Healthcare – We Chose … Poorly

For the past couple of weeks, I have been busy enrolling in Medicare Part B.   As I do so I am once again amazed at the choice we made as a country to not implement a universal healthcare system.  Universal healthcare is far superior to what we do here in the US by almost every measure.  It is cheaper, it provides support for all citizens, it provides greater freedom to take risks in work, and is fairer in that healthcare does not just become something that only the well off can afford.

Before going further, let me just provide a brief synopsis of our current healthcare system in the United States.  It is usually provided by the employer- but not all employers.  Almost all employers have the employee pay part of the cost of the insurance monthly.  This is in addition to any co-pays and deductibles the person has to pay.  All to receive coverage whose final approval is done not by the doctors with the individual, but by for profit companies.  Companies who might and probably are genuinely concerned about providing good healthcare, but whose highest priority is creating profit. 

So, given this, why do so many oppose universal healthcare.  Let me list and deal with the ways. 

1.   People do not want the government to control their healthcare. 

Insurance companies control which doctors a person can go to.  They control what medications are covered and which are not.  They control if a given procedure is paid for or if numerous other steps have to be done first.  Extra steps done not because they might provide better healthcare service to the individual but that could possibly get results for cheaper and help save the bottom line for a for profit industry.  Insurance companies make both the company and the individual pay.  Essentially, it is a private tax.  And both the company and individual are now out of money that could have been better spent elsewhere. 

A government is more responsive to the people than private companies. 

2.  People do not want to wait for their needed medical procedures. 

People in countries with universal healthcare do not wait longer than in the US.  On average, some are longer, but many have shorter wait times.  From World Population Review:

“A common misconception in the U.S. is that countries with universal health care have much longer wait times. However, data from nations with universal coverage, coupled with historical data from coverage expansion in the United States, show that patients in other nations often have similar or shorter wait times.”

This report from the OECD iLibrary gives a bit more detailed breakdown.

Let me at this point mention something that many who are against universal healthcare do not seem to realize.  There is not just one system to achieve this.  Each country has it set up and financed differently.  Some are totally government paid for.  Others are a mixture of government and private. The commonality is that all citizens can get quality healthcare regardless of income.   And without all the massive amounts of paperwork (administrative savings alone would be hundreds of millions of dollars a year).

3.  People do not want to have inferior medical care. 

They do not receive inferior medical care under universal healthcare.   We pay much more for healthcare – in 2022 US paid $12,555 per person whereas the next highest spending on healthcare, Switzerland, only spent $8,049.   And the results of the care are essentially the same.  In fact, in some areas such as life expectancy, untreated diabetes, infant healthcare – the US does worse than those countries with universal healthcare. 

I misspoke when I said that the results of the US healthcare system and those countries with universal healthcare are essentially the same.  One significant difference, they do not have people dying or suffering due to not being able to pay medical bills, they do not have people going bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills, they do not have people forgoing needed healthcare because they could not afford it.  Which is why I imagine our infant healthcare numbers, untreated diabetes, and life expectancy are worse. 

Now, lets look at the flip side.  Why we should have universal healthcare. 

In those countries that have it, it has proven more cost effective than our system.

In those countries that have it, medical care is as good as in the US.

In those countries that have it, the medical decisions are between the patient and the doctor.  No one else. 

In those countries that have it, since individuals do not have to worry about healthcare, they are more willing to open and start new businesses or change jobs. 

In those countries that have it, there is far far less paperwork in getting needed medical care.  

In those countries that have it, businesses do not have to provide healthcare to employees, freeing up that money for other areas within their business. 

In those countries that have it, people do not die because they cannot afford healthcare. 

And in those countries that have it, things such as in this link do not happen, where a woman who worked as a middle school counselor and had insurance wound up in a coma for five weeks and now needs extensive medical care, but is unable to afford it. This is causing the family and friends to beg for donations and help through a Go Fund Me page.  Something seen far too frequently in the US.

Final Questions/Objections

What about personal responsibility? What about freeloaders? 

The personal responsibility part comes in choosing to use it, or not.  In choosing to get medications, or not.  In choosing to follow, or not, what the doctor recommended. 

