Author Archives: Sheila

The Next Group To Come Out

The gay rights movement triggered the most rapid social change in my adult lifetime.  When I was young (granted, back in the Ice Age), homosexuality was viewed as a form of mental illness, and gay people were largely closeted. Today, 70+ percent of Americans  are accepting of same-sex marriage and supportive of equal rights for LGBTQ Americans. (Leaving the culture warriors with only lesser-understood trans children to demonize…)

Political scientists and sociologists will confirm that the main reason for this rapid turn-around  was a politically potent act: coming out. Coming out took incredible courage when that effort began– friends of my sons were thrown out of their homes, vilified by their “Christian” families, fired from their jobs. But coming out changed perceptions: suddenly, people realized that Aunt Gladys and her long-time roommate weren’t just roommates, that the doctor they trusted, the mailman who delivered their packages and so many other people they knew and cared about were–gasp!– gay.

And attitudes changed.

Atheists need to gather up our own courage, and follow in the footsteps of the gay community. I had a friend–now deceased–who used to insist that, until atheists made their presence known (a la the LGBTQ community), Americans would never see pious religious hypocrisy for what it is.

Perhaps–just perhaps–this recent guest essay in the Washington Post is a beginning. Titled “America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists,” the author made her case.

My (non)belief derives naturally from a few basic observations:

The Greek myths are obviously stories. The Norse myths are obviously stories. L. Ron Hubbard obviously made that stuff up. Extrapolate.

The holy books underpinning some of the bigger theistic religions are riddled with “facts” now disproved by science and “morality” now disavowed by modern adherents. Extrapolate.

Life is confusing and death is scary. Naturally, humans want to believe that someone capable is in charge and that we continue to live after we die. But wanting doesn’t make it so.

Child rape. War. Etc.

And yet, when I was younger, I would never have called myself an atheist — not on a survey, not to my family, not even to myself.

Being an “atheist,” at least according to popular culture, seems to require so much work. You have to complain to the school board about the Pledge of Allegiance, stamp over “In God We Trust” on all your paper money and convince Grandma not to go to church. You have to be PhD-from-Oxford smart, irritated by Christmas and shruggingly unmoved by Michelangelo’s “Pietà.” That isn’t me — but those are the stereotypes.

And then there are the data. Studies have shown that many, many Americans don’t trust atheists. They don’t want to vote for atheists, and they don’t want their children to marry atheists. Researchers have found that even atheists presume serial killers are more likely to be atheist than not.

The author focused much of her essay on how she and her husband raised their children, teaching them to distinguish fact from fiction — which she points out is harder for children raised religious. Her children “don’t assume conventional wisdom is true and they do expect arguments to be based on evidence. Which means they have the skills to be engaged, informed and savvy citizens.”

She then shares data showing that fewer Americans than ever report a belief in God–and yet, are reluctant to call themselves atheists.

Among religious Americans, only 64 percent are certain about the existence of God. Hidden atheists can be found not just among the “nones,” as they’re called — the religiously unaffiliated — but also in America’s churches, mosques and synagogues.
“If you added up all the nominal Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. — those who are religious in name only,” Harvard humanist chaplain Greg M. Epstein writes in “Good Without God,” “you really might get the largest denomination in the world.”

She readily acknowledges the good done by good religious people, but then enumerates the injustices done by bigotries masquerading as religious belief: discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, control over women’s bodies, abstinence-only or marriage-centered or anti-homosexual sex education,“Don’t say gay” laws, laws denying trans kids medical care, school-library book bans and even efforts to suppress the teaching of inconvenient historical facts.

And when religion loses a fight and progress wins instead? Religion then claims it’s not subject to the resulting laws. “Religious belief” is — more and more, at the state and federal levels — a way to sidestep advances the country makes in civil rights, human rights and public health.

If you are as tired of performative piety as I am, you should really click through and read the entire essay. And if you are an atheist, you should definitely consider “coming out.”

Comments

It Isn’t Just Tax Rates…

If voters ever wrest America’s government away from the Keystone Kops who are currently hijacking it, we might see a return to thoughtful policy discussions.

By “thoughtful,” I mean good-faith debates over the best way to approach various governmental tasks, conducted by people who actually understand the role and operation of government–and want it to work.

In other words, people other than Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Green and their ilk.

As readers of this blog know, I spent 21 years teaching classes in Law and Public Policy. Those classes explored both government’s policy processes and the legal and constitutional framework that constrains those choices. Ever since 2016, and the election of a buffoon whose entire administration was blatantly and proudly ignorant of both, I’ve missed the exploration of genuine policy differences –and the approach taken by public servants like former Senator Richard Lugar, who often referred to policy differences as “something about which people of good will can disagree.”

