Musings

Toward a More Perfect Union

The first reason given by its framers to “ordain and establish” the US Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union”.   Implicit was the recognition that the Union still wouldn’t be completely perfect because of the Constitution.  The document is based on the awareness that human beings are prone to corruption, even if we are the crowns of creation.  People with too much power are likely to abuse it, no matter how excellent their characters or burnished their credentials.  This awareness resulted in our Constitution's system of checks and balances, which continues to prove itself essential.

This assumption of imperfection goes back at least as far as the warning words of the prophet Samuel.  The people of Israel were clamoring for Saul to be made their first king.  They wanted a monarch to lead their army so that they could protect themselves like other nations. Samuel pleaded with them to let God continue to be their only king.  The prophet correctly predicted what would happen.  The king would become greedy and corrupt.  He would seize whatever he wanted and oppress the people.  “And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” (I Samuel 8: 18)

But God told Samuel to give the people what they wanted anyway.  It seems that God did not want the perfect to be the enemy of the best that could be achieved under the circumstances.  God knew that it wasn’t enough for himself to be the only king of Israel.  Some kind of temporal authority was needed, something more effective than the loose tribal confederation of Israel at the time.  The anointing of Saul was a step toward a more perfect union, and Samuel went along with it.  But the story of Samuel and Saul makes it clear that the gap was still wide between the ideal reign of God and the real government of human beings.  We like to think that democracy narrowed that gap, but there’s still room to “form a more perfect Union”.

We Americans see ourselves as the champions of democracy for the whole world.  Certainly in 1787, when the Constitution was written, our nation led the way for others to follow.  But when they followed, many of these nations developed forms of democracy more advanced than ours.  Our system of governance is remarkably durable and has served us well.  But if we stand back and look at democracy around the world, we can see that many other nations have “a more perfect Union” than ours.   They have more effective ways of making their governments responsive to the will of their people, while maintaining checks on power.  People in these nations were boggled by the election of George W. Bush despite his having received many fewer votes than Al Gore.  The electoral college system, designed in the horse and buggy days when election results were hard to determine nationwide, resulted in a tainted presidency.

In the book of Samuel, God blessed the will of the people, even though it was far from perfect.  God seemed to be saying, “They want a king?  They ignore my words through my prophet?   Oh well.  Let their will prevail anyway.”   Israel’s new monarchy was created by a majority of “we, the people”, with the minority, represented by Samuel, anointing the king and accepting the new government’s authority.  America formed a system of government based on the will of the majority of the people, structured so that the minority, most of the time, would honor its legitimacy.

The will of the people is blessed.  So how can we make sure it is more faithfully expressed?  This is not just a matter of practical politics; there is something of the divine in the quest for “a more perfect Union”.   Today there are people who want to change the 14th Amendment in order to narrow the definition of citizenship.  But what good is citizenship if our voices don't count?  It's time to abolish the antique system of electing our president, as stipulated in the 12th Amendment.

If we copied the electoral system of Germany, similar to that used in other modern democracies, here’s how a ballot would look here in Los Angeles, where I live:

I’d vote for representatives to my state legislature both at a regional level and at a local level.  So my ballot would have two parts.  On the regional part, I’d be voting for a party which would get seats proportional to the number of votes it receives.  The “greater LA” regional part of my ballot would give me a choice of parties:  Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, etc.  Under each party would be a numbered list of candidates, chosen by the party and ranked according to who would be first to be seated.  I’d fill in the circle for the party I chose.   On the second part of the ballot, for my district within my region, I’d be voting for one individual candidate.  I could vote for a candidate from any party.  Whoever got the most votes would be elected to that one seat.

This would result in more points of view being represented in the legislature.  At the regional level, I’d be represented by a group of legislators from different parties, chosen proportionally to the votes for those parties.  At the local level, I’d be represented by whomever got the simple majority of votes.  This way, people affiliated with minority parties would be represented in the legislature – something that seldom happens now.  In California and other parts of the country, people have sorted themselves out geographically, according to their social and political views.  Even a truly fair system of drawing legislative boundaries wouldn't make much difference in making legislative races truly competitive, under our current "winner takes all" system.  The result is a decline in voter participation.  A Democrat living in a Republican-dominated district is unlikely ever to have his or her viewpoint represented in Congress or in a state legislature.  This dampens interest in voting.  It also makes primary elections the real battles in many if not most districts.  This results in a skewing of election results toward the extremes in both of our two dominant parties, as the most extreme elements of each party are best at turning out the vote.

"A more perfect union" today means that we need structural, constitutional reform at all levels of government in America, to invigorate citizen participation by making representation real for people who don't feel included today.  There is a way to maintain majority rule while assuring the protection and inclusion of the minority, so that all citizens know they have a voice in government.  It is a way to narrow further the gap between the reign of God and the rule of human governments, a gap the prophet Samuel identified so long ago.

(Much of the content about electoral reform in this "musing" was inspired by my reading of CALIFORNIA CRACKUP:  How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It - by Joe Mathews and Mark Paul (2010), a new book about the crisis of governance in this state.)

