Author Archives: Sheila

The Policies Of Resentment

Perhaps the most potent cause of MAGA adherence is resentment–the belief by far too many Americans that they are being denied their rightful status or being cheated out of benefits to which they are entitled by the “Others” who are “milking the system.”

Social policy can either ameliorate or feed those feelings.

As I have argued previously, policies intended to help less fortunate citizens can be delivered in ways that stoke resentments, or in ways that encourage national cohesion.  Consider public attitudes toward welfare programs aimed at impoverished constituencies, and contrast those attitudes with the overwhelming majorities that approve of Social Security and Medicare.

The difference is that Social Security and Medicare are universal programs. Virtually everyone contributes to them and everyone who lives long enough participates in their benefits. Just as we don’t generally hear complaints that “those people are driving on roads paid for by my taxes,” or sentiments begrudging a poor neighbor’s garbage pickup, beneficiaries of programs that include everyone (or almost everyone) are much more likely to escape stigma. In addition to the usual questions of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, policymakers in our diverse country should evaluate proposed programs by considering whether they are likely to unify Americans or further divide us. Universal policies are far more likely to unify, an important and often overlooked argument favoring both national health care and a Universal Basic Income.

The defects of existing American welfare policies are well-known and substantial. We have a patchwork of state and federal efforts and programs, with bureaucratic barriers and means tests that aren’t just expensive to administer, but also operate to exclude most of the working poor. Those who do manage to get coverage are routinely stigmatized by moralizing lawmakers pursuing punitive measures aimed at imagined “takers” and “Welfare Queens.” Current anti-poverty policies have not made an appreciable impact on poverty, but they have grown the bureaucracy and contributed significantly to stereotyping and socio-economic polarization; as a result, a growing number of economists and political thinkers now advocate replacing the existing patchwork with a Universal Basic Income- a stipend sent to every U.S. adult citizen, with no strings attached– no requirement to work, or to spend the money on certain items and not others– a cash grant sufficient to insure basic sustenance.

Critics of social welfare are appalled by the very thought of uniformity. Why, we’d end up paying people who didn’t deserve it!  It would encourage sloth, it would be spent on booze and drugs, it would require hard-working folks to pay increased taxes…

Interestingly, one “factoid” I recently came across seems relevant to this discussion: Residents in more than half of America’s counties now draw a substantial share of their total income — more than a quarter — from the government. Assuming the accuracy of that data point (I’ve lost the source), we now provide that money in massively inefficient ways.

Numerous pilot programs have disproven predictions that a UBI would undermine ambition and productivity.

The Washington Post recently surveyed the results, in an essay titled “Universal Basic Income Has Been Tested Repeatedly: It Works. Will America Ever Embrace It?”

A growing body of research based on the experiments shows that guaranteed income works — that it pulls people out of poverty, improves health outcomes, and makes it easier for people to find jobs and take care of their children. If empirical evidence ruled the world, guaranteed income would be available to every poor person in America, and many of those people would no longer be poor.

The Mirror, a news site in Indianapolis, recently reported on a small experiment here.

The universal basic income program was funded through a partnership between three Indianapolis nonprofits: Southeast Community Services, Edna Martin Christian Center and John Boner Neighborhood Centers. Participants received a total of 18 monthly payments from October 2022 to this March.

The program represented an effort to experiment with giving money directly to Indianapolis families, rather than providing them with assistance through programming or donations. Though participants got their last check two months ago, the basic income program was such a success that the centers are hoping to do it again.

Rather than spending their stipends on booze and drugs, or quitting jobs, nearly three-fourths of the participants were  spending most of their monthly $500 to help cover rent or housing costs.

The research typically focuses on the use people make of the stipends, and the programmatic effects–effects that are overwhelmingly positive. But researchers have neglected to study what may be the most positive aspect of such programs: the extent to which they reduce, rather than aggravate, the tendency to stigmatize recipients and further inflame bigotries.

That may be the most beneficial outcome of all.

Comments

The Pollyanna Approach

The daily headlines confirm the utter incompetence of the MAGA Republicans Trump has selected to run the federal government, and it understandable that rational people are experiencing varieties of depression. At least in the short-to-medium term, millions of people will be hurt. Badly. Assuming Trump gets his tariffs and his appointees, there will be dramatic inflation and domestic chaos; worse still, the chances of triggering World War three will be higher than they’ve been in a long time.

Not exactly the sort of situation to inspire hope. So how would a Pollyanna approach what promises to be a very dark time?

