Population trends raise host of complex issues

 previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 28 August 2021

Early results of the 2020 Census are out. One headline trumpets U.S. population grew at its slowest rate since the Great Depression. Many pundits see this as a bad thing because population growth is believed tied to economic growth. Yet, the economy was doing well in the 2010s, until 2020 (Covid). The Dow was 10583.96 at the beginning of the decade and ended at 28.534.44.

The population growth rate between 1930 and 1940 and between 2010 and 2020 are about the same, 7.3%. In real numbers, the U.S. grew by just under 9 million people in the 1930s; in the 2010s, the population grew by 22.7 million people, a total that is 255% more than in the 1930s. So, yes, the rates are similar but the actual new population is much greater. I took these numbers from a New York Times article titled, “Population Bust.” If those new people were their own country, they would be the 58th most populous country in the world. Some bust.

Another headline trumpets U.S. becoming more racially and ethnically diverse and (quieter) that for the first time in U.S. history, the number of non-Hispanic white folks declined. They declined by 5 million. So, let’s connect the population “bust” (an increase of 22 million people) to the decline of people who identify as “white.”

Why has the population growth rate declined? Most important reason is the birthrate. The native birthrate is down, it’s down 50% since the end of the baby boom (early 1960s) and down 17% since 1990. Why? Women have more options today than even in the 1990s, and world-wide we see that educated and employed women have fewer kids. Our society is not very mom friendly meaning people respond to economics (not always the way economists think they “should” but they do) and while many moms indicate they would like to have more kids, they also calculate they cannot afford it. A second factor is a decline in legal immigration. This is a double whammy, because legal immigrants often have children whereas illegal immigrants often do not.

Why has the absolute number of whites declined? Low birth rates and lower immigration from Europe. The droves of European immigration in the past, people looking for a better life, is no longer a push factor. Indeed, Europeans today view the U.S. as a somewhat backward country. As American women overall have become more educated and are more likely to be in the workforce, it’s white women who have benefitted the most from these trends; the more educated and the more financially secure, the fewer children those women have. This is not just an American phenomenon, it's worldwide.

How will conservatives and liberals view these trends? Conservatives will not like that population growth is down (because they believe that hurts economic growth) and that whites have failed to even replace themselves. This will give more voice to the extreme rightwing racists who promote “replacement theory.” Liberals will like the reduction in population growth because that suggests less pressure on the environment. Liberals will point to the lack of societal support for motherhood as to why the birthrate falls, probably not saying too much about that the most educated and higher paid (white) women are the ones opting to not have (as many) children.

Conservatives favor the lower levels of immigration but not because it raises wages among the working class (as labor supplies tighten). Liberals will like the latter but not necessarily the former. The tighter labor market is also likely to reduce income inequality, a liberal goal.

Polls suggest that Americans want to have more children, but kids are expensive, especially child care. Letting the market work its magic isn’t working. Will tax credits do it? I don’t think so because they do not lower the price of child care. Tax credits might actually have the opposite effect.

The lack of paid parental leave from work is another barrier to having more kids. We are the only major industrial country that doesn’t have such a policy. However, those countries are seeing low (even lower) birthrates than the U.S. So, mandating paid leave isn’t necessarily the solution. Unlike Europe, we can absorb a lot more immigrants, but that is toxic for discussion unless it’s only immigration of people like the shrinking majority whites.

Twitter and sound bite politics make the kind of discussion we need nearly impossible. There is a severe shortage of actual, respectful, productive dialogue.

No Mistake: Our Nation Owns A Lot of Guns

 previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 5/15/2021

These are things I held in my hand within the first two hours of the day: toothbrush, toilet paper, pants, shirt, jacket, dog leash, coffee cup, cell phone, wallet, glasses. Seems pretty boring, normal, nothing really noteworthy. Certainly nothing dangerous, right?

According to some lists of items that police have mistaken for a gun in police-involved shootings, three of the 10 items I held were mistaken by police as a gun, thus justifying the shooting of the actually unarmed person. A person who was no threat to anyone.

I often hold some of the things mistaken by police for a gun: a wrench (last week), water-hose nozzle (Saturday), flashlight (Saturday), cane (most Tuesday evenings), broomstick (Saturday), sunglasses (and glasses, daily), underwear (daily), bottle of beer (almost daily), pill bottle (daily), Wii remote (well, a remote, daily), sandwich (Sunday).

A few things sort of look gun-like … the water nozzle, though hooked to a hose would seem to give it away, a cordless drill, maybe a remote controller. But, the others, sure, it’s dark, shadowy, I guess.

