I recently wrote about my reasons why the statue honoring Confederate soldiers in front of the old Rockville court house should be removed.
There is a new petition on MoveOn.org urging Montgomery County officials to remove the statue. I strongly believe that the statue, and all such celebrations of the Confederacy, should be removed from places of public honor. But I have a major problem with this language in the petition: "society does not honor traitors who fought for slavery." Soldiers in wars are not policymakers and, sadly, they are often lambs to the slaughter in "causes" they do not fully understand. Or if they do understand, they are prisoners of their own environments. We condemn the cause of slavery, but there is no need to demonize the ancestors of many of our fellow countrymen. Such language unnecessarily distracts from the real issue: that we should not publicly honor the Confederate cause. THAT is why the statue should be removed.
The Left, of which I consider myself a part, should not repeat the mistake of the Viet Nam era, in which too many people who opposed the War condemned the draftees and enlistees who were sent by our government on what was an ill-considered mission. Those condemnations delayed national reconciliation, and plague us even to this day.
I will not be signing the MoveOn.org petition.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Republicans attack Trump for his attack on McCain, ignoring their own hypocrisy
A controversy rages today over Donald Trump's insult of Senator John McCain's military service. Republicans are falling all over themselves to defend McCain against Trump. And justly so. Trump graduated college in 1968, at the height of the draft. Was he drafted? Did he enlist? Was he a supporter of the Viet Nam War, or, if not, did he work against it? Did he do some form of alternative service -- finding another way to act in the public interest in those turbulent times?
All we know about Trump in those years is that he went directly into his father's real estate business, and apparently had some sort of deferment.
But the controversy du jour raises a larger point about the Republican political class: While they heap rage on fellow-Republican Trump for his insult of POW John McCain, where were they in 2004 when the Swift Boaters were lying about war hero John Kerry? At best, the Republican political class was silent while a brave patriot was being savaged. Do they have any moral standing to show outrage now, without first apologizing to Secretary of State Kerry?
But the controversy du jour raises a larger point about the Republican political class: While they heap rage on fellow-Republican Trump for his insult of POW John McCain, where were they in 2004 when the Swift Boaters were lying about war hero John Kerry? At best, the Republican political class was silent while a brave patriot was being savaged. Do they have any moral standing to show outrage now, without first apologizing to Secretary of State Kerry?
Confederate Statue on the Old Court House Grounds in Rockville and "Political Correctness"
There has been a lot of commentary on social media about Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett’s decision, reported in the Washington Post, to remove the statue of a Confederate soldier that sits on the
grounds of the old court house in Rockville. I grew up in Montgomery
County, but was not aware of the statue until, well into my adulthood, I
attended an event at the old court house.
Upon reading the inscription, a
dedication to the soldiers who fought to preserve human slavery in our own
state and in the rest of the country, I felt embarrassed. I do not see a
significant difference between public space being used to honor the Confederacy
and public space being used to honor the 1933-45 German government. Similarly, I am embarrassed at the lyrics of
our state song, "Maryland, My Maryland," which are an unambiguous call for Maryland to support Confederacy. For example, no one disputes that the opening
line -- “The despot’s heel is on thy shore” -- refers to President Lincoln.
The Post article also notes that County
Executive Leggett’s “decision comes on the
heels of Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s announcement last week that there would be
no statewide review of Civil War-related symbols... ‘Where do we draw the
line? Some of this is our history,’ said Hogan (R), calling the petition
efforts [to have such a review] ‘political correctness run amok.’” I believe that too often the
phrase “political correctness” is used as a lazy way to fail to confront
important questions of how we communicate with each other, and how our government
presents itself. This is one of those
times. Flags and statues that adorn our
public spaces have important symbolic meaning. Symbols of support for human slavery have no place in such public
adornments.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Funding for Compensation for Caregivers for the Developmentally Disabled in Montgomery County
Dear
Councilwoman Navarro:
I am writing as a District 4 constituent and as the brother of a resident of the Rubin Home, part of the Jewish Foundation for Group Homes (JFGH).
Please keep in mind Senator Humphrey’s wisdom as you consider the Supplement.
Sincerely,
David S. Fishback
I am writing as a District 4 constituent and as the brother of a resident of the Rubin Home, part of the Jewish Foundation for Group Homes (JFGH).
