Keep Speaking, Lady

Here is an open letter from a self-described "Latina Mama" named Ana Samuel to Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the openly gay, happily married mayor from South Bend, Indiana, who is running for president.

I agree with Dr. Samuel's statement and share her concerns about how the so-called tolerant left is in fact hostile to people of faith and/or to people who hold conservative, traditional, Judeo-Christian values.

To those who wish to castigate the author as an ignorant, narrow-minded bigot, here is her bio:

Ana Samuel, PhD, is the daughter of Mexican immigrants, the wife of an Argentine immigrant, and the mother of six awesome children. She completed her undergraduate studies at Princeton University and her doctoral degree from the University of Notre Dame before becoming a founding mother and the Academic Director of CanaVox.

Here's an excerpt:

Mothers tend to emphatically care about the welfare of all children, regardless of their family’s origin or current form. We also tend to emphatically care about every LGBT person—recognizing our common humanity even when we do not agree with their lifestyle choices. When we are polite to you, we are coming from a place of deep moral principle and authenticity. It’s not a superficial cover up for our true beliefs about you. You are rights-bearing individuals (like all of us) endowed with human dignity.  

Although our home countries have often been viciously anti-gay places, there is a deep understanding among Hispanic mothers that those who identify as LGBT have suffered a lot, and that many have lived a life of hurt, harm and pain. We feel great sympathy for your suffering. But the ideas you have developed from painful experiences are not always sound ones. And we can distinguish between the two: between affectionate concern for you as a person and disagreement with your ideas. So please stop shutting us out of the conversation by the intellectually dishonest rhetorical expedient of implying or saying that we are bigots. We are the opposite of bigots. 

We are prepared to co-exist peacefully and tolerate a great deal of what you propose, but not at the expense of losing our own ability to practice and preach our own values and freedoms. We are happy to work side-by-side with you, to have you as our coaches, neighbors and friends, but don’t cross the line and tell us what sexual values to cherish and uphold. 

A Message to Mayor Pete from a Latina Mama:Don't Force Your Sexual Ideology on Me and My Children

The More Things Change . . .

I've been re-reading Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. I can't remember when I last read it--somewhere between 2001-2006 according to my own reading list (right side of this blog). Though it was written in the first half of the last century (that sounds so weird), around the mid to late 1940's, so much of it seems pertinent today. There are a few things that sound jarring to the 21st century ear. His discussion about marriage, for instance, would get him booted from Cambridge University in a New York minute, particularly his reference to same sex attraction. Nonetheless, I believe it's absurd to judge people in our past, distant or recent, by today's standards. Better to let their words be understood and respected in the context, era, morals, mores, or their day.

On Forgiveness

His Words

My Response

My marginal notes mention the Covington Catholic High School melee that took place earlier this year at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.  and Donald Trump (I'll link a couple articles below for context). Trump was penciled in later since I re-read this passage on the day the Mueller Report essentially exonerated him of the so-called Russian collusion charge that was leveled at him shortly after he was elected president. The question Lewis poses here ("Suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite as bad as was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that . . . '") needs no response, since we all know what the answer is. This chapter is written in the context of the Biblical injunction that we "love our enemies." Nothing further needs to be said.

The page I copied above strikes me as profoundly prescient. Surely the poisonous political climate brought about by a confluence of social media and Donald Trump is historically unprecedented. But Lewis seems to be describing the 21st century politics to a tee: "fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." Was it as bad as that in the 1940's? Maybe it's true, what another wise man said, "There's nothing new under the sun." This book was written last century but seems indistinguishable from today. 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Links

"The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story" (The Atlantic)

Our Long National Hysteria (National Review Online editorial)

Direct Democracy Sounds Good, But . . .

There's been murmuring lately among the Democrats about the need to abolish the Electoral College. 

Here's what Elizabeth Warren said the other day at a Town Hall: "“In a general election, presidential candidates don’t come to places like Mississippi. They come to places like California and Massachusetts, because we’re not the battleground states. My view is that every vote matters, and the way we can make that happen is have national voting, and that means getting rid of the Electoral College … every vote counts.”

