Let's say you belong to a kayak club. The club is for all types of kayaking: sea kayaking, whitewater kayaking, kayak fishing, even a few surfskiers. You're a sea kayaker. The club was founded by sea kayakers and they still represent the majority of the club. One of your buddies is a whitewater kayaker and he mentions one day that the club isn't very fair to his kind. Huh?
He points out that the officers in the club are almost all sea kayakers. That the club has arranged for discounts with sea kayak manufacturers, but nothing for whitewater kayakers. The club's big summer party is always scheduled on the same day as a popular whitewater release so they have to choose which one to attend. The club offers discounts on sea kayaking courses and actively recruits new members at sea kayak events - even offering a discount for people who own their own sea kayaks (but not for whitewater boats).
You never really thought of it, but he has a point. Your defense is that all those decisions are voted on by the club, so it's only fair to represent the majority. He points out that the club charter states it's a club for everyone and explicitly states that every type of kayaking deserves the same club benefits. You don't really have an answer for that.
You say that he should bring this up at the meetings. Maybe he should run for the board and try to make some changes. He says he and his whitewater friends have been asking for changes for years. They do run for the board but the sea kayakers always elect sea kayakers. Whenever whitewater folks bring up these issues they get ignored. Most sea kayakers, like yourself, never even think about such things. They have tried to make a change but they don't have the power.
But you do. You are part of the majority. If you think the situation is unfair, your voice carries more weight than theirs. Your friends (the other sea kayakers) are the ones who serve on the board and make the decisions. The only way the situation will change is if enough of the sea kayakers recognize the unfairness and are willing to sacrifice to make it better - sacrifice meaning giving up their unfair privilege. They will have less control of the board, maybe get less financial support from the club for their own events. They might end up with more whitewater kayakers (and others) in the club. They might even lose their majority. But you know what's right and you want to be fair. The question is: what are you willing to do about it?
If a situation is unfair, who has the responsibility to change it? The people who are disadvantaged and lack power? Or those who have the power through unfair means? While we easily accept it's human nature to take advantage of a situation when it favors us, we all really know, deep down, what's right and what's wrong, and who is responsible for fixing it. We're all just one big kayak club.
Thoughts on the world from a rational existentialist.
Monday, December 24, 2018
Friday, November 16, 2018
Analogies: Is the Game Fair?
Imagine you have a kid - maybe you really do so this will be easy. Your kid loves basketball. She practices every day and is the star of her traveling team. They have a huge tournament over several weekends, and she is super excited and hopes to help her team win the whole thing.
But in the first game you notice that she's getting called for fouls a lot. Fouls she isn't committing. And the other kids are not getting called when they foul her. It's unfair officiating and she has a bad game. Afterwards you console her and agree that it wasn't fair. But she should shake it off. Keep working hard and doing her best and everything will work out. But the same thing happens in the next game: the refs single her out, treat her unfairly, and she doesn't do as well as she's capable of.
So you look into it and hear the refs are doing this to some other kids too. All kids with blue eyes like your daughter. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for it, but the stats prove it's true. Blue-eyed kids are being called for more fouls, fewer fouls are being called against them, and all the statistics show that blue-eyed kids are not performing as well as other kids or as well as they have done throughout their career. The whole tournament is unfair to kids like yours. What do you do?
First, you probably repeat your inspirational speech to your kid. Life isn't always fair but you do the best you can in the circumstances you find yourself in. You just have to play harder and be better than the other kids. Try to keep yourself out of situations where they might call a foul on you. Don't let the fouls other commits get to you. Let it go and focus on your own actions and if you don't win realize it isn't your fault. You know you tried your best.
Good parenting, but is that all? I don't think you'd just accept an unfair tournament. You'd probably complain to the rules committee. Maybe organize the other parents. Carry signs. Yell at the refs. Maybe go so far as to boycott a game. And if you did everything you could and the tournament was still biased against your kid I bet you'd definitely skip that tournament in the future. You would do everything you could to ensure your kid gets treated fairly, that they have an equal chance to win as every other kid out there. They deserve it.
Now, what if your kid had brown eyes and they weren't the ones being discriminated against? What if instead of a basketball tournament it was life itself? What would you do to make sure it was fair? We all know the right thing to do, we just have to be motivated out of self-interest to do it. We should be better than that. All kids deserve it.
But in the first game you notice that she's getting called for fouls a lot. Fouls she isn't committing. And the other kids are not getting called when they foul her. It's unfair officiating and she has a bad game. Afterwards you console her and agree that it wasn't fair. But she should shake it off. Keep working hard and doing her best and everything will work out. But the same thing happens in the next game: the refs single her out, treat her unfairly, and she doesn't do as well as she's capable of.
So you look into it and hear the refs are doing this to some other kids too. All kids with blue eyes like your daughter. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for it, but the stats prove it's true. Blue-eyed kids are being called for more fouls, fewer fouls are being called against them, and all the statistics show that blue-eyed kids are not performing as well as other kids or as well as they have done throughout their career. The whole tournament is unfair to kids like yours. What do you do?
First, you probably repeat your inspirational speech to your kid. Life isn't always fair but you do the best you can in the circumstances you find yourself in. You just have to play harder and be better than the other kids. Try to keep yourself out of situations where they might call a foul on you. Don't let the fouls other commits get to you. Let it go and focus on your own actions and if you don't win realize it isn't your fault. You know you tried your best.
Good parenting, but is that all? I don't think you'd just accept an unfair tournament. You'd probably complain to the rules committee. Maybe organize the other parents. Carry signs. Yell at the refs. Maybe go so far as to boycott a game. And if you did everything you could and the tournament was still biased against your kid I bet you'd definitely skip that tournament in the future. You would do everything you could to ensure your kid gets treated fairly, that they have an equal chance to win as every other kid out there. They deserve it.
Now, what if your kid had brown eyes and they weren't the ones being discriminated against? What if instead of a basketball tournament it was life itself? What would you do to make sure it was fair? We all know the right thing to do, we just have to be motivated out of self-interest to do it. We should be better than that. All kids deserve it.
Monday, November 5, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 27: Why I vote
I grew up in a small farm town in Minnesota, was raised by well-educated parents, and faced very little adversity. We weren’t rich. We didn’t live extravagant lives or take fancy vacations, but we never really worried about putting food on the table or keeping the roof over our heads. I worked summer jobs to buy a cheap car in high school and got through college without loans through scholarships and work-study. All pretty typical for a white guy in the midwest. I never really cared much about politics because it meant little to me personally.
Sure, it was worth an intellectual discussion. Did American Democracy influence Europe nineteenth century development or did European ideals of aristocracy and pre-eminence distort the Constitution’s ideals of liberty and equality? Were the budget deficits of the 80’s worth it to end the Cold War or did they usher in a new era of perpetual debt and mistrust of government? But actual laws passed, which Party governed my state or country, those had little impact on my life.
The unemployment rate never touched me because I was a well-educated white male who could always find a job - or fall back on my extended support system of family and friends. I didn’t face discrimination of any kind or lack the rights of other people. I knew that if I called the police for help they would come quick and assume I was the good guy. If I didn’t get health care through my job I wasn’t worried because I was young and healthy. I didn’t rely on public transportation, didn’t need childcare, and made enough money, though not too much, so that my tax bill was a minor inconvenience at worst.
I lived my life according to the virtues I’d been raised with: work hard, be honest, treat everyone with respect, and give everyone a fair chance. I looked at the society around me - mostly people similar to myself - and it seemed like my neighbors did the same. I didn’t see discrimination (I didn’t see many people of color, either). I didn’t see bigotry or racial animus (most people treated me fine). People seemed to be respectful to women (in my presence) and immigrants were welcomed (in so much as they were gainfully employed doing a lot of the grunt work to make our lives easier). So while it was clear that much of our political rhetoric and policies weren’t nearly so egalitarian, life seemed okay and it was easier to simply be a good person and not waste my time or energy fighting the evil in the world.
As I grew older and experienced more of life, I broadened my horizons. I got to know people who were unlike me - less privileged, less white, less male. Social media came along and made it easier to hear the personal stories of lots of people like that. I started paying attention to those stories. I saw the penalties for crack cocaine (used mostly by poor, black people) were 50 times harsher than those for powdered cocaine (used mostly by rich white people) in spite of it being the same drug. I heard arguments that gay people should not be allowed to marry because they didn’t deserve the same rights as ‘us’. I worked with poor people whose health suffered because they couldn’t afford care.
Then I got married. And had a daughter. The future suddenly held much more importance and the rights of women (and other disadvantaged groups) became personal. I watched as my country elected a man who bragged about sexual assault to the highest office of the land. I listened as he spewed racist and sexist rhetoric and a large proportion of our society cheered. I felt helpless when more people made it very clear a woman’s trauma is less meaningful than a judge’s partisanship, that her sincerity and credibility still count less than his blatant dishonesty and deception. This is not the society I want for my daughter.
Women are paid less for doing the same job with the same experience as men. Women-dominated professions have lower salaries than male-dominated ones requiring the same education. Women are still doing most of the care work for children and households and are still grossly under-represented in higher levels of business and politics. They pay more for reproductive health care and shoulder a higher burden for birth control, yet many in our society want to limit their choices over their own bodies.
When I talk to other privileged white people like myself, many bristle at the suggestion that we are privileged, though they don’t have any real argument with the data that proves it. They also talk a lot about how much better things are for the marginalized than they used to be - as if ‘better’ is good enough. Or claim the best way to help anyone is to improve the economy (which they often measure by GDP or the Stock Market). And they are quick to assert that they are colorblind towards people and ‘respect’ women - though they’re still somehow more worried about the .005% of men who might be falsely accused of sexual assault instead of the 15% of women who are assaulted. It’s all just excuses to say that the inequities and discrimination in our society are not their fault because they aren’t personally discriminating or disrespecting anyone. But they do vote.
And a vote for Republicans is a vote for a party that has made it perfectly clear that women are not meant to be treated equally or fairly. They oppose the Equal Rights Amendment. They oppose maternity leave requirements. They won’t reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. They want to allow employers to deny insurance coverage for women’s reproductive health. They vote for men who disparage women and they attack female candidates in a sexist manner.
Democrats aren’t perfect, but they run and elect many more female candidates. They support a woman’s choice and many laws to ensure equality. They advocate for maternity leave, childcare support, reproductive health coverage. They fight against gender discrimination, unequal pay, and systemic bias against women. By and large, they treat women with respect, not just personally but as an organization. They are working towards the ideal (equality) instead of away from it.
I believe electing women to office, especially Democratic women, not only improves the lives of women but everyone’s life, including my own. When women are included in leadership we get better decisions and better results. In general, women help. When women are allowed to fully contribute in the workplace our economy does better. When women are paid equally and supported in childcare their offspring - our future - do better. Our society benefits when everyone gets a fair chance. Equality may feel like discrimination to those currently receiving advantage, but it’s time we all put the good of the many ahead of the privilege of the few.
For my own sake, for my wife’s sake, and for my daughter’s sake, I actively support the only side in politics which will treat women with the respect they deserve. There are many reasons I vote for Democrats, but none are more important than my family’s future.
Who are you voting for?
Sure, it was worth an intellectual discussion. Did American Democracy influence Europe nineteenth century development or did European ideals of aristocracy and pre-eminence distort the Constitution’s ideals of liberty and equality? Were the budget deficits of the 80’s worth it to end the Cold War or did they usher in a new era of perpetual debt and mistrust of government? But actual laws passed, which Party governed my state or country, those had little impact on my life.
The unemployment rate never touched me because I was a well-educated white male who could always find a job - or fall back on my extended support system of family and friends. I didn’t face discrimination of any kind or lack the rights of other people. I knew that if I called the police for help they would come quick and assume I was the good guy. If I didn’t get health care through my job I wasn’t worried because I was young and healthy. I didn’t rely on public transportation, didn’t need childcare, and made enough money, though not too much, so that my tax bill was a minor inconvenience at worst.
I lived my life according to the virtues I’d been raised with: work hard, be honest, treat everyone with respect, and give everyone a fair chance. I looked at the society around me - mostly people similar to myself - and it seemed like my neighbors did the same. I didn’t see discrimination (I didn’t see many people of color, either). I didn’t see bigotry or racial animus (most people treated me fine). People seemed to be respectful to women (in my presence) and immigrants were welcomed (in so much as they were gainfully employed doing a lot of the grunt work to make our lives easier). So while it was clear that much of our political rhetoric and policies weren’t nearly so egalitarian, life seemed okay and it was easier to simply be a good person and not waste my time or energy fighting the evil in the world.
As I grew older and experienced more of life, I broadened my horizons. I got to know people who were unlike me - less privileged, less white, less male. Social media came along and made it easier to hear the personal stories of lots of people like that. I started paying attention to those stories. I saw the penalties for crack cocaine (used mostly by poor, black people) were 50 times harsher than those for powdered cocaine (used mostly by rich white people) in spite of it being the same drug. I heard arguments that gay people should not be allowed to marry because they didn’t deserve the same rights as ‘us’. I worked with poor people whose health suffered because they couldn’t afford care.
Then I got married. And had a daughter. The future suddenly held much more importance and the rights of women (and other disadvantaged groups) became personal. I watched as my country elected a man who bragged about sexual assault to the highest office of the land. I listened as he spewed racist and sexist rhetoric and a large proportion of our society cheered. I felt helpless when more people made it very clear a woman’s trauma is less meaningful than a judge’s partisanship, that her sincerity and credibility still count less than his blatant dishonesty and deception. This is not the society I want for my daughter.
Women are paid less for doing the same job with the same experience as men. Women-dominated professions have lower salaries than male-dominated ones requiring the same education. Women are still doing most of the care work for children and households and are still grossly under-represented in higher levels of business and politics. They pay more for reproductive health care and shoulder a higher burden for birth control, yet many in our society want to limit their choices over their own bodies.
When I talk to other privileged white people like myself, many bristle at the suggestion that we are privileged, though they don’t have any real argument with the data that proves it. They also talk a lot about how much better things are for the marginalized than they used to be - as if ‘better’ is good enough. Or claim the best way to help anyone is to improve the economy (which they often measure by GDP or the Stock Market). And they are quick to assert that they are colorblind towards people and ‘respect’ women - though they’re still somehow more worried about the .005% of men who might be falsely accused of sexual assault instead of the 15% of women who are assaulted. It’s all just excuses to say that the inequities and discrimination in our society are not their fault because they aren’t personally discriminating or disrespecting anyone. But they do vote.
And a vote for Republicans is a vote for a party that has made it perfectly clear that women are not meant to be treated equally or fairly. They oppose the Equal Rights Amendment. They oppose maternity leave requirements. They won’t reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. They want to allow employers to deny insurance coverage for women’s reproductive health. They vote for men who disparage women and they attack female candidates in a sexist manner.
Democrats aren’t perfect, but they run and elect many more female candidates. They support a woman’s choice and many laws to ensure equality. They advocate for maternity leave, childcare support, reproductive health coverage. They fight against gender discrimination, unequal pay, and systemic bias against women. By and large, they treat women with respect, not just personally but as an organization. They are working towards the ideal (equality) instead of away from it.
I believe electing women to office, especially Democratic women, not only improves the lives of women but everyone’s life, including my own. When women are included in leadership we get better decisions and better results. In general, women help. When women are allowed to fully contribute in the workplace our economy does better. When women are paid equally and supported in childcare their offspring - our future - do better. Our society benefits when everyone gets a fair chance. Equality may feel like discrimination to those currently receiving advantage, but it’s time we all put the good of the many ahead of the privilege of the few.
