rick steves travel as political act

• Smaller Text Larger Text
• Home / 

In Troubled Times, Travel Can Be a Political Act

Last week, I shared several posts about the nationwide protests. I declared my solidarity with Black Lives Matter. I drew parallels between our president’s response and the rise of fascism in 1930s Europe. And I solicited contributions for Lawyers and Collars, an initiative by Sojourners to protect the vote of people of color in US elections.

While the response to these posts was predominantly positive (we inspired over 1,500 people to donate more than $100,000 to that campaign), I got the usual smattering of angry people saying, “Stick to travel! Why are you injecting politics into what you do? It’s bad for business!”

To these people I say: Travel and politics are related. And I’ve been mixing travel and politics for years.

There’s something about travel that radicalizes a thoughtful person. Just as the last few weeks’ events have finally opened the eyes of many privileged white Americans like me, who until now have not been fully aware of the racist inequities of our justice system, a trip to another country can be a revelation. When we travel beyond our borders, we learn that other nations hold different truths to be God-given and self-evident.

Visiting other lands, you can find completely different ways of living…and you find that you like some of them better than what you’re used to. Thoughtful travelers bring these strands back home and weave them into their lives — becoming a person with a broader, global perspective.

In 2008, during the waning days of the George W. Bush Administration, I wrote the first edition of my book Travel as a Political Act. Since that time — through the Obama and Trump years — it’s astonishing how much things have changed… and changed… and changed. (In fact, I am currently working on the fourth edition, updated yet again to include those changes.) But the basic message has remained the same: Travel can be a political act.

Here’s an excerpt from the introduction of that book:

For the last 40 years, I’ve been teaching people how to travel. I focus mostly on the logistics: finding the right hotel, avoiding long lines, sampling local delicacies, and catching the train on time. But more important than the “how” we travel is the “why” we travel: Thoughtful travelers do it to have enlightening experiences, to meet inspirational people, to be stimulated, to learn, and to grow.

Travel has taught me the fun in having my cultural furniture rearranged and my ethnocentric self-assuredness walloped. Getting out of my comfort zone through travel has humbled me, enriched my life, and tuned me in to a rapidly changing world. And for that, I am thankful.

As a travel teacher, I’ve been fortunate to draw from a variety of rich overseas experiences. And, since just after 9/11, I’ve been giving a lecture I call “Travel as a Political Act.” I enjoy giving this talk all over the USA — to peacenik environmentalists in Boulder, to high-society ladies’ clubs in Charlotte, to homemakers in Houston, to Members of Congress and their aides on Capitol Hill, and at universities across the country.

As a traveler, I’ve learned we can learn more about our home by leaving it and looking at it from afar. And we can learn more about our own country by observing other countries — and by challenging ourselves (and our neighbors) to be broad-minded. Holding our country to a high standard and searching for ways to better live up to its lofty ideals is not “America-bashing.” It’s America-loving… good citizenship.

I’m unapologetically proud of the ideals that have historically distinguished America. While we face serious challenges — especially these days — those ideals are timeless and resilient, and they still inspire people around the world. The United States has made me who I am. I spend plenty of time in other countries, but the happiest day of any trip is the day I come home. I’d never live abroad, and I’d certainly not have as much fun running my business overseas as I do here at home.

But other nations have some pretty good ideas, too. By bringing these ideas home, we can help our society confront its challenges more wisely. As a nation of immigrants, whose very origin is based on the power of diversity, this should come naturally to us…and be celebrated. After all, the motto of our country — “out of many, one” — is not just an empty slogan. In fact, today, I’d suggest that it’s the rallying cry of a true American. You can’t honestly embrace our flag without embracing this ethic.

Consider the value of travel, and relate it to the turmoil that is filling our streets and headlines in recent days. Perhaps your comments below can help us make this a teaching moment and come out of it a better nation. Thanks.

I’d love to sit down with you and personally share the most important lessons I’ve learned from my travels. If you’d enjoy that, let me literally read my Travel as a Political Act book to you. You’ll feel as if I’m telling intimate stories of how travel stretched, punched, and molded me into who I am today. Simply buy the audiobook version of Travel as a Political Act: https://bit.ly/TAPAaudio

You can also read Travel as a Political act yourself— all royalties are donated to Bread for the World . You can support small business by buying a copy at your local bookseller, or get it at my Travel Store: https://bit.ly/ShopTAPA

Or you can watch this free lecture on the same topics: https://bit.ly/WatchTAPA

Get recommended reads, deals, and more from Hachette

By clicking ‘Sign Up,’ I acknowledge that I have read and agree to Hachette Book Group’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

Site Preferences

Use code MOM24 for 20% off site wide + free shipping over $45

Travel as a Political Act

Contributors

By Rick Steves

Read by Rick Steves

Formats and Prices

• Trade Paperback
• Audiobook Download (Unabridged)
• ebook $13.99 $19.99 CAD
• Trade Paperback $21.99 $27.99 CAD

This item is a preorder. Your payment method will be charged immediately, and the product is expected to ship on or around February 6, 2018. This date is subject to change due to shipping delays beyond our control.

