Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

SCOTUS claims that the 14 amendment was an attempt to rein in state power. That is true. But the 14th was also about preventing insurrectionists from gaining power again. I think States should decide who is eligible to run for office. There would still be a check on an individual state’s power in that other states don’t have to follow a particular state’s decision. There is no need to fear that any one state would determine who gets to run for President. This is a natural consequence of a federal system that gives states some power to decide issues that impact the entire nation. As Jeannie Suk Gersen argued in a recent article in The New Yorker, “The “huge amount of disparity in the candidates that end up on the ballot in different states was… a feature rather than a bug of the electoral process under our federal constitutional system.” After all, the Electoral College operates similarly. States decide who becomes an elector and is sent to validate the vote for presidential candidates. It is this state based mechanism that opened up possibilities for the Trump insurrectionists to send “alternative electors” loyal to Trump rather than to the popular vote count in the state. Thanks to Vice President Pence’s resistance, this Electoral College portion of the insurrection failed. But this state-based mechanism still exists and can again be put to use again by another insurrectionist movement. Permitting states to decide the issue of qualification as defined by the 14th Amendment does complicate things. It gives states a power that is hard to regulate. It would create an additional buffer between who voters prefer and who gets elected to represent the nation. But it would be a buffer very similar to the role played by the electoral college.

If SCOTUS rejects the Colorado attempt to disqualify Trump from running for the presidency, it would not remove the risk of “destabilizing political unrest”. The Electoral College already provides insurrectionists with a substantial tool that can be used to thwart the popular vote and elect an insurrectionist. Leaving this decision to Congress is just not a solution. The states are the best mechanism for determining a candidate’s eligibility. One reason is precisely because if there is an insurrection, there is likely to be that some members of Congress also participated. That is exactly the situation with the Jan6 insurrection. As we’ve seen with the recent rejection of a proposed bipartisan Border Security deal, those Congressional participants remain closely tied to the insurrection leader, Trump! These Congressional co-insurrectionists should not have the power to decide eligibility to run for the presidency or any government office! There will also likely be insurrectionists in state offices of power who could also disqualify candidates who did not commit insurrection. This means there will be multiple and inconsistent state attempts to disqualify a candidate. But those differences can be addressed by a SCOTUS examination of petitions sent by states and their representatives to the Court about why a candidate should not or should be qualified to run for president. This would push the qualification decision to SCOTUS. They would have to examine the specific actions that establish or not establish evidence of insurrection. But that would mean that SCOTUS would have a larger legal docket and would need to do more work. The country would benefit by creating a process involving SCOTUS that represents the entire nation. I would help to prevent insurrectionists from gaining public office, especially the Presidency!

SCOTUS horribly fumbled the ball! 

Queen Elizabeth died this week and the entire world seems to be in mourning. Why is there such fascination and adoration for a head of state whose actions and power consisted of no more than elaborate ceremonies where she showed off her royal regalia and waved her hand out of a carriage pulled by horses? If this is due to tradition, why is the entire world caught up in such fanciful displays of virtuous respect towards royal authority? If the world was simply captivated by her charm, was she actually no more than another highly publicized and magnetic celebrity like a movie star or soccer champion? Was she just another star? But what performance did she give the people of the world that could merit that kind adoration? The answer is clearly that there seems to be no objective reason for the world to be so captivated by the Queen. So, what subjective reasons can there be?

The British Commenwealth is full of democratic republics whose head of state is the British monarch. Why do countries like Canada or Jamaica elect prime ministers and all kinds of national and local officials yet keep the British Monarch as their head of state? It’s not just about tradition. Uganda brought back their King after decades of dictatorship under Idi Amin and years of elected presidents. Why? Because they wanted someone to represent all of the people and not be involved in the alienating process of sausage making that is legislation. The latter always benefits some people and hurts others. The monarch may not have any legislative powers, but they do offer something that is more important. The British State and Monarchy has long been a force for colonialism and oppression. But the general reason that states prefer monarchs is because monarchs humanize the the violence and oppression that most States deliver to their citizens and foreign citizens of other states. They give the state a kind, human face that people can identify with as well as help create and legitimize the power of the state.

The people of Britain and those of other countries saw her as the Peoples Queen. She appeared to them as a ruler with no portfolio who nevertheless understood their plight and would remind all those with portfolios, the bureaucratic and political lost souls in government, of their responsibilities to the people. Queen Elizabeth’s death is a recognition that the people had lost a major defender and advocate for their needs and rights. So “long live the Queen” is no more!

