Mike Leppert Nails It

One of the most frustrating aspects of today’s information environment is its fragmented nature. Many of us  depend upon widely respected national sources of news and even wisdom–the Heather Cox Richardsons and others who bring scholarship and acumen to in-depth discussion of the issues that confound us. Fewer of us know about or subscribe to blogs and newsletters produced by local folks–and that’s a shame, because many of them deserve to be more widely read. I’ve updated my blogroll to include a couple, including that of my friend Michael Leppert, whose weekly posts can be accessed here. I highly recommend them.

Mike is currently a lecturer at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, and an adjunct professor at IU’s O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. He’s also a columnist and an author. (I was honored to write the introduction to his first book, Contrary to Popular Belief.) He has worked for the State of Indiana and as a lobbyist. Because he knows how things work, his blog is a deeply informed look at politics and the policy process.

A recent post, in my humble opinion, hit it out of the park.

Leppert was considering the abortion landscape after Dobbs, and reminding voters that–on reproductive rights– We the People have the right to the final word.

In his policy classes, Leppert says he’s focused on two primary ideas: “One, that governing is choosing; and two, there is no bigger asset or burden in the public policy process more powerful than time.”

The best contemporary policy example to use for understanding American democratic processes is the debate on women’s reproductive health freedom. Not just because of the Dobbs or Roe decisions, but because it is a policy that is truly a governing choice, unimpacted by infinite conditions beyond decision-makers’ control.

Unlike economic conditions or foreign policy, which are impacted by infinite conditions beyond anyone’s control, voters have the opportunity to determine the extent of abortion rights.

In some states, unlike Indiana, voters have access to referenda or initiatives. As he notes:

Eleven states are headed for referenda votes in November on constitutional proposals to create or protect abortion rights. Nine of them were initiated by voter petition. Four of those states already effectively have bans in place. Even Arkansas reached their threshold of signatures last week just before that state’s deadline.

In states where voters can vote, they either already are, or soon will. And because of the Dobbs decision, a vote on reproductive freedom is no longer a hypothetical discussion. There is data to drive the thinking of those clinging to rational thought on the matter.

He proceeds to outline some of that data, and it’s compelling.

In Texas, which banned abortion in 2021, the infant mortality rate rose 8%, and birth defects increased by 23% (in the rest of the U.S. they decreased by 3%)

As Leppert reminds us, Texas state elected officials chose this.

Then there’s Idaho, a state that is manic in its zeal to eradicate women’s freedoms. Its bans have created a crisis of care, driving obstetricians from the state. In February, it was reported that 22 of the state’s 44 counties don’t have access to any practicing obstetrician. More than 50 of them quit practicing there since the state passed its ban in August of 2022. It already ranked in the bottom five of all states for maternal mortality outcomes….

The catastrophic choices have only begun to be impacted by the all-powerful influence of time…

Because he is a resident of Indiana, Leppert concludes by referencing just how out of touch our theocratic GOP officials are with the sentiments of Indiana’s voters.

Indiana’s time has now begun too. Judicial delays now exhausted, the bad data is being gathered in a state already ranked 44th in infant mortality, and 47th in maternal mortality. Recent polling on the issue shows the most unsurprising results I’ve ever seen, as reported by the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

Petition driven ballot initiatives aren’t available here, though 78% of voters here want it. 72% of voters are less likely to support incumbents who voted to block a referendum.

Hoosiers can and should vote accordingly.

The state’s embattled attorney general, Todd Rokita, has been aggressively seeking access to patient medical records of those who have received abortion care. 95% of voters oppose this access. “Peace on earth” wouldn’t get 95%, and even if it did, Rokita would likely fight it.

If the Republican candidates for statewide office are successful in November, we can expect Indiana to emulate Texas and Idaho  (with censorship and unremitting attacks on education thrown in)… The GOP’s “Christian warrior” candidates are even more extreme than the legislators who passed Indiana’s ban.

As Leppert reminded his readers: Hoosier voters will choose…

Comments

How Awful Are Hoosiers, Really?

