The State of America's First Freedoms

Graphic by Newseum/USA Today

July 4, 1776 may be when America's freedoms were born, but it wasn't until Dec. 15, 1791 -- 15 years later -- that those rights were finally defined.

And so in honor of the day (and in absence of fireworks) we thought we would spend some time as we sometimes do, ruminating on patriotic subjects.

The Bill of Rights outlined those definitions at the insistence of those at the Constitutional Convention who worried about the federal government assuming too much power. They were opposed by those who worried that defining rights might limit them.

We're going to focus on only one of those Amendments to the Constitution today for two reasons.

First, its a holiday and we recognize your attention span is limited.

Second, this is the only Amendment which comes with its own handy status report that we could find. Also, it deals with subjects close to our hearts.

The status report comes in the form of an annual survey produced by The Newseum in Washington, D.C. and USA Today.

You can read the full report by clicking here.

The findings are not so much revelatory as they are worrisome.

For example, nearly 40 percent of the Americans surveyed could not name a single freedom outlined in just the First Amendment. (One suspects those figures would be somewhat higher for the Second Amendment.)

Fully 50 percent of those without a college degree could not name a single one.

And yet these are the freedoms among which Americans hold most dear -- freedom of speech, assembly, the practice of religion and, perhaps somewhat less dear, the press.

How does a person fight to preserve rights she does not know she has?

Another worrisome statistic is the dwindling number of people who believe the freedom to practice one's religion -- no matter how extreme -- applies to all.

In 2011, 67 percent of those polled believed freedom of religion in the U.S. was absolute. In 2013, it dropped to 65 percent and it now stands at 59 percent.

Religion, as it is everywhere, is a complicated topic for Americans.

Some say America was founded as a Christian nation and, if you date that founding to the Puritans, they're right -- so long as you practiced EXACTLY their kind of Christianity. You might want to ask Roger Williams how having a different form of faith was received in Plymouth.

At the same time, however, you could date the founding of the nation to the Virginia colonies, which might lead to the argument that America was founded as a commercial nation, since those folks were there as part of an investment.

Or, we could stick with the founding document, which uses different language for
religion than it does the other rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom

Notice that with freedom of speech, press, assembly and petitioning the government, the First Amendment says no law shall prohibit them.

But with religion, the primary fear was an official government religion. It already had a toehold in North America, with Virginia landholders being taxed to support the Anglican church.

Luckily, the founders were among that increasingly rare group of Americans capable of learning from history and its past mistakes.

They were familiar with history of hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe,

The practice of government-sponsored religion,
Spain, circa 1480

the Protestant reformation, the Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and they knew the dangers inherent in dictating belief.

Today, we seem to be drifting dangerously closer and closer to judging, jailing, prosecuting or killing people for their beliefs, instead of their actions.

We are also drifting in the direction of a country in which accusation equals guilt.

Witness the growing number of people who believe the government should have the right to force companies to unlock smartphones to allow for the examination of data collected by those accused of terrorist acts.

In the survey, a majority, 66 percent, said government should have the right to force companies to provide that information.

Let's remember that accusation is not proof and it is not conviction, and that there are rules for search warrants.

Prosecutors must usually provide a judge with some trail of evidence that provides a valid reason for the search, as well as a general idea of is being sought. And no one calls up the company that made the front door lock, or the lock on the file cabinet and says you must provide the keys.

However, in further proof that the majority of Americans are irony-challenged, almost the exact same percentage of those surveyed replied that they are "concerned about the privacy of personal information on the Internet."

In other words, Americans believe the right to privacy of information on their electronic devices does NOT apply to those accused, but not convicted, performing a terrorist act. Accusations are easy to make, convictions less so.

Rights are there to be applied to and protect all, particularly individuals and those not in the majority. THAT is supposed to be the American way.

The Donald captured as he is overcome by a spirit

of bi-partisan compromise.

And speaking of terror -- Donald Trump.

See? Your heart jumped there for a minute.

Yes, we've come to that sad portion of the survey where we deal with freedom of the press and the public's increasingly dim view of how that freedom is practiced.

Just over half the Americans surveyed -- 51 percent -- believe the media is giving Trump too much coverage.

This one is a hard one for those of us in the media. Our first reaction is "ONLY 51 percent? My God it's All-Trump all the time!"

But there is a part of our brain that says, you can't let the outrageous, false and consistently contradictory things he says go unremarked. We hope, pray, it will lead to Americans rising up in opposition to the xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic things he says regularly.

Instead, a disturbing number of Americans are embracing those statements and rather than being Trump's revealers, we have become his enablers.

