Hypocrisy or Democracy? The DNC Has a Fateful Choice

The Democratic National Committee will choose a new chair at its February 23-26 Winter Meeting in Atlanta.  That choice will be a fateful one.  

Despite being the smaller party, Republicans hold the country in an iron grip.  Their dream of dismantling New Deal social programs is within reach.  They’re racing to accelerate global warming by mining, drilling, and burning all the fossil fuels they can lay their hands on.  They seem bent on stripping millions of families of health care, threatening more millions of immigrant families, and demonizing 3.3 million Muslims who are our fellow students, co-workers, neighbors, and friends. 

A lot of responsibility for that falls on the DNC’s shoulders. The party’s collapse this past election was obviously a stunning rejection of Hillary Clinton.  But the rejection wasn’t just personal, it was systemic.  Millions of voters were turned off by the party’s hypocrisy and the DNC’s subservience to corporate money.  

Let’s tell it like it is.  The DNC gamed its own system, killed enthusiasm, and drove huge numbers of newly-engaged voters out of the campaign.  They ushered Hillary Clinton into the nomination and the party over a cliff.

What needs to be fixed?

Don’t underestimate the problems.  The less difficult fixes are managerial, and even those will require major effort to accomplish.  But after one of the most humiliating defeats in U.S. history, all of the candidates for chair agree they need to happen.  Those fixes include:

• reviving the 50-state (plus 7-territories) strategy; 
• pouring substantial resources into making the party competitive in state and local levels; 
• contesting races up and down the entire ticket rather than beginning and ending at the top; 
• supporting, not starving, progressive candidates; 
• listening to the grassroots.  

Publicly, that’s all the candidates are willing to discuss.  The corporate wing of the party wants to keep it that way.  What they don’t want is to own their part in the problem.

It was the corporatists who abandoned Howard Dean’s 50-state approach, sucked the money and support away from downticket efforts, and sought out lobbyists and big-dollar donors—and they don’t intend to change their ways.  

The corporatists’ basic pitch in framing the DNC’s choice of a new chair is a bureaucratic two-step.  1) The party needs to bury its “philosophical differences” over big donors (i.e., keep on living off corporate handouts), ignore the outrageous abuses of the last campaign, and unify.  2) The best fit for heading the rebuilding job is a good manager who will reach out and rebuild the party at its lower levels. 

In other words, their recipe for success is a better-run version of the status quo.  

Why is that not enough?

That argument may sound plausible.  But it won’t work. In fact, it’s actually a recipe for further disaster. 

Young people, working class people, and people of color deserted the party in droves this last election.  Even the shock of a Donald Trump administration won’t be enough to bring them back unless there is major systemic change—starting with the chair. In their encounters with the Democratic Party last primary season, attempts to squelch them were every bit as ugly and undemocratic as Republicans’ efforts to suppress minority votes. They’ve had it with the cynicism and hypocrisy of corporate Democrats.

Beyond that, there are structural problems plaguing the DNC like multiple cancers--the caucus system, the superdelegate system, and the core issue destroying the party: its dependence on donations from corporate lobbyists. 

What really needs to be fixed? 

The DNC is sick.  It has an addiction to corporate money.  And your dealers don’t stop coming around just because you’ve lost your house, been fired from your job, and been rejected by your kids.  You’re the dealers’ mealticket, and in their own way, they’re as sick as you are. 

As any addict or member of an addict’s family will tell you, recovery begins by acknowledging that you have a problem.  That was Bernie Sanders’ role in the last campaign.  He was the unlikely young boy who blurted out—in a Brooklyn accent—that the emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes.  The wonder wasn’t just that Sanders couldn’t be bullied or bought; it was that he actually talked about Wall Street and corporate money as corrupting democracy.  He broke the party’s sick silence.  It was the greatest contribution he could have made to the party—and the party turned it down. 

Once the silence was broken, volunteers poured into Sanders’ campaign.  His massive support via small donations was unprecedented.  Hundreds of thousands of those same folks, along with other energized, passionate people, are now out jamming airports, filling our cities’ streets, and hounding members of Congress.  They’re pouring millions of dollars into the ACLU.  Do the powers-that-be in the DNC actually believe that managerial fixes will satisfy people’s demands for change?  

As crazy as that sounds, they may.  Never underestimate addicts’ ability to delude themselves. 

How do things look at the moment?

Early on, Keith Ellison, a strong progressive and early Bernie Sanders supporter, was the clear frontrunner to become the new DNC chair.  But the party’s Clinton/Obama corporate wing, threatened by the prospect of real reform, pushed Tom Perez into the race.  Perez, ex-Labor Secretary under Obama and one-time prospect to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate, is now Ellison’s main competition.

Unfortunately for Perez, he had a temporary lapse into frankness.  He told county leaders in Kansas, “We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the [party’s primary] process was rigged, and it was. And you’ve got to be honest about it. That’s why we need a chair who is transparent.”  

