Urban renewal: Springfield or All Souls


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“They were saints in their own estimation, and more terrifying than any sinners I’ve ever encountered.”

– Teresa of Avila

Bell Street ChapelOne of the scary realities is that evil is attractive. If evil wasn’t attractive, no one would choose it.

Unitarianism is a religion with an inspiring history – going back to Eastern Europe, and the villages and cities caught between the Catholic and Muslims Empires of the Reformation where Unitarianism first grew. From Eastern Europe, the teachings spread, first briefly, to Poland, the Netherlands, than England. Unitarianism developed in the United States, India, the Philippines, and, today, Uganda. Yet, historically, in addition to our triumphs for free thought and social good, this faith has baggage. Mark Morrison Reed’s book “Black Pioneers in a White Denomination,” offers us some words of  caution and double take.

Over one hundred years ago, there was a preacher, originally from Jamaica, who began to doubt the Trinity, and found his way to Unitarianism. His name was Ethelred Egbert Brown. Brown had a vision of Unitarianism that wasn’t limited to the fancy neighborhoods of Boston, but one accessible to all people -working people, people of color. He studied at Meadville Theological School in Pennsylvania, and through much effort, founded a small but active Unitarian congregation in Harlem. His efforts were shunned by the denomination, he received minimal financial or moral support. Reportedly, the President of the Unitarian Association would hide if he heard Brown was visiting the Boston office.

The Association, the powers that be, didn’t think it a prudent investment to support a Unitarian church in Harlem. The guardians of Unitarianism thought they were being fiscally responsible. There is no Unitarian Church in Harlem today.

In the 1960s and 1970s, numerous American cities were in upheaval. The times were full of excitement, fear, demand, and hope. A politicized generation noted the glaring contrast in differing facilities and supports in neighborhoods, overcrowding and weak investment in schools, and growing demands for full civil rights were made against often crony prone city governments and aloof financial centers. This contrast produced tensions and changes. Highways were splicing and cutting against the skin of centuries old streets and houses, and tens of thousands of people were being relocated. In this context of upheaval, many urban Unitarian and Universalist churches closed, or relocated to the suburbs. “Why stay in the cities?” Many asked. “It’s not prudent,” some felt.

In Springfield, Mass, a 19th century Unitarian church voted to sell its property and move to the suburbs. The church was replaced with a parking lot. There is no Unitarian Church in Springfield today. Without the physical space, there is no community to gather and to heal.

Yet, not every city and every congregation chose to flee to the suburbs. In DC, currently home to one of the most diverse and successful congregations in the whole Unitarian-Universalist Association, a group of people at All Souls congregation had a vision. Located in the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood of DC, a group of board members had a vision for a large, vibrant, progressive, multiracial religious congregation. It wasn’t easy. In fact, it took years. Yet, it happened. Generations of congregants joined together to build an active, progressive multiracial neighborhood congregation. All Souls has fed the hungry, helped the sick, and done the work of justice.

History doesn’t move in a line. There are choices to be made. What type of congregation do we want to be? Do we want to be Springfield or All Souls?

GOP Rep: House Majority Leader Mattiello is ‘on our side’


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

MattielloOne of the most clarifying moments in Rhode Island politics is when the small handful of conservative Republicans in our state admit just how conservative the Democratic leadership of the General Assembly is.  This nugget showed up in a post by Tea Party Republican Michael Chippendale on the RI Gun Blog:

After this past session’s overwhelming victory for gun owners, the progressive caucus openly chastised – and literally had a screaming match with the Majority Leader (who is on our side), and Speaker Fox for failing to get the Assault Weapons ban passed as well as the other anti-gun legislation.

Representative Chippendale is calling it like it is.  Nominally a Democrat, House Majority Leader Nick Mattiello has an A+ rating from the NRA.  They’ve flooded him with thousands of dollars of campaign contributions–contributions that are probably illegal.

Chippendale also reveals that “70% of the House of Representatives knows, respects, and covets the NRA rating and endorsement system that occurs each election year.”

