Radical, Intentional Belief

We talked about race last class.  I mean, really talked about it.  My students had been assigned to read Ta Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me (2015) and Patricia Williams’ essay “The Death of the Profane,” in her Alchemy of Race and Rights (1991). (You should get and read both of these books.  To tempt you, here are excerpts:  https://www.amazon.com/Between-World-Me-Ta-Nehisi-Coates/dp/0451482212 and https://books.google.com/books?id=47MNRIA50gwC&lpg=PA44&ots=DEZCVXhZpv&dq=death%20of%20the%20profane&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false ).  I also had them read Kimberle Crenshaw’s recent article in The Baffler, “Race to the Bottom.”  https://thebaffler.com/salvos/race-to-bottom-crenshaw.

As always, we started the class by having everyone share one question or thought about the reading.  To a one, the students just wanted to talk. In particular, they said, they wanted to talk about their feelings about the material.  So that’s what we did.

Both because this is a law school seminar, but also because, as I explained to them, I believe it is important to know that we are all working from shared understandings, we started by identifying the theory underlying or constructed by the readings. Coming off our class last week, the students did not resist my statement that “America has a terrible, terrible problem with race.” Nor did they balk at the notion, described and illustrated by Coates and Williams and Crenshaw, that racism in this country is not only systemic — meaning, it exists in every structure and corner of our society — but also foundational — meaning it has powered and continues to power what we think of as the American success story, the American Dream.

They also seemed to understand without defensiveness that notions like “post-racialism” and “colorblindness” are not answers to our terrible terrible race problem.  They got that such ideas and practices actually widen the already yawning chasm between those who “consider themselves white” (per Coates) and those perceived or marked as not white.  Even affirmative action got some discussion — is it necessary to right centuries of wrongs; is it too little, too late; is it actually reinforcing the racist notion that non-whites need a hand out or hand up?

Wrapping up the first hour, our group had come to accept that our very Constitution and founding institutions not only benefited from, but were indeed built upon a racial and racist hierarchy with whites at the top. We understood that all that has flowed from those foundational documents and institutions — i.e. all of “American” history — is tainted by the drive to maintain that racist hierarchy.  For several minutes, we seven Americans who consider themselves white and one who has been identified as, and considers herself to be black sat and took in that uncomfortable reality.

And then:  what can we do about it?  My students looked at me expectantly.  I looked back at them, expectantly.  I shrugged.  They looked surprised and a little worried.  Like, “wait, you got us all to this point and you don’t have a way to get us out?” I laughed a little and admitted that I didn’t have any answers.  I told some stories.  I reminded them of our Discussion Guidelines (Group Discussion Rules for Critical Lawyering class).

I asked questions about white guilt and the burden on “non-whites” to represent and answer for all people of color.  We agreed that both of those powerful psychological forces undermine our efforts to understand and bridge the racial fault line in the American landscape, by either paralyzing us into inaction, or hardening the lines between us to make dialogue impossible.

And then I turned it back on them:  what is one concrete thing you can do, knowing what you know now, to “help”?  Here is what they suggested:

Put your race goggles on.  See everything through race.  It might seem wrong to think of someone as “white” or “black” or “brown,” but we have just identified that America sees everyone who isn’t white as something “other.” Failing to see race is a privilege only those who consider themselves/are perceived to be white can afford.  So put your race goggles on and see everything through race.  Just for this week.  Just until next class.

Have uncomfortable conversations, like the ones we had in class.  Call your friends, co-workers, family members on their questionable comments and race-based assumptions.  Be that person who is always bringing up race and racism.  Do this with humility; and be vulnerable yourself.  Start the conversation by telling a story about your own discomfort or racist behavior.  Do this every time you can.  Just for this week.  Just until next class.

Decide to believe other people’s experience of race and racism.  Do not assume you know what they’re talking about; in fact, admit that you do not.  Do not try to make comparisons, or to find non-race-based reasons for the behavior being described.  Ask questions to clarify your understanding, but not to undermine another person’s experience.  Don’t ever accuse someone of “playing the race card.” Practice radical, intentional belief.  Just for this week.  Just until next class.

We all agreed to do these things.  Just for this week, just until next class, we will put and keep our race goggles on; we will have uncomfortable conversations; we will ask questions and be humble; and we will decide to believe.

