Local Government – Sheila Kennedy

Return of the KKK

James Madison–my favorite Indiana historian, not my favorite Founding. Father–has recently written a column documenting what many of us have come to recognize: White Christian Nationalism is the contemporary KKK.

Madison should know. He wrote the book tracing the history of the Klan in Indiana.

The inauguration of Gov. Mike Braun and Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith sparks thoughts of the similar inauguration 100 years ago, on January 12, 1925, when Edward Jackson and Harold Van Orman took their oaths. The past never repeats itself exactly, but in this case there are lines that rhyme and questions that cause concern.

At the dinner following Gov. Jackson’s inauguration, William Herschell recited his beloved poem, “Ain’t God Good to Indiana.” In the reception line next to the new governor stood Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson, the man who boasted that “I am the law in Indiana.” The two men had plans.

Madison notes that Jackson is considered the worst governor in Indiana history, and most Hoosiers know that Stephenson–Madison calls him “vile”–was a murderer and a blot on an already dark Indiana history.

The forces that created these two men remain with us. Indiana’s new governor and lieutenant governor are not Klansmen, but in the religious and political culture around them are scents of a century ago, when the Klan dominated the Hoosier state.

Those white, native-born Protestants who flocked to the Klan in the early 1920s called themselves 100% Americans. They boasted that only they were the real Americans. They created enemies to exclude and people to hate. Jews, African Americans, immigrants and, above all, Catholics were “the others.” By 1924, one political operative lamented, “Ideas of race and religion now dominate political thought.”

Those Klan boasts sound eerily like the rhetoric employed by MAGA cultists. Madison tells us that fear of Russian Bolsheviks and German Huns widened to include all immigrants and non-White Christians. The Klan repeatedly insisted on “America First.”

In rhetoric that sounds a lot like Trump’s, the Klan claimed that the country was going to “hell in a handbasket.”

A Christian crusade was the remedy. The Klan promised to enforce prohibition, censor Hollywood films, stop backseat sex, end political corruption, and keep women closer to the kitchen, nursery, and Sunday school room. Giving women the ballot, reported the Klan’s weekly newspaper, The Fiery Cross, “would foster masculine boldness and restless independence, which might detract from the modesty and virtue of womankind.”

Shades of today’s “tradwives.”

Madison explains that Klan members were convinced that they were the real, “100% Americans.” Much like today’s Christian Nationalists, they were motivated by White Supremacy. “Onward Christian Soldiers,” became the “beloved hymn of the Klan.”

Indiana had (and I think it is fair to say, still has) what Madison called “low expectations for government and high tolerance for corruption” –an environment that invited the state’s descent into a Klan stronghold.

Along with a governor, a majority—perhaps a supermajority—of the 1925 General Assembly were Klan members or sympathizers. Nearly all were white, Protestant and native born, joined by only four Catholics, four foreign born, and not a single African American or Jewish member.

The 1925 Klan legislature was mostly a bust. Internal divisions and self-aggrandizement led to only modest success in pushing through the Klan agenda. All assumed there would be other sessions to make good.

Madison’s column includes information about the resistance to the Klan. Stephenson’s conviction for rape and murder in 1925 added to the growing awareness of the Klan’s threat to basic American values, and Madison tells us that by 1930, the Klan was mostly gone in Indiana. “Nobody wanted to admit he’d ever belonged,” one reporter recalled.

Perhaps the most important observation in Madison’s essay is the following:

The intolerance in the last 50 years has come not from an out-of-date Klan but from a potpourri of sprawling and amorphous groups and movements, often linked to versions of Christian nationalism. As with the old Klan, today’s Christian nationalists tend toward binary choices of good and evil, toward a willingness to force their religious and cultural views on all of us, and toward use of government power in undemocratic and authoritarian ways that Indiana’s pioneers would have found appalling. Those pioneers wrote a Constitution in 1816 that contains the finest words ever penned on Indiana soil, including such commitments as “no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies, or modes of worship.”

Too many of our lawmakers have failed to heed that state Constitutional provision.

