Against a New Constitutional Convention for New York State

October 31, 2017

In a week, we will be voting to decide whether to call a constitutional convention for the State of New York. The powers of the Convention would be wide open. Before going further, it is important to look at the provisions for calling the Convention:

in case a majority of the electors voting thereon shall decide in favor of a convention … the electors of every senate district of the state … shall elect three delegates at the next … general election, and the electors of the state voting at the same election shall elect fifteen delegates-at-large.

Let me repeat one crucial phrase, “the electors of every senate district of the state.” The New York Senate as we all know has been gerrymandered for many years to maximize Republican control of the Senate. Although the increasingly blue hue of our state politics has forced them into coalition with the so-called Independent Democrats, the NY Senate remains much more conservative than the Assembly, and not fairly representative of the people of the State. Everyone should be represented. Everyone’s ideas count. But everyone should be represented fairly and their ideas should be considered by a body that represents us fairly. Since the Convention would be shaped only by senatorial districts plus a few delegates chosen at large, I would not be willing to trust our future as a state to such a body.

You may have repeatedly heard me talk about gerrymandering. Many of us who have been fighting gerrymandering for years have continued to fight it regardless of who is the temporary beneficiary. Republicans should not have to accept a convention gerrymandered toward Democrats any more than Democrats should have to accept a convention gerrymandered toward Republicans, as it is now. Frankly, that alone determines my vote. End gerrymandering first and than we can talk about constitutional change.

The current New York State Constitution was adopted in 1938. In other words it was adoped near the end of the Great Depression. As such it had important provisions with the great mass of us in mind, not just the one-tenth of one percent who often think everything should favor them. That too makes it important to protect this Constitution. Of course it is not perfect. And when we get rid of gerrymandering, we may be able to fix it. But now losing this Constitution would be too dangerous.

Moreover, much that is wrong with this Constitution has nothing to do with its language and everything to do with the interpretation of the Courts. Just as I would not jettison the U.S. Constitution because of Scalia’s misreadings, so I would not jettison the 1938 New York Constitution because the courts screwed it up.

To the extent that some people believe some provisions could be improved, it would be sufficient to propose those specific improvements to the people of this state without using them as a Trojan Horse to threaten the entire document.

If any more reasons are needed, there is no reason to believe the delegates will be a step up from the legislature which already has the power to propose amendments. And I would be much more comfortable if the powers of any convention elected to revise the Constitution were limited to matters carefully defined in advance so that we could know how large a threat they pose.

I believe the people of this state would be wiser, safer and better off voting no.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, October 31, 2017.

Advertisements

The Fourth Shattering

October 25, 2017

Chilling! Points in the same direction as my own Unfit for Democracy: https://www.juancole.com/2017/10/america-donald-shattering.html.


Dealing with Hate

October 24, 2017

Dealing with Hate

Steve Gottlieb

 

Group epithets darken our world. It is particularly dangerous because the president encourages it. Trying to revive the language and practice of hate is shameful regardless of whom it comes from. How can we deal with it?

 

Somehow I grew up curious and sought out people who seemed different. I deliberately left New York City for college and law school to mix with people from other places. Students here come from distant parts of the country for the same reason. We discover our new companions have no horns and deal decently with us, although there are always exceptions.

 

I’ve never found a gender-neutral term for it but brotherhood makes sense. And it’s a survival strategy. Martin Niemöller, a Protestant pastor and outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler, spent seven years in Nazi concentration camps. He wrote:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

His words urge us to stick together as a survival tactic – we can be selfish and altruistic at the same time and should be because brotherhood is valuable to us all.

Most of us learned not to generalize – branding people en masse makes little sense and lots of damage. Our language is full of ethnic slurs like welching on deals, Indian-givers, patty-wagons, not to mention all the ethnic slurs which most of us now regard as unmentionable but to which all our ancestors were subject. In other words, it’s too easy to break down into mutual distrust.

I’ve broken bread, worked and played with people around this country and across the globe, as an attorney, a Peace Corps Volunteer, tourist and student. It’s an education. Decent, caring people come in all colors, speak all languages, and worship in all kinds of places. That was as true in Iran as it was at college – I was a religious minority in both places but gained by both experiences as I learned to understand the needs, fears, desires and beliefs of others.

