I don’t get it

November 11, 2014

I don’t get it. Political scientists tell us that the advantage of democracy is that the elected officials have to act for the benefit of most of the people. And if they don’t, they lose.

So the Republican Administration of George Bush delivered war, torture and economic disaster – and the Republicans then lost the White House. But then the Republicans calculated that if they could prevent Obama from delivering any benefits, they could take over. They went on the campaign trail saying that Obama failed because he hadn’t forced them to pass what he wanted, and at the same time telling the public that he had done a great deal of damage by doing everything he wanted to do. Never mind the contradiction.

But lots of people seem to have bought it. So how’s democracy supposed to work?

All over the political spectrum people seem to be voting against their own interests, convinced by nonsense that what hurts, helps them. Hard-working people who don’t make a lot of money vote for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Businessmen vote against investment in critical infrastructure they use daily.

The electoral process looks tribal to me. Science, expertise, experience, all get reinterpreted by who’s who supporting what. If Princeton economists support policies that help the poor, then those policies must be bad and must not support “me” – because my interests differ from the interests of the poor. Remember I’m middle-class. I couldn’t share the interests of the poor. Increase in the minimum wage? Forget it; I’m on salary. By the way who’d you say buys my stuff? Couldn’t be we’re all in this together!

Well most of us. See “I’m” on the side of the billionaires, even though they make infinitely more than me and won’t share a penny – that’s why they pay for so many lobbyists to squeeze the last penny out of the government, and stiff me all the way. That isn’t supposed to happen in a democracy.

Except that the plutocrats – ok that’s the old name – the super-rich, the 1/10 of 1%, or fewer, the oligarchs – cut the bottom out of the voting booths by making it harder and more expensive to vote, and by splashing money at the media and the commentators ‘til it sticks or just confuses people so they stay home – so our oligarchs can control the political system for themselves.

Will the people fight back? The damage is all over the legal spectrum. Patent and copyright law? Forget the artists and inventors. Minimum wages? Forget the workers. Infrastructure? Forget the people who drive or ride – the super-rich fly private jets or live abroad. Forget the small business that benefits from infrastructure – the super-rich got their breaks for businesses so big they don’t need to worry about regular folk – they own the markets. Taxes – guess who gets tax relief while the rest of us are left with the bill while the super-rich make noise about deficits? Wonder why we have those!

Are we letting democracy sink that low? Sounds like the dictator’s game – shrink the electorate and lavish huge benefits on your supporters.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, November 11, 2014.


A View of the Ballot

September 15, 2014

I got on line the other night to see what to expect at the voting booth today. We have all been hearing about the primary races for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, although polls tell us that lots of people haven’t heard of Zephyr Teachout and Tim Wu, or if they’ve heard the names don’t know why. That’s clearly not true of WAMC listeners. But what else is on the ballot? Actually plenty. Read the rest of this entry »


The Anti-Union Court

July 1, 2014

The Court decided yesterday in Harris v. Quinn that at least some of the employees who work under a collective bargaining agreement don’t have to share in the costs of negotiating that agreement. The Court says it violated their First Amendment rights. How many unions and employees it will apply to is still unclear but this is not the first move the Roberts Court has made in that direction.[i] Sometimes the patterns matter much more than the individual decisions, whether good or bad. Read the rest of this entry »


The Threat of Self-Styled Armed Militias

May 20, 2014

Some of us remember having to sign loyalty oaths. In the language of the U.S. Supreme Court, one had to swear that he or she had not “advocate[d] the overthrow of government by force, violence, or any unlawful means.” That included the overthrow of “the Government of the United States or of any political subdivisions.” In the 1950s everyone from barbers to professors had to sign those things and even cafeteria workers got fired on mere suspicion of disloyalty, the absence of proof notwithstanding.

Of course it was political. Senator McCarthy famously attacked President Truman and many of the people in the cabinet as disloyal. Republicans attacked Democrats and liberals as if they supported a Communist invasion. It was a campaign of character assassination. Charges were brought without facts that prosecutors were willing to reveal until the Supreme Court pointed out that it had the obligation to insist on fundamental due process like the right to see the charges and confront witnesses. But at least, at some level, however misguided, it was about patriotism.