I can understand police officers’ concerns: gun sales are soaring in the United States; 40 million handguns were sold legally in the U.S. in 2020 and 4.1 million in January 2021. Estimates are that there are more guns than people in the US, nearly 400 million firearms. But it's handguns that get mistaken, and estimates are that there are about 100 million handguns in the U.S. Not everyone owns a gun, much less a handgun. Surveys suggest that about 40 percent of households have a gun; about 22 percent of Americans own a gun. Those numbers are down, when in the late 1970s, 51% of households owned a gun.

The Americans who own guns own a lot of guns. We make up about 4 percent of the world’s population but account for about 40% of the worldwide civilian ownership (though I wonder about the accuracy of such international comparisons). Even conservatively, one in five could be expected to own a gun, and probably it’s reasonable to believe even more than that can easily possess a gun.

Couple that with state legislatures making it easier and easier for citizens to carry guns without any restriction (it’s easier in many states to carry a concealed weapon than to get a driver’s license), one can understand that police might fall into the sense that everyone is armed. The International Association of Chiefs of Police position on firearms policy sounds like what polls show Americans to favor, better background checks, an assault weapons ban, some restrictions on concealed carry. That’s quite distinct from what the “gun lobby” wants, which is less restrictions. However, rank and file police officers support more armed citizens, going so far as to claim, in a survey of 15,000 police officers conducted by Police1, that more guns, in the hands of mentally healthy, felony free people, would actually reduce gun violence.

A study compared police officers with civilians in their ability to correctly detect a gun in hand from other objects and the response time to do so. Not surprisingly, police officers' reaction times were better than civilians’. And their error rate was only 5% compared to the 12% for civilians. The report did not, however, indicate whether the 5% error rate was to mistake something else for a gun or not.

According to the Officer Down Memorial Page, in 2020, 45 police officers were shot to death in the line of duty. According to BLUE H.E.L.P, 228 police officers died by suicide in 2020. Civilians killed by police officers totaled 1,021. Since 2015, according to the Washington Post’s database of officer-involved shootings, 6% were unarmed. If that rate holds for 2020, then 61 unarmed people were killed, perhaps holding a cell phone, a remote, a wallet, or maybe nothing at all.

Logically, police officers in a violent nation awash in guns would be “edgy.” Yet, if the Police1 survey is accurate, over 90% of officers think more guns will reduce gun violence.

Even “drop it” is not always good as we saw with Adam Toledo, who threw his gun away and turned with his hands up, only to be shot and killed anyway.

One thing the research literature shows without doubt is that more guns equals more homicides, more guns equal more successful suicide attempts, more guns equals more homicides of police officers, and I’d suggest that more guns also means more police killings of unarmed civilians.

Trump has no right to Twitter's audience

 Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 1/16/21

When a social media company bans someone, for whatever reason, is that a violation of that person’s free speech rights?

Seems that a lot of people might think so, and actually support it. In a November 2020 Gallup/Knight Foundation poll, 44 percent of Americans expressed support for restrictions on free speech on social media. That was an increase of nine percentage points from the previous year.

I am a staunch supporter of First Amendment rights. But, like it or not, those rights are restricted to the “public square.” And in our current society, we have pretty much abandoned the public square for something that looks like the public square, except it’s privately owned. Disney’s Mainstreet is not the same as the grounds of a state capitol. Twitter, Facebook, Parler, even the webpages of newspapers, are not public space, they are ultimately private spaces which have very large audiences. Their right to publish is constitutionally protected, but it’s not unlimited. They can be sued for libel.

In short, we have freedom of speech, but with limits. The famous "yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire" is one example.

I have a right to write this essay. I don’t have a right to an audience. I can take this essay to city hall and read it out loud. No one can interfere with me, at least not a government official or anyone acting as their agent. But I cannot demand that people pay attention. I’m fortunate that the editor of the Tribune-Star believes that what I write is worthy of being presented to the newspaper’s audience. The paper has developed an audience. In some ways, perhaps by publishing this essay, they hope to maintain and perhaps even increase it.

Social media has changed access to an audience. With an account, one can have access to an incredible audience, both in terms of size and reach. And the ability to share expands that audience. Whereas a newspaper sells subscriptions, both for print and virtual, social media simply assembles an audience. Audience members consume an incredible amount of advertising and in exchange for “membership” social media companies gather a lot of information from that audience and sell it. Most people who have an account with social media spend more time as an audience member (consumer) than exercising their ability to express themselves to an audience.

The U.S. Constitution provides us with a right to free speech but not to an audience.

Social media doesn’t expand our ability to express ourselves. It expands our ability to reach an audience. And, with private social media companies, beyond the tech, they “own” the audience, or at least access to it.

