Back in the early years of the Iraq war, I remember being struck by two polls. One found that around 40 percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in 9/11. The other asked how many American believe the world was created in the last 6000 years—again, around 40 percent.
In a Washington Post piece on Tuesday, I encountered this not-so-magic number once again. This time, it was the percentage of Americans who approve of the job Donald J. Trump is doing.
What is the deal here? Why are such frustrating ideas shared by this large, stable slice of the populace?
It’s interesting that each of these positions seem to have been arrived at very differently. The Hussein opinion from crass manipulation and insinuation out of the mouths of George W. Bush and others in his administration, exploiting post-9/11 fear and patriotism to drum up support for the Iraq War. New Earth Creationism from long-standing fundamentalist tradition. And the belief in Trump from… what?
It’s easy to just say ignorance. After all, some of the people interviewed for the Post article have some pretty ignorant things to say about Barack Obama’s nuclear weapons treaty with Iran.
But one thing these voters are not ignorant about is their own hometowns.
“Everybody is in a holding pattern. We’re waiting for the factories to return, but I know they will,” says a Trump fan who grew up in East Liverpool, Ohio. “… For the first time in many, many years, I’m optimistic.”
They’re not wrong about the hollowing out of Middle America, exploding income equality and the ever-increasing concentration of wealth in just a few regions. They’re not wrong about the disruptive nature of globalization, which has brought plenty of good and bad to the country—just none of the good, it seems, to East Liverpool. They’re not wrong to mistrust Wall Street, or to yearn for something radically different than the status quo that has upended their world in the last half century.
And they aren’t bamboozled by GOP tax cuts. Yesterday, Democrat Conor Lamb defeated Republican Rick Saccone in a Western Pennsylvania district that went for Trump by a 20-point margin last November. Much of the selling point for Saccone revolved around the recently enacted tax cuts.
But the Tump supporters in this district don’t love laissez-faire Capitalism the way New York bankers do, and they don’t necessarily believe in Paul Ryan-esque small government. They know that most of the tax cuts benefit the rich. They would probably gladly trade them for a TVA-style investment in Greene County, if it meant lots of jobs.
These are long-standing truths of American populism that neither party does a good job of tapping into anymore. Trump gives it more lip service than anyone else, and they love him for it. Yet his presidency so far has shown an unwillingness or inability to follow through on his economic populism in any meaningful sense. This could be a huge opportunity for bold liberals, if the terms and outcomes were framed correctly.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Monday, January 29, 2018
King of Prussia Rail Map: Here's What the Line Looks Like
SEPTA has announced a finalized route for the proposed Norristown High Speed Line extension to King of Prussia. Planners chose a route taking advantage of PECO (electric/gas utility) and Pennsylvania Turnpike right of ways, avoiding any close contact with residential areas, before skirting the King of Prussia Mall on the way to a terminus next to the Valley Forge Casino.
Nowhere in any of the news reports (or on SEPTA's website promoting the project) can one find a decent map illustrating the route, so I created one.
In order to mitigate local opposition, the route relies heavily on the Turnpike right of way, which surely helps drive up the cost (estimated at 1.2 billion). At this price, the pros and cons of such a project need to be carefully reckoned.
As SEPTA points out, the line would link the region's three major economic hubs: Center City, University City and King of Prussia (not to mention the Main Line). It would alleviate traffic and pollution in one of the most congested road corridors in the Northeast and be an economic boon for the area, cutting travel times and enabling a one-seat ride for shoppers, employees and residents. In addition to the mall and casino complexes, the line would provide access to the Chester Valley Trail, one of the most important of the Philadelphia Circuit Trails
The price, obviously. As pointed out by a community group, the station locations do not easily benefit local residents as none outside the immediate mall area are pedestrian-friendly. Construction on and along the Turnpike will be an extended headache while the line gets built, and the line may encourage even more intense development along the edge of Valley Forge National Historic Park. (While coming tantalizingly close, the line does not facilitate pedestrian/bike access to the park due to Gulph Road and Route 422.)
Another factor to consider is that elements of the existing Norristown High Speed Line could prove the weakest links in a very expensive chain. It was just four years ago SEPTA was doing emergency repairs on the century-old Bridgeport Viaduct to replace rotting timbers. As SEPTA notes, an extensive rehabilitation project is still needed on the bridge—just the most high-profile of a number of issues resulting from decades of deferred maintenance on the underfunded rail line.
For King of Prussia Rail to succeed, SEPTA as a whole must be healthy. Perhaps SEPTA hopes KOP rail would make the NHSL (and the system as a whole) too big to fail.
Nowhere in any of the news reports (or on SEPTA's website promoting the project) can one find a decent map illustrating the route, so I created one.
 |
| King of Prussia Rail: Click Map to Enlarge |
In order to mitigate local opposition, the route relies heavily on the Turnpike right of way, which surely helps drive up the cost (estimated at 1.2 billion). At this price, the pros and cons of such a project need to be carefully reckoned.
