Author Archives: Sheila

We Need To Listen To Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman are my two favorite economists–probably because, despite both being Nobel Prize winners– both of them are able to explain their conclusions in language I can (mostly) understand, and because those conclusions usually strike me as eminently reasonable.

Stiglitz recently took on the neoliberalism that has characterized American governance since Reagan. Neoliberalism has been described as an economic system generally opposed to the provision or expansion of government safety nets, and highly skeptical of regulation, extensive government spending, and government-led countercyclical policy.

As Stiglitz notes,

On one side of the economic debate are those who believe in largely unfettered markets, in which companies are allowed to agglomerate market power or pollute or exploit. They believe firms should maximize shareholder value, doing whatever they can get away with, because bigger profits serve the common good.

The most famous 20th-century proponents of this low-tax/low-regulation shareholder-centric economy, often referred to as neoliberalism, are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. These Nobel Prize-winning economists took the idea beyond the economy, claiming this kind of economic system was necessary to achieve political freedom.
The strongest argument advanced by neoliberals is that economic freedom translates into political freedom. As Stiglitz points out, however, “not quite.”
We’ve now had four decades of the neoliberal “experiment,” beginning with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The results are clear. Neoliberalism expanded the freedom of corporations and billionaires to do as they will and amass huge fortunes, but it also exacted a steep price: the well-being and freedom of the rest of society…
Friedman and his acolytes failed to understand an essential feature of freedom: that there are two kinds, positive and negative; freedom to do and freedom from harm. “Free markets” alone fail to provide economic stability or security against the economic vagaries they create, let alone allow large fractions of the population to live up to their potential. Government is needed to deliver both. In doing so, government expands freedom in multiple ways.
Stiglitz’ basic argument is that the “Road to Serfdom” isn’t paved by governments that do too much; loss of freedom–serfdom– is a consequence of governing that does too little. He points out that populist nationalism poses a greater threat in countries like Israel, the Philippines and the United States than it does in in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. In those Scandinavian countries, high-quality public education, strong unemployment benefits and robust public health provide an economic floor that shields citizens from what he calls the “common American anxieties over how to pay for their children’s education or their medical bills.”
Discontent festers in places facing unaddressed economic stresses, where people feel a loss of control over their destinies; where too little is done to address unemployment, economic insecurity and inequality. This provides a fertile field for populist demagogues — who are in ample supply everywhere. In the United States, this has given us Donald Trump.
We care about freedom from hunger, unemployment and poverty — and, as FDR emphasized, freedom from fear. People with just enough to get by don’t have freedom — they do what they must to survive. And we need to focus on giving more people the freedom to live up to their potential, to flourish and to be creative. An agenda that would increase the number of children growing up in poverty or parents worrying about how they are going to pay for health care — necessary for the most basic freedom, the freedom to live — is not a freedom agenda.
Champions of the neoliberal order, moreover, too often fail to recognize that one person’s freedom is another’s unfreedom — or, as Isaiah Berlin put it, freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep. Freedom to carry a gun might mean death to those who are gunned down in the mass killings that have become an almost daily occurrence in the United States. Freedom not to be vaccinated or wear masks might mean others lose the freedom to live.
Stiglitz provides examples of the various ways government regulation can enhance, rather than impede, individual freedom, and he ends by defining what he calls “progressive capitalism” (what I would call the “mixed economy.”) The goal of any economic system ought to be the creation of a broadly shared prosperity. The Isaiah Berlin quote captures the essential problem we face in today’s crony capitalist economy: we have a government that has been solicitous of the freedom and well-being of the wolves, and we’ve ignored the negative effects on the sheep.
Only government can (1) provide a social and political infrastructure accessible to all, and (2) prevent the wealthy and powerful from dominating and harming others. Neoliberalism fails on both counts.
Comments

The Resistance

Real Christians–those committed to following the Jesus portrayed by the New Testament–are fighting back against “Christian” Nationalism, which bears very little resemblance to the guy portrayed by the New Testament. Their resistance isn’t getting the same amount of media attention as the warriors for theocracy, but it is encouraging to see religious folks who are actually trying to follow the precepts of their faith.

I was heartened by two recent articles from the Religion News Service .

First is a lengthy description of efforts to counter the White Christian Nationalist roots of Project 2025.  The article cited the hidden-camera video of the Project’s Russell Vought, that revealed the Project’s goal in Vought’s own words: to “get us off multiculturalism” and promote “Christian nation-ism.” …

It is difficult to measure how many individuals are involved in these resistance efforts, A recent survey by PRRI finds that 30% of Americans wholly reject the ideas associated with Christian nationalism, and another 37% is skeptical. With new campaigns to resist Christian nationalism continually emerging, it is clear many of those concerned individuals have joined organized efforts to fight back.

