Morning In America?

Remember Reagan’s “Morning in America”? I do–and it was the first phrase that came to mind when Kamala Harris and her just-announced choice for Vice-President, Tim Walz, appeared together at their first event, in Philadelphia.

The folks that the late Molly Ivins dubbed “the chattering class” have been almost uniformly enthusiastic about the choice of Walz, offering a wide number of reasons. I was excited and gratified by that choice for two rather different reasons: first, as a policy nerd (I know–you hadn’t noticed!), I especially love his strong support for public education. (I agree with most of his other policy positions too.). Second, he’s a mensch. Long before he entered politics, when he was still a high school coach, he sponsored his school’s first gay-straight alliance–understanding that having a straight, married, macho coach as a sponsor would send a strong anti-bullying message to those teens who might be inclined to pick on gay kids.

But what really has me pumped up is that both Harris and Walz are such happy warriors. They smile. They joke. They laugh. (Has anyone ever seen Donald Trump laugh? He snickers on occasion, but–unlike normal people– he never laughs. And his idea of “jokes” are almost always cruel put-downs of someone who has displeased him.)

The reason this new team and their joyous approach has made me so much more positive than I was a few weeks ago was perfectly described by Bill Kristol in a recent essay in the Bulwark. Kristol isn’t usually one of my favorite political pundits, but–as the saying goes–he hit this one out of the park.

As he noted, in their first appearance together, Harris and Walz were happy warriors.

I want to believe that being happy warriors is superior, not just morally and aesthetically but also practically and politically, to being sullen and resentful ones. We’ll see if that’s the case in the year 2024.

I’ll add that Harris, Walz, and Shapiro weren’t just happy warriors. They were distinctly hopeful and future-oriented ones.

Again, I want to believe that’s what most Americans want. That we want leaders who live in the present and will work to make America better in the future, not figures who scowl at the present and fear the future. And certainly not candidates who justify extraordinary mean-spiritedness in the name of an embittered nostalgia for an imaginary past.

To which I respond “Yes yes yes!!”

I am so very tired of the politics of nastiness and incivility, tired of the thundering diatribes of theocrats (aptly described as members of the Handmaid’s Tale faction of the GOP), of the insistence that America needs to return to the “verities” of a time that never existed except in the minds of unhappy White guys…I have to believe that most American voters are equally tired of living in the GOP’s gloomy, rancid, hate-filled fantasy world.

Kristol made another very important observation with which I entirely agree.

Finally, I was struck that the mood in Philadelphia was, if I can put it this way, all-American. Watching Shapiro and Walz and Harris—an Easterner and a Midwesterner and a Californian, men and women of such different backgrounds and religions and races—I thought: You know, this is America. 

It’s an unoriginal thought, to be sure. And as I thought it, an unoriginal—and for that matter an out of date and out of favor—phrase for some reason popped into my mind: the “melting pot.”

The image of the “melting pot” has never really described America. Many people have suggested better images—a mosaic, for instance—to capture American openness and pluralism and integration. Still, for some reason the phrase stuck in my mind.

In much the same way, images of that introductory gathering in Philadelphia made me think of “Morning in America.” Not the same morning that Reagan envisioned, rather obviously, but the dawning possibility that America might return to a politics  that celebrates the art of the possible– a politics of inclusion rather than exclusion, a politics that moves us, however incrementally, toward the vision of human equality outlined in the Declaration of Independence. 

A forward-looking politics.

Maybe the morning sun will even shine in Indiana……

Comments

Shaking Up Indiana

Among the many negative consequences of Republican gerrymandering in Indiana is one that is rarely considered: it has  isolated and largely disenfranchised Southern Indiana’s rural voters. I will readily admit that I hadn’t considered that effect; instead, I’ve been focused on the way urban districts have been carved up and wedded to surrounding suburban and rural areas in order to disenfranchise urban voters.

I’ve now been educated.

A regular reader of this blog sent me a press release about an effort called the Indiana Rural Summit, described as a “Nine-Candidate Supergroup Shaking up Southern Indiana Politics for the Better.”

