Our Civil Society fails Civics 101

By Maggie Dwyer permalink

I wrote this on December 10, 2011, and wondered how well it would stand up to a bit of time: was my response only going to be appropriate on that day of a flurry of Twitter remarks, or would it hold up over weeks, months – I don’t want to wait years, so I’ll have to come back to measure its temperature in the next administration, whoever is in office. Since I set it aside to cool for a couple of days and it has now had nearly four months, it’s time for airing.

As I wrote, I wanted to keep eyes on the page, so I looked for thoughtful political cartoons to illustrate my indignation at the state of politics today. My first and last place to look were in my home-state paper, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, where David Horsey has been drawing cartoons and winning Pulitzers for years.

---

December 10, 2011. Two items in the news today coalesced for me into a dystopian view of the American legislative process. 1. Texas Governor Rick Perry doesn’t know how many judges sit on the Supreme Court, but he wants to put in place term limits, including the justices. 2. GOP anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist has ensnared 95% of the GOP congress members with his “I won’t raise taxes” pledge. The founder of “Americans for Tax Reform” is diddling his own rule – a December 7, 2011, twitter remark from @HouseinSession states “Norquist advises a room of House Republicans Thursday that a failure to extend the payroll tax cut should not be viewed as raising taxes.” As long as the rich aren’t taxed higher, then it’s okay with Norquist.

 

Term limits and unelected individuals wielding such power, coupled with the 2009 decision by the Supreme Court granting corporations personhood with free, unregulated speech, terrify politicians who want to serve and the electorate who want fair play. Too many distractions disguise this serious issue. Elections too often go to those who have the most catchy ad campaign, bringing in votes from the unattentive electorate who vote against their own self-interest based upon misunderstanding the issues at hand.* If you thought “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and their lies from whole cloth against John Kerry were bad, then realize that under current conditions that kind of abuse will go unchecked.

Elected officials are obligated to observe many restrictions of gifts, cash, travel, and other perks offered by private donors and corporations. They should be working with other elected officials to craft laws and to negotiate differences, but today lobbyists stand their Shelob-like ground, these spiders with their tangled webs of money taking ensnared house and senate members with them. Breaking free of such a toxic web means political death in the next election, if Norquist and like-minded lobbyists have their way. The route to Mordor parallels “K” Street, but too often simply drifts into its lettered-ruts.

I am opposed to term limits. I prefer legislators who have had enough time to learn how our complicated government works and stick around to help it run smoothly. We’ve seen many good politicians leave office well before their time because of the misguided term limit legislation that particular states enacted. In my home state of Washington, conservative grass roots efforts to put term limits on legislators went into effect in 1992, though it was overturned by the state Supreme Court in 1998. Along the way Washington’s powerful house member Tom Foley, at the time the Speaker of the House, was not reelected. The term limits fight was used against him by his opponent in 1994. Instead of having a seasoned and well-positioned elected official in Washington D.C., the state had a freshman representative who had to learn the ropes from scratch.

When retiring or defeated politicians leave office, their staff look for jobs elsewhere. What doesn’t seem to occur to the folks back home who vote to restrict term limits is that there is no restriction on how long these unelected staff members may work for those holding house and senate seats, and the longer they are there, the more behind-the-scenes power they accumulate. Do I have a link for that? No, but I’d be willing to bet real money that (for example) when Phil Gramm (R-TX), Howard Baker (R-TN), or from my own party, Tom Foley (D-WA) or Thomas Daschle (D-SD), left office, or with the death of Edward Kennedy (D-MA), their seasoned staff were in high demand among incoming or existing office holders. How big is this invisible army of staffers and what are they up to? I name members of both parties because this isn’t a Republican or Democratic issue, it is an overarching problem with government today.

I’m not suggesting anything is wrong with being an experienced and well-connected staff member, but I would much prefer that the experience and power be in the hands of experienced elected officials, not in the staff behind the scenes. I worry that those Corporations-now-persons use an avenue of influence behind the scenes as much on that collective staff that could exponentially dwarf the practice of paying huge sums to help their favored candidates win elections.

I am a private citizen, with a public school education that in my day might have been resulted in an average understanding of how our government works. As I get older I watch governmental gravitas shrivel in the face of powerful outliers and wonder how average Americans can let it come to this? I wonder if American school children are taught anything to do with government or civics today? How can we raise generations of people who don’t know or don’t care how it works? How is it that the vast electorate who are not millionaires and billionaires have continued to act against their own self-interest? Hypnotized by the unregulated bombast that comes from the uncontrolled spending of money to influence politicians, are voters unable to recognize the false front of groups brazenly smearing opponents with lies? Who win elections based upon fear, not merit?