As for freeloaders, access to good healthcare is something that should be the right of all citizens. Doing so provides a benefit for society and for the government.  And for businesses.

A 2020 Lancet study found that:

We calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

A 2022 PNAS study on what the effects would have been of having a Medicare for all system in place during the pandemic concluded this:

The fragmented and inefficient healthcare system in the United States leads to many preventable deaths and unnecessary costs every year. Universal healthcare could have alleviated the mortality caused by a confluence of negative COVID-related factors. Incorporating the demography of the uninsured with age-specific COVID-19 and nonpandemic mortality, we estimated that a single-payer universal healthcare system would have saved 212,000 lives in 2020 alone. We also calculated that US$105.6 billion of medical expenses associated with COVID-19 hospitalization could have been averted by a Medicare for All system.

In addition to individuals universal healthcare would also benefit businesses, as discussed in this link to the Economic Policy Institute. 

“Specifically, it could:

• Boost wages and salaries by allowing employers to redirect money they are spending on health care costs to their workers’ wages.
• Increase job quality by ensuring that every job now comes bundled with a guarantee of health care—with the boost to job quality even greater among women workers, who are less likely to have employer-sponsored health care.
• Lessen the stress and economic shock of losing a job or moving between jobs by eliminating the loss of health care that now accompanies job losses and transitions.
• Support self-employment and small business development—which is currently super low in the U.S. relative to other rich countries—by eliminating the daunting loss of/cost of health care from startup costs.
• Inject new dynamism and adaptability into the overall economy by reducing “job lock”—with workers going where their skills and preferences best fit the job, not just to workplaces (usually large ones) that have affordable health plans.

Produce a net increase in jobs as public spending boosts aggregate demand, with job losses in health insurance and billing administration being outweighed by job gains in provision of health care, including the expansion of long-term care.

Universal healthcare is one of those areas where the whole society benefits.  Even if there are freeloaders, although I am not sure what that term means in this context, the benefits for all are worth it.  Just as with public education, public libraries, police, the military, and so forth.    

Universal healthcare is better for the individual, for society, for businesses, and for the government.  We have taken a wrong turning in our choices of healthcare systems.  That’s understandable. Mistakes happen.  What is not understandable is that we continue to choose this, and even praise it at times, instead of changing to something that is not only better but badly needed. 

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 All or Not Worth It Myth

I recently had a conversation with a person who seemed to be critical of the idea that progressive ideas had actually made strides during FDR and Teddy Roosevelt’s presidencies.  This was in response to a comment I had made about how focusing so broadly on wealth inequality and then concluding the progress was not possible due to both sides having rich people that control the parties and so would only take actions that benefit the rich was a flawed idea. 

I stated that this is only very partly true and overlooks the significant differences within those broad categories.  Differences that are significant and important.   I pointed out that some of the biggest progressive gains came during the administrations of rich men such as Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. Some of the biggest gains in civil rights came during the administration of a politician who did not always play by the rules, who in fact who probably stole one of his elections. LBJ.

And in response this person had said that progressive ideas only really got a start after the Civil Rights laws in the 1960s, and that FDR’s New Deal was meant almost exclusively for whites.

However, that brings up the question of does something have to be perfect to be considered progress?  If so, then this country, indeed no country, has ever made any progress in their history, and America is still in the same state it was when it was founded in 1787.

More specifically, even if the New Deal mainly benefited whites, whites are still part of the country and citizens.  Further, many of the New Deal issues did benefit blacks even if not as strongly as white.  Unionization with its definition of what minimum wage was being one example of this.  Also, FDR ordered the justice department to pass anti lynching laws and to begin enforcing anti-peonage laws with the goal of ending forced labor in the south. 

Finally, without these programs in place, even if mainly for the whites, it was available for blacks when our racial conscience started playing catch up.  For example, if Social Security did not exist for whites, then imagine the problems passing it along with the needed racial reforms. 

So, yes.  Flawed progress is still progress.  As was Teddy Roosevelt’s reform of the Civil Service program that sought to eliminate or greatly reduce the political patronage that had been a part of that system since our country’s beginnings.  Something that trump and the Republicans want to dismantle so that they can put politically reliable people in there that would blindly support them.

