Happy Birthday, Congressman Raskin!

Back in July 2015, I posted a blog article titled "Happy Birthday, Senator Graham!” That was on the occasion of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s 60^th birthday—but I thought more of him then than in the years since.

This post is about Representative Jamie Raskin, who celebrates his 60^th birthday next Tuesday. I do not expect to be disappointed in him as I have been in Sen. Graham. 

Jamin Ben Raskin was born on December 13, 1962, the son of Jewish parents and the grandson of Russian Jewish immigrants to the U.S.  Raskin, who goes by the name Jamie, has B.A. and J.D. degrees from Harvard University.

For more than 25 years Raskin was a constitutional law professor at American University Washington College of Law. In 2006, he was elected to the Maryland Senate, where he served until 2016 when he was elected as Maryland’s 8^th district Representative to the U.S. Congress.

On July 1, 2021, Raskin was one of the seven Democrats appointed to the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Last month with nearly 80% of the vote, he was re-elected as a Representative for the third time.

Raskin has long lived in Takoma Park, Md., a D.C. suburban city that is adjacent to Silver Spring (where my two sons live).

Rep. Raskin suffered an “unthinkable” week from the last day of 2020 to January 6, 2021. The tragic story of that week, and much more, is told in his book Unthinkable: Trauma, Truth, and the Trials of American Democracy (2022).

On December 31, 2020, Raskin's office announced that his son Tommy, a graduate of Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring and a second-year student at Harvard Law School, died at the age of 25.

(My younger son, Ken, has taught at Blair for more than 20 years now, but he didn’t know Tommy; currently there are around 3,600 students at Blair, the largest public high school in Maryland.)

On January 4, 2021, Raskin and his wife posted an online tribute to their son, stating that following a prolonged battle with depression, Tommy had died by suicide. That was an unthinkable tragedy for the Raskin family.

In a farewell note, Tommy wrote, "Please forgive me. My illness won today. Look after each other, the animals and the global poor. All my love, Tommy."

Tommy was buried on January 5. On the very next day, Rep. Raskin was in the Capitol with his daughter and son-in-law during the January 6 Capitol attack.

On that fateful day, Raskin had to experience the unthinkable attack on the U.S. Capitol—with the realistic fear that he could be killed along with many others gathered there on what should have been routine congressional business.

Hours later he began drafting an article of impeachment against President Trump, and six days later House Speaker Pelosi named Raskin the lead manager of Trump's second impeachment.

His book, Unthinkable, focuses on his son's life as well as his preparation for the impeachment trial. Whether you read all the book or not, I highly recommend reading the powerful 35-page Prologue.

(Raskin’s book should be available in most public libraries; I read the Kindle version checked out from my local library.)

Rep. Raskin is a man of intelligence, empathy, and moral integrity—at least that is my appraisal of him at this time.

We often hear negative things said about the top politicians in the country. I had a friend who regularly referred to the Congresscritters. And, sadly, there are some of Raskin’s colleagues in the 435-member House of Representatives who doubtlessly merit widespread criticism.

While I regret that there are many current House members who are of rather small caliber—and many of those have been re-elected for another two years—I am grateful that there are also many Representatives of high quality, and certainly Rep. Raskin is one of the best.

The House will likely be rather chaotic in the coming two years, but after the 2024 election I strongly hope for a better House with more exemplary members like Raskin.

_____

Note: I asked the Chat GTP online AI program (https://chat.openai.com/chat) to improve my concluding paragraph. I agree with their lengthier, and unaltered, statement, which was produced in less than ten seconds:

In the coming two years, the House of Representatives may experience a great deal of turmoil and unrest. However, after the 2024 election, I am hopeful that we will see a more cohesive and effective House, with members who are dedicated to serving the best interests of the American people. One such member who exemplifies these qualities is Representative Jamie Raskin, who has shown himself to be a thoughtful and principled leader. I believe that with more members like Raskin, the House will be better able to tackle the challenges facing our nation and work towards a brighter future for all Americans.

Determinedly Defending Democracy

You probably have heard/read about last week’s “Summit for Democracy,” convened by President Biden via Zoom on Dec. 9-10. In spite of criticism from totalitarian governments (especially from China) and some domestic opponents, the President sought determinedly to defend democracy.

