Today’s Edition: “Make a way out of no way.”

July 20, 2021

            Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Do not become bitter or hostile. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble. We will find a way to make a way out of no way.

John Lewis. Civil rights leader, member of Congress.

          “Find a way to make a way out of no way.”

          John Lewis’s exhortation is based on experience. He was savagely beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday as 600 civil rights marchers walked from Selma to Montgomery. After spending three nights in the hospital for a fractured skull, he rejoined his fellow marchers. Two weeks later, 3,200 marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on their way to Montgomery. When they arrived in the state capital, their numbers had swelled to 25,000. Five months later, President Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

          “Find a way to make a way out of no way.”

          In Lewis’s case, finding a way meant walking fearlessly into a menacing line of police, cavalry, and tear gas. The path to equality was blocked by batons, hooves, and hate. But Lewis forged “a way out of no way” by persevering in the face of despair, walking headfirst into an obstacle that seemed impenetrable. In failing to break through the police line on Bloody Sunday, John Lewis “made a way out of no way” by breaking through to the hearts and minds of those who watched in horror as peaceful demonstrators were brutalized by police.

           “Find a way to make a way out of no way.”

          The obstacles we face today are great, but they are not more daunting than those faced by John Lewis and the Freedom Riders in the 1960s. The preening sermonizing of Senator Manchin is galling but not life threatening. The performative piousness of Senator Sinema is tiresome but not menacing.  True, new voter suppression measures enacted in dozens of states pose significant obstacles, but they can be overcome by the simple act of walking headfirst into a polling booth.

          “Find a way to make a way out of no way.”

          True, also, that GOP “poll watchers” will loiter uncomfortably close to voters in polling stations, taking video as citizens partake in an act that has always been inviolate. But cell phones are not batons, hooves, or tear gas. While we should not lose hope that Congress will pass voter protection legislation this year, we should not “get lost in a sea of despair” if Congress fails to act.

         “Find a way to make a way out of no way.”

          As always, the best way is through the hearts and minds of the American people, as John Lewis taught us. If Republicans succeed in resurrecting the police line on the Edmund Pettus Bridge through voter suppression legislation, we must walk headfirst into the obstacle that seems impenetrable and make a way forward where there seems to be no way. We can do that. We have done so before against tougher odds. We can do so again.

Is democracy ‘too far gone’ to be saved?

          Before you panic over the above title, let me assure you that democracy is not ‘too far gone to be saved.’ The headline to this section refers to a blog by Terri Kanefield, entitled “Are we too far gone?,” an essay penned in response to a query from one of her readers.  Let me give Ms. Kanefield’s essay the highest praise possible: I wish I had written it. For readers of this newsletter, I think you will find both encouragement and food for thought in Kanefield’s essay. It is worth ten minutes of your time to digest. Let me whet your appetite with her thesis:

          I suggest that the question “is it too late,” comes from exhaustion, despair, and panic. I also suggest that social media, particularly Twitter, is a panic-creating machine. Finally, I suggest that “is it too late to save democracy?” is the wrong question. The historically correct question is: Is it possible for the United States to achieve a functioning multi-racial democracy?

          In her essay, Ms. Kanefield rightfully concludes that what happens next in our democracy is within our control. Her essay concludes, “When you understand that the future takes its shape based on what happens now, you don’t feel so helpless. History offers perspective and teaches us possibilities”—like John Lewis’s ultimate victory on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. There is much more to Ms. Kanefield’s thoughtful response to her reader. Though her words are sobering, if you take the time to read her post to the end, you will feel encouraged and emboldened. I guarantee it.

It’s okay to lie to Congress.

          Prosecutors send messages with their enforcement decisions. Indicting a high-profile criminal serves as a warning to others. Declining to prosecute a crime sends a message to future bad actors that prosecutors don’t think it is worth their time to prosecute certain crimes. On Monday, we learned that Bill Barr’s DOJ sent the message that it is okay to lie to Congress—at least if you are a high-profile Trump appointee. We also learned that Merrick Garland’s DOJ will not revisit that decision. See Government Executive, “DOJ Will Not Prosecute Trump Officials After IG Referred Findings of False Testimony on Census.”

          Former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was hauled before Congress to answer a simple question: Who told the Census Department to add a question to the 2020 census asking about the respondent’s citizenship? Ross repeatedly and unequivocally stated that the question was added solely at the request of the Department of Justice. The Inspector General for the Department of Commerce investigated the (lack of) truthfulness of Ross’s testimony and referred the matter to the Department for Justice with a recommendation to prosecute Ross for lying to Congress. Per the Inspector General’s report, it was not true that the question was added to the census solely based on a request from the Department of Justice. Rather, evidence “suggests the [Commerce] department requested and played a part in drafting the DOJ memorandum” that requested the addition of the citizenship question. In other words, Ross gave false testimony about the central facts that were the subject of sworn testimony.

