Pete Buttigieg: For so many reasons

Photo from Vogue, April 2019.

It’s no secret that Mayor Pete Buttigieg has my vote in the primary. I could happily support most of the candidates currently running in the general election if he does not end up being the candidate, but I believe with every fiber of my being that Buttigieg is the person that we need in the Oval Office in 2021.

There’s no shortage of media coverage to try to explain why Buttigieg has captured people’s attention, but I still think it is worth explaining why he’s captured MY attention.

Demeanor and personality

The person who sits in the office of the US President leads the nation – and the world – by personal example. It’s not entirely about what the individual does in terms of policies; it’s also about what that person does in terms of how they speak about other people, what they choose to focus attention on, and where they show up literally and figuratively. Personality matters. Personal integrity matters.

Buttigieg has a calm, thoughtful presence, with a humility and integrity that seems to be fully genuine. He is also, however, incredibly confident and at ease with himself. It’s the combination of those things that make him so compelling.

Allow and invite people to evolve

Of all of the things that Buttigieg has articulated that seem to have been pulled from my own brain, his understanding that “bad habits and bad instincts are not the same as people being bad people”. (Time, May 2, 2019.) This is a fundamental truth that guides the way that I personally try to engage with people, and while it might sound obvious, it is also very often misunderstood.

The pace of social change has been pretty swift over the past few decades. Not everyone is able to keep pace with that change; people come around to important social changes at different speeds. When Barack Obama was elected to the Presidency, he did not necessarily support full marriage equality. However, through the engagement and advocacy of any number of LGBT leaders, he evolved in his understanding and we now give him the grace to consider him an LGBT ally. Someone who, today, is still struggling to complete that same evolution is not likely to be engaged in compassionate dialogue about their view, rather they may be criticized and preached to about their wrong-headedness. Shame and condemnation isn’t likely to bring about an evolution to the right side of history. People need to be invited to evolve.

Buttigieg tells a story in his book and often on the campaign trail about an older, conservative woman in South Bend who met his then-boyfriend Chasten, and later told the Mayor that his “friend” was wonderful. Rather than be critical of this woman coming up short on using the word “boyfriend”, he recognized her effort to move in the right direction and simply accepted the compliment.

Fairness versus Mercy

One of the other subtleties that Buttigieg seems to understand and articulate better than anyone I’ve ever heard before is the difference – and the battle – between what is fair and what is merciful. (It’s similar, albeit from a different perspective, of the difference between equality and equity.)

There is already some concept of fairness versus mercy built into our system. A woman who kills a violently abusive husband is likely to serve a lesser sentence than a woman who might kill her husband because she finds out he’s cheating. (I recognize that our criminal justice system lacks both fairness and mercy in so many other ways.)

Governing means creating a system (criminal justice, immigration, foreign policy, etc) that is fair, but that allows for mercy when necessary.

Technical Problems versus Moral Problems

Similar to the challenges of fairness versus mercy, Buttigieg explains his understanding that governing requires the ability to solve both technical problems and moral problems. The technical problems have a solution that can be defined and implemented. Often, however, a technical problem can have more than one possible solution – none of which is without negative consequences.

It then becomes a moral problem. Which solution provides the best positive result with the least negative impact? Those are answers that cannot be quantified, but rather require a leader who is able to gather the right input, evaluate the options, and make and implement the best decision. And, perhaps most importantly, takes personal responsibility for that decision whether it ultimately proves to be the right one or not.

If I can point to a single leadership trait that is most important to me, it is this – and the fact that Buttigieg not only displays this type of leadership, but is able to be self-aware enough to TALK about it… That says a lot to me.

Campaign versus Reality

Buttigieg is not entirely alone in his willingness to articulate that the policies that are laid out on the campaign are not always possible to translate into governing reality. Most voters know this at some level, but we still look for candidates to tell us what they plan to do, because it highlights their priorities. What I appreciate about Buttigieg’s approach to the campaign, though, is that he wants voters to understand his priorities in terms of values and moral compass before he creates the policy detail that often then becomes a distraction. (I’m planning to talk about this a little bit more in another blog post.)

