An Oklahoma legislator has proposed the creation of a state militia to “counter the encroachments of the federal government”. A candidate for governor in Texas has suggested that his state “secede from the union”. Fifteen states have filed suit to nullify a new federal health care reform act. These ideas and propositions sound eerily similar to the rhetoric of 1860 America—a time when our nation was on the verge of Civil War. However these suggestions are coming from politicians in the year 2010. Since the election of Obama in 2008, we have witnessed a resurgence of anti-government factions like the “Tea Party Movement “and “Tenthers”. One theme is consistent with both groups—Obama is creating a socialist government intent on taking away the rights of individual and states that have been guaranteed by the Constitution. Are these movements right? Has the power of government shifted away from the people and states towards the federal government? Let’s look at the Constitution for the answer.
We in Civics learned that our “founding fathers” established a federal system of government. The Constitution identified powers that belong to the federal government (enumerated powers, implied powers), powers set aside for the states (reserved powers), and powers that were shared (concurrent powers). During the ratification debate of the 1780’s Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued over the balance of that power. Federalists feared a weak central government—such as the one created by the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, to insure more order in our society, the Constitution provided for Article VI, which was called the “supremacy clause”. This clause provided that the Constitution was the “supreme law of the land” and “states were bound to federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution.” In other words a state law, in conflict with a valid federal statute, was null and void. Sounds pretty clear cut. In the minds of our “founding fathers” the federal government appeared to hold the “upper hand” in terms of the “balance of power”.
Anti-Federalists, fearing a tyrannical central government, wanted assurances that their rights and the rights of the individual states would not be abused. They pushed for and won a “Bill of Rights” that accomplished both objectives. The tenth amendment asserts that “the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states.” The “Tenther” movement, with followers like Tim Pawlenty, Republican governor of Minnesota and 2021 GOP Presidential hopeful, believes this amendment allows states to nullify federal laws—like the new Health Care Reform Act. It has been used by others to justify secession.
Which is it? Does our Constitution provide for a federal system of government whereby state and national government share power equally, or did the “founding fathers” create a federal system that placed the federal government supreme? I believe it is the latter. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion, when farmers tried to avoid paying a federal excise tax—a tax they believed was unconstitutional. Lincoln did not allow the Confederacy to secede and fought a Civil War to prove once and for all that federal law was supreme—states cannot nullify federal statutes; nor can a state secede from the union. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used federal authority to force Southern states to accept federal civil rights laws. Few claimed these actions, taken by a variety of Presidents, were unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that secession is illegal or equal protection of the law means that schools have to be integrated. However, by holding up the Preamble or using Article I, Section 8, Clause 18—the elastic clause—of the Constitution, the federal government can legally expand the “supremacy clause” to include enumerated AND implied powers; powers that can be used to justify most federal actions that are promoting the public good for all Americans. We are not fifty separate nations—we are one nation of fifty states all committed to “liberty and justice for all”. There can only be one “supreme” power. That power best resides in the hands of the federal government. It is, therefore, the federal government’s primary responsibility to preserve the fundamental principles of American democracy—liberty and justice. Our “founding fathers” understood that. Why don’t the Tea Party Express and the “Tenthers”?
Monday, April 26, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Political correctness--useful or destructive?
Disagreement and conflict are by-products of a democratic society. Therefore, if a democracy is to flourish, citizens have to learn how to resolve differences between competing interests. In Civics, we teach students about the necessity of consensus building, negotiation, and compromise in the public debates that shape our country. Inherent in this process is the public’s ability to listen to a variety of points’ of views and to speak civilly to those with whom we may disagree. Aristotle understood this ideal and it is reflected in one of his more famous sayings—“the mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought without accepting it.” In the 21st century, we seem to have a shortage of such “minds”. In recent years our political discussions have degenerated into name-calling, insults, and personal attacks. Usually these behaviors are impulsive, unfiltered responses to issues that are dividing our nation. This political incivility, not exclusive to one party or group, jeopardizes the future of American democracy. How can we, as a nation, change the nature of our public debates?