King of Prussia Rail: Pros
As SEPTA points out, the line would link the region's three major economic hubs: Center City, University City and King of Prussia (not to mention the Main Line). It would alleviate traffic and pollution in one of the most congested road corridors in the Northeast and be an economic boon for the area, cutting travel times and enabling a one-seat ride for shoppers, employees and residents. In addition to the mall and casino complexes, the line would provide access to the Chester Valley Trail, one of the most important of the Philadelphia Circuit Trails
King of Prussia Rail: Cons
The price, obviously. As pointed out by a community group, the station locations do not easily benefit local residents as none outside the immediate mall area are pedestrian-friendly. Construction on and along the Turnpike will be an extended headache while the line gets built, and the line may encourage even more intense development along the edge of Valley Forge National Historic Park. (While coming tantalizingly close, the line does not facilitate pedestrian/bike access to the park due to Gulph Road and Route 422.)
Another factor to consider is that elements of the existing Norristown High Speed Line could prove the weakest links in a very expensive chain. It was just four years ago SEPTA was doing emergency repairs on the century-old Bridgeport Viaduct to replace rotting timbers. As SEPTA notes, an extensive rehabilitation project is still needed on the bridge—just the most high-profile of a number of issues resulting from decades of deferred maintenance on the underfunded rail line.
For King of Prussia Rail to succeed, SEPTA as a whole must be healthy. Perhaps SEPTA hopes KOP rail would make the NHSL (and the system as a whole) too big to fail.
Friday, January 19, 2018
On Both Sides of the Abortion Debate, the Key Question is One of Rights
As the pro-life movement has evolved, it has undergone a paradigm shift from a morals-based argument against abortion to a rights-based one, arguing for protections for the unborn in language pioneered by progressives in the Civil Rights and anti-war eras and carried forward through organizations such as Amnesty International and the ACLU.
This is roughly the point made in a fascinating New York Times piece, How the Pro-Life movement Has Promoted Liberal Values.
Left unmentioned is the thorny question—for pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike—of when, exactly, the unborn acquire rights. This question has always been on the table and is indeed baked into the fabric or Roe v Wade, which established a sliding-scale rule for when the state’s interest in protecting a fetus trumped a woman’s right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.
Seeing the debate this way makes the pro- and anti- argument one of degree rather than fundamental difference. To a conservative Catholic, the human rights of an embryo become operative at the moment of conception; to liberal justice Harry Blackmun, author of Roe v Wade, they are operative at the point of viability; to some, they are operative at a baby’s first breath. But in all cases, there is the question of human rights, the appropriateness of their application, and their relationship to the rights of the mother—to privacy, to life (when continuing a pregnancy is life-threatening), to having a say over when and with whom to have a baby.
The rights question, while putting the debate on equal terms, underscores why there can never be universal consensus on abortion from a moral, ethical, religious or legal standpoint in the same way there has always been for, say, infanticide. This is why there should never be a constitutional amendment banning abortion, as it would enshrine in the Constitution the beliefs of some religious factions to the exclusion of others, which is itself inherently unconstitutional.
This is roughly the point made in a fascinating New York Times piece, How the Pro-Life movement Has Promoted Liberal Values.
Left unmentioned is the thorny question—for pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike—of when, exactly, the unborn acquire rights. This question has always been on the table and is indeed baked into the fabric or Roe v Wade, which established a sliding-scale rule for when the state’s interest in protecting a fetus trumped a woman’s right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.
Seeing the debate this way makes the pro- and anti- argument one of degree rather than fundamental difference. To a conservative Catholic, the human rights of an embryo become operative at the moment of conception; to liberal justice Harry Blackmun, author of Roe v Wade, they are operative at the point of viability; to some, they are operative at a baby’s first breath. But in all cases, there is the question of human rights, the appropriateness of their application, and their relationship to the rights of the mother—to privacy, to life (when continuing a pregnancy is life-threatening), to having a say over when and with whom to have a baby.
The rights question, while putting the debate on equal terms, underscores why there can never be universal consensus on abortion from a moral, ethical, religious or legal standpoint in the same way there has always been for, say, infanticide. This is why there should never be a constitutional amendment banning abortion, as it would enshrine in the Constitution the beliefs of some religious factions to the exclusion of others, which is itself inherently unconstitutional.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Why Do We Need Assault Weapons, Again?
There’s a lot of debate about whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own AR-15s and other assault weapons; a federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban, but this is not settled law.
A separate question is why people need assault weapons in the first place. The answer given by gun rights advocates is that they are necessary to defend against tyranny.
There are a few things to say about this.
While an individual right to gun ownership has been affirmed by the Heller decision, there is nothing in the Constitution to justify the “defense against tyranny” argument. The purpose of militias as set out in Article 1, section 8 is “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
So the 2nd Amendment, created to ensure the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, was designed with suppressing insurrections in mind, not fermenting them.
