Meanwhile…

One of Stephen Colbert’s recurring “shticks” on the Late Show is a bit he calls “Meanwhile.”  He begins by explaining that X is happening, but meanwhile…there’s Y and Z, factoids that are hardly earth-shattering, but intriguing (and usually very funny).

A lot of us–especially those who participate in discussions here–obsessively follow government and politics, and are currently mourning America’s suicidal plunge back into the unresolved hatreds and fantasies of the past.  I’m certainly not going to advise “checking out”–although many of us are currently taking a vacation from the avalanche of depressing news–but I am going to counsel a detour into “meanwhile.”

Did far too many Americans vote affirmatively for ugly and hateful? Did too many consider the explicit threats to “others”–people with identities different from their own–irrelevant? Did far too many Americans ignore their most basic civic responsibility, which was to cast an informed ballot? Are we currently being inundated with after-the-fact “analyses” by self-important and un-self-aware pundits convinced that if Democrats had just done it their way, the result would be different?

Yes, yes and yes. All of it.

But meanwhile, in hundreds of communities, good people are continuing to do good things. Friends are volunteering at homeless shelters. Congregations that take seriously the moral teachings of their churches, synagogues and mosques are sponsoring food banks and offering sanctuary. Professional organizations are continuing to provide legal and medical assistance to folks in poor communities. The list goes on, and these efforts will be even more important as the assault on various types of federal assistance takes hold.

There are literally millions of efforts constantly underway to lend assistance to one group or another, or to bring a bit of joy to people who have less, or who who face adversity of one sort or another.

One example: on my desk at this moment is a flyer given to me by a friend who is (over)involved in such efforts, who has asked me to assist his nonprofit by helping sell tickets to “A Broadway Christmas,” featuring Anthony Nunziata. (Nunziata is described on the flyer as “A Carnegie Hall Headliner dubbed America’s New Singing Sensation.”) According to. my friend, Nunziata is donating his performance, because the entire event is intended to support an organization called “Kids Dance Outreach.” It’s a nonprofit that serves disabled children, ages 2-14, in school and after-school dance programs.

The organization’s webpage describes its mission as “To positively impact the lives of all children through joyful dance programs that inspire excellence, instill confidence, encourage teamwork, and applaud persistence.” It also says its free programs have served over twenty-two thousand children thus far.

With a commitment to providing high-quality dance education to all children, all KDO programs are inclusive for children with physical, cognitive, and developmental disabilities. The Dancers with Disabilities Programs offer further opportunities specifically designed for children with disabilities to learn and grow in a safe and joyful environment.

(The program my friend is promoting will be held at 7:00 pm at Broadway United Methodist Church on December 14th. Anyone in Indianapolis interested in attending can purchase tickets on the website.)

Efforts like this one may seem irrelevant–or at least, small potatoes– to those of us consumed with worry over Trump’s ability to deliver imminent, widespread harm . Dancing children? Fiddling while Rome burns, thanks to our own American Nero? But efforts like this one–and there are literally millions of similar, seemingly irrelevant programs across this country–programs that testify to the presence of millions of good people working with others to brighten the lives of those who are less fortunate or who face challenges the rest of us have been spared.

There’s a recent cartoon (I think from the New Yorker) that struck me. I’m paraphrasing, but in the single panel, one woman is telling another that–upon consideration following the election– her mistake was believing in the goodness of a majority of Americans. It’s tempting to take that lesson from the undeniable fact that millions of Americans cast votes for a vicious, mentally-ill criminal with a clearly-articulated desire to destroy America’s constitutional democracy.

But that would be the wrong lesson.

Yes, a sizable portion–probably a majority– of Trump’s vote came from the out-and-out bigots: racists, anti-Semites and misogynists he intentionally courted. But many others voted from ignorance fostered by dependence on right-wing propaganda. And all of those votes together did not reach 50% of the total cast.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans were volunteering or otherwise supporting the multitude of not-for-profit and voluntary organizations which exist only to help others. True, it isn’t enough. We have significant systemic issues we need to resolve.

But at times like these, it’s worth remembering.

Comments

What Individuals Must Do

Almost everything I’ve read in the wake of the election has fallen into one of two categories: why did it happen? and what can we do? Articles in that first category vastly exceed those in the second, and that is unfortunate. Although it is always important to analyze the source of a problem, too many of the purported analyses have been smug, finger-pointing accusations by self-important know-it-alls–hardly helpful suggestions for action.

Also, many of us want an answer to the question: what can I do? I’m one of those people: tell me I can only solve problem X by climbing that mountain, and I’ll strap on my boots and start climbing. Tell me there’s really nothing I can do about problem X and I just feel helpless and depressed.

