Author Archives: Sheila

Good News On Guns?

There is so much about the world I inhabit that I don’t understand.

I’ve repeatedly posted about my inability to get my head around support for an ignorant, obviously deeply mentally-ill candidate for president, for example. I mean, what in the world do people see in a self-engrossed buffoon given to bizarre, nonsensical rants that makes them want to give him control of the nuclear codes?

There are other aspects of American life that I find equally incomprehensible, and one of them is Americans’ gun fetish, which has given us repeated, horrific mass and school shootings.

In some ways, the problem with gun ownership is the thornier of the two: we can get rid of Trump by electing his sane and intellectually superior opponent, but even if we changed gun laws tomorrow–outlawing, for example, the personal ownership of assault weapons–we would still be faced with the fact that millions of Americans already own millions of weapons.

Many of those weapons, to be sure, are in the hands of responsible people–sportsmen, adults aware of and compliant with safety measures–but research suggests that a vastly disproportionate number are in the possession of far-Right conspiracy theorists and looneys styling themselves as “militia” members.

We are never going to be able to get rid of those millions of weapons. Even those of us who marvel at the current, clearly ahistorical acceptance of a dramatically-enlarged application of the Second Amendment nevertheless recognize that the Amendment would not allow broad confiscation of guns.

It is a thorny problem, and as with so many difficult issues, progress will inevitably be incremental. That said, there are encouraging signs that at least some progress is being made. Back in April, Daily Kos reported on the woes of the NRA.

Early this year, Wayne LaPierre resigned ahead of a trial over his flagrant misuse of the organization’s funds to “treat himself to yacht trips, African safaris, and regular use of a private jet.’

In the wake of LaPierre’s resignation, the organization has reportedly descended into infighting. Finding a new leader has proven so difficult that not even Donald Trump Jr., who spent years talking himself up as the NRA’s next leader, is willing to take the job. Or at least, he says he wouldn’t, though no one has actually asked him to step in.

Leadership aside, the NRA now has only a fraction of the funds they had to sling around in past election seasons. They’ve declined from the $50 million they put into races in 2016 to only $11 million in their PAC and SuperPAC combined as of the last filing. Membership is also down by over a million, to around five million, which is half the goal LaPierre set for 2023 a decade ago.

And that’s not all that’s declined. So have gun sales. So what does that mean for the gun lobby?

The financial troubles (and thus the waning influence) of the NRA is very good news, because that organization was able to block reasonable firearms policies. As the article notes, other gun organizations aren’t able to exert the lobbying heft of the NRA.

With the NRA fading, there are other gun lobby groups working to gain more influence. However, none of them seem to have the level of influence, extensive finances, and highly effective lobbyists that the NRA had a few years ago. Those other organizations haven’t spent decades nurturing relationships with both politicians and deep-pocketed donors. The decline of the NRA seems like a genuine moment of weakness in the pro-gun lobby.

The article concludes with the hopeful proposition that–despite “stupid state laws”– “America may have passed ‘peak gun.” That’s probably too optimistic. On the other hand, it implicitly recognizes the importance of culture–and culture change– when dealing with issues that can seem intractable.

The reason the culture wars have flared so intensely these last few years is that frightened people have recognized the overwhelming threat to White Christian male dominance posed by the changes they are seeing in public opinion. America’s culture warriors are desperately trying to stop the growth of newly inclusive attitudes, evidenced by acceptance of women and gay folks and people of color, and the rejection of rules based solely upon the doctrines of favored religious denominations.

Those frightened “warriors” are the ones clinging to their “Second Amendment right” to own an AR-15. As their numbers diminish, so will the public safety danger posed by angry men (almost all mass killers are male) who want to stop the spinning of a world that is changing in ways that they believe disempower them.

It’s far from a perfect solution, but at least the culture change on guns seems to be heading in the right direction.

Comments

The Evidence Continues To Mount

Inequality.org recently took an in-depth look at the Right-wing’s increasingly successful effort to destroy public education. In an article titled “Private Fortunes Vs. Public Education,” the article began

The United States essentially invented public education. Back in the 1780s, notes the Center on Education Policy, federal legislation “granted federal lands to new states and set aside a portion of those lands to be used to fund public schools.” By the 18th century’s close, most Americans had embraced the notion of “using public funds to support public schooling for the common good.”

In the mid-20th century, amid growing levels of economic equality, that public financial support for public schools would expand mightily. The results would be impressive. By 1970, graduation rates from American high schools — institutions, notes historian Claudia Goldin, themselves “rooted in egalitarianism” — had quadrupled over 1920 levels.

But that era of growing equality and expanding public education would start fading in the 1970s. Over recent years, a new U.S. Senate report makes clear, that fade has only intensified.

