After the Election, Now What?

It’s Over!  The last ballot has been cast and most of them have been counted. The volume of emails and texts from candidates should be dropping rapidly, so you don’t have to waste a lot of time on digital decluttering.  The endless political commercials have shifted to Medicare advantage, and even that ad campaign ends on December 7th.

So you though iI was over!  Not so fast! In even numbered years we choose our elected officials.  They pester us for money and attention.  In odd-numbered years the roles are reversed. It’s our job to watch, persuade, congratulate, or criticize, but mostly to tell them what we want, what we care about, what stories they need to hear from us.  Congress reconvenes January 3rd and most state legislatures will be back at work on  January 12th. Your local governments—counties, cities, school boards—just paused briefly for a swearing in and went on about their business,

Your mission, should you choose to accept, is to listen, pick your issues, and make your voice heard. How do you flip the switch from listening to telling?  How do you become an effective, if sometimes annoying, citizen activist? There are several levels of engagement and a few good tips on getting your message across.

For starters, pick one or two issues you care deeply about.  Maybe it is local affordable housing. Or the cost of health care, the future of Social Security, data centers.  If you have  a story to tell or relevant expertise to share, you may want to pursue an agenda where your street creds will get you a listening ear As an economist, I want to focus on the economics of affordable housing, health care and the future of Social Security.

Don’t bother your city Council about Social Security. That’s for your member of Congress.  Housing is more of a  local and state issue, data centers  are at all three levels of government, health care is state and federal.

Find out what legislation is being proposed. Think about what you want to say.  Find organizations that are also working on this issue.  Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper or post your thoughts on social  media. Get to know the elected officials who will be making these decisions. Speak up at a city council meeting or a legislative hearing. Call your legislator or council member or send  a real letter. DO NOT EMAIL! They tally their mail and phone calls!

If enough of us are paying attention, something good could happen.  If we say the election is over and go back to our daily routines, nothing is going to get batter.  It’s up to you, or as we say in  the south, you-all—emphasis on all.

About the Pledge of Allegiance…

Did you ever stop to think what you were saying when you and your elementary school classmates or your Rotary club recited the pledge of allegiance?  My problems started with the first line.  First, since we said it  as a group, why does it begin with I and instead of we?  And what is this allegiance thing?  I vaguely recall from movies about ancient heroes who served their liege Lord (the mortal one, not God) and owed him some highly specific duties and he in turn would offer them protection, employment and some of the necessities of life. According to Wikipedia, allegiance  is “the formal or deep obligation of fidelity owed by a citizen to a state, a vassal to a lord, or a person to a belief.”  Pretty complicated idea for the average second grader!

But why don’t we just pledge our allegiance, or loyalty,  to the country rather than sticking the flag in there! Don’t get me wrong. It’s a lovely flag with a great history from Betsy Ross to the Star Spangled Banner and beyond.  That pledge didn’t’ seem remotely related to the flag, or the country for which it stands.  I’m pretty sure my liege lord, if I had one, would have wanted me to pledge it to him directly and not to a flag. In any case, it’s a pretty dated idea for a democracy where we owe our loyalty to one another collectively, We are a nation of people that are all tied together.

l have several other quarrels with this mandatory exercise for our school children.  I would have objected in 1954 when it was slid into the text, but I was just 13 and not paying close attention.  I did and do believe in God , but I also believe in the first amendment. And the God I believe in may be very different from yours. One nation, indivisible?  Hardly a factual description, more like an aspiration.  Likewise, the noble but not yet achieved aspiration of   liberty and justice for all.

So what should we be saying? I believe that we have a covenant with each other like the Mayflower Compact among the pilgrims (who, unlike the puritans, were big fans of religious democracy). Or the oath that officeholders from president all the way down to city councils take when they assume a public office.  Which leads me to my suggested alternative.

Our national covenant is in our Constitution. And it begins with a covenant, about why and how we are together as a people, a nation That covenant is the Preamble A few small adjustments to put it in the present tense would make it a fine replacement for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Here is the original Preamble:”We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

And here is my slightly edited version:

“We citizens of the United States, in order to be and become a more perfect union, ensure justice, encourage domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and maintain the blessings of liberty  for ourselves and our posterity, do pledge our allegiance to the Constitution for the United States of America.”

I would be happy to approve and promote that version anytime, anywhere.  How about you?

Editorial suggestions are encouraged.

