Thanks to my daughter Kathy for naming this blog.

















Bald Eagle in Anchorage, Alaska

Translate

Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

The Seven Mountains Movement

 The evangelical Seven Mountains movement is the most troubling political movement that you never knew existed.   The movement has a stated goal of dominating society by creating a modern far-right Christian theocracy.  

The Seven Mountains are the major spheres of influence within society.  Far-right Christian activists hope to reshape our entire society according to their ideology by placing “change agents” in positions of authority in each of the Seven Mountains.   The theory, as stated on a Seven Mountains website, is “He who controls the mountains, controls society.”  The Seven Mountains are:

  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Business
  • Education
  • Family
  • Government
  • Media
  • Religion

The Seven Mountains movement has already been successful in many areas, including American government, national cable news, talk radio and other media, state and local boards of education, popular music, venture capital and others. 

Religion in politics is especially problematic, because religious adherents presume the absolute authority of God.  The Christian far-right concedes no power or authority to their political opponents.  This is diametrically opposed to American ideas of representative democracy, the secular authority of the government, and the separation of church and state. 

The movement conforms well with other elements of the far-right, particularly in its authoritarian orientation.  Since the election of Donald Trump, the language used in the movement is aggressive, nationalistic and fascistic, full of dehumanizing denunciations of “the enemy”.  The movement is only one subculture in right-wing conservatism, but it has taken on some of the aggression and violent rhetoric of other right-wing subcultures, such as the NRA.  An example of the rhetoric can be heard in a video of a collective prayer recitation in a recent evangelical meeting in Georgia.  This rally was organized by Flashpoint, a program on the 24/7 religious cable television Victory Channel.  A commitment to the Seven Mountains is found in their opening prayer, here:  https://twitter.com/NickKnudsenUS/status/1547259907275075584

Here are a few declarations (among many) from the Flashpoint religious rally referenced above.

  • “We have been given legal power from heaven and now exercise our authority.
  • “Because of our covenant with God, we are equipped and delegated by Him to destroy every attempted advance of the enemy.
  • “We decree that our judicial system will issue rulings that are biblical and constitutional.
  • “We decree that we take back and permanently control positions of influence and leadership in each of the Seven Mountains.
  • “We decree that evil carries no power, authority or rights in our land nor over our people.”

These claims are disturbing, because they assert undemocratic authority, and violently threaten those with opposing views.  When is a political opponent an enemy?  Who decides if a political opponent is evil?  It appears that if the Religious Right is in charge, they will deny rights and democratic powers to their political opponents, which means the end of American democracy. 

In a similar vein, we can hear Kelly Tshibaka, candidate in Alaska for U.S. Senate, call for Christian participation and influence in government, beginning with her declaration that “God created government.”  https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1546899147466342400

I started writing this post over a decade ago, during the 2008 presidential campaign, when Sarah Palin was blessed in a church ceremony as a change agent for the movement.  I didn’t finish the post at that time, nor when I revisited the topic in 2016.  Since then, we’ve seen the denial of Barrack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, the presidency of Donald Trump, and the ascension of three conservative Supreme Court justices nominated by Donald Trump.  We’ve also seen the election of hard-right Republican governors in many states, Republican-majority state legislatures, and pro-Republican gerrymandering of both federal and state legislative districts.  Many of these political changes were championed by or driven by the Christian far-right. 

The increasingly conservative Supreme Court has handed down decisions enabling greater influence of money in politics (Citizens’ United), the ability of employers to impose religious views on employees (Hobby Lobby), and the Dobbs decision overturning the general right to abortion in the United States.  There has been increasing proliferation of military-grade weapons in private hands, increases in hate crimes for reasons of religion or ethnicity, and confrontation and threats to liberal elected officials at every level of government. 

The Christian far-right has made inroads on the other mountains, as well as government.  The Christian right has worked to control school boards and obtain government funding for private schools, dominate the radio entertainment dial, dominate news sources through Fox News, OAN, NewsMax and others, control business holdings through conservative ownership, etc. 

The process of Christian far-right infiltration into politics has been going on for several decades.  Megachurch pastors have been spouting political rhetoric from the pulpit for just as long.  Television programs such as Pat Robertson’s “700 Club”, with a decidedly political bent, have long been drawing faithful viewers.  I saw the process by which religious conservatives took over Republican caucuses and school boards in the 1980s, in Texas.  In a precinct Republican caucus, the church group arrived en masse, outnumbering the neighborhood gathering.  They quickly elected their own officers, and voted to approve their own platform, without debate.  In retrospect, I don’t think there was any validation that this group actually lived in the precinct.  It was my first (and last) Republican caucus.  In the following school board election, the church put up a slate on a religious education platform.  They lost.  In the subsequent election, the same group of candidates appeared, but ran under a low-property tax platform and won.  Then they proceeded to implement their religious platform.

The Seven Mountains movement is large enough and old enough to have various divisions.  Despite the nationalism, it is a global movement.  It was an African pastor who blessed Sarah Palin as a change agent in a 2008 church ceremony in Wasilla, Alaska.  Divisions within the movement are based on theological or strategic differences. There are factions termed Dominionists and Anti-Dominionists, which differ on the degree of societal domination to be achieved (to the best of my understanding), and perhaps on the biblical justification for that domination. 

