Monday’s Mtg (5/1/23): Are we in a new “Age of Impunity” for rich and powerful elites?
A big thanks to Nick for hosting our Spring party on Sunday, April 30th. f you missed it, we might do something similar later this year, or we might organize some non-Monday restaurant dinners over the summer so we can socialize more.
This topic grew out of a major speech delivered in 2020 by David Miliband, the head of the International Rescue Committee (what is that?). The speech is here, and I linked to it and some commentaries on it below. He said what people around the world has been saying more and more in recent years and is now quantitatively measured each year in a global “Atlas of Impunity.” Around the world political and corporate and sometimes other elites are increasingly able and willing to act corruptly, expecting with good reason that they are above the law. Public accountability has been weakened or destroyed, and elite corruption and even mass violence go unpunished. I would add that IMO elites – certainly in the USA – increasingly exude a sense of entitlement and moral superiority to the rest of us.
I thought this would make a good topic for several reasons. First, people here and abroad widely believe it’s true. Economically, the USA is often said to be in a new Gilded Age. Politically? Well, Donald Trump’s presidency, our current Supreme Court, state govts like we discussed a few weeks ago, and the political control exercised by Big Finance and Big Tech sure have contributed to Age of Impunity beliefs. But it is about more than that, as we will discuss. Left and right usually define “out of touch elites” differently. But that they exist, and float merrily above accountability is a belief common to both sides – and to less ideological regular people.
Second, this alleged Age of Impunity is global in scope. The speech noted this. And to take just one example, the famous Panama Papers showed how unaccountable the world’s richest individuals are. As for governments, we learn regularly in the news about their impunity in Russia, China, Hungary, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other places.
Third, CivCon has talked often about many of the possible causes of elite impunity in recent years. 2023: The surveillance society created by and for corporations but used by many governments; undemocratic and unaccountable acts by red state Republican govts in FL, TX, TN, etc. 2022: Cancel culture; our “lawless” (Justice Kagan’s word) Supreme Court parts I and II. 2021: Critical race theory; GOP voter suppression; nations that still have gulags. 2020: How to rebuild U.S. democracy. 2019: How corrupt are U.S. politics/society? Plus, Putin’s Ukraine war, Russian fascism, China’s tightening control over its people, Big Tech, Big Finance, and on and on.
The last and most important reason for the topic, at least IMO, is this: This new Age of Impunity was not inevitable. In large part it was planned, or at least left to grow wild by complicit/indifferent political and corporate and news media leaders.
To frame our mtg, I will give a brief opening on Monday that will try to –
- Define what is meant by Age of Impunity (and criticisms that it is overstated).
- Give a few big examples, focusing on the USA.
- List briefly factors that are often cited as main causes of growing impunity for elites, e.g., technological change; monopolized economy; the rise of authoritarianism; U.S. political decisions, esp. to weaken democracy; a changing world order.
Here are some ideas (always optional!) for background readings. Some are lengthy so maybe try 1-2 of the recommended ones.
OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
A new global Age of Impunity?
- Reading one of these three would be helpful for Monday.
- The “Welcome to the Age of Impunity” speech. Notice the focus is global.
- A better and longer version at Foreign Affairs Magazine. Type in your email to read for free.
- A NYT op-ed about it.
The United States of Impunity?
- Politics:
- Congress + presidency are HIGHLY tilted towards the Republican Party, more so than in decades, because of gerrymandering, 2 Senate seats per state regardless of size, Electoral College, other reasons like a $$$ advantage.
- This insulated GOP is reversing our rights in a way not seen in half a century. Recommended, Atlantic Monthly, center-left, fact-based writer.
- How impunity has been manufactured step by step in the United States. Recommended.
- Of course, Democratic Party is hardly the people’s champion either, and Fed/state/local govts can be distant and hard to hold accountable.
- Business:
- The monopolization of our economy. Shorter version here.
- Big Tech lacks accountability.
What can be done?
- The Great Comeuppance? Do Trump’s and Putin’s indictments, Fox News lawsuit(s), Tucker’s firing, backlash against unpopular abortion bans, etc., mean accountability is pushing back?
- The U.S. news media has to do better at holding politicians accountable, and they are being shut out. Recommended.
- Globally, Biden should fight against impunity and for more accountability. Time Magazine.
NEXT WEEK (5/8/23): What was the best decade of your life and why?
(A break from the heavy stuff)
Monday’s Mtg (4/3/23): Do DeSantis’s Florida & other red state govts portend a radicalized Republican Party?
If you are not aware of what state-level Republican Party governments have been doing in the last two years – and especially in the last few months – you must be made aware. In American politics, today’s state-level political parties are tomorrow’s national leaders and agendas. State-level GOPs are radically changing American politics from the bottom up in the same way that President Trump and his allies in Congress seek to change it from the top.
