Dear Rachel et al,
Firstly, as a regular watcher, let me say how much I enjoy your show. I especially enjoy how you frame the debate (which is partly why I loved DRIFT). Your eye for the larger narrative and historical context makes your show really the only one I watch regularly (though Up may soon be a fixture as well).
Secondly, as a former Michigander who still spends a great deal of time in the state, I was horrified by your segment last night. I've watched with dismay, disgust, and disbelief at what has happened to my home state in the past year. I don't understand how the upending of democracy is not a national story, and I certainly don't understand why it's not a local one, why the Detroit Free Press and others aren't yelling their heads off. Is this what happens with the demise of newspapers?
I spend a lot of time researching history. Like many, I am particularly drawn to Rome. And while it's common to compare the US today to ancient Rome (gladiators!), I wanted to pose a question and see if it leads you anywhere in your framing of the debate, or if it's too obscure.
In the founding of America, we were very much based on the Roman model. House, Senate, President (consul), Courts. Rumor says Washington DC was originally called New Rome, and that certain wags wanted to rename the Potomac "New Tiber." The eternal flame in the US Senate is an homage to the flame of the Vestal Virgins. Washington's monument is an obelisk, just like the ones Rome took from Egypt. In Lincoln's Memorial, Lincoln is seated in the pose of a Roman consul. Etc. With so much emphasis on Rome, is it inevitable that we follow their path?
We can debate the precise moment that Rome ceased to be a Republic. Most point to Caesar crossing the Rubicon. But Caesar wasn't the first dictator. The office of Dictator was a legal one, designed for a moment of crisis. If Rome was in a "tumult" a single man could be empowered to rule without check for six months, and forever after be free from any legal consequences. It probably seemed quite necessary at the time. But Lucius Cornelius Sulla marched an army on Rome and had himself made dictator, staying in the post for 6 YEARS while he rewrote Rome's constitution. In an ironic twist, he created the first standing courts. He also set the precedent for Caesar becoming Dictator For Life.
Not long after, Cicero used a similar law to suspend normal governance so he could execute 5 Roman citizens without a trial.
Which brings me to my question: When do we stop being the people we say we are?
Answer: When we stop believing in the Law.
Look at the last ten years: indefinite detention without due process, torture, illegal wiretapping of citizens, designated "protest areas," and on and on. Now we have, in effect, the Dictator of Michigan – or a bunch of dictators, each one ruling a Michigan city-state. People in government (mostly Republicans) are tying themselves into pretzels to bypass the Law to achieve their goals. And in so doing, the Republicans are undermining the republic.
The phrase "equal protection under the law" is not meaningless, nor is it bland. It has incredible power. Equal. We are all equal under the law.
Except now we're not.
If the law-makers break their own laws, what’s an honorable citizen to do? If those charged with making the laws hold the Law in contempt, if they hold one set of laws for those in their good graces and another for those they despise, where do we turn? What is our recourse?
If our government finds ways to circumvent our laws, no matter the goal or intent, we've stopped being the people we say we are.
I've been waiting for someone to pose Governor Snyder this question: What if President Obama looked at Michigan and said, "You're not running the state effectively. Therefore I'm setting aside the elected governor and the Michigan congress and appointing my own friend and campaign donor to run your state indefinitely." The Right would go crazy! Socialism, Marxism, lots of -isms. Yet this is precisely what they've done to local city governments! If it is wrong, it is always wrong.
We now live in the land of "Do as I say, not as I do." Which in practice means we no longer live in a society of Law. I want to tell Republicans that a deeply held conviction isn't deeply held if it applies differently in different circumstances. Morality and the Law are the same, in that if they change in context, if they do not apply to all situations, they are not worth having.
This plays into your larger narrative of Republicans disavowing their own positions if their political opponents take them up. Today's Republican party has no deeply held belief other than 1) No Taxes, 2) Do As I Say, Not As I Do, 3) If You're For It, I Must Be Against It.
If we follow those principles, we are less than we say we are. Who do we say we are? We're the people who won World War Two. You need saving? We're there. We don't start fights, but we end them. We're the ones German mothers told their sons to surrender to. We're Captain America. We believe in freedom and democracy. We believe in fairness, and justice. And the Law.
This piece is long enough. I'd love to chat with you or your staff sometime, and even take you to dinner next time I'm in NY. Until then, keep doing everything you're doing. Thank you.
David Blixt
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Spot on David,
I still live in Michigan and had no idea this was going on until I saw this segment earlier today. What they are doing isn’t strictly legal, but until they get called on it, they get away with it. Now it seems like the issue will have to get resolved by the courts, but that will take time. Possibly too much time to make a difference for the upcoming election. This election has more at stake than perhaps any other in recent history given the context and direction of the country.
-An old friend