Afleveringen
-
I went to see a movie on Friday night. It’s one of my favorite things to do. I can walk to Living Room Theaters from my townhouse in ten minutes, and their popcorn is fantastic. There’s nothing strange about going, except it had been months since I had been there. Now I have been twice in a week.
“A Real Pain” is a new film written and directed by Jesse Eisenberg, who stars in it with Kieran Culkin. They play a pair of mismatched cousins who go on a Holocaust tour through Poland to retrace the experience of their recently deceased grandmother. They are opposites but are united by their shared loss and the enormity of the history they are experiencing.
Life goes on. That was the message I left the film with, though admittedly, I was primarily at the movie for that very reason myself. I recommend my strategy to anyone struggling with the recent election’s outcome.
On Sunday, I deactivated my Twitter/X account. No big deal, really. Except the app had become a habit and ditching it would mean a change in my daily routine. Oh no, not a change! I will admit that all of what I saw on that cesspool wasn’t terrible. But I really didn’t want to give up the Super 70’s Sports feed or Rex Chapman’s account.
I already had a good sized Threads following, but never really liked the clunky and algorithmic control of it. In the days that followed the election, I quickly became exhausted with the vibe there. Doomscrolling, or as my students refer to it, “rotting,” was absolutely that on my post-election-Threads feed. It was filled with people I agree with politically, but most of them seemed to need a fatherly kick in the ass to encourage them to return to the land of the living.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
There is no substitute for just showing up. Sometimes I wish there was one, but there just isn’t.
The relentless polling that exhausted Americans during the last three months of the presidential campaigns never really swung all that much, no matter what the drama of the day was. By the time Labor Day arrived, the persuasion part of the national campaign was largely over.
I was skeptical of every undecided voter this year. The presidential choices were so stark, remaining voter indecisiveness was really about whether they would vote at all, not whether they would choose Harris or Trump.
10 million fewer Americans voted for president this year than in 2020. Based on the estimated adult population in the country of 271 million, that means about 54% of eligible voters participated in the presidential election. That is down from 60% in 2020 but is an identical participation rate to 2016.
The old adage that Democrats perform better when turnout is better rings true again this year. I believe the adage is true on a macro level, and the swings over the last three elections confirm that. But 2020 was a year like no other, so that likely deserves as asterisk more than a medal.
It is difficult for a civic minded person like me to accept that nearly half of Americans aren’t participating in their inherited gift of self-governance. It is truly a gift. And when I say, “it is difficult” to accept these shameful participation rates, I am editing out the necessary profanity while speaking through grinding teeth. What is truly difficult to me, is forgiving those who don’t show up for this most basic civic duty.
That’s America. And that data is maddening in and of itself. But then there’s Indiana.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
Combine the adjectives of anger, fear and apathy to describe any audience, and it predictably equates to trouble. Those descriptors are the features of the American electorate today.
Imagine any organization of people, of any kind, that makes its decisions while grounded in those emotions. What could that collective mindset possibly accomplish? While I’m sure there are some things, they would be few, and for those few, I expect the value of these accomplishments would be minimal, or simply the result of dumb luck. Really dumb luck.
This year’s election, the latest in a string of the most important election of our lifetimes, delivered a litany of results featuring contradictions and just plain thoughtlessness. But that’s what happens when decision makers are mad, scared and don’t care about productive outcomes.
Donald Trump returns to the White House in January for his second, and last, presidential term. He will be inaugurated two weeks after the four-year anniversary of the coup he inspired at the scene of the crime. I’m sorry, I meant crimes, plural. I’m sure the crowd on January 20, 2025, will be an interesting one. There will almost certainly be people in attendance who are on parole because of what they did the last time they were there.
The January 6, 2021, crowd was angry. With rage and denial over their candidate’s defeat, they exploded. No surprise, really. It was and continues to be a coalition united by shared grievances.
It’s remarkable how committed that coalition is to the bit. But what we are learning about the bit, albeit the hard way, is that those who are fueled by grievance will never be satisfied. To satisfy its grievance-based mindset is to eliminate its purpose, its usefulness and its energy. After all these years of watching the MAGA cult, this truth has become abundantly clear.