Consider this a follow-up to yesterday’s “Extra” post.

I have written before about Indiana Democrats’ self-defeating attitudes and behaviors. A recent conversation with two very savvy political observers reminded me–again!– how incredibly unhelpful those negative attitudes are.

It’s a conversation I’ve had repeatedly. Acquaintances who are committed Democrats refrain from donating to Hoosier Democratic candidates because “they can’t win in Indiana.” Rather obviously, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy–if these candidates lack sufficient resources to compete, they will lose. (During that recent conversation, when I reminded my friends that Obama had won Indiana, one responded “Yes, but he put significant resources here.” Yes–with sufficient resources, Democrats can win Indiana. Duh.)

This year, as I have documented, the Indiana Democratic Party has nominated a statewide (non-gerrymander-able) slate of truly excellent candidates. They are capable, moderate, and–unlike their GOP opponents–sane. Meanwhile, the Republicans are running a ticket of out-and-out White Supremecist theocrats, men who are personally repugnant supporters of an exceptionally far-Right agenda: anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-public education, anti-environment…candidates who enthusiastically support positions that survey research confirms are at odds with the positions of most Hoosiers, Republican and Democrat alike.

So why, you might ask (I’ve certainly been asking) do people who clearly recognize both the merits of the Democratic candidates and the threats posed by the Republican ones still insist that Indiana voters will opt for the Republican ones?

During that last discussion, I finally came to understand the roots of that belief. (I’m slow.)

These same people–people who care about their neighbors, who understand and worry about the current assaults on the Constitution and civil liberties, who recognize the nuanced nature of policy disputes–apparently believe that a significant majority of Hoosier voters are ignorant and hateful.

Too many of my Democratic friends view all Hoosier Republicans–especially but not exclusively rural Republicans– as uneducated and politically unsophisticated, resentful of social change and suspicious of anyone who isn’t a White Christian. They see all Republicans as MAGA bigots, mired in a Fox “News” universe, dismissive of information inconsistent with their prejudices, and they conclude that efforts to inform or persuade them are useless. (This belief actually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the Democratic candidates lack resources to communicate their positions, many Hoosier voters will lack accurate information.)

I’m willing to concede that this picture of a committed racist rube accurately describes the base of today’s GOP–the MAGA folks who form the core of what has become Trump’s political party. But I refuse to believe that all Hoosier Republicans are cut from that same MAGA cloth. There are people who are relatively uninformed, but not hateful–many people who would reject the premises and promises of Project 2025 if they knew what those premises and promises really were.

The Democrats who are writing off Hoosier voters rather clearly believe that providing sufficient resources to disseminate accurate information widely around the state is a fool’s errand. They believe that the super-majority in our deplorable state legislature is an accurate representation of unenlightened, racist and misogynistic Hoosier sentiment–after all, those voters elected that super-majority. (They forget the substantial effects of gerrymandering and vote suppression.)

The only thing that would change the minds of these dismissive observers of Indiana politics is an election that upends their smug conclusions–but their unwillingness to fund their preferred candidates adequately makes such an election result infinitely more difficult.

I’ve been working with both the McCormick and McCray campaigns, and I can report that both are well-organized, strategically sound, and–most important–right on all the issues that matter. I am absolutely convinced that–with adequate funding–they can inform voters statewide of the enormous differences between them and the GOP’s Christian Nationalist ticket, and that adequate dissemination of that information would lead to victory.

I guess it’s up to those of us in Indiana who are politically “unsophisticated” to step into the breach. Those of us who care deeply about women’s access to abortion, civil rights for our gay friends and neighbors, support for public education, and the other immensely important rights threatened by today’s far far Right GOP candidates need to contribute as much as we can so that the good guys have enough to communicate their message.

They don’t need as much as their opponents; they just need enough.

Unless, of course, my “sophisticated” friends are right, and a majority of my fellow Hoosiers are contemptible.

Comments

And Now, An Extra: The Democrats

Indiana’s state Democratic convention is over, and as promised, I will devote a post to that party’s slate of statewide candidates. They provide a striking contrast to the theocratic culture warriors who believe they will glide to victory because this is Indiana.

