Category: public policy

Reflections on Life in America: A Call to Action

We are driving south on the Thruway once again. Heading to New York City for the weekend. Gary will be going to see a Met game with our son on Saturday. I will find ways to amuse myself – not a difficult assignment in the City (in my heart the one and only city :)).

I am struck by the disconnect between my life and the world at large. It is a beautiful day. The green hills of the Catskills are showing hints of color as we approach fall, they still look green and lush. The air is clear, the is sky a cloudless, azure, and the sun is beaming. If I only look at the world right in front of me, it is lovely. But, I know better. If I cast a wider look I think of the tragedies around the world  (in Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, etc.), the crackdown on free speech, the unrelenting gun violence in our country, the degradation of our environment that leads to more and more natural disasters, the fear that immigrant families live with, the extraordinary corruption and lack of integrity of Donald Trump. Most of those realities don’t touch me directly. Not yet, anyway. I am fortunate. I can afford higher prices in the supermarket and at the gas pump. I already own a home. Gary and I have savings – hopefully enough to ensure a comfortable retirement. We are able to make these pleasant plans for the weekend.

I look at the cars streaming down the highway, wondering about the inhabitants. Are they like me, heading off to pleasant destinations? If they aren’t faced with serious illness or job loss/uncertainty, are they just taking things at face value, telling themselves, “It’s all good.”

I worry that people like me, who are in my economic situation more or less, can delude themselves that everything is okay. If your immediate family is okay – they are gainfully employed, aren’t married to immigrants, perhaps own homes, if their children are healthy – you can put your head down and ignore everything that is going in the wrong direction. They may not be paying attention to the larger picture. Maybe they don’t need Medicaid, maybe their employment isn’t impacted by federal budget cuts, maybe the confusion around vaccinations isn’t concerning if they aren’t immunocompromised, maybe they assume that since they have resources, their children and grandchildren will be protected.

But life is fragile, and things can change on a dime.

A mass shooting and/or random violence can strike anyone. A natural disaster can unmoor a whole family. Illness can change everything. We don’t have control over these things, for the most part, but when they happen, we hope to have support to get through it. Some things could help minimize the occurrences – gun control (or see my last essay on repealing the second amendment), more mental health services, steps to slow down climate change could help. But even if we can’t stop these things from happening, we can build supports to help us cope and knowing that support is there, can lessen the anxiety. The current attitude, though, is in the opposite direction. Our social safety net is being decimated. Cutting FEMA, loosening environmental regulations, reducing funding for mental health and pulling government resources from medical research are all disastrous policy choices.

More than that, though, the attitude that is allowing all this to happen flows from our president, his callousness, his thirst for revenge, his selfishness. We, the American people, are being led by someone who is a terrible role model, and we are worse for it. We cannot allow his character flaws to become part of our national character.

The danger is that if our lives are largely blessed, or if our vision is narrow, we can pretend all of this is not happening.

I hope your eyes are open. I hope, as we approach the midterm elections, you pick your head up and use a wide lens to look around and then vote accordingly. It’s not all good and if we continue on this road, we will no longer be the United State of America that I grew up believing in, its values established in the Declaration of Independence: 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.

*I note the archaic use of the term men and understand it to mean all humans.

Lady Liberty still stands in the harbor of New York City, as viewed from Governor’s Island on a recent visit.

Repeal the Second Amendment

Repeal the second amendment! I know that is an inflammatory statement, and maybe unpopular, too, but I need to put it out there.

It would be the ultimate irony if we made progress on gun control after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. My heart does go out to his family, and all those affected by gun violence. Charlie Kirk, though, does not deserve martyrdom. He did a great deal of damage, bringing a message of intolerance and divisiveness to young people on college campuses. I watched a number of videos of him espousing his beliefs. In some instances, I actually agreed with his point (I don’t think Cardi B is a great role model). However, even in those instances, he did it in a disrespectful, one-sided way. I don’t think Britney Spears or Madonna were great role models for little girls either – and for the same reason. We shouldn’t be sexualizing young girls. Why focus only on a Black star? But that isn’t my point, it is just illustrative of the problem with how Kirk approached things. His racism ran deep, and he was oblivious to his privilege. He shouldn’t be lionized in death.

Now back to my main point: we should repeal the second amendment. I welcome arguments to the contrary, but please don’t bother explaining the meaning of the second amendment to me – whether it was intended only for militias or individuals. I don’t care what our forefathers intended, just as I wouldn’t accept the argument that because our forefathers tolerated (supported? profited from? believed in? were indifferent to? – pick your verb) slavery, holds no water today. We know better. We should know better about guns.

For those who require guns to hunt, to protect livestock, to protect us, we can make provisions in law; we can set up mechanisms to allow for that. But, we have to let go of the notion that owning a gun is a God-given right. Some of us don’t believe in God, for one thing, but that aside, even if we can all agree in a common morality –  like ‘thou shall not kill’ – I don’t understand how that morality includes gun ownership.

The Bill of Rights protects our freedom. How do guns protect our freedom? I could more effectively argue that owning a car is more connected to being free in this country than having a gun. We don’t believe that owning a car is a God-given right. Someone explain to me, in the context of the world we live in now, how possessing a gun enhances your freedom, or is essential to your freedom.

Somewhere along the line we got things twisted in this country. There may have been a time when settling the ‘wild west’ or living a pioneer life, folks needed guns for their survival. That time has passed. As time went on, though, the gun became symbolic of something else (of rugged individualism, of strength, of masculinity…) – not just a tool to hunt or even to protect oneself. If we have gotten to the point where every man, woman and child needs a gun to protect themselves, we are lost.  