Unfortunately it’s too easy to fear what one hasn’t explored. We usually notice what goes wrong first, while what goes right seems too ordinary to notice. But that leaves lots of dangerous misimpressions. I grew up in an era when violence spewed out of white ghettos, from gangs in Black jackets but white skin. Should I fear every white American or every cleric because some went wrong? I’ve known a large number of wonderful African-Americans as well as people of other faiths and nationalities – some as clients, friends, colleagues and I’ve worked for several. The goodness of different peoples obviously doesn’t prove that none ever make mistakes but equally the mistakes of some don’t imply the absence of other wonderful people.

More significant than arguments, we need to condemn, resist and speak out. Hatred reveals the hater’s weakness. Our joint condemnations reveal how hatred destroys those who do the hating, costs them respect and other social and economic rewards. We must stand together.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, October 24, 2017.


Generosity and the Las Vegas Massacre

October 17, 2017

Two weeks ago, I’d prepared commentary about the value of generosity in foreign affairs but awoke to the horrible reports from Las Vegas. I went ahead with it while I caught my breath and planned commentary about guns. But generosity is very relevant and I want to return to it. Gun rights definitions which don’t account for the thousands of people killed with guns every year are simply selfish. The it’s-my-gun-so-you-have-no-right-to-regulate-it attitude is selfishness, not liberty.

Stephen Paddock shouldn’t have been able to climb to the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort with automatic weapons just because he claimed the right. Automatic weapons don’t prevent government tyranny as gun advocates sometimes claim; they’re weapons of war and provoke tyranny. We all have a right to safety and security but nuts with powerful weapons deprive us of that birthright. In a battle between self-defined freedom seekers and the military, everyone loses, permanently.

Generosity and its absence are underlie most of our political struggles and the gridlock in our national affairs. Selfish definitions of liberty which refuse to take account of the damage to others are out of keeping with our national history and traditions. Like misbegotten gun claims, arguments for an unregulated market, which ignore the hundreds of thousands of people injured by selfish business and corporate practices, are hypocritical cover for outrageous behavior. Selfishness is not a definition of freedom.

Generosity is relevant in yet another way. Our polarized politics and lack of respect for each other reflect declining generosity, when me, me, me is all that matters but opponents don’t. When people throw bricks through windows, and shoot bullets through skulls over politics, there’s no safety except in hiding. How many congressmen and women will have to be shot before Congress comes to its senses? Unwillingness to work with a president of the other party, lest he accomplish anything, is about disrespect, where only one’s own purposes count. If it was appropriate to prevent a vote on President Obama’s nominee, though a majority of the Senate would have supported Garland, is there any reason to respect any decision for which Gorsuch is essential? If it was all about them, then it’s equally appropriate that it’s all about us. That’s not democracy. That’s war.

President Trump says we all come together after a tragedies like these. We know that has been nonsense, that pleas for help after Sandy were scorned by representatives of other parts of the country, and Trump treats the efforts of Puerto Ricans as less worthy than those elsewhere. People in the continental US would have been equally helpless except that relief agencies and the Red Cross were able to organize supplies where they could be delivered, and the destructiveness of the hurricane in Puerto Rico went far beyond what happened elsewhere. But no, this was an opportunity to disparage people who aren’t part of the Trump coalition. Shame.

Even the right not to be shot in the back by officials with badges has somehow become a political issue, as if there are two sides to that question. By comparison, I’m all for the immigrants and their generous patriotism. I’ve had it with selfish imposters like Trump, Cruz, and McConnell. This country may be great again but only when we are rid of the people whose political ideal is to tear us apart.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, October 3, 2017.


What Happened at the Supreme Court Gerrymandering Argument

October 13, 2017

Based on the U.S. Supreme Court argument in the Wisconsin Gerrymandering case, I am optimistic that we may get some very much needed reform. To see why, click here for my commentary on TheHill.com.


