A jaundiced look at the world we live in.
I recently saw a FB meme that said “On November 5th, the whole nation will be waiting to get the results of a biopsy.”
Today is that day.
This isn’t a normal election and normal tissue doesn’t get biopsied. Tomorrow, I’ll react to whatever the diagnosis shows, but today I’m off.
VOTE BLUE ALL THE WAY DOWN –for your future and that of your children and grandchildren.
CommentsLast week, as I previously noted, I spoke to a Unitarian Universalist congregation about Project 2025. (I posted those comments here.)
Ever since I was Executive Director of Indiana’s ACLU and was first asked to address a UU church, I have enjoyed speaking to UU congregations. They tend to be composed of people committed to civil liberties, respectful of science, and welcoming of a wide variety of perspectives. As their “Welcome” text confirms, UU’s believe that religious faith is uniquely personal, and that attitudes of openness and tolerance are important. I particularly like the “covenant” this congregation recites, which affirms that spiritual growth provides the grounding for peace, ethical living and community service.
Prior to my talk, there is usually a reading, and I was so impressed with this particular one that I asked for a copy. This was a reading that directly addressed the fundamental issue of tomorrow’s vote, which, as the author said, will really be a vote on another covenant– the covenant we Americans have made with each other.
Democracy–as the reading pointed out–isn’t just a word or even just a system of government: it’s a “living, breathing promise.” A covenant.
This promise of democracy is one of collective power and shared responsibility. Many understand that this covenantal promise is not without its challenges. Democracy asks us to engage in issues, to participate in bringing about change, and to care deeply about one another. It is cultivated in small, consistent actions–in the conversations we have, the ways we listen to and learn from one another, as well as the votes we cast. It demands that we see beyond ourselves, recognizing the dignity of every person, and honoring the rich diversity of our lives.
This reading was part of a church service, so care was taken to avoid endangering the congregation’s tax exemption by the endorsement of a political candidate–there was no direction to “go thou and vote in such and such a way.” Instead, what struck me forcefully about this description of the choice we face was its emphasis on community, on the obligation that we humans have to care for each other.
That emphasis really highlights the vast difference between Trump’s MAGA Republicanism and the Harris campaign.
As the multiple Republicans who have endorsed Harris have pointed out, this election is not about our policy differences–it’s about saving the American Constitution and the rule of law, the essential foundations of the covenant described in the reading. Ours is a covenant that requires us to care about other people, to accept a commitment not just to an abstract nation, but to our fellow Americans.
Traditional Republicans and Democrats may have wildly different opinions about how to demonstrate that commitment, how to honor that covenant, but we recognize that it binds us. We may disagree about economic or social policies, but we share a fundamental belief that government exists to create a just environment that facilitates the human flourishing of all of us–including the neighbors who don’t look or think or worship as we do.
Tomorrow’s election is between all the Americans who believe in that covenant and want to protect it, and those who don’t. It really is that simple.
The Republican Party many of us once knew and respected has been replaced by a malignant cult in Donald Trump’s image, and the members of that cult reject the very idea of a democratic covenant. They are not motivated by care for their neighbors. They contemptuously reject the “demand that we see beyond ourselves.”
The brief closing paragraphs of the reading were poignant: they read
It is clear that at the heart of this democracy is the promise of the people–our hopes and dreams. We are the democracy and the stewards of this promise: the practitioners of this sacred work.
As Unitarian Universalists, we believe democracy is more than a political system; it is a shared journey, a collective responsibility, and a profound act of faith in one another. May we walk this path with grace, with purpose, and with phenomenal commitment to the common good.
That commitment–to America’s democratic covenant, to each other, to the common good–is what is on the ballot this year. That’s the choice to be made by We the People.
This Jewish atheist is praying with the Unitarians….
CommentsOne of the enduring frustrations of political life is the frequency with which those of us who regularly vote encounter Americans who dismiss the importance–indeed, the relevance–of politics. “Oh, I’m not political,” these folks tell us, as if an interest in who governs us and how is akin to a fondness for a certain television show, or engagement with a hobby.
Judging from the number of people who are eligible to vote but don’t bother to cast ballots, there are millions of people who utterly fail to connect their lives and prospects to the policies and competence of the governing regimes under which they live–who fail to understand that, at base, pretty much everything is political.
A recent essay by Rick Perlstein in the American Prospect made the case for that connection.
Perlstein began by noting that Scientific American had endorsed Kamala Harris. This is only the second time in that publication’s 179-year history that it has made a presidential endorsement, and the decision to do so prompted criticisms. Critics argued that engaging in the campaign was a bad idea–that it just risked giving aid and comfort to conservatives who “want nothing more than to be able to credibly claim the scientific community as just one more in a malign den of elite liberal villainy.”