Holley Ulbrich November 2, 2026

Leave My Clock Alone!

When Congress resumes, they will have a great many weighty issues to discuss.  I invite them, and you as their constituents, to take a break from the weight of the world and grapple instead with a seemingly simple problem—Daylight Saving Time. Sometime between bedtime and wake-up time Saturday night and Sunday morning we are instructed to turn our clocks back an hour. One hour of daylight will be subtracted from the early evening and revert to morning. People will be late for church. On Monday, school children may have a bit of sunlight when they meet the school bus.  Golfers will find their evening game curtailed. Supposedly DST saves energy, but the evidence is slim.

Fortunately, most of our clocks will be reset automatically, but I still have three clocks to reset in my kitchen, my bedroom and my car.  I do so under protest, because I don’t like confusing my body by messing with my biorhythms. Apparently that attitude is shared by a substantial majority of our fellow citizens. According to a NORC poll in 2025, 47% of the population oppose changing the clocks, while only 12% are in favor. The other 40% don’t really care.  A YouGov survey from 2026 found that 67% of us do not like the twice a year change, while only 19% thought it was a good idea. Ending the clock reset sounds like a slam dunk, a real people pleaser. 

But then comes the hitch.  The two polls registered 56% and 51% in favor of keeping  our clocks on Daylight Saving Time year-round instead of mid-March to November, while 42% and 43% preferred Eastern Standard Time.  Too close for comfort.  That’s just a little more than half who will be happy and a little less than half will be unhappy. School children will have a better shot at surviving to get on the bus, while golfers will resent no evening relaxation after a hard day’s work. The New England states, where it gets dark by 4:30 pm in the winter, are considering a switch to Atlantic time.  Northern states in general are more heavily impacted by the choice of DST or EST than Southern states, because their daylight is shorter,  so maybe they should have more say in the decision

What’s the answer? It calls for some creative thinking.  Perhaps school should start later, making school bus pickups safer.  Kids get a little more time to wake up before their first class. Or maybe employers, public and private, need to be more flexible about working hours.

There are no simple questions. If Congress can’t find a way out of the DST/EST challenge, how are they supposed to address the war in Iran, tariffs, the budget deficit, inflation, immigration, and the pending threat to the future of Social Security?

Aren’t you glad you didn’t run for Congress?

Susan B. Anthony and the League of Women Voters

A group of women gathered in Seneca Falls in 1848 to begin the long march toward entitling women to their right to vote, which was implied but not spelled out in the constitution. It took 72 long years to pass and ratify the 20th amendment acknowledging (not “giving”) women’s right to the vote (And those women were suffragists NOT suffragettes!). Susan B. Anthony, was one of the leaders in that movement, although she didn’t live long enough to see their work come to fruition. Her birthday was February 15th. It is also the birthday of the organization that was the culmination of the suffrage movement.

By early 1920, the momentum for ratification was there. Congress had passed the proposed 20th amendment, and it had been ratified by a number of states, edging closer to 36 (3/4 of the then 48 states). .  Jeanette Rankin was already serving in Congress, casting the lone vote to oppose entry into the Great War. Even before the amendment was ratified the following August, many states had already assented to the right of women to vote. In those states, women were eager to learn about how and where and when to vote and how to use their votes to bring about positive change

Women in states where they could vote began to organize themselves into groups to educate women about voting, and advocating, and understanding the issues that entered into their decisions about who deserved their vote. The League of Women Voters began with four interconnected goals.  First, it wanted to see the ratification process to its finale. Second, they wanted to protect and extend the vote, to get people registered and figure out how to vote.  Third, they wanted people, not just women, to be informed voters who knew what those elected people were doing in city councils and state capitals and Washington DC and how those actions would affect their lives and the lives of their fellow Americans. Finally, they wanted them to be engaged between elections, contacting their legislators and telling them how they wanted their elected representatives to vote, and why they should vote that way. 

Their role, as facilitators of the election process, getting people registered and to the polls, helping them find out who was running as they decided to how to vote, was half the mission the first two goals. That role required that the be neutral arbiters of the process, which meant nonpartisanship.   The other half, which is the part that gets the League caught in the political crossfire, is advocacy. Advocacy meant picking issues, studying them, decided where they as individuals and as the League stand  on issues ranging from balanced budgets to ranked choice voting to reproductive choice to clean air and water. League advocates try very hard to be informed and articulate about the issues they care about.

