Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Votes That Count

In the U.S. there are elections because of our Constitution. There is political bantering over everything, including whether the U.S. is much of a democracy or not. But, make no mistake, starting from the Declaration of Independence, when Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,” the vote has always been important, and who, what, when, where, why, and how people vote has always been controversial.

There is no shortage of questions about electoral politics. Speaking with a friend recently I heard about a plot to steal the election by allowing immigrants to vote. It struck me that such claims are both unremarkable (complaints about immigrants and illegal immigrants voting being commonplace, with Trump and others making them since 2016) and ignorant of history. Alien suffrage — the voting of noncitizens — was the norm for most of the country for a long time, even predating the establishment of the U.S. It was common practice from 1704 to 1926 (when it was banned state-by-state) and was not explicitly prohibited by U.S. law until the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. It was not addressed in the U.S. Constitution. State laws for non-federal elections still vary, and there are states where aliens can vote for local and state offices and referenda.

Recent cases about whether states can remove Trump from the ballot are another example. Just as electoral politics changed in the 1920s, after World War I, politics changed following the Civil War. The current arguments being made to keep Trump off the ballot use rules put in place to prevent leaders of the Confederacy from attempting to return to elected office or hold power in the public trust. They could not be trusted to honor sworn oaths.

It is not some liberal conspiracy: six Colorado voters — four Republicans and two unaffiliated — brought the lawsuit. The lead plaintiff was 91-year-old Republican Norma Anderson, who says, “Our democracy is too precious to let a Donald Trump be president and destroy it.” It is easy to forget that the case Trump v. Anderson was a test of legal principles. Does the Constitution (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 in this case) mean what it appears to say, or can legal experts manipulate the language and obfuscate it out of practical application?

The challenge is real. On the one hand we have legal requirements that must balance competing values and principles. On the other we have clear interests and desires, and people regularly disagree about what they want. Ideally, we would be able to trust in due process, but the Supreme Court is now stacked. A quick review of cases like Dred Scott v. Sandford, Bowers v. Hardwick, Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, and Korematsu v. United States showcases the appalling willingness of the Supreme Court to allow the prejudicial restriction of rights and freedoms, depending upon the makeup of the court at those times.

Why should anyone expect fair judicial review from justices who’ve lied about things like reproductive rights?

The presidential election is a practice unlike any other. Candidates ultimately compete for electors in an electoral college — which means the candidate who wins the popular national vote may not win the election (e.g., Hillary Clinton beating Trump in 2016 by some 2.8 million votes but losing the Electoral College vote, plus four others who lost the popular vote but won an election thanks to the Electoral College: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush). In most of the rest of our democracy, we have a principle of equality; Reynolds v. Sims held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes “one-person, one-vote.” But the president is not chosen by the popular vote; George W. Bush and Donald Trump both lost the popular vote but managed to become president.

More and more I wonder whose votes count? If you rate voter importance by the attention candidates give them, for example, you discover a hyper-focus on swing states. It is easy to track campaign stops and advertising spending, and it makes sense that candidates spend their time trying to earn the votes of voters that will make the most difference. It is predictable: the closer the polling, the more attention the geography will receive. But safe states receive no campaign attention at all (in 2020 there were 33 safe states).

It is winner-take-all, and it is good to be a winner. I just fear that this all further drives the polarization that is tearing our social fabric apart.

There are many voicing legitimate grievances and fears over a candidate who has declared an interest in being a dictator. It is worth remembering that when We the People disagree, we can petition the government and force change. If we decide that we want all our votes counted, we can demand suffrage. If we decide we want all our votes counted equally, we can demand an end to the Electoral College. If we want to keep insurrectionists off the ballot, we can demand Congress enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.

People power will always win. But it has to be exercised, not simply left on the table for others to grab.

Wim Laven, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches courses in political science and conflict resolution.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Friends Don’t Let Friends Kill Innocent Civilians

Turn on any mainstream news media and you are guaranteed to see grisly details of violence transpiring in Israel and Palestine. Interviews with survivors and witnesses describing horrors; observers asking important questions like “how could this happen?” and “why didn’t we stop it?” Sooner or later the politics, the leaders, and the responses become central to the story.

The New York Times reported: Israel’s defense minister said “no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” would be allowed into Gaza after an invasion by the militant group Hamas.

