Lest We Forget

We all remember the Colonial rallying cry “no taxation without representation”.  It wasn’t about taxes per see:  the Colonists believed –since they were not represented in England’s Parliament- they were not obliged to follow English laws.

A democracy exists when citizens combine to agree to follow the laws established by a government that they collectively vote into office.   The system is very imperfect, and there is often vehement opposition by those who have to abide by decisions they personally do not agree with.  At the end of the day, however, disappointed citizens comply with unpopular laws while holding out the hope of changing these laws in the future.  Witness the rallying cry of electing Mitt Romney to kill Obamacare.

It naturally follows that a democratic government would ensure that as many citizens as possible are eligible to vote.  Indeed, America has been defined by a continual broadening of the electoral base, providing more and more citizens with access to the voting booth.  Firstly, the burden of being a property owner was relaxed in most states early in the nineteenth century, allowing for the election of Andrew Jackson, the ‘people’s president’.  Constitutional Amendments were subsequently passed ensuring, in order, the voting rights of black men, women and all individuals over eighteen.   Pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Federal government monitors state actions that could unfairly restrict the right to vote.

Today felons constitute the largest class of citizens who are often denied the right to vote by their respective states. Currently almost six million individuals have thusly lost the right to vote. (The Supreme Court has upheld the rights of states to exclude their felons as long as the practice is not found to be racially discriminating.)

One can make a reasonable, albeit debatable , case of keeping felons out of the voting booth, but the spate of laws passed by of states to tighten voting requirements are another story altogether.  By cutting back on early voting, making voter registration more difficult, and insisting upon official photographic identifications, many state governments have recently sought to limit the participation of certain segments of society, segments that just happen to have a tradition of voting for democratic candidates.
 It is not coincidental that these restrictions have been put in place in states controlled by Republican legislatures and governors.   

By example, Florida’s 2011 law made it next to impossible for long-standing voter registration efforts - such as those by the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote- to continue. The law also called for a purging of voter lists using data proved to be dated and erroneous.  In Pennsylvania, roughly nine percent of registered voters currently lack the appropriate identifications that –due to a March 2012 law- will now be required in order to vote in this fall’s elections.  Most of these individuals, it is believed, are traditional democratic voters who live in the city of Philadelphia.

The expressed rational behind such moves has been to cut down on voter fraud.  Importantly, however, there is no evidence that voter fraud takes place even at the minutest level.  Let’s be clear on this.  A movement to tighten up voting restrictions is based on a totally false premise.

 These restrictions could well make a difference in this fall’s presidential election.  Indeed that is their intent.  According to the Washington Post reporting, “Iast month, the state’s House Republican leader Mike Turzai included it in a checklist of conservative legislative accomplishments. As he told an audience to resounding applause: “Voter ID, which is going to allow. . . [Presidential candidate Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”  But what does this say about the commitment of the Republican Party to a democratic government?  Are they willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

What is the commitment of almost six million felons to federal and state laws when they have no say in the process?  What will be the commitment of the disenfranchised voters who feel – should Governor Romney win the election by just carrying states where voters were excluded from the polls.   What will be the commitment of these same individuals to State laws enacted by legislatures who were voted into office without their participation?

Your political leaning should not matter on this one.  Democracies are legitimized by the participation of their citizens in the electoral process.  Cutting off the political participation of your political opponents is simply wrong.   It weakens our democracy.   At the end of the day, individuals prohibited from having a say in the making of laws have far less ‘ownership’ of the laws that are enacted and far less of a moral obligation to obey them.  Just ask our colonial forefathers.

Doing the Right Thing

 President Obama did the right thing in issuing an executive order to curtail deportation of illegals who have grown up in the United States, graduated high school and have not run afoul of the law.   My disappointment lies in the fact that he did not do it earlier.   The timing rightly taints the act with political opportunism: ensuing discussion has been focused on the politics of the move rather than the benefits to young Hispanic men and women who have grown up in the United States.