In regard to racial progress, yes, a great deal of that progress was due to the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s.  Yet even that was possible by the flawed progress that came before  -the change in our Constitution that outlawed slavery and gave all citizens the right to vote.  Even though that progress was subverted by Jim Crow laws and other measures, it was still there to build upon.  Without that greatly flawed progress the Civil Rights legislation would not have been possible.  The same is true with the New Deal.  Those progressive benefits would not be available to be expanded to cover minorities if that flawed progress had not been made under FDR. 

Progress is almost never perfect (I am inclined to say never, but hesitant to be that broad).  The Civil Rights legislation mentioned is another example of flawed progress. But despite any imperfections, progress is still progress and provides a support and a framework that can be improved upon later. Progress is rather like writing –usually the first draft is terrible.  But it gives something that can be improved upon and no matter how bad is almost always much better than a blank page. 

I think this all or its not real mindset is very evident in the House Republicans today with their aversion to compromise. As a result, today we have one of the most dysfunctional House of Representatives in history. 

Seeing events and actions as being all or nothing (which is probably not what the original commentor quite meant when they wrote that response) also relates to why the current House is one of the most dysfunctional in history.  Compromise is bad.  Compromise is a watering down of principles.  And most importantly of all to them, compromise is losing.

Combined with the extreme partisanship of so many House members – to the point that despite their claim that the border crisis is an extremely high priority for them, they will not vote for a border bill President Biden proposed even though it has many items they like due to not wanting to give him any sort of a “win” – it is not surprising that the House is so extremely dysfunctional. 

While compromise is sometimes a loss, it is more often a partial victory.  It allows movement to continue to gain further ones.  No compromise usually means no movement at all is possible – a trait of the dead.  And currently our House of Representatives is almost dead in regard to being able to actually accomplish anything for Americans, the people they are supposedly representing. 

Read Full Post »

trump: To Be On the Ballot, or Not to be on the Ballot. That is the Question

One of the great political questions we are facing right now is if the insurrection clause in the 14^th amendment means that trump is not qualified to run for president.  It is a question that will soon be decided by the Supreme Court.  Below is relevant section of the 14^th amendment, the insurrection clause. 

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

This blog is not about the Constitutional aspects of whether the insurrection clause pertains to trump’s particular case.  For the record, at first I was unsure, and actually thought it might be a reach.  But, seeing the evidence and information coming out about Jan 6^th, and then reading the history and court rulings and their reasons, I now very strongly believe it does. As an indirect support for this view, I can’t help noticing that none of the appeals are NOT arguing that he did not commit insurrection. They are ignoring that question altogether.  Instead, the appeals are arguing that this clause does not apply to trump since he was president at the time.  

But, as I said, I am not writing that to discuss whether the clause does or does not apply to trump.  Instead, I am focusing on the political ramifications of this decision, and whether, regardless of it being constitutional to do so or not, would it be wiser to keep trump off the ballot or wiser to allow him to run as some have advocated.    

So, what are the reasons given by many on both the left and right for keeping trump on the ballot even if he violated the insurgency clause?  Let me list them, and my response to them. 

The argument. Deciding a President is a political decision and not one that should be decided in court.

My response.  Even though there are not many requirements for running for president, there are still some.  The president must be at least 35 years old.  They must have lived in the US for 14 years.  They must also be a natural born citizen.  And with the addition of the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, they must also not have violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution by participating in an insurrection. 

President Obama’s presidency was challenged in the courts, both while running for office and after he won, due to the false claim that he was not a natural born citizen. According to Wikipedia:

 “By mid-December 2008, at least 17 lawsuits had been filed challenging Obama’s eligibility in states including North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Connecticut, New Jersey, Texas and Washington. No such suit resulted in the grant of any relief to the plaintiffs by any court; all of the cases were rejected in lower courts. Three post-election suits were dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Had any of those suits been found valid then Obama would, quite rightly, not have become president. 

