Author Archives: Sheila

Old Truths

Important notice: Due to the cold, the rally on January 20th has been moved to Broadway United Methodist Church, 609 E 29th St, Indianapolis. Indoors.

________________________________

.Several weeks ago, the Indianapolis Capitol Chronicle ran an article in which the author mused about civics instruction. She had come across the 1930 edition of a civics textbook, and noted that its focus on community responsibilities seemed very different from today’s preoccupation with individualism.

The book starts with this preface (and yes, I took photos while at the table): “It is generally agreed today that the main reason for the existence of schools is to help our pupils to become good citizens. Our schools teach the three R’s because everybody needs those tools in order to act intelligently in his relations with his fellow man. It is no less important for the pupil to learn that his life must be lived in close association with his fellow men, and to profit by the experience of human beings in regard to these relations.”

In those few introductory words lies the conundrum that faces all societies: how do we protect the political, religious and philosophical autonomy of the individual while building safe, orderly and supportive communities?

Several years ago, I made a speech in which I considered that question. As I said then, there is an African proverb to the effect that it takes a village to raise a child. Implicit in that saying is the question at the heart of political philosophy: What should that village look like? What is the common good, and what is the nature of social obligation? What sort of social and political arrangements are most likely to promote and enable what Aristotle called “human flourishing”? And perhaps, more importantly, do we live in an era when such questions have largely been abandoned?

That simple introductory paragraph from a long-ago textbook reminds us that our public schools have two vitally important tasks: first, giving children the intellectual tools and skills they will need, not just to negotiate the economic world they will inhabit, but also to lead richer, more fulfilled and considered lives; and second, equipping them for the responsibilities of citizenship.

Over the past few decades, there has been a very unfortunate narrowing of emphasis to just one portion of that first responsibility. Critics of public education have focused almost entirely on the subjects needed to produce a workforce–on giving students the skills they’ll need to compete economically. The sorts of instruction that will help them flourish, that will give them the insights and understandings that will help them create rich and enjoyable lives–music and art and literature–have been relegated to the sidelines or eliminated entirely, dismissed as “frills.”

Worse, the various educational “reforms” that have been pursued have ignored the second important purpose of public education–preparing students for thoughtful and engaged citizenship in a complicated and increasingly diverse society.

Not only have our public schools neglected the proper teaching of American history and government, the vouchers that facilitate evasion of the First Amendment have sent thousands of children to religious schools, most of which ignore civics instruction and deepen tribal commitments rather than helping students understand the complexity–and necessity– of seeking the common good and wrestling with the imperatives of our national motto: e pluribus unum.

Too many of our legislators, here in Indiana and elsewhere, confuse education with job training. They are most definitely not the same thing. We are impoverishing generations of students by depriving them of sustained contact with the liberal arts and with the enduring questions that separate thinking humans from automatons. By neglecting instruction in government and citizenship, we have contributed to the widespread ignorance that continues to elevate so many unfit and unstable individuals to positions of power. It isn’t just Trump–there are plenty of other examples at all levels of government, certainly in Indiana.

Finding the “golden mean” between too much emphasis on individualism and too much emphasis on community and conformity has never been simple. That search for a proper balance between individual rights and the imperatives of the common good is fatally compromised when a significant portion of the population remains uneducated because those responsible for education policy don’t know (or care about) the difference between educating students and training them.

When the body politic lacks a common understanding of their society’s foundational principles, culture warriors and plutocrats are enabled, and tribalism threatens to bring down the entire edifice of legitimate government. That is arguably where we find ourselves right now, and the sustained assault on American education–an assault that has hollowed out the very concept of education– is at the very heart of our impending Trumpian disasters.

We are reaping the whirlwind.

Comments

A Delusional Nice Guy

Indiana’s outgoing Governor is Eric Holcomb. Holcomb has always seemed like a nice guy, and has mostly governed like a throwback to the time when Republicans were a political party and not a MAGA cult. (Mostly, but not always–when our demented, ideologically extreme legislature sent him the ban on abortion, for example, he caved and signed it. On the other hand, he did reject a piece of mean-spirited anti-trans legislation that our Christian Nationalist General Assembly then passed over his veto.)

The Indianapolis Star recently did a typical “retrospective” with the Governor as he leaves office. it was the usual sort of puff piece, and it began with a quote from Holcomb:

When I took office as governor in January 2017, I was determined to pick up where my predecessors had left off and make our state an even better place to live, work, play, and stay. I said we’d take Indiana to the world and the world to Indiana, and over the past eight years we’ve done just that.

How? With civility and a common sense approach, along with the collective efforts of Hoosiers from all walks of life. We’ve turned the Crossroads of America into the No. 1 state for infrastructure, with projects like double tracking the South Shore Line and completing Interstate 69 from Evansville to Indianapolis, and I’m grateful to INDOT and a labor force of thousands who built them.

