Was the 2020 election stolen from Donald Trump? Is Joe Biden the legitimate president? Do you support Trump? Does he support you? If you've been watching C-SPAN's coverage of the 2022 midterm elections -- after all, October is famously known as debate month at C-SPAN -- you've probably heard moderators and reporters ask these questions. Over and over. In C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly," it's a special round-up of C-SPAN's debate coverage.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Call them ‘representatives,’ because that’s what they are − not ‘congressmen’ or ‘congresswomen’
Sep 05, 2024
Wirls is a professor of politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
For most of the nation’s history, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been addressed as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” By contrast, a senator is referred to as, well, “Senator.”
These gendered terms for House members dominate in journalism, everyday conversation and among members of Congress.
The name Congress refers to the entire national legislature, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Gender identity aside, congressman and congresswoman are fundamentally inaccurate terms.
In the Constitution, Congress refers to the legislative branch as a whole. When discussing the membership of Congress, the Constitution uses “Representatives” and “Senators,” but also “Members” in reference to both. “Congressman” is nowhere in that founding document.
One of the foremost scholars of Congress, the late Richard Fenno, wrote, “a House member’s designation, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution, is not Congressman, it is Representative.”
As a scholar of Congress and particularly the Senate, I am interested in the differences between the two chambers and how that affects American politics. In my investigation of the origins and evolution of congressman and congresswoman, I combed the records of colonial and state legislatures, as well as records related to the country’s founding and newspapers from the end of the 1700s to the mid-1900s.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Even if the current era were not one of justified sensitivity to gender neutrality and diversity, these two terms for House members are not just dated, they are wrong. Representative is the correct but rarely used term.
Historical use
How did this terminological oddity come to be?
Congressman was used as early as 1780 in a poem by a British loyalist to refer to members, formally known as delegates, of the single-chamber and Senate-like national legislatures that preceded the Constitution’s establishment of a two-chamber legislature.
From 1788 onward, the gendered term was sometimes applied to members of Congress in general but increasingly to representatives in particular.
The central linguistic logic at work in early 19th century use of the term congressman stemmed from the reporting of election results. Newspapers reported the choices for governor, lieutenant governor, assemblymen, congressmen and senators. The only elections to Congress, however, were for members of the House, in contrast to senators, who were selected by state legislatures.
So, senators referred not to the occupants of the U.S. Senate but to the state senate. U.S. senators would not be directly elected by citizens for more than a century. In this and similar reporting, it was unambiguous to refer to the election of “congressmen.”
The common usage, which was firmly in place by the end of the 19th century, was bolstered by the arrival of congresswomen, starting with Jeannette Rankin in 1917. That political breakthrough ironically reinforced the gendered terminology associated with this office. The few early congresswomen were eventually joined by the first elected female senator, who was referred to as Senator.
Indeed, senators are invariably referred to by their gender-neutral and constitutional title.
Few parallels elsewhere
The use of titles that are both unnecessarily gendered and inaccurate is almost restricted to the United States Congress. There are surprisingly few parallels and no true equals at the state or international levels.
The gender-neutral term designated in the Constitution already exists. The title Representative is used in certain formal but limited circumstances by journalists and others. For example, the widely used Associated Press style guide for journalists instructs that “Rep. and U.S. Rep. are the preferred first-reference forms when a formal title is used before the name of a U.S. House member.” But the style guide also advises that “congressman and congresswoman are acceptable,” and those terms dominate in most circumstances in print and television journalism.
And the use of congressman and congresswoman dominates even among representatives and senators themselves. Some members even seem to go out of their way to avoid the constitutional term, including Sen. Mitt Romney. Romney recently referred to former President Donald Trump’s communications with “Republican senators and congresspeople.”
And the use of congressman and congresswoman is at odds with other contemporary adjustments to circumvent or replace sexist or binary language, including personal pronouns. The application of gender neutrality through the constitutional title evades neologisms like congressperson, which is as clumsy as it is unnecessary.
Reminder of civic virtue
Even as the Senate has lost some of its prestige and luster, the House is seen as a lower rung on the ladder of U.S. politics. Perhaps the inferiority complex that attaches to membership in the House versus the Senate also encourages the use of congressman. Being a member of Congress – and therefore a congressman or congresswoman – may seem more prestigious in its focus on the institution as a whole.