The article went on to report that, during the last decade, funding for the nation’s public schools has “barely increased,” while  “state spending on tax breaks and subsidies for private schools has skyrocketed by 408 percent.”

A report from the Brookings Institution found that universal voucher programs “are unwinding two centuries of tradition in U.S. public education” and that the programs “violate basic traditions of church-state separation, anti-discrimination, and public accountability.” As the researcher concluded, even if the courts -ignoring over fifty years of precedents–rule that these voucher programs are constitutionally permissible, “we should assess them against our principles as a nation.”

Indiana is a prime example. For severa years, the Hoosier state has had the nation’s largest voucher program. It was originally justified as a way to allow poor children to escape “failing public schools,” there were income limits for families taking advantage of the program, and vouchers use was limited to children who had first attended a public school. Those restrictions were steadily eased, and a few days ago, the Indianapolis Star confirmed what I have repeatedly pointed out on this blog: costs have exploded and Indiana’s voucher program has become a subsidy for parochial schools and the well-to-do.

The Star article began with the story of a father who had been paying his daughter’s tuition at a private religious school in Mishawaka, Indiana. The school informed him that Hoosier taxpayers stood ready to assume most of the nearly $10,000 annual cost.

Garcia applied and his daughter joined more than 600 other students ― or about 90% of Marian’s enrollment ― utilizing the state grants to pay for their schooling 2023-24. The tax-funded payments generated $4.3 million for the private school…

A three-month investigation by University of Notre Dame students in the Gallivan Program for Journalism, Ethics, and Democracy found that a majority of the families in the Indiana voucher program today were previously paying for private school on their own, just like Garcia. Yet the state stepped in to offer a financial subsidy to parents who didn’t need it ― a costly decision critics say is hurting public schools, which educate more than 90% of the approximately one million K-12 students in Indiana.

Started in 2011 under former Gov. Mitch Daniels as an avenue to help low-income students escape failing public schools, the voucher program has changed dramatically in the last decade. While it has helped thousands of families choose their preferred school, the cost is projected to grow 263 percent in just five years. This expansion is predicted to force public school districts to either make severe cuts or ask taxpayers for more money through public referendums.

The Indiana legislature has turned the program into “a subsidy for predominantly wealthy, white suburban families”. The Star  found that–far from helping poor minority children– the program’s “average recipient is a white female who has never attended public school, from a family earning more than $99,000 a year.”

That cushy subsidy for the well-to-do has cost Indiana’s public schools an estimated $600 million this year.

In 2011, in order for a family of four to qualify for a voucher, the family could make up to $40,000 a year. Today, the same family can qualify while making $222,000 a year.  A program that initially cost Indiana taxpayers $15.5 million per year cost more than $300 million last year, and is projected to top $600 million this year. 

Meanwhile, a mountain of research confirms that educational outcomes have not improved–and in some places and some subjects, have declined.

Researchers have also identified the “dark money” behind the attack on public education, and Project 2025 acknowledges that the goal is to replace public schools with private and parochial ones.

In Indiana, where gerrymandering has given the GOP carte blanche to do their worst, they’re already working on it.

Comments

More About Those “Rutabaga” Districts..

A few days ago, I wrote about the problem posed by what I called “rutabaga” voters--Hoosiers who would elect a vegetable if it had an “R” next to its name on the ballot. In that post, I focused on District 88, but I’ve received an email from a very politically-savvy friend about another district that is eminently winnable if the sane candidate has sufficient resources to get his message out. My friend has long been negative about Indiana voters and Democratic chances in the state, so his belief that this district is winnable is consequential.

Here’s that email in its entirety.

Friends,

I have had multiple discussions with people regarding how to make a meaningful and impactful impact on elections here in Indiana. That is genuinely a challenge these days. After chatting with knowledgeable people, the most meaningful thing we can do is to try to help the Democrats win enough seats to end the Republican supermajority in the Indiana legislature.

If we are going to be successful in doing so, the most challenging seat to flip will be in IndianaHouse District 24. If we win this district, however, we impact the Republican’s ability to keep their uncontested grip on Indiana governance.

Indiana House District 24 encompasses Westfield (54%), Carmel (33%), Sheridan (7%), and portions of Zionsville (7%). It is a lean Republican District with much new suburban growth since 2020. Joe Biden received 45.7 percent in 2020. Since 2020, registrations have increased by 70% inWestfield. These registrations bode well for Democrats, as new voters are mostly under fifty and tend to lean Democrat. House District 24 is an open seat.

The Democrat candidate is Josh Lowery. Josh and his family live in Westfield. Josh ran for the state senate in 2022. His wife Alexis ran for Westfield City Council in 2023 and lost to a well-funded Patrick Tamm by thirty votes. So, the Lowry name identification is better than average, particularly in the population center of Westfield. Josh is an attorney. Josh and Alexis are well-known in the community beyond their political participation. They are foster parents and have fostered twelve children, five of whom they have adopted.