His straight talk was quickly followed by a humiliating flurry of tweets in which he claimed he “misspoke” and that “Hillary became our nominee fair and square, and she won more votes in the primary—and general—than her opponents.”  

That Clinton won more votes is obviously true; that she won the nomination “fair and square” is a lie.  Emails released via Wikileaks, as well as the debate schedule, the stacked deck in debate questions, and the abuses in party caucuses all confirmed the process was rigged. 

By now we all cringe each time Kellyanne Conway debases herself by excusing or lying about yet another vile thing Donald Trump has said or done.  But here’s Tom Perez doing the same thing, flip-flopping at Clinton’s command. 

The speed with which Clinton//Wall Street forces were able to pull Perez’s strings and jerk him back into line is all we need to know about his fitness for the job. The last thing the DNC needs is a male version of Debbie Wasserman Schultz at its helm.  Nevertheless, Perez now claims he has the support of at least 180 DNC members.

Keith Ellison has been low key, presumably because he’s trying not to poke a stick in the eye of people he’ll need to work with if elected.  But Sam Ronan’s late entry into the race is a plus for Ellison because the young Ohio vet is making Ellison’s case for him, putting 2016’s rigged nomination front and center and demanding the DNC hold itself accountable.

Ellison’s bid has also been bolstered in the last few days by a strong endorsement from Ray Buckley, who dropped out of the race.  Of key importance here is that Buckley is not only the chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, but also President of the Association of State Democratic Chairs and Vice Chair of the DNC.  He has been engaged in Democratic politics since he was eight years old and is widely respected.  His endorsement carries a lot of weight.

If the DNC blows this one, it can kiss the party’s future—and ours—goodbye.

What can you do?

Call your state’s members on the DNC.  If you can’t find out who they are, get their names and contact info from your state’s Democratic Party office.  Don’t put it off; time is short.  Tell the DNC members what you want and who you support.  Let them know the public is watching, and expects real reform.

© Tony Russell, 2017

“I’m Going to Have to Wear That Phrase Like Sackcloth”

“Kellyanne, good gracious!  What’s wrong with you, honey, you look terrible!”

“Please, I don’t need to hear that.  I already know.  I’ve been having trouble sleeping, and I get up in the morning exhausted. Everybody at work is going non-stop, and it makes me look like a slacker to take time off, but I had to take a break.”

“What’s the matter, sweetie?  What is it?  Are you ... you and George aren’t having problems, are you?”

“No, no, nothing like that.  George and I are fine.  He’s been great.  It’s... it’s my job.”

“Oh, we’ve been so proud of you, Kellyanne.  You were always such a hard worker.  Picking blueberries all those summers.  We knew you’d make something of yourself.  And you have.  First the president’s campaign manager and now Counselor to the President!”

Awkwardly:  “That’s the problem, really.  I’m not proud of myself anymore.”

“Why in the world not?  You’ve worked hard for everything you’ve got.  You’re an American success story, honey.  You earned a law degree, you started your own polling business, and now you’re working in the Oval Office!”

Eyes turning downward, her voice quivering:  “Right.  And I felt good about those things and about myself.  But now, every day, I have to go on TV and lie in front of millions of people.  I cringe.  I toss and turn for hours every night wondering what stupid lie I’m going to have to go out and defend the next day.”

“What are you saying, Kellyanne?”

“Oh, I shouldn’t be telling you these things, but you’ve always been there for me.  Please don’t repeat this to anybody.”

“You know you can depend on me, Kellyanne.  What is it, child?”  

“He just makes things up, he contradicts himself, he exaggerates so much that he’s like a three-year-old.  It was sort of fun for a while.  It was lively and different from all those canned speeches and scripted talking points, you know?   But he can’t help himself; it’s like a disease.  He lies nonstop.”

“Well that’s his problem, isn’t it?”

“That’s not how it works.  I’m his spokesperson.  What am I supposed to do when he claims he had the biggest inauguration crowd ever and there are all these photos that show huge empty spaces on the Mall?  When he claims thousands of people were bused from Massachusetts to vote in New Hampshire illegally, but there’s zero evidence to support that claim?  When he says that he’ll release his tax returns when the audit is completed, and then after the election says he won’t release them?  When he says that Mexico will pay for the wall and then it turns out we’re going to pay for the wall?  He lies about important stuff and he lies about trivia!  And then I have to go on TV and double down on the lies.”

Sympathetically.  “Have you been going to confession, Kellyanne?  Don’t you think it would help to unburden yourself and do an act of contrition?”

“I’ve thought of it, but I’ve been avoiding it.  What am I going to say?  That I know I’m sinning, but I’m going to keep on doing it because that’s basically what my job consists of?  That I go out and lie, day after day, in order to defend a president who lies, day after day?”

“Come on, Kellyanne, this isn’t like you.  Buck up.  You can figure your way out of this.  You were Phi Beta Kappa in college!”