I am sorry. At other times we have discussed the foibles and excesses of progressivism. (e.g., cancel culture here & here & here; Is Democratic Party too far left here, feminism’s failures here.) But a group with the name Civilized Conversation must speak openly and honestly about the disturbing evolution of the Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. Why?
First, state GOPs are implementing a truly radical agenda as we speak. It really is happening and it has only begun. This is not some liberal exaggeration of normal-level conservative policymaking. As I will explain and the articles below make crystal clear, Republicans in many of the 22 states where they have unified control of the whole government (inc. AZ, FL, IA, MO, OH, TN, TX) have embarked on a full-blown and coordinated effort to use the power of government to enforce their culture war views on the rest of us. The war so far has targeted education at all levels, public health (not just vax stuff), transgender and other LGBTQ rights, other civil rights, and even individual corporations that cross them. They also are continuing the assault on voting rights and the efforts to control voting rules and the election process.
This is not anything like the conservatism we are used to or that is advertised. It is not about small government, support for free enterprise, or advancing personal freedom (unless it is freedom to impose religious views on others). MAGA priorities rule state Republican parties.
Okay – if this is all true, then why isn’t it more widely-known and debated? Local press and specialized political websites have been covering these efforts as they happen. But the befuddled and distracted national news media will not put it together for us. As we have discussed several times, after more than a decade of creeping authoritarianism, the mainstream media still has no strategy for covering the Trumpian GOP.
Now conservatives – or at least most of them – see things differently, of course. To them, their representatives are just fighting back against progressive overreach. Liberal culture warrior politicians, infected by “wokeness” and/or anti-white or anti-American POVs, went out and changed education curricula, forced LGBT propaganda on their kids in order to “groom” them (not a joke), and dared to restrict individual liberty during a plague. They say it is all about restoring parental control over education, protecting children from immorality, preserving our true history, and fighting govt oppression of the coming white, conservative minority. Over 60% of Republican voters still believe that President Biden stole the 2020 election from Trump with massive voter fraud, so most support voting “reforms,” as well..
For our meeting, I think it is enough just to become aware of what is happening in these red states and how it fits into the dividing of America. Why the Right is choosing this path is where the controversy begins. With questions to debate like, who is in charge of the GOP now, and is choosing power over democracy (aka authoritarianism) just a passing phase for the GOP.
IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR COUNTRY’S FUTURE, YOU MUST FACE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, now dominated by its MAGA base, AS IT IS, not as you remember it or may want it to be. IMO at least, conservatism is honorable and its tenets deserve respect, if it stands for something other than revenge and power to control others.
To open on Monday, I will list the main areas (edu, repro rights, LGBT, civil rights, voting) of this new state-level culture war and voting war. I will emphasize changes that have become law already, and describe what more is planned that we know of. Then we can debate.
If you want a head start on the facts, I highly recommend reading some of the recommended backgrounders.
OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
The big picture –
- #1 most useful summary: It was obvious a year ago – Red states are pursuing the most aggressive culture war and anti-democratic agenda in a century. Cumulative effect staggering.
- The big picture of why this is happening: Constitution biased in favor of minority rule and conservatives have always preferred it.
Selected states –
- Florida:
- Recommended. A FL newspaper lists all that Governor DeSantis/GOP have done. Add universal school vouchers now, too.
- Of special importance: His campaign to make it easier to sue the news media out of existence.
- Texas:
- New bills to shrink electorate and let GOP overturn Houston’s entire 2024 vote. Stunning.
- Legendary official platform of the Texas GOP briefly described.
- Iowa has just taken a hard right turn.
- WA, OR, ID: Fringe groups (militias, white nationalists, anti-vax) have formed an alliance to run for local offices – and some are winning.
A few special issues –
- Birth control: Some GOP states are already targeting it.
- Race in education: States that have banned/limited teaching “critical race theory,” whatever it is. Recommended.
- Transgender rights: A secretive group is coordinating the attacks.
Conservative POV –
NEXT WEEK (4/10/23): What are Americans’ worst misconceptions about the rest of the word and vice versa?
Monday’s Mtg (3/13/23): The Surveillance Century, Part II – Government surveillance.
On February 6th we discussed the “Surveillance Century,” We devoted all of the mtg to the almost purely private sector origins of our now omnipresent (and increasingly omniscient) mass surveillance system. The background readings for the mtg and my introduction tried to make the case that Google/Alphabet, Facebook/Meta, Apple, and a handful of other Big Tech firms have created something brand new: A system that is moving towards virtually constant on-line and off-line surveillance of our daily lives. This is an unprecedented new kind of power, highly concentrated. Especially after it is fully married to AI, surveillance capitalism potentially will be owners and the sole arbiter of a huge capability to monitor us and predict and probably manipulate our behavior for their private profit.
