TWO CHEERS FOR THINK NEW MEXICO'S REPORT ON THE STATE'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS

I have been a supporter of Think New Mexico (TNM) for most of my time living in New Mexico.  Fred Nathan and his staff are gifts to the state.  Typically, their work in most fields addresses a single topic in a single report with sensible proposals.  In this years-in-the-making report A Roadmap for Rethinking New Mexico’s Public Schools, their work addresses and makes legislative proposals on ten topics, some different, all listed differently on the website and in the report.  (My words are “problems” and “solutions.”)  Most of this work is mostly sensible, but only mostly; it would be unrealistic to expect perfection.  The report has many strong points and a few weak ones.

 

TNM’s report includes ten problems, none new, and excludes others, some important:

 

1.         Optimize Time for Teaching & Learning

2.         Improve Teacher Training

3.         Revamp the Colleges of Education

4.         Enhance Principal Pay & Training

5.         Upgrade School Board Quality

6.         Right-Size to Smaller Districts, Schools, & Classes

7.         Maximize the Benefits of Charter Schools

8.         Provide a Relevant & Rigorous Curriculum

9.         Depoliticize Student Assessments

10.      Pay for These Reforms.

 

These problems, discussed with current data to support proposed solutions, are familiar ones because TNM has chosen to restate problems rather than to rethink them—the title notwithstanding.  The choice is a smart one.  For TNM’s intended audiences—legislators first, the public second, and policy analysts not at all—, restating rather than rethinking the familiar avoids resistance to the unfamiliar.  Whether proposals bundled are more likely to succeed than proposals aggregated serially is the question.  TNM’s strategy is to propose many and to hope some prosper.  Past success implies that TNM knows best.

 

Still, the report disappoints in two ways.  One, some discussions lack comprehensive or rigorous analyses.  Perhaps familiarity breeds complacency.  The other, they do not acknowledge that similar problems exist in other states which do not rank as low as New Mexico does in student academic performance.  This fact justifies thinking less about the problems of public schools and more about the problems of public education.

 

Two related reasons explain this silence about public education.  One, its problems involve the two essentials of education, curriculums and teachers, matters both complex and controversial.  The other, as a result, TNM’s board lacks consensus on solutions.  So TNM addresses problems readily susceptible to solutions and assures report readers that its proposals would improve student academic performance.  Incremental improvements in student academic performance are likely but also likely to leave the state lagging.

 

 

Methodology is most peoples’ big yawn, but legislators need to consider the data—selection, diversity, abundance, reliability, etc.—used to support any proposal before accepting or rejecting it.  One example of methodological infelicities is TNM’s proposal for smaller schools.  TNM selectively adduces or omits, or uncritically accepts, pertinent evidence.  Full disclosure: Fred and I have crossed swords on this issue and continue to maintain our positions.  Fred claims that small size improves academic performance; I claim that size is a minor factor if all else is equal—which it never is.  He is wrong but trendy in doubling down!

 

First, one size cannot and does not fit all, and thinking so reflects a parochial approach to the issue.  Correlations in something as complex as education cannot be one-dimensional; even so, correlation is not causation.  Some large schools have done very well, and some small schools have done very poorly.  Shaker Heights High School is a large public high school which, in my day, ranked among the ten best in the country; despite enormous demographic change, it is still highly ranked.  Two decades ago, its neighbor, Cleveland Heights High School, slightly larger and quite good, used Gates Foundation money to create four schools within the school; a few years later, the effort was abandoned as a failure because of management difficulties, administrative overload, and friction among schools and their students.

 

Second, one-dimensional comparisons cannot prove the merits of small over large schools.  TNM’s lists of New Mexico schools which have done best on reading and math tests show small schools dominating both lists.  However, the only measure is size.  Other measures shaping student academic performance like demographic and socio-economic data are lacking.  For instance, Cloudcroft has such plusses; its median income is about 30 percent higher than the state average and the percentage of its Hispanic population is less than one-third that of the state’s Hispanic population.  TNM’s one-dimensional comparison is biased, unreliable support of its small-school proposal.

 

 

TNM’s report is flawed in addressing two other problems: teacher training and colleges of education.  No one should expect teacher training to improve teachers or teaching, for two reasons.  One, released time is for programmatic, administrative, professional, and legal matters.  Two, internships or practicums focus on classroom experience in class management, administrative procedures, teaching methods, and teacher-student and teacher-parent interactions.  Neither provides subject-matter help.  So teacher training can facilitate classroom operations but cannot improve teacher competency in subject matter.