Why don’t you join us?

Choking on the Reality of What Is

I stepped away for a minute over the weekend to get my daughter settled in for sophomore year 1200 miles away from home. No biggie. Stayed with my own parents for two nights while there and felt the poignancy of perching between generations, as the younger needs me less, the older needs me more. And I resist the shift in roles on both sides: I’m not ready to stop day-to-day parenting my daughter, nor to start day-to-day caring for my parents.

It’s not like an obstinate, foot-stomping kind of resistance, but something I guess you would call grief, at times choking me with the inevitability, the naturalness of the passage of time and what that means. My daughter is almost 20, my parents almost 73 and 83. I am almost 51. Everything is happening exactly as it is supposed to be happening. But being awake to the reality of all that is, at this moment, for me, excruciating.

Many of you reading this are nodding and “mm-ing” in support and understanding. Many of you have adult or almost-adult children; or are adult or almost-adult children yourselves. Many of you have aging parents, or are aging parents yourselves. You can imagine what I am experiencing at this moment, as I prepare to board a flight that will take me back to my home halfway across the country. You have empathy, you have compassion, you have ideas and suggestions and wisdom that will help me navigate this particular transitional time. We have a shared understanding of my experience because it is or appears to be a universal experience – we all age, our kids grow up, our parents get old and eventually die. And so do we.

But accepting that inevitability is altogether a different experience. And one that many of us never do – which is, according to Buddhists – the root of human suffering. We cannot accept what IS, preferring instead to come up with other narratives, other explanations, other reasons for what is happening.  It is the dissonance between what we want or hope to be true and what IS true that is choking us.

In class last week, we tried very hard to figure out what IS when considering the police shootings of Philando Castile by Officer Jeronimo Yanez and Justine Ruszczyk/Damond by Officer Mohammed Noor. We examined the divergent experiences of, for example Diamond Reynolds and Officer Jeronimo Yanez in the hours following his killing of Philando Castile. She was treated as a suspect, separated from her 4-year-old daughter and held overnight for questioning. He was driven home within hours after the shooting and told to get some rest. What explains that difference?

We wondered about the divergent reactions by the police departments and government officials involved in the killings of Castile and Ruszczyk. Officer Yanez was kept on the force for almost a year before being offered a separation package that included tens of thousands of dollars in something like severance pay. No harsh word was spoken against him publicly by any government or police official. The shooting of Castile was portrayed as an unfortunate event.

We don’t know much about what has happened to Officer Noor. He declined to speak to the press or investigators – which is his right under the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. We do know, however, that the local police union disavowed Officer Noor almost immediately; and that the Minneapolis chief of police spoke out forcefully within days of Ruszczyk’s death, condemning the killing and calling it completely unjustified. “Justine did not have to die,” she said. Within days of that statement, she had been asked to resign, and did so. The Mayor of Minneapolis herself is being called upon to resign in the aftermath of the shooting.

We tried to graph the intersectional identities of Castile and Ruszczyk, Reynolds, Yanez and Noor. In so doing, we had to confront how deeply contextual such mapping can seem to be (but maybe, for some identities, is not).

Yanez – who is a Hispanic police officer — is treated differently from Reynolds – an African American low-income single mother. Why? Because of his badge?  Or because he is a man and she is a woman? Or because being Hispanic is just slightly more powerful than being black?

Yanez is treated differently from Noor – a Somali-American, Muslim immigrant. Why? Can’t be because of his badge – they both have badges. Because Noor is an immigrant? Because he is specifically a Somali immigrant? Because he is Muslim? Or because he is black and Yanez isn’t?

Castile – an African American man — is treated differently from Ruszczyk – a white Australian woman. Why? Because he is a man and she is a woman? But what about Yanez and Reynolds – he is a man and she is woman? Because he was armed and she wasn’t? Because his car smelled like pot and she was a free spirit out in the alley in her nightgown? Or because he was black and she was white?

We went around the room and imagined explanations for the different outcomes of the two shootings. And there are, indeed, facts that might go a long way toward explaining the differences. Just as there are facts that would allow me to avoid feeling anything more than a bit wistful when dropping my daughter off, and noting the decline in my parents’ energy and mental ability.

But those factual narratives fail to capture fundamentally what IS. As one of my students bravely asked, “How can anyone see the Castile and Ruszczyk differences as the result of anything BUT race?” And as another of my students bravely answered, “because I can’t believe people could be that horrible.”