It’s about time something was done about this group.  Can you imagine your son or daughter, having graduated from high school and possibly college, not being able to get a job because of something you did fifteen years ago?  Allowing such individuals to remain on a work visa buys them time until the issue is settled by legislation.  It allows them to fully contribute to the American economy by taking jobs commensurate with their qualifications, and frees them from potential exploitation by employers.  It allows them to function legally in society.  In my view it is the least we can do.
The politics are not surprising.  Contrary to the protestations of the right, the Dream Act is not the product of the left, and President Obama’s actions do not constitute an imperial exercise of power.
Lest we forget, the Dream Act – which called for a path to full citizenship for such individuals- was introduced by Republican Senators in the first Bush administration.  To repeat, in 2001 an effort was launched by the Republican Party to deal with individuals who came to the US illegally as children.  Clearly, however, it was not high on President Bush’s legislative agenda, falling to wayside as many bills in Congress typically do.  John McCain was heavily involved in subsequent legislation on the same issue.  President Obama called for its enactment while running for office, and he worked actively to get the bill passed only –not surprisingly- to run into a Republican roadblock.  This, in my view, is when he should have acted unilaterally.
A number of critics have decried his use of executive authority in this matter.  Not being able to move the bill through Congress does not necessarily give the President the right to do his own thing.    However, Presidents have traditionally used, constitutionally, their executive powers to dictate policy in areas not specifically covered by Congressional legislation.  If Congress is displeased with this or any executive order, all it need to is pass legislation to the contrary.  By way of background, President Bush issued almost 300 executive orders while President.
Citizens need to decide on their own, whether America is better off as a result of President Obama’s decision to go easy on those illegals that came to this country in their youth.  Forget the politics of the issue for that is exactly what it is – politics.  Do you want to give such people a break or not?  How would you like your children to be treated?  Would you like to know where presidential candidate Romney stands on the issue?  Are you disappointed that he refuses to give an answer to the question?
In many regards, the hoopla around the immigration issue is reflective of the larger   imbroglio that characterizes the federal government and its leadership.    Even while advancing essentially Republican solutions, President Obama has been cast time and time again as an intransigent socialist who would not work with Congress.   The lack of movement due to Republican-manufactured Congressional gridlock (the same Republican senators who signed on to the grand bargain to fix the debt helped sustain a Senate filibuster that prevented it from happening), has caused many to question his leadership.
Only recently has the President’s frustration with Congress caused him to use his executive powers to move his agenda forward –gays in the military, recess appointments, non-support for the Defense of Marriage Act, immigration reform.   Now the same Republicans who refuse to work with the President in Congress take him to task for being imperial in undertaking unilateral actions in areas where Congress normally has a say. 
At the end of the day, this President has and will continue to be pilloried by Republicans no matter what he does.  As in the case of immigration reform – the news is all about the President’s values and leadership and/or Congressional stonewalling.  There is little discussion about the impact of the issue on the American people and the American way of life.  Voters need to get beyond the political rhetoric and personal political affiliations and focus on the facts.  They need to ask themselves, who is trying to advance solutions that work best for them.

 

 

My Dad Was a Union Man

 My father, a skilled machinist, was a union man.  I can still remember his participating in strikes in the 1950s.  For sure, no one in our family would cross a union picket line to shop in a store that was in the midst of a labor disagreement.  All else equal, we looked for the union label when shopping.