The same with trump and the insurrection clause.  Would you, or they, allow a person who was not a natural born citizen to be put on the ballot?  Or a person who was 22?    

The argument: Keeping trump off the ballotwould enrage millions of voters. Far better to beat trump decisively at the ballot. 

My response:  There are two closely related problems with this argument – in addition to the fact that it allows a violation of the few standards we have for presidential candidates. 

.

Yes, it would enrage millions of voters.  Probably to the point of violence.  Especially since more and more Republicans are buying into what trump is peddling – that there was no insurgency. That it was and is a political ploy to destroy him.  And that President Biden did not actually win the election. 

In fact, a recent poll showed that the numbers of those sympathetic to the people who stormed the capital on Jan 6^th has increased among Republicans, with some believing that the riots were instigated by law enforcement to suppress political dissent.  In fact, a quarter of Americans believe this.   

So what.

Yes, it is a concern, one that should be considered.  However even if trump loses decisively, which is not likely at this point – lose yes, very possibly, but not decisively – how do you think these followers who have increased their support despite all the evidence are going to react?  Are they suddenly going to stop supporting trump? 

No.  They will double down.  They will say that just as the 2020 election was stolen so too was this one.  And it was a larger loss because now you have a Democratic president in charge who can do what was done before, but writ larger.  And they will act. 

And it if is a close loss – my own view at this point of the result of the coming election – then they will still be outraged by another stolen election but take great comfort and enthusiasm in the fact that it was close.  And, again, be enraged and act. 

The other issue is, what if he wins?  Which he could.  A person who was barred from running for office due to his actions in the insurgency then wins.  What then for the country?  

Yes, if he were Constitutionally qualified we would have to take that risk anyway, or violate our own Constitution.  But it is one thing to take the risk when the rules are being followed – another when they are not.  Losing to a football team with 11 players on the field is quite different from losing to one that was allowed 12. 

The argument: The courts keeping a potential candidate who is leading the polls from running for office is contrary to the ideals of a democracy. 

My response:  No, it is not. One of the functions of courts is as arbiters of disagreements on what the law says and how it should be applied.  The Supreme Court deciding a challenge to trump’s candidacy based upon the 14^th amendment is totally within their purview.  In fact, this is the living illustration of the power of one of the founding father’s ideals – the separation of government power; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – so that each can be a check and balance on abuses of the others. 

What is contrary to the ideals of a democracy is allowing someone who planned, promoted, and supported an insurrection to run for president. 

Now, there is the very real possibility that this challenge will fail – and though I think it has strong merit I am not prepared to automatically dismiss a decision against this as being wholly political. After all laws and their interpretations are, justifiably, nit-picky and precedent laden.  If that happens it might make those who were conservative but did not like or were concerned about trump, but couldn’t vote for Biden and were planning to not vote, then vote for trump.   However, that concern is too late. The fact that these challenges are already in process has probably been enough to cause this to happen should the challenge fail.  And this does not negate the force of the already made arguments. 

There are no good easy answers here.  No safe ones.  Each comes with their own risks.  But I think in the long run upholding the laws and ideals of the Constitution are going to benefit this country much more than ignoring them because of fear of how those millions may react.  Especially since if they lose the election, they will react the same.  And then what if this insurrectionist wins?  What then for our democracy?

The risks are too great for us to violate our Constitution for the sake of someone who has already violated his oath to protect that Constitution.  The storm is coming from his supporters no matter what. So better to weather it sooner than later, before they gain more power and support. The cause of protecting our government and America by upholding the Constitution makes this storm not only necessary but well worth weathering. 

Read Full Post »

A Simple Species, A Lazy Species, A Cowardly Species, a Tribal Species. But With Some Redeeming Features.

Looking at the news recently –  the Israel/Hamas war, trump, election denial, climate change, etc – and the comments and generated by this I was struck once again by a truth about us as a species.  We are a simple, lazy species, a tribal species.  With some redeeming features though. 

We Are a Simple Species

We are a simple species. We dislike complexity and seek simplicity in our thinking. We see a Muslim group attack and kill civilian women and children and simplify that by saying that all Muslims kill and murder innocent women and children. 

