Tag Archives: governance

Teams Versus Tribes

I generally hate sports metaphors, but sometimes they are too apt to ignore, so bear with me…

I recently had a conversation with a friend who–like me–remembered the “old” days of politics, when Republicans and Democrats differed on some issues and agreed on others, and when those conversations and debates were about policy.

When I served in Indianapolis’ City Hall (I know, a zillion years ago), city leaders often met with the state legislators elected from Indianapolis. Some were Republican, some Democrat, and while they reflected the priorities of their opposing caucuses on most issues, they frequently came together to support the priorities of the city. They worked with the Mayor on initiatives that would be good for Indianapolis.

Back in that day, Republicans and Democrats were two teams. The thing about teams is that they are playing the same game and obeying the same rules. That political “game” was governing, and the goal was to score policies that benefited your constituency. (Yes, both teams had players who were all about themselves, or in the pocket of some moneyed interest, or embarrassingly dumb, but those were the exceptions. The majority really did care about legislating policies they believed were sound, even if they disagreed about what those policies were.)

Those days are over.

Over the intervening years, the “Red team”–the Republican team I played on back then–has morphed into a tribal cult. Its more liberal, moderate and thoughtful members have been ejected, leaving virtually everyone unwilling to accept the new tribal identity without a team. Some of us became Democrats, others, disenfranchised Independents.

The problem with that change from teams to tribes should be obvious. While teams are competing to win the same game, tribes aren’t interested in either competition or the game–instead, they are intent upon clearing the playing field of those despised “others.” Rather than engaging in policy debates–the “game”–or concerning themselves with issues of governance, they are focused on defeating those not in their. tribe. They are intent upon establishing dominance.

In other words, today’s tribal folks aren’t interested in governing or in the relative merits of policy A or B–their goal is much simpler: to own the “libruls” and put those uppity Blacks, women and gays back in their proper, submissive place.

Historically, tribal bonds were crucial for survival. Membership in a tribe offered deep psychological and social connections, and contributed to  human well-being and achievement. However, as we are seeing, the persistence of strong group loyalties based upon identity can foster extreme attitudes, undermine democratic principles, and inculcate an “us versus them” worldview that is deeply corrosive. When tribes are based upon racial and religious homogeneity, rather than common values and aspirations, there is no middle ground.

So here we are.

The White “Christian” Nationalist tribe that has “evolved” from the once-respectable GOP is uninterested in anything but regaining social and political dominance. They are unconcerned with the Trump administration’s destruction of our federal government and its flouting of the constitutional rules of the game and unperturbed by Trump’s embarrassing and damaging international antics– because governing in the national interest isn’t the “game” they’re playing. The tribe believes that making America “great” means putting them in charge.

It’s no wonder the Democrats are at odds over how to proceed in this new environment. Most Democratic politicians still think of themselves as members of a team that is concerned first and foremost with matters of public policy, and they’re ill-equipped to face opponents whose “policy” preferences are limited to eradicating opponents and establishing White “Christian” Nationalist dominance.

I have no idea how we extricate the country from this mismatch. If this sports analogy is right, pious exhortations to find “common ground” are unrealistic, to put it mildly. Americans will simply have to choose between the team and the tribe.

Comments

Tools

Accurate information is the most important tool at citizens’ disposal. We know that a functioning democracy requires an informed citizenry–meaning a citizenry in possession of factual information, not one misinformed by tribal propaganda. The centrality of reliable information to the democratic process explains the Trump administration’s efforts to destroy the institutions that provide that information: especially the legitimate media and the nation’s universities.

Contemporary Americans are confronting the very real threat of losing both our constitutional republic and our common sources of credible information. The thus-far unanswered question is what role our scattered and fragmented internet landscape will play in this ongoing drama. How many Americans will opt for visiting the numerous sites offering vetted and valuable data, and how many will choose to occupy the preferred “reality” offered by the equally numerous sites devoted to reinforcing their misconceptions and prejudices. 

And then there’s the “sixty-four thousand dollar” question, the one that keeps me up at night: when the inhabitants of a country occupy wildly different realities, when each of us can choose to inhabit a preferred political or social construct, is rational governance even possible? In such a world, is there even a We the People to be governed?

I don’t know the answers to those questions, but I do recognize the vast educational potential of the Internet. There are literally millions of sites that offer insights into the world we inhabit, sites that simply describe what we know about “what is.” Perhaps the continued development of AI will introduce some order to the Internet’s wildly fragmented sources of information,  misinformation and disinformation.