In my lifetime I want to see the day when personal fortunes may not be used to fund elections, when public funding is all that is available to candidates, and when a law is passed putting corporations back in their place. If they can’t be held accountable for their speech, if only a fine is levied but no person has to go to jail for what they say, then they don’t have personhood. Corporations write legislation that elected officials put forward to give enormous benefits to said corporations. Since the act of incorporation is done to shield the personal assets of investors, there are no consequences to such misbehavior. When they operate well, we all benefit. When they become financial juggernauts no one benefits but stockholders and CEOs.

*I have done it myself. In college in the mid-1970s I voted on a heated issue with slogans like “Ban the Ban that’s Bad.” I was busy, I didn’t stop read the voter’s guide or newspaper analysis, and tried to evaluate the issues from the signs I’d seen. When I discussed it with my mother later, I was appalled to see how I had been tricked to vote against the result I really wanted by the way the initiative and the ads were phrased. I resolved never to let THAT happen again!

Well Said!

I haven’t posted much lately–I compose bits of blogs in my head, I make notes, but mostly I’ve been part of the team getting college applications and all of the funding paperwork ready for my high school senior. We have a couple of offers, and our fingers are crossed, hoping for at least one of the Common Application schools to come calling, hat in hand.

Meanwhile, here is a great post by Don Tapscott, a blogger new to me, with “Anonymity is double-edged sword.” If you’ve ever read the remarks following articles in online versions of newspapers, craving a lucid discussion, you’ll know what this is about. Those slug-fests are a waste of time. He illustrates how Internet comment environments can police themselves if the remarks aren’t made in the “dark,” if anonymity isn’t allowed. Of the New York Times, he says

All reader feedback is identified by the reader’s name and passes through the hands of en editor. The name-calling and ad hominem drivel typical of most newspaper comment pages isn’t tolerated. “We are not shy about moderating things out,” says Landman. “There is no constitutional right to have your comments published. And certainly if it’s abusive or stupid or something, well then, what’s the point, why is that a good thing?” The result is an articulate discussion by readers with the paper and readers with one another.

I have ceased to use most of my old monikers on many web sites, only continuing those where I am so well-established that the participants wouldn’t know who I was if I used my own name. I used a gender-neutral mask because of the perceived harassment of women in open forums, akin to the reason women often used only first initials in their telephone book listings. Even as one who thought she was being fair behind the nom de plume, I find that in my own name I try all the harder to put forward articulate ideas that are both clear and fair.

There is a social and environmental component to this argument that I will riff on more another day, the idea that many kinds of behavior are better, closer to home, because the community exerts control like a sort of social frontal lobe. With all of our connectivity today, the Borg weren’t really so fanciful after all, were they?

http://twitter.com/dtapscott

Confessions of a Public Radio Talk Show Caller

Yesterday afternoon I walked into the kitchen just before 2 and heard a familiar voice on the radio. I realized it was the end of a conversation with Karen Armstrong in an archive edition of Think on KERA-FM, and it was a program I had called with a question when it was live last summer.

I had to chuckle, because other fans of this program had already heard me once in the span of a week, on xmas eve, when they replayed an interview with Oscar winning costume designer Deborah Landis. I was the first caller in that line up, to ask about employment opportunities and degrees in the field; my daughter is studying costume design in college. Ms. Landis gave a hopeful and comprehensive answer to my question.

The conversation I heard concluding yesterday was with religious scholar Armstrong, and my query was regarding the growth and spread of the large religions of the world. I had an “ah ha!” moment as her response filled perfectly a gap in my general understanding of the morphology of Old World established religions versus small localized New World religions. She was thorough as she described what I had wondered about—those “industrial” religions are urban in nature and rose in economic conditions far different from the land-based hunting and gathering and agrarian religions. Of course! She clearly linked science and religion (they are not separate at all, but in some ways, co-conspirators, ever since Newton used religion to explain why the sun circled the Earth. Which has, of course, since been debunked, but the tie of religion to science was never sundered at the time of that debunking).

I sometimes download the podcast, if I get to it before they’ve taken the link off the web site. They used to only stick around for about 10 days. This evening I went looking for the Armstrong interview and realized local listeners got me three for three so far this week. The program I missed yesterday was a repeat of the interview with (former) Gourmet editor Ruth Reichl. I’d called to ask about recipes as artifacts (I helped a friend edit The Ellis Island Immigrant Cookbook, and some of those recipes are pure artifact, almost uncookable, with odd ingredients and no instructions. But they all have great stories!) Her answer was, as usual, perfect, and set me to thinking about how to preserve family recipes for my children. I guess I’ll have to get out the camera and add some more pages to the blog.