Those involved range from concerned citizens to scholars and journalists to people who lead organizations and campaigns that are devoting significant resources to resisting Christian nationalism. Some speak and write publicly about what they learn in order to inform others. Some work more quietly to confront extremism and hate within their community or family. Some people join reading groups at their church. Others attend seminars and gatherings hosted by local faith-based community organizing networks like Gamaliel or view webinars through organizations like Vote Common Good, Christians Against Christian Nationalism or the After Party.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom leads the Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign, and has published an MSNBC op-ed laying out what it called Project 2025’s “underscrutinized theocratic elements.” Not long after the publication of that op-ed, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism reported on Project 2025, including a section on the role played by Christian Nationalism in its policy proposals.  Doug Pagitt of Vote Common Good has called Project 2025 a “blueprint for Christian Nationalism” and beseeched, “I am urging you to take this as seriously as I do.” At “Salon,” the Rev. Liz Theoharis wrote that “the wholesale capture of the state is the ultimate goal of [Project 2025’s] Christian nationalist architects.”

There is much more in the linked article, and its worth reading in its entirety.

The other article I found encouraging dealt with a political effort being mounted by genuine Christians–including Evangelicals. Titled “Christians, Evangelicals rally for Kamala Harris ahead of DNC,” the subhead quoted Billy Graham’s granddaughter: ‘Voting Kamala … (is) a vote against another four years of faith leaders justifying the actions of a man who destroys the message Jesus came to spread.”

A diverse group of Christians is throwing support behind Vice President Kamala Harris’ White House bid, organizing fundraisers and Zoom calls in hopes of helping catapult the Democrat to victory in November — and, they say, reclaiming their faith from Republicans in the process.

Their efforts come on the heels of similar campaigns aimed at specific constituency groups, such as the recent “White Dudes for Harris” Zoom call that featured celebrities and grabbed headlines. John Pavlovitz, a liberal-leaning Christian author and activist, was on that call when he hatched the idea for a Christian-centric version and texted his friend Malynda Hale, a singer, actress and fellow activist.

“We had a conversation about how, specifically on the Democratic side of the political spectrum, you don’t hear a lot of people talking about their faith,” Hale told Religion News Service in an interview. “We wanted people to know that there are progressive Christians, there are Christians on the Democratic, left-leaning side, so that they didn’t feel alone.”

Unsurprisingly, the Trump campaign accused the Evangelicals who participated in the call of “apostasy and heresy,” calling them out on social media as “Heretics for Harris.” Franklin Graham accused the group of deliberate “misinformation.”

But call participants like evangelical activist Shane Claiborne appeared unmoved by the criticism, as was Jerushah Duford, a counselor who is also Billy Graham’s granddaughter and Franklin Graham’s niece.

“Voting Kamala, for me, is so much greater than policies,” Duford said. “It’s a vote against another four years of faith leaders justifying the actions of a man who destroys the message Jesus came to spread, and that is why I get involved in politics.”

It’s comforting to see that the effort to co-opt an entire religion for political purposes is receiving pushback from the people who take that religion seriously.

Comments

Unaccustomed As I Am To Feeling Hopeful…

I am finally emerging from the black cloud I inhabited during the early days of this Presidential contest. There are a number of reasons–most of them centered on the enthusiasm generated by the Harris/Walz ticket and Trump’s ever-more-frequent mental meltdowns–but also grounded in my belief that most Americans are good people.

The emergence of Donald Trump didn’t really test that belief. (Well, okay, sort of…) After all, he’s lost the popular vote by millions every time he’s run; if it weren’t for the Electoral College, he would never have gotten close to the Oval Office. That said, millions of people did vote for him–and in the years since 2016, scholars and pundits have wrestled with the question: why? Why would anyone cast a vote for a childish ignorant buffoon clearly unfit for any responsible position?

I have previously shared my conclusion that the answer to that question is racism. Trump’s rhetoric (when it’s comprehensible) gives Americans permission to express hatreds they had hidden when the dominant culture still privileged civility and decency.

Speaking of decency…Watching the Democratic convention reminded me of that famous question posed to Joe McCarthy–“have you no decency, sir?” Speaker after speaker reminded us that America once prized–and mostly practiced–decency, and most people saw their fellow Americans (even the ones who didn’t look like them) as neighbors, not “others.”

After the 2016 election, a lot of Trump voters crawled out from under their rocks. (In Howell, Michigan last month, white supremacists rallied, chanting “We love Hitler. We love Trump.” Last week, Trump held a rally there.)

As the polls show Kamala Harris surging, those nativist haters are doing what such people do. They are “coming out” to where the rest of us can see them for what they are–indecent–and they’re turning on each other.