At the meeting, I think a lot of people thought we were talking about targeted advertising, or something benign. Maybe this thesis is overwrought – or at least premature. And yes, we get many benefits from a wired world.
Fine. Now, try imagining that this hyper-concentrated private surveillance apparatus gets merged with government’s law enforcement and national security powers. Worried now? You should be, from what I have read.
The key to understanding why is to forget the debates about govt spying that sprung up right after 9/11. Secret warrants, NSA hoovering up our meta-data, and so forth still matter because they still abuse their power. (See article below on this.) But increasingly it is OBE, replaced by governments that just plug into or purchase the new tools for total surveillance that we have let the private sector create completely in secret already and outside of constraint by law or oversight or regulation.
Governments, including ours, are already doing it. China’s surveillance state is the most advanced and totalitarian-like, by all accounts. But it is exporting the tools of mass surveillance control to other countries. “Digital authoritarianism” is being built in Vietnam, Iran, and many other nations. As discussed below, there also is a huge private global spyware sector, and some of its leading firms have few scruples about who they sell to.
Governments in the USA use some of these tools. Which ones and how extensively we do not fully know. Law enforcement and immigration enforcement agencies appear to be in the lead. More is coming. Every week it seems new revelations about U.S. govt surveillance abuses come out, even if no one seems to care.
Let’s do our part to change that. On Monday I will give some short opening remarks to try to convey the immense scope and scale of what governments and corporations are doing in the mass surveillance realm, often in concert. Then we can discuss it.
I listed a bunch of optional readings below, just to be thorough. But the first two will suffice to get you a bit up to speed. I also attached a “Guide to protecting yourself” for your personal protection against this stuff. It is from a highly reputable source.
A FEW MORE OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
Recommended key articles –
- Worldwide: The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism. Recommended.
- USA: Mass surveillance in USA is growing FAST, especially in policing, immigration, and against dissident groups – like BLM. Recommended.
USA –
- Mexican-U.S. border is a surveillance state testing ground.
- USA and other democracies are tracking your social media use more and more.
- Post 9/11 U.S. surveillance regime badly needs reform and respect for civil liberties.
Globally –
- China’s totalitarian surveillance state: Short summary And China has exported it around the world.
- Beyond China, an unchecked global spyware Industry sells to practically anybody. Russia’s surveillance state has expanded since the war. Iran has one, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, others.
Different POVs and practical advice –
- Another POV: The coming total surveillance society will have many benefits, like much less crime and terrorism, fewer pandemics, and better urban planning.
- What about the authoritarianism, and the way private surveillance companies manipulate our politics?
- Your Surveillance Self-Defense Guide.
NEXT WEEK (3/20/23): Who really benefits from U.S. foreign aid?
Monday’s Mtg, Part II: More on the surveillance century.
See Part I post, below, for the origin of this topic idea and the extraordinary accusations that have been leveled against Big Tech and the alleged new stage of “Surveillance Capitalism” they have foisted upon us largely in secret and without any public debate or legal constraint. Having all of the public attention and alarm about mass surveillance be about government snooping misses a big part of the problem.
This Part II post gives up and links to some articles on the (very real!) threat of government surveillance – although I still hope we can focus Monday on the enormous, unchecked private power that created the “Surveillance Capitalism” that threatens our privacy and autonomy. One author has dubbed it “Big Other,” in contrast to Big Brother. Big Brother deserves its own meeting, IMO.
Here also are some easier/shorter explanations of different aspects of Big Other, and some that scratch the surface of the govt surveillance threat.
*** We have 20 people signed up this week because the topic is so important, and there is still a wait list. Please cancel if you’re out and be ready to keep your remarks brief and concise.
A FEW MORE OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
- How did they collect all this data from users to build their behavior prediction algorithms? By lying.
- Workplace surveillance gets no attention, but it is bad and COVID accelerated it. Recommended.
- Key point but too long to read: Surveillance’s harm concentrates on the poor and the powerless.
- Government surveillance:
- Serious abuse in USA, especially by police and immigration enforcement. Recommended.Post 9/11 surveillance regime badly needs reform and respect for civil liberties.
- CHINA’s totalitarian surveillance state is terrifying. See quick summary or long analysis + threat of it spreading around the world. Perhaps we could save this big horror for our next mtg on surveillance, TBD.
NEXT WEEK (2/13/23): What makes a marriage or long-term relationship last?
Monday’s Mtg, Part I: The Surveillance Century.
