Engaging in Civil Discourse

It’s been a week, although it’s only Thursday, and there’s a lot to know. But a pressing question, one implicit in the notion of Civil Discourse, is how do we share what we know with others in a productive way? We don’t have time for conversations that push people further apart. This is the home stretch—it’s August 8, just three months to the midterm elections on November 8. Following the search warrant the FBI executed at Mar-a-Lago, which predictably agitated the hardened pro-Trump right, it’s more important than ever to connect with people who believe country matters more than party. So today, let’s talk about productive conversations and the issues at hand.

Put aside all of your frustration with the divisive society we live in for the moment, because I know each of you knows, instinctively, how to do this. It’s the conversation with a neighbor whose elderly parent is diabetic. They’re frustrated with high gas prices. You gently point out that they’re coming down and the newest numbers show inflation has slowed and perhaps peaked. You talk about how happy you are that the expense of insulin for diabetics who are on Medicare is capped at $35. Maybe you mention how disappointed you are that Senate Republicans blocked the effort to cap insulin costs for people who aren’t on Medicare, like your 22-year-old niece, since your neighbor knows just how expensive insulin is because of their parent; cripplingly so for a young person who may end up in the emergency room as they choose between food, rent, medicine and the expensive supplies diabetics need. Perhaps you mention your hope that Democrats gain the votes they need in Congress at the midterm elections to protect people like your niece.

This sort of conversation can draw a circle big enough for you and your conservative-leaning neighbor to stand within. That’s what we need right now. Each conversation is a one-off. Perhaps they don’t all succeed. But this is something each of us can do, try our best when presented with opportunity. And I believe that right now, with all the movement going on in our country after the January 6 hearings and as some Republicans show signs of distraction from Trump, it may be possible to keep the country on a path that moves away from his “leadership.”.

Will you feel the urge to be snarky instead of patient? Of course, you will gentle reader, at least if you’re like me. Get it out of your system and prepared yourself to have important talks with people. Not conversations that demand membership in your political tribe as the price of friendship, but quiet, thoughtful conversations about what we all need for our families to be safe, happy, and to have the opportunities that every American deserves.

Sometimes, it’s hard to forego the snark

Sound Pollyanna-ish? Perhaps.

I’m a fan of patriotism, neighborliness, and the value of a good conversation, even if it’s a quick one with the person behind the checkout counter at the grocery store. I’m convinced we can talk with each other and a good place to start for those who are out of the habit is meeting people where they live, whether that’s the cost of insulin, concerns about the environment, or trying to understand the right way to balance community safety with Second Amendment rights. We don’t have to be in total agreement with people on the issues to have the right kinds of conversations—the ones that encourage people to be thoughtful as they look ahead to the elections.

The Biden administration has given us lots of material to discuss with family, friends, and neighbors over the next three months. It’s up to us to make it happen

I. Keep Having Conversations About Abortion

This map, courtesy of WAPO (this piece is definitely worth a read) tells the story.

Indiana became the first state to pass a post-Dobbs near-total ban on abortion. Lacking either a pre-Roe zombie law or a trigger law passed in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs, the route many states took, Indiana rushed to add itself to the list of states where abortion would be highly restricted. While abortion is still technically available in cases of incest, rape, and threat to maternal life, all clinics will be forced to close.  

This isn’t the first time in recent years that Indiana has passed legislation that, while politically expedient for those who pass it, has a negative impact on the state. After Indiana passed a “religious freedom” law in 2015 when Mike Pence was governor, the state lost out on 12 conventions and an estimated $60 million of business. For some people, discussing this past, as well as some of the reaction from the business community to Indiana’s new abortion ban, may be an effective way to help them think through the consequences of these laws and the need to elect representatives who care more about the state’s future than their own political career. Headquartered in Indianapolis, pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly put out this statement after the abortion ban passed: “We are concerned that this law will hinder Lilly’s—and Indiana’s—ability to attract diverse scientific engineering and business talent from around the world…Given this new law, we will be forced to plan for more employment growth outside our home state.” Lilly was not alone.