All I could think was, “Not again!”

I hate seeing the same failed responses. But breaking the narrative is a daunting task. 

Attacks on civilians are morally reprehensible — always. Hamas, however, is not just repugnant in its horrific choice of tactics but counterproductive. Over and over, we see terror groups using violence against civilians; while it makes the news, it does not achieve desired outcomes. 

Simply put, with rare exception, when Hamas targets civilians it is used as justification for an even more violent response, and one that much of the world supports.

No critique of grievances is necessary to make a full condemnation of the violent terrorism employed by Hamas, and the choice to target civilians makes it much less likely for those grievances to be considered at all. “Idiotic” understates the monumental stupidity in such a bad strategic choice. 

Hamas, likely, just set the Palestinian resistance/struggle for legitimate grievances back several years. As usual. Once again.

But what is this about a siege of Gaza? “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” — are you kidding me? Worse, Israel is bombing apartment buildings full of Palestinian families, and hospitals. How many children or suffering patients does Israel kill before the world throws up its collective hands and stops caring much about either side?

If the U.S. is any friend to Israel, then they must help them to avoid such an unforced error. There is no doubt that such a blockade would kill innocent civilians, they always do, and they place the most vulnerable at greatest risk. Grandparents and newborn babies have these survival needs; cutting off access to basic human needs … it is just as counterproductive for Israel as terrorism is for Hamas.

And the world sees the Israeli air strikes on civilians and asks, so how is that not terrorism?

Being a friend does not mean standing idly by while your friend makes bad choices. The U.S. has participated in such bad choices too many times, and we have learned these lessons. Killing innocent civilians, whether directly or indirectly, tends to do several things: First, it undermines legitimacy; second, it is used as a recruitment tool for the opposition; third, it causes committed opposition to dig in and become even more entrenched.

The U.S. ought to tell Israel, “Believe it or not, when we dealt with the Taliban in Afghanistan, we always accomplished more with bridges than bombs.” It’s true, the innocent civilians provided great intelligence on the terror group when they came to see the U.S. for doing good. Never underestimate the achievements you can make when the choice is taking two steps forward instead of two steps backward; in this regard, violence is always regressive. 

Wim Laven, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches courses in political science and conflict resolution.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

Uncritical Political Discourse

Tuesday primary elections are a routine occasion of frustration for many Americans. August 16, 2022, continued this trend. Central questions included ideas about the amount of power still wielded by Donald Trump, whether the accomplishments of the Biden administration have been promoted enough, and whether election results can be trusted.

Many pundits point to Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman defeating Rep. Liz Cheney as more proof that Trump is in control of the Republican Party. Ten Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to impeach Donald Trump for inciting the January 6th Capitol insurrection; four retired rather than face reelection, four lost to Trump-backed opponents, and two advanced to the general election.

This requires a critical analysis. Let’s look at a few elements.

Results from a 2019 CivicScience survey help to articulate the complicated mess that uncritical analysis creates. The survey revealed troubling information about how bias and prejudice problematize political decision-making.

For example, 56 percent of respondents said that schools in America shouldn’t teach Arabic numerals (which, as every schoolchild should know, are the numerals we all use every day and throughout American education, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4 … ). While they do not claim that this indicates a stunning level of both ignorance and commitment to purblind prejudice, that should be quite obvious.

We’ve all seen the uproar over critical race theory, which at its core is simply a commitment to teach pupils the truth about American history. The truth is what students need. They can decide for themselves what they believe to be good, great, bad, or evil. But Fox News and Republicans call for a ban on such teaching.

Some of this obdurate, willing ignorance is rooted in a kind of tribalism. This can be an uncritical acceptance of dogmatic positioning and dishonesty in the name of loyalty to group, but has no authentic place in a democracy. If I go along with my tribe (e.g., progressives, conservatives) uncritically, I am both lazy and cowardly.

I’m lazy when I don’t fact-check my “leaders.”

I’m cowardly when I do fact-check them, find their errors, and fail to alter my position accordingly.

A lazy and cowardly democracy is no democracy at all.

Continued loyalty to Donald Trump presents a departure from democratic norms and an embrace of fascism. He introduces falsehoods and repeats lies of others when it seems to serve him.

