Now-retired Professor Sheila S. Kennedy in a recent blog reviews the review of the Daily Beast of a new book: WHITE RURAL RAGE: THE THREAT TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, by Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman, who hold, inter alia, that most of the negative stereotypes liberals hold about rural Americans are actually true, providing reams of data to substantiate such conclusion.
They found that “Rural whites are the demographic group least likely to accept notions of pluralism and inclusion,” that rural Americans for Trump’s Muslim travel ban ran 15 points higher than in urban areas, 13 points more likely to view LGBTQ+ Americans negatively than in urban areas, express fear and anger at migrants at much higher rates than other Americans. 47% of them believe Trump won the 2020 election and are by 20 points more likely to believe Obama was not born in the USA, and as the professor puts it, “chillingly,” more than one out of four rural residents say that Trump should be returned to office by force if necessary.
Professor Kennedy’s effort drew several lively responses, some in a negative vein, so I decided to write a both hopeful and warning response to the thrust of her blog, as follows.
I read the review earlier upon which Sheila bases her blog today and it confirms the suspicions I have had in re the rural-urban divide. However, unlike some, I am optimistic with the advent of broadband and even some occasional liberal statements from Fox and other data that we may finally merge rural and urban thinking if and when we have a common disaster in the making, and after a trip to the deep south recently I’m thinking that climate control may be the trigger to our survival.
I was in Antarctica for several days about a month or two ago and have learned that an iceberg the size of Florida could separate from that mainland in the near future, raising the planet’s oceans by two feet, but that such coastal flooding is dwarfed by the possible separation of one in Greenland which will raise the planet’s oceans 12 to 14 feet, a catastrophic river-blocking event. Given such possibilities, one would think that the rich and poor, black and white, rural and urban, Democrat and Republican, evangelical and atheist would act in concert to do what is necessary to avoid such possible end of civilization. Yet we ride merrily and obliviously along, immersed in fossil fuel propaganda, enjoying the political luxury of rural-urban spats, cretins like Trump, alternative facts, racial hatred, blatant lies, rich/poor fables, Musks, et al.
Philosophically speaking, perhaps with the virtual end of agriculture and if and when the Missouri-Mississippi basins’ waters threaten mile-high Denver and we are fishing in Lake Kansas we will wish we had listened to scientists rather than politicians and capitalists, assuming we are here to make such an observation. Perhaps. Time and happenstance will tell. GERALD E
The daily blog of recently retired Professor Sheila S. Kennedy today quoted a New York Times columnist’s lament in re the costs and authority of bureaucrats over the people who do the work in carrying out the administration of government and corporate initiatives. Those who responded to her effort included self-identified bureaucrats who defended their efforts in smoothing out the intent of lawmakers and corporate headquarters in transforming sometimes vague policy into action as well as self-identified and retired bureaucrats who felt their efforts in such transformation were in vain. Other responders complained of the layer of costs to consumers brought about by such an apparent failure of those who make policy initiatives to do a better job in describing the ways and means of implementing them before throwing such implementation to the bureaucratic wolves. I responded to Professor Kennedy’s blog as follows.
We apparently feel we need more managers to manage more managers but I have always told anyone listening that this added expense to us consumers is a result of a more litigious society and that the fear of litigation as well as loss of market share drives the attention of those in smoke-filled political as well as corporate boardrooms, but not to worry > at some point (perhaps soon) AI may supplant the need for such human management in the corporate world, assuming would be consumers of their goods and services and the corporate culture as we know them continue to exist (speaking of Brave New Worlds in economics, the rightly named “dismal science”).
It would be interesting to somehow today know the curricula of the business schools embedded in our colleges and universities twenty five years from now, again assuming the existence of such institutions and what is then taught. My guess is that such quaint notions as supply and demand, Adam Smith, the Chicago School and other such Neanderthal economics will have long since been discarded in academia in favor of a system I can’t even imagine at my pay grade and must leave to the Pikettys and Krugmans of today to identify and discuss. Gentlemen, step forward. GERALD E
Vern is one of my fellow contributors to retired Professor Sheila Suess Kennedy’s blog and today in response to her blog effort in re the 14th Amendment he noted the success of democratic socialism in Scandinavian countries. I have written of the following experience on this blog before but I think given Vern’s note it is worth a revisit to Sheila’s effort today.