Holcomb is either willfully blind or delusional.

Indiana routinely ranks at the bottom when states are rated on quality of life. Physical infrastructure is certainly important–although I might point out that our state roads are hardly models of competent maintenance–but when it comes to the governmental responsibilities that matter most to citizens, state government continues to fail. Miserably.

Quality of life indicators typically focus on education, the economy, the environment, social and health conditions,
public safety, culture and recreation, and civic participation.

Our radical legislature has waged a persistent and successful war on public education–a war that continues to see college graduates leave the state. Economists tell us that war has hampered economic development, since businesses looking to locate new enterprises typically seek out places with highly educated workforces.

Thanks to our lawmakers’ numerous misplaced priorities, the Hoosier economy is–at best–mediocre, and it’s not improving.

When it comes to health, Indiana’s abortion ban is currently driving ob/gyn doctors out of the state, exacerbating longstanding health delivery problems that include closings of rural hospitals and underfunding of Medicaid budgets and mental health programs.

Indiana state government is actually an impediment to environmental protection–lawmakers oppose even eminently reasonable environmental measures. (Indiana legislators recently tried to ban early coal-fired plant retirements that had been proposed by the utilities.)

When it comes to civic participation, Indiana is pathetic. We rank at the very bottom for voter turnout in general elections, and according to last year’s Civic Health Index, Indiana has consistently placed in the bottom 10 of all states on midterm voter turnout since 2010.

Thanks to extreme gerrymandering, the legislature disproportionately represents rural Hoosiers, and for years has pursued a vendetta against the state’s urban centers. Research has repeatedly confirmed that Indianapolis and its suburbs are the economic drivers of the state, but that hasn’t seemed to penetrate the resentment that has motivated members of the General Assembly to hobble the city. The General Assembly overrules local lawmakers on matters large and small, and tightly limits the decisions urban folks are entitled to make for ourselves. (It took three sessions before Indianapolis got our overlords’ permission to tax ourselves to expand mass transit.)

The legislature’s single-minded focus on low taxes–especially for the business interests that exert a major influence on our representatives–is largely responsible for Indiana’s low quality of life. Rather than focusing on improving–or even maintaining– the state’s physical and/or social infrastructure, our lawmakers shamelessly pander to big business and to the state’s culture warriors.

Most of the problems of Indiana’s governance can be traced to extreme gerrymandering. Among the many deleterious effects of partisan redistricting is the fact that the “real” election takes place in the primary, when only the most ideological members of either party vote. Republicans protect their Right flank, Democrats their Left. In Red Indiana, the result is the election of more and more extreme Right-wingers and–if survey research is to be believed–a thoroughly unrepresentative legislature.

It’s nice that we have a new Interstate and new tracks for the South Shore. Those accomplishments hardly compensate for the multiple deficits of a state that is competing to be the new Mississippi, but they will smooth the departure of the Hoosiers who are fleeing.

Comments

Religious War

A few days ago, I participated in a panel discussion following a showing of “Bad Faith,” a documentary film about Christian Nationalism. Coming so soon after reading “The Kingdom, The Power and The Glory,” it was even more traumatizing.

The film began with videos of the violent January 6th insurrection, and focused in on the multiple signs of “religious” motivation–placards linking Jesus to Donald Trump, crosses, rioters waving bibles and numerous other bits of Christian iconography. The rest of the documentary alternated between films of mega-church pastors preaching fire and brimstone to huge adoring audiences and anguished commentaries from scholars and clerics, including many religious figures who–like Tim Alberta–are devout Evangelicals appalled by the White Christian Nationalism that has replaced authentic Christianity for millions of believers.

The film underscored the dimensions of the religious war these “believers” are waging.

