One of my huge regrets about the state of America’s governance is that the very real problems I post about here are at significant variance with the blessings of my own life. I’m one of those privileged Americans with a (very nice) roof over my head, plenty to eat (frequently too much) and enough disposable income to be comfortable.
Knowing that other people have far less, that many will suffer under Trump, and that America is no longer small-d democratic dims my ability to enjoy my own blessings, but I am immensely grateful for them.
The most important thing for which I am thankful is a wonderful family–great kids and step-kids and in-laws–and brilliant, perfect grandchildren (okay, perhaps I’m an overly fond grandma) who care deeply about the world they inhabit and take seriously their civic and human obligations. Unlike many who comment here, we are fortunate that there will be no Trumpers at our Thanksgiving table, not even among our extended family.
And speaking of that table, this year the kids have imposed a rule: no political discussions on Thanksgiving, on pain of fines to be assessed on a sliding scale. Five dollars for the first breach of the rule, ten for the next, and so on. All funds collected will be sent to the ACLU. We will use today’s meal as a time to remind ourselves of all the things for which we are grateful –first and foremost, each other.
I commend this approach.
I would be remiss if I didn’t add that I am very thankful for all of you who read my daily rants–the thoughtful folks whose comments and references constantly educate me, and the “lurkers”–those who sometimes email me and those I encounter when I’m out and about. In my retirement (dotage??), your participation keeps me engaged–and hopeful.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving. Share a loving table. Hug and kiss those you love. I’ll be back with doom and gloom (and occasional hopefulness) tomorrow.
I have often opined that there is one question that dominates times like these. That question is: what do we do?
It’s one thing to understand the importance of resistance to Trump and his clear intention to implement the proposals in Project 2025–it’s another to figure out how, to answer the question: what can an individual do? I’ve wrestled with that question in previous posts, but it is obvious that a true resistance will require the emergence of a movement, the creation of a variety of organizations cooperating to restrain, delay and when possible, reverse the damage.
No analysis will change the fact that the election delivered a serious blow to America’s most vulnerable communities, and promises to deliver a devastating setback for economic and social justice. It’s understandable that many of us are taking this moment to grieve for what we have lost–very much including (at least in my case) a belief in the essential good sense of the American public.
But even amidst our feelings of sorrow or hopelessness, we can recognize that political conditions are not static. As we step out of our grieving and look ahead, there are reasons to believe that a new social movement cycle to confront Trumpism can emerge. And in making this happen, we can draw on lessons from what has worked in the past and what we know can be effective in confronting autocrats. Our job will be to take advantage of the moments of opportunity that arise in coming months to hold the line against Trump’s authoritarianism — and also link them to a vision for creating the transformative change we need in our world.
The article went on to explain why we can expect resistance movements to emerge, especially the fact that the election was in all probability a “trigger event,” defined as a moment when
issues of social and economic injustice are thrown into the spotlight by a dramatic or expected public event: A shocking scandal, a natural disaster, a geopolitical conflict or an investigative report revealing gross misconduct stokes widespread outrage and sends people into the streets.
In 2016, Trump’s election itself served as a trigger event. A wide range of groups, from the liberal ACLU to the more radical Democratic Socialists of America, saw membership and donations surge as concerned progressives braced for what was expected to come from his administration. New groups also emerged, such as Indivisible, which began as a viral Google Doc about how to confront elected officials and compel them to resist the Trump administration. It then quickly grew into an organization with more than 4,000 affiliated local groups by 2021.
The article noted that two days after the election, a call that had been organized by a coalition of 200 groups — including the Working Families Party, MoveOn, United We Dream and Movement for Black Lives Action — drew well in excess of 100,000 people, and that thousands more signed up for follow-up gatherings.
There is a tendency by the “Chattering classes” (people like David Brooks of the New York Times) to minimize the importance and effects of mass protests. The author of the article conceded that marches and other mass protests cannot effect change merely by occuring. However, as he pointed out, they can and do motivate change and activate other efforts.
And they send the message that We the People have not abandoned hope and resolve.
If ever there was a time to allow ourselves a space for mourning as we contemplate the fate of our country, it is now. But ultimately, only we can save ourselves from despair. David Brooks intended to be dismissive in characterizing collective protest as “mass therapy,” but in one respect he is onto something: There is no better antidote to hopelessness than action in community.
