Building Freedom the Old Fashioned Way

I have been thinking about the book Iron Curtain by Anne Applebaum in light of recent political events.

What I learned from her research is that the best way to fight tyranny is to become part of group that provides for the concrete benefit of your local community.  How do we know this.  It has been historically proven by research.  The Soviets went after all these organizations in both the Russian Revolution and the take over of Eastern Europe.  Your membership in a religious community or service organization, (ie. Lions or Rotary) or charity brings what economists call social capital to your community.  Tyrannies seek to destroy social capital so people can only have one place to go to, them.  Thus they maintain control.  So basically if you sit on your ass the tyrants win. 

Both MAGA and the Radical Left want you despondent so you won't take part, volunteer or pitch in, but just sit back and click while our social capital withers.  They promote the lie that only bold action from the top down can really change things. Both not only employ an army of knuckleheads, cooks and misfits, to show up at demonstrations, but more importantly a vast movement of online trolls who reflexively roast anyone not on board with their narrow agenda.  Thus a virus of cynicism continues to spread so people are less motivated to take part in civil society. So a vacuum is formed ready to be filled by well funded top down organizations from the extremes.

But they are peddling a lie, in reality the daily actions of people who actively participate in organizations such as churches, service clubs, charities and volunteer groups do more good for people on a daily basis than most people realize.   The biggest thing they do is help create networks that can support the people of the community in times of personal and communal crises.   Would be tyrants try to create artificial crises or exacerbate existing ones to break down society to they can sweep in and take over.  The stronger the social capital of a community the stronger the resistance to these tactics.  Better still is when groups that provide social capital are independent from the government or political parties, so that all no matter who they are can cared for and have their needs addressed. 

The actions that build social capital are old fashioned and well, quite boring.  They involve things like  distributing food to neighbors in need, collecting money for people who undergo a personal crisis. They are addressing a basic needs of community locally and on the ground.  Something as simple as making sure kids have safe playground, or making sure that the refugee family moving into your neighborhood has enough stuff to get their home up and running, or that single parents have a safe place to bring their kids, can improve a community just as much or more than some initiative from the government in Washington DC. 

If there are enough of these groups and they are strong enough then a community can hold the line against the extremes because people will have a number of options to turn to in their need.   Thus crises are shorter and people better off.  Tyrannies seek to gain power by exploiting the desperate or coddling the lazy.  Therefore the fewer desperate and lazy people a society has, the smaller the chance to fall prey to extremest politics.

Applebaum in a 2017 brilliantly written opinion piece describes the people using these tactics to gain control as neo-Bosheviks.  (full text here) She maintains that while both ends of the extremist spectrum may wish to employ these tactics, the greater danger these days is from the right.   She writes:

By contrast, the neo-Bolsheviks of the new right or alt-right do not want to conserve or to preserve what exists. They are not Burkeans but radicals who want to overthrow existing institutions. Instead of the false and misleading vision of the future offered by Lenin and Trotsky, they offer a false and misleading vision of the past. They conjure up worlds made up of ethnically or racially pure nations, old-fashioned factories, traditional male-female hierarchies and impenetrable borders. Their enemies are homosexuals, racial and religious minorities, advocates of human rights, the media, and the courts. They are often not real Christians but rather cynics who use "Christianity" as a tribal identifier, a way of distinguishing themselves from their enemies: they are "Christians" fighting against "Muslims" — or against "liberals" if there are no "Muslims" available.

However even if Applebaum is wrong and the danger from the left, the prescription is the same: be an active citizen, who works through some independent community group to help others.   A equally important prescription is to be tolerant of your neighbor's decisions.  An insidious way that groups like MAGA and the Radial Left seek to break down social capital is by making everyday innocuous decisions seem political.  If you drink the wrong beer, or eat the wrong food you become identified with a political group.  Your music taste becomes political, your car choice, your fashion selections, the shows you watch on TV etc.  In reality this is rarely the case, most decisions are not and should not be political.  They should be personal.   This is a benchmark of a free society. 

