Pluralism or DEI?

Even before Trump's actions against DEI, there were many in the academic community and elsewhere that felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.  

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who currently and historically have suffered from discrimination, became a sign of exclusion of all others because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention on others.  Those left out were assumed to not need any help, but that was mistaken.  And they were and are angry.

Another problem with DEI is that it maintained if not amplified an attitude of victimization and anger at the broader society.  It supported an us v them perspective.  There was no effort in DEI to bring minority and majority groups together to help change the current dynamic.  The assumption was that if you were going to protect your rights, you had to fight for them.  And so it unintentionally further polarized an already polarized society.

Because of these problems, some in academia and state government have adopted the concept of pluralism to replace DEI.  The concept of pluralism, broadly stated, is that everyone is recognized as being part of the whole, that all voices are allowed to speak and be heard, and that opposing groups learn to speak to each other and hopefully find a way of bridging historical animosities.

This is a good thing; polarization is very harmful for all concerned.  But from what I've read, it appears that the baby has been thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.

Discriminated-against groups need their own space, their own support group, because the rest of society is so lacking in understanding their history and nature and of the fact and impact of the discrimination that they not only have suffered from historically, but are still suffering from today, despite all the laws the have been passed.  

If the dominant culture truly comes to accept pluralism, then there might be less need for such identity-groups, but I think there would still be a legitimate need.  I have never understood, for example, why the gay ghetto, which was such a wonderful, nourishing experience, was felt by gays to no longer be necessary once society became more accepting of gays.  We have truly lost something, which was not necessary.  We may be accepted, but we have our own culture, which is rich, and that culture can only thrive when you're living together.

Further, it should not be seen as destructive of or inconsistent with pluralism for groups to speak out against current discrimination, racism, or misogyny in our country.   Pluralism requires the respect of everyone for everyone else.  It's the equivalent of the classic lawyer's statement that, "Reasonable men may differ."  It's about coexisting with civility regardless of differences.  

If that is not the current status—and that is certainly not the status now with racism, discrimination, and misogyny being widespread—then not only should it be ok to call out such violations of the spirit of pluralism, but this must be done.   Otherwise, pluralism will be a delusion.

In the 90s, multiculturalism was given a bad name, just as DEI has now,  And for much the same reason.  For emphasizing our differences, rather than our commonality.   Through pluralism, we must find a way of both emphasizing our commonality—the fact that we are all Americans and human beings—and supporting the vitality of the subcultures within our midst.

 

Living in Trumpland

I live in semi-rural Maine, in what's called Mid-Coast, not the vast interior hinterlands.  This is Trump country.  Before the election, Trump banners, signs, constructions, icons, and of course the American flag, were everywhere.

What has surprised and disheartened me is that after 3 months in office, wreaking havoc on the country, doing nothing that helps the economic situation of the Trump voter and actually increasing his difficulty, fulfilling none of his promises other than those that relate to the deportation of illegal immigrants and fighting wokeness, the banners and signs, etc. are all still there.

That is a pretty clear indication that Trump's actions in office have done nothing to lessen his core supporters' enthusiasm towards him. 

Supposedly many who voted for him—certainly the formerly Democratic middle-class voters and the more traditionally conservative Republican voters who held their noses when they voted—were primarily moved  by economics; they thought their situation would improve more under Trump than Harris.  I would imagine that a poll of those voters would find that many if not most have seen that they have been deceived and that Trump is not going to deliver for them.

But as to his core base, the truly committed Trump supporter—those are the ones who display the symbols of Trump allegiance—his actions seem to increase their support; they love it.   They love the chaos, the way he is dismantling the Federal government.  They love the way he is going after his enemies, be it law firms or individuals.  They love his defiance of the courts.  They love the deportations.  And they love his leading the culture wars against DEI.  Their economic status seems to be irrelevant to them.

How did so many Americans become besotted with Trump?  For one thing, they must have had plenty of anti-establishment feelings that Trump tapped into.  People who were left behind by the American dream.

But beyond that there is the question of how they could believe his preposterous claims, his huge lies.  I read recently that data shows that 30% of adult Americans can only read at a 10-year-old level.  At that level, one has a limited capacity to critically think or to analyze.  I would hazard to guess that a large percentage of Trump's base falls into that category and that that helps explain why they accepted anything he said with such enthusiasm, without any questioning.

