Mamdani And “Leftism”

Last Tuesdaay, Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York, and the usual subjects immediately went into high gear, once again demonstrating that American politics has become all about labeling rather than policy analysis. The mere fact that Mamdami identifies as a Democratic Socialist (along with Bernie Sanders) was enough to set the Right raving about a communist takeover of the Big Apple. 

Over the past decades, the political Overton Window has shifted so far to the right that policy proposals that once appealed to liberal Republicans (back when the GOP was a political party rather than a semi-fascist cult) are now labeled “far Left.” 

Take Mamdani’s support for free bus service. My husband and I met when we both served in the very Republican Hudnut Administration–I was Corporation Counsel, he was Director of Metropolitan Development. Reporters who covered City Hall (we had those back then) considered both of us “right of center.” He has long been a proponent of free bus service, for a number of reason related to the environment and urban development.

I tend to disagree with Mamdani’s support of rent controls, which have been in place in New York since 1920, and have been supported by New York Mayors for years. I think those controls ultimately disincentivize new construction. I agree with his other proposals for increasing the housing supply–and find his concerns for housing affordability laudable–and in any sane world, centrist.

What about grocery stores for food deserts? Here in Indianapolis, in the middle of Red Indiana, lawmakers have suggested a variety of government supports for our own underserved areas–not actual municipal grocery stores, but not government “benign neglect” either.

Let’s face it–the American Left is far, far to the Right of the European Left, and bears absolutely no resemblance to communism. Right-wingers conflating them rely on Americans’ (admittedly widespread) political ignorance.

Of course, a good deal of the hysteria over Mamdani’s win is really anti-Muslim sentiment promoted by our own Taliban-like Christian Nationalists. (And I won’t even dignify the efforts to paint his entirely defensible opinions on Gaza as anti-Semitic.)

Mamdani’s victory ought to trigger a reconsideration of a foundational political issue: What is the nature of the social and physical infrastructure that government should provide? And in a federated system, which level of government should be responsible for which pieces of that infrastructure?

What sorts of “socialism” should cities provide?

Over the years, Americans–especially in our more densely-populated cities–have learned that we need to provide police and fire safety communally, that public health requires, among other things, communal provision of garbage collection. Sewers are built and maintained by public and/or semi-public entities;  until the GOP’s “privatization” efforts, public schools were understood to be a public necessity.

I haven’t seen people advocate for private provision of streets, sidewalks and traffic controls–and although a few libertarians have complained that libraries should be replaced by bookstores and public parks by private clubs, very few citizens agree. 

We don’t call those and numerous other public amenities “socialism,” but of course, they are. They are socialized services, paid for with our tax dollars.

Back when people running for public office cared about policy rather than power, political disputes were essentially about the nature and extent of the physical and social infrastructure that governments should provide, and how that provision should be structured, managed and paid for. What level of government should handle air traffic, food safety, disaster relief? What functions are more properly handled at the state or local level? Have demographic or social changes altered the considerations that led to prior decisions?

We have almost entirely abandoned those very important, very foundational questions in the midst of our existential battle to forestall a rolling coup, but ultimately, those are the questions that lawmakers must confront. They are the questions–and his answers to them– that Mamdani elevated in the recent New York primary. Political discourse in this country has become so divorced from actual policy that rather than engaging with his issues, rather than debating the merits of his proposals, the reaction to his campaign was name-calling. 

I don’t know whether Mamdani–whose experience in government is thin–will be an effective Mayor of the country’s most immense city. That issue, it seems to me, is legitimate. Mounting objections to his proposals based upon facts and evidence is also legitimate. But the critics who are engaging in labeling and name-calling have adopted Trump’s approach to politics–an approach mimicking the tactics of schoolyard bullies and five-year-olds and entirely divorced from the real issues of governance.

Comments

The Loss Of The Lie Detector

As the country I thought I inhabited continues to disintegrate, I’ve become more and more convinced that what I’ve called our “information landscape” is a major contributor to our civic woes.

We have created a world that allows us to “curate” our realities, to engage in what we used to call “cherry picking.” Want to believe that science is a scam and vaccines are mechanisms for inserting Microsoft chips in our bodies? A bit of Internet “research” will locate “news” sites that confirm your suspicions. Want to believe that the deranged ignoramus in the Oval Office actually knows what he’s doing? Ditto.