Also available from:

• AudioBooks.com
• AudioBooksNow.com
• AudioBookstore.com
• Downpour.com
• Google Play
• NookAudioBooks.com

Description

• Essays & Travelogues

You May Also Like

Newsletter Signup

Rick Steves

About the author.

Since 1973, Rick Steves has spent about four months a year exploring Europe. His mission: to empower Americans to have European trips that are fun, affordable, and culturally broadening. Rick produces a best-selling guidebook series, a public television series, and a public radio show, and organizes small-group tours that take over 30,000 travelers to Europe annually.  He does all of this with the help of more than 100 well-traveled staff members at Rick Steves’ Europe in Edmonds, WA (near Seattle). When not on the road, Rick is active in his church and with advocacy groups focused on economic and social justice, drug policy reform, and ending hunger. To recharge, Rick plays piano, relaxes at his family cabin in the Cascade Mountains, and spends time with his son Andy and daughter Jackie. Find out more about Rick at http://www.ricksteves.com and on Facebook.

Learn more about this author

Rick Steves Reveals The Best Way To Challenge Yourself While Traveling

F or many, traveling is about vacationing and taking a break from day-to-day life. Others have to travel for work. Educational travel, on the other hand, is typically associated with students, but in reality, traveling for educational purposes can be for everyone. Regardless of the purpose, travel often means encountering things out of your comfort zone, whether using public transportation or learning a few phrases in a foreign language. 

Travel Guru Rick Steves  believes that travel should bring people out of their comfort zones. More specifically, he feels that travel should be used as a way to challenge yourself. This relates back to the educational aspect of tourism. "When we travel, we enrich our lives and better understand our place on this planet," Steves explained to Booktrib  in 2018. "Our travels can better equip us to address and help resolve the many challenges facing our world." So, how do we make our travels more challenging in a positive way?

Read more: It's Time To Ditch These 10 Outdated Travel Tips

Beachside Resorts Often Don't Show A Country's Reality

When traveling, a simple way to challenge yourself and learn more about a different part of the world is to set foot outside of the vacation resort. Such resorts usually don't reflect the country or region as a whole. Immigration from Mexico and neighboring countries is a common topic in the United States. Yet, places in Mexico like Cozumel and Cabo San Lucas are covered in gorgeous all-inclusive resorts . "Think all Mexicans want to come to America? Visit Mexico beyond the resorts," Steves stated to BookTrib. A trip to Mexico could help you see ordinary life in Mexico or why some choose to move away.

A rebuttal to Steves urging travelers to leave the confines of a resort is the possible dangers of doing so, given that even if a country has a high crime rate, its resorts tend to remain safe. However, people's fears about other countries could be due to news outlets blowing their topics out of proportion to gain more viewers or online engagements. "News has become entertainment masquerading as news. As the news becomes more sensationalized, viewers become more fearful— of different people, different faiths, different countries," says Steves.

Talk To The People You Meet During Your Travels

When Rick Steves talks about challenging yourself by learning about the world when you travel, it relates to his phrase "travel as a political act." This is also the title of one of his books. This idea could mean visiting a country which is slightly out of your comfort zone. Then the challenge becomes taking your broadened perspectives home with you. "Use what you've learned to help bring about positive change," Steves told BookTrib.

The overarching theme that drives the idea of "travel as a political act" is human connection. Steves believes that talking to people you meet while traveling can help you understand issues being faced in a particular region of the world. There are countless "us vs. them" situations all over the world, but Steves finds that traveling can bridge such gaps. "[When] traveling, we realize the challenges of our future will be blind to borders and best overcome not by conflict and walls, but by community," Steves states on his website . So, challenge yourself by connecting with the people on your journeys. Maybe ask someone in Mexico what they like and dislike about living there. Perhaps the person's answer will give you a new perspective.

Read the original article on Explore .

'Rule for the ages': Takeaways from historic Supreme Court arguments in Trump immunity case

WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court appeared inclined Thursday to reject former President Donald Trump’s historic claim that he’s immune from prosecution – but the justices could still limit the charges he faces and delay his trial on election interference charges. 

The justices could decide that the lower courts need to investigate whether immunity applies to any of Trump’s actions before he can be tried.

That would likely make it impossible for a trial to be finished before voters decide in November whether to return Trump to the White House.

"Trump had much more success than many court watchers expected,” said John Yoo, a former Justice Department official under George W. Bush. “Only the three liberal justices seemed to reject the idea of immunity outright.” 

Trump trial updates Latest news from Trump criminal trial, including cross-examination of David Pecker

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

If Trump becomes president , he could order the Justice Department to dismiss the charges against him.

Here are the takeaways from the court's more than two-and-a-half hours of debate.

Trump's lawyer agrees some alleged acts can be prosecuted

It was a conservative justice – and one of Trump’s three nominees on the court – who looked for ways for Trump’s trial to proceed.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett first got Trump’s attorney to agree that there’s no immunity for a president’s private actions, as opposed to those taken in his official capacity as president.

