James M. Redwine

Democracy

You Shall Know the Truth & the Truth Will Set You Free (John 8:32)

by Leave a Comment

Jesus was born in Palestine and did much of his teaching there about 2,000 years ago. The words Jesus spoke were so offensive to the chief Jewish scribes and priests they called upon the Romans to crucify him even though he had committed no crime except, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place” (Luke 23:5). Actually he was just calling for peace and justice.

The Chief Pharisee, Joseph Caiaphas, and his ruling Judaic council charged Jesus with heresy and asked the Romans to try him. The Roman rulers, Pontius Pilate and King Herod, could find no fault in his behavior and planned to release him. Pilate then called together the chief priests and the religious rulers and the populace, to tell them Jesus would be released. “But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified” (Luke 22:6-25). So, Jesus was crucified for expressing views those in power in the Sanhedrin found offensive. Those eye witness accounts as reported in the Bible come from the famous authors of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all of whom were Jewish. Ergo, the knee jerk response of contemporary society and Trump’s White House that they were being anti-semitic would lie fallow.

The Romans, much like those today in American academia who caved to the financial threats from the Trump Administration, just washed their hands of the matter (Matthew 27:11-26). However, the shame of shirking the most sacred duty of a college, that is, preserving the free flow of ideas, cannot be so easily cleansed.

Another Palestinian activist, Mahmoud Khalil, who advocates in America today for peace and justice in Palestine and Israel has not been charged with any crime, but is currently imprisoned in America for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, principally during his tenure at Columbia University. He was arrested by the power of President Donald Trump’s Executive Branch that disagrees with Khalil’s calls for peace in Gaza and an end to the slaughter by the Zionists of over 50,000 Palestinians, mainly civilians. Khalil’s peaceful support for the resistance of the Palestinian people from 1948 until now to the military actions and occupations by Israel in Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Yemen is at odds with the positions of the Trump and Zionist Israeli administrations.

The myopic view of Israel’s Zionistic actions over the past seventy-seven years is reminiscent of lessons from Hans Christian Andersen’s 1837 fairy tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. Just as a narcissistic ruler is conned into parading naked before an adoring crowd until an innocent child exposes his vanity, Presidents Biden and Trump find no fault with the Zionists in Israel. That is the very purpose of the First Amendment, to expose the truth.

When our government will brook no dissent nor even consider opposing views, great harm and even greater injustice may occur. Protests and free speech in a non-violent academic atmosphere are vital to preserving our democracy. Just as our Founders feared, a silenced majority leads to tyranny from a minority.

Many Jewish people at Columbia University, and in much of the rest of the world, agree with Khalil or, at a minimum, believe he has the right to peaceably, publicly express his views. In America, Free Speech is not anti-semitic or pro-Palestinian; it is an essential element to preserving our democracy. As the Jewish and Roman rulers of 2,000 years ago discovered, power abused can lead to rights denied and even a country being destroyed. 1948 might have been a new beginning for Israel, but it may not survive the Zionist dream of total conquest of its neighbors in the Middle East while being abetted by our government, much of the media and academia.

The First Amendment to our Constitution is first because our Founders knew it is vital to democracy. When our institutions sell their principles for money or succumb to fear of speaking the truth because they may be branded anti-semitic, we may eventually reap the whirlwind, perhaps even a nuclear one.

Hate Speech

by Leave a Comment

Time Magazine’s book, The Making of America, posits Benjamin Franklin’s aversion to the abuse of arbitrary power was at the root of his philosophy. Ben believed that the surest guard against such abuse was freedom of speech and the unfettered flow of ideas. As Colonial America’s most influential member of the press, Franklin was instrumental in the birth of our nation as one where the otherwise unchecked power of government could be reined in by the free flow of ideas and truth publicly aired.

Without the First Amendment there would have been no United States of America, such was the fear of unchained governmental power among our Founders:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

While freedom of speech is generally protected throughout government and in the public, it has always been the pride and guiding principle of America’s institutions of higher learning. Universities have encouraged, tolerated and protected the free flow of ideas, especially unpopular ones. Therefore, it has raised alarm throughout academia that students and professors are being summarily silenced and even removed from the United States merely based on their philosophical beliefs.

Freedom of speech is designed to allow unpopular views. We do not need protection of popular ones. One method of controlling free expression is to label it as hateful to others, especially if the expression comes from those with whom our government, or the general population, may disagree. That appears to be the driving force behind allegations that those who oppose Israel’s assault on its neighbors are antisemitic and must be punished.

Neither our government or the national media defines what it means to be antisemitic or why there is no right to be so, or why one cannot be unprejudiced against any group, say Jews, and still find fault with the government of the country identified with that group, say Israel. As long as prejudice is not displayed in such a way as to cause harm to a group, say Palestinians or Jews, in America one has the right to believe as one wishes and to peaceably express those views.

