DO THE RIGHT THING.
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that the silence of the “good” people in the face of evil is far worse than the bigoted hearts of those who act discriminatorily. 64 years ago today, 3 Ku Klux Klansmen were convicted of murdering Viola Liuzzo, a white housewife and mother of five children. When she learned of the racism and suppression that was going on in the Deep South, Mrs. Liuzzo left her home and went to Alabama to volunteer with local civil rights workers. While driving a black protestor home from a demonstration, Mrs. Liuzzo and her passenger were killed in cold blood.
She had known that it was risky to uproot herself, even temporarily, to go south and help people very different from herself. She was well outside her comfort zone but she knew it was the right thing to do. She understood the difference between right and wrong, and she felt compelled to stand on the right side of history.
In today’s similarly fraught and dangerous era of conflict, it’s important that as many people as possible take whatever action we can to do the right thing.
Part One:
WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, IN THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
We speak with David Schultz, professor of law and political science at Hamline University, about the ways in which our constitutional government sorts out right from wrong, including the corollary question of determining the most effective way to correct the “wrong.”
America’s impeachment process was adopted during a very different time period than the present one. The economy, the technology, people’s worldviews (democracy vs monarchy) were all much more primitive. Among other changes, polarization among different factions today seems to be on the verge of tearing our society apart. Moreover, even if one or more presidential abuses of authority were to be found, it may not be as clear today what is the appropriate corrective action to take to overcome such abuses. Power dynamics have changed. Society’s assets – including the power of money – are controlled by fewer and fewer people. Should the House follow the “normal” script by voting out a bill of impeachment, leaving it to a trial and verdict in the Senate? Or should Congress, perhaps, simply vote to censure the president, and avoid the political theater that would ensue from a trial?
At times in American history, similar systemic problems have also seemed intractable. Somehow, people and circumstances (and a little luck) have managed to see our country through the crises. We hope that we’ll be similarly fortunate this time around.
Part Two:
ENCORE: WHAT IS MORE “ELECTABLE”? CENTRIST CAUTION OR PROPOSALS FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGE?
Our second guest is Bob Hennelly, who has reported for the Village Voice, Pacifica Radio, WNYC, CBS, and other outlets. We discuss the fierce (though under-reported) battle going on between the “centrists” in the Democratic Party and the “activists” who are advocating for more significant changes in how our system operates, including who will be the primary beneficiaries of society’s success. Should Democratic candidates avoid “rocking the boat,” instead focusing on former Obama voters who chose Trump in 2016? Or should Democrats offer bold proposals designed to address the real-life needs of low- and moderate-income working people and farmers, people who have always been marginalized and given nothing but lip service by our economy, our political system, and our society?
