Looking Back, Looking Ahead

In her December 31 sermon, my pastor told us about Sankofa, a concept/symbol that comes from the Akan people who live mainly in Ghana. I had not previously heard of Sankofa, but Pastor Ruth’s use of that idea on Dec. 31 was surely appropriate.

Sankofa is also appropriate for us to think about now in this second week of the new year. 

Sankofa is often illustrated as a beautiful bird with its head turned backward taking an egg off its back. It symbolizes the West African proverb about the importance of reaching back to the past, learning from it, and using that knowledge to create a more desirable future.

According to what ChatGPT told me, “The Sankofa is deeply rooted in African philosophy and is often used to emphasize the significance of cultural heritage, knowledge and the interconnectedness of past, present, and future.”

As Pastor Ruth showed us in her sermon, this symbol is at the very top of the new (2019) Sankofa Peace Window at the New Mount Pilgrim Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago. (Click here to see a picture of that impressive window.)**

It is certainly appropriate for African American people to use the Sankofa symbol as they seek to acknowledge their past heritage in endeavoring to create a better future for themselves in this country.

That same emphasis, though, is something we all, regardless of race or nationality, can borrow and apply to our lives with considerable benefit at the beginning of this new year.

Sankofa can be linked to the ancient Roman god Janus, the god with two faces, one looking forward and the other one backward. The English word January, as you probably know, is named after Janus. 

Both Sankofa and Janus symbolize a dual-faced looking backward and forward, but Sankofa is more noteworthy. Janus was primarily the god of beginnings and transitions, associated with the passage of time and the start of a new phase.

Sankofa is more meaningful, though, because it places a significant emphasis on learning from the past for the benefit of the future.

Utilizing the Sankofa concept in this critical year of 2024 is of great importance. We need to learn from the past year, or past few years, to help us make wise decisions in this new year.

Many things might be considered in this regard, and I encourage each of you to consider what you can learn from your own past experiences to forge a better future for yourself and your loved ones in the year ahead.

Here, however, I want primarily to think with you about the debacle that took place three years ago on January 6 in our nation’s Capitol.

At a news conference last Thursday (Jan. 4), Matthew Graves, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, said,

On January 6, 2021, the United States lost control of the grounds around its Capitol and most of the Capitol itself. Thousands of people descended on the Capitol, and hundreds of people within the mob used force and violence to overwhelm the vastly outnumbered law enforcement officers protecting the building and those who work within it.

Then on January 5, President Biden made an important speech in Pennsylvania, not far from Valley Forge, where General George Washington quartered his troops from December 1777 to June 1778 during the Revolutionary War.

That war, the President said, was about “Freedom, liberty, democracy.” “Valley Forge,” he emphasized, “tells the story of the pain and the suffering and the true patriotism it took to make America.” But three years ago, when insurrectionists tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power on January 6, 2021, “we nearly…lost it all.”

When all the facts are examined, it seems undeniable that by his words and actions, the 45^th President of the U.S. was the one who instigated the violence of that unruly mob.

For the sake of preserving the democracy that has been at the heart of this nation from the beginning, it is imperative that we look back and properly assess the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and look ahead to November with the resolve to do all we can to keep Donald Trump from becoming the 47^th POTUS.

_____

** This is the third remarkable stained-glass window installed in that church since the MAAFA Remembrance Window was unveiled in 2000. The term “maafa” is a Swahili word that means “great disaster” or “great tragedy.” It is often used to refer to the African Holocaust or the transatlantic slave trade, during which millions of Africans were captured, enslaved, and transported to the Americas and other parts of the world (ChatGPT). The window pictures a representation of Christ whose torso contains a schematic of a slave ship.

Note: Last week I discovered that a novel titled Sankofa was published in 2021, and I am reading it now and finding it quite interesting. It is by Chibundu Onuzo, a woman born in Nigeria in 1991 and who has lived in England since 2005. It was Reese Witherspoon’s book club “pick” for Oct. 2021. 

Crises within Crises

For this blog post, I originally intended to write only about COP28, the international meeting dealing with the ever-growing environmental crisis. Then, I read powerful opinion pieces by Robert Kagan and became alarmed at the expanding political crisis in the U.S.