Political correctness was idea promoted in the 1960’s to inject sensitivity and civility to our national discourse. Its initial purpose was to promote the “avoidance of expressions and actions that could be perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult people who were socially disadvantaged or discriminated against” (Princeton wordnet.com). By adhering to this principle, political correctness served as a filter for our words. It demanded that people think before speaking. Is that such a bad idea? Apparently so. In recent years political correctness has been demonized. Its mildest critics claim that political correctness is a form of censorship. Our 41st President, George Bush stated that “political correctness began as a crusade for civility, but has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.” Other opponents of political correctness acknowledge its lofty objective, but feel that it only worsened the public debates. A Frenchmen, Jacque Barzun said that “political correctness didn’t legislate tolerance, but organized hate.” Are Bush and Barzun right? Has political correctness stymied an honest discussion of ideas? Has the promotion of acceptance and tolerance only help polarize hate? Consider some of the dialogue that has surfaced in our health care debate or our local school board meetings. Pictures of Obama as a witch doctor with the label “Obamacare” could be seen as one example of the absence of political correctness in our public debate. The cartoon—with its “witch doctor” is a not so veiled reference to Obama’s ethnicity and played on the racist attitudes of some Americans. Congressmen supporting the bill were personally attacked. Opponents to the health care bill called health-care supporter John Lewis (an African-American representative from Georgia) a “nigger” while Barney Franks , an admitted homosexual representative from Massachusetts, was called a “fag”. More troubling was the reaction of some politicians and news media outlets, who asserted these people have a “right” to express their opinions. Remember the First Amendment? Actually the First Amendment doesn’t protect people who use speech to defame people, incite violence, etc. I would prefer the “self-muzzling” of such words, but can we allow people to truly say what “they feel”? Consider our recent school board meeting when our School Board Chairman was heard saying—“they have let the animals out of the cages” referencing some public incivility towards a speaker who was supporting the Board’s policy of dismantling diversity. This comment was racially insensitive. Had Mr. Margiotta practiced political correctness, his comments would have been filtered, realizing his words were “racially-charged”. Reverend Barber, NAACP leader and opponent of the school board’s policy was equally uncivilized when he compared the school board to a “mafia” meeting—clearly insulting Mr. Margiotta’s ethnicity. Both men apologized—kind of—but the damage was done. Both sides became more polarized, lessening the likelihood of compromise by the two “competing interests”.
So where does that leave us? If we need dialogue, compromise, and tolerance to make democracy work effectively, is political correctness a viable solution? Does political correctness promote acceptance or result in censorship? It’s at these times I remember one of my mother’s best pieces of advice she gave her children—“if you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.” Maybe if we all practiced my mom's rule of civility, we wouldn’t need a policy such as political correctness. In the end we either have to monitor our own behavior or continue to subscribe to political correctness. If we do neither, public discourse will continue to deteriorate and democracy will be irrevocably damaged.
Political correctness was idea promoted in the 1960’s to inject sensitivity and civility to our national discourse. Its initial purpose was to promote the “avoidance of expressions and actions that could be perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult people who were socially disadvantaged or discriminated against” (Princeton wordnet.com). By adhering to this principle, political correctness served as a filter for our words. It demanded that people think before speaking. Is that such a bad idea? Apparently so. In recent years political correctness has been demonized. Its mildest critics claim that political correctness is a form of censorship. Our 41st President, George Bush stated that “political correctness began as a crusade for civility, but has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.” Other opponents of political correctness acknowledge its lofty objective, but feel that it only worsened the public debates. A Frenchmen, Jacque Barzun said that “political correctness didn’t legislate tolerance, but organized hate.” Are Bush and Barzun right? Has political correctness stymied an honest discussion of ideas? Has the promotion of acceptance and tolerance only help polarize hate? Consider some of the dialogue that has surfaced in our health care debate or our local school board meetings. Pictures of Obama as a witch doctor with the label “Obamacare” could be seen as one example of the absence of political correctness in our public debate. The cartoon—with its “witch doctor” is a not so veiled reference to Obama’s ethnicity and played on the racist attitudes of some Americans. Congressmen supporting the bill were personally attacked. Opponents to the health care bill called health-care supporter John Lewis (an African-American representative from Georgia) a “nigger” while Barney Franks , an admitted homosexual representative from Massachusetts, was called a “fag”. More troubling was the reaction of some politicians and news media outlets, who asserted these people have a “right” to express their opinions. Remember the First Amendment? Actually the First Amendment doesn’t protect people who use speech to defame people, incite violence, etc. I would prefer the “self-muzzling” of such words, but can we allow people to truly say what “they feel”? Consider our recent school board meeting when our School Board Chairman was heard saying—“they have let the animals out of the cages” referencing some public incivility towards a speaker who was supporting the Board’s policy of dismantling diversity. This comment was racially insensitive. Had Mr. Margiotta practiced political correctness, his comments would have been filtered, realizing his words were “racially-charged”. Reverend Barber, NAACP leader and opponent of the school board’s policy was equally uncivilized when he compared the school board to a “mafia” meeting—clearly insulting Mr. Margiotta’s ethnicity. Both men apologized—kind of—but the damage was done. Both sides became more polarized, lessening the likelihood of compromise by the two “competing interests”.
So where does that leave us? If we need dialogue, compromise, and tolerance to make democracy work effectively, is political correctness a viable solution? Does political correctness promote acceptance or result in censorship? It’s at these times I remember one of my mother’s best pieces of advice she gave her children—“if you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.” Maybe if we all practiced my mom's rule of civility, we wouldn’t need a policy such as political correctness. In the end we either have to monitor our own behavior or continue to subscribe to political correctness. If we do neither, public discourse will continue to deteriorate and democracy will be irrevocably damaged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)