The acceptance of QAnon conspiracy theory — demonstrably false by any due-diligence, reasonable standard — into the Republican party has created a GQP that values allegiance to party over country. Facts and truth have taken a sideline; hence, we see a deeper movement toward authoritarianism.

Trump’s Tuesday victories undermine the pillars of democracy. He undermines choosing and replacing elected officials in free and fair elections. His supporters discourage active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life. The GQP attacks human rights and equality under the law.

It is an extremely important time for people to think, act, and vote. The people have the power and can reclaim guarantees for free and fair elections and affirmations for equality and human rights. Everyone needs to commit and prepare to safeguard democratic institutions and values before they’re gone.

Wim Laven, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches courses in political science and conflict resolution.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

Violent Dishonesty

On April 21st, I went to the Top Notch Diner in Cortland, Ohio. Senate candidate Josh Mandel appeared with retired General Michael Flynn, former national security advisor in the Trump administration. I listened to Flynn tell the crowd, “The election was stolen,” and Mandel brag about being the only candidate in his race to call out the theft.

The crowd was whipped into a frenzy; the Big Lie about the election was red meat — it was their main course.

Mandel described the work of the deep state: They weren’t coming after Trump and Flynn. Trump and Flynn were just caught in the middle. “The deep state is coming after all of us!”

As an educator and trained researcher, I am at a complete loss.

What do you tell the people who do not believe the countless verdicts? There were not irregularities and interference — Trump lost, and Biden won. What can reconnect people with reality?

All the Trump and Republican-led initiatives found the same results, in some cases indicating Biden’s victory was an even larger margin than initially reported.

It is a problem of scale. The problem is that it is not a matter of a few lies a few people have told and that a few people believe. The problem is cultural violence; winning and acquiring power are more important than telling the truth. Theorists have debated the so-called clash of civilizations, but in the U.S., it is a devolution to clashing with the uncivilized.

We see the devolution exploding across the right. The GOP embraces QAnon conspiracy, and the GQP is now more mainstream in conservative politics than the so-called “law and order” politics of decades past.

Uncivilized, not as a pejorative, but as individuals who have been conned by leaders who put personal gain over community and country. When the foundation is dishonesty, everything becomes party to the lie.

In Bakersfield, California, home of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the Republican Accountability Project has placed six large billboards with the message: “WE’VE HEARD THE TAPES, KEVIN. Stop lying about January 6th.”

The cumulative impact of the categorical and ubiquitous dishonesty is hard to measure. The individual moments of malice are more easily discerned. For example, the connection between McCarthy, Trump, and their teams’ racist lies about invasions at the southern border are directly tied to many hate crimes, violent attacks, and even mass shooting events; you can read it directly in perpetrators’ manifestos.

Cumulative effects assessment — looking at everything together — presents much greater harm; it is violent dishonesty. The lies are degrading the quality of life and strength and effectiveness across the country and around the globe. But it starts at home, and it is happening in primaries across the country.

The fiction that the election was stolen is central in these tribal politics. The strength of loyalty to Trump over commitment to the Constitution is being tested and with the results the danger will come into focus.

When (and if) the faction supporting Trump’s attempted coup grows, two things will be clear. The lie will be embedded into culture and politics as a source for ongoing controversy and extreme divisions — a marker of division and existential identity. But the lie is already imprinted into the law and Republicans have limited access to the right to vote and presented increased capacity for overturning a democratic election.

The nightmare scenario is on the horizon and should be feared. A candidate who could lose by all measures (direct vote and electoral college) could still be installed by a corrupt Republican party that has already made their antidemocratic tendencies clear.

Be worried of the malice this fascist autocrat will wield. Silencing marginalized voices is a starting point, but the much more vengeful and exploitative vision has already been made clear. Trump captured the extremist crowd with declarations of the threat Black and brown bodies presented; “stop the steal” did not replace “build the wall,” it accompanies it.

Elected officials have admitted Trump’s crimes in private and delivered his lies in public. They will continue to abuse the power of their offices while they undergird the xenophobia, sexism, and bigotry that Trump championed. Start by imagining the horror show when he realizes he can do anything he wants; then prevent it before it is too late.

