Civil Disobedience

My interest in the Kim Davis case is in the use of civil disobedience as a powerful tool for social change. While I disagree with her position and recognize that - with her own marital history - she is a compromised symbol for the case she is trying to make (remember, civil rights leaders were careful in choosing Rosa Parks to be the symbol of the Montgomery Bus Boycott), it is important nevertheless to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the use of civil disobedience.

Some of Davis' supporters have compared her to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Given the body of his work in championing the cause of civil rights, that is anathema to a lot of us. But Dr. King was very strong in his commitment to civil disobedience and wrote specifically in support of breaking laws that one deems to be unjust. Here is how he made the distinction:

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an "I - it" relationship for the "I - thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Isn't segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, an expression of his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? So I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong.

Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow, and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because it did not have the unhampered right to vote. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up the segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout the state of Alabama all types of conniving methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties without a single Negro registered to vote, despite the fact that the Negroes constitute a majority of the population. Can any law set up in such a state be considered democratically structured?

Dr. King gives three examples of how to distinguish between a just and an unjust law. First is the moral test. Ms. Davis might suggest that, given her beliefs, signing off on gay marriage licenses is against her morals. But here is Dr. King's test: "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." Does signing off on a marriage license create an "I-it" relationship? I would suggest just the opposite.

The second example Dr. King gives of an unjust law is "a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself." In the case of gay marriage, I would say that this is the opposite of what the Supreme Court recently did.

Finally, an unjust law is one where the people affected did not have the "unhampered right to vote." I suppose that Davis supporters will say that, since this involves a Supreme Court decision, she did not have the right to vote on equal marriage. But we live in a representative democracy founded on a constitution that allows the people we vote for to nominate and approve Supreme Court justices. As such, Ms. Davis has had ample access to the voting booth.

So, with that information, I would let you judge whether it is fair to compare Ms. Davis' actions to those of Dr. King when it comes to civil disobedience. But to do so, we also need to keep one more important thing in mind. Those words from Dr. King are part of his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail." At the heart of Dr. King's commitment to engage in civil disobedience was an acceptance that doing so meant going to jail.

Later in that letter he talks about the necessary "tension" that is created when moral people are jailed for breaking unjust laws. That is at the heart of any strategy that incorporates civil disobedience. And so Davis' supporters - including several Republican presidential candidates - are completely missing the point when they rail about her being sent to jail for disobeying the law. That is the whole point of civil disobedience.

I'm frankly not surprised that conservatives have such a poor understanding of the role of this kind of strategy. Engaging in civil disobedience has alway been a much more natural approach for those who are truly oppressed or marginalized in our society. But among liberals, I've seen some serious distortion of the principles as they do/do not apply in this situation. If we are going to preserve a commitment to civil disobedience, it is important to keep a clear head about all that.

I feel a rant coming on...

This will be one of those posts I need to write to get something off my chest. I guess there's a reason why some people started calling blog posts "diaries." Occasionally it helps to just write it all down. Fair warning - enter at your own risk :-)

What got me going is this post by Steve Benen. He's too nice of a guy to go into full rant mode, but he basically chronicles how some of the Republican candidates (Cruz, Christie and Walker) are blaming President Obama for the two recent police shootings...makes my blood boil.

I'll simply note that the President has never said a negative word about police officers, but actually called the widow of the recently slain Texas sheriff to offer his condolences.

Obama called Kathleen Goforth, the deputy’s widow, on Monday while he was traveling to Alaska, according to a statement from the White House. During the call, Obama said he offered her prayers on the loss of “a veteran law enforcement officer who was contemptibly shot and killed.”

He went on to decry any violence against officers, saying that Americans must stand up for the safety of police across the country.

“I also promised that I would continue to highlight the uncommon bravery that police officers show in our communities every single day,” Obama said in the statement. “They put their lives on the line for our safety. Targeting police officers is completely unacceptable — an affront to civilized society.”

