Viewpoints: Why America needs humility


Humility too often goes unseen in today’s ego-driven politics, but here's why we and our leaders need it.

In a recent speech full of allusions to Bible verses and Christian hymns at the National Baptist Convention in Kansas City, Hillary Clinton focused on Christian humility. She acknowledged that, "Humility is not something you hear much about in politics."
But, she said, it should be. Those who truly understand “the awesomeness of power and the frailty of human action” – that is, those who manifest humility – are “our greatest leaders.”
Of course, this speech was smart campaigning. It reminded voters of what she sees as a competitive advantage with her opponent. It was also good Baptist theology.
But, humility is not merely a Christian virtue. Humility is an essential aspect of every major religion. For that matter, humility is more than just a religious virtue. In my research, I have argued that humility is an essential democratic virtue.
So, why is humility so essential in a democracy?

Humility, religion and politics

Like most Christians, Baptists believe that all people are sinners, that all of us are condemned by God’s righteous judgment and that there is nothing that we ourselves can do to alter that condition. If we are saved, it is because of God’s actions, not ours. Humility is the only appropriate response to these tenets of faith.
What’s more, Jesus himself washed the feet of his disciples and humbled himself “even unto death.” So, devout Christians are called to do no less.
However, politics and humility just don’t go together. Politics requires ego; you need to present yourself as a better alternative than your opponent. Humility means that you are aware of your own failures, and are respectful of those with whom you disagree. Seen in this light, many believe that in our society, humility has become“counter cultural” and that politics is a leading cause.
A 2016 survey, for example, showed that over 70 percent of Americans believe that incivility has reached crisis levels and 64 percent believe that politicians are to blame. The survey describes incivility as “insulting comments” and “personal attacks.” These sorts of behavior do not go together with any understanding of humility. If you are humble, you present your opinions and beliefs with more modesty and less belligerence.
Take for example some of the comments from the presidential candidates. Donald Trump, to be sure, has said that he has “much more humility than a lot of people would think.” But his claims that he has “a very good brain,” that he has the “best words,” that he knows “more than the generals” and ceaseless reminders that he is“a winner” all reinforce the idea that humility is, to say the least, not something that comes naturally to him.
Clinton, drawing a contrast with her opponent’s campaign, called half of Donald Trump’s supporters “a basket of deplorables,” for which she later expressed regret. Nonetheless, the comment reinforced the opinion of many that she is arrogant. “If defaming millions of American citizens she has never met as ‘racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic’ is not arrogant then the word has no meaning," Jewish rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote in The Hill.

Humility enables leaders

Clinton is correct to argue that throughout our nation’s history, those who manifested humility were among our best leaders – and that goes for politics and religion.
Upon accepting command of the Continental Army, George Washington said:
“I…declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the command I am honored with.”
In his second inaugural, hard on the heels of a long and bloody civil war, Abraham Lincoln concluded:
“With firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”
In his letter from Birmingham jail, Martin Luther King Jr. closes with acknowledgment of his limited perspective:
“If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth or indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me.”

 

Bias and humility

Humility is a virtue that has enabled our best leaders to improve our democracy, and it is good for the rest of us, too. It would help, in other words, if humility were not thought of as merely a Christian or religious virtue.
Far better to see humility as a prudential response to the knowledge of how we human beings really operate. Scientific evidence is overwhelming that all of us are hopelessly and inescapably biased.
When we hear information that runs against our beliefs and values, we find reasons to discount or reject that information. This operation happens before we are even consciously aware of it. And what is more, the part of our brain that begins this process (our amygdala) is not accessible by our conscious brain.
Psychologist Geoffrey Cohen tested this hypothesis in a group of people likely to think that their side offered a better vision for the future. He presented Republican and Democratic students who had strong opinions about welfare reform with two proposals: one very conservative and one very liberal.
These students also had fairly strong partisan attachments, strongly Democrats and Republicans. Cohen found that this partisan identity overwhelmed their assessment of the two proposals. Even when he called the conservative proposal “Democratic” and the liberal one “Republican,” the students still followed their party’s beliefs.
In fact, once the label was attached, the impact of the proposal’s objective content “was reduced to nil.” For these students, their bias in favor of their party was more important than the facts about what they were ostensibly assessing.

