Academia, Columns, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Justice, Lawyering, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

Can We All Get Along?

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

 

“People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?” Rodney King 5/1/92

 

The arguments and divisions politically here and throughout this country are rampant and destructive. Anger and hatred of others of differing opinions rises at times to fever pitch and I admit that I am part of the problem as much as anyone else is. This is a somewhat different piece in that I am going to present some national problems, as I see them and elicit your comments on them, in an attempt to discover whether there is some common ground agreement, on some things plaguing our society. While I am more interested in whether or not people agree that these are indeed problems for us all to consider and work to solve, it is certainly apropos for people to comment on what they believe the solutions to be.

 This is an experiment on the viability of people agreeing on the premise that a problem exists in a given area. We cannot begin to resolve issues, unless we first agree that they are issues to be contemplated by the entire body politic. My hope is to engender real, civil discussion and perhaps at the end reach something like consensus. This is not a plea for Bi-Partisanship because to me that is a fantasy, whoever may utter it. To be “partisan” is to hold strong opinions and srong opinions do not resolve themselves into agreement. The resolution reached by “partisans” is always one of compromise, without either side changing their core beliefs, but agreeing to take part of the loaf. I am “experimenting” to see if many of the diverse viewpoints represented here can at least agree that a specific issue is indeed a problem, or if it is indeed an issue. Beyond writing this, I will not take part in the ensuing discussion,  since the formulation itself indicates my views on whether these are indeed problems. I will limit my questions to legal issues, with no particular order of importance intended.

A. Does the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the world indicate a problem?

 B. Given the overcrowding and long delays inherent in our legal system, do we need to do something to reform it?

 C. Have our Constitutional Rights been diminished?

 D. Has the policing authority both State and Locally been extended beyond permissible bounds.

 E. Has the War on Drugs been a failure and added to addiction rather than restricting it?

 F. From the perspective of criminal/civil procedure, has the Right to Privacy been terminated and/or restrictively diminished?

 G. Does State and Federal Government have the right to criminalize non-coercive sexual acts between adults?

 H. Should the States and Federal Government admit the “War on Drugs” is a failure and seek new methods to deal with addiction?

 As an illustration of what I am looking for I will present this. FFLEO and I both voted for Barack Obama, even though FFLEO and I have very different political and partisan beliefs. Yet we both agree that he has been an awful President. Where we respectfully disagree is that he has stated he will never vote for Obama again and I have stated I might, if there are no alternatives that seem viable. The most important element is that we, though vastly different politically, agree on the nature of the problem. With that agreement, there comes a mutual respect and a future hope of resolution, even though one is not now apparent or even likely. If there is no agreement on whether something is at least a problem, then the legacy of that disagreement is ongoing, unresolved strife.

 Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

171 thoughts on “Can We All Get Along?”

  1. @swarthmore mom,

    The truth in Ezra’s account, the flaw in his logic is that it would seem to apply to TWO PARTY systems.

    If we had more parties, or no parties, or proportional representation, or instant runoff voting the incentives would change to form ad-hoc issue driven coalitions, not just rote attempts to blockade progress of the opponent.

    This is one reason why voting for Obama as the lesser of two evils is a poorer choice than voting for any third party. And doing what you can to support non two-party voting.

    Voting for Obama disenfranchises you and tosses your vote away.

  2. tom,

    How do you think change will come? (which is, ultimately, the only thing we know for sure…) If you believe that they may be effective, why not try? If some watered down version can actually be implemented, it might be enough of a palliative to buy time to implement stronger and more effective measures. Also, things like legislation have an enormous amount of inertia – which means that they are hard to divert from their path, but a small, steady thrust can eventually have significant results. Basically, I think you’re saying “let’s stay on the viscous circle because the virtuous circle probably wont work” – that doesn’t seem the best course of action to me…

  3. slarti:

    You’re too good a scientist to take anything on faith—even Dr. King’s words. There is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest progress on many fronts. Care to check out the number of witches burned in Salem, Mass. last year?

  4. Silent on G, yes on everything else

    BUT

    I personally believe there will only continue to be deterioration until the BuCh and Obama administration stands trial. IF they do not, this country will continue to fall apart until the divisions themselves destroy the cancers within.

    There’s more to life than choosing sides. Let the law decide right and wrong. Without that, bloodshed seems inevitable to me.

    The arc of the universe is long only because our measuring stick – our own lifespan, is not. And yet we know that it bends towards justice.

    We the People can choose Justice and mobilize to bring it about, saving ourselves much grief and heartache in the process, or we can let Life bring it about as It sees fit.

  5. Doc Slarti: Let’s not forget removing the $106,800 income cap on Social Security contributions. There is absolutely no reason to stop paying into the fund when you make more that $106,800.00 per year. People making more than that can certainly afford to continue paying. Some high income people make that much by January 15, if not sooner. If you make that damn much money, then you can help be a part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

    Removing that cap will solve the problem of Social Security and Medicaid running out of funds in the foreseeable future.

  6. Mespo,

    Or, as Dr. King put it, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”.

