Category Archives: Random Blogging

Who Do You Distrust?

In 2009, I wrote a book titled “Distrust, American Style.” The publisher’s blurb summed up its theme: “When people wake up every morning to a system that doesn’t respond to their efforts or accomodate their most basic needs, it should not be surprising that they don’t face the day with an abundance of trust.”

Declining trust has ominous implications for something that sociologists call social capital--the relationships among members of society that facilitate individual and/or collective action. The term refers to networks of human relationships that are characterized by reciprocity and trust. As one scholarly paper has put it, social capital is the lubricant that facilitates getting things done, that allows people to work together and benefit from social relationships. It is absolutely essential to the internal coherence of society– the “glue” that facilitates social and economic functioning.

It isn’t really necessary to understand the functioning and varieties of social capital to understand the importance of trust. Think about your daily activities: you drop your favorite sweater off at the cleaners, trusting that it will be returned–clean. You deposit your paycheck in your bank, trusting that the funds will be credited to your account and available to spend. You  pick up a prescription, trusting that the medication has been properly prepared and is safe. At the grocery, you trust that food you buy is safe to eat. You board a plane, trusting that it will not crash into another mid-air.

You get the picture. In the absence of trust, society and the economy cannot function. And an enormous amount of that trust is based upon effective and competent government regulation of banks, food processors and air traffic (among other things).

In my book, I examined the decline of social trust, and the theories being offered for that decline. Robert Putnam suggested that growing diversity had eroded interpersonal trust; my own research pointed to a different culprit: the prominent failures of religious,  business and governmental institutions. When I wrote the book, America was in the midst of widely-reported scandals: Enron and other major companies engaging in illegal activities, sports figures taking performance-enhancing drugs, the Catholic Church covering up priestly child molestation, and several others. We were just emerging from an Iraq war widely understood to have been waged on specious grounds.

My conclusion was that fish rot from the head–that when a citizenry is no longer able to trust its economic and governing and religious institutions–especially its governing institutions– that lack of trust threatens essential elements of social functioning.

In the years since, our entire environment has become rife with distrust. White Christian Nationalists suspect and reject most elements of modernity; we’re faced with the enormous gap between the rich and the rest (and evidence that not all the rich amassed those fortunes ethically or legally); we have a rogue judiciary, a castrated Congress, and most recently a federal coup by mentally-ill autocrats intent upon destroying the government agencies that have been most effective at earning citizens’ trust.

A recent Gallup Poll surveyed the trust landscape, to determine who we still trust–and who we don’t.

Three in four Americans consider nurses highly honest and ethical, making them the most trusted of 23 professions rated in Gallup’s annual measurement. Grade-school teachers rank second, with 61% viewing them highly, while military officers, pharmacists and medical doctors also earn high trust from majorities of Americans.

The least trusted professions, with more than half of U.S. adults saying their ethics are low or very low, are lobbyists, members of Congress and TV reporters.

Of the remaining occupations measured in the Dec. 2-18, 2024, poll, six (including police officers, clergy and judges) are viewed more positively than negatively by Americans, although with positive ratings not reaching the majority level. The other nine, notably including bankers, lawyers and business executives, are seen more negatively than positively, with  more than 50% rating their ethics low.

That poll was conducted before the takeover of our government by Trump and Musk, before the clearly illegal, unethical and untruthful activities that have–in Steve Bannon’s immortal words–“flooded the zone with shit.” Even before that assault, Gallup reported that there had been a serious long-term decline in Americans’ confidence in U.S. institutions. Trust in Judges, police and clergy has plummeted.

In that 2009 book, I wrote that the trustworthiness of business and nonprofit enterprises depends on the ability of government to play its essential role as “umpire,’ impartially applying and reliably enforcing the rules. When government is not trustworthy, when citizens cannot rely on the Food and Drug Administration, the FAA or the Social Security Administration, among others, trust and social capital decline.

We’re back to Hobbes’ state of nature.