 

TNM’s proposals to “Revamp the Colleges of Education” are paperwork solutions which cannot solve their problems.  These colleges will not be revamped by continuing the accreditation on the basis of curriculums consistent with best practices for teacher preparation.  The accreditation process does not ascertain whether college curriculums, even if consistent with best practices, train graduates prepared to teach their subjects.  Nor will they be revamped by maintaining high-quality licensure exams, which focus on instructional skills, not subject-matter knowledge.

 

TNM avoids the problem of colleges of education, which are state-funded failures because they do not ensure that prospective teachers are subject-matter competent.  They do not offer courses themselves or require courses in other colleges to ensure that their students have subject-matter competence in the subjects which they will teach presumably in compliance with state-defined curriculums.  For example, these colleges do not care that, although the state English curriculum requires instruction in grammar, elementary school teachers do not know the grammar which they are supposed to teach.

 

 

TNM’s report omits two important problems: continuing teacher incompetence in the subjects which they teach and the deficiencies of the Public Education Department (PED).  Courses in educational theory, psycho-social development, or classroom skills, and commitments to equality, diversity, or multiculturalism, cannot compensate for subject-matter ignorance.  The problem is most acute in the elementary grades in which teachers are expected to provide the foundations of the four major academic subjects: language (reading and writing), mathematics, social studies, and science.  These teachers do not meet expectations.  Thus, since only one-third of fourth graders have learned to read with proficiency, two-thirds of them in subsequent grades will be unable to read to learn with proficiency.  TNM cannot say so because its board members will not say so because they would be messengers delivering an unwanted message and get beaten for doing so.  But, until the problem is addressed, New Mexico public education will continue to fail students, parents, and the state’s economy.

 

TNM’s report commented adversely about PED but did not dedicate a section to its many problems for, I suspect, another political reason: its education expert is a recent hire from PED, and TNM did not want him to appear to be—he is not—a disgruntled and vindictive former employee.  Although PED is bad in ways too numerous to enumerate, much less elaborate, here, one of its major deficiencies needs immediate attention.  It is a closed shop which communicates with other closed shops or educational professionals and operates in isolation from and in contempt of the public.  Thus, its revision of the social studies curriculum outraged citizens throughout the state for good reasons.  This misfire alone should be sufficient to prompt a legislative review of the department.  TNM should have said so and much more.

 

 

The value of this TNM report is that it brings together constructive ideas to improve New Mexico’s public schools.  Most have merit—I refuse to back down on small schools—, deserve serious consideration, may require refinements, and need cost-benefit analyses.  The low- or no-cost proposals deserve support although their implementation will not likely result in significant improvement in student academic performance.

 

Unfinished business remains.  Somehow, the legislature must rethink the issues at the center of public education—curriculum and teacher quality—as well as the missions, purposes, and operations of colleges of education and the Public Education Department.  The need for board consensus on proposals solving problems of this controversial nature may render TNM incapable of providing the legislature with impartial, expert assistance.

WHY DEMOCRATS WILL LOSE IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS

Democrats are going to lose big on 8 November.  In Congress, they are going to lose both the House and the Senate.  In the states, they are going to lose many important races for governor, attorney general, and secretary of state to Republican radicals who will fix elections, attack LGBTQ citizens, and adopt Christian nation policies which include the usual antisemitism—all the policies and practices of fascist regimes.

 

Democrats have earned their losses.  They have joined Republicans in waging culture wars about abortion and other sex- and gender-related issues and ignored bread-and-butter issues on the economy, inflation, crime, and immigration.  Pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage, pro-contraception, and pro inter-racial-marriage positions are moral ones.  So, too, are the economy, inflation, public safety, and controlled borders.  The first three of these four issues directly affect everyone.

 

Once a Yaller Dog Democrat—a Democrat who would sooner vote for a yellow dog than a Republican—and now an Independent, I know that Republicans come by their gains dishonestly in many ways: fixing elections (talk about stolen elections, do they?), lying to voters, and misrepresenting their and their opponents qualifications and record.  Republicans are just more dishonest more often and skillfully than Democrats.  They proclaim cutting taxes and regulations to distract from pushing cuts to Social Security and Medicare.  Thanks to ineffectual Democrats, Republicans do come by their gains.

 

The fatal flaw for Democrats is their strategy of making separate political appeals to separate constituencies or identity groups in misunderstood emulation of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s strategy.  Roosevelt forged a coalition of disparate groups, not by making separate appeals to each of them—today’s example, targeting suburban woman on abortion—, but by uniting groups by identifying a common enemy, say, the Wall-Street-rich Republicans, attacking them, and drafting legislation addressing the needs of Americans regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, etc.  Today’s Democrats try to create a winning coalition by parceling out promises to special-interest groups.  One result: no compelling narrative and unifying agenda with broad appeal to a majority of Americans.  Another: difficulty passing popular legislation despite strong public support because of a reluctance to engage in power politics to get things done.