The political radicals looking for power don't want you to accept that people have the ability to make decisions for non-political reasons.  They want you to see everything through their lens, so you will pick a side in their quarrel. (Even if is not really your quarrel!)  A public culture of shaming those who don't fit in is part of this.  Phrases in posts and conversations like "owning liberals" to "trashing conservatives" in someone's language demonstrate a drift toward this kind of thinking.  The long term goal is to make one callous toward their neighbor so that society breaks down. 

It is clearly evident that one of the crucial reasons that neither communism or fascism took hold in the Anglo-Saxon world was that existing institutions were able to handle the problems of the mid-twentieth century.   Since the late 1960's however, volunteerism, institutional loyalty and social capital have all declined greatly as demonstrated in Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, so perhaps our current situation is a result of chickens coming home to roost.   As I write this the government shutdown impasse continues with no end in sight.  MAGA is OK with this happening.  In fact the longer the crisis continues the stronger they believe their chances to gain more power and control.   In these times when our neighbors may begin to feel the pinch of the shutdown it will be imperative for us to come to their aid so that they are able to get through the crisis.   Not only will you be acting out of the best place of moral compassion, you will be helping maintain our democracy.

Politics: Its just like Sports

During the steroid scandals that plagued baseball an interesting thing happened.   If a player suspected of  using illegal performing enhancing drugs (PED's) could help your team make the playoffs or even win a pennant or world series you were likely to give that player a pass.  Barry Bonds remained popular among Giants fans, but was hated at every other ballpark in the league.  His case was not unique.  Most of the suspected players Clemens, Giambi, McGwire, Sosa, were popular at their home parks until new league rules kicked in and their performance dropped off.   As long as they performed and their team won, the cheating was OK.   The exception that proves the rule was A-Rod, who would never be loved in New York, because he could never live up to the expectations Yankee fans put upon him.  Since he would never measure up it was OK to take an honest look at him.

Politics works much the same way in our era.    The Kavanaugh confirmation fiasco is a morality play that exactly mirrors how sports fans look at a player who cheats for their team.   As long as they see a victory for the team over the horizon, the player gets a pass.   In the 1990's Democrats gave President William Jefferson Clinton a pass.   By any rational standard he proved to be sexual predator who used the power of both the Governor's office of Arkansas and Presidency of the United States to prey on  young women (at least one was half his age).  Today Bill Clinton would no longer get a pass, because he can't play for the team any more.

Judge Kavanaugh may or may not be guilty, but Dr. Ford's testimony seems very plausible.  His reaction to the accusations were troubling and show that he is indeed the worst type of team player.  The strategy from the beginning has been to appeal to the home team.   Cry foul, argue that there is a conspiracy,  complain that people are unfairly picking on him, and maybe even kick some dirt on the umpire.   Like a wrestler whipping up the crowd on Monday night RAW, the fans just eat it up.   The victory is in sight, so they stand behind their man.

I don't.  I do not expect judges to be without ideological bias, but I do ask them to treat all persons under the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States with dignity and respect.   After his testimony I doubt he can do this because he has demonstrated that he cares about his party more than he does the country as whole.  I doubt he can even see members of the opposing party as Americans.

My preferred outcome would be for Justice Kennedy's seat to go unfilled.  Eight justices means that the court would need a majority plus one to reach a decision.  Meaningful dissent would still be registered, but decisions would require a higher degree of consensus.   In our divisive political climate this might be a way to show that we really ought to figure out how to work together.  I  have no problem with people representing partisan positions, I only have a problem with people looking past common decency.

Alas, I realize that I am dreaming, neither team republican or team democrat would go for it.   While the republicans have home team bias for Kavanaugh and the President, democrats are overlooking the very shady dealings of Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey.    He too will get a pass from his home team, for they see a chance (albeit a slim one) for a majority in the Senate.

