Private Rights, Public Responsibility

The United States Constitution is a marvelous document. It was the first to overthrow the millennia-old idea that the right to govern was “the Divine Right of Kings.” It was a written governing document, defining a framework for running a new form of government “by the People.” And primarily through its subsequent Amendments, the Constitution explicitly delineates certain Rights that are inherent in being a citizen within this government.

Understandably in the aftermath of a Revolution to separate ourselves from an autocratic King,

the Constitution is very focused on Rights; the “Bill of Rights” was a first order of business for the new Congress. What it is less clear about is the flip side of Rights: citizen Responsibility. The Rights statements define obligations of the government to citizens of the United States, but Responsibility was assumed by default. You start out with Rights until you abuse them in some way by injury – either real or as a highly probable potential – to others. (A 12-year-old child does not have the right to drive a car. He may not have killed someone, but the likely possibility from lack of good judgment is deemed too high to risk.)

 

Another one of those assumed principles in our Constitution is our Right to Privacy. To be left alone. If I am causing no substantive harm to you by my actions, then leave me the hell alone. Nowhere in our Constitution is a Right to Privacy specified. (Perhaps the closest to it is the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches.) But this important Right has been explicitly presumed in various Supreme Court decisions, most notably(and perhaps ironically) in a 1965 decision overturning laws prohibiting married couples from obtaining contraception aids (e.g. “the pill” newly available), and a 1972 decision overturning laws prohibiting abortion (“Roe v. Wade”). Not withstanding the lack of an express statement, most Americans  believe and expect that Right to be part of their citizenship package. Whatever legal briefs may be filed, the Right to be Left Alone is at the heart of much resistance to a perceived intrusive government. But Privacy, and Rights in general, often collide in the face of expectations of Responsibility. It is a collision that is at the root of many of our social arguments.

 

For example, take our 1st Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Religion, which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In our homes and churches, temples, and mosques, we have a Right to adopt and practice whatever religion we may choose – including none at all. This individual Freedom can only happen if our government remains strictly neutral about all religions, and prohibited from showing any preference of one religion over another. It is a promise virtually every President has upheld, even when “religious leaders” – and some politicians and lay people – periodically call for their institutions and religious beliefs and practices to dominate over others. (People seem to easily forget that that neutrality is the very thing that allows them the freedom to practice their religion at all.)

 

The Right to practice the religion of our choice in the privacy of our homes and houses of worship nevertheless bumps up against the Rights of all citizens in the public marketplace and government services. We are all equal citizens one-to-one, an equal count in the voting booth, an equal voice in the public debate, an equal owner of our government. Our Constitution guarantees each of us equal opportunity and standing as a citizen unrestricted by race, color, heritage, marital status, gender, or, with some limitations, age or physical health. Nor by most any other categories we have not yet come up with to try to separate ourselves.

 

Our Constitutional Rights are generally personal to the individual. But the detailed laws that carry out these Rights define our Responsibilities to the Community in which these Rights are exercised. We always live simultaneously in both worlds, as individuals while concurrently a member of a mutually interdependent community. Humankind may have once lived entirely self-sufficient lives, without a need for others. That is impossible in today’s shrunken political, economic, social, interconnected world. When we move out of our private lives, and engage in the public place, Responsibility becomes equal to, and sometimes dominant over, Rights. It is a necessary accommodation for creating a civilized society.

 

In our homes, we can associate with whom we choose – likely people very similar to us. But in the public marketplace, we do not choose: everyone is the same. Some of us remember all too well the signs saying “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” In fact, “anyone” inherently meant Blacks and Mexicans, sometimes Jews and Catholics. Women and LGBTs were not even considered worthy of a conversation. Ultimately, our Constitution caught up with, and abolished, such public bigotry. If one is in the marketplace, all citizens are entitled to be served  regardless of what one chooses to believe or do at home. A  Jewish shopkeeper may open a Kosher Jewish deli, but when my friends in Boston took me there, there were usually as many Gentiles there as Jewish patrons! (No religious test for good ethnic food.)

