Author Archives: Sheila

Jim Banks Is Wrong About Everything

In the run-up to Indiana’s primary election, I had the opportunity to learn a lot about far-right Congressman Jim Banks, and what I learned was pretty horrifying. Some of it was what we unfortunately have come to call “politics as usual”–financial shenanigans like the misuse of campaign funds. As I previously noted, an ethics watchdog has documented Banks’ use of a so-called “Leadership PAC” as a slush fund, allowing him to siphon funds from special interests into fancy meals, club dues and the like. (Yesterday, the Washington Post noted he has a million dollar home in Virginia, so elective office is evidently lucrative.)

More concerning are Banks’ culture war positions. Along with clowns like Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Banks has doubled down on a pro-Trump, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-liberty performative politics.

Banks has made no bones about his desire for a national ban on abortion with no exceptions, not even for rape, incest or life of the mother. He has an A+ rating from Pro-Life America, and a 100% lifetime rating from the National Right to Life Committee. His voting record on abortion/reproductive health can be accessed here.

When it comes to guns, Banks is opposed to even the most modest efforts to control the proliferation of firearms. He opposes a renewal of the ban on assault weapons, and also opposes a federal “Red Flag” law. He supports concealed carry and has voted against background checks for private sales. His voting record on gun issues can be accessed here.

Banks calls climate change a “liberal hoax,” and the Biden Administration’s environmental efforts “a war on energy.” The League of Conservation Voters gives him a 1% lifetime rating. His votes on the environment can be accessed here. 

When it comes to labor issues, Banks gets a zero rating from the AFL-CIO. When he served in the Indiana legislature, he supported “Right to work” legislation (dubbed by labor as “Right to work for less.”) On vote after vote in Congress, he has voted against labor; a list of those votes can be seen here. 

Banks is still fighting against any expansion of healthcare coverage, and rejects medical science. He voted against the most recent expansion of Medicaid and supports legislation that would ban vaccine mandates. He has voted to repeal the ACA, and against legislation that would prevent insurers from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions.  A review of all of his healthcare votes is here.

Banks has voted repeatedly against efforts to fund research into the effects of marijuana. (Those anti-research votes track well with his “know nothing” approach to all issues.) Banks’ votes on issues related to pot are here.

Unsurprisingly, Banks is also an extremist on immigration. He supports finishing Trump’s wall, eliminating federal funding for sanctuary cities, and deporting “criminal illegal aliens.” He opposes legislation granting amnesty for any undocumented persons (presumably including children currently protected by DACA) and opposes any expansion of guest-worker programs.

Banks is an out and proud White Christian Nationalist. He created the “anti-Woke” caucus in the House of Representatives and introduced legislation to outlaw any remaining affirmative action in college admissions. He has been dubbed “Focus on the Family’s Man in Washington.” He opposes all DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs. He has been especially vocal in his opposition to gay rights generally, and to trans children especially– in addition to his “Anti-Woke Caucus,” he has supported efforts to ban trans people from the military, prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports, and prevent medical personnel from treating children for gender dysphoria. He recently sponsored a particularly odious bill that would prevent agencies charged with placing children in foster homes from taking measures to see that gay and trans children not be placed with foster parents who have religious objections to homosexuality, saying that refusal to place those children in such homes was discrimination against religion. (Discriminating against gay children is evidently fine…)

Banks consistently attacks educational institutions of all kinds. He has vowed to investigate the National Association of Independent Schools, focusing on the group’s role in political advocacy and its tax-exempt status. He has threatened to “expose” what he calls widespread political indoctrination in America’s public schools, and has claimed that lawmakers have a “moral duty” to investigate the use of academic accreditation associations as “political tools by leftist ideologues.”

When Banks was in the Indiana legislature, he voted to allow instruction in creationism and supported the educational vouchers that send tax dollars to private, overwhelmingly religious schools.

And of course, he’s described Trump’s trial as “rigged,” posting on social media that “New York is a liberal sh*t hole.”

Having a Neanderthal like Banks as a Congressman is bad enough. Electing him Senator would be worse.

Comments

The Year Of The Woman?

Are we finally approaching that much-heralded (but thus far elusive) “year of the woman”–a year that, despite previous predictions, has yet to materialize?

Maybe. It’s happening in other countries, even those with a deeply “macho” culture–in Mexico, a woman has been elected President. In the U.S., twelve states currently have women governors.

Here in regressive, Red Indiana, the Democratic Party will run an all-women slate of statewide candidates, a first. I have previously written about my enthusiastic support for Jennifer McCormick, the former Superintendent of Public Instruction currently running for Governor. I have not previously written about Valerie McCray, who defeated Marc Carmichael, the candidate I supported for U.S. Senate, or about the contest between two other women–Destiny Wells and Beth White–who are the only candidates vying for the Attorney General nomination.

