Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

Words Fail

In a recent article titled “The New Rasputins,” , Anne Applebaum argued something I’ve long believed: the words “right” and “left” are not remotely accurate descriptors of the political world we currently inhabit. 

Believe it or not, I was long considered–and long considered myself–a conservative. During those years, the term was defined as someone concerned with fiscal prudence, respect for legal tradition and the rule of law, and for conserving the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Fidelity to what used to be seen as conservative principles now label me “progressive” or “liberal” or–for MAGA folks–a “commie.”

As Applebaum correctly noted, “left” and “right” are outmoded descriptors of today’s GOP and Democrats. The GOP is currently a White Christian Nationalist cult with a corporatist (crony capitalist) economic agenda. The Democratic Party has been left with a nearly-impossible-to-corral amalgam of Americans ranging from center-right conservatives and former Republican “never Trumpers” to actual Leftists. And everyone in-between. We are experiencing the downside of a two-party system–it cannot function properly when one party goes off the rails.

The current misuse of terminology matters, because when language loses its connection to reality, political life is threatened. Authoritarianism thrives when the words citizens use are insufficient to convey an accurate meaning. Worse, when terminology is not just inadequate but misleading, we fail to recognize the reality we inhabit and the nature of the threats we face.

Applebaum’s point was expanded upon by Jennifer Rubin in the new publication Contrarian (link unavailable). 

Contrarian contributor Ruth Ben-Ghiat has written: “[A]uthoritarians turn language into a weapon, as well as emptying key words in the political life of a nation such as patriotism, honor, and freedom of meaning. We are well on our way in America to what I call the ‘upside-down world of authoritarianism,’ where the rule of law gives way to rule by the lawless; where those who take our rights away and jail us pose as protectors of freedom; where the thugs who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6 are turned into patriots; and where ‘leadership requires killing people,’ as Tucker Carlson recently put it, justifying Vladimir Putin’s killing of Alexei Navalny.”

 

We cannot accept MAGA terminology. Since an “executive order” denotes a proper, legal exercise of power, that term should certainly not be applied to President Trump’s cascade of executive pronouncements (most over-reaching and unconstitutional, others just meaningless). They may be “edicts” or ‘bogus decrees,” as historian Jonathan Alter noted in our recent Talking Feds podcast. But they do not dignify the term “executive order.”

“Pro-life,” is another example, in that it no way defines a movement that supports forced birth laws that kill women and have increased infant mortality. In the abortion arena, the right-wing comes up with non-words like “post-birth abortion”)to express fantastical charges. And while we are at it, “abortion ban” is not nearly descriptive enough. Laws robbing women of bodily autonomy and forcing them to go to term with a pregnancy should properly be called “forced birth.”

For years, the culture warriors of the GOP have used coded and inaccurate language to hide their true identity, which is anything but conservative. It is radical and reactionary, irredeemably racist and misogynistic. To label these people “conservative” is to deprive that term of all meaning.

Those of us who are appalled and terrified by the coming administration are constantly asking ourselves: “What can I do?” At the recent Hoosiers 4 Democracy rally, the “call to action” identified a number of organizations we can join and/or support. But there’s one thing everyone can do–even people unable to volunteer or donate: we can refuse to use inaccurate language. We can call fascism what it is.

And it sure isn’t “conservative.”

 
Comments

The Public Interest

One of the newsletters I get is In the Public Interest. The most recent one considered the lessons the Los Angeles fires ought to teach us. Don Cohen wrote something so compelling–and so true–that I am quoting it verbatim and at length:

The fires put into stark relief the principles that underlie our work: There are things that government must do and which only government can do. It is the public acting in the public interest.

The more than 7,500 fire fighters and emergency personnel from across the country who have been working around the clock battling these blazes are public employees. They are the ones heading toward the flames when everyone is fleeing. More than 1,000 incarcerated individuals who have volunteered to join emergency crews for 24-hour shifts for about $26 a day are also fighting the fires—our gratitude for their efforts shouldn’t dismiss the deep concerns we have about the program and policies that lead to it.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is, as its title states, a federal agency. It’s what we created that shows that we are all equally invested in handling the aftermath of emergencies, whether we live in hurricane alley, or the path of wildfires. FEMA is already helping, providing the wide range of emergency services that no private, for-profit entity can afford to do. And yet it’s been the subject of constant criticism and misinformation from the right. FEMA currently covers 75 percent of the cost of a national emergency; Project 2025 proposes reducing that to 25 percent.

And, yes, climate change is part of the reason for the severity and spread of the fire, and scrubbing the phrase from the statements of federal agencies, as conservatives have advocated, or calling it a hoax, won’t change the facts.