For my own sake, for my wife’s sake, and for my daughter’s sake, I actively support the only side in politics which will treat women with the respect they deserve. There are many reasons I vote for Democrats, but none are more important than my family’s future.
Who are you voting for?
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 26: The GOP is Lying
It’s become a truism that all politicians lie. But it’s just as true that all people lie. We say our co-worker's new haircut looks great (it doesn’t). We don’t admit we stole a peanut butter cup out of the Halloween candy (we did). We brag (exaggerate) how much money we saved on our new car. Lying is a part of the social fabric and its both expected and understood - we tell small lies to make ourselves and others feel better in ways that don’t really hurt anyone.
But in real life we all know the difference between such lies and someone who is a liar. It’s fine that our cousin claims the trout he caught back when we were kids weighed five pounds (it was only two), but it’s wrong when he borrows money on the claim it’s for his kids birthday present when it really goes to his opioid addiction. We have no problem with Susie saying she’ll meet us at the bar at eight - we know she’s always late. We get justly pissed when Steve stands us up after promising to give a ride to the airport. Lies matter to the extent of their consequences and how frequent and large they are.
In that regard, the Republicans are LYING. It starts with the President, who lies so often about things large and small he can’t even keep track of his own lies. But it extends to the rest of the Party, who have to lie to support him, or at the very least deny his lies. And because their policy positions are truly out of step with the voters, they have to keep lying about what they have done and what they want to do.
The biggest lie right now is that Republicans support protections for pre-existing conditions (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/fact-check-trump-claims-gop-protecting-people-pre-existing-conditions-n923056). They voted 65 times to repeal the ACA, including to remove such protections. Many of the Republican states have signed on to a lawsuit arguing such protections are illegal. But because they know such protections are popular, they are straight up lying about their support. And people fall for it. (here’s a great podcast if you want to hear more about their health care lies: https://www.vox.com/the-weeds)
Republicans are lying about the deficit (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/deficit-under-trump-738621/). Never mind the many years they decried any Democratic attempt to increase spending and social programs by claiming to be fiscally conservative, Republicans real lie is that we need to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare in order to restore a balanced budget. Aside from the fact that our deficit is almost entirely due to their increased spending on the military and their cutting taxes on the wealthy, Social Security and Medicare are paid through payroll taxes and cutting them would not balance the budget (except for the government’s penchant to borrow from those funds and lump them into the general account). Republicans created a deficit and want to use it as an excuse to cut your benefits. That’s the truth.
They lie about taxes. First, the President’s ridiculous claim that Republicans will pass a 10% tax cut for the middle class before the election is actually impossible since Congress is not in session. But I think most people know he’s lying on that one. More importantly, they lied to get their tax bill passed (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/151965/trumps-haphazard-campaigning-causing-trouble-republicans-midterms) and now that the truth has been revealed - the benefits are going to the rich, companies are buying back stock instead of investing or raising wages, our deficit is exploding - they are quietly lying by omission in their campaigns. The tax bill was their biggest accomplishment - they all celebrated with beers at the White House - but now you won’t find a single Republican campaigning on it.
The Republican party is built on lies. Illegal immigration is not a threat - it’s at an historical low and immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. That caravan is not an invasion - it’s a few thousand poor families a long way from our border, walking towards us to legally ask for asylum. White people as a group are not oppressed (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianthompson1/2018/02/18/the-racial-wealth-gap-addressing-americas-most-pressing-epidemic/#643059ec7a48), even if some do have it hard. Welfare fraud isn’t a huge problem (http://time.com/4711668/history-food-stamp-fraud/). Muslim terrorists do pose a threat - a small one - but right-wing terrorists pose a larger one (https://qz.com/1435885/data-shows-more-us-terror-attacks-by-right-wing-and-religious-extremists/). Republicans even lie about supporting the Constitution! (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/30/662335612/legal-scholars-say-14th-amendment-doubt-trump-can-end-birthright-citizenship-wit)
All politicians distort the truth. They parse their language and cherry-pick numbers to present themselves and their ideas in the best light. They reverse the process to discredit their opponents. But the President has ushered in a new age where outright lying is not just commonplace but is a strategic approach to politics. Judging from the comments his supporters make, and the backing he receives from the Republican Congress, the lies are working and are here to stay. The only way to fight them is to keep yourself informed and to vote for the truth (or at least something closer to the truth).
But in real life we all know the difference between such lies and someone who is a liar. It’s fine that our cousin claims the trout he caught back when we were kids weighed five pounds (it was only two), but it’s wrong when he borrows money on the claim it’s for his kids birthday present when it really goes to his opioid addiction. We have no problem with Susie saying she’ll meet us at the bar at eight - we know she’s always late. We get justly pissed when Steve stands us up after promising to give a ride to the airport. Lies matter to the extent of their consequences and how frequent and large they are.
In that regard, the Republicans are LYING. It starts with the President, who lies so often about things large and small he can’t even keep track of his own lies. But it extends to the rest of the Party, who have to lie to support him, or at the very least deny his lies. And because their policy positions are truly out of step with the voters, they have to keep lying about what they have done and what they want to do.
The biggest lie right now is that Republicans support protections for pre-existing conditions (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/fact-check-trump-claims-gop-protecting-people-pre-existing-conditions-n923056). They voted 65 times to repeal the ACA, including to remove such protections. Many of the Republican states have signed on to a lawsuit arguing such protections are illegal. But because they know such protections are popular, they are straight up lying about their support. And people fall for it. (here’s a great podcast if you want to hear more about their health care lies: https://www.vox.com/the-weeds)
Republicans are lying about the deficit (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/deficit-under-trump-738621/). Never mind the many years they decried any Democratic attempt to increase spending and social programs by claiming to be fiscally conservative, Republicans real lie is that we need to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare in order to restore a balanced budget. Aside from the fact that our deficit is almost entirely due to their increased spending on the military and their cutting taxes on the wealthy, Social Security and Medicare are paid through payroll taxes and cutting them would not balance the budget (except for the government’s penchant to borrow from those funds and lump them into the general account). Republicans created a deficit and want to use it as an excuse to cut your benefits. That’s the truth.
They lie about taxes. First, the President’s ridiculous claim that Republicans will pass a 10% tax cut for the middle class before the election is actually impossible since Congress is not in session. But I think most people know he’s lying on that one. More importantly, they lied to get their tax bill passed (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/151965/trumps-haphazard-campaigning-causing-trouble-republicans-midterms) and now that the truth has been revealed - the benefits are going to the rich, companies are buying back stock instead of investing or raising wages, our deficit is exploding - they are quietly lying by omission in their campaigns. The tax bill was their biggest accomplishment - they all celebrated with beers at the White House - but now you won’t find a single Republican campaigning on it.
The Republican party is built on lies. Illegal immigration is not a threat - it’s at an historical low and immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. That caravan is not an invasion - it’s a few thousand poor families a long way from our border, walking towards us to legally ask for asylum. White people as a group are not oppressed (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianthompson1/2018/02/18/the-racial-wealth-gap-addressing-americas-most-pressing-epidemic/#643059ec7a48), even if some do have it hard. Welfare fraud isn’t a huge problem (http://time.com/4711668/history-food-stamp-fraud/). Muslim terrorists do pose a threat - a small one - but right-wing terrorists pose a larger one (https://qz.com/1435885/data-shows-more-us-terror-attacks-by-right-wing-and-religious-extremists/). Republicans even lie about supporting the Constitution! (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/30/662335612/legal-scholars-say-14th-amendment-doubt-trump-can-end-birthright-citizenship-wit)
All politicians distort the truth. They parse their language and cherry-pick numbers to present themselves and their ideas in the best light. They reverse the process to discredit their opponents. But the President has ushered in a new age where outright lying is not just commonplace but is a strategic approach to politics. Judging from the comments his supporters make, and the backing he receives from the Republican Congress, the lies are working and are here to stay. The only way to fight them is to keep yourself informed and to vote for the truth (or at least something closer to the truth).
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 25: It’s Not a Fucking Game!
One of my biggest frustrations with our political discourse is the many sports analogies which get used to describe the process. We ‘lost’ that one. The Dems got outplayed. Our team needs to do a better job at [whatever]. It’s not just that the analogies are fundamentally wrong - the winners and losers in politics are largely determined by the spectators (voters), not the players on the court - but those analogies and terms represent how voters tend to absolve themselves of responsibility.
When we complain about ‘our team’, it’s passing the blame for failure off on those who represent us. Sometimes that’s valid. Sometimes our representatives vote for something that they campaigned against. Sometimes our Party takes positions we disagree with. But most of the winning and losing that really upsets people are the fights that happen along party lines, and those are decided by whichever ‘team’ has more players, and it’s the voting populace who decides that. We the voters are the ones who score the most points by dint of who we vote for. While any single person only has a very small influence on the result of politics, the sum total of voters are the ones who decide who wins.
We don’t want to face this because it means we are the ones who failed when we lose. But it’s the truth. We didn’t do enough to make sure our representatives were out there fighting for our beliefs. We didn’t do enough to help get Democrats voted into office. We didn’t do enough to voice our opinions to make sure they represent our wishes. When Democrats vote against your position, how can you complain if you didn’t do anything to contact your representative to tell them which way you’d like to vote? It’s true that some people do more than others, and some people do all they can to help their team, so maybe you are one of those who volunteers for campaigns, who donates money to support your ‘team’, who contacts your officials on every issue and stays politically active. But if not, you need to look longer in the mirror if you want to find out who’s to blame for our current situation.
But it’s not just ourselves we need to blame. It’s our neighbors. When Democrats lose a vote to a Republican majority, the blame should fall on the voters who elected such representation. And I think that’s the real uncomfortable truth people want to avoid. We blame our ‘team’s’ loss in the election on the candidate. On the campaign they ran or the message they used. We complain about how and where they spent their money. We yell from the cheap seats about the play-calling, the tactics used, the effort they put in, and even their choice of graphic design. But they lose because the people sitting next to us voted for the other guy. Because our neighbor votes Republican out of some misguided notion of economic prosperity. Because our uncle Larry is old-school soft racist, and there’s no changing him now. Because so many white people vote out of fear and resentment when they are doing better than every other group by every measure. We excuse their behavior because it seems too hard to change and too awful to admit the truth.
The truth is that we have, by and large, figured out which side is right and which is wrong. Which one is inclusive and which is exclusive. Which one values women and minorities and which one discriminates against them. We are not deceived by dog-whistle racism, much less attracted to it. We are not taken in by deceptive descriptions of tax plans and healthcare systems, much less outright lies about policies and their effects. Somehow we have the intelligence/enlightenment/moral character to see through the media hype, campaign ads, and generally crappy political discourse to recognize which side is better, but to expect others to do the same is asking too much. Screw that.
Sure, there is always a lot of blame to go around. And I fully realize changing people’s minds is hard and it’s unrealistic to expect most people to have the time or inclination to dive as deep into politics as I go. But it’s really not that hard. One party is explicitly racist. Their de facto leader spouts racist beliefs all the time. Their stated policies are clearly bigoted and they advocate for the right to discriminate. They routinely win the support of the KKK and the alt-right. And if you look at who their players are you will see a stunning lack of diversity in race, gender, and religious beliefs. People don’t vote off the nuanced political positions you hear pundits talk about. They don’t have a deep understanding of macroeconomics or even a sense of how their health care system is structured. People are tribal and vote off emotional responses, and when they vote for Republicans they are telling you who they are at a fundamental level and it’s bad. They are bad.
Not wholly bad. They are mostly kind and decent human beings who treat their neighbors (you) with respect. They volunteer for little league and work hard and contribute to our society. But the ethos they apply to the people they interact with directly is far different than for groups as a concept. They support a racist organization which wins them over by disparaging the Other and dehumanizing people. They vote for a corrupt organization that seeks to curtail democracy and scoffs at our laws and norms. That’s bad. They’re bad.
And bad things will happen if Republicans win. Will KEEP happening. Hate crimes will continue to rise. Millions of people will lose health care (thousands will die). Children fleeing violence will be torn from their parents and locked up in cages. Our environment will be harmed and our entire planet will continue on its path towards inhabitability. Our world will involve more suffering even if our own lives will not. It’s not a fucking game and don’t you dare think of it as one.
I think it’s fair to complain about losses, to search for things ‘our team’ can do better. Messaging is important, financial support is necessary, and our Party leaders need to be held accountable. But never forget where the ultimate power lies: with We the People. It’s still true. If we want our side to win we need to fight harder for them. And if they lose, it will be because a large portion of our society made a reprehensible choice, whether they see it that way or not. You don’t have to hate your neighbor, but you should keep a clear mind on who really makes up the other ‘team’. They are who you are fighting against.
When we complain about ‘our team’, it’s passing the blame for failure off on those who represent us. Sometimes that’s valid. Sometimes our representatives vote for something that they campaigned against. Sometimes our Party takes positions we disagree with. But most of the winning and losing that really upsets people are the fights that happen along party lines, and those are decided by whichever ‘team’ has more players, and it’s the voting populace who decides that. We the voters are the ones who score the most points by dint of who we vote for. While any single person only has a very small influence on the result of politics, the sum total of voters are the ones who decide who wins.
We don’t want to face this because it means we are the ones who failed when we lose. But it’s the truth. We didn’t do enough to make sure our representatives were out there fighting for our beliefs. We didn’t do enough to help get Democrats voted into office. We didn’t do enough to voice our opinions to make sure they represent our wishes. When Democrats vote against your position, how can you complain if you didn’t do anything to contact your representative to tell them which way you’d like to vote? It’s true that some people do more than others, and some people do all they can to help their team, so maybe you are one of those who volunteers for campaigns, who donates money to support your ‘team’, who contacts your officials on every issue and stays politically active. But if not, you need to look longer in the mirror if you want to find out who’s to blame for our current situation.
But it’s not just ourselves we need to blame. It’s our neighbors. When Democrats lose a vote to a Republican majority, the blame should fall on the voters who elected such representation. And I think that’s the real uncomfortable truth people want to avoid. We blame our ‘team’s’ loss in the election on the candidate. On the campaign they ran or the message they used. We complain about how and where they spent their money. We yell from the cheap seats about the play-calling, the tactics used, the effort they put in, and even their choice of graphic design. But they lose because the people sitting next to us voted for the other guy. Because our neighbor votes Republican out of some misguided notion of economic prosperity. Because our uncle Larry is old-school soft racist, and there’s no changing him now. Because so many white people vote out of fear and resentment when they are doing better than every other group by every measure. We excuse their behavior because it seems too hard to change and too awful to admit the truth.
The truth is that we have, by and large, figured out which side is right and which is wrong. Which one is inclusive and which is exclusive. Which one values women and minorities and which one discriminates against them. We are not deceived by dog-whistle racism, much less attracted to it. We are not taken in by deceptive descriptions of tax plans and healthcare systems, much less outright lies about policies and their effects. Somehow we have the intelligence/enlightenment/moral character to see through the media hype, campaign ads, and generally crappy political discourse to recognize which side is better, but to expect others to do the same is asking too much. Screw that.
