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.

Looking Back

New Housing in Denver in 2009

I’ve mentioned that there were very few African Americans living in Boulder when I was growing up. I know why. When I was young—maybe 10 years old we went over to my aunt and uncle’s house. They lived in the neighborhood Keewaydin Meadows. I remember hearing my dad and my uncle talking about how an African American couple had just moved into the neighborhood. I remember we drove past the house—it was on a small cul-de-sac. My uncle pointed out which house was now owned by African Americans. They talked about how upset the people living around them were. I can imagine how much heat that family had to take. I can imagine how difficult it was for this family and I wonder how long they were able to live in that house.

When I was an adult I worked at a company that provided medical care to seniors. This company happened to be in Denver, Colorado. I worked at this company when Mr. Barak Obama was elected president. The excitement was palpable, especially from our African American patients. During the celebrations we all began talking about the history of racism—and our conversation turned to segregation. I asked what they remembered most about segregation. There were two answers that surprised me most. The first surprise came from a woman who said that the lack of public restrooms was especially difficult. She talked of travelling in a car and the inability to relieve oneself made traveling not only difficult but frightening. She said that driving within the city was just as bad as driving across the country. No bathrooms make for a very short journey.

The second surprise came from a man who had lived in Denver in the 30’s and 40’s. He talked about the Red Lines. These were the streets which demarcated where African Americans could live. I remember that the man told us what the boundaries were but I had to look them up for this article. I found the information in a pdf from the Department of the Interior, and the National Park Service entitled “Historic Residential Subdivisions ofMetropolitan Denver.” On page 87 and 88 the document states that in Denver, African Americans were confined to the Five Points neighborhood, with York Street being the eastern boundary until 1954. After 1954 the boundary extended a few blocks to the East of York Street. (Denver Suburbs, p. 87 and 88.) At that time, the South Platte River was the western boundary for African American communities while 17^th Avenue was the southern boundary and the rail yards were the northern boundary. I have not yet found when these red line restrictions were lifted but the conversation between my uncle and my dad happened in the early 70's so I think red lining existed much longer than white people realize.

Other racial groups were reportedly not exempt from housing restrictions. The Historic Residential Subdivision document states that “Hispanics” were offered inferior public housing options at 12^th Ave and Federal Boulevard. Japanese Americans also had difficulties after being released from the internment camps of WWII. The Japanese Americans were forced to live in the same small neighborhood (Five Points) that the African Americans were crowded into.

Most damning of all (in my opinion) is the following paragraph (p.85):

Discrimination in access to well-built, affordable private housing was common in the metropolitan area during the years before the war. Denver-area black leaders, like those at the national level, possessed few options with which to counter unfair practices. In 1940, the Colorado Statesman, Denver’s African American newspaper, discussed the impact of red-lining, noting that housing choices for the community were limited to dated properties in need of extensive repair and improvement that sold for $2,500 to $3,000, and charged that: “Conversely, the real thing can be seen upon the fringes of our City, in the hundreds of new and attractive homes, containing all of the modern features, and priced at 4000 dollars.” Money for new houses could not be obtained to build houses “within this racial zone” due to deterioration of the existing properties and low wages of residents. The Statesman concluded, “Some months ago, the FHA offered citizens within this zone of racial encirclement an opportunity to rent and live in ‘new homes,’ the same as other people do, but a group comprising realtors, and others having selfish interest, blocked this movement.”470 A year later the Statesman noted the housing situation remained a “grave problem” due to racial restrictions.

Every African American that ventured outside those boundaries must have experienced something similar to what that Boulder family experienced. White people exercising their “right” to bully and intimidate those who they did not feel should live in their communities.

The neighborhood that I now live in has a little local newspaper that is published about once a month. A couple of years ago I remember reading a short article—just one paragraph in length. The article was asking people not to call the police when they saw an African American man walking down the street. The article reminded people that “African Americans live here too.”

This part of America and American culture needs to be healed. People should be free to live where they want to—and they should be free to live without others’ intimidation and threats of violence. Until we are able to heal this, I will feel deeply ashamed of this part of being an American. 

The United States Constitution

The constitution of the United States of America does several things.