I fear that absolutely nothing will dissuade his base that Trump is king, messiah, their hero all rolled into one.  Our country's only hope is that the more mainstream Republicans who voted for him as well as the Black and Latino Democrats who voted for him have already or will soon see the light that he has deceived them and is not doing anything to improve their economic position.

The Failure of Contemporary Arts Culture, including Broadway

Artistic culture has a role to play in society, historically.  Whether it was art, plays (e.g. Shakespeare), or music, the function of art was to lift the souls or lighten the hearts not just of the well-to-do but also the common man.  And so, until recent times, there were always a decent number of affordable tickets for the common man for such events/venues.

But no more.  For example, if we look at Broadway—a popular culture destination—in 1970, the top price for tickets was $15, with starting prices around $6, including standing room tickets.  Now that sounds unbelievably cheap, but when you account for inflation since 1970, the current top price would be $122; the $6 ticket would be $49. 

What are current ticket prices?  Currently, the top shows—the ones in greatest demand—have top ticket prices of over $900!  Those shows not in significant demand have a top ticket price of around $200, with many shows somewhere in the middle.  The difference is that starting in the 2000s, Broadway adopted the dynamic pricing strategy of airlines and hotels, with prices going up with demand.  But even the $200 top ticket is considerably more than the $122 inflation adjusted figure.

The cheapest ticket is inline with inflation, however for top shows that price is only available by lottery or a student rush.  More importantly, while the price is inline with inflation, the average person's income has not risen inline with inflation.  For the American middle class worker, their wages have mostly stagnated since 1970, so $48 is a much greater share of their income today than $6 would have been in 1970.  And so they cannot even afford the cheapest tickets.

While the examples I am using are from Broadway, the same basic point can be made about orchestras, the opera, and even museums.  Most museums today, not just in places like New York City, charge $20-25 for entrance, and for many that is a flat fee, rather than a suggested fee with a "pay-what-you-will" policy.  So a family of 4 would pay $80-100 for entrance.  That's a lot of money for a middle-class working family.

And so as a result of this escalation in pricing, the average person, the common man, has been priced out of cultural events and venues.  For example, the average income of Broadway theater goers currently is $276,000, while the average household income in New York City is $122,000.  Tourists make up the bulk of Broadway ticket buyers (65%).

If the average person no longer can afford to attend arts cultural events or venues, are cultural organizations fulfilling their mission?  The answer should be, "no."  However, if you look at their mission statements, they typically say nothing about accessibility regardless of income level.  The purpose of art has morphed in our society to something to be enjoyed by people of means.

Arts organizations will sometimes attempt to serve the broader public by taking performances to neighborhood streets during the summer.  But while this certainly has some value, it barely scratches the surface of need out there and does not open the hallowed halls of theaters and orchestras to the common man to experience art together with the rest of society.

The problem with arts cultural organizations today is similar to that of business corporations in that they have lost sight of their function in society.  Their function is not just to produce great product, but to benefit the common good.  For a cultural organization, it benefits the good by being accessible to a large section of the public.

Any organization that is created by government registration (and by being incorporated, it is) should through its mission statement and goals serve the public goals for which the government gave them permission to exist as a corporation or nonprofit,  That is not currently the law, but it should be. Even without it being compelled legally, any serious cultural arts organization should have this commitment as part of its mission.

 

Where Are the Democrats?

Trump is all over the news.  He has been aggressive, overwhelming.

The Democrats have mostly been missing.  It’s as though since they have no power in Congress to stop Trump and the Republicans, they don’t know what to do.  They held their silly paddles up during Trump’s State of the Union speech, and they have sputtered individually about various Trump actions.  The Party has not organized anything,

This is not the way to win back the hearts and minds of disaffected middle-class Democrats who voted for Trump, nor the many Republicans who voted for Trump, holding their noses, because of their concern with the economy,  

Democrats usually speak to their base.  But what the Party needs to do now is speak to those who voted for Trump in the last election; it needs to establish a line of communication with them. And it needs to find a way of speaking to Trump voters effectively. .

In communicating, the Party needs to establish a presence on social media as well as the internet and cable TV.  Too long has the Party allowed the Republicans to dominate the information war by having only a weak presence in the new media.