Sure, there is always a lot of blame to go around. And I fully realize changing people’s minds is hard and it’s unrealistic to expect most people to have the time or inclination to dive as deep into politics as I go. But it’s really not that hard. One party is explicitly racist. Their de facto leader spouts racist beliefs all the time. Their stated policies are clearly bigoted and they advocate for the right to discriminate. They routinely win the support of the KKK and the alt-right. And if you look at who their players are you will see a stunning lack of diversity in race, gender, and religious beliefs. People don’t vote off the nuanced political positions you hear pundits talk about. They don’t have a deep understanding of macroeconomics or even a sense of how their health care system is structured. People are tribal and vote off emotional responses, and when they vote for Republicans they are telling you who they are at a fundamental level and it’s bad. They are bad.
Not wholly bad. They are mostly kind and decent human beings who treat their neighbors (you) with respect. They volunteer for little league and work hard and contribute to our society. But the ethos they apply to the people they interact with directly is far different than for groups as a concept. They support a racist organization which wins them over by disparaging the Other and dehumanizing people. They vote for a corrupt organization that seeks to curtail democracy and scoffs at our laws and norms. That’s bad. They’re bad.
And bad things will happen if Republicans win. Will KEEP happening. Hate crimes will continue to rise. Millions of people will lose health care (thousands will die). Children fleeing violence will be torn from their parents and locked up in cages. Our environment will be harmed and our entire planet will continue on its path towards inhabitability. Our world will involve more suffering even if our own lives will not. It’s not a fucking game and don’t you dare think of it as one.
I think it’s fair to complain about losses, to search for things ‘our team’ can do better. Messaging is important, financial support is necessary, and our Party leaders need to be held accountable. But never forget where the ultimate power lies: with We the People. It’s still true. If we want our side to win we need to fight harder for them. And if they lose, it will be because a large portion of our society made a reprehensible choice, whether they see it that way or not. You don’t have to hate your neighbor, but you should keep a clear mind on who really makes up the other ‘team’. They are who you are fighting against.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 24: Existence is Not Up for Debate
A good example of the difference between voting for a moral choice versus voting for self interest is the current revelation the Administration proposes defining gender based on genitals and DNA (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/21/18005594/trump-administration-transgender-sex-dna-test). This would basically eliminate transgender people as a category and remove any legal protections that they have. It goes against the science on the topic (https://wire.ama-assn.org/ama-news/ama-takes-several-actions-supporting-transgender-patients) and would allow for all types of discrimination against trans people, not to mention setting the precedent that any minority would have to ‘prove’ their status through DNA testing in order to qualify for protections. [Here’s a good explainer on transgender from the American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx]
Clearly this is discriminatory and bigoted against trans people, but for many in this country it’s a non-issue. Trans people are a very small minority. Most people aren’t transgender, many don’t know someone who is, so this won’t affect them in the grand scheme of things. But it also won’t help anyone, except those who desire to discriminate. It won’t improve the economy, it won’t add jobs or make anyone’s life better, including the Republican base who support it. Its sole purpose is to serve as an indicator that the Administration supports anti-trans bigotry, and it does so at the cost of basic human decency for a disadvantaged group. It’s immoral but low impact to the majority.
Because of that, some people won’t care. They won’t consider it as an issue when deciding who to vote for. But the idea that you are willing to sell out someone’s humanity for anything you might hope to gain through voting Republican is indecent. You don’t have to know someone personally to be appalled at seeing their existence denied. You don’t have to understand them or know what their life is like to see that this will profoundly hurt trans people. And if you can’t be bothered to support them, if you don’t consider a small group’s humanity more important than a large group’s slight economic advantage, then I don’t think you have decent values. This is as clear a sign as can be given that those controlling our government have no regard to the humanity of all our people, and if that’s the case there is no telling who is next or how far it will go.
This also destroys the argument from many on the Right that the President may be of poor character, but they support his policies, not his person. But in so many cases, as this one makes clear, his poor moral character leads directly to bad policy which is wholly supported by the rest of the Republican Congress and its base. Time and again they advocate for discrimination and dehumanize non-white/straight/male Americans. It’s fundamental to their platform and as such anyone who supports the Republican Party supports a horrible morality. That is why we can’t agree to disagree. That is why no government can be allowed to define away someone’s identity. This is where all decent people speak up, and silence is a mark of shame that will last for the rest of your life.
Clearly this is discriminatory and bigoted against trans people, but for many in this country it’s a non-issue. Trans people are a very small minority. Most people aren’t transgender, many don’t know someone who is, so this won’t affect them in the grand scheme of things. But it also won’t help anyone, except those who desire to discriminate. It won’t improve the economy, it won’t add jobs or make anyone’s life better, including the Republican base who support it. Its sole purpose is to serve as an indicator that the Administration supports anti-trans bigotry, and it does so at the cost of basic human decency for a disadvantaged group. It’s immoral but low impact to the majority.
Because of that, some people won’t care. They won’t consider it as an issue when deciding who to vote for. But the idea that you are willing to sell out someone’s humanity for anything you might hope to gain through voting Republican is indecent. You don’t have to know someone personally to be appalled at seeing their existence denied. You don’t have to understand them or know what their life is like to see that this will profoundly hurt trans people. And if you can’t be bothered to support them, if you don’t consider a small group’s humanity more important than a large group’s slight economic advantage, then I don’t think you have decent values. This is as clear a sign as can be given that those controlling our government have no regard to the humanity of all our people, and if that’s the case there is no telling who is next or how far it will go.
This also destroys the argument from many on the Right that the President may be of poor character, but they support his policies, not his person. But in so many cases, as this one makes clear, his poor moral character leads directly to bad policy which is wholly supported by the rest of the Republican Congress and its base. Time and again they advocate for discrimination and dehumanize non-white/straight/male Americans. It’s fundamental to their platform and as such anyone who supports the Republican Party supports a horrible morality. That is why we can’t agree to disagree. That is why no government can be allowed to define away someone’s identity. This is where all decent people speak up, and silence is a mark of shame that will last for the rest of your life.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 23: Don’t Vote Your Conscience
Public request: Please don’t vote your conscience. Your conscience means nothing to the rest of the world. Your actions - and their consequences - are what matter. True morality is concerned with others, and it is the results of your choices that affect them, not the motivations.
I’m not telling anyone how to vote (OK, I kind of am ;) ), I’m just telling you why to vote (or not). You make your choice based up a realistic expectation of what you think will bring about the most good and the least harm for society as a whole (if you vote solely in self-interest you are being selfish, by definition). It takes a fair amount of understanding of the political system to do make a good choice and ‘gut’ judgments, doing what ‘feels’ right, don’t cut it. It takes a careful analysis of the past and real knowledge of not only what positions different candidates take, but what their possibilities of implementation are. There isn’t always a good answer. There definitely isn’t a quick and easy answer. If your only goal is to feel morally comfortable with your choice, chances are you’re not looking hard enough. Politics is ugly but it does make a difference in people’s lives – more so for those who have the least ability to influence it. Ask yourself some tough questions and be honest in the answers.
If you want to send a message, will anyone hear it? Is it realistic to expect your message to make a change in the world? What's likely to happen in the meantime? A quick look at history suggests that any messages sent by ballot have gotten lost - the only thing people remember in an election is who won and who lost.
The policy positions, the moral character, and the good intentions of the loser don't amount to anything. Voting for who you think will make the best representative only matters if that person has a realistic chance to win. If you value voting for the best person, chances are we could all come up with someone we think is better than any candidate on the ballot, but we don't vote for our intelligent and kind cousin because even though she might make a perfect president, we know such a vote is wasted. It's the moral equivalent of not voting, which simply lets others decide who gets to run things. The same can be said for most third-party candidates.
Speaking of third parties, does your vote support a party or group you want to benefit? Again, in our system, especially at the Congressional level, winning is the only benefit of an election. Voting for a candidate sure to lose does little to support their party. Donating money or time, voicing your support in public forums, expanding their reach and exposure all are good ways to help a party, but a throwaway vote does little.
If your goal in voting is to allow yourself to sleep well at night, to feel comfortable that you stayed above the fray and avoided the messy and imperfect choices that democracy delivers, you are being selfish. On the other hand, if you think your actions, however imperfect or undesirable, have a realistic chance at creating even a slightly better, more just world, then you need to do the right thing. Accepting reality is the first step in being able to improve it.
I’m not telling anyone how to vote (OK, I kind of am ;) ), I’m just telling you why to vote (or not). You make your choice based up a realistic expectation of what you think will bring about the most good and the least harm for society as a whole (if you vote solely in self-interest you are being selfish, by definition). It takes a fair amount of understanding of the political system to do make a good choice and ‘gut’ judgments, doing what ‘feels’ right, don’t cut it. It takes a careful analysis of the past and real knowledge of not only what positions different candidates take, but what their possibilities of implementation are. There isn’t always a good answer. There definitely isn’t a quick and easy answer. If your only goal is to feel morally comfortable with your choice, chances are you’re not looking hard enough. Politics is ugly but it does make a difference in people’s lives – more so for those who have the least ability to influence it. Ask yourself some tough questions and be honest in the answers.
If you want to send a message, will anyone hear it? Is it realistic to expect your message to make a change in the world? What's likely to happen in the meantime? A quick look at history suggests that any messages sent by ballot have gotten lost - the only thing people remember in an election is who won and who lost.
The policy positions, the moral character, and the good intentions of the loser don't amount to anything. Voting for who you think will make the best representative only matters if that person has a realistic chance to win. If you value voting for the best person, chances are we could all come up with someone we think is better than any candidate on the ballot, but we don't vote for our intelligent and kind cousin because even though she might make a perfect president, we know such a vote is wasted. It's the moral equivalent of not voting, which simply lets others decide who gets to run things. The same can be said for most third-party candidates.
Speaking of third parties, does your vote support a party or group you want to benefit? Again, in our system, especially at the Congressional level, winning is the only benefit of an election. Voting for a candidate sure to lose does little to support their party. Donating money or time, voicing your support in public forums, expanding their reach and exposure all are good ways to help a party, but a throwaway vote does little.
If your goal in voting is to allow yourself to sleep well at night, to feel comfortable that you stayed above the fray and avoided the messy and imperfect choices that democracy delivers, you are being selfish. On the other hand, if you think your actions, however imperfect or undesirable, have a realistic chance at creating even a slightly better, more just world, then you need to do the right thing. Accepting reality is the first step in being able to improve it.
Friday, October 19, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 22: Back to the Beginning
I started this series by encouraging everyone to not only vote, but to do a little more than you have in the past to support Democrats. This is a reminder of how important that is. The latest forecasts suggest that Democrats have a good chance of winning back the House, but a small chance of gaining a majority in the Senate. But any chance at any victory is very much dependent upon voter turnout - historically, Republicans are much more likely to vote in midterm elections. Democrats need to vote, the need to encourage others to vote, and they need to help their Party win if it will have any impact. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=rrpromo
The easiest way to help is to give money. If you can afford to drop $20-$50 in gas money alone to have a weekend adventure, then I think restoring a functional (if not great) government is worth a little monetary sacrifice even if it means one less outing or a skipping Starbucks for a couple days. Here are a few campaigns were a little money can make a big difference on the national level.
Closely contested House of Representatives elections to support:
- California 48th, Harley Rouda (D): A chance to win a seat in conservative Orange County. It’s also a chance to defeat incumbent Dana Rohrbacher, the Republican most closely tied to Russia and one of the President’s biggest enablers.https://www.harleyforcongress.com/
- California 39th,Gil Cisneros (D): Another past conservative seat in a growing-liberal SoCal area. This is the closest House race in the state and a great chance to pick up a seat. https://cisnerosforcongress.com/
- Minnesota 1st, Dan Feehan (D): Where I grew up. Another close race and a chance for D’s to win a normally R’s seat. https://danfeehan.com/
- California 50th, Ammar Campa (D): another close CA race with a chance to unseat a real scumbag. Duncan Hunter (R) is currently under indictment for misusing campaign funds for personal gain (including an airplane ticket for a pet bunny) and slings racists attacks against his Mexican-Palestinian-American opponent. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/campa-campaign#web
Closely contested Senate races:
- North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp (D) is up for re-election in a very conservative state. She voted NO on Kavanaugh and that principled decision brought in a lot of outside money supporting her opponent. If she loses, the Senate will definitely stay Republican. https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/hh4nd_nat?refcode=ads_fb_0918_d2d_nat_dla
- Nevada, Jackie Rosen (D) is running to defeat Republican incumbent Dean Heller (R). Heller voted to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act. He voted for the corporate tax cut. He voted for Kavanaugh. Rosen needs to win. https://www.rosenfornevada.com/
- Missouri, Claire McCaskill (D) is the incumbent. Another Democrat in a conservative state, and while she is often more conservative than the left would like, she voted no on Kavanaugh, voted no on the ACA repeal, and would lend her seat to a Democratic majority that would gain committee leadership. We need her to win. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mccaskill-d2d?refcode=ads_google_nat_d2d
- Florida, Bill Nelson (D) is running against former governor Rick Scott. Scott is truly the epitome of Republican incompetence and sleaze. This race is considered one of the most likely to determine control of the Senate. https://www.nelsonforsenate.com/
If you really can’t afford the cash, or if you want another way to contribute, consider these remote-location, introvert-friendly options:
Options to make phone calls: https://swingleft.org/p/call-voters, https://www.cadem.org/take-action/get-involved/make-some-phone-calls
And if phone calls are too direct, consider sending postcards (this one takes a little time to sign up and get approved, so jump to it if you want to help): https://postcardstovoters.org/
I think a lot of people believe our government is really bad right now. That they are doing atrocious things to the environment, to disadvantaged groups. We are in danger of losing health care, in danger of another market crash, in danger of more wars. Not to mention all the corruption, lying, and overall morally reprehensible behavior. You can do something about it. It might not work. It definitely won’t be a perfect solution. But marginally better is still better and you don’t want to face another two years of thinking you could have done more. Please vote. Please encourage others to vote. Please do what you can to support the Democrats who need it.
The easiest way to help is to give money. If you can afford to drop $20-$50 in gas money alone to have a weekend adventure, then I think restoring a functional (if not great) government is worth a little monetary sacrifice even if it means one less outing or a skipping Starbucks for a couple days. Here are a few campaigns were a little money can make a big difference on the national level.