1.) It defines human rights for citizens of the United States.
2.) It sets up the organization for the US government.
3.) It provides for a way to pay for the federal government.
4.) It provides for a way to protect the US from being invaded.

It really is a simple system. As it is designed, it is a good system.

Beware when people talk about the federal government as if it is an evil entity. It is not. It is a governmental system "of the people, by the people and for the people."

A government which is concerned with human rights is a very limited government.

There really isn't much power or prestige for a government which is solely concentrated on human rights.

Beware the people who are trying to limit the power of the federal government. These people are trying to limit the federal government's ability to serve the people.

It really is true. States' Rights People are always campaigning to pull human rights out of the federal government and put them into the state government. The problem with this, is that state governments are not concerned with human rights. State rights people are conerned with giving more power to the individual--they just use fancy language to state their point and most people don't realize what they are trying to do.

Look at the following issues. They are all things that deal with human rights:

Birth control
Abortion
Defining marriage
Prayer in school
School vouchers

I would also put access to voting in this category because states have tried to control access to voting and every four years we see what a fiasco they have made of the system.

Gun control. Yes. This is a human right.

Now I Can See It

Poison Ivy--picture taken in Traverse City, Michigan by author

I grew up in Boulder. When I was in elementary school there were no African Americans in my classes--not a one. When I was in junior high (back then there were no middle schools in Colorado) I remember a couple of African Americans. Then in high school, there were a few more--maybe four people in the whole school. I remember thinking to myself, "I can't see any racism--it must not exist any more." Looking back, I can easily see the racism, but back then I couldn't.

In high school the afternoon bus would come to pick us up really late. School got out around 2:30 in the afternoon and the bus wouldn't pick us up until 4. To pass the time we would go to the rec center and play basketball. It was there that I met some African American boys. One of the boys, James, liked a friend of mine--Amy.

James had no interest in me whatsoever. But he really liked Amy--and so I got to know James a little. It just so happened that I worked at McDonald's and they had one of those loyalty things going on where the customer got a scratch ticket with every purchase. James really liked those scratch tickets and he really liked me to give him a few extra tickets each time he came in.

As time went on, the number of tickets that James wanted increased until I was handing him a stack of tickets every time he came in. This made me feel very uncomfortable and so I searched for a way to tell him I didn't want to give him tickets any more.

I remember I handed James the tickets and then said, "Now listen boy..."

James' face changed. He became extremely angry and he threw the tickets back at me. James said, "Don't you ever call me boy!" and he stormed out of McDonald's never to return while I was working.

I was baffled. What had happened?

I told someone who worked there what had happened and he said, "Boy is a term that whites used to use with slaves." I was stunned, embarrassed, and very remorseful all at once. I didn't understand how it was possible that I could have used a term like that without realizing what I saying.

I began to look for examples of people using the word "boy." I was astonished at how many instances I could find. On television I saw white men calling black men "boys" more times than I could count. I read books where white men were calling black men "boys." It was everywhere. Slowly, I began to realize that I had known exactly how to use to word "boy" when I was speaking with James. Even though I hadn't consciously picked up on what it meant, some part of knew exactly what I was saying. Racism was in me whether I wanted it to be or not.

Beginning to Write Again

My last blog entry was posted in January, 2013. I stopped writing this blog because in April, 2013 my brother killed himself. He was a police officer. He was a multiple veteran, having fought in the Gulf War and also in Iraq multiple times. It is difficult to know exactly why my brother killed himself, but he had been denied a return to Iraq due to a difficulty he had been having with cholesterol medicine. The last time I spoke with my brother he said he had been devastated about not being able to return to Iraq with his unit. I heard the word "devastated" but I didn't realize how much he was devastated until I got the phone call about his suicide.

I haven't felt a need to return to writing since his death--until now. 

At this moment, I want to change the focus of this blog. I will now write about my own experiences with racism. In essence, I will be giving witness to racism in our society.

I am doing this because I have been feeling for some time now that I want to take an active role as an ally. I want to be an ally for experiencing racism. I know that living in a world where everyone does not have freedom of access is a world that I feel uncomfortable living in. 

 I spoke with two women at the grocery store this morning about my need to be an ally and they said I "should just speak up wherever" I am. So I am going to do that. I am going to be a witness to all of the racism that I have seen in this society.