But it doesn’t have to be that way; the House could instead embrace its official title.
Richard Fenno, quoted earlier, can finish his point: “Whereas ‘congressman’ or ‘congresswoman’ tends to call our attention to a House member’s Capitol Hill activities and to his or her relationship with colleagues,” Fenno wrote, “‘representative’ points us toward a House member’s activities in his or her home district and to relationships with constituents.”
Members relish their connections to their districts, their constituents and the democratic virtues that role conveys. And part of this is the implicit contrast with the Senate, with its undemocratic origins and enduring elitist pretensions.
As well as being gender-neutral and institutionally accurate, the original title is a powerful reminder of the civic virtue and founding purpose of the House of Representatives. It’s not just politically correct, it’s constitutional.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Don’t Miss Out
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
‘Democracy is something we have to fight for’: A conversation with Suzette Brooks Masters
Sep 04, 2024
Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age." This is the seventh in a series of interviews titled "The Polarization Project."
Is polarization in the United States laying the groundwork for political violence? That is not a simple question to answer.
Affective polarization — the tendency of partisans to hate those who hold opposing political views — does seem to be growing in the United States. But as a recent report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace makes clear, “many European countries show affective polarization at about the same level as that of the United States, but their democracies are not suffering as much, suggesting that something about the US political system, media, campaigns, or social fabric is allowing Americans’ level of emotional polarization to be particularly harmful to US democracy.”
Suzette Brooks Masters is someone whose job it is to think about threats to American democracy. The leader of the Better Futures Project at the Democracy Funders Network, Masters recently spent months studying innovations in resilient democracy from around the world. The resulting report, “Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy,” argues that one way to help protect American democracy from “authoritarian disruption” is to engage in a process of “reimagining our governance model for the future.”
I recently sat down with Masters to talk about polarization, ideological conformity in the nonprofit sector and the lessons she learned from two decades in immigration philanthropy. The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Greg Berman: What is the democracy movement?
Suzette Brooks Masters: Broadly speaking, I would say the democracy movement is civic engagement folks, bridge-builders, social cohesion folks, electoral reform and integrity folks. And then there are the democracy innovation folks — people who are experimenting with different ways of doing things using technology, citizens' assemblies and different forms of deliberation. And then there are the people who are thinking, what should democracy look like if you were starting from scratch? And there's a whole other group worrying about political violence and what happens should we take a fascist turn. But I think the biggest chunk of what people call the democracy movement is actually election-related. The bulk of the money and effort and energy is being spent around how to make elections better and how to bring in voters.
GB: How do you think about your place within the democracy movement? How did you come to be a part of it?
SBM: 2016 was a huge wake up call for so many people, myself included. I'd been working on immigration policy for 20 years, and I was taken aback by the way the issue was weaponized in 2016. This led me to do a lot of soul searching. How did our movement, the pro-immigrant movement, not see the possibility of a backlash? How did we not see that the push for more and more people coming to this country would activate a portion of the electorate that feels under threat and that in turn wants to take draconian action as a result of that? I think there were a lot of people, like me, who were working relentlessly on a single issue and didn’t necessarily connect the dots to the larger system. Starting in 2016, I started to feel like we were taking democracy for granted and that, actually, it’s something we have to fight for.
What I spend most of my time on now is trying to look into the future. There's a very tiny part of the pro-democracy movement that's actually trying to think about what comes next and focusing much more on having a long-term vision than on what’s going to happen in the next election.
The reason that I moved in that direction is that I felt that the pro-democracy movement was often in a reactive mode, just trying to hold our ground against these threats all around us. And I thought, well, that is just not very inspiring. Starting from such a negative premise doesn't tell you where you're going. We need to be generative, not just reactive.
GB: You wrote a piece on Medium in honor of the 100th birthday of your dad, who was a World War II vet. You said that if he were alive, he would be dismayed at the state of America. I realize you aren’t the president, but give me your sense of the state of our union at the moment.