Hunter Smith is a former Indianapolis Colts punter who lives in the Zionsville portion of House District 24. Hunter Smith is a disciple of Republican Lt. Governor candidate Micah Beckwith and his extreme Christian nationalist agenda and the most extreme elements of the Republican party. He supports Beckwith’s positions, including those he took as a member of the Hamilton East Public Library when he voted for a book-banning policy that put Hamilton County in the national news.

Smith won a contested GOP primary where he ran to the right. He is pro-life without exceptions, pro-parents’ rights in school, pro-school choice, and anti-LGBTIQQ, particularly emphasizing he wants to ban Pride Month because it promotes the “wickedness of the LGBT agenda.”

House District 24 is winnable and a key district in House Democrats’ push to flip four seats to break the Indiana House Republican’s supermajority in the House. While it is a lean Republican District, Josh Lowry is more aligned with the district than the far-right extremist Hunter Smith. Lowry’s hopes are enhanced by the top of the ticket, where both Kamala Harris and Democratic Gubernatorial nominee Jennifer McCormack are currently polling above expectations in that district.

This race is winnable if Josh can raise the necessary funds to inform voters that Hunter Smith is one of the most extreme candidates in the state on the Republican ticket this fall.

I am not holding a fundraiser or going to pressure anyone to donate. Still, I wanted to share this information if you are inclined to do something that could make a material difference for Indiana. It takes relatively little money to make a meaningful difference in a legislative district, and winning this district could have an oversized impact on the Indiana government. If you are inclined, you can learn more about Josh and donate online at www.lowryforindiana.com.

That’s the end of the email.

I have sent a contribution to Lowry, and I hope many of you reading this will join me. The last thing we need in this state is a pro-censorship, anti-choice clone of theocrat Micah Beckwith buttressing a GOP super-majority in Indiana’s already-terrible, culture-war legislature.

Comments

Compelling Versus Repelling

The New Republic recently had a column by Michael Tomasky comparing the Trump campaign to a long-running television show. His point was that the shtick has gotten old and boring. He compared Trump’s performances to several sitcoms that had been enormously popular, and noted that few of them had sustained that popularity for nine years–the length of time that Trump has inflicted his buffoonery on the country. He also pointed to data that indicates Americans are tiring of him.

It was an interesting comparison, and obviously, I hope it’s a correct one. But what caught my attention was his conclusion to the following paragraphs:

But again, for now, let’s just judge him as an act. His act is way tired. It’s now nine years of “Fake news” and “You won’t have a country anymore” and all the rest. In 2015, all those Trumpisms were stupid and disgusting; but at least they were new. I actually laughed when he described Jeb Bush as a “low-energy person.” He was! I could imagine then how, for voters who didn’t hate him, he was interesting and possibly amusing as a species that American politics rarely produces: someone who threw the script in the air and said whatever the hell popped into his mind.

That was bound to be something people wanted to watch, for a while. And it was just as bound to be something that became less compelling over time. It’s an act. And this is a key difference between politics and show business that Trump can’t see. In showbiz, and on TV, it’s all about whether the production values can sell the act. In politics, it turns out, the act needs more than slick production. It still needs to show some connection to people’s lives and concerns. Harris is better at that than Trump is. And her act is a lot fresher, too. And Walz’s act versus Vance’s? Not remotely close. Yes—Walz is so compelling, and Vance so repelling, that this is one election where the veep choices may actually make two points’ worth of difference.

Tomasky’s characterization of Walz as “compelling” and Vance as “repelling” isn”t just an accurate description of the two vice-presidential candidates. It’s an accurate description of the great majority of current Democratic and Republican candidates.

I understand that I live in an urban bubble, but everyone I know finds Trump repellant–and those who watched the Democratic Convention found most of the speakers at that event compelling. That contrast isn’t limited to national figures, either. It’s really hard to look at the Indiana Republicans’ statewide ticket without being repelled. (When MAGA Mike Braun is the least offensive candidate of the four, the GOP has really outdone itself.)

In addition to MAGA Mike, an empty suit who just wants to be important, you have smarmy Micah Beckwith hating on LGBTQ folks, advocating censorship, and telling voters that God directed the disreputable and looney mob that invaded the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. (Micah says he talks to God…)

You have equally-theocratic, anti-woman, anti-gay, wrong about pretty much everything, Jim Banks, who is evidently so personally unpleasant that even the Republicans in his current Congressional district dislike him.

And you have  “no bar is so low that he can’t go lower” Todd Rokita, who has (mis)used the. office of Attorney General to wage interminable–and tiresome–culture wars as part of his incessant pandering to the most MAGA voters of the GOP base.

