Month: June 2016

Utopian equality still has a ways to go

by digby

I know many people don’t want to believe this is true, but there is just too much data saying otherwise. This is from Harvard Business Review:

Millennials, those Americans now between 16 and 36 years old, are often spoken of as if they’re ushering in a new era of enlightened interpersonal relations. For example, in 2013 Time predicted Millennials would “save us all” because they are “more accepting of differences…in everyone.” That same year, The Atlanticstated that Millennials hold the “historically unprecedented belief that there are no inherently male or female roles in society.” And in 2015 the Huffington Postwrote that Millennial men are “likely to see women as equals.”

If these characterizations are even close to accurate, we should expect the pervasive, damaging biases against women leaders to diminish substantially, if not end entirely, once Millennials assume positions of economic, academic, and political power. But before we start celebrating a coming age of gender parity, we need to ask whether there is any truth to these characterizations. Do Millennials really believe there are no inherently male or female roles in society? Do Millennial men really “see women as equals”? Unfortunately, the best information we have indicates the answer to both questions is no.

In February 2016 researchers at the National Institutes of Health published astudy on how college biology students view their classmates’ intelligence and achievements. The researchers found that male students systematically overestimated the knowledge of the men in their classes in comparison with the women. Moreover, as the academic term progressed, the men’s faulty appraisal of their classmates’ abilities increased despite clear evidence of the women’s superior class performance. In every biology class examined, a man was considered the most renowned student — even when a woman had far better grades. In contrast, the female students surveyed did not show bias, accurately evaluating their fellow students based on performance. After studying the attitudes of these future scientists, the researchers concluded, “The chilly environment for women [in the sciences] may not be going away anytime soon.”

Millennial men’s views of women’s intelligence and ability even extend to women in senior leadership positions. In a 2014 survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults, Harris Poll found that young men were less open to accepting women leaders than older men were. Only 41% of Millennial men were comfortable with women engineers, compared to 65% of men 65 or older. Likewise, only 43% of Millennial men were comfortable with women being U.S. senators, compared to 64% of Americans overall. (The numbers were 39% versus 61% for women being CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, and 35% versus 57% for president of the United States.)

Moreover, according to a 2013 Pew survey of Americans, Millennial women are significantly more likely than older women to say that the country needs to continue making changes to bring about equality in the workplace, but Millennial men are the group most likely to say that all necessary changes have been made.

A glimmer of hope was found in the huge survey of Harvard Business School MBAs in a 2014 HBR article, which found that Millennial men were more likely than Gen X and Boomer men to predict that their wives would have equal careers, and less likely to do the majority of the child care. But that hope vanished when the researchers found the gap between what Millennial men and Millennial women believed was still wide: “Whereas three-quarters of Millennial women anticipate that their careers will be at least as important as their partners,” they reported, “half the men in their generation expect that their own careers will take priority.” The gap was similar when it came to child care responsibilities. Fewer than half of Millennial women believed they would handle most of the child care, but two-thirds of their male peers believed the same about themselves.

Taken together, this body of research should dispel any notion that Millennial men “see women as equals.” Indeed, this information raises a serious concern that unless something is done soon to change Millennial men’s attitudes toward women, these men ascending to the C-suite may hinder — rather than advance — current efforts to reduce the discriminatory effects of gender bias.

We have heard too many reasonable people make the argument, almost fatalistically, that the arc of history bends toward justice. That is true. But the arc of history bends because leaders work to bend it. Bias doesn’t just die out. Patience may be a virtue, but patience alone will not bring equality.

On an anecdotal basis I can say with some assurance that dealing with some of my younger cohorts has certainly backed up these observations. Indeed, one of the most disturbing aspects of this is the aggression with which any discussion about this phenomenon is met by certain younger men who see themselves as avatars of modern progressive thought who are incapable of sexism. It unfortunately tend to prove the point.

I understand the impulse. I have often been stunned and reflexively defensive when people would point out my own subtle forms of racism despite what I believed to be my completely unbiased point of view. It’s hard to take and your first reaction is to deny it but it’s important to listen when people tell you something like that and consider it carefully. There’s a pretty good chance that you’re just unaware of your own unconscious biases. We all have them.