These nine Democratic candidates for the Indiana House have banded together and are taking their demands for legislation  benefiting rural voters on the road.  The candidates are kicking off a six-stop “event tour” at Jasper’s Strassenfest.

As the release explains:

The Indiana Rural Summit, nine Democratic State House candidates from districts that
represent 24% of Indiana across 22 counties, are rallying around a unified message of hope for
Hoosiers: Rural communities and small towns can have better healthcare, schools, and jobs.
Turning disempowering gerrymandered districts into a secret superpower, they are uniting to
spread this hopeful message to thousands of rural voters, too often left without a choice on the
ballot for state representative due to unopposed races.

“We care about local issues, and our concerns are deeply rooted in our love of family,
community, and the beauty of our region,” says Ryan Still, Monroe County Rural Engagement
Deputy Director and organizer for the Indiana Rural Summit. “The continued policies of
extraction and exploitation from our legislature has left us behind and silenced. Our current state
representatives prioritize corporate lobbyists and outside influencers over Hoosiers. We want
legislators who understand our concerns and refuse to sell us out. We want a state that works
for all of us, not just the wealthy few. We all want to live in communities that thrive.”

The Strassenfest is an annual  parade in the town of Jasper, and the Rural Summit candidates will be joined by Gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick and Attorney General candidate Destiny Wells. (The release also promises a performance by “German band Hungry5.”)

“Most of our districts are rural or artificially rural due to gerrymandering, keeping rural voters
isolated, unheard, and desperately misunderstood. Rarely are these voters asked about their
vision for Indiana by those elected to represent them,” explains Michelle Higgs, Indiana Rural
Summit member running for HD 60. (Monroe/Morgan/Johnson Counties). “Rural voters need a
seat at the table.”

The Indiana Rural Summit is using the very cause that isolates communities to unite and give
rural voters both a voice and an option. Unifying gerrymandered districts that share county
overlap, these nine candidates are turning gerrymandering into a regional coalition fighting for
regional solutions to improve rural Hoosiers’ quality of life. These solutions include better access
to comprehensive healthcare, to jobs with livable wages and benefits, to safe and
affordable housing, and to quality public education.

The effort being mounted by the candidates in the Rural Summit is significant for several reasons. It is certainly a welcome sign of life for rural Democrats, but its importance extends far beyond partisan concerns. Participants in the Rural Summit are making a profoundly important point: gerrymandering deprives all citizens–not just urban residents– of adequate representation.

I have previously noted that gerrymandering is by far the most effective form of voter suppression. In districts drawn to be “safe” for one party or another, voters who prefer the “loser” party disproportionately fail to cast their ballots, assuming their votes won’t matter. (Ironically, if all those discouraged folks actually did cast ballots, some of those districts wouldn’t be safe.)

The Rural Summit candidates are focusing on another consequence of those gerrymandered “safe” districts– the people elected from them have no incentive to actually represent their constituents. They assume they will be elected (or re-elected) in any event. Instead, their incentives are to do the bidding of the party bosses–the political figures who hand out plum committee assignments and direct the distribution of campaign dollars received from the special interests that wield enormous influence at Indiana’s statehouse.

As the press release reminds us, Indiana has the lowest voter turnout in the nation. It also has a large slate of unopposed races– currently, 26 House seats are uncontested.

These two facts are connected: The Indiana General Assembly creates voter suppression and
apathy through gerrymandering and blocking ballot initiatives, so they can pass embarrassingly
bad legislation.

The Indiana Rural Summit wants to empower disheartened voters across 22 counties and get them to the polls. Their success would benefit all Hoosiers currently disenfranchised by our legislative overlords.

Comments

An Extra Message–And An Ask

Apologies for cluttering your in-boxes, but we have only three months until the election, and I wanted to share this important message from Hoosiers for Democracy– a grass-roots movement founded to combat voter lethargy and encourage turnout by Indiana’s Democrats.

Here’s the request I received last night. I hope you will consider making a donation. Even small amounts help!!