SBM: I think that ideological extremism has captured our political conversation and, in the process, it has undermined the institutions that are really the bulwark of our system. If you have read Peter Coleman's stuff, you know that the more polarized you get — and the more you feel like the other side is an existential threat — the more you're willing to take extreme measures to justify saving the country from the enemy. In that specific article, I think I was really worried about the growing authoritarian threat and the fact that a lot of people, on both sides of the aisle, are willing to take extreme measures.
Now, I'm more worried about the threats on the right than on the left. The extreme right is way more organized than the extreme left. But I wouldn't be surprised if, after our election, regardless of who wins, people take to the streets because they feel like the election was stolen.
GB: I buy the argument that we have a rise in affective polarization, but I have to say I'm somewhat skeptical of the notion that the U.S. is polarized ideologically. My read is that there is still agreement across a pretty broad political spectrum on a host of issues, including hot button issues like immigration, gun control, and abortion. But I think that somehow there's a disconnect between where the American public is and where our politics are.
SBM: I completely agree with you. The ideological polarization I was talking about is among the people in a position to take action on the public's behalf. I think our politicians are ideologically divided.
The middle has really eroded among legislators. It used to be the case that politicians could operate with some independence. In the past, they'd break with their party sometimes, they'd vote with the other side sometimes. It is harder and harder to break with your tribe these days.
This has always been the conundrum on immigration. We've had roughly 70 percent of the public supporting immigration reform for twenty years, but that has never translated into policy. We have not had substantive progress on immigration at the federal level since 1996. So you are absolutely right, there's a disconnect between the public and political elites.
GB: I think the tribalism and ideological discipline you talk about is real. On the other hand, it also feels like the tribes may be shifting at the moment. If you trust the polling, there are indications that Donald Trump and the Republicans are picking up support in the Black community and the Hispanic community. And in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, you’ve also seen a fracturing on the left. So I guess it seems to me like two things are happening simultaneously: positions are hardening and things are massively in flux at the same time.
SBM: I really believe that a lot of what we're seeing today might be the signs of a paradigm that's on its way out. I think it has become clear that the old system isn't working anymore. We're not solving the problems we need to solve. We feel very divided, and our politicians don't represent us and aren't moving the ball forward.
But we haven't figured out what the new paradigm is. Some people have said that we're in the process of hospicing the old and midwifing the new. So there are a lot of contradictory signals.
GB: We’ve been mostly talking about democracy, but I also worry about the future of liberalism, not in a left-right sense, but in terms of values like due process, pluralism, and free speech. My sense is that these values are under siege at the moment. When you talk about moving beyond an old paradigm, I’m worried that might include jettisoning liberal values that I care about and think are worth preserving.
SBM: Well, I think there are lots of different potential futures. I think what you're talking about is an outgrowth of tribalism and the use of social media and the fact that there's been a flattening of diverse opinions. And I think it's most notable on the left because progressives have often made room for a wide range of views. That’s changed recently. I think there is an increasing orthodoxy in the nonprofit world and in philanthropy these days.
GB: And what's your analysis of why that’s happened?
SBM: I think so many of us in the nonprofit and philanthropy world have already pre-decided what is right and what is wrong. I think you need to have curiosity and humility about what you're trying to achieve and how you're trying to achieve it. You need to be questioning yourself all the time and stress testing your ideas with others who don’t share your politics.
The immigration movement is a perfect case in point. The reason things I think happened the way they did is because there was so much groupthink and there became this obsession with undocumented immigration. It became almost a dirty word to actually talk about legal immigration, even though that was how the vast majority of people came to this country. You would think that those people didn't even exist. A very lefty movement ended up capturing philanthropy and it then became the dominant way that people were funding in the immigration space.
GB: Pause there for a second. How did philanthropy get “captured,” to use your vocabulary?
SBM: Well, I think a few things happened. First of all, there was a huge shift to focusing on what people call “directly affected populations.” In philanthropy, there was a huge move to hire people from the movement or who had identities that were somehow more authentic and more legitimate. There was a lot of pressure on the leadership of philanthropy to prioritize their hiring into program officer jobs. I think that urge came from a good place. We should have directly affected people in those roles. But I think that was also the beginning of the orthodoxy.
