Let's build more bridges – The Fulcrum
Coyle is a retired minister who writes about the intersections of faith, culture and politics. She is the author of “Living in The Story: A Year to Read the Bible and Ponder God’s Story of Love and Grace.”
Pittsburgh is the home of 446 bridges, more than any other city in the world. The City of Bridges is also home to a small group of Muslims, only about 0.5% of the population. Maybe this minority status contributed to the 2018 attack on a high school Muslim woman wearing a hijab. This violence is one reason Ebtehal Badawi began her “Pittsburg Builds Bridges” art project.
Even though she herself is a Muslim, Badawi’s bridge paintings depict symbols of nine religions and cultures demonstrating a wide range of worldviews. She believes, as I do, that differences need not divide us. Our diversity can make us stronger, kinder and wiser if we will ground ourselves in the basic truth of our common humanity.
“The reason these things happen, incidents of racism and bullying, is because people are afraid of people who are different,” said Badawi. “We need to accept those who are different, people who don’t look the same or share the same belief. We need to be open, to see the people in front of us.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
We need to see the people in front of us.
This is where bridges come in handy. Bridges bring us nearer to one another, connecting those who may have been separated by distance or terrain, by experience or opinions. When we make the effort to find ways to move closer, then we are able to see, hear and understand more clearly.
Some years ago, I attended an event called Dallas Dinner Table, a conversation of strangers around a shared meal on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. The bridges of understanding we built during that evening made us all stronger, kinder and wiser.
When I served as a local pastor in several different congregations, we would create occasional opportunities for church friends with diverse (and sometimes clashing) opinions to sit down together and tell their stories. Strengthening relationships, cultivating mutual respect, and appreciating the context of our various lives often allowed us to find a path through our disagreements.
Living Room Conversations broadens the opportunity to build bridges of community across cyberspace. Even when we are separated by multiple miles and numerous time zones, we get to “see the people in front of us,” hear their stories and understand viewpoints that are different from our own.
But why would any of us do this bridge-building work when it’s so very comfortable to stay safely within our own familiar territory? Badawi reminds us that violence is the price societies will pay when we allow ourselves to be fragmented and cut off from each other. Fear of “the other” will foster violence in thought, word, or deed in small and large ways. On the other hand, drawing near to another allows us to see the other, to recognize our shared humanity and (hopefully) to find there insight instead of fear.
Like my Muslim sister, as a Christian, I too ground my peacemaking efforts in my own religious faith. We both acknowledge that there are too many ways in which our various faith traditions have been misused to divide people instead of bringing people together, to foster animosity instead of cultivating love. We reject these kinds of misappropriations, and we will do whatever we can wherever we are to encourage our neighbors to break down barriers and to build bridges in their place.
I am grateful for the ways the Bridge Alliance effort is always seeking creative partners in this bridge-building business. Maybe you too are making similar efforts where you live. Maybe you see others in your community reaching out across divides. Will you tell us what you see where you are? Where do you find hope, courage, and wisdom in the midst of the challenges of our day? Where are your bridges?
A version of this article was first published at CharlotteVaughanCoyle.com.
Actress Alyssa Milano and other advocates protest outside the White House to demand federal action on voting rights.
The massive elections reform bill known as the Freedom to Vote Act appears to be headed down the same path as its predecessor: blocked from Senate consideration by a Republican filibuster.
Senate Democrats plan to bring the compromise bill to the floor Wednesday for a procedural vote that would allow lawmakers to begin debating the legislation. However, that debate can only begin if 60 senators vote to stop a filibuster, and Republicans remain staunchly opposed to the bill.
Voting rights advocates expect the legislation to be stymied and have set their sites on eliminating the filibuster rule. They say Wednesday’s vote will force Senate Democrats to choose between keeping an “archaic” procedural tool and enacting broad electoral reform.
“I, along with other coalition members, as well as Black and Brown voters across the United States, are disappointed. We are experiencing political theater at the expense of our lives, at the expense of justice for our communities and the work that we have done,” said the Rev. Stephany Spaulding of Just Democracy, a coalition of more than 40 Black- and Brown-led social justice groups that support eliminating the Senate filibuster.
Democrats introduced the Freedom to Vote Act last month after the For the People Act was blocked by a GOP filibuster in June. The new, pared-down legislation includes many of the same provisions as the original bill, while making some concessions to appease moderate Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Manchin was the only Democratic holdout on the For the People Act, saying he believed any election reform legislation should have bipartisan support.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
These changes were made in response to critiques from election administrators who desired a more streamlined process and in the hopes of swaying Republicans to support the bill. But GOP lawmakers have not budged from their opposition.