Whenever Trump or one of his minions does something that harms the Trump voter, that breaks a promise he made to them, the Party must make sure that Trump voters know what Trump is doing and its impact on them—clearly and effectively.

When he does something that violates the Constitution, especially its checks and balances, the Party must—after explaining the importance of the checks and balances, America is not a monarchy—counter Trump’s view that the courts or Congress have no power over his “legal” actions.

Besides doing this using a rapid response style, daily if necessary, the Party should have a once-a-week news conference—again using social media, etc.—to review Trump’s actions of the week and how those actions harmed the interests of Trump voters.

And it is important that these communications be directed clearly to Trump voters.  Democrats must show them that it is the Democratic Party that cares for them, not the Republicans. Republicans have used and abused them, especially on the economy.  

To do this successfully, the Party must be more than the anti-Trump. They must present a positive vision for the country and the policies that flow from it that resonate with the hearts and mind of the American people.  See my post, "What Does the Democratic Party Stand For."

The Republican Party has always been the party of big business, not the worker.  And Trump has been true to form.  Trump's actions since the inauguration have been to further the interests of corporate America, not the average American.

These communications will not be lost on the Democratic base.  It will hear these broadcasts and be energized by what the Party is doing and saying.

The Party must start laying the base now for reclaiming Congress in the 2026 midterm elections.

 

Trump’s Destruction of Government

 It’s clear now that Trump’s goal is nothing less than the destruction of the Federal government, both regarding most of its functions and the balance of power set by the Constitution.

Functions:  Trump’s actions show that he thinks the Federal government has only two functions:  protect the country and support business … oh, and requiring adherence to culture war issues at the state and local level, including education..  All other agencies—not just those areas that advance liberal causes— have been gutted, both regarding staff levels and programs.  It’s not just the EPA and DEI functions or even USAID.  It’s almost everything with the exception of Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security, and related agencies. Even Social Security.

This is more drastic than anything he proposed during the election campaign.  The agencies won’t have the staff or funding needed for the agencies to fulfill their mission, effectively eliminating them.  This is also true for what he terms “anti-business” functions of otherwise protected agencies, such as combating fraud and corruption, auditing business tax returns, and regulating business for the public good, which Trump views as  “liberal” agendas.

The result of these cuts to staff and programming is that the welfare of the people will be significantly impacted—negatively. They will either not get the services they need and previously got or corporations will be able to do what they want even if it is harmful to the interests of the public.

This is far different from the usual and accepted practice of a change in administration altering the nuance of government.  That is, a Republican administration was always more pro-business than a Democratic one.  But the Republican administrations, while replacing political appointees with people supporting Republican policy positions, rarely dismantled programs and never an agency.  So one could switch administrations without major disruption or harm to the government and the people.

If Trump is allowed to carry out his plans—and we can look only to the courts to stop him—even if the next administration is Democratic, it will be extremely difficult to restore the government to  anything close to its former state.  It will take many years and a huge expenditure of funds to hire necessary staff and restore the services that people have come to expect and depend on from the government.

There is little argument that the Federal government could use some cutting back, both in staff and programs.  But instead of doing this carefully based on what works and what doesn’t, Trump and Musk are doing this on an ideological basis and using a chainsaw approach.  At this point, it is hard to say whether the country will be able to recover from Trump’s actions and, if so, how long that might take.

Balance of Power:  While it was always clear that Trump wanted to increase the power of the presidency, the extent of his power quest is now clear.  He sees himself as a King, with both Congress and the courts being subservient to him.  And he will brook no disagreement.

While he has said that he will abide by the decision of the courts, he means only the Supreme Court—and that, not because of the Constitutional position of the Supreme Court but because he thinks that with a conservative super-majority, several appointed by him, they will rule in his favor.  But that is open to question.  We shall soon see.  The Supreme Court refused Trump’s request to freeze USAID funds and sent the case back to the District Court for further findings.  That court has now ordered Trump to present a schedule for payment.  

In the meantime, he has not followed a number of lower court orders, which will in all likelihood also end up at the Supreme Court, the most flagrant of which involves the deportations of Venezuelans in flagrant violation of the District court’s order not to deport them.  After Trump called the District Court judge a “radical left lunatic,” and he and his allies called for his impeachment, Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare public statement that impeachment is not appropriate when one disagrees with a decision.  (See my post, “The Constitutional Crisis to Come.”)