When Twitter banned President Trump from access to Twitter’s audience, they did not violate his ability to express himself; they denied him “their” audience. President Trump might have millions of “followers” but they have to have a Twitter account, meaning while they follow the President, they are still part of Twitter’s audience. And Twitter “controls” if not “owns” the audience. Nothing stopped him from calling a press conference, the pre-social media manner in which presidents communicated to the country. He could have issued a statement to be run through news media or on the White House website (www.whitehouse.gov).

Finally, if you believe that President Trump’s free speech was violated by Twitter, then getting angry at what the Tribune-Star publishes and canceling your subscription in response is a violation of the freedom of the press. And if that sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is, just as ridiculous as claiming that President Trump’s free speech was violated by Twitter.

However, the ability to deny an audience to certain ideas does seem to have a negative public impact. The ACLU thinks so (will conservatives embrace the ACLU on this one?). But to rein in social media’s power will require regulation. Regulation that conservatives detest (let the market decide) and that liberals might consider but once you begin the task, it quickly becomes impossible. Perhaps we need an NPR Twitter-like platform. A public option, if you will. Less Disney, more National Park.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.com.

Despite skeptics, science must lead the way

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 15 May 2020.

It’s no surprise that people, generally, don’t like uncertainty. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a level of uncertainty for everyone, beyond what most people ever experience. Research into personality suggests that some people cope with uncertainty better than others. Nonetheless, generally, humans do what they can to reduce uncertainty, including creating “stories” and social structures to make the uncertain seem more certain.

Our fascination with trying to predict the future is a good example. Whether it be astrology, fortune tellers, prophesy, whatever kind of oracle into the future you choose, it all stems from the same thing, an attempt to cope with uncertainty. Another “story” to cope with uncertainty is a conspiracy theory, with a common feature that the conspiracy is attempting to further some kind of future that “good” people don’t want. Epidemiological modeling is a very modern attempt to cope with the uncertainty of a new and deadly virus.

Unlike many people who don’t read the comments on news stories, social media posts, and other public postings, I do. People’s reactions are more interesting, to me, than the original posts. What I see a lot of though is a significant misunderstanding of what science is and how science progresses. Add in the almost (and understandable) desperate search for something “certain” in the face of extraordinary uncertainty and I see a turning away from science, even when misunderstood.

Take our basic “popular” score card for the COVID-19 pandemic. We have those tested, positive cases, and deaths. By now, I think most folks know that not everyone is being tested although in some states (and countries) who is being tested varies. That variation in who gets tested makes comparisons between states and countries really meaningless (thus uncertain). Counting deaths, however, is comparable, although some states, like Florida, apparently don’t’ want to count tourists or part-time residents in their count.

Deaths, however, are fairly reliable, but there is still some noise in who gets counted as a COVID-19 death and who does not. And we see a lot made of this, that on the one hand, there is an undercount of true COVID-19 deaths or on the other an overcount of COVID-19 deaths. This “scorecard” seemed appropriate and helpful at the beginning. It’s seeming less and less “certain” as we move forward.

As we learn more about the disease, not just how it kills and what raises the risk for dying, we are beginning to learn that it affects other internal organs of those who survive. What is state-of-the-art knowledge today is not state-of-the-art knowledge tomorrow. That inherent uncertainty right there is hard for many people to cope with. As the knowledge base expands, as it should with more data and analysis, many view this as wrong, as evidence that the “scientists” don’t know what they are doing, as in “make up your mind!” So, some begin to reject “science” in order to reduce their uncertainty.

Scientific knowledge is always changing. It doesn’t help that scientists are vulnerable to all the human foibles like the rest of us. The rush to be “first” or to “solve the riddle” is present and often can and does distort things. Releasing results prior to peer review, as we are seeing a lot of right now, and the press liking the horserace analogy plus the drama of someone being “wrong” only fuels the uncertainty. Then, many, who do not know or understand the scientific process are quick to vilify the scientists (sometimes adding it to a conspiracy theory) thus contributing to an overall anti-science and anti-expert discourse.

Perhaps the most profound display of misunderstanding science are commenters that pick out words that convey uncertainty such as “may,” “likely,” and “probable,” as a means to discredit the results. So, the measured, careful, language of science now appears to be not what we think science is (or want it to be) and people move to discredit it.