Most Democrats are not willing to say that the second amendment should be repealed. The attachment to guns is too strong, the gun lobby is too powerful (still! – despite the fact that the NRA has been discredited). I believe we need to be bolder. If we start from the presumption that we don’t have a God-given or forefather-given right to have a gun, so much becomes possible. We can still have shooting ranges. People can still hunt, though unless you hunt for food, I don’t understand the pleasure in that – but that is just me. Police and other security-related people can be armed. But it can all be regulated. And, it moves the question of regular folks having automatic weapons off the table – we wouldn’t need a special law to prohibit it. Think how much simpler it would be – we wouldn’t have to argue about what the second amendment actually means! We’d save millions of dollars in litigation costs.

I understand how freedom of speech, assembly, press and religion relate to freedom. It is a direct connection to the way we live our lives. I get why we have the Bill of Rights. Those activities are central, crucial to our liberty. It is not a slippery slope if we were to remove the second amendment. The right to bear arms has not made us more free and won’t make us more free. Hasn’t that point been made again and again over the last 25 years!?

I believe the exact opposite of what Charlie Kirk espoused. The second amendment is not worth the loss of life we as a country have endured. The rate of gun violence is too high a price to pay for the right to bear arms.

Will It Make Difference? It Is Up to Us

I watched chunks of Senator Cory Booker’s 25-hour speech in the Senate. I did not see or listen to the whole thing. I saw enough and read enough about it to offer some observations.

First, I was impressed with his stamina. My voice isn’t strong enough to talk for an hour, much less a full day. Yes, he had some breaks where other senators spoke, under the guise of asking questions, but he stood for all of that time and spoke with passion and emotion. It was quite a feat. It is not surprising that he was an athlete in college and continues to work on his fitness. As an amusing aside, my husband was impressed with his bladder. He needed control of both to get through that ordeal.

I saw some of the comments on social media during the event. Most lauded him. Of course, I live in a Democratic echo chamber, so I didn’t see much right-wing commentary. They may have been critical or sarcastic or who knows what – perhaps they mostly ignored it. Some, even in the progressive corner, were critical – saying it was a stunt or asking what good was it doing. I think there is a legitimate point there. It was a stunt. The question is: did it do any good?

It is true that Senator Booker wasn’t fillerbustering a proposed bill or administrative appointment. But, I think there was still merit to what he did. We need people to get motivated. We need people to be informed. To Booker’s credit, he didn’t read the phonebook like some in the past who have fillerbustered. He spoke substantively. Yes, some of it may have been repetitive, but there was a logic to that. After all, who would be watching the whole thing? Plus, people need the central messages to be repeated so they grasp them. It remains to be seen whether he was able to get folks energized.

Sadly, there are limits to what the Democrats can do to stymie Trump, especially given the aggressive, outside-the-norm, methods of slashing and burning government agencies that the administration is pursing. The Dems simply don’t have the numbers in Congress to stop legislation or prevent appointments. They are taking him to court, but that is slow and, in some cases, appears to be ineffective because rulings have been ignored. Plus, in many instances the damage has already been done. If someone is fired, or an office is closed, it isn’t so simple to just put it back in place even if there is a court order. There is likely mass confusion as to what happens next when an action has been countermanded.

For folks who are angry at the Dems, I ask: what would you have them do? It is easy to criticize. I criticize when they aren’t at least raising their voices. I was profoundly disappointed in Schumer’s capitulation on the budget. Perhaps he thought it was necessary to avoid a government shut down, and that may be so, but he should have put up more of a fight first. At least make some gestures at resistance – push them a little further, see if there is even some concession.

Aside from noting Booker’s stamina, I was impressed with his intelligence and passion. Some of his colleagues in the Senate showed themselves to be articulate and knowledgeable. We make fun of politicians for many reasons, accusing them of being self-serving or corrupt. Some may be that. But Tim Kaine, Senator from Viriginia, Chris Coons, Senator from Delaware, and Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut, were among the speakers who displayed deep knowledge and commitment. They deserve to be recognized and respected for their efforts. Unfortunately, the realities of power in our country require that elected officials raise crazy amounts of money to run for office, which leads them to have to practically sell their souls (or be ungodly rich themselves), and that, in turn, makes us suspicious. Add to that the idea that many of our fellow citizens don’t respect academic achievement, or value people who are intellectuals and you end up with someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene being more well-known and popular, instead of well-educated, widely-read public servants like the aforementioned senators.

I know many say that all politicians and all government workers are corrupt. I am not that cynical. I look at some of the individuals who spoke yesterday, most especially Cory Booker himself, and I believe their sincerity. I believe he is a man of genuine faith – not the false piety of Trump and many of his followers. You can disagree with Booker’s philosophy of government or his approach to the economy, but he speaks from his heart. He wants government to improve the lives of Americans. I can’t say the same about our president.

Will what Cory Booker did make a difference? Time will tell. I plan to attend the protest in Albany on April 5th. I plan to continue to express my opinions, on my blog and by writing to Senators and Representatives. I will support candidates whose platforms offer a better way forward. I hope others are similarly motivated. I hope the tide can turn. I have to believe that most Americans are unhappy with the approach to budget cutting that has been taken – the cumulative impacts will take time to register, but they will be real. They are not cutting waste, fraud and abuse. For all their talk about that, they haven’t taken the time to find it! Musk wants to cut and ask questions later. Sadly, the damage is already being done, we are beginning to suffer a brain drain where researchers and academics leave to more hospitable countries/institutions, among a myriad of other negative effects.

I applaud Senator Booker. I believe history will be kind to him. I just hope we can look back and see it as a turning point – not even so much a turning point in policy, but a turning point in our national dialogue, to put the focus on substantive issues and to place value on our democratic processes instead of the politics of divisiveness. I hope the Senator is proven right when he said that the power of the people is greater than the people in power. I hope we choose to wield it, rather than ceding it to Trump, Musk and DOGE. I hope enough of us are willing to make “good trouble.”