I have an understandably personal interest in this organization. My great-grandmother marched for women’s suffrage. My mother was a political junkie to her dying day. I am a life member and “founding mother” of my local League which I served numerous times as president as well as four years as o-president of my state League.

For the first hundred years, League managed to keep those two roles balanced and was a trusted source of information to both the public and elected officials.  But partisanship is more intense in the 21st century, and the League’s positions are more often close to that of one party than the other.

Increasingly, some elected officials and candidates try to dismiss or ignore this faithful custodian of democratic process (with a small d) by boycotting candidate events, refusing to supply information about themselves as candidates and ignoring the League’s input on pending legislation or other actions. . Both political parties refused to continue the longtime practice of League-sponsored presidential debates, although candidate forums continue to be a popular service at the state and local levelsThere is clearly a tension between those two roles, the neutral guardian of process and the advocacy for particular outcomes.

Both the safeguarding of elections and the encouragement and practice of informed advocacy are essential to restoring our democracy. As we look beyond 2026 and 2028, the League will be ready to play a leading role in making that happen.

,

Creative Resistance

Before you begin, recite this mantra, alone or among allies. The mantra is this.

I am not alone. I am not powerless.

You are not alone. You are not powerless.

Together, let us find and use our power.

The first step is to find your people.  The ones who care about democracy, and freedom, and equality, and compassion, and justice. They may be family, friends, colleagues, members of a church or civic organization. They may be people you have known a log tie or people who just met.

What kind of power do we have against a fascist government and thugs in the street? We have the power of witness to testify, in person and among others and with videotapes, to what is happening, and to insist on following the law, of all of it. The first amendment. The second amendment. The Fourth Amendment. The tenth amendment. Freedom of speech and assembly. The right to carry a legal, registered gun in accordance with the laws of the state. The right to be safe in your homes and cars from being attacked by thugs masquerading as law enforcement. The right of states to try crimes committed in their jurisdiction.

So you didn’t go to Minneapolis Neither did I. What power do we have? We can protest where we are, loudly and visibly and in numbers too big to ignore (Thanks, “I am woman.”. ) We can send money to good candidates and volunteer to help in campaigns, which are coming at us already in special elections and primaries. We can annoy our representatives in Washington by demanding that the executive branch stop ignoring the law and the courts, and demand that the legislative branch resume its neglected duties of oversight. with our concerns about honesty, transparency, and accountability.

Some of these political actors can be swayed by moral and legal arguments, or threats of retribution in elections and in court, Those approaches are good things to do, especially as part of a group. Support organizations like the ACLU. Join Indivisible. Read Heather Cox Richardson. Listen to Rachel Maddow. And talk to your friends, neighbors, family, anyone who will listen.

 But as an economist, I also like to use the weapons of the marketplace to communicate with the worst corporate offenders that are enabling this destructive behavior. If you own their stock, sell it, or participate in shareholder complaints.  You have the right to show up at corporate meetings or author resolutions and get other stockholders to join.  If you are part of a religious community ask if your faith tradition is a member of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Social Responsibility.  Invest in good companies that don’t kiss the ring but instead try to be responsive to all their stakeholders—customers, suppliers, employees, communities and yes, shareholders. Invest in socially responsibly companies or in mutual funds that have criteria that expect their stocks reflect good corporate citizenship.

  If you buy their products, stop! And tell them why and tell your friends. And write a letter to the CEO of the company to tell him what you are doing.  My letter is addressed to Andrew R. Jassey, CEO, Amazon, 550  Terry Avenue N, Seattle, WA 98019.

My economic power is small, as is yours, but together, we can change the world.  As economist Eugene Steuerle reminds us, we get the government we deserve.  Let’s earn ourselves a better government. However long it takes, the time to start is now.

Restoring Trust

Trust is one of those tricky words with multiple meanings.  Among its synonyms are faith and belief, but they are quite different.   The Latin word credo (I believe) finds its way into English as creed, credible (or incredible), credentials.  The Greek word pistis, or Latin equivalent fides, has a more subtle meaning of confidence or trust. Clearly, they overlap, but the meaning that I find of greatest social value is the idea of trust.  Do we trust our own judgment? Do we trust people in whom we confide? Do we trust the police, the justice system, our elected officials? Do we trust corporations to produce products that are safe and beneficial? Do we trust banks with our money?  Surveys about trust suggest that most of the institutions of American society do not evoke trust.  That decline is aided by social media, but it is not new.