Comments

When They Decline To Face The Music

The Trump/Musk administration has been in power for a mere two months, and during that time we’ve been treated to a firehose of destruction and illegality. Two months isn’t much time for people to begin recognizing the threats to their lives, their finances and their wellbeing posed by these insane incursions. Most people have busy daily lives–family to care for, jobs to do, obligations to meet….the would-be autocrats wreaking havoc with our lives have undoubtedly been counting on those distractions to delay resistance to their wrecking ball.

Meanwhile, the GOP cowards in Congress who have obediently bent the knee to those autocrats have decided to avoid face-to-face confrontations with We the People who elected them. However, as awareness and resistance have gained momentum, local organizations have decided to hold Town Halls anyway.

Hoosiers4Democracy and Central Indiana Indivisible will each hold an “empty chair” Town Hall at Broadway Methodist Church during the Congressional Recess.

Indivisible of Central Indiana has tried for the past few weeks to obtain an agreement from Senator Young to attend a Town Hall– without success. Accordingly, that organization will hold an “Empty Chair” Town Hall on Wednesday, March 19th, at Broadway United Methodist Church. Hoosiers will be able to address an empty chair (an emptiness that will signify not only Senator Young’s unwillingness to face his constituents, but the appalling emptiness/non-existence of his backbone in the face of Trump’s assaults on constitutional governance.) That event will also feature brief introductory presentations on the dire consequences of various elements of the Trump/Musk assault. (Yours truly will address the constitutional issues–others will explain assaults on Medicaid, etc.)

The Indivisible Town Hall will be held from 6:00 to 8:00, and registration will be required (they anticipate a large turnout, and while the sanctuary is spacious, space is still limited). You can access the Mobilize link here to register.

Hoosiers 4 Democracy will sponsor the second of those events. Here is the information provided by H4D:

Congress will be in recess from March 15-23, when representatives typically return home to engage with constituents. However, despite our repeated efforts, we have not received confirmation of any town halls hosted by Senators Jim Banks or Todd Young.  There is a possibility that Representative Victoria Spartz will hold an event in Muncie, but that has not been confirmed.

Meanwhile, the Braun administration has aligned itself with the Trump/Vance/Musk agenda, further jeopardizing our democracy. Now, more than ever, people must have a space to connect, share their experiences, and send a clear message to our leaders: their actions and policies are harming our lives and livelihoods.

To ensure our voices are heard, we are hosting a People’s Town Hall—a space for community members to come together, share their stories and concerns, and collectively demand accountability from our state and national representatives.

📅 Date: Saturday, March 22
🕛 Time: 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM
📍 Location: Broadway United Methodist Church, 609 E. 29th Street, Indianapolis.

If any of you reading this wants flyers to promote the event, you can access them here.

Kudos to Broadway United Methodist Church for demonstrating that there are actual Christians–not just White Christian Nationalists– in Indiana. I hope those of you reading this will attend one or both of these events. I certainly intend to participate in both.

I know that this blog is an example of “preaching to the choir,” but sometimes, the choir needs to be reminded to sing…

Comments

Makes Me Proud To Be A Lawyer!

Okay, a recovering lawyer…but still.

One of the worst aspects of this traitorous and criminal administration has been its willingness to spit in the eye of those who believe in and support the rule of law. After a period of stunned silence, lawyers who have retained their integrity have begun to respond. 

Above the Law has reported on a lawsuit that–as it says–“Drags the Trump Administratiion to Hell.” I am going to quote liberally from the complaint filed by Williams Connolly on behalf of another law firm–Perkins Coie–because I cannot improve on its language. Trump had issued one of his insane “Executive Orders,” purportedly stripping Perkins Coie lawyers of security clearances, and terminating government contracts with the firm.

From the Complaint:

The Order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice. Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients. Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly. The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients—and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all—are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied. The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.

The document notes that the Order’s “peculiar title” demonstrates that its purpose isn’t executive. “Rather, the Order reflects a purpose that is judicial—to adjudicate whether a handful of lawyers at Perkins Coie LLP engaged in misconduct in the course of litigation and then to punish them.” The purpose is, rather clearly, to deter law firms from representing clients antagonistic to Trump.

Above the Law judges the following lengthy paragraph to be the hardest-hitting:

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.

It isn’t just the lawyers.