What started happening was that, if you weren’t a directly affected person, then the message was that basically you cannot have an opinion or that your opinion is inferior to the opinion of a directly affected person. Only certain people with a certain identity had the right to speak about certain issues. And I think that's where you get the threats to liberalism, the threats to diversity of opinion. And I think it's really bad.
GB: Do you think things have gotten any better of late within philanthropy and the nonprofit sector, or do you think it's still in a bad place?
SBM: I definitely think it's in a bad place. I think the Israel-Hamas War is roiling all sorts of institutions. I don't think we're out of the woods at all. And I think the media is having a field day talking about it. It is a really juicy topic to tear down these elite institutions and expose their fault lines and their fissures.
GB: You expressed a lot of this in an op-ed you wrote for the Chronicle of Philanthropy entitled “Philanthropy Needs to Own Up to Its Role in Fueling Polarization.” What was the reaction to that piece among your peers in the foundation world?
SBM: I expected to get a huge amount of backlash from people in the immigrant rights movement because I was critiquing the groupthink and the fact that they weren't really grappling with what the rest of the world thought about this issue. They were being really tunnel-visioned. I was so nervous when that piece was published because I was in that movement for twenty years, and I thought I was going to get a lot of flak. But the feedback never came. So either nobody cares or they just didn't think it was worth their while to engage on this.
GB: Berman: Do you think depolarization is possible at this point? What would that look like? How would that happen?
SBM: I don't think there's any silver bullet, and I haven't seen a single thing that works at scale. Almost everything that works has to be done either person-to-person or in a small group context. I really do believe in social contact theory. A one-time, brief encounter is not going to have a lasting impact. Going to a potluck and meeting an immigrant doesn't make you love an immigrant. Democrats and Republicans having dinner together once—I don't think that's going to have a lasting impact. I think there's a lot of self-selection that goes on with those kinds of events. The kinds of people that are willing to participate are probably not the target audience you actually need to reach. So I find a lot of the interventions flawed, but I do believe that there are some things that work.
GB: What’s an example?
SBM: I think deep canvassing is a strategy that is worth investing in. You should take a look at the New Conversation Initiative. They are very progressive, but they have empathy for all people. What I love about their approach is that they haven't written off 50 percent of the country. Unlike a lot of progressive organizations, they're asking, “Why aren't these people with us?” They proceed from the standpoint that we're not going to have a viable country and a viable democratic experiment if we have to write off 50 percent of our neighbors. I really respect them for being progressive, but being willing to say that everyone is a human being. Everyone deserves to be heard. A lot of people are pissed off because they don't feel they're being heard.
Deep canvassing has had some really good results. Crucially, there is research that suggests that it reduces affective polarization among both the canvassed and the canvassers. All of the canvassers are progressives. But they're changed by the process.
I’m hoping that people will engage in this at greater scale, including nonprofits who would never want to spend time talking to people they don't perceive as already being in their camp. I think deep canvassing can be this little wedge, helping us to be more open to points of view that we might not share and trying to understand where people are coming from and what shaped their views. Even if someone doesn’t agree with you on abortion or climate or whatever, they're still people, and they deserve to be taken seriously as people.
GB: What other kinds of organizations or ideas are giving you hope at the moment?
SBM: There are a lot of people that feel that we need to fix the way we practice democracy in this country because people feel so disconnected from their legislators and their electeds. What if we gave more voice to people to solve problems together? There's been some interesting experiments with things like citizens' assemblies and other forms of deliberative democracy that could also reduce polarization. Because when you work with a random selection of people where you live and then you deliberate over long periods of time, people tend to come to agreement on how to solve a problem. We just don't have a lot of vehicles in the U.S. where we have a chance to work through problems with our neighbors in a way that doesn't lead to yelling and screaming. I don't know about you, but all the town meetings I've ever been to have been incredibly unproductive. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
So some of the things that give me hope are interesting methods that people can use to improve meetings. There's one I'm obsessed with coming out of Japan called Future Design, where you do these role plays to inhabit different generational points in time. It helps participants to think about thirty years out, sixty years out, and to wrestle with the question of what do you want life to be like for our children and our grandchildren? What they have found is that when people do that kind of intergenerational role play and then get together to make decisions, they're making different kinds of decisions than they would've made otherwise. They're more empathetic towards future generations. They're more willing to sacrifice today so that others can have more in the future.