Well, what IS, my friends, is that we all age and we all die, and we all watch those we love age and die too.

And what also IS is that America has a terrible terrible problem with race; and we always have.  I’m not going to argue this point here, nor am I going to cite statistics.  Rather, I am going to ask you to consider honestly and off the top of your head, the most obvious difference between the shooting and killing of Philando Castile and the shooting and killing of Justine Ruszczyk. He was black and she was white.  And the officer who killed her was black.

We need to talk with our parents and our kids and our spouses and our other loved ones and each other about the reality of aging, illness and death.  And we need to talk with our kids and our spouses and our other loved ones and each other about the foundational problem of race in America.

But before we get to the talking part, we need to sit with the deep, excruciating, choking discomfort that admitting those realities causes us.  It is devastating to accept these truths — but guess what, it is even more devastating when we don’t. Just look around you.  Only when we have the courage and humility to be awake to the reality of the American condition can we begin to have conversations that will allow us to move forward in constructing a different understanding of living in global community.

Keep yourselves awake through these truly awful moments.  Pay attention and be humble.  We are all in this together.

Operationalizing the Theory of Intersectionality

The topic for Class Two was the theory of intersectionality and its use or misuse in today’s social movements.  We discussed the difference between intersectional identities — which we all have — and the theory of intersectionality — which is about how those identities intersect with access to power.

We got there by dipping into the narrative theory tool bucket and mapping characters and traits. Who are the characters — human or otherwise — in, for example, Kimberle Crenshaw’s 2015 article on intersectionality (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/?utm_term=.35da2051a240) and Representative Jayapal’s recent video on the same thing (https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/1613908225307328/)? What traits do those characters have? Is access to power a trait? Or is Power itself a character? My students understood quickly that power and its operation was the main point of the theory of intersectionality, but wondered how the theory works in practice.

Let’s consider the Jewish lesbians who were expelled from the Chicago Dyke March in June because they were carrying “Jewish pride flags:” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/opinion/im-glad-the-dyke-march-banned-jewish-stars.html?mcubz=0&_r=0.  The organizers’ argument for removing the three women was that the flags they carried called to mind the flag of Israel, which could cause discomfort or even trauma to Palestinian or other marchers opposed to Zionism.

Columnist Bari Weiss argued in the New York Times that there is no more “crisp[] expression of the consequences of ‘intersectionality’ than a ban on Jewish lesbians from a Dyke March.” She goes on to suggest that “intersectionality” leads to a caste system of victims, or what my students called the “oppression Olympics.”

To get underneath that critique, I pulled out another tool of critical resistance: asking “what if.” Although we know quite a bit about the three women who were expelled from the Dyke March, we know very little about who — if anyone — the March organizers were trying to protect.

What if, I asked my students, the person who raised the issue to the organizers was a Palestinian lesbian who had fled to Chicago from Israel, having been displaced by the building of illegal Jewish settlements?  How does that affect the character mapping? What role does power play now in our list of characters and traits? To which one of my students responded, “you had to make it hard, didn’t you?”

It is hard.  So let’s keep asking those “what if” questions.  What if instead of a “Jewish pride flag,” lesbians from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee carried their state flags, to show their pride at being both lesbians and Southerners?

In case you don’t have the flags of the 50 states memorized, here are those flags:

 Alabama  Arkansas  Florida Georgia  Mississippi  N. Carolina Tennessee

And in case you don’t have the flags of the Confederacy memorized:

Should the organizers of the Chicago Dyke March expel lesbian marchers carrying any of these flags? What if the organizers of the March were white, but many of the marchers were African American? What if the organizers of the March were African American? What if the Southern lesbians were themselves African American? Now, what if the march in question were not one for lesbian rights and visibility, but for Black Lives Matter? How do these “what ifs” affect your answer to the question of whether the march organizers should expel marchers carrying one of those flags?

Get out your narrative elements and critical thinking cheat sheets, folks.  This stuff is hard.  And fundamentally, most importantly, contextual.  Who are the marchers? Who are the organizers? What is the event? Where is it happening? When is it happening? Why is it happening? How has it come about? And then go deeper — who are the characters? What are their traits? What is the nature of the event? Its setting? Etc.