You really need to click through and read the whole essay–and then join us at tomorrow’s rally to kick off resistance to the re-emergence of the Klan, this time wearing red hats rather than sheets.

Comments

Extremism’s Costs

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.

_______________________________

I have lived in Indiana almost all of my life. I was born in Indianapolis and raised in a small Indiana town (Anderson). After a brief hiatus in college, I returned to the state and have spent my adult life here. I’ve participated in the state’s civic and political affairs, and been part of Indianapolis’ government. During my stint as Executive Director of Indiana’s ACLU, I sued the state on more than one occasion.

Given that history, I think I’ve earned the right to comment on the state’s deficits–deficits that have grown more concerning over that timespan.

On this platform, I frequently criticize what former NUVO editor Harrison Ullmann called “The World’s Worst Legislature.” Thanks to extreme gerrymandering, that body is controlled by extremists–culture warriors pandering to the White Christian Nationalists who want to eviscerate the very notion of a diverse “public” entitled to a government that serves the common good rather than the interests of political donors and fundamentalist churches.

The most vivid example of the General Assembly’s misplaced emphases–but most definitely not the only example–was the legislature’s unseemly rush to impose a ban on abortion in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. That ban ignored medical science, endangered the lives of pregnant women, and rode roughshod over the rights of women whose religious commitments differ from those of fundamentalist Christians.

Indiana is now reaping the negative consequences of that ban.

We’ve already seen reports that the state has growing ob/gyn “deserts,” where women–including but not limited to pregnant women–must travel long distances to access a wide range of care. (The legislature’s decades-long effort to shut down Planned Parenthood clinics had already made it difficult for poor women in much of the state to get birth control or mammograms.)

We’ve already seen reports that doctors of all specialties are leaving the state, and that fewer medical students are choosing to intern in Indiana’s hospitals.

Now we are seeing evidence that others are joining those medical refugees–that people are choosing not to live in Red states with abortion bans.

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, the majority of justices decided that the right to an abortion should be left up to individual states. Two years later, thousands of Americans in parts of the U.S. with strict abortion bans are deciding to leave those states, new research finds.

Following the Dobbs decision, the 13 states with strict abortion bans, from Alabama to West Virginia, collectively lost a net 36,000 residents per quarter, meaning the difference between the number of people leaving the states versus those migrating in, according to the analysis from economists at Georgia Institute of Technology and The College of Wooster and published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The analysis, which is based on change-of-address data from the U.S. Postal Service, found that the state impact is larger among single-person households, which may suggest that younger people are moving out of abortion-banning states at a higher rate than families. That could be due to the greater challenges for families in trying to move, given the need to change schools or uproot careers for parents.

The freedom of young people to choose where they will live carries significant implications for states’ economies. States with bans are already having difficulty attracting and retaining workers, especially younger workers. Indiana companies are reporting such difficulties, which will likely have a negative impact on the state’s already struggling economic development.

“Younger Americans are paying attention to a state’s access to reproductive care. In a 2022 Axios poll, about 6 in 10 people 18- to 29-years-old said a state’s abortion laws would sway their decision on where to live from “somewhat” to “a lot.”

Surprise!! It turns out that things like quality of life and respect for individual liberty have a greater impact on young people’s residential choices than low tax rates.

Researchers found that most states with strict abortion bans also fail to provide adequate social safety nets. They make it difficult to access programs such as food stamps, and have growing numbers of maternal care deserts. That is certainly true of Indiana, where our legislature routinely imposes punitive measures on–and erects barriers to– people needing public assistance.

People who claim to be pro-life, who advocated for these abortion bans, often suggest that these policies are designed to protect children, women and families,” said Dr. Nigel Madden, lead author of the study. But weakness in the safety net shows “the hypocrisy of that argument.”

The kindest thing one can say about the culture warriors who dominate Indiana’s legislature is that they are incapable of connecting the dots.

