Category: politics

Trust but Verify

~ purplesage41 ~ Leave a comment

Or in an Arabic saying, Trust Allah but tie up your camel.  In a world of hackers, scammers, shooters, liars, and broken promises, in whom can we trust? Our national motto is “IN God we trust, but some of us need to have an actual person in whom to trust as well as institutions that we can trust.

The word used for faith in Saint Paul’s dictum “Faith, hope, love, these abound; but the greatest of these is love.”  If faith is a matter of factual belief, then it is most helpful to me. I do believe the earth revolves around the sun and smoking can cause cancer, but I do not believe that the myths of any of the major religions are true in the same literal sense. I trust science because that approach to knowledge has created major safeguards to avoid any false propositions to be confirmed.  Science doesn’t give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but it does pretty well at offering truth and nothing but. I more or less trust science. 

The opposite of faith in either meaning, belief or trust, is doubt. When we no longer trust the systems and institutions that have served us well in the past, we tend to retreat to what theologian Paul Tillich described as a limited defensible fortress. His fortress was one of ideas, but it can also include people and institutions.

I used to trust the rule of law and the legal system, but recent events have raised serious doubts about the ability and willingness of elected officials to enforce courts decisions. I used to trust financial systems, but they are no longer as well safeguarded as they once were. Right now, I trust the accuracy of election results, but I’m not sure that the elaborate safeguards that protect the election process can be trusted in the future. I have serious doubts about crypto and artificial intelligence and ensuring peace by always being over-prepared for war. I used to trust the full faith and credit of the United States Government, but that was before our national debt grew to be as big as our GDP and growing faster. I used to trust the evening news, but now I have to seek confirmation.

Trust breeds hope, even optimism.  Doubt creates fear, and pessimism.  What can we as individuals do to reverse the direction of living under a cloud of doubt, at sea without rudder or compass, and no land in sight?

My answer, at least a partial answer, comes from three great minds.  One is Ben Franklin, who at the signing of the Declaration of Independence said, “We must all hang together or we will all hang separately.”  The second is theologian Joanna Macy, who argues that neither optimism nor pessimism is the foundation of any strategy—optimists believe that everything will be all right, and pessimism believe we are doomed and powerless to stop it.  She calls us to active hope, to fight the good fight, knowing that what we seek to accomplish may not be accomplished in our lifetimes. (Especially mine. I am 84!) We a called to active hope, to pick out parts of the perceived doomsday machine and throw a monkey wrench into the works.  The third piece of wisdom comes from Margaret Mead, who said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. “

Together the sages Franklin, Macy and Mead call us into community, to find people we can trust and work with them to reclaim our democracy, our rule of law, and our country. And to do it is peaceably lest we become like those who lost or stole our trust (civil disobedience is fine,). Friends. Religious communities. Nonpartisan organizations. Women’s suffrage took 72 years. Civil rights came slowly and are being rapidly demolished  in many ways.

Finally, there is a matter of picking your fights—what issues and what tools.  Ask yourself what gifts you have and what issues you are passionate about. Those two questions may steer you in the direction of people, information sources, and communities that can get you out of the fug and on the path

My gifts are writing, speaking, and organizational leadership. My issues are protecting democracy. economic justice, and reproductive rights. I am careful about whom I trust, and I depend on several organized communities that share those goals and can offer me support and companionship. 

What are your gifts and issues? Do you have such communities? How can they help you use your gifts and passions to practice active hope?

Head or Heart?

~ purplesage41 ~ Leave a comment

For most of this seemingly endless election year, Republicans have been speaking to the emotions while Democrats were speaking to the reasoning mind. President Biden was calmly reciting the many accomplishments of his administration while Republicans painted government as an overweening threat to our personal freedom and our cherished values. Their affirming audience resonating with that campaign style included (among others) evangelical Christians of a certain focus (abortion), white men who resented upstart women and minorities, and gun lovers (as in “they want to take away our guns!”). The language of fear, anger, and despair were the vehicles to convey empathy for those who felt ignored or even persecuted by a government that catered to women, immigrants, and poor people, and was prone to making rules that everyone had to obey.

Suddenly and with little warning, everything changed in July.  Biden out, Harris in.  Remarkably, a prosecutor turned attorney general turned senator turned Vice-President, and a woman o color to boot, was a powerful instrument in turning the flailing Democrats into the party of hope, joy, and unity, with the able assistance of a folksy high school teacher and coach turned Congressman turned governor. Republicans, who in the Trump era have been avoiding most serious policy discussions that appeal to the reasoning mind, preferred a message of fear and anger, but were stuck with trying to disown or explain away Project 2025,. This very wordy 900 page document appealed to the left bbrain with a detailed blueprint for a totalitarian Republican administration.