So let me get to it.

I’ve previously explained why Jennifer McCormick, who will face Trumper Mike Braun in November, would be an excellent Governor. If you visit her website, you will note that she is focused on issues that actually concern Hoosiers, unlike Braun, who–like all MAGA culture warriors–talks almost exclusively about the federal issues he did little or nothing to address in his six years as a Senator.

I recently sat down with Jennifer and her equally impressive campaign manager, and was encouraged to learn that, not only is she personally compelling and right on the issues, she is running a savvy, organized and well-thought-out campaign.

I have also had the opportunity to meet with Valerie McCray and her campaign manager, both of whom noted the extent to which Hoosiers–at least, Democratic-leaning ones– seem to be favoring women candidates this year. (Evidently, voters unfamiliar with either of the Democrats’ Senate contenders overwhelmingly opted for the female candidate.) That phenomenon failed to help Suzanne Crouch, the only woman vying for the GOP’s gubernatorial nomination–a reminder of the parties’ very different attitudes toward women.

As readers of this blog know, in the primary, I supported McCray’s opponent– an older white guy. (I firmly believe that voters should support candidates based upon their individual merits, rather than voting for an identity. I’ve known some pretty reprehensible women politicians.) That said, I was very relieved to find that McCray, whom I’d not previously known, isn’t only right on the issues  (see her excellent website), but is also energetic, informed, and thoughtful. That said, McCray’s biggest asset is actually her opponent, Jim Banks, who represents the most anti-American, anti-woman, theocratic aspects of the MAGA movement. (As I intend to explain in upcoming posts, Banks is very consistent–wrong about everything.) 

If Valerie McCray’s biggest campaign asset is Jim Banks, Todd Rokita will definitely fill that role for the eventual Democratic Attorney General nominee. I have posted about Rokita’s multiple deficits several times; he has been a consistent embarrassment to the legal profession and to the Hoosier State. He was a disgrace as a Congressman and has ignored his professional and ethical obligations as Indiana’s Attorney General, using the position (and taxpayer dollars) to feed his considerable ego while pandering to the far, far Right of the GOP. (Recently, several state senators called him “a hammer in search of a nail.”)

The specific merits of these candidates is important. Their campaigns, their performance in debates and on the stump, their fundraising–all of those traditional elements will matter, and matter a lot. But in addition to the normal horse-race factors, I come back to the question with which I began this post: will this be the year of the woman?

How angry are America’s women? How motivated? How many women who haven’t previously voted will register and cast their ballots in November? How many “good guys”–men who aren’t threatened by women’s growing equality, who care deeply about the status and health of their mothers, sisters and daughters– will signify that support by voting Blue? 

Hoping for a year of the woman is most definitely not an attack on men. It is endorsement of an equal civic partnership that benefits both men and women– and a refusal to return half the population to the subordinate status demanded by the GOP’s White Christian Nationalists.

In Indiana this November, voters will choose between a statewide slate of three talented and accomplished women and three out-and-proud MAGA misogynists and theocrats. This won’t be an election in which differences are minor. It also won’t be an election affected by gerrymandering–you can’t gerrymander a statewide race. 

Here’s an idea: If everyone reading this who cares about civic equality and women’s rights would send a few dollars to each of these women, we could demonstrate widespread support for a Hoosier year of the woman.

If Mexico can do this, so can Indiana.

Comments

Speaking Of Indoctrination

A few days ago, I highlighted the growth of “below-the-radar” volunteer organizations working to inform citizens and get out the progressive (okay, the anti-lunacy) vote. I was encouraged to discover how many efforts of which I’d previously been unaware– were underway in Indiana and elsewhere.

But of course, what’s sauce for the goose…A post at Juanita Jean reported on a similar phenomenon--but from the Right.

Those of us who get our information from the (mostly) reliable traditional news sources have been made aware of the many semi-secret organizations working to replace secular democracy with Christian Nationalism–from groups of wealthy and ostensibly respectable businessmen to the considerably less “socially acceptable” militia members. The linked post offers yet another illustration of the well-known Republican predilection for projection– blaming others for one’s own behaviors. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy of those insisting that “libruls” and public schools are engaged in “indoctrination.”

As Half-Empty writes at Juanita Jean,

What do Sean Spicer, General Michael Flynn (ret.), Jack Posobiec, Dan Crenshaw, Mike Waltz, Dana Loesch, Dinesh D’Souza, and John Solomon all have in common?

If you guessed they were all January 6th supporters or TFG idolizers, you would be correct, but they also have one basic thing in common: they are all Kid Lit authors.

At least they are now.

All of the above and more belong to the new constellation of stars being offered by Houston-based Brave Books. Brave Books proudly offers “Pro-God, Pro-America children’s books.” They tout their books to be “faith-based children’s books teaching American values for a brighter future.”

