The Patriarchy #5

The Patriarchy #4

White People Calling Cops Video 3

Patriarchy #2

The Patriarchy #1

Click on the link below to see my video #1 on the Patriarchy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdRtmsQlrI4

I also have some links to the news headlines of today.

The Guardian, June 3, 2018

Houston Chronicle, May 24, 2018

Prensa Libre, July 8, 2018

And from the Patriarchy:

New York Times, May 31, 2018

New York Times, June 18, 2018

Tyranny

View of Lake Michigan from Mackinac Island

Two nights ago, I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) as I was driving home from an art opening. The program on air was a debate from Intelligence Squared about whether or not The President Has Usurped the Constitutional Power of Congress. 

While I was listening I could feel myself becoming defensive. The proposition side said that yes, President Obama had usurped the constitutional power of Congress when he made concessions (granting extensions, among other things) to the Affordable Health Care Act in order to make it more palatable to Republican members of Congress. The opposition side disagreed and said that, President Obama had not usurped the constitutional power of Congress. The opposition side made little headway against the proposition side and in the end, the audience agreed that President Obama had usurped the constitutional power of Congress.

I had to think about why I felt defensive. It wasn’t that I think that President Obama has never over-stepped his authority. It’s just that I disagreed with the examples that the proposition used. If I were one of the debaters I would have said that President Obama over-stepped his bounds with his use of drones. I am much more concerned when a president over-steps his authority in order to kill people than I am when a president tries everything possible to bring health care to Americans. The reality is that presidents have been over-stepping their authority in order to kill people for a very long time. It isn’t just President Obama.  

The proposition side said that the liberal left (my words) were hypocrites on this issue (again, my wording). They said that everyone would be very upset with a President Trump who over-stepped his authority.

I would argue that if President Trump were going to do everything possible to bring health care to people then I would applaud Trump. The proposition debaters were missing this key point when they harped on the insurance issue. If Trump over-steps his authority to try everything he can to bring human rights to people I will applaud him. But if Trump over-steps his authority to kill people—or to deport people—or to whip his followers into a violent frenzy then I will be very upset. But none of this made any difference to the proposition side debaters. They said that President Obama was guilty of tyranny.

The use of the word TYRANNY was especially troublesome for me. When I was listening to the radio program I realized that Republicans use this word all of the time and Democrats almost never use the word. Moreover, Republicans have a very good idea what they mean when they say TYRANNY and I believe that many Democrats have never really thought about the word very much.

So what is TYRANNY?

Merriam-Webster has several definitions of tyranny. Some of the definitions are aimed at a singular person—a tyrant.

“A government in which power is vested in a singular ruler.”

“The office, authority, and administration of a tyrant.”

“A government in which all power belongs to one person: the rule or authority of a tyrant.”

When a Republican uses the word TYRANNY, it would seem that they are always referring to the president of the United States (as long as he is not a Republican.)

However, Merriam-Webster has several more definitions of tyranny. These definitions do not refer to an individual. Rather, these other definitions refer to an abuse of power.

“Cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others.”

“Oppressive power… especially oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>”

“A rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force…”

These last three definitions of tyranny give a somewhat different view of what tyranny could be. While it is true that the president could act as a tyrant, it seems equally true that the other branches of government could also exert tyrannical power. Thus, the Congress or the Senate or even the Supreme Court should be seen as having the ability to function in a tyrannical manner.

This then, is why I believe the Republicans talk so much about tyranny. By constantly referring only to the tyranny of the president they are hoping that no one will realize that other branches of government could do the same thing. Even state governments could operate in a tyrannical fashion. This leaves them free to do as they wish.

And this is what I believe is happening in our government today. All of our branches of government have been guilty of using tyranny in one form or another. 

The genius of the United States government is that no one branch is EVER tyrannical ALL of the time—that is unless we consider how our government has treated African Americans and Native Americans. Those two groups have been on the receiving end of tyrannical power since Europeans first came to this continent.

In general, however, federal and state governments have historically practiced situational tyranny and that is what I want to write about today.

When has the House of Congress acted tyrannically?
Congress has obstructed nearly every single thing President Obama has tried to do in the past 7 years. Bills have been blocked, proposals have been voted down, nominations for judges have been blocked and the government has been shut down. Other presidents have been on the receiving end of the Legislative Branch's tyranny; but no one to the extent that President Obama has.

When has the Senate acted tyrannically?