Conclusion

I am concerned about living in a biblically oriented, theocratic society with institutions based on beliefs and values I do not share.  Those beliefs include obsolete, biblical notions of morality, such as denial of LBTGQ+ rights and repressive roles for women in society.  The Christian Right also promotes biblical injunctions that don’t exist, but are asserted by religious authorities, such as a prohibition on abortion.  If these biblical injunctions are codified in American law, what is to stop the enactment of other, clearly stated biblical injunctions?   Deuteronomy 13 contains an edict to commit genocide against believers in other religions.   Deuteronomy 20 allows the enslavement and “use” of women and children captured in war.   Numbers 5 requires a women suspected of infidelity by her husband to undergo a ritual poisoning.  In 1st Timothy 2, we are instructed that a woman may never hold authority over a man.  These are just a few random examples of biblical nonsense out of a spectrum of biblical injunctions that might become law in a Seven Mountains society. 

The entire notion of far-right religious domination of society raises questions, real and rhetorical, about where this ideology might lead.  What religious coercion would be implemented in a Seven Mountains society?  Already, according to the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision, employers are allowed to decide whether or not an employee may receive birth control as an insurance benefit.  What further powers could be given to employers to restrict the religious freedom of employees?  The Supreme Court also recently ruled that a football coach can publicly coerce students into joining in public prayer.  What further religious indoctrination will be permitted in the public schools?  What religious indoctrination will be broadcast through entertainment channels, and conversely, what entertainment will be banned?  What consumer choices will be allowed and disallowed in a Seven Mountains society?  The Christian far-right claims victimhood in religious freedom, while doing everything it can to restrict the religious (or anti-religious) freedoms of other individuals.

I am a firm atheist.  I regard Christianity and all other religions as superstitious nonsense. I believe that events in the world show that God is either unreasonable, unjust, capricious and a poor communicator with humankind, or that God does not exist.  I choose to not believe in an unreasonable, unjust and capricious God; it is more reasonable to conclude that God does not exist.  Further, traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and scripture are problematic for modern society in many ways.  If you are interested, you may read blog posts about my thoughts on the topic, here: https://sensibledisbelief.blogspot.com/.

On a major street corner in suburban Anchorage, Alaska, a landowner displays a large billboard reading: “God, Guns and Trump”.  Based on my religious upbringing, the connection between God and Guns isn’t readily obvious.  The connection between God and Trump is even more tenuous.  But the connection here lies in authoritarianism.  The Religious Right wants to establish unilateral Christian control over society, regardless of democratic norms, diversity of beliefs, or other opinions.  The Trump/MAGA political faction wants to establish an authoritarian dictatorship regardless of the outcome of elections.  And guns – thanks to the proliferation of military-grade weapons since 2014 – are the means of accomplishing those ends, through intimidation or possibly through violent paramilitary militias.  The last point is better left for another post. 

======================================================================

References
Flashpoint, Victory Channel collective prayer invocation, Georgia.

Transcript given below, after references.
https://twitter.com/NickKnudsenUS/status/1547259907275075584

Examples of Seven Mountains rhetoric

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate

Seven Mountain Dominionist and Anti-Dominionist Dispute

 Sarah Palin and Seven Mountains

Halton Lecture: Faith and Politics, The Rise of the Religious Right and Its Impact on American Domestic and Foreign Policy, David Halton, Larkin-Stuart Lectures, University of Toronto, March 8-9, 2007.[Note: this link is no longer active.  It is likely that the lecture can be found through the Internet Wayback Machine or other Internet archive.]
http://www.trinity.utoronto.ca/News_Events/News/halton.htm

Ted Cruz  
Ted Cruz’s father Rafael gives speech designating Ted as biblical king.   Wealth is transferred from the wicked to the priests/ quid-pro-quo for the priests and the kings.    Reference and complete text of 7 mountains blessing of Sarah Palin.
[This link is also no longer active, but may be found with an Internet archive.]
http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/brucewilson/ted-cruzs-father-suggested-his-son-anointed-bring-about-end-time-transfer

Kelly Tshibaka, leading candidate for U.S. Senate in Alaska, on video as presented by Right Wing Watch on Twitter, July 12, 2022.  Transcript given below, after references.
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1546899147466342400

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcripts

Flashpoint Collective Invocation
Transcript of collective prayer invocation, at Georgia religious rally by Flashpoint, of the Victory Channel.   https://twitter.com/NickKnudsenUS/status/1547259907275075584

“Watchman Decree
As a Patriot of faith, I attest my allegiance first and foremost to the kingdom of God and the Great Commission.  Secondly, I agree to be a watchman over our nation concerning its people and their rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness --
Whereas:
we, the Church, are God’s governing Body on the earth
we have been given legal power from heaven and now exercise our authority
we are God’s ambassadors and spokespeople over the earth
through the power of God, we are the world influencers
because of our covenant with God, we are equipped and delegated by Him to destroy every attempted advance of the enemy.
We make our declarations:
1.  We decree that America’s executive branch of government will honor God and defend the Constitution.
2.  We decree that our legislative branch (Congress) will write only laws that are righteous and constitutional.
3.  We decree that our judicial system will issue rulings that are biblical and constitutional.
4.  We declare that we stand against wokeness, the occult and every evil attempt against our nation.
5.  We declare that we now take back our God-given freedoms, according to the Constitution.
6.  We declare that we take back influence at the local level in our communities.
7.  We decree that we take back and permanently control positions of influence and leadership in each of the *Seven Mountains.
8.  We decree that the blood of Jesus covers and protects our nation.  It protects and separates us for God.
9.  We declare that our nation is energy independent.
10.  We declare that America is strong spiritually, financially, militarily and technologically.
11.  We decree that evil carries no power, authority or rights in our land nor over our people.
12.  We decree that we operate in unity, going beyond denominational lines in order to accomplish the purposes of God for our nation.
13.  And we decree that AMERICA SHALL BE SAVED!
We know this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
We know the truth; therefore, we stand for truth and will NEVER be deceived!
We will NEVER stop fighting!
We will NEVER, EVER, EVER give up or give in!
We WILL take our country back.
We will honor THE ONE TRUE GOD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!
AMERICA SHALL BE SAVED!”