So, the anger, and all of the things that come with it, is the cult’s most valuable feature.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Several weeks ago, two board members from the Pre-Law Association at IU came to my office and asked if I could prepare a workshop for the group in late October. I generally say yes to these kinds of things, and I had done one last year for the group about building and maintaining personal networks. Yea, I know that sounds boring, but I deliver it with a great deal of charisma.
This year though, they had a real challenge for me. They wanted me to help them prepare for the inevitable and uncomfortable conversations they were predicting this Thanksgiving. Yes, they know. These are juniors and seniors in college, which means they were primarily juniors and seniors in high school four years ago. Most of them weren’t old enough to vote in 2020, but they remember Thanksgiving that year.
I don’t talk politics with my students. I teach speech, writing and advocacy. Politics is not part of the curriculum of any of my classes and it wouldn’t endear me with students who agree with my viewpoint any way. Further, I wouldn’t want to lose credibility with the students who disagree with my perspective, because contrary to popular belief, I want to teach them advanced communication skills just as much.
That clarification intensifies the request for me. What they needed was help having difficult conversations. Most do. But in my academic work, I am concerned that we aren’t connecting enough at all. This concern comes from my belief that there is no better way to come to know a person than by having a real conversation with them.
Zara Abrams wrote about the research being done in the arena for the American Psychological Association last year. The opening of her article says it well: “Conversations hold immense power. They help us form new connections and deepen existing ones.” That may not inspire a loud, “Amen!” from you, but it does from me.
And being a “loud” listener is one of the keys to a better conversation. Yes, I mean throwing out the occasional “amen” or “preach” to let your conversation partner know you’re listening. But a simple and thoughtful “hmm,” or an encouraging “mm-hmm,” can be just as productive. Those gestures send valuable messages to your talking partner.
Listening, and showing that you are listening, is the key. And while being a loud listener is helpful, asking questions is gold. Nothing leads to conversational connections better than asking questions.
The problem with questions is that all questions aren’t created equally.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Every so often, the “beat” I cover treats me to a trip down memory lane to the time when I was a public servant. I was a much younger man when I left the government to become a consultant in 2002. And though the details surrounding my old stomping grounds are different, the regulatory compact remains unchanged.
On October 10th, U.S. Senator Mike Braun sent a letter to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission expressing his concern about AES Indiana’s petition to transition its two remaining coal-fired generating units to natural gas. It’s the kind of letter I used to receive every week as the executive director of the agency, although this one is a bit more awkward than usual.
I could numb Hoosier brains with all the ways the IURC works, but I won’t. The important thing to know about the agency is that it is in the bad news business. It regulates utility rates. That’s right, when rates go up, the commission is responsible. Luckily, it also approves all of the times rates go down, but I’m having a hard time remembering when that ever happened.
The agency exists and is organized the way it is so that politicians like governors and senators don’t have to deliver this specific type of bad news. Trust me, I spent several years giving ratepayers bad utility news, and the elected officials in the statehouse back then appreciated my work. They would beat me up in public over my insensitive quips to their constituents, then afterward, they would whisper in my ear, “thank you.”
So, when elected officials begin staking out positions on what will ultimately be the decision of the appointed utility commissioners, pay attention. It’s dangerous political territory.
Leslie Bonilla Mũniz wrote how “Braun weighs in on utility’s coal plant conversion ask” for the Indiana Capital Chronicle last week. Is an entire article necessary to explain an ambitious politician’s letter to some sleepy state agency? Actually, it’s worthy of two.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Election Day is only three weeks away, and as Donald Trump’s third full campaign comes to a close, American voters have a pretty good idea who he is. Imagine having a conversation with a voter anywhere and hearing them say, “I wonder what this Trump fellow is really like.”
One could just listen to the tunes that surround him. It’s not a long playlist.
Vice President Kamala Harris was oddly playing a little bit of catch up when she entered the race as the Democrats presumptive nominee in July. Those of us in the political class knew her well, but apparently some voters needed to learn about or adjust to this late entry to the contest. It’s hard for me to accept something as absurd as that, but I’m working through it.
While large numbers of voters didn’t know enough about Harris, I have to admit that I didn’t know much about her campaign’s theme song, Beyoncé’s “Freedom.” Yea, I’d heard it, but I never really listened to it. It’s played at the places I go. The restaurants, stores and the gyms where I spend time have had it in rotation since it came out in 2016.