Many people argue that the “well regulated militia” phrase in the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent state tyranny. That argument, however, ignores the fact that the Militia Act of 1792 did not permit everyone to be armed. It applied only to white men. It was not a right for everyone to own arms. Members of militias were conscripted into service, originally by Congress and later by the President. The Militia Act gave the President authority to call out the militias of the several states, “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe”. Thus, Native Americans were not allowed to be armed. It was only in 1862 that African Americans became eligible to be CONSCRIPTED into militias, as the civil war loomed. The main point is that there was no universal right to be armed. Militias were creations of government and very selective about who would be armed.

star wars bobba fett costume

Photo by Brett Sayles on Pexels.com

Some gun proponents also make a few legitimate points about the Federalist Papers. The founders did write in the Federalist Papers and in personal letters about the importance of citizens being armed to preserve freedom. Here is a good compilation: The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment. But there are deep problems with the conclusion that these statements meant that they wanted every one to be armed.

  1. The founders were generally writing about how individual state-organized militias could prevent tyranny from the centralized federal government. But remember. The founders came together in Philadelphia to revise the original Articles of Confederation and create a stronger federal type government. The idea of state controlled militias gave some people comfort that these would be enough to thwart the new, stronger federal government. Thus Hamilton in Federalist 29 wrote this: “If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. . . .” Thus, they saw state government controlled militias as a better instrument of defense than turning to the Federally controlled army.
  2. All of the founders talked in grand terms about freedom and equality. But they also denied those freedoms to the majority of people. Thus, we get writings like this one: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787. Yet Jefferson did not free his slaves into “dangerous freedom.” None of the founders freed their slaves. Thus, their strong proclamations about freedom and rights was beautiful on paper. But they only applied to a small segment of the population. If you were not a white man with property, you could not vote or be CONSCRIPTED into a militia to bear arms.
  3. Finally, I do not like that the founders offered lofty rhetoric about freedom and rights for all that in actuality were denied to most. It confuses too many people who believe this aspirational idea. But I understand it. The Founders were rational men. They would never arm people to whom they denied the vote. It would have been suicidal for them to do so. Thus, the right to bear arms cannot be seen as a right established by the Constitution. You can make arguments for it based on Natural Law. But much of the inalienable rights we see as being under natural law are denied by the U.S. and other countries. One example is the natural right to travel anywhere you want on earth. Travel is heavily regulated by states all over the globe. Thus, you need a passport and, in many cases, a visa to travel anywhere. And states decides where they will permit you and for how long.

July 25, 2022

The New York Times published a very important article in their Sunday Magazine for July 24, 2022. It is titled, How ‘Stop the Steal’ Captured the American Right. It argues that Trumpism originated before Trump. I think we can take this argument a little further. Here are my thoughts.

I am reminded by this article of something most of us don’t think about. Few of us are willing to admit to ourselves that it is not natural for humans to live in extremely large societies and to be ruled by a state. The latter has the right to take our life, liberty, or property. It was only with the creation of states, which occured late in human history, that humans found themselves forced to obey a bunch of strangers who who act on behalf of the state. These strangers usually offer us laws, ways of thinking, and life experiences that are not only foreign to us but, in many ways, opposed to ours. It’s true that some governments do offer appealing workarounds to this offal reality.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is law-order-judge-trial-lawyer-questionning-courts-rmon959_low.jpeg

Most democratic republics, like the U.S., require that the accused be judged in court by a jury of “our peers.” What this actually means is that lawyers for the prosecution (the State) negotiate with the defense (us) over who to include on the jury in order to secure a victory for their side. But even if those jurors are demographically very similar to the accused, they will very likely still be strangers to the accused. The court system, in fact, demands it. Prospective jurors are questioned and rejected if they possess any bias that connects them personally to the accused. They can’t know the defendant, work in similar occupations, or have experienced a crime similar to what the defendant has been accused of. This is nothing like how we as a species approached and solved infractions for the vast majority of human history.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is judge-listening-to-lawyer-in-courtroom.jpeg
Judge and Lawyer interact in courtroom

This modern court arrangement is extremely unusual for humans. Modern humans have been on this earth for about 140,000 years. For about 90% of our time on this earth, we lived and responded to each other without a state as an intermediary and empowered to force obedience. The first state, Mesopotamia, came into being at about 3,000 BC. Though this Sumerian state was the first for humanity, the vast majority of people in the world continued to live then, and many still live today, in small bands of no more than 40-50 people. They knew each other very well. These small bands of biologically related people greatly facilitated cooperation. They easily solved problems and conflicts between its members. Our modern minds and hearts were shaped by that formative period of human history. Many such tribal people continue to live in such bands around the world today. Though these tribes are often contacted by “civilized” people from state societies, these tribes ignore or violently reject efforts by the outsiders to live state society.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is hunter-gatherers.webp
Hunter Gatherers keeping a cave “journal” of their experiences