Over the course of 600+ CivCon meetings, there are a handful that I am very proud of because they introduced vital topics that few people know anything about. I hope Monday’s meeting will be one of them. Because of this topic’s importance there will be two pre-mtg posts this week (although not a lot of readings). Also, I envision having a second meeting on surveillance soon (maybe in March) that will focus more on the metastasizing surveillance by governments problem. But since private corporations invented this stuff, our first meeting will focus on them.
In 2019, a Harvard professor and expert on the evolution of the computer age published a pathbreaking book: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. In it, Shoshana Zuboff argued that the surveillance industry invented by Google, Facebook, and a few other major companies in (merely!) the last 20 years is not what we think it is. The parts of it we see or assume exist – and the purposes to which they are put – are just the tip of a massive, deliberately-hidden iceberg that is or soon will be put to far more sinister purposes. This vast technological system is so revolutionary that it amounts to a new stage of capitalism. I just finished the book. It has been called the Silent Spring of the computer era.
To Zuboff, surveillance capitalism is not just about vacuuming up our on-line personal data, feeding it into “predictive algorithms,” and selling the results to advertisers. Google and Facebook invented that as far back as 2005-10. Zuboff’s thesis is that we have or soon will have reached the point of almost total, real-time surveillance of our daily lives – on and off-line. Worse, Big Tech and their customers use all of this data to try to perfect the means to induce us to modify our behaviors to make their predictions more certain and thus more profitable. Development of this Third Age of Modernity, as she calls it, has been developed mostly in secret and outside of legal or democratic control.
Oh, and the Internet is disappearing. That is, it’s disappearing as a place you can log into and out of. Thanks to ubiquitous and interconnected sensors in your phone, your car, your home (Alexa, your smart thermostat, etc.), surveillance at work, and even outdoors in what were once public spaces, your real life is now tracked in real time much of the time, and without your knowledge or consent. Biometric sensors monitor your pulse and hormone levels. “Social metric” technologies (like facial recognition software) help AI understand how humans interact and how to profit off of it.
Zuboff calls this system Big Other, a play on Orwell’s Big Brother.
Now, her book is not gospel, of course. She may overstate how effectively people’s behavior can be controlled by subtle social ques calculated by machine learning. (Although ask any teenager about social media’s power to spur conformity). There are more benign takes on what has been happening, and democracy can fight back against hyper-concentrated private and public power, as it has before and may be starting to do in this realm. But you can see why it is so important to understand the basics of modern surveillance before we can intelligently discuss where it might take us.
Please try to read at least one of the major reviews of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, listed below. Tomorrow or Friday at the latest I will do another post that expands on this topic and shares other POVs. I will open our meeting on Monday by outlining what I have learned about our privately-run surveillance state. We have some members who work in this or a related field. Hopefully we can lean on their expertise.
OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
Surveillance Capitalism, Surveillance Society –
- Must-read review(s) of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism:
- Los Angeles Review of Books. Best summary.
- New York Review of Books. Best review + more critical, but requires a free one-time registration to read.
- A shorter review at The Guardian.
- Rebuttal POVs:
- This is overwrought. The big worry is if Big Tech turns its surveillance tools over to governments. (They are BTW, all over the world. See here.)
- Short: Surveillance on a large scale is here already and has many, many benefits. The key is IDing real harms, regulation in the public interest, and rule of law.
- Tomorrow’s post will have alt POVs and shorter takes on key details.
- Abusive government surveillance is a massive, growing problem both here and abroad. Imagine if it is fully merged with private capabilities. That deserves its own meeting, IMO. In March, maybe.
NEXT WEEK (2/13/23): What makes a marriage or long-term relationship last?
Monday’s Mtg (1/16/23): How has the meaning of freedom evolved throughout U.S. history?
We have had some great history topics, and this could be another one. One POV is that what “freedom” in the United States means and who is entitled to it has been the central struggle of American history.
Maybe. Certainly, freedom’s meaning has always been highly contested, including right now, in some fundamental ways. How could it be otherwise? Contrary to political folk wisdom, the definition and boundaries of liberty were not fixed in 1791. If the Founders had intended that the Constitution would have spelled out in much more detail what those “freedom of speech,” “due process,” “cruel and unusual” punishment, and dos on, meant. The Constitution also would have declared its list of rights and privileges to be exhaustive, instead of saying the opposite in the 9th Amendment. And why would the Founders create a republican form of government if they did not believe future generations could think for themselves and adapt the Constitution to new circumstances and new consensuses?
With the meaning of freedom constantly at issue, Civilized Conversation has debated the subject many times. (Several are listed, below.) But we have not focused much on the history of those struggles, and what that history might teach us about our ongoing bitter wars over reproductive freedom, religious liberty, immigrant rights, gun control, voting rights, corporate power, consumer rights, etc.