Faith is the connector between belief and trust.  Think about the huge difference between “I believe in you (faith, trust) and I believe you (I think that what you are saying is factually true).  That confusion has dominated Western Christianity since the 3rd century, when the many (sometimes conflicting) stories about the life, death, teachings, and resurrection of Jesus were parsed and hardened into factual truth statements that eventually became mandatory beliefs in order to call oneself a Christian.

Blind faith is belief without evidence. Blind faith, inf fact, often  resists contradictory evidence and only is receptive to confirming evidence. (Psychologists call this “confirmation bias.”) New information that does not fit our pre-established beliefs is rejected almost every time.) Likewise blind trust in the good intentions of people and institutions weakens rather than strengthening the ties that bind us together in community at all levels from the household to the community to the nation.

Without trust, the kind that led the signers of the Declaration of Independence to pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, our nation will revert to a state of nature in which (the words of Hobbes) life is nasty, British, and short for most of us. So being cautiously trusting is a risky but necessary first step.

Beliefs are durable, trust is not.  Trust is easy to shatter and difficult to repair. Our beliefs are a part of our identity. Our shared beliefs create mutually reinforcing communities of believers. And most important, trust is the foundation of a functioning democratic society.  We need to trust the good intentions, the competence, and the honesty of our public officials and the institutions—courts, law enforcement, public agencies, election administrators.  It would also be a good thing if we felt we could trust private agencies, banks and other corporations, service providers, and the media. However, each of them has let us down time and again.

Our faith in government and elected officials, in corporations, and in the shallowness of motivations of many of our fellow citizens has eroded over time, with a rapid fall in recent years. How do we restore trust in one another, in government, in the news media in an age of AI and social media?

There are no quick and easy fixes.  But there are steps that we can take to restore our capacity to trust and to be the kind of person others would trust as they judge is us our words and actions. We can encourage and support those institutions that we trust and call to account those that fail to be honest, respectful, compassionate, just, and fair.

We can begin with our own inventory of whom and what we trust—people, news media, friends, family, organizations. None of them are perfect, but we can call them to ccount when they fail and affirm our faith when they serve us and the larger community well.   t s incumbent on each of us to question, to get information from more than a single source, th protest wrongdoing and participate in civic processes that can slowly but eventually restore our trust in one another and our institutions.

We can seek out individuals and organizations that affirm our shared values and promote them together. There is both safety in numbers and reassurance in mutual support.  Together, we can learn, act, protest, vote, and engage in other ways in creating a society resting more firmly on a foundation of mutual trust and obligation.

In whom and what do you place your trust? How can you being the work of restoration for yourself and the larger community?

In Whom Can I Trust?

Trust is one of those tricky words with multiple meanings.  Among its synonyms are faith and belief, but they are quite different.   The Latin word credo (I believe) finds its way into English as creed, credible (or incredible), credentials.  The Greek word pistis, or Latin equivalent fides, has a more subtle meaning of confidence or trust. Clearly they overlap, but the meaning that I find of greatest social value is the idea of trust.  Do we trust our own judgment? Do we trust people in whom we confide? Do we trust the police, the justice system, our elected officials? Do we trust corporations to produce products that are safe and beneficial? Do we trust banks with our money?  Surveys about trust suggest that most of the institutions of American society do not evoke trust.  That decline is aided by social media, but it is not new.

Faith is the connector between belief and trust.  Think about the huge difference between “I believe in you (faith, trust) and I believe you (I think that what you are saying is factually true).  That confusion has dominated Western Christianity since the 3rd century, when the many (sometimes conflicting) stories about the life, death, teachings, and resurrection of Jesus were parsed and hardened into truth statements that eventually became mandatory beliefs in order to call oneself a Christian.

Blind faith is belief without evidence. Blind faith, inf fact, resists contradictory evidence and only is receptive to confirming evidence. (Psychologists call this “confirmation bias.”) New information that does not fit into our established beliefs is rejected almost every time.) Likewise blind trust in the good intentions of people and institutions weakens rather than strengthening the ties that bind us together in community at all levels from the household to the community to the nation.

