Sunday, June 26, 2016

“We Want Our Country Back”


How you react to that phrase says a lot about your view of culture in a nation. 

Politically, of course, that sums up the so-called BREXIT vote. 

To those on the left, “wanting your country back” is synonymous with hostility to immigrants, legal or otherwise, heavily laced with racial antagonism.  That attitude was summarized by former Boston Globe columnist Mike Barnacle (a regular on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC morning talk show) as “fear of others”!

[How comforting it must be to view those with whom one disagrees as being motivated by negative emotions or deficient character.  That way, you don’t need to inquire as to whether there might be intelligent reasons for their contrary opinions.]

For those Americans who favor “repossessing” their country, they consider their motivations to be quite reasonable.  They object to America’s failure to enforce its immigration laws, bilingual signs in major department stores, the existence of sanctuary cities and so on.  To the extent that these views are fueled by emotions, the paramount one is anger.

What has happened to the melting pot?  America was founded by “others”.  It’s a cliché to recite that we are a nation of immigrants.  Of course we are.

Historically, for our two hundred and forty plus years of existence, we’ve been bound not by shared ethnicity or race, but by values.  We treasure freedom, individual rights and mutual respect among our population.  As Americans, we do not demand uniformity of beliefs, conduct or customs of our fellow countrymen.  But we used to expect a commitment by all to our nation’s values.

That, after all, was what “the melting pot” meant.  People who immigrated to the U.S. naturally came with the manners and habits of the old country.  But they were drawn here by the opportunity and tolerance America offered. Their implicit – if not explicit – obligation was to join the American community, to absorb and adopt its values as well as the English language.  If not, why did they come?

Perhaps a succinct way to describe the relationship between existing inhabitants and lawful newcomers is as a pact.  The immigrant is welcome so long as the person is willing to join the culture.

For those who rally to reclaim America, they believe, understandably, that the pact is not being honored and the country’s current leaders are either unable – or even worse, unwilling – to do anything about it.  On the left, to the extent that these concerns are noted (not by the numerous Mike Barnacles in the media, of course), they are dismissed as outmoded and xenophobic.

The voters in Britain, for example, as far as their country was concerned, would beg to differ.  

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Would You Be Able To Pass The Naturalized Citizen’s Test?

Every would-be naturalized citizen must take an oral ten question civics test on American government and history from a possible list of one hundred questions.  (A passing score is six out of ten.)

It shouldn’t be very challenging since the possible one hundred questions are online.  However, some answers are not obvious.  And it’s doubtful that most native-born Americans would do particularly well without studying.  Given the dearth of civics classes in high school these days, it’s not entirely facetious to suggest that many respondents wouldn’t have a clue as to which country was established with a “Declaration of Independence”.

Here’s a sample of the one hundred questions: 


        * What is the supreme law of the land?

        * What does freedom of religion mean?

        * Name a branch of the federal government.

        * Who or what does a U.S. Senator represent?

        * Name two cabinet level federal department.
          
        * What is the capital of the state you live in?

        * When is the usual deadline for filing a federal tax return?

        * Name three of the original thirteen colonies.

        * Name one of the writers of the Federalist Papers.


So, how did you do?  Do you, too, need to brush up on your American civics?

Note:  Trent Kittleman, a Republican member of Maryland’s House of Delegates, has introduced legislation requiring high school students to pass a similar test as a condition of graduation.  The Delegate’s efforts, thus far, have made little headway in that state’s heavily Democratic legislature. 

One would have thought that promotion of knowledge of America’s political system and history would be viewed as a non-partisan project.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

What Is Racism?

The pejorative is bandied about quite frequently as a weapon, particularly by those on the left and sometimes by conservatives, too.

Unfortunately, the term as well as the label “racist” are used so inaccurately both intentionally and due to sloppy thinking that the derogatory sting has been greatly reduced, though not eliminated.

The definition should be unambiguous.  A person who categorizes people first and foremost by their race, rather than their individual characteristics, surely fits the definition (particularly if the user is hostile to the other race).  But I suggest that it does not encompass racial prejudice or bias.  If it did, who among us could claim to have none?  Indeed, if it did, the label would be harmless – we’d all qualify. 

Consider the uproar generated by Donald Trump’s allegation that the judge in a civil case was not being fair to him because he’s a Mexican (false).

The charges of racism filled the airways.  Even those on the right like morning talk show host Joe Scarborough and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan were vociferous in their condemnation of Trump and demanding that he apologize.

The verbal assaults were flawed in a crucial detail.  Trump’s comments undoubtedly were ill-informed, foolish and ignorant.  But they were not “racist”.

First, Mexico is a nation, not a race.  Second, the judge, born in Indiana, is white. 

It makes as much sense to call Americans a race as to call Mexicans as such.  [As an aside, Mexico is about sixty-five percent mixed race (Indian and white), eighteen percent American Indian and seventeen percent white.]

However, as a lawyer who has appeared before countless judges over many years, I find Trump’s comments offensive for a far more important reason.  Apparently, the would-be GOP nominee does not appreciate that judges are sworn to be unbiased in their roles.  In my experience, the vast majority strive to meet that obligation in the performance of their judicial duties.
 
Of course, judges have biases, likes and dislikes, like the rest of us.  But their duty is to put those aside as best they can while performing their judicial function to be fair to each side before them.

Sure, it’s probably true that Judge Gonzalo Curiel is not a fan of Donald Trump.  Possessing Mexican heritage, he may have been offended by Trump’s aspersions toward Mexican immigrants.  Yet, even if those reasonable suspicions are true, so what?  They hardly mean that the judge is incapable of putting them aside so that he can properly carry out his duty to be fair.

The fact that Donald Trump didn’t – and probably still doesn’t – understand and appreciate how judges actually function is more than troubling.

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Memo To Trump Supporters: The Donald “Saying What You Think” Is Not A Qualification

When Trump supporters – as distinct from GOP faithful falling into line -  are asked why they support Donald Trump for President, the typical response is “he says what I think”. 

What, really, does that mean?  That the Trump backer is unwilling to voice his views?  Or that thinking the same way qualifies the candidate to be President?  Of course, the latter is nonsense.

Why isn’t the response that Trump will do what he says? 

Perhaps the explanation is that it doesn’t matter.  At heart, it seems, the committed Trump supporter is a pessimist wanting to send a message of disgust with the way things are.  If one has lost hope in the future, why not blow up the present?  What follows can’t be worse.

If this analysis is correct, it means that, at its core, the Trump legion is hopeless.  Despite the Trump campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again”, its fans have given up.  Otherwise they would concern themselves with the consequences of electing Donald Trump who, from the perspective of Tlhe Sensible Conservative, is temperamentally unsuited for the position and without coherent objectives other than ego satisfaction.