I once visited a very rich lawyer in Stockholm, Sweden, among other relatives of my now-deceased wife. He and his wife lived in a beautiful condo bedecked with jade and paintings on One Kungsgarten Street in the center of downtown. He and his wife had a condo in Switzerland and would sometimes fly down there for a weekend of skiing. They also had a condo on Majorca, an island for the rich in the Mediterranean. We often received postcards from Hong Kong and other exotic venues from these world travelers. They were democratic socialists in a country where poverty is illegal, a real contrast with our homelessness, sick, and hungry here. Medical bills? Unknown in Sweden, but the leading cause of bankruptcy filings here. How come?
I thought I would play Republican right winger and asked him if income taxes there were some 50%, and he, after some hesitation, said, “Yes, I think that’s about right, Jerry.” I countered with “That’s a little high, isn’t it,” and I’ll never forget his reply: “Well, Jerry, that depends upon what you get for your money.” He then set out a litany of what Swedes get for their money, after which I concluded that we pay more taxes than Swedes do as measured by benefits received – far more – so contrary to what we are told as a matter of faith by status quo exponents, perhaps tax increases can be good policy. It depends on whom you fairly tax, how much, and what you do with such tribute.
The difference is, of course, that Swedes trust their government to do what benefits all Swedes and we don’t, and both for good reason. With state legislatures and a Congress as political cesspools who benefit their donors and themselves and ignore the rest of us who foot the bills via taxation and an unfair distribution of the wealth provided by an economy owned by the few, the stats quo is in good order, all while our sidewalk population increases – a phenomenon unknown in Sweden.
There will be change in the offing, so I am going to go out on a limb today with the following prediction: That yet further sophistication of AI will bring about massive displacement of human labor and require all countries, including ours, to adopt some form of democratic socialism if humanity is to survive, since the fate of civilization should be in the hands of the people in a democracy and not in the hands of authoritarians, Wall Street and hedge funds. I foresee market capitalism as now practiced will necessarily be victim of a virtually human labor-less world where supply is unlimited but demand absent, a world where only government can fashion a response, a change not of choice but rather one of necessity, and one we need from a Piketty or Krugman to define since that is far beyond my skill set. GERALD E
I just heard every minute of the Supreme Court’s hearing on the issue of whether the State of Colorado can remove Trump from its list of candidates in the state’s upcoming election and from such arguments can safely predict that this court is going to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s holding and find that the state cannot do that. Trump will ballyhoo such finding as proof of his innocence, and tell us that such finding proves he’s a shoo-in for election etc. He, as usual, will lie.
Actually, it’s a win for Biden because Colorado is a reliable Democratic state and it will sharpen both Democrats and non-Maga Republicans in the other 49 states to leave the couch next fall and vote against this candidate who now tells us that his presidential acts are immune to criminal charge and that even if he ordered the assassination of political opponents he could not be charged criminally unless the Congress first votes for his impeachment, a novel theory this Supreme Court will be hearing shortly, and one I think the court will reject since, aside from a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine (Courts handle crimes, not Congresses) he may decide that the judges who make decisions he doesn’t like are themselves “political opponents” ready for the gas chambers, firing squads, or another means he decides.
Herr Trump is asking the Supreme Court and anyone else who will listen to clothe him with powers above the law due to his presidential status, the powers of a dictator like those held by Hitler, who did not ask permission of either German courts or legislators before sending millions of Jews and others to the gas chambers, and giving Trump as dictator the power to decide who a “political opponent” is will put every American at risk, literally, of death, including members of his cult who for one reason or another fall out of his favor, just as Hitler had many Nazis murdered who he suspected were into undermining his authority.
I am no youngster. I spent over two years in WW II opposing fascists such as Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini in the South Pacific and elsewhere in defense of our democracy, never dreaming such evil form of government would someday be offered in this country such as Trump offers us, and will be voting against him in November. Join me in saving our democracy. GERALD E
Professor Kennedy in her blog following the recent election was pleased with the result and saw hope for the survival of our democracy after all. Patmcc, one of her responders, also saw hope as well. I responded to her effort with a bit of historical context as slightly edited, per the following.
Patmcc stole my thunder; I was about to make his same observation. Perhaps we saw a new “moral majority” decide that Trump’s 1/6 adventure and democracy don’t mix, that they prefer democracy, and to the argument that it was not democracy an aroused polity voted for but rather abortion freedom I here observe that the two are branches of the same tree. I also note in passing that there are other “branches” awaiting grafting to the tree of democracy, like among other things, a fairer sharing of the economic wealth with labor based on productivity and an end to voter suppression.
