IssuesConnect

Pop-up Window

Reclaiming the Purity of White America

1/24/2018

Two days after Trump muddied the waters about Dreamers during his televised exhibition to show his deal making and mental acuity, he clarified his position on immigration in a private meeting with lawmakers. Unfortunately for Trump and all Americans, his clarification unveiled how his racism and support for white supremacy underlies his immigration policy.

Following up on the earlier meeting, Senators Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham arranged to meet with Trump to present their bipartisan proposal for permanently legalizing the status of the Dreamers. When Durbin and Graham arrived, Trump, surrounded by eight or so immigration hardliners, had reversed his initial agreeability to their proposal. A heated discussion about protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries in a temporary status followed. According to several people in the meeting, Trump asked: “why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump then suggested that more people from countries like Norway should be admitted to the U.S. and said specifically that Haitians should be left out of any deal. “Why do we need more Haitians?” “Take them out.”

Trump: Unfit for Office

1/17/2018

The fundamental charge that Michael Wolff levels in his book, Fire and Fury, is that Donald Trump is unfit to be President. According to Wolff, all of Trump’s staff say that his behavior is childish and undisciplined. They feel that he is totally ignorant of any policy issue and unwilling to even try to learn about any policies. Many of them say that he incapable of understanding complex thoughts or accurately processing the information. Also, they say he lacks impulse control and good judgment—all things that are necessary parts of the President’s duties. Administration and Republican spokesmen flooded the talk shows to defend Trump by seizing on minor inaccuracies in names or places to refute Wolff’s narrative. Because their focus on these minor errors did little to shake Wolff’s narrative, Trump attempted to contradict Wolff’s account of a chaotic administration by presiding over the televised opening of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) negotiation between Republicans and Democrats. According to the script envisioned by Trump, the meeting would show the public his leadership, bi-partisanship, and engagement with the issues.

Gun Rights and the Progressive Movement

1/11/2018

No major federal gun legislation has been enacted in the U.S. since 1994. For a host of reasons, the number of deaths by gun violence dropped in the 1990s, but has now remained essentially level over the last decade. Level- but still shocking. According to the Gun Violence Archive, in 2017, there were 53, 722 incidents of gun violence (not counting suicides), with 13, 513 deaths. We lost 696 children under the age of 11 to gun violence. There were 333 mass shootings. These numbers were the approximate “level” recorded in each of the previous four years. In the first 9 days of 2018, 364 people have been killed by gun violence in the US.

The gun rights community has been on a winning streak despite the efforts of gun-control advocates and some gun-control legislation in a few blue states. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, New York, and Washington, for example, joined California and Rhode Island in requiring background checks for all gun sales. Nineteen states had banned concealed gun carrying by civilians in the 1980s and 29 states could decide whether to grant carry permits. Now, only nine states can decide whether to grant carry permits. Twenty-nine states must issue carry permits, unless the applicant is a felon or mentally incompetent and 12 states do not require carry permits.

After Sandy Hook, the cry for national comprehensive background check by Congress went unheeded. Congress is now considering a bill to require concealed carry reciprocity among the states. That is, every state’s concealed carry permits must be accepted by every other state. In effect, this reciprocity law would impose the lowest standard for a concealed carry permit on every other state. Wyoming does not require a permit to carry within the state, but will provide one, if it is needed in another state. Presumably if this bill is enacted, a neo-Nazi or KKK member from Wyoming could carry a concealed weapon on the New York subway. Congress is also considering a law that would remove the obstacles to owning a gun silencer or suppressor, presumably to prevent gun enthusiasts from damaging their hearing. Originally, this law was enacted to prevent their use in criminal activities like shooting people. Congress should reflect on the value of hearing the shots in Las Vegas. Instead of hearing gunshots, the first sounds will be agonizing screams.

Toi overcome the intransigence of the gun lobby to permit any gun-control legislation, new approaches to gun-control must be developed. One such approach is to focus on fixing particularly dangerous gun devices and practices. A dangerous device, discussed in the first of a two part series--“Las Vegas Shows Why the NRA Stand on Banning Assault Rifles Is Phony,” is the “bump stock.” One approach to changing gun community practices is discussed in the second article--“Let’s Work toward a Gun Rights Compromise.”

