Category Archives: Uncategorized

Thanksgiving

For the past couple of years, our family has gathered for our Thanksgiving meal on the Saturday following the “proper” Thursday; it allows those coming in from the coasts to get better airfares, and those with “other” families to split their time equitably among relatives. So–although there seems to be some sentiment for a return to the traditional day of celebration–yesterday was our big meal.

And big it was! 22 people around three tables. Two turkeys, and multiple dishes, many assigned to children and siblings in advance. (My sister always brings the sweet potatoes–our daughter brings veggies, my daughter-in-law’s usually stuck with appetizers.)

I know that Thanksgiving is an ordeal for many people, a time of enforced conviviality with seldom-seen relatives who pry or judge, disagree politically, are more or less religious or are otherwise less than pleasant. But the thing I’m most grateful for is a family that isn’t at all like that. Our family includes not just blood relatives, but long-time friends, and relatives of relatives. This year, we welcomed the parents of my nephew’s partner. (My sister and brother-in-law have decided that even if it doesn’t work out between Josh and Michael, they’re keeping Michael’s parents!) We had nephews from both coasts, cousins from Florida, a son from New York, all our children and all but one of our grandchildren (our oldest granddaughter lives in England–she was missed!)

I’m probably biased, but I think our Thanksgiving table(s) are a perfect reflection of America.

We have Jews, Protestants, Catholics,Buddhists and atheists. We have gays and straights. We have native-born Americans and immigrants.

What we don’t have any more, I realized yesterday, are Republicans. And that’s interesting, because fifteen years ago, most of the people at my Thanksgiving tables were Republican. My sister used to poll her neighborhood for her precinct committee person. My brother-in-law was showing some disquieting signs of imminent “Fox-afication.” My husband and I were still hanging in, believing–hoping–that the sharp-right tilt of the party we’d worked for so long was a temporary aberration. A couple of the kids had already deserted, and several of us were getting uneasy, but like so many others, we had deep, longstanding ties to the GOP. We were loyal.

On the other hand….

We would all describe ourselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We are all–every single one of us, whatever our religious beliefs, national origins or sexual orientations–pro-science. Pro-empirical evidence. Pro-diversity. Pro-reality.

And so here we were, this year, a now group composed entirely of Democrats and Independents. A group of people who favor reproductive choice and same-sex marriage, and worry about global climate change.

There’s a lesson for the GOP here, and I hope the party learns it. The country needs two credible political parties, and if our family is typical (and I think it is), we’ve pretty much lost one.

Comments

Exit, Stage Class-less

I understand what it is like to lose a hard-fought campaign. I’ve been there, done that. And candidly, I don’t think my concession speech, back in 1980, was a model of good sportsmanship, although I tried. So I’d be inclined to cut Romney a bit of slack for the tone of his after-the-fact ruminations.

A bit of slack, however, wouldn’t cover the graceless and defensive comments Romney reportedly made to a group of his donors during a conference call a couple of days after the election. While his actual concession speech was gracious (as my son said after hearing it, “If that Romney had run, he might have won!), these remarks underscored his contempt for  the “takers” he dismissed as mooches and worse in those widely-reported remarks about “47% of Americans.”

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.

”The president’s health care plan, he added, was also a useful tool in mobilizing African-American and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers — 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics voted to re-elect Mr. Obama.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,” he said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

Ah yes–those greedy, grasping poor people who want affordable health care! Those “takers” are so unlike us refined, genteel “makers” who simply want to keep our dollars  from being frittered away on public goods like clean air or highways or wasted on providing health care for the unwashed masses!

I know this is a favorite meme on the Right–the belief that people will vote for the party or person who promises them more “stuff.” Never mind those blue-collar culture warriors who reliably vote Republican because their opposition to  same-sex marriage or abortion is more important to them than their own economic well-being. And never mind the economically comfortable folks (like me and most of my friends) who willingly vote for higher tax rates that will cost us money because we believe a more equal country will be a better, healthier country.

I’m willing to support higher taxes for me, because I believe (with Henry Ford) that markets need consumers who are able to afford the goods and services those “makers” are selling. I’m also willing to pay more because I can read economic history, which shows pretty conclusively that the American economy was more–not less–robust when taxes were higher and the gap between rich and poor was not so immense.

Back in 1980, I lost an election because the voters preferred my opponent. It wasn’t because greedy or stupid or worthless people were unable to see past their own miserable selfishness to understand how wonderful I really was.