What President Obama has done consistently since the initial unrest in Ferguson is condemn violence and work to build back the erosion of trust that has developed between people of color and law enforcement. If you have any doubts about that, listen to what he actually said in response to the unrest in Baltimore (rather than simply what Fox News reported he said). That has also been the position of former Attorney General Eric Holder and current AG Loretta Lynch (both of whom have close relatives who are police officers).

All of this is part and parcel of an ongoing theme from conservatives that was recently articulated this way by Rand Paul:

In the last six years under President Obama, we’ve seen a rise in anti-police rhetoric. Instead of hope and change, we’ve seen racial tensions worsen and a tendency to use law enforcement as a scapegoat.

He's right on one thing: in the last six years we've seen racial tensions worsen. I don't think anyone would dispute that. So why is that?

From the beginning of his campaign for president, Republicans and conservative media have been spreading lies about how Barack Obama pals around with terrorists, was educated in a madrasa in Indonesia, has parents who are Muslim, hates white people and is an anti-colonial socialist Kenyan who is coming after your guns and doesn't love America. I'm not even going to get into the vile racist photoshops of he and his wife that circulate via email and comments on right wing blogs. But I will mention this:

Fed by antagonism toward President Obama, resentment toward changing racial demographics and the economic rift between rich and poor, the number of so-called hate groups and antigovernment organizations in the nation has continued to grow, according to a report released Wednesday by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Of course the focal point to all these lies was captured by the "birther" movement when our first African American president was also our first president who was required to show his birth certificate in order to prove that he is an American citizen. If you had any doubts about how that affected African Americans, take a look at Baratunde Thurston's attempt to control his grief and rage as he talks about it.


And yet, the man to whom all this was directed has handled it all with compassion and grace. When he was vilified in the media for his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he gave a speech about race in America. In that speech he not only identified with the racism black people have experienced in this country, he validated the anger that white people feel when they think their needs are being overlooked.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.

So yes, President Obama said that if he had a son, he would look a lot like Trayvon Martin. That is simply a fact. With that statement he expressed empathy for parents who lost their son due to senseless violence. But if that's all he has to say to incite claims that he is being "divisive," heaven help us all!

I've simply had it with this nonsense. If Republicans want to disagree with Obamacare, or his call for immigration reform, or the deal he recently negotiated with Iran...I say, bring it on. Let's talk. But when right wing media is flooded with racial attacks on this President and then wants to turn around and blame him for the divide...STFU!!!!!

President Obama: "Everbody Gets a Seat at the Table"

Think about this for a moment: our country's first African American President is the one several Native American leaders have called the best in our history when it comes to addressing their concerns. Is there a connection between those two things?

I am reminded of the criticisms some Black leaders leveled against the President for his commencement address at Morehouse College a couple of years ago. Their issue was that when he called on these young men to be good fathers, President Obama was engaging in "respectability politics." But what they missed was that he was asking them to embrace something MUCH bigger than being responsible fathers.

As Morehouse Men, many of you know what it’s like to be an outsider; know what it’s like to be marginalized; know what it’s like to feel the sting of discrimination. And that’s an experience that a lot of Americans share. Hispanic Americans know that feeling when somebody asks them where they come from or tell them to go back. Gay and lesbian Americans feel it when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love that they share. Muslim Americans feel it when they’re stared at with suspicion because of their faith. Any woman who knows the injustice of earning less pay for doing the same work -- she knows what it’s like to be on the outside looking in.

So your experiences give you special insight that today’s leaders need. If you tap into that experience, it should endow you with empathy -- the understanding of what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes, to see through their eyes, to know what it’s like when you're not born on 3rd base, thinking you hit a triple. It should give you the ability to connect. It should give you a sense of compassion and what it means to overcome barriers.

So it’s up to you to widen your circle of concern -- to care about justice for everybody, white, black and brown. Everybody. Not just in your own community, but also across this country and around the world. To make sure everyone has a voice, and everybody gets a seat at the table.

It's clear that President Obama was talking about his own experience as an "outsider" and how that has given him a natural empathy for others who have been marginalized. He uses that empathy to widen his own circle of concern - or as he said during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech - expand his moral imagination.