“Don’t remind me.  When I came up with that phrase ‘alternative facts,‘ I thought it was clever.  Now it just sounds idiotic.  When people hear my name, that’s what they think of--that cheesy way to recast a lie.   I’m going to have to wear that phrase like sackcloth for the rest of my life.  Then there was that horrible ‘Bowling Green massacre’ fiasco.  And that Fatal Attraction skit on Saturday Night Live to top things off.” 

“I saw a clip of that, Kellyanne.  I thought it was mean.  You’re nothing like that woman.”

“It stung.  But the bottom-line is, it’s true.”

“What do you mean it’s true?  You’d never go after somebody with a knife.  Don’t be silly.”

“Of course I wouldn’t attack anybody with a knife.  But I’ve been acting just as crazy as Glenn Close in the film.  I’m attached to this man who uses me but would drop me like a red-hot horseshoe if it suited him.  I’m sick enough to go out and humiliate myself time and time again, for his sake, when I don’t mean anything to him.” 

“Is it really that bad?”

“It’s worse.  Have you been watching when I go on TV news shows now?  I’m a laughing stock!  I start to offer some explanation for the latest whopper from the White House and TV hosts just cut me off.  Or giggle uncontrollably.  Do you know how embarrassing that is—to have some veteran TV person unable to stop giggling because what you’ve said is so ridiculous?  I’ve even been banned from Morning Joe—Morning Joe, for crying out loud—because of my ‘propensity to bring forth falsehoods on multiple occasions’.” 

“Oh sweetie, that must really hurt.”

“I’m starting to go numb.  When somebody acts as if what I’ve just said is nonsense, I don’t even have a comeback.  I catch myself staring at them for a minute like ‘Don’t make me do this again, will you not?  Please?’”

“Kellyanne, it sounds as if you hit rock bottom when you reached the top.”

“What do you mean?”

“It’s like that monkey trap, where the monkey sticks her hand through a hole to grab a banana and then traps herself because she won’t let go.  Maybe you need to start asking yourself what your success is worth.”

© Tony Russell, 2017

“If We Could Change Ourselves”: The DNC and Transformational Change

The Democratic sweep of 2008 built on an overwhelming public hunger for a shift in the direction the country was moving.  In a skillfully crafted campaign, Barack Obama presented himself as the personification of hope and change.  He and the party turned pent-up demand for a more equal society and a less belligerent foreign policy into a smashing victory.  Obama swept into office along with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.

Yet as soon as he was inaugurated, Obama installed a Wall Street-selected cabinet and economic team, and chose Rahm Emanuel—an abrasive cynic, former investment banker, and pipeline to donors and powerbrokers—as his Chief of Staff. The new Democratic administration failed to deliver the kinds of change people had voted for, and its Congressional majority rapidly eroded.

The Republican sweep of 2016 drew on an even greater public hunger for a change of course.  Donald Trump ran as a bull-in-a-china-shop outsider who would break up a rigged system, shred trade agreements that had devastated American factories and their workers’ lives, and “Make America Great Again.”

By contrast, Hillary Clinton ran as the embodiment of the status quo.  She  downsized voters’ expectations, preaching incremental change in tiny steps.  And instead of an inspirational campaign slogan, she offered “I’m with Her”--a tone-deaf choice that focused attention exclusively on herself.

The new Republican administration, like the 2008 Democratic administration, immediately set about disappointing the voters who put it into office.  But unlike Democrats in 2008, Republicans are bulldozing their brutal agenda through with the throttle wide open.  It’s change on a mammoth scale, but it’s not the change people were hoping for.  Instead it’s a return to the robber barons‘ heyday at the turn of the last century.

So whether the Democratic Party recognizes it or not, the election of a new DNC chair pivots on a double-barreled question:  Will the DNC offer change, and what kind of changes is the party willing to commit itself to? 

The first part is easy: Change is coming.  The second part is what the election of a new chair is all about.

Will it be a limited, strategic change that mainly involves reinvesting in local and state party structures?  That’s the kind of change the party’s establishment wants.  That’s what they’re offering with Tom Perez.  It’s what they were offering with Jaime Harrison too before he dropped out and threw his support to Perez.

The change Perez and Harrison represent is from the top down.  Perez was recruited by Obama and Clinton insiders once it looked as if Keith Ellison was going to win the DNC job. Perez appears to be a decent guy, but his constituency is the insiders, the lobbyists, the big donors, and the network they’ve built up inside the DNC.  Harrison, also a likable and capable person, is a lobbyist with The Podesta Group, formed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta and his brother.  The Podesta Group is the primary funnel for corporate cash into the top levels of the DNC.

Keith Ellison represents transformational change, change from the bottom up.  He voices the hopes and dreams of ordinary people as well as the overwhelming majority of young people.  He represents a bridge between what the party is and what it needs to become.  The party needs him, or someone like him, in ways it may not appreciate.  