Beliefs are durable, trust is not.  Trust is easy to shatter and difficult to repair. Our beliefs are a part of our identity. Our shared beliefs create mutually reinforcing communities of believers. And yet…trust is the foundation of a functioning democratic society.  We need to trust the good intentions, the competence, and the honesty of our public officials and the institutions—courts, law enforcement, public agencies, election administrators.  It would also be a good thing if we felt we could trust private agencies, banks and other corporations, service providers, and the media. However, each of them has let us down time and again.

Our faith in government and elected officials has eroded over time, with a rapid fall in recent years. How do we restore trust in one another, in government, in the news media in an age of AI and social media? There aer n quick and easy fixes.  But it s incumbent on each of us to question, to get information from more than a single source, th protest wrong doing and participate in civic processes that can slowly but eventually restore our trust in one another and our institutions.

A Bully Pulpit or a Bully’s Pulpit?

Have you ever been bullied? I have. I would assess the situation and decide whether to fight back or ignore the bully (or even better, make fun of him—it was usually a him) or put some distance between the bully and myself. I just finished reading  Jodi Picoult’s Nineteen Minutes about a school shooting prompted by years of relentless bullying. Bullying is indeed very much adolescent behavior, but some people never move beyond adolescence.

Theodore Rossevelt coined the term to describe the office of the president as a “bully pulpit.” He meant bully in the now semi-obsolete British use of bully as an adjective, meaning excellent, outstanding.  He used that pulpit to promote conservation and other good causes during his term of office. He used that pulpit to exercise moral leadership, which we expect to hear from a pulpit. Most of the presidents who preceded or followed him did likewise.

As a verb, bully is defined as treating someone in a cruel, insulting, threatening, or aggressive fashion, and as a noun, it is someone who regularly engages in that type of behavior.  We are told, in our adolescent days, to stand up to a bully, but it’s not always that easy.  Bullies often travel in packs and gang up on those who can’t win by fighting.  Or they have some kind of power. A principal can be a bully. A teacher can be a bully. A boss can be a bully. It’s about having power and choosing to exercise it in ways that are self-centered and destructive. Or at least demeaning

No one has more power in this day and age than the president of the United Staes.  Until now, we have had a variety of presidents, but the only one prior to Trump that was a bully was Andrew Jackson—who adorns Trump’s office. Trump has given a new meaning to bully pulpit. Knowing that such people existed and could charm their way into office, the authors of the Constitution created guardrails to rein in abuse of

So how do we, individually, collectively, stand up to a bully?

I know not everyone can risk their livelihood, their safety, their communities to stand up to bullies.  But there are people who can and do.  Governors in blue states. Celebrities who took on Disney over the firing of Jimmy Kimmel. Ordinary citizens who cancelled their subscriptions to Disney’s media empire, causing its stock to tank. (That’s one of the safest and most effective ways to tackle bullies with financial power!) Law firms doing pro bono work for those who struggle under abuse of power. Universities that (unlike mine) stand fast to their belief in academic freedom and the First Amendment. Cities, churches, and individuals who shelter immigrants and assert their rights.

I belong to a significant minority of people who are free to protest, challenge, or otherwise defang the bully. That minority consists of old people with pensions and Social Security who cannot be bought, bribed, coerced, or otherwise persuaded to go along with the bullying because they have so little time left and are so much more aware of their legacy.. We can speak up without fear of reprisal.  At 84, I don’t have a lot to lose, and much to gain by trying to ensure that my grown daughters and grands live in a world where bullying is constrained, not performed, by law enforcement, where we are free to express our opinions with nothing more at risk than disagreement. We can attend protests, write letters, annoy legislators without fear of reprisal, or file lawsuits, as my friend Eleanor and I have done In exchange for that freedom of old age.  Along with the privilege of being old, there is a moral obligation to use it.

And the rest of you?  Encourage us gray panthers as well as other brave souls who defend our rights and those of others.  Use your power of consuming and investing to reward and punish bad behavior by private firms. VOTE and get others to the polls, especially in primaries and special elections. Use the power to embarrass.  When I was president of  Clemson’s Faculty Senate, I used to remind my fellow senators that the most powerful weapon we had was the power to embarrass, and we needed to use it selectively and effectively.

Every day for the rest of Donald Trump’s term, find one small act of resistance that you can use, whether it is changing your brand of detergent or supporting a candidate or attending a protest or attending a school bord meeting to protect the freedom to read. The time is now. Our nation’s future is at stake.