(Here is the link to the President’s closing remarks on Dec. 10.)

The Decline of Democracy

Freedom House is a non-profit, non-governmental organization in Washington, D.C., that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights. Here is part of their report for 2021: 

Accordingly, President Biden warned world leaders at the Summit for Democracy on Dec. 9 of a “backward slide” in democracy around the globe and urged them to champion the form of government that needs concerted work to be sustained through an “inflection point in history.” (See here.)

The editors of the Dec. 15 issue of The Christian Century wrote of “Democracy’s death spiral” in the U.S., declaring that right now democracy “is under open attack.” (You can read that powerful editorial on p. 7 here).

And even Pope Francis has recently lamented that democracy has deteriorated dangerously as discontented people are lured by the “siren songs” of populist politicians who promise easy but unrealistic solutions. (The Pope expressed that sentiment on Dec. 4 as reported by Reuters.)

The Threat to Democracy

The biggest domestic threat to U.S. democracy in everyone’s lifetime was the attempted coup by Donald Trump and his fanatical supporters on January 6 of this year. But according to Barton Gellman, January 6 was practice for what is coming. 

Gellman (b. 1960) was on the staff of The Washington Post for 21 years, but now is a staff writer at The Atlantic. His cover story for the Jan./Feb. 2022 issue of that venerable magazine (founded in 1857) is “Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun.”

It is becoming increasingly clear from the indefatigable work of the January 6 Committee that the events on that volatile day at the Capitol were not due to outside rabble-rousers. It clearly was an inside job, that is, plotted from inside the White House.

An opinion piece in the Dec. 14 issue of The Washington Post is titled “Trump’s PowerPoint coup plotters were crackpots. We may not be so lucky next time.”

In that article, columnist Dana Milbank quips that then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, now being held in contempt of Congress (for his refusal to testify), “would more properly be held in contempt of competence.”

Milbank concludes by saying that on 1/6/21 “democracy was saved only by the bumbling of the coup plotters.” Next time, though, “we may not be so lucky.”

The Defense of Democracy

To a large extent, the defense of U.S. democracy is up to the Congress—and up to us voters who elect the 535 voting members of Congress. That is why next year’s election is so important. All 435 members of the House will be elected, of course, and 34 Senate seats will be decided.

But now the changes in election procedures in numerous states jeopardizes a truly democratic election next year.

The President was determinedly defending democracy at the Summit for Democracy last week. Now he must do everything necessary to defend U.S. democracy in 2022 and beyond.

Addendum: What about Democracy in the Church?

This article has been about the form of government employed, or rejected, by nation states. But what about churches, either as denominations or as local congregations? As a baptist (lower case intended), I am a strong advocate of democracy in church government.

I wonder, though, about the contradiction in the thinking of people who are advocates of democracy in the national government but have no qualms about accepting a hierarchical, non-democratic form of government for churches.

For example, is the completely hierarchical (authoritarian?) structure of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, in direct contradiction to the Pope’s good word about political democracy?

Lying Down with the Lions

Although perhaps he is now not widely known or remembered, this article is posted as a tribute to Ron Dellums, a man whom I long admired—and who died a year ago today, on July 30, 2018.  

Ron Dellums (1997 portrait by Andre White)

Who Was Ron Dellums?

Ronald Vernie Dellums was born in West Oakland, Calif., in 1935. Following a stint in the Marine Corps from 1954~56, Ron earned the B.A. degree from San Francisco State University in 1960 and his Master of Social Work degree from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1962.

After working for a few years as a social worker and a community organizer, in 1967 Dellums won his first political election and became a member of the Berkeley [Calif.] City Council. Three years later he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served for the next 27 years without interruption.

Dellums decided to retire from the House in 1998, although he would undoubtedly have won re-election for another term had he wished to remain in Congress. Later he did run for another political office and consequently succeeded Jerry Brown as Mayor of Oakland (Calif.), serving in that office from 2007~11.

At the age of 82, Dellums died of complications from prostate cancer.

Why Praise Ron Dellums?

You might wonder why I was such an admirer of Congressman Dellums and why I am writing about him now. In the early 1970s, I became aware of, and appreciative of, Dellums because of his thoroughgoing opposition to the war in Vietnam/Indochina.

