Rural Democracy

[TOC: all blog posts]

Last year we drove across the country from Michigan to Washington and back, a trip we have made frequently over the years. I love the high plains of Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. But I admit a feeling now of driving through hostile territory.

A couple of years ago we made the same trip with my pickup, which has a small Hillary 2016 sticker. A pickup pulled up alongside us on the freeway across Montana and the driver flipped us the bird repeatedly before accelerating again to pass. We had been just rolling along in the right lane and hadn't made any sudden lane changes that might have pissed anyone off, so I expect the gestures were due to the sticker. It was disconcerting, but not enough for me to remove the sticker. (I understand Trump stickers provoke similar reactions in parts of the country.)

The plains and mountain states include Democrats, but they are all but invisible. One reason is that minorities tend to be quiet and avoid drawing attention to themselves. But the party, it seems, could do more to make itself felt and understood and accepted. 

I recently read the book Dirt Road Revival, by Chloe Maxmin and Canyon Woodward. It points out that the Democratic Party has largely abandoned rural America, concentrating its attention on the more heavily populated urban and suburban areas. The authors think this is a mistake. I agree.

Rural America has a disproportional influence on American politics. The state of Wyoming has the same number of senators as California, whose a population is 67 times greater. The Electoral College, weighted toward rural areas, has repeatedly gone against Democrat presidential candidates who have won the popular vote. So simply for pragmatic reasons Democrats should do more to court rural voters.

But there are other reasons. One is symbolism. The roots of this country are essentially rural. Many Europeans migrated to America for an opportunity to have land to farm. While only a small fraction of the population are now farmers, many of us have a heritage of farming. There is a lingering nostalgia for farming and farmers. A place in the country is still a dream of many who live closer to work sites in populated areas.

Another is need. Poverty rates are higher in rural than urban areas. Democrats, generally speaking, do more for those in need than Republicans, so they should demonstrate concern for all areas of the country where poverty is high. I think help often sounds like handouts, which is something that independent rural folks tend to dislike, so we need to think of new ways to offer help and to communicate those offers. It sometimes surprises me that Republicans provide handouts to the wealthiest and still appeal to rural voters, but I suspect it has something to do with the messaging.

A Democratic Party office should be located in every rural county, maybe just off main street with a tall flagpole and the biggest American flag in the county. Democratic candidates should be encouraged to run, not necessarily with the aim of winning their local and state elections, but as a members of a coalition that listens to rural voters while advocating for practical progressive policies during their campaigns. Quite a few folks might be more willing to serve as two-way liaisons than as elected politicians. And if they happen to be elected, they will have the distinct advantage of understanding what the local issues and concerns actually are.

It was largely rural citizens who decided we wouldn't serve and obey a king without representation. A lot of rural America still feels like they are not well represented. Is that one reason many are now willing to revolt against democracy itself in favor of a would-be king?

Something New

[TOC: all blog posts]

Last night at the Democratic National Convention, a lot of revered Democrats were featured. A PBS commentator noted the contrast to the Republican convention, which featured none of the old guard and a singular focus on one man.

David Brooks, whose views I have often respected even when mine differed, noted that at least the Republicans were featuring something new and not the same old same old.

I guess he's right: the celebration of tyranny is new to America.

On the other hand, it's older than the nascent democracy of ancient Greece.

What's really refreshing is a president willing to sacrifice personal aspirations for the good of the country. It's not entirely new, mind you. Our first president, George Washington, did the same many years ago. But the decision was so unexpected that it caught the entire Republican Party off guard. It seems that such an act is beyond their imagination.

Of the People

"Who knows what Lincoln (and others) meant (and mean) by the phrase "of the people"? Is it possessive as in "management of the estate" or "owner of the house"? Or is is causal, like "died of a broken heart"? Or is it partitive, as in the "hem of her skirt" or "hair of the dog"? Or is it all of these?

When I wrote By the People, I thought I would soon follow with Of the People and For the People. But I got stuck on Of.

I suppose government "of the people" might simply refer to administration primarily of people rather than of property or of the economy or of a highway or tax system. Those other things become responsibilities of government only in as much as they affect "the people." But that's getting into the realm of "for the people."