She seems to be contradicting herself. By acknowledging that presidential candidates wouldn't go to areas that are less populated, she was essentially arguing for the electoral college. As a Wall Street Journal editorial put it: "The Electoral College helps check polarization by forcing presidential candidates to campaign in competitive states across the country, instead of spending all their time trying to motivate turnout in populous partisan strongholds."

Warren's "every vote counts" mantra sounds good in theory until you pull back the curtain and examine the implications. The Founders’ reasoning for setting up a “mediated representative government” as opposed to “direct democracy” makes sense when you recognize that a direct democracy inevitably leads to the tyranny of the majority (see On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill, for instance). 

The Federalist (linked below) clarifies:

“Pure democracy” is just another phrase for “mob rule.” Dictatorship of the majority means 51 percent of the citizenry rule the other 49 percent. That minority has no rights except those the condescending majority grants. It works well for those in the 51 percent, not so much for those in the 49. Plato knew it, and James Madison, who knew his Plato, did too. Plato and Madison both recognized that justice and liberty for the minority is possible only when power is shared between groups in society.

I think people like Elizabeth Warren and others on the political left like the idea of "every vote counts" understand demography and ideology are connected. Large, urban, coastal states (like California) have a denser population and tend to vote Democratic. The reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College was because these left-leaning states pulled the lever for her. As Senator Warren put it. "presidential candidates  don't come to places like Mississippi. The come to places like California."

Exactly. Why would Hillary waste her time trying to gin up votes from smaller states who lean right when she can scoop up the majority in Democratic-leaning states? Answer: she wouldn't. Hence, the wisdom inherent in the Electoral College.

Sources:

"The Electoral College Still Makes Sense Because We're Not a Democracy," by Donna Carol Voss

"Targeting the Electoral College" (Wall Street Journal editorial, March 20, 2019)

A Modest Attempt to Understand Socialism

I've been thinking about recent conversations on socialism I've had with friends and family. I don't want to get everyone upset or riled--this is not about "who's right/who's wrong" or whatever. I just wanted to toss these ideas around and get some feedback. I’m hoping maybe we can all be nice and hear each other out without getting defensive.  

In a recent Wall Street Journal Letters to the Editor, there was a letter responding to a column about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialistic policies. I thought the letter writer’s distinction of Socialism and Social Democracy (or is it Democratic Socialism?) was helpful:

“One widely accepted definition of socialism is a political and economic philosophy advocating that the entire means of production, distribution and exchange are owned or regulated by the community as a whole, i.e., the state….On the other hand, a social democracy is a political, social and economic system that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of liberal democratic politics and a capitalist economy.”

First, a "bigger picture" comment: The issue it seems to me has to do with benevolence and compassion. For instance, at the end of one recent conversation on this issue, a friend said, “Just because we’re middle class and comfortable doesn’t mean we can forget about everyone else.” Giving it the benefit of the doubt, we could say that the Democratic Socialist vision that we've been squabbling over could be viewed as a sincere desire to make life easier for everyone, which is the point my friend has been making. So at its core, perhaps we could concede there's an in underlying good (social justice) to their vision. 

On the other hand, while its critics may concede the need for a safety net, they still see a trajectory towards ultimate government control of the economy. In other words, where does this "goodness" end? The famous saying, "The only problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money," seems not just pithy but true. So to critics, there’s an underlying flaw to the Democratic socialist vision. 

All of the "good" things we've been hearing about from progressives (Universal Basic Income, Universal Preschool, Free College, Medicare for All) and from the Democratic Socialists (a greenhouse-gas free economy by 2030, overhauling transportation systems, guaranteed federal jobs for everyone, to name a few of the ideas proposed in the Green New Deal), suggest ultimate government control over much of the economy. How can it not? Even Kamala Harris, in talking about Medicare for All, admitted she’d like to see the end of private insurance (I think she has since tried to walk back that comment, but it’s revelatory, nevertheless). So even though I agree in theory that Democratic Socialism is different from "actual" Marxist Socialism, it still represents a trajectory towards a less free society. 