Mitt Romney lost this election for a number of reasons. The crazy wing of his party wouldn’t allow him to get real. On the stump, he projected all the charm of a robot. He was the master of the unforced error and gaffe. His campaign staff was inept, and his pollsters lived in an alternate universe. People like Akin and Mourdock kept reminding voters how crazy the right wing of the party has become.

Not to mention that voters not blinded by irrational animus to the President actually like him a lot, and believe he coped as well as could be expected after inheriting a next-to-impossible situation.

In short, there were plenty of reasons for Romney’s loss. Blaming that loss on “moochers” isn’t only inaccurate, it’s classless. But I guess class is one of those things money can’t buy.

Comments

The Urge to Demonize

One really unfortunate element of every election I can recall is the trashing of the opposing candidate. It’s easy to fall into the trap–I’ve found myself doing it on more than one occasion. I still recall, with some shame, expressing my low opinion of Larry Conrad during his run for Governor (youngsters reading this can google him). When I met Larry later, and worked on civic projects with him, I found him to be entirely admirable. Campaigns are notoriously bad at conveying the “real person,” and somehow, in the heat of battle, it’s not enough to disagree with a candidate’s policies or worldview. He or she must be a sub-optimal human as well.

I thought about this when I read a recent screed about President Obama, darkly suggesting–among other things–that his failure to release his Harvard grade transcript was probable evidence of substandard performance. (This is a pretty standard way of raising the issue of race–after all, aren’t all black people beneficiaries of affirmative action?)

I happened to attend an academic conference a few years ago where one of Obama’s professors shared his opinion that then-newly-minted Senator Obama was one of the best students he’d ever taught, and that he expected him to go far. Of course, it isn’t necessary to rely on a former instructor’s offhand comment–as any law school graduate knows, it takes superior grades to earn even a lowly position on a Law Review. Dummies simply don’t become Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review. They also don’t hold adjunct professorships at the intellectually rigorous University of Chicago Law School.

The problem with these sorts of gratuitous slurs is that they debase political debate. The liberals who questioned Romney’s business accomplishments were similarly out of line. I opposed Romney and Ryan not because I thought their experience and talents were exaggerated, but because I believed they drew dramatically wrong lessons from those experiences, and that their policies would be very damaging to the country. I also opposed their views on women’s rights and gay rights.

I have friends who opposed Obama because they wanted him to wage war against Iran, or were opposed to the Affordable Care Act or to progressive taxation (aka “redistribution”).  I find their positions illogical and wrongheaded, but entirely legitimate. More important, those are the sort of disagreements we need to discuss, they are the contending prescriptions campaigns should debate and defend–the kinds of arguments that can be illuminated by history and empirical evidence.

Accusing an officeholder of doing a bad job is fair. Accusing him of being a bad or substandard person simply because we dislike his policies or the “team” he plays for is not.

Such ad hominem attacks are an admission by those who level them that they can’t argue the merits of the issues.

Comments

Turnout and Citizenship

We had an interesting exchange in my Media and Policy class this past Thursday night. I team-teach that class with John Mutz, who–among his numerous other distinctions–served as Indiana’s Lt. Governor. Former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Ted Boehm and Common Cause policy director Julia Vaughn were guest speakers. So the discussion (about the impact of money in politics) was informed–and informative.

Julia noted that Indiana ranked next to last among the states in voter turnout, according to the recent Civic Health Index, and John challenged her statement that we should be embarrassed by that low level of participation, saying it didn’t bother him.

Should it bother us? This is one of those questions where the correct response is “it depends.”

If the folks who are blowing off the political process are low-information, low-interest voters, then I agree with John that it isn’t a problem. Why should the votes of the uninformed dilute the votes of those of us who take the process seriously? If you don’t know who you support and why, then you should stay home and let more thoughtful people participate.

On the other hand, if  low turnout is due to one or more of the following reasons, we have a different problem and we need to do something about it.

We should be embarrassed if

We’ve made voting too difficult. If we’ve restricted the number of polling places, and/or limited the hours those polls are open so that voting is inconvenient for people with jobs and family obligations and actual lives, shame on us. Ditto if we’re requiring all sorts of documentation that older, poorer folks are unlikely to have.

We’ve made politics too nasty. If all voters hear are 30-second attacks on the integrity, brains and general humanity of those running for office, research suggests those voters tend to turn it all off and stay home on election day. (Some candidates will actually engage in nasty campaigning in order to evoke the “pox on both your houses” response and thus suppress turnout, if they think a larger turnout would benefit their opponent.)