Who knows? Certainly not this elderly blogger….

That said, I recently stumbled across a fascinating website that triggered these observations.

MAP describes itself as “an independent, nonprofit think tank,” working to create a “thriving, inclusive, and equitable America where all people have a fair chance to pursue health and happiness, earn a living, take care of the ones they love, be safe in their communities, and participate in civic life.” It seeks to advance conversation and achieve policy change through the presentation of information based upon rigorous research and strong, collaborative partnerships.

MAP produces (duh!) maps. Democracy maps. Equality maps.

The democracy maps track the election laws and policies of each state, to create what the site describes as a “detailed roadmap of how states can optimize civic engagement and protect the security, integrity and independence of our elections.” The maps track more than 50 aspects of state election and voting laws, and make it easy to see which states are providing an environment protective of democracy, and which states are falling “woefully short.” It was fascinating to see the significant differences across the states in access to voting and the ability of citizens to mount referenda. Each state is awarded a “Democracy Tally”–based upon the number of laws and policies within the state that help create a secure and healthy election system. 

The site also tracks state-level equality for LGBTQ+ citizens. Those maps score the laws and policies affecting the gay community within each state– the laws affecting things like relationships, nondiscrimination, religious exemptions, LGBTQ youth, and access to health care, among others. (It will come as no surprise to Hoosiers that our state is one of the 17–representing 32% of the U.S. population– with the very lowest level of equality for our LGBTQ+ neighbors.) 

The site offers a wealth of information, and does so with easily understood graphics. It also has copious citations to academic and other resources, allowing any visitor to confirm the accuracy of the data provided. I really encourage you to click through and browse the informative maps and charts that paint a visual picture of America’s patchwork democratic and equality landscapes.

Every so often, I come across a website like this one that offers rigorously vetted and understandable information about a wide variety of subjects–everything from environmental analyses to medical breakthroughs to criminal justice trends. Other sites offer sweeping overviews of, or deep dives into, specific aspects of world history, of philosophical movements, of the development of the arts… We are the first generation to have this enormous trove of scholarship and information literally at our fingertips. 

We could use all that hard-won information to educate and inform ourselves, and to make the world a better place.  

Comments

Democrats Govern; Republicans Rule

It’s so easy for sane Americans to focus on the horrible, terrible, cruel and unbelievably stupid things that MAGA Republicans are doing daily. A recent example is the devastation in Texas, where inadequate warnings in advance of the weather–a result partially attributable to massive employee cuts to the Weather Service– cost over 85 people their lives.

What is frustrating is that it was so foreseeable: When the mindless, reckless cuts were being made, Scientific American ran a story headlined “How Trump’s National Weather Service Cuts Could Cost Lives,” warning that “staff cuts at the National Weather Service that have been made by the Trump administration are a danger to public safety as tornadoes, hurricanes and heat loom this spring and summer.”

The GOP has given rational Americans so many targets at both the state and federal levels that there is an understandable tendency to spend our time pointing and complaining. But as the new Chair of the Indiana Democratic Party has reminded us, complaining neglects the most important story, which is that–unlike the GOP– Democrats understand the obligations of governing, and we need to remind voters that all Americans, not just wealthy White ones, do better when Democrats are in charge.

I agree, so I wrote the following:

What happens when Americans elect Democrats? People do better.

When Democrats are in charge, states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington raise the minimum wage to $15/hour or higher.

Democrats in Blue states act to protect health coverage (Washington State even created a public health insurance option—the only one in the country) and pass laws requiring paid family and medical leave.

Blue states—including Oregon, California, Washington, Colorado and New York—make it easier to vote, expanding early voting and passing election reforms like automatic voter registration and same day registration.

Democrats support public education, and Blue states like New York, California and Oregon offer tuition-free college programs.

Indiana’s neighbor, Illinois, is a good example of the difference between Democrats who govern for We the People and Republicans who govern for the donor class. This July, Illinois Governor Pritzker signed the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Act, limiting unfair pricing practices and supporting independent pharmacies, along with four bills to help high school students afford college. In January, Pritzker signed a bill forbidding payment of less than minimum wage to disabled workers.

And the Republicans?

In Red Indiana, they’ve kept the minimum wage at 7.25 since 2009, when they grudgingly had to raise it to match the federal rate.

In Red Indiana, Republicans are throwing people off Medicaid using stricter eligibility checks, work requirements, and enrollment caps, erecting barriers that hurt the most vulnerable populations. 