Reclamation of Faith, Freedom, Security and Democracy

This is at the bottom of my list, not because it is the least important to me, but because it is the most understood by those following the campaign. Buttigieg ran for DNC chair in 2017 for much the same reason – he recognizes that conservatives have done a great job of continuous framing traditional American values in conservative terms. Even the concepts of patriotism and the American flag have become more recognized in terms of conservative messaging than progressive messaging.

I believe – and there might be another blog post coming about this, too – that Buttigieg’s primary purpose in entering the Democratic primary was to get this message in front of the Democratic party and its leaders. As Democrats, we believe in freedom, security and democracy. Our party is made of many people of many faiths. Our values align with these core ideas. It’s time that we started helping a larger audience understand it.

This is the first of a planned six part series of blog posts on why Buttigieg is my candidate in the primary, so stay tuned for more. Eventually.

But why did he run?

On Tuesday, June 19^th, Antwon Rose was shot and killed by police in East Pittsburgh. He was 17. He was Black. And he was unarmed.

Vox and the New York Times both have good summaries of the facts. (If you are more of a Fox News person, their article is okay, but not quite complete.)

Here are the facts of this case:

Antwon Rose was running away from the police after the car in which he was a passenger was stopped, because it matched the description of a car that had been involved in a fatal shooting earlier that evening. (There is bystander video of Antwon fleeing the scene with his back to the officers when he was shot. This fact is not currently being disputed by the Pittsburgh Police.)
Antwon was unarmed, but police did recover an unused clip of ammunition from his pocket.
Two firearms were recovered from the car in which Antwon was riding; however the driver of the car was released by police. (I personally conclude that this means the firearms were registered and that no other charges were pending, but I have also not independently verified that.)
The officer who shot Antwon was sworn onto the Pittsburgh Police force hours before the shooting, but he had previously worked in suburban police forces for several years prior.

The officers had no evidence that Antwon (or the others in the vehicle) were involved in any crime. The question that I keep hearing over and over again is, “But why did he run?”

Why did he run? Because he was a 17 year old Black teenager pulled over by police.

I can provide the research. I can tell you the facts. I can even debate with you over alternative interpretations of the data.

What I can’t do is to make you understand the reality of living a life in a body that is instinctively seen as a threat. I can’t possible understand that reality myself, but I know that it is true. I know that it is true, because when I see a Black man approach me on a sidewalk, my instinct is fear – and every day I have to fight that instinct, knowing that I might not be personally to blame for the existence of that fear, but I am responsible for not acting on it.

Why did he run?

Maybe Antwon ran because he knew that Philando Castile was shot while he sat in a car with his girlfriend and her daughter, for doing nothing more than reaching for his driver’s license. Maybe Antwon ran because he knew that Kalief Browder was held in jail for 3 years awaiting trial for stealing a backpack (a crime for which there was no evidence and he was ultimately found not guilty), because the criminal justice system was never designed to provide justice for boys that look like him. Maybe Antwon ran because there were firearms in the car, and if 12 year old Tamir Rice can be killed for a toy gun, it’s not a stretch to think that he might face the same fate.

And maybe Antwon ran because he was a scared, 17 year old kid who was just afraid of getting into trouble. Maybe he was a teenager who made a mistake. Maybe he was a good kid in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The maybes don’t matter. What does matter is that regardless of why he ran, he did not deserve to die.

Justice Stevens forces me to eat my words. And I’m annoyed.

Last night, I finally had enough of the false narrative that pro-gun control liberals who support the March for Our Lives movement were out to repeal the Second Amendment. It’s just not true, I insisted. And I posted this:

12 hours later, I was eating my lunch and browsing the news sites – and I see this headline: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Let’s start by saying, I stand by my statement that the overwhelming majority of people do not support a repeal of the Second Amendment. (Former Justice Stevens is, in fact, a Republican. Not that this makes any difference whatsoever, but it feels like it is worth mentioning.)

I cannot, however, deny that I owe someone an apology.

Is there any validity to Justice Stevens’ recommendation?

There is value in reading Stevens’ op-ed in the Times, which outlines how he landed at his “repeal the Second Amendment” conclusion. It’s interesting. Interesting, but not valid.