The grave danger from even repugnant prejudice is not one’s beliefs, but actions. Nazis in Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s and Zionists in Israel today may be morally corrupt, but as long as no Jim Crow type prejudice is displayed, they can wallow in their own ignorance without the government becoming involved. No, the true grave danger to our democracy and the unquestioned violation of the First Amendment comes when a government or institution takes the side of those who would deny free speech to others.

 

Food Fight

by Leave a Comment

President Trump spoke to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, March 04, 2025 for 99 minutes. His entrance to and exit from the podium each took about 15 minutes. The Cabinet, the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in attendance as were invited guests, members of the media and numerous interested observers. The proceedings were telecast to the world by several media outlets who commentated on the events. The Democratic Party’s selected responder, Senator Elissa Slotkin, spoke briefly after President Trump.

As the President entered the chamber numerous Democrat senators and house members turned their backs, displayed custom designed placards with anti-MAGA comments and did not applaud; virtually all Republican members applauded incessantly, cheered and arose to stand many times. On television, the effect was as if one-half of attendees were at the Super Bowl and the other half were at a funeral. The gathering looked like a combination of sycophants and official witnesses at an execution who alternated between tossing roses and brickbats.

My reaction was to be rhetorically reminded of food fights at summer camp. My guess is the only reason there was no general tossing of rotten eggs is due to the price. My overarching impression was: surely there is a better way for members of our national government to interact concerning issues. I will suggest a couple: The Executive Branch could remain in the West Wing while both houses of the Legislative Branch submit proposed bills for the President’s consideration. The Supreme Court could remain stoic unless called upon to resolve a Constitutional issue. The military could and should remain at each of their designated posts until and unless America needs defending as determined by Congress and the President.

There is no good reason to subject anyone to the burlesque show that taxpayers are paying trillions to endure. If Tuesday night was democracy in action, perhaps we need, at least, less action. I call for no more “Joint Sessions” of any kind. As our mothers made clear, “If you cannot play nice, you will not play”.

You Say You Want A Revolution

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

The Beatles sang:

♪ You say you want a revolution
…
You say you’ll change the Constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You’d better free your mind instead ♪

I do not know why those British songsters were singing about changing America’s Constitution during the Viet Nam War. Perhaps they were just selling a song or perhaps they felt it was a return to 1776. Regardless, today in the United States it seems a lot of Americans seek to remake America in their own image and the quickest way is a revolution. Of course, not much thought may have gone into what a revolution would truly mean in 2025 et. seq.

On the other hand, James Madison of the small body and the gigantic brain gave the written word to the revolution he had just participated in and the possible future ones he wanted to prevent by designing a United States Constitution based on a theory that all humans seek to expand their power as much as they are allowed. Therefore, for a democracy to continue existing, the bedrock of our country had to be a government made up of separate functions controlled by competing separate and equal powers. As a people we have had a history of teetering from side to side with only occasionally tipping completely over to any one branch gaining too much power.

The Civil War broke out because all three branches chose conflict over compromise on the issues of slavery and the human rights of African Americans. On other visceral issues, such as Native American rights, Women’s right to vote, use of alcohol or marijuana or wars such as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we have managed to let the struggling of the separate governmental powers find a way to come out in an acceptable equilibrium.

We have had countless opportunities to lose our democracy but have eventually stepped back from the brink. The United States Supreme Court has taken more than one foray into excessive power, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). During Chief Justice Earl Warren’s reign (1953-1969) the Court’s ultra-liberal rulings had much of the public up in arms. There were even billboards on the highways calling for Warren’s impeachment.

And the Legislative Branch has had its attempts at being the conscience of America also. For example, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy set himself up to be the ultimate determiner of what a “true American” was. During the era of “McCarthyism” in the 1940’s and 1950’s the American public generally bought into his “Red Scare” tactics until the facts overcame his allegations.

But it has usually been the Executive Branch where the abuse of power has been the most obvious. The most salient example was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was president from 1933 until his death during his fourth term in 1945. Even though a great majority of both Congress and the American people objected to American involvement in WWII, Roosevelt manipulated the United States into the war. Of course, he had the aggression of Japan to help his argument.

It was Roosevelt’s long-term in office and some of his unpopular policies that brought about the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forbids anyone from serving more than two terms as President. Although some supporters of President Donald Trump have advanced the possibility of an exception to this amendment for President Trump. Such moves on behalf of Donald Trump and the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court are raising concerns among anti-Trumpers. There exists the possibility that neither the Supreme Court nor the Legislature may provide a proper balance for our democracy as both may be biased in favor of President Trump, especially as about one-half of the electorate has supported him and his policies.