Like deep canvassing, I think there's something about Future Design that helps build empathy, that sends the message that we’re not that different, even if we have different political persuasions. But that’s not the message you're getting from Congress these days.
GB: And how much stock do you put into efforts to address partisan gerrymandering or change how we elect our representatives? Do you think that those are worth investing in?
SBM: Sure. But I think the problem with those kinds of structural reforms is that those are just tweaks to our existing system. They don't actually create opportunities for the kind of new ideas that I was just telling you about. They would just change at the margin the composition of who's holding office. It doesn't change the direction or the momentum of how government should function. It's all tinkering at the margin with the existing paradigm.
GB: Is there a tension between the kind of futuristic ideas that you have been advancing, which call for pretty profound change, and your writing about immigration, where you say that the advocates didn’t reckon with how destabilizing change can be for a large segment of the population? How do you square both sides of your thinking?
SBM: The way I square it is by admitting that change is hard. I think there is a lot of anxiety around all of the change that's happening around us and the fact that we don't have a shared sense of reality anymore. What our political elites haven’t done is to speak to this anxiety. How do we navigate through this era where people have real questions about their sense of identity, their sense of self, their economic well-being, and whether they're going to have a job in ten years? I have not heard a single elected official make a speech that acknowledges how anxiety-producing all of this is without weaponizing it, without making it about fear of the other. Maybe that would be a lousy speech, but honestly, if someone actually validated the fact that this is a super anxious time, I would really respect them for that.
I think that's what's behind these bizarro numbers where our economy is supposedly thriving but everyone feels insecure. I think they don't have the language or the tools to talk about this deep-seated anxiety they feel about all this existential change that's going on around us. If you're a White guy, all of a sudden it's super bad to be a White guy. That’s a big change! Now women dominate colleges and universities. There are affirmative action programs that people don't talk about for boys, because not enough boys can get into college anymore. How seismic is that? And that’s just one small example.
I think the anxiety about change is what's fueling a lot of the resentment and the grievance politics and the crazy groups on Reddit. We have to find a way to validate the upset and the sense of loss that people have. Just because you as a White person might feel a sense of loss, that doesn't make you a White nationalist. The left will immediately say that if you care about your White identity, if you have pride in your White identity, you're a White nationalist. Well, that's not true. The more that Whites become a minority in this country, the more they will develop the attributes of a minority group and build identity around their minority status. That's just a fact.
GB: What role do you think that social media plays in all this? My instinct is that social media has to be fueling some of this anxiety and some of this identitarianism, but I'm finding it hard to find research that actually documents that.
SBM: I think the algorithms are to blame. Once your preferences become clear, you just keep getting the same content. And if you don't get a diversity of views on a topic, you're going to just become indoctrinated in a particular viewpoint. I can tell you that personally I feel so different when I look at social media and when I don't look at social media. I was a huge Twitter follower, but I have not looked at Twitter in months. I could feel my blood pressure going up whenever I was on Twitter. It was designed to get me all emotional and all upset. It's absolutely true that it does that.
GB: Before you left Twitter, you posted a little about your reaction to Oct. 7. What is your sense of the state of antisemitism in the U.S. right now?
SBM: I think what was shocking about the aftermath of Oct. 7 was that it made it clear how pervasive antisemitism is. People were very happy to take Jewish money, to have Jewish board members, to have Jewish colleagues, as long as they were worrying about other people. But when Jews themselves were the victims, all of a sudden everything changed. Jewish victimhood was not put on the same level as the victimhood of other groups. And that was deeply painful for a lot of people.
My friend Eric Ward has been very active with progressive organizations explaining that they need to be fighting antisemitism as much as anything else. It's an uphill fight because Jews have what he calls “conditional Whiteness.” Are Jews a minority group that faces bigotry? Are Jews people of privilege who can move freely in White circles? I think what's happened post-October 7th is that conditional Whiteness has been placed front and center.
This article originally appeared on HFG.org and has been republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
A 'just' meritocracy – the keystone to the American dream
Sep 04, 2024
Radwell is the author of "American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the 12th entry in what was intended to be a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.
