On the vote

This entry is part 6 of 6 in The Vote Manifesto,

a series of posts on why and how we organize in the age of Trump.

There are many ways that Americans are choosing to resist the potential excesses and dangers of the impending Trump regime, among them organizing protests, trying to hold our current officials accountable, contributing time and money to various organizations that will work to protect those most vulnerable among us, tracking and working to prevent hate crimes, even exhorting the press to steel its spine for the days ahead. These, like what I am about to suggest, are all necessary, but not sufficient. But, thinking over the longer term, If we want our democracy to reflect the values of the majority of Americans while protecting those in the minority, there’s one issue that we should take up with fundamental fervor: the inviolable right and obligation to vote, and the principle every vote should count equally.

Read More…

Demonstrations: inspiring and necessary, but not sufficient

This entry is part 2 of 6 in The Vote Manifesto,

a series of posts on why and how we organize in the age of Trump.

Sit-in at BGSU

Photo Credit: Deborah Schocket

Over the past couple of days, we’ve already seen a lot of protests and demonstrations.

The ones that are getting the most attention are those in Los Angeles and Portland, big coastal cities where the violence has been most intense. There have been many, many other, more peaceful protests, more fearful and contemplative, like the one at my university yesterday. These demonstrations should continue. They are a necessary, but, we must emphasize, not a sufficient condition for resistance to the impending regime, because, in and of themselves, such actions do not bring the required leverage.

Read More…

Half-right, in a bad way: David Brooks and the founders’ ugly racial legacy

In his Feb. 26 column, “The Governing Cancer of Our Time,” New York Times columnist David Brooks praised the founding fathers in contrast to today’s tea partiers and other zealots for favoring politics over brute force, and compromise over intransigence. He’s partly right in that solving social conflict through politics and compromise is one of the founders’ legacies. But he’s also wrong in a dangerous way: violence and intransigence on the issue of white racial power are also central to our founding inheritance, and we would be a healthier society for recognizing that.

Read More…

Founding fathers did [fill in the blank], so it must be OK! That’s the logic senate candidate uses to defend… cockfighting

This is absurd, of course, but in a way very telling.  Matt Bevin, who is challenging Mitch McConnell in the Kentucky Republican senatorial primary, here defends his appearance at a rally promoting, I kid you not dear readers, cockfighting.

when you look at cockfighting and dogfighting as well…This isn’t something new, it wasn’t invented in Kentucky for example. I mean the Founding Fathers were all many of them very involved in this and always have been.

Look, I’m as much into watching two animals trained only for killing senselessly tear each other gruesomely apart for no apparent reason, and betting on the results, as much as the next guy (that is, assuming the next guy is a member of the ASPCA).  And of course Bevin’s suggestion that “all” of the founders participated in cockfighting or dogfighting in some way is preposterous.   But let’s let to the more relevant point here: the idea that anything done by the founders, ipso facto, must at the very least not be completely reprehensible.  Let’s unpack that just a bit on a busy Friday.

Read More…

The Ryan budget: dumping access to art, humanities, and higher education in favor of plutocracy

Contribute to the public? Who, me?

There are several breathtaking elements here.  One is the level of double-speak, the use of euphemism to claim that Ryan intends the exact opposite of what the budget actually does.  He’s long been a budgetary charlatan in terms of the overall numbers, and this budget is no exception.  The other thing is what, in fact, the budget does, especially in terms of issues relating to higher education.

OK, to just one of the specifics.  The budget claims to “expand opportunity,” in part by “Adopt[ing] a sustainable maximum-award level for Pell Grants.”  Except in Ryan’s world, for the rest of us, capping a benefit doesn’t expand access; it reduces it.  And about “sustainable” levels: in 2013, the federal government spent $33 billion on Pell Grants, and, furthermore, appropriations have more than matched the demand the last two years.  Even should the program increase significantly, we must recognize that right now the overall federal budget is around $3.8 trillion, and even discretionary spending is 1.15 trillion.  In other words, Pell Grants are less than 3% of even the discretionary part of the budget.  Not exactly breaking the bank, and sustainable.  Both of Ryan’s claims are demonstrably wrong, even upon cursory analysis.  Which tells us that he must be hiding something.

The motivation to eliminate the NEA (currently funded at a measly $146 million) and NEH (about the same) is more insidious.  It’s ostensibly because because “The activities and content funded by these agencies go beyond the core mission of the federal government” (which is debatable) and because “These agencies can raise funds from private-sector patrons, which will also free them from any risk of political interference.”  If you ask me, supporting the arts and humanities is no less a “core mission” of the federal government than, say, tax breaks for oil companies; maybe a case can be made.  But the NEA and NEH have only been politicized to the extent that Republicans have done so, and for a long time.  Just, who are those “patrons” of a privatized NEA and NEH going to be?  Maybe gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson, who’s making a bid to be the patron of the next Republican presidential candidate.  In other words, having these agencies appeal to private donors would depoliticize them only in the sense they would be wholly under the influence of Ryan’s supporters, rather than at being accountable to Congress.

Why such parsimony?  Why can the federal government not afford Pell Grants, the NEA, and the NEH?  Let’s get back to Ryan’s supporters, and what this budget actually does for the Republicans’ plutocratic patrons.  It slashes the top income bracket from the current 35% to 25%.  Repeal federal estate taxes (which already exempt estates under $5.34 million, in other words, for all but America’s richest to begin with).  Lower corporate tax rates.  In sum, a big giveaway to the rich, at everyone else’s expense.

These, then, are the real reasons for Paul Ryan, and the 200+ Republican in the House of Representatives who will vote in favor of his budget, why we as a nation shouldn’t (not can’t, but shouldn’t) pay to support poor students, to support the humanities, to support the arts.  It’s not because we as a nation can’t afford it.  It’s because the rich folk for whom Ryan is carrying water don’t want to.