Category Archives: Local Government

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

Rokita Again…

Among the worst results of the recent election was the local–and sadly predictable–victory of Indiana’s statewide Republican ticket. Mike Braun can be expected to obediently follow the Trumpist/MAGA line. Micah Beckwith and Jim Banks are self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist and an embarrassment to the state (and, actually, to intelligent humans pretty much everywhere.) But Todd Rokita may actually be the worst choice Hoosiers made, if only because he was running for re-election after a term in which he displayed what he is for all to see–an unethical publicity hound consistently pandering to the very worst of the MAGA base.

And he is at it again–(mis)using the resources of his office to pursue ideological, rather than legal, ends. This time, it’s an effort to intimidate Indiana organizations that serve immigrant populations.

One of those organizations is Su Casa, a nonprofit organization that was issued a civil investigative demand by the office of the Indiana Attorney General. The purported reason was an inquiry into human trafficking. Su Casa–along with many other entities in Indiana that serve immigrant communities– are being “questioned” by the AG’s office, probing how they serve migrant communities.

Su Casa was founded in 1999 as a response to the increase of Latin American immigrants arriving in Columbus, Indiana.  The majority of them had limited English proficiency, and Su Casa provided assistance and removed barriers to essential services in that community. It’s mission is to “increase self-sufficiency, health, economic independence, education, and ensure Latino families feel safe and belong here.” Its website says “Su Casa believes that all residents should have equitable access to the tools and support needed to be successful regardless of socio-economic or immigration status, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, or beliefs.”

MAGA cultists like Rokita consider such beliefs unacceptably “woke.”

When I did some research, I discovered that the Attorney General has initiated investigations into several organizations– including nonprofits, government agencies, and businesses– that work to facilitate what the cult deplores as an  “influx of migrants into Indiana communities.” These investigations purport to be about labor trafficking and “the strain on local resources due to increased migrant populations.”

Comments

What Individuals Must Do

Almost everything I’ve read in the wake of the election has fallen into one of two categories: why did it happen? and what can we do? Articles in that first category vastly exceed those in the second, and that is unfortunate. Although it is always important to analyze the source of a problem, too many of the purported analyses have been smug, finger-pointing accusations by self-important know-it-alls–hardly helpful suggestions for action.

Also, many of us want an answer to the question: what can I do? I’m one of those people: tell me I can only solve problem X by climbing that mountain, and I’ll strap on my boots and start climbing. Tell me there’s really nothing I can do about problem X and I just feel helpless and depressed.

A newsletter from Democracy Docket (no link) recently summarized how we got here, and did so in an abbreviated (but reasonably accurate) few paragraphs:

The moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party did not happen overnight. It happened gradually — starting with Newt Gingrich’s attack on the government in the early 1990s. It continued with the Tea Party movement, the birther conspiracy and the nomination of Donald Trump in 2016.

It gained momentum when Trump won the 2016 election despite losing the popular vote. Once in office, it grew worse when his attacks on democratic institutions were met with acquiescence by most of his party.

The mistake many of us made was believing that the aftermath of the 2020 election marked an end to the GOP’s descent into moral collapse. We were wrong. Jan. 6 marked a further descent into the moral abyss.

By 2024, the few principled Republicans had already abandoned their party for the “Never Trump” movement. What was left were Trump dead-enders and those without any core principles at all. A party once built on the promise of Lincoln had become the morally bankrupt party of Trump.

So here we are. We have one party that has become, for all intents and purposes, a cult. It has turned its back on the project of governing in favor of a hysterical retreat into a past that never existed and an agenda of resentment and “othering.” That has left the remaining party the unenviable task of herding cats–representing voters who range from center-Right but too sane to stay in the GOP all the way to Bernie Sanders and AOC and even further Left. 

So that’s where we are. That rather obviously leaves us with the second question: what can we do? Are there promising steps that individuals can take that are likely to make a difference, or are our problems so massive that all we can do is marinate in our distress?

I’ve arrived at an answer that may or may not be correct, but works for me. (I encourage you all to rebut my suggestions and to offer better or additional ones).

As I indicated in a couple of recent posts, I think those of us who recognize that we are individually powerless to affect the dysfunctions and outrages of a national government headed by Trump have to turn to activism at the local level. Even rural occupants of Blue states can work through local government to protect citizens from the Trump assaults; in Red states, cities of over 500,000 are uniformly Blue, and activism is possible at the municipal level. (Rural folks in states like Indiana can at least join statewide organizations working to protect civil liberties or immigrants’ rights or the environment.)

In my case, given my interests and background, I will volunteer with local lawyers’ groups–certainly the ACLU, but perhaps  others as well– to determine the measures that are available in our federalist system, and work to use whatever tools we identify, including but not limited to lawsuits. While we no longer have a Supreme Court that we can rely upon to enforce the Constitution, there are numerous good judges at the local and appellate levels, and justice is famously slow. By the time any appeals reach the Supreme Court, we may be emerging from much of the current darkness. 

Others of you might work with local groups focused on immigrant rights, or on health, reproductive or environmental issues.

Most importantly, local activists need to work with educators and with recently established local media outlets, to educate and inform the voting population. If there was any systemic failure that led to our current disaster, it was widespread civic ignorance and misinformation. Citizens need to understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and they need to recognize the ways in which MAGA Republicanism rejects that foundational framework.

We have work to do.

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