Random Blogging – Page 205

The Little (Activism) Engine that Could?

Thursday morning, I blogged about a new tool for activism being developed by one of my sons, a web designer and developer living in Manhattan. I explained the underlying premise of the site and how it will work; I also noted that its utility is dependent upon the currency and accuracy of the information it will convey–information that will have to be provided by organizations working to protect Americans’ rights (ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc.) and by volunteers in each state.

After describing various features of the site–including ease of use–I made the following pitch for volunteers.

My son plans to roll out a beta test in Indiana later this month. BUT—and this is a big BUT—the usefulness of the tool he has worked so hard to create absolutely depends upon the information it will contain. In Indiana, that means that people who are knowledgeable about bills filed in the General Assembly need to insure that information is included and current; people aware of upcoming “direct actions” need to convey that information via the site.

This tool is free to use. The site will never have advertising, it is not an “organization” that will fundraise. It will never share private information about its users. It is meant to be an added “outreach” mechanism for organizations like Hoosier Environmental Council, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU—among many others. We hope–and expect–that those organizations will share information through the Activism Engine as well as their own websites.

As I mentioned, the plan is to “beta test” the site in Indiana, to see how it works, solicit feedback, and to fix any bugs before taking it national.

If this “one-stop-shop” for activism is to work, however, it needs dedicated volunteers who will post the necessary information. If you are interested in being one of those volunteers, or at least finding out what is involved, Please go to this url and fill out the form: https://ae.stephensuess.com/

At last count, 157 people have signed up, and the volunteers keep coming. To say that this level of response–after one post to one small blog– is gratifying would be an understatement. It’s particularly significant, in my opinion, because it suggests that people aren’t just expressing negative opinions of Trump et al and then going back to their normal routines; it’s a sign that many of them really are willing to put time and effort into resisting the GOP’s incredibly destructive agenda.

My son is currently sorting the responses by what volunteers have signed up for, and everyone who has filled out one of the forms will receive an email from him shortly.

I just want to thank everyone who signed up, forwarded the information, or otherwise participated in the effort to prepare for the launch. Once the beta test “rolls out,” which should be very soon, I’ll let everyone know.

We can do this.

Comments

Rubber, Meet Road

In the wake of the election, a number of commenters to this blog—here and on Facebook—have asked a simple question: what can we do? How can Americans of good will mount an effective resistance to Trump and the Congressional Republicans?

It’s a question that has been asked on a number of other venues as well.

There is a big difference between sharing concern and disapproval on social media with friends who are likely to agree with us, and actually engaging in productive activism. A decision to make a genuine difference, deciding how to do that and actually following through is where the rubber meets the road, as the old saying goes. So it will be interesting to see who steps up to engage with the forthcoming “Activism Engine.”

Regular readers of this blog know that one of my sons lives in Manhattan, where he is a free-lance web designer and developer. Since the election, he has spent countless hours creating a website geared to people who want to make a difference, but have no idea how to start—people who are not “web savvy,” who have not necessarily been politically involved before.

The site is very simple to use: you can choose your state (or entire country, and eventually, your city), choose what most concerns you from a relatively short list of issues (the environment, reproductive rights, elections and voting rights, etc.), and see what legislation is pending in Congress and/or your state and what direct actions—marches, petitions, protests– are being planned by organizations focused on those issues. There is a place to keep track of your involvement, and even share it on social media if you are so inclined.

Perhaps the most impressive—and useful—part of the site allows you to effortlessly contact your elected officials. Put in your address, and a list comes up of everyone who represents you from your City-County Councilor to the President, with contact information including telephone numbers. No need to go elsewhere to find out who your congressman or state legislator is, no need to look up address or phone number.

As I mentioned, the plan is to “beta test” the site in Indiana, to see how it works, solicit feedback, and to fix any bugs before taking it national.

Be the rubber that meets the road.

Comments

Less Trust, More Conspiracy

“People say” was the way our embarrassing President-elect introduced bizarre conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or others who had offended him in some fashion.

No evidence. No factual basis. In most cases, no plausibility.

The question rational people asked–and still ask–is “why would anyone believe that?” Because clearly, many did. A recent report from Journalists’ Resource offered an answer, or at least the beginning of one.

President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, goes one common conspiracy theory. Another: George W. Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks and let them happen. Conspiracy theories can spread quickly in this era of social media, especially as people sort themselves into information silos, only sharing information with the like-minded. During the 2016 presidential election one candidate frequently leveled charges against his opponent with little evidence, sometimes framing them with the noncommittal phrase “people say.” He won.

A 2009 paper defines conspiracy theories as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role.” Other researchers add that conspiracies often allege the illegal usurpation of political or economic power.

The authors of a 2014 paper found “over half of the American population consistently endorse some kind of conspiratorial narrative about a current political event or phenomenon.”

