One Can Prefer One’s Own Culture Without Being Racist

Liking, even preferring, one’s own culture does not make one racist.  Racism is: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.  In that vein, a white supremacist is a person who believes that the White race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.  But, and this is mightily important, simply preferring one culture over another does not necessarily mean that one believes that culture is superior, it does not make one racist, and, if that culture is white, it does not mean that one is a white supremacist.

Let’s think about holidays.  Various cultures celebrate holidays in various manners.  In this country’s melting pot, the traditions of some cultures may have been assimilated into the cultures of others.  Nonetheless, those of particular ethnic backgrounds will celebrate a particular holiday primarily with traditions that reflect the ethnicity of their ancestors.  They prefer to celebrate that way for a variety of reasons, most of which do not reflect any sort of animosity toward the ways in which those with other ethnic backgrounds may celebrate.  It simply represents their particular preference.   Really, this is no different from someone preferring to live in the city or in a condo while someone else may prefer to live in a house or a tent or an RV.  The preference does not automatically reflect prejudice against those who prefer to live differently.

Here is, then, another key word:  Tolerance.  This is a word that seems to have been forgotten by many today.  It is the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.  Preferring one behavior, one course of action, or even one culture does not mean that one cannot be tolerant of those other behaviors, action, and yes, even cultures.  But, tolerance does not require that one like or approve of those things with which one does not agree, nor does it require that one change one’s own preferences to agree with those that one is tolerating.  And, sometimes, behaviors that are being tolerated cannot coexist; hence, in some instances, those preferring differing behaviors will self-segregate – into different communities, or even different countries.

So, when someone says related to both illegal and legal immigration that “in some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” or that “how radically in some ways the country has changed” (see comments of Laura Ingraham 8/8/18), she is not necessarily making racist statements.  There are those who prefer the traditional Judeo-Christian western European culture of America.  Immigration of different cultures bring changes, and in some areas those changes are indeed drastic.  Some may not like those changes because they include the existence of beliefs or behaviors with which one does not agree.  One might prefer to be surrounded by cultures that reflect their own ethnicity rather than that of other ethnicities.  There is nothing racist about that.  It becomes racist only if one seeks to discriminate against those other cultures based upon race.

One can be against immigration and not be a racist.  Immigration is a complex issue that involves far more than the culture or color of those who seek to immigrate.  There are economic issues; there are issues of safety; there are resource and environmental issues.  There is the question of assimilation vs. coexistence.  There is the issue of a country’s basic existence as a country, a place with cohesive shared values and goals.

The United States has always had, and still has a most generous immigration policy.  But it is not wrong for one to expect those who seek to join this country to have some appreciation for its values and yes, its culture.  One does not expect an immigrant to want to come to a country and then to change the essential characteristics of that country.   America has always welcomed immigrants who appreciate the core values and characteristics of this country.  But, an unspoken piece of that welcome is that those joining our society will be tolerant of its existing culture just as they can expect a tolerance by the citizens of their own cultural backgrounds.  What I do not think they can expect is that the current citizenry necessarily embrace (as opposed to tolerate) their culture or give up their preferences for their own culture and traditions.

Today many Americans see an effort to completely remake their country, leaving no room for their own values.  When David Brooks seems to disparage whites who think being white is “part of their identity” (See PBS Newshour 8/10/18) he is condemning them for something that he and other progressives uphold and encourage in other races and cultures.  Imagine if we were to condemn Blacks for thinking that being Black is part of their identity –  we would certainly call that racist.  But apparently it is not OK to hold that same thought if one is White; rather, to do so labels one as white supremacists.  It is that sort of hypocrisy that offends many.

There are, indeed, many Americans whose heritage and culture are what is often referred to as White.  A pride in that heritage, a preference for the traditions of that culture does not make one racist or a white supremacist.  A demand that those with other traditions, backgrounds, or cultures tolerate rather than seek to abolish that “white” heritage is not an unreasonable demand.