Update: And of course, it goes without saying, that this does not describe all millennials or all men. And it certainly does describe many, many baby boomers and Gen Xers. It’s been part of human civilization from the beginning so there’s nothing new in any of this. And it is getting better, absolutely. Just saying.

.

That stinking convention

by digby

I’m glad I won’t be on the floor of the Democratic convention:

Philadelphia: Cheri Honkala, the leader of the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, announced that her group was organizing the world’s largest “fart-in” to be held on July 28 at the Wells Fargo Center during Hillary Clinton’s anticipated acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination.

“We will be holding a massive bean supper for Bernie Sanders delegates on American Street in my Kensington neighborhood on the afternoon of July 28,” she said. “We are setting up a Clintonville there, modeled on the Hoovervilles of the 1930s where the poor and unemployed built shanty towns. The Sanders delegates, their bellies full of beans, will be able to return to the Wells Fargo Center and greet the rhetorical flatulence of Hillary Clinton with the real thing.”

Honkala said she would issue an invitation to Sanders to join the bean supper, which she is calling Beans for Hillary. She has asked donors to send cans of beans to 1301-W Porter Street, Philadelphia, Pa., 19148.

“Any remaining beans will be served to the homeless, although we will, of course, be urging Sanders delegates to eat as much as possible,” Honkala said.

One doubts the sound will travel. But it could be unpleasant for the rest of the delegates. I don’t know how persuasive it would be though.

.

Two peas in a pod

by digby

I wrote about the man who is currently seen by the oddsmakers a having the best chance to become Trump’s VP:

.

Don’t let conventional wisdom kill again

by Gaius Publius

The Orlando killing is uniquely at the intersection of gun violence, anti-gay violence and anti-immigrant violence (it was Latin night at the club, and 90% of the victims were Hispanic).

Long-time writer and DC activist Joe Sudbay is also uniquely at that intersection, as you’ll read. Sudbay has a long professional history of working with the Brady campaign against gun violence, with the anti-DOMA movement and other LGBTQ initiatives, and with the immigration reform movement.

From all of this experience, Sudbay has both a unique perspective and professional advice for those engaged in defeating the NRA, as the conversation turns from the horror of the act itself, to reform. With permission, here’s Sudbay’s recent piece from Medium in its entirety. Please read it if you have a few minutes. There’s something here you won’t find many other places — lessons from the winning battle for LGBTQ rights that could easily be applied to the NRA-led battle. But only if DC activists want to apply them.

Sudbay writes:

As I watch the tragic, horrific events unfold in Orlando, I’m sick. I can’t stop looking at the faces and reading stories of the victims. I don’t know them, but I do. They’re my community.

For the past twenty five years, I’ve worked on a range of issues that intersect with what happened in Orlando: gun violence prevention, immigration reform and LGBT equality. The biggest impediment to progress on all three issues was one of the most odious features of inside-the-beltway think: conventional wisdom.

Fortunately, on immigration and LGBT equality, that DC thinking has been shattered. To me, nothing exemplifies the change on marriage equality more than the photo I included above of the White House bathed in the rainbow flag. But, that’s still not true on gun control — and it haunts me.

One of the biggest myths that has yet to be broken is that the NRA is invincible. It’s not true. Never has been. But, it’s etched in stone in DC, particularly among the chattering class made of pundits and consultants.

To understand how to break the conventional wisdom on guns, it’s important to understand that it’s based on a lie.

Ask any almost any Democratic insider and they’ll tell you, Al Gore lost because of the NRA. That is so far from the truth — but, after Gore finally lost in 2000, it became dogma, spurred on by none other than Bill Clinton (who may have played a small role in why Gore lost). Since that time, the gun issue was radioactive and candidates were told to avoid it at all cost.

I had a front row seat to the 2000 election from my perch at what was then Handgun Control Inc. As director of state legislation, I’d watched George W. Bush fulfill the NRA’s wish list as Governor of Texas. In 1995, he signed a law that let citizens carry concealed guns in public for the first time in 125 years. Two years later, he signed a law to weaken restrictions on that law, to allow carrying in churches, nurses homes and amusement parks. He was giving us plenty of issues to work with when he ran for President.