          Despite the Inspector General’s recommendation to prosecute Ross, the Department of Justice—under Bill Barr—declined to do so. The Department of Justice under Merrick Garland has declined to revisit that decision, apparently fearing that second-guessing prosecutorial decisions made by career professionals might hurt their tender feelings. As before, Garland seems to be more concerned about protecting institutional relationships within the DOJ than assuring the American people that the DOJ’s first order of business is protecting the rule of law, not sparing the feelings of colleagues. This is another in a series of disappointing decisions by Merrick Garland that demonstrates that he does not understand his role as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Justice first, institutionalism second.

It’s sort of okay to attack the Capitol to overthrow an election.

Speaking of flawed prosecutorial decisions, a federal judge just sentenced an insurrectionist for attacking the Capitol on January 6th. The insurrectionist received a paltry eight months in prison for storming the Capitol to overthrow an election. For comparison, being caught with one ounce of crack cocaine carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. See The Hill, “Capitol rioter sentenced to 8 months in prison.” The sentence is an insult to the American people, who deserve a sentence that will dissuade future Trump loyalists from attacking the Capitol the next time their candidate loses an election.

          The are two parties responsible for this travesty. The first is the federal judge, Randolph Moss, who wrung his hands in indecision about the beleaguered insurrectionist while ignoring the interests of the American people in holding secure elections. Judge Moss worked himself into a lather, declaring that the defendant was “not an evil person” who “issued a sincere apology.” I don’t practice criminal law and I am not an expert in the federal sentencing guidelines, but I am highly confident that no part of the sentencing process involves assessing whether the defendant is “an evil person.” The judge seemed to be looking for reasons to go easy on the defendant. As I said, a travesty.

          But the DOJ is to blame as well. It has under-charged the cases involving the insurrection. The most serious charge included in the indictment  of Paul Hodgkins was “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding.”  Other counts in the indictment were “entering a restricted area,” “disorderly conduct,” and “parading in a Capitol building.” I understand that prosecutors can only charges counts that fit the facts, but the defendant didn’t merely attempt to “obstruct an official proceeding.” He attempted to overthrow the results of an election—a far more serious offense. That he did so by attempting to obstruct an official proceeding is a lesser included crime.

The DOJ has treated many of the insurrectionists with kid gloves. Why? And at what cost? The DOJ is losing the trust of the American people by treating insurrectionists like trespassers or protesters at a city council meeting who heckle the mayor. Future insurrectionists are taking notice. Let’s hope that the DOJ steps up its effort and files superseding indictments that will result in lengthy prison sentences for the insurrectionists. The future security of our elections depends on it.

Concluding Thoughts.

There is much more to cover, especially the Republican decision to conflate anti-vaccination sentiment with opposition to the Biden administration’s efforts to protect voting rights. When the history of this period is written, the judgment will be harsh: Republicans leaders exposed their followers to serious illness and death to advance partisan political interests. I will attempt to get back to these stories later this week.

I was spurred to write about John Lewis by a reader’s comment today. Over the last several weeks, I have noticed an uptick in frustration among Democratic activists with the slowdown in implementing Biden’s agenda. I felt that the experience of John Lewis was a timely reminder to us all that nothing can stop us if we refuse to give up and refuse to give in to despair. The following (edited) comment is typical of the sentiments I am hearing:

          After working hard on 9 fundraisers for Democratic causes from March 2017 through the Georgia run-offs in January of this year and writing hundreds of letters and postcards last year, I’d lost heart watching the Democratic leadership (especially Merrick Garland) squander opportunity after opportunity. 

          The reader’s feelings are understandable. The Biden administration needs to focus on the care and feeding of the party faithful who are looking for signs of hope. When Biden makes public appearances, he is an effective communicator and can rise to the occasion. But, as one reader said, “Democrats need their Newt Gingrich.” The reader was not suggesting that Democrats adopt the cynical hyper-partisan tactics of Gingrich, but rather, that someone in the Democratic Party needs to define and communicate the party’s agenda in a way that resonates with people, inspires their confidence, and gives them guidance on where to invest their energy. Gingrich’s “Contract with America” may have been an abomination, but it rallied the GOP faithful in a way that is still shaping American politics today.

          To an objective observer, the 25-year-old John Lewis lost his confrontation with the police on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. But he prevailed by persisting in the face of certain defeat. There is a life lesson in Lewis’s example for all of us. Let’s march headfirst into battle. We will never be able to predict how our defeats will give rise to future victories, but they surely will.

          Talk to you tomorrow!