Voter Rights: The New Civil Rights Movement

It has occurred to me recently that the Tea Party folks missed the point somewhat when they chose their name.  The Boston Tea Party was not a protest about taxes.  It was a protest about being taxed without representation.  The Bostonians were complaining that the British oligarchs had imposed a tea tax on the colonies without colonists having any valid representation in Parliament, so that their needs would be considered in the process of making laws that affected them.

I was reminded of this important distinction as we celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.   These remarkable laws enfranchised millions of Americans to fully participate in our society by allowing them to fully participate in the election process.   Half a century later, I fear we have already taken big steps backward to disenfranchise our citizens.  In the process, we run the risk of creating a new oligarchy at a scale and rate that will destroy American democracy.   Three examples illustrate the problem:

1.            Gerrymandering.   I live in Central Pennsylvania, where my university town has been divided up so that it is part of several conservative, rural state assembly districts, essentially nullifying any liberal tendencies of the university community.   This idea—of re-engineering district borders in order to ensure conservative majorities—has been a national conservative strategy for years. 

2.            Voter  Disenfranchisement.    Throughout the Obama administration, we have seen states attempting to limit access to the poor and racial minorities by requiring visual ID, limiting voting hours, etc.  The impact here is to disenfranchise specific classes of individual voters entirely.  This year, for instance, the Huffington Post reported that Ohio reduced early voting and decided that voting places will close at 5 p.m. on Election Day.  The result is to effectively block access for many working-class citizens, minorities, and seniors.

3.             The Influence of Special Interests.   The Citizens United and, most recently, McCutcheon rulings give corporations and other “associations of individuals” the ability to give huge amounts of money to political candidates.   The impact is to essentially compromise our elected officials, leaving individual citizens with no real power as citizens and no real representation in government.  This is today’s equivalent of the tea tax that led to the Boston tea party.

The result is that, 50 years after the passage of the Voter Rights Act, many American citizens no longer have full access to representation.  Some have been denied the opportunity through redistricting that puts them in a permanent minority position; others have been denied access to the voting booth.  And, regardless of who wins, many candidates are compromised by the huge amounts of money invested in their elections by corporations and other special interests, leaving individual citizens with no practical representation.

What we need is not a Tea Party focused on eliminating government services for citizens, but a new Civil Rights movement that is committed to ensuring that all Citizens have equal and effective access to representation at the State and Federal levels.  

Leonard Pittts, Jr. and Arizona

Leonard Pitts Jr.: Boycott Arizona | Leonard Pitts Jr. | CentreDaily.com

Leonard Pitts, Jr., has written what I think is an important column about the pending Arizona law that would allow people to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

We are a nation of immigrants.  The fundamental fact about Americans is that we all come from different places, with different cultures, different traditions, etc.  What we share in common is that we are Americans and honor the principles of equality on which our nation was created.  As we become Americans, we tend to create two cultures.  One is the private culture of our family traditions.  The other is the public culture of being an American in a great democracy.  Tolerance for the beliefs of others is what makes it possible for all of us to honor our personal/familial/cultural traditions while maintaining a free society.  The democracy of a nation of immigrants cannot survive if each of us is to put our private beliefs above our public commitment to equality.

This is not a freedom of religion issue, as much as the Arizona legislature wants to call it that.  It is a license for intolerance.

Thanks to the Beatles on their 50th Anniversary in the US

Tonight marks the 50^th anniversary of the Beatles’ premiere on American television—The Ed Sullivan Show—back in 1964. 

I was working at Little Italy, a family-owned restaurant in Hermitage, at the time.  The owners, Mr. and Mrs. Bishop, brought in a TV and we watched it there.   

I saw the Beatles in 1966.  They were playing at the Cleveland baseball stadium.  That was the year I graduated from high school.  I was working at the local Arby’s, and a group of us drove up to Cleveland for the concert.  We parked outside the city and took a trolley into town.  We had lunch and then went over to the hotel where the Beatles were staying.  Saw nothing, but enjoyed the crowd.

In those days, the amplification systems were not yet powerful enough for full-stadium concerts, so the stage was set on second base and the seating went around from first base to third base.  Our seats were close to first base.  The Beatles were great.  But, when the opening guitar riff for “Day Tripper” started, the crowd went wild and kids stormed the stage.  Police had set up snow fence around the track and tried to hold back the crowd, but to no avail.  The Beatles retreated to a trailer set behind the stage until things got settled down and then came out and finished their set.  On the trolley back to our car, we saw several people who carried souvenirs of the concert.  One had one the first (or third) base bag.  Another had the neck of a guitar.