 

Taking the illustration further, in the privacy of their own homes, Justices of the Peace and marriage license Clerks can believe anything they want about the moral correctness of same-gender marriage. But the State has its own secular definitions of marriage from a legal ownership and benefits perspective. It is a perspective that cannot deny a citizen’s Rights based upon the religious choice of either the public servant or the couple seeking the marriage. Each religion has its own religious definitions, ritual, and rules of eligibility to sanctify “religious marriage” within that faith – a freedom with which the State does not interfere. The Community obligation to issue a secular marriage license does not also require you to perform the religious ceremonial ritual. If one chooses to be a public official or officer of the court, the law of community takes precedence, not the Right of Privacy or Religion.

 

The Rights versus Responsibility distinction will always be a source of tension if not outright conflict. Both seem clear when considered separately; the appropriate relationship between the two is rarely easy to determine, especially when two Rights go head-to-head against each other. This same tension is found in all of our Constitutional Freedoms vis-à-vis our laws of Community: gun ownership, freedom of speech, freedom of press, voting procedures. No Right of Freedom can disregard Community Responsibility; no laws of Community can arbitrarily overwhelm Rights. We cannot just have it one (i.e. our) way. The teetering point in between is always a difficult case-by-case compromise, often on a trial-and-error “best effort” basis, determined by people of good will towards each other: respecting Privacy, while building strong Communities.

 

I am usually comfortable with this Rights and Community tension, willing to let each person hold to their individual beliefs and private conduct while expecting respect and accommodation in the public place. But sometimes I do wonder … if I were a small entrepreneur, a baker of cakes in a small shop in my little town, and a Skinhead or KKK member walked in one day and asked me to inscribe a cake with a blatantly offensive racial slur or societal threat – how would I respond?

 

Theory meets daily reality. Life is never perfectly clear. Rarely does it offer easy answers. In the end, there is not a “right” answer. There is only our good will, and best wise judgement, brought to bear that truly matter.

 

©   2016   Randy Bell                           www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Conversations Over The Fence

“I may be wrong, but I’m never in doubt!”   —a friend

We hear a great deal of talk these days about the divisions in our country. Political divisions; religious divisions; cultural divisions; divisions of states and nations. These divisions are mostly expressed in words: sarcasm, labels, accusations, opinions – far too often with little thoughtfulness or reasoned argument. With seemingly increasing frequency, these divisions are being expressed through physical violence. Conventional wars, imported terrorism, localized killings from the sick and self-righteous looking to “make a statement,” the rogue cop who forgot “to protect and to serve.” Even though the data says crime is down overall, our hyper-sensitive ears tell us that dangers lurk. That bullets are replacing words.

In reaction to this downward spiral, we build fences to separate us, to hide behind. Mostly these are intangible, social, or policy fences keeping us apart, not a physical “beautiful wall.” But what could happen if, instead of the verbal bombasts and finger-pointing we have been doing, we actually started having conversations across those fences. Like we used to do with our neighbors in days gone by. Where we share a dialog of information, and seek to understand a problem from the broader perspective of people whose life experiences and current situation are far different from our own. That would be a vastly different public conversation than what we have conducted over the last twenty years.

For example, take the subject of illegal immigration. For many people, this issue reduces to a simple either/or “deport ‘em” or “naturalize ‘em.” But this is not just a legal or intellectual argument we are having. This topic concerns an estimated 10-15M human beings now living in America. A border patrol officer charged with securing our borders is likely worn out trying to do a seemingly un-accomplishable job. A social worker along our southern border is likely overwhelmed trying to keep up with the caseload demands. An immigration officer is likely frustrated that people think there are no consequences in effect for being here illegally, yet his/her department has deported more illegal aliens than ever before. A farmer is likely frustrated at the inability to hire competent and willing workers to tend the fields, needed because most citizens now avoid that kind of traditional work. A tradesperson in home construction may feel that illegal immigrants take away jobs and/or depresses wages, even though buyers still demand quality of product and such immigrants often do high quality work – and pay for their own housing with their income. A child advocate is likely opposed to breaking up families and deporting dependent children due to their parents’ decision to come here. A business employer, or even an individual homeowner, may protest illegal immigration while conveniently – and hypocritically – turning a blind eye when hiring that same person. An illegal immigrant him-/herself is likely confused because, having come here for the opportunity of a better life for family members, having broken no laws since arriving, and having contributed positively to American society, no permanent acceptance of you seems possible. A humanitarian, or one driven towards “social justice,” is likely at wit’s end at the country’s inability to acknowledge its culpability in allowing this illegal immigration to occur, and its unwillingness to let past mistakes be past. A minister may be guided by a fundamental calling that, regardless of the circumstances, “people are hurting, and I am charged to ‘love my neighbor,' and I shall.” Finally, an historian will likely remind everyone that we have had illegal immigration in the past, allowed racially-motivated emotions to limit immigrants from certain areas of the globe, and heavily discriminated against virtually all new incoming people until, over time, they managed to overcome that bigotry.

