Civic Engagement and Political Disillusionment

Last Tuesday, I attended a talk hosted by the University Lecture series featuring Eric Liu.  Liu’s talk, which was titled “The True Meaning of Patriotism,” offered a progressive definition of patriotism and citizenship. He argued that since the 1960s the American Left has largely abandoned the concept of patriotism and allowed the Right seized it as part of its ideological lexicon.  Because the notion of patriotism has largely gone uncontested in the public arena, the idea has become impoverished, reduced to a jingoistic affirmation of American military and economic power.

However, Liu asserted that patriotism is a far richer concept than this.  Instead, patriotism, at bottom, is about putting country above self.  It is about public service and civic engagement—or as he put it “showing up” to one’s public obligations of being politically informed and part of the democratic process.

Underpinning Liu’s definition of patriotism is a commitment to the philosophical tradition of civic republicanism. As we all learn in our high school civics classes, the United States is not a democracy but a republic.  However, Republicanism (the classical political theory as opposed to the current political party) stands in contrast not only to Democracy as a form of government, but also Liberalism (classic philosophical liberalism as opposed to the current political ideology).  Where Liberalism is largely about rights and non-interference, Republicanism is rooted in civic obligations and engagement.  According to Republicanism, self-governance requires moral virtue and public spiritedness. Although Liberal and Republican thought can be seen throughout American history, the latter was more prevalent at the Founding than it is today.

Part of what Liu’s talk was about was reinvigorating our Republican tradition.  At one point during his lecture, Liu argued that the notion of “Rugged Individualism,” a very Liberal concept, was a “myth.”  According to Liu, self-governance cannot work if we think of our Nation merely as a conglomeration of egoistic individuals who use government only as a means of advancing and protecting our own interests. Rather, being part of a Republic requires some sacrifice, putting country above self.  It requires sacrificing some time and mental energy to being an effective citizen—keeping informed about social issues and engaging others about them.

There can be no doubt that our politics suffers when it focuses solely on individual rights to the exclusion of the common good.  However, where I was disappointed with Liu’s lecture is that he did not address what he considered to be the major barriers to civic engagement. Instead, Liu echoed Gandhi asserting essentially that the solution to our civic deficit problem was to “be the change you want to see in the world.”  This strikes me as a good first step but insufficient the face of systemic obstacles.

Hyper-partisanship, gerrymandered congressional districts, a broken campaign finance system, and parallel media universes (on the Left: MSNBC and liberal media outlets, and Fox News and conservative talk radio on the Right) all combine to prevent citizens from being engaged in their government.  As a result, to quote Yeats, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.”  Until we can empower the silent majority of reasonable people to enter the political fray—something that is understandably considered to be unsavory and pointless, we are destined to be politically disillusioned.

New Yorker on Civil Forfeiture

New Yorker on Civil Forfeiture

In a recent issue of the New Yorker, Sarah Stillman discusses how local governments use civil forfeiture to raise revenue and how often citizens who have not been convicted of a crime lose their property.  Stillman sat down with Patrick Radden Keefe and Nicohlas Thompson to discuss her piece on the New Yorker: Out Loud podcast. 

Here is a description of the podcast: 

This week in the magazine, Sarah Stillman reports on how local governments around the country are invoking the powers of civil forfeiture to take money and property from people who haven’t been convicted of any crime. Here, Nicholas Thompson talks with Stillman and Patrick Radden Keefe about these abuses and what they mean for the citizens targeted and the law-enforcement agencies using it to fund their budgets.

“Should a Chimpanzee Have Human Rights?”

“Should a Chimpanzee Have Human Rights?”

That was the topic being discussed on the Lawyer2Lawyer podcast. Here is a description of the (somewhat strange) show:

If it’s not legally a human, it’s a thing. But animal rights advocates argue these alternatives fail to recognize that there are many cognitively complex species who deserve to be treated as people. The Nonhuman Rights Project is planning to file a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a chimp to grant her the right to bodily liberty. This will release her from the cage she is currently living in, and the project will have her admitted into a cageless sanctuary. Steven M. Wise, president of The Nonhuman Rights Project, has been researching and planning this case for 20 years.

Steven M. Wise has been practicing animal protection law nationwide for for the past 30 years. He was the first professor to teach animal law at Harvard University and is still teaching animal law courses all over the world. He has published four books on the matter, including Rattling the Cage – Toward Legal Rights for Animals.

On this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams will talk with Wise about the case to grant a chimp the right to bodily liberty and The Nonhuman Rights Project’s long-term plans for animal rights

Malcolm Gladwell: College Football Should Be Banned

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-HNvZUIFU4]

Sunday on Fareed Zakaria GPS, Fareed interviewed author Malcolm Gladwell about his campaign to ban college football.

Here is an excerpt from the interview:

You compare football to dog fighting. Why?
Yes, I did a piece for The New Yorker a couple of years ago where I said it. This was at the time when, remember, Michael Vick, was convicted of dog fighting. And to me, that was such a kind of, and the whole world got up in arms about this. How could he use dogs in a violent manner, in a way that compromised their health and integrity?
And I was just struck at the time by the unbelievable hypocrisy of people in football, for goodness sake, getting up in arms about someone who chose to fight dogs, to pit one dog against each other.
In what way is dog fighting any different from football on a certain level, right? I mean you take a young, vulnerable dog who was made vulnerable because of his allegiance to the owner and you ask him to engage in serious sustained physical combat with another dog under the control of another owner, right?
Well, what’s football? We take young boys, essentially, and we have them repeatedly, over the course of the season, smash each other in the head, with known neurological consequences.
And why do they do that? Out of an allegiance to their owners and their coaches and a feeling they’re participating in some grand American spectacle.
They’re the same thing. And the idea that as a culture we would be absolutely quick and sure about coming to the moral boiling point over the notion that you would do this to dogs and yet completely blind to the notion you would do this to young men is, to my mind, astonishing.
I mean there’s a certain point where I just said, you know, we have to say enough is enough.