A newsletter from Democracy Docket (no link) recently summarized how we got here, and did so in an abbreviated (but reasonably accurate) few paragraphs:

The moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party did not happen overnight. It happened gradually — starting with Newt Gingrich’s attack on the government in the early 1990s. It continued with the Tea Party movement, the birther conspiracy and the nomination of Donald Trump in 2016.

It gained momentum when Trump won the 2016 election despite losing the popular vote. Once in office, it grew worse when his attacks on democratic institutions were met with acquiescence by most of his party.

The mistake many of us made was believing that the aftermath of the 2020 election marked an end to the GOP’s descent into moral collapse. We were wrong. Jan. 6 marked a further descent into the moral abyss.

By 2024, the few principled Republicans had already abandoned their party for the “Never Trump” movement. What was left were Trump dead-enders and those without any core principles at all. A party once built on the promise of Lincoln had become the morally bankrupt party of Trump.

So here we are. We have one party that has become, for all intents and purposes, a cult. It has turned its back on the project of governing in favor of a hysterical retreat into a past that never existed and an agenda of resentment and “othering.” That has left the remaining party the unenviable task of herding cats–representing voters who range from center-Right but too sane to stay in the GOP all the way to Bernie Sanders and AOC and even further Left. 

So that’s where we are. That rather obviously leaves us with the second question: what can we do? Are there promising steps that individuals can take that are likely to make a difference, or are our problems so massive that all we can do is marinate in our distress?

I’ve arrived at an answer that may or may not be correct, but works for me. (I encourage you all to rebut my suggestions and to offer better or additional ones).

As I indicated in a couple of recent posts, I think those of us who recognize that we are individually powerless to affect the dysfunctions and outrages of a national government headed by Trump have to turn to activism at the local level. Even rural occupants of Blue states can work through local government to protect citizens from the Trump assaults; in Red states, cities of over 500,000 are uniformly Blue, and activism is possible at the municipal level. (Rural folks in states like Indiana can at least join statewide organizations working to protect civil liberties or immigrants’ rights or the environment.)

In my case, given my interests and background, I will volunteer with local lawyers’ groups–certainly the ACLU, but perhaps  others as well– to determine the measures that are available in our federalist system, and work to use whatever tools we identify, including but not limited to lawsuits. While we no longer have a Supreme Court that we can rely upon to enforce the Constitution, there are numerous good judges at the local and appellate levels, and justice is famously slow. By the time any appeals reach the Supreme Court, we may be emerging from much of the current darkness. 

Others of you might work with local groups focused on immigrant rights, or on health, reproductive or environmental issues.

Most importantly, local activists need to work with educators and with recently established local media outlets, to educate and inform the voting population. If there was any systemic failure that led to our current disaster, it was widespread civic ignorance and misinformation. Citizens need to understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and they need to recognize the ways in which MAGA Republicanism rejects that foundational framework.

We have work to do.

Comments

The Merits Of Federalism

I have always been ambivalent about American federalism. I know that many in the legal community, including Supreme Court Justices who came after him, agreed with Justice Brandeis that federalism encourages the states to be “laboratories of democracy,” but I also know that many states–including the one I inhabit–use “states’ rights” as their defense against compliance with national rules, especially– but certainly not exclusively–the extension of civil liberties to their own citizens.

The election of Donald Trump, however, has made me a federalism fan.

In a recent opinion piece, Jennifer Rubin focused on the possibilities for resistance that our federalist system provides to Blue state governors in the face of Trump’s assault on rational federal governance.

The positive news: Governors are constitutionally empowered and morally obligated to check the federal government and fill the gaps where the federal government has abandoned vulnerable people. They will be the last line of defense against an irresponsible and reckless Trump administration.

Fortunately, an extraordinary batch of Democratic governors including Tim Walz of Minnesota, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Wes Moore of Maryland, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Maura Healey of Massachusetts appear ready to both protect their residents from a reckless administration and offer an alternative vision that benefits average Americans.

Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, told the New York Times, “States in our system have a lot of power — we’re entrusted with protecting people, and we’re going to do it.” He added, “They can expect that we’re going to show up every single time when they try to run over the American people.”

What can states do to counter what Rubin calls Trump’s “grab bag of crackpots?” His bizarre choice of RNK, Jr., who has declared war on medicine, is joined by his pick for secretary of defense, a man who doesn’t appear to believe in germs, and a nominee to head up Medicare who championed the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, (Her column appeared before the CEO of the Wide World of Wrestling was chosen to head up the Department of Education.)