Short history (as I see it) > Our new Speaker fits the Puritan mindset well. The Enlightenment? Whut’s thet in his world? It’s the century of new thinking about human rights as alluded to by Professor Kennedy in her blog, our Revolution from George III royal control, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and perhaps most importantly, as a rights template for Europe signaling consignment of royalty to ceremonial status, the French Revolution of 1789. Testosterone-rich Henry VIII who started his own church when the pope would not allow him a divorce and Luther who challenged the Puritanical Catholic Church of his time with his 95 Theses and marriage to a nun round out the earlier religious pre-Enlightenment landscape and were harbingers of things to come – like Baptists, No-Fault divorce, and women in the voter’s box.
So how does a platform-less Republican Party of today whose fascist captors favor a felon for president (who makes Benedict Arnold look like a Boy Scout) fit into the fleshed-out Enlightened principles bequeathed to us by Madison and Jefferson? There is no fit – and can never be, since the return of the governing process from the rule of law undergirded by our Constitution to a formerly royal and dictatorial status by fascists and their threats and violence is totally at odds with Enlightenment values, and like oil and water, can never mix.
Our task? Resist all attempts to end our democracy, the most precious asset we hold in common, and one of the last few things left worth dying for. GERALD E
Perhaps Alito didn’t do a favor for Republicans with his Dobbs decision. Why? Well, Republicans had a 50 year ride with Roe in which they were not called upon to defend their view(s) of one size fits all treatment of women’s reproductive health. He stripped them of that cover with Dobbs and we saw the positive result in the election held a few days ago.
Republicans have made their political beds on this issue and are now desperately trying to amend their position in order to bring women back into the voting fold. Even Trump, hardly a women’s champion but recognizing the danger a year from now, is (uncharacteristically on the QT) calling for reform. He’s too late.
I predict that such attempts won’t work and that abortion rights will be an issue in future elections. I also predict that there will be similar issues of women’s freedom in future elections that may determine the outcome of such elections. The pursuit of women’s freedom in a democratic society, after all, should not be limited only to whether they and their doctors rather than politicians decide on what they do with their bodies, and Title IX is just a start. Gerald E
Professor Kennedy, a recently retired university professor, noted in a recent blog the authoritarian style of governing by Governor De Santis of Florida, especially his political takeover of both the curriculum and administration of the public universities and colleges of that state, including political redefinition of tenure of professional staff, all of which drew lively responses from a number of readers. I responded to her effort as follows.
In re the enabling legislation both the draft resolution and the statute contain language deliberately hazy so that politicians will be enabled to provide administrative definitions to suit the interpretive whims of De Fascist in the certain court challenges to come.
My then living wife, a retired university professor, and I, an attorney, retired to Michigan and later to a lakeside home in Naples, Florida, in the 1990s. She passed in 2009 and I decided I would remain there to live it out. Then Florida elected a fascist governor, De Fascist, and after some experience as a citizen with his destructive dictatorial tactics, I sold my home there and moved to Indiana, where I now reside.
I am no youngster, having served in WW II in the South Pacific and elsewhere in a war to end the fascism De Fascist now wants to reinstate under the guise of “Freedom” and other projections with his wholesale destruction of our democratic institutions. I determined that, having given over two years of my life in opposition to fascism, I would refuse to live under fascist rule, foreign or domestic, hence my departure from Florida, which was the only reason I departed the sunshine state since I won’t be around when the state is underwater. (contra: fossil fuel industry propagandists).
I never dreamed that even the fascist captors of the Republican Party could come up with a worse anti-democracy candidate than Trump, but with De Fascist’s prospective ascendancy to the throne someday if not in 2024 they may have succeeded.
My response to such reality? A political pox on both their houses! GERALD E
Professor Kennedy in her Labor Day blog took a look at the economic costs to the rest of us of virtually unlimited gun control, quite aside from the increased number of victims and other crimes per se resulting from studies uniformly showing such increases. She had a number of responses to her effort, including mine, slightly edited, as follows.
We were taught in law school that there are no common law crimes anymore; that all crimes are either statutory or they are not crimes. I have had time to reflect upon this position and think it is a neat means of criminal law management and definition, but when added to other definitions of what I consider immunity to criminal liability under the guise of policymaking by reason of one’s station, I’m beginning to wonder – and that doesn’t make me a Guy Fawkes or Oliver Cromwell aficionado. Unlike (Oliver)Trump in a later time, I have no wish to assassinate the Parliament (Congress).