Kelly Tshibaka
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1546899147466342400

Kelly Tshibaka, leading candidate for U.S. Senate in Alaska, on video as presented by Right Wing Watch on Twitter, July 12, 2022.  Transcript:

“God created government.  So, I got sent to the Harvest Field of Government.  And again, it’s a Christmas verse, but Isaiah 9:6, ‘Unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.’  And, what?  ‘The government will rest on his shoulders.’   Well, guys, again, where is God today?  Is he in Jerusalem?  In a temple?  Where are his shoulders?  [singing] Head, shoulders, knees and… [trails off]   His shoulders are your shoulders.  So if the government rests on his shoulders, and we are not in government, helping government, influencing government – if we abdicate government and politics, are we living out Genesis 1 and Isaiah 9?  No.  So we’ve got to put this into practice.”


Wednesday, July 18, 2018

The American Democratic Republic


Today's post is written by a guest author on this blog, my son.  This piece is the result of much reading, research, and thought, and reviewed by editors spanning three generations.  It is about one of the most important topics of our time, our political dysfunction and polarization.  Please take the time to read it.
----
There are real boundaries beyond which our society and system of government can and will break down. There is a minimum level of solidarity required for a nation to survive with citizens rather than subjects, and a minimum level of social stability required for it to function. We can fall too far and merely avoiding disintegrating society is not enough. We must do far better, for ourselves, for the world, and for the future.

Part 1: How the American Democratic Republic Works

As others have already noted, our civil rights, government representation, and social solidarity are degrading. Understanding the mechanics of our republic and their weaknesses is necessary to understand how this degradation is occurring. Note, however, that alternative mechanics have their own different weaknesses. Replacing these mechanics is not a guarantee of revitalization although there might be opportunities for improvement.

The Voting System

The United States of America is a democratic republic. By district, representatives of the people are selected by the majority of eligible voters.
The United States almost exclusively uses first-past-the-pole voting – a winner-takes-all, plurality voting method. In combination with single-member districts, this results in a two-party system because only parties approximately as popular as the most popular party are competitively electable. If one party has about 50% popularity, then it is impossible for two more parties to also be realistically competitive.
The Democratic and Republican parties are not conspiring to keep out additional parties. "Elites" are not conspiring to have exactly two parties. Political patrons are not the source of the two-party system. A two-party system is merely the expected practical result of the current voting system.
In some districts, it's not even Democratic and Republican, but sometimes Libertarian and Republican, or Democratic and Green that are the top two parties – and thus are the only competitive parties capable of possibly winning election in that district at the time. If one party is sufficiently popular in a district, then no other party has a practical chance of winning.
Votes for third party candidates and independents aren't necessarily "wasted", but votes for candidates other than the two most likely to win are "wasted" as much as "extra" votes for the winner or any votes for the loser are "wasted" (insofar as they are more likely to be for a losing candidate). Such votes only communicate support for some value, policy, or proposal rather than deciding the winner of the election.
Only winners make policy.

Single-Member Districts (The U.S. is not Europe)

In Europe (or more specifically, in multi-member districts whose elections award proportional representation), people get to vote for whichever political parties they think best represent their interests. The elected representatives are then sent to the capital and must "form a government" – i.e. agree on which collection of political parties will cooperate to form a governing majority willing and able to vote together in order to accomplish governance. This process involves negotiation and usually involves the party with the most representatives, but not a majority of all representatives, agreeing to one or a few demands from a smaller party that is still large enough to form a majority coalition with the largest party. When these negotiations fail, American news headlines read [European Country] "fails to form a government" or "failed to form a governing coalition".
What would be fully formed political parties in Europe are instead sub-party political units in the United States. American major parties' compositions and coalitions change over time, but at any one time they tend to be led by a specific core constituency. These sub-party constituencies jostle for influence inside the major political parties, and through history they have occasionally withdrawn from one major party to support the other. For example, 1980-2016 saw the libertarian business sub-party (lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government) lead a coalition with the evangelical Christians and the "law and order" sub-parties.
In the United States, the voters instead of the representatives are expected to negotiate among themselves to come up with a workable governing coalition of interests, preferences, values, and policies. If you want your values and agenda to be represented in government, and for your policy preferences to be enacted, then you need to work to put your values and agenda into a winning (i.e. majority) platform at the level of government in which you are interested. If you do not like this situation, then you need to change the voting system.

The Primary and Caucus System


The specific platform and policies a party takes to the general election is decided through the pre-election primary and caucus system. In this system, candidates of the same party, each with a different emphasis on various issues, compete to represent the entire party in the general election. Depending on state law, sometimes all voters are allowed to vote in open primaries, sometimes voters are only allowed to vote in the primary election or caucus for the party for which they are currently registered, and sometimes party members vote in caucuses for delegates to a convention where the delegates then vote for a candidate for the general election.
The kinds of candidates brought to the general election by this system depend on the circumstances. Moderate candidates benefit from swing voters and competitive districts (where multiple parties have a reasonable chance of winning). Extreme candidates benefit from polarization, ideologues, and primary voters who are more concerned with signaling their identity than in winning the general election.
The current situation in the United States is unfortunately the latter for a couple reasons. First, turnout in primary elections is relatively low. This is problematic because ideologically polarized voters are far more motivated and more likely to participate. Second, almost everyone has a distorted view of the prevalence of their viewpoint. Voters tend to believe that the candidate most in tune with their viewpoint has the best chance of winning. So partisans in primaries and caucuses promote extreme candidates and blame general election losses on candidates' insufficient partisanship, instead of insufficient moderation. Even if the general electorate might prefer a moderate candidate, apathy toward the primaries and caucuses results in polarized candidates advancing to the general election.
The primary and caucus system exacerbates the effects of single-member districts on the candidate selection and election process. So does the fact that voters are typically barred from voting in primaries or participating in caucuses except for those of the party for which they are registered. Closed primaries and caucuses prevent voters from voting against the least desirable candidates in other parties while also voting for their most preferred candidate from their own party.

