Our Pathetic Indiana Government

Today, I’m taking a detour from the depressing state of the nation in order to indulge in a very personal rant about the equally depressing performance of my state’s government.

How many times have we all heard some self-important “Captain of Industry” pontificate about running government like a business? And how often have we responded–calmly and logically–by explaining the multiple and substantial differences between government and business enterprises? When I am engaging in these discussions, however, I routinely add a statement to the effect that we do have a right to expect that government will be businesslike, meaning that government agencies should operate in an efficient and professional manner.

I don’t know what people in other states experience, but in Indiana those in charge of the various services we expect government to provide, services we rely upon, are clearly uninterested in either efficiency or professionalism. Our Governor, Lieutenant governor, Attorney General and legislative super-majority are far too engrossed with rewarding their donors and indulging their culture war obsessions to bother with effective administration of the various agencies with which Hoosiers are required to interact.

Permit me to offer a recent example.

A few weeks ago, someone stole my husband’s IPhone and wallet from his locker while he was working out. Anyone who has lost a wallet or had one stolen will immediately understand the nightmare that ensues–cancelling credit cards and getting replacements, figuring out how to get copies of medical insurance and Medicare cards…(we’re still waiting on the Medicare replacement, which we’re told takes some 30 days.)

And then, of course, there’s replacing the “Real ID” issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. (My husband stopped driving a few years ago, but still needs that “real ID” for travel.)

Welcome to the Indiana’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles web page, which hasn’t been updated in who knows how long, and which is demonstrably, wildly inaccurate. The BMV web page lists the locations of branches and self-service “kiosks” located in other buildings. My husband visited at least two of the listed kiosk locations, only to discover that they not only lacked the promised kiosks, but–according to building personnel–had never housed any such structures or anything similar.

The license branch that we have used over the past several years is still listed, with its operating hours. What the website neglects to mention, however, is that it was closed several months ago, when the BMV shuttered a number of locations.

After a couple of wasted visits, as we prepared to travel considerably farther, to a location that is presumably still in operation, I consulted the website to see what sort of documentation the BMV requires to confirm that my husband is both a citizen and a bona fide resident of the state of Indiana, and I discovered a list that was evidently assembled well before the Internet became pervasive and rather clearly hasn’t been reconsidered since.

He can use his passport to confirm identity and citizenship (which is good because I never heard of several of the other “acceptable” items listed). But the BMV wants a minimum of two “original documents” to demonstrate Hoosier residency. The site lists utility bills, bank statements and/or a variety of other bills and statements that people used to receive via the U.S. mail, but that most Americans now now receive virtually, via email or app. (The language on the site is very definite that only original documents are acceptable, so apparently, a printout of a digital statement or bill would not pass muster.)

In all fairness, once we had traveled 45 minutes to the now-nearest branch, the process was efficient and the employees helpful–much better than we’d expected, given the website and branch closures.

If all those Republicans who think government should be “run like a business” actually ran their businesses like this, they wouldn’t be in business very long.

I guess it’s too much to expect that someone in Indiana government might take a break from what they evidently believe are their primary duties: interfering with women’s reproduction, waging war on education, ferreting out that scandalous DEI, hassling Drag Queens, and keeping trans kids out of sports (I think statewide there are two of them)–and spend some time improving the performance of the agencies they are actually employed to manage.

But hey–this is Indiana, where voters regularly elect these culture warriors. Evidently, Hoosier voters don’t connect the dots between our seriously substandard public services and the Christian Nationalist theocrats they elect.

Comments

There’s Good News Too..

Yes, things are bad. Yes, we are facing a not-so-slow-rolling coup. Yes, we are being governed by unprincipled and profoundly ignorant people. Yes, Trump’s horrific bill narrowly passed the Senate. But if we look, there’s also evidence that good people–good citizens–are fighting back. Effectively.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Americans of Conscience transmitted a long list of positive news items, “wins” for democracy, including everything from a town council in Barrington, Rhode Island unanimously voting to declare their town a sanctuary  for transgender people, to Tulsa, OKlahoma’s announcement of a $105 million reparations package for the 1921 Tulsa massacre, to the thousands of people in Los Angeles, New York, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Charlotte, San Diego, Boston, Houston, San Antonio, Minneapolis, Worcester, MA, and elsewhere showing up to support neighbors facing unjust ICE raids, detainment, and deportation, to the successful EarthJustice lawsuit requiring the USDA to restore deleted information about climate change from the government website.

There were dozens more.

