In the wake of NC election results, mourning but no surrender

Published November 19, 2014

by Gene Nichol, UNC professor of Law, published in News and Observer, November 18, 2014.

I’ve been in mourning since the election. I knew of the massive barriers of gerrymandering and the challenges of off-year turnout. I’d seen the polling and feared the impact of a rising national Republican tide. Still, I longed for, and believed in, a larger revolt by North Carolina voters.

Huge majorities were sustained in both houses. Republicans actually gained a seat in the state Senate, raising the tally to a dominating 34-16. They lost three seats in the House, but kept a potent 74-46 edge. The chief architect of the agenda of destruction was elected to the United States Senate.

To understate, the General Assembly was not rejected for its horror. And whether we actually meant to embrace the tea party legacy, we’ve opened the gate to years more of its operation. There’s no reason to believe legislative aspirations will become less brutal. I’d guess the opposite. Each bully seeks to outshine the last.

I’ve thought much about what this means for the thousands who have labored mightily to turn back the tide of cruelty. It’s a time to miss our mentors. Dan Pollitt, my friend and teacher, died in 2010. I remembered a conversation we had a decade ago, after another devastating election.

We’d just returned George W. Bush to the presidency. He had tortured. He’d engaged in rendition. He’d unconstitutionally launched a war by unilaterally attacking a country in bold violation of international law and American honor. We knew this. We saw him do it. And we chose him again. That I could not abide.

I was assigned to speak to the ACLU a few days later – to talk about the election, explore what we ought to do. I told Dan I had no idea what to say, how to suggest we rebound from such a blow.

Pollitt cut me off. “There’s no doubt what we do,” he chided. We do “what people like us always do, we gird our loins and rejoin the fight.” We’ll find something “to go protest in the morning, so we don’t get out of practice.”

We fight because we believe in justice. A life’s work. A nation’s calling. We carry the torch of those who’ve gone before. We don’t have it in us to surrender. We don’t give up because the mission is daunting, the odds are long or the road is filled with peril. We fight because we refuse not to. The “arc of the moral universe is long,” and it “bends toward justice” – but we have to be the arc-benders.

Actually, Dan might not have said all those things. But he had the look in his eye. So we know we’re in it for the long, trying, relentless struggle. We had likely hoped for a quick and clean return to some semblance of decency. That’s not to be. We can wish the stakes weren’t so astounding – fighting for our very character. But they are what they are. Denial doesn’t make the monster recede. It surely doesn’t defeat it.

Our solace, our steel, lies in our purpose. As Barbara Jordan put it: “We believe in equality for all and privilege for none.” That each of us, regardless of background, has “equal standing in the public forum.” No matter our race or religion or sex or orientation or portfolio or region or disability. All of us. The command “represents what this country is … it is non-negotiable … it is indigenous to the American ideal.”

A government that repairs to its caucuses and produces policy after policy designed to serve only the wealthy, only the white, only the Christian, only the straight, only the male and only the adherents of a philosophy of privilege that, itself, mocks the American promise is a government that cannot be allowed to stand. Whether it takes a week or a decade, we’re required to reject it. We now know our toughened assignment. We embrace it. Given the embrace, we cannot lose.

Not long before he died, Robert Kennedy said, “The future belongs to those who can blend reason, passion and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and enterprises of the American democracy.”

His words could have been penned this morning. A personal commitment – born in reason, passion and courage. Our future depends on it. God knows our state does.

Gene Nichol is Boyd Tinsley distinguished professor at the UNC School of Law. He doesn’t speak for UNC.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/11/18/4333775/nichol-in-the-wake-of-election.html?sp=/99/108/

November 19, 2014 at 10:48 am
Richard Bunce says:

Reminds me of 2000 and Sore/Loserman rants... good to know that is what is going on at UNC... he probably "professed" one of the cake classes for the one and done athletes.

November 19, 2014 at 7:39 pm
Greg Dail says:

"...turn back the tide of cruelty."? Lord have mercy, and what's sad is I'm sure you believe just that.

November 20, 2014 at 6:35 am
Kirk D. Smith says:

What a pile of perpetual pooh coming from a highly paid elitist professor and ACLU apparatchik!

November 20, 2014 at 11:07 am
JW Schrecker says:

Like you I had a hard time understanding the destructive decisions and musings of the average liberal socialist. It just didn't seem to make sense to me. I couldn't wrap my mind around their stances and positions in life. They did truly seem to be disjointed and confusing bereft of logic and common sense. After years of searching I finally discovered the answer, NLD (Narcissistic Liberal Disorder). Yes....it is the correct answer because it's true that the simplest answer is best. Diagnostic parsimony advocates that when diagnosing a given injury, ailment, illness, or disease a doctor should strive to look for the fewest possible causes that will account for all the symptoms. This philosophy is one of several demonstrated in the popular medical adage "when you hear hoof beats behind you, think horses, not zebras".

I make no attack on personage, but quite appropriately offer the only possible answer that fits the parameters of the problem of liberals', Democrats', wildly erratic, confused, disjointed and disturbingly deranged thought processes that are so very dangerous to the United States' continued existence for it is all too apparent to the rest of "We the People" that the answers lie in Doctor's Lyle Rossiter's, Gary R. Casselman's, Timothy Daughtry's and Alan Bates' peer accepted and validated psychological findings;

"So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche." The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty. ~ Dr. Lyle Rossiter, Jr., M.D., University of Of Chicago Div Of Bio Sci Pritzker Sch Of Med: Graduated in 1962: Psychiatry - Board Certified, Forensic Psychiatry - Board Certified.

The root of liberal mental disorder is in the personality development of the individual who does not mature normally to value self sufficiency and independence. Such individuals seek a parental substitute. The most convenient is a socialist government. Those with liberal mental disorder are willing to trade their potential for success through education, hard work and respect for others for government subsidies funded through redistribution of wealth which normally accrues to those who earn their money through hard work. Most liberals are intolerant and immature just as are spoiled children. In fact they are the adult version of spoiled children complete with certain sociopathic traits such as pathologic lying and distortion of facts in order to achieve their goals. Liberals mental disorder is characterized by narcissism, selective memory, irrational approaches to problems and denial of reality. ~Dr. Alan Bates, MD: Healthgrades Honor Roll; Family Practice - Board Certified; Central Washington University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Kansas City.

Liberals comprise only about 20 percent of the voting public. So, how has the left been so successful in swaying the majority of voters to believe what they feed them, when most often what the left says is not supported by the facts and what they do actually does harm to their voting constituents? How do they do this? They lie. The uninformed voter will not take the time to learn the facts. ~Dr. Gary R. Casselman, CEO of CCG, Inc., PhD. in Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania.

With regard to the existence of NLD (Narcissistic Liberal Disorder)....note that liberals fail to provide anything to refute it except emotionally laden whines devoid of any contradictory facts from NEUTRAL parties while I provide valid citations of scientific findings of which peer reviews not only validated the findings but additionally confirmed that Doctor Lyle Rossiter had, and this is very important, ABSOLUTELY NO ASSOCIATIONS, past or present, with any political entities whatsoever. And any argument that the disorder is not in the DSM carries no weight in that the DSM [ DSM-I (1952), DSM-II (1968), DSM-III (1980), DSM-III-R (1987), DSM-IV (1994), DSM-IV-TR (2000), DSM-5 (2013)], as one can see is extremely slow in providing updates and thus chronically outdated just as it is regarding NLD, a validated mental disease.