Voting rights advocates have expressed frustration that these compromises were made in a fruitless attempt at bipartisanship.
Following Wednesday’s anticipated blocking of the Freedom to Vote Act, Senate Democrats will be facing a “make or break” moment for American democracy, advocates say.
“Senate Democrats face a choice clearer than ever before: protect our democracy or protect the outdated, abused Senate filibuster,” said Eli Zupnick, spokesperson for the Fix Our Senate coalition. “Despite Sen. Manchin’s good faith outreach, there simply aren’t 10 Republicans going to work with Democrats on this. Senate Democrats can have the filibuster, or they can defend our democracy. There is no third option, and we’re running out of time.”
A June poll conducted by Morning Consult and Politico didn’t find majority support among voters for keeping or eliminating the filibuster. When voters were asked if the current Senate rule should be kept, 48 percent indicated support. But when voters were given a choice between whether legislation should pass with 60 votes or a simple 51-vote majority, 45 percent said the latter.
Another poll, this one conducted last month by Data For Progress, found supermajority support across party lines for the Freedom to Vote Act. Seven in 10 Americans overall indicated support. Democrats were most enthusiastic with 85 percent backing the legislation, followed by two-thirds of independents and 54 percent of Republicans.
“Americans overwhelmingly support the Freedom to Vote Act because they believe that every one of us should have the freedom to vote so that we all have an equal say in the future for our family and community, regardless of our age, our political party, our background or our zip code,” said Common Cause president Karen Hobert Flynn.
Discussions on gerrymandering often call for the creation of independent redistricting commissions to draw electoral maps. But in this episode of the Democracy Works podcast from the McCourtney Institute for Democracy, Christopher Fowler explains that plan is just part of a bigger solution to gerrymandering.
Earlier this year, I joined in the work of Urban Rural Action, founded by Joe Bubman. URA’s primary mission is to bring together Americans across geographic, political, racial, and generational divides to build relationships, strengthen collaboration skills, explore different perspectives and tackle issues that impact all communities.
Being fully transparent, I am often suspicious of bridge-building efforts and I initially was reluctant to fully embrace the work. This is not because I do not believe in the premise, but because the end goal is often simply civility. Put another way, if we all just agree to not critique or debate then we can all just get along. Joe and I have had this discussion and he admitted in his own reflection that “We bridge-builders too often view the problem through a narrow lens.”
For many of us this is hard to admit, but even our well-intentioned initiatives privilege some voices over others and in subtle ways uphold the status quo. As a result, consensus is formed and we spend more time, in the words of Anand Giridharadas, marketing “the idea of generosity as a substitute for the idea of justice.” Ghiridharas related this to what he called the Aspen Consensus, which says, “Do more good” — not “Do less harm.” (The Aspen Institute from which this consensus is derived, is in a loose network of many of these bridge-building organizations.) Rarely is consensus a road to justice.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This may be problematic to some of you, but our beloved President Abraham Lincoln stated, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it.” Our calls for unity cannot come at the expense of those on the underside and while we are on the issue of slavery, we have to stop treating it as a footnote to American history and truly wrestle with how it has and continues to shape our nation.
Wrestling with our collective past has the potential to free us from guilt and move us toward reclaiming our shared humanity. As James Baldwin stated, “Guilt is a very peculiar emotion. As long as you are guilty about something, no matter what it is, you are not compelled to change it.”
Wallowing in guilt is not the way forward, but neither is pretending that it never happened. Going along just to get along may be the easiest way to navigate this system, but it is also a sure way to maintain more of the same. Some of us need to become more comfortable in being uncomfortable. And perhaps even more challenging, some of us need to become comfortable in making others feel uncomfortable. It will be crucial to individual and shared growth. Too often we want to silence disruptors who insist on remembering, but every critic is not an enemy.
This past fall, I had the privilege of being chosen to participate in the Civic Saturday Fellowship, a program of Civic University. Civic Saturday is a civic analog to a faith gathering. Civic Saturdays are arranged in this format because the founders understood that organized religion has figured out a few things about how to bring people together, about how to create a language of common purpose and about how to use story and narrative to spark people’s reckoning with their own shortcomings, weaknesses and aspirations.
Civic Saturdays serve to remind all of us that we are in this together, shaping the future of our communities and country. While we all approach it differently, we are working to realize the promise of our democracy. Many think democracy is already established, but democracy is an idea that is still being perfected and until we break our routines, democracy will remain static.
