The other day, NPR ran a story about a recent study on charitable giving. It turns out that poorer people give a significantly larger percentage of their incomes to charity than do the wealthy. The report included interviews with people from some especially deprived neighborhoods, and the general import of their responses was empathetic: they knew first-hand how tough things can get, because they had experienced rough times first-hand.
The report made me think of a conversation a few years back with a Canadian colleague. I was curious about the differences in attitudes between Canada and the U.S. when it comes to the social safety net. Here are two countries with immensely similar histories and populations. We watch the same television programs, (mostly) speak the same language, and have remarkably similar popular cultures. Why, then, I asked, are American and Canadian attitudes so different when it comes to the need for programs guaranteeing access to healthcare? Why do the two countries have such different approaches to other social programs?
Her theory was intriguing: Canada is cold.Canada’s early settlers faced an environment that required them to share and co-operate with each other in order to survive. That reality produced a culture that recognizes the necessity and value of interdependence.
I have no idea whether my colleague’s theory is correct, but intuitively, it makes sense. And it helps to explain why people who have so little themselves seem more willing to share what they do have with their neighbors. Hardship reminds us of a truth we sometimes prefer to overlook: we’re all in this thing called life together.
Wealth–not to mention temperate climate–evidently tends to insulate us from that inconvenient truth.
In the wake of the firestorm over remarks made by incumbent Representative and Senate candidate Todd Akin, most members of the GOP establishment loudly distanced themselves from him. At the same time, the platform committee was adopting his position–no abortion and no exception for rape or incest. There’s been a lively discussion about the number of Republican candidates and office holders who agree with him but have been too politically savvy to say so publicly. (Yes, Mike Pence, I’m looking at you.)
But ignorant comments about rape and contraception are beginning to look tame. There’s the candidate who recently “explained” that the AIDS virus can only be spread through homosexual encounters–never mind Africa, where the disease is almost entirely a heterosexual phenomenon.
Of course, the use of anti-gay stereotypes and rhetoric is almost a requirement for Republicans these days. Anything short of Fred Phelps-variety homophobia is unlikely to elicit a reproach from the party’s powers-that-be. Ditto anti-immigrant animus.
Race is a more delicate issue. We’ve come a distance (how far is a matter of opinion) since Nixon’s (successful) Southern strategy, and for several years, moderates and people of good will within the party tried to avoid racially inflammatory rhetoric. Those people have largely abandoned the GOP, however, and this election has seen considerable backsliding in that regard. During the primaries, Gingrich and others referred to Obama as “the food stamp President,” and Rick Santorum made his infamous remarks about “blah” people. (“Black?? I didn’t say black!!)
More recently, the Romney campaign has doubled down on a claim debunked by every reputable fact-checker–that Obama has “gutted the welfare work requirement,” and Romney himself has engaged in a little lighthearted birtherism. It’s not exactly subtle. The campaign has clearly determined that they need the votes of resentful whites–racists, to be blunt–if Romney is to have any chance of unseating Obama. If that requires playing to the fears and biases of a voting bloc described as older white men without a college education, why, full steam ahead. (For the record, I doubt that Romney is racist himself–despite the Mormon church’s unfortunate history with African-Americans. I think he wants very badly to be President and is willing to do whatever he thinks will work. His lack of integrity is so profound, it may be worse than genuine racism.)
It’s pretty clear that the GOP has written off the black vote, and the rhetoric aimed at Latinos hasn’t exactly endeared the party to the fastest growing demographic in the country. Then there are the Muslims–granted, a small minority, but one that is culturally conservative and could have been expected to be fertile ground for the party–who have been characterized by numerous Republicans as jihadists and terrorists. The recent, shameful effort by crazy lady Michelle Bachmann to target Huma Abedin, an assistant to Hillary Clinton who is married to Anthony Weiner, a Jew, as some sort of double agent is just one example.
Now we have the spectacle of Arthur Jones, 64, a Lyons, IL, insurance salesman who evidently organizes “family-friendly” neo-Nazi events around Adolf Hitler’s birthday. Jones is running in the Republican primary that will choose a candidate to run against Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski in Illinois’ 3rd Congressional District.
“As far as I’m concerned, the Holocaust is nothing more than an international extortion racket by the Jews,” Jones said. “It’s the blackest lie in history. Millions of dollars are being made by Jews telling this tale of woe and misfortune in books, movies, plays and TV.”