If the courts are not successful in stopping Trump, even if the’26 midterms result in a Democratic controlled House and Senate, they will not be able to undo the damage that Trump has done and will continue to do because Trump will veto their efforts, and they are unlikely to have the votes necessary (⅔ of the House) to override a Presidential veto.  That work will only start with a new Democratic administration, hopefully, in 2028.

All the Democratic Party can do now is call Trump out on anything he does that either hurts the average person, goes against his campaign promises, or upsets the Constitution’s balance of power system.  And this the Party has not systematically done.  But they must speak out,,and if necessary on a daily basis, in order to keep the impact of Trump’s actions in front of the public, in front of the voters, laying the groundwork for regaining control of Congress in 2026.

The Trump Magnet - It's All About Power

It'ss no secret that for many ambitious people in our culture, it's all about obtaining as much money and power as possible.  And people do all sorts of unethical or questionable things in order to gain money and power.  This is nothing new.

But in any dictatorship, you have an added factor thrown in.  You have a leader who has or desires absolute power and will brook no disagreement with, nor even discussion of, his plans.  In such a culture, people seeking power and secondarily money know that to be given power, they must bow to the dictator, flatter him, and support him without any questions.

And that is why we see a host of people in Washington who grovel before Trump and do his bidding without any questions.  Even when the position Trump takes is diametrically opposed to an important position that they have taken in the past.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this is Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House.  A year ago when he was fighting Far-right members of his caucus over aid to Ukraine, he put himself on the line, risking his Speakership, by insisting that the budget include a large aid package for Ukraine.  He, like so many Republicans in Congress and out, viewed Russia as the aggressor in the war as well as our enemy for decades.  For him it was a matter of principle to provide aid to Ukraine.  Now, he has done a 180º,  parroting Trump's statements claiming that the Ukraine was the aggressor and that Zelensky is a dictator.and should thank President Trump for his help.

It is sad to see what has, at least for the moment, happened to the promise of American democracy and our founding documents.  Not only are we no longer the shining city on the hill to the rest of the world, we are no longer the protector of the health and safety of our citizens, especially the weaker and poorer.  We've never been really good about protecting the environment, which supports our life on Earth, but under Trump, environmental protection is viewed as an enemy.

Despite his campaigning as a protector of the people, especially the middle class, he has shown himself to be what in truth he has always been—a man enamored of wealth and major corporations—and his goal is to support their wellbeing.  This is what his kind of king does. 

The Constitutional Crisis to Come

Donald Trump has set out on a course to radically reshape our government and our democracy.  In doing so, he is and will be violating many laws, both those passed by Congress and those in the Constitution.  

With a compliant Congress, more than 100 suits have been filed in Federal court to stop what Trump is doing.  Many judges have issued temporary retraining orders advising Trump to stop his actions.   It is unknown to what extent Trump is respecting those orders.  In at least two instances, the court has found that Trump has not followed the orders and has restated very clearly that he must do so.

The normal process in civil cases like these is that the lower court order would not be stayed while the matter is being appealed.  And appeal Trump certainly will, as he has recently said that if he is acting to save the country, he is not breaking any law—even if, in fact, he is acting contrary to the law.

The first two cases have now been appealed to the Supreme Court; one concerns Trump's wanting to fire the head of the Office of General Council, an independent watchdog agency with a term set by Congress and not serving at the President's pleasure.  The other concerns Trump's freezing $2 billion in foreign aid payments.

One would hope in these and other power-grabbing cases, both Justices Roberts and Barrett, and perhaps Gorsuch, would join the 3 liberal judges in declaring that Trump had broken the law and acted illegally.

The question then is, "What will Trump do?"  In the first case, he would have no choice but to abide by the Court's ruling because he has no way of forcing the person out of office.  But in the second and other cases, although he has said that he will abide by the Court's ruling, his other recent statement noted above and those of Vice President Vance raise a question regarding that.  

What happens if he doesn't abide by the Court's ruling?  The possible scenarios are not pretty.  If the Executive branch does not submit to the Judicial branch of government as foreseen in the Constitution's checks and balances, we would indeed be in a crisis.  It could come down to the same question as in other dictatorships—the military.  Does the military support the President or does it support our democracy and Constitution?

One can only hope that Trump is not so full of himself that when push comes to shove, he will relent and not foment a civil war.