I’m not sure if it is due to the recent triumph of the Paris Olympics or voters’ nascent love affair with Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, but the spirit of sports competition has taken center stage of late. Watching our young athletes reach their Olympic dreams and being introduced to Coach Walz seem connected in some mysterious but heartwarming way.
Behind every Olympic medal lies a story of young budding talent buttressed by a coterie of adults who chart the course. And in Walz, we recognize someone who has unmistakably demonstrated a profound developmental impact with kids both on the field and in the classroom.
But there is a more subtle and vital connection between the thrill of competitive sports and the concept of the American dream. In both, irrespective of background, the ingredients of raw talent, passion, perseverance, dedication and plain hard work can lead to achievement and its consequent rewards. Notably, both in sports and in society, a prerequisite to fair and impartial competition is agreement and acceptance of a set of rules and regulations. Further, the participants consent to abide by these and accept the outcome of the competition. It is this paradigm of applying one’s talents in fair competition that lies at the heart of the concept of the American dream.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Of course, both in sports and society, there are participants who invariably cheat, thus requiring mechanisms to root out uncompetitive behavior. Competitive sports wouldn’t be very interesting if no one followed the rules. However, in the seemingly endless fog of cynicism that clouds our thinking today, it is easy to lose sight of these principles. For this reason, as a metaphor for our civic society in the 21st century at large, Coach Walz’s mentoring and development of young minds in the classroom or young athletes on the field is so refreshing and enthralling.
As I discussed in a recent article, the same idea of rule-based fair competition buttresses the principles of the free market economy envisioned by Adam Smith centuries ago. As a producer vies for her own individual achievement and rewards, she simultaneously benefits all of society by producing products and services that consumers value.
But imagine a market-based economy where everyone cheats. This game is rigged in favor of those market participants who have been permitted to leverage their economic power to wield political power. Accordingly, they get to write the rules of the game and construct barriers to true competition. This is how Martin Wolf describes our current state of affairs in his compelling recent book, “The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism.” He argues that this rentier economy has resulted from decades of government neglect promulgated under the guise of laissez faire deregulation. In recent years, there has been an outpouring of writings that assail the inevitable widening gaps of wealth which result from such an economy.
But there is a related casualty, namely the stifling of upward mobility and the very crumbling of the modern meritocracy that rests as the bedrock of the American dream. While the concept of meritocracy has been harshly criticized recently, I have yet to be shown a better system for recognizing achievement and distributing rewards in society. The meritocratic system encourages the pursuit of individual success, while concurrently allowing society as a whole to reap tremendous benefits. The competition for novel ideas, products and services that consumers value lifts all proverbial boats.
In my book, “American Schism,” I articulate how this concept of meritocracy is rooted in Enlightenment ideals. As Condorcet, the great French philosopher stressed, the study of reason and empirical sciences as well as civic responsibilities were all fundamental to unleashing human capacity within the social contract. Whether Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac” or Diderot and d’Alembert’s “Encyclopédie,” the wide promulgation of information became the Enlightenment’s machine de guerre. The resulting broad access to knowledge charted the paths to develop one’s innate abilities, and thereby promised a new world where one could become unshackled from the birth lottery. For centuries, the quality and access to public education in the United States became the engine of the American dream and lifted prosperity to unimaginable levels. But Condorcet also said: “Inequality of education is one of the main sources of tyranny.”
Further, when reviewing the criticisms, it is not the concept of meritocracy that is the problem, but its present-day execution. Quite frankly, we no longer have a fair meritocracy. We have allowed the wealth gap of recent decades to translate into a huge education gap in which real meritocratic competition is but an illusion. Since the 1980s, entrenched mechanisms within the political economy have permitted and legitimized the very wealthy to guarantee that their elite inheritance is transferred to their children, seemingly ossifying our existing social structure. Consider this: A wealthy family provides an annual investment in private education that is six to 10 times that of the inner city kid. And this yearly investment gap compounds throughout K-12. With such unfair starting lines, is it a surprise who wins the race?