Then there was the welcome news that the Senate Parliamentarian had tossed numerous provisions of the “Big Beautiful Bill” for violating the Byrd rule limiting what can be included in reconciliation bills. Among the provisions that were deleted:

A provision selling off millions of acres of federal lands
A provision to pass food aid costs on to states
A proposed limitations on food aid benefits to certain citizens or lawful permanent residents
Proposed restrictions on the ability of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders
A proposal for a funding cap for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and for slashing pay of employees at the Federal Reserve
A proposal to slash $293 million from the Treasury Department’s Office ofFinancial Research
A plan to dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
An effort to repeal an EPA rule limiting air pollution emissions of passenger vehicles
An item allowing project developers to bypass judicial environmental reviews if they pay a fee
A measure deeming offshore oil and gas projects automatically compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act
A modified version of the REINS Act, which would increase congressional power to overturn major regulations
A scheme to punish so-called sanctuary cities by withholding federal grants
An increase on Federal Employees Retirement System contribution rate for new civil servants who refuse to become at-will employees
A measure seeking to extend the suspension of permanent price supportauthority for farmers
A requirement forcing sale of all the electric vehicles used by the Post Office
A change to annual geothermal lease sales and to geothermal royalties, June 24)
A proposal for a mining road in Alaska
Authorization for the executive branch to reorganize federal agencies
New fee for federal worker unions’ use of agency resources
Transfer of space shuttle to a nonprofit in Houston from the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum

And that is only a partial list. The ruling deleted at least some elements of this obscene effort to rob the poor to further enrich the plutocrats–at least from the Senate version.

As Simon Rosenberg recently reminded readers of his “Hopium Chronicles,” Trump is struggling and unpopular. Despite his efforts to wag the dog, his poll numbers have steadily dropped. Overall, his approval is down 20 points from week one, but perhaps more significant is the evidence that his incursions into the Black, Latino and youth votes are dissipating. In week one, 29% of Black voters approved of him; that number is now 12%. Hispanic approval has fallen from 42% to 30%. And the  approval of those between the ages of 18 and 29 has gone from 48% to 28%.

Rosenberg credits the thousands of grassroots groups that have emerged across the country, and the creation of 
new media organizations like Meidas Touch and COURIER Newsroom. (He also notes that Substack is becoming a powerful new platform for our politics–part of the way that news and media consumption habits have changed in the past year.) 

We’ve also seen the emergence of an entire new network of pro-democracy legal organizations, focused on defense of the Constitutional order, and increased pro-democracy activism by the nation’s 23 Democratic Attorney Generals.

New leaders are emerging, rising to the moment, breaking though (Newsom, Pritzker, Crockett, Murphy, Frost, AOC, Booker, Slotkin, Mamdani, etc)

We are communicating who we are right now through our opposition to Trump and our work to prevent his assault on the middle class, weakening of our health care system and abandonment of the Constitutional order. I think these fights are helping connect us to the core of who we are – champions of every day Americans, proud patriots who love this country and are willing to fight for it.

The good news is that good Americans are making what John Lewis called “Good Trouble.”
 

Comments

Mamdani And “Leftism”

Last Tuesdaay, Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York, and the usual subjects immediately went into high gear, once again demonstrating that American politics has become all about labeling rather than policy analysis. The mere fact that Mamdami identifies as a Democratic Socialist (along with Bernie Sanders) was enough to set the Right raving about a communist takeover of the Big Apple. 

Over the past decades, the political Overton Window has shifted so far to the right that policy proposals that once appealed to liberal Republicans (back when the GOP was a political party rather than a semi-fascist cult) are now labeled “far Left.” 

Take Mamdani’s support for free bus service. My husband and I met when we both served in the very Republican Hudnut Administration–I was Corporation Counsel, he was Director of Metropolitan Development. Reporters who covered City Hall (we had those back then) considered both of us “right of center.” He has long been a proponent of free bus service, for a number of reason related to the environment and urban development.

I tend to disagree with Mamdani’s support of rent controls, which have been in place in New York since 1920, and have been supported by New York Mayors for years. I think those controls ultimately disincentivize new construction. I agree with his other proposals for increasing the housing supply–and find his concerns for housing affordability laudable–and in any sane world, centrist.

What about grocery stores for food deserts? Here in Indianapolis, in the middle of Red Indiana, lawmakers have suggested a variety of government supports for our own underserved areas–not actual municipal grocery stores, but not government “benign neglect” either.

Let’s face it–the American Left is far, far to the Right of the European Left, and bears absolutely no resemblance to communism. Right-wingers conflating them rely on Americans’ (admittedly widespread) political ignorance.

Of course, a good deal of the hysteria over Mamdani’s win is really anti-Muslim sentiment promoted by our own Taliban-like Christian Nationalists. (And I won’t even dignify the efforts to paint his entirely defensible opinions on Gaza as anti-Semitic.)

Mamdani’s victory ought to trigger a reconsideration of a foundational political issue: What is the nature of the social and physical infrastructure that government should provide? And in a federated system, which level of government should be responsible for which pieces of that infrastructure?

