IgnOpinions

He’s not John Wayne! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxn9jhypHfo

A recent study by the Illinois ACLU reveals that state police request a consent search of black and hispanic drivers far more often than they do of white drivers. Drivers of all races or ethnicities permit the search equally often–there is no statistically significant difference. But police are far more likely to find contraband or other illegal items when searching white drivers–about twice as likely. So it would seem that not only are police in our state profiling drivers by race or ethnicity, they really don’t have much to show for it, either. ACLU, NAACP Illinois Conference, MALDEF and a number of other organizations have called for an end to consent searches as discriminatory and generally ineffective. More information here.

On July 13, 2007, the television show Bill Moyers Journal, seen on various PBS stations, presented a discussion with constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, a conservative, and journalist John Nichols, a progressive. Both made a strong case for the impeachment of Messrs. Bush and Cheney. I find myself in agreement with their arguments, but more than that, I am impressed and relieved that two persons representing opposite ends of the political spectrum should sit down and present cogent arguments in defense of the same fundamental liberties. This is a hopeful sign.

The transcript of the discussion is available here.

My father was in the Third Army medical corps in World War Two. His unit was the first non-combat unit to arrive at the Buchenwald concentration camp. You can read the transcript of the letter he wrote on May 15, 1945, where he tells of the conditions in the camp. (Thanks to Digital Media Services at the Northwestern University Library for creating archival scans of these documents.)

This story has been handed down in my family. I was away at school when it happened, but it made a lasting impression on me when I heard about it. Seems more important than ever, today, when I reflect upon what once was possible in our country.

Back in the 60s in my home town in Ohio, my father was actively involved in local and state politics in the Democratic party. He had a reputation as a liberal, or worse, depending who you asked, but he was also known to be someone you could talk politics with, no matter what your leanings, as long as you were prepared to defend your point of view with reason instead of slogans.

It may seem incredible to anyone raised in this polarized era when conservatism is identified with hard line positions on hot button issues and hot, hard rhetoric aimed at silencing perceived enemies rather than stimulating thought, but there was a time in American political life when communities held open debates on issues with an eye to clarifying the different sides. At one such debate in my home town, word came through at the last minute that the Conservative speaker was not going to be able to make it. In desperation–or perhaps just to mix things up–the sponsors asked my father if he would be willing to take the Conservative position. As an elected official, a university professor, and a Lutheran pastor, with all his constituencies he could be counted on to bring some sense of respect for diverse opinions to the proceedings.

To the surprise of many conservatives in attendance, he acquitted his part well, so well, I am told, that after the debate some came up to him and said: “Professor Hertz, you were so convincing in your arguments, why aren’t you a conservative?”

To this he replied, more or less, “Well, I never have maintained that conservatives lack a point of view, or arguments to shore it up–I just happen to think they’re wrong. That’s why I’m a liberal.”

I find it nearly impossible to imagine this kind of debate taking place today, at least in any debate involving the NeoCon soundbyters that claim to represent Conservatism. The Bill O’Reillys and Rush Limbaughs of our country, and all their rote-learning fans aren’t interested in that sort of thing. Neither, I suspect, are the Lindsay Grahams and others who aren’t in the business of entertainment, but still seem to believe that drowning out contrary positions is the best way of eliminating them. These folks, who we elect to high office to represent all the people, should know better–we expect better of them. Now it turns out that our own President’s staff follows a manual directed at suppressing any appearance of dissent at his public appearances–quelle surprise!

But keep this in mind–not so long ago open debate, debate rooted in genuine curiosity about other people’s political opinions, debate that generated excitement from the simple expectation that the open exchange of ideas and opinions and reasoned arguments could change minds, debate that could be unruly but was not mean-spirited–in short, political debate that deserved to be called debate was a feature of life in our country.

There are signs of hope, but that is topic for another entry.