Second, while analogies are not perfect, sometimes I find it helps me visualize bigger picture issues by comparing them to smaller-scale scenarios. Here are a few "what if" scenarios that I've tried to envision by applying socialist principles on a smaller-scale.

So, what if socialist-type policies were applied to: 

Academics: Not everyone has the same life experiences, background, training, parental support, etc. So let's level the playing field and redistribute the points of A-students equally among the rest of the students. This way, everyone at least passes. 

My comment: Even though this situation seems to apply the Social Democratic philosophy defined above (“social intervention that promotes social justice”), I'm guessing that most of us would reject this argument. If I stayed up late studying, or worked with a tutor, etc. and because of my extra efforts, I received an "A" in my class, and another student (maybe less fortunate, has to work two jobs, grew up in a single-parent household, whatever) did not put in the same effort and received an "F"—it’s inherently unjust for my hard-earned points to be redistributed, no matter how bad I feel for the other person. 

Shopping: Imagine going shopping, spending $100 on food for your family, then at the door being stopped and having 70% of your purchases redistributed to a line of people less fortunate than you. Not everyone has the same life experiences, background, opportunities, advantages, etc. So let’s level the playing field.

My Comment: This again feels unfair for the same reasons I listed above. We don't visualize it in such a "microcosmic" way, but isn't this, at its core, what we're saying when we advocate for a social intervention promoting social justice? One way or another, a certain percentage of what I earned (grades, dollars), is taken by the government to help the less fortunate? 

These two hypothetical situations illustrate on a small scale what the government wants to do on a grand scale. The way we currently understand the “safety net,” it’s really only the truly destitute that we should be talking about. But that’s not what I hear being proposed by the progressive left in general and the Social Democrats in particular. More and more, we’re hearing about “entitlements," and not just for the destitute—for everyone. A safety net is good, necessary--it's the role of government. But where does any of this end? What if the next "good thing" the government determines everyone is entitled to is what we might describe as "luxuries"--a car, a cell phone, a laptop, a paid vacation? Eventually, the 70% or 90% of the top 1% earners above a certain amount won’t be enough, and we’ll all be expected to foot the bill. How many of us would gladly work 40 or 50 or 60 hour weeks only to have the government skim 70% or 90% of our pay checks? Even if somehow we "get something" back (free health care, etc.), most of us would resist. Maybe this is another discussion, but I think this kind of top-down society goes against the grain of what makes America unique, at least at its core. 

Here are some final random questions that I've been thinking about:

• Why should the government decide the "greater good"?
• Do we really want the government taking our hard-earned dollars for a greater good the government has decreed (beyond the safety net)?
• What if I don't want my money going towards one or more of these "greater goods"? What if I prefer my money go to a charity, a church, another cause? 
• What if rather than coerced taxing the government mandated that all people earning a salary be required to give a certain percentage of their paychecks to the charity of their choice? Government decreed charity? Most people would recoil. Yet that, to me, is what we're talking about. 
• What's the difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism?

Good Fences, Good Neighbors?

The issue du jour is border walls and Donald Trump! No surprise--the Trump haters hate the wall, the Trump supporters love it. 

Meanwhile, lots of yammering going on on social media. "Everybody's talking at me, I can't hear a word they're saying." Brings to mind the famous Gary Larson dog, Ginger.

blah blah blah WALL blah blah blah TRUMP blah blah blah

Exactly. 

Here are a few of my own thoughts. 