The fires underscore that land development and water management are not concerns that can be simply left to the market. The market maximizes profit in the shortest time frame. That is not what will build a sustainable Los Angeles of the 21st Century. The future of cities and the entire nation shouldn’t be left up to billionaires, like the one who hired private firefighters to keep his own shopping center safe, and then launched his mayoral campaign.

To say these things doesn’t “politicize” the crisis—the politics are already there. We are always in a fight for what we believe our responsibility is to one another in our communities and in society at large. That fight will get harder, no doubt, as conservatives pledge to drain government of its ability to act broadly for the common good. But we also have faith that more and more people will come to understand the importance of a government that works for us all, not just the very wealthy.

One of the saddest aspects of America’s current political divide is the widespread lack of understanding of the role–the purpose–of government.  (I used to ask my undergraduate Law and Policy students to define “government” and its purpose. Most could not do so.) 

A proper definition is critical, because political philosophy defines legitimacy as government acting in a manner consistent with its proper purposes.

There’s widespread agreement that government is supposed to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, although the extent of that task is contested. Americans mostly agree, for example, that government should prevent obvious harms–theft, battery, murder, rape, etc. etc.–but that agreement dissipates when corporate activities harm smaller enterprises through monopolies or harm communities through improper disposal of toxic waste materials or other unfair commercial practices. 

There is even less agreement when it comes to government’s role in the economy. Ideally–as the cited material suggests–government is our instrument for providing services the market cannot supply or cannot supply in a cost-effective manner. We socialize those services: police and fire departments, provision of roads and bridges and street lights, etc. There are large parts of our common lives that markets are simply unsuited to serve– and situations where leaving a service to the market is unnecessarily expensive and wildly unfair (health) or undermines national cohesion and civic unity (education). 

The basic economic questions all societies must answer are: what sorts of tasks should be done collectively, by the mechanism called government, and which tasks are better left to the marketplace? How much authority should government have to monitor and regulate that marketplace, and for what purposes?

These days, to the dismay of citizens and political scientists alike, we must grapple instead with a different question: what should citizens do when those in power refuse to debate those questions in good faith, and simply use government to empower and enrich themselves?

Comments

Republican Lemmings

Lemmings are small rodents living in the Northern Hemisphere, primarily in the Arctic. They are known for large migrations– but mostly for a myth of their mass suicides, as large numbers follow their leaders off cliffs.

Today’s GOP is filled with the human variety of lemmings. We saw them emerge during the pandemic, as anti-science hysteria led to the rejection of mask wearing and vaccination.  Even after the pandemic, vaccination rates have continued to fall–and that decline has followed a partisan pattern.

There are two ways people can avoid vaccination. Families can get a religious or medical exemption from state laws requiring childhood vaccinations in order to send their children to public school. Or adults can simply fail to take advantage of vaccine availability. In states that voted for Donald Trump, the number of children receiving exemptions has increased.  Adult noncompliance rose in both blue and red states, but more in red states. 

Although states, not the federal government, set vaccine mandates, the incoming administration could encourage anti-vaccine sentiment and undermine state programs. Trump’s nominee RFK, Jr. would absolutely do so. He dismisses out of hand any studies that refute his beliefs. As the linked article notes,

He claims that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism, despite more than a dozen studies performed in seven countries on three continents involving thousands of children showing that it doesn’t.

He has claimed that “there is no vaccine that is safe and effective.” (Childhood vaccines have prevented more than one million deaths and 32 million hospitalizations over the past three decades.) He has encouraged people not to vaccinate their babies: “I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby, I say to him, ‘Better not get him vaccinated.’”

When asked about the polio vaccine, Mr. Kennedy claimed that it caused an “explosion in soft tissue cancers” that killed “many, many, many, many, many more people than polio ever did.” Setting aside the fact that an “explosion in soft tissue cancers” hasn’t occurred, studies comparing children who received early batches of polio vaccines with unvaccinated children found no differences in cancer incidence. By 1979, paralytic polio was eliminated from the United States. When Mr. Kennedy says he wants vaccines to be better studied, what he really seems to be saying is he wants studies that confirm his fixed, immutable, science-resistant beliefs. 

The author of the article, a doctor who previously served at the FDA, explained that the panel authorizing vaccines is composed of actual “skeptics,” who require significant evidence of efficacy before approving them.

Vaccine skepticism is baked into the systems with which health experts monitor vaccines after they’re authorized for use. We know that clinical trials are not enough; we need to constantly ask questions and examine new data. That’s why we have surveillance systems that can detect problems too rare to be picked up in clinical trials. 