Stevens argues that for the first 200 years of our country’s existence, it was generally understood that the Second Amendment did not preclude the government from passing gun control legislation. (Curious about my take on the origins of the Second Amendment? Of course you are.) The NRA became a powerful lobbying force only within the past 20 years, at which point “gun control” became thought of as the antithesis of the Second Amendment.

Okay, Stevens – so far, so good.

He then points to the 2008 Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller as the turning point – a decision that enshrined the right for an individual to bear arms for any reason – as the moment that the NRA took over the narrative. Stevens dissented on this ruling, and continues to believe that this ruling should be overturned.

But this is where the Stevens takes a weird turn.

If the 2008 ruling was incorrect, the solution – which Justice Stevens refers to as “simple” – is to repeal the Second Amendment. It’s a bizarre conclusion in the best of times, but in our current political environment where the country is so divided – particularly on this issue – it’s just irresponsible. You can have whatever personal opinions you want to about the Second Amendment, but to distort the current movement into one of a full repeal of the Second Amendment is counterproductive. It’s either an effort to deliberately derail the movement, or a naive and idealistic understanding of politics. Real political and cultural change comes in compromises. It comes over time. Positive change is never achieved by making the worst fears of a large chunk of citizens come true overnight. (The irony of that statement given the last election is not lost on me, y’all.)

I know I have some liberal friends who are reading this and thinking that I’m a sellout and a centrist. Maybe I am. Maybe in another ten years, I’ll look back on this blog post with embarrassment. But for now, I’m going to remain the pragmatist, striving to find the common ground and looking for the solutions in the space between.

Oh, SNAP.

A couple of nights ago, I posted a link to an article on my Facebook feed about the SNAP (or “food stamps”) program. The NY Times article, “In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Lots of Soda” (written by Anahad O’Connor), suggested – and was reinforced by the headline and photo used – that families on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) spend their benefits on junk food and soda.

I had linked to another Facebook post by a gentleman named Joe Soss. Mr. Soss provided a rebuttal of that NY Times article, suggesting that the original study was misused in the article. Since then, Talk Poverty has also picked up the story and expands on Mr. Soss’ original post. While the article seems to question whether families receiving SNAP should be able to purchase “junk food” with their benefits, the underlying USDA survey actually found very few differences from the spending habits families on SNAP and those who are not.

Passion and Productivity sometimes don’t mix

My post sparked the passion of several of my friends, and I have a huge amount of respect for the amazing women who shared their feelings. They came into the conversation about SNAP benefits from very different backgrounds, and those experiences created the strong feelings that they have on the topic. Unfortunately, sometimes that passion can cloud our ability to address each other with empathy and respect, and it was the first time that I felt compelled to delete a Facebook post.

Having deleted the post, though, I still wanted to present their viewpoints (to the best of my ability) and provide my thoughts. There were two big issues that became contentious:

How much fraud happens within the SNAP benefits program – and how much does it matter?
Should those who receive SNAP benefits be restricted in what they are allowed to purchase, limiting junk food and other non-essential food items?

Food Stamp Fraud?

There was a heated discussion about the prevalence of SNAP benefit fraud in the Facebook thread. One individual has witnessed individuals who have sold their benefits (or food purchased with their benefits) for cash, and suspects that those individuals have used the money to support a drug habit. For this reason, it is extremely hard for her to feel positively about the program, particularly as an unemployed mom who struggles to make ends meet for her own family and does not qualify for the benefits.

It’s really hard to argue with that experience. The official statistics on food stamp fraud show that there is a 1.3% rate of “trafficking” in SNAP benefits, according to a 2013 USDA report. (These appear to be the most current numbers.) What is critical to understand is the definition of this fraud: “Trafficking” is defined as users who trade their SNAP benefits to food retailers for cash, typically at a discount. Individuals who may purchase and then sell the food for cash would not fall under this type of fraud, and these incidents are likely not captured in the total fraud statistics.

If there is unmeasured fraud within the system, is it enough to warrant major changes to the SNAP program? It’s really difficult to tell taxpayers struggling to make ends meet that even though they see abuses, this program is far more valuable than it is wasteful. However…

There will always be some individuals who seek to abuse the system; creating a 100% fraud-proof system is impossible, and we’ll spend far more taxpayer dollars trying to eliminate fraud than the cost of the fraud itself. The SNAP program is one of the most efficient federal programs in terms of administrative overhead (~7% of total budget, with 93% going directly to beneficiaries) and in error rates in distribution. And the benefit that it offers to our entire society by reducing extreme poverty and providing a safety net for families and individuals to get back onto their feet during difficult times is significant.