Unions were developed for a purpose – to ensure that workers were treated fairly by their employers and received a fair share in the corporate profits that resulted from their combined contributions.  Owners did not give in easily - increased wages and benefits came at a cost in corporate profits - and   mutual distrust came naturally to labor-management discussions.   Early on – before labor laws- management resorted to scabs and armed resistance to union organization: today their emphasis is on ensuring that state and federal laws are written and enforced to detriment of labor organization.  Tax credits to firms outsourcing manufacturing to lower-wage foreign countries are but one case in point.
Clearly, unions played a major role in leveling the playing field.  Union pressure ensured that the workers on the line received their fair share of corporate profits: the rise in real wages earned by union workers are a major factor behind the rise of an American middle class.  Just as importantly, unions curbed the natural tendency of managers to take advantage of their power to bully workers – unpaid overtime, faster work rates, shorter lunch breaks, poor working conditions and the like.  Unions thus provided workers with a means of self-respect and a guarantee of equitable treatment.
Worker benefits from unionization extended well beyond unionized factories.  Many new manufacturing start-ups have successfully resisted unionization pressures by providing wages, benefits, and working conditions similar to those enjoyed by union members in other factories.  Just as the presence of Wal-Mart lowers prices in all local stores, the possibility of unionization improves the lot of non-union blue collar workers.  Notably, private sector white collar workers, by in large, have not unionized in America.
It is no coincidence that the decline of union power in America has been paralleled by a rising income disparity among Americans.  When unions were strongest – in the1950s- the top ten percent of Americans claimed one-third of all income: todaythat percentage has risen to over half.  Union watchdogs kept a close eye on the distribution of pre-tax profits between management and labor, ensuring that the benefits of a successful corporation were distributed among all workers.
As unionized labor as a share of the workforce as dropped, It has become fashionable to focus on the darker side of unions – archaic work rules, feather bedding, intransigent resistance to modernization, refusal to take ‘necessary’ cuts to pay and benefits at a time when management salaries and golden parachutes were on the rise.  Increasingly, the premise of many Americans is that unions are an unnecessary evil.  (Many of these same individuals, however, have been known to respond to management decisions with statements along the line of ‘this would not have happened if we had a union’.  )
The pressure on Unions has intensified because of the traditional association of Unions with the Democratic Party.  At a time when corporate contributions to political activities have been unchecked by the Supreme Court,  states Republican  administrations have sought to break the back of public sector unions as a way of cutting off financial support to political races.  In Wisconsin, even when public sector unions met demands for cuts in pay and benefits, the governor pushed to eliminate collective bargaining rights for all public sector unions excepting those that had supported his election.  Clearly, there is significant public support for these endeavors.
 The reduced role of unions as a watchdog on the distribution of corporate profits has contributed to a major shift in the acquisition and retention of wealth.   Real wages of most American workers has been in decline for several years while corporate profitability rises and management salaries rise through the roof.  Secondly, the lack of union representation has made and ever increasing share of workers vulnerable to management decisions regarding benefits, working conditions and the like.   Indeed, unions have their ugly side, but so do corporate leaders.    At the end of the day, the key point, often forgotten, is that unions were created to provide the means for exploited workers to gain a measure of respect on the job and a fair share of the fruits of their labor: no one should be surprised to see American workers – union and non-union- suffer as a result of their demise.

 

 

 

Marriage as a Fundamental RIght

President Obama, while voicing his personal approval of gay marriage, has also stated that the legality of gay marriage should be left to the individual states.  This is not a politically motivated stand, as some might assert, but an expression of his belief that the federal government should not intervene in state decisions.  He has expressed this view before in stating that the Defense of Marriage Act –which states that marriage is the legal union   between one man and one woman -- is unconstitutional.  In Constitutional lingo, President Obama takes the position that marriage (or by implication gay marriage) is not a ‘fundamental’ right and thus the power to define marriage and marriage rights fall to the states and not the federal government.

Lest we forget, the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers to that states that are not expressly denied to them or which are expressively given to the United States.  Ultimately the Supreme Court justices draw, and often redraw the line between federal and state rights when it comes to individual liberties.  For example, a few years back the Court decided that it would not second guess Connecticut’s (or any state’s) view regarding what justified public purpose when applying the right of eminent domain.  (This decision resulted in a spate of state sponsored laws to clarify their respective positions on the matter.)  Similarly, for the longest time the Court side-stepped applying the second amendment to state actions. 