I realize there are those who will see the above as some sort of code advocacy for white supremacy.  It is not.  White supremacy is not a tradition or value of white European heritage.  Yes, there are those whites who do hold racist or supremacist beliefs, just as there are those of every color and culture who hold such beliefs about their own race or culture.  But, the vast majority of whites simply want to be able to retain their traditions; they are fully capable of doing so while being tolerant of other traditions.  I am not sure that those progressives and others who love to condemn everything white are capable of doing the same.

Debating Socialism

Recently someone suggested that it was time that this country has a debate about socialism vs. our current form of government.  I think that is fine if – and only if! – those engaged in the conversation really understand what socialism is along with other key concepts about governments and political ideologies.  So, here I will present some of those concepts and then my thoughts for those who want to realistically think about or engage in such a debate.

First, we must understand the difference between political philosophies/theories/ideologies (such as socialism) and forms of government (such as democracy).  A political philosophy will take a particular stance as to law and authority, as to what, if any, rights and freedoms a government should protect and what, if any, responsibilities the citizenry of a defined state owes to the government.    A defined state or nation will have a form of government that may align with one or more political ideologies. 

Government is simply the governing body of a defined community such as a nation or state.  Forms of government include Autocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy.  An autocratic government might be an absolute monarchy or a dictatorship; the key is that the power to govern is held by one person.  In an oligarchy the power will be held by a few people who generally get their power from things like ancestry, wealth/status, or military.  In a democracy the government is ruled by the people who hold the power to govern; a republic is a form of democracy.

The United States is a Democratic Republic which is a form of government operating on principles adopted from and shared by both democracy and republic.  In a pure democracy which is governed by all eligible members, the majority will always prevail.  A republic is a state in which supreme power is held by the people but exercised through their elected representatives, including a president.  A republic will include certain rights that are inalienable (not subject to overrule by the majority) and protected by a document such as a constitution, creating rule by law rather than by pure majority.

Within any form of government, political parties, including that of the controlling power, will align with and adopt one or more political theories or ideologies.  When one political theory becomes dominant within a particular state, that state may be referred to by that theory’s name (e.g. as Socialist or Capitalist).  Following are those political theories and philosophies that are most relevant to this discussion.

Socialism is a theory for a political and economic system of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  That is, it advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

This is in contrast to Capitalism that is a theory for an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Communism's ideology is an economic and political system in which all property is publicly owned; it adheres to the revolutionary socialism and class warfare of Karl Marx.  While both communism and socialism are anti-capitalist, many forms of socialism allow for some private ownership of property. 

According to Wikipedia, “The majority of self-declared Socialist countries have been Marxist–Leninist states, following the model of the Soviet Union or a variant of people's democracy. They share a common definition of ‘socialism’ and they refer to themselves as Socialist states on the road to communism with a leading vanguard party structure. For this reason, they are generally, called ‘Communist states’ albeit erroneously. Meanwhile, the [socialist] countries in the non-Marxist–Leninist category represent a wide variety of different interpretations of the word ‘socialism’. In many cases, they do not define what they mean by it. Modern uses of the term ‘socialism’ are wide in meaning and interpretation.”   Current self-labeled socialist countries are:  China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam.

Two sub-categories of Socialism are Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.  These terms define particular socialist leaning ideologies or policies of various political parties that exist or have majority control in various countries. 

Social Democracy is an ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic organization and capitalist economy.  One could argue that some of the Nordic countries currently follow social democratic ideologies.