Why humility matters

With effort, we can learn to mitigate the effects of our biased brain. For example, even when we are most convinced of our own righteousness, we can push ourselves to try to consider alternatives, or even to make the argument for the other side.
But we will never be able to fully control these effects, let alone turn them off.
In fact, the scientific account of bias is not at all far from the Christian concept of sin. We all have it (it is universal), we can’t not do it (it is inescapable) and it causes us to fail to live up to being the kinds of people we want to be.
For democratic citizens, this information ought to matter.
Knowing that biases are universal and inescapable ought to make all of us present our opinions with more humility. It ought to make us more circumspect regarding what we believe and more open to the possibility that we might be wrong, and to the near certainty that we are not seeing the whole picture.
Just so, it ought to make us see our opponents as fellow “sinners,” deserving, no less than ourselves, tolerance and generosity. This would make our society a better place, of course, but it would also make our democracy operate better.
If we enter into the rough and tumble of politics knowing that none of us has a hammerlock on the truth, we might be more likely to find it.
Christopher Beem  is managing director of the McCourtney Institute of Democracy at Pennsylvania State University. This article was originally published .

Post Nation She called the man who sexually assaulted her a rapist. Now he is suing for defamation.


  
For four years, 24-year-old Yee Xiong fought to put it all behind her.
The sexual assault. The questions about what role she may have played in it. Two hung juries and, finally, a plea deal that sent her attacker to jail.
Just when Xiong thought it was all over, it seems to be starting again.
Xiong is now being sued for defamation by her attacker, 26-year-old Lang Her, who claims that she and her siblings tarnished his reputation when they called him a rapist online in reference to the assault. Xiong’s attorney, McGregor Scott, is set to appear Monday in a Northern California courtroom to try to get it thrown out by citing their First Amendment rights, according to Sacramento Bee.
Her, the perpetrator, was not convicted of rape; instead, he pleaded no contest to felony assault and was sentenced in July to one year in jail, according to news reports.
“We were shocked, speechless,” Xiong told the Bee about the lawsuit. “Who in their right mind would do this? I felt re-victimized. I want to move on with my life and this is still holding me back.”
Her and Xiong’s lawyers could not immediately be reached for comment.
In July 2012, Her and Xiong, who both grew up in the same Hmong community in Marysville, Calif., not far from Sacramento, were students at the University of California at Davis.
Xiong told authorities that after a night of drinking at an off-campus apartment, she fell asleep and later woke up “feeling intense pressure on her lower body and intense pain,” according to court documents cited by the Sacramento Bee at the time. She said her arms were pinned at her sides, and she could not speak — but she did not say why. She said Her was having sex with her without her consent.
Although Her has continued to deny that he had sex with Xiong, DNA from his semen was found in Xiong during a medical examination, according to the court documents.
As The Washington Post’s Peter Holley reported at the time, Xiong said her struggle has not only been about moving past the night she was assaulted but also trying to explain her own actions: Why did she go to his apartment in the first place? Why did she stay after she claimed she was assaulted? And why did she let him drive her home the next morning?
Xiong responded in a powerful statement that she read at Her’s July 19 sentencing, saying, “I do not exist for anyone’s entertainment purposes or to fill in anyone’s curiosity.”
I am also not here to explain to you why I was at Lang Her’s apartment in the first place, why I didn’t do anything else other than what I did, and why I didn’t call the police sooner. Even if I did take what people think of as “the right steps,” we’d still be here. The truth is, I shouldn’t owe anyone an explanation! But I’m here.
