Frank's Musings

The U.S. Constitutional democratic system was not created by religious faith, nor vice versa. It expressly prohibits its use to enforce religious dogma.

The definition of a political or biological life is not the same as a faith-based definition of life. Therefore, Constitutional regulation of life termination must rely on secular laws or popular consensus. The American custom is, indeed, to rely on sovereign states for the determination of public opinion on most personal issues. Each state may select its own criteria for making that determination, as long as it is not based on religious dogma. But if the popular will in a state is, in fact, shaped, even only in part, by faith, is that not a Constitutional issue?

The Constitutional issue here is not the right to life of a fetus. The issue is the right of a religious group to impose its cultural mores on others. Other citizens have different views on the issue of abortion that do not prevent the achievement of the goals of the Constitution, which can be summarized as the promotion of the general welfare.

Murder of society’s members certainly contradicts that goal. However, the Constitution can only recognize at most a potentially (not hypothetically) autonomous human being as one of society’s members. That makes abortion’s effect on Constitutional life a matter of science, not faith—exactly as specified by Roe vs. Wade.

Codifying the abortion standard in that USSC decision would likely give rise to another legal challenge. With luck a majority of the Court will be harder to find for overturning such a law

Ultimately, the Constitution guarantees that individuals who hold as a matter of faith that life begins at conception cannot be compelled to disregard that belief, e.g. by being forced to abort a fetus, no matter how premature.  On the other hand, the Constitution does guarantee a mother’s right to abort a non-viable fetus, which is not biologically able to exist autonomously, until it is biologically able to live autonomously as a protected member of society, even if only through medical intervention. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion; and that means a religious belief in the beginning of life at conception cannot be imposed on anyone in the country.

The 10/16/2022 NYT article describing the New Generation of Combat Vets sees their rightward drift as a lesson learned from their service experience. They mistake Trumpist distaste for international engagement, including defending liberal democracy abroad as well as recognizing our dependence on the benefits of immigration, as principled and patriotic policies. In fact, Trump champions those views only as a way to divert attention from any other cause than his own publicity. In his mind, there is no such thing as bad policy; he only desires any way to keep attention on himself, regardless of its effect on the national interest.

The availability of all the texts exchanged between the January 6 Capitol assaulters evidencing their rebellious intentions shows that they wanted to document their “historic” role in overthrowing the government. For that matter, their leader, Donald Trump, has likewise made no effort to conceal his actions to reverse the results of the 2020 election.

Bragging about their Constitutional violations displays their belief that they were answering a higher rule of conduct—Natural Law, not human-created convention. Their intention to serve their personal interests at the cost of societal order directs their behavior. That is the same compulsion that drives schoolyard bullies; it also justifies revolutions.

Resentment of the requirements of civil society is the principal driver of the modern world’s right-wing movements and has transformed the American Republican Party. The danger in the surge of “Trumpism” is that it eradicates the function of institutions to regulate society’s expectations.

When Donald Trump won the US presidency, some of us were unconcerned because of our faith in our government of institutions— “the rule of law.” Now we can see how fragile that framework is. No liberal democratic system of government lasts forever, especially in the absence of a vigilant citizenry.

The 10/16/2022 NYT article describing the New Generation of Combat Vets sees their rightward drift as a lesson learned from their service experience. They mistake Trumpist distaste for international engagement, including defending liberal democracy abroad as well as recognizing our dependence on the benefits of immigration, as principled and patriotic policies. In fact, Trump champions those views only as a way to divert attention from any other cause than his own publicity. In his mind, there is no such thing as bad policy; he only desires any way to keep attention on himself, regardless of its effect on the national interest.

In the OpEd by Thomas Edsall in the 9/8/22 NYT, the label “undemocratic” is placed by both leftists and right-wingers on any behavior that contravenes their concept of what’s right for them.  In fact, this misuse of the term betrays the motivation of most voters in this country.

The American political system is based on an apparently equitable set of rules; however, Republican-controlled state legislatures have used gerrymandering to take advantage of the disparity between the voting behaviors of “haves” and “have-nots.” There is a simple reason the Constitution was drafted and ratified 250 years ago--it favored the interests of a relatively unified nation.  The overwhelming majority of the population was convinced that their disadvantages were caused by one single enemy—the British.  Now the country is splintered into ideologically warring camps— “the enemy is us. “  

Voter turnout is more driven by protecting one’s wealth than by seeking a fairer share. Gerrymandering voting districts would not as easily skew election outcomes if the populations of the wealthier neighborhoods turned out as poorly as voters in the less wealthy areas.  Therefore, a principal guideline of gerrymandering turns out to be to discount the nominal ideological balance of each district by its wealth-indexed voting propensity.

Two courses of action may be taken to correct this distortion of national election results:  the Supreme Court’s validation of gerrymandering could be overturned (Not likely with today’s Supreme Court majority); or the Democrats could concentrate their ample campaign funds on convincing their expected supporters diligently to exercise their right to vote.

 Frank A. Ocwieja

7805 Carteret Road

Bethesda, MD 20817

Tel: (917) 403-2090

e-mail: faocwieja@gmail.com

TO:    The New York Times letters@nytimes.com

ATTN:  The Editor

DATE:  8 October 2022

Timothy Shenk’s OpEd in the 8 October 2022 NYT advocates putting political power back in the hands of “ordinary Americans.” That is exactly what the current Republican Party has been more successful at doing than the Democrats. Ordinary Americans have become passive citizens.

Right-wing Republican leaders recognize that close to half of Americans have been stunted by overpowering communications media and have abandoned critical thinking. The technology behind the media overtaxes the intellectual capacity of the average human.

“Critical” is a dirty word to Republicans, when it comes to thinking, race theory, or any domain that power-seekers choose to use in their quests. Correcting the recent distortion of liberal democracy, therefore, will require arming “ordinary” people with the knowledge and tools (like Constitutional reforms allowing direct voting and reducing dependence on representative government) they wed to win back control.

In the end, democratic reform will require a single-minded effort to inspire citizens to realize the importance of their active participation in the process of governing. That can prevent wily politicians from ignoring the objectives of liberal democracy and using its mechanisms to serve their parochial ambitions.

Sincerely,

Frank A. Ocwieja

Thomas Friedman’s article in the 1 October 2022 NYT is only wishful thinking that the world will naturally correct for the predations of a colossally dangerous dictator.  In fact, to deal with a madman leader of a powerful country like Russia we must resort to Natural Law.  It is no use to conform to principles of international law or conventions such as the United Nations Charter.  As long as the overwhelming majority of Russians, traditionally acquiescent to autocratic rule, remain subservient to the grandiose impulses of their leadership there may only be one solution to the worldwide risk Putin’s threat of nuclear war—elimination of the crazyman.

The flight of Russia’s intellectual elite is probably being copied by its wealthy oligarchs and others with the means and opportunity to leave a potentially doomed land.  Putin is forcing a tightening coalition of the rest of the world to object to his strategy in Ukraine, not to mention his stamping out of domestic political opponents.  The ultimate outcome of this dynamic could be annihilation of the Russian population and a good portion of the world’s inhabitants, as well.

As Mr. Friedman points out, liberal democracy around the globe is decaying.  Citizens have become passive bystanders as professional politicians manipulate the tools of government to advance their own careers and personal wealth.  In the case of Vladimir Putin, as with Kim Jung Un, the worst of the autocrats are trying further to write their places in history books as consequential national heroes.  The rest of us are responsible for preventing that megalomania from jeopardizing our future common welfare.