“Hey! I’ma keep runnin’ cause a winner don’t quit on themselves,” is the last line of the chorus that hits the hardest for me. Put those words with the power of Beyoncé’s sound, look and aura, and you get a walk up, and a mic drop song all wrapped up into one. It’s been used both ways for many causes over the years because of it.
At the other party’s events, in some other swing state, the song being played is, gasp, “God Bless the U.S.A.” by Lee Greenwood. I’ve kept it to myself for a long time now, but that ends today. It is simply an awful song. Admittedly, it’s simply not my genre, but I don’t know whose it is. I won’t hear it anywhere I go, and if I did, I would immediately leave. It’s a rip off of “God Bless America,” another song that never comes up in anyone’s shuffle.
My favorite line from it is, “’Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can’t take that away.” Aah, the generic “they.” That’s who we need to unite against, whoever “they” are. We need to wrap ourselves in the flag and then get out there and bless something. And the music? It sounds like the kind of stuff that was sold late at night on a 1980’s infomercial. It’s just not cool.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
I watched the first Indiana gubernatorial debate with great interest on October 2nd. The hour long event featuring Jennifer McCormick (D) and Mike Braun (R) was only a few minutes in when I could tell this was likely going to be a good night for Democrats. Only a few minutes later, I found myself disappointed because I knew this important moment was not going to be seen by as many Hoosier voters as it should have been.
Americans expect more from political debates than we often get. This year is quite an exception. Both presidential debates delivered, at a minimum, a clear contrast between the participants that should drive decision making for voters. President Joe Biden’s awful debate performance in late June led to a rallying cry from many in his own party for him to drop out of the race. The performance illustrated his greatest vulnerability; that he was just too old for the job.
Importantly though, polling data after that bad night didn’t move all that much. One could conclude it didn’t matter as much to voters as it did to the political class. More likely though, it confirmed pessimism about Biden’s ability to inspire movement in his already sagging position. His eventual and historic withdrawal from the race, and the rallying around Kamala Harris drastically changed everything.
Debates can do that, though they rarely do. Usually, the contests are exercises in bias confirmation. Dr. Conor Dawling, professor of political science at the University of Buffalo wrote, “Debates can help solidify, or reinforce, choices for folks who are already fairly to very certain which candidate they intend to support.” Yes, this is what we normally get out of them.
However, this year’s battles have delivered more than that several times now.
The McCormick/Braun debate last week is one of them. Any objective viewer should have been able to see several things. McCormick had a better grasp of the details of the job. She was better prepared for the predictable questions, and she was confident in her delivery from start to finish.
Braun gave, at best, a lackluster performance that raised more questions than it answered. I first wrote that the Republicans were running a campaign about nothing in its quest for the governor’s office last October. This is the third time I will remind Hoosiers of that sad truth.
I have seen gubernatorial campaigns, and the governing strategies that followed, which seemed to be designed around a “don’t make any mistakes” sort of game plan. Former Governor Evan Bayh was committed to the strategy, and it served him well. Former Governor Mike Pence was also committed to it, though he did make a few large, damaging mistakes during his one term in office.
Braun’s biggest mistake last week, on admittedly a much smaller scale, was comparable to Biden’s June failure. He appeared unprepared for the predictable questions, and his lack of sharpness made him appear old, a critique that he has largely avoided so far. His non-answers to one specific item made it abundantly clear to me that he would not be defending recent comments made by his running mate, Republican lieutenant governor nominee, Micah Beckwith.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
What is the market rate for a governor? Well, it depends on the market of course. In New York, the rate is $250,000 a year. In Maine, it’s $70,000. That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? These two states might as well be on two different planets after all. It takes five whole hours to drive from Albany to Augusta, a lovely drive that weaves around Boston, where the Massachusetts governor makes $185,000, before the path follows a stretch along the Atlantic coast.
The real answer is there is no “market,” and therefore, there is no “market rate.”
Whitney Downard reported last week for the Indiana Capital Chronicle the details on the new salaries of several Hoosier statewide elected officials. They are hefty raises, featuring the new salary of the governor, of $221,024, making it one of the highest paid in the nation. One market-based argument as to why that is outrageously high could be that the Indiana governor is constitutionally weak and should therefore be compensated weakly.