But how can we neglect to consider the crises in Gaza, Ukraine, and other countries where warfare continues, such as in Myanmar and Sudan that get far less press coverage? In addition, there are millions of individuals in our world who are facing personal crises of various sorts.

Indeed, there are crises within crises that threaten the well-being and even the survival of individuals, nations, and the world civilization as a whole. Please think with me about these crises, beginning with the outer circle that includes the whole world and moving down to the inner circle of individuals. 

The ever-growing environmental crisis was the central concern of COP28, which met in Dubai, the largest city in the United Arab Emirates, from Nov. 30 to Dec. 12.*¹ The first COP meeting, convened in Berlin, was in 1995 and there have been yearly meetings since then.

As I have repeatedly pointed out over the last two years, the current ecological predicament is a crisis that threatens the very existence of the world as we know it (TWAWKI). Some progress was made toward alleviating the global environmental crisis at COP28, but it’s probably too little too late.*²

There will be dire consequences for most of the world’s population if drastic changes are not made soon, which is highly unlikely. This is the existential crisis in which all the other crises exist.

The wars in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza are crises for people living in those areas of the world. But there is an ongoing possibility that they will expand into larger wars. In the worst-case scenario, either of these wars could conceivably escalate into World War III.

These crises are rather localized now, but they might conceivably enlarge to rival the ecological crisis as an existential threat to TWAWKI.

Within these two larger crises is the political crisis in the United States. While this crisis is only brewing at present, there is a real and present danger of democracy being replaced in the U.S. with a form of fascism.

I had not been aware of scholar and journalist Robert Kagan until this month, but he is an editor at large for The Washington Post (WaPo) and has been a foreign policy adviser to U.S. Republican presidential candidates as well as to Democratic administrations via the Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kagan (b. 1958) left the Republican Party due to the party's nomination of Donald Trump and endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

Kagan’s Nov. 30 and Dec. 7 WaPo articles were titled “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending,” and “The Trump dictator-ship: How to stop it.” (These are long pieces, but well worth reading and reflecting on.)

Some Republican politicians are sounding the same warning. For example, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney's new book (released Dec. 5) is titled Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning. (Hear her talk about that in this Dec. 4 interview on NPR.)

On Dec. 10, Sen. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, expressed the same sentiment, although more mildly, on “Meet the Press.”*³

There is a lot that can happen between now and Election Day next November, but USAmericans must be aware of the danger of losing their democracy—and minorities, the poor, and the underprivileged are the ones who would suffer most under a non-democratic government.

We common people may not be able to do much about the ecological crisis or the crisis in Ukraine or Gaza, but we do have the power to vote and to encourage our friends and neighbors to be informed and to vote accordingly.

The inner circle is the crisis of individuals who are suffering from illness, poverty, discrimination, or personal tragedies. We pray that many of these people will experience new hope during this Christmas season. Who is one such person you can help between now and December 25?

_____

*¹ COP stands for the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Click here to access the UNFCCC website.)

*² Here is the link to a helpful summary of the mixed results of COP28 on The Guardian’s Dec. 14 website.

*³ See here; Romney’s discussion of this matter begins at about 7 min. 45 sec. into the program. 

Election Reflections (Nov. 2022)

The results of Tuesday’s midterm elections in the U.S. are mostly, but not completely, known at this point. I thought about waiting until my Nov. 15 blog post to share my election reflections, but I decided to go ahead and write this on the day after those important November 8 elections. 

Although most of you Thinking Friends and other of my blog readers know which political party I identify with, please know that I write what I do here primarily from the viewpoint of a progressive Christian believer, not as the member of any political party.   

THE MOST ENCOURAGING RESULTS:

** Democracy is surviving. In spite of challenges, it seems that democracy is alive and well in the U.S. Historian Mark K. Updegrove tweeted that Tuesday’s “big winners” include, “Democracy, with huge voter turnout and many high-profile election deniers losing big.”

On Nov. 2, President Biden gave an important speech urging the citizenry to protect democracy. Yesterday, one week later, he gave another speech in which he said that Tuesday had been “a good day for democracy.”

