Politics, Numbers, and Government

I have two British friends who dwell on the conservative side of the political spectrum. One of them lives here in the States and the other over in the UK. Less than two years ago  my US Brit friend ran for local office as a Republican. Since then, he’s become increasingly horrified with his party and has started looking into independent conservative parties.

My UK friend, though, living at a greater distance, still seems (to me) to think it’s business as usual in US conservative politics. I tried to disabuse him of that idea — that today’s GOP is nothing like the GOP of the 90s. Or, rather, it’s only like the fringe elements of the 90s’ GOP that were mainly useful for hating the Clintons within boundaries but were otherwise kept on a leash, the ones who tried to put on a good show at Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings. I tried to explain to him that the things these members of the GOP are saying are completely falsified by all available numbers.

And in our little email exchange he blithely dismissed the numbers: “Don’t trust them.” Our conversation ended shortly after that, but it stuck with me because I think it demonstrates widespread conservative misunderstanding about the US government. For one thing, he seems to think that the Federal government is a single entity. But we need to comprehend scale here. The Federal government employed about 2.7 million civilians and about 4.4 million people overall, if we include the military, as of just a couple of years ago.  As of the beginning of June 2017, Trump had appointed maybe a handful of people to posts: certainly less than 100. The US federal government is a vast complex of different departments largely staffed by people who stay in these positions for years, regardless of who holds the Office of the President or who is in Congress.

That is also true of the entities that gather our data, like the Congressional Budget Office or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This independence has been painfully illustrated by the recent numbers coming out of the Congressional Budget Office about the GOP’s latest iteration of their attempts at health care reform. According to the CBO’s latest numbers, the current GOP plan would cause 32 million people to lose health insurance over the next ten years.

Now keep in mind that the GOP currently controls all three branches of government. It can’t grease its wheels much more than that. And this control extends to Congress, which oversees the office producing these numbers.

If government numbers weren’t to be trusted, the CBO would be working for the party in charge right now by spitting out falsified numbers that make the GOP healthcare plan look good. But, it’s not.

The fact is, for the most part the federal government, as an entity, carries out business as usual regardless of who is in power. If it didn’t, this country would be in a much bigger mess than it is. The entities that gather our data attempt to do so to the best of their ability, and being who they are, remain the best source of information about the US economy, jobs, education, and a host of other segments of our society. This general distrust of “government numbers” can only proceed from an inattention to the facts or, in other words, ignorance.

Pay attention to the numbers. They mean something.

Advertisements

Poetry at Millsaps Today

Earlier today, Millsaps College had scheduled the Jamaican poet Claudia Rankine to visit campus and read her poetry. She’s the Frederick Iseman Professor of Poetry at Yale University, and unfortunately her flight was snowed in, so she couldn’t make it. In her place, three local poets and authors — and one undergraduate sociology student — read from her poetry and discussed it. The topic of race came up quite a bit, of course, as it is a central concern of Rankine’s poetry, but one point that came out about Rankine’s poetry is that it didn’t offer any solutions to the problems of race. One of the worst of these problems is how we tend to be intractably identified with a series of racial characteristics that seem to define our behaviors for others even before we act. Her poetry seems to hope that if these problems with race are presented clearly enough that others could eventually discover solutions.

Her Jamaican origins got me thinking about Caribbean history and, by extension, postcolonial theory. One of the central problems with Caribbean identity is that it is hard to define: for the most part, any original islanders have long since been gone, so that island populations tend to be a mix of Africans, Indians (from India), Native Americans, and a variety of Europeans. Compounding the problem is the fact that few, if any, islands have a single European identity. Islands tended to change hands among the British, French, Spanish, and other European nations throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century as treaty concessions.

So the question left with Caribbean nations — once they cut loose of the last European country to have colonized them — is, “Who are we?” They are too distanced from their African heritage to claim that as their own, and they are not just African anyhow. They seldom have a single European language or background, and if they did, it would be oppressive, so why keep that?