 

 

In New Mexico, this special-interest-group strategy can win elections at great cost and no benefit to public education, the state’s long-term and most egregious failure.  The paramount special-interest group is, of course, teachers.  In a Democrat-leaning but socially conservative state, Democrats cannot win without the support of teachers, who are not about to support Democrats if they do not support them.  So, although Democrats talk about the problems in public education—their nature, size, and urgency—, no Democrat mentions teachers except to praise them and raise their salaries.

 

Even Think New Mexico’s “A Roadmap for Rethinking Public Education in New Mexico” only occasionally mentions “teacher quality.”  It offers two sections about teacher training, not teacher quality, a phrase never defined.  The reason for reluctance to define and discuss teacher quality: no Democratic legislator will risk chances of re-election by voting for real reforms to effect teacher quality.

 

A case in point is William Soules, a teacher himself, who has chaired the Senate Education Committee for 9 years.  Many bills enacted into law have come from his committee, but none addresses teacher quality.  The big-ticket items are very costly in terms of hiring more teachers and paying them more money.  Early Childhood Education is one such program which has yet to demonstrate long-term benefits—a big gamble.  Large, across-the-board increases get nothing in return—not better teaching—for more money.  The deal is a different one: teachers get jobs (and enlarge the constituency and political power of teachers) and salary increases from Soules, who thus buys and gets their votes with taxpayer funds, and public education improves not one whit.  He has worked this gambit to teachers’ and his benefits yet has failed to achieve one iota of improvement in student academic performance during his incumbency.  No one can believe that this deal and similar deals show government working to solve problems, only that it perpetuates legislators in office at taxpayer expense.

 

 

This instance of a problem unsolved and exploited for political self-interest at the state level is repeated throughout the country.  By misdirecting or mismanaging money thrown at problems, Democrats fail to solve them.  If they could make government work in a cost-effective manner, Democrats could, either or both, improve services or reduce taxes.  So education is one problem; the U.S. spends almost twice as much per capita as other countries do but ranks in the lower half of those with advanced economies.  Health care is another; the U.S. spends enormous amounts of money on it but has one of the worst health-care delivery systems of countries with advanced economies.  Economic policy failures: persistent and progressively worse income inequality and tax inequity.  Disparities between the haves and the have-nots are as great as and may be greater than they have been.  Yet few Democrats address the problems in education, health care, and economic disparities and inequities with solutions which work and do so cost-effectively.

 

At best, Republicans seek to pay for lower taxes on the rich by reduced spending on social welfare programs most needed by everyone else.  That approach buys autocracy or oligarchy.  At least Democrats try, however feebly and ineffectually, to benefit all Americans by defending the country, keeping it united and stable, ensuring the rule of law fairly for all citizens, and protecting their freedoms—my modernized re-phrasings of the Preamble to the Constitution.  I see the Republicans making no such efforts.  For this reason and despite expecting a loss in these causes in 2022, I shall cast a straight ticket for Democrats and hope for results and wins another day by a sadder but wiser party.

IS BIGOTRY A THING OF THE PAST?

       I do not recall how I got a copy of a 2019 article “Protection from Undesirable Neighbors: The Use Deed Restrictions in Shaker Heights, Ohio.”  It is a levelheaded, readable account of residential discrimination in a prominent northern city.  The author researched, wrote, and published this scholarly article before the hue-and-cry about Critical Race Theory, an issue already less newsworthy and less inflamed than it was just recently.  Because it makes no reference to CRT and no recommendations, those who oppose CRT or deny facts about institutional racism may find it palatable.  Advancing no agenda, the article enlivens its history of legal and social evolution with specific episodes showing the operation and effects of institutional bigotry on peoples’ lives.  (I use the term “bigotry” because the article considers restrictions affecting Jews as well as Blacks)  Raised in Shaker from 1945 on and knowing some of the facts, I can vouch for its reliability.  Yet the facts speak for themselves, though some will not listen to them.