This isn’t the first time Rhode Island’s tiny group of real Republicans has praised the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives for their right-wing extremism on guns.  Here’s Tea Party Representative Doreen Costa thanking Speaker Gordon Fox for being “very, very kind to us gun folks”:

An indictment of Travis Rowley and his ridiculous rhetoric


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

ahlquistTravis Rowley is a writer who I don’t pay much mind to. He is a sometimes amusing distraction whose hyperbolic attacks on liberals and progressives are too extreme and careless to be of interest to any but his small coterie of fans. The manic style of his arguments owes less to the surgical precision of a rattlesnake bite than to the scattershot spraying of an incontinent skunk, but as I am occasionally the target of his arguments, from time to time I feel the need to attempt a reply.

In his recent screed, “Progressives: Liars By Religion and Trade” Rowley takes issue with my defense of the protesters who prevented New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly from speaking at Brown University last week. In his piece I am taken to task by Rowley for my “dishonesty and double standards” because I had earlier criticized Providence College for canceling a talk defending marriage equality by philosopher John Corvino.

(I would like to note here that unlike Travis Rowley, I always endeavor to include links to the articles I am citing, a common practice on the Internet that allows people to check the sources of quotes and to draw their own conclusions about the context from which these quotes are mined.)

In his latest piece, Rowley maintains that I am being dishonest because I disagreed with the cancellation of the speech by Corvino at Providence College but argued for the cancellation of Ray Kelly at Brown, which is a double standard that confirms “just how unprincipled progressives truly are.” Putting aside the fact that Rowley misrepresents my position in crafting his argument, and putting aside for a moment my contention that the two cancellations at the two schools are very different things, Rowley’s assertion that my position represents a double standard completely ignores the fact that, if true, Rowley is maintaining the exact same double standard himself.

If, as Rowley argues, I am maintaining a double standard by supporting one cancellation and not the other, then Rowley is maintaining the exact same double standard, because he also supports one cancellation but not the other. If one were to accept the arguments in his piece, then Rowley is just as guilty of dishonesty and double standards as I am accused of being. The arguments used against Rowley to make this determination are not coming from me, they are all coming from Rowley, demonstrating, I suppose, “just how unprincipled progressives [conservatives] truly are.” The fact that Rowley did not foresee this conclusion being drawn from his argument exposes the shallowness of his thinking and his need for a refresher course in irony.

Fortunately, unlike Rowley, I do not feel the need to be imprisoned by his arguments. Though he might have well made the case regarding his own dishonesty and double standards, his case against me is weak and ephemeral.

First of all, Rowley misrepresents my defense of the Brown students and the local progressive groups that shut down the Ray Kelly talk. He also misrepresents my piece taking Providence College to task for the cancellation of John Corvino’s talk. Rowley’s misrepresentations come fast and furious, and I will deal with some of them as best I can, but we are dealing here with a writer who layers and tangles his sentences so completely that it is sometimes difficult to know where to even begin making sense of it all.

In one misrepresentation, Rowley writes, “Ahlquist penned a column – hilariously titled ‘Why We Shouldn’t Listen to Ray Kelly’ – that compared the Brown militants’ actions to the civil disobedience of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.”

The point of my piece was not to compare the protesters at Brown to the protests of Gandhi or King (a link to the article would have allowed people to easily see that for themselves, but as of this writing the one link in Rowley’s piece was broken). I mentioned Gandhi and King because comments online had compared the Brown protesters unfavorably to these great civil rights leaders, intimating that Gandhi and King were at all times politely mannered and were never given to displays of uncouth behavior. I said, “There are calls for protesters to adopt the mythic patient suffering of MLK and Gandhi, who apparently never interrupted anyone to make their points,” and later added that King and Gandhi were considered uncouth lawbreakers in their time by the authorities and that both served time in jail for their actions.

Later, Rowley runs a quote, “Racism is not for debate!” without attribution and which is something I never said. Bob Plain quoted the protesters at Brown as saying this in a different piece on RI Future. The quote being attributed to me in this manner is simply a lie or sloppy editing from someone who does not bother to check his sources. What I said is that the protesters, through their action, got the message they wanted to broadcast out to the world. “By being uncouth and civilly disobedient,” I wrote, “Kelly’s opponents got their message out: We don’t tolerate racism in Rhode Island.”

A careful reading of my piece would show that my defense of the protests at Brown was quite measured. To be clear, I believe that people have the right to protest, and that sometimes peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience is a powerful tool for effecting change. There is every possibility, when choosing to use such a strategy, that the authorities can move in with the police and arrest the protesters. Indeed, a recent editorial in the Providence Journal has called for the expulsion of the students involved, so perhaps some sort of legal response is still in the offing.