(I probably first heard of Dellums from reading The Post-American, which began publication in 1971 largely as an anti-Vietnam War tabloid and which later became Sojourners magazine.)

All along I liked Dellums’s consistent opposition to increased military spending and support for more spending on anti-poverty programs. And then later I—and Nelson Mandela!—applauded his pivotal part in helping to end apartheid in South Africa.

Overall, I was an admirer of Dellums because of his commitment to the implementation of principles he learned from Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1967 he heard King give a speech in Berkeley. In that talk, King argued that “peace is more than merely the absence of war, it is the presence of justice.”

Dellums accepted the truth of what King said. He realized (as recorded in the book cited below), “By working for peace you must work for justice; by working for justice you work to bring about peace” (p. 49). His whole political career was rooted in that realization.

When he announced his retirement from Congress in 1997, he said that he knew he had “maintained faith.” He stated, “I had been comprehensive in my moral concerns; I had sought to live and work from a perspective of peace; I had sought to link the quest for peace with the quest for justice” (p. 198).

When he left his congressional seat, Dellums was succeeded by Barbara Lee, whom he mentored and whom I have also admired over the last 20 years. (Lee, b. 1946, still is serving in the House.)

Why Read Ron Dellums?

Dellums’s political memoir was published in 2000 under the title Lying Down with the Lions. It is an engrossing book that I greatly enjoyed reading.

Written with the assistance of H. Lee Halterman, a white man who was his chief aide for 28 years, Dellums’s book details the inspiration behind, the struggles in, and the accomplishments of his political career up to his departure from the House.

The title apparently comes from Isaiah’s vision of the peaceable kingdom (see Isaiah 11:6-7). It was inspiring to me and many others to have a U.S. Congressman with that kind of vision. May his tribe increase!

A Woman in the House

Currently, there are 83 women who serve in the United States House of Representatives. That is 19.1% of the 435 House members, and about 3/4 of those 83 are Democrats. There have not always been women in the House, however.

THE FIRST WOMAN IN THE HOUSE

Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first female to serve in the U.S. Congress. In fact, it was 100 years ago this week that she became the first woman in the House.

Rankin was born in 1880 in Montana Territory, nine years before it became a state. In 1914, women’s suffrage was passed in both Montana and Nevada. They thus became the tenth and eleventh states to give women the right to vote.

Rankin had joined the suffrage movement in 1910 when she was working in an orphanage in Seattle. Partly because of her efforts, Washington voted for women’s suffrage in November of that year. 

Rankin then moved back to Montana, and in February 1911 she made her case for women's suffrage before the Montana legislature. That was the first time a woman had spoken to that body. It took until November of 1914, but then Montana also decided to allow women to vote.

Rankin decided to run in 1916 as a Republican for one of the two U.S. House of Representatives seats from Montana—and she won! In her first time to vote she voted for herself.

Rankin was introduced in Congress as its first female member on April 2, 1917.

THE FIRST WOMAN’S PACIFISM

On the very day she took office, Pres. Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress and urged a declaration of war against Germany, and on April 6 the vote went to the House.

Rankin was one of 50 representatives who voted against the American declaration of war—and she became the one most criticized for her negative vote.

Knowing she had little chance of being re-elected to the House, in 1918 Rankin ran for the Senate. However, she was unsuccessful. She was then no longer a member of Congress until her election in 1940 to serve once more as a Representative from Montana.

Soon, on Dec. 8, 1941, Congress voted once again on another declaration of war. Also, once again, Rankin voted against going to war—and this time she was the only one to cast a dissenting vote.

She was also once again widely maligned for voting against war. Here was the headline in one newspaper: 

Rankin, however, was consistently against war during her long lifetime.

In 1967, at the age of 87 and sixty years after first taking a seat in Congress, she organized the Jeannette Rankin Brigade, an organization that publicly protested against the Vietnam War.

Rankin died in 1973 at the age of 93.

WOMEN IN THE HOUSE NOW

The nation has moved considerably toward women’s equality since 1917—but many would argue not nearly far enough. Perhaps more women would mean a more peaceful country and a more peaceful world.

Not all women are against war the way Jeannette Rankin was. Still, there may be great truth in these words she spoke in 1925:

The work of educating the world for peace is a woman’s job, because men are afraid of being classed as cowards.