Closely contested House of Representatives elections to support:
- California 48th, Harley Rouda (D): A chance to win a seat in conservative Orange County. It’s also a chance to defeat incumbent Dana Rohrbacher, the Republican most closely tied to Russia and one of the President’s biggest enablers.https://www.harleyforcongress.com/
- California 39th,Gil Cisneros (D): Another past conservative seat in a growing-liberal SoCal area. This is the closest House race in the state and a great chance to pick up a seat. https://cisnerosforcongress.com/
- Minnesota 1st, Dan Feehan (D): Where I grew up. Another close race and a chance for D’s to win a normally R’s seat. https://danfeehan.com/
- California 50th, Ammar Campa (D): another close CA race with a chance to unseat a real scumbag. Duncan Hunter (R) is currently under indictment for misusing campaign funds for personal gain (including an airplane ticket for a pet bunny) and slings racists attacks against his Mexican-Palestinian-American opponent. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/campa-campaign#web
Closely contested Senate races:
- North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp (D) is up for re-election in a very conservative state. She voted NO on Kavanaugh and that principled decision brought in a lot of outside money supporting her opponent. If she loses, the Senate will definitely stay Republican. https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/hh4nd_nat?refcode=ads_fb_0918_d2d_nat_dla
- Nevada, Jackie Rosen (D) is running to defeat Republican incumbent Dean Heller (R). Heller voted to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act. He voted for the corporate tax cut. He voted for Kavanaugh. Rosen needs to win. https://www.rosenfornevada.com/
- Missouri, Claire McCaskill (D) is the incumbent. Another Democrat in a conservative state, and while she is often more conservative than the left would like, she voted no on Kavanaugh, voted no on the ACA repeal, and would lend her seat to a Democratic majority that would gain committee leadership. We need her to win. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mccaskill-d2d?refcode=ads_google_nat_d2d
- Florida, Bill Nelson (D) is running against former governor Rick Scott. Scott is truly the epitome of Republican incompetence and sleaze. This race is considered one of the most likely to determine control of the Senate. https://www.nelsonforsenate.com/
If you really can’t afford the cash, or if you want another way to contribute, consider these remote-location, introvert-friendly options:
Options to make phone calls: https://swingleft.org/p/call-voters, https://www.cadem.org/take-action/get-involved/make-some-phone-calls
And if phone calls are too direct, consider sending postcards (this one takes a little time to sign up and get approved, so jump to it if you want to help): https://postcardstovoters.org/
I think a lot of people believe our government is really bad right now. That they are doing atrocious things to the environment, to disadvantaged groups. We are in danger of losing health care, in danger of another market crash, in danger of more wars. Not to mention all the corruption, lying, and overall morally reprehensible behavior. You can do something about it. It might not work. It definitely won’t be a perfect solution. But marginally better is still better and you don’t want to face another two years of thinking you could have done more. Please vote. Please encourage others to vote. Please do what you can to support the Democrats who need it.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 21: The Choice
Since politics is about a choice between realistic alternatives instead of perfect choices, and often that means the lesser of two evils, let’s look at the likely outcomes of Democrats winning the House (maybe the Senate) vs. Republicans holding majorities in both chambers.
Republicans plan to make more tax cuts for the rich and to make the ones they’ve made permanent. This will balloon our deficit which has already risen to $779 Billion (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/16/blame-republican-tax-cuts-soaring-federal-deficits-column/1657338002/). To pay for this they plan to cut programs like Medicare and Social Security (http://fortune.com/2018/10/16/mitch-mcconnell-us-budget-deficit/). They plan to cut SNAP (food stamps), Pell Grants, and other aid to needy and disabled people.
They will attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act - they’ve tried several times and there’s no reason to expect they’ll stop trying until they succeed (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-mcconnell-policy/mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-might-revisit-obamacare-repeal-idUSKCN1MR2QE). They will remove protections for pre-existing conditions. They will reverse the rule allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26. They will end the ban on lifetime limits, meaning your insurance won’t have to cover you if things get really expensive. They will undue Medicaid expansion which increased coverage for ten million Americans. They will make America less healthy while most of us spend more on health care.
Republicans will continue to turn a blind eye to the corruption and disgraceful behavior of the Executive Branch. They won’t investigate Trump’s violations of the emoluments clause (profiting off the government). They won’t investigate Russian interference in our current elections, much less past ones. They won’t censure or rebuke the President for insulting private citizens or using the power of his office to punish anyone who speaks out against him. They will enable an authoritarian government that seeks to limit our first amendment rights and limit our rights to vote.
If Democrats win control of the House it’s true that they will not be able to pass significant legislation, but they will be able to block those things above. They will be able to protect health care for those with pre-existing conditions. They will be able to protect Social Security. They will be able to use their committee powers to investigate criminal behavior by the President, including issuing subpoenas to compel testimony from those involved.
Democrats can bring forth legislation that actually has bipartisan, majority support: a path for citizenship for DACA, universal background checks for gun purchases, lowering drug prices and campaign finance reform. (though the President or Senate could still block them). It would show people more clearly what each Party stands for and what their representatives are actually willing to vote for. As it is now, the Republican leadership controls what bills are brought to a vote and they simply block anything that the majority of their members (or donors) don’t want to pass and don’t want to have to vote against. It’s not how our system is supposed to work.
Control of committees, like the Ethics, Budget, and Judiciary, will give Democrats oversight to prevent abuses like we saw from Scott Pruitt and continue to see from Ryan Zinke. It will allow them to see why 200 immigrant children are still separated from their parents and put a stop to the tent city detainment centers. It will bring some level of accountability to a government that is currently acting without any significant oversight.
This election will not fix everything. Honestly, it might not even improve life for most of us. But it can make a big difference to those most disadvantaged. It can save lives by maintaining health care. It can start us on the road back to a sane and functioning if still corrupt and awful government. It may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.
Republicans plan to make more tax cuts for the rich and to make the ones they’ve made permanent. This will balloon our deficit which has already risen to $779 Billion (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/16/blame-republican-tax-cuts-soaring-federal-deficits-column/1657338002/). To pay for this they plan to cut programs like Medicare and Social Security (http://fortune.com/2018/10/16/mitch-mcconnell-us-budget-deficit/). They plan to cut SNAP (food stamps), Pell Grants, and other aid to needy and disabled people.
They will attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act - they’ve tried several times and there’s no reason to expect they’ll stop trying until they succeed (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-mcconnell-policy/mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-might-revisit-obamacare-repeal-idUSKCN1MR2QE). They will remove protections for pre-existing conditions. They will reverse the rule allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26. They will end the ban on lifetime limits, meaning your insurance won’t have to cover you if things get really expensive. They will undue Medicaid expansion which increased coverage for ten million Americans. They will make America less healthy while most of us spend more on health care.
Republicans will continue to turn a blind eye to the corruption and disgraceful behavior of the Executive Branch. They won’t investigate Trump’s violations of the emoluments clause (profiting off the government). They won’t investigate Russian interference in our current elections, much less past ones. They won’t censure or rebuke the President for insulting private citizens or using the power of his office to punish anyone who speaks out against him. They will enable an authoritarian government that seeks to limit our first amendment rights and limit our rights to vote.
If Democrats win control of the House it’s true that they will not be able to pass significant legislation, but they will be able to block those things above. They will be able to protect health care for those with pre-existing conditions. They will be able to protect Social Security. They will be able to use their committee powers to investigate criminal behavior by the President, including issuing subpoenas to compel testimony from those involved.
Democrats can bring forth legislation that actually has bipartisan, majority support: a path for citizenship for DACA, universal background checks for gun purchases, lowering drug prices and campaign finance reform. (though the President or Senate could still block them). It would show people more clearly what each Party stands for and what their representatives are actually willing to vote for. As it is now, the Republican leadership controls what bills are brought to a vote and they simply block anything that the majority of their members (or donors) don’t want to pass and don’t want to have to vote against. It’s not how our system is supposed to work.
Control of committees, like the Ethics, Budget, and Judiciary, will give Democrats oversight to prevent abuses like we saw from Scott Pruitt and continue to see from Ryan Zinke. It will allow them to see why 200 immigrant children are still separated from their parents and put a stop to the tent city detainment centers. It will bring some level of accountability to a government that is currently acting without any significant oversight.
This election will not fix everything. Honestly, it might not even improve life for most of us. But it can make a big difference to those most disadvantaged. It can save lives by maintaining health care. It can start us on the road back to a sane and functioning if still corrupt and awful government. It may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.
Fight for Democracy, Part 20: What is the alternative?
There’s only one real question that needs to be answered in politics: What’s the alternative? You see, it’s easy to find problems. Easy to tear down people and ideas. Nothing is perfect and everything has downsides. But that’s not the point. You can’t get anywhere if you demand perfection, from policy or politicians. We always make choices between imperfect possibilities, and what matters is choosing the best alternatives among realistic options.
A lot of Democratic voters still talk about how much they didn’t like Hillary Clinton, but it’s clear to any but the most confused minds she would have been a much better choice than our current President. Liberals love to hate on Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, but as awful as he is (and he is awful), if you take a look at his opponent you will see why Manchin is a must-win for the good guys. I bet for most people they look at the Democrat running on their ballot and wish they were better. You might even be able to name a better alternate sitting in the wings. But the real alternative in the election is the opponent on the ballot with them, because they will win if you don’t vote and support the Democrat.
And sure, the Democratic Party itself sucks, but it’s better than the Republican Party. The Affordable Care Act made it hard for some people to afford insurance, but it expanded insurance to twenty million people and made it cheaper for most. Yes, the minimum wage might cut into the number of jobs available, but without it there would be millions more working in poverty. Of course shutting down the Senate to stop a supreme court nomination might prevent a lot of laws from getting passed, but it would save the highest court in the land from being corrupted by an unethical process and illegitimate nomination. You need to stop stalling out on the negative, or idly sitting by until something/someone perfect comes along in order to make an effort.
If the Democrats don’t take back the House (and/or the Senate), the current administration will continue to break down the rule of law, degrade the norms that bind our democracy together, and use their power to seal themselves off from the will of the people. Life will only get harder.
Right now our alternatives are to keep the status quo or to replace Republicans with Democrats. The choice is stark and simple.
A lot of Democratic voters still talk about how much they didn’t like Hillary Clinton, but it’s clear to any but the most confused minds she would have been a much better choice than our current President. Liberals love to hate on Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, but as awful as he is (and he is awful), if you take a look at his opponent you will see why Manchin is a must-win for the good guys. I bet for most people they look at the Democrat running on their ballot and wish they were better. You might even be able to name a better alternate sitting in the wings. But the real alternative in the election is the opponent on the ballot with them, because they will win if you don’t vote and support the Democrat.
And sure, the Democratic Party itself sucks, but it’s better than the Republican Party. The Affordable Care Act made it hard for some people to afford insurance, but it expanded insurance to twenty million people and made it cheaper for most. Yes, the minimum wage might cut into the number of jobs available, but without it there would be millions more working in poverty. Of course shutting down the Senate to stop a supreme court nomination might prevent a lot of laws from getting passed, but it would save the highest court in the land from being corrupted by an unethical process and illegitimate nomination. You need to stop stalling out on the negative, or idly sitting by until something/someone perfect comes along in order to make an effort.
If the Democrats don’t take back the House (and/or the Senate), the current administration will continue to break down the rule of law, degrade the norms that bind our democracy together, and use their power to seal themselves off from the will of the people. Life will only get harder.
Right now our alternatives are to keep the status quo or to replace Republicans with Democrats. The choice is stark and simple.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 19: One Person One Vote
If you look at the elections in 2014, 2016, and 2018 (projected), Democrats will have won more votes for every branch of government over those three elections. Close to ten million more Senate votes, about five million more House votes, and 2.9 million more Presidential votes. Yet it is entirely possible the Republicans will still have control of all three bodies (and the judiciary because of bad luck/bad faith dealing for the Supreme Court). I find it impossible to look at that reality - the majority of people over the last three elections favoring Democrats but Republicans still controlling all branches of government - and see a working democracy. The reasons for such minority rule and unfairness are many, but let’s address the major ones.
The first thing to look at is our structural set-up. Senators are elected state by state and the electoral college operates on a state by state mechanism as well. Since states have different populations, these elections ultimately give smaller population states greater voting power than larger population states. That’s exactly as it was intended in the Constitution - a compromise largely designed to insulate smaller, slavery-dependent states against the larger, more anti-slavery states at the time the Constitution was written. And at the time the discrepancies in the populations were much smaller, and Senators were chosen by state legislatures and not voted on by the people. Nowadays we see the fairness in letting people elect Senators but do nothing about the fact that a Senator from North Dakota represents less than a million people and has the same power as a Senator from New York who represents twenty million. On the electoral college side of things, a Wyoming voter has four times the voting power of a California voter. There may have been a purpose to this unfairness when originally conceived, but that time has long passed. We need a fairer system.
The electoral college is particularly egregious because the reason for the voting structure has for all practical purposes been co-opted in practice so it has no real value. The electoral college was designed as a check against populism, as a way to avoid having an ill-informed electorate choose their President directly. The college was to be made up of more reasoned and knowledgeable political appointees who would not be swayed by the cruder arguments that might whip up popular sentiment. But our current party system of primaries and caucuses has turned the electoral college into a rubber stamp of voter will, and any suggestion it operates otherwise would be met with derision and hostility (see: superdelegates). The discrepancy in state voting power has grown out of proportion because through population increases and the electoral college now serves as a means for the minority populist to win over a majority party representative. There is no greater proof that the system is flawed than our current President, an ignorant, inexperienced nationalist who did not have the support of his party, lost the popular vote, yet won the election BECAUSE of the electoral college, the situation the college was designed to prevent.
While there’s no easy or likely remedy for the problems of the electoral college, the other main driver of minority control is gerrymandering. For those not familiar with the problem, it comes from the fact that state legislatures get to decide the voting districts and by carefully selecting district boundaries you can rig a system in your favor. Here’s a nice pictorial representation: https://www.vox.com/cards/gerrymandering-explained/how-does-gerrymandering-work. Both parties do this to some degree, but the Republicans are more successful at it, mostly as a result of their victories during the 2010 elections.
The third most prevalent way to create unfair elections is to attack the voters themselves. Republicans do this through restrictive voter ID laws which disproportionately affect demographics (the poor, minorities) who tend to vote Democratic (in spite of the fact that in-person voter fraud is basically non-existent - https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth). They do this by placing unfair restrictions on voter registrations that target minorities (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-for-tribal-north-dakotans-to-vote/).They do this by purging voters from registrations if they haven’t voted recently (https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/08/09/many-states-are-purging-voters-from-the-rolls). They do this by disenfranchising convicted felons even after they’ve served their sentences. They to do this by limiting the number of polling stations in minority areas and by the very fact we hold elections during the work day so it’s harder for the poor working-class to vote. None of these are huge by themselves, but all of them go to the same purpose: make it hard for people to vote, particularly those likely to vote for Democrats.
The reason is clear: Republicans are not supported by the majority. The elections show this. Every survey of political issues shows this (https://www.businessinsider.com/american-public-opinion-on-major-issues-institutions-2017-2). The majority of Americans support the right to legal abortions. They believe climate change is caused by human activity and needs to be addressed. They believe wealth inequality is a problem and the rich should be taxed more. They believe marijuana should be legalized. They believe guns should require permits and background checks. They think Social Security and Medicare are good things and that people have a right to health care. They think we should spend more on education. They think we should protect the environment. They think immigrants are good for our country. These are all Democratic positions, most of which the Republicans fight strongly against. These numbers are different among people who actually vote and that is why Republicans fear more voters and why they fight so hard against democracy.
It’s entirely obvious that the minority who have control through unfair measures will do their best to maintain the status quo, but if you have any sense of fairness, if you really believe in the principle of one person, one vote, and that our government should represent the people, the only ethical thing to do is to fight to return power to those who not only deserve it but will also do more to create more fairness in the system. Our country is Democratic, even if our government isn’t. We need to correct the government part.
The first thing to look at is our structural set-up. Senators are elected state by state and the electoral college operates on a state by state mechanism as well. Since states have different populations, these elections ultimately give smaller population states greater voting power than larger population states. That’s exactly as it was intended in the Constitution - a compromise largely designed to insulate smaller, slavery-dependent states against the larger, more anti-slavery states at the time the Constitution was written. And at the time the discrepancies in the populations were much smaller, and Senators were chosen by state legislatures and not voted on by the people. Nowadays we see the fairness in letting people elect Senators but do nothing about the fact that a Senator from North Dakota represents less than a million people and has the same power as a Senator from New York who represents twenty million. On the electoral college side of things, a Wyoming voter has four times the voting power of a California voter. There may have been a purpose to this unfairness when originally conceived, but that time has long passed. We need a fairer system.