Such inherent self-conflict is probably one of the factors behind the finding that very few Americans who responded to the survey believe the press reports in a bias-free manner.

Less than one-quarter of those surveyed believes the media "attempts" to report the news without bias.

We've apparently abandoned the idea that bias-free reporting is actually possible, and now we're delving into motivations, with most Americans believing we don't even try to be bias free.

We have often told anyone who asked, that of course we are not without bias. We're human beings, a species generally recognized to hold beliefs, views and character traits.

For example, longtime Mercury Reporter Evan Brandt is a smart-ass, plain and simple; whereas Fox News morning anchor Steve Doocy is simply an ass with a silly name.

What matters, in our view, is whether the reporting is fair. There is a difference.

Reporting may lead to a conclusion, often the result of doing due diligence to understand all the sides of an issue.

Some believe reporters should give equal time to both sides of an issue. That smart-ass Evan Brandt has even found himself counting sentences when covering political campaigns to ensure equal time.

But sometimes the close examination of an issue reveals that one side is just wrong, or stupid, or dangerous.

Then a reporter must ask herself whether or not her first obligation is to the truth as she has come to see it as a result of more research than most of her readers (listeners/viewers) will undertake; or to a bias-free standard we must truthfully acknowledge is impossible to achieve.

In our view, the answer is to err on the side of truth, with the understanding that yes, truth is often subjective, which is why the attempt must be made to be as fair as possible.

When the muckraking reporters of McClure's magazine -- Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens and Ray Stannard Baker -- revealed the abuses of Standard Oil, political corruption and union violence, they took a side.

They revealed the truth. But their careful documentation of that truth gave them credibility such that Americans were convinced what they wrote was true. And America changed for the better as a result.

But in yet another example of America's irony-challenged character, although most survey results indicate the media is biased, nearly three-quarters of them -- 73 percent -- believe the media is "very" or "somewhat" accurate in its coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign.

It is also ironic that as more and more Americans drift away from professional journalism as a source of information, more and more of them believe that the media should act as "government watchdogs" -- fully 71 percent, up 2 percent from the last survey.

This particular function of journalism is close to that smart-ass Evan Brandt's heart. In fact, he considers it the single most important function of journalism.

Your Local Government Watchdog at work

In fact, he has more than once been heard to say "the First Amendment was not adopted to give us the inalienable right to cover car crashes and fires."

That people love to know about those things is undeniable. But as he sees it, that
coverage is what pays the bills so the expensive, time-consuming, necessary and singularly less-sexy work of making sure elected (and appointed) government officials behave honestly, honorably and do not squander tax dollars gets done.

But as newspapers -- the root source of so much of the news in the world -- struggle to survive, it begs the question: "Why do you want us to be government watchdogs if you'd rather watch cat videos on Facebook?"

It must be America's sense of irony.

Prayer, Graduation and the Law in Pottsgrove

Photo by Evan Brandt

A Pottsgrove School Board member's view of last night's special meeting on whether to continue to allow prayer at the high school graduation.

It's hard to know where to start when writing about last night's school board meeting.

Things started off pretty civilly, people quoted the Constitution, the Bible, the founding fathers; rules of conduct were set up and largely followed; three high school students were among the most well-spoken speakers of the night.

It began with embattled School Board President Rick Rabinowitz making a statement, which I've posted here:




Many other people spoke, and their comments as reproduced roughly in Tweets and some video, can be seen in the Storify down below.

But then, after nearly three hours of civil conversation, what Upper Pottsgrove Commissioner France Krazalkovich called "a marvelous civics lesson," or something to that effect, the personal attacks began.

The first came from resident Danielle Walsh, whose comments about School Board President Rick Rabinowitz's handling of this issue required interruption from the chair -- and obscene shouting from the audience.

Here is some video from that: (Be warned, there are some naughty words)



I don't have any more video, and deadline loomed.

But as it turns out, after I left things got a little dicey again, with school board member Patricia Grimm calling on Rabinowitz to resign.

I don't know much more than that, but isn't that enough for one meeting?

Anyway, here are the Tweets, helpful links and all the videos:

Election Afterthoughts

The front page of our election issue, on 

which we labored
so long and hard 

Tuesday night.

So Winston Churchill is often credited with saying something like "Democracy is the absolute worst form of government, except for all the others" and it is on Election Night that this quote most often haunts my thoughts.

This is not to say that it is a reflection of any particular candidate or race that I covered last night, although for the record I will allow myself the boast that I wrote up results for five.

(Reporter Frank Otto may have done even more, but let him write about this in his own blog!)

Rather, the quote makes me think about the wondrous and awful aspects of elections.

They are, in many cases, popularity contests. This means that the best, most intelligent or most experienced candidate does not always win, which might sound awful at first.