Hundreds of filibusters have brought the government to a standstill. Bills have been blocked, proposals have been voted down and nominations for judges have been blocked. The government has been shut down and the Senate fought to take down the debt ceiling. All of this, just during the time that President Obama has been in office.

When has the Supreme Court acted tyrannically?

àWhen the court decided in 2000 that the Florida recount was                          unconstitutional, making George W. Bush president.

àIn 2013, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights         Act. This meant that states can change their voter registration rules without obtaining Federal approval first.

When have states acted tyrannically?

àWhen they try to cut away at abortion rights.

àWhen they invalidated gay/lesbian civil unions and marriages.

àWhen they cut away at voter registration access.

Tyranny has brought our government to its knees. We must get rid of tyranny—by voting those who use it out of office. During President Obama's time in office it has been members of Congress, Senators and sometimes the Supreme Court who have been most guilty of using tyranny. 

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be vigilant against presidential tyranny. It just means that because someone yells “Tyranny” doesn’t mean that it is so.

Before I Continue

Cliff near Moonlight Beach in San Diego, California

When I first began writing this blog I wrote mainly about how orthodox religion is keeping us from having a society in which all may participate. I really like some of the articles I wrote—I particularly like my views on the First Amendment. But after my brother died, I wanted to write about how Americans of European heritage (Whites) are missing the ball because either we don’t see racism, we don’t want to see racism or we simply are racists. This is very bothersome to me and I don’t completely understand it. I want to live in a society that values everyone (#Black Lives Matter). I want to live in a society in which all may have equal access to the benefits and protections that are supposedly offered to all Americans.

The reality is that I live in a society where only some people have the protections and benefits of being an American. The reality is that I live in a society in which people are feeling increasingly more comfortable calling for violence, people are feeling increasingly more comfortable trying to keep others from their constitutional rights and people are feeling increasingly more comfortable showing more allegiance to a party than they do to the United States government.

Many of us do not realize where we are standing. We are standing on a cliff that is capable of breaking off at any moment plunging us downward—or burying us beneath tons of earth and rock.

The current political fight between Hillary, Trump and Bernie (and their supporters/followers) is a fight that encapsulates everything going on in America today. It is a fight of orthodox religion against liberal religion and science, of White privilege against everyone else and male vs. female. This is a fight. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We don’t have to go down that road. We don’t have to fall off the cliff.

There are three very visible people in this struggle—Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The first thing to realize in all of this is that this struggle is not about those three people. This struggle is about the supporters and the followers.

Two of the three people have followers. One of the three people has supporters. I am sure that you can pick out which of the two have followers—Bernie and Trump. I am sure that you can see that Hillary has supporters. This difference is very clear, and it is very telling.

When I listen to the followers of these two people I hear the followers say that they think only their person can take our society to where we need to go. “Only Trump can save us!” “Only Bernie can save us!” The fact that no one is saying this about Hillary gives me a lot of hope.

The other thing that is telling about this election is that both Bernie and Trump are revolutionaries. Trump has upended things already--and it is anyone's guess as to how his time as president will actually look. Bernie is calling for a revolution. He want government to work again. I like what Bernie has to say. But then I look at his followers.

It’s never about the revolutionary. It’s always about the followers. Look at Hitler. Without his followers, Hitler would have just been an angry little man who hated people. With his followers, Hitler’s ideas became one of the greatest killing machines ever. So without his followers, Trump is just a man who likes to do business deals. With his followers, we are seeing cries of hatred and calls for violence. We don’t yet know what will happen if we continue on Trump’s declared path, but we can see that it won’t be anything positive.

Bernie's followers seem to be people who want social change but they are also people who think only Bernie has the ability to bring about that change. Strikingly, Bernie’s followers say that Bernie is the one who started this revolution. But this simply isn't true. Bernie’s followers want change and they want it now--and if it can't be Bernie that leads us then they are going to throw a fit.

Hillary has supporters. This is part of the reason her campaign feels so different. Hillary’s supporters do not think Hillary is our savior. Hillary’s supporters do not vilify Bernie’s followers as many of Bernie’s followers have done to her. And while we may think that we know how Hillary will act as president we won't know until she is president. Look at Lyndon Johnson. He was a man who was difficult to get along with--someone who sat on the toilet while he was having meetings. But when Lyndon Johnson was president, he embraced the Civil Rights Movement. Lyndon Johnson accomplished many things while he was president. I don't think anyone could have predicted what kind of president he was going to be. 

Our society will be able to heal--and to move forward--if we join together. We must stop fighting. We must listen to one another--and we must participate.