Scientists are in the business of producing new knowledge and they are doing it at remarkable speed, even if many in the public and our leaders don’t understand. No doubt, our leaders, too, are unsettled by the ominous uncertainty of COVID-19. Nevertheless, it is their job to lead us through this and while the governors appear, generally, to be doing a good job based on polls, the federal response has probably done more to create uncertainty than to settle it.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Your health vs. your work is a false choice

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 26 April 2020

Seeing protests against the “lockdown” orders of various states and framing of the problem as the cure is worse than the disease, the pitting of lives against the economy, especially the right to work, had me wanting to pull my hair out. As one who tries to observe events dispassionately, to view with as clear of eyes as possible, especially when writing in this space, the protests, the claims, the conspiracy theories, the entire premise, of pitting people’s lives against the “right” to go to work (by the way folks, there is no right to work), this is especially challenging.

So, instead of what I usually do, attempt to provide perspective informed by social science, I’m going full-tilt conspiracy theory.

The framing of the “choice” as work (income) or your health is a false one. Or at least it is one that is not inevitable. Don’t you see what has happened? “They” (and they can be whomever shady boogeyman you choose) have created the situation we’re in, we have to choose between health and income. It needn’t be that way. And, if the stimulus that funnels to business is successful and they can open up and begin operations and paying employees, how many people will face, not an abstract choice, but a real one, a choice of their health or an income? “They” have created a devil of choice, which needn’t be. But it has been. You should be wondering why. Why this choice? Why not a different choice? Why force people into a choice at all?

It wasn’t difficult, politically, to “find” $2.2 trillion. But, its distribution is complicated, so it requires a bureaucracy, oversight, rules, etc. All of that, especially when done in an emergency situation, is going to be problematic and all kinds of things are going to go wrong, full of unintended consequences like major corporations getting huge loans from the funds targeted for small businesses.

A simpler solution would be to have appropriated $2.2 trillion and just distributed it to every citizen. That works out to about $5,700 per person. That’s a whole lot different than $1,200 per adult taxpayer of a certain income. A family of four would receive almost $23,000. That would be much better to get people through these challenging times than $1,200 in “bridge equity” (whatever the hell that is). It’s a simple solution, it would give people some security, and not working, though still difficult, wouldn’t be such that people might actually end up having to put themselves (and others) in harm’s way to pay the bills.

So, why wasn’t that done? Because “they” didn’t want it, that’s why. So, instead of protests demanding the “right” to play a Russian roulette-style game, we should be demanding our federal government give us the economic means to not have to play this deadly game. Protesting governors won’t do any good. Oh sure, perhaps a gas tax holiday, but that assumes you have the money in the first place.

Your governor can’t print money, so they can’t do this. But the federal government can, the latest example the $2.2 trillion (of which most is going to businesses, but who can’t make money without employees, who then may have to put their lives in danger to make anyone money). So, what’s in it for “they?” Why did “they” create such a situation? Who benefits from this kind of chaos in the United States?

“They” didn’t create the virus. Rather “they” are taking advantage of it to create this dilemma, this absurd choice to pit being infected or loss of income. Reject it. Demand something different. Demand your Freedom Dividend, from the greatest economy ever seen in history. Demand a shelter-in-place payment so we can weather this until it’s under control.

We’ve been spending money like there is no tomorrow for the past three years, why can’t we spend some money to keep people safe in the face of this virus? Why would “they” not want us to? Call “them” out and demand our elected leaders do something that really would make a difference. A short-term Freedom Dividend for American citizens as we ride out this challenge and not end up with millions of people foreclosed on, credit ruined, cars repossessed, and every other calamity that occurs when you have bills to pay and your savings is exhausted (if you ever had any savings).

Why are you letting “them” win?

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

A day-dreamer's diary of what's yet to come

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 12 April 2020

Day 20. I read somewhere that people are finally getting the sleep they need. A positive thing amidst the stay-at-home order. I quit setting my alarm in the morning. Woke up 10 minutes later than usual. Lay in bed thinking about all I had to do. Yet, somehow I feel I have all the time in the world now, but don’t get as much done. But my hands are damn clean.

Day 25. What day is it? I can’t keep track. What? I would have sworn it was two days earlier. 25 days ‘til bills are due.

Day 29. I may not be embarrassed to play darts in public anymore. Wow what practice will do for you.

Day 37. Dear Doctor Drew: I had a dream where my significant other coughed in my face. Do I need to be tested?

Day 42. I walked 9 miles today. I saw 53 other people. 9 on bicycles, 15 dogs and three deer. Of the 53, only six were wearing masks, which means what?

Day 50. Still no symptoms of the virus. I’d almost welcome a symptom to just liven things up.

Day 52. If this keeps up until August as one expert I follow says, my epitaph will read “Patron Saint of Seeleyville Liquors.”

Day 60. I needed a haircut when this stated and now ... I either need to risk cutting it myself or learn to do a ponytail. Or a French braid. Maybe cornrows.