    Dr. King’s words are one of the things I believe in (i.e. have faith in rather than an opinion based in empiricism). If that makes me hopelessly optimistic, so be it.

  7. Those might be effective, but I’m afraid it’s naive to think there’s any chance of them becoming law.

  8. tom,
    I’m trying to put what I believe into practice – if you want to believe I’m naive, that’s fine.

    As to practical solutions (numbers are just suggestions):

    10% levy on all personal wealth above $10 million (to be used for debt reduction – this will free up capital for investment and doesn’t hurt anyone who can’t afford it).

    50% marginal tax rate on ALL income over $1 million/year as long as the national debt is over 10% of GDP

    All new spending must be offset by an amount pegged to the deficit (for example if the deficit was 10% revenue, then 110% of the cost would have to be raised for all new spending.

    Tax any company doing business in the US a flat 20% on the profits reported to their shareholders (no deductions). Corporate tax code should be incredibly simple or there will be loopholes.

    Versions of the first two for corporations.

    reasonable penalties (loss of shareholder equity up to and including the “death penalty”) for negligent or malicious corporate persons.

    Are those enough, or would you like more?

  9. tom kellum:

    I’ll take hopelessly naive to naively hopeless. Problems exist and solutions are not easy but giving up seems the least attractive option. We overcome problems every day with hard work, creative thinking, and moral consensus building. You can adopt the Christopher Hedges position that man will never progress morally or philosophically but history seems to present numerous counter-examples. For example, the fires no longer burn in the Auto de fe’ and another human institution has now changed for the better; slavery is universally loathed if not yet totally extinct; small pox has left the planet for both the developed world who created the vaccine and in the developing world where it wasn’t; we have laws against might making right; and we have an international mechanisms to resolve disputes. Not perfect and not pure, but progress none the less. Unwarranted pessimism is at least as pernicious and, yes, as naive as unwarranted optimism. The jury’s still out on the human experiment.

  11. Okay. About what I expected.
    If you ever come up with a realistic solution, I’m all ears

  12. “FFLEO Reverend Hagee compared Perry to Abraham Lincoln.”

    There’s a joke about a theater in there somewhere . . .

  13. NoWay,

    I would suggest that if we agree on what is important then the next step would be to prioritize them (assuming this is an exhaustive list of common ground) and then figure out how to act on the top priorities.

    Roco,

    So what problem (or problems) should be addressed first? I don’t disagree with you that people acting in good faith will (mostly) agree with what Mike said, but I still think that if we cast a larger net and determine the consensus on what the problems are, then a consensus can probably be built around what would be a reasonable solution.

  15. Slartibartfast said:

    “It seems to me that trying to solve the problems is also an effective way to do the latter – and who knows, we might just get lucky…”

    Well, have it, sir/madam. How would you solve some, or any of the problems. Please give a (practical) solution that demonstrates you aren’t hopelessly naive,

  16. Mike Spindell:

    those are superficial issues. Most people of good faith left or right would have the same answer.

    But those issues are not the problem. You can have all the personal freedom you want but if you do not have economic freedom you are not free.

    China apparently has more economic freedom than we do but they do not have political freedom. Both are necessary for a free society.

    The left does not want economic freedom and the religious right does not want political freedom.

  18. FFLEO,

    I understand your pessimism, but right now I’ve got optimism to burn. Van Jones’ group organized over 1,600 house meetings last month (compared to about 800 by the tea party after tax day 2009). The ideas discussed may have had more of a liberal focus or different priorities that you would assign, but I think that you would generally agree with most of them. I hosted a meeting and I think that the group (funded by MoveOn.org) is doing a good job of organizing a movement aimed at the 2012 elections. I think that if there is to be any hope at all, then something needs to change in 2012, because if it’s just more divided government and a president with no mandate (or one using the mandate they have badly), then the odds of significant change before we reach a critical point become much smaller (if not non-existent). If the backlash against the Koch-funded power grab is big enough then maybe none of the lawmakers sucking from the corporate teat (from both parties) will be safe from it… It will be interesting to see what happens next week in the Wisconsin recall elections.

    anon,

    I have qualms about Ron Paul (that his Libertarianism isn’t workable, mostly), but I believe that he is honorable – I just don’t believe that he is electable. Nor do I think that a progressive Democrat is electable except as President Obama’s successor in 2016. That sort of leaves me supporting President Obama, because I wouldn’t hire any of the current crop of Republicans to clean my toilet, let alone run the country If the Republicans kicked out their fringe like they did the Birtchers, then I could see this changing, but not before – the Republicans have worked long and hard to earn my distrust (and continue laboring mightily) and I wouldn’t want to cheat them of their just reward).

  19. On vacation so only have time for a short answer concerning Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a tea party member. That is all I need to know. Money needs to be spent on treatment instead of incarceration. Ron Paul is for dismantling social programs.

  20. Mike,

    It looks like we all agree that the answer to everything (except “G”) is YES.

    I suspect that those who answered YES to “G” would probably change their answer if they carefully reread the question.

    Common ground; We seem to have it, now what do we do with it?

    Thanks for posting an article that demonstrates how much we have in common.

Comments are closed.