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

The Big Sort

I have frequently cited a 2009 book by Bill Bishop, titled “The Big Sort.” Bishop pointed to a then-emerging trend of “voting with one’s feet”–the tendency of many Americans to relocate to places that they find philosophically and politically compatible. The consequences of such sorting can be troubling. What happens when most neighbors agree with your outlook and values, reducing the need to accommodate disagreement or defend your woldview?

I read “The Big Sort” when it first came out, but I still ponder many of the issues it raised. One issue that it didn’t raise, however–at least, I don’t recall Bishop paying attention to it–involved “macro” outcomes: what if the sorting led to very different economic and quality-of-life differences between what we’ve come to identify as “Red” and “Blue” parts of the country?

More than a decade after the book, we are seeing major differences emerge. A recent column by Michael Hicks focused directly on that outcome. As he writes,

Of the 20 richest states today, 19 are solidly Democratic. Of the poorest 20 states, 19 are solidly Republican. The GOP dominates in poor, slowly growing states, while the Democrats dominate politics of prosperous, faster-growing states.

Hicks notes that these differences are largely an outcome of the nationalization of our politics. In former times–in fact, up until the late 1990s– there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. But then, state parties began to align with national politics.

Even races for local municipal government tend to be nationalized. State and local issues are often ignored, or barely discussed in primary or general elections. The homogeneity of national politics will naturally cause parties to represent more similar places.

Hicks then echoes Bishop, finding household sorting by politics. “Though most sorting happens at the sub-state level” (presumably, rural and urban) “the nationalization of politics means that state borders now affect household location choice.” Voters are choosing the political landscapes they prefer.

Hicks notes that when he began researching state and local policy some quarter-century ago, state legislators focused more on local issues; now, many take their “legislative marching orders from national think tanks or national parties. Today, elected leaders from both parties are expected to advance similar legislation, typically written by think tanks, everywhere at once.” (That is certainly the case in Indiana, where our dreadful General Assembly obediently does ALEC’s bidding.)

Education, Hicks tells us, is the most consequential policy difference between thriving Blue states and struggling Red states like Indiana.

The most likely cause of divergence between rich and poor places is the fact that human capital — education, innovation and invention — replaced manufacturing and movement of goods as the primary source of prosperity. In other words, places that grow will collect more human capital. However, the educational policies pursued by both parties are vastly different.

The GOP has largely tried to adopt broad school choice, while cutting funding to both K-12 schools and higher education. The Democrats have largely eschewed school choice, but amply fund both K-12 and higher education. Today, 17 of the 20 states with high educational spending are Democratically controlled and 17 out of the 20 lowest funded states are GOP strongholds.

There’s more to education than spending. Still, higher educational spending, even if it means higher tax rates, is leading to enrollment and population growth. Educational attainment differences alone explain about three quarters of the difference in per capita income between states.

At the same time, school choice effects are smaller than almost anyone hoped or expected. Today, it’s clear that the average student in private school underperforms their public school counterparts (charter schools tend to out-perform both). So, if poor states spend less on education and rely more on school choice, they will become poorer than states spending more on public education.

Economists have been saying this for three decades, with little effect. The prognosis is simply that poor states like Indiana are going to get poorer for decades to come while rich states will grow richer.

Here in Indiana, incoming Governor Braun has made expansion of the state’s voucher program a key priority. He wants to make it “universal,” meaning the eradication of income limits. Indiana’s program is already disproportionately used by upper-middle-class parents; Braun’s proposed giveaway would allow participation by even more privileged families (So much for the pious assurances that vouchers would allow poor children to escape “failing” public schools.)

Vouchers don’t improve educational outcomes, and they drain critical resources from the public schools that continue to serve the overwhelming majority of Indiana children.

If Hicks is reading the data correctly–and I believe he is–states like Indiana will continue to decline, and educated citizens will choose to move elsewhere.

Continuing the “sort.”

Comments

Hopelessly Undemocratic Indiana

We can’t “save” a democracy we’ve already lost. (See yesterday’s post.) The real question is: can we regain it?