A prosecutor likely believes the Law is the Law, and breaking it is just not permissible. A defense attorney likely points out that the Law has always provided not just punishment but also justice and mercy, with varying options available (incarceration, probation, suspension, clemency) for sentencing. A juror in the large courtroom of public opinion has the unenviable task of sorting out what is “right.”

The point of this narrative is not to “solve” the issue of illegal immigration in America. Rather, it is to illustrate that, behind all of the emotional yelling at each other and rigidity of our opinions, the views of right /wrong and what to do/not do look very different depending upon where one sits in their individual experience. It is as a bicycle wheel: the hub is the issue; the spokes are the perspectives. When all spokes feed into the hub and work together, the wheel is stabilized, turns, and the bike moves forward. We could easily construct a similar model of multiple perspectives about virtually all of the great issues facing us: abortion; voting rights; campaign finance; war against terrorism; gun violence; religious accommodation; gender-based rights. Our challenge is whether our conflicting perspectives have to perpetually lead us to conflict, or can be interwoven into concurrently addressing broader concerns that marks the patchwork quilt of America.

With some unfortunate exceptions, most contributors to this verbal jousting are not cruel, malicious or starry-eyed people (though some operate from a self-interest in keeping the conflict alive). People simply see issues from different angles, each of which is “true and right” within its own domain but represent only a part of the Total Perspective. But because we are not listening to each other, we never see the full scope of the tangential issues, the complexities that smother the search for simple solutions. When we discuss things across the dividing fence instead of yelling from behind it, when we start with the recognition that our neighbor’s view is worthy of a respectable listening, only then can we expand our understanding and find the solutions that seem to evade us.

Arguing stops us in our tracks and is self-defeating. True listening – which demands our humility that we do not have all the information nor the be-all answer – leads us out of the stymied morass and enriches the solution. We are never as smart, or as right, as we think we are on any issue.

“This country is in very hard times, there’s no question about it.  But we’ll dig ourselves out of it once again if we can stop yelling at each other for a half hour.”                       — Garrison Keilor

©   2016   Randy Bell             www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Empty Promises From Amateurs

A few weeks back, the NBA Champion Cavaliers made Cleveland the center of excellence for athletic professionalism. After this past week, Cleveland has also now become the center of political amateurism.

The last meaningful political convention that decided anything of substance was in 1976 between incumbent President Gerald Ford and challenger Ronald Reagan. Today, the sole purpose of such national political conventions is showmanship: crown the winner of the primary elections, and enthuse party members to go forth and do battle for their candidates in the future. It is all done with the American people looking in at the drama and festivities. It is the best campaign opportunity you get to speak directly to the American people, to define who you are, and to show your vision and capability.

Instead, this year, given all of the chaos, disruptions, divisiveness, missteps, and desperately false explanations (Really? Hillary Clinton was responsible for Malania’s plagiarism?), we saw a convention plagued by errors –consistent with and reflective of the Trump campaign itself. A  convention designed and executed by a tight family circle of campaign novices. If one cannot successfully manage his/her coronation to expectations, an event over which you have almost total decision-making authority, why should we think that person can possibly lead a country of 300M diverse people over which s/he has minimal authority?

Donald Trump selling himself as the “Law and Order candidate” is a reach-back to Richard Nixon’s and George Wallace’s campaigns in 1968. His rallying cry of “America First” was a reach-back to the pre-World War II isolationist movement. Neither of those ideas worked out very well then, and to speak of them today doesn’t bode well for “new, forward thinking.” Yes we have some problems in our country today, problems that need to be solved. But “Make America Great Again” does not sit well with one who believes America has been, and still is, pretty damn Great already, even if imperfect. If we are ever able to get re-focused again, and stop being distracted  by one-shot fly-by-night would-be leaders trying to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge on the cheap, we can return to the vision and ability to fix that which ails us that we are so admired for throughout the world. And we can fix it without the need for pointing fingers. Donald Trump may be “the Voice” speaking for an extremely angry public, but he does not speak for me with his dark vision of where America is now, and where he would lead it in the future. I learned long ago that anyone who feels they have to yell at me that loud to try to make their point is usually trying to cover over the shallowness of the substance of their argument.