Brave Books features such titles as “The Island of Free Ice Cream,” which instructs children “that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is,” and “Fame, Blame and the Raft of Shame,” which teaches children “the dangers of cancel culture.”

I kid you not.

As Half Empty notes, most parents of toddlers consider colorfully illustrated children’s books a must-have.  And such children are still in their formative years; they are not yet capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and far too immature to consider complications or shades of gray. Toddlers and very young children are ripe for socialization/indoctrination.

Early indoctrination of children is not a new concept. Early in the Soviet Era, children of the USSR were encouraged to join Little Octobrists (октября́та) in order to become lively, active, healthy, disciplined youngsters who subordinate themselves to the collective.

At about the same time, a similar program was offered in Germany called Deutsches Jungvolk and Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) for older male children.

The difference between then and now, obviously, is that in the present case, the children’s books are offered by a private business, and the earlier indoctrination programs were government run.

Apparently, however, even that distinction blurs.

While not government entities themselves, there are three examples of government-related organizations that do participate in indoctrination. In May 2023, the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) purchased $5,193.00 of these books in order to provide gift mementos to its donors. In November 2022, the Michael Waltz Campaign (FL – 06) bought $580.00 worth of books for supporters. In May 2022, the principal campaign committee of Matt Gaetz (FL – 01) purchased $2,555.80 worth for “supporter gifts.”

As Half-Empty notes, these GOP tactics amount to a “win-win” scenario:

authors get paid for their works, donors get rewarded for donating, and young children are told about the evils of boycotts and getting free stuff (eg., ice cream, EBT, Healthcare, and Social Security).

In this scenario, when you are in a majority, you maintain the majority by early indoctrination of future voters. If you find yourself in a shrinking minority, it is even more important to indoctrinate them.

I will admit to being dubious about the long-term success of these efforts at early childhood indoctrination. On the other hand, the parents who use these books (assuming that recipients of these GOP “gifts” are parents who actually do read to their children–or read at all) are likely to pursue other childrearing practices that reinforce the book’s “lessons.” Although the likely impact of this particular effort is low, its existence reflects the pervasiveness of GOP efforts to compensate for the party’s minority status–its determination to turn back the clock to a time when White Christian males dominated a patriarchal American society.

What worries me is that these sorts of underground efforts have to be considered in context: an extensive media (Faux, etc.) reinforcing Rightwing disinformation, a voting population that is largely civically-illiterate, and the persistent racism of a considerable portion of the American public.

It’s that context that keeps me up at night…

Comments

Can Government Compel Factual Speech?

One of my all-time favorite Supreme Court decisions is West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette. That 1943 case was brought by Jehovah’s Witness families whose children had been punished by their public school for a refusal to salute the flag–a refusal based upon their religion, which forbids such a salute as idolatry. Despite the religious basis of their refusal, the case was decided on free speech grounds, with Justice Robert Jackson penning words that would would be repeatedly quoted.

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. . . . We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority. .

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

The case established the principle that freedom of speech includes freedom from government-compelled speech. Now,  corporations opposed to disclosures mandated by agencies of government, are asserting that principle in order to avoid making required disclosures.

These companies are challenging regulations that require them to disclose emissions or inform the public of other data relevant to consumer and public health protections. They are claiming these regulations are unconstitutional–that they violate the compelled speech doctrine, which they assert protects them from government mandates forcing citizens to say something they disagree with.

Experts say the large corporations using this strategy are undermining efforts to regulate corporate behavior. They say these arguments limit states’ ability to act on matters not covered by federal law — and threaten everything from consumer warnings on toxic products to nutrition labels for restaurant food.

This argument is currently being used to challenge California’s emissions disclosure law, which requires companies doing business in the state to disclose how much pollution they create throughout their supply chain. Challengers argue that such laws unfairly compel them to engage in “controversial speech” — and argue that climate change is still controversial.

Right-wing groups have weaponized this “compelled speech” argument before, using it to defend organizations that refuse to give their employees adequate reproductive health care benefits and support unlicensed pregnancy centers that intentionally mislead their clients. The argument has impeded the government’s ability to investigate financial wrongdoing. Foreign kleptocrats and domestic companies have allegedly exploited this lack of transparency to launder money through real estate investments and shell companies.

Corporations are employing the argument in a wide variety of situations– from concealing the source of online political advertisements, to deterring states from addressing climate change. These efforts are being spearheaded by trade groups intent upon reducing or evading regulation, and the approach includes social media platforms.

A pending decision in the U.S. Supreme Court involving the strategy could decide the future of all social media platforms.