But let’s be serious. The new salary is still pretty low when considering the demands of the job. So is New York’s. And Maine’s? That salary is absurd.
However, and if I could scream that word I would, being elected to a high-profile position absolutely creates opportunity. It’s just difficult to quantify. These jobs aren’t really jobs. Yes, if done even remotely well, they are work, and a lot of it. But in a market sense, they are more aptly described as “platforms,” not occupations. And so, the salary matters far less than it otherwise would.
Governor Eric Holcomb will end his second term at the end of the year, never receiving the new salary. Tough break, guv. But there will be opportunity for him when his political career is over, assuming this is the end of that. I predict he will do quite well, probably through some sort of “job,” coupled with other income-generating ventures that are minimally reported but highly profitable. After a long career of low and modestly paid political positions, he knows people, he has skills and value, and this is America. Following his post-governor life would be important to Hoosiers, if for no other reason, to contextualize what serving as governor is truly worth.
These salaries, while they are specifically what taxpayers finance, don’t mean much in the end.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Polling data takes up more space in my world than campaign ads do. It’s truly remarkable. In any presidential election year, I am normally exhausted by every candidate’s pitch on TV by now. Thirty seconds at a time, the sound bites should have already eroded a precious sliver of my soul, and possibly yours as well.
Not this year. Not even on my chosen social platforms am I overwhelmed with the ads, barring a few odd, out-of-state exceptions. Nope. Polling data updates, some reliable and some absurd, is what I see most. Maybe it’s just my algorithm. Maybe I’ve been identified as an unpersuadable, data wonk.
Or maybe the red-state-message in this red state is the problem.
A poll released last week by Destiny Wells, the Democrat nominee for attorney general, was the first public one showing details of two statewide races. The pollster, Lake Research Partners, is reputable. The sampling was appropriate, made up of 51% Republican voters and 36% Democrat. Wells only trails incumbent AG, Todd Rokita, 44-41%. Name identification for the incumbent is understandably twice as high as it is for Wells, which leads me to conclude that the more people know Rokita, the more people don’t like him.
Rokita’s low numbers are easy to explain. He is primarily known for performative antics that deliver nothing of value to Hoosiers, led by his unhinged attack on Dr. Caitlin Bernard for doing her job as an obstetrician. He has solicited complaints against state government, otherwise known as his own client. He has never seen a pro-Trump lawsuit he didn’t volunteer to join. And his law license has been regularly in jeopardy for unlawyerly behavior.
He's simply unpopular. Go figure.
The Indiana governor’s race was also included in the poll, and not surprisingly, it too shows a dead heat. Republican Mike Braun’s 41% to Democrat Jennifer McCormick’s 39% is inside the margin of error. Libertarian Donald Rainwater’s 9% support matters too.
McCormick is polling seven points better than the 2020 Democratic candidate performed. The other two parties are lagging last election’s finish. That’s a meaningful turn.
But Indiana’s still red right? Trump is still the favorite here for president, right? Yes. But his polling strength is also weakening here. He won Indiana by 19 points in 2016, by 16 in 2020, and is polling only 10 points ahead of Kamala Harris in this poll, 52%-42%. Again, this is a meaningful turn.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Bill Murray once said, “It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person. It’s damn near impossible to win one with a stupid person.” For the objective viewer, whoever that is, I expect Tuesday night’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump to feel like this. Afterward, those tuning in to root for their chosen candidate will likely declare victory.
Harris supporters know her and will likely not be surprised by the things she says or the demeanor she displays. Even if she stumbles a little or fails to land the knockout punches Democrats are hoping for, it is unlikely she will lose anyone already on the Harris for President campaign train.
Oh, and she will make her case with the facts. That should matter, plenty, but we’ll just have to wait and see about that.
The contrast Tuesday night’s argument will display most distinctly will be exactly that: fact versus fiction.
Trump will likely try to make his case with hopes of exposing some damaging weakness in Harris. Can he make her seem weak? Can he make her seem unintelligent? Whether he’s having one of his high energy days or another one of the growing number of low ones, it’s unlikely he will make her anything at all.
