Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

L’Etat, Ce Moi

“L’etat, ce moi”–meaning,  “the state, it is me– is a French phrase attributed to King Louis XIV, who probably never said it. Nevertheless, it represents the foundational concept of absolute monarchy, a regime in which the king has total authority over the state. 

I am confident that Donald Trump, the least educated President in history, never encountered the phrase, but its meaning clearly animates his conception of the Presidency. Law–in Trump’s limited and inaccurate view–is whatever he says it is. It certainly doesn’t exist as a separate framework.

In recent articles, the New York Times has outlined how this wholly unAmerican approach to the Presidency is undermining the rule of law, as our would-be monarch decides what rules should be ignored in the corrupt interests of his pocketbook and those of his plutocratic cohorts. 

 The most vicious and far-reaching attempts to thwart the laws of the land have come as part of Trump’s racist efforts to root out D.E.I. and other measures aiming to ameliorate discrimination.  Trump has ordered government offices to simply stop enforcing numerous civil rights provisions. According to a Times  newsletter (link unavailable), the Labor Department will no longer investigate employers who allegedly underpaid women or awarded promotions based on race. The administration has  abandoned hundreds of pending cases under the fair housing law–abandoning efforts to prosecute landlords who keep out gay people or owners who refuse to sell to people of a different faith. Trump has also instructed the government to nix the “disparate-impact” test, which looked at whether minority groups were affected differently by criminal background checks, credit checks, zoning regulations and other facially neutral laws.

And recognizing that direct orders are not the only way to stymie the enforcement of laws on the books, Trump has slashed budgets and head counts, which has a similar effect. As the Times accurately noted, laws work only if people are there to enforce them. So the EPA has been eviscerated under this administration; its ability to enforce environmental measures crippled. Employment at the IRS has been cut, severely limiting the ability of that agency to pursue tax cheats (like the President himself). Etc.

Mainstream media sources routinely describe measures taken by the Trump administration as “authoritarian.” That is, of course, accurate–but it tends to obscure the effects of the measures described above (and the many similar ones)–tends to make the very real harms seem somewhat abstract. (Theoretically, after all, an authoritarian leader could impose measures that advanced the public good–authoritarianism is the process, not the consequence.)

The same problem arises when pundits and bloggers like yours truly bemoan the daily assaults on the rule of law. Rule of law, too, is an abstraction. What isn’t abstract is when ICE thugs ignore the constitutional rights of those they are intimidating and snatching off the streets, or when the administration refuses to comply with the terms of its prior research grants.

A significant body of research confirms that a troubling percentage of the American public actually wants an authoritarian government–a ruler who relieves them of the burden of exercising thoughtful and responsible citizenship. Whether that desire to be ruled rather than governed is a result of inadequate civic education or personal intellectual/emotional deficit is unknown; it is also unknown whether those who prefer a monarchy to a democracy approve of the way the current Mad King and his Congressional enablers/courtiers are conducting–or refusing to conduct– the affairs of state. 

That Times newsletter did readers a favor by discarding the abstractions and pointing out the specifics of an authoritarianism that manifests its contempt for fundamental fairness and the rule of law every day.

MAGA cult members are likely to be surprised when their chosen authoritarian’s “policies” further enrich the plutocrats while tanking the economy, instituting stagflation, closing rural hospitals and throwing grandma off Medicaid. That’s the problem with allowing someone–anyone, but especially this bloated, ignorant and embarrassing buffoon–to believe that he is “the state.”

Comments

A Fascinating Analysis

The other day, I came across a fascinating–and persuasive–analysis of MAGA’s fixation with the Confederacy and other “losing” episodes of American history. The author, Kristoffer Ealy, a political psychologist, did a deep dive into the pathology, and found what can only be considered one of the major wellsprings of the deep resentments that power the MAGA mindset.

What triggered his exploration was a media report about a southern Board of Education voting to restore the name of Robert E. Lee to the area high school.

As Ealy explained, he began his research with the conviction that there had to be a reason for people clinging so frantically to a symbol of defeat. Why, he asked, would people treat defeat like a comfort food? Clearly, this goes beyond mere “nostalgia.” As he concluded, it becomes “victimhood identity.”