The electoral college is particularly egregious because the reason for the voting structure has for all practical purposes been co-opted in practice so it has no real value. The electoral college was designed as a check against populism, as a way to avoid having an ill-informed electorate choose their President directly. The college was to be made up of more reasoned and knowledgeable political appointees who would not be swayed by the cruder arguments that might whip up popular sentiment. But our current party system of primaries and caucuses has turned the electoral college into a rubber stamp of voter will, and any suggestion it operates otherwise would be met with derision and hostility (see: superdelegates). The discrepancy in state voting power has grown out of proportion because through population increases and the electoral college now serves as a means for the minority populist to win over a majority party representative. There is no greater proof that the system is flawed than our current President, an ignorant, inexperienced nationalist who did not have the support of his party, lost the popular vote, yet won the election BECAUSE of the electoral college, the situation the college was designed to prevent.
While there’s no easy or likely remedy for the problems of the electoral college, the other main driver of minority control is gerrymandering. For those not familiar with the problem, it comes from the fact that state legislatures get to decide the voting districts and by carefully selecting district boundaries you can rig a system in your favor. Here’s a nice pictorial representation: https://www.vox.com/cards/gerrymandering-explained/how-does-gerrymandering-work. Both parties do this to some degree, but the Republicans are more successful at it, mostly as a result of their victories during the 2010 elections.
The third most prevalent way to create unfair elections is to attack the voters themselves. Republicans do this through restrictive voter ID laws which disproportionately affect demographics (the poor, minorities) who tend to vote Democratic (in spite of the fact that in-person voter fraud is basically non-existent - https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth). They do this by placing unfair restrictions on voter registrations that target minorities (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-for-tribal-north-dakotans-to-vote/).They do this by purging voters from registrations if they haven’t voted recently (https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/08/09/many-states-are-purging-voters-from-the-rolls). They do this by disenfranchising convicted felons even after they’ve served their sentences. They to do this by limiting the number of polling stations in minority areas and by the very fact we hold elections during the work day so it’s harder for the poor working-class to vote. None of these are huge by themselves, but all of them go to the same purpose: make it hard for people to vote, particularly those likely to vote for Democrats.
The reason is clear: Republicans are not supported by the majority. The elections show this. Every survey of political issues shows this (https://www.businessinsider.com/american-public-opinion-on-major-issues-institutions-2017-2). The majority of Americans support the right to legal abortions. They believe climate change is caused by human activity and needs to be addressed. They believe wealth inequality is a problem and the rich should be taxed more. They believe marijuana should be legalized. They believe guns should require permits and background checks. They think Social Security and Medicare are good things and that people have a right to health care. They think we should spend more on education. They think we should protect the environment. They think immigrants are good for our country. These are all Democratic positions, most of which the Republicans fight strongly against. These numbers are different among people who actually vote and that is why Republicans fear more voters and why they fight so hard against democracy.
It’s entirely obvious that the minority who have control through unfair measures will do their best to maintain the status quo, but if you have any sense of fairness, if you really believe in the principle of one person, one vote, and that our government should represent the people, the only ethical thing to do is to fight to return power to those who not only deserve it but will also do more to create more fairness in the system. Our country is Democratic, even if our government isn’t. We need to correct the government part.
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 18: Healthcare
Let’s review the basics, then get more into the details. The Democratic position is that we need to find a system that insures more people - ideally everyone - and costs people less money. Single-payer, Medicare-buy-in, even keeping and supporting Obamacare (the ACA) are different ways to approach the problem, all of which will result in more people covered. The argument is that no one should be left to die or suffer because they can’t afford care. We are a rich nation full of compassionate people, and we can find a way, fiscally and administratively, to take care of everyone.
Republicans want to keep a profit-driven health care system built around health insurance. First, you need to understand that the principle of insurance, any insurance, is that some people will pay in more than the company will pay out, while some people will get more out than they pay in. It’s the only way to make a profit. This means the health insurance industry is built upon the idea of healthy people paying for sick people. The only way around that is to have no insurance and people just pay for their health care out of their bank account. As anyone who has had any kind of health problem, from a car accident to a bout of pneumonia to breast cancer, those costs are exorbitant and unaffordable for the average person.
So we end up with a profit-driven system that some people opt out of (because they’re healthy and think they will always be healthy) and some people cannot afford. There are 30 million adults (and now growing) who do not have health insurance. Half a million people declare bankruptcy over medical bills every year. Republicans have attempted, and will attempt again, to remove protections for pre-existing conditions and put back in place lifetime limits on insurance expenditures. They’ve already effectively destroyed the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act and prevented Medicaid expansion in several states. Their plans will all increase the number of uninsured and raise the costs for everyone who is insured, but they do generate large profits for insurance companies and large paychecks for their executives (who then pay large amounts in campaign contributions to Republicans).
To be fair, even most Republicans think everyone deserves health care. They believe that if someone is in a car accident they should receive the emergency surgery that saves their life. They just think that such a thing should bankrupt the poor or anyone who chose not to have insurance. They also tend to agree that people with cancer should get treatment - society will pick up the tab for the uninsured - but only if it isn’t too expensive (lifetime caps) - and it will be more expensive because the uninsured are less likely to catch the cancer early. They think babies born with heart defects should get healed, but then they should be unable to get insurance for the rest of their life - that's what removing protections for pre-existing conditions means. (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmWWoMcGmo0) So while many Republican voters think people deserve health care, they don’t feel they deserve health insurance, and they don’t seem to understand that without insurance (or with crappy insurance) most people won’t get decent care. It’s a faith in the market to provide care when the market only cares about profit.
What’s the alternative? There are actually quite a few options as demonstrated by the fact that every other rich country in the world has some form of universal coverage and government-sponsored health care. Let’s focus on the easiest idea because the principles apply to everything. Our government already provides universal health care for everyone over 65: Medicare. And pretty much everyone agrees it’s a good idea. So why not Medicare-for-all? The main argument you will hear against this is the cost. One conservative think tank estimated it would cost $32.6 Trillion (yes, with a T) over ten years. But that same study says that our current system will cost MORE. (https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7) The difference is where your money goes.
Right now, a typical insurance set up works like this. You pay $500/month out of your paycheck for coverage. Your employer kicks in another $500. This means $12,000/year is being sent to insurance companies. Then there’s the $5,000 in deductible you pay to your doctor for a single ER visit or a minor surgery (like a broken finger). But under a Medicare-for-all plan, you pay $500/month more in taxes. Your employer pays $500/month more in payroll taxes. The government gets $12,000/year which it uses to pay health care providers when you use services. Sure, your taxes go up, but your costs do not. In fact, there’s a good likelihood your cost will go down since you no longer have huge deductibles and can get preventative care.
And this doesn’t even get into the benefits. Most arguments skip that part. Medicare-for-all means thirty million people without insurance now get covered. Most people get better health care, and better health care costs less because it catches things earlier. It will literally save lives: for every million people who gain coverage, 10,000 fewer people die a year. It means most of the country won’t have to pay the large deductibles so they won’t face the uncertainty of medical costs. It means people won’t declare bankruptcy over medical bills. It means doctors won’t spend 20% of their time working on insurance reimbursement. All this savings/increased productivity will be poured into our economy which will benefit us all. And people won’t be tethered to crappy jobs because of health insurance. People can explore and innovate knowing they won’t be left for dead if they get sick. They can start new businesses and hire more people because they don’t have to pay rising insurance premiums.
Better health care, for more people, at a lower cost, with side benefits. That’s what Democrats are fighting for and Republicans are actively and enthusiastically fighting against. An issue that will affect nearly every American (except the really rich - they will always have access to the best health care no matter what system we choose (they will just have to pay more taxes if under the Democrat plans)). Vote for your own interest. Vote Democrat.
Republicans want to keep a profit-driven health care system built around health insurance. First, you need to understand that the principle of insurance, any insurance, is that some people will pay in more than the company will pay out, while some people will get more out than they pay in. It’s the only way to make a profit. This means the health insurance industry is built upon the idea of healthy people paying for sick people. The only way around that is to have no insurance and people just pay for their health care out of their bank account. As anyone who has had any kind of health problem, from a car accident to a bout of pneumonia to breast cancer, those costs are exorbitant and unaffordable for the average person.
So we end up with a profit-driven system that some people opt out of (because they’re healthy and think they will always be healthy) and some people cannot afford. There are 30 million adults (and now growing) who do not have health insurance. Half a million people declare bankruptcy over medical bills every year. Republicans have attempted, and will attempt again, to remove protections for pre-existing conditions and put back in place lifetime limits on insurance expenditures. They’ve already effectively destroyed the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act and prevented Medicaid expansion in several states. Their plans will all increase the number of uninsured and raise the costs for everyone who is insured, but they do generate large profits for insurance companies and large paychecks for their executives (who then pay large amounts in campaign contributions to Republicans).
To be fair, even most Republicans think everyone deserves health care. They believe that if someone is in a car accident they should receive the emergency surgery that saves their life. They just think that such a thing should bankrupt the poor or anyone who chose not to have insurance. They also tend to agree that people with cancer should get treatment - society will pick up the tab for the uninsured - but only if it isn’t too expensive (lifetime caps) - and it will be more expensive because the uninsured are less likely to catch the cancer early. They think babies born with heart defects should get healed, but then they should be unable to get insurance for the rest of their life - that's what removing protections for pre-existing conditions means. (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmWWoMcGmo0) So while many Republican voters think people deserve health care, they don’t feel they deserve health insurance, and they don’t seem to understand that without insurance (or with crappy insurance) most people won’t get decent care. It’s a faith in the market to provide care when the market only cares about profit.
What’s the alternative? There are actually quite a few options as demonstrated by the fact that every other rich country in the world has some form of universal coverage and government-sponsored health care. Let’s focus on the easiest idea because the principles apply to everything. Our government already provides universal health care for everyone over 65: Medicare. And pretty much everyone agrees it’s a good idea. So why not Medicare-for-all? The main argument you will hear against this is the cost. One conservative think tank estimated it would cost $32.6 Trillion (yes, with a T) over ten years. But that same study says that our current system will cost MORE. (https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7) The difference is where your money goes.
Right now, a typical insurance set up works like this. You pay $500/month out of your paycheck for coverage. Your employer kicks in another $500. This means $12,000/year is being sent to insurance companies. Then there’s the $5,000 in deductible you pay to your doctor for a single ER visit or a minor surgery (like a broken finger). But under a Medicare-for-all plan, you pay $500/month more in taxes. Your employer pays $500/month more in payroll taxes. The government gets $12,000/year which it uses to pay health care providers when you use services. Sure, your taxes go up, but your costs do not. In fact, there’s a good likelihood your cost will go down since you no longer have huge deductibles and can get preventative care.
And this doesn’t even get into the benefits. Most arguments skip that part. Medicare-for-all means thirty million people without insurance now get covered. Most people get better health care, and better health care costs less because it catches things earlier. It will literally save lives: for every million people who gain coverage, 10,000 fewer people die a year. It means most of the country won’t have to pay the large deductibles so they won’t face the uncertainty of medical costs. It means people won’t declare bankruptcy over medical bills. It means doctors won’t spend 20% of their time working on insurance reimbursement. All this savings/increased productivity will be poured into our economy which will benefit us all. And people won’t be tethered to crappy jobs because of health insurance. People can explore and innovate knowing they won’t be left for dead if they get sick. They can start new businesses and hire more people because they don’t have to pay rising insurance premiums.
Better health care, for more people, at a lower cost, with side benefits. That’s what Democrats are fighting for and Republicans are actively and enthusiastically fighting against. An issue that will affect nearly every American (except the really rich - they will always have access to the best health care no matter what system we choose (they will just have to pay more taxes if under the Democrat plans)). Vote for your own interest. Vote Democrat.
Monday, October 15, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 17: False Equivalency
It’s become an accepted fact that each side has retreated to its own corner, or bubble if you will, and no longer feels compelled to debate the ideas on their merits or with objective information and data. It doesn’t really matter which side we’re talking about or what field of inquiry – anywhere there is a roughly equal division of opinion you will hear the refrain: both sides are equally valid; you need to respect my point of view. Hogwash.
The notion that merely because two sides exist they are equally valid and reasonable and worthy of respect has never been the case. While equivalence is possible, perhaps even common, it is not the default and needs to be established before it’s accepted. Any opinion needs to be supported by its own logic and moral justification without claiming equivalency ‘just because’, and we do have plenty of precedents to guide us in evaluating correctness and validity. Let’s start with the historical/political:
At some point in the past, most every significant topic of politics has been divided into two opposing sides supported in roughly equal numbers. Slavery, women’s right to vote, gay marriage, Social Security, etc. At some point they were all hotly contested, but with the accuracy of hindsight and a hopefully more evolved and improved view of humanity, we now know that quite often one side was wrong, really and truly wrong. So, by equivalence, there is nothing foundationally different about many topics of today: transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, Muslim bans, universal health care. There is every reason to believe that future generations will clearly see that one side is right and the other is wrong, and while we can argue about which side is which, we cannot simply claim they are both equally valid and deserving of respect. Respect is not given, it must be earned through supporting evidence, sound reasoning, and moral justification.
A modern example is Evolutionary Theory versus Creationism. One is supported by decades of scientific study, literally tons of physical evidence, and built upon a logical structure vetted through the scientific method, while the other is based on the words of a religious text and relies upon the denial of any level of critical thinking or independent thought. So while 40% of the population may believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, the idea simply is not equivalent in any sense of the word.
This isn’t to say that we are free to ignore any dissenting opinion. The point is that each argument must be judged on its own merits: raising the minimum wage has a slew of contradictory evidence and very reasonable arguments it will either stimulate economic growth or crash the system through increased costs. Neither side can claim clear superiority though everyone can certainly decide which argument is most convincing.
But on so many issues, the side of evidence, the side of morality, is clear: humans are causing global warming, gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else, racial discrimination is wrong, drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of money, women deserve to be listened to and respected, everyone has a right to health care, America has a gun violence problem. We do not need to credit those who oppose such truths. We do not need to respect those who would use their unsupported beliefs to harm others. We do not, and should not have to agree to disagree. We need to fight for what’s right until it wins the day, until it’s as obvious as slavery is wrong and women deserve the right to vote. That’s what progress is. Conservatism is the opposite. There is no need to admit equivalency where none exists.
The notion that merely because two sides exist they are equally valid and reasonable and worthy of respect has never been the case. While equivalence is possible, perhaps even common, it is not the default and needs to be established before it’s accepted. Any opinion needs to be supported by its own logic and moral justification without claiming equivalency ‘just because’, and we do have plenty of precedents to guide us in evaluating correctness and validity. Let’s start with the historical/political:
At some point in the past, most every significant topic of politics has been divided into two opposing sides supported in roughly equal numbers. Slavery, women’s right to vote, gay marriage, Social Security, etc. At some point they were all hotly contested, but with the accuracy of hindsight and a hopefully more evolved and improved view of humanity, we now know that quite often one side was wrong, really and truly wrong. So, by equivalence, there is nothing foundationally different about many topics of today: transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, Muslim bans, universal health care. There is every reason to believe that future generations will clearly see that one side is right and the other is wrong, and while we can argue about which side is which, we cannot simply claim they are both equally valid and deserving of respect. Respect is not given, it must be earned through supporting evidence, sound reasoning, and moral justification.