Xiong added that the burden of proof is almost always on the victim, which “further perpetuates our rape culture that continues to excuse rapists for their heinous actions.”
Going over to a friend’s house never justifies someone getting raped. Drinking with friends until drunk never justifies someone getting raped. Sleeping next to a friend in the same room never justifies someone getting raped. And believe me when I say that those who believe that someone’s actions made them deserve rape are cowards and fools — just like Lang, including those who have continued to protect him.
That woman who was raped in 2012 could have been your daughter, sister, niece, aunt, and cousin.
On July 19, Her was sentenced to one year in jail and five years of probation and ordered to register as a sex offender and receive sex offender counseling, according to reports.
That same day, while Xiong and her family were celebrating closure in the case, one of Her’s relatives handed Xiong a defamation claim, stating she and her siblings made “false and defamatory” statements against him on Facebook during his trial, according to the Sacramento Bee.
Xiong told the Associated Press that she saw the civil lawsuit as a “slap to the face” and a way for Her to “continue to harass my family and me.”
Although Xiong’s attorneys declined to discuss the Facebook posts with the AP, the Sacramento Bee reported that on May 21, 2015 — the day Her’s first trial resulted in a hung jury — Xiong’s older sister, Ger Xiong, posted several photos of Her on Facebook along with a note saying that “Rapists destroy lives. Rapists hurt all of us, not just their victims.”
Ger Xiong also posted a photo of Her with a message, “We will not be silenced. We will fight for justice against Lang Her, who is a rapist,” which was shared by Xiong and two of her other siblings, according to the Bee.
Xiong told the AP that she and her siblings were not trying to tarnish Her’s reputation.
However, Eric Rosenberg, an Ohio-based attorney who has represented clients in similar civil lawsuits, told the AP that defamation in these cases is real.
“There is no bigger stain on a person in this culture than being labeled as a sexual assailant, and that’s what they’re labeled as,” he told the news agency, adding: “They can’t get into school, they can’t get into the military — a lawsuit’s their only way out.”
For that reason, Laura Dunn, executive director of SurvJustice, a nonprofit that advocates for victims of sexual violence, told the AP that victims should avoid naming their attackers outside of the courtroom.
But Emily Austin, from the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, added that the issue is when the threat of defamation lawsuits keeps victims quiet.
“The impact could be, if these become more common, that survivors are going to double-think reporting, afraid anything they’re saying could be grounds for a lawsuit against them personally,” she told the AP.
In Her’s case, legal experts said that despite the fact that Her did not receive a rape conviction, it may be difficult for him to claim defamation since Xiong and her siblings could argue that they were only commenting on a case that had already been widely publicized by the news media.
According to the Sacramento Bee:
Since the early 1990s, speech protections have been enhanced by the California Legislature because legislators feared that a preponderance of lawsuits were having a chilling effect on free speech. The Legislature created language that allows judges to quickly toss defamation cases if the judges determine that the plaintiff has little chance to win.
“A lot of states achieve summary dispositions of cases that can otherwise take up judicial and legal resources,” Lisa Pruitt, a law professor at UC-Davis, told the newspaper. “It’s really hard to win these cases because of speech protections.”
In any case, Xiong said she questions Her’s motivations.
“When I saw he was asking for $4 million, I had to laugh,” she told the Bee. “I thought it was a joke.”

Former White House staffer’s wedding is making headlines because of the first daughters


