Author Archives: Sheila

Framing The Issues

After I graduated law school and had practiced for a time, I realized that what I had learned  could be boiled down to one essential axiom: he who frames the issue wins the debate. The rest (to quote Hillel) is commentary. Or–in the case of lawyering–the rest is process. 

The ability to frame an issue–to make the debate about X rather than Y–is a powerful weapon.

That point was recently made by Rick Perlstein in The American Prospect, in the second of his essays on “The Infernal Triangle.” This piece focused on the frames used by political journalists, and the ways in which those frames distort our current reality.

In journalism, metaphors matter profoundly. Labels matter profoundly. Narrative frames matter profoundly. They matter most precisely when they function unthinkingly. That is when they soothe us into not bothering to look. 

The essay quoted liberally from a book by Jeff Sharlet. At one point, the book described Leslie Stahl’s interview of Marjorie Taylor Green–an interview that was widely panned for  what was seen as Stahl’s ineffective efforts to fact-check Green. Stahl is an excellent journalist, but she was operating from within that professional tradition.

“Those old frames don’t work anymore,” Sharlet explained. “Marjorie Taylor Greene is not trying to join the cosmos that Lesley Stahl and much of American journalism is set up to cover.” She inhabited an entirely separate one: a fascist one, which the likes of Stahl have no idea how to comprehend. “Fascism is a dream politics. It’s a mythology. You can’t fact-check myth. You can’t arch an eyebrow and make it go away.”

Perlstein’s thesis is simple, although its implications are anything but. He contends that “the conceptual tools, metaphors, habits, and technologies that make up what we understand as “political journalism” in America are thoroughly unequal to the task of making sense of what, in America in 2024, politics is.”

In the essay, Perlstein recounts a back-and-forth between Sharlet and a reporter for the New York Times. Sharlet pointed out that Trump—with his “cult of personality, and the celebration of violence”—has encouraged a politics very different from the political battles journalists have encountered previously, and he cited scholarship to that effect. He then asked the reporter

“with love and affection for The New York Times and the dilemma that you’re in: What is the argument against calling that ‘fascism’?”

At which his interlocutor doubled down on the smug.

“For the same reason we don’t call Trump ‘racist.’ It’s more powerful to say what something is than to offer a label on it that is going to be debated, you know, and distract from the reporting that goes into it.”

Sharlet: “Who is debating Trump’s racism right now?”

This exchange highlights a genuine dilemma. When does “framing” devolve into labeling and name-calling? On the other hand, at what point must honest reporters acknowledge that observed behaviors are fascist or racist–or unmistakable signs of mental illness?

Perlstein ends his essay with a promise to continue the analysis, and perhaps he will be able to describe that tipping point–the demarkation between a journalist’s accurate description of what a political figure said or did and a defensible characterization of that description as racist or fascist (or insane). I’m not sure I could identify that tipping point, but I certainly agree that the practice of political journalism is in crisis, and not simply because older professional norms no longer seem adequate to our current political reality.

What is particularly problematic is that “journalism” from the Right has understood the power of framing (Fox “News” et al) while practitioners of so-called “legacy journalism” have reacted by clinging more tightly to an increasingly misleading neutrality. (In all fairness, there are signs that–as the MAGA threat to democracy becomes too obvious to ignore–some of those legacy newspapers are sounding the alarm.)

The problem isn’t simply a stubborn adherence to norms that may be outmoded. There’s also the fragmentation of America’s media landscape–a fragmentation that has been facilitated by the Internet, and that allows us all to seek out compatible information sources, and inhabit realities of our choosing. We have the ability to visit “news” sites that frame current political debates in ways that confirm our pre-existing biases and world-views. In many ways, today’s media environment is a throwback to the bad old days when political parties published broadsides with their versions of what was “news” and there were few competing sources with commitments to accuracy and/or objectivity. 

Bottom line: the successful framing of the stakes of this year’s election will determine who wins–and the fate of the American experiment.

Comments

Old-Time Republicanism

Here in Indiana, Eric Holcomb is completing his second and last term as Governor. He recently delivered his final “State of the State” address, and it was brief, filled with (moderately boring) policy successes and remaining priorities–and touchingly reminiscent of what Republicanism used to sound like.

As John Krull wrote at The Statehouse File, Holcomb’s speech had a perfunctory feel to it.

One of the governor’s strengths—perhaps his greatest one as a leader—has been his ability to recognize and accept reality.

He first was elected to office in 2016, the same year that Donald Trump captured the White House.

During the intervening years, America has been a noisy, screaming place, filled with all the ceaseless screaming tumult Trump has produced as he has strutted upon the national stage.

Indiana, by contrast, has been an oasis of relative quiet.

Some of that is because Eric Holcomb is secure and comfortable enough with himself not to require everyone to pay attention to him every day and all the time. He’s willing to let whole weeks go by without asking people to watch him, listen to him or even think about him.