A modern example is Evolutionary Theory versus Creationism. One is supported by decades of scientific study, literally tons of physical evidence, and built upon a logical structure vetted through the scientific method, while the other is based on the words of a religious text and relies upon the denial of any level of critical thinking or independent thought. So while 40% of the population may believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, the idea simply is not equivalent in any sense of the word.
This isn’t to say that we are free to ignore any dissenting opinion. The point is that each argument must be judged on its own merits: raising the minimum wage has a slew of contradictory evidence and very reasonable arguments it will either stimulate economic growth or crash the system through increased costs. Neither side can claim clear superiority though everyone can certainly decide which argument is most convincing.
But on so many issues, the side of evidence, the side of morality, is clear: humans are causing global warming, gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else, racial discrimination is wrong, drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of money, women deserve to be listened to and respected, everyone has a right to health care, America has a gun violence problem. We do not need to credit those who oppose such truths. We do not need to respect those who would use their unsupported beliefs to harm others. We do not, and should not have to agree to disagree. We need to fight for what’s right until it wins the day, until it’s as obvious as slavery is wrong and women deserve the right to vote. That’s what progress is. Conservatism is the opposite. There is no need to admit equivalency where none exists.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 16: The Bend of History
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
Our country has advanced a long way since its inception, living up to it lofty ideals much more in modern times than it did at its founding. Slavery was written into our founding document, and women were written out of our laws, but the spirit for something better always existed. Many people today, particularly those who never had to overcome the country’s bias against their kind, look at our current state and bask in the glow of moral achievement. They shouldn’t.
The forward progress of our country was accomplished by the hard work and suffering of those who were denied liberty and opportunity. The African Americans who ran away from their masters, who sat at the lunch counters, and walked, as children, through crowds of screaming bigots to challenge the status quo. The suffragettes who rioted, who faced arrests in the streets and beatings at home to demand the right to vote. The members of the LGBTQ community who were left to die during the AIDS crisis and still can be fired simply for admitting who they are. Our country is better due to a long history of people who fought for what many of us were given at birth due to the color of our skin, the makeup of our gender, or some other random trait which we deserve no credit for.
So those who sit back and say that the current crop of protestors, whether it be the ones calling for a living wage or those demanding fair treatment by the police, need to tone down their rhetoric and accept change will happen but only in due course - those people are simply wrong. Slavery ended in the 1860’s and things got better, but only until they got worse in the 1930’s. Women gained the right to vote a hundred years ago, but the right to not be raped by their husbands only in this century. Equal marriage rights for homosexuals is still under threat by a regressive Supreme Court. Our country is now banning people based on their religious faith and making it legal to deny customers from businesses for arbitrary reasons. Things don’t always get better and it’s the straight, white, mostly male contingent who are primarily fighting to drag us away from the notion of justice for all.
If you think we have achieved justice, you are simply wrong. Our criminal justice system is biased against People of Color (https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6002175/its-not-just-ferguson-americas-criminal-justice-system-is-racist). Our economic system is still biased against women (https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11410270/equal-pay-day-2016-womens-choices-wage-gap). We still don’t give equal education and opportunity to the poor (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059821/). Our system is rife with injustice and if you are not working to fix then you are standing in the way of those who are.
The protestors and agitators who call for change are the ones who point us in the right direction, and we ignore them at our own peril. And while the disadvantaged are the ones doing the heavy lifting, they can never achieve their goal unless the bulk of us, those who already have our personal justice, add our weight to their lever and help bend the universe in the right direction.
I heard a lot of talk about empathy after the last election, demanding that it be offered to those who were motivated by racial animus (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study) and a stated desire to go back to the way things were. It’s time to offer our empathy and our action to those who truly need and deserve it. If you believe our country has arced towards justice and you want that to continue, vote for the party that advocates for equality, be it gender, racial, or sexual orientation. Vote for the party that supports, and is supported by those who are fighting for justice. Vote Democrat.
“If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.” Malcolm X
Our country has advanced a long way since its inception, living up to it lofty ideals much more in modern times than it did at its founding. Slavery was written into our founding document, and women were written out of our laws, but the spirit for something better always existed. Many people today, particularly those who never had to overcome the country’s bias against their kind, look at our current state and bask in the glow of moral achievement. They shouldn’t.
The forward progress of our country was accomplished by the hard work and suffering of those who were denied liberty and opportunity. The African Americans who ran away from their masters, who sat at the lunch counters, and walked, as children, through crowds of screaming bigots to challenge the status quo. The suffragettes who rioted, who faced arrests in the streets and beatings at home to demand the right to vote. The members of the LGBTQ community who were left to die during the AIDS crisis and still can be fired simply for admitting who they are. Our country is better due to a long history of people who fought for what many of us were given at birth due to the color of our skin, the makeup of our gender, or some other random trait which we deserve no credit for.
So those who sit back and say that the current crop of protestors, whether it be the ones calling for a living wage or those demanding fair treatment by the police, need to tone down their rhetoric and accept change will happen but only in due course - those people are simply wrong. Slavery ended in the 1860’s and things got better, but only until they got worse in the 1930’s. Women gained the right to vote a hundred years ago, but the right to not be raped by their husbands only in this century. Equal marriage rights for homosexuals is still under threat by a regressive Supreme Court. Our country is now banning people based on their religious faith and making it legal to deny customers from businesses for arbitrary reasons. Things don’t always get better and it’s the straight, white, mostly male contingent who are primarily fighting to drag us away from the notion of justice for all.
If you think we have achieved justice, you are simply wrong. Our criminal justice system is biased against People of Color (https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6002175/its-not-just-ferguson-americas-criminal-justice-system-is-racist). Our economic system is still biased against women (https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11410270/equal-pay-day-2016-womens-choices-wage-gap). We still don’t give equal education and opportunity to the poor (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059821/). Our system is rife with injustice and if you are not working to fix then you are standing in the way of those who are.
The protestors and agitators who call for change are the ones who point us in the right direction, and we ignore them at our own peril. And while the disadvantaged are the ones doing the heavy lifting, they can never achieve their goal unless the bulk of us, those who already have our personal justice, add our weight to their lever and help bend the universe in the right direction.
I heard a lot of talk about empathy after the last election, demanding that it be offered to those who were motivated by racial animus (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study) and a stated desire to go back to the way things were. It’s time to offer our empathy and our action to those who truly need and deserve it. If you believe our country has arced towards justice and you want that to continue, vote for the party that advocates for equality, be it gender, racial, or sexual orientation. Vote for the party that supports, and is supported by those who are fighting for justice. Vote Democrat.
“If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.” Malcolm X
Friday, October 12, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 15: The Country Immigrants Built (and are still building)
One of the clear difference between Republican and Democratic policy and ideology is their stances on immigration. Democrats favor the concept and want to improve the process, allow in more refugees, and give the good people who are here undocumented a path towards citizenship. Republicans are a bit of mixed bag: the base talk about legalities, worry about crime, and want to greatly limit immigrants (at least a certain type), while the representatives cater to those fears but also have to serve the business interests who are well aware our economy depends up the cheap labor of immigrants. But how did we get here and where should we try to go?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17505406/trump-obama-race-politics-immigration
Historically we are a nation of immigrants. Virtually all of us came here or descended from citizens of different countries. Our nation was founded by people who had not been here very long and grew to prosperity on the backs of immigrants, both willing and unwilling. Our economy has always depended on growth which can only be sustained by allowing people in because our now-native population does not reproduce at a fast enough rate. We are built on immigrants because they bolster our economy (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-07-10/economic-statistics-suggest-immigration-is-a-boost-to-the-us-economy), they pay taxes (https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes), and they largely do not receive government aid since they are ineligible for welfare. They work hard jobs that need to be done at low wages that native-born Americans won’t do. They make us richer.
And study after study has shown that immigrants, both legal and illegal, commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/two-charts-demolish-the-notion-that-immigrants-here-illegally-commit-more-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ea2a6cf9d2eb
). They climb out of poverty at higher rates. They improve on their parents’ education levels at higher rates. They start more businesses and lead to more innovation. They make us better.
https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/articles/2018/01/immigration-visa.html
Most people know this (https://news.gallup.com/poll/235793/record-high-americans-say-immigration-good-thing.aspx), but some don’t. Where does anti-immigration sentiment come from? As I heard one second-generation American say: these immigrants are different. But how? They are poor - but they’ve always been poor. From the Scots-Irish and German immigrants of our nations start, to the Irish fleeing famine, to the current crop of Central and Southern Americans, our immigrants have always been poor. They’ve rarely spoken English or been educated. The vast majority, then and now, have been Christian. So what makes our current immigrants different? Since it’s mostly white, older Protestants who are anti-immigrant, and our current group of immigrants have darker skin than previous ones, I’ll let people draw their own conclusions.
What’s perhaps more surprising about how much anti-immigrant rhetoric is coming from the Republican base and leadership is the fact that we are on a downswing that started under Obama. The number of illegal immigrants has been falling for ten years now and is at a forty year low (https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/). The number of undocumented immigrants living here is holding steady. The number of refugees coming to our country is falling precipitously in spite of the fact that the world numbers are rising. Immigration is putting less pressure on our country now than any time in our memories, so where’s the urgency?
As is the case with most large policy issues, Democrats represent the majority opinion, Republicans the minority. But Republicans do this for a reason. It motivates their base. Any general sense of threat, be it to our safety or our culture, whether well-founded or not, leads voters to be more conservative. The Republicans distort reality time and again to drive a minority opinion to win out over the majority. The solution is simple: vote for truth, vote for majority rule, vote Democrat.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17505406/trump-obama-race-politics-immigration
Historically we are a nation of immigrants. Virtually all of us came here or descended from citizens of different countries. Our nation was founded by people who had not been here very long and grew to prosperity on the backs of immigrants, both willing and unwilling. Our economy has always depended on growth which can only be sustained by allowing people in because our now-native population does not reproduce at a fast enough rate. We are built on immigrants because they bolster our economy (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-07-10/economic-statistics-suggest-immigration-is-a-boost-to-the-us-economy), they pay taxes (https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes), and they largely do not receive government aid since they are ineligible for welfare. They work hard jobs that need to be done at low wages that native-born Americans won’t do. They make us richer.
And study after study has shown that immigrants, both legal and illegal, commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/two-charts-demolish-the-notion-that-immigrants-here-illegally-commit-more-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ea2a6cf9d2eb
). They climb out of poverty at higher rates. They improve on their parents’ education levels at higher rates. They start more businesses and lead to more innovation. They make us better.
https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/articles/2018/01/immigration-visa.html
Most people know this (https://news.gallup.com/poll/235793/record-high-americans-say-immigration-good-thing.aspx), but some don’t. Where does anti-immigration sentiment come from? As I heard one second-generation American say: these immigrants are different. But how? They are poor - but they’ve always been poor. From the Scots-Irish and German immigrants of our nations start, to the Irish fleeing famine, to the current crop of Central and Southern Americans, our immigrants have always been poor. They’ve rarely spoken English or been educated. The vast majority, then and now, have been Christian. So what makes our current immigrants different? Since it’s mostly white, older Protestants who are anti-immigrant, and our current group of immigrants have darker skin than previous ones, I’ll let people draw their own conclusions.
What’s perhaps more surprising about how much anti-immigrant rhetoric is coming from the Republican base and leadership is the fact that we are on a downswing that started under Obama. The number of illegal immigrants has been falling for ten years now and is at a forty year low (https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/). The number of undocumented immigrants living here is holding steady. The number of refugees coming to our country is falling precipitously in spite of the fact that the world numbers are rising. Immigration is putting less pressure on our country now than any time in our memories, so where’s the urgency?
As is the case with most large policy issues, Democrats represent the majority opinion, Republicans the minority. But Republicans do this for a reason. It motivates their base. Any general sense of threat, be it to our safety or our culture, whether well-founded or not, leads voters to be more conservative. The Republicans distort reality time and again to drive a minority opinion to win out over the majority. The solution is simple: vote for truth, vote for majority rule, vote Democrat.
Fight for Democracy, Part 14: Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal, Completely Full of Sh!t
Being a middle-class, straight white guy, I have a lot of straight, middle-class, white friends. A phrase I hear from a number of them is: I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative. This is white-guy speak for ‘I often vote Republican but I’m not racist’. It fails both morally and logically but people let them get away with it.
First, if your socially liberal it means you believe in things like gender equality and marriage equality. You believe multiculturalism is a good thing, that people with darker skin and a different language are just as worthy human beings as you and your cultural friends. Social liberals don’t like discrimination, whether it be based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or financial status. Liberalism is about everyone being treated equally without restrictions. If you vote Republican, you are supporting policies which directly oppose those concepts.
Republicans are against gay marriage. They want to give people the right to discriminate (though they hide this under the guise of ‘religious freedom’). They advocate for banning Muslims from the country and for immigration policies that treat Hispanics inhumanely. You can’t honestly say you are against such policies if you vote to support them.
But, you say, I don’t want to support those things but I think economic policy is more important. If you think economic policy is more important than basic human rights and equality, then I think your morality is suspect. Especially when the arguments in favor of Republican economic policy are so weak (unless you are really rich, in which case it’s quite honest and apparent that conservative policy favors the rich over the poor). As a white, middle-class guy I can say with much confidence that government economic policy never really affected me, other than at the margins of my bank account. So if you’re willing to screw over basic decency in order to get a slightly larger tax refund, just admit you don’t really care about other people and are in it for the money.
I believe Democratic economic policy is better for me and the country, but I’m willing to concede that it isn’t a settled question. Others can disagree in good faith and I won’t fault them for it (though I’d be happy to argue with them over it). But if you think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married; If you think businesses should be able to discriminate against them or fire them at will; If you think black people aren’t as smart or capable as whites; If you think immigrants and refugees are mostly criminals who don’t belong in ‘our’ country; If you think putting up barriers to voting and rigging voter districts for partisan reasons are okay; If you think women, especially poor women, don’t deserve the right to control their own health care choices - I simply don’t accept those as equally valid positions. I won’t agree to disagree. Republican policy, Republican ideology, is immoral and wrong, and I won’t be bought off for a few hundred dollars off my taxes or a slightly higher GDP growth rate. And I don’t respect anyone who does.
First, if your socially liberal it means you believe in things like gender equality and marriage equality. You believe multiculturalism is a good thing, that people with darker skin and a different language are just as worthy human beings as you and your cultural friends. Social liberals don’t like discrimination, whether it be based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or financial status. Liberalism is about everyone being treated equally without restrictions. If you vote Republican, you are supporting policies which directly oppose those concepts.
Republicans are against gay marriage. They want to give people the right to discriminate (though they hide this under the guise of ‘religious freedom’). They advocate for banning Muslims from the country and for immigration policies that treat Hispanics inhumanely. You can’t honestly say you are against such policies if you vote to support them.
But, you say, I don’t want to support those things but I think economic policy is more important. If you think economic policy is more important than basic human rights and equality, then I think your morality is suspect. Especially when the arguments in favor of Republican economic policy are so weak (unless you are really rich, in which case it’s quite honest and apparent that conservative policy favors the rich over the poor). As a white, middle-class guy I can say with much confidence that government economic policy never really affected me, other than at the margins of my bank account. So if you’re willing to screw over basic decency in order to get a slightly larger tax refund, just admit you don’t really care about other people and are in it for the money.