In the end, the phrase “Only I can fix it” is a perfect epitaph of what is wrong with Donald Trump and his pseudo-campaign – a campaign built not on the substance of ideas but on a continual ridicule of the reputations of his opponents and assault on their character. It is the arrogance of a single individual claiming to have all of the answers while saying “Just trust me,” even though he lacks any experience whatsoever in public service or international relations to ground his thinking or demonstrate his ability. That lacking is combined with the highly erroneous view that the Presidency of the United States is just another CEO position in yet another family-run business. It ain’t. The kindergarteners are running the school; the amateurs are running the campaign. All at a time when the need for competence and experience are more important than ever. That competence and experience were not on display in Cleveland.

One wonders just how far afield our fears, anger, and blaming of others are going to take us before our fundamental sanity, traditional self-confidence, and famous “can do” working-together capability set back in. Before we realize – the would-be emperor has no clothes.

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

A Senator's Silence

TO: Senator Richard Burr, United States Senate, Washington, DC

“We the People of the United States, in Order to … establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Silence. That is all to be heard from our Congress. Orlando has barely passed into a hazy memory. Yet over a week’s time, we watched clear video of two African-American men shot to death in Louisiana and Minnesota. Shot by police officers apparently inadequately trained and hyper panicky to properly pursue their jobs. Followed by an African-American sniper killing five Dallas policemen motivated by distorted revenge. Five cops in a city recognized for its demonstrated success in reforming policing. That more were not killed in Dallas – police officers and civilians – is due to the judgment and practices of those good cops who ran towards the gunman in order to protect others. Three bad cops in Louisiana and Minnesota measured against the dedication of thousands of good cops displaying courage every day. While an uncourageous Congress sits silent.

This is my 35^th monthly letter to you about gun violence in America. The 35^th letter since you and every one of your Senate Republican colleagues voted against expanded background checks – or any change whatsoever in gun legislation or responsible ownership – in the wake of Sandy Hook. Even though 90% of the American people wanted – and still want – action, you chose instead to serve the single organization that inserts six-figure “donations” to your campaign.   Even if those previous 34 letters have not changed your mind or course of (non-)action on this issue, they have served to remind both of us of your failure to act then, and your failure of leadership now.

In spite of your statements of supposed concern about the issue of gun violence in America, I continue to see no legislation being proposed by you. I have seen no instance of you utilizing your chairmanship of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence to provide leadership to your Party and our country on this issue. No visible efforts being made by your Republican Party. If you choose to reject the President’s proposals on this issue, or Democratic politicians’ proposals, or proposals from the ad hoc bi-partisan group chaired by Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine, that can be your choice. But just saying “no” to everything, while not offering up any of your own better solutions, is not an acceptable choice. That is a copout. Coping out is not what you were elected, and are paid handsomely, to do.

Once again turning tragedy into politics, your Party’s expected presidential candidate recently announced that he is now the “law and order candidate.” He reached all the way back to 1968 to adopt Richard Nixon’s and George Wallace’s campaign mantle. As it turned out, “Law and Order” did not solve anything in 1968. Nixon wound up a step away from impeachment for breaking the law himself, and Wallace was gunned down into permanent disability by yet another man with a gun. Bumper stickers do not solve problems, because you cannot have Law without Justice, and you cannot have Order without people feeling Safe in all forms.

Yes, I hear the same tiring slogans. The handwringing that “nothing can be done.” They say, “guns don’t kill people, people do.” No, people kill people with guns; guns are not inanimate objects when in people’s hands. “The 2^nd Amendment guarantees my right to own a gun.” Yes, A gun, but not Any gun. That right is preceded by “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state …”; we have such a militia in every state. That wording also explicitly allows us to REGULATE those guns.

We live in different times now. In 1790, a single-shot musket took perhaps 30 seconds to reload one bullet, hardly the same as an automatic weapon today that needs only a fraction of a second to “reload” and spread its destruction far and wide. As has been said often, the only purpose for an automated assault weapon is to kill people. Many people. Quickly. That is important if you are a soldier. Not so when out hunting a defenseless deer. Dumping even more guns into the populace (as some propose) for “self defense” – like some modern-day version of Dodge City – is certainly no answer. I have no interest in having to wonder every day whether each of my granddaughters will make it home safely only if her teachers have a firearm strapped to their hip.