Thus, for instance, we have the recent adoption of permitless carry in Florida, which by every study known to man will increase the number of dead tourists, residents, those prone to suicide et al., studies known to the governor of Florida, Bang-Bang DeFascist, who in his attempt to appeal to Trump’s base in his quest for the presidency prevailed upon Florida’s legislature to pass this legalized Tombstone death rattle via the usual NRA propaganda. He is, of course, Florida’s governor, and what he did was done under the auspices of policy making, which immunizes him from such otherwise criminal liability charges as reckless homicide, involuntary manslaughter, or criminal negligence.
I’m beginning to think Guy and Oliver were on to something, though like Marx they had the right diagnosis but the wrong medicine. I think the conduct of Florida’s legislature and governor in adopting open carry can reasonably be either defined as criminal or at a minimum one step short, but there is no statute declaring such to be so. Query as to whether those who make the rules can decriminalize their own conduct, and when has it ever been “policy” to kill people short of war, self-defense, or execution for crime? Answer > Now. GERALD E
Professor Kennedy in her Labor Day blog took a look at the economic costs to the rest of us of virtually unlimited gun control, quite aside from the increased number of victims and other increased crimes per se resulting from studies uniformly showing such increases. She has had a number of responses to her effort, including mine, slightly edited, as follows.
We were taught in law school that there are no common law crimes anymore; that all crimes are either statutory or they are not crimes. I have had time to reflect upon this position and think it is a neat means of criminal law management and definition, but when added to other definitions of what I consider immunity to criminal liability by reason of one’s station, I’m beginning to wonder – and that doesn’t make me a Guy Fawkes aficionado.
Thus, for instance, we have the recent adoption of permitless carry in Florida, which by every study known to man will increase the number of dead tourists, residents, those prone to suicide et al., studies known to the governor of Florida, DeFascist, but who in his attempt to appeal to Trump’s base in his quest for the presidency prevailed upon Florida’s legislature to pass this legalized Tombstone death rattle via the usual NRA propaganda. He is Florida’s governor, and what he did was done under the auspices of policy making, which immunizes him from such otherwise criminal liability charges as reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
I’m beginning to think Guy was on to something, though like Marx, he had the right diagnosis but the wrong medicine. I think the conduct of Florida’s legislature and governor in adopting open carry can reasonably be either defined as criminal or one step short, but there is no statute declaring such to be so. Query as to whether those who make the rules can decriminalize their own conduct, and when has it ever been “policy” to kill people short of war or execution for crime? GERALD E
Professor Kennedy in her blog today correctly states that the Republican Party is not a political party anymore. She notes that such “party” has no platform and shows no interest in governing but a large interest in the acquisition and use of power, citing such party’s insistence, inter alia, that a recession is looming when we are in a boom time by any metric. Such outright lying, of course, has its own design, i.e., propaganda; the truth of a Biden boom must be ignored. Several contributors voiced their opinions on how this once proud party of Eisenhower came to be such obvious liars, and my contribution, slightly edited, is as follows.
As I lamented in a late response to Sheila’s blog yesterday, the “Republican Party” is not a political party anymore. Political parties govern, have platforms indicating how they propose to govern in re the issues etc. The current “Republican Party” has no platform. It has been captured by fascists who are interested only in the acquisition and use of power, who pretend to be the Republicans of old (Eisenhower, Reagan et al) in order to marshal the votes of those who blindly vote for any candidate with an R beside his/her name on the ballot.
Such pretense, along with an appeal by Trump to the polity’s grievances and approval of their worst instincts on the social side of citizenship, have led to outright prefabrication about the state of our economy. We are in a boom by any metric but are told we are nearing a recession – or worse – that the FBI, the courts, judges, and every other institution undergirding the legitimacy of democratic governing are corrupt etc.
All this (in my opinion) is part and parcel of the same fascist design employed by Hitler and Mussolini in their day by today’s “Republicans” to destroy our institutions so (see the plethora of voter suppression bills) that they can substitute their own, i.e., dictatorship (see Trump, DeSantis, and other wannabes whose record to date include overthrow of our government and firing elected state officials – among other such unconstitutional atrocities).
Thus the fascist response of everything and everybody is bad and getting worse irrespective of reality is a long-held tool of fascists in the destruction of institutions upon which democracies and other forms of government rest for their right to rule and whose destruction is a necessary precursor to fascist power grabs, and I fear we are currently in the throes of such an effort by the captors of the “Republican Party,” and that it’s time to call a spade a spade. GERALD E
elderblogger 