning of Roe was a cause for proper celebration among those of us who knew the 1973 court had falsely concocted a federal right to terminate a pregnancy.”

While there is so much wrong with this piece, I am only going to focus on this part – “…there simply never was a right to abortion in the Constitution, where matters unmentioned are left to the states.”  I focus on this because it vividly illustrates a common failing in regards to conservatives and Constitutional Rights.  A failing that impacts not only abortion and a woman’s health rights but also gay marriage, contraception and so on. 

Those who believe like Mark like to mention the 10^th amendment saying that this leaves rights and powers not mentioned in the Constitution to the states.  However, to make this claim they only look at part of the 10^th amendment.  Here it is in its entirety. 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Please note that it does not end at “are reserved to the states” but, instead, continues on to “or to the people”.  That’s the part that gets left out by many conservatives.  Now, this last part is not used much in regard to individual rights decisions, but it is there to be used, and is something that conservatives ignore.  Especially since with the passage of the 14^th amendment the federal government protects those individual rights, even against state “rights”.  Much to the benefit of the nation.

However, even more importantly, they ignore the 9^th amendment, which reads:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

So, conservatives who argue that this or that right is not explicitly stated in the Constitution and therefore should be solely left to the states are, in fact, ignoring part of the Constitution itelf.  Not only that, but they are also ignoring the history of why the Bill of Rights came about. 

In the beginning many of the writers of the American Constitution were against adding a Bill of Rights to it.  These included James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington among several others.  One of the main reasons for their opposition was they thought it unnecessary.  The structure of the Constitution itself would protect individual rights.  In this they were wrong, it did not. 

However, another reason they opposed a Bill of Rights is that they also thought that all the rights proposed could already be inferred from the Constitution itself.  Please note the word “inferred”. They thought the Constitution could be interpreted in such ways as to protect all the rights in the proposed Bill of Rights, and more, and so were inherently already within the text. Their great concern was that a list of Rights that was protected would be taken to mean that only those enumerated rights were protected from the government and no others. In other words, it would be used to restrict rights inherent in the Constitution instead of protecting them.  In this they were correct. 

When Madison decided, for political reasons, that he had to support and create a Bill of Rights he created the 9^th amendment with this concern in mind.  What this means is that the Constitution does protect more rights than just those listed.  In other words, Mark Davis and others who argue in a like manner are wrong.  And are acting in ways that Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and many other founders and writers of the Constitution feared. 

Now, that does not make all claims of rights constitutional.  There still has to be a basis that can be rationally argued from the Constitution.  But just because something such as the Right to Privacy is not listed does not automatically mean it is not constitutional.

Some thoughts of these founders on the Constitution and how to understand it that are even more against what today’s conservatives believe about the Constitution.  One such is that the realities of the day and history can play a role in determining whether something is constitutional. 

For example, before Madison became president, he was against the creation of the First National Bank, an institution proposed by Hamilton to better establish order to the new nations financial structure, create a common currency, and to create funds for internal improvements.  Madison though strongly disagreed with Hamilton on this issue and believed that a national bank was unconstitutional.  It was created anyway in 1791.  And it shut down in 1811 after its charter expired.   

However, what is relevant to this issue of rights and the Constitution is the fact that after Madison became president he wound up creating it again in 1816, the Second National Bank.  Its charter lasted until 1836.  The reason why Madison changed his mind about the Second National Bank is of interest here.  From the National Constitutional Center:

After leaving the presidency, Madison explained that, while he believed that the First Bank lacked a constitutional basis at its start, its constitutional legitimacy grew over time through political acceptance: “It had been carried into execution through a period of twenty years, with annual recognition . . . and with the entire acquiescence of all the local authorities, as well as of the nation at large.”

Madison’s shift of position on the constitutionality of the national bank was a prime example of Madison’s following the path he had laid out in The Federalist Papers for settling a question of constitutional meaning.  In Federalist 37, he wrote, “All new laws . . . are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications.”  In Madison’s judgment, the constitutionality of the national bank had been properly “liquidated,” or fixed through a series of presidential and congressional actions.

