Michigan and voting rights entwined in the legacies of Romney and the death of Viola Liuzzo

Viola Liuzzo

Two civil rights workers were killed in 1965 in Alabama while helping African Americans vote in the South. One of them was Viola Liuzzo, a white woman from Michigan, called a hero in the civil rights movement and whose legacy is intertwined with Romney's, a popular Governor who memorialized her contribution to voting rights.

The legacies of both Liuzzo and George Romney, former Governor of Michigan and father of Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, are a clear reminder how important it is for people to vote and for voting rights to be fair, just and inclusive.

The reminder is especially important as a Michigan Republican lawmaker, Pete Lund, has put forward a bill to partition voting in a way that would entirely change the Electoral College, an institution that has been long-held as part of maintaining the balance of power.  At the same time, there have been renewed attempts to require additional documentation and evidence of the right to vote, in ways that make it particularly difficult for the poor and for minorities.  Liuzzo gave her life in order to ensure the freedom to vote, and that life was memorialized by Governor Romney after her death in a way that underlined its value to everyone at the time. He was reported by the New York Times as stating after her death, “gave her life for what she believed in and what she believed in is the cause of humanity everywhere."

Liuzzo and a young African American man named Leroy Moton, who acted as her driver, shuttled civil rights workers to the airport in Montgomery. They were gunned down by members of the Ku Klux Klan following a civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery. The four men accused of the crime were Collie Wilkins, 21, Gary Rowe, 34, William Eaton, 41, and Eugene Thomas, 42.

Rowe was an FBI informant who presented testimony against the three others eventually tried for the crime of killing Liuzzo and Moton. The others said he pulled the trigger, but Rowe managed to gain advantage, according to documentation of the case, by giving evidence against the others.

Damaging stories were planted in the press that said Liuzzo was a Communist and that she had left her five children so she could be involved sexually with black men. It was later learned these stories in the press had come from the FBI, despite the fact they were false.  J.Edgar Hoover, history has recorded after his death, was a man some say who had his own closet of secrets and maintained a harsh, conservative stance in order to prevent the microscope from being turned on his own life as a closeted homosexual.

An Alabama jury acquitted the three men of the murders of Luizzo and Moton. Afterward, however, Lyndon Johnson had officials from his administration charge these same men under an
1870 statute "of conspiring to deprive Viola Luizzo of her civil rights." The three men who had been acquitted in Alabama were found guilty under the federal law and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The civil rights movement continued, as advances continued to be made. Viola Liuzzo has been said by those who have written her story, that she was ahead of her time in giving her life for the struggle of African Americans to gain their equal rights under the laws of the land. She was 41 years old when she died.

But like stories with false rumors, Luizzo's memory is mixed with the articles written about her as a tactic to prevent a guilty verdict for her killers. She remains sparsely known by students today, and her name is not prominent in the annals of history, as one of those who bravely fought for the rights of others and gave her life in that battle.

Liuzzo was a trained medical technician, a mother, a wife, and someone who was moved by Martin Luther King's cries for justice for African Americans. She volunteered to help in the march for civil rights after she had watched civil rights workers reviled and beaten when they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge into Selma in 1965, She left her husband, a Detroit Teamster Union official and her five children in order to help the movement during a period of several days in the South.

After Liuzzo was killed and her body returned home, her husband Anthony said this, "My wife died for a sacred battle, the rights of humanity. She had one concern and only one in mind. She took a quote from Abraham Lincoln that all men are created equal and that's the way she believed." Her death was memorialized by Governor George Romney, and he met with Anthony to reflect on Liuzzo's killing and her great contribution to voting rights, as they both looked through the numerous telegrams the Governor had received acknowledging it.

