When Will We Stop The Erosion of Our Democracy

When will we stop this cancer eating away at our national institutions and at the moral order by which we choose to live? What we are witnessing is not a series of isolated excesses. It is a sustained campaign. The Trump administration has repeatedly violated the law, attacked the independence of long-standing institutions, and sought to criminalize conduct that has no rightful place in the criminal code. The sheer volume and brazenness of these actions are so startling that they threaten to numb us into passivity. We see it in the extrajudicial seizure of Venezuela’s strongman, Nicolás Maduro, and in the unvarnished declaration that America’s interest there is oil and control—an unmistakable return to the logic of gunboat diplomacy. We see it in the assault on the Federal Reserve, capped by reckless and unfounded accusations against Jerome Powell. We see it in ICE parading through our streets, wielding fear and, in some cases, leaving death in its wake. We hear it in threats to take Greenland “one way or the other.” We see it in a feckless posture toward Russia amid the ongoing slaughter in Ukraine, and in a craven unwillingness to confront Netanyahu’s government in Israel. The pattern is unmistakable. The beat goes on. Congress has failed to meet this moment. Republicans in Congress, in particular, have abdicated their constitutional responsibility to assert the power of the purse and to ensure that appropriated funds are spent as the Constitution requires. The courts—especially the lower courts—have repeatedly ruled against these abuses. And still the administration presses forward, daring the system to stop it. This is not new in world history. We have seen before what happens when nations slide into the doctrine that “might makes right.” and a majority of the people put their faith in a proclaimed savior to right their grievances. We saw this in Japan and in Nazi Germany under Hitler, and in Fascist Italy under Mussolini. They taught the world that lesson in the 1930s and early 1940s, at an unspeakable cost. After World War II, chastened by catastrophe, we committed ourselves to a different path—building institutions to restrain power and preserve peace: the Marshall Plan, the European Common Market, and the architecture of a rules-based international order. But we grew complacent. We assumed these achievements were permanent. We enjoyed their benefits and mistook hope for vigilance. We failed to reckon honestly with the darker instincts that persist in people and nations alike—the urge to seize land, to dominate, to accumulate power simply because it can be taken. That time of complacency is over. Those of us who consider ourselves moderates can no longer content ourselves with watching events unfold from the sidelines. I applaud the citizens who have taken to the streets to protest ICE. I applaud Jerome Powell for stating clearly that he and the Federal Reserve will not be intimidated. I hope—and expect—that leaders of our cultural institutions, including Presidents of Universities and Lonnie Bunch of the Smithsonian, will say the same. I applaud arts organizations that have withdrawn from the Kennedy Center rather than allow their names to legitimize a cynical and politicized rebranding. There comes a moment when anger is not only justified but necessary. This is that moment. There is a time to speak plainly, without euphemism or apology. That time is now. What is happening cannot stand. Enough is enough. We have had enough. I hope and pray that not only our leaders, but men and women in every walk of life, recognize this for what it is: a direct threat to our democracy and to the way of life we have long cherished and pledged ourselves to defend. The time for detached intellectual rumination has passed. This is the moment for action—thoughtful, yes, but also relentless, courageous, and sustained. There is no other recourse.

It's All About Character

From the moment in 2016 when I first learned that Donald Trump was a candidate running for president, I called out his lack of CHARACTER. His lack of character has manifested itself in ways I never could have imagined, never more than in his inhumane commentary on the murders of Rob Reiner and his wife. I just finished re-watching Reiner's movie, "The American President". “For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was to a certain extent about character. And although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I’ve been here three years and three days. And I can tell you, without hesitation, being president of this country is entirely about character.” In 1995, Rob Reiner directed The American President, written by Aaron Sorkin. In the film, President Andrew Shepherd, a widower, is facing a challenge from Republican presidential hopeful Senator Bob Rumson, who attacks Shepherd by focusing on the activist past of the woman he is dating, lawyer and lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade. The final scene of the film is a speech by the president rejecting the pretended patriotism of his partisan attacker, who is cynically manipulating voters to gain power. It is a meditation on what it means to be the president of the United States. “For the record, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU,” Shepherd says to reporters at a press conference, “but the more important question is, why aren’t you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party’s most powerful spokesman, and a candidate for president choose to reject upholding the Constitution?” “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, ‘cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say: You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as a land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now, show me that. Defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.” “I’ve known Bob Rumson for years, and I’ve been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn’t get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t get it. Bob’s problem is that he can’t sell it. We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only, making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it. “That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.” “We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card.… This is a time for serious people, Bob, and your 15 minutes are up.”

Character First--Always

John Adams writing in 1765, more than a decade before Philadelpiam, 1776: "Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people who have a right to that knowledge and desire to know. But besides this, they have a right, an indistinguishable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge--I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers".

Truly Listening to and Understanding one Another--Including those Closest to Us

I am now 87 years of age. I was married to my dear late wife Francie for almost 58 years. We had a wonderful friendship and a wonderful marriage. We have four children, four wonderful spouses, and 10 amazing grandchildren. Yet, if you ask me what I've learned most since my wife passed away is how much of what she felt and experienced that I did not fully appreciate. As I have read journals that she wrote and a book she was compiling, which I will finish, I've learned, soberly, and sometimes regretfully that experiences which I saw as glowingly positive experiences were not always experienced the same way by Francie. This learning doesn't darken my appreciation of our years together. In fact it makes them even more wondrous as I recognize all she has done despite challenges along the way. This experience of learning what another person has experienced has also been brought to my life by stories of caregivers I have who are helping me. As I've learned their stories, I have learned of the tremendous challenges they have overcome. This has made built and extended my appreciation of the human spirit, the determination and ability to overcome obstacles, which, in the case of many of my caregivers have been significant. Why do I write this? I want to underscore a learning that I wish I had acted on better. The learning of how important it is to take the time to really hear and truly understand what other people are experiencing, including those who are closest to us. All this reminds me of two things: first, the most precious gift we give another person is our time. Second, everyone sees the world differently and it's important for us to try our best to understand how they see and experience it if we are to have the most empathetic relationship possible and convey the love we feel.