Day 61. I went to a store. Just to be a bad boy. I followed all social distancing rules, used gloves, safely disposed of them and savored a Fudge Round.

Day 76. I think it’s Tuesday. That means tuna right?

Day 88. What a summer. Zika, West Nile, Dengue. I’ve survived this long. I dare you, mosquito, to infect me. At least there is a treatment.

Day 94. Neighbors are burning yard waste. Wind is bringing their smoke our way. If one of them is infected, could the burning yard waste with its smoke now entering my lungs also carry the virus? Surely not. But, do we know?

Day 98. 4th of July. Few fireworks. Fireworks stores deemed nonessential. The Silent Celebration of Freedom. “zip zip zip boom, ahhhhhhhhh.”

Day 99. I saw a line at the Dairy Queen. People were appropriately distanced. Yum, I’d like a cold treat. Are the counter staff practicing safe Blizzarding? All those stainless steel surfaces, are they virus free? Is a Super Choco Latte Blizzard with extra sprinkles worth the risk? Is there an insurance policy I can take out for this?

Day 100. No football, no baseball, no auto racing, few working. Still no symptoms. Does malaise count?

Day 126. School begins next month. Or will it? I was teaching online anyway. At least I can wear shorts to class (don’t use video). Better for my students’ imagination.

Day 133. “Our long national nightmare is over.” But that was 1974. Now It’s: “I did the models better. Only 90,000 dead. The scientists said 140,000. And I never wore a mask." Take that, Dr. Fauci. New campaign hashtag: #TrumphealedAmerica.

Thomas L. Steiger is a self-isolating professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.com.

Pandemic projection numbers tell unnerving story

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 29 March 

What if we just let the people with the highest risk die from COVID-19, as some appear to be suggesting?

Apparently even a cost-benefit analysis is nearly impossible because those most at risk already have “shorter” life spans and/or have underlying health issues that would just kill them eventually anyway. So, estimating what Grandma’s life is worth is hard. Not like other commodities such as cars, homes, airline seats and so forth. But, is Grandma a “commodity?”

About 16 percent of the United States population is age 65 or older. This is the group at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19. And, so far, it appears that this age group is both more likely to get infected (although this is a weak claim since we are not doing enough testing to say this with much confidence) and to die from COVID-19. The CDC, last week, reported that 80 percent of the deaths were among people 65 and older. So, let’s just use that number for now.

As I write this, there are 64,107 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 893 deaths in the US. [The number of confirmed cases had grown to well over 80,000 by week's end. — Ed.) That’s a 1.4 percent death rate. More than 10 times what the death rate from the seasonal flu is. And if the 80 percent of deaths are among those 65 and older, then 714 of those dead are 65 and older.

How many Americans are going to get COVID-19? That is impossible to say, but we can model it for some ideas. Predictions range, depending on the measures being used, that between 40 and 70 percent of Americans will become infected. Let’s use the most optimistic number, 40 percent, and assume that all age groups will get infected at about the same proportion. Forty percent of the U.S. population is 127,399,400 people. If that were a nation, it would be the 11th largest nation on Earth, slotting in between Mexico and Japan.

If the 1.4 percent death rate holds, then 1,783,591 people will die; 80 percent of them will be 65 or older, or 1,426,873, about the population of New Hampshire. Currently there are 51,121,200 Americans age 65 and older. If that many die, that is a death rate of 2.8% or about 28 times that of the seasonal flu. 24,672,708 households in the US have an individual 65 years and older. Among those households 5.7 percent will experience a death.

That’s a lot of families experiencing death in a short period of time. In 2017, 2,067,404 persons 65 and above died in the United States. Of course, some of those 1.4 million projected to die would die in the next few months anyway, but just consider that it’s possible that the death rate for this age group could increase by more than half.

Which states have the highest numbers of persons age 65+? Puerto Rico, West Virginia, Vermont, Maine, and Florida have at least 20 percent age 65+. Alaska, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, and Utah have below 15 percent. Indiana is at 16 percent. For Vigo County, 16.3 percent, or 17,504, are 65 and above. Using the same analysis above, 4,811 age 65 and above will die. That is just under 4.5 percent of the Vigo County population, or just under 1 per 20. That means you will very likely know someone who dies from COVID-19. Do you know anyone who has died of the flu this year?

So, let’s put some money on these numbers. The average Social Security benefit in January 2020 was $1,503 per month, or $18,036 per year. In a very short time period, Vigo County could lose just under $315 million in income. Mean household income in Vigo County is $42,030 or $1.8 billion in income per year. This would be a loss of almost 17.5 percent of income coming into Vigo County.