Nods of assent to proposed policies have always taken a back seat to the gut sense of connecting through the emotions when it comes to choosing a president.. Yes, policy matters, but voters know that the problems the next president has to address may be very different from what is going on right now or in the immediate past. So they are looking for clues about he or she thinks and feels and makes decisions. Those clues are found in the message it conveys about whose concerns are going to get the most attention in the next administration.  In general, polls always ask about issues, but  people vote as much or not more with their gut rather than their brain. Those poll responses about what issues matter most to them are probably the product of rationalizing their feelings than analyzing the costs and benefits of child tax care credits or the price of insulin.

If emotions are the key to successful campaigning (just like advertising), the important question in the 2024 Presidential election is, which emotions does the candidate want to evoke? Does love cast out fear? Does hope triumph over anger or despair?  After eight years of an endless campaign by Donald Trump in and out of office that focused on negative emotions, is It possible to turn the tables by making the election about hope, joy and connectedness with one another?

As an economist, we sometimes came across what were called natural experiments, since no one would give us an actual economy to play with. In this country, we learned a lot from states that adopted certain policies while others did not—a higher minimum wage, for example.  This election pits two emotion-based campaigns against each other.  I do have a preference about candidates, and also about issues, but the idea of two parties offering competing visions of American cast in terms of hope for the future is a lot more appealing to me as a voter than anger or despair.

Results from this more or less natural experiment coming in seven weeks to a polling place near you.

Winner Take All

~ purplesage41 ~ 1 Comment

Winner takes all is endemic to American society.  Just ask Vince Lombardi (Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.) Fierce competition for “success” has polarized and stratified our society between the haves and the have-nots. There is only one Oscar winner in each category, only one national champion in any sport, one successful candidate for every office on the ballot.

I learned a useful lesson in my congregation this past week.  We have been discussing proposed changes in Article II of the Unitarian Universalist Association bylaws, the section that sets forth our version of theology.  There is sharp disagreement over what changes are being made, a libertarian/humanist vocal minority on one side, the mainstream on the other.  My congregation has five delegates, and the board, in its surprising wisdom, will call for a vote and assign delegates to vote on each question in proportion to the intensity of the congregation’s vote.

How might we apply this elsewhere in our common life?  Well, there is ranked choice voting in place of poorly attended runoffs.  It is a little bit more complicated but a fairer representative of preferences.  There is the jungle primary in which all candidates for an elective office run and the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the November election. There are just two outlier states who allocate electors based on Congressional district.  There is the challenge of designated seats versus electing the top 2, 3,4 or 5 members of a city or county council –each option says something different about representation of minorities. There is redistricting, largely nullified these days by the Trump Court (they just couldn’t’ get around to South Carolina’s first district in time for this year’s election), but still a useful tool.

The Quakers gave us an alternative, also practiced by the early New England Congregationalists, of consensus—the sense of the meeting trying to come up with an answer that all could, if not endorse, at least live with—after everyone has a chance to be heard.  Works well in small groups.  My local League of Women Voters went through a consensus process this past week and emerged satisfied with both the experience and the outcome.

In the Olympics we honor the top three with gold, silver, and bronze.  Getting a bronze medal is still considered a great achievement. Perhaps we can find other ways of win-win outcomes in our personal and public life.

Have You No Sense of Decency?

~ purplesage41 ~ 2 Comments

In 1953, 70 years ago, Joseph Welch, special counsel for the U.S. Army, asked that rhetorical question of Senator Joseph McCarthy.  The answer was, of course, no.  The same question could be posed to the Republican supermajority of the Tennessee House of Representatives, and once again, the answer is a resounding no. They voted on whether to expel from their body three Democratic representatives.  True to Southern culture, they expelled the two black males but kept the lone white female by a one vote margin.  They were expelled for representing their constituents’ deep concerns about gun safety in the wake of yet another school shooting, this one within shouting distance of the very state Capitol where the House was were meeting.

Expulsion, disenfranchising some 150,000 Tennessee citizens from being represented, is normally reserved for criminal behavior on the part of the accused.  This time, the accusation was a breach of decorum, in reaction to being persistently refused recognition by the Speaker.  At the same time, Wisconsin legislators have threatened to impeach the newly elected state Supreme Court justice before she is even sworn in.  Her crime? Disagreeing with their views on gerrymandering and shredding the right to reproductive choice. Wisconsin is an appropriate locale for this attitude, having given us Vince Lombardi’s famous quote, “Winning is the only thing.” Unless the other side wins?