Losing doesn’t just become part of the deal for MAGA — it is the deal. In psychology this is often called victimhood identity, where people begin to see themselves as perpetual victims of life, defining their entire self-image through the lens of being wronged. They come to expect mistreatment, distrust attempts to help, and use grievances as proof of their own righteousness. That’s why Trump can never just win cleanly — he has to make it a mythical landslide stolen by the “deep state,” because if he simply wins, the grievance-based identity collapses.

Layered into that is the contrarian mindset. You know the type — everyone has that one friend who has to disagree with everything, not because they’ve thought it through, but because their identity is wrapped up in opposition. My MAGA acquaintance is like that: if you ask him why he supports the movement, he can’t give a concrete answer. He’ll just start rattling off disconnected complaints—“woke indoctrination,” “globalists,” “cultural Marxism”—with no context, no follow-up, and no plan. It’s not about what he believes; it’s about making sure he’s on the opposite side of whatever you’re on. It’s conflict for conflict’s sake, and when you mix that reflexive opposition with a deeply ingrained victim identity, you get a worldview where losing isn’t a problem — it’s the whole point.

Another dimension of that victimhood identity is what Ealy calls “glorification of martyrdom” —a tendency to romanticize sacrifice and loss as inherently noble. As he points out, once you glorify a loss, the outcome–the fact that you lost– becomes irrelevant. So to the MAGA mindset, the Civil War wasn’t a bloody, pointless rebellion. It was a heroic last stand. As he writes, “The statues aren’t about historical literacy; they’re altars to a story in which defeat proves righteousness. If the statues come down, the tangible symbols of “our eternal struggle” come down with them — and that’s an existential threat to an identity built on keeping the wound open.”

Given this mindset, facts become irrelevant. Suffering becomes the whole point.

All of this sits on top of an external locus of control — the belief that everything bad happens because of someone else. Nothing is ever the result of their own bad choices or failed leadership. The Confederacy didn’t lose because it built its economy on slavery and overestimated its military; it lost because the North had more resources. Trump doesn’t lose elections because of his rhetoric or policies; he loses because of “cheating,” “the media,” or “corrupt officials.” It’s a worldview where the story always ends with “we were robbed,” never “we blew it.”

This analysis rings true to me. It certainly helps to explain the deep-seated animus toward those the movement labels “other”–non-Whites, women, gay folks. It’s their fault that good “Christian” White guys are losing social dominance. Those good guys are victims of society’s hated efforts at inclusion–efforts MAGA sees not as an attempt to level a tilted playing field, but as attempts to divest them of their rightful place in the social order. As Ealy notes, once you begin to look, you see this victim framework everywhere.

The article is lengthy, with enlightening examples. It explains a lot, and it’s well worth the time to read in its entirety.

Comments

For When This Dark Time Is Over

NPR recently reported on a fascinating project in Kenya.

The project was one of a number of pilots around the world in which citizens were given no-strings cash. In this case, an unanticipated result was that infants born to people who received the payments were nearly half as likely to die as infants born to people who got no cash. The payments cut mortality in children under 5 by about 45%, on par with interventions like vaccines and anti-malarials.

As long-time readers of this blog know, I support replacing our fragmented and inadequate social safety net with a Universal Basic Income (UBI). It won’t happen in my lifetime, if ever, but it’s on my list of “when this MAGA nightmare is over…'”

As I’ve previously argued, policies to help less fortunate citizens can be delivered in ways that stoke resentments, or in ways that encourage national cohesion.  Consider public attitudes toward means tested welfare programs, and contrast those attitudes with the overwhelming majorities that approve of Social Security and Medicare–universal programs. 

What if the United States embraced a new social contract, beginning with the premise that all citizens are valued members of the American polity, and that membership has its privileges?

In my imagined “Brave New World,” government would create an environment within which humans could flourish, an environment within which members would be guaranteed a basic livelihood, a substantive, excellent education, and an equal place at the civic table. In return, members (aka citizens) would pay their “dues:” taxes, a stint of public/civic service, and the consistent discharge of civic duties like voting and jury service.