** The Democrats will probably retain control of the Senate. Although we will not know until after the runoff election on Dec. 6 in Georgia, it seems likely that control will remain with the Democrats. This is of great importance for the President, especially for the appointment of judges.

** Two noteworthy results in Pennsylvania. Not only was the election of John Fetterman crucial for the Democrats retaining control of the Senate, the defeat of Doug Mastriano’s bid for the governorship was also a victory for religious freedom and maintaining the separation of church and state.

** Two noteworthy results (maybe) in Arizona. The likely re-election of Sen. Mark Kelly was also crucial for the Democrats, and the probable defeat of Kari Lake for the governorship was also significant as she is one of the most outspoken MAGA Republicans and “darling” of right-wing extremists.

THE MOST DISAPPOINTING RESULTS:

** The Republicans have gained control of the House. Although it may be several days before the final numbers are known, the Republicans now have a small majority in the House.

Why is this disappointing? Among other things, the January 6 Committee will likely be disbanded before completion of its work, legislation to fight global warming will probably lessen greatly, and perhaps there will be impeachment charges against Pres. Biden and Attorney General Garland.

However, the size of the GOP majority is far less than most political pundits expected.

Here are the opposition Party’s House gains in three recent midterm elections: the Dems. gained 31 seats in 2006, the Reps. gained 63 seats in 2010, and the Dems gained 41 seats in 2018. This year the expected “red wave” was more like what one of my friends called a “pink puddle.”

** The defeat of good candidates by questionable opponents. There are many names that might be noted here, but two of those are Mandela Barnes, who lost his bid for the Wisconsin Senate seat, and J.D. Vance, who won the Senate seat in Ohio.

Barnes (b. 1986) narrowly lost to incumbent Ron Johnson, a staunch ally of Donald Trump. Barnes was vying to become the first Black Senator from Wisconsin, but lost by just 1%, perhaps mainly because of the racist attack ads against him (see here).

I was impressed by Vance in the movie Hillbilly Elegy, based on his 2016 memoir. But even though he was originally a critic of Trump, in Oct. 2021 he expressed agreement with Trump’s claim that he lost the 2020 election because of voter fraud. Subsequently, Trump endorsed Vance.

I was also sad that Stacey Abrams lost (for the second time) her bid to become the governor of Georgia. But I am hopeful that she will be instrumental in the re-election of Sen. Warnock in the Dec. runoff as she was in 2020.

Well, there is so much more that could (and maybe should) be said about this week’s midterm elections, but this, in part, is the view from this Seat/seat at this point. How do things look from where you are sitting?

The Extraordinarily Important Midterm Elections

It is only 19 days until the midterm elections in the U.S., and since there are some who will be voting early (and some may have already voted), I am writing about those extraordinarily important elections now—although I realize that this post will not likely change how anyone will vote. Still . . . .  

John Darkow in the Columbia Missourian (10/12)

The most important elections on November 8 are those for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, although there are also significant gubernatorial and other state elections as well.

For example, each state’s secretary of state is quite important as they could skew elections, as The Washington Post clearly delineated last month in an article titled "What an election denier could do if elected secretary of state.”

By far, though, the most important elections are in the 34 states that will be voting for a Senator. The voters in those states will determine which Party will be in control of the Senate for the next two years.

And, as is true every two years, all 435 Representatives in Congress will be elected in November.

The winners of many of those 469 elections are almost certain already. In my home state of Missouri, the Republican candidate for Senator has a 99% chance of winning according to FiveThirtyEight (538), the website that focuses on opinion poll analysis

And Rep. Sam Graves in Missouri’s sixth district (where I live) will almost certainly be re-elected for a twelfth term as a U.S. Representative. So, for us Missouri (and sixth district) voters, voting is important mainly for statewide and county offices.

But there are several states where the senatorial election is of great importance. According to 538, the closest, and thus the most significant, races currently are in Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.

The most troubling elections on November 8 are those that include candidates who do not accept the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

 “A majority of GOP nominees deny or question the 2020 election results” is the title of an October 12 article in The Washington Post. According to author Amy Gardner, there are 291 candidates who have challenged or refused to accept Joe Biden’s victory—51 percent of the 569 analyzed.

