Over the past few years this blog has been dedicated to a teaching mission aimed at connecting classroom learning to the real world. Social Studies are not just a group of ‘subjects’ to be examined separately and without connection to each other or our daily lives. In the course of both teaching and taking an active part in state and local government, the next step for this writer is to take the message of why it is important to take an active part in how we are governed to new media. The Charlotte Country Journal has graciously agreed to accept an occasional column from me on topics of local interest, and WLCM ‘Victory’ 1390 AM will also be airing five-minute public service announcements from me on politics and policy at the state and local level. As I tell my students, the President may make the headlines every day, but he isn’t the one picking up your trash, filling in potholes or setting local speed limits on your streets. Those and a myriad other decisions that affect our daily lives are made at a level of government within our reach, and that is why I want to reach out to more of our neighbors here in Mid-Michigan to encourage them to take part in how those decisions are made.
From time to time, as columns are published and radio broadcasts are made, links the content or postings of the transcripts will be re-published here. As always, your readership is appreciated, as is your active participation in making our world a better place to live.
Dr. Friedman is insightful in showing how the urge to reform a system of politics dominated by that old-timers used to call ‘honest graft’ with one supposedly more democratic has, in fact, produced one that is more money-driven, ideological and less democratic, in the larger meaning of the term. Is it time to reform the reforms of the 1968-1972 era?
The electoral process has strayed from the founders’ vision of the United States as a country with a dispassionate electorate.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 920 times in 2014. If it were a cable car, it would take about 15 trips to carry that many people.
Long-time Washington Times columnist Rowan Scarborough recently revealed that the terrorist group known by the acronym ‘ISIS’ (or ‘ISIL’) is asking its supporters in the United States to target military service-members and their families. In response, the Pentagon Force Protection Agency’s ‘Security Advisory 14-01′ dated October 24, 2014 recommends a number of countermeasures (see excerpt below) aimed at making uniformed personnel assigned to the Pentagon less visible. The strategy is sensible from the aspect of reducing one’s chances of being identified by a terrorist as a target for a surprise attack. However, hoping not to be noticed is hardly morale-inspiring, and while the United States undertakes offensive action abroad and conducts counter-terrorism operations at home, being told to be less visible in the meantime leaves something to be desired. In a situation where the conflict may last for many years, asking people to volunteer and them to hide their service isn’t particularly likely to send the right message, either to the troops, their families, the American public or our enemies at home and abroad.
During World War II, when the Nazi overlords of occupied Denmark ordered Jews living there to affix the Star of David to their clothing, King Christian X is reported to have worn one himself and to have asked his countrymen to do likewise. Whether strictly true or not, very few of his Jewish subjects lost their lives in Nazi death camps. If Americans chose to display military-themed bumper stickers, clothing, et cetera, they would be undertaking some measure of risk of being targeted in what have been, to date, isolated ‘lone wolf’ attacks. However, would such an action, if carried out en masse, not offer our service-members the protection of blending into a crowd of visible supporters? At the least, it would be visible evidence of our solidarity.
Each of us must weigh the risks and decide what to do (or not do). For myself, I don’t believe in running scared and learned a long time ago that it is better to stand up to a bully than it is to try to hide had hope. I will continue to display military-themed items, such as the blue star in my car window in honor of my son (SSG, USAF). We can learn from history, and we should ponder how we in America will face the prospect of anonymous and often ‘lone-wolf’ attacks in our communities, workplaces and public spaces. How we choose to respond will say much about our character, individually and as a people.
-SFC (ret) Lloyd A. Conway
Excerpt from Security Advisory 14-01:
“Recommended Individual Protective Measures:
• DoD personnel are reminded to use OPSEC at work and at home
• Secure DoD affiliated credentials (CAC/Building passes) when in public
• Remove any DoD/military/law enforcement decals or identifiers from clothing and vehicles
• Vary your travel routes to and from work
• If You See Something, Say Something.