This is a far cry from the conservative claims that the only rights possible are those that are listed.  That the only actions that are constitutional are those that are explicitly listed. 

The early letters and writings of the founders as they worked to make the bare bones of the Constitution into a living government capable of dealing with the issues of the day make for very interesting reading.  Far from being an obvious clear cut and dried affair, there were a lot of disagreements and discussions on what this passage or that passage of the Constitution meant in regard to this issue or that.  Part of these discussions were about how to determine when something is constitutional. Or when it is not.  As shown above with one of the foremost writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, interpretation is needed. And that interpretation can take more into account than just the words in the Constitution.   It can take into account recent history and actions. 

It is not only the words of the Constitution and amendments that show the argument that such and such a right is not Constitutionally protected because it is not listed in the Constitution totally wrong, but the history of those who actually wrote those words and their own thoughts about this.  In the case of abortion rights, this flawed argument is tragically wrong. If this is not challenged and changed, then our future might see a greater and greater limitation of our rights due to this fatally flawed argument so that our Constitution becomes, instead of a protector of our rights, its foe.  

Rights other than those listed are in the Constitution.  The men who wrote it said so.  And the Constitution itself says so.   

Read Full Post »

Protecting Us from Our Government

One of the most misunderstood aspects of our government on the part of many, especially those of conservative beliefs, is what protects us from the actions of our government. Their answer to what ultimately protects us from our government, what ultimately keeps our democratic government with its rights and freedoms for its citizens from turning into a despotic one, is guns. However, that is the wrong answer.

Guns do not protect our rights and liberties from a despotic government.  In fact, they are at best neutral and at worst a danger. However, that is a topic for another blog.  Instead I want to talk about one institution that does provide protection for our rights and freedoms. One that does not get much notice at all.      

In past blogs I have discussed some of what actually does protect us from our government.  Things such as a federal structure of states and national government, the separation of powers into the executive, legislative and judicial, a written Constitution with both enumerated and unenumerated rights.  Rights which include things such as voting, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and more.  These are some of the true protections against our government becoming despotic.

In this blog I want to go over one more of our actual protections against a despotic government.  One that not only gets overlooked but is often maligned.  One that trump and his followers would like to do away with.  Interestingly enough it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Instead, it arises from legislation informed by historical reality.  It is our Civil Service System. 

People decry the bureaucracy, decry how it seems to slow things up, prevent needed things from happening, and is in general frustrating and aggravating.  However, they very rarely ask why do we have a Civil Service System?  And what did we have before? 

The Civil Service System was first created in 1883 with the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Before that, at the very beginning of our republic and during its first 40 years, a “fitness of character” standard was used to appoint people to civil service jobs.  This usually meant was the applicant of upstanding moral character and able to do the job.   Some presidents relied upon party affiliation to fill these appointments.  For example, Thomas Jefferson only appointed Democrat-Republicans.  Others refused to remove those of the other party from positions they already had, but did fill new ones with members of their own party. 

I think you can see the problem here. Today we have a great outcry on the part of many saying the President uses and abuses the Civil Service System for political reasons.  Imagine if those employed by the Civil Service System were picked by the political party.  Or solely by the President and his advisors.

Bad as this was, in 1820 it got worse with the passage of the Tenure of Office Act.  This act officially turned the appointment of civil employees into a spoilage system.  It did so by limiting the terms of many officials to four years, corresponding to that of Presidential terms.   What this meant is that with the arrival of a new president all incumbents could be removed regardless of work performance, and then replaced.  Most often the standard used to determine who was appointed was party loyalty and activity.  In fact, such appointees were expected to actively use their office to engage in political activities for the benefit of their party. 

As you might expect, this caused cronyism to run rampant, and created a great deal of corruption and the selling of offices.  This was made worse throughout the 19^th century as the United States expanded westward and grew in both complexity and scope. 

This could also have lead to the formation of a despotic government. Look at other examples of so called democracies to see how – the USSR, China, etc.  A political party controls all despite the trappings of a democracy.  In the US this did not happen so much (although there were definite abuses).  Mainly this was because our system was set up with multiple ways of preventing our government from becoming despotic (as mentioned above).  But, had some of those other measures been weakened or done away with then this way of appointing civil servants might have led to such an outcome. 