Gerrymandering

When there are districts instead of proportional representation, the district boundaries must be decided upon. And where there is a decision to be made, there is the opportunity to influence the outcome and result of the decision. Thus gerrymandering: the manipulation of electoral constituency boundaries so as to favor a desired outcome.
When successful, gerrymandering functionally eliminates the general election by ensuring that only the gerrymandered party's candidate can realistically get elected. This effectively disenfranchises everyone not registered as members of that party.
Preventing gerrymandering is a chicken-and-egg problem. Only the current majority party has the political power to avoid gerrymandering, but they would be the beneficiary of gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering exacerbates the effects of the primary and caucus system on the candidate selection and election process by reducing the competitiveness of districts (the likelihood that more than one party has a realistic chance of winning a given district).

Low Voter Choice in General Election Voting

All of these factors lead to the glaring systemic weakness of limited voter choice in the United States. When it comes time to actually vote in the general election, most of the politics and opportunity for citizen-led change has already passed and voters are effectively left at best with a choice of supporting A, supporting B, or protest (and living with the systemic choice of everyone else in all cases), and even that choice only practically exists for those living in competitive districts.

Polarization and Political Self-Segregation

But low choice is itself further exacerbated if the voters themselves are polarized and extreme in their views, values, and preferences. Gerrymandering isn't even necessary to create uncompetitive, single-party districts if people choose where to live based on their personal politics.
Fewer voters in the United States hold a mix of conservative Republican and progressive Democratic values now than in the past. Counties in the United States are increasingly partisan – very red or very blue, and less purple. The current trend is that polarization and partisanship are continuing to increase.
Polarization is our principal challenge because nothing about the mechanics threatens the stability of our collective society or the unity of our nation. Self-segregation is the outward manifestation of our failing solidarity. I believe that democratic mechanics cannot survive in an environment of different peoples who desire to be separate and believe others' differences to be so objectionable that they must be forcibly corrected. Ultimately, this is about us, who we choose to be, what we choose to value, and how we interact with others.

Part 2: Sustaining the American Experiment

The American Democratic Republic and the constitution on which it stands is worth preserving.
Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.
-- Hub, in Secondhand Lions [2003]
The American Democratic Republic will survive only so long as enough Americans want the American Experiment to continue more than they want anything else.

Design Expectations

A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided; in such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure; for when this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin.
-- Samuel Bryan, the Anti-Federalist Papers, Centinel I [1787/10/05]
No system, no matter how simple or complex, can continue to exist and operate outside of its performance parameters, including governments. All system designs, including governments, rely on implicit and explicit assumptions and expectations about the operating conditions and environment.
The design foundation of the United States of America is the U.S. Constitution, specifying government of the people, by the people, and for the people of the United States of America. The phrasing is Lincoln's, and it refers to the Constitution's guarantee of a Republican form of government, the voting rights of citizens, and the preamble. That foundation has been built upon by American history and culture, expressing additional assumptions about and expectations of the government and its people, documented in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, Presidential speeches, Supreme Court decisions, and other expressions of American progress.
Collectively, this corpus of evidence shows that the design of the American government relies strongly upon the cooperativeness of its people and the trustworthiness of the statesmen selected to be their representatives. This government design relies upon its participants – citizens, voters and representatives – to debate with each other instead of fighting when there is disagreement, and to voluntarily act in the best interests of the nation and all of its people rather than acting in self-interest at the expense of their neighbors and fellow citizens. Furthermore, effective functioning of the government requires that we honor both the spirit and the letter of the rules of the Constitution, and participate fairly in the conduct of elections and governance.
If these expectations are not met, if citizens vote to punish rather than to accommodate their neighbors, if politicians seek partisan success ahead of the concerns of the entire community, if special interests confuse their agendas with the best interests of the nation, then this form of government will fail.

The American Experiment

I say to you that our goal is freedom, and I believe we are going to get there because however much she strays away from it, the goal of America is freedom.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution" [ 1968/03/31]
What is the essence of America? The essence of America is finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom "to" and freedom "from."
-- Marilyn vos Savant, quoted in Women Know Everything! by Karen Weekes [2007]
The American Experiment is a unique, transformative concept of society: the idea that a nation can be built on a unified yet multifaceted culture based on ideas, laws, and trust, rather than on religious or ethnic identity and feudal loyalty. The American Experiment began with the creation of These United States of America, established itself and its shared values in the world as The United States of America, and the experiment continues by broadening the answer to "Who is an American?", expanding to include ever more of those with American values, merits, and virtues.