Red States have made it harder for their citizens to vote– cutting early voting, requiring specific government-issued IDs, and throwing out ballots with minor errors. Polls in Red Indiana and Kentucky close at 6– earlier than any other state—making it harder for working people to cast ballots.

From education to gun safety, from climate and the environment, from education to worker protection, Democratic lawmakers work to make citizens’ lives better and fairer, while Republicans wage culture wars and make it harder for middle-class Americans to earn a decent living.

Which approach really makes America great?

Indiana’s neighbor, Illinois, is just one example of the difference between government for We the People and government for the donor class. Just this month, Governor Pritzker signed the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Act, limiting unfair pricing practices and supporting independent pharmacies, along with four bills designed to help high school students get into and afford to pay for college in Illinois. In January, he signed a bill forbidding payment of less than minimum wage to disabled workers.

There’s much more.

From education to gun safety, from climate and the environment, from education to worker protection, Democratic lawmakers in Blue America are working to protect the right to vote and the right to fair treatment. Meanwhile, Republicans in Red America are rolling back their citizens’ rights, making it harder to vote and harder for middle-class Americans to earn a decent living.

Which approach really makes America great?

Comments

Mamdani And “Leftism”

Last Tuesdaay, Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York, and the usual subjects immediately went into high gear, once again demonstrating that American politics has become all about labeling rather than policy analysis. The mere fact that Mamdami identifies as a Democratic Socialist (along with Bernie Sanders) was enough to set the Right raving about a communist takeover of the Big Apple. 

Over the past decades, the political Overton Window has shifted so far to the right that policy proposals that once appealed to liberal Republicans (back when the GOP was a political party rather than a semi-fascist cult) are now labeled “far Left.” 

Take Mamdani’s support for free bus service. My husband and I met when we both served in the very Republican Hudnut Administration–I was Corporation Counsel, he was Director of Metropolitan Development. Reporters who covered City Hall (we had those back then) considered both of us “right of center.” He has long been a proponent of free bus service, for a number of reason related to the environment and urban development.

I tend to disagree with Mamdani’s support of rent controls, which have been in place in New York since 1920, and have been supported by New York Mayors for years. I think those controls ultimately disincentivize new construction. I agree with his other proposals for increasing the housing supply–and find his concerns for housing affordability laudable–and in any sane world, centrist.

What about grocery stores for food deserts? Here in Indianapolis, in the middle of Red Indiana, lawmakers have suggested a variety of government supports for our own underserved areas–not actual municipal grocery stores, but not government “benign neglect” either.

Let’s face it–the American Left is far, far to the Right of the European Left, and bears absolutely no resemblance to communism. Right-wingers conflating them rely on Americans’ (admittedly widespread) political ignorance.

Of course, a good deal of the hysteria over Mamdani’s win is really anti-Muslim sentiment promoted by our own Taliban-like Christian Nationalists. (And I won’t even dignify the efforts to paint his entirely defensible opinions on Gaza as anti-Semitic.)

Mamdani’s victory ought to trigger a reconsideration of a foundational political issue: What is the nature of the social and physical infrastructure that government should provide? And in a federated system, which level of government should be responsible for which pieces of that infrastructure?

What sorts of “socialism” should cities provide?

Over the years, Americans–especially in our more densely-populated cities–have learned that we need to provide police and fire safety communally, that public health requires, among other things, communal provision of garbage collection. Sewers are built and maintained by public and/or semi-public entities;  until the GOP’s “privatization” efforts, public schools were understood to be a public necessity.

I haven’t seen people advocate for private provision of streets, sidewalks and traffic controls–and although a few libertarians have complained that libraries should be replaced by bookstores and public parks by private clubs, very few citizens agree. 

We don’t call those and numerous other public amenities “socialism,” but of course, they are. They are socialized services, paid for with our tax dollars.

Back when people running for public office cared about policy rather than power, political disputes were essentially about the nature and extent of the physical and social infrastructure that governments should provide, and how that provision should be structured, managed and paid for. What level of government should handle air traffic, food safety, disaster relief? What functions are more properly handled at the state or local level? Have demographic or social changes altered the considerations that led to prior decisions?

We have almost entirely abandoned those very important, very foundational questions in the midst of our existential battle to forestall a rolling coup, but ultimately, those are the questions that lawmakers must confront. They are the questions–and his answers to them– that Mamdani elevated in the recent New York primary. Political discourse in this country has become so divorced from actual policy that rather than engaging with his issues, rather than debating the merits of his proposals, the reaction to his campaign was name-calling. 