In my home state of South Carolina, the General Assembly is contemplating a move from open to closed primaries.  It would mark the de facto return of the Jim Crow white primary, since the majority of the 40 percent of South Carolinians who identify as Democrats are people of color.  In many cases, the only time a South Carolina voter has a choice is in the primary, because the Republican primary winner frequently faces little or no opposition in the general election. Many of us treasure the right to pick which primary to vote in, depending on what’s at stake.

I have just published a book on Amazon with the title Passionately Moderate: Civic Virtue and Democracy (available in both electronic and paperback format).  I am passionate about democracy, and that passion means that winning comes second to maintaining healthy processes and listening to one another and yes, that dreaded word, compromise. I am encouraged to see the wheels of justice slowly turning in the case of those who would undermine democracy and exercise the tyranny of the minority by suppressing dissenting voices. But it is no time for complacency. It is well past time for all of us to wake up to the very real threat that we could lose our precious but fragile right to self-governance.

Choosing Your Battles

~ purplesage41 ~ Leave a comment

Sometime during my life path, when I was working as a full-time professional, active as a community volunteer, and raising three children, I had to admit that I couldn’t do everything. Even if I could do anything (not true: I can’t draw, keep time, or play any known sport), I had to make choices. Over the decades, I have acquired extensive volunteer organization leadership skills and experience. At the same time, my faith community and other organizations, like the League of Women Voters, keep vesting me with leadership roles, where I am supposed to look after everything.  How do I manage to have a life, focus more narrowly on doing a few things well,  and be effective?

My passion is for social justice in all forms, but my skills and expertise lie in economic justice. I My focus on economic justice doesn’t mean I don’t care about racial justice or justice for LBGTQ or climate justice or legal justice or any of the other challenges humans have devised that do or do not treat others as they deserve.  My answer is to draw a line between wholesale and retail, to use leadership skills for the wholesale side and my more specialized economic skills for the retail part.  As social action chair in my congregation, I draw on the League and other resources to stay alert for action opportunities on pending legislation or other events where people might want to express their opinions. I share them with the individuals who have passion, or expertise, or both in those areas.  I know which people to whom I should send information about climate change, discrimination, reproductive choice, and lots of other issues.  But I don’t respond to these calls for action directly (I do often send money) because I want to reserve my voice for where it is most likely to be heard, and that’s economic justice. I want to frame my arguments carefully so that those whose political perspective is different from my own might nevertheless be persuaded that there is something of value in what I have to say. And those whose perspective is closer to my own are more likely to use my points, arguments, suggestions. In that way, I have from time to time been able to influence legislation and even once in a great while, court decisions in my adopted very red state..

Most of you, I know, have particular causes or issues that are dear to your heart.  If you can focus on just a few and develop some expertise so that your head will support your heart, that’s great.  Maybe that focus is related to your work or career, like librarians fighting book banning, health care professionals having a say on women’s reproductive choice, teachers resisting politically motivated censorship of teaching actual history or encouraging critical thinking. A good friend of mine is a computer scientist who has dedicated herself to ensuring the safety and accountability of voting equipment, and her work has made a difference.  My nutritionist friend uses her skills to teach people to eat in more healthful ways and also to address world hunger.Or maybe that niche is defined by an avocation. A neighbor of mine is a quilter. She uses that skill to work with and promote the work of a worldwide organization that makes colorful kits of menstrual hygiene supplies for adolescent girls, so they don’t have to miss school and drop out. My animal loving friend devotes a lot of time and attention to finding good hoes for abandoned or unwanted animals.

Everyone has a skill, a passion, some specialized knowledge that they can use not only for their own satisfaction and that of family and friends, but also to make a difference in the world.  What’s your skill? What’s your passion? How can you join the two in a marriage that will give you joy and satisfaction and make the world a better place?

Silos and Bridges

~ purplesage41 ~ 2 Comments

While teaching a short course for older adults, many of them newcomers, in South Carolina government,  I invited them to turn in questions at the end of the first class and I would try to answer them in the following week’s class. I only got two—one for explaining an issue in education funding, which I am always happy to do.  The other one was quite different. The writer wanted to know how to participate in government as a blue person in a red state. Interestingly, the same day, a friend who shares my political views got yet another forwarded screed

So as I formulated my responses to  the student and the friend, drawing on my own many decades of experience as a transplanted Connecticut Yankee, I thought it would be worth sharing with my readers. While I am thinking from blue to red, it works equally well the other way if you happen to be a more conservative reader of my blog.

