Reflections on the Meaning of Progressivism

In this week’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, the show’s host debated with Cornell West, the public intellectual and social activist.   Maher criticized West for creating a dangerous false equivalency between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which essentially encouraged progressive Americans either to vote for a third-party candidate or no candidate at all.  In the end, Maher claimed, lefties like West are responsible for the election of Donald J. Trump.   West, by contrast, indicated that while he always preferred candidate Clinton to candidate Trump, that doesn’t mean he should find her acceptable.  According to West, a progressive is obliged to speak out against Democratic candidates as long as they remain agents of the status quo, rather than finding solace in the fact that these individuals are less right-wing than their Republican rivals.

Score one for West.   If you are a progressive, you need to fight for the party you want, rather than settle for the so-called “lesser of two evils.”  You need to fight for authenticity.  You can’t satisfy yourself with limousine liberalism.  The Democratic party, West would contend, will continue to lose as long as its sole theme is “They’re Crazy and Evil. So Vote for Us.”  Democrats need to stand for, rather than against, something; and that “something” had better include a significant measure of change.  Hillary’s campaign did not clearly enunciate what significant transformation it was looking to make, and that – more than any other reason – is why she is not president today.

Allow me to channel West in a different context by moving forward in time by 48 hours – from Friday, when Maher’s show was taped and aired, to today.  Here we are on the verge of the first momentous foreign policy speech of Trump’s presidency.  He is in Saudi Arabia and is expected to talk about how America respects and honors Islam and hopes to work seamlessly with the Saudis and other Muslim regimes.  Yet surely, nanoseconds after he walks off the stage, mainstream liberal Americans, the ones who praised Hillary throughout her campaign, will return to their regularly-scheduled us-versus-them mockery.    Trump, they will claim, has shown himself to be a typical politician – saying one thing (bashing Islam) in front of his base, and the diametrically opposite thing (praising Islam) when traveling abroad.  Within hours, if not minutes, we’ll be watching montages of Trump’s greatest hits on the subject, showing a Muslim-bashing statement one moment followed by a Muslim-praising statement the next.   Here in Blue America, everyone will be in good spirits laughing at this Zelig of a President.   And, of course, the undercurrent of all this mockery will be a single theme: that Trump was elected by a group of stupid bigots who despise Islam as much as they love Trump, and who will rationalize today’s speech as an example of a shrewd businessman and statesperson sweet-talking his enemies into making the concessions that advance his blessed America-first agenda.

Like West, I am not here to defend what Trump has said about Muslims in the past.  Nor am I here to defend his base.  It consistently refuses to hold the President accountable for his words.  And let’s face it – that base is ridden with Islamophobia.   But the question is, for those of us who feel differently about Islamophobia – who wish to eradicate it as a scourge – is it enough simply to bash the Republican base and the politicians who cater to them?  Or do we have an affirmative obligation to embrace Islam and those who practice it?  In other words, is it appropriate to sit on our couches and mock candidate Trump for demagoguing on the issue or do we need to stick our necks out and publicize to our family and friends what is uniquely beautiful about Islam?  

I don’t always agree with Cornell West.  On the subject of Israel, for example, I would surely find myself to be far more on the Zionistic side of the spectrum.  But what I appreciate most about West is that he is an activist who fights FOR the social transformation he believes in, rather than simply fighting AGAINST the politicians he dislikes.  West has a vision of reform and he is looking to join with other change agents, rather than simply to join in mockery of those who would reform the world in the wrong direction.

On the issue of how the West must deal with Islam, I’ll be blunt: it isn’t enough to condemn Islam-inspired violence (which we must condemn) or to attack the scourge of Islamaphobia.  We must work together with our Muslim cousins on social causes and in fellowship activities.  Plus, we must dialogue with our Muslim cousins, exploring the many profound similarities among our respective faiths and cultures, and embracing the many profound differences among these faiths and cultures.  We must discern what makes Islam special – not just a tributary off the great “Judeo-Christian” river, but a faith that builds masterfully on its Jewish and Christian antecedents.  And we must study the challenges that Islamic extremism presents to the world – challenges that are in some respects far more stark and scary than the challenges we’re now experiencing from Jewish and Christian extremists.