 

The most harrowing incident illustrating institutional racism in its on-the-street application arose in the effort by Edward Bailey, a black surgeon, his wife, and young daughter, to move into a house in a neighborhood of comfortable houses in an attractive section of the city in the fall of 1925.  The house and garage were vandalized.  “Mayor William Van Aken … turned down Bailey’s request for police protection, leaving the family to fend for itself when the vandals returned.  To ward them off, Bailey’s chauffeur fired one warning shot into the ground.  He was promptly arrested and charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm.  The mayor then posted guards with instructions to search everyone going into or out of the Bailey home.  After the court turned down Bailey’s request for an injunction to stop this harassment of his family, he sued the mayor and the police chief for depriving him of his rights, property, and reputation.  He lost the case.  Fearing for the safety of his family, Bailey had no choice but to retreat back to Cleveland” (pp. 5-6).  Mayor, police chief, judge—there can be no question about institutional racism forcing a black professional and his family from their home.

 

Forty years later, in the mid-60s, Blacks were still fighting restrictions on residency.  But by the ‘90s, much of Shaker had been integrated, more in smaller, less expensive houses on the south side of Van Aken Boulevard—outrageous that its name honors a racist—than the increasingly larger and more expensive housing on the north side.  A sign of the times: my family’s 22-room Georgian house with a 3-car garage and an extra lot adjacent to the entrance to the Shaker Heights Country Club has a Black woman owner.  Today, Shaker is 55 percent white, 35 percent Black, 6 percent Asian, and 5 percent Hispanic and other (rounding accounts for 101 percent).  The article notes, “The national reputation of Shaker Heights as a successfully integrated community is a source of community pride and the reason why President Barack Obama chose Shaker Heights High School [my high school] as the venue for one his Town Hall Meetings in November 2009 and returned for a major policy announcement in 2012” (p. 25).

 

The only flaw in this article is this rosy conclusion, which interpolates from obvious improvements in residential integration to “a successfully integrated community.”  Much has been achieved in the century since public officials forced the Baileys from their home.  But much remains to be done.  Even with the lessening or demise of institutional bigotry, individual bigotry from which institutional bigotry emerges and on which it depends still abides.  For instance, some inter-racial conflict exists in the public schools.  Two of many reasons are residual White and Black racism and Black antisemitism (a large but unquantified percentage of students are Jewish).  No doubt, racial and religious friction, if not conflict, persists at the personal level in Shaker.  Still, I remain proud of Shaker’s achievements and continuing efforts to achieve social justice and inter-racial and inter-religious harmony.  The fact that complete success has been elusive indicates how difficult bigotry is to overcome even in a community committed to it.

 

For individual racism remains powerful despite the abatement of institutional racism even in liberal communities.  Shaker is one example but not in my family.  My parents were professional and political associates, and personal friends of blacks.  My mother was a liberal Democrat like many descendants of Polish-Russian Jews.  My father was a moderate Republican raised with an unconscious racism common to descendants of German Reform Jews.  But he was shocked into change by reading the 1961 classic Black like Me (1961), an account by a white man who darkened his skin to travel in the South as a Black man.  Both of my parents worked on or for Carl Stokes’s mayoral campaigns.

 

Cleveland Heights, a slightly less affluent suburb next to Shaker Heights and my retirement destination in 1998, is another.  My maternal uncle was a Cleveland Heights liberal who, unaware of his racism, would have denied it.  His closest experience with Blacks was his cleaning woman, who bused from her inner-city home to his suburban home, and back.  In 1963, after the March on Washington, with Martin Luther King’s stirring speech—“I have a dream”—about equality as the realization of the American dream, my uncle and I lunched together and discussed the Civil Rights Movement.  He feared that King’s speech would prompt racial violence and social turmoil.  I replied that he had nothing to fear from those who marched for racial justice through equality for Blacks.  However, I warned that, if liberals rejected King, his successors would be scary.  He remained racist, fearful, and silent on the subject of civil rights.

 

Years later, I encountered White racism and fear reflected in aspirational differences, with liberal Whites taking comfort in the assumption that Blacks want what Whites want.  In 2000, Cleveland Heights undertook to involve citizens in defining a vision of the city for the 21^st century.  I signed up for the “Diversity Committee.”  The first and, I believe because of me, only meeting was chaired by a liberal White woman and attended by six to eight White men and women, and three Black women.  The chair led the discussion on how the city might do a better job of welcoming and integrating Blacks, especially those living in Section 8 housing.  For an hour, the Black women said nothing, and the chair did not encourage them to speak.  I said nothing until the discussion had run its course, then spoke to make three points.  Attendees included no Black men or Hassidic Jews, the latter about 30 percent of the population.  Many Blacks, especially Black men, opposed integration, and Hassidic Jews refused it because it threatened cultural assimilation.  For White liberals, integration was an ideal; for minorities, it was a danger.  I pretty much put the kibosh on the discussion, and the meeting ended.  The three Black women came up to me and thanked me for saying what they had wanted to say but felt that doing so would have been unwelcome.  The chair later strode up to me and said that I, sporting a beard and wearing a Stetson, looked like one of those Western men who beat their wives.