Let’s look at Florida and Missouri, two key battleground states where we had record to show our issues worked with voters. On both issues, Bush was on wrong side.

In 1998, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment to allow counties to enact background checks at gun shows by an astounding margin of 72–28 percent. The following weekend, President Clinton hailed this progress in his radio address.

In spring of 1999, the NRA-backed ballot measure in Missouri was defeated 52–48, despite massive spending by NRA on a date the group hand-picked, expecting low turnout. It was a huge upset. Our side secured over 80% of the vote in suburbs around St. Louis County.

See, the NRA controls elected officials in most State Houses and certainly in Congress, but when the public actually votes on issues, our side usually prevails.

During the 2000 Democratic primary against Bill Bradley, Al Gore ran as a hard-core supporter of gun control. He even tried to secure an endorsement from my boss, Sarah Brady. One of his top aides called me screaming because the organization had vowed not to endorse in the primary. Gore was an ally. The year before, he cast the tie vote on a bill to close the gun-show loophole in the wake of Columbine. That was back in the days when the Senate actually took votes.

When President Clinton renamed the White House press briefing room for Jim Brady, I wrote Jim’s speech to include praise for Gore casting that vote to break the tie. A couple days later, those remarks were in a Gore ad in California.

But, a funny thing happened after Gore got the nomination. He stopped talking about guns. His silence was deafening — and bad politics. Instead of reminding voters about Bush’s record, Gore wanted to avoid the issue. Interestingly, so did Bush, who didn’t even accept the NRA’s endorsement in 2000. It was like Bush was reading the same polls we were, but Gore wasn’t.

Meanwhile Democratic Senate candidates in both Missouri, Mel Carnahan, and Florida, Bill Nelson, leaned in hard on gun issue. Handgun Control’s PAC did independent expenditures in both states, as well as Michigan and Washington.

At final presidential debate, held in St. Louis, the day after Mel Carnahan’s tragic death, Bush was asked a question about a t.v. ad I had created which showed NRA VP saying if Bush won, “we’ll have . . . a president where we work out of their office.” Bush tried to distance himself from the NRA, touting some pro-gun control positions after stating, “I think somebody who doesn’t want me to be president might have run that ad.” When Gore was up, instead of invoking the referendum the year before and how Bush signed something similar in Texas, he mumbled some rote lines about guns, then switched the subject.

A couple days later, the Washington Post reported that the gun issue was dead for Democrats. I was extremely frustrated that I was quoted in the article but hadn’t been interviewed for that specific piece. One of the reporters used a quote from a previous interviews. A couple days later, I did an off-the-record interview with Jake Tapper who was writing at Salon about how inept the Gore campaign was on the gun issue. They didn’t lean in. They ran.

On election day in 2000, Democrats picked up 5 Senate seats. In each race, guns was an issue and the Democrat who won leaned in. But, that story barely got told. All eyes were on Florida, where Gore never talked about the gun show issue, which got 72% two years earlier. He lost and lost the presidency.

Then, the blame started and convention wisdom took hold.

Over the past two decades, I watched politicians who took on the NRA and the gun issue — and won. And, I watched politicians who thought they could ignore the NRA — and lost. The latter is always what gets held up as truth. And, once something becomes conventional wisdom, it’s very hard to change. One of the reasons I started blogging in November of 2004 was to fight back against the idea that John Kerry lost because of the gay marriage referenda.

So, as we consider what to do moving forward in the wake of the worst shooting in American history, here’s a key thing to know: Al Gore didn’t lose because of the NRA. He lost because he ran from the gun issue instead of owning his record. The NRA capitalized on that thinking and for that past 15 years has run amok. That group and the politicians who kneel as the gun lobby’s altar give us a nation where 49 people can be mowed down. But, we all have a part in it for letting our politicians be controlled by them.

When I worked on the gun issue, I met the most amazing people who I only met because the worst possible tragedy struck their family in the form of gun violence. I hold them in my heart every day — just as I’ve now made space for the 49 people lost in Orlando. We have to be better than this.

Conventional wisdom is an ugly creature. But on guns, it’s actually deadly.