I’m embarrassed to think about what the next couple of repeat programs will be about this week. I suppose I could be on those also: I call the program about once a month. I doubt they’re scheduling these programs to highlight my stunning questions. I think we just have great taste in which are the best topics.

Getting on the air

It doesn’t take long after the hour-long programs start before I decide to call in. I don’t know if they recognize my voice, though when I hear myself talk I’m surprised at the pauses as I think about how to best phrase my question clearly. I suppose that is distinctive. You don’t get much of a shot at asking it before they drop you off the air again. As a listener, I remind myself of Diane Rehm, though I don’t think I have spasmodic dysphonia. Sad to say, I think my phrasing also sounds like Dr. Condoleezza Rice in senate hearings, always pausing to think in micro-bursts as she gave non-answers to important questions.

I recently heard a description of a character in a television program on a cable channel I don’t get. He is at his best on call-in radio, and makes notes about what he’s going to say, and the reviewer tended to suggest his preparation was excessive. I think it makes perfect sense. I’ve done a lot of public speaking as a park ranger, but for only a couple of hundred people at a time, not in a broadcast-sized audience. (I find that daunting—how do people get in front of a mic or camera and banter extemporaneously for so long for during pledge drives?) I try not to trip over my own words or ideas, so on a pad of paper I’ll add keywords to my list or cross things off as they’re discussed while I wait. The great thing about public radio is you can ask a fairly complex question if you can be concise about it, just giving enough information so the listeners know what you’re talking about. Questions that work on public radio would make the DJ’s eyes glaze over on regular commercial radio.

So, for my four or so regular blog readers, three of my 15 minutes of fame are available this week in the KERA-FM podcast lineup. I was the first caller in on each program. It sounds a little silly when the programs are all bunched together in one week, but as a rule I’m not a radio hog, I take my turn and pace myself. Visit KERA-FM’s Think podcast page and look for the most recent (as of this writing) podcasts on Dec. 24, 28, or 29.

Kay Bailey Hutchison holds Bogus “town hall meeting” conference call

The phone rang while I was in the middle of fixing dinner, and offered a town hall style phone meeting. I’ve heard these before, our Congresswoman Kay Granger holds them occasionally. I pushed “O” to get into the queue to ask Hutchison a question, and then was treated to 30 minutes of Republican party propaganda and scare tactics, with softball questions lobbed her way by party members with down-home local accents, posting concerned questions about the end of Health Care As We Know It. Heaven forbid that women have the choice or coverage for abortion services, or that a public option be considered. And that precious “doctor/patient relationship” – you know, the one that your insurance company dictates with an iron fist – that was at risk.

It didn’t take long to figure out Democrats weren’t going to get to talk on this call. While at first I figured they must have dialed my phone by accident, after listening to the production values of the “meeting,” I am more convinced that it was a devious plan to try to make me listen to their political nonsense and be swayed by it. The only thing missing at the end was “This political ad was paid for by the elect Hutchinson for Governor campaign.”

What production values? The same ones that come into play on talk radio programs. I am familiar with those on KERA-FM, public radio. If I’m waiting to speak, I’m listening to the conversation seven seconds old. That delay is so if someone totally inappropriate comes on, they can zap it before it ever gets onto the air. Each of Kay’s “callers” was confused as to whether they were being spoken to because, it seems, they were listening to the delayed conversation, and the voice breaking in 7 seconds before the previous call ended was confusing.

But this could be a tactic also, to make it sound real. Because I’m convinced it wasn’t. I think it was a staged program in which Democrats were called but not allowed to talk. It is my hunch that the Hutchison campaign hoped to run their party line past the listening Democrats, trying to scare them with the “don’t let government take over health care” claims, and the suggestion that Canada and the United Kingdom have terrible health care. They don’t–it is actually quite good. And if you think those countries have “rationing,” just look at what American insurance companies are doing. They’re practicing medicine without a license, and they’re rationing, based upon what they will or won’t pay for.

What was I going to ask? I wanted to tell her to listen to this constituent–I want her to vote for this health care reform plan, not drag her feet to prevent progress. And I wanted to suggest she sit down in a one-on-one conversation with Dennis Kucinich and really learn what the issues are.

So I think she needs to come clean. Mrs. Hutchison, that wasn’t REALLY a town hall meeting, was it? That was a prolonged political trick to try to scare rational people into thinking Republicans have been shut out of the process (you walked away from it of your own free will, M’am) and that the reforms being proposed will end life as we know it.