Despite the advantages that come from living in state societies, many tribal people believe their way of life is a lot better. One way that their life is better comes from how well they know each other. Living in small groups, they know who lies a lot, who works hard, who is emphatic, who is quick to rage, who is narcissist, etc. They also learn how to tame the belligerent and overly ambitious. They don’t use force or put transgressors in jail. They have no police, laws, or apparatus of punishment. They usually use shame, scoldings, or banishment to respond to transgressors. Banishment is an outcome that can often prove deadly since tribal people are so very dependent on each other for survival. All of this happens between people who are truly peers with each other. They are true peers who live with and know each other well.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is nyc-crowd.jpeg
NY City street crowd of strangers

But today most of us live amongst people who are largely strangers to each other. We don’t really know the many millions of people who self-identify as “Americans.” This is true whether they live in places thousands of miles from us, down our same street, or even down the hall of our apartment residence. Over time, we have invented ways of softening the negative impact modern life has on, what are still, our tribal minds and hearts. Thus, we tell each other that we are really not strangers because we are members of a super tribe we creatively imagine as a nation. We create heroic stories (like the American Revolution) to explain our “common” origins. These are delusions that exaggerate if not feign the truth. We create holidays, flags, and songs to remind ourselves to celebrate the myth that we are all one people. We insist that our nation is governed by sacred principles that secure for all of us some agency, truth, and justice. The U.S. Constitution is one such sacred value. We believe that the Constitution undergirds all of our behavior and interactions. We champion the idea that no one is above the law. Yet, as we have found again and again, this legal principle does not always hold. Our experience with Trump has proven that some people are above the law. But we persist in thinking that the weak infrastructure of social connection in modern societies can truly protect us because we have made, in one way or another, a big choice.

We have decided that our Hunter Gatherer hearts and minds can be made to fit and survive in large, anonymous societies, no matter how antithetical these conditions are to our essential nature. We are habituated or choose to live in state society because we want the technological and social progress we believe they can deliver us. We pay either too little or too much attention to how our way of life in state societies is constantly endangered by our Hunter Gatherer nature. Yet all of us devolve to our original nature in modern societies. We become tribal about what we believe, who we trust, and who we battle against. What’s even more disturbing is that those with power and status are quick to rationalize their own tribal deviance, ignorance, prejudice, fear, superior power, and violence as something just and necessary. In fact, they tell themselves that their tribal organization of superior power is necessary to maintain civilization. Elites and MAGA tribal groups are needed to counter the unjust and violent behavior of those “primitives” at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This is what motivates the MAGA Trump cult.

The reality is that getting ourselves out of our current crisis of political polarization and social breakdown will take enormous social will and political sophistication. There may not be any going back in time to our Hunter Gatherer origins of life without a state. But going forward is just as improbable. What chance is there that we can become one cohesive modern state of strangers given the increasing hostility to newcomers and the unwillingness to see “the other” as an equal? The current signs are not reassuring. The opposition to Critical Race Theory in many parts of the country reveals a great disinterest in any close examination of why racial inequities continue to exist and tear us apart here. Women are increasingly being treated as vassals without the right to control their own bodies, even when they are victimized by rape. Immigrants are “animals” despite the fact that without these immigrants this country would suffer great economic decline and the social security, that secures retirement for the majority, would be in danger. Homosexual people are also being increasingly marginalized in conversation, education, and in political rights. Homosexual animals and birds enjoy more freedom and acceptance than their human counterparts.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is we-power-720x329-1.jpeg

What is missing in this country is not just a fair legal infrastructure or an inspired and unifying leadership. We could call for a renewed faith in our national identity myth. We could work for a deeper acceptance and trust in all of the abstractions of nation, law, and authority that life in state society demands of us. But those myths could unravel again just as quickly as we can knit together. What is truly missing here is for those with power and status see themselves more clearly. The tribal sensibility and behavior they see and condemn in those below them are just as salient and destructive for those on top. The ruling tribes of race, wealth, and political power are real and supported by a vast empire of culture and state power. Their tribal existence seems genuine and true to them because their numbers are small for the 1% and/or their white identity is presented as nonracial. They are simply people who know each other well. The truth is that the cracks we see in America’s social and political experiment are more than difficult to repair. They are, actually, almost impossible to overcome completely given that we are hunter gatherers trying to make sense of an artificial reality governed by an artificial monster that pretends we can cooperate and maintain peace though we live amongst millions of other strangers we won’t ever really know or understand.

Open document settingsOpen publish panel

  • Post

Notifications

Tag added 

Enraged

Posted: January 30, 2021 in Uncategorized
Tags: ,

Passion for a political cause is not foreign to me. I too have gotten whipped up with a searing emotion to heal wrongs and wrongdoing, personal and public. Reason cannot moderate this passion. There is no possible peace, no brokering of alternatives. Your body and your mind are inflamed by sparks from inside and from the crowd. It is almost impossible to contain. Such rage can erupt from both right and left political rage. The Capitol Insurrection differed from all the ones I have experienced or witnessed. This one was sparked by Trump and the GOP! It was orchestrated. And now it has swallowed up almost all members of the GOP.