  • The sheer number of “soldiers” who have substituted White Christian Nationalism for Christianity is stunning. The videos showed “sermons” of well-known pastors (many of who have benefitted monetarily from the movement) and panned over huge audiences. According to the scholars interviewed, the movement numbers hundreds of pastors whose names are less familiar than those of the usual subjects, but whose messages are equally strident, intemperate and theocratic.
  • The movement is thoroughly racist and misogynist. Adherents are men and women who are threatened by social change and who express strong disapproval of the emerging “non-biblical” social equality of women and Black people. (Especially Black people.) The audiences for the diatribes about America’s “decline” were virtually all white, and the rhetoric employed left little room for alternative explanations.
  • This phenomenon is not just a fundamentalist tantrum against diversity and feminism; it’s leadership is strategic, well-planned and and coordinated. The role of Paul Weyrich in forming and growing the movement was amply documented, but what really struck me was the longevity of the effort. Weyrich and the others–Falwell, Robertson, Ralph Reed, etc.–began many years ago putting together a political movement intent upon replacing the government with a Christian theocracy. They made common cause with the very rich by promising to protect them from “confiscatory taxation.” They created a number of not-for-profits and think tanks that have worked in tandem for many years. Weyrich’s original manifesto has basically been reproduced in Project 2025.
  • Movement leadership accomplished their planned takeover of the GOP, expelling traditional Republicans and conservatives, and turning the party into a White Christian Nationalist cult.
  • The widespread belief that Evangelical political activity was sparked by Roe v. Wade is a myth. As I’ve previously noted and multiple religious historians have confirmed, initial Evangelical responses to that ruling were positive or neutral. It wasn’t until five years later that movement honchos decided to use “baby killing” as a tool to motivate activism from previously non-political Evangelicals–although their real trigger was withdrawal of tax-exempt status from the segregation academies they had established in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education.
  • The pastors have sold Trump to their Christian Warriors by insisting, variously, that he is a flawed “tool” of the Almighty and/or that he found God and was “born again” during his first term.
  • The movement substitutes country for God and far-Right politics for religion, using bogus history to claim that the United States was established as a “Christian country.” Evangelical clergy who focus on the essence of Jesus’ message–for example, the Sermon on the Mount–lose church members who tell them that such sentiments are “woke” and then decamp for more belligerent congregations.

There was much more, and if you get a chance to see the film, it is definitely worth your time. It will increase your understanding of the threat we face, and will underscore the imperative of reaching the millions of Americans who don’t bother to vote.

What is sobering is the realization that this effort to replace America’s Constitutional democracy with a psuedo-Christian theocracy has been active for over fifty years. Those of us in the larger, “woke” American culture have, for the most part, been blissfully unaware of its well-financed and strategically-sophisticated leadership, or the significant danger it poses to tolerance, individual liberty and the rule of law.

Like Micah Beckwith, these biblical literalists think they–and only they– own God. They are certain that they, and only they, are “on God’s side.” They are convinced that there’s a bright line between (their definition of) Godliness and sin (which is pretty much everything in modern culture), and that God wants them to impose His rules (as they understand them) on the rest of us.

They are the core of Trump’s base. They vote. And he knows he owes them.

Comments

When You’re Rich They Think You Really Know

I typically listen to music when I’m trudging on the treadmill, and my preference is for tuneful songs with lyrics I can understand. (I’m old!).

I’ve previously posted about the insights and real wisdom often conveyed by musical lyrics, especially a favorite line from Fiddler on the Roof’s “If I Were a Rich Man.” Tevya sings that, if he were rich, the men of the town would all call on him for advice; he then sings “And it wouldn’t matter if I answered right or wrong. When you’re rich, they think you really know.”

As Trump assembles an administration of very rich men, we are about to see the fallacy that Tevya identified play out in real time.

Americans have a long history of confusing celebrity with competence and wealth with intellect. Those with eyes to see have always recognized that Trump himself is a deranged ignoramus with a bloated ego. Before Elon Musk bought Twitter and turned it into “X,” he’d been able to maintain a reputation as highly intelligent partly because few people knew that–like Trump–his fortune began with an inheritance, and that he’d purchased Tesla–not invented it.

The United States is about to be governed (or ruled) by a whole cohort of equally clueless rich White guys, and the most pertinent  question is how much damage will they do? These are, after all, the “captains of industry” who think they know more than they do, who don’t know what they don’t know, and who are unlikely to listen to people who have actual expertise in economics and/or a wide variety of public policies. (As Tevya would say, “they think they really know.”)

Paul Krugman recently considered that conundrum in a newsletter titled “Never Underestimate the Ignorance of the Powerful.” He began by reproducing one of Trump’s “Truth Social” posts, in which the incoming President proposed substituting tariffs for income taxes. “Tariffs” Trump posted, “Will pay off our debt and MAKE AMERICA WEALTHY AGAIN.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m still extremely unsure what the incoming president will actually do about trade. The Smoot-Hawley level tariffs he promised during the campaign would be disastrous, but sometimes I think he may have at least a vague sense of the damage those tariffs would do, so what he’s really aiming for is an extortion scheme — one in which most companies would secure exemptions via political contributions and/or de facto bribes (e.g. buying Trump crypto.)

But then he’ll come out with something like the Truth Social post above, and I’ll be reminded that wealthy and powerful people like Trump or Andreesen or, of course, Elon Musk are often far more ignorant than policy wonks can easily imagine.

As Krugman reminds us, Trump very publicly disdains expertise, and Musk “appears to get what he thinks is intelligence from random posts on X.”

Krugman attributes this intellectual defect to “the arrogance of success.”

In the academic world there’s a familiar phenomenon sometimes called “great man’s disease,” in which a successful researcher in one field assumes that he (it’s usually a “he”) is so much smarter than experts in other fields that he doesn’t need to pay attention to their research. Physicists make confident, deeply ignorant pronouncements about economics; economists make confident, deeply ignorant pronouncements about sociology…

This kind of arrogance presumably comes even more easily to men of great wealth. After all, if these so-called experts are so smart, why aren’t they rich like me?