I have admired Jennifer McCormick since she was Indiana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. That admiration grew when she publicly repudiated the GOP. Unlike other spineless Republican officeholders, she opted to leave a party that held a legislative super-majority and pledge allegiance to a minority party that now stands for positions she cares about–positions the GOP has abandoned. It took guts–and principles.

Jennifer is running a disciplined, strategic campaign focused on those issues: reproductive freedom, public education, union rights and a living wage, and fiscal responsibility. You can learn more about her here. 

McCormick chose Terry Goodin to run for Lieutenant Governor. Unlike the Christian Nationalist running for that spot on the GOP’s ticket, Goodin is highly qualified for the position, which is largely focused on agriculture and rural affairs. A former state legislator, Goodin is currently Indiana state director for USDA Rural Development, and has deep roots into communities that tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican. (Like McCormick, Goodin also served several years as a public school superintendent.) 

Goodin was initially criticised by Democrats who pointed to his vote in 2011 against same-sex marriage, but like many other Americans, he has grown; he issued a heartfelt apology for that vote, which he now considers hurtful and wrong. He has enthusiastically endorsed McCormicks priorities, especially on reproductive choice and public education.

Valerie McCray is a genuine political outsider. A graduate of Arsenal Tech High School in Indianapolis, she navigated the challenges of being a single mother, while earning a BA, MA, and Ph.D from the University of Michigan, and has spent 35 years as a practicing psychologist. Her professional experience underscored for her the effect of public policies on multiple populations, and convinced her to take her fights for a woman’s right to choose and “beyond-subsistence” wages to Washington. Because she knows “what it’s like to be a struggling middle-class American; a single mom, a student using the same bag for books and diapers,” she will champion “union support, healthcare for all, equal rights for everyone, strengthening public education, and repealing Citizens United,” and she promises to “fight for student loan debt reduction, closing the wealth gap, and funding environmental efforts.” You can learn more about Dr. McCray here.

In their recent convention, Democrats chose Destiny Wells as their candidate for Attorney General. Wells ran an impressive, albeit losing, campaign for Secretary of State two years ago, which she says taught her valuable lessons. Coming, as she says, from eight generations of Indiana farmers, she was a first generation college student at IU; she joined the National Guard and ROTC and today is a  a U.S. Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel. Along the way, Wells earned a law degree which led to experience serving multiple levels of government and with NATO. (She’s been an Associate Corporation Counsel for Indianapolis, and a Deputy Attorney General for Indiana.) A major theme of her campaign is “restoring integrity to the Office of Attorney General”–a theme that will resonate with anyone who’s familiar with the operation of that office under Todd Rokita. You can learn more about Destiny and her positions here.

Not only are all of these individuals accomplished and highly qualified for the positions they seek, they are running against a collection of looney-tune MAGA extremists. Braun spent his six undistinguished years as a Senator cozying up to Trump. Beckwith is a self-identified Christian Nationalist whose only experience in public office– on a library board– outraged the community by attempting to censor books that offended his fundamentalist religious beliefs. He has NO experience relevant to the job he seeks. Banks is–as I have documented–a culture war zealot and MAGA anti-woke crusader, a clone of Beckwith. And it is impossible to summarize the multiple times I’ve posted about the despicable and unethical behaviors of Attorney General Todd Rokita.

All of these men are anti-choice, anti-gay, and anti-woman. 

There is absolutely no reason why the impressive slate of candidates being run by the Democrats can’t win-if they have the resources to distribute their messages and bona fides. (Unless, of course, you agree with the pessimist assertion that all inhabitants of rural Indiana are ignorant racist theocrats who will vote Republican because they agree with the appalling positions of the GOP candidates.)

If you care about women’s reproductive liberty, public education, intellectual freedom and civic equality, send these candidates money. Volunteer for one of their campaigns. 

And vote Blue up and down the ballot.