To achieve a just meritocracy, the concept of equality of opportunity must create a level playing field by encompassing not only equal access to education, but to infrastructure and public goods, job opportunities and job training. As John Rawls illustrates in his 1971 landmark work, “A Theory of Justice,” a more all-inclusive concept of equality of opportunity must include equal access to acquire qualifications. Tragically, America in the 21st century is a far cry from this Rawlsian concept.
It is not America’s hard power or technological prowess but the concept of the American dream that has allowed us to become the real envy of the world for over 100 years. But it seems we are letting it slip away. Instead of abandoning the concept of meritocracy, as some critics argue, we need to develop better strategies for its effective and measurable 21st century implementation. And after all, watching a race where one runner is given a huge lead at the start is no fun.
Keep ReadingShow less
Mayor Pete didn’t say ‘gay’
Sep 04, 2024
Tseng is an equity strategy program manager at Google, a Paul and Daisy Soros fellow, and a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project.
In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg never said the word “gay.” Not once. He didn’t mention his husband, Chasten, by name or even use the term “husband.” He never mentioned that he is a man who loves another man, nor did he give any explanation of why his family seemed like an impossibility just 25 years ago, beyond saying that it did.
In fact, the only thing that might have tipped you off about his sexuality was his mention of pro wrestling, a very queer sport. The omission of any aspect of his gayness made me long for a much broader pool of candidates onto whom I could project my hopes and dreams as a gay man.
To be fair, “Mayor Pete” is unequivocally the most famous gay man in American politics. He’s the highest ranking LGBTQ+ federal official (14th in line for the presidency) and has a personal story that is known to a broad swath of the country due to his own campaign for president in 2020. He is widely recognized as one of the Democratic Party’s best communicators and as the nation’s first credible Millennial candidate for president.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
So a good-faith reading of these omissions is that he assumes his audience already knows the biographical elements that powered his meteoric rise. And perhaps a more realistic reading is that Buttigieg plans to one day run for president (or governor of Michigan, where he now lives) and is betting that respectability politics will be his most effective strategy for appealing to the broadest set of voters. I would even grant him the generous reading that he is genuinely uninterested in discussing his identity in depth, and so this calibration is authentic to who he is.
Still, Mayor Pete’s reticence to discuss his identity in any way that might cause an “ick factor” for his future constituents makes me feel like rolling my eyes with my entire body. As New Yorker contributor Masha Gessen wrote in 2020, Buttigieg’s “politics of being ‘just like you’ leaves out the people who cannot or do not want to be just like conventional straight people, whether in appearance or in the way we construct our lives and families.” Implicit in that is the idea that his “passing privilege” — his ability to appear heterosexual, and the fact that he is an otherwise anodyne cis-white guy — is what he believes is his greatest selling point: that being a”palatable gay” is the only way any gay man could ever get elected to higher office in the United States.
But even as a palatable gay myself, with my husband of nearly 10 years and twin girls we adopted almost exactly a year before Pete and Chasten adopted their twins (his most relatable line in his speech: “when the dog is barking, and the air fryer is beeping, and the mac and cheese is boiling over, and it feels like all the political negotiating experience in the world is not enough for me to get our 3-year-old son and daughter to just wash their hands and sit at the table”), I can’t help but feel a sense of loss that our chance to be represented on a national stage is so contingent on us living our lives in such a prescribed way. And since he doesn’t seem willing to handle conversations about the less heteronormative aspects of queer identity and intersectionality, those crucial parts of our community’s shared struggle seem far from the national discourse.
The truth is that I’m still rooting for Mayor Pete. I hope he does well. I hope he gets elected to additional positions and is able to use his power and influence to make lives better, because I truly believe that is his goal. But I don’t want to be forced to put all of my gay politics eggs in the Pete Buttigieg basket. Unfortunately, the pipeline of queer political talent is thin. Of the 480 congressional and gubernatorial seats up for election this year, there are only 13 LGBTQ candidates endorsed by the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, the public affairs committee supporting queer candidates. Because the bench is so shallow, we don’t have enough representation to truly encompass the wide spectrum of queer identity. Perhaps our most radical gay federal official, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who is unabashedly gay and speaks often of his queerness, is still a cis-man who wears a suit to work every day.