Not that citizens have ever had much luck taking arms against their own government, no matter the number of weapons involved. I have more to say about this in a 2014 post comparing the importance of the 1st and 2nd amendments.
We have a president who calls the press “the enemy of the people,” goes out of his way to condemn peaceful protest (Kapernick et all) and equivocates in the face of Nazis and Klansmen, yet none of his supporters seem to recognize this as a slippery slope to any kind of tyranny. The reason for this is that tyrannical, illiberal regimes do not rise up by sending jackbooted thugs to VFW meetings and county fairs; they use patriotism, populism and demagoguery to exploit cultural capital and set groups against each other, making core supporters feel protected and free.
Most Germans in the Nazi era did not feel tyrannized; they stood by as others bore the brunt of oppression. Meanwhile the basic protections of civil society and a free press were pulled out from under them. Oh, and they had guns (Nazi gun laws deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns). They had them, but had no desire to use them, because the Nazi party was widely popular.
Let's say your worst fears come true. Red Dawn paratroopers. Blue-helmeted UN invaders. The Khmer Rouge (of course, the Khmer Rouge went after liberals, intellectuals, artists and urbanites, which ought to make you wonder why despots find these type of people—not NRA types—so threatening). In your apocalyptic scenario, did we lose the military, or are they on the side of the patriots? If the regime has military support, you’re toast. If not, then what's your Bushmaster for? Do the tyrants have air power? Can they simply obliterate you, the way Germany obliterated Warsaw? What’s your game plan, man?? Hide in the bunker until smoked out, or blown up? Is this how you preserve freedom?
Here's a better idea. Fight for transparency, equal protections, science-based policy, good government and constitutional rights (beyond weaponry), and against corruption, oligarchy, money in politics, vote suppression and illiberalism. Time and energy much better spent, and no chance of accidentally shooting yourself in the foot.
A separate question is why people need assault weapons in the first place. The answer given by gun rights advocates is that they are necessary to defend against tyranny.
There are a few things to say about this.
This is not supported by the 2nd Amendment.
While an individual right to gun ownership has been affirmed by the Heller decision, there is nothing in the Constitution to justify the “defense against tyranny” argument. The purpose of militias as set out in Article 1, section 8 is “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
So the 2nd Amendment, created to ensure the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, was designed with suppressing insurrections in mind, not fermenting them.
Not that citizens have ever had much luck taking arms against their own government, no matter the number of weapons involved. I have more to say about this in a 2014 post comparing the importance of the 1st and 2nd amendments.
Many gun owners would not recognize tyranny if it bit them in the ass.
We have a president who calls the press “the enemy of the people,” goes out of his way to condemn peaceful protest (Kapernick et all) and equivocates in the face of Nazis and Klansmen, yet none of his supporters seem to recognize this as a slippery slope to any kind of tyranny. The reason for this is that tyrannical, illiberal regimes do not rise up by sending jackbooted thugs to VFW meetings and county fairs; they use patriotism, populism and demagoguery to exploit cultural capital and set groups against each other, making core supporters feel protected and free.
Most Germans in the Nazi era did not feel tyrannized; they stood by as others bore the brunt of oppression. Meanwhile the basic protections of civil society and a free press were pulled out from under them. Oh, and they had guns (Nazi gun laws deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns). They had them, but had no desire to use them, because the Nazi party was widely popular.
What are you gonna do, really?
Let's say your worst fears come true. Red Dawn paratroopers. Blue-helmeted UN invaders. The Khmer Rouge (of course, the Khmer Rouge went after liberals, intellectuals, artists and urbanites, which ought to make you wonder why despots find these type of people—not NRA types—so threatening). In your apocalyptic scenario, did we lose the military, or are they on the side of the patriots? If the regime has military support, you’re toast. If not, then what's your Bushmaster for? Do the tyrants have air power? Can they simply obliterate you, the way Germany obliterated Warsaw? What’s your game plan, man?? Hide in the bunker until smoked out, or blown up? Is this how you preserve freedom?
Here's a better idea. Fight for transparency, equal protections, science-based policy, good government and constitutional rights (beyond weaponry), and against corruption, oligarchy, money in politics, vote suppression and illiberalism. Time and energy much better spent, and no chance of accidentally shooting yourself in the foot.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Decrying Religious Tests While Pushing Doctrine
I disagree with senator Feinstein and other Democrats for questioning judicial nominee Amy Barrett about her Catholic faith, which does constitute a kind of religious test for public office. Judges should not be subject to grilling about their religious convictions (or lack thereof) as an indication of how they will interpret and uphold the law.
I have to say though, it would help matters if conservative bishops would not threaten to deny communion to Catholic lawmakers seeking in good faith to do their jobs. It’s hypocritical to decry religious tests on the one hand and then, on the other, hold believers’ souls for ransom if they refuse to toe a particular doctrinal line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)