It does not have to be like this.  Watergate brought down Richard Nixon because republicans of conscience like Senator Howard Baker and Chief Counsel Leon Jaworski stood with democrats when it was obvious the President had obstructed justice by using campaign funds for bribing witnesses to the the hotel break-in.  Because of the sports team like atmosphere of our politics today, I am skeptical that we will see such a phenomenon again.

In the end it is up to us voters.  We need to realize this is not a game, it is our country. Until we see the wisdom of voting for candidates who put country before party, our republic will be in peril.  Until we look past the party labels and cable news propaganda and look at the woman or man actually asking for our vote we can expect neither justice nor peace.

What do We Do About Guns?

When Rights Conflict 

On March 14th students across the the USA walked out of the classrooms to protest the lack of controls on the purchase of assault rifles.*  This was organized in response to the deaths of 17 individuals in a recent mass shooting in Parkland Florida.  The students who participated were advocating for their own right to life.   Protecting the life of its citizenry is the most important function of government. 

As has been typical in every mass shooting since Columbine in 1999, the call to limit certain types of firearms in the wake of the tragedies has been met by a coordinated and well funded push-back by gun rights advocates in general and the National Rifle Association in particular.  They advocate that the 2nd amendment of the US constitution guarantees an absolute and unalienable right of the individual to own personal firearms. 

As in most of the culture war debates today,  there is a clash a of values at the heart of the conflict.  The students who walked out value their safety and security.   The gun owners value their freedom of action.   The students are advocating that freedom of action in gun ownership is of less value than the collective security of society.   The gun owners are arguing that collective security can never really be guaranteed by society so the individuals must have the right to defend themselves.  

So the students are advocating less guns through gun control.  While the response of gun advocates has been that more guns will make us safer.  More armed guards, arming teachers, and the expansion of concealed carry laws are the best best way to protect society.   The raw statistical evidence is on the side of the students; murders, and accidental deaths strongly correlate with the sheer amount of guns in a society.   However for good or ill our society never resolves these issues on purely utilitarian grounds.  Our values have at times overided pure utility. 

So how do choose which way is correct?  We live in a constitutional republic.   Our constitution is a social contract that sets up boundaries for the government and protections for its citizens.   It also gives us a framework to work out solutions when rights conflict such as we are witnessing today. Perhaps if we were better acquainted with it we could come up with a solution to what to do about guns that most of us can all live with. 

The Ambiguous Amendment 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Many historians of the period have argued that the constitution was intentionally designed to be ambiguous as to give society a tool to work out problems.   Thus seems to be the case with the second amendment.   The conclusion of the amendment makes a strong statement for the right to for people to own weapons.  However that conclusion is qualified by the reasoning that the purpose of the amendment is to guarantee the security of the state.  

So the while Bill of Rights seems lead toward security of the state being the primary value, the word state is qualified with the word "free", which means that the state will be limited in its scope.  Therefore some Supreme Court interpretations will both uphold the ability of society to enact gun control, while at the same time undermining it.   District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 was such a case, While striking down Washington DC's strict handgun law on the grounds that it violated a the right to bear arms for lawful purposes, the majority still maintained that gun rights are not absolute and gun control legislation can be constitutional as long as it does not deny due process and lawful use.

Why the Militia Clause Matters

In writing the majority opinion of  District of Columbia v. Heller Justice Scalia made a historic departure for the court, as the 2nd Amendment had previously been interpreted in light of the militia requirement stated in the first four words of the amendment.  Justices Stevens, and Breyer both wrote dissenting opinions arguing this point among others.  The decision was close, 5-4.   To make things more ambiguous, sometimes in constitutional law dissenting opinions are appealed to in future cases to make decisions.  So the militia clause may be brought back to life someday.   I believe the militia clause remains important and may again become relevant as it reveals proper place in society of those who bear arms.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all of the states had laws on the books that would call up "all able bodied white male citizens" for service in a local militia and required them to provide their own weapons, powder and shot for defense of the state.   In the colonial and early republic there were four potential reasons a state would call out the militia, conflicts with Native American Tribes, attacks from the European powers or their proxies, slave rebellions, and the suppression of popular revolts. 