In spite of warnings that citizens should not vote for candidates who deny or question the outcome of the 2020 election even though there is ample evidence that it was a fair election and there is no proof whatsoever that it was “stolen,” sadly, many will vote for those nominees anyway.

The article mentioned above links to a list of the deniers in every state. The Missouri Republican candidate for the Senate and for the sixth district are both on that list—and as I indicated above, both are almost certain to win their respective races.

The November 8 elections are extraordinarily important because the future of democracy in the USA is in grave jeopardy if those who deny or disregard election results take control of Congress.

The October 10 opinion piece by eminent columnist Eugene Robinson (b. 1954) was titled, “The 2022 midterms are the most important of my lifetime.” (Click here to read that article without a paywall.) Here is part of what he wrote:

Vital issues are at stake on Election Day. Abortion rights are gravely threatened after the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Voting rights, especially for minorities, are imperiled. Efforts to fight climate change and make the transition to a clean-energy economy would at least be slowed if Republicans took either the House or the Senate.
       But the overarching issue is what President Biden calls the fight for “the soul of this nation.” Do we continue our halting but undeniable progress toward making the Constitution’s guarantees of rights and freedoms apply to all Americans? Or do we reverse course?

“Will the U.S. Remain a Democracy?” was the title of my May 25 blog post. Now, nearly five months later, it is even more questionable that democracy will prevail in this country. To a large extent, the answer to the question depends on the outcome of the November 8—and the 2024—elections.

How will you vote?

Will the U.S. Remain a Democracy?

Benjamin Franklin, a four-hour documentary directed and produced by Ken Burns, first aired on PBS early last month. This blog was inspired by Franklin’s words near the end of that highly informative film. 

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 opened its first session on May 25, exactly 235 years ago. The 55 delegates (from 12 of the 13 states in the new nation) chose George Washington to preside. Other notable delegates were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin.

At 81, Franklin was the elder statesman at the Convention—and arguably the most influential.

When the time came to sign their drafted document, Franklin encouraged his fellow delegates to give the proposed Constitution their unanimous support, despite the fact that he himself did not approve of every aspect of the new plan of government.

Franklin concluded: “On the whole . . . I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention . . . would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to the instrument.”

“A Republic, if You Can Keep It”: these were the words spoken by Franklin as he was leaving the last session of the Constitutional Convention on September 17. It was in response to a question about the nature of the government in the new Constitution. 

The question was about whether the new country would be a monarchy or a republic. That is, would there be a king, or a government elected by eligible voters.

A republic is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law” (Merriam-Webster).

Preserving the U.S. government as a republic seems to be one thing current Republicans as well as Democrats agree on.

In September 2019, when House Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the formal impeachment inquiry of Pres. Trump, she used the words of Franklin to back her arguments.

That same month, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump nominee, issued a book titled A Republic, If You Can Keep It.

Can the U.S. be Kept a Democracy? This is the burning question for the U.S. now. There seems to be little threat to the U.S. remaining a republic. The Republican Party is in support of that—although some question whether there is full support by the most ardent Trumpists. But the matter of remaining a democracy is a more precarious matter.

The Democratic Party is certainly not opposed to the U.S. remaining a republic, but they firmly believe it should be a democratic republic.

It should be noted that “democracy” is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. Accordingly, some present-day Republicans and rightwing “talking heads,” insist that the U.S. government is not and was not intended to be a democracy.

The Democrats, naturally, strongly disagree, as do most political science scholars. The title of a November 2020 article in The Atlantic is “‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument.” But that flawed argument has even been made by U.S. senators.  

In October 2020, Utah Senator Mike Lee (R) sent a series of tweets declaring that the United States is "not a democracy" and that "democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are.”*

Earlier this year, sociologists Phillip S. Gorski and Samuel L. Perry’s book The Flag and The Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy was published. The authors refer to democracy as rule by “the people,” which also includes universal suffrage, human rights, and equality under the law (p. 114).

They declare, “As white Christians approach minority status, white Christian nationalists are starting to turn against American democracy.” They further assert that “white Christian nationalism has become a serious threat to American democracy, perhaps the most serious threat it now faces” (p. 8).