Ellison is on the right side of history.  He’s on the right side of opportunity, equality, and salvaging democracy.  He’s on the right side to draw in fired-up citizens eager to be put to work. He’s on the right side in terms of holding the party together. 

Contrast Ellison’s openness with that of Marcel Groen, chair of Pennsylvania Democrats, who responded to the groundswell of emails and calls he was receiving in support of Ellison by announcing his support of Perez. Groen wrote, “You don’t want 300 people calling you and telling you what to do.”  

You don’t?  

That’s a head-scratcher.  Isn’t input from the grassroots what the party is now claiming it wants?  

Being flooded by calls from energized, passionate people should be an organizer’s dream. It’s the key to rebuilding the party at the county and state levels.  It’s democracy at work.  And you respond by thumbing your nose at people, telling them to shut up and get lost?

That kind of rejection is more than spiteful.  It’s also short-sighted and counter-productive. It alienates people who are fired up to do good work, and it instantly pulls the plug on a vast reservoir of untapped energy.  It opens the door to numerous challenges in Democratic primaries, and maybe even to the development of a vote-siphoning third party. It shouldn’t have to be said that for people who are claiming that party unity is critical, this is not the way to go about it.  

Gandhi once wrote, “If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change.”  That’s true not just of individuals; it’s true of political parties as well. 

© Tony Russell, 2017

“If Sand Can Glow in the Dark”

Corpse in street of Nagasaki, the day after the atomic bombing
Photo by Yosuke Yamaha
August 10, 1945

We were about ready to get started with our book group when the doorbell rang again.  “Pardon me,” I told the others, and hurried to the door.  When I opened it, I stood there for a minute, unable to recognize the person standing there.

“Well, aren’t you going to let me in?” came a plaintive voice.

“Liz!” I exclaimed.  “I couldn’t figure out who you were!  What’s with the dark glasses and the head scarf and turned-up collar?  Are you on the lam from the cops?”

“It’s not funny,” she said, as I took her coat and hung it up.  “How would you feel if you were a Republican nowadays?”

“Oh Liz,” I said, giving her a quick hug.  “Come on in.  It’s not your fault.  Nobody is blaming you for all the vile things your candidates in the presidential debates are spouting.”

She stepped into the living room as tentatively as a kid dipping a toe in a lake in December.  But she brightened up when the other women greeted her with a chorus of “So glad you could make it!” and other cheerful welcomes.  

“Thank you all so much,” she said with relief.  “I was afraid I was going to be a pariah.”

“I know things have really been going downhill,” I said, “but has something pushed you past the tipping point?”

“I guess you haven’t seen the news this morning,” Liz said.  “The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks all these white supremacists and other hate groups.  They’ve been doing it for years now.  This morning they released a report linking the extreme anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric pouring out of our GOP primary debates with attacks on Muslims and a major growth spurt among hate groups.  God, I’m so embarrassed.”

“You shouldn’t take it personally,” said Lynn gently.   “We know what kind of person you are.  When Donald Trump says that people coming here from Mexico are basically drug dealers and criminals and rapists, we know you feel the same way we do--that Trump’s claim is a hateful, despicable, racist lie.  And when he says he would bar all Muslim foreigners from entering the United States, we know you’re as appalled as any other decent person.”

“I appreciate your support so much,” said Liz miserably.  “But after he said those things, plus the insults and bullying and boasting and all kinds of crude sexist comments about Carly Fiorina’s face and blood coming out of Megyn Kelly’s ‘wherever’--what happened?  He went straight to the top of the party’s polls.  I couldn’t believe it.  I kept asking myself, ‘What’s that say about the GOP I’ve belonged to for over twenty-five years?’”    

“I feel for you,” said Nora.  “When Marco Rubio got all hysterical claiming that Obama was dividing the country because the president went to a mosque in Baltimore and talked about inclusion, I thought the top of my head would blow off.  Obama tries to pull people together and Rubio accuses him of trying to divide us.  That’s grotesque.  It's Orwellian doublespeak if I’ve ever heard it.  No offense, Liz,”  she added quickly.

“I have to say that when the Republican candidates tried to outdo each other on how they would torture suspected terrorists, I couldn’t help but think of you.  In a sympathetic way,” Ann added as Liz flinched.

“I did too,” I admitted.  “When Trump said ‘I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,’ and Chris Christie said waterboarding isn’t torture and he would use it, and Marco Rubio threw in that he’d ‘haul captured terrorists to Guantánamo Bay’ and ‘find out everything they know,’ I just had to turn off my TV in disgust.  I said to myself, ‘I hope Liz isn’t watching’.”

“Thanks, Patty,” Liz murmured.  “Unfortunately, I was.”