A Sermon for Sneetches, Both Starful and Starless

(I wrote this as the opening of a sermon I gave yesterday - 8/15 -  at Manhattan Beach Community Church. The church asked me to preach on a Dr. Seuss book, as they were doing a series of worship services based on his stories.  For those who don't know it, The Sneetches describes creatures who come in two forms - one group of Sneetches with stars on their bellies, who think themselves superior to the other kind who lack the stars.  Along comes Sylvester McMonkey McBean with his magic machine, which, for a fee, can put stars on the bellies of the starless Sneetches.  The starful Sneetches then decide that stars are old-school, and go to Sylvester to have them removed.  The groups go back and forth, making more money for Sylvester at each turn, until they are exhausted.)

 

This sermon’s for people who act like the Sneetches

From Manhattan Beach to Manhattan’s beaches,

For people like you and for fellows like me

Who think they’re as special as special can be.

And also as often we’re sure we are junk

Cause that’s what we think when we get in a funk.

And that’s why the biz of Sylvester McBean

Became so recession-proof, as we have seen

He puts on our stars and then takes them away

‘Cause low self esteem is most certain to stay.

If his business left town it would ruin L.A.;

Our star-making business would not be okay.

Oh, the saga of Sneetches is worthy of note,

And there’s more to be said than what Dr Seuss wrote.

What is it that gets us so low yet so vain?

What drives us to make ourselves look all the same -

But look differently special at quite the same time?

A strange situation without reason or rhyme!

Conformity rules how we talk and we dress

And governs the ways that we try to impress.

We choose to wear something that sets us apart,

And tomorrow it’s selling for cheap at WalMart

But wasn’t there once an odd man long ago,

Who spoke on a mountain to people below,

And pointed to flowers, said look if you please

No garment comes close to the glory of these.

And what if Sylvester McMonkey McBean

Had seen what those people with Jesus had seen?

And what if among them had been a young Sneetch?

What did she think when she heard Jesus preach?

That what makes us special came with us at birth,

And nothing can add to that marvelous worth.

The gift of our lives is beyond all we buy.

No mall store clothes-hanger displays what’s inside

Of our minds and our bodies so perfectly made;

Compared to these wonders all other things fade.

A star on a Sneetch cannot start to compare

With the magical wonder of one single hair.

Why worry about clothing that others might see

When the eyes that we see with have such majesty?

Who needs all the rings and the spikes and tattoos?

Compared to our hearts all that stuff is old news.

Who cares about skinnies, who cares about rounds?

The weight that most matters is only three pounds.

Why fuss about tanning or color of skin?

The colors are conjured by grey stuff within.

Oh, a Sneetch would be boggled by what Jesus said,

It’s plenty to ponder in anyone’s head,

Sylvester might hate it and sneer with a smirk

But then go and look for a new line of work.  

A Family Values Budget for California

A family, at its best, takes care of its members through times lean and fat.  When the family income goes down, the percentage of that income spent on essentials goes up.  When the family income goes up, that percentage shrinks as the family can spend more on the non-essentials.

Our state government is the means by which our California family provides for many of our most basic essentials, nearly as vital to us as food and housing.  Education, the seed corn that ensures our future.  Law enforcement, fire protection, to keep us safe.  Medical care for children and low income people, to protect not only their health, but the public’s health.  Environmental stewardship, consumer protection, transportation.  The list goes on, and everything on it is critical for the well-being of the members of our California family.   What our state government provides is of higher priority for the welfare of us all than for any of us to eat out at fancy restaurants, take expensive vacations, or buy luxury cars and yachts. 

The minority group that controls California’s budget has forgotten these essential family values.  Once again, it is paralyzing the state government.   A 2/3 majority is required to raise taxes and to pass a budget.  This un-democratic arrangement prevents our California family from doing what all caring families do when times are tough:  re-allocating resources in order to pay for the basics.  (To learn more about such quirks in California's constitution, and what can be done to correct them, see californiachoices.org .)

Today, that means raising taxes.  It’s common sense.  When times are lean and the tax rate isn’t high enough to cover the state’s bills, the tax rate must go up in order to cover the costs of its essential services.  In times like these, people need to spend more on taxes that pay for essentials, and spend less on non-essentials and luxuries.   In times when the economy is booming, the tax rate can go down, as a lower percentage could still yield enough money to pay for the necessities that government provides.  Then the family has more money available for the extras that make life sweeter.

Our state government is in the thrall of a minority group of people with an ideological opposition to raising tax rates for any reason, ever.  In effect, they are saying that a family should cut all of its expense categories by one-third if income goes down by one-third, instead of prioritizing expenses.  That means eating out at restaurants one third less, and paying one-third less rent, even if it results in the family being evicted!   This minority acts as if the services of the state government are optional for the people of California.  As if schools, jails, and roads are discretionary spending items in the family budget.    Anti-tax ideologues carry on about waste and fraud in state government, but it isn’t there.  The fat is long gone.  The lean has been cut severely already, harming many of California’s most vulnerable family members.  Even needed reforms to reduce benefits for government employees won’t make that much difference in the short term for the state budget.

Yes, it is hard to pay a higher tax rate to cover the basics in a time when income has gone down.  Yet that’s what we all do in our families when times are tough.   It’s time for the ideologues in Sacramento to embrace this good-old-fashioned family value.

(PS:  I'm learning a lot as I read REMAKING CALIFORNIA: RECLAIMING THE PUBLIC GOOD, edited by R. Jeffrey Lustig (Heyday Books, 2010) - it's a collection of essays about California's crisis of governance and the need for major constitutional reform.)