• Maintain situational awareness or avoid public venues where large gatherings of people congregate
• Educate your family members on basic security practices
• Be careful of information shared on social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
• Lock down your social media and change your passwords regularly
• Do not post anything on social media that affiliates you with DoD/the military or law enforcement
• Do not post anything on social media opposing terrorist groups or organizations”
The Saginaw County, Michigan Sheriff was in the news again with a seized vehicle that he has converted to departmental use. While the Honda Element he now drives, like the Lincoln Town Car and Ford Mustang that preceded it was taken from people arrested and convicted of crimes, the vehicle itself was seized without a judge or jury sentencing the defendant(s) to loss of their property after a fair trial as part of the ‘due process’ that the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence mandates. The loss of a car not taken as part of a just sentence imposed on a guilty defendant raises questions – or it should.
The good Sheriff is not alone in generating controversy; the Washington Post reports that a number of police departments – city, county and state – across the country are targeting drivers for stops, searches and seizures of cash – all without there necessarily being an arrest, trial or conviction. The money is seldom returned; a clear violation of the Constitution’s ‘due process‘ clause. While it may be argued that there is statistical evidence that drivers carrying large amounts of cash on certain roads who also share other characteristics (race, sex, age, and little things like having air fresheners in their cars, possibly to hide unlawful drug use) are likely engaged in criminal activity, our system protects the innocent by demanding that the accused get their day in court, that we be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (the substance of the story told in ’12 Angry Men,’ which some readers may recall from their school days as a staple of civics classes for generations), and that another branch of government than the one doing the arresting – the courts (‘Judicial Branch’) preside over the administration of justice. Combining the power to arrest and to de facto punish (via forfeiture) in one agency is a grave temptation to abuse of power. Indeed, it would be remarkable if letting such combined powers reside in the same individual or agency did not produce abuse. That there is a monetary incentive to do so, and that the private contractor named in the Post story gets a cut of the money seized is enough to establish a strong probability that regular abuse is taking place. (However, those upon whom suspicion of such abuse is cast ought to get their ‘day in court,’ too, and they are guilty of nothing until proven otherwise.)
There will always be the temptation to seize power to do good, in this case, combat suspected drug trafficking. But like Gandalf explains to Frodo in ‘The Fellowship of the Ring,’ taking the Ring of Power might be done with the best of intentions, but the end results will be evil. Sometimes the lessons of the stories of our childhood are forgotten and ought to be revisited when we are older. Such is the case here, whether the lessons in question come from a story or from what we learned in civics class: Power, in the American system, is checked and balanced for a reason, and the efficiency of the government’s exercise of power, for whatever reason, is never an excuse for violating someone’s rights. We forget these lessons at the peril of that liberty our system of government is supposed to safeguard and which is supposed to be the hallmark of our way of life.
A well-known story about the Nazi occupation of Denmark relates how, when the order went out that all Danish Jews would have to attach a yellow Star of David to their clothing, that King Christian chose to wear one in solidarity with his Jewish countrymen, and that the Danish people followed city. While the truth is that they did not, both the King and his subjects vocally opposed Nazi efforts, resisted plans to deport Jews, and organized a resistance movement that saved all but 65 of their neighbors from death. While the truth is less dramatic than the legend that sprung from it, the Danish example is still clear and worthy of remembrance and emulation.
The Star of David’s use as a way for a genocidal regime to identify those whom it targets for abuse and destruction comes to mind as one watches events unfolding in Iraq, where the self-proclaimed state known by the acronym ‘ISIS’ (Tr: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’) is persecuting religious minorities, in this case Christians and Yazidis, is labeling the homes of the former with the Arabic letter ‘N‘ (‘pronounced ‘Noon’) to signify that the occupants are ‘Nazarenes’ – Christians. Their identification precedes their execution, sometimes after forced conversion. The focused campaign targeting particular groups for destruction meets the definition of ‘genocide,’ at least in the eyes of some observers.
While history does not exactly repeat itself, there is often a rhyme and rhythm to events. This may be true in this case, as a Lebanese television station, in a country where there may be serious danger in doing so, is joining a worldwide movement of concerned people who are displaying ‘Noon’ on social media in solidarity with Iraqi Christians. While it is impossible to know if a revue such as the Danes mounted seven decades ago (they used boats to ferry nearly all of their Jewish countrymen to Sweden), perhaps this effort will focus international attention in such a way as to deliver these people from their oppressors.