Most of all though, this debate will be between two people so different in sharpness, age and ability, they won’t appear to be even speaking the same language.
My wife took me to the beach this weekend to celebrate my birthday. On Saturday, an average size boat approached the area where we were camped and dropped its anchor. It had two oversized flags flying from the back of it. One was an old, faded U.S. Marines flag, and the other was a “Trump 2024” flag, that looked fresh out of the box. I couldn’t help wondering what he paid for that one, and how many other versions he had previously bought.
I go to the beach to daydream, so after I cycled through the economics of buying the junk his candidate peddles so shamelessly, I started focusing on the old flag.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Who is credited with founding the holiday we celebrated Monday? According to History.com, some say it was a man named Peter McGuire, of the American Federation of Labor. Others say it was a man named Matthew Maguire, of the Central Labor Union who proposed it first. If spoken with an average gait, it’s safe to speak either name and still safely sound correct.
Unions have been on a winning streak recently, a trend I expect to continue for the foreseeable future. The trend is good for America, even when it’s inconvenient.
I rolled my eyes a little, OK, a lot, when the Hollywood writers and actors went on strike last year. It was the first time I had a personal stake in a walkout. I had done some, and hoped to do more, consulting on a film that was set to begin shooting in August. The strike caused the project to be shelved, ending my irrational fantasies of fame and fortune. That movie would have been bigger than “Barbie,” according to me.
What could these people who have already “made it” possibly have to strike about? Does Brad Pitt really need better terms? No. But the Writers Guild of America, followed by the Screen Actors Guild, are filled with creators and workers similar to every other industry. And just like industries whose labor struggles have been historically familiar, Hollywood’s impasse was also existential. These strikes became important because they have broadened the discussion.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
It’s the most wonderful time of the year! The fall semester starts this week, and I might be a little too excited. I need to remember to have a little sympathy for my new students, particularly those in my 8:00 am class on Tuesdays and Thursdays. For the rest of their lives, when they hear the term, “morning person,” they will immediately think of me.
Even when my professional world revolved around legislation in the Statehouse, I rarely had business in the realm of education policy. Over the years, I only watched that stuff as a citizen. My sons went to Catholic school, so I felt a little detached from the annual wrangling over what the next moves from the Indiana General Assembly and the Indiana Department of Education would be.
Lately though, the biggest two moves seem to have a common theme: aiming lower.
Last year, Senate Bill 202 was a headline-maker that had folks in the realm of higher education all worked up. Conservative lawmakers were trying to address the reality that college professors tend to be more ideologically liberal or progressive than they prefer. You know, leftists like me are “indoctrinating” young people, not teaching them. It’s a “problem” worthy of an eye roll.
From the perspective of a public university faculty member, I only cared a little about the bill in a practical sense. It never appeared to be impactful on what or how I teach. I already make space for diverse ideological viewpoints when appropriate, and honestly, it matters only in the rarest of circumstances. The “problem” the legislature is trying to solve here is incredibly overblown, and their solution is, in fact, not one. More importantly, that non-solution is expensive.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Political conventions are not for me. I went to my first one, at the state level, last month and I thought I was going to break out in a rash from what felt like life-threatening inefficiency. Of course, I oppose the existence of big graduations, weddings and funerals too, so maybe the problem is me.
I will begrudgingly admit that all of these ceremonies have a purpose.
The Democratic National Convention is meaningful this year, even to me. I’m still glad I’m not going, and I will only watch it a little. But I will be watching the reaction. I will be watching that like a hawk, since that’s all that really matters.
The 2020 conventions were both turned into Zoom meetings due to the pandemic. The “party” part of the political parties was as bland and uninspiring as the year itself was. Some watched them on TV, though viewership was down across the board except Fox for the Republicans and MSNBC for the Democrats. I tried to watch, I guess, but I don’t remember either one of them.
Even so, voter turnout was juiced in 2020. And when turnout rises, Democrats tend to perform better. That rule applied to Indiana just like everywhere else in America. Pay attention to every race in Indiana that appears to be close at this moment. The new excitement on the Democrat side coming from the new nominees, and now the convention, will help the party in all of the close races.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Indianapolis has had a bright spotlight on it in 2024. The Olympic swimming time trials in Lucas Oil Stadium, the NBA All-Star game, and the arrival of the biggest name in sports, Caitlin Clark. Now the city is ground zero for something shameful.