Maybe it's even simpler: Lincoln wanted to emphasize the importance of the people three ways for oratorical effect, even though "by" and "for" might have covered his intent.

I suspect there's more to it. I won't presume that Lincoln had this in mind, but it's worth consideration. Maybe government of the people means that government follows the people rather than requiring the people to follow those in charge. Daniel Webster said earlier that it is "the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people."

Every government is "answerable to the people." The people have the ultimate power. What our founders established was an acknowledgement of something that was always true. Our "fathers brought forth a new nation" as an honest attempt to institutionalize this natural rule of the people through a system of representatives elected by the people.

Citizens hold authority, whether or not they wield it. This is why governments and companies spend so much effort trying to influence people. Those at the top use their position to try to influence the electorate instead of dictating how things will be. We rejected the way of the kings of Europe, who thought they could dictate to the people. Some in business still dictate. Maybe that's OK, because workers can usually quit and work for someone else.

I'm reminded of something John Oliver said of Elon Musk: "He wants to save the world. But only if he can be the one to save it." 

That is not of the people. It's hubris.

Howard Schultz, founder and former CEO of Starbucks, was impressive in his insistence on taking care of his employees. But when they said they wanted more of a say, through a union, he fought them. Only I can fix it, he thought. They cannot fix things for themselves.

That is not of the people. It's patriarchy.

We also see desperate, yet often successful, propaganda from regimes that build systems to exploit the people to benefit a few oligarchs. They cannot simply say, "Because I said so!" They have to get a significant proportion of the people to believe in whatever they are peddling. They flood the world with lies, if that's what it takes.

This is not of the people. It's domination.

There was a time when most people accepted the notion that some were born to rule and others to be ruled. This acceptance was part of what allowed authoritarians to tell people what to do. But that notion faded in recent centuries with the rise of democracy. Now tactics have changed. There are still governments that rule with an iron fist, and some of them still have a populace that believes the ones in charge are ordained. But more often a move toward more extreme oppression is an effort to quell the people's dissatisfaction and resulting restlessness.

Authoritarians, many who gained a foothold by appealing to the citizens, have a lot of sway. Especially when they ally themselves with titans of industry. Now they have the money they need, and the wealthy bosses have government policies that ensure they get a lion's share of the markets. If the media can be pressured toward propaganda and the courts can be influenced to judge in favor of the already privileged, then the common people are at a serious disadvantage.

We citizens are not of one mind. We don't see eye to eye in the best of times and, when the bullhorns of propaganda blare in support of an authoritarian and his sponsors, it is difficult to cut through the confusion.

But it is still up to us. We gradually learn what is going on and, if we can no longer vote because we voted in an authoritarian, we can still protest. The dictator, never fully in charge, raises the volume on his lies. He threatens (or worse) those who disagree. He shifts blame for our discontent to scapegoats. But he responds to the people. He might even make policy adjustments in our favor. If we persist, he will fall.

I suppose we will always reserve some respect for those who thrash their way to the top. But this should never blind us to their wiles, their selfishness, their will to dominate. We will always tolerate some of this nonsense and go about our business, but we must not be deaf and silent.

For now, we can let our collective voice be heard through the ballot box. But, no matter what happens, if we decide not to put up with authoritarianism, we can stop it. The governing of us is up to us. It is always ultimately a government of the people. Any one, any party, any clan or cult that suppresses our voice or claims the right to decide for the rest is wrong. They are not of the people.

In the Cold

"The rich have their ice in the summer, but the poor get theirs in the winter."

Almanzo Wilder* uses this proverb to argue that things on the farm aren't so bad. It's a humorous take on inequality, with a measure of resignation. 

But inequality has serious consequences. A recent study from the University of Cambridge finds that 55% of millennials worldwide are dissatisfied with democracy. Why? Because of inequality. From the study's conclusion:

The broader question we are left with, then, is this: how can faith in democracy be restored in the face of systemic discontent and populist mobilisation? If there is an answer here, it may be to focus less upon “populism” as a threat and more upon democracy’s founding promise – to represent the concerns of citizens, and deliver effective and timely policy solutions. The rise of populism signals that existing structures have failed to address longstanding resentments in society, ranging from inequalities of wealth, to economic insecurity, to malfeasance among economic and social elites.

