Tag Archives: Braun

Braun And The American Idea

If you were hiring someone to manage a manufacturing business, would you hire someone who didn’t know anything about the product your factory produced? What about a nonprofit executive who disagreed with the organization’s mission?

The answers to those questions is pretty obvious, but for some reason, when it comes to government, we don’t require evidence that candidates for office understand what government is and– just as important– is not supposed to do.

As early voting gets underway in Indiana, Hoosier voters are going to the polls to choose between two statewide tickets. One of those is composed entirely of candidates who neither support nor understand America’s constitutional system. Beckwith, Banks and Rokita are out-and-proud Christian Nationalists waging war against the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State. They simply reject the system put in place by the Founders. Braun–who seems motivated only by a desire to be important–rather clearly doesn’t understand the role of government or the structure of American federalism.

One of the TV ads being run by Jennifer McCormick–who does understand those things–shows an earlier interview with Braun in which he enthusiastically endorsed the Dobbs decision that allowed state-level governments to ban abortion. When asked if he would also support criminalizing the procedure, he said he would. Less well-known was his opinion, shared in another interview, that decisions about same-sex and inter-racial marriages should also be returned to the states.

Evidently, Braun has never encountered the Fourteenth Amendment, which–among other things– requires state and local governments to govern in a manner consistent with the Bill of Rights, and forbids them from denying to their citizens “the privileges and immunities” of American citizenship. For over fifty years, those privileges and immunities have been protected by a doctrine called substantive due process, often called the “right to privacy.” That doctrine confirmed the principle that  “intimate” individual decisions—including one’s choice of sexual partners or the decision to use contraception (or more recently, the choice of one’s marriage partner) are none of government’s business.

Permit me to slip into “teacher mode.”

Constitutional scholars argue that the right to personal autonomy has always been inherent in the Bill of Rights, but it was  explicitly recognized in 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut. Connecticut’s legislature had passed a law prohibiting the use of birth control by married couples. The law prohibited doctors from prescribing contraceptives and pharmacists from filling those prescriptions.The Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that whether a couple used contraceptives was not a decision government is entitled to make.

The Court held that recognition of a right to personal autonomy—the right to self-government—is essential to the enforcement of other provisions of the Bill of Rights.  Justices White and Harlan found explicit confirmation of it in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—which is where the terminology “substantive due process” comes from. Wherever it resided–in a “penumbra” or the 14th Amendment—the Justices agreed on both its presence and importance.

The doctrine of Substantive Due Process draws a line between decisions that government has the legitimate authority to make, and decisions which, in our system, must be left up to the individual. I used to tell my students that the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things that government is forbidden to decide. What books you read, what opinions you form, what prayers you say (or don’t)—such matters are outside the legitimate role of government. The issue isn’t whether that book is dangerous or inappropriate, or that religion is false, or whether you should marry someone of the same sex, or whether you should procreate: the issue in America is who gets to make that decision.

Not the federal government. Not state governments. Individual citizens.

I will refrain from pointing out the impracticality of “states rights” on these intimate issues. (If you are in an inter-racial marriage and move to a state that forbids such unions, are you suddenly unmarried?) The more fundamental point is that allowing any unit of government to decide such matters violates the Bill of Rights and the libertarian philosophy that underlies our constitutional system.

Indiana’s MAGA GOP is offering voters an entire statewide slate of men who neither understand nor respect the Constitution–men who are applying for jobs without demonstrating any familiarity with the job descriptions.

Voters who feel comfortable allowing Indiana’s deplorable legislature to decide who they should be allowed to marry or whether they should be required to reproduce should vote for Braun and his merry band of theocrats. The rest of us will cast our votes for the Democrats.

Note: I voted early afternoon yesterday, on the first day of early voting. I stood in a fast-moving line for nearly an hour. If this year’s election will be decided–as I believe it will be–on turnout, it was a fantastic sign. 