I thought about the current absence of “good will” when I read this paper issued by the Brookings Institution.The paper addressed the thorny issue of taxes, and how the American tax system distinguishes between–and differentially taxes– sources of income.

As the paper begins,

In a famous conversation, the author F. Scott Fitzgerald is credited with saying that “the rich are very different than you and me,” to which Ernest Hemingway replied “Yes, they have more money.”

Our work highlights another key difference: the most affluent Americans not only have more income; they receive it—and pay taxes on it—in vastly different ways than the rest of us.

For policy makers concerned about long-term fiscal shortfalls and high levels of economic inequality, our work reinforces the notion that raising the tax burden on the wealthy requires a special focus on how those households gain wealth and skirt taxes. We highlight four ways to effectively raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The research focuses on an issue that serious policymakers understand, but that all-too-often is missing from public conversations about taxes. Those conversations tend to feature politicians appealing to voters with unrealistic promises to reduce the “tax burden” or eliminate certain taxes. ( Worse, when most voters think about taxes, they focus primarily on tax rates–and a not-inconsiderable number of Americans fail to understand the way  marginal rates work. They think the highest marginal rate is applied to the taxpayer’s entire reportable income.)

The Brookings report focuses upon a related element of the tax system: the different ways in which we tax income generated differently.

Most Americans receive almost all their income through wages and retirement income (pensions, 401(k)s, social security, and individual retirement accounts). The most recent available IRS data (2014) shows that wages and retirement income made up 94% of adjusted gross income (AGI) for households in the bottom 80% of the income distribution. Even for households in the 98th to 99th income percentile, wages and retirement income accounted for 71% of AGI.

At the very, very top, though, these sources are less important, accounting for just 15% and 7% of the income of the top 0.01% and the top 0.001% of households, respectively. These households  receive most of their income from investments (interest, dividends, and especially realized capital gains) and businesses (including sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations). These items constituted 82% of income for the top 0.01% and 88% for the top 0.001%, compared to just 7% for the bottom 80% of households.

These patterns are robust over time and data sources. And in practice, the tilt toward capital income at the top is even larger than these figures suggest because AGI does not include the massive unrealized capital gains and very sizable inheritances that accrue to many affluent households.

The researchers proceed to suggest changes to the tax code that would have the effect of reducing the disparities that have contributed to our current gilded age, and I encourage you to click through and see whether you agree or disagree with their particular policy recommendations.

My point in highlighting this study, however, isn’t to endorse–or rebut–particulars.

This research –and similar investigations of the economic realities of American governance–is a welcome reminder of the way lawmakers should conduct policy debates: examining the evidence (what are we doing now, and what are the outcomes of what we are doing?); highlighting problems that such examination discloses (here, the widening gap between the rich and the rest); and considering policies that might solve or ameliorate those problems.

Budgeting and taxation are complicated issues about which people of good will can differ. But instead of people of good will–and thanks primarily to gerrymandering,–we have elected profoundly ignorant (and arguably crazy) people who think they were sent to Washington to destroy the federal government.

I miss policy…

Comments

Life, Liberty, Language

Depressing though it is, I have to give MAGA Republicans credit for their ability to (mis)use language–their talent for appropriating/twisting the usual meanings of words in ways that resonate with with Americans who–for whatever reason–don’t stop to unpack what is actually going on.

We’ve finally gotten to a place where most Americans do recognize that many of the people claiming to be “pro-life” are actually only pro-birth. To be genuinely pro-life would require support for feeding, clothing and educating the children who emerge from those wombs; it would require support for women’s health, and recognition that interventions needed to save pregnant women’s health and lives should be determined by doctors, not politicians.

And I won’t even address the inconsistencies of those “pro-life” zealots who favor the death penalty. (I once challenged a colleague who was pro-birth and pro-death penalty; his response was that criminals had “forfeited” their right to continue breathing…)

Now, of course, we have “Moms for Liberty.” Liberty is another one of those words that has taken a real beating from the crazed MAGA crowd; I was particularly fascinated by the lunatics who claimed that wearing a mask during a pandemic in order to protect their friends and neighbors from disease violated their rather peculiar definition of “liberty.” These were almost always the same people who want government to dictate women’s  reproduction and trans children’s choice of bathroom.

Let’s just say their definition of “liberty” is highly selective..

The most recent group to misuse the term is “Moms for Liberty,” and like most theocratic and autocratic folks, “Moms” misuse the terminology. Their real motto ought to be “Liberty for me but not for Thee.”

The Brookings Institution recently issued a report on those self-righteous moms. The report included the fact that the Indiana chapter had been in the news for featuring an Adolf Hitler quote in its newsletter.

That quote–which they hastily withdrew after considerable attention to it from local media–would seem to confirm the description of the group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which identifies Moms for Liberty as a “far-right organization that engages in anti-student inclusion activities and self-identifies as part of the modern parental rights movement. The group grew out of opposition to public health regulations for COVID-19, opposes LGBTQ+ and racially inclusive school curriculum, and has advocated books bans.”