A Palestinian group sees a member of a nation that has reduced them to an afterthought, if even that. A nation which daily creates difficulties in a life already difficult. And so thus sees all citizens of that nation as enemies, even those that are working to create a peaceful way forward.

The world sees Muslims/Jews killing innocent women and children and so all Jews or all Muslims are killers and evil. 

We are a lazy species. We have a way of seeing and understanding the world and all that the world shows us, each piece of it in its place, and all supporting the whole picture.  Because of this all new information must then be understood within that way of seeing the world. We do not like to question this way of seeing. It is much easier, and more comfortable, to make the world’s information fit our seeing rather than question how we see the world. Rearranging the many pieces of our view of the world is hard and stressful work, so instead of making the effort to actually see we weed out what the world shows us and toss what does not fit, and then twist the square shape so that it fits the star shaped hole.

And so, the election was stolen, we live in on a young earth where each creature miraculously came into being, the climate is not changing, vaccines are evil, and the list goes on and on.

We are a simple lazy species.  We live in a complex, complicated world. One in which boundaries are more often blurred instead of sharp. One in which multiple motives, both noble and base, are often at work at the same time.  One in which there are multiple interacting causes.  One in which names that we create to describe the world often do not do so fully. 

Which is why we so often blunder.  We not take the time to question and research, to follow the different causes, to understand them. 

We are an inclusive and divisive species; a tribal species. We are born into a family, and a society.  And need both.  And will protect them, the us, against those who are not us, the them. And because we are simple we do not consider that perhaps our boundaries are too small.  And because we are lazy we do not search for the commonalities that are there.  And because we are cowardly we are afraid to do so, especially when our own may condemn us. 

Which is why if you condemn Hamas actions as evil and immoral you are against the Palestinians.  And why if you condemn the atrocities being committed by the Israeli military now against the Palestinians you are condemned as being antisemitic.

We are a cowardly species.  We are afraid to be wrong, and so do not question our beliefs.  Especially those that are most important to us. Fear motivates and affects our thinking.  Fear of those coming across the borders who are the other, fear of losing our comfortable lives if climate change is real, fear of new vaccines, and so forth.  And when combined with us being lazy, being simple, being tribal this can and does lead to tragic results. 

Some redeeming features.  While we are simple, we have learned how to handle complexity and rise above it.  At times. 

While we are lazy, we have been motivated to act and to question. And to change. Usually not easily or quickly. But still….

While we are cowardly, we have forced ourselves to be brave and to question and to learn. At times.

While we are tribal, our tribal nature is what has allowed the human species to survive and spread across the world. And through our history our definition of us has become broader and broader. 

And despite our simple, lazy, cowardly, tribal nature we have made a great deal of progress over the millennia. Human rights are a new construct, one not present thousands of years ago. And even if not universally followed at least it has the power to demand lip service.  Democracy is another recent invention. As is the growth of sciences.  Our lifespans have increased and child mortality decreased. And we are forming larger and larger groups of us. And creating organizations to reduce conflicts or at least their deadliness, between these groups. Not perfectly, not even close to perfectly.  But they are there, and that too is new. 

So, despite our nature I think there is still hope, even as we are going through one of those valleys that are so much a part of our history. In the past we have always climbed again.  I think we will here too, eventually, as we wrestle with our own natures.   

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 »

Existential Threats

In the war between Hamas and Israel I have often seen Israel’s actions justified by stating that Israel is facing an existential threat.  And they are.  But it is not of the type of existential threat that those defending Israel’s actions mean though.  Israel’s existence is not under threat by the actions of Hamas, but by its own reactions to what Hamas has done.

The Palestinians are also facing an existential threat. 

For that matter, so is the United States. 

Let’s me say now that I am expanding, or perhaps better put, modifying the definition of existential threat from what most people mean when using those two words together.  For most, and for me too, it means a threat to their very existence.  Their lives.  Of the three mentioned above – Palestinians, Israel, and the United States – only the Palestinians meet this classic definition of existential threat. 