Democracy Hangs in the Balance

So much to say. I hope I can express it coherently.

I want to follow up on my last blog post which explored the role of the civil service. In that essay I mentioned that we all had a general understanding of the separation of powers. Now I’m thinking maybe we don’t. Given what has transpired in the last week, I think it is important we take a deeper look at the roles of the different branches of government. I have seen it at work up close and personal throughout my career. I believe it is an essential concept, a foundational construct, of our Constitutional democracy and it is being dismantled day by day.

Elon Musk, empowered by President Trump, is upending a structure that has existed for centuries, and he is doing it without a transparent plan for what replaces it. This is a critical issue. It isn’t simply reducing the size of the federal workforce that is underway here; it is the gutting of its ability to function. Some may think that there is so much fat in government that if you cut the staff you would still have an operating agency. That might have been true if cuts were planned, surgical reductions. Across the board cuts or offering all employees a buyout without regard to who is critical, eviscerates programs. In some instances, whole programs have been shuttered. Many of the cuts target either Trump’s perceived enemies or his and his billionaire friends’ interests – not the interests of the majority of Americans.

There are two problems with how things are proceeding. First is one of process – the way thing sare being done – they demonstrate a total disregard for laws and regulations in implementing these changes. The second is one of policy – what will be the consequences of these changes for the American people? Is this what we signed up for? These processes and policies have hurt people already and we have not even begun to feel the full impact.

Our Constitution does not empower an autocrat or an oligarchy. There is an executive, but that executive does not function as a legislature or judiciary. There can be some argument about where the line between making the laws and executing the laws is drawn – and the courts mediate that – but there IS A LINE. Let’s take a look at the line.

I worked years ago for the Legislative Commission on Expenditure Review in New York State. This entity was a bipartisan committee that had staff charged with reviewing programs to see if they were complying with legislative intent. In other words, we would look at the language of the legislation that authorized a given program, for example purchasing by the Office of General Services, to see if the program was operating in accordance with the law. To understand the purpose of the program, we looked beyond the plain language of the statute. We looked at the history of the bill (the bill jacket) and then we reviewed the operations in practice. The purpose of our review was not a traditional financial audit, that was the responsibility of the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC). We audited the performance of the program. Was it effective? Was it efficient? Was it accomplishing its mission? Was it being done in compliance with the law? We made recommendations when there were areas that were falling short.

So, that is how it is supposed to work: The Legislature, with input from the Governor’s office and the public, enacts a bill; the Governor signs the bill and it becomes law. Funding, negotiated by the Governor and Legislature in the budget process, is allocated. An Executive branch agency, as directed by the Governor, creates that program. The Executive branch implements and administers it, enacting regulations through administrative procedures (which the public can comment on) to flesh things out. The Legislature periodically oversees the program by having staff review it. A separate entity, OSC, reviews the financial operation. In sum, power and accountability is shared.

This balance of powers, this separation of responsibilities, plays out at the federal level, too. The names of the entities are different, but the functions are performed by separate entities.  Power is not concentrated in any one branch. Is there potential for leakage? Are there instances where the system doesn’t work? Absolutely. Especially when Congress fails to act by not fulfilling its responsibilities.

Legislation can be vague. The Executive is left to interpret things and in that process a program can go sideways or it may overreach. Oversight can be inadequate. Oversight activities, within an agency and by the legislature can be underfunded and understaffed given the breadth and scope of the work of government. Agencies themselves have a role in preventing corruption by having internal controls and systems set up to prevent and/or detect malfeasance or other inappropriate actions. Inspector generals (IGs) and internal auditors within departments help to oversee this, in addition to the separate entities I described above. Removing those internal checks and balances threatens the integrity of the agency. We have seen the removal of IGs already. At the federal level the Government Accountability Office (GAO) performs a similar role as the state’s OSC. Congressional committees are responsible for oversight. All of this might be clumsy and time consuming, but it serves a purpose. Private sector entities can afford to be more streamlined, though they have some of the same concerns and limitations.

As is always the case there is a balance. Oversight is costly and you don’t want to create a whole other bureaucracy parallel to the one that is performing the service. But, some checks are necessary and pay for themselves by preventing or recovering losses. Finding the balance is difficult, but ridding the system of the whole process is certainly not the answer!

What happens when all of that is stripped away – both the separation of powers and the oversight – as is happening with the Trump administration? What will replace it? The judgement of one man, or a committee of men? Why should we trust them? What are their interests? What happens when Congress forfeits its authority and responsibility to oversee activities, as the Republicans appear to be doing? The system, carefully calibrated to prevent concentration of power and corruption, is rendered impotent. Is that what the American people want?

As I argued in my last blog post, we need to improve the system. We need to address the paralysis that plagues our Congress so that it can function as intended. But, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The checks and balances, the division of responsibilities must be preserved. We can’t allow Trump and Musk to ransack our democracy. Please write and/or call your representatives!

In Defense of American Government

For a while, after the election, I put my head firmly in the sand. I could not follow the news. It was all too overwhelming. But, there was only so long I could maintain that approach. I have looked up and I am frightened by what I see of the actions taken by the Trump administration. I cannot be silent.

I started this essay about a week ago and I keep having to change it, add to it, amend it. I can’t keep up with the transgressions. It is also hard to prioritize which of his moves are the scariest. Right now, I am leaning toward Elon Musk hooking up private servers to the Office of Personnel Management to communicate with all federal employees (and have access to all of their information). No one elected Elon Musk, and that is just the first problem with this scenario.