A recent article from the Washington Post was headlined:  “Far-right influencers turn against Trump campaign.”

Some of the internet’s most influential far-right figures are turning against former president Donald Trump’s campaign, threatening a digital “war” against the Republican candidate’s aides and allies that could complicate the party’s calls for unity in the final weeks of the presidential race.

Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist and podcaster who dined with Trump at his Palm Beach resort Mar-a-Lago in 2022, said on X that Trump’s campaign was “blowing it” by not positioning itself more to the right and was “headed for a catastrophic loss,” in a post that by Wednesday had been viewed 2.6 million times.

Laura Loomer, a far-right activist whom Trump last year called “very special,” said his “weak” surrogates had unraveled his momentum and that his approach “needs to change FAST because we can’t talk about a stolen election for another 4 years,” in an X post that was “liked” more than 8,000 times.

Obviously, any discord in the Trump campaign is good news. But more important, in my opinion, is the emergence of these “influencers” from under their rocks, because we can see them more clearly.

With millions of followers, the far-right provocateurs have long been one of the most reliable engines for winning Trump attention online, helping to build the viral energy that boosted his political career and his strong lead among predominantly White male voters.

These far-right activists want the campaign to adopt harder-right positions on race and immigration. They are especially frustrated by the campaign’s disavowal of Project 2025. Meanwhile, MAGA campaign workers recognize that Trump can’t win without expanding beyond his hard-Right hater base.

In an interview, Fuentes said he intends to push his followers to adopt “guerrilla” tactics and “escalate pressure in the real world,” including through mass appearances at Trump rallies in battleground states such as Michigan, until the campaign meets their demands to stop “pandering to independents.” He has urged followers to withhold their votes for Trump, saying it is the only way to awaken a campaign that has “no energy … [and] no enthusiasm.”

On the Harris/Walz trail, energy and enthusiasm are abundant.

I remain highly skeptical of poll numbers, but they do accurately reflect momentum–which way the wind is blowing. The major reason for my polling skepticism is also the reason for my current hopefulness: I don’t trust the polls’ “likely voter” screens.  In the wake of Dobbs and Biden’s withdrawal, we’ve seen registrations mushroom (one headline said by 700 percent!). Those previously “unlikely” voters aren’t going to the polls to support Donald Trump–they are responding to hope and the welcome decency of the Harris/Walz campaign.

It’s been disheartening to discover that millions of Americans respond positively to Trump’s racism and childish insults, but I stand by my belief that–depressingly numerous though they are–they are a minority.

If the majority votes, we’ll be okay.

Comments

Michelle Obama Nails It

I’ve been following the Democratic convention, and I’ve been struck by several things: the high quality of the speeches; the impressive depth of the Democratic bench; the unusual unity on display; and especially the hopefulness (and yes, joy) that have been absent from our politics for a very long time.

I’m one of those old people who can’t stay awake for speeches that begin after ten (I rarely make it past nine…), so I’ve watched selected speeches on YouTube, and I was reminded why I–along with millions of other Americans–so admire Michelle Obama.

Despite her popularity, Michelle Obama has firmly rejected suggestions that she run for office. Instead, she has carved out a special niche in the political world: that of truth-teller. And in her convention speech, she didn’t hold back. She delivered one of the most succinct–and accurate–takedowns of Donald Trump, and she did so without resorting to the third-grade name-calling that characterizes virtually every speech and social media post from Trump.

Heather Cox Richardson quoted that take-down.

“No one has a monopoly on what it means to be an American,” she said. “No one.” “[M]ost of us will never be afforded the grace of failing forward,” she said. “We will never benefit from the affirmative action of generational wealth. If we bankrupt a business…or choke in a crisis, we don’t get a second, third, or fourth chance. If things don’t go our way, we don’t have the luxury of whining or cheating others to get further ahead…we don’t get to change the rules so we always win. If we see a mountain in front of us, we don’t expect there to be an escalator waiting to take us to the top. No, we put our heads down. We get to work. In America, we do something.”

And then Mrs. Obama took up the mantle of her mother, warning that demonizing others and taking away their rights, “only makes us small.” It “demeans and cheapens our politics. It only serves to further discourage good, big-hearted people from wanting to get involved at all. America, our parents taught us better than that.”

In a few short sentences, Obama described the Trump character flaws that distress normal people (flaws that especially annoy those of us who have produced and raised the children whose births are the evident obsession of JD Vance). I don’t know about billionaire parents, but the rest of us taught our children the difference between civility and nastiness, between arrogance and healthy self-regard. Bullying others, making fun of disabled people, and name-calling earned severe punishments in our homes, along with lectures on why such behaviors could not be tolerated, and why they were seen by well-balanced people as evidence of inadequacy and deep-seated feelings of inferiority.