In the last speech Senator Hubert Humphrey ever made, he instructed us that
This wise admonition is particularly apt as you and your colleagues consider the County Executive’s proposed reductions in the Montgomery County Supplement for direct service workers for providers, such as JFGH, who play essential roles in ensuring safety and health of those, like my 64-year-old brother, who have intellectual and developmental disabilities. Many of these support personnel work two jobs simply to stay afloat. The May 2015 increase in the Montgomery County Supplement for the FY16 County Budget was intended to keep these workers at an hourly rate higher than the minimum wage. By eliminating the funding for this increase, some staff will leave their careers as caregivers to work less demanding jobs at higher hourly rates; and those who remain will continue to fall behind inflation. Please reject the proposed “Savings Plan” and maintain the budgeted increase in the Supplement to support the dedicated individuals who serve those with intellectual or other developmental disabilities.the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
Please keep in mind Senator Humphrey’s wisdom as you consider the Supplement.
Sincerely,
David S. Fishback
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Thoughts on the Confederate flag and America's "Original Sin"
There was never any doubt that slavery – aptly identified by President Obama in his Charleston eulogy as America's "Original Sin" – was the cause of the Civil War and that Confederate flags are the symbol of support for that Sin. This was brought home to me recently in reading a soon-to-be-published biography of Henry Clay (thanks to Janet Gallant for giving me an advance copy). The facts laid out in that book demonstrate that the central issue of American political life in the first half of the 19th Century was slavery. Clay engineered a series of compromises from 1820 to 1851 to forestall collapse of the Union over slavery. But the collapse was inevitable, and it took the Civil War to resolve the issue of de jure slavery – although the War did not eliminate the racist culture with which we have struggled for 150 years after emancipation.
Clay was a Kentucky slave-owner who benefited from that ultimate "White Privilege." But he knew that slavery was untenable in the long run. His proposed solution was to "repatriate" all Blacks back to Africa. Otherwise, Clay asserted, "A contest would inevitably ensue between the two races – civil war, carnage, conflagration, devastation. Nothing is more certain."
And here is an irony. The war for emancipation was not a civil war between "the two races." Rather, it was a civil war within White America. (There were Black soldiers, but due to the pervasive racism of the time, they were a small percentage of the combatants.) The number of war dead is estimated to be about 750,000, or nearly 3% of the entire population of the country. That was a lot of dead White people.
As President Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address, while the Civil War was still raging, "if God wills that [the War] continues until all the wealth piled by the bondsmen's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so it still must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
One of the great – if not the greatest – stories of American History is the Civil Rights Movement of the second half of the 20th Century, which resolved some (but by no means all) of the horrible legacy of slavery without the “carnage, conflagration, devastation” predicted by Clay. In a macro sense, White America should be far more grateful to Black America than visa versa. This was shown once again in Charleston. Can White America meet the challenges so clearly before it?
And here is an irony. The war for emancipation was not a civil war between "the two races." Rather, it was a civil war within White America. (There were Black soldiers, but due to the pervasive racism of the time, they were a small percentage of the combatants.) The number of war dead is estimated to be about 750,000, or nearly 3% of the entire population of the country. That was a lot of dead White people.
As President Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address, while the Civil War was still raging, "if God wills that [the War] continues until all the wealth piled by the bondsmen's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so it still must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
One of the great – if not the greatest – stories of American History is the Civil Rights Movement of the second half of the 20th Century, which resolved some (but by no means all) of the horrible legacy of slavery without the “carnage, conflagration, devastation” predicted by Clay. In a macro sense, White America should be far more grateful to Black America than visa versa. This was shown once again in Charleston. Can White America meet the challenges so clearly before it?
Obergefell Dissent: Justice Roberts's misunderstanding of Faulkner
originally published on July 3, 2015
In his dissent in the Obergefell case, Chief Justice Roberts asserts that, notwithstanding emerging understandings of fairness and justice, the Constitution's 14th Amendment should not be interpreted to require civil marriage equality for gay couples, concluding with reliance on a famous William Faulkner quote from the book Requiem for a Nun: “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”
But the Chief Justice seems not to have actually read or understood Faulkner. In the book, a young woman, Temple Drake Stevens, harbors embarrassing secrets from her past, which, if revealed, could save the life of a black woman on death row. Temple's uncle, Gavin Stevens, urges her to step forward. Temple demurs, saying, "The past is dead." Gavin replies with the words quoted by the Chief Justice: "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past."