Democratic Socialism (many progressives now identify as democratic socialists) is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production with self or “democratic” management of economic institutions within a market socialist, participatory or decentralized planned economy.  That is, democratic socialism would have the production and provision of certain goods and services owned and run by the government, while leaving others to a more capitalist form of ownership. Wikipedia lists the following countries as currently in the control of a democratic socialist party:  Albania, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Dominica, Equator, El Salvador, Guyana, Jamaica, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Portugal, St. Kitts, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Trinidad, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Moving now to the actual debate, I would first suggest that it actually must be more of a discussion than a debate.   A debate presumes there are only two sides or positions on an issue, one of which must ultimately prevail.  A discussion on the other hand allows for more refined distinctions and compromises which the many definitions of socialism alone demand. Moreover, the debate, as presented, requires pitting a form of government (our Democratic Republic) against a political theory (Socialism).  This is not unlike trying to compare apples and oranges.  The better question is not one of socialism vs. a democratic republic, but rather whether socialism can or should be adopted as a viable political theory within a democratic republic that is generally considered as a capitalist nation. 

I believe that, no matter how the question is presented, our democratic republic based on capitalism is so antithetical to socialism that it is impossible to truly have democratic socialism or any other such marriage of socialism into the defining principles of the United States of America.

The basic question comes down to the role of the individual in his own governance as well as the governance of his community.  Socialism, in all its many forms, will have the government making decisions about the individual and his property, including the fruits of his labor; the government will provide what the individual may otherwise be required to or capable of providing for himself.  In so doing, the government, rather than the individual, will make decisions about what the individual may or may not need.  In order to provide government-controlled services to all members of the community, the individual will be required to relinquish some property, individual accomplishment, and profit as well as some personal decision making that he would otherwise retain. 

The upside of this approach is that one can envision a utopia in which everyone has all that they need and want, where everyone is completely altruistic in all that they give to the body politic, and everyone is happy.  This assumes that those making the governmental decisions will always have only the best interests of the people in mind and that all the citizenry will agree as to the definition of what those “best interests” are.

The downside is that such utopia is totally unrealistic.  And, even if it were, even if those in current power were completely concerned with only the good of everyone, they will not be in power forever. Moreover, the definition of what is “good” is unlikely to be defined identically by all and even if it were, it might easily change to the detriment of some or many.  By giving government the power to act in accordance with what sounds and/or is compassionate today sets the stage for tomorrow’s government to use that same power for ill.

This is true regardless of within what form of government a socialist philosophy is placed.  That is, a benevolent dictator can give way to a tyrannical dictatorship, but also a pure democracy with a benevolent majority can give way to a majority that suppresses basic human rights and dignities if that majority holds the socialist power to regulate the community including the individual’s property, production, needs, and wants.

Here is the beauty of a democratic republic based on capitalist principles.  First, the democratic republic follows the rule of law, not of a tyrannical individual or majority.  It grants to its citizens certain inalienable rights; rights that cannot be denied to the individual based on changing whims of government.  Second, capitalism further solidifies the rights (as well as responsibilities) of the individual.  The individual will be accorded certain rights which the law will protect.  It will allow the individual to pursue the use of his assets (both external and physical as  well as innate and intellectual) as he chooses and will not redistribute his profits to others who have chosen to pursue different paths or to use their assets differently.

This does not mean that a capitalist or non-socialist state cannot be compassionate.  Placed within a democratic form of government where rule is by law, the people who hold the power can, through their elected representative government make the choice to collectively assist those who may need some form of assistance.  But, that decision would be made by the people in a way that does not interfere with defined and constitutionally protected inalienable rights; it would not be a decision made at the whim of some other form of governmental power structure.

Socialism is dangerous.  It sounds wonderful in its utopian equality, but what it really does is end up playing one group of citizens against another while promising utopia to all.  Collectives destroy individual incentives and the result is bread lines and misery.  Recent history saw this in the Soviet Union before its fall and even more recently in Greece’s economic crisis.  Current history sees it playing out in Venezuela.  Even in social democracies that may seem to thrive, how “social justice” is defined by the government in power can result in good or ill for one group or another.

Idealism is beautiful, but it is just that – an ideal, an archetypical idea of unattainable perfection.  It is not real.  Reality includes the imperfect, acknowledges it, and tries to make the best of it.  In my opinion, socialism may be a lovely ideal, but it is not something that can exist is our reality.  Our capitalist Democratic Republic is not perfect, but it is very real, and, it is the only form of government that can respect, reward, and fulfill the individual regardless of who is in power at any given moment.

