The term “chimera” has come to describe . . . anything composed of disparate parts or perceived as wildly imaginative, implausible, or dazzling. Wikipedia
We are hearing about the Rule of Law quite a lot these days in the nation’s political dialogue. I am wondering how the phrase is hitting the American ear. Is it properly understood? Is it considered important? Why are we hearing it now only from one side of the political aisle? Does it matter? Does it exist?
The basic premise of the Rule of Law is easy to understand. No one is above the law. Everyone is equal under the law. The law plays no favorites. More dramatically, the Rule of Law is a sine qua non of democracy itself, of the people’s self-rule. Without Law’s Rule, there can be no democratic form of government. If any person or group is above the law, then by definition there is no democracy. There is either autocracy or totalitarianism. Continue reading “Is the Rule of Law a Chimera?”
No doubt you have noticed the ongoing question of whether and when the U.S. Attorney General, Merrick Garland, will prosecute Donald Trump for alleged crimes he committed in the period leading up to the 2020 election and thereafter. While the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol has already publicized evidence of presidential crimes, the Attorney General has been silent on the status of investigations into the former president’s conduct regarding his effort to have the election of President Joe Biden overturned, which led to the insurrection at the nation’s capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Meanwhile, according to a poll released this week, almost 60 percent of Americans believe Trump should be prosecuted for crime in connection with the insurrection. Continue reading “Will the U.S. Prosecute the Former President for Insurrection and Other Crimes?”
For more than 30 years I taught the sociology of law to both undergraduate and graduate university students. We considered how American law developed, how it was applied to persons and groups, and with what effects on them and on the broader society.
When discussing the U.S. Supreme Court, I emphasized that the traditional law school approach to its decision-making was wrong. There, students have been commonly trained that legal reasoning is a learned skill much like that in scientific work. It is based on principles of deduction, according to which judges make decisions about laws by logically figuring out how the principles established in earlier court decisions–precedents–apply to the current dispute before them. In this perspective, judicial decision-making–especially in the higher courts with the best trained lawyers–is a matter of technique. It produces the correct legal answers based on facts and reason, free of bias and personal belief. Competent practitioners, therefore, should reach the same, right, answers.
Although the American legal establishment placed a lot of faith in this account, and asked the nation to do the same, it was never a true story.
Of course, if it were, how could the Supreme Court issue so many decisions with 5-4 votes? More dramatically now, how could it be that today’s Supreme Court appears to be little more than a radical Right redoubt, one on the verge of retracting a basic right finally granted to women by the Court almost 50 years ago? Continue reading “Whither the Supreme Court? Notes on Law, Abortion and Religion”
For a while there have been versions of this saying: Not all Republicans are racist, but if you are a racist the Republican Party is the party for you.
Now this may be taken in either of two ways in terms of the GOP. The less consequential–even somewhat anodyne–meaning is that American racists are attracted to the Republican Party because it has long favored tough-on-crime policies and low taxes/small government policies, which have always translated into harsh punishments of and weak federal support for poor people, among whom minority populations figure disproportionately. This view can seem to insulate the Party itself from charges of racism and racial animus.
The other way of reading the statement is not only less forgiving–it is condemnatory. This view asserts that the Party itself is racist at its core. Its basic principles and fundamental operations are racist. They are dedicated to the protection and strengthening of white dominance–and domination–in the United States. They are racially exclusionary. Today, in the 21st century, the Republican Party is the nation’s beating heart of systemic racism at both the national and state levels. It is the principal mechanism of institutional discrimination against minorities of color. As a result, whether or not individual Republicans feel that they are racist, supporting today’s GOP while remaining silent on its racist policies is itself a racist act.
Sadly, there is no plausible argument against this second reading. There is no rational or factual way to challenge this conclusion. There is only the denial of truth, something else that the GOP has adopted as a routine part of its operations that serves its racist purposes. Continue reading “The GOP Is Ground Zero for American Racism”
You may recall the now-iconic phrase that emerged during the Tea Party rise in our national politics around the 2010 elections: “Take your government hands off my Medicare!” Now there was a valid point to it–Republicans in Congress were threatening to pass a budget that would end “Medicare as we know it.”
But the directive also betrayed a deep confusion about the role of the national government in citizens’ lives, suggesting that a major social safety net program was not a program of government. Indeed, political science research published in 2010 found that 40 percent of Medicare recipients surveyed denied that they had ever benefitted from a government social program.
Laughable as this level of civic ignorance struck many of us at the time, in fact it poses a significant threat to the stability and security of American society. If citizens badly misunderstand their basic relationships with government, then they are more vulnerable to the distortions and appeals of demagogues. Continue reading “Will Freedom Kill Liberty?”