When you think of the loss of demand for local businesses that would represent, it’s quite a hit. And this is the best scenario. If the infection rate is 70 percent, then it’s a hit of about 30.6 percent on the local economy in just a matter of a few months.

Unlike jobs lost in a recession, of which most eventually do come back, those people are not coming back.

Sondland learned enough to protect himself

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 24 November 2019

So far, Ambassador Gordon Sondland has been my favorite witness. Not because he connects President Trump to the questionable (impeachable?) doings with Ukraine. Because he’s an example of a citizen completely over his head in the role he is playing. In contrast to the measured, “process” oriented Foreign Service Officers, National Security Council Staffers, and other career Ambassadors, who live in a world, pardon this, that is “foreign” to most of us. The language, the “process” (which is highly bureaucratic and we should admire them for being able to make anything work with it), the sifting and careful blending of “U.S. interests,” “U.S. foreign policy,” with domestic policy and politics, and regular upheaval (new administrations at least every eight years), these folks exist in a world that few of us can relate. They are also quick learners because their assignments change and sometimes change significantly.

We can relate to Ambassador Sondland, however. Not as a mega donor, fundraiser, rich guy, who almost slipped answering a question as he clarified that he donated $1 million to the President’s inauguration in hopes of … (I thought he was going to say receiving an ambassadorship in return) tickets (to the inauguration). He’s relatable as someone obviously over his head. All of us have felt over our head from time to time; most of us have egos strong enough to admit it. Ambassador Sondland all but did admit it (he is smart enough to realize in that setting, he better not do that).

This guy is an amateur. He should make us appreciate, that much more, the career folks who are measured, take copious notes of conversations, sincerely believe they are serving “higher interests,” have to keep secrets, and can never really be “off duty.”

In response to questions, late in his testimony, Ambassador Sondland was read a Fox News article (apparently the Congresswoman figured that he only would pay attention to Fox News) but Ambassador Sondland didn’t know anything about it. Well, what do you know, he’s like most Americans who don’t pay attention to the skullduggery of politics (on a daily basis). At times during Ambassador Sondland’s testimony I felt I knew more about what was going on than he!

What did Ambassador Sondland think being an ambassador would be like? I’ve met a couple of U.S. ambassadors, doing their ambassador thing. They were gracious, witty, likable, personable, and had some “gravitas.” Gordon Sondland seems like that. I think that he thought being an ambassador would be a couple of years doing meet and greets, setting up conversations between people, brokering “deals” between the U.S. and (in his case) the EU, making innocuous speeches before or after sumptuous lunches, speaking for the President, and representing the United States. National Security? What’s that? U.S. interests? Which ones?

He seemed unable to recall a lot of things. Was that evasiveness? Perhaps, but I don’t t think so. I think he doesn’t remember because so much of what he has been engaged in, he had no frame of reference, no understanding of the “language,” culture, and processes of Foreign Service and National Security. It’s like being among a group of people speaking a language you don’t understand, except from that year of it you took in high school. You could remember perhaps being there but nothing of substance. Oh, you could remember, “por favor,” “caliente,” and “uno dos tres,” but nothing else. This is the world Ambassador Sondland has been living, slowly picking it up, but at the same time, probably not that interested in it.

Before Ambassador Sondland testified and before he amended his original closed door testimony, I thought he was the “patsy,” the “useful dope” who could be blamed for misunderstanding (“Gordon, what the f*** hell were you thinking? That would be wrong, probably illegal.”) Ambassador Sondland is a skilled fundraiser (“we are among friends”) he is not a politician, wary, careful, distrustful of “them” (partisan), but I think he figured enough out to protect himself (can you blame him?) by telling what he does know (and remembers). I agree with Chris Wallace’s take on Ambassador Sondland that he is trying to ”protect himself more than anyone else.”

Yes, he is. No more so than if Rudy Giuliani, Secretary of State Pompeo, Energy Secretary Perry, Vice President Pence or President Trump would if they sat down and “swore to tell the truth” as Ambassador Sondland did. I think he figured things out, just enough, at the right time.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Outing whistleblower: punishment, vilification

(previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 11/17/19)
Hurtling down I-70 I was half listening to the news and thinking about why President Trump and right-wing news and commentary operations are so fixated on outing “the whistleblower.” At this point, given the corroborating evidence, it would not make any difference. Somewhere around mile marker 57 it hit me: it’s about payback, about intimidation, and a warped sense of what it means to “be strong.”

I began to formulate this essay and then this hits my screen: a tweet from Bill Kristol (a New York Times conservative columnist): “I’m struck by Trumpworld’s obsession with the whistleblower. Exposing him wouldn’t help Trump’s case a bit. But it’s clear that outing him would be really satisfying psychologically to Trumpsters. One forgets how central to Trumpism are petty vindictiveness and cowardly bullying.”