The media we now refer to as legacy outlets were far from perfect. “If it bleeds, it leads” dominated decisions about what was front-page news, and even outlets with a professional devotion to the obligations of gatekeeping overlooked important events and misread others. But at their best, they acted as lie detectors–and public figures who feared that function were careful to moderate their misinformation, or at least cloak efforts at misdirection in ambiguities.

The Internet’s Wild West, where social media echoes and promotes the proliferation of Rightwing propaganda sites, is liar’s heaven. A buffoon as ridiculous as Trump, with his constant crazed, childish and misspelled posts, would never have ascended to the Presidency when actual journalists were the primary gatekeepers.

Cult leaders (Trump is the Jim Jones of MAGA) have always been able to bamboozle a slice of the population; a portion of humanity is demonstrably impervious to fact and logic. A healthier information environment would not diabuse the True Believers, who see Trump as the champion who will kill “woke-ism” and return straight White (Pseudo)Christian men to dominance. But the current fire hose of competing versions of reality is having the effect desired by autocrats everywhere–it paralyzes much larger segments of the population, who gradually despair of determining what is true, and simply check out.

Megan Garber addressed the issue in a recent essay in the Altlantic.

She noted that Trump had been reelected despite–or perhaps because of– the Big Lie, and she mused that, these days, false assertions evidently aren’t liabilities but selling points, “weapons of partisan warfare, disorienting perceived enemies (Democrats, members of the media) even as they foment broader forms of cynicism and mistrust.”

For decades, American politics have relied on the same logic that polygraph machines do: that liars will feel some level of shame when they tell their lies, and that the shame will manifest—the quickened heartbeat, the pang of guilt—in the body. But the body politic is cheating the test with alarming ease. Some Americans believe the lies. Others refuse to. Some Americans recognize the lies’ falsity but have decided that some things—their own tribe, their vision for the country—are simply more important than truth. Regardless, the lies remain, unchecked by the old machinery. The polygraph is a measure of conscience. So, in its way, is democracy.

Garber quoted Walter Lippman’s classic book, Public Opinion, in which he argued that democracy is a task of data management. American democracy “is premised on the idea that voters’ political decisions will be based on reliable information.”

The information people rely on to do the work of citizenship—voting, arguing, shaping a shared future—is data. But those data are processed by notoriously fickle hardware. The data inform our brains’ impressions of the world: the images that Lippmann called “the pictures in our heads.” The pictures are subjective. They are malleable. And, perhaps most of all, they make little distinction between things that are true and things that are merely believed to be….

In Public Opinion, Lippmann diagnosed how readily propaganda could make its way into a nation that was officially at peace. He outlined how seamlessly the false messages could mingle with, and override, true ones. He argued that Americans’ unsteady relationship with information made our democracy inherently fragile.

As Garber quite accurately notes, every lie Trump tells, no matter how consequential or petty (and Trump is nothing if not petty), erodes people’s ability to trust any and all information.

Falsehoods, issued repeatedly from the bully pulpit, threaten to become conventional wisdom, then clichés, then foregone conclusions. Attempts to challenge them, as crucial as those efforts are as matters of historical recordkeeping, take on a certain listlessness. For others to point out the truth is to do the right thing. It is also to bring paper straws to a gunfight.

As the zone is flooded with bullshit (in Steve Bannon’s memorable phrase), citizens check out. And the liars cement their power.

Comments

And The Hits Keep Coming..

If there is any consistent theme that runs through the Trump administration’s “governance,” it is antipathy to science and education. RFK, Jr. presides over a truly horrifying assault on medical science;  Trump’s torrent of Executive Orders has hobbled government’s ability to deal with climate change (which MAGA denies)…the list goes on.

And then there’s the Right’s persistent, vicious war on education. Theirs is a movement that is trying–with some terrifying successes–to take America back to the Dark Ages. That effort isn’t new–the now decades-old effort to privatize education, to evade the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State and destroy public education by sending students and tax dollars to religious schools– has recently been joined by an all-out assault on the nation’s universities.

It isn’t just Trump’s assault on elite institutions like Columbia and Harvard. As a recent report from The New Republic documents, among the other obscenities in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” are measures that amount to “an extinction-level event” for the nation’s universities. As the article warns, “If you think the last few months have been bad for Harvard, brace yourself—the “big, beautiful bill” is coming, and with it, a new dimension of destruction.”

While it’s mostly gone unremarked upon in the mainstream media, institutions of higher learning across the country are about to be pummeled by the looming reconciliation bill, which may portend an extinction event for higher education as we know it. The bill weaponizes working-class families’ reliance on debt to finance their college dreams with such intensity that not only will it push millions to the financial brink, it will push them out of higher education altogether.