That is also exactly what David Simon suggested will be required of our leaders going forward.

America will soon belong to the men and women — white and black and Latino and Asian, Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist, gay and straight — who can walk into a room and accept with real comfort the sensation that they are in a world of certain difference, that there are no real majorities, only pluralities and coalitions.

Photos of the Day: Gettin' Your Yup'ik Groove On

The pictures of President Obama in Alaska have been spectacular. But of course, it always comes back to the children. Here he is doing a traditional Yup'ik dance with some cutie patooties in Dillingham, AK.

Whew! Time for a break and a group photo.

Polarization: Personality or Policy?

An awful lot has been written over the last few years about how polarized the American electorate has become. Underlying all that is an assumption that the polarization is rooted in policy differences. A recent set of polling questions from HuffPost/YouGov shows that assumption isn't as accurate as we've been led to believe.

In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, we randomly assigned one half of the 1,000 Americans surveyed to say whether they agreed with positions Trump held. The rest were asked whether they agreed with positions held by Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry or current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The trick: the positions were actually the same.

For example:

This indicates that the polarization we're seeing today in our politics is a lot more complex than we've tended to think, and is perhaps tied as much to personality (or party) as it is to policy. It is similar to the results of polling Obamacare vs the Affordable Care Act.

According to a new CNBC poll that surveyed two different groups, 46% of the group that was asked about "Obamacare" was opposed to the law, while 37% of the group asked about the "Affordable Care Act" was opposed to the law.

At the same time, more people support "Obamacare" (29%) than those who support ACA (22%.) In other words, having "Obama" in the name "raises the positives and the negatives," as CNBC put it.

The bad news is that demonization of the other side seems to be working to drive us apart. But the good news is that - if we could ever get to the point of actually discussing policy - perhaps we agree more than we think.

Beyond Denali

A lot of the buzz about President Obama's trip to Alaska has centered around his decision to revert to the original name of Mt. McKinley - Mt. Denali - the name that it was given by Native Alaskans long ago. But it's worth noting that this is not the first time this President has listened to the needs of Native Americans. There is a reason why Cherokee Nation Chief Bill John Baker called President Obama the "best president ever for American Indians" and Chief James Allan, Coeur d’Alene tribal chairman, said that he has "done more for [Native American] tribes than the last five presidents combined."

Because Native Americans are so often the invisible minority in our political discussions, you may not have heard about the actions this administration has taken that led to those quotes. So perhaps it's time to provide a summary.

Since his first year in office, President Obama has hosted a White House Tribal Nations Conference every year and issued a progress report.

In 2010, President Obama signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United States was the last major country to do so.

Also in 2010, the President signed the Tribal Law and Order Act.

Last week, Congress took another important step to improve the lives of Native American women by passing the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. The Act includes a strong emphasis on decreasing violence against women in Native communities, and is one of many steps this Administration strongly supports to address the challenges faced by Native women.

In 2012, the Departments of Justice and Interior announced the settlement of 41 long-standing disputes with Indian tribal governments over the federal mismanagement of trust funds and resources for a total of $1.023 billion.

The Department of Justice has also been at the forefront of pushing for legislation that supports Native American voting rights.

The visit by the President and First Lady to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Nation in June of 2013 obviously had a profound impact. During their time there, they met with six young people "who spoke of lives affected by homelessness, alcoholism, poverty and suicide."

"I love these young people," Obama said shortly after meeting them. "I only spent an hour with them. They feel like my own."

The Obamas emerged from the private conversation at a school in Cannon Ball, N.D., "shaken because some of these kids were carrying burdens no young person should ever have to carry. And it was heartbreaking," Obama said.

The meeting spurred Obama to tell his administration to aggressively build on efforts to overhaul the Indian educational system and focus on improving conditions for Native American youths.

"It’s not very often where I tear up in the Oval Office," Obama, speaking at the conference, said about speaking to his staff about the plight of the children he met. "I deal with a lot of bad stuff in this job. It is not very often where I get choked up, so they knew I was serious about this."