Limit the Grocery Items Available?

The second issue, and possibly the more contentious one, was an issue of whether or not SNAP recipients should be more restricted in the grocery items that they may purchase. Should someone on SNAP be able to purchase junk food and soda? What about steak and lobster? How about exotic and expensive fruits and vegetables? Organic items that are more costly?

There are rules established on SNAP benefits that limit what can be purchased to food items, excluding things like prepared foods. However, beyond that, the individual beneficiary makes the decisions about what foods to purchase. Here is where things get complicated.

Are there some choices that would appear better than others? Of course. I will admit to having judgement if I see someone buying expensive food items using their SNAP benefits.
Can such a purchase be justified for special occasions, or if the individual has truly saved up for something? Maybe. Maybe not.
Should I be allowed to have an opinion because I’m a taxpayer? I understand why the answer feels like it should be yes, but no. We all deserve the dignity of personal decision making, and even if you are receiving government assistance, you are an individual with the ability to make decisions for yourself.

Setting limits becomes a slippery slope. If we don’t allow the purchase of lobster, should we also take away expensive fresh vegetables? If we start limiting items based on cost, then junk food is more attractive, because it’s cheap. If we also limit food that does not provide high nutritional value (and that has been proposed in Tennessee), we start to narrow down the choices exponentially. We end up with a program that provides almost no value, and has higher overhead costs to manage the regulations.

Accountability? Of course.

Should the SNAP program – and all government benefit programs – be continuously monitored and held accountable for results? YES. So many people are opposed to “big government” because of the waste and inefficiencies in the programs, and they are not wrong. Many government programs are poorly managed, with little oversight and no accountability. We need to stand up as voters and demand that oversight – and insist that we fund programs that work – and change or remove programs that don’t. We also have to admit that no program is without issues – cracks that folks can fall through, and loopholes that others can sneak through. We do the best to patch those holes and keep moving forward.

SNAP works in a highly effective and efficient manner. This is one of the good ones, and we really need to work to protect it.

A note on fostering the conversation

PLEASE keep talking to each other and sharing your point of view. If something makes you angry, help the rest of us to understand why. I know you don’t all agree with me – and I hope you will tell me why and help me to learn. Comment, ask questions, provide links, or suggest further research!

The Electoral College is Not the Problem (…maybe it is)

[UPDATE: I’ve actually changed my perspective on this. Interestingly, the deciding factor came from a Republican argument in Virginia after Democrats won enough seats to take over the state legislature. One Republican official suggested that they needed an “electoral college” in the state of Virginia, because the votes were distributed differently by county. It was an interesting argument that, when taken to its logical conclusion – from county to city to neighborhood to household, ends with a one vote / one person argument.

But I am leaving my original post below, because we’re allowed to grow and learn and synthesize information into new opinions.]

I have a controversial and unpopular opinion to share: I think the Electoral College is a valuable institution and should remain in place as a part of our republican government.

Democracy versus Republic

Most of us have probably been taught at some point that the United States is a republic and not actually a democracy, but it’s hard to keep that fact straight when we (myself included) use the word “democracy” with such reverence.

Democracy: A true democracy is ruled by popular vote. Everything is ruled by popular vote.

Republic: Representatives are elected by popular vote, and they go on to create laws and structure under which the masses agree to live.

A democracy is impractical for any organization with more than a few members, because it’s not reasonable to expect a popular vote to be taken on every decision that impacts the members. And so we create a republican framework within which to operate.

(The party names of “Democratic” and “Republican” have little to do with the meaning of the words. The parties have, in fact, essentially switched their key principles since the mid-19^th century.)

The Electoral College

Of course, we could still be a republic without the intervening system of the Electoral College. Popular vote could elect a President, who is then the representative of the people. Instead, we vote for electors, who then go on to vote for the President. How the electors vote for the President is a matter that is up to the individual states within the union of the United States.