The Making of Americans

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America [1788/06/21]
In my view, America is more than just a country; it is a set of ideals and a system of governance to support Americans’ liberties and our common good. Being American is about more than merely being a citizen of the United States; it is about choosing to live American values. Being American is belief and action, not just accident of birth. Americans are American by choice, by belief, and by deed rather than by birthright. This has been the case since the beginning; the founding fathers were born British, but chose to be Americans.
American values, merits, and virtues are readily identified in its founding documents and the supplemental material created throughout its history. A small sample of relevant quotes is included in Appendix 1.
Collectively, this corpus of evidence shows that being American demands a multitude of values, merits, and actions. Chief among them are personal integrity; care, responsibility, and respect for others; and working toward freedom and justice for all.
Few manage to live up to this calling perfectly, but the important fact is that many try. Being American is about striving to live up to whom we know we should be – every failure of any American is a reminder to all Americans to do better.

Partisanship

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another, for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry [1799/01/26]
If we do not learn to sacrifice small differences of opinion, we can never act together. Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his own opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at others. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Dickinson [1801/07/23]
The partisan rejects the design of the United States of America, treating it as an obstruction rather than as a foundation. Partisans frequently call themselves "true Americans", but they care more about imposing their values on other people than about upholding the rule-of-law and defending the rights and civil liberties of fellow citizens.
There is not one source of partisans. Every cause has zealots.
Some partisans will loudly voice values you agree with and energetically support your preferred policies. But they are revealed as extreme partisans when they advocate not just for themselves, but against American institutions. The health and independence of American institutions are necessary prerequisites to our system of checks and balances. The integrity and effectiveness of American institutions is necessary for the institutions' credibility.
In the past, extreme partisans believed in monarchy over self determination, they demanded slavery over inalienable rights, they preferred isolation to a world safe for democracy, they became enamored of authoritarians – fascists and communists –, and they denied the truth that all men are created equal. Even now, they endeavor to change America to fit their own image over the objections of those who defend the American experiment.

Maintaining America

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
-- Ronald Reagan, address to the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce [1961/03/30]
The work of maintaining America is not the same as its defense by the armed services or its operation by the public services. The work of maintaining America is found in the day-to-day lives of its citizens and the politics of their interactions with each other. The maintenance is performed through the innumerable actions, large and small, of Americans trying their best to live up to American ideals.
America is maintained through voluntary cooperation – whether that is showing up to vote, supporting a non-profit, or assisting a neighbor with chores or errands. Voluntary cooperation is inhibited when people resort to conflict rather than debate, treat compromise as capitulation, or treat disagreement as war to be won rather than an opportunity to contribute to the search for truth.
America is maintained through respectful interaction – whether that is charitably engaging with political issues, tolerating other people's preferences and choices about what makes a good life well lived, or being polite to grumpy cashiers. Respectful interaction is obstructed when people deliberately misinform others, manipulatively argue against misrepresented positions, insult and denigrate opponents, or fail to recognize the rights of others and honor their choice to live differently.
America is maintained by upholding the spirit as well as the letter of the law – not just being a law-abiding individual, but actively self-regulating to save society the effort of regulation, and knowing when peaceful, civil disobedience is called for. The rule of law is corroded when people fail to abide by established process and uphold the validity of the outcome, especially including accepted methods of altering our processes. Peacefully accepting the results of our elections, and the rights and powers of those elected, is central to rule of law in a democratic republic.
America is maintained by acting with integrity and trust – integrity worthy of trust by fellow Americans, and trust of fellow Americans' integrity – whether that is investing to create real value rather than profiting at the expense of other people, preparing healthy food and eating food provided by others, manufacturing safe products and maintaining safe workplaces, or avoiding collisions while driving and trusting other motorists to do the same. Trust and integrity are undermined when people pursue profits that result in harm to society, seek power to the detriment of community, or otherwise create externalized costs borne by society at large and/or by future generations. Trust is a two-way street and must be given as well as earned.
America is maintained by pursuing values, not policies, and by honestly evaluating results – whether that is pursuing freedom by tolerating speech, pursuing justice with juries, or providing for the common defense with the military. Based on experience, these policies have been given practical legal limits in society’s best interest – prohibiting false advertising, guaranteeing legal representation to defendants, and restricting domestic use of the military. American governance is hobbled when policies are pursued without remembering the values they were intended to serve, and when programs are not monitored for results or programs are not revisited when results are poor.
America is maintained by Americans acting in the best interests of society even when they are discontent with their own lives, when they are disgruntled with their fellow citizens, or see opportunity for themselves at others' expense.
The system needs all of these things and more to keep working. There are many more ways to break the system than to keep it working.

Why America Matters 

Despite all of America’s specific problems, it is the oldest democracy in the world. With the exception of Canada, it has the deepest experience with trying to make a multiethnic democracy work. If the forces that are pulling us apart are strong enough to make democracy fail in this country, I fear that similar reasons will also prove strong enough to make democracy fail in most other countries in the world.
-- Yascha Mounk, comment about his book
The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It [2018]
America’s values and behavior matter to the world. Ideologies do not rise and fall directly by chance. Their successes and failures are observed, and ideologies are adopted, amended, or abandoned accordingly.  It matters how America goes about achieving success. It matters that America honestly and transparently commits itself to the philosophy by which it has achieved so much.
The example of a successful democracy is the greatest fear of autocracies around the world. Examples of successful government by the people bolster ideologies of freedom and equality while undermining ideologies of authoritarianism, theocracy, ethnic domination, social hierarchy and control. The reverse is also true. Sophisticated governments understand the consequences. This is why Russia has tried to undermine and divide America. This is why China argues that it offers a “new type of political party system”. When America fails to live up to its ideals, it undermines the resolve in other nations to also pursue those ideals and behave in the best interest of humanity.
America must seek to improve in principle and in practice because it is the moral thing to do. We must avoid authoritarianism and its offer of false social stability. India should be inspired by America, not China; Europe should lean towards America, not Russia; Africa should find a role model in America, not the Middle East. With good reason, they will not do so if American society cannot lead by example – more efficient and effective government, more ethical justice, fairer opportunity, more charitable care, a more trustworthy public. When America vigorously pursues its ideals and improvement at home, everyone benefits – we current Americans get a better system for ourselves, non-Americans get an example of what works better, and the future inherits the better system.