Brown President Christina Paxson may have had an excellent reason for choosing not to call in the police and forcibly removing the protesters: She would have been targeting people from local community groups and some students who would have borne a striking resemblance to the people most affected by the racist policing strategies championed by her guest. As much as Paxson might support the principle of academic freedom that stirred school officials to invite Kelly to speak in the first place, the Brown president was possibly loathe to initiate police actions that might appear similar to those Kelly advocates. From the media strategy point of view, Paxson made the best possible move in canceling the event, dispersing the protest and claiming victim status for academic freedom.

Civil disobedience is a protest strategy, and it carries certain risks as well as possible rewards. I certainly defend the protesters’ right to engage in peaceful civil disobedience, but such actions carry the risk that the authorities will take action. Protesters recognize these risks. These kinds of actions are a roll of the dice when it comes to public opinion, and in the case of the Ray Kelly protest at Brown, I think it is fairly obvious that public opinion has been against the protesters. I also think this is unfortunate, but public opinion is fickle and difficult to control. Those in authority wrote the story on this one, and the message of the protesters was nearly lost. My piece attempted, perhaps unsuccessfully, to find the message of the protesters in the media frenzy that followed.

The difference between the Ray Kelly cancellation and the Providence College cancellation could not be more pronounced. At Providence College, the John Corvino event was canceled by the school’s provost, against the wishes of the majority of students and virtually the entirety of the faculty. In the end, despite Rowley’s assertions in his piece, my view of the situation was upheld by the Providence College’s Faculty Senate under the leadership of Dr. Fred K Drogula when it passed a resolution that called for “the PC Administration [to] publicly apologize to Dr. Corvino” and “work to restore the academic reputation of Providence College” that was apparently damaged by the cancellation.

Rowley sees no difference between the free speech of people organizing for a cause, and the authoritarian cancellation of speech one person in power deems inappropriate. Rowley’s arguments are all bluster and bullshit, unspoiled by facts, logic or nuance. Though I mentioned near the beginning of this piece that I find Rowley to be a sometimes amusing distraction, I think I’ve distracted enough of our time on him for now.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m including links to Rowley’s first piece on me, “The Athiest Delusion,” and my response, “Atheist extremist?

Wingmen: When is civil disobedience worthwhile?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

wingmen nov1It’s well worth noting that I, for one, was really looking forward to hearing Ray “Stop and Frisk” Kelly defend his deplorable practice of what he calls “proactive policing” earlier this week and I didn’t get to because of the widely-reviled Shoutdown at Brown.

But I don’t believe it is the only thing worth noting about the incident.

Another is there is a fairly large, very ad hoc and relatively politically-powerless coalition of activists in Rhode Island that are extremely fed up with institutionalized racism, or what has been called the new Jim Crow. Public policies like the war on drugs, proactive policing, high stakes testing and voter ID that on their face address social problems and in the process disproportionately target poor and minority populations.

I had the great but thankless honor of defending the agitators/organizers who shouted down Ray Kelly this week on NBC10 News Conference.

Watch the online-only Wingmen segment here, in which me, Bill Rappleye and my made-for-TV-arch nemesis Justin Katz debate the efficacy of such political tactics:

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

RI’s real problem with jobs


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

WeldersRecently on Twitter, Editor in Chief Bob Plain welcomed mayoral candidate Brett Smiley to the RI Future family, touting Brett’s inaugural post on gun issues. But old Righty had to chime in to say, through a series of logical connections, that the real solution to gun violence is lowering business taxes and eliminating business regulations. Because of our “poor business climate”, Righty argues, nobody will move a business to Rhode Island and create the desperately needed jobs.

In this essay, I’ll go step-by-step through Righty’s thinking, point out where I think he goes astray and wrap up with some good, old-fashioned, Frymaster-style socialism. This essay will not delve into the particulars of gun control, but will focus instead on the causes of poverty and possible solutions.

Long story short: Righty’s solution is, in fact, the problem.

Guns, Gangs and Jobs

Righty’s first logical arguments seem pretty solid. It’s not the guns so much as the criminal gangs. This may or may not be fully accurate. Gun crimes require both a gun and criminal intent, so the absence of either would reduce the problem.