As the report makes clear, the fallout from these provisions will be monumental. The effect will be to deprive the schools that manage to survive of working- and middle-class families. A college education will once again be within reach of  only the wealthy.

As the article notes, millions of people already consider a university education “to be a costly endeavor that is irrelevant to their everyday life.” That reality would suggest that we should remake higher education into a much more accessible endeavor– that legislators should recognize that improving the educational level of a population translates directly into social and fiscal health. But–consistent with the rest of a bill that honest labelling would title “Protecting Plutocracy”–the legislation would do the opposite. “It will cement the stereotype of higher education as an elite institution into an ironclad reality.”

This existential assault on higher education is not inadvertent–not an unanticipated consequence of fiscal legislation. It is entirely consistent with the goals of Project 2025 and the far-Right anti-intellectual MAGA figures who have already decimated much of Florida’s higher education landscape. The article includes a quotation from influential conservative activist Christopher Rufo, confirming the desired results. “Reforming the student loan programs could put the whole university sector into a significant recession” and state of “existential terror.”

And just in case American voters return a sane occupant to the Oval Office, the bill removes the power of a future President to cancel federal student loans.

While details are still being negotiated between the obtuse and vicious GOP members of the House and Senate, if the measure passes in anything like its current form,  eight million student debtors will see their monthly payments spike from $0 to over $400.

Dentists and doctors who choose to work in low-paying community health care centers will no longer be eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs, dramatically reducing the number of health care providers in communities that are already underserved. The bill even comes after the long-standing, Republican-approved federal student loan repayment plans, which allow borrowers to discharge their debts after a certain number of years of regular payments.

The House version cuts Pell Grants and increases the course load required for part-time students to access aid. People with  jobs or family responsibilities will find it nearly impossible to comply. And House Republicans want colleges and universities to pay back unpaid federal loans extended to “high risk” students–a move designed to penalize institutions that serve low-income students who are more likely to default, turning “the working-class kid studying to become a social worker, artist, or a physician into a liability to her university.”

None of this is accidental.

A recent Heritage Foundation report recommends terminating higher education “subsidies” in order to “increase the married birthrate.” In plain English, it’s an effort to reduce women’s access to higher education–an access that has facilitated women’s growing civic and economic equality. MAGA wants more babies and fewer women in the workforce.

The “Big Beautiful Bill” is a MAGA wet dream.

Comments

Suicide By MAGA

Most of us have read about “suicide by cop”–a (hopefully rare) situation where someone desiring death purposely provokes a standoff with police. I don’t think MAGA cult members are that intentional, but I do think the result will be the same. The pandemic was a precursor: data shows that the MAGA science-deniers who refused to be vaccinated against COVID died in far greater numbers than more sane Americans.

Who coined that phrase “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”?

The Trump administration has already taken a meat-ax to medical research, derailing promising research into cures for cancer and Alzheimer’s and other deadly diseases. Those cuts will hurt all of us–Red and Blue alike. But as Paul Krugman recently pointed out, the administration’s radical changes in social spending, immigration policy and tariffs won’t simply hurt tens of millions of Americans — they will land disproportionately on Red, rural Americans.

The first thing you need to understand is that while rural Americans like to think of themselves as self-reliant, the fact is that poorer, more rural states are in effect heavily subsidized by richer states like Massachusetts and New Jersey.

This reality makes it inevitable that the standard conservative fiscal agenda — tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor and middle class — hurts the heartland more than it hurts major metropolitan areas. But MAGA’s Reverse Robin Hoodism goes far beyond the standard conservative agenda, in ways that will be especially devastating to rural areas and small towns.

I’ve previously posted about Trump’s horrendous “Big Beautiful Bill” that will rob the poor to further enrich the wealthy. The bill contains savage cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, programs that will hurt all poor folks; but will disproportionately devastate Trump-supporting rural areas.

Krugman notes that Medicaid is a far more important program than most Americans realize.

Almost 40 percent of children are covered by Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in deep red states like Alabama and Mississippi. Medicaid pays for 42 percent of births in America. And more to my point, Medicaid covers a higher fraction of the population in rural than in urban counties. So deep cuts in the program will hit Trump-supporting regions especially hard.

Ditto the impact of the drastic cuts to food stamps.

Many people–even those who are opposed to the “Big Beautiful Bill”– fail to recognize its very foreseeable impact on rural hospitals.  Hospitals in areas with low population density and a high percentage of patients who cannot pay for care struggle to stay open even now. Without Medicaid reimbursements at current levels, most will close. 