Wim Laven, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches courses in political science and conflict resolution.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Oxen and the Lion

About 2,700 years ago, a storytelling slave named Aesop told tales of political, religious, and social themes. They have been popularized for their ethical dimensions and utilized as children’s stories for the morals and wisdom they deliver.

In “The Four Oxen and the Lion,” Aesop tells of a powerful lion who prowls a field in search of a hearty meal. The four oxen who live there stand tail to tail and offer the lion horns regardless of the direction of the approach. One day, however, an argument causes the four oxen to go their separate ways. On their own the oxen do not stand a chance against the lion, who picks them off one by one with great ease.

The moral of the story: United we stand, divided we fall.

Issues of collective security are timeless. In the United States, collective security was so important that a Three-fifths Compromise (officially counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of the census and political power), which inflated the power of slave states; a prohibition against the abolition of slavery (Article I Section 9 of the Constitution prevents Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808); and the electoral college were established in order to create “unity.”

Sudan is currently in headlines because the military has dissolved the alliance between military and civilian groups, effectively blocking the power-sharing Sovereign Council and agreed-upon transitional government. To be clear, the transition to democratic civilian rule from the brutality of Omar al-Bashir’s three decades of power, which ended in a 2019 nonviolent grassroots insurrection, was on shaky ground because the Sovereign Council was unelected.

The excitement with ousting al-Bashir has faded and conflict over power has increased tensions between both sides; the future of Sudan is uncertain, the coup was not a surprise, but neither is the resistance; the streets are full of peaceful pro-democracy protesters, but while the efficacy of nonviolence is clear, the outcome remains to be seen.

Al-Bashir’s loyalists have initiated the military coup d’etat, which bears some parallels to Trump’s illegitimate power grabs and the criminal efforts of his loyalists. But the similarities are limited; where most of the officers pushing for al-Bashir in Sudan last month were arrested, the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol say they will get justice, yet nine months later no officials, nor Trump himself, have been charged for their efforts intended to overthrow American democracy.

Al-Bashir’s loyalists in Sudan chanted “down with the hunger government,” just as Trump’s scream “Stop the steal!” The former demand reforms to the Forces of Freedom and Change coalition, the replacement of the cabinet in power, and a coup overthrowing the government. As for the latter, a recent poll found that 66 percent of Republicans believe that “the election was rigged and stolen from Trump,” while only 18 percent believe “Joe Biden won fair and square.”

The rule of law is under attack in both countries. And just as Aesop delivers a lesson on standing together, the people of Sudan present reminders on the importance of people’s power and the role of nonviolence safeguarding democratic institutions.

It is easy enough to hope that Trump loyalists will not make a repeat attempt at an insurrection, but the evidence suggests otherwise and the political threats and violence of 2020 and 2021 should be a wake-up call.

There have been too many plots to list and at seemingly every level of government; there have been plans to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, who, in June, said: “Threats continue, I have looked out my windows and seen large groups of heavily armed people within 30 yards of my home. I have seen myself hung in effigy. Days ago at a demonstration there was a sign that called for ‘burning the witch.’”

The National Association of School Boards has asked President Joe Biden for federal assistance to investigate and stop threats in a letter outlining 20 cases of threats, harassment, disruption, and acts of intimidation in California, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Ohio, and other states. The board argues that: “As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

The U.S. and Sudan showcase different stages of division. The people of the U.S. are well served to learn and get involved in Sudan through solidarity. People of the world can all push for frozen assets and travel bans on those responsible for the coup and thank President Biden for his swift action in suspending $700 million in aid to Sudan. Nonviolent but coercive measures like these can pressure the military to yield to the people’s demands. We can also make strong condemnations to the use of political violence and the detainment of political prisoners — who should be immediately released.

When we watch what is happening in Sudan we become better global citizens. We learn about other cultures and struggles, and we increase our empathy for others. We live up to the moral demands that we respond to the injustice that others experience and they gain strength through the increases in unity. But we also learn valuable lessons for the protection of our own fragile democracy. As long as there are people who threaten a violent takeover there must also be people prepared to use the power of nonviolent struggle — to amplify the voices of the people — in resisting them.

Trump and al-Bashir may be the lions. But we are the many oxen who can thwart their attacks.

Wim Laven, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches courses in political science and conflict resolution.