A St. Petersburg Times columnist recognized the contributions to the civil rights movement made by Viola Liuzzo in a selection written in 2002 about the sacrifices made by nine other white women during the period of time Luizzo was killed. In a book entitled Deep in Our Hearts columnist Bill Maxwell offers us his the narrative of white women heroines, representatives of thousands of them, who helped in the civil rights movement. The book, Maxwell wrote, presents the memoirs of Constance Curry, Joan C. Browning, Dorothy Dawson Burlage, Penny Patch, Theresa Del Pozzo, Sue Thrasher, Elaine DeLott Baker, Emmie Schrader Adams, Casey Hayden.  Viola Liuzzo was among those heroines

These women, heralded by those who recognize Liuzzo's contributions in registering voters as well in sacrificing her life to ensure that African Americans could vote, are part of black history's story, one Maxwell says folks should not forget. He ended his column with this, as I end this article now, "These nine white women, along with thousands of others, made our country a better place. The movement did not end in these women's personal lives after they went home for the last time."

That would include Viola Liuzzo whose going home was surely her last.  One might also hope that her going home will be remembered, as people resist any attempt to change the voting rights of ordinary citizens through gerrymandering, government shutdowns, threats and any other action that takes away the basic freedom that Liuzzo gave her life to protect.

Religion or cult: What's the difference?

Mormon missionaries in front of DC temple are often referred to as members of a cult

Recently in a discussion about an article comparing Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and those of Quakers, a reader from France observed both as being "cults."  But what is a cult or a defined religion and are their national beliefs and historical precedents that make the definition difficult?

 Westboro Baptist Church protection in the United States raised the question about whether it is a religion worthy of being protected under the Constitution or a cult.  At the same time people who are members of a minority religion, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers or Mormons, are oftened referred to as belonging to a cult by someone somewhere.  How people view religion and what the law says it is can be very different.

The Supreme Court held in Snyder vs Phelps that the view of religion was not the major factor in the protection for free speech as much as the need for the public to have a forum for protest and offered a summation of its decision that declared Phelps, the controversial minister and head of the Westboro Baptist Church, had a right to protest at funerals because of the Constitutional protection of free speech granted to the public as opposed to viewing its stature as a religious organization.

Mitt Romney, a Mormon who ran in the Presidential primaries, found himself having to defend his Mormon faith. He had to reassure people he is a Christian and not just a member of a cult. That's because many folks in mainstream churches continue to define those outside the mainstream Christian groups as simply cults.

During the early years of most religions, new groups have been referred to as cults. When Jesus was born and called himself King of the Jews, he and his followers were dismissed as heretics. It brought about the crucifixion every bit as much as new Christian groups are dismissed for being different.

The Washington Post enumerates this criteria from the Internal Revenue Service

a distinct legal existence,
 a recognized creed and form of worship,
 a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,
a formal code of doctrine and discipline
a distinct religious history,
a membership not associated with any other church or denomination,
 an organization of ordained ministers,
ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies,
 a literature of its own,
established places of worship, regular congregations, regular religious services, Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young, school for the preparation of its ministers.

This official description of what constitutes a religion is a not accepted by those who believe it is too restrictive in that it seems to favor large, formal organizations. There are religious groups that fall outside this criteria, such as the Unitarians, Quakers, Unity and Jehovah's Witnesses. They may meet in community centers or in private homes. Furthermore, their groups might be comparably smaller than the mainstream religious organizations.

Lawyers differ on the definition of religion, just as private people do. That means debate about what groups should be protected and which ones fall outside the protection of the First Amendment. For example, Westboro Baptist Church, whose members protest at the funerals of fallen soldiers, may have aberrant beliefs according to many, but their right to protest as a religious group has been upheld by the courts prior to the Supreme Court decision. Westboro Baptist Church might be outside the mainstream Baptist practices but the lower courts have protected their practices as within the definition of religion, although the Supreme Court emphasized the right to public protest as opposed to using the definition of a religion in order to make a decision.

Still many folks differ on the definition of religion remaining core criteria for
discussion. Media groups support reinforcement of the right of free speech protection as do many other groups that are not of a religious orientation..

Over time the definition of what constitutes religion is something that occurs gradually, as a group becomes more and more known and accepted by the culture. This is how Mormons have started to enter the mainstream, as two Governors, father and son, named Romney, have both been the highest officials of the State of Michigan. Their religion has had that popular microscope used to assess their beliefs.