The Best Option

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-- Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom [1947/11/11]
This philosophy of liberty and equality, of inalienable rights to life, freedom, pursuit of happiness, secular representative democratic government, international cooperation, and rule of law for everyone is the only known foundation for multicultural peace – internal peace against civil war, and external peace against international war. Historically common alternative attempts at "peace" involved brutally enforced conformity and genocide. The rights of minorities are the precious sacrament by which peace is bought for all. The majority should always remember that it is composed of minorities itself and that every nation is a minority of Earth.
It is essential to the world that the American experiment succeeds, because the world is made of many different cultures, religions and ethnic identities. As technology makes the world smaller, these cultures will inevitably come into conflict, as they have throughout human history. If we hope to have a world without war and without mutual annihilation, then we need a working model for how to live together peacefully. The American Democratic Republic is that model, and we cannot allow it to fail.

A Warning of the Alternative, and a Plea

We all have more at stake in the rules of the game than we do in the outcomes of the game. When that changes, that’s when you begin to lose democracy.
-- David Frum, in interview by Anna Maria Tremonti on CBC Radio [2017/02/02]
If the American Democratic Republic fails, I am pessimistic that whatever comes next will embody the values with which this nation was founded. This nation broadcast hope for all people when it denounced tyranny, rejected slavery, delivered the world from Fascism, defended the world against totalitarianism, rebuilt its enemies into friends and allies, and accepted people of every race, creed, and origin as Americans, equal to all who came before them.
Our execution has not been perfect, and our human pursuit of our ideals has been even less so. We must aim to do much better in the future, but no other values or system of government has brought so much peace and prosperity to the world as American democracy.
If we cannot live and let live, if we fail at the hard work of compromising such that we and our fellow citizens may freely choose how to pursue happiness differently, then society will enter into a vicious downward spiral of violence and retaliation which makes liberty, equality, and democracy impossible to sustain.
We must govern without repression. We must win without destroying the opposition. We must not abuse power by gerrymandering, disenfranchising the opposition, harassing opponents through selective law enforcement, or subverting the judicial system through partisan processes. This is what it means to "play fair by the spirit of the rules" in a democracy.
"Being peaceful" is less noteworthy when the powerful majority does it, but it is not less important. "Being peaceful in the face of incentives not to be" is the foundation of civilization.
The point here is not to convince national leaders of anything. My hope is to convince normal Americans to behave better than could be expected, because we need to behave better than can be expected. Be respectful. Be skeptical and don't share outrageous nonsense. Forgive neighbors, your fellow Americans, who read other news and watch other media, even though we now have trouble agreeing on a shared, objective reality. Trust each other and each others' intentions to be good. This will be especially challenging in the face of a plague of bad information from media companies who have failed to live up to their newfound responsibilities, and weaponized mistrust wielded by foreign adversaries and domestic partisans.
If we do not make our way back to being better Americans, then others among us will follow the darker path to cycles of repression and rebellion – partisan oppression of voting rights and against fair and equal representation in government; protests in the form of strikes, sabotage, and arson; suppression of media, discourse, and speech; riots and bombings; massacres and brutality by law enforcement; assassinations, local uprisings, and revolts; use of the military against civilians. It is a tragically well-traveled road in human history. The United States of America is not immune – see Appendix 2. People have been acting like they do not remember history. Understand that offending, insulting, disrespecting, and repressing people eventually escalates to violence.
We can and we must do better.
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
-- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address [1861/03/04]


Appendix 1

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.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence [1776/07/04]

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
...
Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.
...
I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy.
-- George Washington, farewell address [1796/09/17]

Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves
-- Abraham Lincoln, letter to Henry L. Pierce [1859]
our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. ... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address [1863/11/19]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
-- Emma Lazarus, "The New Colossus" sonnet for the Statue of Liberty [1883]

We must dare to be great; and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage.
-- Theodore Roosevelt, gubernatorial campaign address [1898/10/05]
Be practical as well as generous in your ideals. Keep your eyes on the stars, but remember to keep your feet on the ground.
-- Theodore Roosevelt, address at Groton School [1904/05/24]
There is no good reason why we should fear the future, but there is every reason why we should face it seriously, neither hiding from ourselves the gravity of the problems before us nor fearing to approach these problems with the unbending, unflinching purpose to solve them aright.
-- Theodore Roosevelt, inaugural address [1905/03/04]

the only thing we have to fear is fear itself
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), first inaugural address [1933/03/04]
No democracy can long survive which does not accept as fundamental to its very existence the recognition of the rights of its minorities.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), letter to Walter Francis White [1938/06/25]
Let us not be afraid to help each other — let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and Senators and Congressmen and Government officials but the voters of this country.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), address at Marietta, Ohio [1938/07/08]

It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt, Voice of America broadcast [1951/11/11]
A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably with the circumstances of life, knowing that in this world no one is all-knowing and therefore all of us need both love and charity.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt, in You Learn by Living [1960]

Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
-- John F. Kennedy, inaugural address [1961/01/20]
We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
-- John F. Kennedy, speech at Rice University [1962/06/12]

Appendix 2

Domestic use of the military: Kent State [1970/05/04] and Jackson State [1970/05/15] shootings



Saturday, June 18, 2016

Primary Election Reform

America is in a situation of political division which is unprecedented in my lifetime.  Our government processes are paralyzed by partisanship.  The tone of political rhetoric in the media and in public life has reached levels of ugliness that I never before experienced.  Politicians in office increasingly represent the extremes of our political spectrum rather than the middle.  The presidential candidates chosen by both political parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority of the public.