A Churchilian Moment--The Imperative of Standing Up for Ukraine--Unambiguousy

We (the West) must stand up unambiguously for the integrity of Ukraine. The recently tabled 28 point piece plan was a shamefully constructed document giving in to Russia demands. The US and Europe have stepped back from this in disarray,but we are still not declaring the absolutely essential end state for the peace agreement: a sovereign Ukraine, protected with an ironclad secutiry guarantee by the US and Europe. As I have written before, this will only happen by our inflicting greater punishment on Russia itself. We must demonstrate to Putin that he simply will not make further gains, and that we are prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure that he does not. We are going to need to accomplish this by providing all of the weapons that Ukraine needs, and allowing their used to penetrate Russian soil to inflict damage on military installations that are punishing Ukraine today. Putin will respond to nothing other than demonstrated force put into action. Some will object that this risk escalation. And it does. But conceding to Putin not only risks escalation, but guarantees it because we will not have a lasting peace. I recall a moment in the darkest days of May 1940 after the fall of France and with the British army at Dunkirk, and when the invasion of Britain seemed imminent. Lord Halifax and Chamberlain advocated discussions with Hitler modereated by Mussolini for peace. Church would not hear of it. He believed that any negotiation with Hitler would lead to national humiliation, loss of independence and eventual tyranny. He was prepared to fight on just as Ukrainians have been and are fighting on with daily loss of life. We cannot allow peace to occur on Putin's terms. They must be terms that Ukraine and the West and yes, Russia, accept as a reality and a guarantee of Ukraine sovereignty as a Nation.

If You See Something That Needs to be Done, Just Do It

I was recently given the high honor of being recognized with the International Freedom Conductor Award by the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. I was honored alongside Isabel Wilkerson, Toni Morrison, posthumously, and Lonnie Bunch. I follow in the footsteps of those who have received this honor, including Rosa Parks, Bishop Tutu and the Dalai Lama. While hardly feeling worthy of being in the company of these men and women, receiving this leads me to speak out at this moment. I could do so deeply fearing what is happening within our national government. The usurpation by the Executive Branch of the power of the purse assigned to Congress, the usurping by the Executive Branch of the powers to launch attacks that should be assigned to Congress. I could go on. However, I have come to see that is not what I really can focus on. I can focus on those few things within my own circle of influence that I can make a difference in, the individuals and the organizations. And those my wife believed in—the YWCA, Women Helping Women, the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative, and the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. I follow in the footsteps of my late wife, Francie, as she once said: “When you see something that needs to be done, just do it, and bring other people along with you. That’s important, bring other people along with you. Just do it, don’t stand back.” We cannot stand back. We must all do what we can to make the world at least a bit better place, to make at least a bit of a positive difference in someone else’s lives.

How Do We Ground Our Ethics

What is the Case for Grounding Ethics in Human Nature and Experience rather than Religion and Divine Commands Over the years, I have thought deeply about the basis for my ethical beliefs. To what extent is it based on my alignment with what Jesus preached, what Christianity is at its best (loving God and treating your neighbor as yourself) relative to the alternative of basing my ethical behavior on the realization that we as humans are “continuous with nature” and that, in the words of philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, having our behavior rooted in physical and social realities and observance of the importance of human relationships and dialogue. Feuerbach in his work, The Essence of Christianity (1841) advocated for a shift from God-centered to human-centered ethics. He promoted a new philosophy that made man, with the inclusion of nature as the foundation of man, “unique, universal and the highest object of philosophy.” He wanted to ground ethics in human nature and experience rather than divine commands. He argues that the concept of God is a projection of human qualities, something we have created. He advocated the pursuit of happiness but argued that, in pursuing that goal, it was necessary to recognize the importance of the happiness of others. This all raises the question. Is a secular, human-centered approach to ethics and morality one that can result in a more peaceful world and coexistence among peoples? We know that the pursuit of religion has often resulted in wars and there is no reason to feel that will end. Where do I come out on all of this? What have I personally found to be true? First, I take nourishment from viewing all of us as human beings as part of nature. It would be unrealistic to do otherwise. It’s a reality. But I also see no evidence that a nature-based human rights philosophy will, in fact, lead to a more peaceful world. What I have concluded is that there is no getting around the inherent human tendency to pit ourselves against and elevate ourselves relative to other people. It’s ego-driven selfishness; it’s inextricable. This tendency co-exists with beneficent instincts too. Our task is, in proverbial terms, to live by the better angels of our nature. What helps one do that? It will vary by individual, of course. For me, religion or, more precisely, the preaching of Jesus and what He stood for, which I find no different from the foundational principles of other religions, has been of enormous help. I recognize that this foundation may well be something I’ve created as a crutch to approve my behavior. I accept that. I have no problem with it. I plead guilty. As beguiling as the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach is, and perhaps intellectually correct in his assertion that God is a projection of man, and I do not retreat for a moment from my commitment to try to follow as best I can the preaching and actions of Jesus.