While the legal profession takes to the courts, other Americans possessing specialized expertise are using that expertise on behalf of the resistance. Heather Cox Richardson recently reported on three recent outages of X, spanning more than six hours. She cited the former head of the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Center, who said that the outages appear to have been an attack called a “distributed denial of service,” attack– “an old technique in which hackers flood a server to prevent authentic users from reaching a website.” He added that he couldn’t “think of a company of the size and standing internationally of X that’s fallen over to a DDoS attack for a very long time,” adding that the outage “doesn’t reflect well on their cyber security.” (Musk, of course, blamed hackers in Ukraine for the outages, an accusation Martin called “pretty much garbage.”)

I think the resistance is just getting started…

Comments

A Functional Media?

Research strongly suggests that Americans are split between an informed electorate and those delicately referred to as “low information voters” (also known as “MAGA”). As I’ve pointed out repeatedly on this blog, our current information environment reinforces misinformation and disinformation, catering to those who simply want their prejudices confirmed. The Internet has proved to be a warm and fuzzy place for those whose “research” is confined to searches for confirmation of their pre-existing biases.

That reality allows Trump to engage in fact-free bloviating–also known as lies–secure in the knowledge that a multitude of propaganda sites will obediently echo them, no matter how ridiculous or easily and repeatedly debunked.

A recent essay from the Bulwark posits that today’s media falls into roughly three categories:

There’s the state media—Fox, Newsmax, the Federalist, HughHewitt.com—which have become pure propaganda outlets.

There’s the “neutral” media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, CNN—which believe that politics should be covered as a sport with reports about who’s up and who’s down. Extraordinary efforts are made by these institutions to present both sides of every question, even if it means presenting the case for illiberalism or platforming people who the media orgs know are lying to their audience.

Finally, there’s pro-democracy media—outlets which understand that America is experiencing an ongoing authoritarian attempt and that they must stand on the side of small-l liberalism.

The author believes that maintaining these categories is unsustainable-that the three spheres will soon “collapse into just two: Media organizations that oppose authoritarianism and media organizations that accept it.” He quoted an editorial from a technical publication–Techdirt— which recently made a surprising announcement:

Over the last few weeks, I’ve had a few people reach out about our coverage these days . . . [and about] how much we were leaning into covering “politics.”

When the very institutions that made American innovation possible are being systematically dismantled, it’s not a “political” story anymore. It’s a story about whether the environment that enabled all the other stories we cover will continue to exist. . . .

We’re going to keep covering this story because, frankly, it’s the only story that matters right now, and one that not everyone manages to see clearly. The political press may not understand what’s happening (or may be too afraid to say it out loud), but those of us who’ve spent decades studying how technology and power interact? We see it and we can’t look away.

So, here’s the bottom line: when WaPo’s opinion pages are being gutted and tech CEOs are seeking pre-approval from authoritarians, the line between “tech coverage” and “saving democracy” has basically disappeared. It’s all the same thing.

Digital illiterate that I am, I had never heard of Techdirt. But the quoted language confirms something that most political scientists know instinctively: at base, everything is politics. The people who refuse to follow the news of what government is doing, who claim that they “aren’t political,” are kidding themselves.

When the federal government stops funding cancer research, when Social Security checks fail to appear in a timely manner, when government operatives are erasing efforts to counter discrimination (or, as they currently are, reinstating discriminatory messages and behaviors)–when federal officials are telling states to handle their own fires and floods, and threatening your employees with deportation, when insane policies are threatening to tank the economy and erode your retirement–it is no longer possible to tell yourself that “politics” is irrelevant to your life.

The article suggests that tech outlets are among the first to speak out because “they have specialized knowledge—and because they don’t have relationships with people in politics to tend to.”  They are able to see clearly what is happening and willing to speak out against it.

We have seen the exact same thing with some specialized legal publications. Lawfare and JustSecurity.org were once destination sites for law nerds. Today they have become two of the most essential media organizations in America.

Why? Because since these people specialize in the law they know exactly how serious Trump’s attack on the rule of law is—and how dangerous it is.

Like Techdirt and Wired, serious people in the legal space are being radicalized—democracy pilled?—because they understand that this isn’t a game and that the liberal press does not have an obligation to present illiberalism as a point of view worthy of consideration.

