Reflections on a Toxic Election

As Americans endure one of the most unpleasant and depressing election seasons in a long time, it might be productive to consider how we ended up with a Presidential race between a buffoon and a woman people love to hate.

Pundits have had a field day speculating on why Donald Trump won the GOP primaries. They have faulted the party, identified nativism as the heart of his appeal, and accused the media of allowing him to manipulate–and dominate–the news cycles. All of which is accurate, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

If more Americans understood how government works, and what skills public office requires, the willingness to believe that anyone who had run a business could just as easily manage the affairs of the nation would disappear.

I have remarked before on the evidently widespread belief that Americans go to the polls every four years to elect a monarch, who can then wave a magic wand and effect policy change. For people who do not understand checks and balances, or federalism, or the policy process, voting for someone as unfit for office as Donald Trump may seem reasonable; for the rest of us, it’s madness.

What about the pervasive suspicion of, and distaste for, Hillary Clinton? How much of that criticism is fair, and how much isn’t?

Michael Arnovitz has probably provided the most in-depth analysis of that criticism. Both the essay linked to and the previous one referenced in it are well worth reading in their entireties, but a couple of his observations about “Hillary hatred” are particularly relevant here:

I am sure that [my] last statement about policy sent a bunch of people lunging for their keyboards in order to explain to me that Hillary Clinton’s policies are exactly what they DON’T like about her. But it is very clear to me that this is not the case. The vast majority of messages and comments about HRC that I see consist almost solely of either personal attacks, false claims, childish conspiracy theories, assumptions of guilt by association or complaints about legislation passed by her husband decades ago. Almost none of the comments I see (or have received) even bother to address her current policy positions, and most of the small few that do either willfully misrepresent them, assume as a given that they are terrible or dismiss them altogether as mere political expediency.

Arnovitz notes the extent to which criticisms of Clinton are founded on the same lack of understanding of how government actually works that gave us Trump:

Factions with strict ideological agendas love to pretend as if all policy issues, problems and solutions are simple and self-evident. But this is absurd. In truth, our world is now connected by an incredibly complex web of political, legal and economic relationships; a Gordian knot of competing agendas that can quickly take “simple” solutions to very unhappy places. Responsible politicians know this, and the law of unintended consequences patiently waits for those foolish enough to think otherwise. Which is why seasoned leaders like Hillary Clinton often favor nuanced and incrementalist approaches. These approaches are not particularly inspiring, to be sure. They also leave politicians like Clinton open to charges of avoiding necessary change or maintaining “failed” systems. But on the plus side they don’t set the world on fire. …

Finally, Arnovitz considers the years of GOP demonization of Clinton.

And finally, for those progressives who insist that there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Republicans. You know who does see a difference? Republicans. And in fact they seem to think there’s a pretty big fucking difference. Which may have something to do with why they have spent tens of millions of dollars and unknown thousands of man-hours over a multi-decade period on a single unrelenting enterprise: convincing anyone who would listen that one of the most qualified public servants in America is actually a lying, corrupt she-devil. And clearly, for at least for some of us, it was money well spent.

People are free to dismiss Arnovitz (or the fascinating article by Ezra Klein in Vox, exploring the gap between how Clinton is seen by those who know her and the public persona that triggers negative reactions), but we all need to consider what years of living with unremitting politically-motivated attacks signify to talented young people (especially women) who might consider a career in public service. Because it isn’t just Hillary Clinton, although she certainly is a high profile example.

Why enter public life, if every mistake you make, every human flaw you exhibit–and we all have them– is going to be relentlessly politicized and exaggerated?

Why “pay your dues” studying policy, or serving in a variety of public-sector positions, if voters see no difference between celebrity and competence?

Before we march to the polls to cast our votes, perhaps we should learn what the job requires, and which criticisms are relevant and which aren’t.

Comments

The Odd Couple

Shortly after the news media announced that Trump had chosen Mike Pence as a running-mate (a choice that Trump later last night said was not yet firm!), I received a request from the New York Daily News to send them 350 words describing the Governor. Here’s what I sent. (I actually think I was restrained. I could have given them the whole list.)

Yesterday, Donald Trump ended a week of feverish speculation (at least in Indiana) by choosing Governor Mike Pence as his running mate.

Color me bemused.

Pence, who describes himself as “Christian, Conservative, Republican in that order,” has a well-earned reputation as a culture warrior. In his eleven years in Congress, he was best known for efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. A bill to end tax breaks for insurance providers whose policies covered abortion appears to be the only legislation for which he was actually responsible, not just a cosponsor.

As Governor, it quickly became obvious that he had no interest in the nitty-gritty of public administration. Instead, he continued his war on Planned Parenthood, signed the most restrictive anti-abortion bill in the country, diverted education funding to an extensive school voucher program—a gift to the state’s religious schools—and most famously, infuriated the business community and a majority of Hoosiers by signing a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against LGBT citizens.