As we discussed at one such meeting, the story of American freedom is a more complex story than most of us assume. It has not been a simple, linear march towards greater and greater liberty, or even a story of a fixed set of freedoms being extended to new groups of Americans. Rather, (says a major historian) each American era sees its consensus on freedom’s meaning challenged. It gets defended, and a revised definition – usually more expansive, but not always – evolves.
I will open our Monday meeting with something short, even though this topic is broad and lately I have been reading a lot about the expansion and contraction of rights in U.S. history and the evolution of freedom’s meaning. There are many ways to categorize types of freedom or liberty. I will use
- Political freedom: Democracy, representation, political equality, voting rights, free speech, equal protection under the law.
- Economic freedom: Property rights, economic/biz regulation. Worker rights like wages + collective bargaining. Social rights like to an education, good job, health care.
- Cultural freedom: Religious freedom. Civil rights. Discrimination. Respect.
These are not all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. But, again, the Constitution did not limit the types and amounts of freedom future generations could provide one another. (Okay, they did within limits.).
Don’t let a little rain stop you from coming out to debate/learn about the most important idea in American history.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What are the different “types” of freedom: Political freedom, economic, cultural? Religious, speech, privacy, family autonomy, etc.?
- Past: How has the definition of freedom changed throughout American history? Founding era. Antebellum/Civil War. Industrial/Gilded Age. 20th century pre-WWII. Post-war + civil/equal/LGBT rights era. Conservative backlash era (aka today)?
— When were some freedoms prioritized over others, ignored altogether, or contrived?
— What lessons about what triggers eras of expanded freedoms – and their backlash? - Today: What have the freedom wars of the last 30 years been all about?
— Who won? Next phase?
— Was extreme polarization a cause or an effect of all this?
— Age of Trump and rising authoritarianism. - Liberal vs. Conservative Freedom: What do you think is the current liberal or progressive definition of freedom? Your critique? Conservative freedom: Same.
- Public opinion: How do most regular Americans define freedom? Broad agreement or polarization? How different from Lib, Con, Prog versions?
OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
Best overall summaries –
- Excellent summary of freedom’s centrality in American history and when and how its meaning evolved. Recommended.
- How the freedom of the frontier became fear requiring a wall. Recommended.
- There are five basic ways to view liberty. Conservative POV, but long.
Opposing philosophies/ideologies of freedom –
- How Liberals can reclaim the idea of liberty from the Right. Nice, but 2010.
- Freedom from vaccines; Trump-inspired freedom. Atlantic Monthly.
- Libertarian freedom: Few Americans really want to live in that world. Long.
Public opinion –
- Which freedoms do Americans value the most?
- 60% of us say we feel very free. But it varies a lot by income, race, and, for some, if the other side is in political power. Too long to read, but FYI.
KEY Related CivCon mtgs –
- 2014: Do Americans agree on what freedom means?
- 2019: Can Liberals reclaim the ideas of freedom and patriotism?
- 2022: The Supreme Court’s plan to roll back (or right-size, YMMV) our constitutional rights.
NEXT WEEK (1/23/23): How are the standards of adult femininity and sexuality changing?
Monday’s Mtg (1/2/23): What if the states convened a constitutional convention?
As is widely known our Constitution is almost impossible to amend. It can be done only in one of two highly difficult to accomplish ways. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress can approve an amendment to be sent on to the states. If three quarters of states (38 of 50 today) approve it the amendment is ratified and becomes part of the Constitution.
This is such a high hurdle that in our 230+ year history, Congress has only sent 33 proposed amendments to the states, and only 27 of them were ratified. These include the first ten-amendment Bill of Rights, which was ratified as part of a package deal to get the states to agree to the original Constitution. Most of the significant ones among the other 17 amendments added since then followed enormous and often violent political and social changes. Post-Civil War amendments ended slavery (13th), promised equal protection under the law (14th), and protected voting rights (15th). The progressive era culminated in the income tax amendment (16th), direct election of senators (17th), and women’s’ suffrage (19th). The last significant constitutional amendment was in 1971 (!), when the 26th Amendment gave 18–20-year-old Americans the vote.
The second way to change the Constitution has never been tried: The states could hold a constitutional convention. (Okay, technically it was done before – in Philadelphia in 1787 when they wrote the original). Under Article V, Congress must approve a convention of the states if 2/3 of them vote to have one. But any amendments arising from such a meeting would also have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Either way of amending our Constitution seems almost unachievable, especially in this age of hyper-partisanship.
So, why talk about it? Three reasons, IMO. First and as we have discussed, some political experts on both the right and left have concluded that the Constitution is part of the problem. They say it makes our political system too easy to paralyze; or is too undemocratic; or gives too much or too little power to the president, Supreme Court, or Congress. Its meaning is often obscure and vague. It omits social rights like a right to an education or housing. It makes it too easy or too hard to spend money or raise taxes. Etc.