We’ve made the ballot too daunting and complicated. Remind me again why we are voting for coroner, treasurer, recorder and dog-catcher? Who beside the candidates really cares who serves on township advisory boards?

We’ve failed to “connect the dots” between government policies and the reality of our daily lives, allowing voters to believe that candidates are all fungible. (Hurricane Sandy is just one example of why policies matter: if disaster relief had been turned back to state and local governments, does anyone really believe the result would have been the same for those who desperately needed help? Instead of throwing mud at each other, candidates need to make the case that their preferred policies matter, and how.)

We’ve constructed a system in which many votes really don’t matter. This is the most depressing reason of all, because it’s true. Yes, my vote for state and local offices still matters, more or less, but increasingly–thanks to gerrymandering and winner-take-all allocation of Electoral College votes–my votes for President and many other offices really don’t. (In this year’s Presidential election, those Hoosiers who vote for Obama might just as well flush those votes down the nearest toilet; Romney will win the state and take all of Indiana’s electoral college votes–even if the win is only by a point or two. A couple of states allocate their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of the state’s popular vote–the constitution permits that–but Indiana and most others don’t.)

So–should we be embarrassed by our low turnout? Yes. If we institute changes that make voting more convenient, the ballot less daunting, the process less negative and/or fruitless and turnout is still low, then we can shrug it off and accuse the nonvoters among us of of poor citizenship. But not before.

Comments

The Best Choice

Yesterday, I received an email plea from a friend’s daughter. She asked that it be widely distributed, and it is worth sharing.

I am writing to you because I am very interested in who is elected as the next Governor for the State of Indiana, and with the election just one week away, I hope I have not waited too long to speak up.

I have been disappointed on a few occasions over the last several months to hear other Democrats talk less than enthusiastically about John Gregg – not because they don’t like him, not because they don’t think he would be a great leader, not because they think he would move Indiana in the wrong direction – but because he’s not liberal enough.

We all know where we live, right?  Of course he’s not liberal – we are in Indiana!!

Debating the qualities of our candidate is not helpful at this stage in the process!  That ship has sailed.  He IS the Democratic nominee for Governor and we need to do ALL WE CAN to make sure he gets elected.

Is he perfect?  I think he IS for Indiana.  We live in a very conservative state and he is a conservative DEMOCRAT.  But more than that, he is an intelligent, articulate leader with experience working WITH Republicans and Democrats to get things accomplished – like balancing budgets, investing in public education, etc.  He understands that governing is not about US versus THEM.  It’s about all of us WORKING TOGETHER to make Indiana a better place.

The alternative, I believe,  is frightening.

Please do not allow democrats to undermine John Gregg as the Democratic nominee for Governor by talking about how you wish he was different.  The stakes are too high.  He is what he is and he is ELECTABLE in Indiana.He’s gaining momentum and has a solid chance to win if we rally behind him and help to make sure Democrats get out and support him.  His campaign will work on convincing the Independents, Undecideds and moderate Republicans that he is the right choice for Indiana – and it’s working!

 Please go forth and elect John Gregg!

Amy’s plea touched a nerve with me. John Gregg is, indeed, more conservative than I am. But I have already voted for him, and I did so with enthusiasm. I have three reasons for that enthusiasm: John Gregg, Vi Simpson and Mike Pence.

John Gregg is not an ideologue. He understands the state, understands the legislative process, and is focused on the things that are really important, like jobs and economic development. Does he have some positions on social issues with which I disagree? Yes. Is he likely to take steps to advance those positions? No. Those policies are clearly not his priorities; furthermore, the Democratic base simply will not support measures to ban same-sex marriage or to outlaw abortion. Let’s be blunt: Gregg will not take positions that are at odds with those held by the majority of his own party. ( I always try to vote for people who owe allegiance to the least dangerous constituencies.)

If you have any doubts about where Gregg’s priorities will lie, just consider Vi Simpson. Gregg chose Vi to be the candidate for Lieutenant Governor. She is one of the smartest, most principled people serving in the Senate. A true culture warrior would not have chosen Vi as a running mate–and the fact that Gregg did select her was a clear message that we can trust him to avoid the divisive social issues that motivate and consume today’s Republican candidates.

And then there’s the best reason of all to vote for John Gregg.

Mike Pence.

Comments