Comments

The Real GOP Platform

Well, the GOP has produced a platform. I suppose we should consider that a welcome change from 2020, when the party didn’t bother. (The excuse then, as I recall, was “whatever Trump wants is our platform;” now, they evidently realize he has no policies; his sole agenda is “look at me!”)

But as Robert Hubbell has pointed out, the real GOP Platform is Project 2025. As he has also noted, although the “official” Republican platform is pretty horrific, Project 2025—the actual platform–is a fascist wet dream. The GOP Platform, appalling as it is, whitewashes that vision.

For example, the GOP Platform mentions the word “abortion” only once to say that the decision has been returned to the states. Project 2025 references “abortion” 922 times to describe how access to abortion will be denied at the national level through congressional legislation and how access will be restricted in every program possible—from emergency medical treatment to foreign aid to healthcare in the military.

It isn’t just abortion. The same extremism is true of other issues.

Project 2025 promises to “dismantle the administrative state,” gut the civil service, strip the EPA of its ability to protect the environment, actively discriminate against LGBTQ people (including by excluding transgender people from the military), promote the role of “faith-based” organizations in delivering government services, and more.

As truly horrifying and unAmerican as Project 2025 is, the “official” platform intended to “soften” GOP intentions is pretty terrifying too. Hubbell listed several of its White Nationalist, xenophobic planks.

1. Seal The Border, And Stop The Migrant Invasion

2. Carry Out The Largest Deportation Operation In American History

9. End The Weaponization Of Government Against The American People

10. Stop The Migrant Crime Epidemic, Demolish The Foreign Drug Cartels, Crush Gang Violence, And Lock Up Violent Offenders

15. Cancel The Electric Vehicle Mandate And Cut Costly And Burdensome Regulations

16. Cut Federal Funding For Any School Pushing Critical Race Theory, Radical Gender Ideology, And Other Inappropriate Racial, Sexual, Or Political Content On Our Children

18. Deport Pro-Hamas Radicals And Make Our College Campuses Safe And Patriotic Again

19. Secure Our Elections, Including Same Day Voting, Voter Identification, Paper Ballots, And Proof Of Citizenship.

A number of the far Right members of Congress aren’t waiting for the election and the GOP’s presumed victory. As Common Dreams has recently reported, they are taking advantage of the fact that media attention has largely turned to the election campaign, and are using that comparative lack of public scrutiny to embark on what the publication called “an austerity rampage” that would “demolish public education” and “let corporate price gouging run rampant.”

With much of the public’s attention on the looming presidential election and high-stakes jockeying over who will take on Donald Trump in November, congressional Republicans in recent weeks have provided a stark look at their plans for federal spending should their party win back control of the presidency and the Senate.

The appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2025, which begins in October, is currently underway, with congressional committees engaging in government funding debates that are likely to continue beyond the November elections.

In keeping with their longstanding support for austerity for ordinary Americans, Republicans in the House and Senate have proposed steep cuts to a wide range of federal programs and agencies dealing with education, environmental protection, Social Security, election administration, national parks, nutrition assistance, antitrust enforcement, global health, and more—all while they pursue additional deficit-exploding tax giveaways for the rich.

These proposals are more evidence–if any was needed– that the goals outlined in Project 2025 now represent the basic philosophy of a once-respectable political party. 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, has been attempting to sound the alarm over the GOP’s proposals, which she has warned would “demolish public education,” endanger the health of women and children, gut mental health programs, “let corporate price gouging run rampant,” and “expose children to dangerous products.”…

Congressional Republicans’ spending proposals for next fiscal year are in line with the draconian cuts pushed by Project 2025, a sweeping far-right agenda from which Trump—the presumptive GOP presidential nominee—is attempting to distance himself as horror grows over the initiative’s vision for the country.

Project 2025’s 922-page policy document calls for more punitive work requirements for SNAP recipients, massive cuts to Medicaid, the abolition of the Department of Education, the elimination of major clean energy programs, and the gutting of key Wall Street regulations.

If this “laundry list” seems insane–a roadmap to anarchy and a new Dark Ages–it is. We are living at a time when a major political party has developed a mass psychosis.