Over time it has come to be understood that only a citizen’s ‘fundamental rights’ demanded federal protection –and by implication- federal intervention.  Many of those in favor of gay marriage speak of future federal judicial actions that will effectively mitigate, if not eliminate, state prohibitions against same sex marriage and civil unions.   To my way of thinking we, as a society, are a long way from achieving a sufficient consensus on the fundamental right of an individual to marry whomever they want.  It’s hard to equate, for example, the right to marry anyone you choose to the right to be told why you are being arrested or the right to worship as you please.   President Obama’s view that defining legal relationships are best left to the individual states rests on sound legal reasoning as well as recognition of the wide split among the states on this matter.

 I would expect the Supreme Court to steer clear of this issue for some time, in large measure by finding that this is a matter best decided by the states themselves. It won’t be the first time this has happened.  Those counting on the Supreme Court to ‘right the wrongs’ of State laws and Constitutional referenda may have a long wait on their hands.

The Real Message Sent By Amendment One

I get it! There are a number of individuals in North Carolina, perhaps a significant majority, that wish to ensure that the only ‘marriage’ recognized by the State is one that unites a man and a woman. These same individuals want to make sure that future legislatures cannot change the current law outlawing same sex marriage: they want the issue settled once and for all. Given the historical context of ‘marriage’ as a religious as well as civil affair , I can understand the desires of those who wish to ensure that the state does not sanctify same sex relationships by allowing such couples to be married.

 But the Amendment we are voting on next week calls for more than a straightforward ban on gay marriage. It states that ‘marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that should be recognized by this State’. As such it not only outlaws formal ‘civil unions’-legal understandings that provide the same similar spousal powers and rights that come with marriage- but also opens to judicial interpretation the legality of trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives [which are not private contracts] involving an unmarried partners. It will also invalidate domestic partner benefits offered by some North Carolina municipalities. Thirty states have passed marriage amendments. Ten State amendments only ban same-sex marriage, while another seventeen ban both same sex marriage and civil unions. Although not a lawyer, it appears to me that only two states have gone as far as North Carolina in banning any marriage-like contracts between unmarried persons.

 To my way of thinking, the proposed Amendment thus goes out of its way to send a message to gays and lesbians that they are to be considered second class citizens by the State and, by implication that their interests might be better served by living elsewhere. The Amendment was carefully worded. Its language, while subtle, is stark. What agreements between two men or two women that will be recognized as legal is problematical. Who would want to enter into ‘spousal’ agreements, not knowing whether these will found to be legally binding if challenged in court at some future date. If you want to send a message to gays and lesbians that they are not welcome in North Carolina than by all means vote yes. It is your right as a citizen. If you think the amendment is only about the sanctity of marriage than think again before you vote.