 

So many stereotypes.  Bigotry is one tough issue, whether institutional or individual.  Most people embrace causes; the greater need is for them to examine their consciences, as did my Dad, and their conduct.

GRESHAM'S EXECUTIVE ORDER ABOUT ANTISEMITISM - CONFESSION OR COVER-UP?

On 16 August 2022, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed “Executive Order 2023-118: Adopting Working Definition of Antisemitism.” The E.O.’s second paragraph states, “Jewish people continue to be a targeted minority in the United States and New Mexico; for instance, data shows [sic] that Jews are consistently the most likely of all religious groups to be victimized by incidents of hate, and that such incidents are increasing at an alarming rate.”

 

Although I am a Jew not insensitive to antisemitism and know that Jews and Jewish institutions are occasional targets of antisemitic attacks in the United States and New Mexico, I am unaware that they are a prevalent or proliferating risk.  The numbers of attacks are small, the rates of occurrence are low, and the consequences are limited.

 

According to Claudia Silva, The Santa Fe New Mexican (14,15 May 2022), “Report: New Mexico has few antisemitism incidents, sees decline.”  The data reported by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) show no such incidents between 2002 and 2015, a spike to 15 in 2017, and a slide thereafter, and from 8 in 2020 to 6 in 2021.  The current ratio of incidents to population is miniscule, about three in one million.  A spike during the Trump administration is no surprise (another spike in another Trump administration will be no surprise).

 

So what is the problem?  Nothing obvious.  Not headline-grabbing “incidents of hate” like attacks on worshippers or fire-bombing of synagogues.  Not police blotter incidents of paint thrown on synagogues, gravestones overturned, Jews mugged on the street.  Not lack of coverage under “The New Mexico Human Rights Act,” to which the E. O. refers; its provisions already cover discrimination in many matters on the basis of religion.  Yet the E.O. orders and directs the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which provides a long and detailed list of examples.

 

Notably missing from that list, however, are subtle kinds of antisemitism, including denial of or quotas on admission to educational institutions; denial of admissions to social clubs, business organizations, the professions; housing and residential restrictions; different treatment under the law, including denial of rights or perfunctory police services; among others.  Some of my family members were affected.  My father could not join a business club until his associates spearheaded a revision of its by-laws.  My father-in-law had to conceal his Jewish identity to become an architect and urban planner.

 

I, too, have been affected.  The Las Cruces Police Department and the City Attorney either did not take my complaint of an officer’s antisemitic motive for five phony code violations seriously or took it so seriously that they chose to ignore them.  The IA officer questioned the code officer about that motive.  He had two answers.  The first was a flat denial, which the IA officer accepted at face value.  The second was the claim, which the IA officer also accepted at face value, that all other code officers would have done as he had.  Although the IA officer had concluded that the charges lacked proof or evidence, he accepted the implication that all code officers would have charged me with five phony violations without any antisemitic motive.   Quite an admission—all code officers hand out phony charges—made to avoid addressing antisemitism appropriately.

 

Ignored locally, I filed a complaint with the NM Attorney General, Hector Balderas; I received no reply.  I wrote to NM Governor Grisham about his failure to respond; I got no reply.  I filed a second complaint with Balderas; I got no reply.  After this E.O. came to my attention, I contacted Grisham’s office but, after the usual one-and-done call if one misses a return call from the legal office which invites a call-back, I called back but have had no return call.  So who really cares?  LCPD?  City Attorney?  Balderas?  Grisham?

 

Even if this E.O. is intended to supplement “The New Mexico Human Rights Act,” the facts about diminishing antisemitic attacks make it odd that Grisham has singled out Jews.  Many explanations are possible.  One is that antisemitism is so poorly understood that some pointed reference to an official definition and characterization of it is needed to educate state, county, and local officials.  Another is that it responds to complaints about antisemitism by officials at various governmental levels.  If my experience is any indication, it will do nothing to address antisemitism in a local government pervasively antisemitic.  So a third is that the E.O. is a political act to neutralize complaints about antisemitism during her term in office, in her administration, or in her.  If the latter, it suggests that “the lady doth protest too much.”  Of course, it may be both instruction and protection.  Whatever, it opposes antisemitism—a good thing.  Still, the timing of its release at the start of the election season makes its good faith suspect.