Late in 2016, I helped to spearhead a new initiative in the Washington DC area that is known as JAM-AT:  Jews and Muslims Acting Together. Members of JAM-AT will be meeting this afternoon at a home in McLean Virginia with one goal in mind: to take Muslim-Jewish engagement in the greater Washington DC area to the next level.  

In contemplating today’s meeting, I have pictured Cornell West and Bill Maher attending such an event.   West, though a Christian, would fit in wonderfully.  He has great respect for both Judaism and Islam.    He would be what we in Muslim-Jewish circles refer to as an “Ally.”  And indeed, in the last JAM-AT meeting, everyone who was neither Jewish nor Muslim was asked to stand up so that we can applaud our “Allies” – who are invariably among the most righteous in the room.  

As for Maher, when I imagine him at a JAM-AT event, all I can envision is his discomfort and cynicism.  Most likely, he would view the rest of us as a bunch of stupid religious people, clinging to our primitive superstitions (or, in the case of Spinozist Jews like me, to our contorted rationalizations for embracing organized religion).  Maher has saved some of his meanest mockery for Islam.  He of all people can ill-afford to get on his high-horse and criticize President Trump for Islamophobia.

When I look at a Cornell West, for all our disagreements, I find a fellow traveler.   He loved Heschel as much as he loved King.  Indeed, he is a dreamer far more than he is a hater.    I’ll grant you that his rhetoric against mainstream politicians can be hyperbolic, but that is the way prophetically inspired progressives often speak.  At least I know that what he stands for is more important to him than what he stands against, and what he stands for above all else is universal human dignity.

If you find yourself inspired more by a Cornell West than a Bill Maher, then do me a favor.   Find a mosque in your area, pick a night when it is holding an Iftar that is open to the interfaith community, and break pita bread with them.  Next weekend, you see, is the start of Ramadan.  The Muslim community will be fasting from sun up until sun down throughout the month.  You don’t have to fast – just come one night and honor your hosts with your presence.  Come with an open mind, an open heart, and an empty stomach.  You will likely encounter some of the kindest, most generous people you’ll ever meet.  And if the alternative is to turn on cable TV and watch comedians pull out montages that mock Islamophobic politicians ... trust me, experiencing an Iftar is far better for your soul. 

[Note – The Empathic Rationalist will be on holiday during Memorial Day Weekend and will return on the first weekend of June.]

Mid-Term Grades for American Democracy

“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Six years ago, I quoted the above passage in this blog.  I cannot quote it enough.   Ironically, for all its wisdom, it contains one of the most patently false statements in the history of oratory, the clause that “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.”  Thankfully, the world has indeed noted what Lincoln said in Gettysburg in 1863; his entire Address has become immortalized, and for good reason.  Few can forget that it began with the words “Four score and seven years ago.”  But perhaps the Address’ most lasting portion is its ending – a plea that “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people [] shall not perish from the earth.”

I keep finding myself reflecting on those words.  As both a small “d” democrat and a small “r” republican, I feel that Lincoln was setting the standard by which a country’s governance should be judged.  Sometimes, I even envision him as one of my professors.  Lincoln is looking at me and all other future American citizens and proclaiming that we’ll be “graded” based on the extent to which our government truly measures up to the standard he has set – a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  It then becomes our job as students/citizens to assess our success level and actively work to ensure that failure is no longer tolerated.

I don’t know about you, but right now, I’d give us a failing grade.  And part of the problem is that while we may well remember the words Lincoln used, we seem to have forgotten what they mean and why they must be respected.

Let’s begin by analyzing the “of the people, by the people, for the people” formulation.  The first of these three phrases refers to the source of governmental power.   It was explained well by John Marshall in his famous Supreme Court opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland: “The government of the Union [...] is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit."