Shays rebellion in 1786 in western Massachusetts was a seminal event in the confederation period which spearheaded the impetus for the convention that led to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  In the current debate about gun control, both left wing and right wing commentators get the interpretation of the period wrong.   Left wing commentators have narrowed the necessity of militia of colonial America to maintain slavery and to encroach on Indian lands.  While there is some truth to these arguments, they are over simplified;  they also impose contemporary cultural ideas on a distant past.  Foreign powers remained a real threat to american communities until the end of the war of 1812, and local insurrections were not uncommon during the period.   The people of the time would see the militia not as tool to maintain an oppressive system, but rather as an aid to the safety of the community as a whole.

Right wing commentators and meme generators often equate the second amendment with a right of revolution, so citizens have right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government.   This is a wishful delusion.  Neither the constitution nor the the Bill of Rights expresses such a sentiment.  Even the Declaration of Independence, where this idea most clearly stated, offers the only reason as a lack of representation for the moral impetus behind a right of revolution.  The Constitution provides for the representation for all citizens, so there is no need for a right of revolution to be outlined. 

Frankly,  Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, Franklin and Morris would be aghast if people thought like the NRA advocates today that there is a right to protect oneself from the government in the constitution.  It would be like adding a self-destruct button to it, it would delegitimize the entire social contract.  In recent history, laws outlawing communist organizations were enacted because they in fact did advocate overthrow of the government.  But romantic fantasies of freedom fighters die hard.  The real protector of our liberties is not the Second Amendment, but the Fourth   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.... An appeal to the Second Amendment to protect our rights nothing more or less advocating for anarchy.

Neither the right and left of our current time understand the Second Amendment is primarily about protection of the community as a whole.  This is what the militia clause and its historical context teaches us.  It is why I advocate that the students walking out are correct.   Their right to live in a safe and secure environment supersedes the freedom of action espoused by the NRA and gun advocates.  Protecting the community as a whole is the sole reason given in the Second Amendment for the lack of infringement to bear arms according to both a historical and strict constructionist logic.   

Conclusions 

First, an assault weapons ban would be not only allowed by the Constitution, but follow the spirit of the document to protect the most important rights of those who make up the community.   It remains to be seen whether or not a reinstatement of a ban will be politically possible in our current environment.   If not feasible, we should look for other solutions for protecting the safety of the state by regulating guns.   One thing is clear, guns are not going away in our society anytime soon.  They are too much a part of our history and culture.  This does not mean we should give up trying to make a safer society.

Indeed a compromise solution may be found by appealing to the militia requirement.   Perhaps states can form militias that essentially act to train and evaluate those who choose  have more potent types of fire arms.  We can indeed limit this to only those who would prefer to own semi-automatic firearms with the penitential for large ammunition clips.

Those who would want to own such arms, would need to report on a periodic basis (every few years?)  as in colonial times and have their proficiency and safety practices evaluated.   This type of arrangement actually occurs today in the modern republics of Switzerland and Israel.   I realize that even suggesting such a solution will set off alarm bells from the right and left.   The right will fear it is a way for the government to monitor those with powerful firearms.   The left will fear a militarization of society.   In fact both these criticisms have merit and should be considered in coming up with a solution as to what we should do about guns.

I am arguing that there are ways using the tools handed down to us by our predecessors to come up with solutions that meet the needs of our times and uphold our constitution.   We need not devolve into a winner take all zero sum mentality, but can be true the spirit of our republic and work towards a consensus solution.  I understand that this solution may not be perfect or last forever no less please everyone who has a stake in the outcome, but we must hope that we can make things better. 

*While staunch Second Amendment supporters advocate there is no such thing as an assault rife, see the following article about the development of these types of weapons: https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/06/a-brief-history-of-the-assault-rifle.html