There was, of course, a great deal of criticism and pressure to change the system to rid it of graft and cronyism.  However, it was not until President Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by an unhappy job seeker that action was actually taken, namely the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act mentioned above.

The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act replaced cronyism and specified merit as the standard by which job applicants were selected.  Merit measured by testing to determine how well qualified an applicant was.  Doing so opened up these appointments to all citizens, not just those of a certain political party.  In addition, this act prevented incumbents from being thrown out due to a change in the presidency and set standards for political neutrality instead of political activity.  While this system covered a very small part of the federal jobs in the beginning it rapidly grew to encompass almost all federal jobs.  And with good reason given the problems and issues with the Spoils System before it. 

There have been a few other major changes to the Civil Service System, mainly to make them more responsive to the needs of the managers and of the job.  However, every change still had the bedrock of being merit based and not politically based.  Which is why our current Civil Service System is one of the protections of our democracy and rights.  Annoying and aggravating as it often can be, this merit based system is essential. 

Look at today, when, due to the actions of trump and the Republicans, many of the barriers preventing our government from being a more active threat to our liberties and freedoms have been worn thin.  A time when extremism is on the rise, government censorship on the rise (see Florida and Texas), and many of our traditions in our government that had worked to encourage bipartisanship have been trashed. Then imagine how a presidency could go if they could once again appoint all civil servants, and do so based upon solely on political loyalty and not merit.  And then claim that they won even when they lost. 

Despite its flaws the Civil Service is very much an institution protecting us against government overreach and its tendencies to becoming despotic.  Any improvements made to it should keep the history of why it came about in mind, and not destroy it in the name of “greater efficiency” or other mantras.  Appointments, promotions, and movements within the government should be based on merit only, and those in positions protected from politics. Our current democratic system is strained enough already. 

Read Full Post »

What Protects Democracy

Being a citizen of the great state of Texas I have been following the impeachment trial of our Attorney General Ken Paxton.  In doing so I came across some quotes from the Texas Tribune coverage that struck me as pointing to something fundamental about our system and democracy:

Buzbee (one of Paxton’s defense attorneys) also argued that impeachment thwarted the will of Texas voters.

“Texans chose at the voting booth who they wanted to be their attorney general … but because of what this House has done, only 30 [senators] out of almost 30 million will decide if Ken Paxton is allowed to serve in the office he was voted into,” he said. “That’s not how it’s supposed to work. That’s not democratic.

In other words Buzbee and Paxton’s supporters are claiming that this trial is a treat to democracy and to the power of a citizens’ vote and right to chose who represents them. 

Now, I totally agree that one of the checks on government power is citizens voting. It is one of the most critical ones even. However, it is only one such check.  The reason that the creators of the US government, the writers of our Constitution, felt comfortable with creating a more powerful federal government is because there were several checks on abuse of government power within the Constitution, not just one.  Checks that have also become part of each state’s government too. 

One of those checks is impeachment.  Or more broadly, legally holding elected officials accountable for their actions not only through elections but through the courts and legal system.

As Andrew Murr, State Representative, Republican, one of the impeachment managers said:

“…saying the framers of the Texas Constitution did not believe elections alone could protect the public from abusive office holders.

“It’s too easy to use the powers of office to conceal the truth,” Murr said in opening statements. “The voters did not, and do not, know the whole truth” because Paxton went to great lengths to conceal his misconduct, he added.”

Many conservatives like to say that our “right” to own guns is the most important of our rights since it is the one that protects our freedoms from an abusive government.  However, it is not. It is not even close to being the most important right in protecting our rights and freedoms from our own government.  In fact, I would argue it is not a protection at all. But I am not going to go there in this blog.  Instead, I want to focus on a specific example of one of our most important protections. Namely the belief that our elected officials are not above the law. 

That is the basis for the process of impeachment that is written into the Federal Constitution as well as into each and every state Constitution except for Oregon.  And Oregon has a proposal to add such a procedure to their constitution, passed with the unanimous support of both Democrats and Republicans in their legislature. 