In the face of growing evidence that Trump intends to decimate the federal government, what can governors do? According to Rubin, plenty. With respect to health issues,

they can stockpile vaccines and abortion medications, offer medical school students from red states a transfer to their schools, loosen rules for telemedicine, ease requirements to license doctors accredited elsewhere, reiterate vaccine requirements for schoolchildren (and fund free vaccine programs for vulnerable communities), expand their own health departments and pool resources to fund medical research. In short, they can develop an alternative model of responsible health-care governance.

Governors’ actions can go well beyond healthcare. If Trump’s government tries to enforce his promises to roll back overtime and worker safety rules, governors can enforce state laws protecting workers. They can defend the environment by bringing a steady stream of litigation to protect air, water and natural resources. (Rubin notes that Democracy Forward, a legal group formed after Trump’s 2016 win, has built a “multimillion-dollar war chest and marshaled more than 800 lawyers to press a full-throated legal response across a wide range of issues.”)

On other fronts, they can sue to enforce consumer protection rules or challenge coercive action depriving states of federal funds. (States filed roughly 160 suits against the first Trump administration.) Bob Ferguson, Washington’s Democratic attorney general and governor-elect, recently said that, according to Associated Press, “offices of Democratic attorneys general have been in touch for months to talk about how to push back against Trump’s policies.” They also can maintain strict gun safety regulations, bring suits against gun manufacturers and fund research on gun violence….

To promote democracy, they can offer enhanced civics education, public media literacy programs and public service requirements for high school and college graduates. And, as leading legal minds have been arguing for some time, they can creatively expand multistate compacts on everything from “social services delivery; child placement; education policy; emergency and disaster assistance; corrections, law enforcement, and supervision; professional licensing; water allocation; land use planning; environmental protection and natural resources management; and transportation and urban infrastructure management.” A new entity, Governors Safeguarding Democracy, may be just the vehicle to facilitate this activity.

Finally, Rubin notes that governors can counter the right-wing media ecosphere by highlighting the damage caused by anti-family, anti-child and anti-life MAGA policies.

Rather obviously, Red state governors won’t take such measures, so the resistance won’t be uniform. But it will be instructive. And it will offer Americans options– places to relocate to if and when their own state’s compliance with the wrecking crew becomes too onerous.

Comments

The Policies Of Resentment

Perhaps the most potent cause of MAGA adherence is resentment–the belief by far too many Americans that they are being denied their rightful status or being cheated out of benefits to which they are entitled by the “Others” who are “milking the system.”

Social policy can either ameliorate or feed those feelings.

As I have argued previously, policies intended to help less fortunate citizens can be delivered in ways that stoke resentments, or in ways that encourage national cohesion.  Consider public attitudes toward welfare programs aimed at impoverished constituencies, and contrast those attitudes with the overwhelming majorities that approve of Social Security and Medicare.

The difference is that Social Security and Medicare are universal programs. Virtually everyone contributes to them and everyone who lives long enough participates in their benefits. Just as we don’t generally hear complaints that “those people are driving on roads paid for by my taxes,” or sentiments begrudging a poor neighbor’s garbage pickup, beneficiaries of programs that include everyone (or almost everyone) are much more likely to escape stigma. In addition to the usual questions of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, policymakers in our diverse country should evaluate proposed programs by considering whether they are likely to unify Americans or further divide us. Universal policies are far more likely to unify, an important and often overlooked argument favoring both national health care and a Universal Basic Income.

The defects of existing American welfare policies are well-known and substantial. We have a patchwork of state and federal efforts and programs, with bureaucratic barriers and means tests that aren’t just expensive to administer, but also operate to exclude most of the working poor. Those who do manage to get coverage are routinely stigmatized by moralizing lawmakers pursuing punitive measures aimed at imagined “takers” and “Welfare Queens.” Current anti-poverty policies have not made an appreciable impact on poverty, but they have grown the bureaucracy and contributed significantly to stereotyping and socio-economic polarization; as a result, a growing number of economists and political thinkers now advocate replacing the existing patchwork with a Universal Basic Income- a stipend sent to every U.S. adult citizen, with no strings attached– no requirement to work, or to spend the money on certain items and not others– a cash grant sufficient to insure basic sustenance.

Critics of social welfare are appalled by the very thought of uniformity. Why, we’d end up paying people who didn’t deserve it!  It would encourage sloth, it would be spent on booze and drugs, it would require hard-working folks to pay increased taxes…

Interestingly, one “factoid” I recently came across seems relevant to this discussion: Residents in more than half of America’s counties now draw a substantial share of their total income — more than a quarter — from the government. Assuming the accuracy of that data point (I’ve lost the source), we now provide that money in massively inefficient ways.

Numerous pilot programs have disproven predictions that a UBI would undermine ambition and productivity.