In one of my civic sermons I stated, “we have to embrace the discomfort that true patriotism requires and be willing to contend with difficult questions. An example of this would be to ask, how do African Americans hold in tension the legacy of systemic racism and have pride in this Country?” We are too quick to move past the fact that Black people arrived on these shores as legal property and even after their citizenship was achieved Black Americans’ relationship with democracy has remained complicated.
This an issue that for many creates discord, but it must be acknowledged. So when we gather together to embrace democracy, we must hold on to that tension and refuse to flatten the texture and grain of our varied lived experiences. Many of us want to find ways that our voices can flourish together, but we must anticipate that it might take what sounds like struggle along the way. Perhaps through this grappling, we will save our civic souls.
Texas lawmakers approved new election maps for Congress and the state legislature, but advocates are suing over a potential voting rights violation.
The GOP-majority Texas Legislature approved new maps for Congress and the state Legislature this week, and the first lawsuit has already been filed — before any maps have been finalized.
Latino voting rights advocates filed the first federal lawsuit on Monday, claiming the districts drawn and approved by Texas lawmakers discriminate against Latinos by diluting their voting power and therefore violating the Voting Rights Act. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to sign the new maps into law in the coming days.
The lawsuit was filed by five registered Texas voters and nine Latino advocacy groups, including LULAC, Mi Familia Vota and Texas Hispanics Organized for Political Education. They are being represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which successfully challenged the state’s maps during the previous redistricting cycle.
Over the last decade, Texas has gained 4 million new residents, earning the state two new congressional seats. Half of the newcomers are Hispanic and 95 percent of them are people of color, according to the Census Bureau.
However, the recently approved maps do not reflect this growing Hispanic voting bloc in Texas. The number of state House districts in which Latinos make up a majority of the eligible voters dropped from 33 to 30. The number of congressional districts in which Hispanics were in the majority was also reduced from eight to seven.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Instead, Republicans, who control the state’s redistricting process, drew the maps so the two new congressional districts would be majority white. The lawsuit claims legislators used gerrymandering tactics like packing and cracking to diminish Latino voting power.
“Fair maps” advocates have also flagged Texas’ redistricting plans as examples of partisan gerrymandering. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project and RepresentUs gave the state’s maps for Congress and the state legislature failing grades for ensuring “significant Republican advantage.” The groups also noted that the maps have non-compact districts, meaning there were more county splits than usual.
This the latest, and perhaps most high profile, redistricting lawsuit to be filed since the process kicked off following the 2020 census.
I was recently talking to an 86-year-old friend of mine, Michael Stapler, about The Fulcrum and our new Pop Culture section.
The Fulcrum believes there is a deep connection between democracy and American culture, and this new coverage area is designed to deepen the understanding of our differences and similarities, and discover our shared interests and common destinies.
Whether it is music of all types, poetry, dance, literature, painting and drawing, comedy, or drama, we will appeal to the human spirit — a spirit that expresses the joys, sorrows and harmonies of the heart and soul.
Michael, whose hobby is painting, took my words seriously and I was taken aback when he presented me with a beautiful painting he did that was inspired by our conversation about the connection between art and democracy.
His painting, “LIBERTY – Celebrating Freedom in America,” is his expression of what celebrating freedom in America means to him.
His painting was accompanied by these words expressing how art is connected to democracy, and perhaps they were his inspiration for the painting:
Many artists are drawn to the Statue of Liberty. Iconic pop artist Peter Max has been enamored with the statue, completing his first portrait of it 45 years ago. He has done many more over the years.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Standing at 305 feet tall, the Statue of Liberty for many is a symbol of freedom, optimism and friendship among nations. A gift from France in 1886, her base has these words inscribed:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Each one of us as we look upon Michael’s painting and read these words will feel different emotions and have different perceptions as to what the Statue of Liberty means to them. And that is America: a diversity of thought, a melting pot of ideas.
Ballotpedia is keeping a close eye on elections across the country as we head towards November 2nd. Watch this briefing to learn about some of 2021’s most interesting political races across the country as policing, public safety, affordable housing, and homelessness are at the forefront of voters’ minds and candidates’ policy debates.
Thomas and Addams are co-executive directors of Mormon Women for Ethical Government.
As faith-based advocates for ethical governance, our work is motivated by a core belief: Every individual is a person of great worth. Our love of democratic governance is a natural outgrowth of this, as is our passionate desire to protect it. Good government upholds our rights, reminds us of our responsibilities to each other and protects our civil liberties equally. Democratic government trusts the people with the power to preserve those rights and privileges through the mechanism of the vote.