But in the 25 years or so I've been covering elections, I've come to realize that sometimes the best leader is not the smartest, or the most intelligent or the most experienced.

More wondrous to me, or perhaps I should say wonderful, is that there are still people out there who are willing to engage in public service at all.

There are fewer more thankless jobs than that of local elected official.

First of all, they get beat up in the press.

You're welcome.

Secondly, they get calls at all hours of the day and night; stopped in the grocery store; assailed on parent-teacher night from righteously outraged taxpayers who often labor under the illusion that they "pay your salary," and thus have the right to berate them over whatever complaint they are here to register.

In point of fact, most elected officials do not get paid, or if they do, it is in an inverse relationship to the amount of work they do for very little money.

Further, good governance is most often ignored or unrecognized, while bad governance is criticized and shouted from the roof-tops.

As a person who is paid to be one of the shouters, I make no apologies.

It is our role as an independent watchdog to do this. But this does not mean I am not sympathetic to the conditions under which the people about whom we are shouting must labor.

To be sure, there are no shortage of people who run for office for the most venal of reasons; for reasons of ego, or power, or a desire to protect their own interests or those of their friends.

And often enough, those motives become evident soon enough -- so long as someone is watching and can spread the word (the press).

But there is also no shortage of people who are civic-minded. Some decide to run to fix a perceived problem, or right a perceived wrong. Many run simply because they want to serve.

And as I sit here at 2:20 a.m., poking away at my computer keyboard, a well-deserved cocktail at my left hand (all of which might explain the rambling nature of this post), it occurs to me that all of those people deserve a tip of the hat for throwing their hat into the ring in the first place.

Since I'm in a quoting mood, allow me to present one of my favorites from Teddy Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

This is what it often means to be in public service.

But there are fewer and fewer it often seems.

It sure is easy to cover an uncontested race, but I don't think its terribly good for a healthy democracy.

Some may see as a sign of a contented public.

A natural cynic, I usually see it as a sign of a complacent one.

Pottstown had three uncontested council races this year.

There was no contest for the school board at all.

In Lower Pottsgrove, no contest.

In North Coventry, no contest.

In East Coventry, no contest.

Numerous boroughs had no contest for mayor and little or no contest for borough council.

It worries me to think that it is getting harder and harder to find people who "want to serve." They couldn't even find people to man two polling places in the borough.

But then there are bright spots.

There were races where upsets occurred or, like in the Collegeville Borough Council contest, a race so close that there was a tie for fourth place, with as little as three votes separating the winners.

An upset is not a good thing for its own sake. Often enough, worthy people who still have something valuable to contribute are tossed out of office for the flimsiest of reasons on a wave of voter resentment.

But big picture, I believe it is a good thing to keep the elected officials themselves from becoming too complacent; for them to recognize that however imperfect the public's understanding may be, they are still answerable to them.

Which brings us to the public's understanding.

To a large extent, that is the responsibility of myself and my colleagues in the media.

I would be lying if I told you I think we do a very good job of it.

I think we often do the best job we can under the circumstances, but that's not the same thing.

As a devotee of the history of early America, I know that the press enjoys certain privileges, privileges spelled out in the Bill of Rights, privileges it deserves only as long as it lives up to certain responsibilities.

The most important of these responsibilities, in my view, is informing the public about the issues and
candidates that will be decided at the polls.

Freedom of the press is not enshrined in the Constitution so that we have a right to cover car crashes, although they sure sell an awful lot of newspapers.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed on the Constitution so we can watch government and help inform voters.

Period.

Its the reason early newspapers were delivered free of postage; the reason that radio and then television were granted free access to control certain wavelengths of the public's airwaves, that we had a responsibility to inform the public and thus to maintain an informed electorate.

I will spare you the diatribe that might be unleashed here regarding the national media; and I will let radio and television speak for themselves.

Just one of many great newspapers that are no more.

In the newspaper business, we are in crisis. For the first time, we are trying to figure out how to stay profitable, or at least sustainable, in a changing media environment.

We are not volunteers. We do this for pay and, we hope, that results in a degree of professionalism and fairness which fulfills our Constitutional dictate.

But our industry's inability to adapt quickly to changing times has resulted in a widening hole into which things we should cover are falling unreported.

We did not cover the Collegeville, Royersford or Spring City council races until they were over. It's not because we didn't want to, its because we did not have the staff or resources to.

That's a reason, but not an excuse.

Whether our reasons are good or not, the voters of those communities went unserved.

If I were you, I would find that as worrisome as uncontested races.

It can't be good for our democracy, and for all our sakes, I hope we figure out a way to reverse this trend very soon.