What sorts of “socialism” should cities provide?

Over the years, Americans–especially in our more densely-populated cities–have learned that we need to provide police and fire safety communally, that public health requires, among other things, communal provision of garbage collection. Sewers are built and maintained by public and/or semi-public entities;  until the GOP’s “privatization” efforts, public schools were understood to be a public necessity.

I haven’t seen people advocate for private provision of streets, sidewalks and traffic controls–and although a few libertarians have complained that libraries should be replaced by bookstores and public parks by private clubs, very few citizens agree. 

We don’t call those and numerous other public amenities “socialism,” but of course, they are. They are socialized services, paid for with our tax dollars.

Back when people running for public office cared about policy rather than power, political disputes were essentially about the nature and extent of the physical and social infrastructure that governments should provide, and how that provision should be structured, managed and paid for. What level of government should handle air traffic, food safety, disaster relief? What functions are more properly handled at the state or local level? Have demographic or social changes altered the considerations that led to prior decisions?

We have almost entirely abandoned those very important, very foundational questions in the midst of our existential battle to forestall a rolling coup, but ultimately, those are the questions that lawmakers must confront. They are the questions–and his answers to them– that Mamdani elevated in the recent New York primary. Political discourse in this country has become so divorced from actual policy that rather than engaging with his issues, rather than debating the merits of his proposals, the reaction to his campaign was name-calling. 

I don’t know whether Mamdani–whose experience in government is thin–will be an effective Mayor of the country’s most immense city. That issue, it seems to me, is legitimate. Mounting objections to his proposals based upon facts and evidence is also legitimate. But the critics who are engaging in labeling and name-calling have adopted Trump’s approach to politics–an approach mimicking the tactics of schoolyard bullies and five-year-olds and entirely divorced from the real issues of governance.

Comments

The Loss Of The Lie Detector

As the country I thought I inhabited continues to disintegrate, I’ve become more and more convinced that what I’ve called our “information landscape” is a major contributor to our civic woes.

We have created a world that allows us to “curate” our realities, to engage in what we used to call “cherry picking.” Want to believe that science is a scam and vaccines are mechanisms for inserting Microsoft chips in our bodies? A bit of Internet “research” will locate “news” sites that confirm your suspicions. Want to believe that the deranged ignoramus in the Oval Office actually knows what he’s doing? Ditto.

The media we now refer to as legacy outlets were far from perfect. “If it bleeds, it leads” dominated decisions about what was front-page news, and even outlets with a professional devotion to the obligations of gatekeeping overlooked important events and misread others. But at their best, they acted as lie detectors–and public figures who feared that function were careful to moderate their misinformation, or at least cloak efforts at misdirection in ambiguities.

The Internet’s Wild West, where social media echoes and promotes the proliferation of Rightwing propaganda sites, is liar’s heaven. A buffoon as ridiculous as Trump, with his constant crazed, childish and misspelled posts, would never have ascended to the Presidency when actual journalists were the primary gatekeepers.

Cult leaders (Trump is the Jim Jones of MAGA) have always been able to bamboozle a slice of the population; a portion of humanity is demonstrably impervious to fact and logic. A healthier information environment would not diabuse the True Believers, who see Trump as the champion who will kill “woke-ism” and return straight White (Pseudo)Christian men to dominance. But the current fire hose of competing versions of reality is having the effect desired by autocrats everywhere–it paralyzes much larger segments of the population, who gradually despair of determining what is true, and simply check out.

Megan Garber addressed the issue in a recent essay in the Altlantic.

She noted that Trump had been reelected despite–or perhaps because of– the Big Lie, and she mused that, these days, false assertions evidently aren’t liabilities but selling points, “weapons of partisan warfare, disorienting perceived enemies (Democrats, members of the media) even as they foment broader forms of cynicism and mistrust.”

For decades, American politics have relied on the same logic that polygraph machines do: that liars will feel some level of shame when they tell their lies, and that the shame will manifest—the quickened heartbeat, the pang of guilt—in the body. But the body politic is cheating the test with alarming ease. Some Americans believe the lies. Others refuse to. Some Americans recognize the lies’ falsity but have decided that some things—their own tribe, their vision for the country—are simply more important than truth. Regardless, the lies remain, unchecked by the old machinery. The polygraph is a measure of conscience. So, in its way, is democracy.

Garber quoted Walter Lippman’s classic book, Public Opinion, in which he argued that democracy is a task of data management. American democracy “is premised on the idea that voters’ political decisions will be based on reliable information.”