Experts tell us people differ in what they define as religion according to their personal religious bias. That criteria means what constitutes religion is likely to continue to be part of the national debate, especially during elections, as it has been in modern times.  Furthermore the mainstream Catholic doctrine in Europe continues to reflect the major division between Protestant and Catholic beliefs in ways that have made the Lutherans and Anglicans cling to a partial relationship with Catholicism that would separate them from other Protestants. It is an effort to give these groups a greater level of authenticity as a religion so as not to be lumped with Protestants they consider not mainstream.

As the controversy continues in the United States, with the "in group" referring to any other religious group as a cult, just as the Catholic Church history may also reflect the ongoing stance of the entire Protestant community as in question.

Romney family member offers example of courage, human values

Carol Forsloff---

[caption id="attachment_22259" align="alignleft" width="264"] Mitt Romeny[/caption]

While members of the media seem to treat politicians as sterotypes and targets for derision often what is overlooked is a human factor of what they do that is good and exemplary, like a Romney family member's own example of a profile of courage.

Mitt Romney was mocked for a photo related to his adopted, African American grandson during his election campaign against Barack Obama for the Presidency.  One of the news commentators of MSNBC, Melissa Harris Perry made fun of a photo of the Romney family shown with the newest family member, an African American child. She later apologized, and Mitt Romney accepted the apology. But Harris Perry might well have been advised to know the Romney family history before casting aspersions on character.

At a time when the Mormon church struggled with its endogenous racial discrimination represented by the church interpretation of the story in the Book of Genesis of Cain`s killing of his brother Abel came that dramatic example of that Romney family courage. The church`s interpretation of God`s punishment was the black skin assigned to Cain so that people forevermore would recognize the skin color and remember it as negative, especially given the further interpretation that God also cast Cain aside and directed he be separated from his brethren. The doctrine was used to justify slavery during America`s period of slavery and segregation. But family patriarch, George Romney separated himself from the segregationist mindset in his compassion for a civil rights worker from his state who was shot and killed as she was in the South helping voter registration of African Americans.

Viola Liuzzo was a mother of several children who went on that mission to work with other civil rights workers and was murdered by Ku Klux Klan members while driving on a highway with 19-year old Lerot Moton following one of those voter registration events. The violent hilling of Liuzzo came on the heels of the famous march on Selma in 1965, where television images showed violent attacks by white citizens and police on the civil rights workers in the march.

George Romney responded passionately to the violent killing of Liuzzo by declaring a day of mourning and affirming his commitment to the rights of all people, regardless of color. This advocacy was in direct contrast to Mormon practice at the time, as he joined other political figures in reminding people of all political persuasions that the United States doctrines of equality must umbrella everyone.

So while media folk often relish poking fun at politicians in sometimes cruel ways, it might be good to remember those examples of the good they do, just as we need to shine a light on anyone who offers an example of humanitarian justice.

America's appreciation of diversity and spirit of Christmas sullied by religious biases

 

[caption id="attachment_7745" align="alignleft" width="300"] Jew, Catholic nun and Muslim on World Religion Day, an example of religious tolerance[/caption]

Carol Forsloff---In spite of America's diversity of creed and color, there remains a tendency to think of those who are on the edge of the mainstream groups as the “Other.” This is particularly true since 9/11, as Muslims remain concerned they are targets of suspicion, harassment and prejudice. This is also true of other groups, as even folks without religion are suspicious of those who belong to some of the minority groups. 

Harvard University has a project called the Pluralism Project. Every year the group publishes research on the topic of religion in America. The most recent research examined the impact of the Boston bombing at the marathon on perception of Muslims.

“People, they’re not used to seeing an American Muslim…there’s no such thing, it doesn’t exist,” says Alisha Fields, an African-American convert to Islam who wears hijab or the traditional clothing and who has experience with being labeled. Fields told researchers that she feels her fellow Americans, when they find out you are Muslim, “label you as Other, because if you’re Muslim, people don’t think you’re American.” She told researchers that this sets her up in an either-or choice as Muslim or American.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a long history of suffering persecution in the United States. There have been numerous cases that have been brought to the courts, where Jehovah's Witnesses, who often refer to themselves as JV's, have been discriminated against, often because of their stance on not entering military service or saluting the flag. In fact some of the veteran's groups have particularly targeted some of the JV's, with the result that the religious group went to the courts to present evidence of discriminatory practices. A book entitled Judging Jehovah's Witnesses provides an overview of the problem.