And in my house, at least, there was a “no whining” rule. If things didn’t go your way, you dealt with it. You didn’t blame your mistakes on your siblings or on others–you owned them.

Trump’s behavior reminds me of the occasional “entitled” students who couldn’t accept a bad grade, the ones who were shocked–shocked!–by a B (or an incomprehensible C), and were certain it was attributable to professorial error or bad teaching, never to their own performance.

Actually, Trump’s rants on social media remind me of that Tom Lehrer song “Be Prepared,” in which he advises boy scouts not to write “naughty words on walls that you can’t spell.”

I especially loved Obama’s entirely accurate labeling of generational wealth as affirmative action. It is. Privileged White guys with inherited wealth who begrudge any effort to correct the systemic disadvantages other people face never seem to recognize the extent of their own unearned “edge.”

Philip Bump said it best in the Washington Post.

Obama used a phrase that succinctly and elegantly reframes the ongoing debate over inequality in the United States and how it might be addressed: “the affirmative action of generational wealth.”

It’s concise, centered on two familiar concepts. The first is “affirmative action,” the term used to describe programs generally focused on ensuring that non-White Americans have access to resources and institutions they might not otherwise have. And the second is “generational wealth,” the transition of economic (and social) power through families and, at times, communities….

Generational wealth really is a form of affirmative action.

Because generational wealth presents opportunities to people who might otherwise not have access to them: legacy admissions at Ivy League colleges, tutors and training, vehicles and housing that make entry-level jobs or internships more feasible. These are benefits that derive from social and economic class — a form of affirmative action. 

 It was a great speech.

Comments

Let’s Talk About Economic Performance

One of the recurring questions on presidential polls asks respondents for their perceptions of economic performance.
Although Kamala has bested Trump in a couple of recent polls, it has really rankled me that so few Americans have recognized and/or appreciated either the damage Trump did to the economy or the Biden administration’s incredibly successful management of it–management that financial markets and economists acknowledge was masterful, and brought the U.S. out of the pandemic downturn faster (and better) than any other country.
Knowledgable observers compare Biden’s performance to that of FDR. He will go down in history as one of America’s most consequential Presidents. In my humble opinion, the lack of popular recognition of his performance is attributable to his relative lack of oratorical skills–if Biden had the oratorical gifts of an Obama, perhaps a general public fixated on celebrity, salesmanship and hype (and too lazy to consult evidence and data) would have appreciated the extent of his administration’s accomplishments.
The Democratic convention got underway Monday, and in his speech, Biden justifiably reminded listeners of his “greatest hits.” In a column about the convention and the speech, Jennifer Rubin focused on Biden’s economic and foreign policy performance, noting the historic pieces of legislation Biden managed to pass even when the House of Representatives was in the hands of a partisan–and looney– GOP: measures on infrastructure, microchip manufacturing, and green energy investment. Cost controls on insulin and a variety of prescription drugs for Medicare patients. A massive operation to immunize Americans against the coronavirus, despite what Rubin called–accurately– “irrational and destructive” Republican opposition. That operation saved thousands of lives in addition to allowing the U.S. economy to recover. 

These domestic successes accompanied equally impressive foreign policy accomplishments: “repairing and expanding NATO, arming Ukraine, reestablishing the United States’ credibility on the international stage, new and reinvigorated alliances to check China’s power).”

Kamala Harris has been part of the Biden administration, and can be expected to continue the policy approaches that have been so successful. There will be some “tweaks,” but she has administration “bragging rights.” She is running on four years of demonstrated, excellent performance.

So, you might ask, what are Donald Trump’s “bragging rights?” My sister recently listed them, and seeing them all in one list was–shall we say–edifying:

First President in history to serve a full term and increase the deficit every year he was in office.

First President in history to maintain a debt to GDP ratio over 100% for his entire term

Highest annual budget deficit.

Most added to the national debt in a single term.
Most new unemployment claims.
Largest single day point drop in the history of the Dow.
First President in almost a century to lose jobs in his first term.
Longest government shutdown in history (and he did that while his own party controlled both chambers of Congress).
In addition to that dismal economic performance, Trump was also the first President to lose the popular vote twice, the first to maintain a net negative approval rating for his entire term, first to be impeached twice (with bipartisan support for his conviction after both impeachments) and, as we know, the President with the most indictments, guilty pleas, and criminal convictions of members of an administration.
The first to be a convicted felon.
The only people who cheered Trump’s economic policies were the super-rich, who benefitted from his tax cuts–cuts that placed the tax burden squarely on the middle class, and further enriched the wealthiest Americans.
You know what to do. VOTE BLUE.
Listen to the nuns….
Comments