Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

Holding My Breath

Last week, as I previously noted, I spoke to a Unitarian Universalist congregation about Project 2025. (I posted those comments here.)

Ever since I was Executive Director of Indiana’s ACLU and was first asked to address a UU church, I have enjoyed speaking to UU congregations. They tend to be composed of people committed to civil liberties, respectful of science, and welcoming of a wide variety of perspectives. As their “Welcome” text confirms, UU’s believe that religious faith is uniquely personal, and that attitudes of openness and tolerance are important. I particularly like the “covenant” this congregation recites, which affirms that spiritual growth provides the grounding for peace, ethical living and community service.

Prior to my talk, there is usually a reading, and I was so impressed with this particular one that I asked for a copy. This was a reading that directly addressed the fundamental issue of tomorrow’s vote, which, as the author said, will really be a vote on another covenant– the covenant we Americans have made with each other.

Democracy–as the reading pointed out–isn’t just a word or even just a system of government: it’s a “living, breathing promise.” A covenant.

This promise of democracy is one of collective power and shared responsibility. Many understand that this covenantal promise is not without its challenges. Democracy asks us to engage in issues, to participate in bringing about change, and to care deeply about one another. It is cultivated in small, consistent actions–in the conversations we have, the ways we listen to and learn from one another, as well as the votes we cast. It demands that we see beyond ourselves, recognizing the dignity of every person, and honoring the rich diversity of our lives.

This reading was part of a church service, so care was taken to avoid endangering the congregation’s tax exemption by the endorsement of a political candidate–there was no direction to “go thou and vote in such and such a way.” Instead, what struck me forcefully about this description of the choice we face was its emphasis on community, on the obligation that we humans have to care for each other.

That emphasis really highlights the vast difference between Trump’s MAGA Republicanism and the Harris campaign.

As the multiple Republicans who have endorsed Harris have pointed out, this election is not about our policy differences–it’s about saving the American Constitution and the rule of law, the essential foundations of the covenant described in the reading. Ours is a covenant that requires us to care about other people, to accept a commitment not just to an abstract nation, but to our fellow Americans.

Traditional Republicans and Democrats may have wildly different opinions about how to demonstrate that commitment, how to honor that covenant, but we recognize that it binds us. We may disagree about economic or social policies, but we share a fundamental belief that government exists to create a just environment that facilitates the human flourishing of all of us–including the neighbors who don’t look or think or worship as we do.

Tomorrow’s election is between all the Americans who believe in that covenant and want to protect it, and those who don’t. It really is that simple.

The Republican Party many of us once knew and respected has been replaced by a malignant cult in Donald Trump’s image, and the members of that cult reject the very idea of a democratic covenant. They are not motivated by care for their neighbors. They contemptuously reject the “demand that we see beyond ourselves.”

The brief closing paragraphs of the reading were poignant: they read

It is clear that at the heart of this democracy is the promise of the people–our hopes and dreams. We are the democracy and the stewards of this promise: the practitioners of this sacred work.

As Unitarian Universalists, we believe democracy is more than a political system; it is a shared journey, a collective responsibility, and a profound act of faith in one another. May we walk this path with grace, with purpose, and with phenomenal commitment to the common good.

That commitment–to America’s democratic covenant, to each other, to the common good–is what is on the ballot this year. That’s the choice to be made by We the People.

This Jewish atheist is praying with the Unitarians….

Comments

Everything Is Political

One of the enduring frustrations of political life is the frequency with which those of us who regularly vote encounter Americans who dismiss the importance–indeed, the relevance–of politics. “Oh, I’m not political,” these folks tell us, as if an interest in who governs us and how is akin to a fondness for a certain television show, or engagement with a hobby.

Judging from the number of people who are eligible to vote but don’t bother to cast ballots, there are millions of people who  utterly fail to connect their lives and prospects to the policies and competence of the governing regimes under which they live–who fail to understand that, at base, pretty much everything is political.

A recent essay by Rick Perlstein in the American Prospect  made the case for that connection.

Perlstein began by noting that Scientific American had endorsed Kamala Harris. This is only the second time in that publication’s 179-year history that it has made a presidential endorsement, and the decision to do so prompted criticisms. Critics argued that engaging in the campaign was a bad idea–that it just risked giving aid and comfort to conservatives who “want nothing more than to be able to credibly claim the scientific community as just one more in a malign den of elite liberal villainy.”

They say the endorsement degrades what is most valuable in science’s operative ideal: that its results are ideologically neutral, because scientists follow evidence objectively without reference to who benefits, and that once science becomes “politicized,” it will not truly be science anymore.