The Beatles—along with Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, and a few others—continued to provide social markers for us through college.  I remember the day the White Album came out, for instance, and we gathered in a friend’s apartment to listen to it for the first time.  Many thanks to them all for giving a soundtrack to our generation.

National Service and the Declaration of Independence

E.J. Dionne Jr.: A call for national service - The Washington Post

In this opinion piece, published in the Post's July 4 issue, Dionne reminds us that the founding vision of the United States is of a community in which citizens care for each other.  National service--not necessarily military service, but an environment in which young people spend a year helping to improve their community through many avenues of service--is a way to realize that vision.

The August 2013 issue of Harper's includes a transcript of a speech given by Mark Kingwell in which he states:

You can either use a pillow or a gun to kill a person, but people with guns kill more people than do people with pillows.  Marshall McLuhan was correct:  the medium really is the message.

 What is the message?  It is not complicated.  If you own a handgun or, certainly a semi-automatic rifle, the message you are sending is that you are willing to kill another human being at your own discretion.  That is the only reason to own such a weapon.  One can make the case that the message is that the gun owner will protect him/herself at any cost, but the end result is the same.  Gun owners tell us:  I will kill you if I feel personally justified in doing so.

The amazing thing is that millions of Americans send that message every day.

Letter from Bill and Melinda Gates - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

 Letter from Bill and Melinda Gates - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation



The annual letter from the Gates Foundation focuses less on what the Foundation has done over the past year and more on three myths that we need to overcome in order to realize the full potential for growth around the globe.

The myth that resonates most with me is the idea that poor countries are doomed to stay poor.  Adherence to that myth contributes to the idea that the U.S. is falling behind in the world when, perhaps, a better analysis might be that we are all becoming more equal.  As Fareed Zakaria wrote, we are witnessing "the rise of the rest."

Americans need to become comfortable with the idea of global equality as a goal.  Robert Reich has a movie entitled "Inequality for All."  In fact, inequality for anyone IS inequality for all.  We need to work toward global equality just as we did in the 1960s for equality among Americans.  This is not a goal where war can help.  It is a goal that is best pursued through compassion and a willingness to see ourselves as part of a larger family.

Living versus Touring

We are just back from what is becoming our annual vacation trip to Ogunquit, Maine.   We went the first time on our honeymoon in June 1972.  We had stopped in Boston to visit friends (who treated us to a memorable Bloomsday tour of Boston and surrounds) and then started for what we thought would be a trip up the coast of Maine.  Our first stop was Ogunquit, where we found a nice bed and breakfast for the night.  The next day, we decided to stay the week.  On our last night, our host introduced us to another honeymoon couple from Quebec and sent us out for dinner and a show.  While they spoke only French and we mostly English, we had a great time.  It was a memorable stay.  We had not been back since then, but in 2011 we drove up for another June visit and then went back again in September. We missed last year because we had just moved into our new house, but we couldn't wait to get back this past week.  Ogunquit has grown, but it has kept the spirit of an artists' retreat and high-end resort town.  But the real draw is the ocean, the Marginal Way path along the rocky coast, and the little restaurants, galleries, and museums that dot it and the surrounding area--the Yorks, Wells, and Kennebunkport.  No sooner had we returned than we booked another four nights in September.  I am sure we will do it again every year as long as we can handle the 9-hour drive.

Of course, we've already heard the complaint:  Why do you always go back to the same places?  There is a big world out there. Why not try something new?  It is a question worth exploring a bit.

Sure, the world is big.  But what is better, to skim the surface of many places or to get to know a few places that speak to you and, at whatever level you can, become a part of them and find within them whatever reflection they may have of the universal?  I've been to a lot of places over the years--every continent except Antarctica--and while I have enjoyed new sights and sounds, I much prefer when I can to linger, to get to know a place, to become familiar with it and to enjoy its essence.  Touring is interesting, but not satisfying.

This is true in other areas of life.  For instance, I've pretty much stayed with one area in my career--changing with technology, but keeping to the vision of how we use technology to connect people and ideas.  As a result, I think--or at the very least, I hope--that I've been able to make a greater contribution because I came, over time and by dealing with change within the field, to understand the underlying realities of the field.  I also became part of an ongoing and vibrant professional community and developed both professional relationships and friendships with colleagues from many places around the world who are connected by our shared commitment to the profession.

The world is a big place.  While we need to be reminded of its diversity, we also need to understand what holds us together.  We can best understand it, perhaps, not by trying to see it all, but by trying to experience a few parts of it as deeply as possible.