Comments

Some Arguments Just Go On And On…

Back in the day, when I served in the Hudnut Administration, I marvelled at the persistence of some issues. The city battled over drainage, for example, year in and year out. And while the particulars have changed, Hoosiers–and all Americans–have engaged in pitched battles over education policies as long as I can remember. Can children be required to pray in the classroom? Is racial segregation constitutional? Can universities engage in affirmative efforts to diversify their student bodies?

What about privatization–aka “school choice”?

Many of these issues have more in common than appears at first glance. “School choice” programs, for example, especially appeal to parents who want their children ensconced in classrooms occupied primarily by others who look and pray like them.

I have frequently posted about the importance of public schools and the damage done to those schools and to civic cohesion by Indiana’s costly voucher program. That damage is one reason among many to vote for gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick, our former Superintendent of Public Instruction, and not Mike Braun, who wants to make Indiana’s vouchers universal. 

We now have enough experience with vouchers to assess the original claims made for privatizing our schools.

We know, for example, that vouchers don’t improve educational outcomes, that they are used primarily by wealthier families, that they increase racial segregation, and that they are particularly harmful to public schools in rural areas that lack sufficient population to support private competitors. There has been less attention focused on the educational deficits of a large number of participating private schools, although we do know that many religious academies substitute creationism for science and deliberately whitewash American history.

A few years ago, a colleague and I wondered how many of Indiana’s voucher schools taught civics. Did they teach about America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights? About democracy? The structure of government? Was civics instruction a condition of their receipt of public money? After all, the civic mission of public schools is central to their importance.

The (depressing) academic article reporting our research is here. Here’s the abstract:

America’s public schools have not been exempt from the enthusiasm for “privatization” and contracting-out that has characterized government innovations over at least the past quarter century. A number of the issues raised by school voucher programs and to a lesser extent charter schools mirror the management and efficacy questions raised by privatization generally; however, because public education is often said to be “constitutive of the public,” using tax dollars to send the nation’s children to private schools implicates the distinctive role of public education in a democratic society in ways that more traditional contracting arrangements do not. We explore the unique role of primary and secondary public schools in forging a broad consensus about the nature and importance of America’s constitutional ethic, and growing concerns that vouchers, in particular, are failing to address, let alone facilitate, an ethic of citizenship.

As we noted, arguments about providing educational competition ignore both the civic mission of education and the multiple ways in which education differs from ordinary consumer goods.

The civic mission of public schools includes the teaching of America’s history and the transmittal of the country’s core constitutional values, what I call the “Constitutional ethic.” A sound and accurate civics education provides students with an understanding of the genesis and evolution of the rules that shape and constrain public service in the United States.  The public mission of the schools requires teaching students about this country’s approach to and experience with the principles of democratic self-governance. As we wrote,

When citizens lack a common understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of America’s approach to governance and fail to form an ethical commitment to those common undertakings, a diverse polity inevitably fragments into tribal components contending for power and influence.

Indiana has very good standards specifying what our public schools must teach. As we discovered, however, oversight of the private–overwhelmingly religious–schools receiving vouchers runs from minimal to non-existent. As a result, the past few years have seen several scandals, including “virtual” schools that falsified enrollments, defrauding the state of millions of dollars.

There has been little to no research investigating the impact of voucher programs on civic knowledge and cohesion. There are no standards or procedures for assessing whether individual schools are even trying to create knowledgable, responsible American citizens.

It’s telling that Mike Braun’s pitch for a universal voucher program is “parental choice”–not educational outcomes and certainly not fiscal prudence. 

Early voting in Indiana starts today. I will cast my early vote for Jennifer McCormick, who understands that reproductive choice is good, and educational “choice”–aka vouchers–isn’t.

Join me.

Comments

The Indiana GOP’s Theocratic Ticket

My sister says we need “brains, not Braun.”