When I first became active in the GOP, older family members were wary. They warned me that the Republican party had long harbored anti-Semitic factions, and that history goes a long way toward explaining why so few Jews vote Republican. The party has persistently wooed the Jewish vote, mainly by being more rabidly pro-Israel than most modern Jews, but people like Jones do keep surfacing.
I expect Party “elders” will condemn Jones. But thing about the Jewish vote is this: thanks to our own history and experience, most Jews understand that we are not safe in a society that discriminates against any minority. As long as we see the GOP engaging in anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-black rhetoric–as long as we see Republicans as the party of old, white, heterosexual men unwilling to accord equal treatment even to their own wives and daughters–most of us just aren’t going to vote for them.
The uglier the rhetoric gets, the louder the “dog whistles” become, the clearer it becomes that the GOP has become a party willing to exacerbate some of this country’s deepest wounds and divisions if that’s what it takes to win an election. Members of minority groups understand that when people like that are in charge, no one is safe.
The real question facing America right now is how long it will be before the lunatics outnumber sane folks.
I’m not talking about the recent spectacle of Todd Akin, or the ongoing self-parody that is Michelle Bachmann. If they were anomalies, they’d be entertainment; as it is, they are just two of a terrifyingly large number of political figures who reject science and reality–with very negative consequences for the rest of us.
A few days ago, Timothy Egan wrote a piece for the New York Times titled “The Crackpot Caucus.” In what he called a “quick tour of the crazies in the House,” he quoted Rep. John Shimkus–chair of a subcommittee that oversees climate-change issues–pooh-poohing the very notion of climate change, and explaining that “The earth will end when God declares it to be over.” More God talk came from Texas Rep. Joe Barton, who opposes wind energy because “Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Clean energy would slow the winds down and make it hotter.” Mitch McConnell is among those who dismiss climate change as “a conspiracy and a hoax.”
John Huntsman was the only presidential candidate running in the Republican primary who was willing to say he accepted the theory of evolution. Jack Kingston of Georgia rejects evolution because there’s no indentation where our tails used to be. I’m not kidding.
There are literally hundreds of similar examples.
In Atlanta, Tea Party activists are claiming responsibility for defeating a 1 cent sales tax add-on that would have paid for highway and transit improvements in a ten-county area. The measure was backed by a bipartisan, urban-suburban consortium, and ran afoul of another rampant conspiracy theory: the U.N.’s “Agenda 21.”
Agenda 21, also known as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, along with a Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests, was adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio in June of 1992. It’s a non-binding declaration of an intent to address climate issues, but it has sparked fierce resistance from the more loosely-tethered-to-reality fringes, who have labeled it a scheme to destroy private property rights and “urbanize” America. Alabama has actually passed a law forbidding its “implementation” in that state.
Now, despite the claims of the Tea Party, Atlanta’s transportation tax didn’t fail simply because some fearful folks bought into the Agenda 21 conspiracy. As Neal Pierce notes in “Region Shoots Self in the Foot,” decades of anti-tax and anti-government rhetoric, rural resentment of urban Atlanta, and poor strategic decisions all played a role. But these elements were mutually reinforcing, and the consequences for the region–where congestion is already a nightmare–are likely to be profound. In the words of the Atlanta Chamber president, failure of the measure spells “economic disaster for Georgia.” (But hey–they sure showed those “anti-liberty” internationalists from the UN!)
Modern life requires a level of cognitive ability and reason that is in dangerously short supply.
Large numbers of Americans, including uncomfortably large numbers of elected officials, believe in a variety of far-fetched conspiracies that defy elementary logic (exactly how did Obama’s “Kenyan” family manage to plant that birth announcement in Hawaiian newspapers 40+ years ago? How did they know he’d be President??).
In the case of the “birthers,” the conspiracy persists because it de-legitimizes a black man who somehow became President. Those who deny climate-change and evolution are rejecting ideas that make them profoundly uncomfortable–facts that challenge limited and rigid worldviews, or (in the case of some elected officials) run contrary to the interests of their bigger campaign donors. Those who see dark motives (and black helicopters) emanating from the United Nations probably need something concrete to which they can anchor free-floating anxieties.
There have always been reality-challenged people at the fringes of society. What is so terrifying is that they have been normalized. We elect them. Politicians who do know better pander to them. Pundits take them seriously, or at least act as if they do.
Sociologists and political scientists tell us that the past 25 years has seen a profound shift to the political Right. I don’t think that’s what has happened; I know many sound and sane conservatives, and they aren’t the ones who worry me. We haven’t gone Right; we’ve gone unhinged.