The blowback to RFRA was so intense that Pence folded, and signed an amendment “clarifying” the original bill. That retreat, in turn, infuriated the Indiana religious right activists who had promoted the measure—and who are Pence’s base.

Pence has been so inept at justifying these and numerous other unpopular actions that most political observers expect him him lose his re-election bid. That likely loss probably explains why he found a spot on Trump’s ticket attractive, despite the fact that it will require “Mr. Family Values” to sell a thrice-married proud philanderer who talks about the size of his penis to the only constituency with which he has any currency: the religious right.

What Pence adds to the ticket is harder to fathom. He certainly won’t help with women, or LGBT folks, or immigrants (he tried to prevent Syrian refugees from settling in Indiana). His much-ridiculed interview with George Stephanopoulos in the wake of the RFRA debacle suggests he isn’t nearly ready for the scrutiny he will receive on the national stage.

Trump must really need those Evangelicals.

Among the (many) things I didn’t mention was the fact that any credible Republicans who might actually have helped the ticket had previously signaled that they that weren’t interested. (Even Joni Ernst–the hog castrater–declined to be considered.)

Trump’s available choices were Newt Gingrich (six wives between them, and visions of a colony on the moon….), Chris Christie (He’s got a bridge…and an attitude) and our very own Mikey. All wounded, all with favorable ratings in the 30s or below.

Talk about your B teams…..

Comments

The Dangerous “Big Sort”

Ben Bernanke wrote an interesting article for the Brookings Institution recently, exploring public sentiments about the economy. Overall, he found little support for the thesis that the public anger and frustration that are thought to be important to Donald Trump’s campaign are rooted in economic issues. Instead, views of the economy seem to be correlated with political ideology.

I suspect that greater social and political polarization itself has a role to play in explaining reported levels of dissatisfaction. To an increasing extent, Americans are self-selecting into non-overlapping communities (real and virtual) of differing demographics and ideologies, served by a fragmented and partisan media. We see, for example, a sharply widening partisan gap in presidential approval ratings (Figure 5). As the figure shows, to a greater extent than in the past, people tend to have strongly positive views of a president of their own party and strongly negative views of a president of the opposite party.

As Bernanke notes, our “echo-chamber media” and shrill political debates give commentators and advocates strong incentives to argue that the country’s future is bleak unless their party gains control.

In this environment, it seems plausible that people will respond more intensely and negatively to open-ended questions about the general state of the country, while questions in a survey focused narrowly on economic conditions elicit more moderate responses. Without doubt, the economic problems facing the country are real, and require serious and sustained responses. But while perceptions of economic stress are certainly roiling our national politics, it may also be that our roiled politics are worsening how we collectively perceive the economy.

Bernanke’s observations are yet another data point in the thesis–first highlighted by Bill Bishop’s book The Big Sort–that Americans are moving into enclaves of the like-minded. This movement is both physical and informational, political and ideological. We are increasingly walling ourselves off from contact with people who do not share our values, opinions and lifestyles.

It may be comfortable to walk my neighborhood and see the other “Pence Must Go” signs; to log into Facebook and read posts with which I agree; and to go to parties where we all shake our heads over the same news items. But living in a voluntary ghetto does not prepare anyone for reality.

When we don’t need to defend our points of view against different perspectives, we get intellectually lazy. When we don’t consider ideas we may not have previously encountered, we  can remain lodged in narrow perspectives.

Actually, my own lack of experience with people who don’t share my worldview gives me a recurring nightmare: what if there really are more people than I think–more people than the polls reflect–who will vote for Donald Trump? ( I remember the law school buddy who was absolutely convinced that McGovern would win easily; he lived in Greenwich Village.)

Tribalism may be tempting, but it isn’t good for our souls or our intellects. And taken too far, it’s terrible for democracy.
Comments

Protecting Article XII

Well, Trump visited central Indiana yesterday, for a fundraiser and rally. It only increased the intense speculation about whether he would add Indiana’s embarrassing Governor to his ticket.

In many respects, they would be a political odd couple, but they do have one thing in common: neither of them appears to have much familiarity with, or regard for, the Constitution.

In his recent meeting with Congressional Republicans, for example, Trump emphasized his readiness to protect America’s Constitution–including Article Twelve.

Of course, there is no Article Twelve.

We probably shouldn’t be surprised; to the extent that this particular candidate has policies, a significant number of them are patently unconstitutional. Trump says he would authorize torture, round up and deport immigrants (no mention of due process, which is evidently not a phrase in the vocabulary of the man who brags that he has lots of “good words”), and he has proposed “passing a law” to eliminate the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision.