Braun’s recent, mis-named “education plan” reinforces that observation. As State Affairs has reported, Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Braun wants to remove all income limits for the state’s private school voucher program. Currently, only the wealthiest Indiana families are excluded from the use of our tax dollars to attend private–overwhelmingly religious–schools, so this proposal would further enrich the wealthy Hoosiers who disproportionately constitute Braun’s donors.

But it would do far more than that–and its disregard for evidence sheds a lot of light on why Braun has been such an undistinguished Senator.

When voucher programs were first introduced, some advocates were sincere in believing that they would improve education. We now have mountains of evidence that they don’t–that test scores of voucher students not only don’t improve, but often decline. That would be reason enough to oppose them, but the documented negative consequences go well beyond their lack of efficacy. Vouchers not only haven’t improved educational outcomes, they have increased racial segregation, facilitated religious discrimination, and been a windfall for the wealthy (many of whom already had children in private schools), all while robbing the nation’s public schools of desperately needed resources.

Braun is endorsing a program that all available evidence tells us has failed miserably while diverting millions of dollars that would otherwise be available for public education and underfunded physical and social infrastructure purposes.

(Braun’s disregard for evidence joins his disregard for public opinion. Just recently, he joined other Republicans in the U.S. Senate in defeating a bill that would offer legal protection for IVF. )

 Granted, of the four candidates on Indiana’s GOP ticket, Braun has been the least militant Christian Nationalist. For that matter, he  comes across as one of those candidates running for office in order to “be someone” rather than “do something.” It is probable that–just as with his dutiful obeisance to Trump–he’s just going with the GOP’s far Right flow. If that’s the case, we certainly can’t count on him to oppose the “theocrats-R-us” positions of the rest of the ticket.

I’ve previously reported on the extremist, unconstitutional ambitions of Micah Beckwith. (Since that enumeration, Beckwith has confirmed that he opposes the exceptions for rape and incest in Indiana’s draconian abortion ban.) At least Beckwith is honest; he publicly embraces a Christian Nationalist identity.

I’ve also written numerous times about the odious Jim Banks, running for U.S. Senate. Banks is an anti-woman, virulently anti-LGBTQ, pro-gun, climate-denying culture warrior who lives in a million dollar home in Virginia. He wants a national abortion ban with no exceptions. 

And I can’t even count the number of posts I’ve devoted to Indiana’s unethical publicity-hound Attorney-General Todd Rokita. (Here’s just one of those numerous commentaries…) I’m hardly the only one who has reported on Rokita’s efforts to pander to the most extreme MAGA folks–and his persistent use of the office to pursue culture-war efforts unrelated to the duties of an Attorney General.

The Democratic ticket, on the other hand, is refreshingly competent and sane.

Jennifer McCormick is a warrior for public education. She’s pro-choice. She wants to legalize medical marijuana. She’s the only candidate with an actual property tax plan. Terry Goodin, running for Lieutenant Governor, has significant experience with farm policy–a primary task of the LG’s office. Valerie McCray, running for Senate, is a mental health professional who is pro-choice, pro-human-rights, and concerned with the needs of America’s veterans. Destiny Wells is an Army Reserve Lt. Colonel in Military Intelligence, and an attorney committed to returning the office of Attorney General to its proper functions.

If survey research is to be believed, the Democratic ticket is far more representative of the beliefs and priorities of Indiana’s citizens than the Republican ticket. That said, Hoosiers who follow politics have recently been treated to two contending polls, one of which shows the Democratic ticket within striking distance of the theocrats, and one of which shows the Hoosier electorate still comfortably wedded to them, albeit somewhat unenthusiastically.

Polls typically report the preferences of “likely” voters, not registered voters. Pollsters have what are called “likely voter screens,” and in normal election cycles, their assessments of who among the registered voters is likely to go to the polls is reasonably accurate–although, as these dueling polls show, they can differ. But this year, there is evidence that–much like the year in which Obama was elected–a lot of unlikely voters may turn out. Registrations have spiked, and enthusiasm for the Harris/Walz ticket is palpable.