Perhaps in second place is the attack on DEI, especially blaming it for the tragic collision between the jet and the army helicopter resulting in the loss of 67 lives. Again, there are so many things wrong with the Trump Administration’s reaction to that calamity that it is hard to know where to start. One can assume that whenever things go wrong the playbook will call for blaming previous administrations and DEI.

It seems like the Trump administration strategy as they start their new term is the equivalent of a military blitz. Send everything in all at once so we are caught off guard and don’t know what to respond to first. Before you know it, the whole system will be upended. Some may have voted for him for that, but I don’t think the majority did. In fact, when you look at the numbers, Trump didn’t even win a clear majority of the vote. He has no mandate. Upending the system will have many unintended consequences (or if they were intended, they will be damaging in ways most Americans did not sign up for).

I have a master’s degree in public administration and policy from Columbia University. I completed my comprehensive exam to earn a PhD in public administration and policy at the University at Albany, but I did not write a dissertation – that means that I took all the coursework for that advanced degree but didn’t do the final piece. I share this because I have some background, some credentials, with which to evaluate what the Trump administration is doing. Most people do not want to get bogged down in the weeds of policy or administration. I understand that, and I am not going to go that far in this essay, but we do need to take look behind the rhetoric.

Most of us learned, at some point, about the separation of powers which characterize our government structure. You don’t need to go to graduate school to understand that. At a fundamental level, Trump was violating that by trying to freeze federal funds already approved by Congress. He offered no rationale or plan for going forward. Fortunately, his power grab was stopped, but it will not be the last attempt. We will face similar challenges in the future and these questions will need to be faced:  Should federal agencies even comply with those orders? Are they constitutional? If they are unconstitutional, can they be disobeyed? Do they have to be obeyed until the courts decide? Meanwhile, how much damage will be done? Which brings us to a subject that is not sexy but may be increasingly important in this current environment: the role of the civil servant.

One of the first things you learn when you go to graduate school in public administration is the history of the civil service. I will not bore you with the details. It is important, though, to know why, in a general sense, we have that system. It was installed as a response to rampant corruption and a belief that the government was not being responsive to the people who fund it. Before the civil service existed, government hiring was through the spoils system – where family members and loyalists were rewarded by elected officials with positions in government without regard to their competence. It was called the spoils system from President Andrew Jackson’s quote ‘to the victor goes the spoils.’

This led to two major problems – ineffective policy and a culture of bribery. The needs of the people were not a priority. This was how things were run from 1828 (before 1828 it was also a system of patronage, but positions were awarded to elites; Andrew Jackson broadened it to include the ‘common man’ in 1828) until 1893 when the Pendleton Act was passed and created the federal civil service. Most states followed suit and created their own versions. It is important to note that the civil service does not cover the highest positions in federal or state agencies. It was understood that it was appropriate that the leadership reflect the will of the President. Secretaries/commissioners of departments and layers below that are political appointees. There was also recognition that under those policy-making positions it was important to have a class of employee who was not beholden to politics or parties, who could maintain stability and provide service when administrations changed – thus the creation of the civil service.

An essential element of the civil service was to provide a pathway to jobs with the government that was open to all, as opposed to through connections or bribery, and that would test for competency. Over the years the system has evolved with more specialized testing especially as government work required more expertise (lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc.).  There have also been measures to make the workforce more reflective of the demographics of the country, ensuring that barriers to women and minorities were removed.

The civil service system has its flaws. For one thing, tests are never perfect. There is also no question that it is too difficult to fire employees who are lazy or inept or worse. But that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to improve the system. President Trump appears to be trying to circumvent the whole structure. It suits his agenda to have everyone beholden to him and the MAGA universe. This would be a case of history repeating itself if we don’t learn from what happened before.

There is another aspect of this changing perspective on civil servants that deserves attention. Starting in about 1980, with the candidacy and election of Ronald Reagan, there has been a steady stream of insults hurled at government employees. Some of that may be a result of those flaws in the civil service system mentioned above. I think of the negative experiences many had with the Department of Motor Vehicles back in the 1970s when a trip to apply for or renew a driver’s license was an all-day affair in Brooklyn. The public facing clerks could be surly and seemingly inefficient. But, that was not an indictment of government as a whole. It was a failure of management and some aspects of the system, but it does not follow that we don’t need a Department of Motor Vehicles or the civil service. In fact, today, I believe, the DMV functions pretty effectively. We renew our licenses (for the most part) and registration online. When we go to the office, it is set up to process customers efficiently. Vehicles do need to be registered, and they need to be inspected. We need commercial trucks to be regulated for the safety of everyone on the roads.

We can argue about how much government is necessary; how much regulation is needed when balanced with the red tape created. That is fair game, and we can agree to disagree. But, disparaging the public workforce is counterproductive. Who wants to go into public service when it is so disrespected? So devalued? Government needs the best and brightest. I will never understand politicians who degrade the folks who implement their policies.

I went into public service because I wanted to help people. I wanted to make a difference in the quality of life of my community, to contribute what I could to improving services. Sometimes I felt frustrated because the work I did was far removed from that goal, so I looked for other opportunities. But even when I was buried in the bureaucracy of the department of tax and finance, I still believed I was doing something worthy. Collecting taxes in a fair and efficient manner is necessary. No one likes paying taxes, but without them essential services can’t be delivered.

The take-aways I offer are four-fold:

  1. Know our history – let’s not repeat the errors we have made in the past.
  2. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Change structures, improve efficiency, but we should not dismantle whole systems impulsively and without planning for what replaces it and understanding why it was established in the first place.
  3. Stop demeaning public service. Even if you are a libertarian, you need to value the essential work of the government and the people who do it. Insulting people is unhelpful to say the least.
  4. Recognize that public and private management are different in important ways. The model of private business, where profit is the motive, is often not appropriate for the provision of public goods. Sometimes it may fit, and it may make sense to move certain functions to the private sector or adopt their systems, but many services don’t lend themselves to that approach.