This idea that our political leaders are not above the law, are not free from being held accountable for their actions by not only the ballot box but also by our legal system is one of our greatest protections against abusive government.  That protection is what is playing out in the Texas capital now.  It is also what is playing out now on the national stage with trump’s four indictments. 

Yes, legal actions such as these are things can become abusive and are actions that despotic governments can and do use too.  But it is also a protection that can keep our government from becoming such a government, whether on the state or the national level. 

As for how to tell the difference between the two, between when it is being abused by the government to silence political opponents and when it is being used as a protection of our democracy, there are several indicators that can be looked at.  One primary indicator is that when those legal actions are carried out by despotic governments they usually have little to no evidence, and are solely carried out by just one political party. Neither of those indicators are true in regards to Paxton or trump. 

I have already quoted one of the impeachment managers arguing that Paxton should be impeached.  He was a member of the same party as Paxton, Republican.  He is one of seven Republicans impeachment managers.  Five are Democrats.  Do the math to see who which political party has the majority in regards to impeachment managers. 

Further, the ones who are testifying against Paxton, who took what they saw to the FBI to start this process are all Republicans. Further, their political views on issues such as guns and abortion and a host of other issues are the same or very similar to that of Paxton.  Or, for that matter, to Greg Abbott, our governor. 

Or consider the fact that out of 86 Republican Representatives, 60 voted for impeaching Paxton and only 23 voted against impeachment.  In the Republican majority Texas Senate (out of 31 members 19 are Republican), all 16 pretrial motions by Paxton’s attorneys to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him failed. Seven Republican Senators voted against all 16 pretrial motions. Most of the others voted for some of the motions, but not all of them.  In other words, it was a bi-partisan rejection of Paxton’s attempt to avoid being tried.  

Turning to trump, his indictments are from both states and the federal government (by the way, this federal system of government is another protection of our freedoms and rights from an abusive and despotic government).  Two state and two federal indictments. This is an indication that these actions are not the result of a despotic government or due to a political witch hunt. 

The New York indictments are from a blue state and so could fit the narrative of this being more politically motivated than real.  However, the other is from Georgia, a state that leans Republican.  Not to mention that the investigator or district attorneys are not the ones who decided to move forward with the indictment.  That was decided by a grand jury, as per our process. Another common tell of abusive and despotic governments is that they do not follow the processes set up. 

Further, in the Congressional hearings on the events of Jan 6^th, many if not most of the 1000 witnesses testifying were Republican.  This along with the public nature of the evidence are also signs that this is not the actions of an abusive or despotic government.

These actions against trump and Paxton are not the result of a political witch hunt. They are not inspired by partisan needs and concerns. They are not the signs of a despotic government.  They are, instead, signs of a functioning democracy and of one of our most important protections in action.  Instead of dismissing them as being politically motivated we should be celebrating them as signs that our democracy is still alive. 

Read Full Post »

Planning for Inevitable Imperfection

I came across this Propublica interactive article on all of our rights that are at risk with our current Supreme Court due to its willingness to overturn all precedent even when it involves taking away rights.  It is well worth a read. 

Instead of focusing on possible fixes (I will mention some though at the end of this blog), I want to take a step back and deal with a broader question.  Why do these things happen?  No matter how well thought out, no matter the history, no matter whatever, all institutions fail at some point.  Doesn’t matter whether it is the Supreme Court, Congress, the Catholic and Baptist Church, the American Legion, Boy Scouts, a Chess Club, or any other sort of organization.   All will fail at something at some point if they last any amount of time at all.    

In other words, no human institution is perfect.  Nor ever will be, no matter how much thought is put into it, no matter how many fail safes, no matter how many resources are devoted to prevent failure. In this blog I thought it would be fun to look at some reasons why this is true and what it means in regard to systems, and to our current situation in America. 

One of the most basic reason for inevitable failure at some point is that while all humans share similarities in values and emotions, similarities that allow the creation of viable and long term societies and governments, they are also each very different.  In addition to those similarities we are also very diverse in temperament, values, emotions, beliefs, tastes,  personalities for any system to work for everyone.  That is true not only for large institutions such as nations, but smaller ones – towns, cities, counties, states.  And still true for even smaller ones such as social clubs, sports clubs.  And even for that most basic of human units, the family. 