Mayor Joe Hogsett is under fire for his mishandling of numerous sexual harassment allegations made against former Chief Deputy Mayor Thomas Cook. The first known allegations were made in 2017, and in recent weeks, extensive reporting has been done on the matter by the Indianapolis Star and Mirror Indy. What we already know from their reporting is terrible.
More terrible news is coming. Count on it.
The book, “Primary Colors: A Novel of Politics” and its movie adaptation have been on my mind the last few weeks. This roman é clef, French for “novel with a key,” was first published by Anonymous in 1996. It’s an insider’s tale of a fictitious southern governor, Jack Stanton, and his 1992 primary campaign for the presidency.
Read the book or watch the movie. “Stanton” is Bill Clinton. The author was later to be revealed as Joe Klein, a columnist for Time magazine who covered Clinton’s real-life 1992 campaign. The book detailing this corrupt, womanizing character, and importantly, his campaign team, was published more than two years before the world met Monica Lewinsky.
Lauren Roberts was a deputy campaign manager on Hogsett’s 2015 reelection campaign. She was apparently the first to complain about Cook’s harassment via email in 2017. Hogsett’s initial unresponsiveness led to her direct, in-person report to the mayor in 2019. Hogsett claims action was taken, though it wasn’t ever communicated with Roberts. She has since relocated to Denver. But she kept all of the receipts.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
The impact of even a provocative social media post doesn’t often linger with me for long. In a presidential election year, even less so. But two of them struck me this week, neither of them mentioning Indiana politics, but to this Hoosier columnist, they feel entirely about us.
The first post came from a politico named Mike Madrid on Friday. Madrid is a Latino campaign consultant, a former Republican and co-founder of the anti-Trump group, The Lincoln Project. He wrote: “There was a time when it could be argued that not all Trump voters were racist, but they were comfortable voting for a racist. Not anymore.”
Madrid was referring to Donald Trump’s outburst during an interview at the National Association of Black Journalists convention last week questioning Vice President Kamala Harris’s rather uncomplicated and well documented ancestry. The racist nature of it was remarkable in and of itself. What is more remarkable, however, is how GOP leaders immediately began repeating the attacks.
Even those who would rather Trump not say these offensive things out loud also didn’t object. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.”
At the top of the GOP ticket in Indiana this election year, are three Trump sycophants: Mike Braun for governor, Jim Banks for U.S. Senate, and Todd Rokita for attorney general. They are all unapologetically devoted to anything and everything the former president says and does. I want their views confirmed on the Harris issue, though I think it’s obvious.
These three Republicans don’t cross their leader. And as Madrid implied, Trump’s racism can no longer be shrugged off as a bug. It’s a feature.
The second post lingering with me came from Georgia Governor Brian Kemp.
Trump was campaigning in Atlanta on Sunday, where he is under indictment for his attempts to steal the 2020 election. While on the stage and in his own social media posts, the former president reignited his attacks on Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Kemp, and oddly, Kemp’s wife for their collective disloyalty. It was as odd as the Harris ancestry attack in that it makes no sense how it helps Trump’s campaign. Kemp and Raffensperger are both extremely popular Republicans in that swing state. They both responded, but Kemp’s response was troubling.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
I was in the airport two Sunday afternoons ago when I first saw the news that Joe Biden was ending his presidential campaign. I was still there when he followed up a few minutes later with his endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. By the time I happily put my head on my own pillow that night after a long trip, anyone paying attention could already feel it coming.
Everything about the 2024 presidential election changed last week.
In that week, the newly launched Harris for President campaign raised over $200 million, gathered 170,000 new volunteers, held 2,300 events in battleground states, and in two days on TikTok, attracted 2.9 million followers. Those are some “wow” stats. But none of the data really captures the moment contextually.
Every Democrat who matters endorsed her in that first week. The Clintons, the Obamas, and the leaders of both congressional caucuses have jumped on board. Beyoncé has lent the campaign use of her song, “Freedom,” and I’ve heard it dozens of times already.