Next, Righty says that gangs and criminal activity result from poverty. I’m no crime wonk, but I think there’s fairly good evidence that violent crime, among many things, correlates with poverty.

Poverty, Righty contends, results from the lack of jobs, and the lack of jobs results from the poor business climate as measured by business taxes and the degree of business regulations. While not explicitly stated, Righty seems to indicate that changing these aspects of the RI economic structure would entice businesses to relocate here, creating jobs.

Of this last set of connections, only the first has any merit whatsoever. And with each successive step beyond what reality can support, Righty demonstrates how this kind of tired, 20th century thinking has created the problems with which RI struggles.

A Lack of Jobs? Not Really.

It is truly misleading to say that Rhode Island has a lack of jobs. Your Frymaster finds himself, um…, between engagements at the moment, and I can personally testify to the fact that there are many, many jobs in this area for people like me. If you have a college degree and European heritage, it’s not a question of finding a job but of choosing one.

From 1999 to 2009, RI posted the 18th highest rate of high income job growth in the nation and the highest rate in all of New England, second only to New Jersey in the northeast. (It’s a statistical tie at 58.9%.)

There’s just no truth to the idea that there aren’t jobs … for people like me. But it is true that there are no jobs for the kinds of youth that end up in gangs committing gun crimes. In all fairness to Righty, his basic point is well taken. If people in marginalized communities had greater access to decent employment, they’d be less likely to become involved with criminal gangs.

But this is the last piece of solid logic we’ll get from old Righty. From here on out, it’s typical conservative mumbo-jumbo that defines the problem, not the solution.

Capitalist Myths

The greatest and most dangerous myth at work here is the idea that the solution to our supposed lack of jobs is to lure companies from other areas to Rhode Island. These are usually short-distance moves that don’t actually change the regional economic situation. Nor do they address any of the cluster of factors that make blue collar jobs harder to find than white collar jobs.

As a positive example, UNFI came from nearby eastern Connecticut. While these workers now pay RI income taxes and some may have moved in-state, nothing about this move changes the underlying economic conditions. The multiplier effect is essentially nil.

38 Studios moved from nearby Massachusetts. Had it all gone to plan and the Baltimore group moved up after the launch of the MMORPG, this would have had some benefit to the regional situation. But, of course, it didn’t go to plan in any way. The enormous debt RI now faces is the disastrous downside of “buffalo hunting” as this practice is known in economic development circles.

Another debilitating myth that Righty suffers under is that taxes, unions and regulations are what killed the manufacturing sector in RI, the northeast and the US in general. Capitalism and no other force is what killed manufacturing. One of the great underlying tenets of capitalism is that continuous growth ensures ever expanding opportunity for workers. But this only applies until labor becomes scarce and wages start to rise.

Instead of mitigating growth and reverting toward the kind of stable-state, mom-and-pop business approach that once made the USA the envy of the world, capitalism insisted on ever growing profits. To that end, capitalists moved factories to wherever they could find cheap labor, leaving economic ruin behind. The great irony is that today, with a large and growing under-class of potential low-wage workers in cities across the US, other factors now present a cost-barrier to these kinds of ventures.

In particular, energy and transportation cost have exploded over the past decade. Thanks to the Reagan administration and the onset of radical capitalism in the 1980s, the US is woefully behind the curve when it comes to dealing with changes in the energy landscape. We’ve compounded this for ourselves by simultaneously pretending that global warming does not exist, so we didn’t need to plan for the extreme weather events that climate science predicted long ago. We now find ourselves continuously rebuilding one place or another that has been ravaged by a global warming-related event. Growth in healthcare costs that the private markets was supposed to limit or even reverse back in the 1990s have instead accelerated to take an ever-larger chunk of available income.

In the face of these brutal economic realities, it’s tragically laughable to assert that tax rates and regulations of the sort that prevent factories from poisoning their workers and host communities are somehow the problem. The truth is that we live in a very expensive place that cannot support the manufacture of cheap goods.

Poverty in RI

Righty would likely suggest at this point that there must be something about Rhode Island’s approach to business that accounts for the large disparity between our unemployment statistics and those of Massachusetts. Of course there must be, but the reasons are not what Righty thinks they are.