A number of studies have found that politically active people–especially conservatives with deeply ideological commitments–embrace conspiracy theories that confirm their beliefs and paint their political opponents in a bad light. A new study builds on that previous research, and adds an important element: the absence of trust.

“Conspiracy Endorsements as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust,” published in the American Journal of Political Science in October, investigated the hypothesis that people endorse conspiracy theories to serve “both ideological and psychological needs.” They anticipated that people who endorse such theories would be “both highly knowledgeable about politics and lacking in trust.”

Miller and her team explain that people with deeper political knowledge are better equipped to make connections between abstract political ideas, that they are more likely to seek to protect their positions, and thus more likely to endorse “ideologically congruent” conspiracy theories – that is, theories that are consistent with their political positions.

People with a reasonable amount of trust in social and governmental institutions were far less motivated to accept such theories. The study’s authors asked approximately 2,200 Americans who self-identified as either liberal or conservative to consider eight conspiracies. Four were designed to appeal to conservatives and four to appeal to liberals (for example, respectively, Obama was not born in the U.S. and the Bush Administration knew about 9/11 before it happened). The authors also created a “trust index” based on how much the individuals trusted the federal government, law enforcement, media and the public to do what is right.

Here were some of their conclusions:

Conservatives are more likely to endorse ideologically congruent conspiracies than liberals.
Individuals with a high level of trust in institutions are less likely to endorse conspiracy theories.
Conservatives knowledgeable about politics are more likely to endorse ideologically congruent conspiracy theories. There is no evidence of a similar correlation among liberals.
Conservatives knowledgeable about politics who also have little trust in institutions are most associated with endorsement of ideologically consistent conspiracy theories: “Highly knowledgeable conservatives are more likely to engage in ideologically motivated endorsement, especially if they believe that the world is an untrustworthy place.”
For liberals, greater knowledge about politics and greater trust in institutions both appear to decrease their tendency to endorse conspiracy theories.

As I have previously noted, labels like “conservative” and “liberal” can be inexact. (I’ve been called both–and my own definition of both terms is probably different from that of many other people.) Furthermore, there is a demonstrable difference between principled conservatism and the sort of Tea Party and “alt-right light” individuals who call themselves conservatives these days.

That said, the study is illuminating.

Comments

There’s a Lesson Here…..

No politics today. Just some observations from a consumer, underlining the fact that–despite Americans’ reverence for “entrepreneurship” and the private sector– incompetence is just as prevalent there as elsewhere.

Over the past week, I have had three experiences with service providers. Two of them could learn a lot from the third.

Experience #1 was with the website of Thermador, a high-end manufacturer of kitchen appliances. My husband and I were in the market for a new range and refrigerator. Architects get discounts from some manufacturers –not large, but worth pursuing. In order to determine eligibility for the program, we were directed to the company’s website.

What followed would have made a great comedy sketch. The form we were instructed to complete read: Go to [URL] and click on the link for [X ]. Except there was no such link. Called the company; held for a considerable amount of time because (cough) they were “experiencing unusual call volume.” It turned out that the link didn’t show up if you were using Firefox as your browser. We changed to Safari and clicked; it appeared. We were then told to enter additional information–except, again, there was no visible place to enter it. Another call. The woman who answered said their website only works correctly if you use Chrome as your browser. (And no, nothing on the page said that.)

This is a national company. They manufacture pricey appliances, and could probably afford a competent web designer. Let’s just say I hope they pay more attention to their products than they do to their abysmal website.

Experience #2 involved another appliance. Our dishwasher began making awful noises. We called Epic Appliance Repair, a service we had used once a few years ago; they said to expect the repairman between 2 and 4. I rearranged my schedule and waited. When no one had come by 4:30–and no one had called to say there would be a delay–we called and were told it would be around 6:00 pm. No apology.

Six came and went. No repairman, no call. We called; the man who answered (again with no apology) said “let me check and get right back to you.” He didn’t. After a half-hour, we called again. No apology for not calling back, and no explanation. “We’ll be there at nine in the morning.” Right.

No one came at nine. Or ten. Or Eleven. No one answered their phone, and no one ever came or called. Needless to say, we called a different repair service– one that did come when they said.

Experience #3 was refreshingly different. I wanted my outdoor cushions cleaned before putting them away for the winter, and my regular dry cleaners can’t do those. I went online, found a service called Fire Dawgs, and–through their very user-friendly website, requested a time the next day. (I really expected they wouldn’t be able to come on such short notice, but I was wrong.) Within half an hour, I had a call confirming the time and cost, followed by an email reiterating the information and price.