“I guess I bottomed out when Ted Cruz gave his plan for fighting the Islamic State," said Ruth.  ‘We will utterly destroy them.  We will carpet bomb them into oblivion,’ he said.  Doesn’t he understand that he’s talking about wiping out whole cities of men, women, and children?  Or doesn’t he even care?  I kept thinking, ‘Poor Liz.  How can she handle being associated with men like these?’”

“Of course he understands!” said Lynn.  “After Trump said that to fight terrorism you need to take out their families--and he said it three times, just for emphasis--it was like they were in a contest to see who could be the most bloodthirsty.”

“Well in that case, Cruz was the winner,” said Nora.  “He got as extreme as you can get when he talked about going nuclear, and gloated about it.  Remember when he said, ‘I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out.’  This is the favorite candidate of evangelical Christians, mind you, bragging about his eagerness to obliterate whole populations with atomic bombs.  These guys don’t seem to have any boundaries.  I don’t mind telling you, they scare the hell out of me.  I shudder to think of one of them actually becoming president.  I can’t imagine being in your place, Liz.”   

Liz bowed her head.  “A huge chunk of the people in my party are eating this stuff up.  It just floors me,” she confessed.  “Where are the normal, sensible people that made me a Republican in the first place?  It’s as if I walked out of my childhood home and wandered into a facility for the criminally insane.  I feel so guilty.”

“You haven’t done anything wrong, Liz,” said Nora kindly.

“Oh, I should have spoken out, I know it.  But I kept telling myself, who would listen to me?  I’m a nobody.”

“Nonsense,” said Dorothy firmly.  “If there’s one thing we all agree on, it’s that we’re each a somebody, not a nobody.  You didn’t create this mess, but you’re caught up in it.  We all sympathize with the situation you’re in.  But it’s time to stop feeling sorry for yourself and decide what you’re going to do about it.”

© Tony Russell, 2016

"It Really Is Not a Big Deal"

Photo by Eugen Nosko
from Wkimedia Commons

Four of us got there early for choir practice--Shirley, Mabel, Serena, and myself--and while we were waiting we fell to griping about our husbands, something that’s been known to happen when a group of women get together.

“I could just strangle Andy,” Shirley said.  “His blood pressure keeps going up and up.  It was 165 over something last month, and the doctor told him he really needed to lose weight, change his diet, and get some exercise.  I’m scared to death he’s going to have a heart attack.  But Andy just shrugs it off.  He says your blood pressure is either going up or down at any point in time, so it's really not a big deal.”

“Huh,” said Mable.  “You know what?  Rodney told me almost exactly the same thing when I got after him about his weight.  He waved it off.  Claimed your weight is always either going up or down at any point in time, so it really isn’t a big deal.  When I mentioned that his only seems to go one direction--up--he just repeated himself and heaped some more mashed potatoes and gravy on his plate.”

“Gee, that’s funny,” said Serena.  “Lou’s cholesterol has climbed up over 240, and our doctor wanted to put him on some medication and an exercise program.  But Lou brushed him off.  He said your cholesterol is always going either up or down, so it’s not really that big a deal.  I told Lou that when it gets up as high as his is, it’s definitely a big deal, but he just sat there watching that TV.  I’m not sure he even heard me.”  

“Hmm.  You know what?  I’ve been getting that same excuse from Ace,” I volunteered.  “He’s been dragging around, having headaches, and losing weight, but he won’t do anything about it.  His blood sugar level was 190 when we checked it yesterday.  I’m afraid he’s going to have foot problems or go blind if he doesn’t start taking care of himself, but he just pretends nothing's wrong.  Where are they getting all this nonsense?”

“I came right out and asked Lou,” said Donna, “He’s been following the presidential primaries really closely.  And it turns out that when Dr. Carson gets asked about global warming--the way the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter--he just says....”

I guess the light went on for all of us simultaneously.  Before she could finish her sentence, we all chimed in:  "... the temperature's either going up or down at any point in time, so it really is not a big deal."

© Tony Russell, 2016

Golden Calf, Bronze Bull

Arturo Di Modica, Charging Bull

Photo by Cap'n Surly, via Creative Commons

When the people had lost their way, their leaders called on them to rise up early and make their way to Wall Street, bearing burnt sacrifices, and to lay their communion offerings at the hooves of the bronze bull erected there.  

They invited the people to eat and drink and indulge in revelry, at their corporate sponsors’ expense.  Men and women alike, giddy with visions of wealth and domination, crowded around to stroke the bull’s gleaming scrotum, all the while giggling and joking drunkenly.  “This is your god, who brought you up out of the wilderness,” their leaders told them.  “Let the good times roll!” 

Then the Lord said to Francis, “I have seen these people, and they are a stiff-necked people.  They steal from their brethren and plunder my creation, then call themselves creators of wealth.  They treat the world I have given them as their private preserve, made for those with the quickest hands to grab the most for themselves.”    