Although Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts are both Mormon, questions arose during Romney's run for the Presidency about the Republican politician's religious beliefs. Yet none of the other candidates on either the Democratic or Republican ticket were asked similar questions. And many people, according to the Christian Science Monitor, will private ask their Mormon friends and acquaintances, “You don't really believe all that stuff, do you,” which is a reflection of the negative attitudes that are often expressed about Mormonism.

America has diverse religious groups that include a variety of Christian groups. As Christmas draws closer the different styles of worship during the Christmas holidays become apparent. Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate the holiday. The Mormons do. And the Muslims believe in and honor Christ, but Christmas is not a religious holiday celebrated by most of them in America, although the idea of gift-giving can occur within the greater community with children involvement on some occasions.

Christmas is a time, it is said, for people to come together in the spirit of love and forgiveness. But the suspicion and distrust among religious groups remain a barrier.

 

 

 

 

 

Should America be 'restored' or 'rebuilt?'

[caption id="attachment_17546" align="alignleft" width="800"] Franklin Graham sits with his father, Billy Graham[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — "I pray that all Christians and God-fearing Americans will put aside labels and vote for principles–God’s principles–that for many years have resulted in His blessing upon our nation." With that statement Franklin Graham put aside any notions of separation of church and state to endorse Mitt Romney for President, reflecting the moral biases of evangelicals in the political process.

Prior to the Presidential election of 2012, Graham said, "President Clinton said that President Obama “has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up.” But God-fearing Americans have no desire to see America rebuilt–but rather restored. To “rebuild it” would be to create a new nation without God or perhaps under many gods. This was never the intent of those who shed their blood for the freedom to worship as “one nation under God.”

This notion of restoring America has been the watchword of the Republican party since Ronald Reagan's Presidency, according to Mark Silk, who is Professor of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College and director of the Greenberg Center. It is the banner upheld during public debates and the reason for some of debates on moral values, as fundamental religious belief hearkens to the good old days of the founding fathers as the way things still should be.

"One nation under God" and "In God We Trust", however, were not the phrases used by the founding fathers, specifically those who wrote the Constitution. Instead the focus was on making sure people had certain freedoms to worship without interference and also to recognize that government and religion were not intertwined in all respects, as the separation of church and state was underlined by Thomas Jefferson as important.

These references to God came later, as many of the founding father were humanists or Deists as opposed to fundamental Christians, as many believe. President Eisenhower initiated the prayer breakfast in the 1950's and Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money during that same decade. "One nation under God" came in 1956, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this same era, as the writer, Edward Bellamy, had no reference to God in his original composition.

So as Franklin Graham made assertions about the moral consequences of electing Mitt Romney over Barack Obama, using the notion of restoring the nation to its original God-fearing ways, those same ways, at the time of independence, also included women and blacks unable to vote, folks working long hours with little concern for health and safety, and the separation of whites from blacks in every area of community life. Many of these same problems remained during the 1950's when God's name was inserted into political speeches and recitations.

The notion of restoration, referencing the founders intent, seems not be as Graham has discussed; but it does maintain an attitude that maintaining the past beliefs and direction is to be favored over rebuilding a nation in economic distress.

 

 

Can you lie in a debate and still win it is a question of ethics

[caption id="attachment_16580" align="alignleft" width="300"] Debating chamber[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — Judging criteria for debating concentrates on both content and delivery, but the emphasis is not on checkable facts as part of the scoring. That means it is possible to present a good argument and refutation, be inaccurate about the facts, and still win the debate. Media were quick to score the Presidential debates between Mitt Romney, Presidential challenger and Barack Obama, current President of the United States, but should the public follow suit in how it ends up judging the candidates future performance? And can you lie in a debate and still win it?

This reporter's experience many years ago with debating saw the problems reflected in the very instructions given to debaters. Again the emphasis was on style, the ability to listen and reflect on the opponents content and to present an argument that was competitively given. No one said, "Make sure you get your facts straight, as we will be checking them afterward before giving the final score." The final score was given almost immediately by the panel of judges, based upon the scoring criteria that measures content understanding and style of delivery.