Do people feel so strongly about controlling women’s choices that they’re willing to lose economic opportunity, maybe even their own job? Perhaps some do, or will say they do. But having conversations about the economic consequences of abortion bans, particularly those that make it difficult, if not impossible, for women to obtain medically necessary care, is a good way to center a conversation about deciding who to vote for in state legislature races.

Stacey Abrams, candidate to be Georgia’s next governor, took an interesting tack on Meet the Press last Sunday. When Chuck Todd asked her about how two issues, the economy and abortion rights, she answered: “The economy is going to go up and down, but these laws, when they become solidified, change the future for every woman.”

Maybe it’s not always the economy. The midterm elections could defy traditional wisdom about which party is “supposed to win” if lots of angry women who refuse to accept second class citizenship and the people who love them vote.

II. DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Has Been Killing It

The Civil Rights Division, led by Kristen Clarke, has done so much in just the last week, in addition to the Idaho abortion case we’ve already discussed, that I’m not sure I can keep track.

Prosecuting the murder of Ahmaud Arbery as a federal civil rights crime was important, and not a foregone decision for Clarke to make. It’s relatively rare for DOJ to prosecute following a state conviction, especially when a life sentence is imposed, because of resource considerations. But Clarke understood it was important to prosecute this as a murder that the defendants committed because of racism. They were forced to concede it under oath when they pled guilty. And, chef’s kiss that McMichael must serve his time in state prison, with no “special favor” of federal custody following his guilty plea, which his lawyers had requested.

Police officers involved in Breonna Taylor’s death have also been federally charged, following the failure of the state to indict most of them and the acquittal of one officer charged with reckless endangerment for shooting into an apartment when he couldn’t see if there was anyone inside.

Three officers are charged, in two separate indictments, with crimes including civil rights violations, conspiracy, use of excessive force offenses, and obstruction. One officer was charged in an information instead of an indictment. This type of charge, which requires the defendant’s assent to bypass a grand jury, is a signal she has agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with the government. That’s very important, since the obstruction charge is based on allegations that the officers who obtained the search warrant knowingly based it on false information and then engaged in a cover up of their conduct afterwards. The warrant was executed by different officers, and the government has alleged that the officers who obtained the warrant knew it was likely to put people in danger. We don’t know the full story here yet, but we should and a cooperating defendant willing to tell the truth is the best way to get there. Ms. Taylor’s family, the people served by the Louisville-Metro Police Department, and all of us deserve the truth. More detail on the facts of this case if you want a refresher here.

Interested in learning more about the Civil Rights Division’s work? Their website has a wealth of information. They’ve been busy filing excessive force police cases, but also, there’s a helpful “know your rights” 14-page pamphlet on voting.

III. Trump

This week brings enough seeds of doubt to plant, even for those who still worship at the foot of the former president. And that’s before we even get to Mar-a-Lago.

I wrote this before we learned about the search warrant: There’s this thing called the Presidential Records Act that requires the White House to preserve records so there’s an accurate historical narrative for the future. Trump had certainly heard of it—reports were that his advisors, including the White House Counsel’s Office, came back to him again and again to encourage compliance.

So why did Trump have to literally flush records bearing the names of elected officials like Elise Stefanik (who replaced Liz Cheney in the Republican party’s leadership)?

But, as this astute member of the Twitterati pointed out, the toilets weren’t the worst new info about Trump before Monday even got started. His now-deceased, first wife Ivana once testified he kept a copy of Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf, on a bedside table, so his affection for Hitler’s general shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

We’re still learning the details about the Mar-a-Lago search, but it seems clear that at some point, DOJ came to understand that they could not count on a former president of the United States to either voluntarily return classified material or comply with a grand jury subpoena to turn it over. Instead, DOJ had to go to a federal judge to obtain a search warrant.

Talking with friends who think Trump is being targeted? If this was the case, he’d be refuting the facts, denying he had classified material. Or he’d be explaining why the law was on his side. Instead, he’s resorted to the strategy criminals without any good arguments use, attacking the police. In this case, he’s attacking FBI Director Chris Wray, a life-long Republican who served in the Bush administration before Trump himself appointed him to run the Bureau. Talking with family who think it’s a witch hunt? Getting a search warrant requires DOJ to take its evidence, which is sworn to under oath and penalty of perjury, before a federal magistrate judge who independently reviews it before authorizing the search. Far from being a witch hunt, this is the rule of law in action, and no one is above it.

