Wednesday, November 30, 2016

On Dealing with Toddlers

"You don’t argue with a toddler if you want to win; don’t amplify the toddler’s voice, because you’ll just get trapped in the toddler’s world. Rather, just keep asking the toddler to elaborate, because logic is the downfall of every toddler." -- The Daily Show on handling Trump

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Is Whiteness Enough?

Photo
CreditIllustration by Javier Jaén 
Three years ago, I read “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” to my daughter. She smiled as she heard about Huck’s mischief, his jokes, his dress-up games, but it was his relationship with the runaway slave Jim that intrigued her most. Huck and Jim travel together as Jim seeks his freedom; at times, Huck wrestles with his decision to help. In the end, Tom Sawyer concocts an elaborate scheme for Jim’s release.
When we finished the book, my daughter had a question: Why didn’t Tom just tell Jim the truth — that Miss Watson had already freed him in her will? She is not alone in asking; scholars have long debated this issue. One answer lies in white identity, which needs black identity in order to define itself, and therefore cannot exist without it.
“Identity” is a vexing word. It is racial or sexual or national or religious or all those things at once. Sometimes it is proudly claimed, other times hidden or denied. But the word is almost never applied to whiteness. Racial identity is taken to be exclusive to people of color: When we speak about race, it is in connection with African-Americans or Latinos or Asians or Native People or some other group that has been designated a minority. “White” is seen as the default, the absence of race. In school curriculums, one month is reserved for the study of black history, while the rest of the year is just plain history; people will tell you they are fans of black or Latin music, but few will claim they love white music.
This year’s election has disturbed that silence. The president-elect earned the votes of a majority of white people while running a campaign that explicitly and consistently appealed to white identity and anxiety. At the heart of this anxiety is white people’s increasing awareness that they will become a statistical minority in this country within a generation. The paradox is that they have no language to speak about their own identity. “White” is a category that has afforded them an evasion from race, rather than an opportunity to confront it.
In his campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump regularly tied America’s problems to others. Immigration must be reformed, he told us, to stop the rapists and drug dealers coming here from Mexico. Terrorism could be stopped by banning Muslims from entering the country. The big banks would not be held in check by his opponent, whose picture he tweeted alongside a Star of David. The only people that the president-elect never faulted for anything were whites. These people he spoke of not as an indistinguishable mass but as a multitude of individuals, victims of a system that was increasingly rigged against them.
Continue reading the main story
A common refrain in the days after the election was “Not all his voters are racist.” But this will not do, because those voters chose a candidate who promised them relief from their problems at the expense of other races. They may claim innocence now, but it seems to me that when a leading chapter of the Ku Klux Klan announces plans to hold a victory parade for the president-elect, the time for innocence is long past.
‘White’ is a category that has afforded people an evasion from race, rather than an opportunity to confront it.
Racism is a necessary explanation for what happened on Nov. 8, but it is not a sufficient one. Last February, when the subject of racial identity came up at the Democratic primary debate in Milwaukee, the moderator Gwen Ifill surprised many viewers by asking about white voters: “By the middle of this century, the nation is going to be majority nonwhite,” she said. “Our public schools are already there. If working-class white Americans are about to be outnumbered, are already underemployed in many cases, and one study found they are dying sooner, don’t they have a reason to be resentful?”
Hillary Clinton said she was concerned about every community, including white communities “where we are seeing an increase in alcoholism, addiction, earlier deaths.” She said she planned to revitalize what she called “coal country” and explore spending more in communities with persistent generational poverty. Senator Bernie Sanders took a different view: “We can talk about it as a racial issue,” he said. “But it is a general economic issue.” Workers of all races, he said, have been hurt by trade deals like Nafta. “We need to start paying attention to the needs of working families in this country.”
This resonated with me: I, too, come from the working class, and from the significant portion of it that is not white. Neither of my parents went to college. Still, they managed to put their children through school and buy a home — a life that, for many in the working class, is impossible now. Nine months after that debate, we have found out exactly how much attention we should have been paying such families. The same white working-class voters who re-elected Obama four years ago did not cast their ballots for Clinton this year. These voters suffer from economic disadvantages even as they enjoy racial advantages. But it is impossible for them to notice these racial advantages if they live in rural areas where everyone around them is white. What they perceive instead is the cruel sense of being forgotten by the political class and condescended to by the cultural one.
While poor white voters are being scrutinized now, less attention has been paid to voters who are white and rich. White voters flocked to Trump by a wide margin, and he won a majority of voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, despite their relative economic safety. A majority of white women chose him, too, even though more than a dozen women have accused him of sexual assault. No, the top issue that drove Trump’s voters to the polls was not the economy — more voters concerned about that went to Clinton. It was immigration, an issue on which we’ve abandoned serious debate and become engulfed in sensational stories about rapists crossing the southern border or the pending imposition of Shariah law in the Midwest.
If whiteness is no longer the default and is to be treated as an identity — even, soon, a “minority” — then perhaps it is time white people considered the disadvantages of being a race. The next time a white man bombs an abortion clinic or goes on a shooting rampage on a college campus, white people might have to be lectured on religious tolerance and called upon to denounce the violent extremists in their midst. The opioid epidemic in today’s white communities could be treated the way we once treated the crack epidemic in black ones — not as a failure of the government to take care of its people but as a failure of the race. The fact that this has not happened, nor is it likely to, only serves as evidence that white Americans can still escape race.
Much has been made about privilege in this election. I will readily admit to many privileges. I have employer-provided health care. I live in a nice suburb. I am not dependent on government benefits. But I am also an immigrant and a person of color and a Muslim. On the night of the election, I was away from my family. Speaking to them on the phone, I could hear the terror in my daughter’s voice as the returns came in. The next morning, her friends at school, most of them Asian or Jewish or Hispanic, were in tears. My daughter called on the phone. “He can’t make us leave, right?” she asked. “We’re citizens.”
My husband and I did our best to quiet her fears. No, we said. He cannot make us leave. But every time I have thought about this conversation — and I have thought about it dozens of times, in my sleepless nights since the election — I have felt less certain. For all the privileges I can pass on to my daughter, there is one I cannot: whiteness.