In the midst of this turmoil, your Congressional colleagues sit silent. This time it was House members who voted to do nothing. The only action that was taken? In the midst of a public suffering and crisis, Congress voted to adjourn and go home for seven weeks, apparently exhausted from their many long days of doing nothing. Maybe that was for the best. Just shut it down, and blatantly confirm what the public already knows: that Congress is completely unable, uninterested, and unworthy in fulfilling its duty to protect and improve the lives of the citizenry. So it is time for you and your colleagues to just get out of the way. Either quit the job or be voted out. Step aside for new people – un-beholden to the gun industry – who have ideas and the energy to help find real solutions.

A package of multiple ideas is needed because that is what it will take to make a difference on this issue. Ideas that look at all aspects of this pervasive violence: the source of the violence; the tools of the violence; the perpetrators of the violence; the punishments for the violence; the glorification of the violence that encourages other perpetrators. Those who think “sending prayers” is enough of a response insult those fathers, mothers, siblings, spouses, and children who have suffered such great losses. They deserve better than you seem to have the capacity to give.

If you have nothing to offer, get out of the chair. I will vote NO to your reelection bid in November. Hopefully many others will do likewise. Three more letters still to go.

“Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it.”     (Chinese proverb)

Sincerely, Randy Bell

***

 

© 2016   Randy Bell                 www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Now There Are Two

The Republican and Democratic presidential primaries have ended. Thankfully, mercifully ended. There were originally 22 recognized, official party candidates for the nomination of their Party, five Democrats and 17 Republicans. Can you possibly remember all of their names? This was said to be the deepest pool of candidates ever, but some of them were politically unrecognizable. Once their campaigns started, others made you wonder: what were they possibly thinking – about themselves and the presidency – that had them imagining themselves as President of the United States of America? The “kid’s table” at a presidential debate became a new part of the political lexicon, testament to the implausibility of some candidates.

In a time when numerous serous issues scream out for serious discourse about directions, alternatives and plans, there has been a dearth of such a substantive discussion. The first half of the Democratic debates had some quality discussion on policies and programs, but once the voting started, the campaign went to the usual arguments about personalities and respective qualifications. The Republican debates never had an illusion of policy substance, as from the outset all conversation was centered on the latest outrageous comment from Donald Trump. It is hard to have a serious conversation in any setting when the loudest mouth in the room can speak only in insult, ridicule, and self-promotion. We have all personally experienced people who never allow someone else to share in a conversation. It may be somewhat entertaining in the moment; after a while, no one wants to invite the loud-mouth back again.

In the end, two candidates – Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, two 70ish-year olds in a year expected to be of new faces – appear to have emerged on top of their respective Party. All that remains are the formal roll calls in July to make it official. That said, both candidates are burdened with the two highest unfavorability ratings in history as of clenching their nominations. It is hard to make sense out of that paradox, even in this year that defies believability.

Hillary Clinton breaks the gender hurdle with her apparent nomination, 30 years after Geraldine Ferraro’s nomination for Vice President. Whether or not Clinton can crack the final gender barrier – becoming president – remains to be seen. Regardless, she deserves to be congratulated for her accomplishment thus far. Gender alone will not – and should not – entitle her to the presidency. Qualifications and competency still matter (hopefully). Clinton has been in public service for 30 years: First Lady of Arkansas; activist First Lady of the United States; United States Senator; previous candidate for President; Secretary of State. She has generally been acknowledged as smart and effective in promoting her political views, even with people who have disagreed with the specifics of those views. She has also inherited a bucket-load of negativity from longtime opponents of her husband. Caught in that vortex, combined with her penchant for privacy and her general distrust of press and politicians, it leaves many feeling her to be unknown, untrustworthy, and secretive. Yet it is hard to understand the reflex negativity many people have about her. The adjectives are spoken; the negativity is personal; rarely is offered actual reasons or proven specifics of anything she has done to so anger people. Is it simply style, or is it substance? It is unlikely we will hear any future substance when a bumper sticker slogan or Twitter quote more easily passes for political dialog.