Faulkner warned us that we are haunted by the past and need to take action to own up to and correct past sins. Indeed, that was an underpinning of Loving v. Virginia, where the Court overturned bans on interracial marriage. Yet, the Chief Justice says that the Court should be controlled by an element of a past (discrimination against and antipathy toward gay people) that has caused unnecessary pain, because it is still part of our present. By invoking Faulkner, the Chief Justice actually undermines the very point that is the linchpin of his argument.
[NB: The Chief Justice’s discussion is found at pp. 22-23 of his dissent.]
In his dissent in the Obergefell case, Chief Justice Roberts asserts that, notwithstanding emerging understandings of fairness and justice, the Constitution's 14th Amendment should not be interpreted to require civil marriage equality for gay couples, concluding with reliance on a famous William Faulkner quote from the book Requiem for a Nun: “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”
Faulkner warned us that we are haunted by the past and need to take action to own up to and correct past sins. Indeed, that was an underpinning of Loving v. Virginia, where the Court overturned bans on interracial marriage. Yet, the Chief Justice says that the Court should be controlled by an element of a past (discrimination against and antipathy toward gay people) that has caused unnecessary pain, because it is still part of our present. By invoking Faulkner, the Chief Justice actually undermines the very point that is the linchpin of his argument.
[NB: The Chief Justice’s discussion is found at pp. 22-23 of his dissent.]
Bringing together Israelis and Palestinians
originally published on June 6, 2015
I just returned from Adas Israel Synagogue (a Conservative synagogue in D.C., where President Obama recently spoke), where about 200 people heard presentations from a religious West Bank settler and a Palestinian activist (who had spent time in an Israeli prison during the Intifada) who live in adjoining towns, but who, until recently, had never seen each other -- both literally and figuratively.
They are part of a group called Friends of Roots. They presented compelling cases for the truth as seen by religious Settlers and the truth as seen by Palestinians. They discovered that both truths have merit, and that the only way to lay the groundwork for any kind of peace with justice over time is for Israeli Settlers and Palestinians to actually see each other as human beings, and to understand each other's truth. (I have not done them justice in this short description. This article about their recent visit to Los Angeles gives some more flavor.)
They have no set preconceptions as to what kind of political arrangements should ultimately be made in Israel/Palestine (although they do have some ideas). They are not happy with either the Israeli or PA governments. Their main effort is to lay the kind of groundwork that could ultimately result in peace with justice for everyone, understanding both sides' truths.
I am impressed.
I just returned from Adas Israel Synagogue (a Conservative synagogue in D.C., where President Obama recently spoke), where about 200 people heard presentations from a religious West Bank settler and a Palestinian activist (who had spent time in an Israeli prison during the Intifada) who live in adjoining towns, but who, until recently, had never seen each other -- both literally and figuratively.
They have no set preconceptions as to what kind of political arrangements should ultimately be made in Israel/Palestine (although they do have some ideas). They are not happy with either the Israeli or PA governments. Their main effort is to lay the kind of groundwork that could ultimately result in peace with justice for everyone, understanding both sides' truths.
I am impressed.
An explanation for the surprise Conservative victory in the U.K.
originally published on May 8, 2015
All the media is expressing surprise at the Conservative Party's winning of a majority of the seats in Parliament in yesterday's election, leaving the Labour Party in the dust, even though the polling just before the election showed an extremely close race. The final polls showed the Conservatives and Labour each at 33% or thereabouts, and in no case having more than one point separating them, with the rest of the parties splitting the balance.
So far, I have seen no reporting on the actual percentage of the votes, nationwide, secured by the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UK Independence, Green, and Scottish National parties. Might it be that the pre-election polling was accurate, but that it was only of small relevance with respect to the final outcome? We should remember that in 1983, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party won a solid majority of the seats in Parliament, even though it only got 42% of the vote. “Two parties were more liberal than hers; they split their supporters and thus gave the Tories a plurality in most districts. Thatcher's policies did not please the majority of voters, yet they were powerless to stop her.” (AccurateDemocracy.com)
How can this be? Let’s remember that both the United States and the United Kingdom elect their national legislators from single-member districts. Whoever wins a plurality (however small) wins the seat.
In the United States, where generally there are only two candidates with serious electoral support, this rarely creates a problem. (Gerrymandering is a whole other problem eating at the legitimacy of the electoral process, but that is another matter).
But in the United Kingdom, there are nearly always at least three – and, now in Scotland, four – viable party candidates for each seat. Which means that the winner of the plurality of votes, however small, wins the seat. (This may mean that there is no inconsistency between the recent referendum in Scotland in which a majority voted to stay in the United Kingdom and yesterday’s Parliamentary results in which the Scottish National Party won nearly all the districts (I guess the Brits call them “constituencies”) in Scotland.)