This means that there will always be disagreements and dissatisfaction – the root of all strife.  Grist ready to clog the machinery of any machine. 

Most of the time these do not flare up due to our commonalities, as well as to well-designed systems that allow for the expression of such disagreements and to the possibility of peaceful change.  But the seeds are always present for such to happen.  Add in change – weather, people, ideas, resources, and so forth – then that is even more true as some are impacted more than others, and some profit at the expense of others.  It is one reason why climate change is such a danger.  The grist is present to tear down and break what has been created, especially during times of stress.   

Because of this, there can be and never will be a perfect institution, of any sort.  They will fail at times.  Our propensity for disunity is almost as strong as that for unity. But some organizations take this into account and work to find ways to maintain some sort of unity (not uniformity by the way) even with these differences and forces for failures. 

Currently we are in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of the American system of democracy.  Not only our Supreme Court, but voting rights, civil rights, and the growing disparity between the wealthy and the rest. 

Please note that I said possible.  We still have a ways to go. The reason I say this, that we have a ways to go yet despite the appearances of growing chaos around us, is because our country was not set up with the expectation of perfection.  It was set up with the knowledge that any one system can and will fail at some point.  It was set up with the expectation of imperfection. Because of that we do have safeguards that, while strained, still hold.  Safeguards such as:

The Constitution with its protections of rights. Yes, this current court is a threat to many of these rights, and to the workings of good government.  But look back at the Tanner Court.  And some of the others throughout the years.  This is hardly the first time.  And each time that same Constitution was used to eventually further our rights and protections

Separation of Powers into the Executive, Legislative (with its separation into Senate and House), and Judicial.  If one goes too far the others are there to provide a counterbalance.  Each can take actions to limit the others.   

Our federalist structure of state and federal powers.  Yes, many states since the Supreme Court struck down Roe have moved strongly into taking away rights.  Many are trying to make voting more difficult for groups they do not favor.  And many are also working to exert state control over cities to prevent them from doing anything they do not like.  But many other states are doing the opposite and are trying new ideas that can improve our country.  They also provide a haven for politicians and people to gather and push back in the future. 

Voting   is being made more difficult to do in many Republican dominated states.  Or watered down by redistricting. But difficult does not mean impossible.  Difficult now doesn’t even mean as difficult as it was just 60 years ago.  Further there are groups and organizations pushing back to change things, to keep it from becoming as bad as before.  And even to improve voting access. 

Free Speech and Free press Despite what many say both a free press and free speech are alive and kicking in the US.   In fact, there is so much of it with the growth of social media that finding consensus can often become harder with each group forming their own isolating bubbles.  Nonetheless, they still exist and remain an important safeguard. 

These structures, and other more informal ones, do not create perfection.  As I said there is no such thing and never will be.  They do though allow for the inevitable and constantly forming cracks in our foundation and structures to be kept from destroying the whole building. The damage kept limited so something exists that still that can be repaired, even, eventually, built upon and improved.  For while perfection is not possible, improving always is. 

We can create improved systems, and have done so many times.  The elimination of slavery, the legal protection of voting for all citizens, women gaining the right to vote, and more.  Often these come at the end of a long buildup of serious issues and serous dissatisfaction and unrest.    

The most prominent example of this is the Civil War.  And even after the Civil War, it took over a hundred years to capitalize on that improvement. In many ways we are still far from fully realizing it. But improvement did happen and the setting was created for further improvement. 

Other examples include: senators being directly elected by the people instead of appointed by the states legislatures, the creation of civil service, the creation of agencies to protect workplace safety, food and drug safety, Social Security, and so forth

The lesson here is that any one organization will fail.  The trick is to have several working together so that one can limit the damage in the other.  Rather how a rope has multiple strands so that if one fails the whole rope still holds.  And that is how our government was created, with multiple strands. 