We believe that we are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history — not unlike those we have faced in the past — where the few seek to impose their will upon the many. The freedom to vote is under aggressive threat, and a corruption of this foundational freedom threatens other freedoms that flow from it. Protecting the vote should be our primary national priority, superseding all others, and our senators — elected by the people — have a civic obligation to provide that protection.
In the months leading up to the November 2020 election, a record number of Americans made significant sacrifices to vote and in doing so were able to accomplish what our institutions, including the U.S. Senate, had failed to do: place boundaries around an increasingly reckless administration. Citizens recognized the existential threat our nation faced, and utilized an orderly and peaceful mechanism to remove that threat. They voted.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
That their collective votes were an exercise of significant power is clear, because almost immediately the people’s authority came under direct attack. Unfounded claims about election fraud, pressure on election officials, race-based propaganda, unjustified lawsuits, demagoguery, attempts to manipulate long-standing electoral processes, and ultimately a violent insurrection — all are visible manifestations of a concerted effort to change the results of a peaceful and legal election.
Following those tragic events, a handful of principled Republican senators joined Democratic colleagues and made efforts to preserve the integrity of our elections and the peaceful transfer of power. But in the last 10 months, the attack on democracy has shifted. Having failed to overturn a past election, politicians at all levels of government now seek to exert undue control over future ones. There is still time to protect democracy, and Congress has the power under the Constitution to protect our future by placing federal protections around our right to vote.
Over the last eight months Mormon Women for Ethical Government has joined an ideologically diverse group of organizations and individuals in making repeated and good-faith efforts to engage with senators about voter rights. In a destructive departure from what was (as recently as 2006) seen as a shared value with bipartisan support, very few Republicans have shown any willingness to even dialogue about voter protection. They have not committed to the work of legislative compromise or co-sponsorship of bills protecting elections or voter rights. Most surprisingly, those who courageously spoke out against the unlawful efforts of the past administration have sought to justify their inaction around voting by claiming superseding allegiances. But nothing should take precedence over the freedom to vote.
As co-leaders of a nonpartisan organization who personally don’t always share opinions about policy, we are deeply committed to ethical governance based on collaboration, compromise and cooperation. We have learned how differences can become strengths. Our collaboration is possible because we recognize the profound difference between core values and the social and political structures that have developed to — ideally — implement those values. Nationally these include concepts like bipartisanship, the protection of states’ rights and legislative mechanisms like the filibuster. But these only have value if they are invoked as a means to protect and promote our nation’s values.
Because these structures have been time-tested, moderating voices don’t advocate discarding them in the pursuit of raw power. But at the same time they must not be used — as they were to protect slaveholders or deny basic civil rights — to aggregate power in the hands of the few or to trample on the rights of the underrepresented.
Extending voter rights will achieve the opposite; this extension serves to disperse power and to make leaders and parties more accountable, not less. The right to vote empowers our citizens to protect what is most precious: the Constitution, the rule of law, responsive government and individual rights. There is no justification for affording states the right to oppress their own citizens or privileging procedural means like the filibuster if what is at stake is a foundational national commitment to voter rights.
This week, the Freedom to Vote Act will come up for a vote before the Senate and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act will follow. These bills offer real and significant protections for voters. We plead with senators of both parties to prioritize the people and do what is necessary to ensure that future elections are safe and citizens have the freedom to vote. In November millions of citizens took our responsibilities seriously and we acted to defend your authority and our democracy. Now, almost one year later, we ask that you act to defend us. Protect the freedom to vote.
Pearl is a clinical professor of plastic surgery at the Stanford University School of Medicine and is on the faculty of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.
Another year, another damning report for American medicine. In August, the Commonwealth Fund ranked U.S. health care dead last among 11 of the world’s wealthiest nations (for the seventh time in seven reports since 2004).
Compared to its global peers, the United States is home to the lowest life expectancy, highest infant- and maternal-mortality rates, and most preventable deaths per capita. Worse, Americans spend twice as much on medical care as their international counterparts in exchange for these rock-bottom clinical outcomes.
Lawmakers are unlikely to solve the problem given the dysfunction that plagues Congress and partisanship that characterizes any possible government solution to our health care problems. However, the good news is that Americans can have greater access to excellent health care, along with effective social programs to tackle homelessness, food insecurity, obesity and other leading causes of illness.