The New York Times reported recently on the maddening crush of emotion by Trump fanatics that killed one young woman.

“As 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland lay dying on the steps of the Capitol on Jan. 6 after being crushed by a mob, fellow rioters were charging over her to attack police officers with crutches, a hockey stick and pepper spray, new police body camera footage shows. Video obtained by The Times provides a previously unpublished view of the brutal fight between rioters and officers at a central entryway on the west side of the Capitol — the same one that President Biden used to descend to his inauguration ceremony two weeks later.”

As horrible and frightening as this moment in the enraged Right Wing Trump Capitol Insurrection might be, we should be more concerned with how fragile our peace and order really is at this and most times in history. This was not a bug in our human design. It is a feature that is ready to erupt, destroy, and decapitate institutions and leaders. Fear of this kind of passionate eruption used to animate conservative thought and practice. But no longer. The right wing now consciously nurtures, incites, and defends this kind of capitulation to our passionate self.

Ms. Boyland is trampled to death by the Trump Capitol Insurrectionists

The GOP has capitulated to our basic instincts because it has very little else to offer. The world continues to change right under their feet. Tradition in religion and ethnicity gets further eroded everyday by migration, diversity, as well as secular and scientific thinking. The role of government in the economy and our personal lives becomes more and more entrenched but not by choice or ideology. Government intervention in the economy and our personal lives is now a necessary component of any modern state. The GOP promotes disorder and rage because it has nothing else to lose. It cannot gain power without anti-democratic attacks on voting and government. It cannot recruit more supporters without caving into their extreme resentments and grievances, no matter how outlandish. I will elaborate on this in my next post.

Academic Thinking

Posted: December 29, 2019 in Uncategorized

We humans survived on this earth by depending on our gut, emotions, and fears. This is as true today as it was during the hunter gatherer stage that lasted world wide for almost all of human history. The invention of the academy took place over the last few thousand years, in fits and starts, over the world where states were created. The major lesson of the academy has been that there is an alternative way of thinking.

accounting administration books business

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Photo by Jeswin Thomas on Pexels.com

We can engage in rational, slow, deliberative, focused thinking as opposed to the fast thinking of our emotions and gut. Slow thinking made possible the growth of science, technology, social theory, and even religious doctrine. It also made possible the possibility of imagining new worlds and plans for getting there. This is one reason why almost all revolutionary leaders have been well educated and of the middle and higher classes. This was true of Washington, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, etc.

male statue

Photo by Olle on Pexels.com

Thus, the academy does take parts of you away, but it also gives other ways of thinking that can be harnessed to help the very communities you may now feel estranged from. So, the tools of the master can be used to replace the master’s house, if we are willing to use them.

Latino Opinion Leaders on 2020 Presidential Election – No. 1

During January 2019, I conducted a survey for the National Institute for Latino Policy/Latino Policy Journal, that I lead as Chairman of the Board of Directors.  The idea was to repeat previous NiLP efforts, by our beloved leader Angelo Falcon, to gauge the Latino perspective about Presidential elections. This online poll of our vast network of Latino Opinion Leaders showed that none of the current crop of Democratic and Republican candidates had yet become a clear-cut favorite for 2020. While it might be too early for voters to form deep convictions about the large set of candidates running for the Democratic nomination, Latinos are just as undecided about the current Republican candidates. This means that all these candidates have a lot of work to do to raise interest and gain recognition among Latinos about why they are running as well as what policies they hope to enact. The field is very much wide open.

Table 1

Preferred Democratic Candidate for Presidential 2020 Election by Party Registration

  Democratic
Independent
Republican None “Other”
Hillary Clinton 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0%
           
E. Warren 7.9% 12.3% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0%
           
B. Sanders 14.8% 26.5% 23.1% 24.3% 38.5%
         
K. Harris 10.8% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 1.5%
         
J. Biden 16.1% 22.5% 15.4% 10.2% 7.7%
         
J. Castro 13.0% 12.3% 7.7% 6.1% 0.0%
         
B. O’Rourke 20.1% 8.2% 0.0% 18.4% 7.7%
         
A. Klobucher 2.2% 2.0% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0%
         
S. Brown 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
         
C. Booker 1.8% 4.1% 7.7% 2.0% 0.0%
         
Others 7.9% 12.3% 46.2% 18.4% 3.1%
         
Column totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Some Democratic contenders did receive more support than others. Latino Opinion Leaders did offer Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, in particular, some mild support. Surprisingly, Sanders received more support from Independent, Republican, third party, and no party Latino leaders. This may be a reflection of Sander’s 2016 presidential campaign and media attention. Joe Biden also received a similar modicum of support from Latino Leaders across the party spectrum. Beto O’Rourke got the highest support from Democratic Latino Leaders but very little from the other party members.