Many of us may recall a subtle shift in political language that began during the last decade, maybe longer ago now. Prominent members of the Republican Party began to refer to the opposing party as the “Democrat” Party. We had all grown up knowing it as the “Democratic” party, and its candidates as the “Democratic” candidates. Now, to the GOP, they are the “Democrat” candidates . . . or it is the “Democrat” position, and etc. From Republican mouths, the word often sounds as if an epithet is being spit out. For them, it has come to be a term of derision if not of disgust, much more (and less) than the name of an opposition party. No matter: some even in the mainstream media appear to have adopted the term. Continue reading “A Note on Language and Politics”
He enrolled in my seminar on law and society as a graduate student. Being in his 50s, he was an unusual enrollee, but his experiences could not have been more relevant to such a course. He was a long-serving, full-time police officer in the oldest police department in the nation, the Boston Police Department, and he had patrolled some of the city’s highest crime rate districts. He was also African American, serving in a city long troubled by racial animus. This animus was especially evident in the 1970s hostilities around the effort to use busing to integrate students in the city’s public schools, and later appeared in the Charles Stuart murder case in 1989-90, in which Stuart–who was white–framed a black man for the murder of Stuart’s wife, whom he himself had killed.
I will call the police officer “Hal,” not his real name. Because the seminar combined undergraduate students with graduate students, every week I asked the grad students to come to my office after class to further discuss the day’s assigned topics with me. Walking to my office after one seminar meeting, Hal offered that he really loved the reading we had been discussing in class. The reading by an eminent sociologist of law had argued convincingly that, everywhere and always, law enforcement has come down more punitively on members of lower status groups than on those of higher status groups, even if the offenses were the same.
As we entered the office I asked Hal why he loved the reading. He answered, “Because (the author) is right,” he replied. That alone was very interesting to hear from an experienced police officer. But I wanted to delve further, so I presented Hal with a scenario. I said, “So if you confronted a young black male who had committed a minor crime (a misdemeanor), and later a young white male who had done the same thing, would you be more likely to arrest the black male and take him in, and more likely to take the white male home to his parents or give him a warning and let him go?” And Hal said, “Yes.” I asked why so, and he replied, “Because that is what the community wants.” Continue reading “Whither Racism in the Land of the Free”
Recently in a Fox News interview, you said that your company, Facebook, would not fact-check any of the President’s lies, as Twitter has begun to do. You said that, “I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. I think in general private companies shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”
Many–likely many millions–of Facebook users are upset, even outraged, at your position, including many of your own employees, especially in the face of the President’s posts inciting law enforcement and other violence against the current nationwide protests of police murders of African-Americans. And it’s not only politicians’ speech that you are allowing to run rampant over the truth and divisiveness. Since the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis last week, Facebook and other social media have disseminated nonsensical conspiracy theories that Floyd is not dead, that the police assault on him was faked, and that George Soros was funding the protests around the nation. Continue reading “An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg: Common Sense is Not Yet Dead in America, So Don’t Kill Truth and Civility”
If the impeachment trial of Donald Trump for the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress continues on the path set for it on the first day by Senate Republicans and the President’s defense team, it will constitute the greatest assault on American democracy since the Civil War. More so than the President’s campaign’s efforts to coordinate with the Russians to favor his election. Even more so than the behavior in the impeachment’s own charges against the president: that for his personal political benefit he used the power of his presidency to withhold funds mandated by Congress for Ukraine’s military defense against Russian aggression, in order to extort that country to announce an investigation of a political rival (Joe Biden), and that in unprecedented fashion he obstructed the Congress’s investigation of those events. As such, it will either portend the end of our democracy or so diminish it that it will take generations to repair. Continue reading “The Impeachment Trial and the Assault on American Democracy”
That is why Obama stays on the tip of Trump’s tongue. The invocation of him is a hot-wire shorthand that gives an emotional charge to his statements that his audience receives intuitively. The racism is coded, received, without the burden of delivery. Charles M. Blow, Oct. 13, 2019
[Dear Reader: While this is not a short essay, there is a 90-second version embedded in it. For that version, just follow the bold-faced portions of the essay. –PCY]
Told by a new friend, several weeks after I had entered a new public high school in a new state my junior year, that the first friend I had made there was Jewish, I was shocked. He couldn’t be Jewish, I said. Then an even more shocking thought occurred to me: Where did the first thought come from? To that point in my life, I had never, to my knowledge, met a Jew, having attended only Catholic schools and lived only among Christians before our family moved to the new state. Yet I clearly had imported into my subconscious some ugly stereotypes against which I had unwittingly measured the normalcy of my friend Alan.