Maybe we should also agree with this statement: 

However, not all women are the same. I am not impressed by, nor a supporter of, the two women among the current eight U.S. Representatives from Missouri.

The women I want in Congress are people like Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who has served in the House since 1998--and like Jeannette Rankin, the first woman in the House.

Tearing Down / Building Up

To quote Mortimer Snerd (whom a few of you may remember), “Who'd a thunk it?” Last Friday the bill to repeal and replace “Obamacare” was pulled from the House floor. Thus, the ACA is still the law of the land “for the foreseeable future,” according to Speaker Paul Ryan.

TEARING DOWN OBAMACARE

For seven years the Republicans have been opposed to the ACA. The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to repeal or amend ACA more than 50 times since it was passed in October 2009.

As Time reported last week, “Republicans took control of the House in 2011, and on January 19 of that year they voted on, and passed, a measure to repeal all of the Affordable Care Act. (It was never considered by the Senate).”

Before and since his election, Pres. Trump has publicly promised at least 68 times that he would lead in repealing and replacing Obamacare. Here is what he tweeted on Feb. 14: “Obamacare continues to fail. . . . Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.”

(Those 68 statements can be found at this website.)

There is a big difference, however, between tearing something down and building something to take its place.

FAILING TO BUILD A REPLACEMENT

In thinking about the failure of the American Health Care Act, I was reminded of an anonymous poem that I first heard 60 or so years ago (in spite of a woman claiming on the Internet that her grandfather wrote it in 1967). 

The Republicans found out that it is much easier to repeal (tear down) the current healthcare system that to replace it by building a new healthcare program. Wrecking is much easier than building.

So, where does national healthcare go from here?

PROPOSAL: RENAME AND BUILD UP

The current impasse could be overcome and a new and approved healthcare system could be implemented in this way:

First, Democrats would agree to call an improved healthcare system by the name of the Republican bill that was never voted on: the American Health Care Act. It would no longer be called Obamacare—just as it should probably never have been called that in the first place.

Then, the Republicans would agree to work with the Democrats in improving (building up what is already in place) the parts of ACA which are not working well: making it more affordable for everyone, giving people more choice, continuing to expand the program to cover all Americans, and so on.

Senate Minority Leader Schumer has already indicated willingness to cooperate in the hard work of building a better system. He is reported as saying, “If they [the Republicans] would denounce repeal . . . then we’ll work with them on improving it and making it better.”

Bipartisan efforts to build a better healthcare system is, doubtlessly, what the vast majority of the American people want—although it would still be opposed by those on the far right.

The latter would, also doubtlessly, continue to oppose having the federal government directly involved in healthcare, having equal or greater demand for taxes to pay for the continued (or expanded) program, and of not having tax breaks for the wealthy.

Constantly opposing any plan to tear down the current system and thus deprive millions of people from healthcare coverage, citizens who are concerned about all the people in our nation must demand that Congress build up (repair) the current healthcare system so it is better for all.

_____

THE REST OF THE POEM

For those of you who may be interested, here is the rest of the poem cited above: 

Four Concerns about the New Congress

In early January 2015 the 114^th U.S. Congress will convene for the first time. As a result of the Nov. 4 election, both chambers will be controlled by Republicans.

Senators in the 114th Congress

Some of the new senators, such as Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, are quite conservative. Consequently, I have four serious concerns about the new Congress.

Personally, I will likely be impacted little by the new Congress. In fact, my modest portfolio might grow even more than it has in the past two years. So my concerns are not personal.

But my Christian faith compels me to love all people, especially the weakest and most vulnerable people in our country, as well as to care for the earth God has placed us on. So from this perspective here are four of my greatest concerns about what the new Congress and the new Missouri legislature will, or will not, do.

(1) My first and biggest concern is for the poor people across the nation, the people (and especially the children) who do not have enough to eat, who do not have adequate housing, and who do not have sufficient health care.

Conservative, Tea Party type legislators seem to be primarily interested in reducing the size of government and lowering taxes. Cuts in welfare, or the so-called safety net, are common proposals for those with this mentality.

But, for the well-being of a sizable percentage of people in poverty, in addition to sustaining their welfare provisions there needs to be an expansion of Medicaid eligibility.

Missouri is one of many states where the latter is badly needed. But with the new General Assembly, that likely won’t be done.