We can’t sit back and allow the dismantling of our government without proper checks and balances. We need to make sure Congress hears us. We need to support organizations that are bringing lawsuits that raise legitimate questions about whether constitutional lines are being crossed. Please pay attention. Though it is tempting to put my head back in the sand, none of us can afford to do that.

a few of the books in my library

My Closing Argument

I can’t wait for this election to be over. The relentless ads on tv, the frequent text and email solicitations for money, the anxiety about the country’s future are all hard to put aside. No matter what happens, it will be a relief when it’s over.

That’s not true, exactly. I will not be relieved if Trump wins and/or if there is a red wave. I will be devastated, as I was in 2016 when I didn’t want to get out of bed for days after. But, I will try to take heart in the surprising closing message of Jon Stewart at his performance at the Palace Theater in Albany, which I enjoyed very much. He pointed out that democracy is work that doesn’t end. Regardless of the result on election day, we need to soldier on, doing our part every day to work for the ideas we believe in, not just on a single election day. He reminded us how shattered we were after 9/11. We thought the world would never be ‘normal’ again, and in some ways, it was forever changed. But we couldn’t give up, we needed to continue to participate in our civic life. We can’t give up hope, hard as that might be. So, I am promising myself, if I need to mourn for a bit, I will, but then I will pick myself back up and keep trying to make this country a better place in whatever ways I can.

But, before I turn the page on this presidential campaign, I have some thoughts to share. I doubt many of my readers are Trump supporters, though there may be a few. I have always tried to be respectful. I don’t like the crude remarks or snarky takes that insult folks who view things differently than I do and I don’t plan to start now. I do need to ask a few serious questions for those who are planning to vote for him:

After Trump’s behavior these past few weeks, do you believe he is fit for office? For those who believed in him in 2016 or even in 2020, do you not see the changes? He is more impulsive and less coherent. Those are not qualities a president should have.

So many of those who served under him have abandoned him. Are they all part of some vast conspiracy? The generals? The cabinet members? His vice president? His daughter? No one is continuing to stand by him. Doesn’t that say something important about what they know about him?

For those who say ‘policy’ is the reason for voting for him, what policy? Is it about prices in the grocery store? If so, there are many factors that led to inflation (pandemic and supply chain issues to name two) that would have happened even if there had been a different president. Our rate of inflation, aside from the fact that it has been brought under control without a recession, is far less than other countries. Also, just as the health of our economy is more than the Dow Jones Industrial Average, it is more than the price of eggs.

Is it about the border? Do you really believe immigrants are ruining this country? Where is the evidence of that? How has your life deteriorated as a result of the influx of immigrants? Is crime that much worse and if it is, is it because of immigrants? I don’t believe the data supports that crime is worse, much less that the crimes that are committed are by illegal immigrants (other than sensationalized, or in some cases fabricated, stories on social media). My experience here in Albany and in NYC doesn’t back up those claims either. All of which isn’t to say that illegal immigration isn’t an issue that needs to be addressed. The demands on social services and housing, among other things, are challenging, especially to our cities. We can’t simply have open borders, but exaggerating the problem doesn’t help to solve it (neither did tanking the border bill). And blaming Kamala Harris for it is absurd.

Trump supporters like to ask if you are better off today than you were four years ago. By what measure? Four years ago, we were in the midst of the pandemic. Before vaccines, before treatments. Well over a million Americans died of Covid. Other than the divisiveness stoked by Trump, I do believe we are better off today.

Is Israel your reason for supporting Trump? Trump is an opportunist who will support whoever or whatever is in his self-interest at the time – the Saudis, Putin, possibly Netanyahu (maybe not, if he thinks Bibi doesn’t like him anymore). The incidence of antisemitism has soared since Trump came on the scene. How do you square those things? And, in order to support Israel, we need to be a functioning democracy not an oligarchy or monarchy.

Do you think children are going to school as one sex and coming home another, as Trump claims? Schools can’t apply sunscreen without parental permission. Not to mention that it takes more than a day to transition. Having worked in education policy for many years, I am well aware of the complicated questions posed by students who are trans, especially in regard to the role of parents. But, making trans students, or trans citizens in general, some kind of crisis (it can be a crisis for those individuals and families) that threatens our nation is ridiculous. I urge everyone to watch the movie Will and Harper (it’s on Netflix) to get some perspective on this. These are human beings who face challenges, not freaks who endanger our way of life.

Do you believe Kamala Harris is ‘dumb as a rock,’ to quote Trump? Really? I hear an articulate, intelligent woman. I see and hear people surrounding her who are competent and educated, not the racist, misogynist venom that spewed at the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden (and not just from that vile comedian).

Bottom line, for me, isn’t policy, though anyone who knows me, knows policy is near and dear to my heart. The bottom line is that Donald Trump is a despicable human being. He has normalized lying and cheating. I do not want my grandchildren to watch him or hear him. Our president, even if I disagree with their policies, should be someone children can watch without worrying that they will hear or see lewdness or vulgarity. And, I have granddaughters!!!! – I haven’t even mentioned reproductive rights. Or January 6th! I won’t get started on those or I will be writing another thousand words.

I will get off my soap box now. Honestly, after all of this, if you are still voting for Trump, please, please don’t tell me.

Turning the Page…I Hope

On July 8, 2024 I posted a blog asking Joe Biden and Donald Trump to step aside. One of them did. On July 21st, President Biden stopped his campaign and endorsed Kamala Harris. Before I published that blog, I sent an email to the White House thanking President Biden for his excellent service but suggesting that it was time to end his candidacy in favor of a younger person. Do you think I can take credit for his decision? Have I become an influencer? I’d like to take credit. I’m kidding, of course, I am not delusional. Without taking undue responsibility, I will admit to being relieved and energized by the turn of events.