It’s easy to say that we queer folks need to get off the couch and run for office, to be the representation we want to see in the world. But it’s not hard to see how thick a skin it takes to be a queer public figure, particularly in a politically charged (and increasingly threatening) America. Mayor Pete knows that too; he’s lived it with every step of his career. It’s gotten him far, but now that he has risen so high on the national stage, it’s time for him to take the next courageous step and talk about it.
He might advocate for care infrastructure for aging LGBTQ seniors, or talk about the impact that PrEP and the mPox vaccine have had on public health, or maybe even mention once in a while that trans rights are human rights. It’s time for Mayor Pete to shine the light on how beautiful, and legitimate, all parts of the queer coalition are, and to lift up other gay politicians so he no longer has to be the be-all and end-all for those of us looking for someone to speak for us.
Keep ReadingShow less
In swing states, D’s and R’s agree U.S. should continue aid to Ukraine
Sep 04, 2024
Amid debates about U.S. international engagement, a new public consultation survey conducted in six swing states by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation found widespread bipartisan support for the United States continuing to provide military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support the U.S. upholding the principle of collective security by helping to protect nations that are under attack; continuing to be a member of NATO; and continuing to abide by the longstanding international ban on nuclear testing.
This survey is the fourth in the “Swing Six Issue Surveys”seriesbeing conducted in the run-up to the November election in swing states, and nationally, on major policy issues. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance.
“Surveys have consistently shown that, while Americans don’t want the US to be the world policeman, they do want the U.S. to work with other countries to uphold the international order and help protect nations from aggressors,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The survey was fielded July 19-Aug. 2, and involved 4,628 adults, including approximately 600 in each state of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and 1,211 nationally.
Continuing aid to Ukraine
Large majorities in every swing state (64 percent to 71 percent), including majorities of Democrats (73 percent to 85 percent), favor the United States continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine — including weapons, ammunition, training and intelligence
A majority of Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (56 percent to 60 percent) are in favor, while in Michigan and Nevada they are evenly divided. However, majorities of Republicans in Michigan (57 percent) and Nevada (60 percent) find it at least “tolerable.” Nationally, 67 percent are in favor, including majorities of Republicans (57 percent) and Democrats (79 percent).
Before coming to their conclusion, respondents were informed that the United States has already provided Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars worth of military aid and that European countries have provided an equivalent amount. Two arguments against providing aid — that European nations are responsible for taking care of this war, and that, by engaging, the United States risks escalation to nuclear war — were found convincing by about six in 10. But the two arguments in favor — that U.S. engagement is necessary to prevent Russia from further aggression, and to uphold the international order based on national sovereignty — were both found convincing by larger majorities of around eight in 10.
The U.S. continuing to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine — including food, shelter and assistance to repair infrastructure — is favored by large bipartisan majorities in every swing state (71 percent to 75 percent), including 60 percent to 69 percent of Republicans and 76 percent to 88 percent of Democrats. Nationally, 74 percent are in favor (Republicans 65 percent, Democrats 84 percent).
Upholding collective security
Bipartisan majorities say it should be a high priority for the United States to uphold the principle of collective security, which says that when a country comes under attack, other countries should join together to help defend it, through military force and/or economic sanctions.
Support ranges from 75 percent to 81 percent in the swing states, including 70 percent to 77 percent of Republicans and 81 percent to 89 percent Democrats, as well as 80 percent nationally.
Maintaining U.S. membership in NATO
Respondents were given a briefing on the Western military alliance NATO and how it includes “a key section, called Article 5, which says that NATO members regard an attack on any member as an attack on all and that all members will defend any member that is attacked.” The United States continuing to be part of NATO is favored by bipartisan majorities of 76 percent to 81 percent in the swing states, including 72 percent to 77 percent of Republicans and 83 percent to 89 percent of Democrats, as well as 78 percent nationally.
Continuing a moratorium on nuclear testing
Recently, the debate over nuclear weapons testing has been reignited by calls for the U.S. military to restart testing. The United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom have all had moratoriums on testing for three decades, as part of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
Bipartisan majorities of 73 percent to 78 percent in the swing states said the United States should continue its moratorium on nuclear testing. Support includes 68 percent to 75 percent of Republicans and 75 percent to 83 percent of Democrats in the swing states, as well as 75 percent nationally.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More