Certainly we will have no substance from Donald Trump, who has never spent one day in public service. For almost one year, the man has spent minimal time on policy discussions or specific proposals. “I’m gonna build a beautiful wall” is neither idealized policy nor pragmatic action. (How deep does that wall have to go to block the underground tunnels that will be built under it?) What passes for “telling it like it is” is in fact nothing but shoot-from-the-hip, unfiltered thought-to-mouth utterances devoid of any previously thought-through principles and developed ideas. The man struggles to speak a coherent sentence, much less an intelligent paragraph. Instead of ideas to consider, we get an endless soliloquy of insults, demeaning nicknames, assurance of full self-confidence, and unproven reminders of how successful and wealthy he is. Given how thinned-skin he is, and unaccustomed to being questioned, challenged or held accountable, the insults have plenty to draw from,  That is, when he is not inciting ethnic hatred and violence while disclaiming any responsibility for same. (“Hit him; I’ll pay your legal bills.” “Ban *****.” [fill in any particular foreign or religious group.]) Trump’s proven talent is in “branding” and marketing the Trump name. He also excels at manipulating the legal/financial codes to insulate himself and avoid any personal responsibility or loss from his succession of business failures. With Trump, “Do unto others” comes out as “Do it to others.”

What Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders in a vastly different way, have thankfully done is to fully expose the deep anger that infuses voters against political ineffectiveness and self-interest. An anger justified after 21 years of a total focus on partisanship politics, non-action / non-results, and hypocrisy. For Republicans, they are now endorsing their presumptive nominee while concurrently distancing themselves from their candidate’s words as they agonize over the condition and future viability of their fractured Party. But it is a conundrum they brought on themselves by continually (and erroneously) preaching about an America in decline, which they promised to correct – promises gone unfulfilled. And now they are surprised when a loud-mouthed bully, completely independent and disdainful of the established political structure, comes along promising to “shake things up” and finds great success with rank-and-file Grand Old Party voters.

Of course, in this election year that is unlike any other, when virtually any imaginable scenario seems possible, there is still a chance that Mrs. Clinton’s and/or Mr. Trump’s name will be missing on the November ballot. Trump thus far has shown no ability or structure for running a national presidential campaign, has no real base of support within the Republican Party organization or elected politicians (phony endorsements notwithstanding), and must now give up his vaunted “self-funded” mantle to take Party and big-donor money to fund his campaign. Which will make him just like every other politician. Will the delegates revolt at the convention and dump him if he looks like an inevitable loser in November – potentially extending to myriad other “down ticket” Republican candidates? And if he is destined to lose, will Trump pack it in and quit the race (under some pretense), given his long expressed disdain for “losers”? In which case, who then shows up on the ballot? Nothing is a given.

Then there is Clinton. She knows how to organize and run a campaign, and will have a strong Party team to back her up. But her “email scandal” still looms. If the Justice Department finds cause to indict her for mishandling secret intelligence, pragmatically her nomination is over. In which case, who then shows up on the ballot? Nothing is a given.

Our general election year is not yet over, and a badly needed “pause and reset” is not in sight. If it is Trump versus Clinton, it is likely to be a very long five months of the dirtiest and un-substantive campaign in our 228-year presidential history. Welcome to the “new normal” – soundbite campaigns in the Twitter Age. Sitting home on Election Day is not an option. But is this really the election campaign, the candidates, the triviality we asked for? I doubt very much that this is what James Madison and his cohorts in Philadelphia expected us to do with their treasured handiwork two centuries later.

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Our Obligation To Each Other

What is our obligation to each other? If there is one, what is our level of commitment to meeting that obligation? And what is the most effective manner for us – individually or collectively – to fulfill that commitment? If we have no such obligation, what should then be done with those unable to adequately fend for themselves?

These are some of the most fundamental questions being asked of us today, demanding answers from us that we so studiously seek to avoid, the WHAT questions that should precede the HOW arguments. Is our only obligation to our one sole life, or do we share some measure of responsibility for the well-being of others? On a national level, what does being “an American” really mean?

For instance, does every child in America deserve to be fully fed, clothed and safely sheltered each and every day? If not, then what should we do with a hungry, unclothed or unsheltered child? Is every child responsible for him/her self regardless of their capability to do so?

We can ask a similar question about our older Americans. They have typically lived a productive lifetime, and have supported us in often intangible ways far distant and long invisible to us. Now they find their skills unwanted, their bodies insufficient, and their resources inadequate to their needs. What obligations do each of us have to each of these?