Then there are the Zoom rallies. It started with a gathering of black women on July 21st, with over 44,000 participants that led to $1.5 million raised. Black men followed the next day with over 20,000. White women refused to be left out when their call last Thursday had 160,000 participants that raised $8.5 million. White men had 50,000 registered for a call Monday night and that number was still growing as I wrote this.
That’s excitement. That’s momentum. And in a campaign that the Republican nominee has long reduced to a battle of ratings and rallies, a race he was winning before Biden’s departure, he is now getting obliterated. Even polling has begun to shift, with Fox News releasing a poll on Sunday showing favorability flipping in several battleground states to now favor Harris.
Democrats would have always been happy to run solely on the Biden administration’s record. It’s a good one. But the campaign was flailing because it had been reduced to the issue of the president’s age. And the truth is, he is too old to persuade Americans that he’s not. I’m glad he stopped trying.
With the uncertainty of a path forward removed on the Democrat side, the post-convention honeymoon for Republicans ended quicker than it should have too. Ten days ago, they were acting like they had already won. They aren’t anymore.
It’s been a whirlwind for Republicans the last three weeks. Let’s recap.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
We had planned a trip to London and Paris in 2020, but it was cancelled by the pandemic. Until last week, we hadn’t left the country since before that awful year. Ironically, the thought of visiting or even living someplace else has never taken up more space in my soul. Even my latest book is fundamentally about the mysterious “what ifs” that come from how life might be different if it were simply spent “someplace else.”
We finally got to go last week. As a much younger person, I used to wonder why people would even go on trips like this, when there really wasn’t some specific reason. Now, I feel true sympathy for those who never do.
First of all, the enormity of London alone is striking, but the best thing about its size is the variety of everything in it. For example, I never thought of London as a great food town. Wrong. There is no food on earth that can’t be found there. The restaurants seem smaller, but the pubs, cafes and ethnic offerings are literally everywhere. I wasn’t looking for Uzbek or Sri Lankan food, but now I know the most convenient place to find it.
In just six days though, the giant city had shrunk for us, primarily because of its phenomenal train system. No area or neighborhood was difficult to get to, including a little town called Paris. Navigating it also couldn’t have been easier.
As a world traveler, I’m a novice. I haven’t been many places. Not yet. But every new place I go these days is less of a vacation and more of an adventure. Seeing unfamiliar places, and spending time with unfamiliar people is the most provocative way for anyone to grow. Every adventure teaches me something unexpected. It is so predictable that I purposely make fewer and fewer plans on each new trip. Why bother? The best parts can’t be planned anyway.
Visiting the Churchill War Rooms Museum, however, was definitely planned. I’m in the words business, English is my language, and Winston Churchill is likely the greatest orator who has ever lived. Yea, yea, he led and won the big war, but his weapon of choice was language.
Our last exhibit there was a display of the anti-Churchill propaganda that was distributed in Nazi Germany and Japan during the war. None of it was all that surprising, particularly by today’s standards, but a museum staffer approached us there and began explaining the depth of the exhibit’s importance.
This elderly man pointed out the racism built into the drawings and the impact of its lessons in faraway places, especially on young people growing up with the imagery. He asked us to imagine young people who only knew of the British through this messaging and how difficult it must have been to overcome for generations. He analogized the struggle then to the one today with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the invasion of Ukraine, and the valuable mission of NATO. My wife and I enjoyed his lesson, but I was fascinated with how comfortably he went there with two people from America who could have just as easily been hostile to his suggestions.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
Thomas Matthew Crooks took his father’s AR-15, climbed a building near former President Donald Trump’s Saturday rally and got several shots off in Trump’s direction before being killed by the U.S. Secret Service. The gun was purchased legally in Pennsylvania by Crooks’ father. Early background reports indicate that the 20-year-old gunman was a loner, a registered Republican, but had also donated to at least one left leaning organization.
There’s no evidence of any political component to anything he did.
Now that I have covered the basics of what occurred, I have one primary question today. What part of those details, if one had precisely predicted them a week, month or year earlier, would have sounded impossible or unlikely at all? Would any of us have struggled to envision such a thing?
I wouldn’t have. Not for one moment.
I first heard the news while fading in and out of an early evening nap on Saturday. A text from a friend at 6:26 pm said “Trump got shot!” I quickly sat up and turned on the news to see it was real. Even though some weirdos on social media committed to doubting its validity for far too long, it was clearly real.