How Trump Won

How Trump Won

The Republican nominee put together a coalition of non-college-educated, non-urban voters—and they turned out for him with tremendous enthusiasm.
Carlo Allegri / Reuters
The places that feel most left behind in a changing America propelled Donald Trump to a stunning victory over Hillary Clinton Tuesday night.
In his unexpected win, Trump mobilized enormous margins among rural and exurban voters, and crushing advantages among blue-collar whites. In several cases, he prevented Clinton from making as many gains among college-educated white voters as seemed possible. That allowed Trump to overcome Clinton’s strong performance among minority voters and college-educated white women.
Trump’s winning map underscored the risk Clinton faced pouring disproportionately so many more resources into her insurance states than in some of the core states in her campaign’s preferred path to 270 electoral college votes. As I noted last week, Clinton invested about $180 million in television ads in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio through the end of October—and yet, in the end, lost all three. By comparison, over that period she spent only around $16 million in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Colorado; the third seemed safely in her hands as the evening progressed, but Wisconsin slipped away and Michigan wobbled, and with them went her advantage in the Electoral College.
Trump held the traditionally Republican states—he won all of the states Mitt Romney won in 2012—and did exactly what his campaign had predicted for months: battered through the Democratic defenses in the Midwest.
At the same time he repelled her push into the Sunbelt. As I wrote on Election Day:
The worst-case scenario for her is that Trump’s blue-collar blitz narrowly pushes him past her in some of the Rustbelt states she needs, while she cannot advance quite enough among minority and college-educated white voters to overcome his non-college-educated, non-urban, religiously devout coalition in Sunbelt states like North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado, much less Arizona and Georgia. Transitioning between her party’s past and future, Hillary Clinton’s nightmare is that she might be caught awkwardly in between.
For Trump the key to that pincer move was his remarkable success among white working class voters
As polls had predicted for months, the Trump coalition was centered on white voters without a college education. Exit polls posted on CNN.com showed him crushing Clinton among those voters by enormous margins almost everywhere, particularly in the South. Trump beat Clinton among non-college whites by 18 percentage points in New Hampshire, 21 in Colorado, 22 in Arizona, 24 points in Wisconsin, 31 points in Michigan, and 35 points in Missouri. The margin swelled to enormous margins in Southern states: 34 points in Florida, 40 points in North Carolina, fully 64 points in Georgia. Even in states where Clinton ran well overall, like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Washington, Trump’s margins among blue-collar whites were enormous.
In several cases, those showings represented significant declines for Clinton relative to Obama in 2012. According to the exit polls as of around 10 p.m., her share of the vote among non-college whites, relative to Obama’s showing in 2012, fell 14 points in Maine, 13 points in Michigan, 12 points in New Hampshire, 11 points in Colorado, 10 points in Wisconsin, nine points in Pennsylvania, and six points in Florida. It didn’t change much in key Southern states such as Virginia and North Carolina only because Obama’s number was so low in the first place. The national exit poll, as of 3 a.m.,  showed Trump beating Clinton among non-college whites by a stunning 39 percentage points—even larger than Ronald Reagan's margin against Walter Mondale during his landslide victory in 1984.