Only by digging in to the context and narrative realities of a situation can we understand that situation well enough to begin to explore the true nature of whatever intersectional conflicts might arise.

What does all that mean in practice? We have all been to marches, and will no doubt be again — maybe even today!  What would you do if you saw flags or signs that gave you pause? As an organizer? As a fellow marcher? What if you yourself were confronted by someone who had concerns about a flag or sign you were carrying?

And let’s not kid ourselves into thinking any of this is about flags and signs.  Someone at your office, place of worship, school, neighborhood, bus stop, local watering hole, birthday party, uses a word or makes a remark that might be seen as potentially oppressive to someone else.  What do you do? What if you are the person potentially oppressed? Or the potential oppressor?

As a tool of critical resistance, the theory of intersectionality depends on our ability to engage in humble self-reflection about the intersections between our own multiple identities and those of the people and situations around us.  Only then can we assess our role in resisting, mitigating and avoiding — or perpetuating — inter- and intra-identity conflict.

Because like it or not, our liberation IS all bound up together.  Injustice for one IS injustice for all.  We may not know what to do on the ground, and we certainly do not have all the answers.  But friends, we know how to ask questions.  And if we don’t want to devolve into simply ranking each other for entry into the Oppression Olympics, ask we must, with humility and self-awareness.  Even if the answers we get are complicated, or not be the ones we want or anticipated. Even then — especially then — we have to keep asking.

Tools for Critical Lawyering

First class was yesterday.  (If you’re just joining us, catch up by reading my last post here:  http://profgrose.com/critical-lawyering-in-todays-world/.) I called it the “tools” class.  We explored and played with three of my favorite tools — narrative theory, critical reflection, and cross-cultural competence.  My theory is that if we critical lawyers, resisters, citizens use the tools offered by narrative theory, critical reflection and cross-cultural competence, we do a much more authentic and effective job of deconstructing and reconstructing the institutions and people we are critiquing.  Sounds pretty heavy, huh? The secret is:  it’s not.

For our purposes, let’s say narrative theory means breaking a situation or event down into its narrative elements.  As described in the assigned reading (this awesome new book by me and Margaret Johnson from the University of Baltimore School of Law. http://www.cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781531003845/Lawyers-Clients-and-Narrative), those elements are:  Character (including traits); Events (including timeline and setting); Causation (cause & effect); Normalization (gap-filling); Masterplot (stock story or stereotype); and Closure (disruption & resolution).

And for our purposes, let’s say that critical reflection means the process of asking questions.  My students found this “cheat sheet” really helpful: https://globaldigitalcitizen.org/critical-thinking-skills-cheatsheet-infographic

And finally, cross-cultural competence comprises a whole field of theories and tools, but again, for our purposes, the theory of cross-cultural competence requires each of us to identify, consider and recognize our own cultural identity; and to do the same for others’ cultural identities.  Coupled with narrative theory and critical reflection, consideration of culture as an important identifier can result in richer and more effective communication and relationship building. In addition to that awesome book described in the previous paragraph, consider the exercises and tools developed by Sue Bryant and Jean Koh Peters, and described here:  http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1257&context=cl_pubs

So those are the tools.  What did we do with them in class, and how will we use them going forward?

After introductions and development of discussion ground rules (both of which deserve blog posts in and of themselves, but that will have to be for another day), we jumped right in to trying our hand at using the narrative elements to listen to and deconstruct a clip from “74 Seconds.” https://www.mprnews.org/topic/philandocastile.

Each student took one of the elements  — Character, Events, Causation, Normalization, Masterplot, Closure — and listened to “Coming Soon” with that element in mind. http://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=528753593:528753595. We then reported back — what Characters were mentioned? What events? What cause and effect? Did the running of the plates cause the traffic stop? What Normalization? What kind of gap-filling do we have to do? There must have been something to make the officer pull him over? What Masterplots or tropes — small town disrupted, black man v. cop, viral video leads to revolution. What Closure is suggested — the end of the 74 seconds? The indictment of the officer? The trial?

Try this yourself– it’s a four minute clip.  You will be amazed at how much more you learn from those four minutes — about the choices the storytellers (reporters, producers, editors) made; about your own perspective/biases; about the various currents running through the narrative.  And this is just the teaser for the actual narrative or narratives that are “coming soon!” Imagine how powerful this tool can be if we apply it to the events and narratives all around us.