Prez Election 2020

The rest of the field of Democratic candidates received almost no support. Cory Booker got more support from Republican Latino Leaders than Democrats. This is a bad sign for a candidate who has focused on social justice issues rather than on economic ones. Latino leaders are not buying his pitch. And finally, we have to assume that Julian Castro remains mostly unknown to Latinos outside of Texas. He barely broke 10 percent support from Democratic and Independent Latino Leaders. What is interesting is that more than 46 percent of registered Republican Latino Leaders hope that some other Democrat runs for president. Surprisingly, a popular write-in candidate, for Republicans, was the new Democratic Congress Woman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is not yet old enough to run.

Table 2

Preferred Republican Candidate for Presidential 2020 Election by Party Registration

Democratic
Independent
Republican None “Other”
D. Trump 18.0% 23.4% 23.1% 8.0% 8.0%
           
J. Kasich 30.0% 17.2% 31.3 24.2 31.0%
           
J. Flake 15.0% 25.3 0.0% 2.0% 8.1%
         
B. Sasse 2.1% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%
         
T. Cruz 5.1% 2.0% 0.0% 12.1% 0.0%
         
E. McMullin 3.2% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
           
Other 27.2% 25.0% 46.1% 51.3% 54.4%
           
Column totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Though the total number of Republican Latino Leadersis small, it is still surprising to see that some Latino Opinion Leaders support another President Trump run for the presidency. A little more than 43 percent of Democratic and Independent Latino Leaders indicated a preference for Trump. Despite that, Republicans expressed a larger preference, at 31 percent, for Ohio Governor John Kasich. The combined Republican and Independent Latino Leader favored Kasich, however, by only 48.5 percent. This was also true for Latino Leaders with Democratic, and other party registrations. Among those Latino Leaders who expressed a preference for other candidates, Michael Bloomberg was the most frequent write-in candidate.

The vast majority of respondents to this poll were Democrats (72%)with more than one-fifth of the total respondents declaring themselves independent or with no party affiliation. That Latinos are undecided about which candidate deserves major support does not mean that they are alienated from the two major parties, however.

 

Table 2A

With Which Political Party are You Currently Registered or Affiliated?

Democratic 71.9%
Independent 12.5%
Republican 3.32%
Other Party 3.06%
None 9.18
Total 100%

Table 3 shows that very large majorities of our respondents would support the Democratic Party, if the presidential elections were held today (87%).Interestingly, a large proportion of independents would also vote for a Democrat (over 40%). Even more telling is that one-third of Republican Party members would also vote for a Democrat if the election were held today. This is, probably, a reaction to the bellicose nature of contemporary Republican Party politics in Congress as well as a reaction to the Republican who occupies the White House. Most of the polling took place during the government shutdown, engineered by Republicans, that the vast majority of Americans opposed. Independents and those without party affiliations prefer to wait until the candidate choices become settled before they decide who they will vote for (37% and 36% each).

Table 3

Support Which Party for Presidential if Election were Held Today? – by Party Registration

  Democratic Independent Republican None
Democratic 87.0% 40.1% 33.0% 41.0%
         
Republican 1.0% 3.0% 33.0% 5.0%
         
Other Party 1.0% 9.3% 0% 0.0%
         
None of the Above 0.5% 3.0% 0% 9.1%
         
Depends on Candidate 10.3% 37.0% 17.0% 36.4%
         
Not Sure 1.0% 6.0% 0.0% 5.0%
         
Other 0.0% 3.0% 17.0% 5.0%
         
Column totals 100% 100% 100% 100%

Latino Opinion Leaders may not be alienated from the two major parties. But they are also not very happy with how the two parties have responded to the Latino community. Democrats are only slightly more positive that their party is responsive (42%) compared to Republicans (40%). Democrats also think their party is not responsiveto Latino needs at similar levels (40%). Independents and those with no party affiliation appear very convinced that no party has been responsive to Latino needs (65% and 60%). Both major parties, thus, have much work to do to address this perceived neglect of the Latino community. The ambivalence that Democratic Party members showed in this question suggests that this party has been given credit for whatever they have been able to do with a Congress and, especially, with a President who are dead set opposed to any Democratic legislative and policy idea.

Table 4

Is Your Political Party Responsive to the Needs of the Latino Community – by Party Registration

  Democratic Independent Republican None
Yes 42.0% 18.0% 40.0% 24.0%
         
No 40.0% 65.0% 60.0% 48.0%
       
Don’t Know 18.0% 18.0% 0.0% 29.0%
       
Column totals 100% 100% 100% 100%

 

In a previous NiLP poll, conducted in April 2015 about the 2016 Presidential Election, only 16 percent of Democratic Party members believed that their party was responsive to Latino community needs. At the same time, only 30 percent of Latino Opinion Leaders in the Republican Party believed, in 2015, that their party was responsive to Latinos. The Democratic Party should beware. The Democratic Party cannot point to anything tangible they have done to address Latino community needs. The relatively positive response by these Latino Opinion leaders may simply reflect a comparison to the negative work of Republicans. In other words, the Democratic Party does not merit the slightly higher positive support they received in 2019 compared to 2015. This support may be an indication that Democratic Party members are more hopeful.The recent new wave of young Latino and other progressives who won surprising mid-term elections in 2018 and took over the House may be one reason. That euphoria is understandable. But it is likely not to last till the 2020 elections.