They say the endorsement degrades what is most valuable in science’s operative ideal: that its results are ideologically neutral, because scientists follow evidence objectively without reference to who benefits, and that once science becomes “politicized,” it will not truly be science anymore.
I understand and respect those arguments. But I disagree. If anything, I think the Scientific American endorsement doesn’t go nearly far enough.
In Perlstein’s view, negative reactions to the endorsement should be part of a much larger discussion about how institutions, organizations (and indeed, all of us)– should think about electoral politics. In this case, he focused that discussion on the question “when is it appropriate to break norms of behavior?” (It has been a norm, for example, that science is non-political, at least in the partisan sense.) His discussion is well worth reading in its entirety, but it triggered a somewhat different stream of thought for me.
Is it really possible for a human who lives in a society–a non-hermit–to be nonpolitical? With that question, I suppose I’m returning to a conviction I have often voiced: language is important. Using language to communicate requires that those participating in the conversation agree on the meanings of the words being used. When people declare that they are not “political,” I’m fairly certain that they mean they don’t engage in partisanship–that they are uninterested in contests between political parties and their spokespeople. (We can quibble with that declaration too, but that’s a subject for a different time.)
What they fail to understand is that politics encompasses far more than the battles between political parties. All activities associated with decision-making in groups, and virtually all other power relationships between and among individuals, are political. Politics governs the distribution of goods and services–or, for that matter, the distribution of status–in a given society.
When you think about the various ways that public decision-making affects us all, hundreds of examples come to mind.
Workers who have no redress for wage theft, battered wives in societies that accord husbands “dominion” over their spouses, homeowners unprotected by zoning laws that prevent the guy next door from operating a tavern from his living room…The hundreds of laws and customs that allow communities to function and individuals to flourish– are all the result of politics, the result of decisions about the way people relate to each other, decisions about what constitutes fair play and justice, decisions about our obligations to our fellow humans.
Which brings me back to Perlstein’s central observation: saying that we shouldn’t “politicise” science–or any area of human conduct–is meaningless, because every area of our common lives is inescapably shaped by political decision-making. The decision by scientists to rely on evidence–and their definitions of what constitutes reliable evidence– is political. Educators’ choices of what subjects to teach (and how) is political. A journalist’s decision to report Item A and ignore item B is political.
Recognizing the power of government and choosing to be governed by people who respect the Constitution and the Rule of Law is unquestionably political–it affects every other aspect of the social and political reality we inhabit.
Americans who don’t understand that, who won’t bother to vote or educate themselves about the choices before us, are ultimately as dangerous as the MAGA folks who vote their fears and bigotries.
CommentsIn both the federal election and in Indiana, if the individual heading up the GOP ticket gets the most votes, that individual is highly unlikely to actually serve a full term. That’s because In both cases, the “headliner” is much older than typical candidates for President and Governor, and in the case of Trump, clearly and rapidly plunging into senility and dementia.
A few days ago, Jennifer Rubin noted that reality.
In essence, the most unqualified man ever to run for vice president — without a lick of executive public experience, just two years in the Senate, author of not a single piece of significant legislation, lacking any experience with foreign leaders — would be promoted. We would have a real life encounter with Peter’s Principle in the most important job on the planet. And considering the opposition from most of the “adults” from the first term, he might be relying on likely Trump Cabinet officials and advisers such as Kash Patel, Stephen K. Bannon, Richard Grenell, Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
As Rubin points out, Vance is far more ideological than Trump. (Let’s face it, Trump couldn’t spell ideology, let alone embrace one–his only purpose is to be noticed, to be important, and to take vengeance on his enemies.) As she says, he “blows with the wind on everything from a national abortion ban to Social Security.” Vance, on the other hand, is “enmeshed in the fever world of conspiracies,” from the anti-Semitic obsession with George Soros to the “great replacement theory” to election denial. The fact that he can spell and use words properly may make him sound saner than Trump, but his ability to articulate a coherent argument just makes him more dangerous.
MAGA Mike Braun is not as old and senile as Trump, but he’s no spring chicken. More troubling is that during the campaign, he has demonstrated absolutely no ability to rein in his White Christian Nationalist running mate–shown none of the “leadership” ability he says he’d bring to the Governor’s office.
Not only does Micah Beckwith constantly reinforce his looney-tunes faux religiosity, he–like Vance–has zero experience with, or skills required for the job he’s seeking. The Indiana Lieutenant Governor’s primary responsibilities are for agriculture and tourism. Unlike his Democratic opponent, Terry Goodin, who has ample credentials relevant to the job, Beckwith is a loose cannon culture warrior who thinks he talks to God. He’s at odds with the Constitution and rule of law and totally unfit for any public position.