I worry that we aren’t very far from the day when the inmates control the asylum.
Every day, a new headline paints a picture of today’s Republican Party. It’s a party the Republicans of my era wouldn’t recognize.
First we had Senate candidate Todd Akin asserting that victims of “legitimate” rape don’t get pregnant. (We have “lady parts” that “shut stuff down”…).
Then we had the GOP Rep. from Tennessee who explained that AIDS can’t be transmitted through heterosexual sex. (Tell that to the folks in Africa…)
This morning, Arizona newspapers announced that infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio would be speaking at the Republican Convention.
Arpaio, who is under investigation by various law-enforcement agencies including the Department of Justice, is best known for his anti-illegal immigration fervor, which tends to extend to the harassment of perfectly legal citizens who have the misfortune of looking Latino. He is also known for maintaining horrific jail conditions, including the erection of a “tent city” that has been compared to a concentration camp, in which he held people pending trial. (Not convicted felons, just people accused of something.) He has also reintroduced chain gangs, pressured inmates to donate organs….Not to belabor this, but he isn’t exactly a poster boy for enlightened criminal justice policies. Most recently, he has become the face of the “birthers,” insisting that President Obama was born in Kenya.
Arpaio’s racism and brutality aren’t exactly a secret. And while he is popular with others of his ilk, his approval rating in Arizona is around 37%–higher than we might wish, but hardly at a level to explain the decision to give him a role at the Republican Convention.
Republican officeholders have tried to distance themselves from Akin, but they undermined that effort with a platform plank confirming their agreement with his position. (That plank: adamant opposition to abortion, with no exception for rape or incest.) I haven’t heard of any efforts to push back against homophobia, or the profound ignorance most recently expressed by the Representative from Tennessee. And now, they extend an invitation to speak at the Convention to a man who is utterly loathed (and with good reason) by every Latino who has ever heard of him.
Add to all of this the Romney campaign’s decision to double-down on a welfare ad that every credible news source agrees is flatly untrue–an ad that is basically a very loud “dog whistle” to racism–and the picture that emerges is pretty ugly.
Some strategist in the GOP has evidently concluded that Romney’s only path to victory is through the mobilization of the old, angry white guys who “want their country back” from the rest of us.
A couple of days ago, an email from the Human Rights Campaign began with the following paragraph:
“Just yesterday, one of Mitt Romney’s highest profile supporters, and a member of the GOP platform committee, said same-sex marriage is something the government should condemn – along with drug use and polygamy.”
The rest of the message teemed with righteous indignation, and ended with a predictable plea for money.
Now, I fully understand how demeaning that statement feels. But I also understand where it comes from. A few years ago, during my sabbatical, I did research that later became my book God and Country. I was curious about the ways in which religious cultures and beliefs shaped people’s positions on various policies–not just hot-button social issues, but also policies we think of as wholly secular, like welfare, the environment, criminal justice.
The research was fascinating–and enlightening. It turns out that our religious socialization affects the way in which we categorize issues. So–when it comes to sexual orientation, for example–research suggests that Christians and Jews tend to classify the issue differently. Jews are more likely to classify sexual orientation as one aspect of identity, like eye color or intellectual capacity; for most Christians, on the other hand, sex is classified as a behavior–like drug use or polygamy. This initial classification doesn’t necessarily prevent Christians from drawing moral distinctions between different behaviors, and many Christians do not consider homosexuality to be immoral. But the evaluation process proceeds from different starting points.
Cultural assumptions can be changed over time, of course, and changing the way people classify sexual orientation initially is one of the great triumphs of the gay civil rights movement.
We can see it in the language: the term “sexual preference” is rarely used these days (except by the likes of a Micah Clark or Sarah Palin); it has been replaced by “sexual orientation.” The first term suggests a behavioral choice; the second, an immutable characteristic. It is an incredibly important distinction; immutable characteristics–like gender or eye color or skin color–are by definition morally neutral.
You can choose to use drugs, you can choose to be a polygamist. But science has exploded the myth that people choose to be gay, and most Americans–whatever their religious socialization–have come to understand and accept the fact that sexual orientation is not chosen.
It’s not a fluke that the people who compare homosexuality to drug use are also anti-science.
There are many ways to slice and dice the American electorate, but I am increasingly convinced that the fundamental (no pun intended) fault line is between those who accept science and modernity and can live with the resulting ambiguities, and those who don’t and can’t–those who find change threatening and ambiguity terrifying, and who cling more and more tightly to the comforting categories and certainties of the (re-imagined) past.