“They have turned away from what I commanded them, and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a bull. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘The market is our god, and the bronze bull is his image.  He is the pure energy of greed run free, able to trample all in his path.  The market is the answer to all questions, the solution to all problems, the measure of all things.  All power and praise be to the market!’”

“The smoke from their sacrifices, in exhaust fumes and emissions from belching smokestacks, has reached even heaven,” said the Lord.  “Now leave me alone, so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them.  Let the seas rise and flood their coasts, droughts scorch their crops, fires turn their forests to ashes, heat waves fell them in their cities and fields, and violent storms flatten their houses and business places.  Let them become nations of helpless wanderers, with no place to lay their head and call home.” 

But Francis sought the favor of the Lord, and tried to avert his wrath.  “Turn away from your fierce anger,” he pleaded.  “Relent, and do not bring such disasters on your people.”

The Lord heard Francis’s plea, and said, “I shall stay the full force of my righteous anger for a spell.  You have but a brief moment in time; let us see whether you can recall the people from their idolatry and blasphemy.”

 

Francis turned and hurried down the mountain, with the text of an encyclical in his hands, pages inscribed on both sides, front and back.  He spoke to the people, trying to summon them back to the God who had given them the land and the sea and the air they had fouled and despoiled.  He thundered against the worship of money and markets.  He shone the light of truth on an economy that widens inequality and tosses aside billions of people like soiled disposable diapers.  “Such an economy kills,” he proclaimed.  “The culture of prosperity deadens us.”  

And Francis warned the idol-worshippers that a system with a selfish ideal as its foundation is like a house built over a worked-out mine shaft.  “Those who dwell therein are poised above the abyss,” he cried.  “They are doomed to indifference.  They turn deaf ears to the cries of the poor and lose their ability to weep for other people’s pain.”

But the leaders at the church of avarice would not be swayed.  They understood the mesmerizing power of bombast joined with paranoia, so they took to their iPads and talk shows, calling Francis “a meddlesome egoist and an ideologue,” who dared to speak out against the god they had forged.  “He does not preach the true religion,” they complained.  “He is an adherent of a modern pagan green religion.”  “His rantings are nothing more than Marxism, nothing more than communism.”

The people listened and pondered these things, while God waited and looked on.  

© Tony Russell, 2015

“So What’s Your Question, Larry?”

Executioners control panel for lethal injection
Photo by David from Washington, DC
Wikimedia Commons

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

PRESS CONFERENCE WITH GOVERNOR RICKETTS

LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

Reporter #1: Governor, Nebraska is the latest state to repeal capital punishment, now that the legislature has overridden your veto.  You’ve said you’re still going to go ahead and execute the ten people already on death row here.  None of the other eighteen states that have done away with capital punishment have executed anyone after their new law passed.  Why are you so hellbent on executing people? 

Governor: Look at it this way, Chet: if the state’s chief executive can’t execute, what’s the point?  

Reporter #2: Since 1973, there have been 143 prisoners on death row in the U.S. who were found to be innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  Doesn’t that make you just a little uneasy?

Governor: Not at all, Danny.  I don’t second guess the justice system--just the legislature.  

Reporter #2: But obviously people who do second guess the justice system have found a lot of mistakes and wrongful convictions.

Governor: So be it.  Nobody likes a Monday-morning quarterback.

Reporter #3:  Almost all the prisoners on death row, here and around the country, are poor, uneducated, black, Hispanic, or some combination of those things, Governor.  Are you comfortable with the way income, education, and race seem to affect who gets the death penalty?

Governor: Not as long as I’m rich, educated, white, and a home-grown English speaker, Marcia.  (Has a second thought)  Don’t quote me on that.

Reporter #4: Governor, how do you explain all these legislators who voted to do away with the death penalty?  Most of them are well-off, educated, white, English-speaking conservatives, just like yourself.  But they opposed you on this capital punishment thing. They argued that the death penalty is horribly expensive, is ineffective as a deterrent, puts the lives of innocent people at risk, and gives government too much unnecessary power.

Governor: What you have to understand, Glen, is that we conservatives say we don’t like government spending, but the fact is we’ll pour money into things that matter.  (Delivers standard applause line)  And what matters the most is security: protecting the people of this great state and country from murderers at home and abroad.    

Reporter #3: But if you execute these ten people--or even one of them, as far as that goes--doesn’t that make you one of those murderers we need to protect ourselves against?

Governor: (Exasperated) Where do you people come up with ideas like that?  Executions aren’t murders, Marcia.  The first is legal and good, the other is illegal and evil.

Reporter #3: But as I understand it, Governor, the legislature just decided executions are not legal and not good.

Governor: That may be their opinion going forward, but it’s not retroactive.  

Reporter #2: Still, doesn’t it make sense that you’d honor the spirit of their decision?

Governor: They have their spirit; I have mine.  And as long as I’m the governor, mine’s the one that counts.  (Glances at his watch)  Okay, we’ve got time for one more question.  (Points to a reporter who has his hand up)  Larry?