Cue U.S. employers, which currently provide health insurance to 155 million Americans, nearly half the country. Businesses are growing sick and tired of seeing their coverage rates increase 5 percent to 6 percent each year. Absent a legislative solution, the only recourse for U.S. employers is to completely rewire the health care reimbursement model.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Today, approximately 90 percent to 95 percent of U.S. health care providers (doctors and hospitals) are reimbursed on a “fee for service” basis, getting paid for each new test, procedure and treatment — regardless of whether any of it helps patients.
This arrangement drives up health care costs with little or no clinical improvement to show for it. Of course, when physicians and hospitals are rewarded for doing more (rather than doing better), that’s exactly what they do. They buy and advertise multimillion-dollar surgical robots that barely move the needle on patient outcomes, and they recommend pricy treatments that often prove ineffective. In fact, a study found one in four health care dollars is wasted.
In contrast to fee-for-service, some of the nation’s highest-ranking health care providers rely on an alternative reimbursement model called “capitation.” From the Latin caput, meaning “head,” capitation refers to a “per-head fee.” In practical terms, it works like this: A payer (insurance company or self-funded business) gives a group of doctors and hospitals a fixed, annual, per-patient sum, paid upfront for all health care services rendered each year.
At Kaiser Permanente, a large health care system where I served as a CEO for 18 years, capitation helped our clinicians curb wasteful spending, lower medical costs and achieve the nation’s No. 1 quality rating from both the National Committee for Quality Assurance and Medicare. When physicians have incentives to do better (rather than do more), that’s what they do. They achieve higher rates of medical prevention, reduce complications from chronic disease and commit fewer medical errors.
As a result, patients who receive care through organizations like Kaiser Permanente are 30 percent to 50 percent less likely to die from heart attack, stroke and colon cancer than patients in the rest of the nation. If every health care provider in the United States matched even the low end of those results, we’d not only save billions of dollars annually, but we’d also save more than a quarter-million American lives each year.
The benefits of capitation don’t end there. Prepaid health systems also have natural incentives to invest in “non-traditional” health care programs, aimed at addressing the social determinants of health, thus providing the kinds of public health benefits seen in nations like Norway and the Netherlands.
In Pennsylvania, Geisinger Health provides patients with free transportation to doctors’ appointments to remove the barriers to obtaining medical care. Geisinger also runs a weekly food program for patients with diabetes, offering fresh fruits, vegetables, lean meats and whole grains to bolster healthy eating habits.
Mount Sinai’s Urban Health Institute sends community health workers to the homes of asthma patients to help address environmental triggers of the disease, such as dust and second-hand smoke.
Finally, leaders at Kaiser Permanente recently partnered with leaders in the Oakland community to invest $25 million in housing for the homeless because they understand that reliable shelter is essential for better health.
Of course, no health care solution is perfect, and capitation has its drawbacks, too. Americans like choosing their doctors, for example, but capitated systems rely on a narrower network of doctors and hospitals to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of medical care. Meanwhile, doctors worry they’ll lose income if the medical needs of patients outpace the available, prepaid funds. This fear keeps many independent providers from joining a capitated group.
Therefore the shift from fee-for-service to capitation in the U.S. will happen only after a few cost-weary businesses begin to demand or provide it. Once other employers learn about the improvements in quality and lower costs, they will follow suit. And when enough companies join in, momentum will grow, and our nation’s health care system will be on the path to becoming the best in the world.
Black congressional staffers are raising concerns about poor recruitment and retention of people of color on Capitol Hill.
The 117th Congress is the most racially and ethnically diverse collection of lawmakers in American history, and yet it is far from representative of the country’s population. But for congressional aides, lack of diversity at the staff level is even more of a glaring issue.
The Congressional Black Associates, which represents staffers in the House of Representatives, and the Senate Black Legislative Staff Caucus published an open letter to America on Friday, calling for changes on Capitol Hill to improve the recruitment and retention of Black staffers.
Congressional staffers are integral to the day-to-day operations on Capitol Hill. They write legislation, conduct research, bring in witnesses for testimony on important issues, provide constituent services and help finalize major political deals, among many other duties. Having staffers who better reflect the American public informs the critical legislative decisions made by elected officials, and ultimately leads to a more representative government.
While people of color make up 40 percent of the U.S. population, they only account for 8 percent of Senate staff directors and 16 percent of other top roles, such as deputy staff director, chief counsel, general counsel and policy director, according to a July report by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. The center also found that Black people make up 13 percent of the country’s population, but just 3 percent of top Senate staff positions.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Last week, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island hired Monalisa Dugué as his chief of staff. Dugué joins Jennifer DeCasper, chief of staff for GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, as the only Black people to currently hold that position. Scott is the sole Black Republican currently serving in the Senate.
