Commemoration of the 1970 anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the amendment was ratified in 1920 and provided for women’s suffrage. In the public domain. Ward Brackett, designer.
By Kathie MM
People have been stabbed, strangled, shot, castrated, burned, tortured, and killed for it–for pursuing the right to vote, and all the other rights that can be accessed through that right (including the right to make choices about who will govern). Human beings have not always had such rights, and even today, even in the United States of America, some hard-fought-for rights are denied to many.
For centuries, the major view among rulers was that might makes right. The biggest and strongest bullies built empires and used outrageous force to get what they wanted, causing enormous death and destruction in the process. Remarkably, many of the biggest most murderous bullies believed they had a divine right to do what they were doing. Otherwise, how could they get away with it?
In today’s world, there seem to be two major views regarding rights. The might makes right guys are still around. The “rights” to which they feel entitled are the rights to get rich, exert power, squelch opposition, decide who will live and who will die, who will profit and who will be enslaved, who has free speech and who must be silenced. It’s hard to hold onto those “rights” in a true democracy, so generally tyrants become more and more ruthless. You can think of your own examples in ancient and recent history.
It takes considerable control of resources and power to promote the myth that might makes right, and sooner or later, throughout history, ordinary people join together to fight for a more democratic, fair, and just society–for example, through massive, largely nonviolent resistance, as in South Africa under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, and in Poland under the Solidarity Movement. Sometimes in the U.S., major social and economic reforms have been enabled through the ballot box as in the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (whose social programs have been under attack from the right ever since).
In a true democracy, in the kind of democracy for which people have suffered, fought, and died for hundreds of years, there are certain inalienable rights–like being able to vote, move around freely, worship one’s chosen deity, speak truth to power, pursue education, and engage in gainful employment; according to the United Nations, such rights are inherent. That is, people of every color, every religion, every ethnicity, every sexual orientation are entitled to a range of human rights, as agreed upon at the United Nations by nearly every nation on earth, including the United States, in the wake of two horrendous world wars.
Unfortunately, there are still some people, including here in the United States, who abhor and fear democracy. Some of them hold political offices right now. Do you know who they are? Do you know who among the candidates tries to disenfranchise voters, rob the poor to gratify the rich, rape the environment for personal profit? And. do you know who has made the efforts, taken the risks to preserve and protect democratic and human rights? Do you know who will help protect your rights, and who will promote a sustainable environment in a sustainable democracy in a sustainable world?
You have a few weeks left to learn all you can about all the candidates running for all the local, state, and national offices in the elections to be held on Tuesday, November 6. You don’t have to die for the right to vote. Just exercise it. What better way to maintain your self-respect, honor those who fought for your rights, and help make the world better for the coming generations?
All over the world, we are seeing the rise of authoritarianism that is rejecting the norms of democracy, freedom of the press and individual rights. In many countries, we are seeing leaders using political position for personal gain and watching the deliberate instigation of bigotry and intolerance toward the “other”. We are witnessing the undermining and imprisonment of public officials, opposition leaders and journalists. Russia, China, Hungary, Brazil and Saudi Arabia are only a few of the countries moving in this direction.
Most of us who live in democracies believe “it cannot happen here”. But, for many of us in America, it has been stunning to see how quickly President Trump and his administration are shattering the cultural norms of the world’s oldest and most powerful democracy.
All of this is not happening by accident. European and American right-wing factions are in close contact with each other, share tactics and goals, and are organised, led and sometimes even funded by some of the same people.
Democracies, such as ours, that assert equal protection under the law and government accountability to its citizens are foundational to a healthy and humane society, must comprehend the scope of the ultra-conservative movement if we are to effectively confront it.
These organised groups are actively tearing down a post-second World War global order and replacing it with autocratic leadership based on self-interest. Unfortunately, the establishment is defending the existing order and ignoring the fears and insecurities of the people that this outmoded status quo has wrought.
Neither is conducive to a positive future, as neither will provide what so many are asking for: simply put, a decent quality of life. If we are to prevail, we must clearly articulate a vision of shared prosperity, personal freedom, economic fairness and, most importantly, human dignity – the basic tenets of a vital democracy.
That means creating policies that effectively tackle economic, environmental, racial and social justice issues. We must not be satisfied with incremental, transactional change that makes little progress and carefully avoids affecting those in charge or offending their lobbyists and large donors.
We must fight for transformational change that shifts the balance of power back to ordinary citizens and makes a real difference in their lives. The United States and Ireland have each had recent successes in terms of individual rights and economic justice.
These victories were hard won by people standing up and fighting back together – the only way real change ever takes place. We need to build on these successes and expand our partnerships on both a local and global basis.
The issue of war and peace is central to this fight for democracy. The United States has long used “democracy” as a reason to wage regime-change wars which have resulted in serious “unforeseen” consequences – whether it was overthrowing Mosaddegh in Iran, Allende in Chile, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or a whole range of clandestine operations, interventions all over the world.
Many of these military actions might not have taken place if the public had been educated about the issues, if those with different ideas and foresight had not been marginalised, if there had been a civil debate of ideas rather than a group-think acquiescence.
I’m an educator. And I believe democracy depends upon an educated populace. Some of the important elements of education – inclusive with respect to human rights, accessible regardless of economic status, and essential in preparation for global citizenship – are also some of the most important aspects of a strong democracy.
Recognition that public funding for pre-school through university is not only an investment in the individual, but an investment in the future of the country, could shift the spending priorities of a nation while enhancing democratic values.
As we prepare our teachers, doctors, childcare workers, economists, lawyers and other professions for their chosen careers, we should also educate them for democracy. Perhaps we could learn from the Native American culture and cultivate a practice for our students – and our policymakers – of determining how today’s decisions will affect the next seven generations, impact the environment, and influence the growth and development of our children. Perhaps the media could assist by offering broader perspectives and fostering more debate on the facts, ethics and morality of particular stances regarding the economy, income inequality, budget policy and democratic principles in general.