RONCHETTI'S ABORTION POSITION BLENDS IGNORANCE, INDIFFERENCE, AND BIGOTRY

Mark Ronchetti’s position on abortion is ignorant of or indifferent to its critical issues.  Ronchetti has no excuse; the controversy has been ongoing for generations, more intensely in the half-century since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.  So he has had lots of time to get smart.  But no, like most people who talk or rant about abortion, he has not bothered to read the two landmark abortion decisions, Blackmun’s and Alito’s.  And he learned nothing in high school about the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The abortion issue depends on definitions of the beginning of life and the practices adopted on the basis of those definitions, many of which have changed over time.  Ronchetti does not know, or knows but does not care, that different religions define the beginning of life differently: Catholics, traditionally at quickening, now at conception (not clearly defined); other Christians, at conception, at quickening, or at birth; Jews, at birth.  He does not know, or knows but does not care, that the issue is exclusively a religious one (science does not answer religious questions).  He does not know, or knows but does not care, that the issue is a First Amendment one.  Without this knowledge and commitment, he cannot honestly swear to an oath of office to uphold and protect state and federal constitutions if he were elected governor.

 

Ronchetti is ignorant when he says, “We can end late-term abortion while protecting access to contraception and health care.”  He knows nothing about the medical facts of pregnancies.  His ignorance leads him to a contradiction between ending late-term abortions and protecting a woman’s health or life.  The truth of the matter: health- and life-threatening conditions can and do arise, though rarely, late in pregnancies.

 

Ronchetti is nonsensical and disingenuous when he says, “I believe we can all come together on a policy that reflects our shared values.”  He implies that Catholics and Jews have “shared values” which can enable them to resolve differences about when life begins—conception versus birth—and to agree on circumstances, if any, legitimizing abortions.  He does not, because he cannot, identify those “shared values”; none exist.

 

 Ronchetti has shifted his position.  He is retreating from attacks for wanting to end abortion and perhaps from the absurdity of a kumbaya resolution based on “shared values.”  To reduce damage to his campaign and to seem more reasonable than he is, he now suggests shifting the decision on abortion to a referendum to amend the state constitution.  One obvious problem is the wording of the referendum on this nuanced issue; another is that no wording can do justice to the nuances which differentiate religious beliefs on abortion.  Yet he wears a velvet glove of gossamer verbiage to cover an iron fist of forced conversion.  He assumes that, in this predominantly Catholic state, a referendum will force Jews to give up their values to “share” Catholic values—a standard antisemitic maneuver of Christian dominance.

 

Ronchetti does not know, or knows but does not care, that such a referendum, however worded or implemented, would violate the Constitution,  In particular, he does not know, or knows but does not care, that its First Amendment exists to protect one or more minorities from a majority in matters of belief or opinion, including religion.  A referendum, “a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision,” establishes a majoritarian position.  However, on a matter of religion, the majority’s vote is likely to violate the minority’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion and freedom from an establishment of religion.  In the case of abortion, it is certain to.  His suggestion displays his ignorance of, or indifference to the violation of, religious rights of others not sharing his religious beliefs.  In declaring late-term abortions “barbaric,” he shows hostility to Jews and their beliefs and practices.  He also shows his inhumanity to all, not just Jewish, women of child-bearing age who might have one of those rare pregnancies which require late-term abortions to save their health or life.

 

Ronchetti’s fact-free, untruthful, and shifting positions on abortion should be disqualifying.  Since Ronchetti has not troubled to master either vital facts and essential nuances about a crucial issue like abortion or fundamental facts about the Constitution, he shows himself lazy, irresponsible, and untrustworthy on this and likely any other issue.  His position on abortion alone reveals that he is unqualified for the highest office in the state.

THE "WEAKER SEX" IS GROWING WEAKER (AND MORE DANGEROUS)

Men have a rich vocabulary of sexual slurs to denigrate women.  Turnabout is fair play.  White Christian MAGA men have limp little junk and do whatever they can to conceal their impotence (except those who call themselves Proud Boys and will forever be boys).  They put Trump stickers, slogans, and confederate flags on their pick-ups.  They tote military-style weapons and wear camouflage garb and gang insignia.  They pretend to manliness by macho posturing and paraphernalia, and by bullying others wherever, whenever—all to conceal and compensate for their weakness and insecurity.

 

The many expressions of misogyny—denigration of women; discrimination in law, education, and career; and denial of their full personhood from dress codes to abortion restrictions—are personal and political.  Personal misogyny of White Christian men reflects their latent fear that women are the stronger sex and getting stronger.