Women’s Equality Day

Twenty-five years ago, when I put together my holiday essays in a book called Economics Takes a Holiday, I sorted them by month.  I came to August and there was no holiday. Somehow, I had forgotten about the Celtic holiday of Lammas, August 1st, the celebration of first harvest.  But there was an even more important omission.  I failed to include Women’s Equality Day, the anniversary of the 19th amendment, which can be celebrated on either the 19th (ratification by the 36th state) or August 26th, when it was officially added to the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal.  Man is a troublesome word in English. Sometimes it means a human being and other times it means a male human being. I took four years of Latin in high school.  Despite the patriarchal, misogynistic, authoritarian, slave-owning culture of the Roman empire, Latin did distinguish between a homo as a human being and vir and mulier as, respectively, as a male human being and a female human being. Jefferson must have missed that lesson.

The Declaration of Independence assumed an even narrower view of man., It meant a white male property owner. It took a Civil war and four constitutional amendments and several Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act to broaden our definition of man.  T

As we celebrate the right to vote, women are once again fighting for women’s rights, the right of reproductive choice and control of our bodies, which we have enjoyed for fifty years.  I was married in 1962 in my native state of Connecticut where contraception was illegal.  That law that was not being enforced. Fortunately, condoms could be purchased for the prevention of socially transmitted diseases and birth control pills could be prescribed for menstrual irregularity, both of which were apparently epidemic in the state.  In 1965, SCOTUS handed down a ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut overturning the state’s contraception blue law on the grounds of a right to privacy inherent in the 14th amendment. That case set the stage for Roe v. Wade.. 

Only in recent years have we learned the extent to which assumed rights are fragile—voting rights, civil rights, privacy rights, safety rights. A major difference between the contraception ban in Connecticut before 1965 and the new abortion laws was enforcement. There was no enforcement in the earlier era, but now some states have established criminal penalties for doctors, clinics, and women for having abortions—even miscarriages that someone claims were actually abortions.

How did it finally happen after 72 years of agitation that women got the right to vote?  The movement was launched in 1948 at the Seneca Falls Women’s Convention with a Declaration of Women’s Rights. Soon that agenda had to take a back seat to the battle over slavery.  In 1868, after the War of the Rebellion, as it was sometimes known in the north,, the lesser-known 15th amendment was ratified. It prohibited the federal government and each state from denying or abridging a citizen’s right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Efforts by women to explicitly include gender were ignored.

Four other significant events took place in the intervening years that helped the suffrage cause. One was the settlement of the west, which was less conventional about women’s roles than the east. One by one, western states gave women voting rights.  Another was the 1913 constitutional amendment requiring direct election of senators by the people instead of appointed by state legislatures.  Western senators had to court the women’s vote, and increasingly, so did presidential candidates in states where women could vote.

The third event was the service rendered by women in so many ways for the war effort during the first world war.  They could fight, nurse, or do men’s jobs while the men were away, but they had no say in the government they were serving.   A fourth and final factor was the victory of the female-dominated temperance movement in enacting prohibition, passed in 2018. Many men and especially liquor interests saw a link between suffrage and prohibition, but when liquor became illegal even without women being able to vote, the opposition lost its steam. 

Back in the days before the 19th amendment, when my great-grandmother was marching for women’s suffrage, there was a split in the movement over strategy. Two splits, in fact.  One was whether to over focus on suffrage or push the ERA.  Realistically, the ERA would probably not have made it, but suffrage did.  Sometimes compromise is the best path.  But if the ERA had been enacted as a Constitutional amendment, then or later, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The other split was more tactical.  Get the right to vote state by state or focus on Congress and a Constitutional amendment? And the answer was yes.  It took both to get the 19th amendment through Congress and ratified by 36 of the 48 states. In August 1920, Tennessee put the amendment over the top by a single vote by a first term young representative responding to a request from his mother.

The majority of Americans value their civil liberties and those of their fellow citizens, not to mention immigrants and refugees.  For almost 50 years we have taken these rights for granted—freedom of religion, a right to privacy, the right to vote in free and fair elections, the right to engage in peaceful protest. The right to an equal and not separate public education. More recently, we have added the freedom to marry a person of the same gender or a different race. 