Now, a group of armed self-styled militiamen blocked the federal government from charging Cliven Bundy the fee for grazing his cattle on federal land. Then they took their weapons to a closed federal canyon, to open it by force for use by ATVs. They bluntly deny the authority of the federal government. To make it worse, prominent Republicans called Bundy’s refusal to pay for grazing his cattle on federal land, and the armed intervention of his militia supporters, “patriotic.” Read the rest of this entry »


Economics, Lawyers and the Risk to American Democracy

April 1, 2014

Ever notice that I frequently talk about economics. What’s a lawyer doing talking about economics? I did read and study economics but there are other reasons why economic issues are dear to this heart.

Lawyers do lots of different things. But for many of us, law is a helping profession. We work with people who are headed for bankruptcy and other events that will turn their lives upside down. We do our best to help them avoid personal tragedies – or pick up the pieces. We don’t think of clients as numbers but as people, most of whom we like and respect. We learn not to think of financial reverses as a judgment about their character, decency or personal value. It happens for all sorts of reasons, often beyond our clients’ control. When it is a mistake, it is often a part of learning how to do business or operate in this world. Some of the world’s most successful people have been through bankruptcy. Up close and personal, we care.

So the national recession wasn’t just a set of numbers for me. It was a catastrophe in the lives of many people. They were passengers on the national ship on a foggy night when the captain  crashed into another vessel. Millions of people went overboard, leaving their jobs and belongings behind. Rescuing people isn’t a choice; it’s an obligation just as it was not optional whether to pick our friends up from the wreck of the Achille Lauro. An S.O.S. has a clear and obligatory meaning.

But there is another reason. One could trace it to a famous French aristocrat who visited and wrote about the U.S. in the 1830s but statistical studies beginning after World War II keep making the point that poverty and inequality are both hostile to the survival of democracy. Historians studied the failure of democracies on multiple continents and reached the same conclusion. Others with different methodologies keep reaching similar conclusions.

It’s not a surprising conclusion. During the Great Depression in the 1930s, many were worried that we would lose our system of self-government, and some advised President Roosevelt to take dictatorial powers, but he refused. Now science has come to support common sense. Poverty can be dangerous, not only to individuals but to society. It makes people desperate and when they are, all bets are off.

With that knowledge, it is painful to me to watch Congress leave the victims of corporate shenanigans in the dirt as if they were so much trash. And as an attorney, it is particularly painful to me to watch the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts doing everything in its power to play the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham, robbing from the poor to pay the rich. Many of those decisions are complex legally as well as economically but their effect on the fairness of the contracts we sign daily and on the lives of many people are extensive and often tragic. To me, the Roberts Court is threatening our democratic patrimony.

The personal suffering would be enough. The risk to our country is hard to bear.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, April 1, 2014.


Worst Supreme Court decisions in Two Decades

December 31, 2013

What’s the worst thing the U.S. Supreme Court has done in two decades?

Bush v. Gore? The very name evokes tragedy.  Thousands dead in Iraq for a war we shouldn’t have fought. Thousands more dead in Afghanistan because the Supreme Court’s choice for president sent military support to Iraq instead. The Court’s presidential choice also encouraged savage, predatory business behavior that we’re still paying for. It put off any reckoning with the environment for a decade, more if you include the House of Representatives’ current intransigence.

That’s quite a record for a single U.S. Supreme Court decision. You might have to go back to Dred Scott v. Sanford which helped bring on the Civil War to match the impact of Bush v. Gore, although if we go back that far, disasters you’ve probably never heard of, like U.S. v. Cruikshank and the ironically named Civil Rights Cases, were responsible for a century of murder and mayhem with impunity in the segregated south. But Bush v. Gore certainly ranks with the biggest – and worst. Read the rest of this entry »


Casinos and the Board of Elections

November 5, 2013

When this is aired, I will be in Washington, D. C., where my students and I went to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear cases argued that we have been studying. Since it is also election day, I had to fill out an absentee ballot. On the ballot, the casino proposition leads the group of ballot propositions. Governor Cuomo had “submitted a concurrent resolution to the State Legislature to amend article I, § 9 of the State Constitution to allow for ‘casino gambling regulated by the state.’”[1]

Having been twice approved by the legislature, the proposed amendment is being submitted to New York voters. But the State Board of Elections added the following language to the proposal for the obvious purpose of encouraging voters to support it:

“for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated.”[2]   Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 242 other followers