Las Vegas Shows Why the NRA Stand on Banning Assault Rifles Is Phony

Easily accessible assault style rifles thwart the law against machine guns. The U.S. public, fearing massacres enabled by machine guns, demanded a law against them in 1934. And, for the first time, the U.S. passed anti-gun legislation, effectively outlawing machine guns. Now innovative gunsmiths have developed devices that, when coupled with assault style rifles, skirt the law against machine guns. These barely legal guns mimic the sound, feel, and deadliness of machine guns.

As sold in the U.S., assault style rifles are incapable of shooting like a machine gun. A person cannot shoot continuously by holding the trigger down. Instead, he must pull and release the trigger for each shot. Hence, these guns are called semi-automatics. The rate at which they can be fired is slower than a fully automatic machine gun.

Trump Voters – Hating Obamacare; Hurting Themselves

1/4/2018

Donald Trump made many people laugh when he claimed “Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated”. As Trump discovered this complexity, he wanted his supporters to understand that he still intended to dismantle Obamacare – to hurt millions of families as they struggled to obtain health insurance and healthcare. Yet, this proclamation, like so many other nonsensical tweets and statements, has the tiny grain of truth that torments those who try to stay on the side of reason. Healthcare is complicated.

Trump voters are pleased that Trump continues to work to abolish Obamacare – even if he wasn’t able to end it on his Inauguration Day as he’d once promised. This group of largely white, “working class” people vote for Republicans – often against their own apparent best interests. As Paul Krugman has explained, the incentive to do so seems to be that they will ignore their own benefits as they work to hurt non-whites.

What Happened Last Year

1/3/2018

The first year of a Presidency usually teaches us something about what to expect in the following years. In the first year of the Trump Presidency we confirmed many of the things we previously only suspected about Trump. We also confirmed some things about the Republican establishment (i.e., elected officials with strong ties to large donors) and the Republican base (i.e., the rank and file voters). More than other recent administrations, Trump’s ability to accomplish his agenda relies on the extent to which these two factions of the GOP agree on goals. Trump’s ascension to the head of the party resulted in large part from his ability to bond the growing fissure between the establishment and the base. The fissure between these factions deepened as the GOP establishment and its donors advocated for policy prescriptions that failed to address the issues facing the base. Trump’s particular genius lay in using empty promises and lies to weld these two factions together. Trump’s continued control of the GOP will rest on his ability to maintain a bond these two factions. When Trump and the GOP factions demonstrated unity, they succeeded; when their underlying divisions surfaced, they failed.

What the GOP Tax Plan Means

12/30/2017

Republican Representatives and Senators told lies or were victims of fantastical thinking when they try to sell their legislation, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). They claim their tax bill would spur economic growth by increasing investment, curtailing offshoring, increasing wages, and decreasing complexity. Republican claims consist primarily of historical anecdotes buttressed by fantastical beliefs and ignore any potential negative or unanticipated effects of their legislation. Leading business and economic experts dispute these political claims with mounds of contradictory evidence. The nature of the experts’ evidence contradicting the Republican lawmakers depend on scientifically-based economic studies. And, the experts identify the negative consequences of omissions from the legislation.

More of Trump’s Three Ring Circus

12/7/2017

Sign Up for FREE Email Updates

Receive FREE weekly newsletters from the Center for Social Policy Research.

Culture of Sexual Harassment

A common meme is that the culture of sexual harassment is neither Democrat nor Republican. Women are subjected to harassment by both Democrats and Republicans because aspects of our culture encourage it. Our culture tends to frame problems in individualistic morality rather than the rewards provided by societal institutions. When the question of how men come to believe that they can harass women without consequences, many studies have found gender inequality to be a major contributor. For example, men and women are encouraged to see women as less intelligent and ambitious than men. And, this gender unequal view may lead some men to harass and hurt women contributes to their sexual harassment by men.

To Win Democrats Need to Homestead Red Districts

10/6/2017

Sign Up for FREE Email Updates

Receive FREE weekly newsletters from the Center for Social Policy Research.

The only way Democrats and Progressives can consistently win future Presidential and Congressional elections is by homesteading in the areas where Republicans have a geographical advantage. Republicans have used sophisticated computer programs to gerrymander Congressional districts so that Democrats, for example, may have huge majorities in a few districts while Republicans have minimal majorities in many districts. Gerrymandering, however, is only one of the reasons for the Democratic disadvantage. Democrats also find themselves disadvantaged because of clustering and culture.