In some traditionally Democratic states, Clinton was able to overcome this surge with strong performances among minority voters and college-educated whites. The exit polls gave her 55 percent of college whites in New Jersey and Wisconsin, 54 percent in New Hampshire, and 51 percent in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Compared to Obama, she improved the Democratic showing among college-educated whites in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. But in other key battlegrounds like Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio she only essentially matched his performance; in Florida she slipped slightly among the white-collar whites. Overall, the national exit poll showed her improving among college-educated whites over Obama in 2012, but only by three percentage points, and losing them narrowly to Trump. (As a result, the record of no Democrat ever winning most college-educated whites remained intact.) Despite strong performances among minority voters, that left her with too narrow a coalition to withstand the Trump blue-collar surge.
In so many states, the map exposed Clinton with the same risk: death by a thousand cuts. Trump ran up big, sometimes unprecedented margins, in small places in states such as Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio. Steve Schale, a long-time Democratic strategist in Florida, encapsulated the problem Clinton faced in many states when he tweeted: “This is pretty remarkable - in 41 counties in Florida, Trump's share is better than the best share that any R has gotten since 2000.”
In many states the county-by-county results showed a few blue dots in metropolitan areas, surrounded by a sea of red in between. In Pennsylvania, Clinton was leading only in the Southeast corner of the state, as well as Pittsburgh, with Trump romping in between. Wisconsin showed the same pattern of blue dots around Milwaukee and Madison surrounded by a red sea. Northern Virginia, Richmond, and the Norfolk area represented Clinton’s only islands on another red sea that washed across Virginia. Outside of Detroit, the map was almost uniformly red across Michigan, another must-win for Clinton.
In a few areas, Trump also posted modest gains in key suburban counties. For instance, he held Clinton slightly below the Obama showing in Florida’s Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa, and Oakland County outside of Detroit, and made bigger gains in Forida’s Pinellas County, home to St. Petersburg.
Yet that was not the dominant pattern: results as of about midnight eastern showed he lost ground, for instance, in two of the key suburban counties outside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Waukesha and Washington). Clinton improved slightly over Obama in Virginia’s Henrico County (outside Richmond) and Fairfax and Loudon Counties (outside of Washington, D.C.). The big suburban counties outside Philadelphia appeared on track to provide Clinton a substantially larger margin that they did Obama in 2012 (though not quite as much as they did in 2008).
Yet this did not prove enough, in enough places, to withstand the non-college and non-urban surge for Trump. Blue-collar counties in the key Rustbelt states turned sharply toward Trump. In LaCrosse, Wisconsin, Obama won 58 percent of the vote in 2012; Clinton dropped to 44 percent in results as of around midnight; in Racine she fell from Obama’s 51 percent to just 37 percent. Even in Pennsylvania, her vote share in Erie fell to 47 percent, down from Obama’s 58 percent; in Lackawana (Scranton) she dipped to almost exactly 50 percent, down from Obama’s 63 percent last time. In Macomb County outside Detroit, renowned as the birthplace of the Reagan Democrats, Clinton skidded from Obama’s 52 percent to just 41 percent as of midnight.
In an election that became virtually a cultural civil war between two Americas, Trump’s side proved much more enthusiastic and united than Clinton’s. And it has now propelled America into an unexpected, and perhaps, unprecedented, experiment.