I understand and respect those arguments. But I disagree. If anything, I think the Scientific American endorsement doesn’t go nearly far enough.

In Perlstein’s view, negative reactions to the endorsement should be part of a much larger discussion about how institutions, organizations (and indeed, all of us)– should think about electoral politics. In this case, he focused that discussion on the question “when is it appropriate to break norms of behavior?” (It has been a norm, for example, that science is non-political, at least in the partisan sense.) His discussion is well worth reading in its entirety, but it triggered a somewhat different stream of thought for me.

Is it really possible for a human who lives in a society–a non-hermit–to be nonpolitical? With that question, I suppose I’m returning to a conviction I have often voiced: language is important. Using language to communicate requires that those participating in the conversation agree on the meanings of the words being used. When people declare that they are not “political,” I’m fairly certain that they mean they don’t engage in partisanship–that they are uninterested in contests between political parties and their spokespeople. (We can quibble with that declaration too, but that’s a subject for a different time.)

What they fail to understand is that politics encompasses far more than the battles between political parties. All activities associated with decision-making in groups, and virtually all other power relationships between and among individuals, are political. Politics governs the distribution of goods and services–or, for that matter, the distribution of status–in a given society.

When you think about the various ways that public decision-making affects us all, hundreds of examples come to mind.

Workers who have no redress for wage theft, battered wives in societies that accord husbands “dominion” over their spouses,  homeowners unprotected by zoning laws that prevent the guy next door from operating a tavern from his living room…The hundreds of laws and customs that allow communities to function and individuals to flourish– are all the result of politics, the result of decisions about the way people relate to each other, decisions about what constitutes fair play and justice, decisions about our obligations to our fellow humans.

Which brings me back to Perlstein’s central observation: saying that we shouldn’t “politicise” science–or any area of human conduct–is meaningless, because every area of our common lives is inescapably shaped by political decision-making. The decision by scientists to rely on evidence–and their definitions of what constitutes reliable evidence– is political. Educators’ choices of what subjects to teach (and how) is political. A journalist’s decision to report Item A and ignore item B is political.

Recognizing the power of government and choosing to be governed by people who respect the Constitution and the Rule of Law is unquestionably political–it affects every other aspect of the social and political reality we inhabit.

Americans who don’t understand that, who won’t bother to vote or educate themselves about the choices before us, are ultimately as dangerous as the MAGA folks who vote their fears and bigotries.

Comments

Do Voters Know Who They Are REALLY Voting For?

In both the federal election and in Indiana, if the individual heading up the GOP ticket gets the most votes, that individual is highly unlikely to actually serve a full term. That’s because In both cases, the “headliner” is much older than typical candidates for President and Governor, and in the case of Trump, clearly and rapidly plunging into senility and dementia.

A few days ago, Jennifer Rubin noted that reality.

Mainstream news outlets now feature stories about felon and former president Donald Trump’s “strikingly erratic, coarse and often confusing” rambling speeches, “cognitive decline,” and bizarre behavior. This evidence of mental breakdown, coupled with his event cancellations due to reports of “exhaustion” (reports his campaign has denied), give voters every reason to think that Trump could not complete a second term or would be “out of it.” Either way, his vice-presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), the most disliked man ever to run for vice president, would be running the show.

In essence, the most unqualified man ever to run for vice president — without a lick of executive public experience, just two years in the Senate, author of not a single piece of significant legislation, lacking any experience with foreign leaders — would be promoted. We would have a real life encounter with Peter’s Principle in the most important job on the planet. And considering the opposition from most of the “adults” from the first term, he might be relying on likely Trump Cabinet officials and advisers such as Kash Patel, Stephen K. Bannon, Richard Grenell, Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As Rubin points out, Vance is far more ideological than Trump. (Let’s face it, Trump couldn’t spell ideology, let alone embrace one–his only purpose is to be noticed, to be important, and to take vengeance on his enemies.) As she says, he “blows with the wind on everything from a national abortion ban to Social Security.” Vance, on the other hand, is “enmeshed in the fever world of conspiracies,” from the anti-Semitic obsession with George Soros to the “great replacement theory” to election denial. The fact that he can spell and use words properly may make him sound saner than Trump, but his ability to articulate a coherent argument just makes him more dangerous.

MAGA Mike Braun is not as old and senile as Trump, but he’s no spring chicken. More troubling is that during the campaign, he has demonstrated absolutely no ability to rein in his White Christian Nationalist running mate–shown none of the “leadership” ability he says he’d bring to the Governor’s office.