In Indiana, unusual turnout might give us a respite from 20 years of increasingly theocratic Republican control.

Comments

Compelling Versus Repelling

The New Republic recently had a column by Michael Tomasky comparing the Trump campaign to a long-running television show. His point was that the shtick has gotten old and boring. He compared Trump’s performances to several sitcoms that had been enormously popular, and noted that few of them had sustained that popularity for nine years–the length of time that Trump has inflicted his buffoonery on the country. He also pointed to data that indicates Americans are tiring of him.

It was an interesting comparison, and obviously, I hope it’s a correct one. But what caught my attention was his conclusion to the following paragraphs:

But again, for now, let’s just judge him as an act. His act is way tired. It’s now nine years of “Fake news” and “You won’t have a country anymore” and all the rest. In 2015, all those Trumpisms were stupid and disgusting; but at least they were new. I actually laughed when he described Jeb Bush as a “low-energy person.” He was! I could imagine then how, for voters who didn’t hate him, he was interesting and possibly amusing as a species that American politics rarely produces: someone who threw the script in the air and said whatever the hell popped into his mind.

That was bound to be something people wanted to watch, for a while. And it was just as bound to be something that became less compelling over time. It’s an act. And this is a key difference between politics and show business that Trump can’t see. In showbiz, and on TV, it’s all about whether the production values can sell the act. In politics, it turns out, the act needs more than slick production. It still needs to show some connection to people’s lives and concerns. Harris is better at that than Trump is. And her act is a lot fresher, too. And Walz’s act versus Vance’s? Not remotely close. Yes—Walz is so compelling, and Vance so repelling, that this is one election where the veep choices may actually make two points’ worth of difference.

Tomasky’s characterization of Walz as “compelling” and Vance as “repelling” isn”t just an accurate description of the two vice-presidential candidates. It’s an accurate description of the great majority of current Democratic and Republican candidates.

I understand that I live in an urban bubble, but everyone I know finds Trump repellant–and those who watched the Democratic Convention found most of the speakers at that event compelling. That contrast isn’t limited to national figures, either. It’s really hard to look at the Indiana Republicans’ statewide ticket without being repelled. (When MAGA Mike Braun is the least offensive candidate of the four, the GOP has really outdone itself.)

In addition to MAGA Mike, an empty suit who just wants to be important, you have smarmy Micah Beckwith hating on LGBTQ folks, advocating censorship, and telling voters that God directed the disreputable and looney mob that invaded the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. (Micah says he talks to God…)

You have equally-theocratic, anti-woman, anti-gay, wrong about pretty much everything, Jim Banks, who is evidently so personally unpleasant that even the Republicans in his current Congressional district dislike him.

And you have  “no bar is so low that he can’t go lower” Todd Rokita, who has (mis)used the. office of Attorney General to wage interminable–and tiresome–culture wars as part of his incessant pandering to the most MAGA voters of the GOP base.

I certainly find these men repellant. I also find the Democratic state ticket compelling–if you haven’t had the opportunity to hear Jennifer McCormick, Terry Goodin, Valerie McCray or Destiny Wells speak, you should try to do so. But even if you don’t find them as compelling or inspiring as I do, you’ll definitely notice that they are all sane, competent and –unlike their Republican opponents–actually qualified to do the jobs they’re running for.

I really hope that Tomasky’s comparison of political and television show popularity is correct. It would be great if the American voters who have been fascinated or intrigued (or sucked in) by the first few seasons of “Entitled White Faux Christian Guys” might be getting bored with the same-old, same-old, and ready for a different show.

How about a documentary? Say, for example, one titled “This is How Government Is Supposed to Work”?

Comments

The Unserious Party–Indiana Version

During her acceptance speech, Kamala Harris noted that Donald Trump is a deeply unserious man whose election would have very serious consequences. She might have broadened that observation by characterizing the GOP as an unserious political party.