The President recently complained that the Founding Fathers created a flawed system – one where California and Wyoming have the same number of Senators – that prevents him from enacting his agenda. While he certainly is right that states have equal representation in the Senate, he misreads the intent in creating the system the way it is as a design defect. Our system is designed to kill bad ideas, to be slow enough that, while the majority does indeed rule, the minority in any debate gets its say and has its rights respected. The idea of treating states as equals is rooted in the concept of ‘dual sovereignty,’ the idea that the Federal government is supreme in the spheres of action that the Constitution – ratified by the states – leaves to it (war, printing money, trade, diplomacy, et cetera) while the states exercise sovereign power in their areas of responsibility (education and law enforcement, for example; in the latter instance, the Constitution names only three Federal crimes – piracy, treason and counterfeiting – with about 90% court action to this day being on matters of state or local jurisdiction).
(The Founders’ desire to create a system aimed at stopping bad ideas from becoming law is also the reason behind the filibuster – one Senator can stop the machinery of the Senate for as long as he can hold the floor and speak.)
Finally, the Senate’s ability to roadblock legislation – collectively or individually – is part of our system of checks and balances, again, a product of the Founders’ desire to prevent tyranny by stopping bad laws from being enacted. Each branch of the Federal government is co-equal and can check the others. This is an idea fitting for an elementary civics lesson and one, no doubt, learned, but perhaps forgotten in the heat of battle, by those who complain about the process derailing their legislative timetables. This is not the first time such sentiments have been expressed – Franklin Roosevelt, frustrated with the Supreme Court ruling parts of his ‘New Deal’ unconstitutional, wanted to pack the Court with six additional justices who would be friendly to his agenda. Even though his party was dominant in Congress at the time (1937) he proposed this, they balked at an idea that would have undermined the balance of institutional power in Washington, D.C.
Finally, one may see in the following a succinct explanation of how our system works, and works best, by stopping bad ideas from becoming law: No bill is truly law until it passes the House, the Senate, gets signed by the President, withstands court challenges and is enforced by a jury. Our system is certainly not perfect, and each of the checks and balances in it may be misused for evil or illicit purposes, but our system has given the United States a quarter-millennium of generally stable government, rising living standards and greater freedom – no mean accomplishment, and, insofar as it touches upon our Constitution – no accident (or ‘design flaw’), either.
The ‘culture wars’ and the era of either/or choices, of talk-show ‘debates’ where pundits talk over or past each other, may be drawing to a close. Once or so in a long lifetime, American politics goes through a realignment, usually brought about when the last ‘deal’ We the People’ struck to govern how we live together stops working well and the politics we have known offers no answers. Politicians, like generals, prefer to prepare to fight the last war. This backward-looking dynamic, seen today in Democrats reflexively looking for New Deal/Great Society-style solutions while Republicans try to imagine what Reagan would do, produces gridlock without solving the problems that fester all around us. Eventually, a new dynamic emerges, and the old alliances are replaced by whatever coalition offers a frustrated electorate what look to them to be better answers.
This may be happening again, as Pat Buchanan’s review of Ralph Nader’s new book argues. That Buchanan, an architect of the Nixonian ‘Southern Strategy,’ lauds Nader, an arch-liberal who was opposite him for many years, is perhaps less odd than that they have worked together before, beginning with the battle over NAFTA, a signature plank from Ronald Reagan’s platform that the Gipper included in his kick-off speech for the 1980 campaign, and extending on to opposition to the post 9/11 wars, torture, the surveillance state and the corporate bailouts of ca. 2008-9. What makes an alliance like this significant is that they can put aside hot-button issues like abortion, gun control and ‘gay marriage’ to work on problems that they see as more significant, even critical to the survival of the American polity. (They are not alone, either among the opinion-makers or in the political rank and file, as the frequent alliances of libertarians and the populist Left to stop PIPA and SOPA, in support of ‘Net Neutrality,’ and on other issues pertaining to the defense of an open internet testify. Theirs are just two of the more-prominent voices raised in protest over the course our politics has taken since the 1980s.)