Second, and more urgent IMO. Investigative journalists have discovered that the right-wing of the Republican Party is far more interested in a constitutional convention than previously thought. The GOP has been engaged in a highly organized, well-funded, and largely secretive campaign to bring one about. One aim is to get state legislatures to pass resolutions calling for one (nothing wrong with that). Another is to write the convention’s rules to be stacked in favor of conservatives, virtually shutting out opposition (lots wrong with it). As I will explain, the amendments this movement is advocating sound anodyne and good governmentish, but they are highly ideological and would enshrine that ideology in our founding charter. Oh, and they will be backed by a slick PR campaign. They need two-thirds (34) of the states to get their convention, and they only have around 20-22 so far. But the GOP controls close to 30 state legislatures and the scheme is supported by top-tier Republican leadership. Doubtful, but it could happen. Some progressives are pushing a constitutional convention, but most Democrats oppose the idea as too risky.
A third reason for Monday’s discussion is that CivCon’s constitutional meetings usually help illuminate our political values and priorities and put them on the table to be discussed openly. Debating what the Constitution is for and what “ought” to be in it but isn’t might be a useful lens to peer through.
I will open our meeting on Monday by describing different ways a state constitutional convention could play out, if one were to happen. The GOP scheme is just one way. Then I will highlight a few of the more important constitutional changes that Left and Right (and regular Americans, maybe?) believe would improve our Constitution. From there, we can discuss pros and cons and the philosophy behind reforming (or “reforming”) our founding document by rewriting it, rather than by just reinterpreting it, as has been the norm for 2+ centuries.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Part of the problem? Does the Constitution make it harder to address our country’s major problems? How? How do progressives and conservatives differ on this? Why not just pass laws to solve them rather than open this can of worms?
- A State Convention. How close are we to a constitutional convention of the states? What would such a proceeding look like? Who would run it and under what rules/constraints?
- Fixes or a freak show? Would a convention be a serious effort to update archaisms in our founding document, or an embarrassing display of extremism and dysfunction?
- Amendments: What kind of amendments might a convention recommend? Could any stand a chance of approval in 38 states? Could the public/legislators be fooled into passing amendments that enshrine ideology but pose as common-sense reforms?
- Lessons: Can CivCon learn anything useful about our country’s problems and its political paralysis from pondering who/how might change the Constitution?
OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
Problems with the Constitution –
- Must-read #1 on the Constitution and our political system’s flagging legitimacy.
- Our undemocratic Constitution. (Progressive POV – 10 years before Trump).
Article V – state constitutional conventions
Analyses/opinions –
- Must-read #2: There’s a big $$$, highly-organized GOP plan to bring about a right-wing dominated constitutional convention. Long. Short summaries here or here.
- States Likely Could Not Control a Constitutional Convention.
- Trump proves the Constitution makes it too hard to remove an unfit president.
- FWIW: Some progressive scholars wrote a revised Constitution as an intellectual exercise. Here is a brief bulleted summary.
- Conservative POVs:
- A convention is a bad idea.
Related CivCon mtgs:
- 2020: Has Trump’s presidency revealed flaws in the Constitution?
- 2017: The Constitution – Not Democratic Enough or Too Democratic?
- 2012: How Would you Change the Constitution?
NEXT WEEK (1/9/23): What is your worldview? What formed it?
Monday’s Mtg (12/12/22): Is arms control still relevant?
A big preoccupation in the second half of the 20th century was to prevent horribly destructive wars like those that occurred in the century’s first half. Arms control was one of the tools used to do so. Arms control consists of treaties or agreements between nations or groups of nations to limit the “research, development, production, fielding, or employment of certain weapons, features of weapons, applications of weapons, or weapons delivery systems.”
Arms control was tried in many areas. Nuclear arms control used all those familiar acronyms like SALT and START (+ less familiar ones) to reduce deployed U.S. and Soviet launchers and warheads, destructive power, testing, and their spread to non-nuclear states. CivCon member Fred worked to help monitor a major such treaty that banned a class of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe in the 1980s. Treaties ban biological and most chemical weapons; and prohibit the sale of “dual-use” (civilian and military uses) technologies, notably missile technology, to all or sometimes certain countries. Treaties limit land mine use and ban cluster bombs, and there is even an agreement to try to stanch the flow of small arms to conflict-ridden nations.
Did and does arms control work? That is Big Question #1 for us. Some agreements probably have helped to keep the peace and reduce wars’ destruction. Others failed. Others it is hard to say. Whether deterrence works and why are hard to measure – how do you prove why something didn’t happen?