I don’t know whether Mamdani–whose experience in government is thin–will be an effective Mayor of the country’s most immense city. That issue, it seems to me, is legitimate. Mounting objections to his proposals based upon facts and evidence is also legitimate. But the critics who are engaging in labeling and name-calling have adopted Trump’s approach to politics–an approach mimicking the tactics of schoolyard bullies and five-year-olds and entirely divorced from the real issues of governance.

Comments

What It Means To Recognize Complexity

I could have written the introduction to a recent New York Times column by Frank Bruni. In fact, I’ve written some posts that sound eerily familiar! Those of you who’ve read this blog for a while will recognize the similarity; here’s his lede:

I warn my students. At the start of every semester, on the first day of every course, I confess to certain passions and quirks and tell them to be ready: I’m a stickler for correct grammar, spelling and the like, so if they don’t have it in them to care about and patrol for such errors, they probably won’t end up with the grade they’re after. I want to hear everyone’s voice — I tell them that, too — but I don’t want to hear anybody’s voice so often and so loudly that the other voices don’t have a chance.

And I’m going to repeat one phrase more often than any other: “It’s complicated.” They’ll become familiar with that. They may even become bored with it. I’ll sometimes say it when we’re discussing the roots and branches of a social ill, the motivations of public (and private) actors and a whole lot else, and that’s because I’m standing before them not as an ambassador of certainty or a font of unassailable verities but as an emissary of doubt. I want to give them intelligent questions, not final answers. I want to teach them how much they have to learn — and how much they will always have to learn.

When I was still teaching, I echoed every bit of that message–adding to the repeated admonition about complexity a lawyer’s reminder that issues are inevitably fact-sensitive. In other words, “it depends.”

Bruni’s essay goes on to address something my previous posts did not–why the recognition of complexity matters. It’s about humility. As Bruni says, recognizing that “it’s complicated” is a bulwark against arrogance, absolutism, purity and zeal.

As eminent jurist Learned Hand famously put it, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not so sure it’s right.”

Arrogance, absolutism, purity and zeal…could there be a more succinct, more accurate description of the crazies in the Senate and especially the zealots in the House of Representatives who are currently preventing thoughtful governance? (We should have a t-shirt with those words printed on it sent to Indiana’s own version of Marjorie Taylor Green, Jim Banks…)

Bruni asserts–I think properly–that humility is the antidote to grievance, and that grievance is the overwhelming political motivator these days.

We live in an era defined and overwhelmed by grievance — by too many Americans’ obsession with how they’ve been wronged and their insistence on wallowing in ire. This anger reflects a pessimism that previous generations didn’t feel. The ascent of identity politics and the influence of social media, it turned out, were better at inflaming us than uniting us. They promote a self-obsession at odds with community, civility, comity and compromise. It’s a problem of humility.

 The Jan. 6 insurrectionists were delusional, frenzied, savage. But above all, they were unhumble. They decided that they held the truth, no matter all the evidence to the contrary. They couldn’t accept that their preference for one presidential candidate over another could possibly put them in the minority — or perhaps a few of them just reasoned that if it did, then everybody else was too misguided to matter. They elevated how they viewed the world and what they wanted over tradition, institutional stability, law, order.

Bruni reminds readers that successful government requires teamwork, and that any significant progress requires consensus. “Governing, as opposed to demagoguery, is about earning others’ trust and cooperation. Exhibiting a willingness to listen to and to hear them goes a long way toward that.”

The entire linked essay is worth reading. Its message is especially pertinent to Hoosiers as Indiana winds down to the May 7th primary election. The vicious, nasty, dishonest ads being aired ad nauseam by Republicans running for Governor and for Congress are reminiscent more of monkeys throwing poo than messages from serious individuals willing to act upon their understanding of the common good. These contending political accusations display no hint of humility, no recognition of complexity, not even a nod toward civility. (Research suggests that voters’ response to such negative campaigning isn’t a vote for the particular monkey throwing the poo, but rather a decision to stay home on election day. That’s an unfortunate, but understandable, reaction.)

America faces complicated, pressing issues. We really need to stop electing purists and zealots who are ill-equipped to understand the complexity of those issues and too arrogant and absolutist to engage in the democratic negotiation and compromise necessary to solve them.

Comments