_______________________

Dear friends and colleagues,

Rachel, Barbara and I are thrilled about how Hoosiers for Democracy is growing and the impact it is having on educating voters as well as empowering them to act in service of preserving our hard won freedoms and resisting extremism. Our subscription list is growing, and we are expanding our network of allies across the state that help us amplify our message.  After we publish a post, we immediately get emails from campaign managers and other grass root movements asking us to be sure to include them in our next post in our “What You Can Do” section.  We are living proof that “all that rises must converge”.

We are contacting you today with an urgent request for support of a new initiative we have started focused on registering Indiana Gen Z voters, especially targeting districts that have been identified as flippable. We have 60 days to get this done.  We are emboldened by the new sense of hopefulness about the upcoming election, including the recent surge in excitement, donations, and volunteers in Indiana and across the country. Much of this surge is occurring among the younger voter population, but if past trends continue, Indiana likely still has a problem engaging younger voters. Despite some progress being made nationally towards increasing younger voter turnout in the 2020 general and 2022 midterm elections, data suggests that Hoosiers still have a lot of work to do in educating youth and young adults about the potential impacts of voting and civic engagement on their own futures and on the lives of future generations. We have decided to be a part of a solution to this issue. Our friend, colleague and expert on civic engagement, Dona Sapp, has joined with H4D in developing a targeted and strategic 60-day campaign to register young voters in Indiana.  This campaign is influenced by and in response to disheartening data:

  • Indiana voter participation is consistently among the lowest in the nation. In 2020, Indiana ranked 46th among all U.S. states for eligible voters of all ages who voted.
  • More specifically related to young voter participation, we ranked 44th for the percentage of eligible 18–24-year-olds who were registered to vote and 43rd for the percentage of 18–24-year-olds who voted in 2020.
  • Only 48 percent of eligible 18-24-year-olds in Indiana were registered to vote in 2020, and only 39 percent voted. In contrast, 87 percent of eligible 18–24-year-olds in New Jersey were registered, and 75 percent voted.

It is true that, historically, younger voters are less likely to vote in U.S. elections than other age groups, but this is particularly true in Indiana. There are many varied and valid reasons for this.  Experts tell us that young voters are passionate about issues that impact them, yet many are disillusioned with the democratic process. This is particularly true in black and multiracial communities and among young people who did not attend college.

Two more sobering and heartbreaking stats:

  • Among the 65 percent of registered Indiana voters who voted, Donald Trump received 1,729,519 million votes and Joe Biden received 1,242,416 million votes, a difference of approximately 487,000 votes.
  • An estimated 500,000+ eligible 18–24-year-old Hoosiers are not currently registered to vote. This means that younger voters, who often feel unheard and powerless to change anything, could have changed the result of the 2020 presidential election in Indiana through increased voter registration and participation

But the past two weeks have changed things.  Young people are engaged, and motivated and using their creativity and their culture to impact this election.  We need your help in making sure Indiana young people are registered to vote and get them to the ballot box!

Our 60-day Voting is Your Superpower Campaign is focused on registering eligible Gen Z voters.  Dona has designed iPhone stickers (this idea came from Senator Andrea Hunley when we pitched this idea to her), flyers, cards, yard signs, and t-shirts.  We are partnering with our allies including several Democratic party county/district managers and most of the Democratic candidates on the Indiana ballot to help us distribute the resources in strategic sites/venues across the state.  Our goal is to register 25,000 young people and get a pledge from each of them to register 5 of their peers. Additionally, we will invite volunteers in our next post to help us in statewide distribution. We have a great online form for easy registering and tracking recruits from our substack platform. The ‘swag’ includes a QR code for immediate voter registration.

We have volunteers and vendors at the ready, but we need your financial support.  We developed a budget for the materials and are asking for any support that you may be able to give so we can order these immediately and have them ready for distribution.  Based on how much we can raise in the immediate term, we will strategically order the resource we think will make the most impact for distribution.  Timing is of the essence.

We just got an email from Boone County Dems that they are ready to distribute at some key events and are spreading the word.