The difference, in a word, is education. Massachusetts has historically excelled in public and private education to the point that this is their defining characteristic; education is the Massachusetts brand. MA has higher educational attainment at all levels compared to Rhode Island, so their economy requires fewer low wage, low education jobs to achieve full employment. Nearly 16% of RI’s population did not attain a high school diploma, compared with 11% in MA. Thus we need roughly 50% more blue-collar jobs in our mix than MA does.

Jobs that most consider classically blue collar, like the welders in the image above, have become far more technical than they were. In fact, RI imports welders on a daily basis, likely because the state has few training programs. Training in the technical trades in general grew unpopular over the past few decades, and the result is that a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation imports blue collar workers from neighboring states.

As a result of the low levels of educational attainment and lack of appropriate jobs, RI also suffers from the cluster of self-reinforcing impacts that result from poverty. It is difficult for people who have never lived or worked in the poorest communities to understand that poverty is a trap that is exceedingly difficult to escape from.

At the most basic, physical levels, poor communities are usually the most toxic and have the least green space. This creates higher levels of health problems, like asthma and lead poisoning. Many poor communities are food deserts and lack easy access to other key commodities. In a bizarre expression of supply and demand, some communities rely on the ubiquitous liquor store as the local, one-stop shop.

But above all else, poverty creates a stress that those who have never experienced it cannot imagine. Unlike Righty’s cartoonish view of the poor laying about watching soap operas, being poor requires constant action simply to feed oneself. Poor families move from one place to another far more frequently than those better off, creating significant problems for children in school. And these children constantly receive implicit and even explicit messages from their schools that they will not be able to achieve success.

Thus it is the mental health impacts of this level of insecurity are the biggest problems in escaping poverty. Poverty begets poverty because it is almost impossible to break out of the cycle. For all the talk about opportunity – from both the left and the right – there really is very little for the poorest communities. In the US in general and in RI in particular, this is our enduring shame.

Prosperity, not Wealth

Most economic development groups strive to “create wealth” in the ways that Righty seems to want to do. By convincing a capitalist that your community is the one in which he can generate the most wealth in the shortest time, you also create some number of jobs that may or may not pay enough to support the workers and their families.

This is the problem, not the solution. Unsurprisingly, people who’s primary motivation is to enrich themselves are not the most trustworthy. These deals are always “pay me now, get jobs later.” If you want to see your buffalo hunt go badly, just try inserting a clawback provision in which the job creators has to repay subsidies if they can’t produce the jobs. These are people who are always willing to turn on you should someone make them a better offer.

And yet Rhode Island remains mired in this kind of thinking to the point that Righty feels fully confident in spouting this lame, discredited malarky.

To the degree he has been able, Governor Chafee has focused economic development on the real drivers of prosperity: education, health and infrastructure. But what little he has been able to accomplish is far short of the interventions we need to heal the fractured economy.

If Rhode Island did just one thing to improve its economy, it should be to adopt the mission of Burlington, VT’s CEDO – the Community Economic Development Office. This mission essentially forbids buffalo hunting, instead requiring the organization to target resources on existing businesses and new enterprises started by local residents. It also seeks to create as many impacts as possible, meaning that any given allocation of resources will be small. The idea is not to create wealth for the few but to create prosperity for the many.

The results speak for themselves. Burlington is perennially awash in cash, running an annual surplus. They boast among the lowest unemployment rates in the country in the same range as the remote, resource-extraction driven economies like North Dakota. But Burlington is not focused on resource extraction. Instead, they enjoy a mix of large and small businesses in sectors like tourism, biotech and fulfillment.

And, as a final nail in the coffin of Righty’s take on economic development, buffalos come to Burlington, no begging, no tax breaks. Burlington is a thriving city that can afford excellent schools and excellent infrastructure. If you can take the harsh Vermont winters, Burlington offers a quality of life that few other communities in the northeast can rival.

Heal the Ecology, Heal the Economy

To move forward in a meaningful way, Rhode Island needs to get past the false dichotomy that environmental initiatives come at the cost of jobs. In fact, the opposite is true. The most pressing environmental needs all require large, blue-collar workforces. By attacking these problems head-on, we can drive prosperity at all levels of the economy.

At the top of our list must be consistent, sustained action on energy creation and usage. From distributed rooftop solar to utility-scale offshore wind farms, Rhode Island needs to move aggressively to reduce the need for fossil fuel fired electrical plants. Righty, you’re dreaming if you think that oil will ever cost less than it does now. Likewise, when the environmental impacts of fracking finally come to light, this cost will also skyrocket. Cheap natural gas is a beautiful illusion.