Happy Election Day.




 

The Rights Stuff

Two-hundred and twenty four years, and three days ago, Pennsylvania ratified the U.S. Constitution, only the second state to do so.



Four years and three days after Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution, the first 10 amendments were officially added, having themselves been ratified by enough states to make them the first additions to a living document that continues to guide and confound us to this day.

That makes today Bill of Rights Day.

So it seems appropriate to continue our history theme for another day. (Back to Pottstown matters tomorrow, I promise.)

The back-story on the Bill of Rights is sort of interesting (for those of us who find these things interesting).

The Pennsylvania Statehouse hosted the convention in 1787

Our local metropolis, Philadelphia, was again the setting for a Constitutional Convention, another momentous step forward for this Republic, which was in danger of grinding to a standstill under the inadequate framework of the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, two years before peace with Britain was declared.

Even then, Americans were wary of a strong, central government, never having seen one that had their interests at heart, and the Articles of Confederation reflected that.

But it soon became evident, as states refused to pay their share of national expenses and sought individual treaties with the sovereign nations of Europe, that what they had was not enough.

And so in 1787, delegates from throughout the fledgling country had to make another trip to Philadelphia.

They came with different ideas.

Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong federal government, with a strong central bank, wanted a president named for life; whereas others believed all that was needed was some tinkering with the current articles.

The end result, as James Madison's detailed notes make clear, was an amalgam of several proposals, hammered out through negotiation and compromise by men who knew that their failure likely meant the failure of the American democratic experiment.

But it wasn't perfect.

As with the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers who established a nation in the name of freedom, were unable to find a way through the tangled political thicket to end slavery and, perhaps worse, in fact enshrined it in the new Constitution by including the now infamous "three-fifths clause."

This allowed the states with legalized slavery to count those who were otherwise considered to be "property," to, in this once instance, be counted as at least partially people for the U.S. Census purposes of representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

In his book "Negro President," historian Garry Wills makes the compelling case that Jefferson and the  parade of Virginians who followed him into the presidency and House Speakership, benefited from this clause, which gave them representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College disproportionate to their white populations.

(He also argues, with some apparent justification, that from that point forward, Jefferson's earlier and impassioned advocacy for eliminating slavery in the new republic  evaporated into mere rhetoric, as the full benefit of the political windfall the three-fifths clause provided made itself increasingly self-evident.)

But throughout the debate over the Constitution, one other central issue plagued the debates -- a Bill of Rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union sums it up pretty succinctly: "The Federalists opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralized government, refused to support the Constitution without one."

The federalists argued that the Constitution clearly outlined the powers of the federal government and that all other powers fell, by default, to the states. They argued articulating a set of rights might make those not articulated unprotected.

But for those who feared centralized control, an assumption was not enough and it was equally important to outline what a central government could not do.

And so the Constitution was ratified at its convention with the promise that immediately after its adoption by ratifying conventions in all 13 states, that an equal effort would be made to draw up and adopt a Bill of Rights.

Drafted by Madison and based largely on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, these civil liberties have formed the foundation of some of our most treasured freedoms, as well as the foundation of some of our most vociferous arguments.

Those who argue in favor of gun rights, and those who argue to protect the right to burn the flag both revere the same document.

Only in America.

So take a moment today to consider what life might be like without those rights. It doesn't take much imagination.

Adams looks worried. He was, about his legacy.

And you don't have to look at despotic regimes in third-world countries to do it.

It has happened right here on our shores, most often in times of war, or near war, and often by those considered our greatest presidents.



Just seven years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, they were challenged by the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to speak ill of the administration of President John Adams for fear of fomenting a desire to go to war with France.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of "habeus corpus," which allows a court to determine if a prisoner has been imprisoned lawfully.

During World War I, Congress passed and Woodrow Wilson signed The Sedition Act of 1918, which outlawed speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.

During World War II, this nation imprisoned thousands and thousands of Americans in west coast camps simply because they were of Japanese heritage.



And, as Jon Stewart archly noted (does he ever note anything any other way?), last week Barack Obama made clear he is considering vetoing the $662 billion defense authorization bill passed this afternoon, "not because he objects to the executive branch having near infinite power to detain whoever it wants, but because he objects to the executive branch not having totally infinite power to detain whoever it wants" without charging them.

It was not too long ago, 2007 in fact, when the same Barack Obama told an enthusiastic crowd of supporters "we're not a nation that locks people up without charging them."

All of which brings to mind of a quote from James Madison that I have taped to the very computer screen on which I am writing these words, and which I look at every day:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Happy Birthday Bill of Rights.

It would seem we need you more and more each day.