The study reports that the rise in populism—left, right, and even center—is a reaction to inequality and resulting inequities. This explains, in the US, the popularity of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Populism tends to villainize a group of elites. For President Trump that group has bounced around from liberal politicians to scientists and doctors to mainstream media, or anyone else who dares to criticize the big man. Even life-long Republicans, like Robert Mueller, are labeled crazy liberals if they fail to lick the boots of the grand pooh-bah. 

But the President has overwhelming support from most Republicans. They too want to dismiss evidence of the widening wealth gap and its causes. Promoting havens for themselves and their richest constituents trumps any concern over the failures of trickle-down economics.

A Reuters article about the Cambridge study sums it up: 

"The main reason behind the disillusion with democracy among young people was inequality of wealth and income, the report said, citing figures showing that Millennials make up around a quarter of the U.S. population but hold just 3% of the wealth. Baby Boomers held 21% of the wealth at the same age.

The group of elites that gets much of Bernie Sanders' ire goes unscathed by nearly all Republicans. The gap between rich and poor has expanded dramatically since the 1980s, while the share of taxes for the wealthy has declined. Discarding a reputation for fiscal responsibility, Republicans passed a tax reform bill that they knew would increase the deficit. That bill achieved their goal: taxes for the economic elite were reduced to the lowest rate since the 1950s, when the super wealthy paid a whopping 90% income tax rate. That tax rate has been dropping since the early 1960s, and the gap between rich and poor has grown dramatically.

To be sure, Republicans promote social causes that generate enthusiasm among some of the low-income population, but these are mostly props. Such ideals are dropped in a heartbeat if they hamper the promotion of wealth among the wealthy.

Now, as a result of the growing income gap, many people are fed up with a system that promotes the cause of the rich over that of the poor and middle class. Because this has happened in a great many democracies, this system of government has been tarnished with the results. Increasingly, the dispossessed are left in the cold.

Recently Utah Senator Mike Lee said, "We are not a democracy." Is he expressing solidarity with over half of the world's millennials? No, he seems unconcerned with growth in inequality. He is panning democracy to preserve inequality. On almost any issue, you can predict Republican policy by whether it answers yes to a single question: does it cater to the rich over the poor? 

As a Montana farmer used to say, "Don't that frost your biscuits?"

------------------

"I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means—except by getting off his back."

-Leo Tolstoy

* Laura Ingalls Wilder, The First Four Years

-----------------

2024-04-22: Today I read an article worth reading on this topic: 
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/neoliberalism-freedom-markets-hayek/678124/

How to Rig an Election

 There are many facets to effectively stealing an election. If you are in Belarus, you simply announce your victory and order yourself inaugurated. But in the USA, that would not fly. So it gets more complicated.

Steps include (but are not limited to):

1. Complain about a rigged election
2. Prevent improvements to allow quick tallying of mail-in ballots
3. Cast aspersions on validity of mail-in ballots
4. Pretend that the pandemic is no-risk
5. Citing 3 & 4, urge your supporters to vote in person 
6. Suppress the vote in areas prone to vote for your opponent
7. Urge your more thuggish supporters to intimidate voters in areas prone to support your opponent
8. Anticipate mail-in ballots to favor your opponent
9. Slow the counting of mail-in ballots and contest their validity
10. Scream about a rigged vote as mail-in votes erase your lead from in-person voting
11. In the ensuing chaos, urge states led by your party to appoint electors
12. If you get caught, defend yourself with "I told you the election was rigged! Why didn't you believe me?"

Add these steps to long-standing broad voter suppression, and you significantly increase your odds of winning. Close elections in Georgia and Florida in 2018 exemplified how effective just run-of-the-mill voter suppression can be.

When did democracy become a joke?

And if you think I'm joking, read these:

• Republicans Are Waging a Relentless Assault on Voting Rights Across the Country
• The Election That Could Break America

Or listen to the October 1, 2020 episode of Fresh Air.

Taxation

I recently noticed a bumper sticker: Taxation is Theft. This definition of taxes would, I suppose, account for bitter opposition to taxes.

If taxation is theft, all taxes are immoral. Some of the rhetoric we hear these days would support this view: government must be limited because all it does is steal from people. That's the definition of taxation. In this view, any government tax is the equivalent to a warlord taking rice by force from subsistence farmers and villagers.