The information people rely on to do the work of citizenship—voting, arguing, shaping a shared future—is data. But those data are processed by notoriously fickle hardware. The data inform our brains’ impressions of the world: the images that Lippmann called “the pictures in our heads.” The pictures are subjective. They are malleable. And, perhaps most of all, they make little distinction between things that are true and things that are merely believed to be….

In Public Opinion, Lippmann diagnosed how readily propaganda could make its way into a nation that was officially at peace. He outlined how seamlessly the false messages could mingle with, and override, true ones. He argued that Americans’ unsteady relationship with information made our democracy inherently fragile.

As Garber quite accurately notes, every lie Trump tells, no matter how consequential or petty (and Trump is nothing if not petty), erodes people’s ability to trust any and all information.

Falsehoods, issued repeatedly from the bully pulpit, threaten to become conventional wisdom, then clichés, then foregone conclusions. Attempts to challenge them, as crucial as those efforts are as matters of historical recordkeeping, take on a certain listlessness. For others to point out the truth is to do the right thing. It is also to bring paper straws to a gunfight.

As the zone is flooded with bullshit (in Steve Bannon’s memorable phrase), citizens check out. And the liars cement their power.

Comments

And The Hits Keep Coming..

If there is any consistent theme that runs through the Trump administration’s “governance,” it is antipathy to science and education. RFK, Jr. presides over a truly horrifying assault on medical science;  Trump’s torrent of Executive Orders has hobbled government’s ability to deal with climate change (which MAGA denies)…the list goes on.

And then there’s the Right’s persistent, vicious war on education. Theirs is a movement that is trying–with some terrifying successes–to take America back to the Dark Ages. That effort isn’t new–the now decades-old effort to privatize education, to evade the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State and destroy public education by sending students and tax dollars to religious schools– has recently been joined by an all-out assault on the nation’s universities.

It isn’t just Trump’s assault on elite institutions like Columbia and Harvard. As a recent report from The New Republic documents, among the other obscenities in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” are measures that amount to “an extinction-level event” for the nation’s universities. As the article warns, “If you think the last few months have been bad for Harvard, brace yourself—the “big, beautiful bill” is coming, and with it, a new dimension of destruction.”

While it’s mostly gone unremarked upon in the mainstream media, institutions of higher learning across the country are about to be pummeled by the looming reconciliation bill, which may portend an extinction event for higher education as we know it. The bill weaponizes working-class families’ reliance on debt to finance their college dreams with such intensity that not only will it push millions to the financial brink, it will push them out of higher education altogether.

As the report makes clear, the fallout from these provisions will be monumental. The effect will be to deprive the schools that manage to survive of working- and middle-class families. A college education will once again be within reach of  only the wealthy.

As the article notes, millions of people already consider a university education “to be a costly endeavor that is irrelevant to their everyday life.” That reality would suggest that we should remake higher education into a much more accessible endeavor– that legislators should recognize that improving the educational level of a population translates directly into social and fiscal health. But–consistent with the rest of a bill that honest labelling would title “Protecting Plutocracy”–the legislation would do the opposite. “It will cement the stereotype of higher education as an elite institution into an ironclad reality.”

This existential assault on higher education is not inadvertent–not an unanticipated consequence of fiscal legislation. It is entirely consistent with the goals of Project 2025 and the far-Right anti-intellectual MAGA figures who have already decimated much of Florida’s higher education landscape. The article includes a quotation from influential conservative activist Christopher Rufo, confirming the desired results. “Reforming the student loan programs could put the whole university sector into a significant recession” and state of “existential terror.”

And just in case American voters return a sane occupant to the Oval Office, the bill removes the power of a future President to cancel federal student loans.

While details are still being negotiated between the obtuse and vicious GOP members of the House and Senate, if the measure passes in anything like its current form,  eight million student debtors will see their monthly payments spike from $0 to over $400.

Dentists and doctors who choose to work in low-paying community health care centers will no longer be eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs, dramatically reducing the number of health care providers in communities that are already underserved. The bill even comes after the long-standing, Republican-approved federal student loan repayment plans, which allow borrowers to discharge their debts after a certain number of years of regular payments.

The House version cuts Pell Grants and increases the course load required for part-time students to access aid. People with  jobs or family responsibilities will find it nearly impossible to comply. And House Republicans want colleges and universities to pay back unpaid federal loans extended to “high risk” students–a move designed to penalize institutions that serve low-income students who are more likely to default, turning “the working-class kid studying to become a social worker, artist, or a physician into a liability to her university.”

None of this is accidental.

A recent Heritage Foundation report recommends terminating higher education “subsidies” in order to “increase the married birthrate.” In plain English, it’s an effort to reduce women’s access to higher education–an access that has facilitated women’s growing civic and economic equality. MAGA wants more babies and fewer women in the workforce.

The “Big Beautiful Bill” is a MAGA wet dream.

Comments