Moving from the narrative elements of the “74 Seconds” clip, we turned our focus back onto ourselves by practicing Habit One of Bryant and Peters’ “Five Habits of Cross-Cultural Competency:”  making a list of similarities and differences.  I paired the students up and had each team write such a list, directing them to try to make the two lists roughly the same length — to look for more similarities if that list is shorter; and more differences if that list is shorter.  Each team struggled in different ways:  one team found it challenging to come up with similarities; another to come up with differences.  Some teams identified the similarity/difference of race, gender, sexuality, religion right up front; others did not.  We agreed that a whole class could be spent on just the question of how each team decided (unconsciously? consciously?) what traits to include and what traits to ignore or leave out.

I had a whole additional hour of material planned, but time was up.  We — seven quite similar and quite different people in St. Paul, Minnesota — have embarked on this project together.  Yesterday, we all committed to that. Next week, we take another step together by exploring the critical theory of Intersectionality, using the tools from yesterday, and maybe some new ones.  I told my students at the end of class that I don’t have anything in particular planned for class yet, so please feel free to send me suggestions.  That goes for all of you too.

I know that whatever I do prepare will teach me more than I know now; and that whatever we do in class will teach me even more.  This project is not about deconstructing one theory and then moving on to the next; it’s about identifying and learning to use tools that will allow my students and me to dig even deeper into what it means to be a socially responsible, critical thinking, authentic member of this society.  So whatever we do, it will be challenging and intense and exhilarating.

Critical Lawyering in Today’s World

My pledge on July 4th was, in addition to continuing to pay attention and “seek accountability from those who have attacked and undermined our democracy,” to “work to shore up systems – and create new ones – that protect and empower our Democratic ideals; not only to protect against further erosion, but also to work, always, toward a more perfect union.” http://profgrose.com/this-fourth-of-july/.  So that’s what I have spent the last month trying to do.

In particular, I have designed and am preparing to teach a law school seminar called Critical Lawyering in Today’s World.  As the syllabus describes:  “Students will read and discuss a cross-section of writing on narrative theory, intersectionality, critical race theory, gender theory and critical lawyering theory. The principal focus of the class will be to determine how these theories bear on the real-world work of lawyering in today’s world.”

In other words, the course is my way of trying to figure out — with my students and for myself — what we need as critical lawyers to do our job in these times.  And, even more broadly, what we all need, as critical resisters and guardians of democracy, to do our jobs in these times.

I hope we will discover some answers together over the next few months.  I will post every week about the assignment and materials covered for each class, as well as the discussions we have in the classroom.  I know some of my students subscribe to this blog (thank you!), and hope that they will feel empowered to contribute to the conversation publicly, if they are so moved.  And I invite all of my blog readers and muses to jump right in as well.  If you want to follow along, here is the syllabus: Grose Syllabus FA17

The course will, in part, revolve around a podcast, called “74 Seconds,” produced by Minnesota Public Radio (MPR), that reports on and analyzes the events surrounding the police shooting of Philando Castile in July, 2016.  You can subscribe to the podcast here.  https://www.mprnews.org/topic/philandocastile.

In next week’s inaugural class, we start with my two favorite tools of effective critical lawyering (and resisting):  narrative theory and critical reflection.  We will develop discussion guidelines and ground rules, because any good consideration of critical lawyering must be based on a foundation of trust and respect.  And then we will jump right in.  Hope you’ll join us.

This Fourth of July

I was a serious American history nerd growing up.  I was fascinated by the early “revolutionaries” —  I dressed up as “a young Benjamin Franklin” for Halloween.  And of course, Abraham Lincoln – I remember throwing myself into my mother’s arms, after having finished an “easy reader” biography of Lincoln, sobbing, “Why did Mrs. Lincoln have such a hard life??” My favorite holiday above all others – never mind the candy of Halloween or the anticipation of presents for Chanukmas – was the Fourth of July. I counted down to that holiday every year. Not for the fireworks — no, I waited breathlessly for the parade and the flags and the costumes and, most of all, the reenactments.