Question #2 concerns the future of arms control. The world is entering a dangerous new age that, IMO, will make us very vulnerable to great power wars. Historically, multipolar periods full of rising and falling powers have led to arms races and wars first, arms control later. The arms races (or rebalancing?) have started. China plans to quintuple its nuclear arsenal by the 2030s, and no treaty prohibits it. Both China and Russia are deploying hypersonic cruise missiles. Many nations have their own drones, cyberwar capability, and AI. Artificial Intelligence might soon play key roles in deciding when to start and how to wage wars. Would you like to play a game?
Another obstacle, aside from nations jockeying for position, starts at home. The last two Republican Presidents have pulled us out of four major arms control agreements, and the new and imporved GOP seems to oppose arms control in principle. (Presidents Obama and Biden used it, notably getting a nuke agreement with Iran – before Trump pulled us out! Yet Obama and Biden are spending trillions to modernize our nuclear forces.)
So, is arms control still relevant, Y/N? I fear it is 1950 or 1960 again; i.e., shortly before major crises broke out that led to brutal wars or almost killed, BUT also spurred the world to take controlling WMD seriously. Could we maybe skip the terrifying crises first this time? Or is arms control not practical anymore in a multipolar world with an aggressive Russia and China and so many early-stage military technologies?
I’ll open Monday’s mtg by listing major arms control agreements that are still in force, emphasizing a few key ones that either have worked very well or will soon expire. Then, an analytical point or two, since I used to know a bit about this field. Then…
FRED: I will turn to you to ask about two ingredients for arms control: Mutual incentives and mutual trust. What factors lead antagonists to try arms control, and what can overcome their mistrust that the other side will honor an agreement?
Note: Good links are hard to come by here; either too narrow or technical/long. Try the few recommended ones.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What major arms control bilateral/multilateral treaties and agreements are in force right now?
- Have they worked? Did they do any harm? Lessons learned?
- What has changed this century to make arms control either more or less urgent?
- More/less difficult?
OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
Nuclear and other arms control –
- Ukraine war will either usher in a new age of arms control, or end the existing one. Recommended. Or: Mounting nuclear threats while we’ve fixated on Russia.
- Nukes: 1-pagers on ABCs of New START the last remaining strategic nuclear weapons treaty, nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Fred’s Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty.
- 1-pagers on biological weapons and chemical weapons arms control.
- 1-Pager Missile Technology Control Regime.
New Technologies –
- How Emerging Technology Is Breaking Arms Control. Recommended.
- Cyberwar arms control: It would be very hard to negotiate a treaty, but not impossible. (Long, 2016)
Related CivCon mtgs –
- 2018: Will technology make war too easy?
- 2018: Will nuclear war remain unthinkable?
- 2015: Cyber Security Threats and Responses
NEXT WEEK (12/19/22): Deism – Is religion meaningful without a God that intervenes in the world? [e.g., miracles, answers prayers, punishes the wicked.]
Monday’s Mtg Part 2 (10/17/22): Understanding CA’s November 2022 ballot propositions.
See the next post down for more details on Monday’s mtg on this November’s statewide ballot propositions. That post gives background on four of them: Prop. 1, 26, 27, and 28. This post covers the other three. We will do them in numerical order. Per Ballotpedia’s language these last three are:
Prop 29: Enacts staffing requirements, reporting requirements, ownership disclosure, and closing requirements for chronic dialysis clinics.
Prop. 30: Increases the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicates revenue to zero-emission vehicle projects and wildfire prevention programs.
Prop. 31: Upholds the ban on flavored tobacco sales.
John M. will introduce Prop. 30; DavidG the other two. As I mentioned in the last post, if we can do all seven props in order in 15 minutes each, we will have ½ an hour let to discuss the many other items on the ballot, including some important local races.
FYI, Key Dates –
Oct. 24th – Last day to register on-line to vote.
Oct 29 – In-person voting begins.
Nov 1 – Deadline to request a NEW vote by mail ballot.
Nov 8 – Election Day and last day to return (postmarked) your mail-in ballot.
PROPOSITIONS OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
Proposition 29: Dialysis clinic regulations
- Ballotpedia summary. Official arguments For/Against in voter summary guide. These might be enough for most people and most props.
- Support: San Diego UT! YesOn29 group.
- Opposed: LA Times (limited free page views). Mercury News and many others.
- Back story: A bit about why dialysis clinic props are always on the ballot.
- Note: Even if you are sick of dialysis props, how else can a duopoly with sympathetic clientele be induced to unionize?
Prop. 30: Income Tax Increase for electric vehicles.
- Ballotpedia summary or Cal Matters.
- Support: YesOn30.org. SPUR (a left-of-center Bay area urban planning org.)
- Opposed: Governor Newsome. NoOn30 group.