On the consumption side, the New England housing stock is woefully old and inefficient. The house in which I write has ill-fitting storm windows over old-fashioned, single-pane double hung sashes. We’ve had cellulose blown in the walls and the attic, but it’s far from a tight ship. And in the basement…you guessed it: an oil-burning furnace. There are probably tens of thousands of homes in the region that need a retrofit. It will probably take a decade to complete this work.

Next on the list is land management and use, which means urban trees and urban farms. Surging natural resources into the toxic, food-deprived inner city neighborhoods attacks poverty on a number of fronts. By increasing green space and decreasing pavement, we reduce toxic storm water runoff, improve air quality, decrease radiant heat, increase availability of high-value foods and increase community engagement.

These things are happening in Providence, but they can increase at least double. And they are virtually unheard-of in Pawtucket, Central Falls and Woonsocket, where they are most needed.

I would very much like to hear the Democratic gubernatorial candidates speak strongly to these ideas, but I doubt I will. Ms. Raimondo talks a good game, but she clearly labors under the capitalist myths. I would hope that Mayor Taveras could see the value here, but political reality will demand that he not challenge the voters outside the city limits with ideas that are strange and new. At least to them.

Let me sum up by saying that this: the fact that these proven approaches seem radical in Rhode Island circa 2013 is the single greatest problem we have.

Little Rhody, you are behind the curve and badly so. You need radical ideas and radical interventions. Financial literacy is meaningless to people living hand-to-mouth. Quibbling over a one-cent bridge toll is just silly when we need to radically restructure transportation funding across the board.

Still Righty beefs about taxes and spouts discredited myths. The problem, Rhode Island, is that you listen.

Bicameralism: Why in RI?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Senate_ChmbrThe past few weeks have brought me to a couple of intriguing talks, which I’m just getting my head around now. First was one by the authors of Dollarocracy. The second was Common Cause RI’s Annual Meeting, which featured a keynote speech by Prof. Sanford Levinson about rethinking the U.S. Constitution. It had seemed timely during the shutdown, though during his speech the U.S. Congress began the process of voting to reopen the government. The heart of Levinson’s argument (as I remember it) was that if the most we interact with the U.S. Constitution is through interpretations of the Bill of Rights and a handful of the amendments, then we’re not really interacting with the document. After all, if the meaning of a comma and the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment is The Great Constitutional Debate of the day, then we’re really debating a really tiny fraction of the document. We’re leaving so many of the provisions of the Constitution alone. “Like bicameralism!” Levinson exclaimed, more than once in his speech. He was really negative about bicameralism in state constitutions. Maybe it was just the repetition, but that stuck with me.

I’ve discussed the idea of a unicameral legislature before, and GoLocalProv’s Dan Lawlor has also suggested it’s not a terrible idea. And should a Rhode Islanders approve a state Constitutional Convention in 2014, I think it’s something we should really discuss. Let’s talk about how weird our bicameralism is.

Ostensibly, state bicameralism is based on the national bicameralism. A state Senate is supposed to mirror the U.S. Senate; its members represent a lower rung of government (states in the U.S. Senate, municipalities – originally – in the R.I. Senate) rather than a number of people. In Rhode Island, for a long time, that was how things were: there were an equal number of senators to towns and cities. In practice, this kept the Republican Party in power far longer than they should have been, and it wasn’t until the Bloodless Revolution in the 1930s that that changed. Similarly, a state House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people, and thus are tied to districts rather than government areas. Because it represents the People, the House is usually where a budget originates from.

In Rhode Island, this difference doesn’t exist any more. Rhode Island really just has two Houses of Representatives; the big one which produces the budget and the small one approves appointments. Other legislation  It’s not a great system because it’s mostly redundant, but it’s not a totally broken system, because it’s more or less worked for a long time.

What if we applied the principles of bicameralism to other branches of government though? Like, what if instead of a single Governor we had two Co-Governors, each elected to four-year terms but elected in syncopated cycles. And what if, like the legislature, it took the signature of both Co-Governors to pass legislation? If both were from the same party, perhaps there would be negotiation and they’d pretty much agree. But if different parties each held a Co-Governorship… expect nothing to get done.