So why have the Electoral College?

The founders recognized that a popular vote for the Executive Branch of government posed a challenge. The areas of the country with the highest number of voters would control the office of the President. Voters, being white, landholding men, were not evenly dispersed – and the President would consistently not represent the disparate interests of the entire United States.

Yes, it is true that for many of the founders, this meant that slave holding states with fewer eligible voters would not be represented by the Executive Branch. And while that background is abhorrent, the concept continues to have value in our country today.

The Electoral College forces a candidate to listen to the entire country

The Electoral College concept forces a candidate to listen to the needs of the entire country. While gaining vast majorities of the popular vote in highly populated areas could win the popular vote, a candidate has to win the popular vote in more than just a few places within the larger country. A candidate can’t focus on the needs of coastal cities, for example, without considering the needs of the agricultural and industrial Midwest.

There are a lot of reasons to deny the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. The Electoral College should not be one of them.

Mrs. Clinton lost the election, because she failed to win the trust and address the concerns of voters across the country. That is not the fault of the Electoral College system, but rather illustrates why it exists. She needed to better understand and address concerns in the rural and industrial areas.

The challenge, in this particular election year, is that Donald Trump did not win fairly. While he won the election, he did so by lying to the public, refusing to provide critical information, and through the interference of a foreign government. And his insistence that he won “by a landslide” is such a ridiculous notion that it makes it hard to argue in favor of his Electoral College victory.

The Electoral College is granted the power—at least in some states—to vote their conscience and refuse to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in their state. Should they have done so in this election? That’s a matter of opinion at this point, because the investigations into the foreign influence, financial conflicts of interest and other issues were not completed when the vote was held. It could also be argued that voting against the popular vote in those states won by Donald Trump would have caused violence and conflict that might be more destructive than a Trump presidency.

There are a lot of reasons to deny the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. The Electoral College should not be one of them.

Respect and the Office of the Presidency

In the movie The American President, Chief of Staff A.J. MacInerney (Martin Sheen) refuses to call President Shepherd (Michael Douglas) by any name other than “Sir” or “Mr. President”, despite having been friends for years. As long as President Shepherd is in office, he will be addressed as “Mr. President” and never “Andy”, because the office of the Presidency deserves that respect.

That idea of Presidential respect has stuck with me for more than 20 years. The office of the US President deserves a level of reverence that goes above and beyond the man behind the office. I am careful to always use appropriate titles and to bestow respect that is due, regardless of my personal feelings and political leanings, to the man holding the Office of the President.

After a great deal of consideration and internal turmoil, however, I have come to the decision that I will not be able to address Donald Trump with the title of President.

There are certainly a lot of reasons why you might question the validity of a Trump Presidency, from foreign interference in the elections to the confusing role of the Electoral College versus the popular vote. My decision, however, comes down to a very simple reality: Donald Trump does not deserve the respect due to any previous President of the United States, because he has repeatedly proven that he does not respect the Presidency or the people of the United States, and he refuses to treat the role with the level of seriousness that it requires.

Recently, Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton and the leader of Inequality Media, addressed the topic in a Facebook post. Mr. Reich was responding to a politician (whom he had chosen not to name) who told Reich that he would be attending Trump’s inauguration and festivities, because he believed “in promoting unity over partisanship and supporting a peaceful transition of power”. Mr. Reich responded,

…It’s not matter of Democrat versus Republican, or left versus right.

The issue here is how former presidents and other politicians should respond to someone who has shown himself to be a dangerous demagogue.

Donald Trump became president by lying, demeaning women, denigrating racial and ethnic minorities, denying intelligence reports of foreign intervention in our election, excusing violence against opponents, and undermining the freedom and independence of the press. And since being elected he’s held rallies and issued tweets in which he’s continued to tell big lies, retaliate against critics, call opponents “enemies,” avoid press conferences, and dismiss conflicts of financial interest.

I told him that, in my view, attending Trump’s inauguration gives tacit support and approval to someone who poses a clear and present danger to our democracy.