Just one of the products of that meeting was the first ever White House Tribal Youth Gathering where the administration announced the launch of Generation Indigenous. That all comes in addition to things like the announcement this week that the Department of Education has awarded more than $50.4 million in grants to support American Indian tribally controlled colleges and universities.

And so, it should come as no surprise that one of the first items on President Obama's agenda when he landed in Alaska was a meeting with Native leaders.

"We Either Do It Ourselves, or Nobody Does"

I'm still the newcomer to blogging at Political Animal. That means that I'm still catching up on the fascinating history of the Washington Monthly. So it was with great interest that I read this Manifesto from the founder, Charles Peters.

Because of my interest in public engagement, I was especially drawn to this recommendation.

What if we opened hundreds of thousands of federal jobs to political appointees, replacing through normal attrition roughly half the federal government's 2.8 million federal employees? Give the new people two-and-a-half year appointments, with a limit of five years on the time they would be permitted to remain in government...

Because the jobs would be limited to a few years, we also would be constantly sending back into the ranks of the voting public people who have learned firsthand why Washington doesn't work and who have nothing to lose from speaking out about the reforms that are needed.

My first reaction when I read that was that it sounded good, but would never happen. Except that in a very small way, it is.

Then there’s Lisa Gelobter…There was this call she got out of the blue last summer in New York, inviting her to some kind of roundtable discussion in Washington for tech leaders. Lisa had just spent time on the upper management teams at Hulu and BET. She decides, reluctantly, that she’ll go take the meeting, which includes this guy named Mikey as well as this other guy named Todd, and turns out to be in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing. Then President Obama opens the door and surprises everyone, and over the course of 45 minutes gives the sales pitch to beat all sales pitches. They need to come work for him. They will need to take a pay cut, the president announces. But he doesn’t care what it takes—he will personally call their bosses, their spouses, their kids to convince them. The crowd laughs. But he gravely responds: I am completely serious. He needs them to overhaul the government’s digital infrastructure now. “What are you going to say to that?” asks Lisa.

Since Jon Gertner wrote that about Obama's Stealth Start Up, the U.S. Digital Service (yes, a terribly pedantic name) is no longer stealth. As a matter of fact, there is a whole page at the White House web site dedicated to telling the story and recruiting candidates to work there.

Every day, millions of people interact with the American government. We apply for Social Security benefits and small business loans. We look for affordable health insurance and financial aid. We need passports and tax refunds. Too often, these interactions can be frustrating and cumbersome because of outdated tools and unreliable systems. We believe that government is ready for a change.

This is where you come in. We need people like you to take on these high-stakes challenges, to apply the skills and practices you’ve honed to untangle problems and simplify solutions for millions of Americans.

We need you. Are you up for the challenge?

The page also links to several articles that have been written about this effort. That's where I found Mickey Dickerson's (administrator for U.S. Digital Services) speech to SXSW. Dickerson tells the story about how he took a break from his job at Google to go to Washington, D.C. and work on fixing the failed healthcare.gov web site. Here's how he described what happened:

It was not a hard engineering problem, and any of you could have done it, and it was also more important and meaningful than anything I could have accomplished in a lifetime working at my old job.

Beyond the 8 million people that got access to health care for the first time, which for many of them was a matter of life or death, I don’t think we are ever going back to the time when people who actually need health insurance are not allowed to buy it.

So I went back to my old job and tried to care about it. I was not successful.

So Dickerson went back to Washington and set up U.S. Digital Services, which was originally going to involve 10-12 people working on Obamacare, the VA and immigration services. But the demand (and response) has been so great that the plan is now to have 500 people working with all 24 major federal agencies. These are not permanent jobs. As is the case with a lot of IT, it is project-based. So Dickerson is recruiting people to come for a year or two - or perhaps even just a few months. But what he is selling is much more than a job.

The most sobering thing about my time in government is to really understand on an emotional level that this country belongs to you and me and it is exactly as good as we make it. Grownups are not going to fix it for us and billionaires are not going to fix it for us. We either do it ourselves, or nobody does.

If this initiative convinces more young people of that - I'd call that a major success.