That ongoing surveillance allowed the FDA to discover that the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine caused dangerous clotting in about one in 250,000 people.

Detecting such risks allows us to weigh these rare harms against the enormous benefits of these vaccines.

Mr. Kennedy, on the other hand, has claimed that the Covid-19 vaccines, which have saved the lives of at least three million Americans, are “the deadliest vaccine ever made.”

Kennedy routinely misrepresents studies he cites and ignores data that doesn’t support his conclusions. And this is the person that Donald Trump has nominated to be Secretary of Health, presumably as a reward for Kennedy’s political support. 

In one sense, the nomination of JFK, Jr. is no different from Trump’s other choices, none of which have been even slightly based on the suitability of the nominee. Trump rather obviously sees these positions as rewards for loyalty–I rather doubt the notion of qualification has ever occurred to him. (After all, he himself is massively unqualified for the Presidency.–or for that matter, any responsible position.)

All of which brings us back to the issue of those Republican lemmings. At this point, it is more likely than not that this parade of clowns, misfits and ideologues will be confirmed by a Senate controlled by Republican invertebrates who value their own immediate political prospects far–far–above concerns for government competence and/or the common good. (And yes, Indiana’s Todd Young is one of them.)

 It isn’t very nice to point this out, but people who take Kennedy’s anti-vaccine delusions seriously are overwhelmingly MAGA crazies and Christian Nationalists, so–on the bright side– we might see a decline in the number who will survive to vote for GOP troglodytes. 

Meanwhile, sane Americans will watch as the lemmings go over the cliff. Unfortunately, they’ll take rational governance with them.

Comments

Buying Political Office

Americans are about to experience the political results of our new Gilded Age. After some forty plus years of growing financial inequality–where the gap between the rich and the rest has steadily grown–we have inaugurated a government by and for the obscenely rich.

As Heather Cox Richardson recently noted, Elon Musk is expected to have an office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Musk–who benefits from government contracts worth billions of dollars–will be in an office adjacent to the White House. (Whatever happened to that old-fashioned notion about the necessity of avoiding conflicts of interest?)

It isn’t just Musk. Other members of the world’s richest men’s club flanked Musk on the dais at Trump’s inauguration. They reportedly included Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and Meta chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg, who are worth almost a trillion dollars combined, were joined by other obscenely rich panderers: the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman; the CEO of the social media platform TikTok, Shou Zi Chew; and the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai.

During his confirmation hearing, the billionaire nominee Trump has chosen for Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, outlined his plans to enrich the rich (and screw over the poor) during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, telling committee members that extending Trump’s tax cuts for the rich would be his highest priority.

Trump has assembled a cabinet notable for the wealth of his nominees (and equally notable for their lack of relevant knowledge and experience), but as the Brookings Institution has recently pointed out, American governance by the rich rather than the competent has grown significantly at all levels.

The linked study documented three major conclusions, of which only the last is at all comforting:

Altogether, across four election cycles from 2018 to 2024 there were 183 candidates who contributed more than $1 million of personal money to their campaigns.

Republicans constituted 68% of all candidates contributing more than a million to their campaigns.

Most rich people who spend personal money on campaigns lose.

The study’s introductory paragraph asked the pertinent question.

The richest man in the world now sits close to the President elect and uses his powerful social media platform, X, to opine on everything from daylight savings time to visas for skilled workers. As the new administration takes shape, the number of multi-millionaires and billionaires moving to Washington grows. While this is good for Washington area real estate agents, is it good for democracy? Will someone who earns $14 million per day be able to appreciate how important $1,976.00 (the average monthly social security payment) is to millions of Americans?

The obvious answer to the question posed by that last sentence is no. The Brookings article cited a previous study that looked at the political priorities of the rich.

In 2013, three political scientists studied the political views of over 100 rich Americans, whose median wealth was $7,500,000.00. They found large differences between the policy preferences of the rich compared to average Americans. 

Ya think?

Every so often, I cite a musical lyric that seems (at least to me) to illuminate a current political issue. Here’s one: the flower girl in My Fair Lady sings that all she wants is a “room somewhere, far away from the cold night air”–somewhere where she can have “warm hands, warm face, warm feet.” There are far too many Americans who fall into that category–people struggling every day to find lodging or keep the heat on and the car running and the baby fed.

I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that Elon Musk and his fellow billionaires have absolutely no understanding of those struggles, no comprehension of the choices facing millions of America’s working poor–and rather clearly, no sympathy for them.