Rudy Giuliani is going to have a date with destiny in Georgia, where he will have to testify under oath about efforts from within the Trump camp to steal that state’s election. Giuliani has been eager to avoid testifying in the Fulton County, DA’s investigation into whether Trump solicited officials to “find” him the exact number of votes it would take to pull a win out of thin air in Georgia’s 2020 recount.  Giuliani told the court he’d had a recent medical procedure and couldn’t fly. The DA offered to buy him a bus ticket. The Judge agreed: "The very limited information I have from a doctor, from a very fancy hospital, is that air travel is not compatible with Mr. Giuliani's condition right now. And so that's why I'm saying…don't do it by air. That's plenty of time to make the trip—13 hour drive," the Judge said, referencing the August 17 date he set for Giuliani to testify.

All eyes on Georgia where Giuliani is not the only member of Trump’s inner circle summoned to the grand jury.

Also, this week, the clock ran out Wednesday on Trump’s ability to duck a deposition in New York AG Tish James’ civil investigation into manipulation of values on annual Trump Organization financial statements. Trump asserted the Fifth Amendment, explaining in a statement that had to have been written by his lawyers that he was doing it because of all of the investigations into him. Of course, the NY AG investigation is about his company’s business practices and has nothing to do with missing classified materials or January 6. But Trump, like anyone else, was fully entitled to use the protection of the Fifth Amendment, even if it seems hypocritical in light of his earlier comments that only criminals use the Fifth Amendment. “The mob takes the Fifth Amendment.”

Trump was free to decline to answer questions, and in a criminal case, that can’t be used against him. But it can in a civil case, where juries are entitled to reach logical conclusions based on repeated assertions that responding to questions could be incriminating. Perhaps more important for our purposes, the use of the 5th Amendment can be quite persuasive in the court of public opinion. Ask your friends, do you really want to elect state and local officials who “stand by Trump” as many of his diehards tweeted following the search?

IV. The Republicans In The Senat

We started on insulin, so let’s end there. How is this Republican Senate working out for people? They’ve voted against guaranteeing the right to purchase contraceptives for heaven’s sake. Let that sink in.

There is, of course, no longer any Constitutional right to abortion. The other rights on the same branch of that substantive due process tree include same sex marriage and interracial marriage. If Republicans regain control of both houses in November, they really do seem interested in considering passing bans.

Democrats, on the other hand, just passed a bill that contains meaningful climate change, health care, and placement of the tax burden where it should be. Democrats always seem to be better at getting stuff that matters done than they are at promoting their work to the public. That’s where we step in. There will be a lot of opportunity here to correct misconceptions and explain what this bill does that helps most of us (unless you make over $400K a year).

And, if you have friends who think this bill doesn’t go far enough, it’s clear the Democrats went every bit as far as their slender majority would take them. Want more? They have the commitment to getting there, but they’re going to need to keep their majority in the House and increase their margin in the Senate this November. Want to see Democrats fulfill more of their agenda? Protect voting rights? Talk with folks who want that too about the importance of voting in more Democratic representatives and senators so the margin stops being so razor thin.

Merrick Garland stole a lot of Senate Democrats thunder this week. So, go out and talk with people about your happiness and relief, that this law has passed. Try it out if you’re uncertain. If you’ve been thinking about what you can do, this is it. Together, we can work to build communities that appreciate the value of knowing the truth and basing decisions at the ballot box on it.

I’m sure many of you have had experience in this area already, so let’s use the comments to share what works and get feedback on improving on ideas that didn’t go so well.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

PS: Loved your chicken name suggestions so much! I’ve gone through the comments again and again, making a list. And thank you for the emails from folks who aren’t paid subscribers. Even though I couldn’t respond to all of them (I’m still sort of stunned by how many of y’all, both paid and unpaid, have subscribed & I’m so appreciative that you find value, and hopefully a little bit of fun, here), I’ve read them all. It’s a full-on Vance family debate at this point. Looking forward to sharing the results with you later this week!