Additionally, only 30 of the 435 House members have Black chiefs of staff. Most of those individuals are employed by one of the 57 Black lawmakers in the House, according to the staff associations.
“These statistics are discouraging because they send the underlying message that the path forward for Black staffers to be hired or promoted to senior-level positions within their respective offices is limited,” the two congressional staff associations wrote in their letter. “It is not enough to simply hire Black staff. Congress must also foster clear pathways for recruitment and career advancement.”
The two staff associations would like to see four changes:
“We believe that if the United States Congress wants to hold steadfast to its representative form of government, then congressional staffers hired to construct and inform legislation should be reflective of the United States’ population,” the letter says. “Congress can be a powerful vehicle for change when we are all at the table and well-positioned and equipped to make those changes.”
Weichlein is the CEO of FMC: The Former Members of Congress Association.
The 2020 election was the most secure in American history and there’s no evidence that any voting system deleted, lost or changed any votes. There, I said it!
Actually, I didn’t say it, but rather Chris Krebs, who served as director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency during the Trump administration, said it and was fired shortly thereafter by the then president.
Since last November, there have been almost six dozen related lawsuits adjudicated by state and federal judges across the country, most of them dropped for lack of evidence. There have also been several recounts, including multiple in Georgia alone, all resulting in essentially the same number of votes for each candidate. Yet a Sept. 12 poll by CNN showed that six in 10 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents agree that “believing that Donald Trump won the 2020 election” was very or somewhat important to what being a Republican meant to them.
No matter where you are politically, that number should really concern you because it means that 60 percent of the supporters of one of our two parties have lost all faith in the integrity of our elections. They don’t believe their often-Republican local elections officials, conservative judges in various jurisdictions across this country, or the results of any recount or audit. To this 60 percent of Republicans, Joe Biden is not a legitimately elected president.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
To many Republican officeholders at the state level, where election processes are enshrined in state regulations and law, their base’s doubt has become a rallying cry to change election law. Republican candidates for secretary of state or other election-focused offices highlight the perceived failures of 2020 as they campaign in their communities. These political actors are seizing upon their voters’ or constituents’ doubt rather than reinforcing the mountain of evidence from court findings, recounts and other credible sources. This is the definition of solutions in search of a problem.
Given this tenor across the country, especially in swing states like Pennsylvania, Georgia or Arizona, how will the electorate ever accept the outcome of an election again? Won’t a Democratic win merely showcase the same “rampant irregularities” as in 2020? Won’t a Republican win merely prove that “voter suppression measures” implemented by Republican state legislatures after 2020 were successful?
The No. 1 challenge our representative democracy faces right now is the erosion of trust when it comes to the integrity of our elections. And while the Constitution clearly recognizes the states’ primary role in election administration, it also outlines specific powers and responsibilities for the federal government. Congress in the past has not been shy about inserting a federal response to shortcomings at the state level, such as the abolition of poll taxes or requiring that polling stations be accessible to the disabled. Congress could and should act again to reinject trust into the system.
Most of us envision Election Day as a singular and unifying event, with millions of Americans exercising their right to vote and engaging in essentially the same voting process across the country. Unfortunately, that vision is quite blurred; all voters are not on equal footing.
There are 51 different elections happening across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. They each come with different standards for who gets to vote. For example, in Washington, D.C., a convicted felon never loses his or her right to vote, while in Kentucky certain violent felonies may cause one to permanently lose their right to vote. This also applies to how and when one can register to vote, how and where one can cast their vote, and how that vote is tabulated and reported.
If the outcome affects us all equally, then why should it be easier for me to participate in the process than someone in another state – or even in the same state but in another county? We don’t have 50 different standards for what makes an airplane safe, and because of that I trust that I’m flying safely, whether I board the plane in New York or Houston.
There already are a number of federal entities devoted to our electoral process, most prominently the Election Assistance Commission and the Federal Election Commission. But partisanship is rearing its ugly head when it comes to both of these agencies: One is woefully underfunded, while the other for years has lacked the requisite number of politically appointed commissioners to do its job. By empowering these existing organs, Congress could restore trust and integrity into our electoral process and enforce election laws so that your ZIP code no longer determines your ability to participate in the democratic process. If that isn’t a bipartisan goal, then what is?