And while their efforts will not be successful, the U.S. Senate will possibly try to repeal “Obamacare,” removing millions from healthcare insurance.

(2) I am also concerned about the new Congress exercising adequate care for the environment. Republican congresspeople, such my Missouri Sixth District Representative Sam Graves, repeatedly criticize regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, whose purpose is to protect the earth for the coming generations.

And it is quite likely that Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a global warming denier, will be the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Heaven help us!

(3) Concern for the children of “illegal immigrants.” Immigration reform has long been a major desire of the President and many legislators.

The Senate passed a comprehensive bill last year, but the House never even took it up. I am very concerned that this needed legislation will not be passed and that the President will take executive action leading to turmoil and even greater dysfunction in Washington.

(4) Concern for women and gays/lesbians as there is the likelihood of further anti-abortion laws and rejection of LGBT rights.

One does not have to agree with women who seek an abortion or of gays/lesbians who want to have legal marriages in order to uphold their civil rights.

If the new U.S. Congress passes legislation necessary to help the poor of the country to survive and to raise what is often a wretched standard of living, passes legislation that will protect the environment for the sake of our grandchildren, passes legislation that will give dignity and stability to the past and future immigrants into this country, and if they pass legislation that respects the freedom and dignity of women and LGBT people, then perhaps the election results were all right.

But until I see all the above happening, I will continue to have grave concerns about the election outcome on November 4.

What are Republicans Thinking?

This article is not about Republicans in general. Rather it is particularly about the Republicans in the U.S. Congress.

The record of these Republican Congresspersons over the last three years has been quite consistent: they have almost unanimously opposed nearly everything the President has proposed.

There has always been political division in the country, but perhaps there has never been as much polarity as there is now.

In the Senate, the Democrats became so frustrated last week that they even used the “nuclear option” and changed the rules for approving nominations for executive and judicial positions.

That was not necessarily a good thing. But neither is the ceaseless obstructionism that led to that extreme, and possibly unwise, decision.

In particular, I am raising the question about what are Republican lawmakers thinking in their ongoing, obdurate opposition to positions that the large majority of U.S. citizens, including Republicans, are for.

Consider four such issues: (1) legislation to outlaw hiring/firing discrimination against gays/lesbians, (2) immigration reform, (3) background checks for those who want to purchase guns, and (4) raising the minimum wage.

(1) On Nov. 7, the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) by a vote of 64-32. (One of the negative votes was by Republican Senator Blunt of Mo.) But at this point, Rep. Boehner has refused to bring the bill up for a vote in the Republican dominated House.

A recent Gallup poll found that nationwide ENDA is supported by 63% of the citizens nationwide, with only 31% opposing it. Even among Republicans, there were 58% in favor and only 36% in opposition.

(2) Back in June, the Senate passed an immigration bill by a 68-32. (The negative votes were all by Republicans, including Senator Blunt.)

But it has yet to be approved by the House, even though earlier this year a CNN poll showed that 84% of the public (78% of the Republicans) backs a program that would allow undocumented workers to stay in the United States and apply for citizenship if they have been in the country for several years, have a job, and pay back taxes.

(3) The tragic school shootings at Sandy Hook were nearly a year ago. There were outcries across the nation for more stringent gun control. In April the Senate bill to extend background checks received 54 votes—but was killed by a Republican filibuster.

A subsequent Gallup poll then indicated that 65% of Americans thought that Senate bill should have passed; only 29% thought it shouldn’t have.

(4) Back in March, Senator Harkin (D-IA) proposed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, calling for an increase from the current $7.25 to $10.10. This month after passing ENDA, the Senate began to consider Sen. Harkin’s bill along with other possibilities.

This month, a Gallup poll indicated that U.S. citizens favor raising the minimum wage to at least $9.00 by a margin of 76% to 22% (and 58% to 39% among Republicans). But the Senate has yet to come up with anything that they think will be able to clear an expected Republican filibuster.

So here are four hot issues with overwhelming public support for change but which are opposed by Republicans in Congress—which leads again to my question: What can they be thinking?

And how can they claim to be representing the citizens of the country when they keep opposing what a large majority of the citizens are for?

Of course another pertinent question is this: Why do people keep electing lawmakers who do not vote according to the desires of the majority of the American people?