It turns out that Trump isn’t the only Republican who is bat-shit crazy. He’s just more incoherent than the others, so it’s more obvious.

Comments

When Religion Becomes Farce

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Or maybe both.

Most of us have seen the news that Louisiana now requires posting the Ten Commandments in that state’s schoolrooms. What I hadn’t seen reported–until this fascinating article from Salon–is that the version to be posted comes not from the Bible, but from Hollywood. Rather than go to any of the biblical texts, Louisiana opted for Cecil B. DeMille’s, taking the version to be posted from  “The Ten Commandments.”

Actually, that shouldn’t be a surprise–Christian nationalists aren’t known for consulting original texts. Or for honesty.

The article is lengthy–and fascinating. It quotes several biblical scholars who have read–and engaged with–the biblical versions. As one scholar says,

The Ten Commandments recounted in Exodus 34 are nothing like the list of crimes most people know. It starts off: “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you.”

As he notes, this version is definitely “not the list of ten commandments which most people are familiar with, but it is the only list in Exodus which is actually called ‘the ten commandments.’” (The article notes that similar legislation passed by the Texas State Senate also uses a version that doesn’t appear in any Bible– a “highly Christianized version” with “Judaic elements removed.”)

The multitude of versions and their disputed authenticity leads to what the author calls the “vexing problem of which form of the Ten Commandments should be forced onto schoolchildren….Wikipedia even offers a chart showing how eight different faith traditions group and number the commandments.” No wonder our MAGA lawmakers opted for the Hollywood version, wildly inaccurate as “The Ten Commandments” was both historically and textually.

Well, if you are going to “edit” the presumed word of God, you might as well make your version support your political ambitions..

Louisiana’s Ten Commandments lawsuit actually disproves the Christian nationalist claim that the Ten Commandments are the basis of America’s moral foundation. One need only compare the text that will go on classroom walls with the text of the Bible. Louisiana lawmakers edited and abridged the biblical commandments to “improve” the Word of God, to make them more moral. Gone is the reference to a jealous God punishing innocent children for the crimes of their parents (Exodus 20:5); the crime of exercising their right to freely worship. Lawmakers used our modern morality to edit the word of their God. Louisiana’s heavily edited commandments undercut the very claim they are supposedly making.

There is, of course, a wide discrepancy between genuine Christianity and Christian Nationalism, as clergy friends of mine keep reminding me. The latter is a thinly-veiled political movement, and it bears less and less similarity to religious belief. As the article notes,

If this were an intellectual debate, we could stop here. But it’s politics, which is full of challenging absurdities. Trump was only a distant spectator to the Louisiana bill, but he’s both a symptom and a super-spreader of the underlying moral abyss. Eight years ago, many evangelical Christians had their doubts about Trump. His running mate, Mike Pence, clearly helped calm, as did “apostle” Lance Wallnau, whose book “God’s Chaos Candidate” compared Trump to the Persian King Cyrus, a “heathen” instrument of God’s will. But now Trump openly compares himself to Jesus and his followers eat it up, while his flagrant violations of the Ten Commandments are shrugged off, at best. Pastors who preach on the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus told his followers to “turn the other cheek,” are accused of pushing “liberal talking points.”

In short, Trump has helped catalyze a profound disorientation of Christianity, deep into gaslight territory. By comparison, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry is just a garden-variety Republican liar. “If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver,” he said on signing the bill. It’s an obviously illogical claim — you could also start by not nominating a convicted criminal for president — that’s also ludicrous and false in several different ways.

One sociologist is quoted as explaining that Christian nationalism has two goals: to signal to the MAGA base that they are culture warriors fighting “leftism, Marxism, woke-ism, state-sponsored atheism or whatever else scares conservative white Americans;” and as a distraction from Republican policy failures. It’s notable that US News recently ranked Louisiana dead last among all 50 states, and no. 47 in education.

As the article accurately concludes, the Christian nationalist agenda stands for the proposition that America is a Christian nation, and Christians (of the right variety) should control every facet of it.

It’s hard to get more unAmerican than that.

Comments