The answer to that question lies in the “what comes after.” There is no doubt that, barring a miracle, the next few years will see significant destruction of federal governance. We have already experienced the erosion of longstanding norms of democratic behavior in Congress; the narrowness of GOP victory (and the return of several congressional lunatics) will undoubtedly keep the House dysfunctional. Trump’s Supreme Court has already demonstrated its willingness to abandon the rule of law. With the guardrails gone, it will get very ugly very quickly, and a lot of people will suffer.

But the thing about ugly is: it engenders anger and resistance. And it ultimately collapses.

Over the past two hundred plus years, American law and policy have changed–often for the better, but also for the worse. Our electoral system has ossified, becoming less representative and less democratic. Our economic system has morphed from capitalism to a corporatism/crony capitalism that heavily favors the haves. Our social safety net is unwieldy, unnecessarily bureaucratic and underinclusive. Our citizens no longer trust the government or each other.

The underappreciated Biden Administration moved to correct much of the economic damage–and those moves were widely successful. Had Harris been elected, it is likely that she would have continued along that path of incremental improvement–but she couldn’t have dislodged the moneyed interest groups or repaired the the baked-in electoral dysfunctions–the Electoral College, the bloated version of the filibuster, the widespread gerrymandering and other structural mechanisms distorting the “voice of the people.”

The term “creative destruction” was first coined by Marx, who applied it to capitalism, but it has subsequently taken on a variety of other meanings. Here, I’m using it to describe a process in which widespread destruction of existing systems facilitates the birth of a better replacement. As we watch the Trumpers’ purposeful destruction of a governing framework that has developed over 200+ years, we need to consider what we will create to replace it. Any such consideration requires that we be clear-eyed about the nature of our structural, economic, legal and educational failures and inequities.

It will also require a national conversation on a basic topic: what is government for?

In coming posts, I will lay out my own argument, which is essentially that government is the mechanism through which a society provides two necessary infrastructures: one physical and one social. There is very little disagreement about responsibility for the physical infrastructure, although the pro-privatization movement made some (largely unsuccessful) inroads. Instead, our political disputes have largely centered on the contours of the social infrastructure.

America’s obsessive focus on individual responsibility and achievement has obscured recognition of the equally important role played by the governing institutions within which we are embedded. Elizabeth Warren summed it up in a much-cited comment.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory… Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

We Americans too often fail to recognize the extent to which individual success is dependent upon government’s ability to provide a physical, legal and cultural environment within which success can occur.

Bottom line: We absolutely need to resist the illegal and inhumane actions of the incoming administration. But we also need to think long and hard about the repair job–the dimensions of an improved social contract– that will be needed when this eruption of corruption and bigotry has run its course.

Comments

Resistance And The Environment

If even a small percentage of Project 2025’s proposals–or Trump’s fever dreams– are implemented, Americans will suffer. Times will be very dark, and very unAmerican. So it may seem Panglossian to predict that we can and will emerge from those dark times, not unscathed, but essentially intact.

That said, however, there is one element of the coming assault on reason and evidence that poses a truly existential threat, and that is the denial of climate change– the likely withdrawal from global efforts to combat it, the resumption of reliance on fossil fuels, and the termination of federal green energy incentives. We humans can recover from bad governance. We can (and undoubtedly will) learn from the experience of being governed by corrupt and profoundly ignorant people.

But we are unlikely to survive a failure to take climate change seriously.

I find it hard to understand people who deny the reality of a warming planet–the captains of the fossil fuel industries who place a higher priority on their bottom lines than their grandchildren’s lives, the religious fundamentalists who are sure God will protect us (or perhaps is punishing us for our sins), the people who simply choose not to believe facts that might inconvenience them. In my own lifetime (and yes, I’m old) I’ve seen spring come earlier and earlier, and summer last far longer than it used to. As I write this, we are nearing the end of November, yet temperatures are in the 50s and 60s, flowers are still blooming and the leaves remain on most trees. When I was young, it was much colder at this time of year, and we’d typically already had snowstorms.

The rejection of science and evidence by Washington’s clown show is depressing, but those who have chosen climate as their resistance focus need to recognize how much impact is possible–and for that matter, necessary– at the local level, through actions both by local governments and the private sector.

Time Magazine recently had a story about the ways in which small business enterprises (SME’s) can fight climate change. The author reminded us that there are numerous ways to focus on “tackling climate change from the ground up—from cities cutting their own footprints to grassroots activists making changes in their backyards.”

Approximately 90% of the world’s businesses are SMEs; those firms are responsible for a significant share of global emissions. News headlines at the intersection of business and climate often focus on big companies with household names, but to achieve global climate ambitions, small firms need to be engaged….