I was moved, I think, by what I understood to be the great work of these (deeply flawed) men:  envisioning and striving to create a better society, one that valued individual autonomy and collective governance for the good of the whole. So yeah, I was an American History nerd.  And I still am:  I still cherish the ideal that we can be a vast community of different and diverse individuals who work together toward equality and access to justice and a common understanding of what it means to be a civilized society.   The early patriots did not succeed in creating such a society, nor has it been achieved since.  But that ideal — that such a society can exist, and that we as individuals have to make it so — is the animating force in my own identity as an American.

When I started this blog back in February, I wrote about my feelings of grief and pain as a result of the election and its aftermath:  the personal hurt I feel as the rule of law is attacked and belittled; when the bedrock principal of Separation of Powers is ignored and trammeled; when our history is distorted and used as a weapon to undermine our democracy and American idealism.  I still feel that deep grief and personal pain as that democracy slides more every day into autocracy, if not downright anarchy.

Because that, my friends, is what is happening.  Ever since the election, we have been paying attention, and looking out for the signs that our democracy might be faltering.  Excellent journalists and activists have compiled lists and documented lies.  Check out these, just to get you started:

From the NYTimes, an exhaustive list of Trump’s lies: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

From Resister Amy Siskind, a list of subtle changes since the election: https://medium.com/@Amy_Siskind/week-33-experts-in-authoritarianism-advise-to-keep-a-list-of-things-subtly-changing-around-you-so-a9315863b6cd

From the WaPo, a list of ways Trump is undoing Obama’s legacy https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-rolling-back-obama-rules/?utm_term=.cb921d61cc7f

From Bill Moyers, a list of what is happening while the President attacks “Morning Joe,” for example. http://billmoyers.com/story/while-he-was-tweeting/

So this Fourth of July, I will go to a small town parade and cheer for the high school bands and the local businesses, and maybe I will even tear up a bit.  But I will be wearing my Indivisible shirt and chanting “Shame! Shame! Shame!” at Congressman Erik Paulsen as he marches by. https://paulsen.house.gov/reforming-health-care/; https://www.facebook.com/events/449544425416955/?acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%22106%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D;

Because it’s not just Trump and his lies that are ushering our government into authoritarianism; it is also the craven and cynical Republicans in the House (of whom Erik Paulson is one) who passed the first iteration of Trump Care.  And the even more craven and cynical – if such things are possible to rank – Senate Republicans who seem poised to pass their version of the bill without one single public hearing or debate.  As the Washington Post reminds us, as part of its new brand, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/

We have become a society ruled by the few for the benefit of those few; a society where one religion is protected from government intrusion – and indeed granted government favors — http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865683879/What-the-Supreme-Courts-latest-actions-tell-us-about-the-future-of-religious-freedom.html — while others are vilified, if not downright criminalized; ours has become a government of rich white men (yes, the very few exceptions prove the rule) who hold vast resources all over the world and contribute very little back to the people of their own country.

So on this July 4th, I do not celebrate our current American government. But I do celebrate us, its people, united for some reason by some ideal about what it means to be a civilized society.  We believe in independence – but that doesn’t mean lack of connection.  Together we are pushing against the rising tide of authoritarianism and crony capitalism and insisting that there remain light in the growing darkness.

It is up to us to keep making lists and documenting lies; to seek accountability from those who have attacked and undermined our democracy, and continue to do so.  But we also need to work to shore up systems – and create new ones – that protect and empower our Democratic ideals; not only to protect against further erosion, but also to work, always, toward a more perfect union.  That is our work, my fellow patriots; and that is what I am celebrating this Fourth of July.

Remember Music

I confess to being a bit worn down these past couple of weeks.  For those of you who have asked if their RSS feeds are broken, no, it’s just me.  I came back from the incredible high of the AALS Conference on Clinical Legal Education, embracing the notion that we are indeed born for this time; eager to continue figuring out how my deep gladness can meet the world’s deep hunger.   And I still believe that, and am as committed as ever to spending as much time living in my vocation as I possibly can.

But right now, I just feel tired, and a bit discouraged.  Don’t get me wrong, I am thrilled that there now appear to be some grown ups in Congress and elsewhere who are paying close attention to Trump world’s efforts to subvert American Democracy, and working very hard to stop those efforts.  Which is not to say that we all can stop paying such close attention — on the contrary, I will be watching every word of Comey’s testimony tomorrow, and am very glad that Rachel Maddow is back at her desk.