A UBI would require significant changes to the deep-seated cultural assumptions on which our current economy rests, but if the various pilot projects have demonstrated anything, it is that a UBI and a single-payer health program would ease economic insecurities, reduce the gap between rich and poor, restore workers’ bargaining power and (not so incidentally) rescue market capitalism from its descent into corporatism and plutocracy. 

 America currently has a patchwork of state and federal programs, with bureaucratic barriers and means tests that are expensive to administer and that operate to exclude most of the working poor. Those who do get welfare 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 Andy Stern, former President of the Service Employee’s International Union has argued,

“A basic income is simple to administer, treats all people equally, rewards hard work and entrepreneurship, and trusts the poor to make their own decisions about what to do with their money. Because it only offers a floor, people are encouraged to make additional income through their own efforts… Welfare, on the other hand, discourages people from working because, if your income increases, you lose benefits,”

With a UBI, in contrast to welfare, there’s no phase-out, no marriage penalties, no people falsifying information–and no costly bureaucracy.

Support for the concept isn’t limited to liberals. Milton Friedman famously proposed a “negative income tax,” and F.A. Hayek, the libertarian economist, wrote “There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend.” In 2016, Samuel Hammond of the libertarian Niskanen Center, noted the “ideal” features of a UBI: its unconditional structure avoids creating poverty traps; it sets a minimum income floor, raising worker bargaining power without wage or price controls; it decouples benefits from a particular workplace or jurisdiction; since it’s cash, it respects a diversity of needs and values; and it simplifies and streamlines a complex web of bureaucracy, eliminating rent seeking and other sources of inefficiency.

Hammond’s point about worker bargaining power is especially important. In today’s work environment, characterized by dramatically-diminished unions and the growth of the “gig economy,” wages  have been effectively stagnant for years, despite significant growth in productivity. With a UBI and single payer health coverage, workers would have the freedom to leave abusive employers, unsafe work conditions, and uncompetitive pay scales. A UBI wouldn’t level the playing field, but it would dramatically reduce the tilt. And if the robots do come—if the predictions of jobs that will be lost to AI and automation are even close to accurate—a UBI could act as a national safety-net, helping the country avoid massive civil turmoil.

There have been several pilot projects to assess the pros and cons of UBIs, and the results have been uniformly positive. Counter-intuitive as it seems, a significant body of research supports the importance of a robust social safety net to market economies. As Will Wilkinson of the libertarian Niskanen Center, has written:

“A sound and generous system of social insurance offers a certain peace of mind that makes the very real risks of increased economic dynamism seem tolerable to the democratic public, opening up the political possibility of stabilizing a big-government welfare state with growth-promoting economic liberalization.”

As Wilkinson has convincingly argued, today’s left fails to appreciate the role of capitalism and markets in producing abundance, and the right refuses to acknowledge the indispensable role safety nets play in placating the human, deeply-seated distaste for feelings of uncertainty and insecurity.

If we were a country that truly valued all citizens, these would be compelling arguments. It’s on my list for “after,” assuming we make it through these depressing times…

Comments

MAGA’s Road To Gilead

Given the Trump administration’s daily effort to elevate White “Christians” over people of color, it can be easy to overlook its equally rabid effort to return women to third or fourth-class citizenship–to return us to powerless and submissive possessions of our fathers and husbands.

Suddenly, opinions that once would not have been uttered publicly–opinions that would have marked their holders as deeply unwell residents of the modern world–are spewing forth from the mouths of people who have been allowed to occupy some of the highest positions in American government.

A recent newsletter from Lincoln Square focused on the effort to strip the nation’s women of our rights as citizens, in the name of a perverted “Christianity.” It reported on a recent endorsement by Pete Hegseth, the inept drunkard who currently heads the Department of Defense, of his pastor Doug Wilson’s belief that women should not have the right to vote.

As the author of the essay wrote,

In a way, Hegseth performed a public service by bringing to wider attention the “Christian nationalist” movement that is gaining strength and has much support in the Trump Cult. As the title of the CNN report indicates, it seeks “Christian” domination of America. All of us need to know what they mean by that. Pastor Wilson is a flat-out nutter who envisions an America that is a “Christian nation” the way Saudi Arabia is an “Islamic nation.” The ultimate goal is replacing secular democracy with a government ruled by “Christ the King.” Jesus presumably being unavailable for such a role that rejects his most important teachings, it would mean “Donald the King” or perhaps “Doug the King.