We are also in discussions with several campaign representatives in flippable districts who are excited to participate. Additionally, because of Dona’s extensive connections with Indiana schools, teachers and students from several of the high schools in the targeted districts have indicated their willingness to get to work on our campaign, including talking about voter registration in the morning announcements.  We have the organization, volunteers, tools and enthusiasm needed to make this campaign a big success. Now, we need the funding to put our plan into action and maximize the impact over the next 60 days.

If you can help, please reply to Deborah Asberry <debbie@debbieasberry.com>and let us know the amount that you are able to donate so we can monitor the progress.  If you know of another person who would be interested in helping us in this endeavor, please forward this information to them, but let us know whom you reached out to.  No amount is too small.  We trust we can immediately raise enough to get us started in printing and distributing.

Let’s do this!  Thank you in advance.

Debbie Asberry, Rachel Thelin, Babara Burke, & Dona Sapp

Yours in democracy,

Debbie, Rachel and Barbara

https://hoosiersfordemocracy.substack.com

Comments

What Is Merit?

You’ve got to give Trump “credit” for one thing: he publicly expresses all the most vile racist tropes embraced by the MAGA movement. His attack on Kamala Harris as a “DEI” candidate is on a par with his constant assertions that people of color are either criminals or bums (or “not the finest” people…). Too bad America doesn’t get more immigration from Norway…

One of the most persistent accusations that bigots like Trump level at efforts aimed at erasing the structural effects of decades of discrimination is that such efforts necessarily disregard merit–that attempts to diversify a workforce or a student body inevitably result in a less-effective workforce or a “dumbed down” classroom.

The problem with that accusation is that it rests on a deeply-held conviction that merit is something that “those people” obviously lack, rather than on an accurate understanding of what constitutes merit and how we measure it.

Persuasion recently featured an interview between Yascha Mounk and Simon Fanshawe on just that topic. Fanshawe does a good deal of diversity work rooted in the philosophies of John Stuart Mill and other Enlightenment figures, and Mounk asked him how his approach differs from other diversity efforts. Fanshowe responded that “diversity inclusion” is about trying to understand what people’s different experiences bring to joint enterprises.

What organizations or businesses really have is a bunch of strangers brought together to achieve a common objective, whether it’s making pizzas or teaching a course at university or putting a man or woman on the moon. And my proposition to them is that it’s through their differences, what they each differently bring to that task and its different components—that’s why diversity matters. And one further thing that I would say is that there’s a key difference when we think about this notion of diversity. We think about the deficits. In other words, you can look at data and you could look at where the imbalances are between different groups of people. But there’s another element of this which is the diversity dividend, and that’s what happens when you start to combine the differences. Diversity is absolutely a talent strategy if you’d like to achieve common objectives.

When Mounk questioned him about the widespread notion that diversity efforts necessarily downplay merit-based hiring, Fanshawe’s response was, in my opinion, exactly right.

What I would say is that you need to think about what you mean by merit. In other words, what do you value and what people are able to bring it into organizations? Typically what you have is that merit is largely based on a technical notion, on a professional skill notion. They will bring that technical skill. But the truth of it is there’s a kind of skill threshold when you’re trying to fill a job or create a team. But then the question is, what else is that person bringing? And I’m not suggesting, ever, that people should be recruited because of who they are. I’m saying that, actually, it’s not who they are that matters. It’s what they bring through who they are…

 So what I would say is that if we start to think of merit as being that combination of skill and then also the knowledge of that and the experience you bring through who you are and your personality, then what you start to do is to combine a number of things with other people. So it’s important to recognise that the members of certain groups and certain members of those groups experience disadvantage. But it’s not a uniform experience. It’s not an all-day experience. I often say that the thing about prejudice for lesbians and gays is we might experience discrimination every day, but we don’t any longer experience it all day.

Let’s reevaluate merit, because what you often have in jobs is that people have an assumption about the merit that’s required for the job. They then recruit to that assumption and that assumption is never challenged. And in effect what it can do is cut out people who actually have got enormous amounts of talent they could bring to that job but they’re just not perceived as being suitable for it.

That last paragraph really speaks to the issue of prejudice. Not prejudice for or against certain groups of people, but the “pre-judging” that so often occurs in formulating job descriptions. What are the skills this job really requires? If that skill list is too narrow, the business or organization will overlook applicants who would be enormous assets.