Nearly half of all Americans have stopped talking to someone about political topics because of something they have said in person or online. Our culture of contempt continues to divide us and make governing together more difficult. In this episode of the How Do We Fix It podcast, Peter Coleman, a leading expert on conflict resolution, discusses a way forward.
Carlson is an associate professor of law and adjunct associate professor of political science at Wayne State University.
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is tasked with providing as full an account as possible of the attempted insurrection. But there is a problem: Not everyone is cooperating.
As of Oct. 14, 2021, Steve Bannon, a one-time aide to former President Donald Trump, has stated that he will not comply with a committee subpoena compelling him to give testimony. Bannon’s lawyers have said their client is not acting out of defiance; rather, he is following the direction of Trump, who, citing executive privilege, has told Bannon not to produce testimony or documents.
Either way, Bannon now faces the prospect of criminal contempt charges.
Bannon isn’t alone in being subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee. Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, former chief of staff to the acting United States Secretary of Defense Kash Patel and former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark have also been served. Meadows, Scavino, Patel and Clark – unlike Bannon – have not said whether they will comply, although their actions suggest a degree of foot-dragging.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The responses to the subpoenas serve to delay and frustrate the committee, which now finds itself caught up in a legal fight that may deny the committee information it seeks.
It also serves to highlight that the committee has an array of tools at its disposal to gather evidence from reluctant witnesses. But there remains lingering uncertainty over how these powers of the committee rub up against claims of presidential executive privilege.
Congress handed the committee a fairly wide charge to gather evidence. On June 30, 2021, lawmakers passed House Resolution 503, charging the committee with investigating the activities of law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the armed forces relating to that day as well as uncovering the factors contributing to the attack, including technology, social media and malign foreign influences.
Ultimately, the committee aims to issue a report with detailed findings and suggestions for corrective measures.
The select committee has already used one of its main tools for investigating the attack on the Capitol: holding public hearings and inviting testimony from key players in the attack.
Four police officers who had defended the Capitol during the attack gave testimony during the committee’s first hearing.
The committee is now looking to hear testimony from former White House staffers, rally organizers and members of Congress. It can also ask for and receive information from various government agencies and private organizations.
The panel has used its power to issue subpoenas to obtain information it deems vital to the investigation from former Trump administration officials, such as Meadows, Scavino and Patel, as well as organizations that planned the Jan. 6 rally.
A subpoena is a legal order requiring a person to appear and testify or produce documents.
House Resolution 503 expressly authorizes the committee to issue and compel subpoenas for documents and testimony.
Historically, congressional committees have preferred to cooperate with the other branches of government to obtain information. But if a cooperative approach does not produce the information the committee needs, it can subpoena information and testimony from members of Congress, former White House staffers, social media companies and even the former president.
While in office, President Trump repeatedly claimed executive privilege, which allows a president to withhold certain information from Congress, the courts or the public, in response to congressional subpoenas served on officials in his administration.
Now Trump has advised his former aides not to testify before or provide documents to the committee. He claims that such cooperation would violate executive privilege. He has also asserted executive privilege to prevent the release of records pertaining to his administration from the National Archives, even though the Biden administration has said that it does not object to the release of the information.
The law is less than clear about whether a former president can successfully claim executive privilege in the face of a congressional subpoena. The executive and legislative branches have historically preferred to avoid such confrontations and to negotiate the sharing of information.
As a result, federal courts have yet to determine the extent of the executive privilege retained by former presidents and when they can assert it.
Trump has extensively claimed executive privilege to cover not only matters of whether he himself can be forced to give evidence but also whether his former aides have to. In Bannon’s case it is even more curious as he didn’t work in the White House during the period in which the Jan. 6 committee is investigating.
The resistance to the Jan. 6 subpoenas could lead the courts to revisit issues over executive privilege that have not been considered for 40 years.
In a 1977 decision, the Supreme Court held that former President Richard Nixon could claim executive privilege in challenging a federal law known as the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. That law ensured government agencies and, ultimately, the public could have access to certain documents and tape recordings made during Nixon’s presidency. Although the court allowed Nixon to make the executive privilege claim, it ultimately ruled against him and upheld the law, noting that the lack of support for Nixon’s claim by other presidents weakened his arguments for executive privilege.
Trump would not have a stronger claim. President Biden has already signaled that he will not support Trump’s assertion of executive privilege in an attempt to prevent disclosure of testimony or documents relating to the Jan. 6 attack. In fact, Biden’s rejection of Trump’s request to block the release of around 50 documents to keep them from being entered into evidence led Trump to formally claim that executive privilege should prevent their disclosure.