 

White Christian MAGA men express fear of replacement by many others unlike them: Blacks, Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, and Jews.  But they do not admit that women are replacing them and cannot admit that they are displacing themselves.  Significantly, they are evading education.  A higher percentage of women than men graduate from high school and college, and a higher percentage of women than men have professional and technical jobs.  Increasingly, women enter and enlarge the number of women, even outnumber men, in jobs from which they were previously discouraged or excluded.  These men avoid these white-collar livelihoods now viewed as “women’s work” and “manned” by women and associated cultural lifestyles viewed as womanish.  Or they leave with their egos wounded by women’s superior performance.  (You go, girls!)  More generally, they oppose a modern world in socio-cultural transition from male-dominated societies historically based on brawn to more gender-equal societies based primarily on brains.  They cling to a worldview of male dominance, of brawn over brains.  Of course, dominance does not concern those valuing themselves and self-confident.

 

Unmarried young and middle-aged White Christian MAGA men especially lack self-esteem and confidence.  They are involuntarily celibate (incels) and intensely resentful.  They are bitter about their lack of appeal to women no longer inclined to “settle” or to stay as they once did when they were denied educational and career opportunities.  As a result, much of the MAGA movement is made up of male losers trying to become winners through the muscle masculinity of fascism.

 

Their resort to fascist masculinity appears in threats of violence or harassment, now embedded in almost all Republican language, often tainted by misogyny, from MAGA chants to hang Hillary Clinton to House Republican promises to impeach Nancy Pelosi without a scintilla of evidence of any criminal offense by either woman.  But, given Republican views of the use of political power, especially to punish enemies and reward friends, and given a Supreme Court corrupted by its conservative Catholic-born justices determined to adjudicate according to their preferences and prejudices, Republicans hope that SCOTUS will uphold their perversions of the law and the rule of law, and, ultimately, the ensuing violence of tolerated lawlessness.

 

The political range of White Christian MAGA men’s misogyny extends beyond their belief that women are possessions to be owned, ruled, and controlled by men.  (White Christian women who accept their subordination, as Justice Barrett claims to do, regard it as religiously sanctioned.)  This extension appears in the snide Republican expression “owning the libs.”  It suggests that liberals, Democrats, Progressives, and other kinds of “Lefties” as well as women are property to be owned, ruled, and controlled like slaves.  The analogy is apt because most of the Republican Party is racist as well as misogynist.  The evidence is clear in intersectional cases.  The only votes against the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Black woman, to the Supreme Court came from 47 of 50 Republican Senators.  Of the three Republican votes for confirmation, two were women’s.

 

White Christian MAGA men’s fear of their inferiority to women fuels their general hostility not only to women, but also to minorities and their supporters.  It appears in major Republican policy positions, none of which “promote the general welfare” and all of which disproportionately and adversely affect women and children regardless of race, religion, or national origin.  Among others: anti-gender-oriented legislation about rights (abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage and adoption, transgender treatment); anti-immigrant policies; anti-gun-control legislation; anti-democratic laws to disenfranchise Democratic and minority voters, and rig elections or results for Republican candidates; and anti-safety-net efforts to shrink or end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other anti-poverty or anti-hunger programs.  All these Republican “anti” positions target people to hurt, not help, them.  Government of the people: no.  Government by the people: no.  Government for the people: absolutely not.

 

The divisive and debased politics which Republicans have pursued, and the deceptive platforms which Republicans have published should urge people in District 2 to think carefully before voting for any Republican on the ballot.  Straight party tickets used to be the fashion; they may come back.  Steve Bannon has urged Republicans to launch from-the-ground-up crusades to capture control of policy-making bodies: school and library boards; city councils, county commissions, state legislatures and governorships; and congressional seats and the presidency.  The danger to democracy of their proto-fascist rule is something not long ago and far away, but here and now—as near as their threat to all women in our families, friendship circles, and communities.

 

Many profess to vote for the best person, not for best party.  But since most votes now follow party lines, there is no best person.  Candidates who do not reveal their party affiliation should be suspected of being Republican, denying the 2020 election results, scheming to overturn the votes of future majorities, and hiding their agenda behind fear and smear campaign literature.  No one should vote for someone who keeps secrets from you.  One such is current District 2 Republican Yvette Herrell, stout member of the House Freedom Caucus, a collection of proto-fascist crazies willing to destroy democracy if they cannot have their way by forcing it on others.  Voters should support all candidates of the party which serves best their interests and those of their fellow citizens, is most responsive to people, and is most respectful of democracy.  Even a weak candidate could run on the slogan “I’m not Yvette Herrell” and very much deserve your vote.