I have done a lot of public policy work.  Education and advocacy through the League of Women Votes. Testifying at legislative hearings. Collaborating in research with various agencies such as the Department of Revenue, the State Department of Education and the county and municipal an school boards associations. I have actually held public office as a city council member and have testified as an expert witness in a couple of disputed cases regarding education funding.  I was the most persistently center-left member of a pretty conservative academic department for 30 years. I live in a retirement community where those of a more center-left persuasion are a minority.

Friend first. I told her she was being witnessed to (a fine Southern religious term!) by this person and it was not only appropriate but obligatory to witness back. (I have had to do that with a family member who saw religion quite differently, and after that reciprocal witnessing, we remained close until his death two years ago.)  Silence is so often interpreted as agreement.  No need to be hostile. Say thank you for sharing your views and let me forward a column by someone who more closely reflects mine, The correspondent closed the subject with “I guess we will have to agree to disagree” but I’m betting she won’t be sharing any more.

So that’s one strategy: claim your silo, witness but be pleasant about it.  What else can we do?

  1. Find your people. There are lots of communities ranging from churches and bridge clubs and book clubs to neighborhoods and sailing clubs and amateur sports.  Eventually you will discern those whose leanings, political, religious, or philosophical, are more akin to yours.  That’s your silo, the place where you keep the food that gives you affirmation and support.  Silos have a role to play, but don’t be Rapunzel.  Let down your hair, cross a bridge, be in contact with people who think differently. Get involved in the community in ways that are collaborative rater than competitive. I know that my six colleagues as poll workers last November came from a variety of perspectives, but it had no bearing on the oath we took to conduct the election according to the rules and help people participate in their government according to their own values and priorities.  Serve on a board or commission, help build a Habitat House or rescue neglected animals, tutor a child.   Neither politics nor religion has a monopoly on making the world a better place.
  2. As for these other people living in different silos, be always mindful that they are more than their politics and/or religion.  They may share your enthusiasm for sailing, or quilting, or medieval history, or football or gardening or hiking.  Get to know the rest of them that isn’t politics. Learn to appreciate one another as human beings on the same journey through life.
  3. Find ideas on the other side that you can at least partially affirm, or common ground.  Often you will find that you have the same objective but different ways of achieving it.  As Stephen Covey would say, begin with the end in mind.  What are you trying to do with this law, this ruling, this policy? Is there another, better, more equitable and efficient way of getting the desired result? How can we combat homelessness, drugs, or violence in ways that are respectful of people’s needs, people’s rights, compassion, incentives, justice?   
  4. If you are left, learn to attack (an argument, not a person) from the right. If you are right, attack from the left. I once got into a discussion with one of my more right wing colleagues about requiring internet/catalog firms to collect state sales tax.  Oh, he said, you just want to raise taxes. Not at all, I replied. Cut the tax rate if it raises too much money.  I just want a level playing field between Main Street merchants who have to collect the tax while their state governments have to exempt their out of state competitors.  It’s not just unfair, it’s inefficient. (In case you ever get into an argument with an economist, you can always win by pointing out that his or her proposal is inefficient, the most grievous sin an economist can commit.) If you are the right wing person, attack the position from the left, invoking equity and compassion
  5. Find out what the other side is thinking, and try to understand their reasoning. If you are on the right of center, commit to watching MSNBS once a week.  If you are left, Watch Fox News or read the Wall Stret Journal. If you read any editorial columnists, don’t limit yourself to Eugene Robinson and Jennifer Rubin who will reinforce your thinking; check out Hugh Hewitt and Marc Thiessen for a contrary view.
  6. Get to know your legislators and public officials and find issues on which you can speak from authority or experience and bring about limited change. Tell stories—they are more effective than abstract arguments or statistics. But do b sure you have the facts.  Invite them to explain their position and listen thoughtfully.
  7. Finally, remember that we should not succumb to either optimism (this too shall pass, technology will save us…) or pessimism (we are going to hell in a handbasket and nothing I can do will make any difference).  Both optimists and pessimists are failing to exercise their free will on matters that they care about.  Theologian Joanna Macy tells us that the only appropriate attitude is active hope, the virtue that lies halfway between optimism and pessimism. Active hope calls us to define what we hope for and find ways to actively work to make it happen.  What do you care about, and what are you going to do about it? In the process of defining your passion, your concern, your hope, and developing strategies you can employ individually or as part of a group or as a citizen, voter, or elected official, you will find your tribe and can invite them for a  visit inside your silo!