Among his many “policy positions,” Beckwith equates abortion with slavery and wants to erase the already-inadequate exceptions in Indiana’s draconian ban. He has advocated shooting brown people who cross the border. He has called Jennifer McCormick–the clearly superior candidate for Governor–a “Jezebel.” He opposes same-sex marriage and gay people generally. In his one official position, on a library board, he tried to ban books. The list goes on and on.
Even if Braun is able to serve out his term, Beckwith will have a profound impact on his administration–and undoubtedly on tourism. Braun–aka “Mr. Empty Suit”–has demonstrated no ability to muzzle or redirect Beckwith, who will “represent” what it means to be a Hoosier in the eyes of many.
In a world where voters truly understood how government works and were aware of the knowledge and skills required for the positions on their ballots, the impulse to simply vote for one’s tribe might be modified by recognition of the utter unfitness of candidates like Beckwith (and Banks and Rokita). When the choices before them are limited–Americans cannot “scratch” or split their tickets for either Vice-President or Lieutenant Governor–rational voters would consider the likelihood that the secondary candidate will either be calling the shots (in the case of the federal election) or–best case scenario–simply embarrassing the state (in Indiana).
Of course, we don’t live in a world where all voters are even minimally civically-literate…..
The Harris catch-phrase, “We’re not going back,” isn’t aspirational–it’s factual. Even if the unthinkable happens, and Trump ekes out a victory, the MAGA folks will be disappointed, because the cultural changes that anger and motivate them are highly unlikely to reverse.
I’m hardly the only observer who has pointed out that this is not an election based on policy differences. Instead, our political divisions are responses to the cultural shifts that have generated hate and hysteria from a sizable minority of the population. The Dobbs decision, the anti-woke fury, the authoritarian prescriptions in Project 2025…all are reactions to cultural shifts that anger and terrify that very vocal, regressive cohort.
An excellent illustration of that primal motivation is the eruption of anti-trans political ads in the last days of the election season. The number–and viciousness–of those ads tells us two things: first, it’s politically effective to focus on the smallest and least-understood sliver of the”different” people who symbolize unacceptable social change; and second, widespread acceptance of previously favored targets–like LGBTQ+ folks generally– is now baked into the culture.
The MAGA focus on trans people was the subject of a New York Times essay by a trans author, who put the attacks in cultural context. She began by noting that approximately half of today’s Americans consider gender transition immoral–or at least, not normal. But then she reminded readers that definitions of “normal” are subject to change–and in fact, have undergone considerable change over time.
And yet most notions of “normal” have rarely been fixed, even as there have always been those who insist they are immutable. Certainly gender may be one of the most fundamental — dare I say natural — ways we have organized societies. But history reminds us that all assumptions should always be questioned. Every significant challenge to the existing order, from the vote for women to interracial unions to marriage equality, has provoked strong reactions and, not uncommonly, hand-wringing about the downfall of civilization.
She pointed to interracial and same-sex marriages.
Race isn’t gender, and the comparisons aren’t perfect. And yet the arguments made against interracial unions like the Lovings’ in the 1950s and ’60s are eerily similar to those made against marriage equality a decade or two ago and against trans people today: We hear appeals to God, science, the well-being of children and the natural order, in efforts made to write out of existence trans people, our care and our place in public life. Those arguments resonated back then, as perhaps they do for some people now. In the 1960s a vast majority of Americans disapproved of interracial marriages (a majority didn’t approve until the 1990s), even if now few question whether people of different races should be allowed to marry….
The transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, mused during his stint onstage at the Democratic National Convention about the mundane and chaotic — and yet miraculous — daily routine of raising children with his husband: “This kind of life went from impossible to possible, from possible to real, from real to almost ordinary in less than half a lifetime.”
How did support for same-sex marriage go from just over a quarter of Americans near the end of President Bill Clinton’s first term to nearly 70 percent this May?
The author noted research showing that large numbers of people who changed their minds about marriage equality did so because they knew someone who was gay or lesbian. That means that acceptance of trans folks will be more difficult; polling suggests that barely 30 percent of Americans have friends, relatives or colleagues who are transgender, and although that number may grow, it won’t ever be very high, since research tells us that transgender folks are a very small sliver of society.
Since there aren’t very many of them, and they remain a largely unknown, vulnerable (and purportedly “non-normal”) segment of the population, the GOP figures it’s safe to attack them–just as it used to be safe to attack women’s suffrage, interracial and same-sex marriage, and gay people generally.
As the author wrote,
I can’t help thinking it’s worth reflecting on what the trial judge in the Loving case, who argued that allowing people of different races to marry would go against God’s will, and other right-thinking people of that era might make of the current political landscape. For all the polarization, misinformation and puerile attacks on candidates, being married to someone of another race simply isn’t part of the equation at all. It is, in fact, something … ordinary. Even normal.
MAGA is too late. Win or lose, Harris is right: we aren’t going back.
Comments