Indiana is a case in point. Extreme gerrymandering ensures a Republican legislative supermajority–not simply because lawmakers have distributed voters to ensure GOP dominance, but because that tactic is far and away the most effective form of voter suppression. There’s a reason Indiana’s turnout is one of the lowest in the country; voters deprived of competitive contests see no reason to cast a ballot. (What’s ironic is that several of these districts would actually be competitive if turnout increased…)

Indiana also lacks an initiative or referendum. Hoosiers thus have absolutely no recourse, no way to counter legislation that ignores the preferences of the majority. And our GOP overlords routinely ignore those preferences–polling regularly shows citizen sentiments at odds with the extremism of those we’ve “elected.”

A friend with Hoosiers 4 Democracy looked at Governor-elect Mike Braun’s recently published policy agenda, and shared examples demonstrating that deviance.

She noted that Braun promises to “faithfully execute SEA 1 (2022).” SEA 1 was the draconian abortion ban passed by our legislature immediately after the decision in Dobbs. Polls of Indiana voters consistently demonstrate that a large majority of Hoosiers support access to abortion through at least the first trimester, and narrower majorities support access beyond. Nevertheless, Braun’s policy agenda includes a promise to “Ensure SEA 1 (2022) implementation is in accordance with statute in a way that provides transparency and certainty for the public and medical providers.”

How nice of him to advocate for “transparency” of a measure with which most Hoosiers strongly disagree–a measure that has already created “maternity deserts” as Ob-Gyn practitioners flee the state.

Then there’s Braun’s promise to “protect Hoosier girls from biological males who attempt to compete in girls’ sports.” That language joins a provision to “respect the rights of parents”–language we hear from the extreme Right-wing parents who’ve been trying to ban books and require school officials to “out” children. Here’s the language he uses to beat up on trans youth:

In 2022, the Indiana General Assembly passed HEA 1041 to protect the girls on the field of play. The State should continue to ensure that biological males will not compete against our girls on the court, in the pool, or invade the privacy of their locker rooms.

Require schools to respect and uphold the rights of parents as the decision-makers in their children’s lives, education, and upbringing. This includes directly notifying parents about any physical or mental health concerns that arise at school, such as requests to use a name or pronouns that are inconsistent with biological sex.

In 2023, the Indiana General Assembly passed HEA 1608 to protect this fundamental parental right.

In other parts of the document, Braun inadvertently highlights the logical outcome of Indiana’s regressive legislation. He notes that “Indiana continues to struggle in retaining college graduates as nearly 40% of graduates leave within one year of graduation, and more high school students are choosing to attend university elsewhere (8%).” He also notes that too few Indiana students pursue a college education. “Every year, approximately 75,000 Hoosiers graduate from high school. While half of these students enroll in college the other half pursue other opportunities…. ”

That’s even worse than it sounds. As the friend who sent me Braun’s agenda noted, of the 75,000 who graduate, 32,500 enroll in college. But enrollment isn’t the same thing as completion. Indiana’s college degree completion rate is 66%. Approximately 21,000 students will graduate within 6 years, and of those, 40% leave the state. That means Indiana has approximately 12,500 new college graduates who join the state’s workforce each year (about 140 per county if they were equally spread out–which they aren’t. Most choose to live and work in cities–primarily Indianapolis–where employment opportunities and social amenities are more plentiful.)

The fact that Indiana has fewer educated citizens than other states is a major reason we have trouble luring employers, and the reason that–as Braun’s agenda also notes–“Indiana faces workforce shortages (e.g., additional 5000 nurses needed by 2031), skill mismatches, and struggles to retain college graduates.”

Bottom line: legislators and administrators who gain public office by choosing their voters can–and do–ignore the wishes of their constituents. Citizens stop participating in the political process, believing it’s a waste of time and effort. They tune out. As a result, the only people who cast ballots are the most committed partisans.

We end up “electing” statewide candidates who, like Braun, go along with the current GOP’s extreme, anti-American “agenda,” or the even more extreme (and embarrassing) Christian Nationalists like Beckwith and Banks, or corrupt posturers like Todd Rokita.

Indiana isn’t a democracy, and our overlords want to see to it that we don’t become one.

Comments