The Washington Post recently surveyed the results, in an essay titled “Universal Basic Income Has Been Tested Repeatedly: It Works. Will America Ever Embrace It?”

A growing body of research based on the experiments shows that guaranteed income works — that it pulls people out of poverty, improves health outcomes, and makes it easier for people to find jobs and take care of their children. If empirical evidence ruled the world, guaranteed income would be available to every poor person in America, and many of those people would no longer be poor.

The Mirror, a news site in Indianapolis, recently reported on a small experiment here.

The universal basic income program was funded through a partnership between three Indianapolis nonprofits: Southeast Community Services, Edna Martin Christian Center and John Boner Neighborhood Centers. Participants received a total of 18 monthly payments from October 2022 to this March.

The program represented an effort to experiment with giving money directly to Indianapolis families, rather than providing them with assistance through programming or donations. Though participants got their last check two months ago, the basic income program was such a success that the centers are hoping to do it again.

Rather than spending their stipends on booze and drugs, or quitting jobs, nearly three-fourths of the participants were  spending most of their monthly $500 to help cover rent or housing costs.

The research typically focuses on the use people make of the stipends, and the programmatic effects–effects that are overwhelmingly positive. But researchers have neglected to study what may be the most positive aspect of such programs: the extent to which they reduce, rather than aggravate, the tendency to stigmatize recipients and further inflame bigotries.

That may be the most beneficial outcome of all.

Comments

The Pollyanna Approach

The daily headlines confirm the utter incompetence of the MAGA Republicans Trump has selected to run the federal government, and it understandable that rational people are experiencing varieties of depression. At least in the short-to-medium term, millions of people will be hurt. Badly. Assuming Trump gets his tariffs and his appointees, there will be dramatic inflation and domestic chaos; worse still, the chances of triggering World War three will be higher than they’ve been in a long time.

Not exactly the sort of situation to inspire hope. So how would a Pollyanna approach what promises to be a very dark time?

The answer to that question lies in the “what comes after.” There is no doubt that, barring a miracle, the next few years will see significant destruction of federal governance. We have already experienced the erosion of longstanding norms of democratic behavior in Congress; the narrowness of GOP victory (and the return of several congressional lunatics) will undoubtedly keep the House dysfunctional. Trump’s Supreme Court has already demonstrated its willingness to abandon the rule of law. With the guardrails gone, it will get very ugly very quickly, and a lot of people will suffer.

But the thing about ugly is: it engenders anger and resistance. And it ultimately collapses.

Over the past two hundred plus years, American law and policy have changed–often for the better, but also for the worse. Our electoral system has ossified, becoming less representative and less democratic. Our economic system has morphed from capitalism to a corporatism/crony capitalism that heavily favors the haves. Our social safety net is unwieldy, unnecessarily bureaucratic and underinclusive. Our citizens no longer trust the government or each other.

The underappreciated Biden Administration moved to correct much of the economic damage–and those moves were widely successful. Had Harris been elected, it is likely that she would have continued along that path of incremental improvement–but she couldn’t have dislodged the moneyed interest groups or repaired the the baked-in electoral dysfunctions–the Electoral College, the bloated version of the filibuster, the widespread gerrymandering and other structural mechanisms distorting the “voice of the people.”

The term “creative destruction” was first coined by Marx, who applied it to capitalism, but it has subsequently taken on a variety of other meanings. Here, I’m using it to describe a process in which widespread destruction of existing systems facilitates the birth of a better replacement. As we watch the Trumpers’ purposeful destruction of a governing framework that has developed over 200+ years, we need to consider what we will create to replace it. Any such consideration requires that we be clear-eyed about the nature of our structural, economic, legal and educational failures and inequities.

It will also require a national conversation on a basic topic: what is government for?

In coming posts, I will lay out my own argument, which is essentially that government is the mechanism through which a society provides two necessary infrastructures: one physical and one social. There is very little disagreement about responsibility for the physical infrastructure, although the pro-privatization movement made some (largely unsuccessful) inroads. Instead, our political disputes have largely centered on the contours of the social infrastructure.

America’s obsessive focus on individual responsibility and achievement has obscured recognition of the equally important role played by the governing institutions within which we are embedded. Elizabeth Warren summed it up in a much-cited comment.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory… Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

We Americans too often fail to recognize the extent to which individual success is dependent upon government’s ability to provide a physical, legal and cultural environment within which success can occur.

Bottom line: We absolutely need to resist the illegal and inhumane actions of the incoming administration. But we also need to think long and hard about the repair job–the dimensions of an improved social contract– that will be needed when this eruption of corruption and bigotry has run its course.

Comments