For the small companies that engage, decarbonization can be rewarding. It helps them access new markets as Europe and many Asian markets have begun to impose sustainability requirements for imported products. Greener products appeal to consumers who are looking for sustainable products, too. And sustainability efforts make SMEs more resilient to climate risks like extreme weather.

The article noted a report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that identified emerging mechanisms—from green loans to supply chain finance—intended to facilitate green practices at small businesses.

Local governments also have a number of initiatives they can employ to combat climate change–everything from installing new technologies to improve their own energy efficiency, to encouraging the construction of energy efficient buildings (including rooftop solar and/or green roofs), moving public transportation systems to clean energy and promoting other kinds of low-carbon transportation, creating pedestrian and bicycle-only zones  and enhancing urban green spaces…the list goes on.

Many of these projects also enhance the quality of urban and suburban life. Planting trees and expanding public parks are environmentally important steps that also provide recreation for citizens, for example.

There is an argument to be made that –if sufficient numbers of local jurisdictions engage in these efforts–the impact would equal or exceed the mechanisms currently employed (and endangered) at the federal level. In any event, most of the actions available to local businesses and governments cannot be stymied by the know-nothings in Washington.

As a recent article from the University of California explained,

Local government can play a unique and critical role addressing the climate crisis. Local governments have immediate impact on the daily lives of community members and personal connections to constituents. We have a clear line of sight to understand how climate change is impacting people on a daily basis. If leveraged correctly, local governments have the power to bring people together across party lines to address local issues with creativity and agility.

The article listed a number of successful efforts already underway. Consider them a “road map” for resisting Project 2025’s prescription for planetary disaster.

Comments

Patriotism Betrayed

As Trump rolls out his loony-tunes Cabinet choices, we are beginning to see the irony of “America First.” Rather than even a skewed version of patriotism, Trump is threatening a wholesale retreat from America’s founding ideals and from America’s place in the world.

I won’t waste pixels on his desire to put a science-denying medical conspiracy theorist in charge of the nation’s health, although I will note that–should RFK, Jr. actually make it through the confirmation process–most of the people who will sicken and/or die will be the True Believers in the MAGA base, the same folks who refused to wear masks or get vaccinated against COVID.

RFK, Jr. and his brain worm aren’t the most unbelievable nominees. Others pose an immediate threat to America’s global dominance. A recent essay in the Bulwark addressed the consequences if those nominees’ should take office. With respect to Tulsi Gabbard, the author wrote:

In addition to the problems she will cause American intelligence, her appointment will also send shockwaves through allied intelligence groups.

Because absolutely no one is going to share intel with us once she’s at the top of the org chart.

Instead our allies will cobble together alternative working relationships that do not include America. Without a seat at those tables, decisions will start to be made without consideration of America’s interests.

Eventually those informal working relationships will be codified. And America will be on the outside looking in. Hostage to events with a diminished ability to shape them….

It will also mean that the Pacific nations will have to come to their own arrangements with China. Because if the American public was not willing to shoulder the burden of merely shipping arms to Ukraine, then there is zero chance that we will be willing to go kinetic in the defense of Taiwan.

Tulsi Gabbard–one of Putin’s “useful idiots” and a woman so compromised she couldn’t get a security clearance– at the head of America’s intelligence agencies would be very bad for America, but as the essayist notes, it would be worse if our allies still believed there was a chance America would continue as a guarantor of the global order, only to find that they were mistaken when Putin and Xi acted.

If the Gabbard nomination wasn’t a sufficiently clear sign of America’s retreat from its global obligations and alliances, Trump’s choice for Defense Secretary “sealed the deal” as the saying goes.

Trump has always mistaken acting for reality, and his choice of Pete Hegseth–a television host–confirms his inability to distinguish manner from substance. As the Independent recently reported, not only is Hegseth, a Fox News pundit, massively unqualified, he wants to launch a “frontal assault” against top brass, kick women out of combat, and “implement Donald Trump’s sweeping agenda for the world’s third-largest standing fighting force.”

Hegseth’s nomination, which came as a shock to members of Congress who will ultimately be asked to vote to confirm him, reflects a broader trend among Trump’s Cabinet-level nominations and White House appointments — grievance-fueled loyalists whose disdain for a perceived establishment matches Trump’s wrecking-ball approach to governing and disregard for expertise and experience in a government that tens of millions of Americans depend on.

Since the announcement of Hegseth’s nomination, we have learned that he self-identifies as a Christian Nationalist, sports several White Nationalist tattoos, and has been credibly accused of sexual assault. If confirmed, he will enthusiastically implement Trump’s promises to reimpose a ban on transgender service members, end a policy that covered travel costs for service members seeking abortion care, and gut diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Hegseth is also an out and proud bigot, who spent his college years crusading against diversity and “the homosexual lifestyle,” and suggested in a 2024 book that General Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and an Air Force fighter pilot with 130 combat flying hours and 40 years of service, only got the job because he is Black. (I’m sure that accusation endeared him to the African-Americans who comprise over 20% of America’s armed forces.)