Moms for Liberty is an antigovernment organization founded in 2021 by former Florida school board members, Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich. Current Sarasota County, Florida school board member, Bridget Ziegler, was also a co-founder. She has since left the group, leaving Justice and Descovich at the helm.

Moms for Liberty and its nationwide chapters combat what they consider the “woke indoctrination” of children by advocating for book bans in school libraries and endorsing candidates for public office that align with the group’s views. They also use their multiple social media platforms to target teachers and school officials, advocate for the abolition of the Department of Education, advance a conspiracy propaganda, and spread hateful imagery and rhetoric against the LGBTQ community.

SPLC followed that description with a list of quotes from members, and–assuming you can stomach the vitriol–you really have to read what the actual “moms for liberty” have to say. It’s incredibly hateful. They seem especially fixated on the notion that gender dysphoria exists, calling it a “mental illness,” but the animus extends far beyond gay children; one “mom for liberty” threatened to shoot a librarian. (I guess “liberty” doesn’t extend to our right to read books these fearless warriors disapprove of…)

SPLC reports that the “social media accounts and real-world activity of the national organization and its chapters” is filled with antigovernment and conspiracy propaganda, and especially with anti-LGBTQ and anti-gender identity diatribes. The group also opposes  inclusive curricula, and is firmly anti-public school. (In case you hadn’t noticed,  teachers’ unions are the devil’s handiwork…)

I began my professional life as a high-school English teacher, and I continue to believe that words have meanings–both connotations and definitions. Among the multitude of problems we face in our effort to create and maintain a government that functions properly and respects all of its increasingly diverse citizens, communication is key. And key to our ability to communicate is our use of accurate language.

I don’t know how “pro-life” people who don’t care about the lives of children once they’re born–or the lives of women experiencing dangerous pregnancies– define “pro life.”  I’m pretty sure “moms for liberty” haven’t the slightest notion what “liberty” actually means.

Along with everything else we need to do, Americans really need to reclaim the English language…

Comments

Krugman Spells It Out

When Mitt Romney announced that he would not campaign for a second Senate term, the announcement did more than simply mark the political exit of one prominent Republican. It was yet another indicator of the metamorphosis of a once-rational political party.

As usual, Paul Krugman’s assessment of that metamorphosis was dead-on. In “The Road from Mitt Romney to MAGA,” Krugman described the decline of the GOP. As Krugman notes, Romney is clear-eyed about what has happened to his party and given his willingness to say what others are unwilling to admit, he is a comparative profile in courage. That said, according to Krugman, Romney–and Republicans like him–have also been part of the problem, enabling the party’s devolution.

It’s good to see Romney speaking up now, but the party he’s criticizing is in large part a monster that people like him helped create.

For the basic story of the Republican Party, going back to the 1970s, is this: Advocates of right-wing economic policies, which redistributed income from workers to the wealthy, sought to sell their agenda by exploiting social intolerance and animosity. They had considerable success with this strategy. But eventually the extremists they thought they were using ended up ruling the party.

When Romney ran for President, Democrats accused him of being a plutocrat whose policies would enrich the wealthy and hurt average Americans. Those Democrats were right. Krugman enumerates the policy positions Romney adopted during that campaign, and points out that they would indeed have hurt non-wealthy Americans.

In particular, Romney was a strenuous opponent of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, which was enacted in 2010 but didn’t take full effect until 2014 — an especially cynical position since Obamacare was very similar to the health reform Romney himself had enacted as governor of Massachusetts. If he had won in 2012, he would almost surely have found a way to block the A.C.A.’s rollout, which in turn would have meant blocking the large reduction in the number of Americans without health insurance after 2014.

The GOP accepted the basic premises of the New Deal through the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. When Eisenhower was President, the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent and roughly a third of American workers were unionized. Krugman quotes from a letter sent by Eisenhower to his brother, in which he wrote:

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again”; while there were a few conservatives who thought differently, “their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

Their number remains negligible, but thanks to two things: the systemic distortions that form much of the discussion on this blog, and the success of culture-war appeals to racism–they exercise disproportionate power.

Krugman writes that, in the 1970s, the Republican Party began to be dominated by people who did want to roll back the New Deal legacy. He reminds readers of efforts like George W. Bush’s proposed privatization of Social Security and Trump’s corporate tax cut and multiple promises to demolish the A.C.A.

Republicans offset the unpopularity of their economic policies by harnessing culture war policies —” hostility toward nonwhites, L.G.B.T.Q. Americans, immigrants and more.”