 

Methodology

This is based on respondents from the influential online national information network of the non-partisan National Institute for Latino Policy that represents a broad cross-section of Latino opinion leaders throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Leaders Survey, we poll this group from time to time on important issues facing the Latino community given this stratum’s important role in Latino agenda-setting and framing.

While the polling that is sometimes conducted on Latino issues by the media and polling organizations is of the broader community, this more select group of opinion leaders has a unique place from which to view these questions within our community. These opinion leaders include educators, media reporters, elected officials, business executives, community activists and leaders, public intellectuals, concerned madres y padres, and young people looking to improve the conditions of life for Latinos in the United States. While not a scientifically generated sample of Latino elites, we expect this survey will result in useful insights on the main issues facing the Latino community in country today. While the findings of this survey are not generalizable to the community as a whole, they represent the views of an influential set of opinion leaders within this community who help set the framework for its issues and priorities. These findings should be seen more as a heuristic device, as one might take the results of a focus group.

The Latino Policy Report is an online information service provided by the Latino Policy Journal, an off-shoot of the National Institute for Latino Policy (NiLP), edited by Jose R. Sanchez. For further information, visit http://www.latinopolicy.org or contact editor@latinopolicy.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2020 Presidential election will be here sooner than we think. The National Institute for Latino Policy, an organization whose board of directors I chair, is conducting an online poll to see who Latinos prefer become candidates for the presidency in 2020. The final results are not yet in. But one preliminary result is very interesting. Latino influentials appear to be very pessimistic about the direction of recent American politics.

NiLP Poll Prez 2020 Q7

Almost 85 percent of this set of Latino influentials believe that American politics is moving downwards. The poll is not complete and I have not yet analyzed why they think this way. But perhaps this pessimism is due to recent poor economic trends for the Latino, African American, and working class Americans?Two research papers, I came across recently, suggest this.

One piece is an essay by Lynn Parramore titled “America is Regressing into a Developing Nation for Most People.” This article is based on the new book, The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy, by Peter Temin, Professor Emeritus of Economics at MIT. The gist of the research is that about 20 percent of the American population are thriving. They consist of what Temin calls “the ‘FTE sector,’ those who work for finance, technology, and electronics, the industries which largely support its growth”.  The other 80 percent of the population consists of people “who are burdened with debt and anxious about their insecure jobs if they have a job at all. Many of them are getting sicker and dying younger than they used to. They get around by crumbling public transport and cars they have trouble paying for. Family life is uncertain here; people often don’t partner for the long-term even when they have children. If they go to college, they finance it by going heavily into debt. They are not thinking about the future; they are focused on surviving the present.”

Given what we know about the Latino population in the United States, it is safe to assume that Latinos fall mostly into that desperate, lower 80 percent tier. Another recent research paper seems to confirm that suspicion. In an article, titled “The Decline of African-American and Hispanic Wealth since the Great Recession.”  Edward Wolff summarizes his own pivotal research from his book, A Century of Wealth in America (2017).  Rather than measuring inequality by focusing on the more volatile short time category of income, Wolff examined actual wealth (homeownership, bank savings, stocks and mutual funds, IRAs and 401(k)s, unincorporated businesses, as well as Social Security and defined benefit (DB) wealth. These calculations provide a better picture of a household’s economic status and security. Adequate accumulated wealth permit households to overcome temporary job losses, health emergencies, and make educational investments. I think that Wolff’s Research can help explain what has politically motivated Latinos and others in this country since 2008.

inequality_I_left_you_half

A major discovery is that Latino households and African American households suffered very dramatic declines in household wealth since 2008. In particular, Wolff states that,

“Hispanic households made sizeable gains on whites from 1983 to 2007. The ratio of standard mean net worth grew from 0.16 to 0.26, the Hispanic homeownership rate climbed from 33 to 49%, and the ratio of homeownership rates with white households advanced from 48 to 66%. However, in a reversal of fortunes, Hispanic households got hammered in the years 2007 to 2010, with their mean net worth plunging in half, the wealth ratio falling from 0.26 to 0.15, their homeownership rate down by 1.9%, and their net home equity plummeting by 47%. The relative (and absolute) losses suffered by Hispanic households over these three years were also mainly due to the much larger share of homes in their wealth portfolio and their much higher leverage.”