Reporter #5: Speaking of spirit, Governor, you’re a Roman Catholic.  (Consults his notes)  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has opposed the death penalty for the last 38 years, saying that we can’t defend life by taking life.  The Catholic bishops here in Nebraska have issued a joint statement calling for the end of capital punishment.   And Pope Francis called on all men and women of good will to help abolish the death penalty in all of its forms.

Governor: So what’s your question, Larry?

© Tony Russell, 2015

Mend Thine Every Flaw

Naturalization Ceremony at Monticello
Photo by Waldo Jaquith
from Wikimedia Commons

The naturalization ceremony at Monticello each 4th of July, where people who have come to the U.S. from all over the world stand and take the oath of citizenship, is a stirring event.  Bob thought it would be a feel-good story for these troubled times, and sent me to do a feature this year.  “Be sure and get some interviews,” he reminded me as I was heading out the door.  “First-hand accounts are what make history come alive.”

“Sure thing, Chief,” I told him.  “Patriotic music, a celebration of democracy in action, and heartwarming stories.  I could write this in my sleep.”

“Ah, so that’s why your stories usually sound the way they do,” he said.

“Glad you like them,” I said.  “I’ll try to meet my usual standard.”  He said something in reply, but it was muffled by the loud slam of the door behind me.  It must have been caught by the wind. 

The mood at Monticello was festive and the ceremony moving.  After the speakers, the administration of the oath, and the rest of the formal agenda, the band began playing, kids were rolling hoops and running around happily, and I had a couple of ice cream cones to tide me over until lunch.  Then I walked around looking for newly-minted citizens to talk with, humming along as the band gave a nice rendition of “America the Beautiful.”

America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law! 

The first new citizen I approached turned out to be from Chile.  “Congratulations!” I told her, shaking her hand.  “How long have you lived in this country?”

“I came with my mother in the late 1970s when I was just a young girl,” she said. “It took me a long while, but I finally decided to become a citizen here.”  

“Just you and your mother?” I said. “What about the rest of your family.”

She looked a bit awkward.  “Maybe you remember the years of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile?”

“Not really,” I said.

“Well,” she explained, “when the CIA engineered a military coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of President Allende, General Pinochet’s men herded my father and twelve-year-old brother into the national stadium, along with hundreds of others, where they were both tortured and killed.”  She began to tear up at the memory.

What can you say after something like that?  “Oh, I’m sorry,” I said, stunned.  “Uh, well, congratulations again on your naturalization.  Best of luck to you.”  And I quickly went looking for someone else to interview.

The next new citizen I approached told me he was from Guatemala, and was working as an orderly in a local hospital.  “Actually, I was a doctor specializing in rural medicine back home,” he said, “but after death squads murdered four of my colleagues at night in front of their families, I fled for my life.”

“It’s a shame your country has such a history of unrest, dictatorships, and violence,” I said.  “It must be a relief to become part of a country like ours with its long tradition of democracy and freedom.”

He nodded.  “It’s bittersweet,” he said.  “It was the stability in this country that finally led me to apply for citizenship.  But at the same time, enjoying that safety here is painful because it was the United States that  organized the overthrow of our peaceful, democratically-elected government and replaced it with dictators who carried out decades of genocide.”  He paused, his eyes down, and then looked up at me.  “The U.S. trained the death squads and early on gave them a list of names of doctors, journalists, teachers, community activists, labor organizers, and student leaders to ‘neutralize’,” he said quietly.

“Oh.  I didn’t realize.  I ... uh .... ”

“I understand,” he said, his voice a little hoarse.  “Most people here seem completely unaware of these things.”

“Right,” I said, anxious to get out of this situation.  “Listen, it’s been great talking with you.  Good luck.”

The band was now playing “My Country ‘Tis of Thee,” and the words of the song ran through my mind as I hurriedly walked away.

Our father's God, to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King!

Maybe Latin America was the problem, I reflected.  Then I noticed what appeared to be a Middle Eastern woman standing alone.  I introduced myself, and asked where she was from originally.

“Iran,” she said, and nothing more.  She seemed wary, so I tried to put her at ease.  “I’m a newspaper reporter doing a human interest story on new citizens naturalized today,” I said.  “Would you mind if I ask you a few questions?”

“I suppose it’s okay.”

“Great.  Can you tell me how does it feel to become a citizen in a free and democratic country like ours?”

“Freedom and democracy are wonderful things,” she said.  

After a pause she added, “My grandmother would tell me, when she was alive, about how proud Iranians were when we elected Mohammed Mossadegh Prime Minister in a free, fair, and open vote.  But when Mossadegh decided to cancel the British monopoly control of Iranian oil and nationalize the oil company, Britain and the U.S. decided he had to go.  The CIA was used to overthrow him.   It took two years.  They bribed newspaper editors, created a fake communist party, organized and financed opposition, and then orchestrated a coup that put the Shah in power.   Years of dictatorship followed, with unspeakable horrors.  Over 3,000 people were killed by the Shah’s regime.  My grandfather’s brother was tortured and killed by the Shah’s secret police.”