Socialism, in any of its forms or wrappings, is in direct opposition to the core principles of the United States of America; principles that provide the individual with choice and possibility beyond any that can be offered and that are indeed denied by socialism.  It is these core principles that provide hope and motivation rather than hopelessness and despair.  If a debate between this government and replacing or infusing it with socialism is well informed, I do not see how socialism can possibly win.

About the Abortion Debate

Even though the abortion argument is misplaced in the nomination process for a Supreme Court Justice (and thus reflects ignorance of the Constitution and the role of a judge), since we will nonetheless be having the abortion discussion, here are my thoughts.

First, I think that it is necessary to make the discussion honest.  Here is the medical definition of abortion: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus.

One will note that this definition does not include the words “reproductive rights”  or "women's rights" or “choice.”  Abortion itself is simply ending a pregnancy – killing a living entity growing in a woman’s uterus, regardless of how you may define that life that is terminated.

Reproductive rights would be rights that address reproduction.  That reproduction, while it may occur over a period of time, begins when the egg is fertilized and the reproduction begins.  So those rights would seemingly be involved with the act of creation, not of termination.

This leads me to the word “choice” and the phrase "woman's right to choose."   Excluding acts of forced creation such as rape or similar criminal occurrences, a woman has the opportunity to choose whether to engage in a sexual act long before she faces the decision about abortion and a child growing in her womb.  To assume that women are incapable of understanding the possible consequences of intercourse or the possible failures of birth control, is to assume that their intelligence is fairly low.  Are we to assume that women are incapable of knowing what they are doing, that they are likely to be so overcome with passion or sexual drive that they do not understand the consequences of their act?  Really?

Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body, but that right does not only exist after she has become pregnant.  When a woman freely enters into intercourse, she has made a choice that includes the possible consequence of becoming pregnant.  If she does not want to be pregnant, does not want to carry another life inside her, then she needs to make a different choice when faced with a situation that could result in pregnancy.

Once a woman has made the choice that results in the union of a sperm and egg to begin the reproductive process, she now holds a separate life within her.  Yes, it is her body within which that being will grow, but she has made a choice to place that being there.  And, now, in my opinion, it is not only her life that matters.

There is a selfishness in the idea that the child within the woman’s womb is meaningless; that it is only the woman who matters.  This, to me, is a part of our more generally selfish culture:  if it is inconvenient, just get rid of it.  It is also a childish response to one’s own activity and an inability to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.  And, the encouragement of this response, the failure to hold women accountable for their actions and to instead give them an out,  like the failure to recognize their ability to make a choice about having intercourse, is simply degrading to women.  Real respect for women would not treat them like children.  It would acknowledge their ability to be responsible for their own actions.

Beyond the disingenuousness of abortion being an expression of women’s rights, those who engage in the abortion discussion often fail to even consider the broader effect that abortion has on our attitude towards born children, the family, and on humanity and life itself.

If we can abort lives that are simply inconvenient or not to our liking (e.g. the movement to abort Downs babies), then we are turning children into a commodity.  It becomes about the life of the adults, and not of the children – we will select a child when it is convenient for us, in the way that one selects a dog or even a piece of furniture.  It becomes about enhancing our own lives and not nurturing the lives of the children.  Thinking in the long term, this cannot be healthy for future generations of children or for the future of humanity.

Speaking of humanity, when life becomes a commodity it tends to lose its special value.  If it is OK to kill an unborn child, then why not one being born?  If it is OK to have live birth abortions, then why not well into an infant’s life if that life is just too troublesome?  If we lose our respect for human life, then it becomes much easier to kill in the same way that soldiers are often indoctrinated with the idea that their enemy is somehow less than human.  Easy abortion, abortion on demand, has a way of cheapening life, making it valueless and hence one can more easily take or destroy any human life without remorse.  Is this really the direction we would like to see for the human race?