Gerrymandering occurs when the majority party in state legislatures or commissions redraw the boundaries of their Congressional districts every ten years so that the minority party is disadvantaged. The translation of a gerrymandered advantage into legislative advantage occurs when one party can consistently win more seats with a smaller percentage of vote. So far, court challenges to the practice of gerrymandering have been unsuccessful, perhaps because those who brought suits tried to prove that the defendants intended to disadvantage their party. Recently, litigants are trying a new approach: trying to prove that gerrymandered redistricting plans do not treat all parties equally. If the courts accept this new argument, then the disadvantage Democrats face due to Republican gerrymandering may be erased.

Besides gerrymandering, Republicans have an advantage because the U.S. electoral system is based on geography. As an example, states have two Senators regardless of their population. Thus, Wyoming’s 2 Senators represent fewer than 200, 000 residents while California’s Senators represent 37 million residents. This disproportional design gives Wyoming more than 3.6 times the voting power of California. And, for cultural, historic, and racial reasons, some states, like Utah and Alabama are more Republican than states on the coasts like California and New York. Democrats, who are clustered in states along the east and west coasts of the country, are disadvantaged. Within states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin Democrats, outside of metropolitan areas, Democrats are underrepresented. As a result, unless Democrats win more votes outside of the metropolitan areas, then Presidential candidates will be unable to win elections.

While there is a legal fix for the disadvantage Democrats suffer from gerrymandering, there is no legal fix for the disadvantage Democrats have who are clustered in urban areas. The social fix for clustering is for Democrats to homestead those states and districts in which Democrats are underrepresented. Certainly not all Republican states and districts will be attractive to Democrats, but there are some factors that can entice Dems moving to some of these Republican strongholds. First, some states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio have excellent colleges and universities. Young Democrats who are preparing for college can certainly consider these and other states. Second, some states such as Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, and Arizona not only have good weather, but they also provide tax advantages that can be quite attractive to retirees. Third, suburban areas can provide advantages such as more affordable housing and recreational settings. At the same time many of the disadvantages previously associated with the suburbs are being improved. Long commutes are being made more tolerable by more companies moving to the suburbs and work from home arrangements being used by more companies. Limited shopping and dining venues previously associated with the suburbs are also being ameliorated as demand for these services increase.

In the final analysis, each of us must answer how much each of us want to be a part of the solution to the political problem of clustering. Without a solution, Democrats will continue to be plagued by clustering.

The Once and Future Liberal - A Critical Review

9/16/2017

Sign Up for FREE Email Updates

Receive FREE weekly newsletters from the Center for Social Policy Research.

Mark Lilla’s argument in the Once and Future Liberal is that Democrats need to focus on their values and principals, rather than attempting to craft messages for different subsets through identify politics. While he makes important points, much of his message is prone to misinterpretation.

According to Lilla too many voters in our political process have been twisted around from “engagement with the wider world” to a focus on their inner self, grievances affecting their group, and thus, how our own grievances affects politics. Lilla says that this focus on the individual and his identity--the essence of identity politics--rather than on society as a whole, is generally a consequence of changes in family structure and child rearing. In addition, Lilla attributes this individualistic focus to Reaganism because it celebrated the picture of an “individualistic America where families and small communities and businesses would flourish one freed from the shackles of the state.” Liberals responded by adopting an identity politics in which groups sought to redress the grievances affecting them, rather than looking outward to address the grievances affecting society.

Democrats Need a New Plan More than Money

9/14/2017

Sign Up for FREE Email Updates

Receive FREE weekly newsletters from the Center for Social Policy Research.

Since their ignominious defeat in 2016, the Democrats in Congress have somewhat mended their ways and shown some willingness to present a united front and fight. Senate Democrats stood strong and voted against Trump’s most horrendous cabinet nominees and supported the resistance to the GOP’s efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare. While these are promising changes, it's hard to see how they will be enough to enable the Democratic Party to reverse the ill fortunes of what has been a catastrophic decade. Instead of developing a plan to address the weaknesses demonstrated in previous campaign losses while maintaining Democratic principles, the party has concentrated on continually sending out messages asking for money. It is, of course, true that money is needed to run a political party. Nonetheless, in the absence of a new plan, it's difficult to see that money being raised now will be used for anything else other than what the Democrats have been spending large tranches of their money on - consultants and advertising. At the very least, Democrats should be using more of their funds to organize and ultimately convince voters to vote for Democrats.

Pop-up Window