- Note: John M. might add a link or two.
Prop. 31: Uphold our ban on flavored tobacco retail sales
- Ballotpedia sum.
- Note: Voting Yes on 31 means keeping in place a ban on selling flavored tobacco products in CA. No vote is to overturn the ban because it is a vote to *enact* a proposed law to do so. Yes = Keep ban. No = Kill ban. Ain’t politics fun?
- Support 31: YesOn31 group. American Cancer Society.
- Oppose 31: OC Register. Reason Magazine (Libertarian).
NEXT WEEK (10/24): What makes a Cold war turn hot?
Monday’s Mtg, Part I: Understanding CA’s statewide November’s ballot propositions.
Every election we do a meeting on ballot choices, usually focusing on the statewide propositions. But first…
FYI, Key Dates –
Oct. 24th – Last day to register on-line to vote.
Oct 29 – In-person voting begins.
Nov 1 – Deadline to request a NEW vote by mail ballot.
Nov 8 – Election Day and last day to return (postmarked) your mail-in ballot.
Luckily, we only have seven statewide props this year. As Linda pointed out last meeting, this year’s ballot has a lot else on it and it would be nice to get to some of it. Other choices include U.S. and CA senate and house/assembly races, various statewide offices, 16 judicial retention elections, 2 competitive judicial elections, and a school board and county sheriff race. Plus, suburban city races. With so much to cover we may need the full two hours.
(But starting in two weeks on October 24th I will experiment with a new idea: I will gavel CivCon meetings closed at 8:45pm, at least formally. Since Panera now closes at 9pm sharp, stopping at 9:00 exactly makes for a frantic closing few minutes and leaves us no time to socialize. I will alert us when it’s 8:30, so we can clear the board of hands already up and others can prepare any final comments. Also, I will try to start mtgs sooner than 7:10, which has become the norm lately. If this doesn’t work, we can go back to 9:00.)
This post covers only props 1 and 26-27-28. A post covering 29-30-31 will go up Friday. The seven are, per Ballotpedia’s language:
Prop 1: Provides a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom, including the right to an abortion.
26: Legalizes sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California.
27: Legalizes mobile sports betting and dedicates revenue to the California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account and the Tribal Economic Development Account.
28: Requires funding for K-12 art and music education.
29: Enacts staffing requirements, reporting requirements, ownership disclosure, and closing requirements for chronic dialysis clinics.
30: Increases the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicates revenue to zero-emission vehicle projects and wildfire prevention programs.
31: Upholds the ban on flavored tobacco sales.
Chet has volunteered to lead the discussion of Props. 26 and 27, and John M. will do so for Prop. 30. Thanks, guys! That leaves me with 1, 28, 29, 31. I propose we discuss them in numerical order, to make it easier to follow. Our 5-minute introductions for each prop will focus on:
- What does the prop. mean + do/not do + what does a Y/N vote mean? Also: Does it need a majority or supermajority to pass?
- Why is this on the ballot: Who put it there, why, whose money and agenda/hidden agenda are behind it and against it, etc.?
- Pros and Cons on the merits and/or from different POVs.
- Deceptions/lies, if any: In wording, intent, impacts (who benefits/loses), and advertising if we’ve seen any.
I think 15-minute discussions might be enough for each, although we can go longer. 7 x 15 = hour and a half, so that would leave us time to go over some of the other key races.
OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READINGS –
Proposition 1: Reproductive rights added to CA Constitution.
- Ballotpedia summary. Or official voter guide arguments for/against. These might be enough for most people and most props.
- Support: San Diego UT. LA Times.
- Opposed: No On 1 website. Fox News article covering religious Californians’ opposition.
Prop. 26: Legalizes sports betting at Indian casino + racetracks.
- Ballotpedia sum + official voter guide arguments.
- Support: Op-ed in (but not by) San Diego UT. Cal Matters (A progressive site).
- Opposed: Mercury News. NRDC (progressive Natl Resource Defense Council).
Prop. 27: Legalizes mobile sports betting + some $$ for homeless/mental illness
- Ballotpedia sum + voter guide arguments.
- Yes on 27, official site.
- No. No on 27 – get the facts.
- No on both 26 and 27: LA Times says we don’t need more easy gambling.
Prop. 28: K-12 art and music education mandate.
- Ballotpedia sum + League Women Voters guide.
- Support: CaliforniaChoices.org.
- Opposed: There is no organized opposition to 28. But it’s “ballot box budgeting.” Forces CA to spend $1 billion on K-12 arts/music even in a severe budget crisis when other edu things might deserve higher priority.
Next post: Pros 29, 30, and 31.
NEXT WEEK (10/24): What makes a Cold war turn hot?
Civilized Conversation 
Recent Comments