None of it surprised me. I did not feel a single second of astonishment for the first hour I was glued to the screen.
Yes, violent crime is declining in America. However, with the suffocating presence of guns here, particularly the absurdly common AR-15, coupled with a largely unresearched mental health phenomena of these suicide shooters, these horrific episodes have become embedded into our daily lives.
When was the last time a shooting like this really surprised any of us?
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
As a new adjunct professor six years ago, the class I was asked to teach was titled “Public law and government relations.” It was a class designed to teach how ideas become laws. The students were public affairs majors, just like I was, thirty years earlier.
Explaining the “how” part is complicated. I’m forced to make hard choices on how to prioritize my lessons. I have learned to focus on two primary ideas: One, that governing is choosing; and two, there is no bigger asset or burden in the public policy process more powerful than time.
The best contemporary policy example to use for understanding American democratic processes is the debate on women’s reproductive health freedom. Not just because of the Dobbs or Roe decisions, but because it is a policy that is truly a governing choice, unimpacted by infinite conditions beyond decision-makers’ control.
Oh sure, we watch Schoolhouse Rock and discuss the school bus railroad crossing example dozens of times too. But if you recall from the video, the “local congressman” uses a typewriter to create the famous “I’m Just a Bill.” As good as the video is, it's old.
Every politician claims a vote for them will lead to a better economy. Sometimes they even explain how. But the truth is that the “economy” has too many variables in it for that platform to be certain. Foreign affairs policies are almost as unpredictable. It’s hilarious to hear Donald Trump and his lemmings explain how the world will absolutely cow tow to America when he’s in charge, or even how it did before, as if none of us paid attention way back when.
Eleven states are headed for referenda votes in November on constitutional proposals to create or protect abortion rights. Nine of them were initiated by voter petition. Four of those states already effectively have bans in place. Even Arkansas reached their threshold of signatures last week just before that state’s deadline.
In states where voters can vote, they either already are, or soon will. And because of the Dobbs decision, a vote on reproductive freedom is no longer a hypothetical discussion. There is data to drive the thinking of those clinging to rational thought on the matter.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
-
I have never met anyone who I believed to be intelligent who was also humorless. When comedian Nate Bargatze took the stage last week at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis he spent a few moments making sure the crowd knew he was not an educated man.
Bargatze is intelligent though. And he’s as funny they come.
In contrast, the Supreme Court of the United States was once regarded as the sage, learned body, epitomizing intelligence, credibility and thoughtfulness. This once esteemed tribunal personified its “supremacy” for rational, unhumorous reasons. However, as of Monday, July 1, 2024, its self-desecration is complete, and has now become a laughingstock.
The conservative majority of the court has twisted itself into knots to help Donald Trump with the absurdity that he should have some immunity from prosecution for his criminal acts. The mantra of “no man is above the law” ended this week in America.
The 6-3 Trump v. United States ruling produced dissenting language in a tone unheard of in the court’s storied history. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the minority, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
The cloud of this debacle will feel like a diversion soon though, because there’s so much more.
Let’s discuss nitrous oxide. You’ve likely heard of it. It’s what dentists give patients to relax them before needles and drills are used to bludgeon their mouths. It’s laughing gas. It’s fun. And it should never be confused with nitrogen oxides, which is what the Environmental Protection Agency regulates to control pollution.
Justice Neil Gorsuch famously mistook one for the other, five times, in his Ohio v. EPA ruling on Thursday. Then on Friday, SCOTUS ruled that courts are better positioned to do what regulatory experts have broadly done since 1984. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the supremes ruled that courts are more suited to decide anything and everything, scientific and complicated, than actual experts. Experts like those who know the difference between pollutants and laughing gas.
The 1984 decision, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, established what has become known as the Chevron deference. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was a notorious supporter of the deference, because it provided a dependable “background rule of law against which Congress can legislate.” He believed Congress wanted agencies, or subject matter experts, to exercise discretion on the implementation of their laws. I’ve been a regulator and a legislative consultant, and I know this to be historically true.
Connect with Michael Leppert
Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.
Twitter @michaelleppert
Facebook at Michael Leppert
- Laat meer zien