In a land which has the most advanced medical science capabilities in the world, to whom should this science be made available? Should all of those capabilities be available to all people, or all capabilities to only some of us, or should some portion of those capabilities be available to all? What level of safety of life and limb should be inherently available to an American?

The Founding Fathers strongly believed in the necessity of an educated public in order for the country to successfully progress and succeed as a free and prosperous democracy. Over the course of the mid-1800s through early 1900s, America committed to the universal education of all children, regardless of their ability to pay. Yet the quality of that education has never been universal due to issues of discrimination and varying economic support. Is our commitment only to the appearance of educating, or is it access to real quality of instruction regardless of one’s circumstances? And does this include education beyond the basics of adolescence?

We are bedeviled with similar questions around a host of other topics. But instead of answering fundamental questions about our shared obligations, we instead argue about individual self-responsibility, government welfare programs, tax liabilities and national debt, the proper roles for religions and charities, economic theories, and “the 1%.”

In the 1607 Jamestown settlement, founded in pursuit of individual economic success, “earn your own keep” and “work to provide for yourself or be left on your own,” became the social contract. That experience bequeathed to future generations a heritage of American rugged individualism and the expectation of economic success from one’s own hard work. Self-reliance was the foundation.

Conversely, the 1620 Puritan settlement of Plymouth was founded on pursuit of religious freedom to nurture the spirit, built upon a collective (communist) system of economic sharing. All members of the community shared in the collective bounty based upon one’s mutual obligation to each other. That experience bequeathed to future generations a heritage of looking out for one’s neighbor and sharing the wealth, particularly in times of personal disruption and crisis.

These two heritages have left Americans with an ongoing tension between self-responsibility and helping one’s neighbor. We have been inordinately successful economically by our creativity, inventiveness, and “can do” work ethic for 400 years. We have also been extraordinarily generous in our charitable work, giving and sacrificing for others not only locally but across the globe. It is a generosity recognized and rightfully appreciated by people of all backgrounds the world over.

Yet the tensions between self-responsibility and helping others remain, and is a growing divide today. Protecting our economic viability and strength is certainly necessary to be able to be generous. Every major religion – Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism – challenges us to be compassionate to, and accept a measure of responsibility for, the well-being of others, especially the “poor, the widows, and the orphans.” Billions of religious people routinely attend their respective houses or worship and attest their acceptance to these moral obligations. But as they end their ritual service and leave their gatherings, what then happens to that profession of obligation? How does it become realized or lost in the everyday business of daily living?

Perhaps as Americans there is no obligation between us, even though each of our lives, and our successes, has been made possible by the enabling actions of many others – often unseen and unknown to us. Perhaps we all make our own way, and create or lose our own reward. Perhaps our religious teachings only apply selectively, and only to those who we deem deserving of our favor. But instead of endless debates about what government should or should not be doing, and what programs should exist and which should be cut, perhaps we should change the discussion altogether. As a collective society with a national border, we have both the right and the ability to decide what our national obligations to each other will be, and how we will choose to execute those obligations. Whether it is every individual for his/her self, or whether all share together, or perhaps something in between.

But in such a discussion, let us first leave behind for the moment the safe protection of unengaged intellectual argument, mathematical economic theory, and abstract principles of governance that we pontificate in the privacy of our living rooms and social media forums. Let us instead encounter the very stark reality of “If not this, then what?” When the social program is cut, what then happens to the individual? If it is not me, then who will feed the hungry child?

©  2016   Randy Bell                www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

HB2

My adopted state of North Carolina has been quite prominent of late in the national news. Unfortunately, all that attention is due to a less-than-admirable controversial reason. In a special session, our state legislature recently passed a bill – “HB2” – that has a significant impact on both individual human rights as well as county/city governance. The content of this bill, and the process by which it was adopted, may be specific to North Carolina. However, the underlying principles involved are worthy of attention across the country.

HB2 has been called “the bathroom bill,” as it was triggered in response to the passing of a city ordinance in Charlotte to allow transgender people to utilize the public male/female restroom that they “identify with.” It was understandably a controversial decision in Charlotte, but was passed in a well-intended attempt to be supportive to one of the many difficulties faced by transgender people. Whether it was an appropriate response to those needs relative to the concerns of the non-transgender public is not the focus of this blog posting. Rather, this posting is about the extreme over-reaction to that ordinance by an hysterical legislature and governor.