I believe that the above  points suggest a strong argument against abortion generally.  There will, of course be difficult individual cases such as rape, incest, or simply those rare situations in which an abortion would seem to be the best choice for all concerned, including the child to be aborted.  How to handle these types of situations invokes the beliefs and religious values of those concerned.  But, because these difficult situations will always exist does not mean that abortion should be an accepted alternative in every pregnancy.

Abortion follows the act of reproduction. It is not reproduction.  It is a termination of a reproduction that has already occurred.  It kills a living being, regardless of what one chooses to call that being.  To assume that women have no voice or choice until they find themselves pregnant is incredibly demeaning of women.  To readily accept abortion for reasons of personal convenience turns children into little more than commodities and makes life itself if not valueless, at least less meaningful.  The long term consequences on our civilization seem far worse to me than allowing an unwanted pregnancy to come to term.

Brief Thoughts

 Here are a few short notes as I read today's news:

1.      As people cheer the climber on the Statue of Liberty and as she cheers herself, do any of them consider the families that had come to NY on the 4^th of July to make a once in a lifetime visit to Lady Liberty and who, due to the selfishness of these folks, were prohibited from doing so?

2.      Scott Pruitt’s resignation letter includes his gratitude for the job and his joy in serving his country.  It also states the primary reason for his resignation: “the unrelenting attacks on me personally, [and] my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.” Causing someone to resign because of unrelenting personal attacks is just another way that the Left silences any opposition.  Their intolerance is anything but democratic!

3.      In this country we used to tolerate opposing views.  If we disliked the policies of those currently in power, we voted for change at the next possible election.  Now it seems that people think that if they didn’t get their way in an election, their recourse is not to wait and work for different candidates, but rather to scream, assault, and attack those they do not like until their voices are silenced and they are driven from office.  In so doing they are ignoring the voices of their neighbors with whom they disagree (if not also silencing them) and are placing their own selfish wants above those of their country and its form of government.

4.      People who are opposing the Supreme Court nomination before the nominee is even named are showing us that they don’t really care about objectively looking at qualifications and picking a good jurist.  Rather, they just want to obstruct and oppose the President.

5.      People who want to know how a justice will rule in regard to a prior case do not understand how the courts work or what the role of a justice is: to interpret and apply the law to a specific case that is currently before the court; in so doing the law develops and progress and sometimes old law is altered or overturned.  But justices do not enact laws, nor do good justices go to the court seeking to do so.

6.      People who claim that precedent is set in stone and can never be overturned do not understand what precedent is.  Nor do they seem to realize that, for example, Brown v. Board of Education overruled the “separate but equal” segregation requirements for Blacks and Whites set forth in the precedent case of Plessy v. Ferguson.   People who are against ever seeing the law progress in this way do not understand the role of precedent or of the Court within our three branches of government.

7.      Why do so many of our politicians simply spew forth their party line instead of thinking for themselves?  Why do they put their loyalty to party and their own power above the country?  Why do representatives often just represent one identifiable group within their district rather than considering the voices of all their constituents?

8.      For that matter, why do so few people think beyond the surface or for themselves?

9.      Our country, while not perfect, is a great country.  Why were so many apologizing for it and tearing it down on the 4^th of July of all days?  These people who think that our form of government is so terrible, that our country is so terrible – would they really rather live somewhere else?  I am really curious where that would be and why that would be and, especially for those many wealthy who continually trash America but have the funds to move elsewhere, why don’t they do so?

Words, Phrases, Clarity, and Understanding

I frequently notice that attempts at discussion are often marred by confusion of key terms used by the participants.  Understanding of and precision in terms used are essential for good dialog. When a person is using a term that actually means something else, or that another participant in the dialog simply thinks means something else, the ability to truly understand one another tends to evaporate and the discussion often devolves into argument or worse.  And, indeed, when participants are involved in a discussion of hotly contested issues, one may actually have a strong argument for a particular position, but that argument will not be convincing if it is based on or supported by misused words.