When one Constitutional right is threatened by the courts, all rights are at risk.  As Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran minister during the Nazi era,  wrote:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The 19th amendment in 1920 was the culmination of a 72-year battle. Tennessee, the 36th state to ratify, passed it into law by a single vote, giving the required ¾ majority on August `19th. The Secretary of State in Washington enrolled in the Constitution on August 26th, giving us not Women’s Equality Day but Women’s Equality Week.  A fitting length for such a long labor before it was birthed. Only one of the original suffrage leaders was still alive in 1920 but too ill to vote.  My great-grandmother Alice Stewart, who was born in the 6th year of that battle, marched in New York for the suffrage movement in 1913 and lived long enough to vote in 1920 and 1924. Given my birth family’s Republican leanings, I am guessing that she voted for Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

There are lessons in that struggle about compromising and holding firm, about strategy and tactics, and about the truth of Reinhold Niebuhr’s dictum that nothing worth accomplishing is ever accomplished in our lifetimes. Therefore, we are saved by hope. As we struggle to keep hope alive and make a difference in democracy, voting rights, and human rights, let us hold up and retell the stories of these past struggles to revive our commitment and determination.

Efficiency: First Among Equals

Brace yourself, dear readers.  My economist self wants you to hear my confession.

For many years I taught introductory economics, as well as more advanced classes. I taught the introductory classes because a colleague and I had a multi-edition principles text, and it was important to road test it regularly. In one of the earlier chapters it was customary to introduce the claim, which was in most mainstream textbooks, that economics was value-free. Economics was just a set of tools for making choices about how to use resources wisely that was useful for all of us as workers, owners, consumers and citizens. A few pages later, we introduced them to goals, which we insisted were not values.  Microeconomic goals (WHICH WERE ASSUREDLY NOT VALUES!! were efficiency, equity, and freedom. The next semester, students were introduced to the macroeconomic goals (WHICH WERE ASSUREDLY NOT VALUES!!) of full employment, price stability (as opposed to inflation) and economic growth.

Having defined the goals, it was easy to discover and implement decisions processes, anticipate the effects of changes in the marketplace or in government policy, and prepare our students for life in a capitalist society.

If economics were a religion (which it might be), my heretical self might be seeking penance for the sin of inflicting this mindset on innocent adolescents, but I was just expounding on doing what my colleagues and I routinely taught.  If I were to start over, I would hope that some of those students would question who set these goals.  At least for macroeconomics I had an answer. The Employment Act oi of 1946 created a Council of Economic Advisors to serve the president and guide him in pursuing these “self-evident” goals.  Actually, I feel less penitent about the macroeconomic goals, although the powers that be seem to worry more about price stability than full employment and never question the conflict between growth and sustainability. But it is the microeconomic goals that I feel called to challenge, and especially the presumed incompatibility of efficiency and equity.  (Freedom we will save for another day.).

Not all goals are created equal.  Efficiency is the primary goal, equity gets a greeting card on some holidays, and freedom is loosely defined and somewhat hard to pin down.  Efficiency is defined in economics in either of two ways getting the most (most WHAT?) out of our available resources or satisfying our wants/needs/desires at the lowest possible expenditure of time and effort. Want to insult an economist? Just tell him (more hims than hers) that his proposal or idea pr practice is INEFFFICNENT.  You will not get nearly the same reaction if you claim it is inequitable.  In fact, Economist Arthur Oken argued that these two goals are constantly in conflict. Equity means a leveling of incomes and assets, but it threatens efficiency because it reduces work incentives.  Some of those who pay more taxes to provide benefits and those who receive more government benefits will just drop out of the labor force. A  nation of idlers! Parasites on those who continue to work and pay taxes! Reducing work incentives Is clearly inefficient.

Efficiency versus equity is another false binary.  We need both.  As a result of this false idolatry of efficiency we have an income distribution that is more like that of a third world oligarchy than a prosperous democracy.  The very rich can use their wealth to redirect government policies to their benefit rather than the needs and desires of the confused and misled majority.  We have outrageously expensive health care costs and a severe shortage of affordable housing, a minimum wage that has not been increased since the Clinton administration, falling life expectancy and a growing environmental crisis.  Other nations that choose to strike a healthy balance between these two goals are more prosperous and more democratic.

When we name these “goals” as the values that they are, values that are the driving forces in our political economy, the choices are much clearer.  The values of efficiency and equality that both support a healthy economy and a democratic polity are not enemies, but partners.

Read my 2023 book, Passionately Moderate: Civic Virtues and Democracy, available from amazon in paperback and Kindle formats.