We can make our own digs at others, which seems to be how so much of our national dialogue has become, which, by the way, is a win for those who support this kind of response to “the whistleblower.” I see it as part of one of the most misunderstood aspects of President Trumps campaign to “make America great again.”

“Drain the swamp.” Can’t dispute the marketing appeal of that. Both “sides” use it but it means something very different to each “side.” If you understand “drain the swamp,” as I do, to rout out corruption, to end the open bribery of our elected officials through the vast flows of money to campaigns, deliberate creation of conflicts of interest by placing people in charge of oversight who have a personal interest in the industries they are overseeing, stuff like that, then you misunderstand what drain the swamp means for President Trump and his supporters.

Drain the swamp is about what has also become known as the “deep state.” In short, the swamp is the people who have made civil service (and the military) their life’s work. These are not elected officials, but people with the “technical” skills and experience to carry out the business of the United States government. These are the career foreign service officers, career public health officials, all those lawyers who work for the justice department and federal judges. It also includes the press who cover the doings of our politicians.

If you don’t understand this, then consider after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the de-Ba’athefication of the government and what that lead to. It lead to a dearth of knowledge about how to make the government work. And that is what we are seeing right now with President Trump. Look at Rex Tillerson’s gutting of the State Department. The moving of the research and policy analysis operations of the Agriculture Department out of Washington to remote agricultural areas is how the Administration is getting policy experts to quit. Even career military are suspect, otherwise the torrent of hate toward Lt. Col. Vindman would not have happened. And the preference for ideological conformity over experience, “judicial temperament,” and achievement in selecting federal judges is also part of “draining the swamp.” Labeling press coverage that is viewed by President Trump and his supporters as negative is “fake news” even if it’s true.

The whistleblower is a career person in either the intelligence area, foreign service, and/or national security. In short, s/he makes their living serving the government of the United States. They serve the United States, not narrowly the individuals temporarily in power. This is the swamp that President Trump and his supporters are trying to drain, not the swamp of corruption, conflicts of interest, cronyism, and nepotism.

This is also why the whistleblower’s identity is so important to reveal. The vilification has already occurred and then, if identified, the whistleblower will be punished, not officially, but through anonymous threats, dirty tricks, and so forth. The whistleblower’s service will be twisted in such a way as to further the narrative that the “swamp” needs draining and enough people will not object. This will also serve to undermine “protections” for those in honorable service to the country rather than in service to any temporary tyrant.

Ultimately, “draining the swamp” for President Trump and his supporters, is about draining all sources of opposition to whatever President Trump and his supporters want. As long as there are those who will object, or even tell the truth if the truth shows President Trump and his supporters in a bad light, then the swamp needs draining.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Spin, or real change, from American corporations?

Recently, more than 200 chief corporate executives, leaders among the most pervasive corporations in American life, (Apple, Amazon, Marathon Oil, Pepsi, 3M, Walmart, etc), met and redefined the role of the corporation in society. They apparently hope to “redefine” that role away from one focused on building value for shareholders (making money for shareholders) to a more socially responsible actor (essentially how they will “behave” in the pursuit of profit). See statement here: opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment.

As central actors in a free market economy, they believe “Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity.” Does that mean that Amazon’s work conditions are going to improve?

The statement goes on: “We believe the free-market system is the best means of generating good jobs, a strong and sustainable economy, innovation, a healthy environment and economic opportunity for all.” This seems quite the opposite of what is happening in the U.S. right now, with wages only now beginning to rise, the stock market lurching on every presidential tweet, ominous “signs” of economic downturn, and growing antagonism between the U.S. and virtually every other industrialized country. Is this in response to the pro-business nationalism of President Trump?

So, what is this all about? Is it the leading edge of a soft revolution in corporate behavior, moving away from the relentless pursuit of profit regardless of the collateral effects? Or, is it a public relations effort in face of a growing chorus of younger people who are embracing the socialist label (redefining it really from what it has historically meant)?

I think it is important to note that distrust of corporations was part of the founding of the United States. The federal government, however, gave states the right to recognize corporations. Basically, in a free market based on risk/reward, corporations were created as “legal persons” to reduce the personal economic risk of its living shareholders.

In short, shareholders and executives cannot be held personally liable for corporate failures. Thus, if a corporation makes bad decisions, its shareholders are protected from losing their personal homes and assets, whereas the corporation’s employees are not. They will lose their livelihoods and possibly their assets if they cannot find employment. We can call that class privilege.