There are certainly wealthy individuals who do understand that their own ability to thrive depends upon a government that supports an economically stable middle class–who understand that job creation depends upon the existence of a public with enough disposable income to buy their widgets, rather than on the whim of an “entrepreneur” waving a magic wand. Those individuals didn’t share the dias with the fat-cat, self-satisfied billionaires who will have effective control of America’s government and who are interested only in amassing greater wealth and power. Trump’s billionaire toadies have evidenced zero understanding of the purpose of government and no interest whatsoever in the notion of the common good. 

President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, and he was right. President Biden warned us about the coming oligarchy, and he was also right.

Between the White Christian Nationalists and the oligarchs, the next few years will be…challenging. To say the least. 

Comments

The Emerging Battles

Important notice: Due to the cold, the rally today has been moved to Broadway United Methodist Church, 609 E 29th St, Indianapolis. Indoors.

Today, to our great national shame, America will inaugurate our first felon President.

The fact that he’s a felon isn’t even the worst part of this disaster. Trump lacks a single redeeming characteristic–he’s ignorant, intellectually stunted, deeply disturbed and descending visibly into senility. That a (bare) majority of voters chose to place this specimen in the Oval Office may be the all-time saddest commentary on America’s current descent into White Christian Nationalism.

So what can we expect from the collection of grifters, racists and sycophants who will fill the upcoming administration?

I know my posts lately are rarely optimistic, but I think there may be cause–not for optimism, exactly, but reasons to moderate our pessimism. Because MAGA is more likely than not to eat its own. It isn’t just the nutcases in the House of Representatives, who will make it difficult for the GOP’s very thin majority (a majority that owes its status to gerrymandering, not voter sentiment) to pass anything. It’s the fault-lines between Trump’s White Nationalist MAGA base and the uber-wealthy grifters who see him as a tool to evade pesky regulations and fair taxes.

That fight has already started. As Jonathan Last reported in the Daily Beast, Steve Bannon has unleashed on Elon Musk:

“I will have Elon Musk run out of here by Inauguration Day,” Bannon told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera this week. “He will not have a blue pass to the White House, he will not have full access to the White House, he will be like any other person.”

“He is a truly evil guy, a very bad guy. I made it my personal thing to take this guy down,” Bannon added.

Bannon focused on the recent fight over H-1B visas, and an immigration system he claimed is “gamed by the tech overlords.”  He claimed that 76 percent of engineers working in Silicon Valley are non-Americans.

Bannon went on to accuse Musk of being self-serving, insisting that his “sole objective is to become a trillionaire.”

“He will do anything to make sure that any one of his companies is protected or has a better deal or he makes more money. His aggregation of wealth, and then—through wealth—power: that’s what he’s focused on,” Bannon said.
Bannon went on to describe Musk’s preferred objective as “techno-feudalism.”

Bannon is not the only MAGA person issuing broadsides against the tech bros:

This isn’t a one-off. Bannon has hated Musk for a long time. And the fight between OG MAGA and Elon MAGA started with Laura Loomer, who launched her own jihad against Musk over the holidays. You can listen to Loomer here but if you don’t want to click, after calling Musk a “welfare queen,” she went on to indict the entire MAGA oligarch class:

“If you have a bunch of tech bros with billions of dollars and direct unfettered access to the vice president and the president of the United States, and then they are also very cordial with our adversaries as in China and Iran—we see that Elon Musk is having these meetings off the books with Iranian officials, with Chinese officials—what does that mean for us?”

If the split among Trumpers was limited to the anger over H-1B visas, that would be one thing, but it isn’t. It’s relatively easy for a party to seem united when it’s in opposition, but once in power, conflicting interests collide and political realities exert pressure, and Trump supporters have distinctly conflicting interests.

Here’s my almost-rosy analysis.

Today’s Republican Party is a White Nationalist cult. What keeps them (barely) cohesive is the cult leader. Donald Trump is the Jim Jones of today’s GOP. Unlike most cult leaders, who rule with iron hands, his obvious disinterest in actual governing means he is less able to exert dominance over factions quarrelling over policy.

The greater danger to Republican power is that Trump is old, unhealthy and in obvious mental and physical decline. His belligerence has masked the extent of that decline, but it is statistically unlikely that he will live to “serve” a full four-year term–and when he’s gone (either drooling in a senility too obvious for even MAGA to ignore, or dead), the MAGA cult will implode.

If JD Vance becomes President, sharp knives will come out; even most Republicans detest him. More to the point, Trump is already demonstrating that he’s unable to exercise total control, and there is no new Jim Jones in the wings.

Until then, sane Americans need to do whatever we can to obstruct and delay MAGA’s efforts to undermine ethics, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Comments