 

 

10-11-27

 

The Weaker Sex

 

“Frailty, thy name is woman.”  Hamlet refers, not to women’s physical weakness, but to their moral weakness, an idea going back at least as far as the Biblical story of Eve’s succumbing to the Serpent’s temptation.  The fact that women are physically weaker than men has, on the assumption that might makes right, led to the idea that women are morally weaker than men.  Of course, the assumption embraces a pro-male bias favoring physical strength.

 

Human evolution and group organization placed a premium on physical strength (as well as speed, stamina, and throwing ability) in the millennia when it counted for the survival of the species and the success of states.  Reliance on physical strength inclined groups to accept male dominance and gender-based divisions of labor.  Throughout human history, these adaptive arrangements have become societal norms in almost all cultures.  A man’s place is in the world; a woman’s, in the home—so goes traditional thinking.

 

But—O temporal, o mores—they are a-changing.  Medical science supplants myth about biological strength.  Males may be physically stronger, but not all strengths are physical; in fact, females are stronger in other ways, from start to finish.  Boys have a higher infant mortality rate, and men do not live so long as women.  Disease for disease, injury for injury, men die at higher rates than women.  Physiologically, if not physically, women are stronger than men.

 

Thanks to labor-saving devices, physical strength matters less and less.  Such devices have reduced the number of people working on farms and ranches; in mines, forests, and fisheries; and on assembly lines.  A need for heavy labor may always exist, but the market for it will continue to shrink.  In post-industrial economies, more jobs require less brawn and more brain—not a change favorable to physical strength, male dominance, and gender-based divisions of labor.

 

Women are also stronger psychologically and morally.  Although they suffer from depression many times more than men (from male domination?), women better support each other, work better together, and do the same work better.  Women’s greater emotional and social competence suggests their greater moral strength of compassion, consideration, and cooperation.

 

The Industrial Age created the conditions for women’s efforts to secure rights comparable to men’s.  Because cultural change lags technological change, progress has been erratic and slow.  Women did not get the vote until 1920.  They did not get many jobs until World War II, but were displaced by returning veterans.  Not until the advent of women’s liberation, did women begin to make sizeable in-roads in the male-dominated economy and male-dominated professional fields.  Their struggle for careers outside traditional women’s jobs—from low-level jobs as seamstresses, secretaries, telephone operators, waitresses, and other service jobs; to mid-level jobs as librarians, nurses, and teachers—and for compensation equivalent to their male peers has significantly, but not entirely, succeeded.

 

Men maintained dominance in education and employment as long they maintained economic hegemony.  However, when women have had equal opportunity for education and careers which relied on intellectual capabilities, they have not only succeeded, but also surpassed men.  They get higher grades than men; more women than men attend, and graduate from, college; and more women than men now enter the professions of engineering, law, and medicine.  Women now run major corporations, and their numbers as elected state and federal officials are growing.  All of these developments are good and for the better.

 

But not all the consequences are good and for the better.  We are making progress toward a gender-neutral society, but that progress has its costs.  One obvious cost is the decline in public education as many of the best and the brightest women who once entered teaching now enter professions previously denied them, to be replaced by their less academically oriented and talented sisters.

 

A barely acknowledged cost is the effect of this social change on men.  Because of unprecedented competition in school and at work, men are leaving fields or losing benefits once reserved almost exclusively for them.  The asymmetry of the change hurts.  Women have long aspired to “men’s work”; men have long belittled “women’s work.”  When women do “men’s work,” men, sexist as many are, redefine it as “women’s work.”  The directionality of mobility also hurts.  Women’s upward mobility corresponds to men’s downward mobility.  As women enter the world of men, men exit it; as women move into academic positions and technical professions, men move out of them.  Few appreciate the issue created by women’s equality with men: men’s equality with women.

 

Can men accept equality, and can they achieve it?  Today, the weaker sex has its work cut out for it.  Many men are confused about their identity and worth, and uncertain about roles no longer defined by physical strength or rewarded by men-only privileges.  Many failing to cope increasingly resort to brute force to re-assert dominance; one result is increased domestic violence.  Images of men show masculinity by a two- or three-day stubble and male vulnerability by a knee or blow to the groin.  Advertising identifies “real men” by their interests in watching sports, drinking beer, ogling big breasts and flat bellies, and driving rugged trucks over rough terrain at unrealistic speeds.  The cliché “boys will be boys” has an ominous significance.  America now needs a concept or model of mature manhood to liberate men and make them strong enough for the so-called “weaker sex.”