An advocacy group funded by Meta, Google, X (formerly Twitter), and other tech companies challenged a number of laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies control content posted on their sites. The companies argue that choosing the type of content that appears on their platforms is an editorial decision, and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

An amicus brief filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, an educational organization that researches and promotes freedom of speech, points out that accepting the social media platforms’ argument would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for governments to govern user privacy, promote competition, and ensure smooth information exchange.

If the current Supreme Court majority included Justices who shared Robert Jackson’s intellect and ethical probity, rather than corrupt ideologues like Alito and Thomas, we could anticipate issuance of a decision carefully analyzing the difference between compelling the endorsement of beliefs and opinions, and requiring the disclosure of facts –the difference between respecting the integrity of conscience and facilitating the misleading of consumers.

The law often requires drawing intellectually-defensible lines–something the current Court majority seems incapable of understanding–or doing.

Comments

The Vision Thing

I still remember when George H.W. Bush introduced the phrase “the vision thing” into political discourse. (Bush, of course, was routinely criticized for deficits in the vision department.) This year, we have Presidential candidates who offer us dramatically different “vision things.”

President Biden has been explicit about his goals–his “visions” of a fair America. Perhaps the best summary of his vision comes from his often-employed phrase “from the middle out.” Biden wants to strengthen and increase the middle class by ensuring the availability of jobs paying living wages, and by supporting the full inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce and civic life (those “DEI” efforts hysterically denounced by MAGA folks).

Although Trump’s “vision” is difficult to discern from his incoherent speeches and verbal tics, it’s easy enough to see the autocratic and racist goals communicated through his rambling word-salads. Those who want more comprehensible specifics about his  plans for a second term need only consult the Heritage Foundation plan endorsed by his campaign: Project 2025. Project 2025 is a compendium of chilling and profoundly anti-American policies that the radical Right has long pursued–including use of the military to round up dissidents and immigrants, federal laws banning abortion and favoring a White male patriarchy, and numerous other policies inconsistent with civic equality and civil liberties.

Trump’s “vision” can be illustrated by Project 2025’s approach to urban life. The Guardian recently reported on a section describing the proposed “handling” of so-called “sanctuary cities.”  

Trump has for years railed against cities, particularly those run by Democratic officials, as hotbeds for crime and moral decay. He called Atlanta a “record setting Murder and Violent Crime War Zone” last year, a similar claim he makes frequently about various cities.

His allies have an idea of how to capitalize on that agenda and make cities in Trump’s image, detailed in the conservative Project 2025: unleash new police forces on cities like Washington DC, withhold federal disaster and emergency grants unless they follow immigration policies like detaining undocumented immigrants and share sensitive data with the federal government for immigration enforcement purposes.

Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, an extensive document breaking down each part of the federal government and recommending changes to be made to advance rightwing policy, was created by the Heritage Foundation, with dozens of conservative organizations and prominent names contributing chapters based on their backgrounds.

This part of the project is another Republican attempt at a crackdown on so-called “sanctuary” cities, places around the country that don’t cooperate with the federal government on enforcing harsh immigration policies.

A prime target is Washington DC. Trump’s stump speech includes accusing the city of crime, graffiti and general mismanagement–and promising that the federal government will take over the city and run it. Since Trump’s own incompetence at running anything is fairly obvious, Project 2025 maps out the “how.” It includes using the Secret Service to police the city–despite the fact that, under current law, the Secret Service lacks any authority to enforce laws outside the White House and its immediate surrounding area. (“Laws can be changed…”)

It isn’t just D.C.

The article noted that Trump has called America’s cities “uninspiring” and has talked about building “freedom cities” on federal lands–  new cities (with flying cars!) that would be erected on unspecified vacant, federally owned land. He’s invited local leaders to work with him to get rid of “ugly buildings” and build new monuments to “our true American heroes”.

(When I read these remarks, I had a sudden, nauseating vision of cities composed of multiple, garish Trump towers erected on “vacant” national park land, populated by “freedom-loving” White men and their “tradwives.” I’m not sure who’d work in the restaurants of this city, since there wouldn’t be any of those brown-skinned immigrants…but then, Right-wing fantasies have never been noted for their logic…)

I am one of many Americans who do find the nation’s cities inspiring. As I have previously noted, my husband and I live in the urban center of our city–where an increasingly diverse population routinely introduces us to new foods, new musical and artistic trends, and new political and religious perspectives. Our city–like most American cities–is currently experiencing a blossoming of cultural and sporting offerings, and women and minority folks are prominent in government and business, as well as in sports and the arts.

In short, my everyday urban experience is the antithesis of the Rightwing’s wet dream of returning to the 1950s.

The terrifying goals described in Project 2025 illustrate the vast gulf between the visions of MAGA folks and the rest of us. In November, voters won’t simply choose between partisan candidates. We will choose between incompatible visions of America’s future.

Comments