Explaining America: #BlackLivesMatter and CIA Torture

One of the hats I wear is a teacher of English as a new language, mostly to new Americans. They all came here for a reason—for a better shot at happiness—and as such generally have a personal stake in the American Dream not only being a reality, but having room for them and their children, as well.

In order to present a full picture of the United States, however, I try to allow the students to draw their own conclusions from the country’s past: our relations with Native Americans, our Founding, our reactions to the various waves of immigrants, the history of slavery and its role in our governmental development, and the Women’s Rights, Civil Rights, and Gay Rights movements. The 2000 presidential election, for example, is a great lesson on our respect for governance institutions. I try to highlight the pressures and interests which explain what seems bad about American history and note the asterisks which often follow what seems good about American history.

In previous months, I have been asked questions which lead to teachable moments. An individual burning a Quran in Florida leads to a wonderful discussion of free speech and the path of 1^st Amendment litigation during the 20^th Century and where it stands today. A discussion on curbing climate change leads to a mention of the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore a lesson on the concept of dualism in international law. The controversies surrounding the Affordable Care Act can lead to an important lesson on federalism.

This past month has been different. Sure, the grand jury verdict regarding the death of Michael Brown led to a discussion about evidence and the presumption of innocence, but the verdict following the death of Eric Garner made the previous lesson feel hollow. Of course the CIA Torture Report can bring to the fore the separation of powers, but the existence of such programs which are so obviously “contrary to our values” is difficult to present in a non-judgmental way.

I love my country. I view America as a good literary protagonist: she has a complex past and she does make mistakes, but she’s affable and fundamentally good. These terrible news stories, however, have made explaining America more difficult and more troubling. Are Jim Crow and Korematsu really just skeletons in America’s closet, or are they examples of her deep flaws which she refuses to address? December 2014 suggests the latter.

The beauty and frustration of a federal republic is that no single institution can address these flaws alone. But America’s story is not over: We The People must actively engage in all levels of governance in order to write the chapter that we wish to read. Looking forward to 2015, I hope we write for America a better future, so when it eventually becomes the past itself, the job of explaining America will be an easy one.

You say you want a revolution. Well you know, that’s not gonna happen soon.

There’s been a lot of outrage over the recent revelations of NSA surveillance of US citizens with no reasonable suspicion of any particular individual of any particular wrongdoing. And there should be. In 2008 Obama presented himself as the anti-Bush, but between Guantanamo, drones, and domestic surveillance, he’s possibly more Bush than Bush!

While some are grappling with whether the program is legal, I view that as simply not the point. That’s not to say that assessing the legality of governmental action isn’t important, of course. But there are at least three standards by which a government action can be judged: legal, Constitution, and acceptable. Regardless of whether the program is legal, it’s simply not acceptable—and I’m very certain a majority of Americans would agree with my poorly articulated argument here. (I’ll leave the Constitutional argument for when I’m not studying for the bar exam and have sufficient time to go through the relevant case law in order to make a reasoned analysis. But our Colbert gut tells us this doesn’t feel Constitutional within the spirit of the 4^th Amendment.)

I’d venture to guess that there are several areas of dissatisfaction a majority of Americans have with the federal government, which has been unresponsive to public opinion. But this grievance, I think, crosses party lines most easily. Because of the gradual decline of civil liberties since the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act—which has continued regardless of the partisanship of either the legislative or executive branches—many want  drastic change in our federal government’s power to unilaterally collect information on citizens without individual suspicion. Such change can either occur inside the system or outside the system. The problem is that to work within the system, we must repeal all these laws and court decisions. This would need to be an act of Congress to be either signed by the president or popular enough to override a veto. (Technically a Constitutional amendment is available, but that is harder still). But we’ve had the problem, best exemplified by Obama himself, of electing people who say they’re against such programs, but vote for them anyway.  Namely, any libertarian, progressive, or small-government conservative should not be supportive of such programs on ideological grounds. And yet  here we are.