If the legislation was genuinely concerned with transgender “men” using “women’s” restrooms (and vice versa), a specific law could have been passed overriding the Charlotte ordinance. The state constitution grants legislative law preemptive authority over county/city governments. Instead, the Legislature used the Charlotte ordinance as a cover story to go far beyond the specific and localized “transgender bathrooms in Charlotte” headline to also effectively prohibit counties and cities statewide from adopting any discrimination or economic rules beyond the minimalistic statutes in place at the state level.

Under the cover of some negative public reaction to sharing bathrooms with transgender persons, the Legislature restricted shared bathrooms in public facilities (e.g. government offices and public schools) to one’s biological sex as stated on the birth certificate. In addition, the statute included four broader restrictions:

1. prohibits locally passed non-discrimination policies that protect the rights of LBGT people;

2. bans local governments from setting wage or working conditions with its vendors;

3. prohibits local governments from establishing their own anti-discrimination policies – based upon race, natural origin, age, disability, gender or religion – beyond state standards;

4. prohibits citizens who believed they have been discriminated against from suing in state court. It also neutered the state Human Relations Commission to only “using its good offices to effect an amicable resolution of the complaints of discrimination.”

 

While LGBT persons are never overtly mentioned in the bill’s language, the law represents yet another rear-guard battleground against that community in the aftermath of the gay marriage decision. It also adds yet another homage to some in the business community of North Carolina by incorporating completely unrelated restrictions on employment and wages – neither of which have much to do with restrooms. These add-on items affect everyone within all current “protected groups.” These hidden onerous provisions of HB2 are the larger issue of this controversial law.

 

The specifics of the bill are distasteful on their face. But the process of the bill’s passage creates yet another case for strenuously opposing this law. The bill was introduced in the House on March 23^rd in a special legislative session called for this topic. There was little advance notice and no legitimate public comment. It passed that morning and went to the Senate, which passed it in the afternoon. The Governor then signed it into law during the evening. One day and done, in record time. Voting House and Senate Republicans supported the bill unanimously as a block; the Republican governor – a former mayor of Charlotte – signed it with no reservations about content or process.

 

It was all a show of political domination done in virtual secrecy at warp speed, obliterating the usual snail’s pace decision process inherently built into state governance. But this was also a continuation of reactive government pandering and sledgehammer politics. In 2012, a similar legislature passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage that followed a similar process of legislative deception and arrogance. Ultimately it was all for naught when a U.S. circuit judge ruled the amendment unconstitutional two years later, a decision subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. A lot of time, money, and good faith was wasted in that false pursuit. A similar waste is likely to follow with HB2.

 

HB2 is simply yet another battlefront in the continuing dead-end war over acceptance of the LGBT population within our larger community. It follows Indiana and Georgia’s attempts under a “religious freedom” heading to condone discrimination in the public place, a tactic now under active consideration in Mississippi, Arkansas, Michigan and Tennessee. Indiana and Georgia got shot down in their efforts by a surprisingly forceful stand from a wide swath of corporate America, using economic and/or job pressure to reverse this exercise before it even made it into the inevitable court lawsuits. A similar economic counterattack against HB2 is now occurring against a North Carolina state government that has claimed jobs and economic growth as its central priority. It is currently unclear whether corporate and public efforts will succeed in a similar reversal.

 

The transgender bathroom is a difficult issue for many citizens on both sides of this issue, and may be an issue that is too far a stretch at this particular moment in our society’s continual development. In a less polarized and politicized environment some better alternative or transitional solutions could have been developed by thoughtful people not rushing into action. HB2 is by no means any such thoughtful conclusion. And by going far beyond the restroom issue into the broader arena of overall human rights and workplace conditions, the Legislature showed its true colors and invalidated its whole involvement in the original subject.

 

The national Republican Party has long claimed to be the party for limited government intrusion into our lives. This Republican-dominated  legislature has consistently repudiated that claim by its micromanagement of local governments and individual citizens in instances far too numerous to itemize here. If these politicians had truly wanted to deal with transgender restroom issues, it could have opted to do so directly. If it wanted to protect businesses from discrimination lawsuits, and prevent local governments from managing their own affairs and making their own social and economic decisions, it could have been courageous and honest enough to do so separately and openly. Instead, they have displayed a glaring hypocrisy within a shadowy secrecy and a rejection of an open democratic process. North Carolina’s government deserves the national scorn and resistance that it is receiving.

 

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com