In essence, Latino households were hammered by the 2008 recession and by the government response under Bush and Obama. Whatever increasing parities in wealth they had experienced prior to 2008 completely disappeared afterwards. Latinos May have jobs, or multiple jobs, today. But they have lost massive amounts of wealth since 2008. These economic declines are likely to impact not only the Latino community’s sense of hope, their likelihood of investing in education, their interest in occupational migration, but also their views of government spending and political leadership.

This is no doubt a very complex phenomenon. Hopefully, The final results of this poll will help produce a healthy debate in the Latino community that can help us make better decisions about what we need as a community and who we should support for President.

We will try to tease apart these issues as we go forward with our analysis of the 2020 Presidential Poll. If you have not yet participated in the poll, please do so now by going to this link!

Stay tuned!

 

Much of the polarized debate on undocumented immigrants in the U.S. springs from emotional and tribal fears. But that tribal outlook is not just about fear. Ironically, it also about hope.

Although far from a majority, a large portion of the U.S. population wants to make it more difficult for immigrants to enter this country. They also want to send those who are here, with and without papers, back to their ancestral homes. There is fear and hopelessness in these responses. Disappearing jobs and stagnant wages have made some Americans into extremists. They are willing to think of the worse as they hope for the best. This is true even for those who came here as immigrants, or are themselves people of color, or who may also agree that the undocumented are hard-working and make a lot of contributions to this country. None of this matters any longer.

For many Americans, the undocumented are simple “lawbreakers.” They don’t care if these young immigrants have dreams. They resent the fact that their own dreams have no way of becoming true. So, they hope to dash the dreams of the undocumented. Yes there is resentment, racism, and bitterness there. But it is more.

Deep inside, most of these deniers believe that they are righting the scales of justice. The Dreamers may be hardworking, young, and innocent. But they are still lawbreakers and deserve to be punished. This punitive action is not likely to make their own dreams come true. But it will satisfy a thirst for some kind of justice.

For Joe Kleve, 21, a senior at St. Mary’s University of Minnesota in Winona, the argument that the young immigrants had been brought by their parents held no weight.

What if someone’s parents were caught sneaking their whole family into a movie without paying, he asked. “Are they going to just kick the parents out?”

For Mr. Pham, 39, the issue was personal. He, too, arrived in the United States as a toddler, as a legally admitted refugee from Vietnam. But until his family could find American sponsors, they were parked in a refugee camp overseas for more than a year.(NY Times “Most Americans Want Legal Status for ‘Dreamers.’ These People Don’t.” January 25, 2018)

daca-protest-trump-immigration-ap-mem-170905_12x5_992

They want justice against those they hold responsible for their losses. They don’t blame the titans of industry or the politicians, of both parties. It’s the Dreamers they accuse. These young people whose early lives were spent at the bottom rungs of this society as marginal and utter dregs in a fast flowing and increasingly unequal plutocratic country. But why this relatively small, deprived, and non-threatning group of young immigrants?

It’s because the Dreamers now have educational and professional achievements to their name. They have the temerity to show that huge obstacles can be surmounted. These Dreamers were seemingly able to brush off discrimination, poverty, and segregation and move upwards and so easily through the maze of globalized job losses and occupational hazards that thwart the dream-deniers. They hate that the Dreamers could overcome. The last thing deniers want to do is to bring Dreamers over the finish line by giving them legal status too.

This is why DACA supporters are making a mistake by suggesting that support for these young people is a kind of moral test. Yes, they were brought here as innocent young people. But that innocence doesn’t touch a significant sector of despondent Americans of many races and immigration status. Those who want them out are not persuaded by the economic contributions DACA young people have and will make to this country.

Not all of these deniers are nativists or racists. But most of them simply don’t want to see this country work for others. This is what Make America Great Again means to a lot of them. Perhaps this country cannot be kept white. But they aim for a future that can suddenly become positive and hopeful for them, without Dreamers. Perhaps, just perhaps, those well-paying and stable jobs Dreamers have or aspire to will again become available to them if ICE can push them out.

This all sounds dystopic and sad. There appears to be no easy way out of this penurious and delusional reaction to Dreamers. But it does not have to be. It’s possible to imagine a different, more realistic, and positive path. But to get there, DACA supporters will have to change their strategy. The goal should not be to continue the claim that Dreamers are not only innocent but hard working and successful. That just irritates too many Americans who see themselves as being equally hard working yet not as successful in education or jobs as the Dreamers. Latinos and Dreamers must appeal to the American sense of fairness and justice.

These young Latinos were brought to America by their parents. But their parents did not decide to go to America voluntarily. Their parents were encouraged and pushed to leave their country. This must be part of the messaging. Each Latino sender country has a history of American corporations buying up huge tracts of agricultural land and leaving campesinos, the Dreamer’s parents, without any real economic options to survive in their own countries. NAFTA institutionalized this process. The impact NAFTA has had on Mexican agriculture is largely responsible for the Mexican and Central American undocumented migration into the U.S.