I am discouraged, though, that it is all taking so long.  And that meanwhile, he is still the President, and Sessions is still the A.G., and Gorsuch is still on the Court; and the U.S. Government (not its people, or even all its states) still pulled out of the Paris Climate agreement; and Trump continues to threaten our alliances in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.  etc. etc.  This is not a legitimate, democratically elected Presidential administration.  I don’t think there is much doubt about that anymore.  Why do they keep getting to act like one?

So I am tired and discouraged, as are many of you, I know.  But I’m not done; none of us are.  Sometimes, we just need a break, to regroup and figure out what comes next:  what is my deep gladness, what is the world’s great hunger, and how can part of my deep gladness feed part of the world’s great hunger? I am working to figure that out.  And as the resister known simply as “Robert” reminded us all back in February:

“Take a breath. The rest of the chorus will sing. The rest of the band will play. Rejoin so others can breathe. Together, we can sustain a very long, beautiful song for a very, very long time. You don’t have to do it all, but you must add your voice to the song.” http://profgrose.com/take-a-breath-pass-it-on/

Let’s all take a breath.  And then, back to the music!

The Con Goes On

Two chilling stories on Rachel last night — one about the crime and one about the cover up.  http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show#!#full-episodes

The crime or crimes are coming into focus as a complex interrelationship between Russian oligarchs and Trump business entities, whereby Trump is beholden to those oligarchs and their Russian government cronies to the tune of who knows how much; and the Russians thus have enormous access to and leverage over the President of the United States.  Not HAD — past tense:  HAVE.  The Con Goes On, folks.  The crime is not hacking the election — that was an added bonus.  The crime is the ongoing collusion between Trump and Russia that is borne of and inextricable from the President’s financial ties to the Russians.

How do we know all this? We don’t, not yet.  But there is reason to believe that the U.S. Treasury Department’s FinCen division has records that would go a long way toward building the case.  So here’s the news about the cover up:  as I predicted would happen in last week’s blog (horn-tooting, I know, but I did! http://profgrose.com/i-repeat-wheres-the-prosecutor/), the U.S. Department of Treasury appears to be “slow walking” their response to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s request for these documents.   In other words, the Executive Branch Agency, headed by Trump appointee, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, might be obstructing the Legislative Branch investigation into the financial dealings that took place — AND ARE TAKING PLACE STILL — between Trump and Russia.

The con is ongoing.  Our democracy is at risk of being taken over by Russian controlled American oligarchs.

So I repeat, what is the remedy?

What is the Remedy

Now that the “I” word is being bandied about without apparent fear of jinxing anything, I think it’s important to consider what we are talking about.   Here is what the Nation‘s John Nichols had to say about today’s crisis:

“Impeachment is an essential check and balance — arguably the most essential, and powerful. . . . When members of the legislative branch fail to initiate the impeachment process for reasons of political calculation of circumstantial caution, they contribute to the expansion of executive branch authority. Partisans can almost always come up with excuses for avoiding the impeachment process. But when they do, they set the stage for future abuses. In effect, they encourage the imperial presidency to become more imperial. . . .

A failure to hold Donald Trump and his lieutenants to account will, necessarily, create openings for even greater abuses by ensuing presidents. That is why the moment in which we find ourselves is far more urgent than the partisans of both parties . . . may choose to admit. But citizens should be concerned and engaged. The founding generation created the impeachment power to guard against the development of a regal presidency. The presidency we have now is dangerously regal; more authoritarian than responsive, more monarchical than democratic. This is the realization of the worst fears of Thomas Paine and the wiser of those who gathered in 1787.” http://billmoyers.com/story/tough-talk-impeachment/

Impeachment of Donald Trump might end up being necessary — to hold him accountable for his multiple efforts to interfere with the various investigations into his and his campaign’s collusion with Russia.  Obstruction of justice is what got Nixon to resign, after all; it is most certainly an impeachable offense. And if all — or even some — of the evidence we have heard about Trump’s attempts to influence, delay, shut down and otherwise obstruct the Russian investigations proves to be true, there is a strong case to be made against him for that impeachable offense.

So yes, let’s keep talking about impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice. And let’s be sure to keep talking about those who enabled and continue to enable that obstruction, and hold them accountable as well.  (I’m looking at you, Mike Pence. http://.com/story/enabling-dangerous-president-pence/.)