Today there is a great deal of pressure to tear down what we have built. That can be seen clearly in the Supreme Court.  But even there it is not all lost, as witness the recent ruling on jerrymandering and on Medicaid. Just as there is pressure to take us backward, to limit and eliminate rights, not to mention justice and fairness, there is equally a great pressure to preserve what we have and to build on that. 

As for the Supreme Court, there are several ways to deal with it. 

• On needed laws that have been struck down, they can often be recrafted taking into account the reasons why some of the justices struck it down.  In fact, many of the problems with the Citizens United ruling could be dealt with that way. 
• Congress controls the size of the Supreme Court.  It could be expanded. 
• Creating “judicial ethics, conflict of interest, and good practice and procedure standards” is another measure that could help. 
• Instead of for life terms, set up staggered term limits.  Each justice would serve for, say, 18 years on the Supreme Court after which they could serve in a lower court.  Further, the term limits would need to be staggered so that one president during one term does not appoint all the justices.  In fact, ideally, it would be good to stagger in groups of two or three four years apart, or some variant thereof. 

Of course, none of this will happen overnight, or even in the next year. But they are possibilities, many of which have support by many Americans.  And just as with the Senate voting, Civil Rights, and other changes in our past, current injustices and wrongs create more outcry for changes.  The main goal for now is to hold what we have together long enough for the needed changes to occur.  And that is still a very achievable goal. 

Read Full Post »

States and the Protection of Civil Rights

Most conservatives and libertarians argue that states are better protectors of rights than the federal government is.  And/or that they are more responsive to the will of the people and so better positioned to do right by their citizens.  However, history and polling show that both of those beliefs are flawed. 

Today all Americans are guaranteed certain rights by the Constitution. But at one time  those rights were protected only against the actions of the Federal government.  States were free to violate any and all of them.  And many did.  Freedom of press, freedom of association, freedom of speech were all commonly curtailed and violated.  As were others such as due process and freedom of conscience. Often these violations were committed by the slave states as they tried to suppress the abolitionists. But other states did so too.  The Bill of Rights did not protect the civil rights of Americans against the actions of the individual states. 

That changed with the passage of the 14^th Amendment which provided all citizens with the rights under the Constitution, and protected them even against state actions.  It was regrettably slow in getting enforced for all the provisions of the Bill of Rights and for all American citizens, against state actions, not really getting there until the 1960s (and in many ways still a work in process).  But it laid the groundwork for limiting the ability of states to violate American citizen’s constitutional rights.

What this means is that history shows that if states are given the responsibility to protect Constitutional rights, many, and perhaps most will fail to do so.  Witness the actions taken by many states after the passage of the 14^th amendment to limit the civil liberties of minorities. Or, for that matter, look at abortion rights today.

It makes no sense that the protection of Constitutional rights that apply to all Americans be fragmented among 50 different states. Some states will do well. Others, not so well. Other will be deplorable or even hostile in their protection of these rights. Instead of E Pluribu Unum, we would need to change our motto to Ex Uno Disunitate.

In that situation what does it mean to be called an American citizen? Logically, if a right pertains to all Americans it should be protected by the government that is over all Americans, the national government. And should be protected by this national government even against the actions of the states.

Yes, there are many things best left to the states to work out – regulating business and commerce within a state, issuing licenses for marriages, hunting and such, conducting elections, establishing budgets, and more.  But protection of rights, while it should be done by the states too, is primarily a function of the federal government when those rights being violated are violated by states.  Again there is a long history of such violations, both before and after the 14^th amendment.  Just look at the race laws in place in many areas until the 1970s.  They were created by states to limit the rights of blacks within their state.  The same holds true of other areas and groups.  Jews and Catholics for example.  Women. 

I recognize that the Federal government has shared responsibility for violating rights too.  For example, the internment of the Japanese during WW 2, the limitation of the VA benefits for blacks after WW2, and racist loan and lending practices.  However, it was the federal government that changed and then eliminated many of these violations, both nationally and within states.  I do not think there has been an area where a right protected by the Constitution and which was routinely violated by one state was then, without federal action, spread to all states by the example of some who did protect it.  It took action by the federal government to do so.  The Civil Rights Act for example.  