Now if only the Republicans would take heed of the Democrats’ success and dump Trump and offer America a good alternative, then we could have a real, substantive contest. We have a close race now, but for many of us the possibility of another Trump presidency is horrifying. He is not a serious person, he is a cartoon character who doesn’t have values or policies; and, more than that, he is dangerous because he is impulsive and ill-informed. It would be better for our country if we could choose between two respectable, intelligent people who simply represent different visions of how the country can achieve success.

I did not watch a lot of the Democratic Convention. I saw snippets and caught up with some of the speeches after the fact. The most meaningful scene that I did watch live was Tim Walz’s speech when his son leapt up in enthusiasm and love and shouted, “That’s my Dad!” How could you not get chills and/or cry seeing that? This moved me on many levels. First, I am thrilled that the Walz family and the campaign saw no need to hide Gus (I don’t know what went on behind the scenes, hopefully campaign advisors had either no say in how this was handled or were supportive of his visibility). Not that long ago, I can imagine that a candidate might make a different choice.  Gus may have an observable disability, but that should not be a bar to participating in his family’s moment of pride. He should be there to celebrate and express himself (as long as it was a healthy, positive choice for him). It is important for us as a society to see the full range of humanity.

Then there is the freedom with which Gus showed his emotion. Good for him! Many of us, including women, are much more constrained. We can all learn from that and get comfortable with tears of joy and sorrow. Though it may be more socially acceptable for women to cry, at least in some contexts, it can still be judged negatively. I find it ironic that Trump’s histrionics are ignored, and even celebrated, but Gus’ s tears have been mocked on right wing social media. For folks who make those kinds of comments, the world is upside down. Cruelty is celebrated, signs of strength are seen as signs of weakness, wrong is right…that is Trump World.

It was also heartening to see such a raw, genuine expression of love for his father. It says something important about Tim Walz and his character. After his selection as the nominee, I did some reading about him. Before I knew next to nothing beyond that he is governor of Minnesota and I might not have even known that! The articles I read revealed that he was an exemplary teacher (in my view, excellent teachers share many of the qualities of wonderful parents). Former students have said glowing things about him. If you haven’t read this article, which recounts how his class predicted the Rwandan genocide, I urge you to. It is an example of what fine teachers can do: provide students with an opportunity to think, to analyze and to understand. They participated in an exercise that went beyond learning important dates and names and gave them skills and ideas that will make them better citizens of the world. Here is the link to that article: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/education/23education.html

This type of teaching makes me think of my dad, who was also a high school social studies teacher who wrote curriculum on the Holocaust, and that is a high compliment. Dad was a great teacher and father.

The more I read, the more I see of them, the more impressed I am with the Harris/Walz team. Maybe, just maybe, we are beginning to turn the corner. I am hopeful that the fever has broken and Trump’s hold on the Republican party and a good portion of America is breaking. There is plenty of room in America for different views of policy without the vitriol, without the ugly threats and negativity, without the fear of devolving into violence. Let’s do our part to turn the page.

It’s NOT the Economy, Stupid

Maybe it’s just me, but the political narrative that gets presented in the media makes no sense. I’m listening to a podcast where New York Times columnists are talking about the relatively healthy economy and why people are still not optimistic or confident in it. They are hypothesizing about Covid lag, lingering inflation, negative feelings about Joe Biden. Those things may be relevant, but I don’t think that is what is at play in the poll numbers.

I think the reason the polls show negativity is because, though the survey questions may target the economy, people are pessimistic because the world is going to shit. Everywhere you look, it is scary. I think this view applies to Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Personally, I find the divisiveness in our country, whether it is around Trump’s trials, the war in Gaza, global warming or the issues the panelists were talking about (lingering effects of Covid and inflation), call into question whether we will be able to come together to address the problems. I don’t think I am alone in being pessimistic. We are a country famous, maybe even envied, for our optimism. I’m not sure that still applies.

In fact, just the other day I was at a gathering at my daughter’s house. A friend of hers was talking about his lack of hope generally, that it was hard to find things that inspired confidence in the future. He made the point that one of the few bright spots, something he was grateful for, was the young children of his friends. When he looked at them, their innocence and promise, it made him feel better. The man who was expressing this thought is in his mid-thirties.

Ever since that march in Charlottesville in August of 2017, the Unite the Right Rally where folks were marching with tiki torches, and our President couldn’t condemn it, I have been uneasy. I imagine for some that might not have been as seminal a moment as it was for me, but there have been so many things that have happened since then that make me question whether we live in the same reality. That event hit me hard. I thought I was watching something that happened fifty years ago, not a protest in an enlightened college town. And things have only gotten worse. The chasm has widened.

There is the possibility that we have always been this divided, but we just didn’t know it. People’s ugliest thoughts weren’t broadcast on social media. If someone stood on a soap box in a town square, even Union Square in New York City, and proclaimed that (insert your favorite scapegoats) were the devil, it was likely to fall on deaf ears. Now that person gets support from people across the globe who share a similar warped world view and the idea gets momentum. It also gets overrepresented in the social media narrative because it generates clicks – controversy or outrageousness always does. It is hard to get a handle on how many believers there really are when you have bots and trolls and foreign and domestic agents who benefit from the chaos.

If you ask me that classic question, “Are you better off today than four years ago?” I don’t know how to answer that. My economic situation is about the same, maybe better, but the precariousness of the health of the world, in every sense, affects my response. My feeling has little to do with Joe Biden or his policies. To me it feels like he is working to hold back a tsunami of terrible things – trying to preserve women’s reproductive rights, slowing climate change, bolstering the economy, minimizing inflation, reducing tensions in the Middle East, addressing crime, the list can go on. Some would include the southern border as a crisis. In some ways it is, but in other ways it is a manufactured panic. There are real problems with our immigration system, but some politicians are invested in keeping it a problem rather than making it better. I think Biden is doing a reasonable job against staggering obstacles. He has not created these problems.