Or what if there were two state Supreme Courts? If you had to argue your case before one court, and then argue it again before the other court; and neither court needed to take into account the ruling of the the other. And only if both courts reach the same verdict could anything be done.

That seems ridiculous, but that’s exactly what happens with dozens of bills each year in the legislature. Advocates and legislators make their case before one chamber and then have to make the case again before the other chamber. If one key legislator, say a committee chair, has a problem with the bill… that bill dies. On the face of it, having to make the same argument twice is not necessarily a negative, yet it does make the General Assembly slower at dealing with things than it could be; requiring that each piece of legislation has a doppelganger also has the consequence that should one chamber request changes to a bill, then those changes have to be approved by the other chamber, the original bill withdrawn and a Sub A be submitted.

It also means that the two chambers can hold up legislation they don’t see eye-to-eye on as negotiating tools over one another. Within a single branch of our government, we can have a conflict that goes beyond the simple partisan or ideological divides. One that’s more about where power resides. This is not a productive conflict to have within government.

Reducing the legislature to one chamber would create a General Assembly that did not need to re-argue each piece of legislation it wished to pass. It would eliminate a nonsensical duplication of the legislative process. It would strike out a whole section of political conflict.

In today’s political reality though, this is impossible to do. First, Senate Democrats disproportionately benefit from incumbency as compared to their Republican peers. Second, the change is so radical that finding a way that doesn’t anger every senator is impossible. The most feasible strategy seems to be putting all politicians into one chamber with the next redistricting, so that 113 districts are drawn instead of 75. But too many politicians aspire to the leadership positions, and it would be impossible for politicians to be satisfied that their smaller districts were “safe” enough that they’d stand a good chance of regain their seats. It certainly would be impossible without other changes to how we do districting and elect our legislators.

Which is why a Constitutional Convention is the sole place it could happen. But even with that such an amendment would face two major hurdles to winning an affirmative vote from Rhode Islanders. First, it would be campaigned against vehemently. Second, it would require overcoming the “tradition” of bicameralism. Too many of our political institutions have become sacred totems. Bicameralism is one of those. As Lawlor points out, it only was defeated in Nebraska thanks to Great Depression politics, the idea that bicameralism led to corruption, and high voter turnout thanks to a vote on legalizing horse racing. A similar confluence of events seems unlikely to happen in the next few years.

Dirty tricks, broken promises and voter suppression in RI


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

voter suppressionThe Justice Department is challenging the legality of North Carolina’s and Texas’ voter ID laws on civil rights grounds, and they have good reason. These laws disproportionately disenfranchise people of color, latinos, immigrants, women, queer people, students, seniors, the disabled, and, particularly, the poor – demographics that have a harder time than many getting an accepted ID.

The nation-wide conservative push for this legislation is a politically-motivated attack on universal suffrage and a threat to American democracy. Like poll taxes and literacy tests these laws belong in history books on the Jim Crow South, certainly not in 21st Century Rhode Island. Unfortunately, House Democratic Party leadership seems to be throwing universal suffrage under the bus for their own electoral advantage against progressive candidates, whose lower-income and minority supporters are less likely to have accepted IDs.

When Gordon Fox was running for reelection last year, he said that voter ID was the biggest complaint he heard from the constituents in his diverse East Side district. So he pledged to do something about it, promising to sponsor new legislation to “include a ‘sunset provision’ in the law.” Last session, that campaign promise went unfulfilled.

But Attorney General Eric Holder’s suit against North Carolina has brought voter ID back into the progressive crosshairs, and the grumbling on Hope Street has begun to grow louder. This year, Gordon may find that his constituents aren’t so easily outfoxed.

It’s well established: voter ID laws effectively disenfranchise many black, latino, female, queer, young, old, disabled, and poor voters who are otherwise eligible but disproportionately lack the right kind of ID. Further, the only “evidence” to justify these laws are anecdotes told by politicians, which are not supported by real evidence. That’s why the laws have been labeled “voter suppression” and likened to the disenfranchisement tactics of Segregation. And it’s no accident that these laws have been the pet project of the tea party and reactionary Republicans across the country in recent years; the disenfranchised groups all tend to vote left. Don Yelton, a Republican Party precinct captain in North Carolina, openly admitted this in a recent interview on the Daily Show. Voter suppression is a political game – and the biggest loser in this game is the ideal of popular government.