This movement is all about reverting women to what was for thousands of years considered to be their proper place of inferiority and submission. Indeed, as I explain in the book manuscript on which I am currently working, An Agreed-Upon Fiction: The Creation of the ‘Inferior’ Sex — How It Misshaped History and the Present, the whole authoritarian enterprise is based on a Foundational Lie that arose more than five thousand years ago. I call it Male Monocreationism: the assertion that men have all reproductive power and women merely provide a place in which men’s creations grow. “Women are the kind of people that people come out of,” Wilson said in the CNN interview.

The article quoted Wilson’s book, in which he wrote “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission.”

I’m sure that there has always been some number of men who find this “philosophy” comforting–some subset of men who have found themselves unable to operate in a world that doesn’t afford the males of the species automatic dominance. (There are the Incels, for example–men who can’t get dates, let along amorous partners.) These are not healthy humans; they are clearly threatened by the realities of a modern world in which intellect rather than brute strength gives entree to civic and economic equality.

It’s one thing to recognize that society has always harbored such men; it is far more troubling when they feel able to announce their beliefs publicly, and frankly terrifying when people in positions of power publicly embrace them.

MAGA isn’t just waging war on democracy and the Constitution. At its core, it’s an effort to destroy modernity, to return us to a time of superstition and ignorance in which its members felt more comfortable. MAGA’s Christian Nationalists want to return us to a past in which women, LGBTQ+ folks, non-Whites and non-faux-Christians were all subservient to straight White “Christian” males.

And they’re through pretending otherwise.

Comments

There Really Is A Difference

When I was much younger, it was common to hear people say that there was no real difference between the political parties. That put-down–while never really accurate– was recognition of the then considerable overlap between the two parties. There were once conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans; that, of course, was before the GOP turned into today’s proto-fascist MAGA.

Today, the put-down is different, along the lines of “a plague on both your houses.” Every day, pundits and pollsters tell us that Americans hate the GOP and disdain the Democrats. I’m not sure where that leaves us ordinary voters, but I am sure it ignores the very real policy differences between the parties.

Those differences become far clearer when you contrast life in Red and Blue states. it turns out that, when Americans elect Democrats to manage their states, the people who live in those states do better.

Some examples:

Democratic states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington have raised their minimum wages to $15/hour or higher.

Blue states take measures to protect people’s health coverage (Washington State even created a public health insurance option—the only one in the country to the best of my knowledge) and pass laws requiring paid family and medical leave.

Blue states—including Oregon, California, Washington, Colorado and New York—make it easier to vote, expanding early voting and passing election reforms like automatic voter registration and same day registration.

Blue states support public education, and Blue states like New York, California and Oregon even offer tuition-free college programs.

Indiana’s next-door neighbor, Illinois, is an example of the difference between Democrats who govern for We the People and Republicans who govern for the donor class. This July, Governor Pritzker signed the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Act, limiting unfair pricing practices and supporting independent pharmacies, along with four bills to help high school students afford to pay for college. In January, Pritzker signed a bill forbidding payment of less than minimum wage to disabled workers.

And the Red states, like Indiana?

Well, we’ve kept the minimum wage at 7.25 since 2009, and only raised it then because of a requirement to match the federal rate. Our Republican overlords are busy throwing people off Medicaid with stricter eligibility checks, work requirements, and enrollment caps–any mechanism to hurt the most vulnerable populations.

Red States like ours have worked hard to make it more difficult to vote; they’ve cut early voting, required specific government-issued IDs, and thrown out ballots with minor errors. Polls in Red Indiana and Kentucky close at 6– earlier than any other state—making it harder for working people to cast ballots.

From education to gun safety, from climate and the environment, from education to worker protection, Democratic lawmakers have, on balance, worked to make citizens’ lives better and fairer. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to wage war against women, gays and non-Christians, while making it harder for working-class Americans to earn a decent living.

Democrats are far from perfect, but the contrast is certainly illuminating.

Which approach really makes America great?

Comments