Most of us also fail to understand the role that Medicaid and Medicare spending play in supporting what Krugman calls “rural and left-behind local economies.”

For example, the economy of West Virginia no longer rests on coal mining, which employs very few people these days. It would be more accurate to say that the foundation of West Virginia’s economy is federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid. That is, in deep red West Virginia, Medicare and Medicaid are directly and indirectly a major source of income.

We are already seeing the impact of Trump’s immigration vendetta on the nation’s farmers.  Our agriculture relies heavily on hired workers, and some two thirds of those workers are immigrants–most of whom are undocumented. Farmers are already seeing the results of the threat: even workers who are legal residents or native-born citizens feel unsafe from the ICE goons who very clearly think all Brown people are illegal immigrants–so we see growing reports of workers decamping out of fear of arrest and deportation.

And then there’s the trade war.

In case you haven’t noticed, Trump hasn’t yet delivered a single one of the 90 trade deals he promised to negotiate by July 8. China has already retaliated, and others will follow. And U.S. agriculture is highly dependent on exports…

While many are now realizing that Trump’s policies will produce social and economic disaster, relatively few understand that the disaster will fall disproportionately on rural Trump voters. But of course it will. For the purveyor of Trump bibles and Trump meme coins, screwing the little guy has always been his personal style of grift. It remains to be seen if rural Trump supporters will awaken from their naivete.

Krugman is kinder than I am. I have given up any illusion that Trump voters are merely naive or uninformed. I’m pretty sure that MAGA voters are so wedded to their racism and grievance that they will support their own suicide if that’s what it takes to “own the libs.” 

Comments

The Declaration Of Independence Sounds Awfully Familiar

Given the undeniable fact that the Republicans in Congress continue to ignore their Constitutional duties, it’s probably unproductive to suggest that they take a close look at another of our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence. If they did, however, they might notice that the document describing the behaviors of George III that impelled them to withdraw from the British empire are eerily similar to the behaviors of their MAGA cult leader.

You might think of the Declaration as the original “No Kings” statement, laying out America’s grievances against the actions of  George III that triggered the Revolutionary War. The list of those grievances was extensive, but several seem especially pertinent to the growing resistance to today’s would-be King. 

Consider, for example:

“He has refused his Assent to laws; He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither; He has obstructed the Administration of Justice; He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices; He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people; He has affected to render the Military independent and superior to the Civil power;

“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world; For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent; for depriving us in many cases of the benefit of Trial by Jury; For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses.”

The Declaration isn’t law. It isn’t even a legal framework, as the Constitution is. But it is a statement of governing philosophy–a stirring declaration of what legitimate governance is and isn’t. Most schoolchildren are familiar with one of the opening paragraphs, an eloquent, “self-evident” description of the basic purposes of government:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Governments, the Declaration tells us, derive their “just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thanks to decades of voter suppression and gerrymandering, the operation of the Electoral College, misuse of the filibuster, and population shifts that have made the Senate a massively unrepresentative body,  it is impossible to argue with a straight face that today’s federal government reflects the consent of the governed. 

We are currently being ruled, not governed, by an illegitimate gang of plutocrats and theocrats who are pursuing goals diametrically opposed to those expressed by the nation’s founders. Re-read that last quoted paragraph. Nowhere does it say that “all White Christian men are created equal.” It says that all men- which we now understand to mean all human beings–have “unalienable” rights. Unalienable rights are incapable of being surrendered, transferred, or taken away. They are rights that are inherently and permanently possessed. The Declaration tells us that protecting–securing– those equal rights is the purpose of government, and that when a government “becomes destructive” of that purpose, when it ceases to perform that fundamental task, We the People have the right to alter or abolish it.

It’s past time to alter a government that has drifted far from its original purposes. Look at the list of actions by King George that prompted rebellion–and think about their striking similarity to the policies being pursued by the Trump administration. Refusal to assent to law. Obstruction of immigration. Denial of due process. Insistence on personal loyalty. Misuse of the military. Interference with trade. Imposition of taxes/tariffs. Transporting people “beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offenses”…

It is past time to return this nation to the philosophy of government expressed in the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have a delusional ignoramus in the White House, a cabinet filled with unqualified clowns and cranks, a Congress filled with cowards, bigots and Christian Nationalists, and a Supreme Court dominated by theocrats.

We got rid of King George and the Hessians. It’s time to get rid of Trump and MAGA.

Comments