Research demonstrates a declining trust by Americans in American institutions and their leaders. This is especially true of the youngest adults in the United States. Trust in business leaders among 18-29 year olds is at just 34 percent, the same as for elected officials. So, is this just spin by the CEOs or it is a real change?

Let’s examine the bullets points offered in the statement. This is what they committed to:

• Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations. Wouldn’t that be a recommitment if it has been their tradition? So, this to me suggests no change in past behavior.

• Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect. Is this an admission that in the past they were not compensating fairly, providing benefits, and supporting them through reinvestment in them?

• Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers. We are dedicated to serving as good partners to the other companies, large and small, that help us meet our missions. Similar to the previous bullet, is this an admission of not dealing fairly and ethically in the past?

• Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses. I await for the first call from the Business Roundtable to reverse the rapid deregulation of the environment.

• Generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate. We are committed to transparency and effective engagement with shareholders. Isn’t that the original reason for corporations, generating value for shareholders? Maybe its “long-term” instead of each quarter?

Maybe I am too hard on these leaders of the free market. But, if this is supposed to build trust and confidence, I don’t think it is going to work. A change in behavior? If these are quiet admissions of past “poor dealings” then we should see some changes very quickly. What time is it?

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Reflections on racism, forgiveness — and redemption

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 3 March 2019

Now that the dust has settled regarding the blackface scandals among the Virginia Democrat political leadership, what’s come of it? Gov. Northam is still in power, though diminished. Several weeks ago a commentator remarked about how so many white people are no doubt trying to scrub their yearbooks, Facebook, and other sources for any evidence of blackface. Those searches are probably either completed or now forgotten, threat over. The new anger de jure is directed at something that did or did not happen at the Academy Awards.

A couple of weeks ago I listened to a discussion lead by Joshua Johnson of NPR’s 1A radio program about the history of and use of blackface and other black images for the entertainment and product branding by white entertainers and business people. It’s worth your time to listen and can be found here: www.npr.org/2019/02/08/692759371/the-news-roundup-for-february-8-2019.

Near the end of the segment, Mr. Johnson raised the question of “white redemption,” that is, when can someone like Gov. Northam, who is exposed to have engaged in racist behavior, claim to, or be, redeemed? This discussion did not go too far, but I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

Is it possible for a politician, public figure, really anyone, especially if they are white, to survive something like this? Gov. Northam has not resigned. The Virginia Black Legislative Caucus met and decided he should step down, but fell short of demanding it. Would that be the same response if the governor were a Republican? Does party matter or is it something about Gov. Northam’s “total body of work” that mitigates in some way his medical college yearbook photos and the activity memorialized in those photos?

Gov. Northam was to start a “reconciliation tour” but has delayed it. I’m confident that the public relations firm that Gov. Northam hired is behind the idea of a “reconciliation tour” and if they are worth their fee they will not have Gov. Northam trying to moonwalk.

I wonder what Gov. Northam has said in private, if anything. He is reported to be a member and regular attendee at the First Baptist Church of Capeville, a predominately black church. Almost immediately Pastor Kelvin Jones and congregants gave him “another chance.” That is a very different response than national white Democrat leaders who called for Northam’s immediate resignation.

White Democrat leaders are unforgiving while Gov. Northam’s pastor and fellow Baptists are willing to give him another chance. Another chance to do what? To not wear blackface? To not have another picture from 30-plus years ago emerge with compromising content? If Gov. Northam screws up his second chance, will he be shunned at church? Asked to leave the congregation? Asked to resign the governorship?

What does redemption look like for most of us, the “us” not in the public eye? First, who grants the redemption? Our white friends who may worry that being friends with someone who wore blackface or did racist things 30 years ago might reflect on them? Those who think all this is just PC liberal “gotcha” moralizing? Or is it our African American friends, colleagues and neighbors who we look to for redemption? For that “another chance” to not do something? Most of us really don’t have African American friends, colleagues or neighbors, given how race so effectively segregates us both physically and socially. So, this is a challenge. That Gov. Northam worships with African Americans says something, I think.

In January, I had a reunion with my two of my college roommates. It had been 38 years since I had seen SN. I was startled when he told us his first memory of me. It involved matters of race. I didn’t recall it, even after he told the story. I don’t deny it; I suspect that it happened because I know, at 17, an only child, I was apprehensive about living with a person who I didn’t know and afraid that he might be black. Fear is the heart of racism.

After several weeks of thinking about this I don’t have any answers. I do have one suggestion. Don’t make excuses for past behavior. Own it. If you are embarrassed/ashamed/feeling guilty by it today, why weren’t you then? That should say something about the path you have been on.

You may not have been very conscious of your path, but you can reflect on it now. And maybe achieve some level of redemption.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.