Not only does Micah Beckwith constantly reinforce his looney-tunes faux religiosity, he–like Vance–has zero experience with, or skills required for the job he’s seeking. The Indiana Lieutenant Governor’s primary responsibilities are for agriculture and tourism. Unlike his Democratic opponent, Terry Goodin, who has ample credentials relevant to the job, Beckwith is a loose cannon culture warrior who thinks he talks to God. He’s at odds with the Constitution and rule of law and totally unfit for any public position.

Among his many “policy positions,” Beckwith equates abortion with slavery and wants to erase the already-inadequate exceptions in Indiana’s draconian ban. He has advocated shooting brown people who cross the border. He has called Jennifer McCormick–the clearly superior candidate for Governor–a “Jezebel.” He opposes same-sex marriage and gay people generally. In his one official position, on a library board, he tried to ban books. The list goes on and on.

Even if Braun is able to serve out his term, Beckwith will have a profound impact on his administration–and undoubtedly on tourism. Braun–aka “Mr. Empty Suit”–has demonstrated no ability to muzzle or redirect Beckwith, who will “represent” what it means to be a Hoosier in the eyes of many.

In a world where voters truly understood how government works and were aware of the knowledge and skills required for the positions on their ballots, the impulse to simply vote for one’s tribe might be modified by recognition of the utter unfitness of candidates like Beckwith (and Banks and Rokita). When the choices before them are limited–Americans cannot “scratch” or split their tickets for either Vice-President or Lieutenant Governor–rational voters would consider the likelihood that the secondary candidate will either be calling the shots (in the case of the federal election) or–best case scenario–simply embarrassing the state (in Indiana).

Of course, we don’t live in a world where all voters are even minimally civically-literate…..

Comments

Puncturing The “Pro-Life” Myth

I assume there are sincere people (mostly, but not exclusively, male) who bought into the myth that prohibiting abortions was all about “saving babies.” In the wake of actual bans, the incredible dishonesty of that assertion has become harder to ignore. 

The avowed “pro life” activists have been conspicuously silent about the fact that– In the wake of the Dobbs decision–in states like Indiana that have stringent bans, women have died or suffered extreme medical consequences in greater numbers than before. While most women already knew that the purported “pro life” concerns about “life” didn’t extend to the lives of women, those activists have been equally silent about the sharp rise in infant mortality. As the linked report shows, in the year and a half following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision, hundreds more infants died than usual in the United States. The vast majority of those infants had congenital anomalies, or birth defects, and it is likely that a number of those babies experienced painful deaths.

The refusal of ideologues to understand that abortion availability is an essential part of healthcare has meant that women suffering miscarriages have been denied adequate and timely treatment, and that pregnant women who very much want to carry their babies to term are having difficulty finding an ob/gyn to provide prenatal care and deliver those infants. The state’s abortion ban has led to a decline in OBGYN residency applications–a decline likely to worsen the already alarming shortage of maternal care providers. A patient in Northern Indiana died last year from an ectopic pregnancy because there was no ob-gyn to treat her.

None of which seems to bother the “pro life” Micah Beckwiths of the world.

Now, it turns out that the medical consequences of these bans–their very negative effect on actual lives–extends far beyond reproductive medicine. According to the Indiana Capital Chronicle, the bans are also interfering with the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. In the wake of Dobbs and state bans, finding a local provider for breast screenings has become far more difficult. Planned Parenthood clinics that used to provide those screenings have closed and staff shortages at other sites have increased as medical personnel leave states with bans.  The remaining health care providers are overwhelmed.

One in 3 oncology fellows surveyed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology says abortion restrictions hurt cancer care, and more than half of fellows said they are likely to consider the impact of abortion restrictions on care when deciding where to practice. Although many states like Indiana allow exceptions when the termination of a pregnancy is necessary to protect the life of the pregnant patient, the rules on how to apply these exceptions are unclear. In Ohio, two cancer patients were denied treatment until terminating their pregnancies under the state’s 6-week ban, forcing them to seek care out of state. As these bans persist, more Hoosiers will face similar situations—many of which may go unseen.

Early detection through routine screenings plays a critical role in improving survival rates, as 1 in 8 women in the U.S. will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. But when health centers are forced to close, those lifesaving screenings disappear too.

How “pro life” are the pious ideologues who talk endlessly about the “pre-born” but refuse to acknowledge the profoundly negative outcomes of these bans for the lives of already-born women? 

Excuse my cynicism, but I remain convinced that the real motive for these bans is the patriarchal belief that women should be returned to a submissive social status. Increasing efforts by GOP politicians to restrict access to birth control give the game away.