One solution that has come up, however, is the idea of hybridity. History has left most Caribbean nations a diverse mix of a variety of European, African, and Indian influences. They have been left by history a hybrid of many cultures and languages, and once they realized that, they realized they could form a new cultural and national identity out of that hybridity.

And then I realized the United States is a hybrid nation as well. And more personally, that I am a hybrid person. I grew up in a brand new Southern Californian subdivision alongside Scottish, Irish, Chinese, Mexican, Korean, Vietnamese, African-American, Puerto Rican, and mixed-race families. One couple was a Chinese man married to an African-American woman. Now when I say these families were Scottish, etc., I don’t mean really American with some Scottish background in the distant past. As Puerto Ricans we were all citizens of the United States from the start, but my mother grew up in Puerto Rico, as did my father’s mother, and Puerto Rico is very different culturally from the rest of the United States. Everyone else my age was first generation: first generation Scottish, Chinese, Irish, Mexican, etc. Their parents had moved to the US from those countries. My Chinese friend’s father didn’t even speak English yet.

So what is my culture? So Cal suburban? Yes, but a pretty diverse one, with many different languages, habits, and foods. But there’s more to it than that. I started thinking about Black culture and how much it made up my environment, and I realized that Black culture was a part of me. Among the hybridity that I experienced personally was a Black cultural identity. That was part of it too.

And while I realize this notion of hybridity is not an all-encompassing solution, I think it does present one possibility: every Black person in the United States can look at every white person in the United States and say, “My culture helped form who you are. It formed your history, your literature, your music, your art, your drama, your film, your sports, your science, your engineering. That means, like it or not, you’re part black. It’s not just that, as an American, I am part of your society. It’s that, as an American, you are part of mine.”

How might that change the terms of the discussion?

An Open Letter to President Trump

Dear President Trump:

In this letter, I’m going to presume to give you advice about how to make the adjustment to being President. It’s important to me because, like it or not, your decisions affect the world, including the world immediately around me. I was at first hesitant to write this letter because I don’t know anything about being President, but then I realized. . . neither do you. On that equal footing, then, here goes.

I understand that you’re used to running businesses. You’re used to being either the owner or an owner of some business or another. As such, you’re probably used to seeing your employees as generally dispensable entities whose primary existence is to benefit you. (It’s not that I think all business owners think that way. I just think you’re one of those that do.) Because everyone’s pay is dependent upon your profit, you’re used to seeing your own personal wealth as equivalent to everyone else’s sustenance, and you expect everyone else to see it that way too. And since you’re the owner, you think that your mistakes are yours to make, not anyone else’s to correct, because you stand the most to lose from them, and as the owner you assume that you know your business best of all anyhow. And either way, if you don’t like someone, or if they’re not working out, you can fire them. After all, it is you that they are working for.

I would like to suggest that none of that experience really applies to your current position as President. As President, you’re not the owner or the boss of anything, and in fact you’re not supposed to be that — with the exception of personal effects and private property. See, the nation, the government, the economy, and everything that you use related to that — everything that you’re surrounded with on a daily basis — none of it belongs to you. At most it belongs to the Office of the President and, by extension, to the American people, but the really big things actually belong to everyone and no one. We all own this system to the extent that we’re engaged in it, but none of us owns it to any significant degree.

In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite: it doesn’t belong to you. You belong to it. You belong to the government now. You belong to the people around you. You belong to everyone who works for you, to everyone who voted for you, and most importantly, even to everyone who voted against you. They are your boss. You are not theirs. You cannot fire the American people, but we can fire you. The point here is that you’re no longer the boss. You’re an employee. And a very special kind of employee: a servant. In your position, that is the highest kind of employee. No one is required to cater to you. In fact, what you’re going to be faced with is a seemingly incorrigible mass of people who seem to work hard against their own interests, often refuse to act as they should, and quite often act instead in self-defeating ways. And all the while, they still expect you to work for them and be happy about it.

Yes, it’s a horrible job, but you wanted it,  you accepted it, and now you’re in it, so you need to understand it. Your job as President is bigger than you, more important than you, and — we all know it, even if you won’t admit it — far beyond you.

So what I suggest you do now is this:

  1. Quit lying so much.
  2. Quit expecting validation. Related to this, tell your surrogates to show some respect.
  3. Accept responsibility for the hostility you’ve created and the divisions you’ve caused.
  4. Apologize for the horrible things you’ve said and done.
  5. Shut up.
  6. Listen.

This is just my advice. Of course, I don’t know anything. But I know that one thing: that I don’t know anything. That’s traditionally a very good place to start.

Thinking Clearly about the Abortion Debate

Media and public discourse define the abortion debate in terms of the following opposed positions:

  1. You favor complete legal restrictions on all abortions (but perhaps with some exceptions). The last version of this position to be seriously considered at the national level was under President Reagan, who wanted to forbid all abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother was in danger, but others do not want any exceptions to be allowed.
  2. You favor abortion on demand. This position varies by term: some favor bans after some specified number of weeks (maybe 21), others favor bans after viability (when the baby could live on its own outside the mother’s womb), while others favor no restrictions at all.

I won’t review arguments for both positions because I believe that framing the argument this way is frankly stupid. It is designed to create an illusion of difference between Republican and Democratic positions to drive groups of voters to either party — either out of an urgency to stop a holocaust of unborn babies or to protect women’s rights and their freedoms over their own bodies, or, at the least, to allow women safe access to a procedure that they will be undergoing anyhow, legal or not.

The problem with framing the abortion debate this way is that it completely ignores social and political realities surrounding abortion and prevents us from working together to find solutions better than merely legal ones to our abortion problem.

I will be defining abortion as a problem: I don’t believe any woman ever wants an abortion. I have never known any woman who became pregnant so that she could get an abortion. What she wanted was to avoid getting pregnant to begin with, so when she gets an abortion, it’s always a lesser of two evils. She will be grateful that they’re safe and legal, don’t get me wrong, but she would rather not have become pregnant to begin with. Both sides of that sentence are equally important. No, I’m not defining women’s thinking or choices for them. If you are a woman who got pregnant solely for the purpose of having an abortion, please do comment. I’d like to hear from you. I don’t think they exist, though.

Now here are the political realities about abortion:

  1. US Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade (1973) eliminated the ability of states to ban abortions completely, but it did allow states to exercise regulatory authority over abortions, especially in the third trimester.
  2. Since Roe vs. Wade, there have been a number of SCOTUS decisions that have given states increasing regulatory power. The abortion debate has really been carried out on a state level since then, with pro-life states pushing regulatory boundaries to see how far they can restrict abortions. However, at no time has Roe vs. Wade been overturned.
  3. It has just been reported today, June 27th, 2016, that the US Supreme Court just declared unconstitutional some highly restrictive abortion laws in Texas; even though the Court is split 4-4 between Republican and Democratic appointees, it voted 5-3 against highly restrictive laws in Texas that would in effect close the majority of abortion clinics in that state. Even if we had a full nine justices, the decision would still have gone the same way, at 5-4 or 6-3.
  4. Since 1969, there have been 13 justices appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Five of these have been Democrat and eight have been Republican. Republican appointees have dominated the Supreme Court since the late 1990s (remember that the Bush vs. Gore election case in 2000 fell along party lines, 5-4) — about 15-20 years — but Roe vs. Wade has not yet been overturned.

So here’s the political reality: there won’t be a Constitutional amendment banning abortion (when was the last time one was considered in Congress? How many times did Congress vote to repeal Obamacare instead?), and Republican dominated Supreme Courts have upheld Roe vs. Wade for the last twenty years or so.

Now how would you think about abortion if you had to accept that it was a long-term legal reality? Wouldn’t it be smarter to address causes, and to reduce the number of abortions by addressing the causes of abortions, rather than conduct a ridiculous debate that sets a political impossibility (outlawing abortion) against our current political reality (legal abortions with limited restrictions imposed by states)?

What are the causes of abortion? The top three are (and all stats come from the preceding link, but they are available from a wide variety of sources)

  1. Having a child would interfere with school, work, or other responsibilities (75%).
  2. The woman cannot afford to raise the child (66%).
  3. Relationship problems with the father (50%).

A few more relevant abortion stats include…

  1. More than 50% of women receiving abortions are in their 20s.
  2. Almost 50% of all women receiving abortions are at or below the federal poverty level and unmarried.
  3. 51% of women who had an unwanted pregnancy were using contraception of some kind.
  4. Some good news: as of 2014, the abortion rate was at its lowest since 1973.

So the two best ways to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies are:

  1. Replacing the minimum wage with a living wage, so that women feel that they can support themselves and their children.
  2. Making contraception widely and easily available, especially to women right out of high school. Part of this includes providing instruction in their use for both men and women. Even if contraception was completely free, the cost of contraception is far less than the cost of abortions or unwanted children, or government support for poor women who are having children.

You don’t have to agree with these solutions, but of course the question is this: do you really want to reduce the number of abortions, or do you just want to punish women for having sex? Are you really trying to stop premarital sex with abortion laws? That won’t work either. It didn’t before Roe vs. Wade, and it’s not working that way now. Whatever solutions you propose, making abortions completely illegal doesn’t appear to be an option. The Republican Party delivered a majority of conservative justices to the Supreme Court by the 1990s, but Roe vs. Wade has not been overturned, and Congress hasn’t been aggressive about pursuing pro-life legislation (a Constitutional amendment) even when it was dominated by Republicans. The first two years of the Bush administration saw both houses of Congress and the White House occupied by a Republican. Abortion wasn’t high on their list of agenda items. The Republican Party isn’t really pro-life. It just says that it is to get votes from the religious right.

If you take the idea of outlawing abortion off the table, as it appears to be given our current political realities, how would you think about the problem instead?

 

 

Sanders’s vs Clinton’s Senate Records

All links below are to search results on congress.gov.

Bernie Sanders sponsored or co-sponsored 6,251 pieces of legislation during his time in Congress (Senate: 2007-present, or nine years; House: 1991-2006, or 15 years). Of these, he was the primary author of, or sponsored, 781 bills. Three of the bills he sponsored became law (two having to do with post offices and one with veterans’ cost of living adjustments). If we include his contributions as a co-sponsor of legislation (5,470), 207 of his bills have become law.

Hillary Clinton sponsored 713 pieces of legislation during her time in the Senate (2001-2009, or eight years), and co-sponsored* 2,677 pieces of legislation, of which 74 became law. Of the three on which she was the primary author, three became law (two having to do with post offices and one with naming a highway).

Quite a bit is unobjectionable on both sides, so I think we need to  understand that when people say that Sanders and Clinton have voted the same way 93% of the time, that number includes a lot of votes on roads and post-offices that no one on either side of the aisle would object to. They’re politically neutral and don’t mean much in terms of choosing between the candidates.

Sanders has 24 years experience as a member of Congress while Clinton has eight years experience, so I think there’s no question about who is more experienced in elected office. Clinton also has four years experience (2009-2013) as President Obama’s Secretary of State, which brings her total experience in Washington to 12 years, exactly half of Sanders’s time.

More importantly, I think you will find more legislation on Sanders’s side that is aggressively on the side of campaign finance reform, and I think there’s no question that Sanders has been able to get more done (over 200 of his sponsored or co-sponsored bills have become law) because he has been much more effective at working with his fellow Congresspersons through his extensive activity co-sponsoring bills.

You might find it interesting to click the links and browse through the legislation each have worked to pass through Congress.

*Corrected from a previous version of this page.