As Krugman also notes, wealth and power attract hangers-on who will tell the great man what he wants to hear. “There are wealthy men with enough humility to accept constructive criticism — I’ve met some of them. But such men don’t seem likely to play a role in the incoming administration.”

When Trump or Andreesen ask why we can’t go back to the McKinley era, when the government subsisted on tariffs and didn’t need an income tax, their problem isn’t failure to understand the revenue function; it’s failure to appreciate the simple fact that in the 1890s America barely had a government by modern standards.

Sure, tariffs could pay for a government without Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, at a time when even the military was tiny. But the constituency for returning to that kind of small government consists, as far as I can tell, of a couple of dozen libertarians in bow ties. And the kind of government we have now needs a lot more than tariffs to pay its way.

Bottom line: we’re about to discover the real downsides of a kakistocracy…

Comments

What We Will Inaugurate

In a little over a week, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the (dis)United States–an outcome that seemed unthinkable not that long ago. Among the reasons for that outcome was the refusal of millions of Americans to cast a ballot; if turnout had just held steady from 2020, Harris would have won. It’s hard to dismiss suspicion that racism and misogyny were more potent than a desire to keep a mentally-ill felon out of the Oval Office.

Some political supporters saw Trump as a path toward personal gain. As Josh Marshall wrote on Talking Points Memo, many Washington “players” saw Trump as a vehicle for their own ambitions. He wasn’t just old and increasingly worn out, but he also wasn’t particularly invested in what would happen once he was in the White House. His focus was on not going to jail and  exacting vengeance over his foes. As Marshall noted, that disinterest in actual governing leaves lots of openings for people who see an opportunity to direct–and benefit from– government policy. There’s little sign Trump cares. He’s already gotten what he wants.

We see evidence supporting Marshall’s thesis in what currently looks like the “co-Presidency” of Elon Musk. An article in Common Dreams introduced readers to the Mump regime:

Welcome to America’s “Mump regime,” governance of, by and for the oligarchs in which an erratic unelected white supremacist gazillionaire whose new hobby is buying presidents is cosplaying as shadow president to cash in – and fuck kids with cancer – alongside a senile grifter selling everything in sight: Bibles, sneakers, perfume, hotels, cabinet seats, diplomatic posts and democracy itself. Beware: Just to be clear, “We now have a criminal enterprise, not a government.”

The article notes that Trump has assembled a group of billionaires–13 so far–to staff his oligarchy, but notes that Musk is both the richest and most influential.

A likely illegal alien and white supremacist who grew up in apartheid South Africa, made a fortune from a car that kills twice as many people as the industry average, and though foreign-born found a way to power by giving a useful idiot $277 million to become his puppet master. A good investment: Since the election, Musk has made $170 billion, most from Tesla and SpaceX investors eager to see him end all those pesky safety and labor rules that cut into profits.

Buying Trump was so profitable Never-Elected Pres. Musk is already malevolently branching out. He’s threatening people in Congress, including “jackass” moderates of both parties, with unseating them by throwing money at potential primary opponents if they dare to disagree with him. Governing by threat, tweet and financial heft comes so easily to the guy who quickly turned Twitter into a bigot-invested haven for hate akin to “a Munich beer hall hall in 1933” that he’s even telling Germans how to vote – for Nazis. “Only the AFD can save Germany,” he posted in defense of anti-immigrant fascists who want to purify Europe by casting out people it considers lesser, if not subhuman. Weirdly, he did it on the same day 100 years ago Hitler was released from a Bavarian prison, and the New York Times declared him a “tamed…sadder and wiser man” than when he’d tried to overthrow the government.”

It’s difficult to predict how successful the Mump Administration will be in implementing its announced policies. Despite having “served” as President for a term, Trump has clearly learned little or nothing about governance, and Musk (who believes he knows everything) is equally ignorant of the way things actually work. The GOP’s majority in the House is narrow and it’s filled with culture warriors and White Nationalists more intent upon appearing on Fox News than governing. They’re adamantly opposed to anything approaching negotiation or compromise. If the country emerges relatively unscathed by the looney-tune administration taking shape, we will owe that escape to their massive dysfunctions.

Unfortunately, however, even incompetent clowns can do a lot of damage.

I keep thinking of that Mark Twain quote: Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

On Inauguration Day, a number of Hoosiers who might be considered “Mark Twain patriots” will reaffirm our support for and love of our country and for what I have called “the American Idea”–the philosophy animating our constituent documents, and summarized by America’s first motto: e pluribus unum. 

Ours will be a simple message: in our America, government serves the common good, and everyone deserves a seat at the civic table. (You can find more information about that gathering here.)

Join us if you can.

Comments