With the advent of the pill, women were–for the first time– able to manage their fertility and plan their families. Women were able to enter the workforce, able to participate with men in the broader civic and political society. As Morton Marcus and I documented in From Property to Partner, reproductive choice has been far and away the most important element of women’s liberation. 

Initially, perhaps some people were convinced that the “pro life” movement really was about keeping wicked and “ungodly” women from “killing babies.” Now that we have irrefutable evidence that, thanks to these bans, more babies and more women are dying, it will be interesting to see how many of those people revise their opinions. 

I’m not holding my breath, because for the great majority of those “pro life” warriors, it was never about life. It was about male dominance and faux religion.

Comments

State-Level Choices

Most of us are obsessively focused on the national election, but the stakes of our state-level choices are equally dire–at least, in Indiana.

The Indiana GOP is running a staewide ticket composed of lunatic White Christian Nationalist Micah Beckwith, two Beckwith clones, and MAGA Mike Braun. I’ve posted numerous times about Todd Rokita, our embarrassing, unethical Attorney General. Today, I want to remind readers that the only difference between Beckwith and Jim Banks, who is running for the U.S. Senate, is that Banks is too politically-savvy to publicly claim the White Christian Nationalist title to which he is amply entitled.

Let me just reiterate why Banks is–as I’ve previously noted–wrong about everything. In Congress, he joined clowns like Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene, pursuing a pro-Trump, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-liberty performative politics.

He makes no bones about his desire for a national ban on abortion with no exceptions, not even for rape, incest or life of the mother. He has an A+ rating from Pro-Life America, and a 100% lifetime rating from the National Right to Life Committee. His voting record on abortion/reproductive health can be accessed here.

He opposes even the most modest efforts to control the proliferation of firearms. He opposes both a renewal of the ban on assault weapons and a federal “Red Flag” law. He supports concealed carry and has voted against background checks for private sales. His voting record on gun issues can be accessed here.

Banks calls climate change a “liberal hoax,” and the Biden Administration’s environmental efforts “a war on energy.” The League of Conservation Voters gives him a 1% lifetime rating. His votes on the environment can be accessed here. 

When it comes to labor issues, Banks gets a zero rating from the AFL-CIO. In the Indiana legislature, he supported “Right to work” legislation (dubbed by labor as “Right to work for less.”) On vote after vote in Congress, he has voted against labor; a list of those votes can be seen here. 

He continues to oppose any expansion of healthcare coverage, and rejects medical science. He voted against the most recent expansion of Medicaid and supports legislation that would ban vaccine mandates. He has voted to repeal the ACA, and against legislation that would prevent insurers from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions.  A review of all of his healthcare votes is here.

Banks has voted repeatedly against efforts to fund research into the effects of marijuana. (Those anti-research votes track well with his “know nothing” approach to all issues.) Banks’ votes on issues related to pot are here.

He is an extremist on immigration. He supports finishing Trump’s wall, eliminating federal funding for sanctuary cities, and deporting “criminal illegal aliens.” He opposes legislation granting amnesty for any undocumented persons (presumably including children currently protected by DACA) and opposes any expansion of guest-worker programs.

Banks created the “anti-Woke” caucus in the House of Representatives and introduced legislation to outlaw any remaining affirmative action in college admissions. He has been dubbed “Focus on the Family’s Man in Washington.” He opposes all DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs. He has been especially vocal in his opposition to gay rights generally, and to trans children especially– in addition to his “Anti-Woke Caucus,” he has supported efforts to ban trans people from the military, prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports, and prevent medical personnel from treating children for gender dysphoria. He recently sponsored a particularly odious bill that would prevent agencies charged with placing children in foster homes from taking measures to see that gay and trans children not be placed with foster parents who have religious objections to homosexuality, saying that refusal to place those children in such homes was discrimination against religion.

Banks consistently attacks educational institutions of all kinds. He has vowed to investigate the National Association of Independent Schools, focusing on the group’s role in political advocacy and its tax-exempt status. He has threatened to “expose” what he calls “widespread political indoctrination” in America’s public schools, and has claimed that lawmakers have a “moral duty” to investigate the use of academic accreditation associations as “political tools by leftist ideologues.”

When Banks was in the Indiana legislature, he voted to allow instruction in creationism and enthusiastically supported the educational vouchers that send tax dollars to private, overwhelmingly religious schools.

And of course, he’s described Trump’s felony convictions as “rigged,” posting on social media that “New York is a liberal sh*t hole.”

As I’ve previously written, having a Neanderthal like Banks in Congress is bad enough. Electing him Senator would be worse.

Republicans should be embarrassed by the whole statewide ticket. As this Republican says, Hoosiers should vote BLUE this year.

Comments