In our schools and colleges, we need to put greater emphasis on economists working with students on global inequality and poverty. We need more scientists exploring the root causes of the planetary climate crisis and the necessity of sustainable development and renewable energies. We need greater focus in teacher-education programs on sharing the latest neuroscience discoveries and considering their implications for nurturing curiosity, creativity and confidence and cultivating a thirst for lifelong learning.
“We need to set the bar higher for our elected officials, candidates, the media and ourselves…”
A consistent interdisciplinary approach could bring students in various fields together to work collaboratively, in teams, in respectful civil discourse. And, since we’re discussing democracy, there could be discussions about why policies that are best for the largest number of people, fairer for all, are – or are not – adopted in our nation’s capitals. Perhaps we could incorporate real-world case studies that review policies and actions not just from a what happened perspective, but why, what were the results, and how could we have done better?
Educating for global citizenship requires the ability to think critically, write clearly and communicate effectively. It requires media literacy and analysis. It requires an understanding of sustainable development, and the ability to identify and research complex issues. And it requires ethical behaviour.
Which brings me to our current electoral process. In today’s politics, the conventional wisdom is that it is no longer enough to defeat your opponent in a contest of ideas. According to the omnipresent highly paid consultants, the politics of today requires you to destroy them.
Negative television ads and mailings, paid for by special interests and large donors, bombard voters with reasons not to vote for this one or that one. The result is, they often decide not to vote – at all. We need to get money out of politics and, in the meantime, we need to not listen when money speaks. Don’t believe the negative messages. Demand that candidates give reasons to vote for them, not against their opponents.
In terms of civil discourse, we need to set the bar higher for our elected officials, candidates, the media and ourselves. We need to voice our opposition when we see the harsh, divisive and partisan rhetoric or the politics of personal destruction at work – regardless of whether we support or oppose the speaker or the target.
We can ask, and ask, and ask again that they all actively resist this coarsening of our culture whenever they observe it. We can let the candidates and the media know that we expect in-depth questions and answers about issues that affect our lives and that we expect them to engage in issue-oriented civil debate.
Published on Tuesday, October 09, 2018 by The Irish Times. Republished in Common Dreams, Tuesday, October 09, 2018.
The Women Disobey protest against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) “zero tolerance” policy separation children and families at the US/Mexico border. 28 June 2018. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Author: Sarahmirk .
By Kathie MM
Believers in peace and human rights are reeling from national symptoms of fascism, racism, and violent responses to engineered fear and misdirected rage–and now on top of everything else, an opening in the Supreme Court.
But, there’s an antidote to despair in The Progressive’s 2005 article from Howard Zinn.
Here are a few excerpts, reminding us: we have overcome before–and can do so again.
“It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of poor people, women, people of color, dissenters of all kinds. Those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel, and violate the law in order to uphold justice….
The rights of working people, of women, of black people have not depended on decisions of the courts. Like the other branches of the political system, the courts have recognized these rights only after citizens have engaged in direct action powerful enough to win these rights for themselves….
Knowing the nature of the political and judicial system of this country, its inherent bias against the poor, against people of color, against dissidents, we cannot become dependent on the courts, or on our political leadership. Our culture–the media, the educational system–tries to crowd out of our political consciousness everything except who will be elected President and who will be on the Supreme Court, as if these are the most important decisions we make. They are not. They deflect us from the most important job citizens have, which is to bring democracy alive by organizing, protesting, engaging in acts of civil disobedience that shake up the system. That is why Cindy Sheehan’s dramatic stand in Crawford, Texas, leading to 1,600 anti-war vigils around the country, involving 100,000 people, is more crucial to the future of American democracy than [particular judicial hearings and appointments]…”
There’s gold in them there words. Keep the faith. Heed the call.
American WWII propaganda poster. Author: United States Office of War Information. In the public domain.
by Kathie MM
On this blog, we talk a lot about moral disengagement –the processes allowing ordinary individuals (people who can become confused, anxious, and angry when feeling threatened) to behave in inhumane ways.
The best-known type of moral disengagement involves dehumanizing or demonizing some vulnerable group for personal advantage–e.g., political or economic profit. Are citizens getting restless, angry at economic hardship, starting to rebel? Create an enemy, dehumanize whoever it is (perhaps next year’s ally), and sic those restless citizens on your scapegoat.
There’s a lot of dehumanizing going on right now, just as there is whenever people in power want to boost their profits by getting their citizens to go to war. Stop, look, and listen for the dehumanizing language–e.g., calling members of some group “animals,” “monsters,” “rats,” “pigs,” or “snakes.”
Then take a very good look at the context for that dehumanizing language. Ask yourself who used the term and for what purpose. If the speaker is trying to get people to go along with some sort of harm–e.g., denial of human rights, direct or indirect violence–then you are probably seeing moral disengagement in action.
Not every use of epithets like “animal” or “brute” is an example of moral disengagement. If someone calls her or his spouse a “brute” because that spouse is constantly violent, that’s not moral disengagement. If the speaker is calling all men “brutes” and urging the passage of laws requiring universal castration, or even just denying men the right to own property because of their alleged subhumaness, that would be moral disengagement.
So, pay attention to talk in which selected groups of people are being labelled animals or similar dehumanizing terms, and ask yourself: What is the speaker trying to gain here? What advantage can accrue to the speaker and his or her followers through the kind of dehumanizing language being used? If you can answer those questions, you are gaining an understanding of moral disengagement.
Then, to make yourself feel better, search this blog for encouraging reminders regarding the processes of moral engagement available to all of us in the face of intended manipulation and exploitation.