Our past experience tells us that coming months and years will offer moments that trigger public revulsion. Social movements provide a unique mechanism for responding, creating common identity and purpose between strangers and allowing genuine, collective participation in building a better democracy. If we are to make it together through Trump’s second presidency and emerge in its aftermath to create the world we need, this may be our greatest hope. Indeed, it may be our only one.
Our choices are stark. We can either abandon ship, or join our like-minded friends and neighbors in efforts to make the one we’re in seaworthy.
One of Stephen Colbert’s recurring “shticks” on the Late Show is a bit he calls “Meanwhile.” He begins by explaining that X is happening, but meanwhile…there’s Y and Z, factoids that are hardly earth-shattering, but intriguing (and usually very funny).
A lot of us–especially those who participate in discussions here–obsessively follow government and politics, and are currently mourning America’s suicidal plunge back into the unresolved hatreds and fantasies of the past. I’m certainly not going to advise “checking out”–although many of us are currently taking a vacation from the avalanche of depressing news–but I am going to counsel a detour into “meanwhile.”
Did far too many Americans vote affirmatively for ugly and hateful? Did too many consider the explicit threats to “others”–people with identities different from their own–irrelevant? Did far too many Americans ignore their most basic civic responsibility, which was to cast an informed ballot? Are we currently being inundated with after-the-fact “analyses” by self-important and un-self-aware pundits convinced that if Democrats had just done it their way, the result would be different?
Yes, yes and yes. All of it.
But meanwhile, in hundreds of communities, good people are continuing to do good things. Friends are volunteering at homeless shelters. Congregations that take seriously the moral teachings of their churches, synagogues and mosques are sponsoring food banks and offering sanctuary. Professional organizations are continuing to provide legal and medical assistance to folks in poor communities. The list goes on, and these efforts will be even more important as the assault on various types of federal assistance takes hold.
There are literally millions of efforts constantly underway to lend assistance to one group or another, or to bring a bit of joy to people who have less, or who who face adversity of one sort or another.
One example: on my desk at this moment is a flyer given to me by a friend who is (over)involved in such efforts, who has asked me to assist his nonprofit by helping sell tickets to “A Broadway Christmas,” featuring Anthony Nunziata. (Nunziata is described on the flyer as “A Carnegie Hall Headliner dubbed America’s New Singing Sensation.”) According to. my friend, Nunziata is donating his performance, because the entire event is intended to support an organization called “Kids Dance Outreach.” It’s a nonprofit that serves disabled children, ages 2-14, in school and after-school dance programs.
The organization’s webpage describes its mission as “To positively impact the lives of all children through joyful dance programs that inspire excellence, instill confidence, encourage teamwork, and applaud persistence.” It also says its free programs have served over twenty-two thousand children thus far.
With a commitment to providing high-quality dance education to all children, all KDO programs are inclusive for children with physical, cognitive, and developmental disabilities. The Dancers with Disabilities Programs offer further opportunities specifically designed for children with disabilities to learn and grow in a safe and joyful environment.
(The program my friend is promoting will be held at 7:00 pm at Broadway United Methodist Church on December 14th. Anyone in Indianapolis interested in attending can purchase tickets on the website.)
Efforts like this one may seem irrelevant–or at least, small potatoes– to those of us consumed with worry over Trump’s ability to deliver imminent, widespread harm . Dancing children? Fiddling while Rome burns, thanks to our own American Nero? But efforts like this one–and there are literally millions of similar, seemingly irrelevant programs across this country–programs that testify to the presence of millions of good people working with others to brighten the lives of those who are less fortunate or who face challenges the rest of us have been spared.
There’s a recent cartoon (I think from the New Yorker) that struck me. I’m paraphrasing, but in the single panel, one woman is telling another that–upon consideration following the election– her mistake was believing in the goodness of a majority of Americans. It’s tempting to take that lesson from the undeniable fact that millions of Americans cast votes for a vicious, mentally-ill criminal with a clearly-articulated desire to destroy America’s constitutional democracy.
But that would be the wrong lesson.
Yes, a sizable portion–probably a majority– of Trump’s vote came from the out-and-out bigots: racists, anti-Semites and misogynists he intentionally courted. But many others voted from ignorance fostered by dependence on right-wing propaganda. And all of those votes together did not reach 50% of the total cast.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans were volunteering or otherwise supporting the multitude of not-for-profit and voluntary organizations which exist only to help others. True, it isn’t enough. We have significant systemic issues we need to resolve.
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.
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 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.
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.