So, in the interests of clarity, here is a chart, listing some pairs of words we often hear, but whose definitions seem to have become confused.  (Most of the definitions are taken from Merriam Webster or similar dictionaries)  Please do not use the following words or phrases interchangeably; the terms are not equivalent with one another

Law A very complex topic, but basically, the definition is: A system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior.	Policy Contrary to popular belief, policy is not law.  It, too, is a complex topic, but its basic definition is: a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.
Melting Pot This term is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society.  It is defined as: a place, or the people of a place, where a variety of races, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole.	Multicultural This is a society where diverse cultures co-exist and manifest diverse customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles.
Capitalism (Also referred to as “free enterprise.”)  The classic definition is: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.	Consumerism This is not a governmental form.  It is: the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; it also refers to preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods.
Immigration This is simply the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.   It does not necessarily mean the immigrant will integrate.	Integration Simply an act or instance of combining into an integral whole.  It is not immigration, though immigration might lead to integration.
Legal Something is legal if it is based on, concerned with or permitted by law. Not liking something does not make it illegal.	Illegal Something is illegal if it is contrary to, forbidden by, or in violation of law.  Wishing an illegal act were legal does not  make it so.
Personal Belief That which someone personally holds to be true and which governs personal behavior.  One can hold personal beliefs that are different from required professional actions and still carry out those required actions.	Professional Action Action one takes in accordance with the requirements of one's profession or career.  Most can competently carry out required actions regardless of one's personal beliefs or preferences as to required professional actions.
Dialog A conversation between two or more people, often to resolve a problem.	Collusion Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Confusion of the above terms, assuming that one equals the other, leads to confusion in discussion and lack of clarity about one’s own or another’s position.  We should all try to be more careful and precise when discussing issues that are of importance.

It would also be useful to clarify definitions of specific governmental forms:

Autocracy: a system of government by one person with absolute power.

Dictatorship: an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, and limited political pluralism.

Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; a theory advocating elimination of private property.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Social Democracy:  a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Republic:  a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Democratic Republic:  a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies.

Anarchy: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

Lastly, there are some additional terms that merit clarification.  These are terms that are often used in the name calling that is so prevalent today. Even if the views of someone are repugnant to another, it does not necessary mean that the person holding those views is any of the following.  Using charged words to label an opponent does nothing to further a productive discussion.  The definition of each term is followed by my comments (in italics) about the use of the term in current dialog.

Racism
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

          Being against immigration as currently practiced, or against illegal immigration, or for enforcing immigration law does not necessarily mean that one is racist or anti-immigrant.  Disliking the acts of someone who happens to belong to a particular race, or simply being of another race, does not make one racist.

Fascism
A form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.  A Fascist is one who follows this belief.

            Because Fascism is often based on racial identity, before throwing this term around one ought to consider who it is that plays identity politics, who it is that shouts down or otherwise silences opponents.  But, even that does not rise to the definition of Fascism which was exemplified by Hitler.

Nazi/Nazism

A Nazi is a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party which controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler and advocated totalitarian government, territorial expansion, anti-Semitism, and Aryan supremacy.  Nazism is the ideology associated with that party.  Beliefs include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.

            This term is often used as an epithet against those holding positions with which one disagrees. Mere disagreement, even when strongly advocated, does not make one a Nazi.

Holocaust

Technically this word simply means “destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.”  However, as usually used it refers to the totality of actions by Hitler against the Jews, including extermination of over 6 million.

            Temporary separation of families pursuant to valid immigration law is not a holocaust.  To call it such cheapens what happened to the Jews; by so loosely using this term for anything one finds unpleasant or even abhorrent, reduces the acts of Hitler to being something similarly merely unpleasant, and not the horrendous evil that we should never forget.

Real conversation requires understanding and precision in the language one uses.  The above is a start at defining some essential terms. Hopefully this may help those who are tempted to use these words to use them more carefully. If we all would be sure we understand the meanings of words that we are using in our conversations, then perhaps those conversations would be more productive acts of understanding ultimately leading to resolutions to the divisiveness that is destroying us.