Friday, November 25, 2016

He Has Broken the Constitution

Donald Trump Has Broken the Constitution 

The President-Elect is a figure out of authoritarian politics, not the American tradition
Carlo Allegri / Reuters 
To study and believe in a constitution—to give political allegiance to it as a nation’s highest law—requires a commitment to procedure. If the right rules are followed, if the procedures are fair, then the result, however regrettable, must be legitimate. I’ve been teaching and studying the U.S. Constitution for a quarter-century, and events have sometimes tugged at my procedural head and my substantive heart in different directions.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton, for example, struck me as a ludicrous comic-opera coup d’etat—but the House and Senate followed constitutional forms scrupulously, and had Clinton been removed he would have had to go. George Bush’s war in Iraq seemed at best reckless and at worst insane—but Bush obtained approval from Congress, as required by Article I, and the war became the nation’s war, fought in some way with my consent as a citizen. People put bumper stickers on their cars—pictures of Bush saying, “He’s not my president.” I thought that was untrue to the American system.
But procedure can carry us only so far. The Constitution does not exist on its own, as a kind of suprahuman imperative; it was created over time, and is followed today, to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” When “we the people” use it for these goals, mistakes may do harm, but they are legitimately the people’s acts.
The Constitution is not, however, as Justice Robert Jackson once famously wrote, “a suicide pact.” That phrase is usually used to suggest that government can legitimately overstep its bounds in times of emergency. But it also refers, I think, to moments when “we the people” pour a national libation of Kool-Aid and demand that everybody drink.
I won’t.
The election of Donald Trump was, in procedural terms, scrupulously fair. I hold no dark suspicions of altered vote counts or intimidation at the polls. We may wish the Voting Rights Act had not been gutted by the Court; but the election of 2016 followed the law of 2016.  Clearly a large proportion of American citizens—not as many as voted for Hillary Clinton, but still, under our strange system, enough—wanted Trump as their president and now hope that he fulfills the loud promises he repeatedly made to the country.
But those promises are the problem. Donald Trump ran on a platform of relentless, thoroughgoing rejection of the Constitution itself, and its underlying principle of democratic self-government and individual rights. True, he never endorsed quartering of troops in private homes in time of peace, but aside from that there is hardly a provision of the Bill of Rights or later amendments he did not explicitly promise to override, from First Amendment freedom of the press and of religion to Fourth Amendment freedom from “unreasonable searches and seizures” to Sixth Amendment right to counsel to Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship and Equal Protection and Fifteenth Amendment voting rights.
Like an admissions officer at Trump University, he offered Americans a bag of magic beans and asked them in exchange to hand over their rights and their form of government.
Smiling, nearly 60 million complied.
I deny their right to give Trump my rights or those of others who cannot defend themselves. No result is legitimate that threatens the Constitution its very promise of the “blessings of liberty.” No transient plurality, no matter how angry, has the power to strip minorities of equal status and protection; no mass of voters, no matter how frightened, has the power to vote away the democratic future of their children and their children’s children.
American national leaders gain their legitimacy by competing in compliance with not merely the outward forms but the clear values of our Constitution—equal dignity, religious freedom and tolerance, open deliberation, and the rule of law. These values don’t bind Donald Trump; norms of decency do not apply; he shrugs off the very burden of fact itself. Like dictators of the Old World, he uses his mass media power to lie, to insult, to strip individuals of their dignity, to commit the grossest libels of religious and national groups, and to encourage persecution, torture, and public violence. He actively campaigns against any notions of racial, religious, and sexual equality. He threatens those who oppose him with the unchecked power of the state.
He is, in other words, a figure out of authoritarian politics, not the American tradition; and a democratic constitution that empowers such a leader has misfired badly.
I have written before of the decay that had set in among American democratic norms before Trump came along to hijack them—of a political system so hardened in hatred that it has become unable to provide in orderly fashion for the nation’s finances, that permits legislative bodies to hobble the courts, that evades the vital questions of war and peace the Constitution was created to address, that hides in plain sight the growth of mass surveillance and toxic secrecy in government. And I’ve noted that never before in American history has the nation fought a “war” that lasted 15 years, much less one against an unnamed enemy who can never be located entirely or fully defeated. Over a decade and a half of no-holds-barred politics and “enemy-within” panic, Americans drove their democracy as if it were an automobile with an oil leak, until the engine at last has seized up and the vehicle has crashed.
The role of a professorial figure in crisis is to cluck reassuringly, note that something similar happened during the Taylor administration, and remind citizens that America is a favored nation and all will be well as we muddle through under God’s beneficent providence. But there is no evidence that any of that is true. The Constitution is broken, and I don’t know how, or whether, it will be fixed.
But I know this as well: Trump was elected President on November 8.
But he is not my president and he never will be

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Computer Scientists urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results

By Dan Merica
CNN
22 November 2016

Hillary Clinton's campaign is being urged by a number of top computer scientists to call for a recount of vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, according to a source with knowledge of the request.

The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday.

The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to the source.

The group informed John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, and Marc Elias, the campaign's general counsel, that Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked.

Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review.

Neither Halderman nor John Bonifaz, an attorney also pressing the case, responded to requests for comment on Tuesday evening. Their urging was first reported by New York magazine.

A message left with President-elect Donald Trump's transition team also was not immediately returned.