I believe Democratic economic policy is better for me and the country, but I’m willing to concede that it isn’t a settled question. Others can disagree in good faith and I won’t fault them for it (though I’d be happy to argue with them over it). But if you think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married; If you think businesses should be able to discriminate against them or fire them at will; If you think black people aren’t as smart or capable as whites; If you think immigrants and refugees are mostly criminals who don’t belong in ‘our’ country; If you think putting up barriers to voting and rigging voter districts for partisan reasons are okay; If you think women, especially poor women, don’t deserve the right to control their own health care choices - I simply don’t accept those as equally valid positions. I won’t agree to disagree. Republican policy, Republican ideology, is immoral and wrong, and I won’t be bought off for a few hundred dollars off my taxes or a slightly higher GDP growth rate. And I don’t respect anyone who does.
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 13: The Economics of Pie
I want to talk about the economy but I’m not sure how to do it. The scientist in me wants to put up a bunch of charts and graphs since most people seem to think the economy is measured by numbers. The economist in me (I think a lot of people don’t know I also have a B.A. in economics) wants to talk about the nature of capitalism and the original meanings of Smith and Ricardo. But I don’t think those things will sway anyone. The truth is that ‘the economy’ is a vague subject that’s usually represented by choosing a few numbers to highlight (which numbers depends on what you’re trying to prove). Most people, even economists, don’t know exactly how things work or what will happen - it’s just too complicated a system - so everyone can argue about the topic forever with no objective truth ever emerging. So let’s stay big picture.
First, you need to understand that the government in general, and the President in particular, has relatively little direct control over the economy. Their main tools are monetary policy (which is controlled by the interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, which hasn’t really changed philosophy or practice in the last twenty years), government spending as stimulus (and how that money is spent has more impact on people’s lives than the amount), and structuring the regulations that control our economy.
The Fed (https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm) is largely an independent agency that tries to stabilize our economy by controlling interest rates. During the Recession and recovery they lowered interest rates to help spur borrowing in an attempt to stimulate the economy. Most everyone from both sides agreed it was the right thing to do. The past few years they have been following a long, slow trend of slightly raising interest rates (which are still historically low) in order to prevent the economy from growing too fast. With minor quibbles, most people agree on this approach. It’s really not something that is going to change no matter who you vote for.
Government stimulus, on the other hand, is very much a political issue. Pretty much everyone agrees that during a period of slow economic growth and low interest rates it’s good for the government to spend money to stimulate the economy. This increases the pie (GDP). We did that under Obama (most say not enough, and where the blame lies for the lack of spending is debatable). More curiously, we’re doing that now when we’re not in a recession, which is much less accepted wisdom. And more important is where we spend the money and how we finance it.
The general Democratic approach to government stimulus is to put the money in the hands of everyone, mostly through government spending like a jobs bill or on infrastructure. Does this incur debt? Yes. But so does cutting taxes on the rich and corporations. The difference is where does the money go. Jobs bills, spending on roads and transportation, inject money directly into the economy by creating jobs (wages for middle-class people) and improvement of public resources that benefit everyone (that’s what infrastructure is). It increases the pie by giving larger pieces to the majority of people. Tax cuts for the wealthy tend to increase the stock market (84% of which is owned by the top 10%). It increases the pie by making the larger slices even larger.
Having a larger pie is good, but people don’t judge their wealth (and thus their happiness) by the size of their piece. Rather, we judge ourselves by comparing our share to our neighbors. On that metric, we are at historically high levels of inequality and rising. Wages for the middle class and poor are flat. The ratio of executive pay to workers’ pay is at an all-time high (http://fortune.com/2018/08/16/ceo-salary-pay-workers-gap/). Unemployment numbers are low (following the trend that’s been in place for eight years) but that’s because a record number of able-bodied people are no longer seeking work. Our economy is doing well if you look at the whole pie, but it’s not so good when you look at what’s on your plate.
And that leads me to the third lever for the economy: regulation. Governments use laws and regulations to help control the distribution of wealth. They use it to prevent monopoly control and they use it to provide for fair labor practices, including minimum wages and safety requirements. They use it to prevent harm to the environment (which is a way for companies to offload a cost of business to the public at large). They use it to prevent the wealthy from leverage that wealth to their own benefit. Those regulations and control are being deliberately loosened in the same manner that led to the last recession.
And that brings us back to the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Sure, both are tied too tight to Wall Street; both have too many rich people at their top who are out of touch with everyday America; both are often bought and paid for by the wealthy. But Republicans publically and politically favor the wealthy. They already have reduced their taxes (and incurred huge debt to do so). They have rolled back anti-trust laws and financial regulations. They extoll pay raises for executives and measure their success by their stock portfolios. Democrats passed regulatory laws to rein in Wall Street. They created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau). They advocate for workers’ right and an increase in the minimum wage.
Republicans are pursuing an economic agenda which is identical to the one under George W. Bush, which led to the worst meltdown of our economy in a century. The Democrats are pursuing an approach similar to the New Deal, which led to the greatest expansion of middle-class wealth our country has ever seen. Everyone loves pie; Democrats want to give you more.
First, you need to understand that the government in general, and the President in particular, has relatively little direct control over the economy. Their main tools are monetary policy (which is controlled by the interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, which hasn’t really changed philosophy or practice in the last twenty years), government spending as stimulus (and how that money is spent has more impact on people’s lives than the amount), and structuring the regulations that control our economy.
The Fed (https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm) is largely an independent agency that tries to stabilize our economy by controlling interest rates. During the Recession and recovery they lowered interest rates to help spur borrowing in an attempt to stimulate the economy. Most everyone from both sides agreed it was the right thing to do. The past few years they have been following a long, slow trend of slightly raising interest rates (which are still historically low) in order to prevent the economy from growing too fast. With minor quibbles, most people agree on this approach. It’s really not something that is going to change no matter who you vote for.
Government stimulus, on the other hand, is very much a political issue. Pretty much everyone agrees that during a period of slow economic growth and low interest rates it’s good for the government to spend money to stimulate the economy. This increases the pie (GDP). We did that under Obama (most say not enough, and where the blame lies for the lack of spending is debatable). More curiously, we’re doing that now when we’re not in a recession, which is much less accepted wisdom. And more important is where we spend the money and how we finance it.
The general Democratic approach to government stimulus is to put the money in the hands of everyone, mostly through government spending like a jobs bill or on infrastructure. Does this incur debt? Yes. But so does cutting taxes on the rich and corporations. The difference is where does the money go. Jobs bills, spending on roads and transportation, inject money directly into the economy by creating jobs (wages for middle-class people) and improvement of public resources that benefit everyone (that’s what infrastructure is). It increases the pie by giving larger pieces to the majority of people. Tax cuts for the wealthy tend to increase the stock market (84% of which is owned by the top 10%). It increases the pie by making the larger slices even larger.
Having a larger pie is good, but people don’t judge their wealth (and thus their happiness) by the size of their piece. Rather, we judge ourselves by comparing our share to our neighbors. On that metric, we are at historically high levels of inequality and rising. Wages for the middle class and poor are flat. The ratio of executive pay to workers’ pay is at an all-time high (http://fortune.com/2018/08/16/ceo-salary-pay-workers-gap/). Unemployment numbers are low (following the trend that’s been in place for eight years) but that’s because a record number of able-bodied people are no longer seeking work. Our economy is doing well if you look at the whole pie, but it’s not so good when you look at what’s on your plate.
And that leads me to the third lever for the economy: regulation. Governments use laws and regulations to help control the distribution of wealth. They use it to prevent monopoly control and they use it to provide for fair labor practices, including minimum wages and safety requirements. They use it to prevent harm to the environment (which is a way for companies to offload a cost of business to the public at large). They use it to prevent the wealthy from leverage that wealth to their own benefit. Those regulations and control are being deliberately loosened in the same manner that led to the last recession.
And that brings us back to the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Sure, both are tied too tight to Wall Street; both have too many rich people at their top who are out of touch with everyday America; both are often bought and paid for by the wealthy. But Republicans publically and politically favor the wealthy. They already have reduced their taxes (and incurred huge debt to do so). They have rolled back anti-trust laws and financial regulations. They extoll pay raises for executives and measure their success by their stock portfolios. Democrats passed regulatory laws to rein in Wall Street. They created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau). They advocate for workers’ right and an increase in the minimum wage.
Republicans are pursuing an economic agenda which is identical to the one under George W. Bush, which led to the worst meltdown of our economy in a century. The Democrats are pursuing an approach similar to the New Deal, which led to the greatest expansion of middle-class wealth our country has ever seen. Everyone loves pie; Democrats want to give you more.
Fight for Democracy, Part 12: Politics is Everything
It’s a common phrase thrown out in the middle of a heated Facebook discussion or an exhortation aimed at those who seem most disturbed by our current administration: it’s just politics. The message is: it’s not something worth getting upset about, or being so angry at me for, or worth all the fuss. This dismissal of politics is a distraction from the facts or an attempt to shift blame. It’s an excuse to save ourselves from accepting the results of the choices we make. But it isn’t a rational response to deeply held beliefs or a proper understanding of the world we live in.
It’s true that politics includes the mundane. School bonds, county zoning commissions, national ice cream day. Much of it deals with economics: tax exemptions, anti-trust laws, worker compensation rules. These things can be important to individuals but most would agree they are not core to our self-identity or instrumental to improving the life experiences of the average person. But that is not the sum total of politics. Not by far.
Politics also includes anti-discrimination laws. It includes social welfare programs that save lives. Politics decide which countries to fight and which to support. Politics started World War II, ended slavery, gave women the right to vote and gay people the right to marry. It now threatens to curtail a free press, register people based on their religion, and normalize racial resentment as a viable world-view. At its core, our laws and government express how we as a society treat one another, and politics is the manner in which we discuss our morality as a people. To suggest it shouldn’t be a factor in friendships or worthy of an emotional response begs the question: what should?
Should I get upset when someone says my child’s life isn’t as valuable as theirs, but not when the claim is made towards a refugee? Should I break a friendship over insults to myself but not to a class of people that doesn’t include me? Is it okay for me to dislike you for being a racist but not for supporting racist policies? Politics is a true indicator of who we are while how we treat specific individuals is clouded by personal histories and in-person biases.
You don’t have to agree with my preferred policies, you don’t have to belong to the same political party, but if you disagree with my assumptions that all human beings deserve equal rights and to be treated with dignity and respect, that in a wealthy country we can afford basic care and support of those who can’t help themselves, regardless of the reason, and that democracy, while imperfect, is far better than any of the alternatives, you are encouraged to unfollow me and I promise I won’t get upset about it. After all, it’s just politics.
It’s true that politics includes the mundane. School bonds, county zoning commissions, national ice cream day. Much of it deals with economics: tax exemptions, anti-trust laws, worker compensation rules. These things can be important to individuals but most would agree they are not core to our self-identity or instrumental to improving the life experiences of the average person. But that is not the sum total of politics. Not by far.
Politics also includes anti-discrimination laws. It includes social welfare programs that save lives. Politics decide which countries to fight and which to support. Politics started World War II, ended slavery, gave women the right to vote and gay people the right to marry. It now threatens to curtail a free press, register people based on their religion, and normalize racial resentment as a viable world-view. At its core, our laws and government express how we as a society treat one another, and politics is the manner in which we discuss our morality as a people. To suggest it shouldn’t be a factor in friendships or worthy of an emotional response begs the question: what should?
Should I get upset when someone says my child’s life isn’t as valuable as theirs, but not when the claim is made towards a refugee? Should I break a friendship over insults to myself but not to a class of people that doesn’t include me? Is it okay for me to dislike you for being a racist but not for supporting racist policies? Politics is a true indicator of who we are while how we treat specific individuals is clouded by personal histories and in-person biases.
You don’t have to agree with my preferred policies, you don’t have to belong to the same political party, but if you disagree with my assumptions that all human beings deserve equal rights and to be treated with dignity and respect, that in a wealthy country we can afford basic care and support of those who can’t help themselves, regardless of the reason, and that democracy, while imperfect, is far better than any of the alternatives, you are encouraged to unfollow me and I promise I won’t get upset about it. After all, it’s just politics.
Fight for Democracy, Part 11: See Something, Say Something
I’m a liberal. Make that a Liberal. That means a large percentage of the population writes off what I say without a second thought. Most Conservatives will never be moved by what a Liberal says and it’s probably pointless to even try. But I’m not trying to reach the masses. I’m here talking to my friends.
Anyone who actually knows me knows the thought and reason that goes into my arguments and the background, education, and intelligence that I bring to bear on everything I discuss. Some of those friends are conservative, or at least more conservative than I am. I believe that those friends are also disgusted with our current President and the Congress that supports him. I also think that many of those people don’t know what to do about it.
I’m sure some of them will vote for Democrats, especially if they expect the Dem to win anyway. Or maybe not vote at all, counting on others to make the tough decisions. But that really isn’t enough. As I’ve mentioned before and will mention again, our only alternatives at this point are to suffer through this administration and follow it further down into the abyss of racial animus, corrupt power, and authoritarian tendencies, or to give power to Democrats to serve as a check on the corruption and evil. Everyone needs to say where they stand.
So if you’re a disillusioned Republican, or maybe a conservative independent who feels no loyalty to either Party, or maybe just a closeted Democrat who lives in conservative circles, you need to speak up. You need to argue for what you know is right. You don’t need to listen to my arguments, you don’t need to repeat them - make your own arguments, use your own experience and ideology to prove your points. Use whatever power you have for good, otherwise you are supporting evil.
Anyone who actually knows me knows the thought and reason that goes into my arguments and the background, education, and intelligence that I bring to bear on everything I discuss. Some of those friends are conservative, or at least more conservative than I am. I believe that those friends are also disgusted with our current President and the Congress that supports him. I also think that many of those people don’t know what to do about it.
I’m sure some of them will vote for Democrats, especially if they expect the Dem to win anyway. Or maybe not vote at all, counting on others to make the tough decisions. But that really isn’t enough. As I’ve mentioned before and will mention again, our only alternatives at this point are to suffer through this administration and follow it further down into the abyss of racial animus, corrupt power, and authoritarian tendencies, or to give power to Democrats to serve as a check on the corruption and evil. Everyone needs to say where they stand.
So if you’re a disillusioned Republican, or maybe a conservative independent who feels no loyalty to either Party, or maybe just a closeted Democrat who lives in conservative circles, you need to speak up. You need to argue for what you know is right. You don’t need to listen to my arguments, you don’t need to repeat them - make your own arguments, use your own experience and ideology to prove your points. Use whatever power you have for good, otherwise you are supporting evil.
Sunday, October 7, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 10: What is Democratic Socialism?
Disclaimer: I will not be defining Democratic Socialism in this post :)
If you lean to the left politically, if you’ve ever suggested that universal health care is a good idea, or argued that it’s a good idea for the government to make sure our water is safe to drink, then you’ve probably been called a socialist at some point (or much worse, if that’s possible). Socialist is one of those buzzwords, like synergy or disruptor, that people throw around with no idea of its real meaning until it’s so ubiquitous it’s lost all meaning. In an attempt to be more precise, it’s become trendy to talk about Democratic Socialism, which is actually quite different from Socialism. The academic debate on these things is quite interesting if you’re into political science, but let’s admit most people aren’t, so I’m not going to get into proper definitions here - what’s the point - but I do want to talk about what things really are, regardless of what we call them.