Embarrassingly, Rhode Island was the only state in which Democratic Party politicians passed this sort of voter suppression law, and it has made us into a right-wing talking point. When Fox passed this law, he even rejected a personal appeal from the chairwoman of the national Democratic Party.

Worse, against popular pressure and his very own campaign promises, earlier this year Fox actually succeeded in revising the law to make it harsher!

The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats of America (RIPDA) collected more than 1,800 signatures on a petition for the repeal of the Voter ID law. According to RIPDA’s Sam Bell, after collecting these signatures they met with one of the Speaker’s legal advisors, who arranged a meeting with Fox for January of this year. This was a “promise he refused to honor,” Bell regrets. When the repeal bill came up, RIPDA, the NAACP, the ACLU and other pro-voting groups put together a strong testimony at the hearings.

In spite of this overwhelming support for a full repeal of the draconian law, Fox offered what initially seemed to be a compromise bill far to the right of the sunset he had pledged to introduce: the law would be frozen in its 2012 form, and the even more onerous requirements scheduled to come on line in 2014 would be dropped. As Bell recounts, “although we [the pro-repeal groups] were severely disappointed, we felt it was best to support this holding action.”

This, it turned out, was a tragic mistake. In a cowardly political maneuver, House leadership decided to keep the amended version of the bill secret until the minute before it would be voted on, leaving the members of the Judiciary Committee and the public no time to read the actual text. And with good reason: the revised bill included a provision that sharply tightened voting restrictions. With the revisions, not only would fewer forms of ID be accepted than in 2012—fewer forms of ID would be accepted than under the original law’s much tighter 2014 limits! Such a draconian bill would never have passed if the democratic process had been respected, so Fox and his friends resorted to trickery.

In a display of brazen dishonesty, leadership portrayed the amended bill as just a “freeze” of the current law. This story seemed plausible. Several committee members were visibly furious about how weak this leadership-described “freeze” compromise was. “This sucks!” exclaimed Representative Joe Almeida. But the leadership neglected to inform the Judiciary Committee about the part that clearly “sucked” much more: the provision they’d snuck in to dramatically increase voting restrictions. Thanks to the leadership’s deception, even strong opponents of voter ID on the Judiciary Committee ended up inadvertently voting for this assault on our basic democratic rights.

What makes the voter suppression law so valuable to Gordon Fox that he’s willing to lie to defend it?

In most states, Republican politicians support voter ID measures in order to disenfranchise their Democratic opponents’ voting base. The same partisan politics clearly aren’t at work here in deep-Blue Rhode Island, but perhaps a similar motive is behind the law nonetheless.

Consider this: in the upcoming Democratic Party primary campaign for governor, the conservative party establishment is expected to get behind state Treasurer Gina Raimondo, whose voting base will be heavily rich and white – demographics likely to have driver’s licenses. Raimondo’s chief opponent may be Providence Mayor Angel Taveras. With many of his black, latino and low-income supporters turned away at the polls, Taveras would be skating on a broken ankle. A strict voter ID law is a serious advantage for Raimondo and other establishment Democratic Party candidates, and a serious disadvantage to progressive, insurgent challengers. The upcoming gubernatorial race is just one example of the benefits of voter suppression for conservative incumbents; these candidates will have a much easier time getting re-elected if they disenfranchise large blocs of their progressive challengers’ voting base. Fox and his friends – at the expense of universal suffrage – are playing a Republican political game in a Blue State: they are refusing to play fair.

But the Speaker can’t outfox his constituents this time. If Gordon Fox wants to serve the interests of his racially diverse, progressive constituents, he needs to fulfill his campaign promise of sponsoring a sunset to this odious law. And to prove that he and the Party leadership aren’t playing a vicious game of disenfranchisement for political advantage, the sunset will need to be a fast one: the law must be fully and permanently repealed before the next election cycle.

If the Speaker has a change of heart and pledges to support the repeal of the voter ID law at the beginning of the upcoming session, the progressive will gladly work with him to restore voting rights in the Ocean State. But if he hesitates, he’ll find himself up against a coalition much larger, much more militant, and much more pissed off than last time.

Voter ID is the greatest threat to the right to vote in this state in over a hundred years. Rhode Islanders historically haven’t taken very kindly to being taxed without being represented. Gordon Fox would do well to remember that.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387