By all accounts, Kristen Jarvis, first lady Michelle Obama’s former assistant-of-all-trades, prefers to stay out of the spotlight. She rarely spoke about her high-stakes position as Obama’s personal aide until leaving the gig in April 2015. And even then, she was sure to stay on message. Since decamping for a job at the Ford Foundation in New York, Jarvis has remained snugly under the radar.
That is, until TMZ got a hold of the details of her upcoming wedding.
According to the website, Jarvis’s bridal party will feature two famous faces: Malia and Sasha Obama. News even traveled across the pond as the Daily Mail pounced on the story, somehow gaining access to Jarvis’s password-protected wedding website, which gives both first daughters a shout-out.
“Sasha and I have had a big sister/little sister relationship since the very beginning and there is nothing I wouldn’t do for this girl — and I know she would do the same for me,” wrote Jarvis, according to the Mail.
The White House, following standard protocol when it comes to discussing the first daughters’ personal lives, did not comment on Malia and Sasha’s possible role in the former staffer’s wedding.
Jarvis is marrying former U.S. Secret Service member Shaun West over Veterans Day weekend. The couple, both alums of Capitol Hill, were introduced by a mutual friend and have been dating for years. One source expressed shock that their wedding, which will take place in Chantilly, Va., was “TMZ-worthy.”
Other details? According to a telling plug by D’Concierge wedding planning, the event will cost $300,000 and feature a performance by soul singer Ledisi, who has made frequent White House appearances over the past eight years, Eric Benet and Kenny Lattimore. The first lady, whom Jarvis is especially close to, will be among the audience of well-wishers, but President Obama is not expected to attend.

The most shocking part of Donald Trump’s tax records isn’t the $916 million loss everyone’s talking about



Despite what Donald Trump says, we really can learn a lot from his tax returns — even from the partial ones made public by The New York Times.
The major takeaway from the three pages of Trump’s 1995 returns that the Times made public is that Trump is right when he says the system is rigged. What he doesn’t say is that it’s rigged in his favor and in the favor of people like him — and against regular people, those of us who earn money, pay income tax on it, and financially support the country in which we live.
To keep things relatively simple, I’m telling you what I see in Trump’s returns, based on my decades of experience parsing financial filings. I will try not to get bogged down in numbers and technicalities.
Sure, the $900 million-plus of losses reported by the New York Times — losses that could be used to offset income for a total of 18 years — are totally shocking. Legal, yes. But shocking.
But there’s something I consider even more shocking — although it involves a much smaller number.
By my read of the Trump tax return published by the New York Times, he would have been tax-free because of a $15,818,562 loss reported on Line 11 of the return under “Rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, etc.” It looks to me that this loss reflects the outrageous, special tax break that real estate developers that people like Trump can get, but that the rest of us can’t.
To give you the brief version, people who qualify as real estate developers or managers can use depreciation deductions to offset non-real-estate income. But people who don’t qualify for this special treatment can’t do that. (For full details, ask a tax expert about Section 469 of the tax code.)
Now, to the $900-plus million loss reported by the New York Times — which vastly exceeds any cash losses that Trump would have suffered in the collapse of his casino-hotel-airline empire, which fell apart in the early 1990s and resulted in four bankruptcies. (He had two more bankruptcies, in 2004 and 2009, from a publicly traded company in which he was the primary shareholder.)
I’m guessing, but I can’t tell for sure — there’s not enough information — that the loss has to do with the collapse of his empire. I don’t understand how Trump, who had very little of his own cash invested in his projects in the 1990s but did personally guarantee part of their debt, could end up with tax losses of that magnitude. They’re almost certainly paper losses rather than out-of-pocket losses.
It’s possible that those losses somehow vanished into the ether from which they came — we have no way to tell.
What we can tell, though, is that what I wrote recently about Trump’s “That makes me smart” boast when Hillary Clinton prodded him about not paying taxes was right.
If Trump were truly smart — and wanted to lead by example — he would have disclosed his tax returns, showed the loopholes he used, and vowed to close them.
I have plenty of problems with the Clintons’ financial behavior, as I wrote. But at least Hillary Clinton is proposing tax code changes that would cost her and her family money. Trump, by contrast, is proposing tax changes that would greatly benefit the commercial real estate business, which is his primary field, and would greatly benefit his own family. And when I asked his campaign last week whether he was proposing any tax changes that would cost him and/or his family any money, I got no reply.
This whole column and most of the articles I’ve read are based almost entirely on just one page of Trump’s tax filings — the front page of his 1995 New York return. So, you see, we have learned quite a lot from Trump’s tax returns — and we could learn a lot more when and if more of them make their way into the public domain.