Flags and Identity

Flags, for ages, have been carried into battle on behalf of the country for whom the flag bearer is fighting.  When victory occurs, the flag of the victorious country is often planted by those who fought for that country and its victory.  People generally wave flags on behalf of a country of which they are proud.   “National symbols-in particular, national anthems and flags-provide perhaps the strongest, clearest statement of national identity. In essence, they serve as modem totems . . . signs that bear a special relationship to the nations they represent, distinguishing them from one another and reaffirming their identity boundaries. Since the inception of nations, national leaders have embraced and adopted national flags and anthems, using them to create bonds, motivate patriotic action, honor the efforts of citizens, and legitimate formal authority.” (Symbols and the World System: National Anthems and Flags by Karen E. Cerulo).

Let’s look at some depictions of this use of a flag to honor one’s country and its victory.

1-A drawing of the raising of the Islamic flag at the conquest of Constantinople, 1453 CE:

2- U.S. flag raised atop Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima, soon after the mountaintop was captured at on February 23, 1945:

3- The hoisting of the Red Flag over the Reichstag May 2, 1945 has come to represent the ‘total victory’ of Soviet Russia over Nazi Germany in the Second World War:

4-Flag planted on the moon to show U.S. pride in landing there before all others:

5- “Victory Monument”, erected at Puthumattalan, Sri Lanka, in memory of its War Heroes:

These are but a few examples of the use of a flag to honor the country which one serves.  There are even computer and board games which involve planting a flag to gain territory or otherwise gain points for the persona or country a player represents.

Now let’s look at one more photo:

These are Honduran flags raised at the U.S. border by alleged asylum seekers.  To me this photo is not unlike those others in which the flag holder raises it proudly on behalf of his country against an enemy. 

So, here is what I don’t understand.  If these individuals are fleeing Honduras, why do they proudly and assertively hold that country’s flag as part of a border protest as they seek asylum in the country whose border they appear to be assaulting?  Why do they proudly wave the flag of a country they are running from?  If these individuals found their home country distasteful enough to partake in the long caravan toward the U.S., and if they were so desirous of entering the U.S. that they did not take time to seek asylum in closer countries, then why do they seemingly assault our borders on behalf of their homeland's flag when they arrive?

Recently, I read an article pointing out that we need to separate the words “immigration” and “identification” in our national debate.  This photo suggests the wisdom of that.  I believe that most in this country are not opposed to legal immigration.  I also believe that many understand the need for a national identity for a country to survive.  Many of those who seem to be against immigration are actually against creating separate mini-countries within this one.  This photo, of individuals assaulting our border wall while proudly waving the flag of another country, suggests that the fear of our country’s identity being dissolved into factions of competing cultural identities is not without a basis. 

This country consistently opens its arms to those who wish to come here because they appreciate what this country is – its culture, its way of life, its laws, its government, and what it stands for.  Our culture includes diversity and respect for customs, religions, and traditions of others, but it also includes a cohesive national identity.  We are a melting pot; but, we are not a multicultural society.  When someone claims to want to become a part of this country but does so while assertively waving the flag of another, one simply wonders what it is that they really are seeking.

Walls and immigration laws allow us to ensure that those who want to enter do so because they want to join our country and participate in all its benefits as well as its responsibilities.  They allow us assurance that once within this country, those here will be proud to wave the American flag.  The current call for open borders would allow the planting of many flags within this country and in so doing would dissolve the concept of country itself.  In essence, an open border would represent our planting of a white flag, the flag of surrender, to a divisive doctrine of multiculturalism and identity politics that will ultimately destroy us.

The Judicial Branch

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1.

The above first sentences of each of the first three articles of our Constitution lay out the separation of powers in our government.  This separation provides important safeguards for our freedom: each branch serves as a check on the others, ensuring that no one branch overshadows, usurps, or diminishes the power of the others, and in so doing ensures that the people themselves do not lose their power and their liberty.