However, I believe that when it comes to countries, existential threats can also apply to their identity as a nation.  For example, were the United States to become an Orwellian dictatorship then, although there would still be a nation of that name, I would say that the United States no longer truly exists.  The ideals that caused its creation and formed its identity for almost 250 years, would have died.  Whatever would cause that to happen is then an existential threat. 

Obviously, some existential threats are more immediate and dangerous than others.  So, let me start discussing these threats to US, Israel, and the Palestinians in reverse order, starting with the one posing the least danger – which is far from saying no danger, this is comparison only -to the one that is the most immediate and dangerous.

The United States. 

The United States’s existential threat is one of identity and not of actually being wiped out.  So, what is the identity of the US?  As with all identities, it is the one we (not others) identify ourselves with.  That can best be summed up with two quotes:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The Declaration of Independence. 

“…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Gettysburg Address. 

In other words, we see ourselves as a freedom loving democracy.  Of course, the first thought many have is that we had a basic conflict to our ideals when we were created. Slavery. Slavery was one of our basic institutions, especially in the southern states.  Along with that was the fact that women did not have the right to vote, among lacking other rights.  Our reality did not match up to our identity. 

This conflict between our ideals and our reality has greatly shaped our history as we worked to make our reality conform more closely to our identity.  It is why there was a Civil War, the Civil rights movements, women’s rights movement, and so forth. And this is still in the works today.  We have made great progress, but much more needs to be done to realize those ideals in order make our reality conform to our identity. 

Today though we also have an in process fundamental threat to our identity as a freedom loving democracy – the extremists who have taken control the Republican party, and their leading spokesman trump.  They are threatening our identity as a democracy by attacking the most basic institution of all democracies – voting. 

They falsely claim that the 2020 elections were fraudulent and have been and continue to be working to undermine the institutions and the people who ensure that our elections actually are fair and free.  They are also working to limit who votes and who doesn’t by controlling the size and shapes of voting districts, and the number and locations of polling places.  And limiting the ways voters can vote. 

All of this is a very real threat to our identity as a democracy. 

As for our identity as freedom loving, here is what their chief spokesman had to say recently:

“We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”.

He would do this by eliminating the protections provided by our Civil Service system and would do many, many more direct appointments of those who would support his agenda.

He would do this by limiting the freedom of the press, which he often calls “fake news” and, more concerning,  “ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”.  Just as authoritarian governments do. 

He and his would also take over education and make it a vehicle for installing his version of patriotism. Witness Florida and the battle on school boards in regards to curriculum which would present only the best and deny the worst, and thereby ignore the history of millions of Americans.  Not to mention that trump is calling for a certification program for teachers who “embrace patriotic values”. 

And that is only a very small partial listing.  Trust in our institutions, especially those related to voting, is at an all time low. That is always a basic goal for those promoting a more authoritarian style of government.  On his own trump would be a two bit blowhard ideologue hate monger.  However, he has a fervent mob set that is set up to support him no matter what.  And they have taken over the Republican party. Those who are not part of the mob either are afraid of it, or think they can control it and trump (like Germany’s leaders when they allowed Hitler to become Chancellor), so that instead of denouncing the lies being told about election fraud, denouncing the January 6^th attempt to overthrow our government they go along and voice support for both. 

However, trump did say something I agreed with.  Trump also said this, “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within.”  I totally agree.  Our identity as a freedom loving democracy is under threat. And given that trump is most likely going to the Republican nominee and has a fair chance of winning the Presidency again, it is an imminent and serious threat.  One that has a good chance of resulting in violence before being resolved. 

Israel

Israel’s physical existence is not under threat.  Hamas and the other terrorist groups and their supporters do not have the military and economic resources to destroy Israel.  That can be seen quite clearing in the current war.  Like the US, Israel’s existential threat lies in its identity.  

Like the US, although not as widely acknowledged, Israel also has conflicting identities; that of being both a Jewish state and a democracy.  However, unlike that of the US, theirs is not so easily resolved. Nor, to my mind, resolvable. 

Just consider this question to see why – how does Israel stay a Jewish state if the number of citizens who are not Jews is greater than that who are Jews? 