The Two Sides of Liberty

The modern Republican Party has long associated itself with minimizing government participation in economic matters. After all, America was founded by those who had the self confidence to make something of themselves. Economic prosperity, if not actual survival, went to those who were best able to look after their own interests. America was no place for the meek nor lazy.
To many Republicans, today’s government safety nets serve as a disincentive to honest work – a crutch to those who lacked the will to put forward their best effort. It has created a self-perpetuating class of ‘takers’, they argue, who believe they have a right to expect continuing government assistance should they forego the effort to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. This same assistance, moreover, comes at the expense of those who are willing to work hard and take risks to make the best use of their abilities. The New Deal and Great Society programs, to the view of many on the Right, were but euphemisms for a democratic socialism which they view as an anathema to the American way of life.
This view resonates with many independents, who question the efficacy of many government programs, and who seek limits to government spending and, ultimately, lower tax rates. The inability of the national government to effectively manage its programs or even pass workable laws has given increased traction to the Republican view.
There is, however, another side to the Republican coin, one which may cost the Party substantial support. Republicans do not extend the concept of ‘small government’ across the board. The Right – while trumpeting the economic opportunism and independence of the founding fathers – seems to have forgotten the other reasons leading strong willed individuals to risk everything in coming to America’s shores. Economic opportunity was certainly a factor. Perhaps equally important, was the opportunity to follow one’s personal conscience in making life choices. Americans were able to worship as they wished and to otherwise live their lives without government interference. Individual rights –the key word here is individual- were cherished and protected. Bills of rights were integral to all state constitutions: the Constitution was approved only after its drafters promised to incorporate a ‘bill of rights’ at the first opportunity.
Despite the emphasis of early colonists on ensuring individual liberties, many on the Right believe that America must adhere to a moral code if it is to maintain its core values. Critically, these same individuals believe they have the inside track in defining the ‘American ethic’ that must be protected. These individuals decry Supreme Court decisions that go against their precepts, and challenge the spirit of these rulings by enacting laws that impinge on the personal choices of those who do not share the Right’s view of the “American way”. The spate of laws, both enacted and proposed, to limit choices available to American women are a clear manifestation of the role government is expected to play in protecting (enforcing) the American way.
Europeans fled the paternalism of European princes in order to walk their own path in the new world. They enshrined their personal freedoms in the founding documents of their respective states and the United States. The unifying ethic of the late 1700s was individual liberty. Today’s Americans are not expected to appreciate, respect, nor even condone the life choices made by their fellow citizens. They are expected to respect-and not constrict- the rights of their fellow citizens to make these choices. Failing to do so may result in the irony of people leaving America for Europe in order to gain greater liberty in the conduct of their own lives.

The Religious Vote Goes To......

Rick Santorum has certainly heated up discussions on the proper role of personal religious belief and the church in governing. From wanting to ‘throw up’ when listening to President Kennedy’s 1960 speech on the separation of church and state to alluding to President Obama’s “phony theology”. Although he may regret his choices of words, Mr. Santorum has arguably voiced the views of millions of Americans who share his feelings that our government’s laws and actions should be grounded in Christian precepts.
One can make a persuasive case that extreme care was taken to ensure that America’s national government would not advocate for one set of religious views over another. The issues raised by Mr. Santorum were raised extensively during discussions over the ratification of the Constitution itself. In the end, state Constitutional conventions not only approved a Constitution that only mentions religion in the context of prohibiting religious tests for office, but concomitantly insisted that the first U.S. Congress amend the Constitution to specifically preclude a blurring of secular and religious affairs. They understood that when one mixes religion with politics one gets politics.
This is not to say, however, that governance should not be informed by the religious values held by its individual citizens. It precisely because of this dynamic that Constitutional limits were established regarding the ability of one religious faction to impinge on the expression of the religious values of another.
These limits, however, do not preclude the implementation of government programs that advance one’s religious values. President Bush, for example, was an ardent supporter of faith-based initiatives whereby religious groups partner with the government to provide services to the less fortunate. Analogously, one could argue that many government programs are but an extension of religious outreach. Government funding is used to ensure, for example, that charity –albeit funded by taxpayer dollars- is extended to broad segments of the population. As an example, the government’s food stamp program could be viewed as an admittedly imperfect extension of local religious group participation in food banks for the needy.
If this is the case, shouldn’t citizens vote for those who support government programs that align with their religious beliefs rather than those who argue for a greater formal role for religion in government?
To this end, in 2008 the National Council of Churches- representing over 100,000 local Congregations and some 45 million parishioners- published ten principles for evaluating candidates that it hoped “all Christians - from liberals to conservatives - will study and apply in this election year. These included: ‘foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice’;’ reducing the disparity between the rich and the poor’;’ promotion of racial justice and equal opportunity’; ‘champion environmental justice’; ‘pursue fair immigration policies and speak out against xenophobia’; ‘provide adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all’; and ‘advocate for equal education opportunity and abundant funding for children’s services’.
I would leave it to the reader to decide which political party agenda is best aligned with –in this case- Christian principles. My provocation rests in the belief that voters who are concerned with the role religion should play in government pay more attention to the degree to which government actions are aligned with religious values and less attention to the ‘need’ for closer ties between church and state.