While a revolution may be extremely unlikely, so have been numerous other shifts in power in America throughout our history. There is no need yet to call for extraordinary action by any branch nor from the news media or the public. However, it is the fabric of our democracy that may be being tested once again. There is no harm in remaining true to the wisdom of our nation’s charter and there could be harm from failing to reference it.

Photo by Peg Redwine

A Teetering Balance

by Leave a Comment

Our federal democracy is seen as having three equal branches that keep our democracy by equally asserting restraints on one another. The Legislative Branch plays its part by having 435 representatives elected for 2-year terms by citizens throughout the country along with 100 senators elected for 6-year terms. These just over 500 individuals have many functions but they really have only one power, providing or restricting funds to themselves and to the other two branches of government, the Executive and Judicial Branches.

 The Executive Branch has thousands of functionaries but its most powerful executive is the President who directly and indirectly heads the military and countless other divisions of that diverse branch. Each of those often nameless bureaucracies has untold, often nameless, functionaries whose functions may hold the key to whether our government functions.

The Judicial Branch is easy to generally designate but much more difficult for the populace and the other two branches to corral as the Judicial Branch has generally defined itself since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In fact, the Judicial Branch jealously and vigorously spends much of its time struggling to make sure the other two branches do not infringe on its powers, the chief of which is to define what the law allows the other two branches to do.

This theory of a three equal and separate foundation of our democracy works well as long as the powers of each branch remain truly separate and fairly balanced and each branch is composed of greatly dispersed functionaries. It is not a novel observation that our great democracy has remained democratic, mostly, because it remains diverse, dispersed and divided. When power becomes concentrated in a particular individual or individuals or branch, democracy suffers and internecine competitions may arise. Such theoretical and rhetorical battles can, as our Civil War proved, break out into real battles as one or two or even all three of the branches seek dominance.

Currently, we have members of each branch asserting efforts to imprint upon our whole country the vision of a few executives, followed by a few judges, both entities being subject to the status of financial hostages from a powerful few in the Legislative Branch. Now, some may analyze our current imbroglio as evidence our three-branch theory is simply working itself out in practice. That could be true. However, I hypothesize our Founding Fathers may have neglected the Fourth Branch of our social/governmental structure, the citizenry. Normally we have an electorate that, while unhappy perhaps, still finds a way to “soldier on”.

Our current social intercourse pits about one-half of America against the other half, sort of like the times of theDred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 that led to the Civil War. Much as when a large portion of the United States agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court that African Americans were not citizens while another large portion disagreed. Many Americans today either agree or disagree with Birthright Citizenship and several other issues. One President and at least one federal judge come down on opposite sides of this citizenship issue and probably several others.

Such matters being seen diametrically opposite by each of two of our branches and both branches awaiting input from the Legislative and more importantly the public, creates a situation where our national soul may be at war with itself. What is called for is much more equal and reasonable input from each branch, especially that Fourth Branch, the populace.

Those Who Serve

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

January 20, 2025 America swears in its new president for a four-year term. A president who just completed a four-year term will leave office on that same date. Countless public servants will also be leaving as countless replacements will move in. Throughout the United States, local, city/town, county and state officials will be switching roles as the rest of us juggle our past and future servants’ identities and duties. These offices will not all change on the 20th or even during the same month or year. Of course, most of us barely take note of the shifting federal servants much less who is figuring our taxes or keeping track of our real and personal property, enforcing our laws or chasing down rabid animals. We take almost everything any of our multiple governments do without a second thought, unless we or our family needs a service.

But as one who has sought elective public office on several occasions, I appreciate the angst our elected and appointed public workers suffer. My first political campaign was for the nomination for Prosecuting Attorney; I was unopposed. I was convinced the world recognized my superior talents. That fall I lost the general election; I was comforted by telling myself the public had not appreciated its mistake. However, I have never completely recovered, although the person who beat me and I later became respectful friends.

Then, two years later I ran for judge and won. I just knew the public had recovered from its political dystopia. Thereafter, I ran for judge every six years for thirty years, but was unopposed in each primary and general election. However, until the filing date closed each cycle, I held my breath as all office seekers probably do. Even an uncontested election calls forth anxiety, although each time I convinced myself no one had cause to run against me. And it was not just my welfare I was responsible for; my staff, not to mention my family, relied on my status too.

Well, Gentle Reader, you probably right away figured out what I meant to say today, but I will continue to say it anyway. Most people quickly criticize their public servants, but few of us acknowledge their precarious predicament and their essential roles. Many of them expend great energy and significant amounts of money for the privilege of operating our democracy. For me, they deserve thanks; so, Thanks!