There are very real issues with U.S. foreign policy. Critics–especially on the Left–point to multiple episodes where American interventions have been highly improper, to put it mildly. Others find fault with current Mideast policies. Americans of all political stripes routinely criticize aspects of the bloated Defense budget.

Correcting past blunders and “right-sizing” the budget, however, require competent leadership, and Trumpworld, from the top down, is thoroughly incompetent. (On the other hand, if the goal of America First is to make America the first country to surrender global influence and abandon its allies, they’ll be great…)

Putin and Xi are undoubtedly cheering….

Comments

Connecting The Dots…

So..how did we get to Never-Never Land?

As the increasingly surreal incoming administration rolls out its roster of incompetent-to-insane nominees, proposes to eliminate constitutional checks and balances and empower man-child Elon Musk to decimate the federal government, it may serve us well to take a step back and identify which elements of the American status quo brought us to this place.

I have posted a number of discrete analyses–some my own, some from others. Those separate observations, however useful or relevant, fail to point us to useful solutions, fail to suggest what we will need to do when the fever subsides.

The various elements that contributed to Trump’s receipt of (under) 50% of the vote (as the votes have been counted, the thinness of his margin has become more obvious) include the interaction of economic unfairness with the information/disinformation environment, and widespread civic ignorance.

Those elements, working together, fed the multiple bigotries still rampant in American society.

There really are no short-term fixes for the widespread lack of basic civic knowledge and engagement. Heather Cox Richardson recently noted a study showing that people who paid “a great deal” of attention to political news voted for Harris +6, while those who paid “none at all” went +19 for Trump. Many of those voters obtained what little news they did get from the right-wing propaganda network I’ve previously referenced.

It’s easy to sneer at people who make no effort to understand and engage with the world they live in, but those of us who are financially comfortable need to recognize how different life is for people struggling to put food on their tables. When every day is consumed by the effort to make an inadequate paycheck stretch, when a flat tire or sudden illness increases financial hardship, accessing the news–let alone trying to confirm its accuracy– becomes a luxury you can ill afford. That’s why the enormous gap between not just the rich but also the secure middle-class and the rest is at the very base of our other problems.

Stable democracies have large middle classes. Ours has continued to shrink.

There is a mountain of research confirming the importance of economic justice to political life (and another mountain confirming that economic justice produces more robust economies). Inadequate and underinclusive social safety nets exacerbate social tensions. Studies tell us that people in impoverished households experience cognitive stresses that affect IQ, and that children from impoverished families in poor neighborhoods lack access to nutrition and good schools.

Economic deprivation accounts for much civic and political disengagement, while America’s current corporatist economic system is deeply implicated in the proliferation of disinformation. The plutocrats who benefit from a rigged economy don’t just deploy lobbyists and buy influence with political donations. The business model of Fox News and its progeny is based upon delivering the propaganda that reinforces the plutocrats’ dominance by assuring their audience that poverty (especially of Black people) is the result of laziness and/or moral deficit and wealth is evidence of brilliance, hard work and God’s approval.

I am a huge proponent of market capitalism, but a working capitalism requires a level playing field, and a level playing field requires adequate regulation. A working market economy also requires an accurate assessment of the nature of the public goods that markets cannot provide. Properly regulated markets are marvelous mechanisms for producing all manner of consumer goods, but (as I have argued repeatedly) health care and education are not consumer goods.

We are about to experience extreme social and governmental upheavals. Much–indeed, most–of what Trump, Vance, Musk et al want to accomplish is immensely unpopular. In the linked Richardson Letter, she notes that one of the largest programs that would be cut by Trump’s new (and illegitimate) “Efficiency Department” proposal would be veterans’ medical care.

The arrogance of his ridiculous cabinet choices and his evident belief that he can ram those choices down the throats of the  spineless Republicans in the Senate may prove to be a miscalculation. (Some of them might actually grow a pair, although I’ll be the first to admit that the jury on that is out.)

All of this points to an important task of the resistance. While we are working to delay or stymie the most damaging goals of this administration–the intended concessions to Putin and other autocrats, the decimation of social programs, the assaults on immigrants, education and public health, the further enrichment of the already-rich–we need to forge a working consensus on what should come next. What systemic changes will be necessary to restore and advance the American Idea?

In coming posts, I intend to address that incredibly important question.

Comments