In fact, in a 2015 Pew Poll 48 % of Jewish Israelis believed that Arabs should be expelled from Israel. In the same poll 79% of Israeli Jews also believed that Jews should have preferential treatment over those who are not Jewish. I have not looked at that number for today, but does anyone doubt that it is much higher now? And the current Hamas war is only accelerating that trend towards restricting the rights of the non-Jewish.    

This is one reason why Israel will never go for a one state solution to the issue of the Palestinians.  In fact, more broadly, this is one reason why any country that has identified itself with a religion – regardless of the religion, Christian, Islam, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, any and all – winds up trampling on the rights of its citizens and limiting freedoms.  This has nothing to do with Judaism, but with the joining of a religious point of view with the power of the state. 

Of the two identities, democracy and Jewishness, I believe for most the Jewish identity is the stronger. This is not surprising given the history of their persecution, culminating in the Holocaust, that the Jews have suffered.  Not to mention the antisemitism that is still a large issue today.  Israel was created as a place of safety and refuge from that history. 

Israel also has one other identity though.  One that is almost as integral to them as being Jewish.  That of being persecuted.  And of being a haven for the persecuted. Now though that identity is also under threat due to them becoming the persecutors. 

“When my grandmother arrived here in Israel, after the holocaust, the Jewish agency promised her a house. She had nothing. Her whole family had been exterminated. She waited a long time, living in a tent in a very precarious position. They then took her to Ajami in Jaffa, in a wonderful house on the beach. She saw that on the table there were still the plates of the Palestinians who had lived there, and who had been driven away. She returned to the agency and said “take me back to my tent, I’ll never do to someone else that which has been done to me.” This is my heredity, but not everybody made that choice. How can we become that which we were oppressed by? This is a great question.“ Hadar Morag,

“The fate of Israel depends on two things- its strength and its righteousness.” Ben Gurion. 

Israel today is using its strength.  Its righteousness is lacking though, and that is the existential threat to Israel. 

The Palestinians. 

Of the three the Palestinians is the much greater and most immediate danger.  Unlike Israel and the US, theirs is not to their identity but to their actual existence, to their lives. 

They have been evicted from the land that they had lived in for hundred if not thousands of years.  Most have been forced to live in only part of their original lands.  And those parts are not only the poorer tracts lacking natural resources, but they are also becoming smaller in regards to the West Bank.  This despite promises by Israel and the international community.  And in both the Gaza and West Bank, who and what goes into those Palestinian areas is tightly controlled.  Access to good jobs and money is severely lacking, and also largely controlled by Israel.  And those Palestinians living within Israel usually are treated as second class citizens.  And now, with the war against Hamas, third class or as not even as not being citizens (think about how important Israel’s Jewish identity on this and see how that starts to wind up limiting the rights of the non-Jews). 

To be clear, what Hamas did was immoral and an atrocity.  And Israel has a right and duty to strike back at them to protect its citizens. However, what many who defend Israel’s current actions overlook is that there is more than one way to strike back, even when considering solely military actions.  The way Israel is choosing to strike back does not consider the civilians and innocents.  And so, the civilians and innocent are slaughtered.  As of 11/20/2023 over 16,000 Palestinians have been killed in a month and a half time- the distance between October 7^th and November 20^th.  Of these around 70% have been women and children. 

Israel’s actions do not consider the Palestinian situation, the situation that gives rise to and support to terrorist groups such as Hamas.  And which, if not addressed, will result in more such groups acting against Israel.  Especially if Israel continues to provide only a window dressing concern for civilian casualties in their attacks on Hamas.  If the course is not changed the death toll will rise to many tens of thousands, and possibly even hundreds of thousands.  Especially when you consider the deaths resulting from those who died for lack of water, lack of medical supplies and attention, to the lack of electricity.  All of which are controlled by Israel.  Is it any wonder that charges of ethnic cleansing are being pressed against Israel.  Whether purposely or not (for my part I do not see it as being part of a plan) the result is the same – the death of the Palestinian people. 

What is to be done then?  Short answer – both the US and Israel need to reaffirm and support their self-identity as being both freedom loving and democratic.  Israel needs to remembers its identity and history of being the persecuted. The cry of Never Again needs to apply to more than just the Jews of the Holocaust. 