Politics makes strange bedfellows; what remains to be seen is if this is just another attempt to turn a series of one-night stands into a marriage of the anti-Establishment elements of what used to be called they ‘left’ and ‘right’ into something that may become a true alternative to politics as usual. Political science is a creature of the classroom; what takes place when we apply our understanding of ‘what right looks like’ to the real world – the putting of theory into practice – is what efforts like Buchanan and Nader entail. ‘Government’ should never be a matter of theory, of taking a ‘required’ class, of rote memorization and then the post-exam ‘brain dump,’ but rather should be a seamless experience where reality informs the academy, and vice-versa. This is how our politics is supposed to work; that ‘We the People,’ may alter or abolish the existing political order when it ceases to serve our ends is a concept at least as old as the Declaration of Independence and one that does not require any form of revolution other than the peaceful one that uses the ballot box to to accomplish its objectives. It is for us to use what we learn, in the classroom as well as on the street, to make our politics better serve our interests; if we do not, then other elements in society will.
It is no secret that Michigan, like much of the American Midwest, experienced one of the coldest and snowiest winters in living memory (itself a very short time in the span of centuries and millennia) in 2013-4. One of the issues, long dormant in the bygone era of relatively mild winters, is snow removal. Headlines about city and county budgets under stress due to overtime and road salt/sand costs incurred in excess of what is planned to deal with a normal northern winter. Where this writer lives, in Charlotte, a small town in mid-Michigan, another issue the record-setting snowfall raises is: Who, if anyone, ought to keep the sidewalks clear?
Many cities have ordinances on the books requiring homeowners to clear the sidewalks in front of their homes within 24 to 48 hours of snow falling, if the accumulation is as great or greater than a certain minimum amount. Jackson, Michigan, for example, requires snowfall of 4 inches or more to be cleared within 48 hours of when the snowfall stops.
Pedestrian use of sidewalks was a major factor in Council’s 4-3 vote in favor of the proposed ordinance, which takes effect at the start of the next ‘snow season’ on October 1st and it remains in effect yearly through April 30th.
Homeowner/business responsibility for city property maintenance was the source of much push-back on this issue. Several speakers at Council meetings, as well as a majority of those who wrote to us, objected to having to clear the City’s sidewalks; the counter-argument of those of us in support was that homeowners have to mow the boulevards in front of their homes, even though that, too, is municipally-owned.
Old age and disability also figured in the debate, as speaker after speaker pointed out that many homeowners were elderly and thus unable to shovel their walks. (Figures given for the size of Charlotte’s senior homeowner community were often greatly exaggerated, with at least two citizens stating that the formed a majority of the population; one basic lesson of making public policy is to be sure of one’s facts, and a quick visit to www.census.gov revealed that only 14% of our residents are seniors, versus 20% who are school-aged children – primary users of sidewalks during the winter months. Pointing this out helped to blunt that objection.)
Humanity and common sense ought to inform policy-making, and they did here, as our Mayor and other members of Council suggested that we learn from the experience of neighboring cities and crate a volunteer group to connect residents willing to help with those unable to help themselves. For ‘snowbird’ residents who prefer warmer climes in winter, options exist to contract for snow removal when no neighbor, friend or Good Samaritan exists to care for their property. (In their own self-interest, having the sidewalk cleared would help to keep their homes from appearing uninhabited to would-be burglars.
Finally, politics is the art of the possible. One need not be a Lyndon Johnson to get legislation passed; it takes a willingness to see the other side’s point of view and to take half a loaf when a full one cannot be obtained. Such was the case here, as the original proposal, made by this writer, called for a 24-hour period after the cessation of snowfall during which sidewalks must be cleared before the City could, upon citizen complaint, take action to either write a citation or to remove the snow and bill the property-owner. (We chose enforcement via citizen complaint because the City lacks the resources to do primary enforcement – another objection raised to enacting this ordinance.) We settled for a 48-hour period, which was necessary to cobble together a majority, even though it cost one vote that supporters might otherwise have had, from a colleague who thought that too long. Two votes gained, one lost, and an ordinance enacted that was not anyone’s first choice, but was acceptable to a majority. (In recognizing that things may not go as the majority envisions, this ordinance is only on the books for three years, thanks to a ‘sunset’ provision, and will have to be re-enacted before expiration to remain in force thereafter. This makes the snow-removal ordinance an experiment in public policy, renewable if it earns it, but otherwise set to melt away if it fails to work as intended.)
With the days growing longer and the temperatures beginning their slow ascent toward the warmer regions of the thermometer, we will have all summer to plan for coordinating volunteers before the next installment of ‘Pure Michigan’ winter.