I exited the Republican Party back in 2000, when the GOP’s transformation then underway was usually described as “rightward.” To the extent that “rightward” meant “toward fascism,” that description was accurate–but insufficient. It is equally accurate to note that the GOP has become increasingly unserious about governing.

Democrats do continue to focus on real governing issues–what should our foreign policy look like? What changes should be made to tax policy? What is government’s obligation to provide a social and physical infrastructure?  The GOP, in contrast, is focused on areas that are mostly off-limits to government under our Constitution: books they disapprove of should be removed from public libraries! Private companies should be forbidden from undertaking DEI activities! Women should be forced to give birth!

GOP priorities aren’t those that have traditionally been considered governmental.

 Indiana’s state tickets provide a picture-perfect example. The Republicans are all MAGA culture warriors, while the Democrats are focused on traditional governance issues: public education, taxation, the proper limits of government control over individuals.

The difference between the parties on issues of actual governance was recently explored by conservative economist Michael Hicks, who analyzed the seriousness of recent tax proposals. The headline was instructive: “Property taxes dominate the race for Indiana governor. Only 1 side has a real plan.” 

Indiana voters have now seen three separate property tax plans from candidates running for governor and lieutenant governor. All three offer insights into some of the fiscal philosophies of the candidates, the quality of their policy development process and the respect they have for Hoosier taxpayers.

Hicks began by discarding the plan offered by the Libertarian candidate for governor. 

Their proposal is to eliminate all residential property taxes, and instead tack on 7% sales tax to your home. I view their proposal as political posturing against the promiscuous use of tax abatements and tax-increment financing.

If you are tired of huge tax breaks for large companies, Indiana’s Libertarian Party is focused on your concerns. But their plan fails to consider things like the need to fund police protection, fire departments or provide heat to school buildings in winter.

In other words, it’s a very “unserious” plan.

Then Hicks took on MAGA Mike Braun’s plan.

The Republican — Mike Braun/Micah Beckwith — plan seems to have done two things. I say “seems” because it went through five major changes in three days after it was first announced. So, nailing down facts is not a trivial task.

The first thing this plan offers is the addition of a much larger exemption to homeowners. While this sounds alluring, it really has little or no effect on individual tax liability. Property taxes in Indiana are based on local government budgets, with caps placed on the value of the property, not the exemptions. So, for most Hoosiers, the first version of the Braun/Beckwith plan (or Beckwith/Braun plan according to the lieutenant governor candidate’s social media) had little or no effect on tax liabilities for most homeowners.

In response to major criticisms, the plan changed, but as Hicks noted, in its current iteration, it would either cut local government tax revenues or shift taxes to other taxpayers — primarily farmers and businesses.

Within farming communities, the property tax shift was enormous. Some farmers would see 70% tax increases…rural communities would see huge increases in farm taxes. Urban places would see big cuts in public services because of property tax caps, and suburban communities would need to pass school referendums to maintain bus service.

Hicks then turned to the Democrats’ plan, which would cut property taxes by roughly the same amount as the Braun/Beckwith plan, but in a way that doesn’t shift tax liability to farmers, renters or businesses. That plan

also ensured that local governments — schools, libraries, police and fire departments, and parks — would not face deep revenue losses.

Their plan had two distinguishing features. The first was that almost every element was analyzed by the Legislative Services Agency, with much of it taken from existing property tax proposals the legislature has been working on for the past 18 months. This means we know how much savings are to taxpayers, and how much and to whom the lost tax revenue flows.

The second key feature of the McCormick/Goodin plan was that most of the revenue losses were borne by state, not local government…  Notably, the Democratic plan actually caps property tax growth for individual taxpayers at a reasonable level.

Indiana Democrats want to govern. Unserious Republicans want the power to win the culture war. 

Comments