Most everyone considers America a bastion of capitalism and the free market (though some want it more ‘free’). But is that true? Most rankings put the U.S. high in the free market category, but not at the very top. For instance, Denmark, Switzerland, and Canada are generally considered to be more free. The U.K., Norway, Germany, and Finland come in around our level. Why this is important will become clear.
Virtually every OECD country (that means rich) has universal health care that includes a large government component. The only one who doesn’t is the U.S., even though we do have Medicare (socialist medicine for the elderly) and Medicaid (socialist medicine for the poor). Some have nationalized medicine where the government runs everything (UK), some have a mix of government and employer-provided systems (Germany).None of these systems makes the country Socialist, and none of these systems inhibits the ability of business to operate in a free market. And all of these other systems manage to provide health care for all their citizens at a lower cost than the American model. Whatever you want to call it, however you want to provide it, government run/mandated health care works out to be cheaper for the nation and better for the people.
But what about government regulation? Isn’t that really the same as Socialism? No. Just no. For instance, companies are not allowed to put lead in paint or sell foods contaminated with e coli. That’s regulation, not socialism. Companies can’t dump pollution into our water, they can’t require hourly workers to work eighty hours a week without paying them extra, they have to provide bathroom breaks and if women have a baby they must be allowed to keep their job. Maybe some would say that’s socialism, most would say it’s progress. What about laws that require companies to consider the employees well-being and public good when making decisions? What about laws that require women get paid the same as men for doing the same work? Maybe we’re closer to socialism here. What about State-Owned-Enterprises, companies run by the government, like railways, oil production, and telecommunication? Yeah, that’s Socialism. But these things exist in countries like Denmark, Germany, and Norway, and they’re still considered at least as free-market as the U.S.
The point is, most of the ‘radical’ political ideas you see coming from the Far Left are really not uncommon in the world, even among rich and successful capitalist countries. We have a distorted view (and most Americans don’t bother looking out the window) because our two-party political system creates two center-leaning parties and a centrist government. What we consider Far Left is slightly off-center.
If someone calls you a socialist to degrade you, or complains about socialist policies in an attempt to discredit them, remember it’s a label used in the place of real meaning. Everyone uses labels as a short-hand to cover broad topics, but if you can’t delve deeper into the discussion and criticize or defend ideas on their specifics, or compare and contrast an existing system to a comparable alternative, then you’re not having a discussion but are simply throwing up gorilla dust.
Socialism is fine, in moderation. The same for capitalism. And pretty much everything on the board is a discussion of which way to blend the two. The differences can have a significant effect on the lives of citizens, but we’re not really discussing ideological extremes, no matter how much some people want to cast things that way. People are afraid of extremes, often rightly so, but if you fear Medicare for All because it’s ‘Socialism’, but you plan on taking your Social Security when eligible, look forward to Medicare replacing your insurance payments, and say God bless our troops before bed, you need to recalibrate.
If you lean to the left politically, if you’ve ever suggested that universal health care is a good idea, or argued that it’s a good idea for the government to make sure our water is safe to drink, then you’ve probably been called a socialist at some point (or much worse, if that’s possible). Socialist is one of those buzzwords, like synergy or disruptor, that people throw around with no idea of its real meaning until it’s so ubiquitous it’s lost all meaning. In an attempt to be more precise, it’s become trendy to talk about Democratic Socialism, which is actually quite different from Socialism. The academic debate on these things is quite interesting if you’re into political science, but let’s admit most people aren’t, so I’m not going to get into proper definitions here - what’s the point - but I do want to talk about what things really are, regardless of what we call them.
Most everyone considers America a bastion of capitalism and the free market (though some want it more ‘free’). But is that true? Most rankings put the U.S. high in the free market category, but not at the very top. For instance, Denmark, Switzerland, and Canada are generally considered to be more free. The U.K., Norway, Germany, and Finland come in around our level. Why this is important will become clear.
Virtually every OECD country (that means rich) has universal health care that includes a large government component. The only one who doesn’t is the U.S., even though we do have Medicare (socialist medicine for the elderly) and Medicaid (socialist medicine for the poor). Some have nationalized medicine where the government runs everything (UK), some have a mix of government and employer-provided systems (Germany).None of these systems makes the country Socialist, and none of these systems inhibits the ability of business to operate in a free market. And all of these other systems manage to provide health care for all their citizens at a lower cost than the American model. Whatever you want to call it, however you want to provide it, government run/mandated health care works out to be cheaper for the nation and better for the people.
But what about government regulation? Isn’t that really the same as Socialism? No. Just no. For instance, companies are not allowed to put lead in paint or sell foods contaminated with e coli. That’s regulation, not socialism. Companies can’t dump pollution into our water, they can’t require hourly workers to work eighty hours a week without paying them extra, they have to provide bathroom breaks and if women have a baby they must be allowed to keep their job. Maybe some would say that’s socialism, most would say it’s progress. What about laws that require companies to consider the employees well-being and public good when making decisions? What about laws that require women get paid the same as men for doing the same work? Maybe we’re closer to socialism here. What about State-Owned-Enterprises, companies run by the government, like railways, oil production, and telecommunication? Yeah, that’s Socialism. But these things exist in countries like Denmark, Germany, and Norway, and they’re still considered at least as free-market as the U.S.
The point is, most of the ‘radical’ political ideas you see coming from the Far Left are really not uncommon in the world, even among rich and successful capitalist countries. We have a distorted view (and most Americans don’t bother looking out the window) because our two-party political system creates two center-leaning parties and a centrist government. What we consider Far Left is slightly off-center.
If someone calls you a socialist to degrade you, or complains about socialist policies in an attempt to discredit them, remember it’s a label used in the place of real meaning. Everyone uses labels as a short-hand to cover broad topics, but if you can’t delve deeper into the discussion and criticize or defend ideas on their specifics, or compare and contrast an existing system to a comparable alternative, then you’re not having a discussion but are simply throwing up gorilla dust.
Socialism is fine, in moderation. The same for capitalism. And pretty much everything on the board is a discussion of which way to blend the two. The differences can have a significant effect on the lives of citizens, but we’re not really discussing ideological extremes, no matter how much some people want to cast things that way. People are afraid of extremes, often rightly so, but if you fear Medicare for All because it’s ‘Socialism’, but you plan on taking your Social Security when eligible, look forward to Medicare replacing your insurance payments, and say God bless our troops before bed, you need to recalibrate.
Saturday, October 6, 2018
Fight for Democracy, Part 9: This is America
There’s likely to be a lot of talk about race in this election cycle, as there should be. I know that makes a lot of (white) people uncomfortable, and they tend to tune it out, but the issue is not going to go away and we all need to address it. The way to start is with a little information and honesty.
When a lot of people think of racism they think of people using the n-word, of the KKK or the alt-right talking about whites as a better, purer race. They think it’s a small group of people who hate. They think it’s overplayed by the media. They are wrong. First, it isn’t a small group. While a very small number of people admit to being racist, polls suggest that about 11 million Americans agree with the alt-right/neo-nazi version of white supremacy (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/10/17670992/study-white-americans-alt-right-racism-white-nationalists). In current-day America about 10% of the population is against interracial marriage, 20% of Americans (mostly white) agree with the statement that black people are less intelligent than whites, and over 30% say whites are harder working than blacks (https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/white-racial-attitudes-over-time-data-general-social-survey). That’s pretty much definitional racism and those aren’t small numbers.
But perhaps more importantly, that’s not the only type of racism. Implicit bias probably has an even larger affect. Implicit bias is our unconscious racism. It’s the racism that comes from the guy who treats everyone he meets with respect and courtesy, by also is much more likely to reject a job application if the name sounds too black (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/). It’s the racism of the police (http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399) and schools (https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/zigler/publications/Preschool%20Implicit%20Bias%20Policy%20Brief_final_9_26_276766_5379_v1.pdf) that views black individuals as inherently more dangerous and more responsible for their actions at an earlier age. We all have implicit biases on many topics, and it’s about blaming only certain professions or labeling people racist. But racism cuts across every part of our society, whether you think yourself colorblind or not, and refusing to admit it won’t make it go away.
Both of these lead to systemic racism. It isn’t a personal choice that someone makes to discriminate against an individual, but rather a consequence of those (mostly) unconscious decisions that then enter the structure of our society. Our schools are as segregated now as they were right after desegregation. It’s still harder for black people to get housing loans. Middle-class black people generally live in neighborhoods with living conditions (parks, gov’t services, crime rates, etc.) of lower-class white Americans. Black people use marijuana at the same rate as whites but are three times more likely to be arrested for it. The sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine (more often used by blacks) are much steeper than for powdered cocaine (used by whites). Most of these differences did not develop because any one person or small group of people set out to discriminate against black people. But they still exist and most of us simply accept them and allow them to perpetuate. That is racism.
And if you don’t accept that, you really need to ask yourself why not. If black people have it worse (they do: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17139300/economic-mobility-study-race-black-white-women-men-incarceration-income-chetty-hendren-jones-porter), if they have 1/10th the wealth of whites, then there is either some sort of systemic difference in our society that limits the capabilities of blacks to acquire wealth (this is the definition of systemic racism); or black people are simply not as capable of achieving success, whether it’s because of genetics, culture, or something else inherent to them (believing this is the definition of racism). There’s really no getting around it: it’s racism.
I know I’ve thrown in lots of links with lot of numbers, statistics, and charts, but that’s the point. You don’t have to see racism - I don’t very often - or be racist - I don’t think most people are (at least not consciously) - to understand racism. But if you discount a mountain of data, if you ignore the stories and pleas of African Americans, you can’t claim ignorance. And if you see it and do nothing, you can’t claim innocence.
More data, for the hard to convince.
THE ULTIMATE WHITE PRIVILEGE STATISTICS & DATA POST
by J.B.W. Tucker http://www.jbwtucker.com/ultimate-white-privilege-statistics/
If you don't want to put that much time into things, here's a fairly short article showing just the tip of the iceberg, but still enough to make the point: Institutional Racism is Our Way of Life. https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/05/06/institutional-racism-is-our-way-of-life
Ta-Nahesi Coate's excellent summary of how we got to this state - know the past to understand the present. The Case For Reparations. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
The seminal explanation of White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack: http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mcintosh.pdf
Hopefully this will get you closer to understanding the modern civil rights movement known as Black Lives Matter. The best way to understand it is to listen to what they are fighting for. You'll find it's much harder to dismiss their demands when you know what they are: Campaign Zero.https://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9188729/police-black-lives-matter-campaign-zero
As a white man in America, I've been able to go my whole life without ever having to deal with race. A lot of people want to continue in that manner. Until those of us who are in the majority consciously choose to listen to the minority, to force ourselves to face something which might discomfort us, the people of color who are oppressed will continue to face injustices without the option of looking away. It's inhumane to ignore them, it's arrogant to deny the truth, it's too easy to let the status quo stand when it leans in your favor. I've chosen to enlighten myself and I hope others will do the same.
And if you want to read it from someone more eloquent and knowledgeable than myself: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
When a lot of people think of racism they think of people using the n-word, of the KKK or the alt-right talking about whites as a better, purer race. They think it’s a small group of people who hate. They think it’s overplayed by the media. They are wrong. First, it isn’t a small group. While a very small number of people admit to being racist, polls suggest that about 11 million Americans agree with the alt-right/neo-nazi version of white supremacy (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/10/17670992/study-white-americans-alt-right-racism-white-nationalists). In current-day America about 10% of the population is against interracial marriage, 20% of Americans (mostly white) agree with the statement that black people are less intelligent than whites, and over 30% say whites are harder working than blacks (https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/white-racial-attitudes-over-time-data-general-social-survey). That’s pretty much definitional racism and those aren’t small numbers.
But perhaps more importantly, that’s not the only type of racism. Implicit bias probably has an even larger affect. Implicit bias is our unconscious racism. It’s the racism that comes from the guy who treats everyone he meets with respect and courtesy, by also is much more likely to reject a job application if the name sounds too black (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/). It’s the racism of the police (http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399) and schools (https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/zigler/publications/Preschool%20Implicit%20Bias%20Policy%20Brief_final_9_26_276766_5379_v1.pdf) that views black individuals as inherently more dangerous and more responsible for their actions at an earlier age. We all have implicit biases on many topics, and it’s about blaming only certain professions or labeling people racist. But racism cuts across every part of our society, whether you think yourself colorblind or not, and refusing to admit it won’t make it go away.
Both of these lead to systemic racism. It isn’t a personal choice that someone makes to discriminate against an individual, but rather a consequence of those (mostly) unconscious decisions that then enter the structure of our society. Our schools are as segregated now as they were right after desegregation. It’s still harder for black people to get housing loans. Middle-class black people generally live in neighborhoods with living conditions (parks, gov’t services, crime rates, etc.) of lower-class white Americans. Black people use marijuana at the same rate as whites but are three times more likely to be arrested for it. The sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine (more often used by blacks) are much steeper than for powdered cocaine (used by whites). Most of these differences did not develop because any one person or small group of people set out to discriminate against black people. But they still exist and most of us simply accept them and allow them to perpetuate. That is racism.
And if you don’t accept that, you really need to ask yourself why not. If black people have it worse (they do: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17139300/economic-mobility-study-race-black-white-women-men-incarceration-income-chetty-hendren-jones-porter), if they have 1/10th the wealth of whites, then there is either some sort of systemic difference in our society that limits the capabilities of blacks to acquire wealth (this is the definition of systemic racism); or black people are simply not as capable of achieving success, whether it’s because of genetics, culture, or something else inherent to them (believing this is the definition of racism). There’s really no getting around it: it’s racism.
I know I’ve thrown in lots of links with lot of numbers, statistics, and charts, but that’s the point. You don’t have to see racism - I don’t very often - or be racist - I don’t think most people are (at least not consciously) - to understand racism. But if you discount a mountain of data, if you ignore the stories and pleas of African Americans, you can’t claim ignorance. And if you see it and do nothing, you can’t claim innocence.
More data, for the hard to convince.
THE ULTIMATE WHITE PRIVILEGE STATISTICS & DATA POST
by J.B.W. Tucker http://www.jbwtucker.com/ultimate-white-privilege-statistics/
If you don't want to put that much time into things, here's a fairly short article showing just the tip of the iceberg, but still enough to make the point: Institutional Racism is Our Way of Life. https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/05/06/institutional-racism-is-our-way-of-life
Ta-Nahesi Coate's excellent summary of how we got to this state - know the past to understand the present. The Case For Reparations. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
The seminal explanation of White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack: http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mcintosh.pdf
Hopefully this will get you closer to understanding the modern civil rights movement known as Black Lives Matter. The best way to understand it is to listen to what they are fighting for. You'll find it's much harder to dismiss their demands when you know what they are: Campaign Zero.https://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9188729/police-black-lives-matter-campaign-zero
As a white man in America, I've been able to go my whole life without ever having to deal with race. A lot of people want to continue in that manner. Until those of us who are in the majority consciously choose to listen to the minority, to force ourselves to face something which might discomfort us, the people of color who are oppressed will continue to face injustices without the option of looking away. It's inhumane to ignore them, it's arrogant to deny the truth, it's too easy to let the status quo stand when it leans in your favor. I've chosen to enlighten myself and I hope others will do the same.
And if you want to read it from someone more eloquent and knowledgeable than myself: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)