Again though, the bottom line is that if a citizen is guaranteed rights in the Constitution those rights should be protected even against actions by the states. Even if the majority of the state wants to limit or do away with those civil rights for some.  And the only government body capable of doing this enforcement is the Federal government, the national government.  The one that all citizens belong too in addition to whatever state they live in.  I am a Texan.  I am also an American.  My family members that live in California and Arkansas are also Americans even though they are Californians and Arkansans.  We share a common identity.  And should have the same protection for our rights, not a patchwork quilt of good and bad. 

As for state governments being more responsive to the will of the people.  Not really.  Using my home state of Texas as an example, 60 % of support abortion being available in all or most cases.  Only 11% support a total ban on abortions. Yet Texas has passed one of the most restrictive anti choice laws in the nation, not even allowing exceptions for rape or incest after the first six weeks.  And even encouraging individuals to sue those who “aid and abet” an abortion, with an minimum award of $10,000. 

Other such dysfunctions exist too on things such as climate change with 81% of Texas saying climate change is a problem, with most of them willing to pay more for cleaner energy.  Yet you wouldn’t know that from our state government’s actions.  Actions which often seek to limit how far, or even if, individual cities and communities can take action against climate change. 

Both arguments for the primacy of states in protecting civil rights are shown wrong by a look at history and polling.  States are not consistently responsive to the will of the people, nor do they do a better job of safeguarding the rights of all citizens.  While the Federal Government has a spotty record it has a better one than the states. 

This may be partly due to Madison’s argument in Federalist Paper 51 saying that basically size matters. That while a majority will tend to act like a faction against those in the minority in any democratic government, that a large Federal government consisting of many large and different groups, this becomes less likely. Or more improbable for the Federal than the state governments. That while the Federal government will still act “unjustly” at times, it will do so less often than smaller groups, such as states.  

“For on such a system we can create a country so large and disparate that factious majorities – majorities formed on any other principles than “those of justice and the general good” – become “very improbable, if not impracticable”….

Thus, only a large republic can escape the political logic that leads from factional conflict to either authoritarian or hereditary rule.  Stated positively, only a large republic makes possible self-government, or government wholly dependent on the will of the society with no participation at all of “a will independent of the society itself”.  Majorities in an extended republic will not always be just, but they will less often be unjust, and so minorities are much more likely to feel secure.  The result is a more stable society as well as a more respectable one, for only in this system will the majority, which Madison here identifies with the people and even with the “society itself”, deserve our respect as being (more often than not) a voice for “justice and the general good.”

While not totally right, I think Madison was still on to something with this.  And this might be a large part of the explanation of why the Federal government is a better protector of rights than states.   Whether it is or not, it is clear from both history and recent events that states should not be allowed to do as they please in regards to rights.  That path leads to greater injustices. 

Read Full Post »

Democracy and The Wisdom of the Crowd

I came across Kevin Frazier’s “Education in America” opinion piece a few days ago.  I was immediately struck by his opening paragraph:

“The wisdom of the crowd is at the foundation of any belief that democracy can produce a good society. Elections, public forums, comment periods and the like all offer each person the chance to share their assessment of a candidate, issue, or regulation – the aggregation of those assessments determines the outcome. If we did not assume the superiority of the collective, then such a system would serve little societal value. After all, it makes little sense to shape a society around the recklessness of the rabble.”

This grabbed my attention because it highlights a fundamental mistake in regard to Democracies.  One many people have.  The wisdom of the crowd is not the foundation of any belief that “democracy can produce a good society”.  Democracy is instead based upon the consent of the governed. 

In fact, the “wisdom” of the crowd often must be restrained. Unfettered the wisdom of the crowd too often winds up harming and creating and perpetuating injustices on those who are not the majority.  Which is why we all have rights that cannot be infringed, even by the “wisdom” of the crowd.  In fact, for a functioning democracy to have a chance to create a good society the protection of such rights from the wisdom of the crowd is just as necessary as the democratic aspects of a government. Without it no good society can be created. Even then there is no guarantee of a good society, but the odds are nil without it. 