In other words, he’s a functioning adult, not an overgrown child—unlike many of our elected officials these days.

Holcomb has been an old-fashioned Republican, increasingly out of place in a party of rabid ideologues and immature posturers who haven’t the slightest interest in the process of actually governing.

We citizens tend to think of American politics as a contest between conservatives and liberals. That frame has always been inadequate and over-broad, but today it is simply inaccurate. MAGA Republicans are not just somewhat different versions of Eric Holcomb, and they are definitely not conservative.

 Persuasion recently considered  conservatism vs. GOP-ism, in an essay called “The Path Not Taken.”

The author traced what he called the two “strands” of conservatism, one of which he dubbed National Conservatism. It is the version “championed by former president Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis,” and it has very little in common with American conservatism. Rather than the small-government agenda of the former Republican Party, this version “seeks to use the power of the state to challenge cultural progressivism—as evidenced by Trump’s severe immigration policies and DeSantis’ top down remaking of Florida’s university system.”

In short, this MAGA version bears little or no resemblance to the Republican platforms that used to define conservatism.  

National Conservatives have shown themselves to be at best hopelessly naïve about the foundations of human flourishing, and at worst incapable of understanding that some people may wish to live a life different from their own. When not pressuring mothers into staying home from work with their kids, they are defending foreign despots for preserving their national identity at the cost of basic civil liberties. To allow National Conservatives free rein in the United States would be to permit the very worst elements of the right to control the levers of our government. In the process it would undercut genuine virtue and allow bureaucratic tyranny to grow unabated.

When I joined the Republican Party, “conservative” meant limiting the power of the state. It meant endorsing the right of individuals to forge their own life paths without government interference– at least, so long as they weren’t harming the person or property of others, or denying others the right to do likewise.

The “National Conservatism” described above has absolutely nothing in common with that bygone conservatism. It is overwhelmingly autocratic, and– as embraced by MAGA Republicans– increasingly fascist. Calling it “conservative” is both misleading and inaccurate.

A couple of weeks ago, Liz Cheney was on The View, and–as the saying goes–she “told it like it is.”

 “There are some conservatives who are trying to make this claim that somehow [President] Biden is a bigger risk than Trump,” she said. “My view is I disagree with a lot of Joe Biden’s policies. We can survive bad policies. We cannot survive torching the Constitution.”

Precisely.

I disagree with Cheney on almost all policy matters, but I admire her clarity and honesty about the existential challenge America is currently facing–and her recognition that it’s a challenge going well beyond policy differences.

Back in the day, the term “Conservative” wasn’t used to describe someone who wanted  government to dictate what citizens should believe and how they would be permitted to act. (It was interesting–and telling–that Eric Holcomb’s recitations of what he considered  to be GOP successes in his State of the State address omitted any mention of the draconian ban on abortion passed by the MAGA Republicans of the Indiana legislature.) 

Today’s MAGA Republicans are many things. “Conservative” is not one of them.

Comments

The Real Lesson From Iowa

Robert Hubbell’s Substack analysis of the Iowa Republican caucus focused on a point I keep hammering: turnout–getting out the vote–is far and away the most important imperative of this year’s election cycle.

There is a mountain of social science data confirming that high-turnout elections benefit Democrats. There’s a reason the GOP does everything in its power to suppress the vote. By far the most effective suppression comes from gerrymandering–voters in districts drawn to be “safe” for a party they don’t support feel–not illogically–that their votes won’t count, so why bother? It will be critically important to remind those voters that statewide races and the popular vote for President are not subject to gerrymandering. With the exception of the potential operation of the Electoral College, those votes will absolutely count.

Hubbell makes the argument for the importance of turnout in the context of Iowa’s (weird) caucus system. He begins by looking at the composition of those who did turn out:

Among those who attended the caucuses, most voters hold extremist views. Those views are reprehensible and deserve to be condemned. But those who showed up on Monday were mostly Trump loyalists who represent the slimmest majority possible of voters in Iowa.

Although Hubbell doesn’t mention it, this feature of caucus turnout is equally true of turnout in state primaries. The typically low primary turnout is characterized by votes from the most passionate–and extreme–members of both parties. And those voters do not reflect majority sentiments.

So, as we collectively talk about the results in Iowa, it is important to realize that 49% of those who voted on a bitterly cold night (-3 Fahrenheit) did not support Trump. Most of the voters who opposed Trump do not condone his views about immigrants poisoning the blood of America, or his opponents being “vermin,” or his belief that the 2020 election was “rigged.”…

As we move forward in the 2024 campaign, let’s remember that there are Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in Iowa who will not support Trump. Our job is to convince them to show up for Biden. Lumping them in with MAGA extremists is not an effective way of achieving that goal.