Yes, I hope indeed that it does. And when 30 million additional people in America finally get health coverage, and the rest of us get fair coverage, and small businesses suddenly can compete on a more level playing field because in one way or another everyone will have health insurance, I think we’ll see a lot of other things improve for everyone. Too bad you chose not to be a part of it, Kay.

Darwin, Lamark, Galton, and the American Museum of Natural History

If you’re interested in tracing the history of scientific thought, of how ideas evolved, were viewed, practiced, and how they ultimately could go terribly wrong to effect social policy in an adverse way, there is perhaps no better place to start than with the birth of Evolution and how it affected popular culture and governmental behavior. One can go back to ancient civilizations, religions, and philosophy to study this, but for sheer charisma, the heinous interpretations and actions resulting from the misunderstandings of Darwin’s important work are current today. And the antidote of more information and common sense is not far away, if one goes searching for it.

I did graduate work in Environmental Philosophy at the University of North Texas for several years, and while my employment today doesn’t often entail using the understanding of earlier world views, it remains a strong interest. In conversation if I encounter someone who is interested in but unfamiliar with the topic, I have one favorite essay as a starting place to give a comprehensive view of how codified Social Darwinism came to be. “Teddy Bear Patriarchy: Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York City, 1908 – 36,” in Donna Haraway’s Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science (Rutledge, 1989) is a great starting point. Who knew that the eugenics ideas adopted at a natural history museum could end up strongly influencing how inspections would be conducted at Ellis Island, and eventually the drafting of restrictive, Social Darwinist immigration quotas in 1921 and 1924?

Today, I found an essay in DailyKOS, “Big Mike and the Paper Hanger,” that I’ll print and tuck into the Haraway book. It’s a very nice overview of science and mathematics going off the rails when enough information and good techniques aren’t available (or weren’t completely understood at the time).

Charles Darwin’s half cousin, Francis Galton, like Jean-Baptiste Lamark, contributed a great deal to modern science, but along the way, got some of it terribly wrong. Modern scientists have found more suitable applications for some of these important theories, and discarded others. As these early scientists and mathematicians looked for applications for their theories, civilizations literally trembled, and the poor and the apparently genetically inferior were dealt with.

In my collection of books from a family estate is one from 1877 called The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease, and Heredity, by R.L. Dugdale, Member of the Executive Committee of the Prison Association, NY. Mine is the fourth printing from 1888, Putnam. It’s quite a vile slim volume that comes from a collection called “Questions of the Day.” The index doesn’t list sources, but the book may well contain reference to Galton. This perverse application of a pseudo science is a relic that one would hope is of bygone days, yet today we have hate-mongers and racists spouting similar ideas. Ethnic cleansing is happening today in war zones around the world; and here at home attitudes toward immigration and immigrants are as bigotted as the old Chinese exclusion act. There is no fact, only subjective opnion, behind the hysteria preached on some of the popular news networks. It comes straight out of Galton’s misapplied “science.” The realism of the 1920s fed into the surreal Nazi behavior of the 1930s and 1940s. We’ve settled back into the realism mode, where suggestion and innuendo place immigrants with darker skin as inferior and who must be blocked or deported.

I look forward to the rest of this book, by whoever is behind the moniker Devilstower.

Nina Totenberg sums up Ted Kennedy

This originally appeared in my other blog, but it fits in this venue better, so it is republished here. I posted it first on September 4, 2009. 

This post is in place to preserve a great quote that I and others may want to revisit in days ahead as Ted Kennedy’s legacy is debated across the spectrum of news and government entities.

After the death of Edward M. Kennedy a special program aired on National Public Radio. I listened to the podcast later in order t0 transcribe remarks made, near the end, by correspondent Nina Totenberg. After the give and take of a discussion about his earlier mistakes alongside his many legislative victories, Totenberg summed it up:

There was Good Ted and Bad Ted all along the way, but the Kennedys and Ted Kennedy in particular are positively Shakespearean in their tragedy, in their flaws, and in their greatness as well. And in the last 10, 15 years of his life, there were almost none of the old flaws that you saw. He married, it was a happy marriage, there was none of the carousing, and he was able to realize more legislative accomplishments, so that the redemption was complete by the end, in a way. There are all of these cliches, but they’re cliches for a reason, he passed the torch to the next generation, to Barack Obama. It’s a great drama.

The entire program can be found at this link.

Nina Totenberg is a personal hero; her analysis of the Supreme Court is second to none, and when she turns her hand to other topics she is equally excellent in her reporting. Bonus point: She also has an excellent singing voice!