To further illustrate his point, Marshall could have pointed to the introduction to the Preamble to the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”   “We the people” are thus the source of our government’s power – not a work of Scripture nor a set of sovereign states, and certainly not a kingdom across the ocean, but “we the people.”   In this regard at least, I’d say that the American democracy is alive and well, for we haven’t seemed to have forgotten that the source of our government’s power resides in the citizenry.

Next, if you would allow me, I’d like to skip ahead for a moment to the third prong of Lincoln’s formulation, the idea that our government is “for the people.”  Now, we’re not talking about the source of governmental power but its beneficiary.  I hardly need to cite 17^th or 18^th century documents to explain this concept.  Indeed, every politician in Washington invariably claims that she acts for the betterment of “the people.”   Whether it’s the people of her district, state or nation, it’s always “the people” for whom she selflessly works.   Allegedly.

But do you really believe that’s true?  Do you really believe our politicians are consistently putting “the people” over their own party or their personal re-election chances?  Just look at the way they handle government scandals.  Whenever their party is in power, they become mum; by contrast, if the other party is in power, they become publicly outraged.  Is that what “the people” would want?   Or how about those times when Congress considers an extremely popular bill that everyone knows is going to fail because the lobbyists won’t let it succeed?  Consider, for example, gun-control legislation that is favored by 80-90 percent of “the people” but opposed by the highly-organized gun lobby.   Why do you think those measures fail?  Is it because our politicians believe that they are voting in the best interests of the (ignorant) public, or because they are taking care of their own hides?  To ask the question is to answer it.

I’ve saved for last the second item in Lincoln’s formulation: “by the people.”  Now, we’re not talking about the source or the beneficiary of government power but rather the agent of such power.   Who is doing the actual work of exercising political power?  A limited number of social or economic classes?  Or ALL the people?  My sense is that when it comes time to assigning grades, Professor Lincoln will place a special emphasis in this domain.  Why?  Because it is precisely by broadening political participation among all the people that we can best guarantee that our government will operate for the people in actuality, and not just in lip service. 

Fortunately, when it comes to grading us on our political participation, Prof. Lincoln would have actual facts and figures available to judge us.  And what he’d find is that we seem to be failing miserably.   Roughly nine of every 20 eligible Americans choose not to vote in presidential elections.  In mid-term elections, little more than one in three eligible Americans vote.  So even though we included the right to vote in the Constitution and amended that document four different times to extend that right, only a small portion of this country seems to feel strongly about exercising it.   If that’s not an F-U to Lincoln, I don’t know what is.

But don’t just blame the problem on “we the people.”  “They the Government” aren’t exactly encouraging the people to vote, now are they?  Recall that last Sunday the voters in France went to the polls.   Here in America, we vote on Tuesdays, and we don’t even get a day off from work.  It’s as if the powers-that-be are saying that “voting is a privilege, and we expect people to go out of their way to prove that they’re worthy of it.”   The result is anything but a government “by [all] the people.”  It’s a government by that portion of the people who tend to be relatively well-educated and well-heeled.  It’s not what Lincoln had in mind.

Personally, I think that there is no set of duties more sacred than those of citizenship.  Those duties include voting, but that’s just the beginning.  A citizen’s duties also include marching, canvassing, debate watching, poll watching, you name it.   Plus, they include taking stock in those societal forces that undermine civic interest and working to confront those forces.  I’d suggest that we all begin by focusing squarely and passionately on our woefully inadequate level of voting participation.  This needs to be addressed by our schools, our media, our government, and yes, by concerned private citizens like you and me.  And until this issue is addressed, we have to stop talking like we live in a functioning democracy or that “the majority” voted for this politician or that one. 

Somewhere up there, Professor Abe is waiting to grade us on how we respond to this voter-participation crisis.  And believe me, even for someone as kind as Honest Abe, 36 percent (the percentage of eligible voters who turned out for the 2014 mid-terms) merits an F.