Judicial power itself is defined by Black’s Online Legal Dictionary as, “Authority, both constitutional and legal, given to the courts and its judges (1) to preside over and render judgment on court-worthy cases; (2) to enforce or void statutes and laws when scope or constitutionality are questioned (3) to interpret statutes and laws when disputes arise.”

Judges do not make the law and to ask or expect them to do so reveals a very basic misunderstanding of our Constitution.

The court’s job is not to legislate but is to address the existing law and how it applies to specific facts before it.  Judges explain what the law is; they interpret it and uphold it, even when they personally do not like it.  Only when a specific law or action is challenged will the judicial branch become involved and its role will be to evaluate the constitutionality or legality of that law or action in light of existing law and the Constitution.  Even when emotions run high about issues involved in the case, a court ideally does not let emotion rule the day.

Our elected legislators, representing our will, make the laws.  When we are unhappy with a law our recourse is to ask our legislators to change that law or, if we are dissatisfied with our legislator’s representation then our recourse is to vote for a different representative at the next election. 

Similarly, if we are unhappy with the actions of our executive branch when acting within its legal and constitutional authority, then our recourse is, again, to go to our legislature and lobby for a change in that legal authority and/or to vote for someone else in the next election.      

What is not given its own branch of government is personal subjective emotion.  Personal feelings are certainly a guiding force for one’s own behavior.  Many people with common emotions can use those emotions as a basis for advocating changes in law or policy.  Judges, like all humans, have personal predispositions and biases.  But, we cannot let personal feelings negate the rule of law.

We expect our judiciary to set aside personal prejudices and render disinterested and unbiased opinions.  We expect the judiciary to stay above the political and often emotional turbulence of the day and instead render decisions that will logically and rationally as well as legally stand up to the test of time, even when popular or political emotions change.  We expect our judiciary to focus on the legal questions presented by a case and to decide those cases fairly. Indeed, these expectations are necessary in our system of government.

We see this concept explained by Justice Roberts in the opinion upholding the president’s travel ban.  Justice Roberts wrote: “Plaintiffs argue that this president’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.” He further noted that assertions that the president’s order was a bad idea, rather than supporting a finding of its unconstitutionality, were more simply statements of disapproval of the order or of the president.  “But”, he wrote, “we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters.”

The point is, that just because we don’t like something does not mean that it is, nor does it make it unconstitutional.  We in this country are governed by laws, not by a judge’s or anyone else’s personal beliefs or values.  We rely on the Court to recognize this principle and to remind us of it.  It prohibits us from substituting our own personal preferences as definitive of permissible Constitutional activity. 

It is the objective reasoning of the Judiciary that, along with the other two branches, protect our freedom as it exists under our democratic form of government.  Replacing that system of government with rule by popular or personal emotions is more dangerous than any of the rhetoric from the president or from other politicians on either side of the aisle.  Allowing personal feelings to eclipse our Constitution or to silence fact, reason, or opposing views can lead to only two results: anarchy or some form of dictatorship.

This concept is especially on my mind now as the discussion begins on the replacement for the retiring Justice Kennedy.  At this point in our history, when understanding of our Constitution and the role of law seems to be waning, and when the power of personal feelings as a method of decision making and control are seemingly at an all-time high, it is more than ever important that we select a jurist who understands his or her role as a Supreme Court Justice and also one who is willing to put his or her own emotions and biases aside when making judicial decisions.

I am concerned that too many elected politicians as well as their constituents will be looking for someone whose personal views agree with their own rather than someone who will be able to put those views aside and objectively review specific cases within the existing laws and Constitution.  I am concerned that some will be looking for someone who is willing to go beyond the assigned role of the judiciary in an effort to implement personal or political agendas.

The judicial branch serves a crucial purpose as do the other two branches of government.  Let us all take the time to both understand and support those purposes and demand that our fellow citizens do the same.