As a White Christian who is definitely not a nationalist, I urge you to join in the struggle to keep the U.S. a democracy—a federal government of, by, and for the people such as Pres. Lincoln envisioned in his Gettysburg Address delivered in November 1863.**

_____

* For example, on Oct. 7, 2020, Lee tweeted, “We’re not a democracy.” That brief statement was “liked” by 31,600 people and retweeted over 4,500 times.

** For more about this, see my June 20, 2016, blog post.

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?

Peril in the Pursuit of Political Power

Peril is defined as “serious and immediate danger.” I think it is not hyperbolical to say that at the present time, the U.S. is facing serious and immediate danger because of the way some politicians and their supporters are pursuing political power to the detriment of democracy. 

Perils of the Past

This nation was founded after the colonists proved to be a peril to the rule of Great Britain’s King George III. The way they pursued and achieved political power may not have been the best way they could have done it, but that is how the U.S. was founded 245 years ago.

The biggest challenge to the admittedly limited democracy established in 1776 was by the formation of the Confederate States of America 160 years ago and the Civil War that began a couple of months later in April 1861.

Then, the democratic rights of formerly enslaved American citizens came under peril again after the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the enforcement of Jim Crow laws that persisted until 1965.

Perils in the Present

Pursuing political power by violent means is prevalent in several countries at present. On Feb. 1 there was a coup, described as a “military power grab,” in the beleaguered Asian country of Myanmar.

More recently, Haitian President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated on July 7. There is also ongoing military conflict between the rebel forces in the Ethiopian region of Tigray and the central government led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

Fortunately, in the U.S. there has not recently been pursuit of political power by means of assassination or physical violence—with the notable exception of the horrendous events at the national Capitol on January 6.

The present peril in the U.S. is largely because of the Republicans currently pursuing political power by dubious means. That, at least, is the considered opinion of the conservative writer and historian Max Boot, who in 2015-16 was a campaign advisor for Marco Rubio.

Boot (b. 1969) contended in a July 15 opinion piece for The Washington Post that “Republicans are increasingly willing to resort to undemocratic, even violent, means to defend conservative, White hegemony.”

Dana Milbank, who also writes for The Post but is definitely not a conservative, also posted on July 15 an opinion piece titled “American democracy survived its Reichstag fire on Jan. 6. But the threat has not subsided.” He asserts that history “warns of greater violence” ahead.

Milbank (b. 1968) quotes words spoken to him recently by Timothy Snyder: “We’re looking almost certainly at an attempt in 2024 to take power without winning elections.”

A noted Yale historian, Snyder (b. 1969) also said,

If people are excluded from voting rights, then naturally they’re going to start to think about other options, on the one side. But, on the other side, the people who are benefiting because their vote counts for more think of themselves as entitled—and when things don’t go their way, they’re also more likely to be violent.

Promoting the Peril of the Present

The serious and immediate danger of the present is exacerbated not only by Republican politicians, especially by the previous President, but also by the right-wing news media, primarily Fox News and, to a lesser degree, Newsmax and OAN.

There are also numerous websites and broadcasts of people promoting the pursuit of political power by lies and misleading statements.

Recently, I learned of Candace Owens when one of my cousins posted a tweet of hers on Facebook. Owens (b. 1989), who now has her own weekly broadcast on The Daily Wire, tweeted on July 13:

Nobody believes that January 6th was a domestic terrorist attack executed by Trump supporters. It’s outright pathetic that the Democrats keep playing pretend. The conservative movement grows every single day because with time, all of their lies and motives are uncovered.

My cousin and millions like her accept such untruths as well as the perilous propaganda about a stolen election and about the dangers of critical race theory and Covid-19 vaccinations.

And yes, when conservative Republicans cheer because the President’s covid-19 vaccination goal was not met, we know we are living in perilous times. 

Should Washington, D.C., Be a State?