I certainly find these men repellant. I also find the Democratic state ticket compelling–if you haven’t had the opportunity to hear Jennifer McCormick, Terry Goodin, Valerie McCray or Destiny Wells speak, you should try to do so. But even if you don’t find them as compelling or inspiring as I do, you’ll definitely notice that they are all sane, competent and –unlike their Republican opponents–actually qualified to do the jobs they’re running for.

I really hope that Tomasky’s comparison of political and television show popularity is correct. It would be great if the American voters who have been fascinated or intrigued (or sucked in) by the first few seasons of “Entitled White Faux Christian Guys” might be getting bored with the same-old, same-old, and ready for a different show.

How about a documentary? Say, for example, one titled “This is How Government Is Supposed to Work”?

Comments

Ron DeSantis: Poster Child For Today’s GOP

In the wake of his pathetic performance in the presidential primaries, coverage of Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida, has faded from the national media. A recent exception was an article last week in The Guardian, explaining how he’s lost the support of many Florida Republicans

Ironically, that support didn’t diminish due to his appalling and seemingly endless assaults on civil liberties– some of which were enumerated in the first two paragraphs of the article.

In the end, it wasn’t culture war feuding over restricting LGBTQ+ rights, thwarting Black voters or vilifying immigrants that finally broke Republicans’ DeSantis fever in Florida.

Nor was it his rightwing takeover of higher education, the banning of books from school libraries, his restriction of drag shows, or passive assent of neo-Nazis parading outside Disney World waving flags bearing the extremist governor’s name that caused them to finally stand up to him.

It wasn’t even his bill scrubbing the term “climate change” from all Florida state laws. Evidently, none of those things upset Florida’s Republicans. The step too far was DeSantis’ effort to pave over the state’s parks.

It was, instead, a love of vulnerable Florida scrub jays; a passion to preserve threatened gopher tortoises; and above all a unanimous desire to speak up for nature in defiance of Ron DeSantis’s mind-boggling plan to pave over thousands of unspoiled acres at nine state parks and erect 350-room hotels, golf courses and pickleball courts.

Thousands of environmentalists, former allies and GOP elected officials denounced the plan. Even the Republican state legislators who have dutifully rubber-stamped anything DeSantis proposed, denounced the projects. Many pointed to the evidence of intended corruption, since the plans–devised in secret– contemplated “no-bid contracts destined for mysteriously pre-chosen developers outside the requirements of Florida law.”

Faced with that blowback, DeSantis copied Trump, pretending that he was unaware of the proposal.

Desperately trying to pin blame elsewhere for a misadventure that was very demonstrably his own, he continued: “This is something that was leaked. It was not approved by me, I never saw that. It was intentionally leaked to a leftwing group to try and create a narrative.”

Tsk tsk. Those pesky “left-wing” groups…..

The rest of the article details the fallout in Florida, and speculates that DeSantis is “losing his grip” on Florida’s voters. While that’s interesting (although not as interesting as the question “why did this awkward fascist ever have a grip”), the article was far more intriguing for its parallels with Donald Trump and the national GOP. The opening recitation of DeSantis’ priorities mimics the agenda of today’s Republican Party and Project 2025. His effort to distance himself when it became obvious that those priorities were unpopular (to say the least) mimics Trump’s insistence that he knows nothing about Projecct 2025.

Take a good look at those priorities.

DeSantis and Trump and today’s No-Longer-Grand Old Party are one big hate-fest. It isn’t simply the war on women’s autonomy. The party wants gays back in the closet. It wants Black Americans returned to a subservient status, and Brown immigrants deported. It exalts Hitler for his effort to eradicate Jewish people. And today’s GOP has an incredible, seething animosity to the life of the mind–seen in its determination to turn higher education into indoctrination, to dictate what can and cannot be taught in public schools, and its persistent efforts to prevent people from accessing books of which its White Christian Nationalists disapprove.

The devolution of the Republican Party into the party of racial grievance and nostalgia for a past that never existed has occurred gradually over a period of time. For that reason, a lot of people have failed to recognize the GOP’s transformation into a neo-fascist movement–a hodge-podge of chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and reactionary views.

What struck me about the opening paragraphs of the cited article was the enumeration of those very unAmerican goals as DeSantis has pursued them in his state–with the acquiescence (nay, the enthusiasm) of that state’s GOP.

It is telling that the break between DeSantis and the state’s Republicans came only when his authoritarianism threatened the parks they enjoy. Only then, evidently, did Florida’s “good Germans” recognize that an autocratic agenda eventually targets everyone.

A Martin Niemoller paraphrase seems apt–if a bit awkward and with a less tragic ending:

First they came for the intellectuals, and I did not speak out—because I was not an intellectual.

Then they came for the gays, and I did not speak out—because I was not gay.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for my parks—so I finally spoke up.

Comments