It’s mind-boggling that any citizen of the U.S. knows so little about America’s legal framework that he thinks passing a law can change constitutional mandates. (Even Pence and my least civically knowledgable students know better than that.) The fact that the Presidential nominee of a major political party is so ignorant of the most basic rules that constrain all elected officials–rules that he would be charged with defending and obeying if, God forbid, he should win–is stunning.

I know I am a broken record on the subject of civic literacy, but the ability of a man like Trump to garner 13 million votes in the primaries is at least partially attributable to the fact that too many Americans know little or nothing about the country’s legal framework or governing architecture.

The American Constitution was not handed down by God (although some on the far Right actually have made that claim). There are good reasons to consider amending parts of it, and serious political figures and scholars who advocate for such changes–but no credible source suggests that the Constitution is irrelevant and can simply be ignored.

What separates successful countries from theocracies, autocracies and banana republics is respect for the rule of law. The basic premise of the rule of law is that laws and regulations apply to everyone. It is the obligation of all citizens–including Presidents, Governors, and all other elected officials–to follow the same rules that apply to the rest of us.

Actually, it shouldn’t surprise us that Trump doesn’t understand that. He’s lived his entire life convinced that the rules don’t apply to him, and he’s made it quite clear that, if he should be elected, he won’t let pesky rules or constitutional provisions get in his way.

That attitude and ignorance explains why citizens who are civically literate find the prospect of a Trump Presidency terrifying.

Comments

Time to Shoot Down the NRA

The NRA reveres the Second Amendment (well, their version, at least). The First, not so much.

In the wake of daily reports of gun violence–the most recent of which include the massacres in Orlando and Dallas, and the murder of two bailiffs in a Michigan courtroom and none of which were prevented by a “good guy with a gun”–it may be appropriate to look at the extent to which the organization has stymied even reasonable legislative efforts to understand the dimensions of the problem.

Thanks to the NRA, Congress has steadfastly refused to fund research that might help us understand how we might tackle gun injuries and improve public safety. But the NRA isn’t active only at the federal level, and it isn’t just worried about research.

As I learned from Mort Tavel’s blog,

As a physician, I had always prided myself on being free to advise patients about all health issues, including risks that could endanger their personal well-being and that of their families and loved ones. This meant that I could inquire not only about immediate risks such as smoking and diet, but, among others, about whether a patient was using his/her seat belt when driving, or exposing family members to the toxic effects of secondary cigarette smoke in the home. I was also free to inquire whether a given patient had a firearm at home, because of the potential dangers involved. In that regard, evidence shows that the presence of a gun in a home increases by threefold the risk of death for all household members, especially by suicide, when compared with homes free of guns. Even worse, this risk rises to fivefold greater for children residing in homes possessing firearms. Thus these dangers are so great that it is incumbent on physicians to counsel patients about risks of home firearms and to recommend countermeasures, which include use of safety devices and meticulous storage of weapons, or better yet, total removal of guns from the household. This is so important that all major physicians’ organizations, including the AMA, have recommended that physicians discuss firearm safety with their patients.

So can such responsibilities be forbidden? Outrageously, Florida’s Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act was enacted in 2011 in response to concerns raised by some patients whose physicians asked them about gun ownership. The law prohibits physicians from intentionally entering information into a patient’s record about firearm ownership that “is not relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.” Thus physicians may not ask about firearm ownership unless they believe “in good faith” that “such information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.” Physicians who violate this law may be “disciplined” (whatever that means).

A physicians’ group sued Florida, on the very reasonable grounds that the law violates doctors’ First Amendment free speech rights. However, a 3-judge panel of the Florida Court of Appeals upheld the Act, on the dubious grounds “that physician counseling may be so persuasive as to deter patients from exercising their Second Amendment right to own guns.”

To say that such a decision is bizarre and totally inconsistent with First Amendment jurisprudence is an understatement.

Worse, last year, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

This, the court acknowledges, is a restriction on doctors’ speech. But, the court concludes, when a professional (lawyer, doctor, financial planner, and the like) is directly advising a client — as opposed to, say, opining on law or medicine on a blog — that professional-client speech is more restrictable.

The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog maintained by Eugene Volokh, a conservative law professor who is a strong defender of both the First and Second Amendments. Volokh has serious concerns about the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning.

This selective targeting of questions about guns — when other, likely quite common, questions about private matters aren’t restricted — suggests that this law isn’t really about protecting privacy as such. Rather, it’s about preventing doctors from spreading what many gun rights supporters see as unsound anti-gun propaganda.

The First Amendment forbids government suppression of speech based upon its content. This is a very troubling deviation from settled constitutional principles.

Missouri and Montana have laws similar to Florida’s; all supported by the NRA.

For far too long, elected officials at all levels–and evidently, a number of judges– have been in thrall to the NRA, an organization devoted to the bottom-line health of gun manufacturers, not fidelity to the Second Amendment or–quite clearly– any other part of the Constitution.

It needs to stop.

Comments