And the same applies to every so-called “red state.” In every state, there are local and statewide offices that can be flipped—something that will help limit and blunt the effect of Republican control of statehouses and governors’ mansions.

So, let’s set aside the notion that red states are a lost cause and do not deserve our attention or support. Not only do they deserve our help, but they are the front line of resistance—just like the Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who chose not to vote for Trump on Monday.

Turnout in Iowa was low— only 110,298 voters participated in the GOP caucuses, amounting to about 19% of the 594,533 “active” registered Republicans . Of those, 51%  voted for Trump (or 52,260). So Trump’s “big” victory in Iowa was “achieved with support from 7% of Iowa Republicans—or 3% of Iowa’s 1,518,280 active voters.”

Trump’s victory on Monday night was decided by the 97% of Iowa voters who “did not vote” in the caucuses. So, before we over-interpret the result on Monday, we must recognize that the potential for a devastating defeat for Trump is within our reach—assuming that we can motivate sufficient turnout. (emphasis mine)

So, as we face the onslaught of polls in the coming primary season predicting doom for Democrats, we must always remember that turnout can beat any poll.

As Hubbell reminds his readers, the Iowa caucus results affirm a fundamental truth: It all comes down to turnout.

Even in dramatically-gerrymandered Indiana, if a significant percentage of the disaffected voters in “safe” districts voted, a number of the districts would no longer be safe. Republican victories in Indiana are increasingly dependent upon low turnout–especially in the more rural areas of the state that have been steadily losing population.

Hubbell is absolutely right when he insists that Democrats cannot afford to write off Red states this year, of all years.

We need to make the strongest possible case– to apathetic and/or disheartened Democrats as well as to Independents and any remaining sane Republicans– that their votes are needed to save the Constitution, protect democracy, and remove the GOP crazies’ stranglehold that currently prevents Congress from functioning.

For those of us who have felt helpless against the drumbeat of depressing news, there is one thing we each can do: we can encourage everyone we know to register and we can follow up to ensure that they actually vote.

Comments

When It REALLY Matters

A few days ago, in a column about Morton Marcus’ recommendations for changes to Indiana’s retrograde legislature, I alluded to a now-forgotten effort–bipartisan, even!–to reduce waste in Indiana’s government.

The Kernan-Shepard Commission, co-chaired by former Democratic Governor Joe Kernan and Republican then-Chief Justice of Indiana’s Supreme Court, Randy Shepard, had issued a report detailing the waste involved in maintaining 1008 townships in the state. The Commission recommended eliminating or consolidating a number of those townships, which–over the years–had been divested of most of the tasks they’d originally been created to perform.

Polling conducted by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce confirmed that a large majority of voters agreed that townships should go–that they wasted tax dollars better used elsewhere.  The problem was that it was a rare individual for whom this was salient–that is, a burning, issue.

It was a burning issue, however, for Township Trustees and the members of their Advisory Boards. Eliminating townships would eliminate the livelihoods of the Trustees (and the relatives too many of them employ). It would eliminate the inflated fees paid to many Advisory Board members for attending three or four meetings a year. The trustees and board members focused like lasers on Indiana’s legislators, bringing in people to testify, hiring lobbyists and calling in political favors.

For them, the issue was critically important–i.e., salient. And so Indiana still has 1008 townships.

In the Indiana Statehouse and in Washington, this same scenario plays out over and over. Most Americans disapprove of a number of decisions our lawmakers make or refuse to make–I consistently see comments disapproving of special tax breaks for the wealthy or fossil fuel companies, and Congressional refusal to even consider Medicare for All. How many of those who complain about the tax code and/or healthcare–or anything else– have written or called their lawmakers about these matters? Spent time or money lobbying for repeal or passage? Very few. On the other hand, the people who benefit from these policies–for whom they are salient– certainly have.

People rally to defend their interests, financial or cultural, and when those with lots of resources focus those resources on derailing or passing a proposed bill, the likely result is that the bill will be derailed or passed. So nothing changes.

On those rare occasions when a legislative issue becomes highly salient to a sizable number of voters, however, it’s possible for the “little guys”–the voters– to win these contests.

And that observation brings me to this year’s elections. For the first time in a long time, several partisan issues are highly salient to large numbers of voters. The most obvious of those is abortion. For many years, when Roe v. Wade protected women’s reproductive autonomy, all the passion–all the salience–was on the (misnamed) “pro-life” side. After Dobbs, that is no longer the case. Reproductive rights are suddenly very important, very salient, to huge numbers of voters, and not all of them are female.

It probably doesn’t rival abortion as a vote motivator, but thanks to the daily drumbeat of gun violence, gun safety is another issue that has become important/salient to large numbers of citizens. Several other issue speak forcefully to specific constituencies: the unremitting GOP attacks on trans children (one-half of one percent of American children, and thus a monumental threat) has raised the salience of those issues not just in the gay community but also among its numerous allies. Republican attacks on public schools and universities are deeply resented by educators and a considerable number of parents. Etc.