If Cameron’s smashing victory in the Parliamentary elections is more the product of the multi-party structure laid over a single-member district plurality system – as was Thatcher’s in 1983 – then the United Kingdom continues to have a serious problem of democratic legitimacy. The media has a responsibility to note the disconnect between the popular will (did 2/3 of the voters oppose Cameron in yesterday’s voting?) and the Parliamentary results.
All the media is expressing surprise at the Conservative Party's winning of a majority of the seats in Parliament in yesterday's election, leaving the Labour Party in the dust, even though the polling just before the election showed an extremely close race. The final polls showed the Conservatives and Labour each at 33% or thereabouts, and in no case having more than one point separating them, with the rest of the parties splitting the balance.
So far, I have seen no reporting on the actual percentage of the votes, nationwide, secured by the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UK Independence, Green, and Scottish National parties. Might it be that the pre-election polling was accurate, but that it was only of small relevance with respect to the final outcome? We should remember that in 1983, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party won a solid majority of the seats in Parliament, even though it only got 42% of the vote. “Two parties were more liberal than hers; they split their supporters and thus gave the Tories a plurality in most districts. Thatcher's policies did not please the majority of voters, yet they were powerless to stop her.” (AccurateDemocracy.com)
How can this be? Let’s remember that both the United States and the United Kingdom elect their national legislators from single-member districts. Whoever wins a plurality (however small) wins the seat.
In the United States, where generally there are only two candidates with serious electoral support, this rarely creates a problem. (Gerrymandering is a whole other problem eating at the legitimacy of the electoral process, but that is another matter).
But in the United Kingdom, there are nearly always at least three – and, now in Scotland, four – viable party candidates for each seat. Which means that the winner of the plurality of votes, however small, wins the seat. (This may mean that there is no inconsistency between the recent referendum in Scotland in which a majority voted to stay in the United Kingdom and yesterday’s Parliamentary results in which the Scottish National Party won nearly all the districts (I guess the Brits call them “constituencies”) in Scotland.)
If Cameron’s smashing victory in the Parliamentary elections is more the product of the multi-party structure laid over a single-member district plurality system – as was Thatcher’s in 1983 – then the United Kingdom continues to have a serious problem of democratic legitimacy. The media has a responsibility to note the disconnect between the popular will (did 2/3 of the voters oppose Cameron in yesterday’s voting?) and the Parliamentary results.
Midterm lessons for Maryland Democrats
originally posted on November 5, 2014
Some very interesting numbers from the Maryland State Board of Elections site:
In other words, if everyone who voted for the Democrats in the other statewide races had voted for Brown, the Democrats would have held the governorship, probably by a substantial margin. Instead, there was a huge amount of ticket-splitting.
So why the Brown drubbing? Well, it can't be chalked up to racism. Indeed, in 2012 Barack Obama received 1,677,844 votes in Maryland -- more than the total number of people who voted for all candidates in 2014.
It is also noteworthy that the turnout in 2010 was 1,857,880. So yesterday, we saw a drop-off from midterm to midterm of 212,202 voters. Brown lost by 73,596 votes.
So what lessons for Democrats? First, obviously, we need to figure out ways to get better turnout. Second, as shown by the numbers yesterday, we can't nominate candidates for the top spot who are utterly uninspiring and are unable to effectively defend their records and make the case for why they should be elected.
Some very interesting numbers from the Maryland State Board of Elections site:
- 1,645,678 voted in the governor race this year: 874,107 for Republican Larry Hogan, 770,511 for Democrat Anthony Brown.
- 1,608,418 voted in the comptroller race (so there was only a drop-off of about 37,000 votes); Democrat Peter Franchot received 1,004,689 votes.
- 1,592,933 voted in the attorney general race; Democrat Brian Frosh received 884,054.
In other words, if everyone who voted for the Democrats in the other statewide races had voted for Brown, the Democrats would have held the governorship, probably by a substantial margin. Instead, there was a huge amount of ticket-splitting.
It is also noteworthy that the turnout in 2010 was 1,857,880. So yesterday, we saw a drop-off from midterm to midterm of 212,202 voters. Brown lost by 73,596 votes.
So what lessons for Democrats? First, obviously, we need to figure out ways to get better turnout. Second, as shown by the numbers yesterday, we can't nominate candidates for the top spot who are utterly uninspiring and are unable to effectively defend their records and make the case for why they should be elected.