NAFTA_s Vicious Cycle

The stories we tell to support the Dreamers should be about their parents. The parents may be guilty of sneaking into this country. But they are also victims of corporate avarice and economic domination…in their own country. They were economically battered, pushed out, and, as a result, had to sneak into the U.S. This is a story of loss that many American workers, even dream-deniers, may understand.

Dream-deniers have also been victimized by bank foreclosures, globalization, and job lay-offs. Many corporations have also come out publicly against Trump policies and actions, like the Muslim ban. Trump supporters and corporations are not necessarily clear allies. Trump and his supporters are more likely economic nationalists and authoritarian statists. Now, it’s likely that the dream-deniers will respond, like Trump, by also denying that U.S. corporations and government have ever done anything wrong in Latin America or anywhere else in the world. Yet Trump has also provided a possible conceptual bridge between the two.

Trump recently connected the Dreamers to white American deniers who feel dispossessed and hurt by the global economy. In Trump’s 2018 state of the union speech, he proclaimed “Above all else, we must remember that young Americans have dreams, too.” This statement, in a sober but largely incoherent speech, shows that Trump is crafty and very aware that the word “Dreamers” represents a beautiful “marketing coup” designed by Latino and Democratic leaders.

The word Dreamer gives undocumented youth a veneer of innocence and vulnerability that is difficult to attack. Trump’s goal was to take the word Dreamer back from Mexicans and Latinos and connect it, instead, to those Americans who want to deny Dreamers any sanctuary and any legal path to remain in the U.S.  Trump sought to make the deniers pure, innocent, and hopeful.

Latino leaders should accept Trump’s inversion of the word. Accept and invert it once more. Make American deniers into Dreamers who, like Latino Dreamers and parents, have also suffered at the hands of corporate and government elites who don’t have their interests at heart. But do so by linking the political economy of Latino undocumented flight into this country to the political economy of middle class and working class job and wage losses in the last 40 years.

Not all Trump supporters are nativists who simply want to whiten the country and keep non-white people from living in the U.S. And polls continue to show overwhelming public support for legal status for Dreamers. The latest poll shows 84% of Americans support granting legal status. But we don’t have to change how all deniers see the true Dreamers. Getting this done really means getting Congress to support Dreamers too.

What stops Congress from supporting Dreamers? First, there are the gerrymandered districts, full of the small percentage of anti-immigrant extremists, that elected so many of them into office. Those nativist extremists won’t forgive such betrayal. And Congress is hated so much by the American public, only 18% approval in the latest poll, that they have to hitch their wagon to the slightly more popular but legally vulnerable Trump.

This conceptual slight of hand may even turn the tables on Trump. It may get him to support this linkage between the Dreamers and his erstwhile “dreaming” supporters. I don’t think we can wait until the next redistricting maps (after 2020) or for a Democratically controlled Congress to change the policy on immigrants. Waiting will not protect Dreamers or Latinos from the rising nativist tide of violence and oppression.

The existential threats are immediate and palpable for Dreamers and Latinos in general. Changing the conversation, words, and perception of what Dreamers represent is a necessary first step. It may create the critical geographic and popular support that can sway Congress to support Dreamers. It may also help protect Latinos from the growing anti-immigrant and nativist movement that is already resulting in deadly physical attacks against Latinos, Dreamers and non-dreamers alike.

It’s time for Latino leaders to swing for a home-run rather than for a single. Dreamers, Latinos, and other working Americans can be saved only by making the case that capitalism cannot solve the problems caused by capitalism. The case against trade is that it is not only bad for the American working class, it is also bad for the working classes in Latin America too. Establish a class alliance to make support for Dreamers possible. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But none of the strategies being pursued now are likely to deliver legal status to the millions of Latinos here without papers.

A lot of what perplexes us about conditions of inequality and economic failures can be better understood if we recognized how much of our hunting/gathering life we bring to contemporary society.

For the first 140,000 years that modern humans have existed, we all lived as hunter gatherers. We shared everything we produced with each other, reinforced egalitarian principles, lived in relative harmony, and no authority figure could tell us what to do. We also lived in small groups of about 100-150 people. Our society was small enough then that lazy or selfish people were quickly identified and shamed into behaving or expelled from the group.

Today, about 20,000 or so years removed from hunter/gathering days, almost all of us live in enormous societies with millions of other, mostly unknown, people. This makes it impossible to live in the primitive socialism of hunter and gatherers. The state, as in Cuba, may try to force a “plan” on everyone and to check non-social behavior. But all it does is to suffocate freedom, produce inefficiently, and generally fail to check anti-social behavior. The solution, as most Northern European countries have discovered, is a judicious combination of capitalist markets and state regulation.

Click on this to see video: Cuban economy

IMG_0877