These issues aren’t just important to lots of people–they have the added benefit of being clear-cut. Tax policy, energy policy, healthcare–these areas give rise to complex and often arcane arguments. A debate about who should get to make reproductive decisions for an individual woman– the government or the woman whose life will be affected–is  far clearer. Whether a man who has been convicted of spousal abuse should be entitled to buy an assault rifle is equally clear.

Call me a Pollyanna, but I am convinced that the dramatically increased salience of these and other issues–together with widespread loathing of  Donald J.Trump and his lunatic cult– will help activists motivate an unprecedented and necessary turnout in November.

I sure hope I’m right….

Comments

Okay, I Give–Let’s Talk About Hunter Biden

Every day, some news item stuns me, because it is either outrageous or ludicrous.

Among those reports, a large number properly land in the “outrageous” category. Numerous media outlets have reported, for example, that armed troops deployed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott prevented federal border agents from saving a woman and two children from drowning. (Abbott has been challenging Ron DeSantis for the title of worst psuedo-human to be Governor of a state, so his efforts to deny the accuracy of that report are–shall we say–unconvincing.)

Between them, Texas and Florida have largely dominated the “outrageous” category. Meanwhile,  however, the Congressional Oversight Committee’s “investigation” of Hunter Biden wins the “ludicrous” category in a walk.

I’ve ignored the continued focus on Hunter Biden, because it’s the rare family that doesn’t have at least one member who struggles. Some drink, some do drugs, some battle mental illness…some just never grow up. In many families, the parents of troubled children wash their hands of them; I find it admirable that Joe Biden has consistently put loving, supportive parenthood above political considerations.

Hunter is clearly a flawed person. But he is and has been a private citizen. He has held no government office, and despite months of efforts, investigators have found zero involvement by his father with any of his business dealings. Lawyer friends who represent clients facing similar charges tell me that if his name wasn’t Biden, a reasonable plea deal would have dispensed with his legal troubles months ago.

But only the word “ludicrous” properly describes the recent confrontation between Hunter Biden and  the GOP members of the Oversight Committee who angrily rejected his offer to testify publicly. Instead, they insist that the Committee should only accept testimony offered behind closed doors.

Hunter Biden showed up unexpectedly Wednesday on Capitol Hill, with a brief but dramatic appearance at a committee hearing as Republicans began the process of holding him in contempt of Congress for violating a subpoena seeking his closed-door testimony…

The committee hearing quickly devolved into a shouting match among committee members, with Republicans railing against Biden and accusing him of performing “a political stunt” as Democrats yelled back that it was Republicans who were playing politics, given that Biden had shown up and was willing to answer questions under oath in a public setting.

Think about that. The target of an investigation appears at a meeting of the Oversight Committee  and says, in effect: “okay. I’ll answer your questions, but only in public, because members of this committee have been caught in numerous misrepresentations of testimony given behind closed doors. I will testify in public so that my testimony cannot be twisted and mischaracterized.”

The GOP members of the committee went berserk.

“You are the epitome of White privilege coming into the Oversight Committee, spitting in our face, ignoring a congressional subpoena to be deposed,” said Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), addressing Biden directly. “What are you afraid of?”

Mace is White, and what “White privilege” has to do with this situation utterly escapes me, but Hunter Biden was very clear about what he was “afraid of.” He was afraid that people like Mace and Comer–the Committee chair– would lie about “closed door” testimony. It is an eminently justifiable fear based upon past performance.

Lowell told reporters outside the hearing room that his client was willing to testify in a public setting. The president’s son has refused to answer Republican House members’ questions behind closed doors, citing a concern that they would selectively leak his remarks to make him look bad.

“Hunter Biden was and is a private citizen,” Lowell said. “Despite this, Republicans have sought to use him as a surrogate to attack his father. And, despite their improper partisan motives, on six different occasions since February of 2023, we have offered to work with the House committees to see what and how relevant information to any legitimate inquiry could be provided.” …

His attendance at the hearing came one month after he made another surprise appearance, this one outside the Capitol to deliver remarks to reporters about the ongoing Republican attacks on him.

“For six years, I have been the target of the unrelenting Trump attack machine, shouting, ‘Where’s Hunter?’” he said on Dec. 13. “Well, here’s my answer: I am here.”

If this episode had played out in a television show or film, critics would pan it as over the top unbelievable– a clumsy effort to paint the GOP Committee members as dishonest idiots.

Whatever Hunter Biden’s personal deficits, they pale in comparison to the GOP’s effort to shield their dishonest game-playing and clumsy partisanship from public view.

I’d say he called their bluff.

Comments