In the clear light of day, pundits now examine the facts presented by both Romney and Obama and find errors on both sides. Obama is said to have stretched the truth about the financial picture in terms of future cost savings with his plan. On the other hand, those who have examined Romney's arguments, remind us that those trillions of dollars of savings will require deep cuts in social welfare programs for the helpless and the needy and indeed will cost trillions of dollars more than the present budget by keeping Bush tax cuts permanent and other legislation designed to aid the more prosperous of the American people. Romney is also said to have offered few specifics on just how he would fix the medical care problems in this country outside of slashing the budget in key areas. Income concerns were addressed with simple statements based upon more people having jobs. Yet during the years of relative prosperity and boom, under Presidents Clinton and the early years of President George W. Bush, health care costs had continued to rise and people with pre-existing medical conditions found themselves without health insurance entirely.

Romney has proposed the abolition of Obamacare. The alternative is touched on lightly, with the same proposals put forward numerous times, of competitive insurance company offers. Those exist today. But they have been competitive and costly. And if they have to cover those with pre-existing conditions, the rates are likely to increase dramatically. And most people with severe health problems have likely already met with a host of insurance claims problems from these competitive companies. Blue Cross Blue Shield is often cited for its rate problems and claims issues, as well as other errors. It is just one among many. And insurance companies continue to post record gains while other areas of the economy have struggled. Yet these same companies are touted as having the solution to the existing health care problems. Lack of tort reform seems not to have inhibited these companies in making a profit. Yet tort reform would enhance those profits, as fewer people would receive maximum benefits with restrictions on plaintiffs.

Then there are the arguments offered about tort reform. The public gets the buzz words of debates and public pronouncements but not the facts that offer solutions. The fact is it is the insurance company competitors and their expensive plaintiff attorneys, who charge large fees, and pack them in large bundles that include just "thinking about the case" as a billing entry, although not worded as such.  Plaintiff attorneys must front all costs for their clients and few win those big numbers insurance companies cite.

On the other side of the issue are the growing numbers of medical errors, that include physician's carelessness, pharmacist errors, hospital mistakes caused b y personnel and a host of other issues. Without some reasonable opportunity to receive just compensation many victims of these errors will be left on their own with life-long disabilities for which they have no money to pay. And these people would then require Medicaid, highly vulnerable, experts have told us, under the plan offered by Romney.

So the next debate might want viewers and pundits to consider the facts both before and after the debates. Because that scientifically-based argument reminds us that it is more difficult for people to believe the facts after they have been told a falsehood and accepted that initially. Eyes and ears should be open to the candidates' arguments in light of the real facts and not just points for "content" knowledge and delivery. Folks also might reflect on how difficult it is to argue and debate against lies, especially when the point system is based on personal control and delivery as opposed to facts.

Women's Rights and Honor Killings

[caption id="attachment_15053" align="alignleft" width="300"] National Women's Rights demonstration[/caption]

Editor--While Republicans and Democrats attempt to score points with women following Hilary Rosen's statement that Ann Romney, wife of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, had never worked outside the home, and women's groups continue to champion what they maintain are important rights from hard-fought civil rights battles, around the world women remain the target of violence, including honor killings.

Honor killings rise from deep-rooted prejudices against women. These crimes are not just confined to Muslim countries, but are part of the male culture in some countries that dominates women's rights in general. Women are subjected to horrific torture, beatings and killings for asserting themselves in ways far less than American women asking for equal pay for work outside the home and the freedom to have both a career and family or to simply make the choice of staying at home with their children. The issue of the stay-at-home mom vs the working girl may be the controversy in the United States, but in many countries, women are often forced into a form of slavery from which many are unable to escape.

According to Amnesty International, honor killings are on the rise in many places around the world including Ecuador, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The United Nations reports 5,000 women and girls are killed by their families each year in what is called "honor killings".