Reading from the indictment, Barrett then asked John Sauer if some of the charges against Trump involved only private conduct.

What about conspiring with a private attorney to file false allegations or to using another attorney to spread claims about election fraud he knew were false,” she asked.

Sauer disputed the characterization of the allegations but said that, if true, they cover private actions.

When it was the Justice Department’s turn at the bench, Barrett asked Michael Dreeben about the possibility of the special counsel trying Trump just on the charges that undisputable include only private actions.

“The special counsel has expressed some concern for speed and wanting to move forward,” she said. “Is another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct?”

Dreeben said the two are interrelated because the steps Trump took as president made his other actions more likely to succeed.  

“We would like to present that as an integrated picture to the jury so that it sees the sequence and the gravity of the conduct and why each step occurred,” he said.

Debate over how quickly trial could proceed

Since even Trump’s attorney agreed that the former president is not immune from prosecution from some of the charges, the big question is whether the Supreme Court will direct the lower court to take additional action before seating a jury. That will determine whether a trial can begin before the November election.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Sauer what should happen if the Supreme Court latches on to his concession that private acts can be prosecuted.

Sauer said the district court should have to determine which charges meet that definition before Trump can be tried.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor backed the Justice Department’s position that the district court judge can decide those issues as the trial unfolds.

"So I'm not sure that I understand why your problems couldn't be taken care of at trial with an instruction if we believe − if the court were to find − I'm not even sure how they could − but if it were to find that some publicacts could not be the basis of criminal liability," she told Sauer.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, predicts the court’s decision will be closer the government's position than it will be to Trump’s sweeping immunity argument. But the justices are likely to find different ways of getting there, which means the opinion will take longer to write, and a majority will want further proceedings.

“The bottom line is that Trump is likely to get what he wants – a further delay of this election subversion case, maybe pushing it to after the election,” Hasen wrote .

Justices revive debate about presidents killing political opponents with immunity

When Sauer argued for Trump at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Florence Pan pressed him on whether a president could order Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent and be immune from prosecution unless impeached and convicted. Sauer said the hypothetical president could only be prosecuted after he was impeached and convicted in Congress.

Justice Samuel Alito said he didn’t want to slander Seal Team 6 because its members are honorable and are bound under the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to obey unlawful orders.

“I'm sure you've thought of lots of hypotheticals where a president could say, ‘I'm using an official power,’ and yet the president uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner,” Alito said.

Sauer tried to steer the conversation away from what the immunity would cover. But Justice Elena Kagan asked whether it could be an official act for a president to order a military coup.

“It’s an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?” Kagan asked.

Sauer said it sounded bad but that the framers of the Constitution put checks in place such as impeachment to prevent something like that from happening.

“Well, it certainly sounds very bad, and that's why the Framers have a whole series of structural checks that have successfully for the last 234 years prevented that very kind of extreme hypothetical,” Sauer said.

Justices question whether presidents can pardon themselves

No president has yet pardoned himself and neither the courts nor the Justice Department have issued opinions on whether it’s possible.

But the threat of criminal charges looming over former presidents after the leave office is why Trump contends presidents must be immune from prosecution for their official acts.

Justice Neil Gorsuch raised the issue of whether presidents can pardon themselves because of fears a successor could charge them criminally. He suggested presidents might pardon themselves every four years to avoid the threat.

“It seems to me like one of the incentives that might be created is for presidents to try to pardon themselves,” Gorsuch said. “We’ve never answered whether a president can do that. Happily, it’s never been presented to us.”

Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, said if the court rules presidents have immunity, justices wouldn’t have to worry about whether presidents could pardon themselves.

“The legality of that has never been addressed,” Sauer said of self-pardons.

Alito said the court needs to know the Justice Department’s position on whether presidents could pardon themselves because if there is no immunity, “won’t the predictable result be that presidents in the last couple of days of office will pardon themselves from anything they might have been conceivably charged with committing?"

Dreeben, counselor to Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, said the department hasn’t taken a position on whether a president could pardon himself, although a member of the Office of Legal Counsel wrote that “there is no self-pardon authority.”

Dreeben said the issue has only arisen in the case of Richard Nixon, who was pardoned by his successor after the Watergate scandal, and in Trump’s case. But he said a self-pardon would violate a “bedrock principle” that people shouldn’t judge themselves.

More: Trump at Supreme Court: Ham sandwiches and solar eclipses: Justice Alito has questions

Supreme Court `writing a rule for the ages' in Trump case

The justices sounded quite aware of deciding the historic case. Trump is the first former president ever to face criminal charges. Potential immunity from charges isn’t written into the Constitution. And the high court has never ruled on what immunity the president might enjoy.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Gorsuch said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he was thinking about how the court’s ruling would affect future presidents because a previous Supreme Court decision was mistaken in upholding independent counsels that could investigate presidents, a law that has since lapsed.

"I'm not focused on the here and now of this case," Kavanaugh said. "I'm very concerned about the future."

Alito characterized the case as “more than just a quarrel.”

“What we do is going to apply to all future presidents,” Alito said.