We need to reform the process by which we winnow the field of potential candidates to nominees who participate in the general election.  Our political parties administer these process, with party rules that are wildly inconsistent and unfair.  It is time for the government to take control of these processes, and to make changes in the interest of better government and a healthier society.

 A simple change to our election processes would address many of these problems.  If we replace our system of closed party primary elections and caucuses with an open general primary, it would force candidates to seek support from the middle of the political spectrum, rather than the extremes.  I believe this would set the country on the course of solving our problems.  

Primary Election Reform
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are poised to compete for the Presidency of the United States as candidates of America’s major political parties.  The candidates will set a record as the most detested presidential candidates for as long as public opinion has been recorded.  It is an indication of the increasing polarization of American society, and an indication that our political system is broken.
How did we come to be in this situation in a democracy, where people choose the very candidates that they dislike?  The problem is in our system of winnowing the field of candidates through primary elections and party caucuses.

Our system of primary elections is partly to blame for our political dysfunction and gridlock.  The system divides the electorate into partisan camps.  Each camp tends to select a candidate who epitomizes the most partisan views of that camp.   The process produces a government which lurches from extreme to extreme at the highest levels, and a government which is locked in acrimonious and dysfunctional gridlock at lower levels.  We have created a government in which the willingness to compromise is seen as a fatal flaw.  The judicial system, which is the strongest stabilizing force in American government, has likewise become a battleground of ideology.   Political discourse has become increasing bitter over the past 25 years, and political conflicts increasingly violent. 
The major political parties, Democratic and Republican, are essentially private clubs, who presently dominate the processes of winnowing candidates for all political offices.  The parties dictate the processes of winnowing the pool of candidates in a mind-numbing morass of differing primary election and caucuses, with different rules in every state. (The process is detailed at the end of this article for readers unfamiliar with the American system).   The process rewards corruption, and allows established political powers and wealthy political donors to strongly influence the selection of the party candidates.  It is in the interest of the nation to remove that power from the parties, and institute primary elections which are fair and equal for all citizens.

Primary election processes must be reformed.  A reformed process of winnowing the field of candidates would necessarily force candidates to compete for the middle of the political spectrum.  Politically extreme candidates would be eliminated from contention in general elections.   Reforming our primaries would improve the policies that govern the nation and allow the smooth functioning of government.

Reform Proposal – Simultaneous Open Primaries and Negative Votes
Winnowing the slate of candidates for office is far too important to be left to the whims of political parties.  There is ample justification in the Constitution to overturn our current system, and establish a new system, which will provide of equal rights to all citizens in the selection of our political candidates. 

The solution to our problem is remarkably simple.  We must establish general primary elections, to be held simultaneously in all states.  Candidates would compete for votes from all citizens, decreasing our tendency to elect extremists from the ends of the political spectrum.   Candidates would be less bound by party orthodoxy, and able to express a range of opinions, which would be healthy for our general political discourse.  The top two candidates in the general primary would compete in the general election, eliminating the problem of a three-way race, in which two candidates with similar views split a majority vote, allowing a candidate supported by a minority to win an election.  The process should be applied at every level, from President to mayor of the smallest hamlet.

I would propose a further variant.  The power to say “NO” is an important element of decision-making, embodied in the President’s veto power over actions of Congress, and in Congress’ power, with a super-majority, to override the President’s decisions.   That power should also be given to the voters.  I would suggest, that in any primary election with more than three candidates, each citizen should be given three votes: two positive votes, and one negative vote.   In a field of many candidates, such as we had in this Presidential cycle, the “NO” votes would eliminate extreme and unpopular candidates.  I think a system which gives citizens a veto would produce a government more accurately of the people, by the people, and for the people. 

When candidates compete in an open primary, by necessity, they must learn to represent all of the people.  Success will depend on winning over the middle of the political spectrum, rather than the extremes.   Candidates will be empowered to express views on some issues which are outside of their party orthodoxy, and they will be empowered to compromise with their political opposition
We are at a political crossroads in America.  We are on the edge of collapse of the two-party system which has generally governed our country since its inception, and in the current form which has existed for over a century.   We have the opportunity now to make it better, and we may never have another chance.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following section is added for readers unfamiliar with the American system of Primary Elections.

The American System of Primary Elections and Caucuses
In general, America has a two-party political system.  I the American system, candidates for political office compete for nomination by the political party of their affiliation.  The candidate chosen for nomination then compete in a general election against the candidate of the other major party.  Occasionally, there are candidates from minor political parties, or independent candidates, but these are rarely significant in the general election.  

Each party sets its own rules for winnowing the field of candidates to determine a nominee, for both national and local offices.  In fact, the parties set different rules in each state, resulting in a patchwork of irregular processes depending upon location.  

In most states, the nominee is selected by the result of a primary election.  In some states, the primary is restricted to only party members; in some states the primary is open to independent voters; in some states open to all voters.  Some states employ another variant.  Instead of an election, the nominee is selected through local meetings termed caucuses.  The caucuses require several hours of time.  Caucuses are attended by only about 5 percent of the population.  By comparison, about 35 to 40 percent of the population participate in primary elections. 