In January 2012, a jury found an Afghan family guilty of honor killings in a case that astonished Canadians. Mohammad Shafia, 58, his wife Tooba Yahya, 42, and their son Hamed, 21, were each found guilty of four counts of first-degree murder of sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13. Their crimes? Dishonoring the family by going against the strict rules regarding dress, dating, socializing, and using computers to access the Internet. Their bodies were found in a submerged car in a Kingston, Ontario canal.

While women in the United States examine their roles of working while raising a family or becoming a stay-at-home mom, other women face terror for the simple act of wanting to express themselves independently. Women's rights, while considered a basic human right in America by most citizens, remain only a daydream by women trapped in family relationships where violence is the answer to the quest for independence.

Proxy baptism in Mormonism: A question of religious respect

[caption id="attachment_14274" align="alignleft" width="198"] Mormon Temple in San Diego[/caption]

Joel S. Hirschhorn--When John F. Kennedy ran for President, his Catholic religion became an issue during the campaign, specifically whether he would impose his beliefs on others.  While many people would consider religious bias unfair, nevertheless one’s beliefs are often represented as the core of an individual’s values and therefore a platform for questions when a key leadership position is proposed, such as President of the United States.

Mitt Romney is a senior, influential member of the Mormon Church, a religious group with many positive values that are often referenced by those who believe in the importance of family, community and faith.  The values of hard work, loyalty to one’s family and taking care of one’s own represent core beliefs in the Mormon Church and seen by many as a strong foundation for leadership and a model for Christian life.  But there are practices that are unique to Mormonism that may not be viewed as favorable to the larger community, and, in fact, have been upsetting to many people.  One of these is proxy baptism.

In a nutshell, proxy baptism refers to the Mormon practice of baptizing a living person on behalf of someone who is dead and was not a member of the Mormon Church.  The goal is to get that non-Mormon person into Mormon-defined heaven, which is totally different than what all other religions think of as heaven.  The dead person nor anyone related to the dead person does not necessarily give permission or express any desire to be so baptized.

Standing in for dead people are young Mormon men and women dressed in white robes in Mormon temple ceremonies worldwide, which is considered an honor for them.

Over time many people who are not Mormons have mounted attacks on this practice, viewing the Mormon practice as a serious invasion of their lives and beliefs.   One of these critics is Nobel-laureate Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, who is a top official from the Simon Wiesenthal Center.  He has focused on the Mormon practice of posthumously baptizing Jewish victims of the Holocaust.  Despite his attempts to stop Mormons doing this and despite promises they would, the practice has continued.

It may be reasonable to ask Romney to declare in clear, unambiguous language whether he has participated in such proxy baptisms, whether he believes that this practice is appropriate, and whether or not he understands why non-Mormons would object to this practice.

Would Americans resent a US President that supports Mormon proxy baptizing?  Many certainly would if they knew about the practice and what it represents.

Officially, the Mormon Church has refused to abandon this practice.  “With deepest respect to our Jewish friends, the church cannot abandon fundamental aspects of its religious doctrine and practice,” the church says on its website, “and it should not be asked to do so.”  Many millions of non-Mormons have apparently been proxy baptized, including famous people: Adolph Hitler, Christopher Columbus, most signers of the US Declaration of Independence, Paul Revere, William Shakespeare, Golda Meir, Albert Einstein, President Obama’s mother and Irving Berlin, for example.  There is no attempt by the church to document that non-Mormons had expressed any desire to be baptized into the Mormon faith.  And the church attempts to limit proxy baptizing to a member’s or family member’s ancestors apparently have failed.

Interestingly, those in the Hindu faith have said that Hindu feelings would naturally be hurt if their ancestors were baptized without their will.  Similarly, the Catholic Church has also publicly objected to the Mormon baptism of its members.

US Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid  is also a Mormon, so the question posed to Romney, a Republican,  is reasonable to ask Senator Reid as well because the practice of proxy baptism is imposed on non-Mormons.  It would be helpful to know whether elected officials endorse it.

In sum, the central issue regarding proxy baptism is respect for individual beliefs and practices for non-Mormons and their religious communities, to include those who are atheists as well as members of other religions and Christians of various views.    The question of proxy baptism goes to the heart of respecting people of all faiths and is therefore a reasonable and important question to ask of those whose job is to govern others.