The word “resistance” feels scary and reactionary, but it does not feel wrong. My resistance starts with my language. #notmypresident

Let’s talk about Melania

I cannot condemn anyone for personal attacks on President-Elect Trump’s appearance, speech-patterns, tiny hands or orange face. Honestly, maybe I should, because what is wrong with Mr. Trump has nothing to do with the color of his skin or the size of his appendages. But given that he’s made the appearance, disability, speech and size of others the subject of ridicule, I say, “Have at him.”

The attacks on Melania Trump, however, are different. Slut-shaming, mocking her accent or criticizing her appearance are just not okay. Doing it makes us no better than her husband. In fact, I think about the criticism that she likely faces from her own husband, and I wish someone would tell her that she has value that goes beyond her appearance.

With that said, we can (and should) criticize Mrs. Trump for her actions, when it is warranted. Plagiarizing a speech, defending her husband’s participation in the rape culture with his language (if not his deeds), and not recognizing the hypocrisy in a platform of anti-bullying as a First Lady — her actions within this political space are open to critical review.

Melania Trump is unlikely to live up to expectations as a First Lady after Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush, or Rosalynn Carter. (Yeah, I skipped one.) If she chooses to be a less visible, less active First Lady, that’s her right. There are no Constitutional requirements for the spouse of the American President. If she does choose to be visible, we have a right and an obligation to evaluate her deeds, her actions and her words. Everything else is off the table.

LBJ, Eggs and the Power of the Presidency

This post is not about President-Elect Donald Trump. At least, not directly. This is a post that has been in my brain for months now, and it may be more relevant now than ever.

LBJ was an interesting President. His push for the Great Society left us with a significant number of the federal programs and regulation that we still have today—and those programs are still often hotly debated. He was a “big government” politician, and he was successful in executing on his vision. That much of his legacy is tied to the Vietnam War is warranted, but clouds some of this other accomplishments. But that’s not what I want to talk about today.

In 1966, President Johnson decided that the price of eggs was too high. He was actively manipulating the economy by directly appealing to industry leaders to control things like the supply of goods or the prices of goods. But in the spring of 1966, he decided that the price of eggs was too high. (I can’t remember why he cared specifically about the price of eggs. I’d look it up, but I don’t think it matters.) His advisors and the Department of Agriculture told him that there really wasn’t anything that they could do. Americans loved their eggs.

So President Johnson got creative.

There had been a recent study that would have otherwise been published in medical journals and mostly forgotten about, but Johnson encouraged the Surgeon General to release the results in a different way. That study found that eggs are high in cholesterol, and that high cholesterol is not healthy.

Media outlets played their role perfectly, if unknowingly, and spread the story far and wide. Eggs were bad for you! Eggs are unhealthy! The demand for eggs dropped immediately and substantially, and the price of eggs dropped with it.

The takeaways from this story are this:

The President of the United States has influence and power, and sometimes chooses to use it in really weird ways.
The media manipulates us and is itself manipulated.
Sometimes it is not enough to look critically at information and think, “Is this true?” Sometimes you also have to think, “Does this matter?”
Words and actions have long-term consequences.

Every time I think about eggs or cholesterol, I can’t help but think about politics and LBJ. And now I hope this story haunts you the way it haunts me. You’re welcome. 😉

What now?

The reality of a President-Elect Donald Trump has not yet fully sunk in. At the same time, I seem to be consumed with the thought of nothing else. I am grateful and humbled for those of you who have given me your trust and a platform to express those thoughts.

It might sound like a cliche by now–the election of Donald Trump is a wake-up call. This campaign should have been a wake-up call, but many just did not believe that his message resonated as strongly as it did. Coming from a county that ultimately had 71% of voters casting their vote for Trump, I can tell you that the support is strong.

What I and many others are struggling with is why voters chose Trump. Many on the left will say that it is a vote for racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. For some Trump supporters, I have no doubt that this was the reason that they voted for him. But for many others–and I’m personally counting on it being most of his supporters–it was something else.

I’m hearing the voices of my Liberal friends who are thinking, “Maybe that’s not why they voted for him, but his sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia and xenophobia is going to have a huge impact on his administration and presidency, and ultimately our lives.” I agree. And it scares me. But as crazy as this sounds, that’s not what I want to focus on right now. If that is your focus and the advocacy route that you are taking, I support you.