“You know,” I said, shaking my head, “you may find this hard to believe, but three people now, from three different countries, have just told me basically the same story.”  

She gave me a hard stare.  “I don’t find it hard to believe at all,” she said.  “Don’t you know your own history?  We in Iran were the original success story for the CIA’s overthrow of governments the U.S. wanted to replace.  The coup in Iran in 1953, and the dictatorship that was installed in its place, became the prototype for U.S. foreign interventions all around the globe.    There have been at least eighty coups organized against foreign governments by the U.S. since then.”

“You’ve got to be kidding me!” I said.  

“Would anyone joke about such a thing?” she said.  “And it’s certainly not a joke to all the people who have suffered the consequences--who have seen their own freedoms and dreams destroyed.”

“What countries are you talking about?” I asked.

“There have been so many I don’t know if I can remember them all,” she said.  “After Iran, there was the overthrow of President Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.  The U.S. called that coup ‘Operation PRSUCCESS.‘  About 200,000 people--mostly peasants--were killed by the U.S.-backed security forces over the years.  Then came the coup in Thailand in 1957, and the one in Laos between 1958 and 1960.  Of course there was the coup in the Congo in 1960, after the Belgian Congo finally gained its independence.  Remember Patrice Lumumba, the Prime Minister who was imprisoned and executed?”

“Never heard of him,” I said.  “These things all took place before I was even born.”

“So you’re only aware of history that occurred during your lifetime?” she asked somewhat sharply.

“Of course not,” I said, a bit ruffled.  “I’ve heard of the American Revolution and the Civil War and the First World War and the Korean War ....  wait, I’ve forgotten some.  The War of 1812, the Spanish-American War....”

“That’s what history is for you?” she asked, eyebrows raised.  “A series of wars the U.S. has fought?”

Time to switch the subject.  “No, no,” I said.  “What I meant was that those coups you mentioned were a part of the past.  We’ve moved on from there.”

“Don’t kid yourself,” she said--a phrase which sounded odd when spoken with her accent.  “The pattern of coups organized by the U.S. has continued through your own lifetime and right up to the present day.”

“I don’t mean to be rude,” I said, “but that’s ridiculous.  I’m a newspaper reporter.  If the United States was routinely undermining democratic governments and replacing them with dictatorships, don’t you think I’d be aware of it?”

She stared at me for a moment, then said, “Well, are you?”  She waited, but I didn’t answer.  

“Not all of these countries were democracies, but all of them were the victims of U.S.-backed coups,” she said, and began to recite:  “Turkey in 1960, 1971, and 1980; Ecuador in 1961 and 1963; South Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and Argentina, all in 1963; Honduras, also 1963 and then again in 2009; Iraq in 1963 and 2003; the overthrow of President Goulart in Brazil in 1964; Bolivia three times, including 1964, 1971 and 1980.  In 1965, the U.S. gave the Indonesian army the names of 5,000 Communists, who were hunted down and killed as part of the quarter of a million Indonesians slaughtered by the military.  The U.S. orchestrated the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana in 1966; a coup in Greece in 1967; the overthrow of President Arias in Panama in 1968 after he demanded the return of the Canal Zone to Panamanian jurisdiction, and then again in 1989 with the replacement of Manuel Noriega; the removal of Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia in 1970; the overthrow of President Allende of Chile in 1973; Bangladesh in 1975; ‘Operation Fair Play,’ the military coup that removed Prime Minister Bhutto of Pakistan in 1977; the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983; Mauritania and Guinea in 1984;  Burkina Faso in 1987; Paraguay in 1989; Haiti in 1991 and again in 2004; Russia in 1993; Uganda in 1996; and Libya in 2011.”

“Huh,” I thought to myself.  “Looks as if it’s not just Latin America.  She’s talking about countries in North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, even Europe.”  

But what I said was, “Wow, it’s amazing you can rattle off a list that long, with all those names and dates.” 

“Victims tend to have longer memories than aggressors,” she answered.  “And it helps that I’m a historian.”

“Well, thanks for your time,” I said, waving goodbye.  None of what I had so far was usable; I needed to find some folks with more upbeat stories before everybody headed home.  I had a little time yet, I thought, because I could hear the strains of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” wafting across the mountaintop:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, 

With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: 

As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, 

While God is marching on.

One thing all those songs agreed on, I noticed: God seemed to be with our country on its mission.  Or were we with Him?  Regardless, I was eager to gather a few of the right kind of interviews before I headed home and wrote my story while I was taking a nap.

© Tony Russell, 2014


Note:  The list of coups rattled off by the woman from Iran in the column is a much-modified version of a list contained in an AlterNet article by Nicolas J.S. Davies, which itself draws on William Blum's book Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.