But unlike Watergate, the cover up here is not necessarily worse than the crime.  Impeachment for obstruction of justice gets to the first layer of the con this increasingly Imperial Presidency is perpetrating on the American people. Impeaching Trump, or even Trump and Pence, or even Trump and Pence and Sessions, punishes them for their behavior by removing them from office; and perhaps removing them from office will stanch the wound and stop the bleeding.

What is the remedy, though, for the underlying crime — that of colluding with a hostile foreign power to interfere in our democratic process? How do we fix what Trump and Russia broke when they hacked our election?  Because this con goes well beyond the few heads that will roll for obstruction of justice.  Let’s not make the mistake of thinking impeachment will do much toward making our Democracy whole again.

So yes, let’s keep talking about impeachment, and let’s cast that net as wide as we can to catch as many enablers as possible (looking at you too, Paul Ryan https://newrepublic.com/article/142761/republicans-tainted-russia-scandal-trump).

But let’s not forget that we got a Trump candidacy not because Putin put him up to it, but because our democracy was already fragile enough to fall for the con. As John Nichols warns, “we have a duty to do more than merely hold Donald Trump to account. Our duty now is to restore a proper balance to the governing of a nation that was never supposed to have an imperial president — or the threats that extend from the royal scam.” http://billmoyers.com/story/tough-talk-impeachment/.

Now is not the time to sit back and watch the show — riveting and bizarre as that show is.  We all have our parts to play.

Just the Beginning

Stuff is happening, no doubt about it.  But let’s not lose sight of just how big this crisis is for our country.  As tempting as it is to root wholeheartedly for a swift and humiliating defeat of Trump — in the form of impeachment or even criminal prosecution — we might do well to hold off until we can gather sufficient facts to identify and hold accountable as many of his co-conspirators as possible.

Depending on what is discovered by the House and Senate investigations — suddenly kicked into high gear by this week’s dramatic events — and the newly energized FBI and Justice Department investigations, under the direction of Special Counsel Mueller, we very well might be able to get rid of more than just Trump.

Just in case it becomes necessary, and also to allow us to plan our resistance accordingly, here is who would become President once Trump is impeached. (Check out 3 USC 19, a section of the U.S. Code, which was established as part of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.)

Vice President — Mike Pence.  Given the extent of Pence’s involvement in the transition — he was its Director — and subsequent role in the Mike Flynn firing, it seems very unlikely that Pence would survive calls for his own impeachment for his entanglement in both the underlying crime — colluding with the Russians to hack the election — and the subsequent cover-up.  http://prospect.org/article/russiagate-keep-your-eye-pence

Speaker of the House of Representatives — Paul Ryan.   Though perhaps a harder case to make, evidence exists of Ryan’s own knowledge of the ongoing involvement between the Trump Campaign and the Russian hacking.  The Washington Post revealed earlier this week — in a scoop that would, under any other circumstances, have exploded on the political scene — that back in July, 2016, House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy shared with other Republican leaders his belief that Trump was being paid by Vladimir Putin.  Ryan interceded immediately and “instructed his Republican lieutenants to keep the conversation private, saying: ‘No leaks. . . . This is how we know we’re a real family here.'”  http://wapo.st/2pXRFxO?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.a8d5b51deef1

That leaves us with President Orrin Hatch, the President Pro Temp of the Senate.  It remains to be seen whether he too will be sullied by the same charges of wilful ignorance if not downright collusion that his House counterparts have been.

But let’s not stop with the question of who takes over for Trump and Pence. There is plenty of evidence to lead to the dismissal of Attorney General Sessions as well, and possibly also other of Trump’s cabinet appointees.  Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, for example, has extensive ties with a Cyprus bank that is at the center of an investigation into Russian money laundering. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/new-commerce-secretary-at-nexus-of-lucrative-trump-russian-deal-886220355575

And that’s all just based on a brief scan of the news we now know.  Who knows what more will be uncovered as these investigations move forward and continue to gain momentum?  All of which to say, the situation we are in now did not arise all on its own.  Our democracy is and has been under attack — not only by the Russians and their collaborators, but also by the gradual erosion of our own commitment to and faith in democratic governance.

Lots going on folks.  Let’s be sure we don’t cut off the snake’s head only to leave its body to regenerate and come back stronger.

Keep paying attention.