First, other than partisan politics, I'm not sure why this has to be an either/or issue. It seems to me the issue is multi-faceted. A physical barrier makes sense as one facet. Not the main or only facet. One facet. I was listening yesterday to the Three Martini Lunch podcast, with Jim Geraghty and Greg Corombos, and their first topic was Trump's scheduled prime-time broadcast scheduled for last night in which he was going to appeal to the American people about the need for a border wall. Geraghty says this whole discussion has turned into a proxy fight about Trump: if you like Trump you like the idea of a fence, and if you don’t like Trump, you don’t like it. But he thinks it's important to set aside what you think about Trump and listen to people who actually work along the border: 

Listen to these border patrol officers. They’re the ones who are out there, whose job is to stop people from coming across the border. Let them describe what they see and what they experience, the dangers of smugglers, the dangers of cartels. We all remember Fast and Furious and the use of American-made guns that killed border patrol officer Brian Terry. And the head of the Border Patrol Officers’ Union made an argument before Congress that basically said, Look, we don’t need the Great Wall of China from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. We need a couple hundred miles worth of fencing. Can that stop everyone? No. But what it does is it acts as a funnel by narrowing down the areas where people who are trying to cross the border are going to go to, and that makes it easier for the Border Patrol to catch them. 

Again, one prong of a multi-pronged approach to a complex problem. I think this is a very compelling argument. 

Second, the Democrats seem to have one primary counter-argument to Trump's insistence on a wall, and it boils down to this: a wall is immoral. This argument is essentially the one that's being repeated  on social media. Yet the notion of a wall being immoral flies in the face of reason. Nobody disputes the necessity of fences in practical, everyday, normal life. Homeowners have fences to keep things out (neighbor kids, stray dogs, strangers) or to keep things in (their own kids or pets). We lock doors at night or when we leave for the very simple reason that our house (or car or apartment) belongs to us or contains items that belong to us. People are not free to enter without permission, either through the front door or the back. But to offer these simple analogies is to invite scorn, opprobrium, mockery, and accusations of racism. 

Thinking about this issue, I was reminded of the maxim, "Good fences make good neighbors" (which was apparently based on an aphorism from Poor Richard's Almanac by Benjamin Franklin), which led me to Robert Frost's poem, Mending Wall. "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," the poem begins, and that seems to be the case in this debate. Yet in spite of the poet's aversion, there does seem to be at least an implied or reluctant acknowledgement that walls are necessary. The title itself suggests the narrative arc: two neighbors working together to mend the wall that separates their properties. Does the act of mending the shared barrier foster harmony? Is a wall, in fact, a bridge and not a barrier? Is this notion not even worth contemplating in this debate?

Third, back to facets. Republicans talk about physical barriers, Democrats call such barriers immoral, and the painted ponies go up and down. Can we not jump off the merry-go-round and look at other options? Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop--not a conservative, by the way--wrote an article called, Republicans are Afraid of E-Verify. Harrop argues that a physical barrier is a dumb idea--it's inefficient, expensive, unsightly, it doesn't address other issues, such as immigrants overstaying their visas. But the thing we're forgetting, she says, is the main reason people come to America: "The vast majority of foreigners entering this country come for jobs. Turn off the jobs magnet for those without the proper papers and their numbers would shrink radically. That makes an E-Verify-type program the most serious means of curbing illegal immigration." The problem is E-Verify is not federally-mandated, so only eight states are currently using it (all Republican-led). 

Why are we not talking about E-Verify? Harrop claims that Republicans in other states "have opposed mandating E-Verify because their companies would have to pay their workers more than do their competitors in non-E-Verify states." She doesn't mention Democrats, but my hunch is Democrats also would oppose E-Verify, most likely on moral or emotional grounds because, well, that's how Democrats tend to argue--from emotion (what about people who are already working here illegally, for example? Do we just send them back?). 

E-Verify won't work as it should unless and until employers in all states are held to the same standard. Without a federal mandate, E-Verify is a toothless tiger. So there's the rub. Democrats and Republicans and Donald Trump need to do the hard thing. The easy thing is to build a barrier. The hard thing would be to mandate E-Verify for all states.  

Everybody's Talkin' (Harry Nilsson)

“Love your neighbor; yet don't pull down your hedge.”

Source: Poor Richard’s Almanac, by Benjamin Franklin