I've heard complaints about government subsidies for Amtrak. People should drive their own cars, the argument goes. But if there were no taxes, whose roads would you drive on?

Well, some taxes are OK—the ones that keep us from being incapacitated. This is known as libertarianism. Other than the essentials, any governance is illegitimate. But who decides what is essential? Is a defense budget that equals the sum of the next closest ten countries essential? How about five countries? Are all roads essential, or just some? What about national parks? Who decides what is essential? How does one get consensus?

A colleague, a few years ago, was upset with Warren Buffett for remarking that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Buffet thinks that, as one of the world's richest people, his fair share should at least equal the rate his employees pay.* My colleague is as reliable and helpful as any workmate could ask for. But this perspective on taxes baffles me. On what basis would anyone be upset by Buffet's assessment? Why would his recommendation of parity be offensive?

I suppose that, if one views taxation as theft, any support of taxes must be challenged.

So, challenge me.

Taxes, in my view, are simple efficiency. I suppose that the street on my block could be paid for and maintained by the four families who live here. At the most basic level, the four of us might agree to pool our money and have the street maintained. Or maybe three families agree, and the fourth goes along or perhaps moves away in protest. If two or three of the four families on our block decided against pooling our resources, then we would each be stuck determining which section of street was ours and would have to maintain it ourselves. To pay for it, we might charge cars that pass, just as boys with shovels, hoes, and a bamboo gate charged us when we passed on the otherwise poorly maintained roads in Liberia some years ago. This does not strike me as particularly efficient or practical.

It is more efficient, of course, to maintain streets at a city level than by four-family groups; I would much rather that my street be maintained by a municipality, or the road to my farm by a county or state. Thus, taxes. If a majority of us agree on pooling our resources, I suppose the dissenters can still consider taxation as theft. But it seems rather unneighborly.

Our country was founded on anti-tax sentiments, some say: remember the Boston Tea Party (and start a libertarian political movement called the Tea Party). Actually, what colonial Americans protested was taxation without representation. The American experiment was representational democracy, not "no new taxes." If you have a vote, you are represented. You may disagree with the majority, but you have your chance to speak.

So why this wave of sentiment against taxes? Well, taxes are easy to dislike. Ben Franklin lumped them in with death as both inevitable and unpleasant.

But there's also a chance we have been hoodwinked. I notice that the ones speaking most loudly against taxes are not suggesting a reduction in our defense budget. It just so happens that some very large and influential companies make billions of dollars from our defense budget. Other lobbyists for low taxes are some (not all) of the richest Americans and American companies. They find it easy to echo Ben Franklin in disparaging taxes, and they find a willing audience among people who benefit far less from low taxes than they do. I find it curious that they find such support.

We have been told by some of these lobbyists that rich people need lower taxes because this stimulates spending and is good for the economy. But there is little evidence for this. Our economy was at its peak during the 1950s–1970s, when taxes on the richest Americans reached 70 percent and higher. I'm not saying high taxation on the wealthy necessarily leads to a better economy, but I think we have a pretty good case that it does not devastate the economy as some would have us believe. And why would one believe that extra money in the hands rich people helps the economy whereas extra money in the hands of poor people leads to irresponsibility? Is it because they haven't "earned" some of it? Well, that would be a good argument for high taxes on inheritance.

The wealthiest Americans make much of their money through capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages. So a plumber who works long hours to earn maybe $160,000 a year pays taxes at a higher percentage than the venture capitalist, who makes 100 times that much. Go figure. This is what Warren Buffet noticed, and he admitted that maybe we should rethink it.

I won't claim to understand all the ins and outs of capital gains and economics, but doesn't something seem fishy here?

Different cultures and countries might have higher tolerance for taxes than others. Right now, ours seems to have a collectively low tolerance (while we pine for the good old days of the '50s). But much of this animosity seems driven by an ideology: taxes = bad. What makes them bad? If higher taxes are what the people agree to, then it's democracy.

Don't you think democracy is more important than an ideological economic preference? I'm pretty sure the founders of our country did.

----------------------------

*An exceptional Propublica article reveals that Buffett's effective tax rate over a recent 5-year period was about 0.1% of his income. The end of the article quotes him: “There’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won.”