Guns and Vegas

October 10, 2017

Why, after Vegas, Sandy Hook and other mass killings of decent men, women and children, is it so hard to get real gun control?

The NRA was  an association of hunters and sportsman, reasonable and trustworthy neighbors. Now the NRA, its leaders and vocal supporters argue Americans should have the right to buy any kind of firearm from tanks and machine guns to silencers. Where did that come from?

A good bet might be manufacturers. Despite the praise Republicans like to lavish on the free market, too many businesses look at profits before safety, honor or humanity. That can make life miserable without

But part of their audience is quite radical, some of which goes back to the Civil War. President Andrew Johnson sent General Carl Schurz to report on conditions in the South following the War. Schurz reported that southern slave-owners continued riding patrol to force the former slaves back to their plantations. Those informal groups gradually coalesced into organizations that fought, killed and intimidated African-Americans and their white supporters in order to regain white control of the former Confederate States. In such notorious events as the Colfax Massacre, many were killed in order to return Colfax County to white slaveowner control. Those groups eventually became the KKK and similar organizations which terrorized African-Americans in the former Confederacy and border states for a century. The Klan never really disappeared despite passage of the Civil Rights Laws. The connection between the battle to keep the South white, the flag of the Confederacy and the sight of guns is no accident. Trump’s campaign and victory re-invigorated these white supremacists, and the Alt-Wrong.

They want tanks, machine guns and other massively destructive weapons to prevent tyranny, by which they mean federal tyranny, so they need the capacity to fight the federal government.[1] One problem of course is that’s another civil war. Another is that their definition of tyranny isn’t one most of us would accept. Many believe that tyranny is here.

That radical segment of gun-owners are not patriots. They are not supporters of government of, by and for the people that we created in 1787 and improved by Amendment after the Civil War. Their ideal is government by white supremacists to the exclusion of everyone else. And that’s aimed at most of us – those of us whose views are more welcoming, and those who don’t satisfy the supremacists’ view of Christianity. They’re also aimed at resolving political disputes by taking the law into their own hands.[2] Politically, if we don’t protect each other, who will protect those of us who remain? This political and cultural crisis is existential. The America most of us admire and care about is an America they despise and want to conquer. That’s what tanks and machine guns are for.

The radicals’ resistance to sharing America with the rest of us leads to armed rebellions, like those of Cliven Bundy and his supporters, or self-styled “sovereign citizens” who routinely refuse to respect the law. There is nothing peace-loving or law-abiding about the radicals.

The mood of the country has been changing, witness the removal of many Confederate flags and monuments. But that stimulates the haters. They’re losing control and they hate that, and us. Reasonable and trustworthy gun owners would do better to distance themselves from the radicals who have taken a prominent and threatening role in the debate over weapons.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, October 10, 2017.

[1] One NRA member from Texas told an NPR reporter, “As far as I’m concerned, if you can afford to buy a tank, you should be able to buy a tank.” He explained: “the Second Amendment was put in not to hunt, not to go plink at cans, not to shoot at targets. If and when tyranny tries to take over our country, we can fight it.” A recent NRA President, Jim Porter wanted people to be “ready to fight tyranny.” When he was NRA vice-president, Porter told an audience that “We got the pads put on, we got our helmets strapped on, we’re cinched up, we’re ready to fight, we’re out there fighting every day.”

[2] NPR’s Wade Goodwyn reported that speakers at a recent NRA convention “emphasized their belief that there are two Americas: the righteousness of the right and the decadence of the left.” In other words, one of the strands of fanaticism behind the NRA is political – not just that gun rights are political, but that the purpose of having gun rights is political, to change the society from one they dislike to one they like.


Dictators, War, Children

October 7, 2017

Have you noticed how many dictatorships are family affairs? No doubt because they can’t trust anyone else. And also wondered how many wars are started to rally the public around unpopular leaders? Have any of your friends, as have some of ours, started to stock up on potassium iodide to protect their grandchildren against some of the damage in the event nuclear weapons are used? It’s hard to stomach people being killed for political reasons – soldiers, civilians, children, anyone. May it be beyond imagination and possibility.


%d bloggers like this: