Political

Politics of many subjects, including schools, funding, testing, representatives, ethics

by

The Paradox of Stubbornness

Why do sports fans stay faithful to a team that has cheated, been mismanaged, and insensitive to fans?  Why do church members remain faithful to an established denomination that has been mysogynistic, discriminatory, and insensitive to followers? Why do voters remain faithful to a politician, recognized as fraudulent,  contemptuous, heedless of the rule of law?

Are these followers loyal, resolute, or just plain stubborn? The attitude of consistent and unwavering loyalty can be defended if it reflects a commitment to a church or nation, and yet unwavering support can also be interpreted as stubbornness. How do you define it?

1. Refusal to Change: A stubborn person often refuses to change their opinion, even when presented with facts or new information. They tend to cling to their beliefs, regardless of how much evidence contradicts them.

2. Rigidity: A stubborn person can be very inflexible in their approach to things. They may insist on doing things a certain way, without considering any other options. They tend to be very resistant to change and may become angry or defensive when challenged.

3. Difficulty in Compromise: A stubborn person finds it hard to compromise with others, even if it’s necessary for the situation. They may feel like they are always right and that their way is the only way. This inflexibility can make it hard for them to work with others and create a cooperative environment.

4. Resistance to Authority: A stubborn person may be very resistant to authority. They may challenge or question rules and regulations and may struggle to follow them. They may feel like they know better than those in charge and may resist any attempts to control or direct them.

5. Defensive Behavior : A stubborn person can be very defensive when challenged. They may feel like they are being attacked and become angry or hostile. They may try to justify their behavior or beliefs, even if it’s obvious they are in the wrong. https://www.solhapp.com/blog/how-to-identify-a-stubborn-person

Ironically if you’re stubborn, none of these characteristics seem negative to you. Why do we find it difficult to “compromise” in politics and religion? Because we know we’re right and compromising means “giving in.”  Why do some voters believe in “resistance to authority”? Because authority can not be trusted. Better to rely on yourself. What is wrong with “rigidity”? Isn’t it just another word for “courage of your convictions”?

That is why a stubborn person is invincible: no rational pleas or offering other loyalties can shake the stubborn person free of his or her convictions.  It is an unassailable position because it’s very nature is to reject alternatives. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The hypothesis that so many remain loyal to Donald Trump, because of stubbornness makes logical sense, but it is impossible to test, because the stubborn person defends his or her rights by turning a flaw into a virtue. It is an alternate universe where everything that psychology and religion consider a characteristic flaw becomes an indisputable loyalty.

This is the only explanation I can come up with to explain why so many evangelical Christian believers cling to Donald Trump despite many confirmations that he is disloyal, vengeful, immoral, and fraudulent. As Trump diverges from Christian values, loyalties stretch further and further to accommodate him. The elasticity of these loyalties keeps the true believer connected to the true narcissist.  There is no logic or scandal that can disconnect this loyalty.

One of the horrors of evangelical Christians used to be “moral relativism,” the idea that we are not wrong as long as others do the same thing.  Evangelicals of my generation (boomer) were taught to hold their standards against the immoral standards of “the world.” Sex before marriage was a significant prohibition because it was widely accepted in the world. So we practiced moral absolutism. We stood our ground against moral relativism.

This belief has given way to “what-about-ism,” because Donald Trump cannot be defended unless you accuse his opponents of the same thing.  Moral relativism is now widespread among radical evangelicals, because as long as they can claim Joe Biden is as corrupt as Donald Trump, they can justify Trump.

Donald Trump may be responsible for the slip from moral absolutism to moral relativism, and especially for evangelicals.  He has become an acceptable standard for morality because his Christian followers have compromised their values to bring him into their sphere of approval.   If you had predicted this move in the 1990’s Christians would be appalled.  The rigidity of stubbornness has allowed our morals to stretch. How is that for ironic?

Or maybe Christians were moral relativists before Donald Trump emerged on the national scene. It was our compromising our values that made way for such an admired public figure. Is Donald Trump the chicken or the egg?  Have some Christians allowed their morality to cave so that the way was clear for the Trump miracle of 2016?

That answer is beyond my pay grade, as are most answers. So I ponder what has perpetuated the adherence to Trump among a tight group of evangelicals. I can hardly see any cause but stubbornness.  But one person’s “stubbornness” is another person’s “loyalty.”

And there goes the neighborhood of moral standards, as the “what-about’s?” move in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

What About Community Policing?

I’m not an expert on urban policing, but I can connect the dots.

The St. Louis Police Department has been understaffed forever, but especially since 2021. According to new numbers compiled by FOX 2’s Mitch McCoy, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is currently around 20% understaffed.

Coincidentally St. Louis has been sitting on funds from the Rams Settlement Plan since 2022. Can these funds be applied to the police shortage?  How about Community police recruitment? According to the National Police Association, Community Policing looks like this:

 Cops on the beat would stop and interact with citizens. They were easily accessible and visible. They knew their area and the people of their beat. Those beat cops in cities, or small-town cops and deputies in rural America, would deal with any problem or situation brought to them. They lived where they worked and were invested in their communities.

However, this requires using more police on street patrol, so no hiring for desk or administrative jobs. Isn’t this what the St. Louis police department needs? Isn’t this what the American Rescue Plan solicits for programs to help the city recover from CoVid?

  • Respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts;
  • Provide premium pay to eligible workers

Community policing plays a vital role in restoring neighborhoods.  It not only increases police presence, it allows police to work with all citizens to direct them to health and mental health services, to help citizens to find employment, to support youth programs,   These are the kinds of goals modern policing aims to provide.

I remember how effective Community policing was during the 1990’s when federal funds were directed to increase police presence on the streets. The results were a 77% reduction of overall crime. You can look it up. Why not adapt federal aid again to support police recruitment?

So where can we find these community policemen? From military vet placement agencies, from job fairs, from high schools and colleges. Young people will be more interested in the direct services community police provide, and they may be ready to move to a new part of the country.  Obviously local recruiting is not enough.

How do we convince young people to move here?

  1. Hire retired police officers in 3-4 months cycles to visit job fairs, regions where employment is saturated, and especially military placement centers, where vets go to find jobs. Retired p0lice officers might be willing to recruit for short segments of time and share the best part of their job experiences.  They would get a chance to travel and meet younger people. What’s not to like?
  2. Develop publicity about St. Louis or learn what local businesses use to recruit from out of state. This city has a lot to offer: beautiful parks, a free zoo, a great symphony and art museum, great soccer, hockey and baseball teams, and great beer everywhere!  And it is not as expensive to live as the larger coastal cities or Chicago.
  3. Develop support for re-location: real estate services, tours of available city neighborhoods, open houses at schools and hospitals, even churches. Candidates will come to cities that have opportunities for resettlement.
  4. Give job candidates an opportunity to meet city officials: the mayor, representatives from the Board of Aldermen, public school superintendents and principals. This is one item that should not entail expense.

None of these ideas are new, but they need start-up funding from grants and recruitment budgets. The Rams Settlement Plan, which allocated $280 million to the city of St. Louis, could be one source.  The American Rescue Plan funding. Recruiting budgets from every department.  This is start-up money, not permanent expanding of budgets.  If we can’t find funding, we aren’t trying hard enough.

Community policing is a need everyone can get behind from school and hospital officials to retired police officers. The funding is out there.   It is not just a good idea, it is meeting a staffing crisis and providing a police presence on the streets of St. Louis.

 

by

The Assurance of Things Hoped For

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen. (Hebrews 11:1 – NIV)

In a lecture/ dialogue Monday night at Graham Memorial Chapel (Washington University), Heather Cox Richardson described our primary business in a democracy: to promote the idea that “all are created equal and have a say in our government.”  She referred to that idea as “faith in democracy.”

And I was struck by how similar “faith in democracy” was to faith in the religious context, because “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for  . . .”  Democracy continues to be an aspirational form of government, because it is challenged every day by those who want to use it for their own ends. This is not a political claim, because people on both ends of the political spectrum believe that democracy is on trial– just listen to the speeches on the stump of the Presidential campaign.

And some people of faith want to weaponize religion for their own agenda. It means making unholy alliances with political movements to advance a religious cause.  As Dr. Richardson urged, “Your politics should be informed by your faith, but it should not be used to garner power.” Just as religion is about the acquiring of faith, politics is about the acquiring of power. Religion should not be about the acquisition of power.

Faith is “the assurance of things hoped for.” It is not a bargain between religion and political parties, because partisan goals are political platforms, whereas religious goals are hopes yet unrealized. And religion was never intended to arm itself with political causes: look at (many of) the Crusades; the Catholic Inquisition; the Thirty Years’ War; the established churches in Europe before the American Revolution; the uneasy alliance between Christian churches and the Nazi regime of World War II. These were not the churches’ finest hours.

Those dark hours could be relived in a corrupted vision of American democracy. Those who believe the wall between church and state was not preserved in the Bill of Rights have no good designs on faith or democracy. They are using both faith and democracy to weaponize each other. It is not a good design for churches or political parties. It is corruption of both the sacred and the secular. In the word of Jesus, “Give, therefore, to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s and to God the things that are God’s”(Matthew 22:21-22, NIV).

Dr. Richardson encouraged her audience to oppose the narratives of theocracy (merging of church and state) with their own narratives, whether political or religious.  The counter-narrative of faith, whether in God or in democracy, opposes the deceptive narrative of Christian nationalism currently on the rise.  Stories have power to disentangle the twisted narrative of a nation founded under one religion.

In our church this summer we began to write “faith stories,” a genre of personal writing meant to explain why we believe as we do. They are not so much “testimonies” as stories that illustrate the differences between faith experiences and “ordinary life,” stories that confirm or strengthen our beliefs. They are as diverse as the people that write them. Most of all, they are narratives that we can share with anyone who wants to know why we believe as we do. I can not share them here, because I do not have permission, but I will try to make some of them available, if anyone is interested.

We are not really evangelists, but we want to be articulate to share a story of our “conviction of things unseen.” I cannot doubt but what we share about our faith would apply to what might be shared about faith in democracy. Why is democracy, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “the last best hope of earth” ? (Annual Address to the U.S. Congress, 1 December 1862).  Many of us could echo the words of Lincoln, and it would be interesting to think and write about why we believe what we do.

Belief in democracy is not a partisan cause, but it can be corrupted for private purposes, religious or otherwise. It remains for those who can frame the story of why they believe to share with the overwhelmed and hopeless. Those with the “assurance of things hoped for” have a lot to offer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

Local Autonomy?

The principle of local autonomy: a problem is best solved by the people who live closest to it. Although there is a popular conviction that the federal government is out of touch with its citizens, the authority of the local community is also under siege.  Politicians have opened fronts at the national and school district level.

Presidential candidates, such as Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, are campaigning to give state governments the power to regulate curriculum and parents the right to oversee it, up-ending the traditional authority granted to school boards and school personnel. Their bottom line is decentralization of federal government, but centralization in the control of the state.  A suspicious person would say it’s because the feds oppose their policies, while many states are likely to adopt them. Not so much a principle as a strategy.

In a Town Hall meeting in Manchester, NH (September 7, 2023) Republican candidate Nikki Haley declared,

Let’s take away the power of the federal government, reduce that size of the Department of Education and empower the parents on the ground, empower the people in those states. That way, you’re getting it closer to the kids. More money is actually going to teaching, and then you can control what’s being said and taught to your child in the classroom.

When Haley said “the money is going to teaching,” she implied that local autonomy belonged to local schools. But with one hand she doled out power to schools and with the other she handed it over to the disgruntled parents of school children.

Every parent, regardless of their education, regardless of where they’re from, knows what’s best for their child. No parent should ever wonder what’s being said or taught to their child in the classroom. We need full transparency in the classroom always.

“Full transparency” means teachers posting their lesson plans online; schools submitting all books in the classroom and school library for parental review; school principals giving parents access to the curriculum development process. Presumably Haley meant that anything a critical number of parents object to could be removed from the curriculum. This kind of transparency is implied by the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” in Missouri–“(3) The right to access and view school curricula,  guest lecturer materials, and staff training manuals in a timely manner and in an easily accessible format;”  This law (HB 627) has not passed scrutiny of the legislature at this writing.

The Parents’ Bill of Rights would make sense if it originated at the local level. It should be negotiated in good faith between the schools and the parents of students. Local autonomy insists that local decisions should not originate with the state. Parents’ rights should not be imposed from the top, but percolated from the bottom. A problem is best solved by the people who live closest to it.

Just as the principle of local autonomy should protect citizens from federal intervention, it should protect them from meddling of the state government. In Missouri, for example, some politicians want the state to override local discretion for the teaching of “critical race theory,”  “gender diversity,” and  the right of parental review, because local communities are not always hospitable to their agenda.  Again, local autonomy is rejected, but for political motives.

State oversight of the schools is the prerogative of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. It should set standards for teaching and learning, provide specialized resources, advocate for the schools and supplement their professional and financial resources.

For example, in Missouri, there is a critical need for new teachers to replace a mass retirement of baby boomer teachers. Many rural schools lack the resources to attract the best young teachers, who could bring fresh ideas and energy to aging faculty and administration. The state could be a consultant and a financial support (mini-grants) to attract graduating teachers from neighboring states, as well as local graduates. Incentives might include provisions for housing, creating teams or communities within the schools, and providing well-trained faculty mentors. Young teachers might be attracted to schools with a supportive structure, as much as they would higher salaries. The ideas and funding to implement such programs could come from the state level: the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

These complex challenges require coordinated solutions. The state is uniquely positioned to bring the participants together and provide both professional expertise and financial incentives to implement the solutions. The federal government is too remote and many school districts under-resourced to deal with these problems of school administration. But, to avoid political intervention, the education professionals  should do the coordination.

Local autonomy is a much-abused principle in the realm of politics, unless state institutions are empowered to support, not over-regulate, the public schools. Politicians claim they believe in local autonomy, but, in practice, they want to use the schools to promote their agenda.  Especially in election years, the local schools and state education departments should demand that the politicians mind their own business.

 

 

 

 

by

The Seductive Strongman

In an analysis of the age 118th Congress, the oldest generations show their dominance of the House (49.8%) and the Senate (73%). These aging generations (“Silent” and older representatives of the “Baby Boomer”) have a time-stamp on their leadership. In the interests of democracy they must step aside for Gen X and the Millenials. 118th Congress generations in House and Senate[https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress]

President Joe Biden’s fitness for the Presidency is under attack, not because of his competence, but because of his longevity.  It is not his record that the polls call into question, but his appearance as an aging icon of a past generation.  It is grossly unfair, especially since his rival, Donald Trump, is of the same generation (the “Silent”) as the President. But Trump has aged a little better and has convinced half of America that he is the virile choice among leaders.

Appearance is now more compelling than the substance of leadership. That alone can explain the strength of the incorrigible Trump in the polling for Presidential candidates. He looks better in a suit and a scowl than his opponent in grandfatherly compassion.

The populist dictator has been a dominant image of leadership since 1919, according to Ruth Ben-Ghiat in her book Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present. We have such charismatic figures as Viktor Orban (Hungary), the recently ousted Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil), the late Silvio Berlusconi (Italy), Recep Tayip Erdogan (Turkey), Nahrendra Modi (India), Vladimir Putin (Soviet Union) and Donald Trump (USA).  Among the early Strongmen are Benito Mussolini (Italy), Adolf Hitler (Germany), and Francisco Franco (Spain).  Ben-Ghiat argues that “Strongmen” learn from each other, even across the generations, adopting similar playbooks.

The leader’s displays of machismo and his kinship with other male leaders are not just bluster, but a way of exercising power at home and conducting foreign policy. Virility enables corruption, projecting the idea that the Strongman is above laws that weaker individuals must follow. It translates into state policies that target women and LGBTQ+ populations, who are as much the Strongman’s enemies as civil prosecutors or the press. (pp. 7-8) This is a good place to assert that women can show this strength, too, even though we may call it “charisma.”

Many of the current Strongmen trace their heritage back to Benito Mussolini . He modeled a populism that allowed him to overcome democracy by sheer force of personality.  As Ben Ghiat argues, Donald Trump fits the profile of Strongman to an alarming degree. He has somehow acquired the playbook and adapted it to his “TV Apprentice” model of leadership. In particular, he has mastered the lessons of media propaganda.

At its core, propaganda is a set of communication strategies designed to sow confusion and uncertainty, discourage critical thinking, and persuade people that reality is what the leader says it is.  (p. 93)

The Republican Party has decided to “sow confusion and uncertainty” with its confounding House investigation of the Bidens and its determination to discredit the authenticity of the 2020 election.  A minority of the Party faithful believes these dishonest claims, and they have decided on an illegitimate and corrupt Presidential candidate, an image too many voters have accepted without critical thinking.

Trump’s popularity, despite lawsuits against him and diabolical plans for his next administration, follows in the footsteps of tyrants who have successfully deposed democracy.  The mere image of the scowling Trump at his own trial shows his contempt for law and the limitations of his less intimidating rivals.  He conveys the Strongman image that voters crave, even in an “enlightened democracy” like the United States.

If Ben-Ghiat is right in her comparative analysis, we have reason to fear the transition to a Strongman Presidency.  When half the country sees Donald Trump as its next President, we cannot but conclude that the moment for the Strongman has come for America. Image is about to overwhelm competency.

The aging Baby Boomer and the “Silent” generation politicians should realize the time has come to pass the torch. Even perceived weakness will not stand against the Strongman. Youthful, energetic nominees are needed to counter the charismatic Trump.

Whether he has the stamina or good health to serve, the President has become irrelevant because of the soft, grandfatherly image he projects. That will not fly in the 2024 election. It is not reasonable or fair, but it is the Achilles heel of his candidacy, and he can’t fake it in the next campaign.

Perhaps the next President will be a Baby Boomer, but he or she will have to project strength, as well as compassion, as a leader.  The Party platform can articulate the goals of democracy, equity, and inclusion, but the image of authority and strength in the candidate will matter more.  America is primed for a Strongman, and it can ill-afford one who is narcissistic, hyper-masculine, ruthless and dishonest.  The next President will have to prove that compassion is consistent with strength and charisma.

by

The Old “Changing Hearts” Ploy

Dear Mr. Speaker:

As a Bible-believing Christian, I am offended by your ploy for “changing hearts” to solve the problem of gun deaths.  Is this a compassionate answer to the 35,000 people killed by guns this year? Is it compassionate to give an impractical solution to the death of 35,000 Americans?

Over half of those 35,000 people killed this year were suicides. Clearly those victims were severely depressed or unbalanced. How many of those people will voluntarily go into treatment?  How many will freely give up their guns, especially if they are paranoid? Do we expect even a quarter of those potential suicides to accept help? What about the other 13,000? There is simply no way to protect those people except to take their guns away.

What should we do to prevent abortion, Congressman? Is it a problem of changing hearts and minds? Why, therefore, do we legislate to prevent abortion or “murder,” as you would call it?  What about the shameless drug-importers who lead so many Americans to death? Change hearts and minds? How about the furious attackers on our houses of worship? Do we depend on changing their hearts and minds? How do you answer the victims and their relatives of those crimes against innocent people?

There is an Aesop’s fable that addresses this dilemma called “Belling the Cat.” The mice are planning to stop the cat from murdering and eating them. One bright mouse said

“All we have to do is to hang a bell about the Cat’s neck. When we hear the bell ringing we will know immediately that our enemy is coming.”

All the Mice were much surprised that they had not thought of such a plan before. But in the midst of the rejoicing over their good fortune, an old Mouse arose and said: “I will say that the plan of the young Mouse is very good. But let me ask one question: Who will bell the Cat?”

It is one thing to say that something should be done, but quite a different matter to do it. https://read.gov/aesop/003.html

The naive mice say, “Why don’t we just change hearts and minds?” The realistic mouse says, “Of course we can’t do that, except, for example, for a tender or self-aware heart or mind.  The rest will laugh at us, grab their assault weapons, and come after us.” Aesop was so right when he said, It is one thing to say that something should be done, but quite a different matter to do it.  It makes me wonder if Aesop had to deal with gun lobbyists.

Finally, a parable: The Good Samaritan. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is about a man attacked by thieves and left for dead.  Then two holy men, a priest and Levite, observe the victim and pass around him. We don’t know what they were thinking, but it might go like this: Why can’t something be done about these thieves? Then along comes the Samaritan who jumps down from his mule and says, “Horrible, someone needs to help this man.”[my interpretation].  And then he does something wonderful. “He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.” [Luke 10:34-35, NIV]. The parable goes on to say he paid the innkeeper two denarii to care for the victim and promised to reimburse all expenses when he next came through the neighborhood.

No, this is not a parable about gun control, but a parable about passivity vs. activism. The holy men only thought someone should help, but the Samaritan ministered to the victim and made plans to care for him. He stepped up to help, as we might hope our citizens would step up to reduce deaths by guns.  The “hearts and minds” answer is a passive solution, the improving gun control is an active solution.  That is how I see the “The Good Samaritan, ” a parable about passive wishes vs. active intervention.

“Which one of these three, do you think, was neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”

He said, “The one who showed him mercy.”

Jesus said to him, “Go thou and do likewise.”

Amen.

William D. Tucker

Chesterfield MO 63017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

The Seductive Strongman

According to Lydia Stowe, writing for Fiscal Note, Baby Boomers constitute 65% of the Senate and 44.8% of the House. This is by far the largest representation in the Senate and a modest lead for the House over Gen X, its nearest rival.  It is time for the Baby Boomers to realize they are the past, while Gen X and Millenials are the future of governing. And for Joe Biden, who represents the “Silent” generation (see table below), to step aside for a younger successor.

The domination of Baby Boomers suggests an inertia in the voting population that accepts the status quo, especially when the status quo is the same age as they are.  We Baby Boomers believe we are still the immediate future of democracy, especially since we have done such a good job so far, or at least we have convinced the voters of that. But even the self-appointed leaders of democracy have a time-stamp on their leadership. In the interests of democracy we must step aside for Gen X and the Millenials.

118th Congress generations in House and Senate
                                                       https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress

The issue of succession has reared its head most significantly in the Presidency of Joe Biden. His fitness for the Presidency is under attack, not because of his competence, but because of his longevity.  It is not his record that the polls call into question, but his appearance as an aging icon of a past generation.  It is grossly unfair, especially since his rival, Donald Trump, is of the same generation (i.e. the “Silent”) as the President. But Trump has aged a little better and has convinced half of America that he is the virile choice among leaders.

As discouraging as it may be, the appearance of strength and virility has become more important than competence and humility of governing. We have finally come to the point where appearance is more compelling than the substance of leadership. That is my conclusion about the strength of the incorrigible Trump in the polling for Presidential candidates. He looks better in a suit and a scowl than his opponent in fatherly compassion.

The populist dictator has become a dominant image of leadership since 1919, according to Ruth Ben-Ghiat in her book Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present. The “present” includes such charismatic figures as Viktor Orban (Hungary), the recently ousted Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil),  Silvio Berlusconi (Italy), Recep Tayip Erdogan (Turkey), Nahrendra Modi (India), Vladimir Putin (Soviet Union) and Donald Trump (USA).  Among the deceased strongmen are Benito Mussolini (Italy) and Adolf Hitler. (Germany) She argues that “strongmen” learn from each other, even across the generations, and have adopted similar playbooks.

The leader’s displays of machismo and his kinship with other male leaders are not just bluster, but a way of exercising power at home and conducting foreign policy. Virility enables his corruption, projecting the idea that he is above laws that weaker individuals must follow. It also translates into state policies that target women and LGBTQ+ populations, who are as much the strong man’s enemies as prosecutors or the press. (pp. 7-8)

Many of the current strongmen trace their heritage back to Mussolini and Hitler. They model a populism that allowed them to overcome democracy by sheer force of personality. This brings us to the current attraction for Donald Trump in the United States. He fits the profile of “strongman” to an alarming degree. He may not be an historian, but he has somehow acquired the playbook of the strongman and adapted it to his “Apprentice” model of leadership. In particular, he has mastered the lessons of propaganda.

At its core, propaganda is a set of communication strategies designed to sow confusion and uncertainty, discourage critical thinking, and persuade people that reality is what the leader says it is.  (p. 93)

When we observe Trump’s popularity despite lawsuits against him and diabolical plans for his next administration, we cannot but think he follows in the footsteps of tyrants who have successfully deposed democracy in favor of the cult of the individual.  The mere image of the scowling Trump at his own trial shows his contempt for law and the limitations of smaller rivals.  He conveys the strongman image that citizens crave, even in an “enlightened “democracy as the United States.

Which brings us back to the current campaign for President. If Ben-Ghiat is right, we have reason to fear the transition to a strongman Presidency.  When half the country sees Donald Trump as its next President, we cannot but conclude that the moment for the strongman has come for America. Image is about to overwhelm competency.

We cannot afford a coup.  We need an image that will rival the heir apparent in the Republican Party.  That Party has decided to “sow confusion and uncertainty” with its confounding House investigation of the Bidens and its determination to discredit the authenticity of the 2020 election.  No one in the Republican Party can possibly believe these dishonest claims, but they have created the image of an illegitimate and corrupt President, an image too many voters have internalized without much critical thinking.

Which brings us back to the seniority of the candidate or candidates, if we include Congress.  The Baby Boomer (and the “Silent” generation) politicians should realize the time has come to pass the torch. Weakness, even superficial weakness, will not stand with voters across the generations and ethnicities.  Strong and vigorous nominees are needed to counter the seductive strongman image projected by Donald Trump.  This is not to exclude women as candidates, but they will have to convey the kind of strength that wins confidence from voters who are susceptible to image over substance.

Finally, the President needs to step down and let younger candidates pick up the mantle of leadership in the next election. Whether he has the stamina and good health is less important than the grandfatherly image he projects. That will not fly in the 2024 election. It is not reasonable or fair, but it is the Achilles heel of his candidacy, and he can’t fake it in the next campaign.  It is simply a matter of respecting the strength of youth in leadership.

Perhaps the next President will still be a Baby Boomer, but he or she will have to project strength, as well as compassion, as a leader.  The Party platform will articulate the goals of democracy, equity and inclusion, but the personal image of authority will matter more than in previous elections.  America is primed for a “strongman,” and it can ill-afford one who is narcissistic, hyper-masculine, ruthless and dishonest.  The next President will have to prove that compassion is consistent with strength and resolution.

 

 

 

by

Group Think and the Closing of the American Mind

The polarization of politics in America has less to do with our conflicting ideologies and more to do with loyalty to our groups. The authors of “Political Sectarianism in America” argue that “the causal connection between policy preferences and party loyalty has become warped, with partisans adjusting their policy preferences to align with their party identity.” [Eli J. Finkel et al]

Sociologists call it “group think:” the tendency of a committee, profession, etc., to conform to those opinions or feelings prevailing in their group.” (Webster’s New World Dictionary, Fourth Edition).  When group think prevails, independent thinking is abandoned.

When group loyalty becomes more important than principles or ideas, the dialogue between partisans stagnates. Listening is impossible because each participant in the dialogue has already conformed his or her opinions to the group they belong to.  They may have even labeled the opposition group members.

If we have decided what we believe by listening to our reference group—our Facebook friends, our church friends, our locker room friends, our neighbors– our minds are closed.  To change our minds would jeopardize our membership in the group, so we keep our beliefs aligned with the group. We eliminate the option to think independently.

The worst consequence is the labels we put on each other, because we no longer see each other as people, but as prejudices toward their group. Researchers at Stanford and the University of Michigan have studied election year politics for forty years, using a scale of opinions that ranks responders from 0 to 100, with 0 degrees being “very cold or unfavorable” and 100 degrees being “very warm or favorable.”  One observation of these “Annual National Election Studies” (ANES) is that Democrats and Republicans “have grown more contemptuous of opposing partisans for decades, and at similar rates.”  Since 2012 “this aversion [has] exceeded their affection for co-partisans.” This extensive survey confirms what we have suspected: that our parties thrive even more on group antagonism than on group affiliation.

In the Journal of Politics (2018) the authors ( Douglas J. Ahler and Gaurav Sood, “The Parties in Our Heads: Misperceptions about Party Composition and Consequences” ) found that Democrats and Republicans held distorted views of their opposite number.   For example, “Republicans estimate that 32% of Democrats are LGBT while in reality it is 6%; Democrats estimate that 38% of Republicans earn over $250,000 per year, when in reality it is 2%.”

If you try to convince someone outside your reference group that inflation is easing, you’ll probably get the party line in response, not the past and current rates of inflation. The facts matter less than whom you represent.  Your facts are questioned as representing your group, which might already have been mistakenly classified as the “wealthy” or the ”dependent cases,” for example. There can be no dialogue as long as these false perceptions persist. Perceptions are stubbornly attached to the stereotype rather than the realities of that group. This is called “contact bias.”

The quest for truth has been abandoned. People I know will argue that it is impossible to know the truth about an issue, since even the facts appear to be partisan.  If we cannot get our facts straight, they suppose, we might as well support the group of people that best reflects our assumptions, because their facts are closer to the truth.

And yet,there must be a reality out there, some systematic inquiry we can trust or principles we can believe in. That inquiry and those principles may contradict the group think we practice, calling for a risky decision: to think independently: to think critically outside of our group’s prejudices.

Our reference groups are important to us.  We want to be loyal and get their approval. How would we function in our church or our neighborhood if we admitted an independent position on immigration or voting rights? Would we risk alienation or loss of respect of the group?

Independent thinking is risky. But haven’t we been taught to take risks by our heroes in the scriptures, in our best literature, in stories of the Founders of our country?  Risk-taking has always been the heroic choice. We once believed that.

Maybe it is not too late to be a hero.

[The research referenced originally cited in “Political Sectarianism in America: What’s Driving the Hatred?” Clark Merrefield]

by

Power to the Districts

The clamor about public school reform following the resignation of Commissioner Margie Vandeven invents a centralized strategy to make local education an opportunity for politicians in Jefferson City

Why do politicians in Jefferson City assume they understand the variety of needs in schools across the state of Missouri? Do they imagine that the issues in Excelsior Springs (where  the outspoken representative Doug Richey hails from) are identical to the problems in St. Louis and Kansas City? Why has the emphasis on local control in education vanished? Why do politicians assume all schools have disempowered parents? That all schools have abandoned the Basics? What are the Basics?

“We need to downsize DESE, focus singularly on the classroom, value ed choice, remove woke activism, and regain parental trust and confidence, ” proclaims Richey as if he had surveyed all schools and listened to the needs in every district. He has exploited public schools as a campaign issue, rather than addressing local and complex needs. He has conveniently ignored the local issues: in some cases the teacher shortage, in others- absenteeism, for others–the deficiency of funding to recruit new teachers, and for many- local studies to improve teacher-parents relations.

Politicians show no interest in constructive aid for local schools according to their specific needs, because that would not give  them political talking points to generalize about the mosaic of reforms needed in individual schools. What if the DESE is “bloated” with “mission creep”? Does that mean dismantling the only channel for reforms needed in local schools? Some public schools need aid to restore the five-day week or to recruit specialized teachers for vacant positions. DESE could help with that.

The crisis in recruitment of public school teachers has become a nationwide issue, one that could be addressed in Jefferson City by supplying aid to incentivize the best teacher education graduates to come to Missouri public schools. The quality of education should first be addressed by recruiting the best new teachers to replace the widespread retirement of Baby-boom teachers anxious to withdraw from politically-vexed schools.

Parents are critical to the work of education, but they need to be informed, not recruited to undermine the complex web of local education. The call to involve parents in public schools is misguided to tear down, not to build up.  This appeals to Republicans, because it would give the illusion of reform without spending money.

Parents and teachers could become allies, not adversaries, if funds were available to address the sensitive problem of widespread absenteeism, a problem that has to be solved cooperatively. First the causes need to be diagnosed, then cooperative programs to address the local variables, then changing parent, teacher, and student behavior.   That would cost state-subsidized support, but Republicans would not like that.

“Woke” curriculum is another generalization that applies to schools individually. First examine what “woke” means at the local level, then decide what could replace it.  The problem for most parents is understanding the curriculum before dismantling it. Teachers need to listen to parents and take their complaints seriously. You might need public forums, then committees to address specific issues, then deciding how to allot funding for curriculum reform. This does not happen without state funding instead of generalized condemnation by state representatives. It is easy to criticize, much harder to reform.

Teachers are occasionally criticized for lecturing the whole class on problems created by a few students. They should take this criticism to heart and try to speak individually to students who may be the culprits. That is what politicians in Jefferson City need to do: empower the DESE to channel funding to the source of problems instead of lecturing the entire profession.  Broad generalizations create local shame and discourage young people from joining the profession.

Education should not be turned into a political football. The theme of all reform is allowing school districts to manage their own problems. That has been the traditional approach to reform, not general condemnation. It’s time for state representatives to do what traditionally they do best: empower local schools to exercise local control. The notion that schools can be reformed from the top down is both politically and educationally dishonest. Let the state do what it does best, commit aid to local schools to solve their own problems.

by

If You Don’t Care About Gun Deaths, Don’t Bother Reading This

For he that gets hurt will be he that has stalled

(Bob Dylan, “The Times They are A-Changing,” 1964)

We have become immune to statistics, but I will offer this one: 35,000 people killed with guns this year.  Suicide is the biggest cause: depressed souls deprived of help. When those depressed or manic souls turn their anger on other people, we get senseless mass killings. Even when the alleged cause for killing is listed on Facebook or in a journal with political reasons, the ultimate cause is manic-depression (or other psychosis) turned into violent anger.  They turn their anger on the lives of other people because of their own intolerable lives, and they are given permission by our feeble gun laws.

This is criminal neglect of the highest order.

We must separate dangerous owners from their guns: the semi-automatic, the shotguns, the concealed weapons. Of course we need to have a reason, but many states have very permissive laws that don’t allow police to confiscate guns. We have a case of a school shooting in Missouri where p0lice knew the gun owner was dangerous, but the law did not allow them to confiscate his gun before he turned it on a high school class, killing a teacher and a student, [https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/28/us/st-louis-school-shooting-friday/index.html

How do states with the most permissive gun laws fare in the generalized deaths by guns? Here are comparisons for 2020.

The state with the highest per capita gun death rate in 2020 was Mississippi, followed by Wyoming, Louisiana, Alaska, Missouri, and Alabama. Each of these states has extremely lax gun violence prevention laws as well as a higher rate of gun ownership.The state with the lowest gun death rate in the nation was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York. Each of these states has strong gun violence prevention laws and a lower rate of gun ownership. [https://vpc.org/states-with-weak-gun-laws-and-higher-gun-ownership-lead-nation-in-gun-deaths-new-data-for-2020-confirms/]

So the southeastern U.S. makes a depressing showing as regards gun laws and deaths. Are their representatives, state and federal, trying to address this? Certainly not. My home state of Missouri makes it possible for anyone, healthy or crazy, to own guns, immune from law enforcement. The answer has been increasingly permissive laws sanctifying gun ownership and limiting police enforcement.

Any other acute dangers to public health would be targeted and remediated by legislation, but it all stops at gun ownership.  This is an acknowledged problem by anyone who keeps or reads statistics, but it is purposefully ignored by those charged with our protection.

Come senators, congressmenPlease heed the callDon’t stand in the doorwayDon’t block up the hall

Is the answer to heal the dangerous people?  How many healthy people are helping someone who is isolated and hopeless? How many Congressional representatives are reaching out to the desperate citizens they see around them?  How many do we fail to see or otherwise support in their frustrated existence? It is no condemnation, but a fact, that we do not connect with the hopeless and frustrated around us. Most of the time they are invisible. So the mental health solution is a rationalization to avoid what we know we should do. And how do we separate dangerous people from their guns?

For he that gets hurtWill be he who has stalledThe battle outside ragin’Will soon shake your windowsAnd rattle your wallsFor the times they are a-changin’

And will “red flag” or “background check” laws eliminate all these deaths? Of course not. But common sense says they will eliminate some of them. Take any measure that will save lives. Give the Second Amendment room to breathe and preserve life. Don’t use it to protect the dangerous, who live nearby, who could turn a gun on themselves or on others at any moment.

The hardened neglect against any attempt to solve this problem leads to a weakened conscience. If we know what to do and neglect to do it, our moral sense is dulled. For you who neglect an obvious responsibility, it is on your atrophying conscience.

For the rest of us, we should cry out for justice, until it–

Will soon shake your windowsAnd rattle your wallsFor the times they are a-changin’

We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Gun Ownership laws save lives.

. . .  they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.  Isaiah 2:3–4