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 51, the bill which would make a new state out of most of Washington, D.C. Even prior to that vote, there were people proposing the following design for a new flag with 51 stars:  

Finally Projected

“Taxation and Representation” was the title of a blog article I posted back in June 2016. It was partly about Washington, D.C., where, I wrote, “there is taxation but no representation on the federal level.” I also said, “Statehood for the District is one possible solution to the problem.”

At that time, I really didn’t think there was much chance of that coming about, even though most of the D.C. license plates since 2000 have complained, “Taxation without Representation.”

Here is an image of the D.C. license plates issued since August 2017: 

The issue is even more than that of taxation, of course. The citizens of D.C. are denied most of their (small “d”) democratic rights and privileges. They have no Senators and no voting member of the House of Representatives.

But, finally, on April 22 the Washington, D.C. Admission Act (H.R. 51) was passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 216-208. Every voting Democrat voted Yea; every voting Republican voted Nay.

The House vote was in harmony with the results of the November 2016 D.C. referendum on statehood for the District of Columbia. Nearly 86% of those who voted approved the appeal for statehood.

Flimsily Rejected

Republicans almost unanimously have rejected the idea of statehood for the District of Columbia. (Are there any prominent Republicans who favor statehood for D.C.? I couldn’t come up with any.)

One objection is that D.C. is too small to be a state. Even George Will began his anti-statehood 4/21 opinion article by pointing out that the land area of the proposed state of Washington, D.C., would be only 1/18 the size of Rhode Island.

But why in the world should land area have anything to do with statehood? It is population that is important, and currently, D.C. has around 715,000 residents, considerably more than Wyoming (at around 570,000) and Vermont (approximately 625,000).

Will does suggest that D.C. be made a part of the state of Maryland, which would create the 18^th largest state with a population of more than 6,780,000. But would that be fair to the citizens of D.C.—or of Maryland?

The size of D.C. measured by population (or area) is obviously not the reason for the Republican opposition. The main issue is that fewer than 38% of D.C. residents are non-Hispanic Whites and the 62% of the population who are PoC vote primarily for the Party that is for greater racial equality.

Firmly Supported

Last week, my FB Friend Rob Marus posted this on Facebook: “I have been, for nearly 20 years now, a citizen of the District of Columbia. . . . However, nearly 250 years after the Revolutionary War, I am still denied voting representation in Congress.”

Ben Jealous, who was the president and CEO of the NAACP from 2008 to 2013, wrote an April 28 article titled “D.C. Statehood is a Voting Rights Issue—and Racial Justice Issue.” That is probably a correct assessment of the situation. 

That same day, the Montgomery County Council (in the Maryland county adjacent to D.C.) again passed a resolution in support of D.C. statehood. The Council president said, “The indefensible disenfranchisement of 700,000 residents is one of the remaining civil rights injustices of our time.”

These reasons, and many more, are clearly delineated on the  statehood (dc.gov) website, and I encourage you to click on and read the content on this webpage: “Why Statehood for D.C.”

If you are in favor of democracy and the civil rights of all U.S. citizens, as I definitely am, then you have good reason to be a firm supporter of statehood for D.C.

What's Wrong with Gerrymandering?

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” Except for diehard Republicans, that SCOTUS ruling is widely seen as a questionable and damaging ruling for a (small “d”) democratic society. But what’s wrong with gerrymandering? 

A Long-used Partisan Practice

As you know, partisan gerrymandering is the practice of politicians manipulating voting district boundaries to favor one political party over another. As Doug Criss explains in this helpful 6/27 article,

In most states, state legislators and the governor control the once-a-decade line-drawing process. So what happens when one party controls the state House, the state Senate and the governor's mansion? The party usually does everything in its power to draw the lines in a way that favors them and puts their political opponents at a disadvantage.

This practice has a long history. In fact, it goes back to 1810 when Elbridge Gerry was governor of the great state of Massachusetts. A salamander-shaped district was drawn in the northern part of the state, and that helped Gerry’s colleagues hold on to power in the state legislature.

So, Gov. Gerry’s name and the salamander-shaped district were mashed together, and politicians have been practicing gerrymandering, by that name, ever since.

The following simple chart shows how it is possible to manipulate elections by the way the lines are drawn: 

 

A Recently-used Partisan Practice

Districts for electing U.S. Representatives are based upon the latest census information, and the partisan practice of gerrymandering has been used more widely and more precisely since the 2010 election.