So what’s the other option? A full-scale change of the status quo—that is to say, work from ‘outside the system’. Yes, some voices have asked about a new American Revolution or an American Spring. For better or worse, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. The governmental transitions academic literature tell us that GDP-per-capita is one of most strongly correlated variables to whether transitions actually occur. That is to say that wealth is a factor in whether full-scale revolt can actually lead to change. Why? Simply because extra-systemic change, especially full-scale revolt, questions the whole system itself. We know that when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose, but most of us have something, and so we feel we have something to lose in the event of real revolution. Sure, if you’re unemployed, have broken spirits, or have more debt than you can ever hope to repay, you’re fixin’ for  a revolution—because you might feel you have more to gain from a possible victory than you have  to lose  from either a victory  or defeat. But when you own property, or have a family to feed or have a pension, often that status quo protects you more than exposes you to risk. This is the force of moderation. The idea of being jailed for a short time as a political activist might be romantic to those with few responsibilities, but for many that means no food on the table for their children. 

As such, only when a plurality of Americans feels there's more to gain in overthrowing the status quo than to lose from the attempt, will something extra-systemic actually happen. We’re a far road from Tahrir Square. Evidence of this assertion being true might be as recent as the Tea Party and #OccupyWallSt movements. While there are many other important variables I won’t consider here, note that the Tea Party worked within the structures of governance, whereas #OccupyWallSt questioned them to the core. One was strategic, the other radical. Which has had more effect on American politics, I think, is clear. (Pssst! The Tea Party.)

The tragedy, of course, is that we have been jaded by the idea of change from within. That was the actual mantra of Obama, and now he’s the exact thing we want to change. 

GOP Vote Rigging 2013: Why the Republican Plan to Gerrymander the Electoral College Could Destroy Democracy

This is a post I wrote about electoral reform in the U.S. for PolicyMic which can be found here.

Electoral reform has crept into the fore of American politics again, as President Obama told the nation in his recent second inaugural address; "our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote." This statement was in reference to various changes in voting laws made and proposed throughout the country, primarily by Republicans, in preparation for Election Day back in November 2012.

Now that 2012 is over, about a week ago Republicans got started working on changes for 2016.

While both parties engage in shameless gerrymandering, Republicans have generally pursued two extra forms of electoral changes. First, they have sought to disenfranchise populations which reliably vote Democratic (minorities, college students, etc) by making voting requirements increasing and often unreasonably burdensome. Second, they have recently begun seeking to change the way states which often lean Democratic in president elections award their Electoral College votes.

Both types of changes present serious concerns to democracy. The first should be obvious — systematically creating disproportionate burdens on portions of the citizenry is inherently anti-democratic. On this point, former Secretary of State Colin Powell (R) recently stated, "the Republican Party should be a party that says, 'we want everybody to vote,' and make it easier for people to vote and give them a reason to vote for the party, and not to find ways to keep them from voting at all."

The second tactic — the change in the way individual states award Electoral College votes — is a bit subtler. At present, each state decides how to award their Electoral College votes. All states, save for the small Nebraska and Maine, presently engage in a "winner-take-all" system. Those two states award their vote by congressional district — and this is 'reform' being sought currently by Republicans across the country. While this may sound benign enough, the consequences could be deeply troubling. If Republicans in states like Virginia, California, or New York succeed — states that have gone blue in the national elections but have a lot of red in their legislatures — those states would also distribute their electoral votes by congressional district. What's the desired result? When a Republican wins a "red" state, the candidate would get all the votes. But when a Democrat wins one of these "blue" states, the candidate would only get a portion of the state's vote, leaving the Democrat to a sizeable disadvantage nationally.

While I have written elsewhere about the problems with the current system, Columbia University statistics and political science professor Andrew Gelman writes of the 2012 election, "Romney needed about 50.5% of the national two-party vote to have had a 50/50 chance of winning in the Electoral College." He notes that this is certainly a bias that should be fixed. However, Professor Gelman continues, "in contrast, the bias that would ensue if the electoral vote were conducted via congressional districts — that would be huge."

Electoral reform is often a dry, complicated subject. But make no mistake about its importance. Elections are the very processes by which We The People express our views, and as such require more attention from our generation. While our national (and many state) election laws are antiquated and in need of real reform, we must be vigilant of the consequences of those reforms. Concerns of fairness, accuracy and access should characterize electoral reform, not partisan maneuvering. That might smack of naiveté and idealism, but maybe it has to — our democracy depends on it.