No matter how good a job he does, though, it pales in comparison to the challenges. And it is done in the setting of unprecedented division.

I see footage of what is going on at Columbia University and other college campuses where backers of Palestinians have set up encampments to protest United States support of Israel and the universities’ investment in Israel and/or our defense industry that aids Israel. Separate and apart from the rightness or wrongness of the protesters’ positions (a topic for another essay), there is a way to get your message across effectively. If the idea is to win people over to your side, persuade them of the righteousness of your position, it isn’t by shutting down traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge or harassing Jewish students or impeding folks from getting to their calculus class. In most cities, (perhaps all cities – I am not a lawyer) you need a permit to stage a protest or march. There is good reason for this. It goes back to the balancing of different legitimate interests: the protesters and other citizens going about their lives. It is fine to disrupt the routine, to a degree. But you can’t purposely jeopardize public safety. I’ve attended any number of rallies for causes. I believe in showing up to voice my opinion on public policy, but there is a way to do it. Chanting hateful slogans doesn’t help either.

We live in confusing times. I think the polls reflect people’s general uneasiness, not a judgment of the economy. I wish Biden was more effective at communicating his vision for the future of our country. I do fault him for not showing clarity of purpose and leadership, but I don’t hold him responsible for the sorry state of our union. I believe we are suffering the effects of the cynicism, greed and fear that has become the stock and trade of the Republican party, along with the poisonous influence of social media over the last decade. Add in natural disasters which are increasingly frequent with climate change, seemingly endless wars across the globe and it feels overwhelming. I don’t know what the solution is, but we need to understand and acknowledge what we are dealing with before we can find answers. Polls are not shedding light on the issue. We need to be asking different questions.

Conundrums

I was listening to the local NPR station the other day. First there was a story about NYC suing bus companies which have been ferrying immigrants from Texas to the city. I wondered about the wisdom of that suit. Are the bus companies at fault? Clearly, the city is desperate to get a handle on the immigration “crisis”? Note: I am putting quotes around crisis because I am skeptical about the word in this context. It has been called a crisis for decades.

Following that story there was another report on a bill proposed by two lawmakers in New York State to appoint a commission to study the continued loss of population by the state. The latest census figures showed New York as one of the biggest losers of population in the country. This is a concern on many levels – mostly for the state’s economy and future vibrancy.

Does anyone else see an irony in airing these stories back-to-back?

Maybe immigrants could address the problem of the population loss? Maybe they could invigorate communities that are struggling?

I am not naïve. I understand that uncontrolled immigration is problematic. I believe that there are security concerns posed by folks streaming in through unregulated borders. We need to be able to have an organized process for admitting people into the country – so they are registered and authorized to work, drive, pay taxes, etc. I also understand that some of the people arriving come without resources or education and therefore have real needs. They may not be in a position to the hit the ground running, so to speak, and be immediately contributing members of our society. By the same token, we have many demands as a society: for elder care, child care, agricultural workers, etc., etc., which immigrants may be able to fill. I am not talking about taking advantage of those immigrants – I am talking about meaningful employment that allows them to establish lives and plant roots.

It seems to me that some creative problem-solving could address this challenge if we stripped away the fear-mongering and xenophobia. [And if we demanded that the ultra-rich paid their fair share of taxes.]

That’s just one of many perplexing conundrums I have been noticing.

The resignation of Claudine Gay as president of Harvard is another puzzle. Some folks believe she should have resigned after her miserable performance at the congressional hearing where she was asked about antisemitism on campus. Whether she was over-prepped by lawyers or genuinely unable to acknowledge the need to offer protection to Jewish students due to her own bias, she was certainly tone-deaf. Then the revelations about plagiarism came out. Depending on what you read, those instances are either minor oversights or significant breaches of standards of scholarship.

According to Gay’s statement, it sounds like she believes she has been subjected to a relentless racist campaign that resulted in the need for her to step down. From her perspective, resigning was about putting an end to the harassment and allowing Harvard to move forward, rather than admitting to any substantive wrongdoing.

I am frustrated by this. I want there to be clarity. Her resignation should either be an appropriate result of her academic impropriety or her inability to successfully manage the institution, or both, but not because she was unjustly run out of town. I don’t doubt she has been subjected to racist vitriol – those ugly voices are very loud. But, I want an objective assessment of her scholarship. I want to better understand how she responded to the complaints of Jewish students who felt unsafe. Is it even possible in this day and age to assess these things impartially. Whose judgement can we trust?

I believe that higher ed needs diverse representation. I believe in the goals of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). How those programs are implemented is where the challenge lies. I believe there are deserving candidates – persons of color and individuals from historically marginalized communities – who are qualified to be university presidents. It feels like we are in an impossible position. Can someone who is white be appointed without everyone complaining about ‘privilege’? Can someone who is Black be appointed without arousing suspicion about their qualifications? There is no trust – and therein lies the conundrum. How do we rebuild it – if it ever existed to begin with? There are so many voices of cynicism that they can drown out the hope if we let them.

That lack of trust is the common thread between these two scenarios. We don’t trust our institutions and we don’t trust ‘others,’ people not of our tribe. That has to change.

I have written this many times before, here it is again: I will hold on to hope that we can find creative solutions to these conundrums and that we can find a way to trust our institutions (not blindly, but with proper checks and balances). We must find common ground and let go of prejudice. We have to find a way to build a foundation of trust. I will be listening for voices who can lead us in that direction.