The people in pro-democracy media understand that liberalism has a moral obligation to take its own side.

“Fair and Balanced” was never accurate, because “balance” by its very nature/definition cannot be accurate. And stenography–he said/she said–isn’t journalism.

Comments

When People Have No Idea what They’re Doing

Simon Rosenberg recently explained what even minimally-informed people know: mass deportation–if it occurs– will raise prices for Americans, disrupt businesses and slow growth. (Of course, growth is already tanking as a result of Trump’s on-and-off tariffs. When even the Wall Street Journal calls a GOP economic policy “stupid,” you can pretty much assume widespread agreement among people who can spell “economics.”) Rosenberg noted that even the threat of deportations is having its effect; victims of crime and witnesses aren’t showing up for court dates because they are afraid ICE will seize them. “That means cases can’t be prosecuted and that means criminals stay free to commit more crimes. Party of law and order my sweet Aunt Annie.”

Speaking of “law and order,” there are reports that the administration is considering a pardon for Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd on camera. Such a pardon would be further evidence of the GOP effort to return the U.S. to the days of Jim Crow.

Let’s be candid. The daily havoc being applauded by Trump supporters demonstrates the profound ignorance of the MAGA cult–as does their rejection of expertise as “elitist,” and their inability to recognize the all-too-obvious effects of Trump/Musk actions.

Research confirms that the polarization that characterizes our politics is largely between the informed and uninformed. (For confirmation, you can review the occasional comment from trolls on this blog.) 

The monumental ignorance shown by those cheering Trump and Vance’s thuggish behavior toward Ukraine is a perfect example. In a recent post to The Bulwark, Jonathan Last wrote.

Donald Trump and Republicans explain their worldview by calling it “America First.” That’s a lie.

American foreign policy has always put America first. That’s what nations do. It’s axiomatic. Why did the United States do Lend-Lease with Britain before we entered World War II and bankroll the Marshall Plan afterwards? Why did we airlift supplies into West Berlin? Why did we spend trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons that have never been used? Why do we police the global shipping lanes and ensure stability in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East?

It’s not because we’re nice.

It’s because these actions further our interests. They make America safer and wealthier. They check the rise of rival powers. They put America first.

I urge you to read Last’s entire essay–especially his explanation of “Pax America.”  As he writes, for 75 years after the Second World War, the U.S. was the dominant global power. No country, anywhere on earth, could act without considering our interests.

The relationships in NATO, and among the Five Eyes, and with America’s other really close allies—Japan, South Korea—aren’t merely military agreements. They’re kinships. They transcend peace and war; they’re diplomatic, political, cultural, and economic.

Again: This is leverage. It means that when we go to war, we bring a huge crew with us. Other countries are willing to expend resources, and even shed blood, to stay aligned with us. Even for a contentious war like Iraq, we got nearly 40 countries to participate in some way or another.

This makes things cheaper for us. The Soviet Union and China and Iran have to spend money to dominate and subjugate their clients. Our allies spend money on our behalf, pursuing our interests, because we have shaped them in our image.

As Last writes, no country has ever been more globally dominant–and that dominance has largely been a function of our wealth–our ability to spend money.

Here is the thing you must understand: America will win any contest determined by the ability to spend money.

Rightly understood, this is just another example of how America created rules to benefit ourselves: Of course the richest country in history would build a system in which it could exert influence on the global order by spending money: Because the ability to spend money is one of our key advantages.

And yet today’s “America First” class thinks that spending money in order to shape the world is some kind of weakness…

Why do we spend $10 billion a year fighting HIV/AIDS in foreign countries? I have to keep saying this: It’s not because we’re nice.

We spend that money in order to stabilize the global order. If AIDS runs wild in one country, that creates ripple effects. It destabilizes the local economy, risking political instability, which in turn risks regional instability. All of which poses some small danger to the established order which—QED—benefits America.

We spend that $10 billion to preserve the system that benefits us.

That’s what soft power is.

When people in charge are clueless about how the world works, the world no longer works for us. Thanks, MAGA….

Comments