Primary elections are held according to an arbitrary schedule, at various times in various states.  The process gives the states with early voting a disproportionate influence on results, by directing additional media attention and political donations to the winners of the early contests.  Those early results tend to reflect the parochial interests of those states, rather than the broader interests of the nation. 

The Republican Party (ironically) has a more ‘democratic’ system than the Democratic Party.  Republicans have given more power directly to the voters in the system of primary elections.  Essentially all of the Republican delegates are chosen by primary election results, and those delegates are bound to vote according to primary election results on the first ballot at the party convention.  The Democratic Party allocates about one-eighth of the delegates to existing party officials and office-holders. 

The parties also have processes which give considerable power to established political interests.  Both parties have “rules committees” which are able to change the rules for nomination, even after the conclusion of all primary voting. 

In the current presidential election cycle, Donald Trump prevailed over the established powers of the Republican party, riding a wave of populist rage and racist rhetoric to overwhelm the establishment candidates.  In the Democratic Party, the establishment candidate Hilary Clinton called upon a deep well of political obligations owed to her husband, Bill Clinton, from his eight-year presidency.  Even so, she narrowly prevailed against a more articulate and extreme candidate from the left side of the political spectrum, Bernie Sanders.   Neither partisan racist mob-rule, nor entrenched political dynasties serve our country well.  

Monday, January 13, 2014

Governor Christie and the Politics of Intimidation

In an act of political reprisal, the staff of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie created a traffic jam last September which delayed a half-million people for 3 to 4 hours each day over a period of four days.  The target of the reprisal was one small-town mayor who refused to endorse Governor Christie for re-election.

The term "abuse of power" has been missing in news reports about the incident.  But abuse of power is exactly the crux of the scandal in New Jersey.  Governor Christie and his staff were put in office to use that power for the betterment of all citizens, not to use that power for their own political gain.

The scandal illustrates the politics of intimidation as practiced by Governor Christie, and is a preview of what we can expect if he is successful in his campaign to be the next President of the United States.
----------
Ghengis Khan understood.  Niccolo Machiavelli understood.  And Chris Christie, governor of the the State of New Jersey, also understands.

What they understand is that intimidation is an effective means of seizing and keeping power.     

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote that intimidation was necessary for a prince to gain and keep power.  Machiavelli wrote that it is good if a leader is loved, but better if he is feared and respected.  To be only feared is insufficient, and to be only respected is insufficient.  To be feared and respected would ensure that potential opponents would find it better to be supporters of the prince.

It is sad, but likely, that every prominent politician plays this game.  It is human nature to reward supporters, and to punish opponents, to regard supporters as friends, and opponents as enemies.  And intimidation – the selective application of punishment – is an effective way to turn opponents into supporters. 

In many other countries, the political process of punishment and intimidation is harsher than in the United States.  In Kiev, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is serving a seven year prison term for corruption, in what is generally regarded as political retribution.  In Russia, dissident Mikhail Khodorkovsky was recently released from a ten year sentence.  Although convicted of tax evasion, Khodorkovsky was clearly imprisoned for political opposition to Vladimir Putin.  And in North Korea, the new ruler Kim Jong Un put his uncle to death, either by being blown to bits by anti-aircraft guns, or torn apart by a pack of starving dogs, depending on what report is to be believed.   The more severe the punishment, the more effectively it stifles opposition.
----
 For four days last September, Governor Christie’s staff and appointees caused a traffic jam as an act of political retribution.  A traffic jam seems like a fairly minor issue, except that the traffic jam was staged on the busiest bridge in the world.  The George Washington Bridge connecting New Jersey to New York City carries nearly 300,000 cars every day, including buses and other vehicles with multiple passengers.  The traffic jam caused 3 or 4 hours of delays for more than 500,000 people.   According to information in the news, this is a conservative estimate.

Consider for a moment the scope of the traffic jam, and let’s compare it to Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s sentence of ten years for political opposition to Vladimir Putin.  Khodorkovsky paid the price of 87,600 man-hours for opposing Putin – ten years of a man’s life.   On the George Washington Bridge, a half-million people (who were completely innocent of the dispute) lost at least three hours each for four days, for about 6 million man-hours.   The time wasted is equivalent to 684 years of human life.  Which of these reprisals is more egregious?

 The closure of lanes on the George Washington Bridge was an act of punishment for one man, the mayor of a small town of 35,000 people.  The mayor, a member of the opposition party, refused to endorse Governor Christie’s campaign for re-election.  Governor Christie's staffers apparently hoped that the mayor would lose his own election due to public anger about the traffic.   

Governor Christie built his public image as a moderate politician, able to work across party lines with President Obama, and able to secure the endorsements of Democratic Party mayors and officials within the state.  The foundation of those endorsements is now deeply in question.  How many endorsements has he won through respect, and how many endorsements has he won through intimidation?

Governor Christie, so far, has avoided being directly implicated in the scandal.  Nevertheless, if at least four of his senior staff and appointees are involved, how can he be innocent of the general strategy of political intimidation? 

Governor Christie is currently the leading candidate from the Republican Party for the office of President.  If this event is indicative of the way he and his staff operate, what would these people do with the full power of the NSA to identify political opponents throughout the country?

As Machiavelli observed, to maintain power, it is necessary to be regarded with fear and respect.  Chris Christie may still be regarded with fear, at least within his home state of New Jersey.  But for me, it is difficult to imagine how Chris Christie can still be regarded with respect on the national stage.