There were widespread concerns about hacking ahead of this month's election, including the Obama administration accusing Russia of attempting to breach voter registration data. But election officials and cybersecurity experts said earlier this month that it is virtually impossible for Russia to influence the election outcome.

A former Clinton aide declined to respond to questions about whether they will request an audit based on the findings.

Additionally, at least three electors have pledged to not vote for Trump and to seek a "reasonable Republican alternative for president through Electoral College," according to a statement Wednesday from a group called the Hamilton Electors, which represents them.

"The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as the last line of defense," one elector, Michael Baca, said in a statement, "and I think we must do all that we can to ensure that we have a reasonable Republican candidate who shares our American values."

California vs. Kansas

ROBERT REICH: CALIFORNIA IS TRUMPLAND’S NEMESIS

'New York Hates You!' Protesters Rally Outside Trump Tower In New York City
 
California is now the capital of liberal America. Along with its neighbors Oregon and Washington, it will be a nation within the nation starting in January when the federal government goes dark.
In sharp contrast to much of the rest of the nation, Californians preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 2-to-1 margin. They also voted to extend a state tax surcharge on the wealthy, and adopt local housing and transportation measures along with a slew of local tax increases and bond proposals.
In other words, California is the opposite of Trumpland.

Related: Robert Reich: 14 Ways to Resist Trump

Related: Robert Reich: Who Gave Us Trump?

The differences go even deeper. For years, conservatives have been saying that a healthy economy depends on low taxes, few regulations and low wages.
Are conservatives right? At the one end of the scale are Kansas and Texas, with among the nation’s lowest taxes, least regulations and lowest wages.
At the other end is California, with among the nation’s highest taxes, especially on the wealthy; toughest regulations, particularly when it comes to the environment; most ambitious health care system, that insures more than 12 million poor Californians, in partnership with Medicaid; and high wages.
So according to conservative doctrine, Kansas and Texas ought to be booming, and California ought to be in the pits.
Actually, it’s just the opposite.
11_22_California_Trumpland_01People swim in the Pacific in Santa Monica, California, on June 20. Robert Reich asks, Why are Kansas and Texas doing so badly, and California so well? LUCY NICHOLSON/REUTERS 
For several years, Kansas’s rate of economic growth has been the worst in the nation. Last year its economy actually shrank.  
Texas hasn’t been doing all that much better. Its rate of job growth has been below the national average. Retail sales are way down. The value of Texas exports has been dropping.
But what about so-called over-taxed, over-regulated, high-wage California?
California leads the nation in the rate of economic growth—more than twice the national average. If it were a separate nation it would now be the sixth largest economy in the world. Its population has surged to 39 million (up 5 percent since 2010).
California is home to the nation’s fastest-growing and most innovative industries—entertainment and high tech. It incubates more startups than anywhere else in the world.  
In other words, conservatives have it exactly backward.
Why are Kansas and Texas doing so badly, and California so well?
For one thing, taxes enable states to invest their people. The University of California is the best system of public higher education in America. Add in the state’s network of community colleges, state colleges, research institutions, and you have an unparalleled source of research, and powerful engine of upward mobility.
Kansas and Texas haven’t been investing nearly to the same extent.
California also provides services to a diverse population, including a large percentage of immigrants. Donald Trump to the contrary, such diversity is a huge plus. Both Hollywood and Silicon Valley have thrived on the ideas and energies of new immigrants.
Meanwhile, California’s regulations protect the public health and the state’s natural beauty, which also draws people to the state—including talented people who could settle anywhere.
Wages are high in California because the economy is growing so fast employers have to pay more for workers. That’s not a bad thing. After all, the goal isn’t just growth. It’s a high standard of living.
In fairness, Texas’s problems are also linked to the oil bust. But that’s really no excuse because Texas has failed to diversify its economy. Here again, it hasn’t made adequate investments.
California is far from perfect. A housing shortage has driven rents and home prices into the stratosphere. Roads are clogged. Its public schools used to be the best in the nation but are now among the worst—largely because of a proposition approved by voters in 1978 that’s strangled local school financing. Much more needs to be done.
But overall, the contrast is clear. Economic success depends on tax revenues that go into public investments, and regulations that protect the environment and public health. And true economic success results in high wages.
I’m not sure how Trumpland and California will coexist in coming years. I’m already hearing murmurs of secession by Golden Staters, and of federal intrusions by the incipient Trump administration.
But so far, California gives lie to the conservative dictum that low taxes, few regulations and low wages are the keys economic success. Trumpland should take note.