As to Trump’s former aides, the Department of Justice has already informed Trump administration witnesses that it does not support any assertions of executive privilege on matters relating to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
In light of the Nixon case and the positions taken by the Biden administration, former Trump officials may face an uphill battle in arguing for executive privilege.
Meadows and Patel are in negotiations with the panel and may be trying to avoid further confrontation over the issue.
In the case of Bannon, the Jan. 6 committee’s chair has said the panel will pursue criminal charges, with a vote expected to take place the week of Oct. 18.
This action shows a desire by the committee to flex its considerable power in requesting information, even if that means engaging in a protracted legal battle with the former administration.
And if Bannon and other former Trump aides continue to resist, the courts may have to step in.
Weston is executive director of the Fierce Civility Project and the author of “Mastering Respectful Confrontation.”
Joe, thanks for your column.
I’ve just moved to a new area, and by the looks of the yard signs around here I’m guessing it’s pretty “red” overall.
Since I’m a democratic socialist, but also a person who wants to respect others and build bridges, my outreach idea with the neighbors was to go with the classic “bring a baked good to their house and introduce myself” thing. From there, I was just going to focus on common values if polarized topics come up, and hope for the best.
Do you see a more proactive approach? Or got any ideas for bridge building when the relationship is brand new?
Hello New-to-Rural B.,
Thanks for your letter. And thanks for sharing your strategy for introducing yourself to your neighbors. I think you have a pretty good proactive approach that certainly starts the process of building relationships with your neighbors — especially if you go with homemade baked goods! ☺
Honestly, that could be the end of my response and advice based on the information you have presented. Remember the days when a pie and a pleasant “hello” really was enough to proactively build the foundation for an amical, neighborly relationship?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
But I am going to assume, based on the questions that you ask, that you are anticipating a problem with your neighbors. I often find that if you are looking for a problem, you will find a problem. Perhaps focus on relationship building, and wait on bridge building until that circumstance presents itself? Bottom line: Build trust.
From a neuroscience lens, while you will all be exchanging niceties with smiles, small talk and pie, the fight-flight-freeze survival part of their brain will be sensing on a non-verbal, unconscious level the vibe and attitude you are giving off — detecting if you are “safe” or not. Why? I would imagine that the most important priority for measuring someone new to the neighborhood is not who they voted for, but if they will feel safe in their home with you nearby. Remember, you are the “outsider” and the one who could be perceived as different.
If you are open and inviting, that part of their brain will register that you are “safe,” setting up a deeper opportunity for a friendly relationship based on trust, and making the difficult conversations that may come in the future less reactive and easier to navigate. Imagine how the relationship will unfold if you step into the first engagement with them with any sense of opposition or righteous judgment. That would lock in an unconscious feeling that you are “unsafe.” This feeling will be very difficult to alter moving forward.
It sounds like you haven’t met your neighbors yet and you are basing your viewpoints of them on their yard signs. Perhaps the proactive strategy is to get to know them before you draw your conclusions, and give them the benefit of the doubt. From the perspective of Fierce Civility, the problem begins the moment you give yourself only two options in any given situation and then, unnecessarily, pit those two options against each other — like red and blue. Remember that in most elections, there are really only two choices, even though the viewpoints and beliefs of members of one political party may perhaps need 12 candidates to cover the spectrum of where they all stand politically. In other words, there are many shades of red and blue.
We are all more than who we vote for and our political beliefs. Think of the multitude of ways you can engage and find common ground with your neighbors. Your instinct is a healthy one — base your relationship on common values. However, instead of stating your values, simply “be” them. Initiating contact and bringing a gift already says a lot about who you are and what you value most! Perhaps, for this first encounter, let that be enough, and continue to come up with ways in the future to demonstrate your values.
I share over and over again that the No. 1 priority of our time is to seek out and build alliances in surprising places. The more we engage with those who hold different views, the quicker we soften the rigidity of the current state of extreme polarization. By moving to a new area with many of “them,” you have set yourself up for doing the noble work of our time, whether you like it or not.
Stay courageous and generous,
“Ask Joe” is dedicated to exploring the best ways to transform tensions and bridge divides. Our resident advice columnist and conflict resolution specialist, Joe Weston, is here to answer your questions in order to resolve tension, polarization, or conflict.
To Ask Joe, please submit questions to: [email protected].
In this edition of #ListenFirstFriday, the 17-year-old founder of YAP Politics discusses efforts to bridge the polarizations between political affiliations.