I have deliberately been focusing on staying positive–not positive in the sense that there aren’t serious, potentially catastrophic, concerns about a Trump presidency, but positive in that I am focusing on the things that I can do and on the best ways that I know to impact change. For now, my focus is on these things:

What are the factors that have led us to this place? What is it that makes Trump’s message so compelling and why have Democrats failed to engage many of the very people that they (we) purport to fight for?

What do supporters of President-Elect Trump really believe on critical social issues, like LGBTQ rights, civil rights, police brutality and the need for improved training, gun control, healthcare and welfare? How can Democrats (or me, personally) engage with those moderate, reasoned Trump supporters to advocate for these critical social issues that lift up all Americans?

How can we (I) encourage reasoned conversation that comes from a place of kindness and friendship, and minimize the hate and anger that is lying under the national conversation right now?
How we we (I) encourage every individual to get involved at all levels of government and engage with their local, state and national representatives? How do we ALL go back to a system of government that allowed elected officials to represent their entire constituency and make decisions that they felt morally good about, rather than a two-party system that doesn’t allow for deviations from the party line?

I’m honored that so many of you have trusted me and given me a platform to try to make sense of some of this for all of us, and I’m going to do my best to live up to that trust.

James Madison Memorial, Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Original Intent, the Second Amendment and my nerdy love for James Madison

James Madison Memorial, Library of Congress, Washington, DC

James Madison, father of the United States Constitution and co-author of the Federalist Papers, once said in a letter to Judge Roane (Virginia judge and member of the Virginia House of Delegates),

It could not but happen, and was foreseen at the birth of the Constitution, that difficulties and differences of opinion might occasionally arise in expounding terms and phrases necessarily used in such a charter . . . and that it might require a regular course of practice to liquidate and settle the meaning of some of them.

Or to put it in current, less founding father-y language: The US Constitution is necessarily vague and will need to be continuously interpreted throughout history.

Madison knew from the outset that anything that was written in the Constitution would have to be interpreted through the lens of the current period in history. While I know better than to speak for the “founding fathers” as though they were of one unified opinion, in this they were mostly in agreement. The Constitution would need to be a living document.

Of course, that idea is still the source of much debate. (Interestingly similar to the debate about how literally we should take the Bible, really.) But let’s assume for a moment that we SHOULD interpret the Constitution using original intent. (We shouldn’t. But let’s do it anyway.)

What was the original intent of the Second Amendment?

The text of the ratified version of the Second Amendment states,

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Most people understand this to mean that citizens should be permitted to arm themselves for their own protection. We often think about the needs at the time of the ratification of the Constitution – protection against Native American attacks, protection against wildlife, the need to hunt for game, etc. Many people understand, correctly, that this was also an intent to allow the citizens to protect themselves against tyranny, based on the phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”

What is misunderstood, however, is that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to appease the groups of Americans who opposed any sort of “standing” army. A very large contingent of Americans believed that the United States should have no permanent, regular army or armed force. They believed that protection of the new nation should be in the hands only of state-based, primarily volunteer, militia. To many, an army that was funded by the central government was the very core of tyranny.

Madison wasn’t totally on board with that. He knew that a central military that was funded by federal tax revenues would be necessary for viable protection of the country against foreign enemies, but like most US citizens until WWI, foresaw a very small, centralized force supported by volunteer corps when needed. But to appease those who feared the central military, he included in the drafted Bill of Rights the specific rights for militia to continue to exist.

If you are going to go with original intent, you have to know what the original intent actually was.

I often hear arguments against any revision of gun control policy that point to the “original intent” of the Second Amendment, citing a citizen’s right bear arms in protection against tyranny. Maybe that was true, but the original intent of the Second Amendment has been invalidated, unless you also prefer to also abolish or drastically minimize the US military. Of course you don’t. That’s insane. Few US citizens today would argue for a smaller military.

I’m not in favor of abolishing the Second Amendment. I think it has value and I think citizens do have a right to bear arms for protection. (Yes, even “protection against tyranny”.) I also believe, as James Madison did, that the US Constitution is necessarily a living document, requiring re-interpretation as the world evolves and changes.

The world has certainly evolved and changed, and it is time for re-interpretation.

chrisbykate

politics, religion and other taboo topics

Politics