Twenty minutes before the scheduled time, I got a text–and then a phone call–identifying the workman who was on his way, and giving me an estimate of how long it would take him to get from where he was to my house. He came promptly, cleaned the cushions, charged what I’d been quoted and left. I received an emailed receipt shortly after he left–and an email the next day thanking me for my patronage.

Guess who I’ll use again?

Guess who I won’t.

I’ll admit that I am flabbergasted by #1 and #2. You would think, in this day and age, that large national companies would understand the importance of a user-friendly website that works properly on all browsers. You’d think a company purporting to provide a repair SERVICE would understand that people have lives, and need to be informed when a schedule cannot be met. (You’d also think they might apologize for failing to do so or let you know they weren’t ever coming.)

You might also think they’d want positive reviews and maybe even repeat business…but evidently not. (Some of us do know how to post to Yelp.)

Tell me again how competition guarantees that the private sector will always be superior to those ineffectual government workers…

Comments

An “Existential Moment”

One of the political scientists whose work I follow is Thomas Mann. Mann, a Democrat, has received numerous awards during a distinguished career, but he may be best known for his collaborations with Norman Ornstein, who served in Republican administrations. Their book It’s Even Worse Than It Looks documented the radicalization of the Republican Party and received a good deal of publicity.

Mann has a recent commentary on the Brookings website, in which he characterizes the election of Donald Trump as an “existential moment” The lede sets out the nature and extent of that moment’s challenge:

His candidacy, campaign, victory and actions halfway through the transition to governing, heretofore unimaginable, pose a genuine threat to the well-being of our country and the sustainability of our democracy.

As I write, the immediate concerns are the president-elect’s reactions to the Russian cyber attacks on the Clinton campaign; his refusal to takes steps to deal responsibly with the massive conflicts of interest his businesses pose to his conduct of his presidency; his designation of a prominent white nationalist as his chief political strategist and a trio of unlikely appointees to lead the National Security Council team in the White House who appear to lack the personal qualities essential to their critical role; a breathtaking contempt for the media evidenced by his refusal to hold press conferences and his Orwellian reliance on tweets and rallies to communicate with the public; and an assemblage of Cabinet nominees characterized mostly (though not entirely) by their inexperience in public policy and their contempt for the missions of their departments.

In the remainder of the article, Mann considers whether our traditional checks and balances-the rule of law, a free press, an institutionally responsible Congress, a vigorous federal system, and a vibrant civil society–are healthy enough to provide the counterbalance that will be required. He is not sanguine about the rule of law.

Trump’s choice for Attorney General was rejected by the Senate for a federal judgeship because of racist comments and has a history as a prosecutor more interested in prosecuting African Americans for pursuing voting rights than those trying to suppress their votes. His White House Counsel was Tom DeLay’s ethics counsel and demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law as chair of the Federal Election Commission. The courts play an equally essential role. The egregious partisan politicization of judicial appointments, which reached a nadir with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s unprecedented refusal to even consider Merrick Garland’s nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy during the last year of President Obama’s tenure, has weakened the capacity of the courts to fulfill its responsibilities in the face of attacks on the fabric of our democracy.

The free press, as Mann notes and we all know, is in disarray (to put it as kindly as possible). We live in a “post-truth” media environment, surrounded by spin, propaganda and fake news. If the press is our watchdog, it has been de-fanged.

Congress? Mann points out that the “silence of Republican congressional leaders to the frequent abuses of democratic norms during the general election campaign and transition” has been deafening.

The risk of party loyalty trumping institutional responsibility naturally arises with unified party government during a time of extreme polarization. A devil’s bargain of accepting illiberal politics in return for radical policies appears to have been struck.

What about federalism? Can “states’ rights” be mobilized to constrain the incoming Trump Administration? Mann holds out some hope, but ultimately concludes

And yet the nationalization of elections and with it the rise of party-line voting has led to a majority of strong, unified Republican governments in the states, some of which have demonstrated little sympathy for the democratic rules of the game. For starters, think Kansas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. The latter has just pulled off the most outrageous power grab in recent history, designed to reduce sharply the authority of the newly elected Democratic governor before he takes office.

As many commenters on this blog have noted, and as Mann concludes, it really is up to us.

The final wall of defense against the erosion of democracy in America rests with civil society, the feature of our country Tocqueville was most impressed with. Community organizations, businesses, nonprofit organizations of all types, including think tanks that engage in fact-based policy analysis and embrace the democratic norms essential to the preservation of our way of life. The objective is not artificial bipartisan agreement, but forthright articulation of the importance of truth, the legitimacy of government and political opposition, and the nurturance of public support for the difficult work of governance. It is in this sector of American society in which citizens can organize, private-sector leaders can speak up in the face of abuses of public authority, and extreme, anti-democratic forces can be resisted.

I hope we’re up to the task.

Happy New Year….

Comments