Of course, the MAGA cult doesn’t consider such possibilities.

Like Trump, they define “merit” as White skin, a penis, and a “Christian” label.

Comments

The Real Polarization

Maybe–just maybe–the Americans electorate isn’t as polarized as we’ve been led to believe. Maybe the real polarization is between We the People and our elected overlords.

A recent article from Persuasion recited some interesting data

  • 91% of Americans agree that we all have the right to equal protection under the law.

  • 90% of Americans agree that we all have the right to freedom of speech.

  • 84% of Americans agree with freedom of religion for all.

My first (dismissive) thought when reading those numbers was “how many Americans define these terms in the same way? How many of us actually know what the jurisprudence says these principles mean?” The article began by suggesting a different dismissal–an understandable disinclination of respondents to admit that they actually don’t support these foundational principles.

But then…

But the numbers concerning politics are even more troubling: 60% of Americans agree that both Biden and Trump are too goddamned old to be president. 80% of Americans agree that elected officials don’t give a shit what people like them think. 70% of Americans agree that we pathetic ordinary people—i.e., not rich or famous—have too little influence over the decisions scumbag members of Congress make. The same depressing poll reveals that 63% of Americans agree that most or all politicians are whores—that they ran for office just to make money—and a whopping 85% of Americans agree that whatever made them run for office, it sure as shit wasn’t to serve the public.

The article proceeded to document a very real division between what average Americans believe and the beliefs motivating the policy choices of our elected officials.

In a Pew Research poll from May 13, 2024, two-thirds of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That would be bad enough, but even more agree that life doesn’t begin at conception, and that moreover embryos should not be considered people with rights…  

Meanwhile, in a recent Gallup poll, 71% of Americans say they don’t give a shit who you marry, i.e., they support same-sex marriage. If we as a nation agree on gay marriage, what’s next? Guns? 

Yes.

A recent public opinion survey from Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions “found broad agreement among Americans for gun violence prevention policies—regardless of their political affiliation or whether or not they own guns.”..In a recent Fox News poll of all places, 87% of Americans agree on the need for background checks, 81% of Americans agree on the need to enforce existing gun laws, and 80% of Americans agree on the need to require mental health checks for people purchasing guns. 

There’s more, but we get the point. The people we elect–especially in states like Indiana–are very definitely not representing the desires or perspectives of their constituents.

So–why, you might ask, are reasonable people, people who aren’t racist, homophobic, misogynistic “Christian” nationalists– electing wacko culture warriors like Jim Banks and Todd Rokita? Why is the Indiana GOP running a ticket headed by MAGA Mike Braun and theocrat Micah Beckwith? These are all candidates wedded to a Christian Nationalist agenda–an agenda that wants to prevent women from exercising autonomy over their own bodies, that insists libraries should be banned from carrying books that portray LGBTQ+ people, that wants laws forbidding medical assistance for trans children…the list goes on.

Those poll numbers that reflect what we might call a lack of appropriate respect (cough, cough) for elected officials (okay, a definitely negative image) are the result of a deeply-disturbing structural issue: gerrymandering.

As I have explained multiple times, partisan redistricting–aka gerrymandering–prevents us from engaging in elections that truly reflect the wishes of the voters. Here in Indiana, where there is no referendum or initiative, we are at the mercy of a legislature that is the only body legally empowered to introduce a nonpartisan method of redistricting.  In other words, we depend upon the people who benefit from the current system to change it. (Yeah, good luck with that…)

If democracy means anything, it should mean that We the People are able to select/elect representatives who actually represent us. Clearly, that is not the world we currently inhabit.

In Indiana–and other states that have similarly distorted systems –the only elections that reflect the will of We the People are those that cannot be gerrymandered. The votes for statewide races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Senator and Attorney General (and of course, votes for the national ticket) will be the only votes that truly reflect Hoosier sentiment. 

Those of us in states like Indiana need to send a message to our legislative overlords by voting overwhelming BLUE for those positions in November. (Perhaps they’ll notice, although I’m not holding my breath.)

Comments