That sordid story is told in the provocative book Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy, by David Daley, former editor-in-chief of Salon.com.

In the Introduction, Daley writes,

This is the story of the audacious Republican plan . . . to create supermajorities for conservative policies in otherwise blue and purple states. This is the story of the actual redrawing of the American political map and of our democracy itself. It’s the story of how Republicans turned a looming demographic disaster into legislative majorities so unbreakable, so impregnable, that none of the outcomes are in doubt until after the 2020 census (pp. xii-xiii).

Daley goes on to declare, “The Democratic majority was ratfucked.” He explains: “In politics, a ‘ratfuck’ is a dirty deed done dirt cheap” (p. xiii). (It was a term used in All the President’s Men, the story of the Watergate scandal.)

After the election of Obama in 2008, the Republicans used gerrymandering to their great advantage following the 2010 census. That was masterminded by Chris Jankowski, who designed REDMAP (the Redistricting Majority Project, explained here.)

A Harmfully-used Partisan Practice

There is no question but that gerrymandering has been used by both political parties. There is also no question but that gerrymandering is not a good thing. Why? Mainly because it is “a body blow to our democracy,” as Dahlia Lithwick put it in a June 27 Slate.com article.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion admitted that gerrymandering “leads to results that reasonably seem unjust” and that it is “incompatible with democratic principles.”

Nevertheless, he and the four other conservative justices decided that the federal courts are just not able to deal with the matter.

The other four justices--the three women justices and Justice Stephen G. Breyer--strongly disagreed, and the minority opinion was forcefully stated by Justice Elena Kagan.

Justice Kagan charged, “The gerrymanders here — and others like them — violated the constitutional rights of many hundreds of thousands of American citizens.”

Exactly—and that’s one major reason why gerrymandering is wrong.

What Does “Of the People, By the People, For the People” Mean?

It is sobering to visit Cemetery Hill in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania—as I did for the first time last week.

Cemetery Hill is the name of the place where a private cemetery was started in 1854. Nine years later, from July 1-3, 1863, it became the site of one of the most important battles of the Civil War.

That was also the place where in November of that year President Lincoln delivered what we know as the Gettysburg Address, a speech that took about two minutes. In the picture below you see June looking at the bust of Lincoln. His entire talk is engraved on the bronze plaque behind her. 

In some of the most widely quoted words from Gettysburg Address, Lincoln expressed his strong desire that “the nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Those words are generally taken as a clear call for democracy—and surely that is correct. But there is almost no one in this country, regardless of political party, who does not advocate or support democracy. 

For some reason, though, more than one speaker at the meeting of the Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting (that I wrote about here) thought it important to cite Lincoln’s words—and to emphasize that he was a Republican.

Some say that Lincoln was making a clarion call for equality among all people of the nation. Those words were spoken after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on Jan. 1, 1863. Still, that proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States.

Moreover, it would be another 57 years before women of any color could participate equally in the democratic process by voting.

Others may point out that a government “for the people” is one that actively promotes the “general Welfare,” as stated in the preamble of the Constitution.

That, though, seems to be at odds with a major emphasis of the Republican Party since the days of President Reagan, who emphasized that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

It is somewhat puzzling that in his inaugural address of 1981, Reagan went on to say, “From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.”

Republicans now repeatedly talk about smaller government, states’ rights, and decisions made locally rather than in Washington.

Lincoln’s words, though, were spoken in the midst of the Civil War, fought first of all to keep the Union together. He was surely talking about a federal government “for, by, and of the people.”

If it had been left up to the individual states, or to local governments, how long would it have taken for the slaves of the South to be freed? Another 50 years? Another 100 years? Perhaps.

As it was, it took almost a hundred years for the Civil Rights Act to be passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act to be passed in 1965—and those two extremely important pieces of legislation were enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President.

Basic positions of the Democratic and Republican parties in the 1960s were almost completely reversed from those of the 1860s—and people who fail to note that change misconstrue American history.

So, I want a federal government of, by, and for the people—just like Lincoln did.