The Power of Words

I often begin blog posts by referring to an interview or podcast I listened to. This one is no exception. George Packer, a journalist and novelist perhaps best known for his writings on American foreign policy, was a guest on Preet Bharara’s Stay Tuned. Most of their discussion was about the status of the United States as a world leader (lots to worry about there, but not the subject of this essay). Toward the end of the interview, they turned to a subject of particular interest to me – the use of language and whether we are increasingly limiting ourselves by removing words that have negative connotations. It is a variation of the idea that it is problematic to be ‘woke.’  As I wrote previously, I strive to be woke and see it as a good thing. However, I thought Mr. Packer had a point. He wasn’t taking aim at ‘wokeness,’ per se, he was voicing his concern that, taken to an extreme, the idea that we can’t hurt anyone’s feelings could prevent us from identifying and solving serious problems. The example he gave related to words used to describe poverty – for instance, poor, impoverished, disadvantaged, at-risk. Apparently, all of these words/phrases have been identified as loaded and therefore to be avoided.

First question: who is doing the identifying? Packer explained that many nonprofit organizations, he cited the Sierra Club as a prominent one, have come out with ‘equity guides.’ These guides provide lists of words that should not be used, and he said they provide clunky, bland alternatives (for example, instead of ‘paralyzed with fear,’ they substitute refused to take action). He characterized the people behind these guides as a small group of educated elites. He thought that though they were well-intentioned, they were doing more harm than good. Packer’s main point was that we need to be less worried about the words and more concerned about the underlying problem that the word describes. I was intrigued by his argument.

I wondered if I would draw the same conclusion as Packer if I looked at the guide, so I googled a few. I also read his article in the Atlantic in which he fleshes out his argument (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/04/equity-language-guides-sierra-club-banned-words/673085/).

The Sierra Club equity guide is a 30 page pamphlet which provides much food for thought (here is the link if you want to check it out yourself https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce-authors/u12332/Equity%20Language%20Guide%20Sierra%20Club%202021.pdf). Included in it are references to many other style guides (I counted 9 of them!) as source material.

First, some context. Most news organizations and magazines have style guides – the Associated Press (AP) style guide is one that is frequently cited. If you write for those entities, they have established standards you are expected to follow. Organizations which put out frequent press releases or social media posts or are routinely called upon by the media to express positions are also likely to have one – that is why the Sierra Club has one, as does the American Cancer Society. The equity guide is an offshoot (part of) of the style guide.

Another aspect of the context relates to the Sierra Club specifically. They, like many organizations, have a complicated history in terms of their relationship to historically marginalized communities. In the past the club has mostly been thought of as the purview of white, male environmentalists. As the country has changed, and as the damage done by climate change has hit more broadly, they have needed to reach a more diverse constituency. If they are going to do that successfully, they need to understand those communities and use accessible language. They have taken positions in the past that hurt those communities.  In addition, the original founder, John Muir, was known to use racist language. Thus, the organization felt it had some work to do to repair the damage. That said, equity guides are prevalent beyond this particular nonprofit and Packer believes that as it seeps into the mainstream, it will erode our ability to tell the truth.

So, is there a problem with the equity guide, as Packer argues? My conclusion: Yes and no.

The main impetus of the guide is to remind its users to put people first. I became acquainted with this notion years ago when I was cautioned not to refer to a person with diabetes as a diabetic. A person is more than any single aspect of their identity, whether it be their illness, disability, religion, occupation, etc. It may not seem like a big thing, but I believe it is meaningful and worth reminding folks.

Another main point of the pamphlet is to ask people how they would like to be identified. It reminds us not to make assumptions based on appearance, and to use the terms the individual themselves would like to use. This applies especially to race and gender. To me this is common sense advice and simple enough to follow.

They also ask writers to evaluate whether the descriptor is germane to the subject. Do we need to know the person’s age or race or gender? We are conditioned to include some of those characteristics, but it is worth asking ourselves the question. Is it relevant or does it just contribute to stereotyping? If we are trying to paint a picture of a person or a situation, maybe more specific adjectives would do a better job.

So far so good.

Where things get problematic, and where Packer has a point, is in the avoidance of words that make us uncomfortable. If we are talking about poverty, neighborhoods that are poor, we can’t use euphemisms. It is what it is. The folks who live in those communities know they are poor and/or working class. It won’t come as a surprise to them. The problem isn’t the words. The problem is, in my estimation, the assumptions that get made because of that condition. Just as we should not define an individual by a single characteristic (diabetic), we must not define a whole community by one issue (i.e., its crime rate or the percent who live below the poverty line). We often write-off those communities or try to ignore them. But, we must not ignore all the people who are trying to raise families, make a living, lead healthy, productive lives in those communities. We need to remember that in those communities lots of good things are happening – there is culture, art, humor, good food, etc., etc. No matter what words we ultimately use to describe poverty, it is the associated assumptions that are dangerous, not the words themselves.

Words have power. We need to be mindful of how we use them. Sometimes we need to vividly describe a problem to move people to action. At the same time, we shouldn’t be careless about hurting folks. On balance, I think the equity guides are a good thing. Some of its advice borders on silly (I sincerely doubt that a person in a wheelchair would be offended by using the phrase ‘paralyzed with fear,’ or that a blind person would object to the phrase ‘blind rage’ – though it would be interesting to ask a group), but users of the guide can make their own judgments. In fact, the pamphlets make a point of telling readers to do that, especially in view of regional and local standards. The guides could be problematic if a given organization implements it as if it is law, without leaving room for nuance or the wisdom of the people on the ground. But, if it is a tool to raise awareness and offer alternatives, then it isn’t the bogeyman Packer sets it up to be. As with many things, the question of whether it is a good or bad thing depends on how it is used.