Then there is the fact that the crowd is often not wise at all.  They are riddled with prejudices, ignorance of different aspects of reality, conflicted among itself, and prone to short term thinking.  These flaws are one way that demagogues are able to gain power, by exploiting the unwisdom of the crowds.

So, why is democracy the best form of government?  An aside here – nothing created by humans is perfect, and that includes forms of government.  However, while perfection might be impossible, better is well within our grasp.  And democracy is a form of government better than the others due not to the wisdom of the crowd, but because it receives the consent the consent of the majority of the governed. 

Without consent change does not happen.  Especially needed change. The government takes actions which impact people and if they have no way to voice their views and no way to create effective change then frustration, discontent, and emotions rise greatly increasing the chances of very bad things happing – as witnessed in Iran today.  In fact, often the government itself is ignorant of these views and of how widespread the discontent is.  Because of this restlessness increases and emotions rise.  As does the chance of violent actions, including violent change of the government instead of a peaceful one  (which even under the strain trump and his administration and followers put on our democratic institutions, and an attempt at a more violent change,  still happened).    

This is a greatly oversimplified overview of a democracy and its why it is better.  But even so it provides the gist of the why democracies are better forms of governments than others.  Even if the crowd is not wise. Under a democracy people have a way to make their voice heard and there is an outlet for discontent.  No other form of government has that benefit. No other form of government is able to change as quickly if change is needed. 

This does not mean that there will not be protests and violence at times.  Our history has a great many such.  I would point out that all governments, no matter the type, have protests, and often violent ones.  However, protests, even those that turn violent, are much less likely to turn a democracy into a Syria because of those democratic institutions.  Citizens have a means of effecting change. 

Change.  That is another benefit of democracy. Consider the war Russia has started with Ukraine.  With a free press and a functioning democracy I do not believe that Putin would be in power.  Vietnam did in President Johnson, and that war’s impact on America in terms of American lives lost and economic damage was nowhere near what Russia is currently experiencing. 

There is though a sense in which the wisdom of the masses holds true for democracies.  With more people participating, with more voices being heard, and with more people grouping together to effect change, then more ideas are heard.  And not only heard, but often tried and good ones found.  Ideas that might not have been considered or even thought of under a more repressive or restrictive form of government has a greater chance of being found and then flourish under a democracy Especially one with the protection of individual rights. With these rights – such as free speech, a free press, and freedom of assembly and the others – as well as the consent of the governed, new ideas can be heard and have a better possibility of rising up to become policy and create change.  The civil rights movement, women’s movement, gay rights, the environmental movement, and such are examples of this. 

Frazier did make some good points in his piece though.  However, at the same time he undercuts his own words about the wisdom of the crowd by making these points, points which highlight the limitations and flaws in believing in the wisdom of the crowd.  He writes about new found lack of understanding on how to read and interpret words and concepts, as well as a new found a poor understanding of civic duties. That to once again create the wisdom of the crowd these need to be taught and learned to benefit from the wisdom of the crowd.  And to a large extent he is correct. 

But he is wrong in thinking these lacks a new thing. They have been present all through the history of democracy as practiced in the US, and other countries, from its founding days.  Read the newspapers and periodicals and letters from the founding days of the US until the late 20^th century, the time before the rise of social media, and that becomes very clear.  During those years education was limited. A great deal of the population who were the wrong color or gender were repressed and denied.  The wisdom of the crowd has never existed in the sense Frazier means.

In fact, most of the founders had a strong mistrust in the wisdom of the crowd.  Which is why when they created the Constitution it had rights built into it that could not be taken away by the wisdom of the crowd.  Many founders thought they could be legitimately inferred from the Constitution, others thought that they should be more explicitly stated. The latter won, resulting in the Bill of Rights. 

Oh, the United States is most definitely in one of our worse situations today and would probably have to reach back to pre-Civil war days to find as dysfunctional a society and government as we have now.  But a great deal of our problems arise from the wisdom of the crowd, not despite it.  We are feeling and suffering the effects of a society and government impacted by “the recklessness of the rabble”, and of those who would take advantage of it.   

Read Full Post »