In 2004, for example, Bush made opposition to gay marriage a central theme of his campaign, only to declare after the election that he had a mandate for the aforementioned attempt to privatize Social Security…

But eventually the forces that economic conservatives were trying to use ended up using them. This wasn’t something that suddenly happened with the Trump nomination; people who think that the G.O.P. suddenly changed forget how prevalent crazy conspiracy theories and refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Democratic electoral victories already were in the 1990s. The current dominance of MAGA represents a culmination of a process that has been going on for decades.

And for the most part, Republican politicians who probably weren’t extremists themselves went along.

Krugman says we should give Romney credit for finally reaching his limit. But he reminds us that it took until very late in the game for Romney to get there — and that the “game” was one that he and people like him had basically started.

So here we are.

Even plutocrats like Romney who have massively benefitted from their culture war misdirections have begun deserting the ship; even the most privileged beneficiaries of corporatism have begun to recognize the damage that’s been done.

The question that keeps me up at night is whether the forces of hate and resentment unleashed in the pursuit of economic advantage will prove too powerful to control.

I guess we’ll know the answer to that question next November…..

Comments

Where Do We Go From Here?

In a recent Substack letter, Robert Hubbell reduced America’s current situation to a pithy paragraph, noting that “Biden” and “Trump” “are surrogates and avatars for two different visions of America—authoritarian vs democratic, gun safety vs a heavily armed citizenry, reproductive liberty vs state-imposed religious regulation of women’s bodies, dignity vs discrimination against LGBTQ people, and environmental protection vs unregulated fossil fuels.”

In November of 2024, Americans will decide which of those visions to embrace. It really is that simple–and that stark.

Let me be brutally honest. Those voting for the Trump vision won’t be simply voting for an autocrat. They will be voting for a racist society–a throwback to a time that they “remembered” but that never existed–but it was a time when straight White Christian men occupied the top tiers of a society where Blacks, LGBTQ people, non-Christians and women faced obstacles based soley on their identities, and they desperately want that society back. (People who decry what they call “identity politics” somehow forget the way identity politics played out in the past.)

And what about those “Second Amendment” defenders voting for Trump? I still recall a conversation I had some forty years ago with a historian who was an official of my city’s (then sane) Republican County machine.  His take? “The Second Amendment entitles you to carry a musket and a powder-horn.” His point should be clear to any intellectually honest individual: no matter what your interpretation of the Second Amendment–whether it was intended to protect a militia or a personal right–the Founders could never have imagined the invention of assault weapons or the other high-tech weapons of war that our current gun fanatics claim to own as a matter of right.

There are multiple definitions of “autocracy,” but individual rights vanish under any of them. One of the most significant improvements in governance introduced by America’s adoption–in our Constitution and Bill of Rights– of the Enlightenment’s vision of limited government. “Limited” government in that philosophical sense did not mean “small” government–the limit was on the power of government and its authority over the individual.

Government, in our non-autocratic version, was to be restrained from interfering with the fundamental right of individuals to self-government. Limited government meant respect for personal autonomy–the right of each individual citizen to decide what the Supreme Court (before its capture by a majority of theocrats) dubbed “intimate” matters: whether to procreate, whether (and with whom) to engage sexually, who to marry–in addition to decisions about what books to read, and what political or religious opinions to embrace or reject.

This country has made slow and irregular progress toward a system that honors that basic respect for the integrity of the individual’s conscience and right to make those “intimate” decisions, but we have made progress. In 2024, that progress will be on the ballot.

The rise of a large and fearful cohort of people who reject self-government in favor of autocracy couldn’t come at a worse time. America has persevered through wars and contentious political times before, but never under an existential threat of climate change. In a sane age, we would be coming together to focus our efforts and energies on combatting global warming–on preparing our cities for rising waters and strengthened storms and hurricanes, preparing our international politics for the likelihood that millions of people will become refugees from areas no longer able to sustain them.

Instead, thanks in no small part to our increasingly obsolete political structures, a large cohort of fearful, tribal Americans has elevated a clown show of posturing know-nothings and bigots to America’s Congress, and is evidently determined to nominate and re-elect a preposterous and mentally-ill ignoramus to the Presidency.

I don’t know how we get through to that cohort. I rather suspect we can’t. For whatever reason, their ability to recognize reality, to evaluate evidence and to act rationally and in their own long-term self-interest has been overwhelmed by their  fears and tribal hatreds.  

So here we are.

As Hubbell accurately pointed out, next year’s election won’t be between Biden and Trump. It will be between autocracy and democracy, between those of us who want to remove weapons of war from our city streets, who want to enable individuals to live their lives as they see fit, who see government as a useful communal mechanism through which citizens provide a functioning physical and social infrastructure–and those who yearn for overseers to relieve them of the burden of choosing their own beliefs and behaviors.

Between slow, steady progress and a terrifying regression.

Comments