Read Full Post »

The Right to Speak Out

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.“

Jesus

This is wrong.  America, and all other countries, have a moral right to criticize and condemn no matter their past or present. 

Before explaining why let me enumerate some of the many moral failures of the United States before someone starts writing “were you aware of this” or “were you aware of that”.  In addition to those wrongs done against Native Americans outlined in the article there are these: 

Slavery.  Followed by Jim Crow, segregation and a long, long still on -going fight to correct the economic, educational, and legal injustices suffered by minorities today.

The internment of the Japanese during World War 2. 

The treatment, abuse, bullying, and deaths of LGBTQ. 

The second class status of women throughout most of our history, and the fact that this has not been fully corrected even yet. 

The toppling of governments we don’t like – such as in Iran in 1953 when we toppled its democratically elected government to protect our oil interests.  And as we have done numerous times in South and Central America.  

Our support of many brutal despotic governments. 

And since I want to focus on why I do not think these acts or the US disqualifies the US from making moral judgements and criticisms of other countries, let me just say these are only a few of the immoral actions of the United States. 

Let me also say that nothing I say here justifies these actions of the United States. That is not my intent, nor will ever be my intent.  These actions were wrong and immoral. 

But, they do not disqualify.  They do not disqualify for several reasons. 

First, I do not believe that there is a country in the world whose past actions and many of their present actions would be “without sin”.  Especially those who were powerful enough to influence the world.  Look into the history and actions of any country and you will find similar immoral actions, some more and more horrific, some less and less horrific.  But all still morally wrong. 

Second, norms are not static.  They become better morally.  They can and have also gotten worse.  Over the long arc of time they have changed for the better, become more just and moral and inclusive.  Disqualifying a nation today from being able to morally criticize another nation based upon actions and words from their past that were considered the norm at that time is irrational. 

Rather like denying all of what Lincoln said and did,  ignoring his words critical of slavery, due to the fact that he was racist, thought blacks inferior and did not believe whites and blacks could live together and that they should be sent back to Africa.  Or to ignore Darwin’s words about racist beliefs (he was much more enlightened than Lincoln on this) due to his misogynist views of women.  Both of these views were the norms for their time.  But that does not make their other words and writings and actions invalid and worthy of being ignored, much less condemning them for making such criticisms. 

So too with nations. 

Third, this disallowing of nations speaking out on moral issues due to their current or past actions is conflating two issues.  That of hypocrisy, and that of truth.  Just because a nation might be a hypocrite for daring to criticize another nation for actions it still does does not mean that its criticism is not valid and right.  To conflate the two and dismiss the claim is itself a moral injustice, one that often allows wrongs to continue by being ignored. I often see this happening with those denying the reality of climate change.

Deal with each separately.  State that the criticism is justified, but the person or nation making it is hypocritical.  And then deal with the more important of these two – which, to my mind, is going to be the criticism.  Is the US criticizing Hamas’s terrorist actions hypocritical considering the number of right wing terrorist groups they have funded through our history?  Possibly so.  Does that make their criticism of Hamas, that Hamas attack was evil, wrong?  Definitely not. Don’t use the one to dismiss and ignore the other. 

Finally, I would like to rephrase Jesus’s words some.  As true as the message it conveys is, it does not apply to all situations.  Short statements rarely do. 

Let they who are with sin cast the first stone.  And have them cast at them too by others with sin.

I mentioned earlier that I think the moral arc of time is generally positive and progressive.  However, it is so because of the sting of accurately cast stones cast by imperfect people and imperfect nations (there are no other sorts). 

Without the sting of those stones, no matter who cast them, no matter whether worthy or unworthy, we would still be killing all those who are other and thinking calling it good, would still be enslaving others and saying it is just and right, would still be torturing and burning, and oppressing and calling it good.  Although many of those things are still on -going, it is not nearly as widespread as they once were.  And it is not called good. 

If only those without sin were allowed to cast stones, the resulting silence about moral wrongs and injustices, about atrocities, would be deafening,  And the world would be the worse for such silence. 

Read Full Post »