I’ve spoken publicly with Joe Sudbay about how the LGBT movement won during the Obama administration when many other progressive initiatives were stalled. That interview is here, if you’re interested in his other thoughts on routes to progressive victory.

I want to close, though, with a simple idea from Sudbay’s last paragraphs:  

“Al Gore didn’t lose because of the NRA. He lost because he ran from the gun issue instead of owning his record. … We have to be better than this.”

You can read Joe Sudbay on Twitter @JoeSudbay.

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.
 

Super-delicate situation
by Tom Sullivan

Video by Full Frontal.

Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus are vehemently opposed to abolishing so-called superdelegates from the presidential nominating process. Setting the stage for a possible confrontation, the CBC sent a letter to both the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaigns, Politico reports:

“The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states,” says the letter, which was obtained by POLITICO. “The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process.”

The letter from Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina provides some personal history on how the present nominating process developed since 1972. He makes three key points for consideration before the party makes changes regarding unpledged delegates. (Superdelegates, Clyburn notes, is a pejorative term found nowhere in the rules):

Let me be clear, our delegate selection process
is not rigged. It is transparent to the public and open
for participation for all who wish to declare
themselves Democrats. There are three questions,
however, that we should all ask ourselves as we
approach the 2016 Convention and consider whether
or not to allow the continuation of unpledged
delegates:

Number (1), Do we want to force party leaders
and elected officials to compete against their
constituents and party activists for delegate
slots to our national conventions?

Number (2), Do we wish to force our elected
officials to jeopardize their candidacies by
declaring their presidential preferences in the
middle of their campaigns?

Number (3), Should we expect party leaders
and elected officials to give unbridled support
to presidential nominees they had no role in
selecting?

For newcomers to the process this stuff is pretty weedy. However, one comment from the Politico column gets at why the CBC will fight to retain unpledged delegates (emphasis mine):

“The superdelegate system is not perfect but it has worked for us quite well over the years and frankly the superdelegates have never needed to cast any superdelegate votes to alter what the voters did during the primary elections,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. “Never. That’s not the case this year either. The concern many of us have, of course, is that our numbers would shrink in terms of having influence over and involvement with what happens at the convention.“

The Hispanic Congressional Caucus stands with the CBC, Cleaver says.

I have not walked in the shoes of a black voter, especially one from the South. But I have seen enough to know that black Democrats view procedural matters like this through very different eyes. One anecdote may illustrate that.

So speaking of weedy, annual precinct meetings here occur either at the polling place where the precinct normally votes or at an alternate publicly accessible location nearby. But getting access to community centers, libraries, etc. for the meetings on a set day and hour once a year is problematic, putting many party meetings in conflict with community groups’ scheduled monthly meetings. It’s a chronic problem. So at a state convention a couple cycles ago, a (white) delegate proposed modifying state party rules to allow meetings to be held in people’s houses. Seemed innocent enough.

Black delegates erupted in protest (mostly older women). How many of their friends would feel welcome attending their annual meetings at a strange house in a strange (possibly white) neighborhood? No way, they argued. Such a change would suppress participation among their community. They insisted — no, demanded — the existing rules be kept in place. Only neutral, public locations for the meetings. The proposed change failed.

It was a real eye-opener (and not the last). Their lived experience gave them a very different perspective on what appeared at first to an older, white male
to be an innocuous request. I got schooled.

For what it’s worth.

Could we get this lucky?

by digby

It’s hard to imagine. But it sure would be poetic justice if “The Roberts Court” ended up with Roberts and Alito huddled in their own little corner as the last remnants of the Reagan Revolution.

Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election, according to court watchers.

Thomas, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate after a bitter confirmation, has been considering retirement for a while and never planned to stay until he died, they said. He likes to spend summers in his RV with his wife.

His retirement would have a substantial impact on control of the court. The next president is expected to immediately replace the seat opened by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, providing a one-vote edge in the court that is currently divided 4-4.

Should Thomas leave, that slight majority would continue if Donald Trump becomes president. If it’s Hillary Clinton, then she would get the chance to flip two Republican seats, giving the liberals a 6-3 majority.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation’s capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

And, conservatives fear, that could switch to a 7-2 majority if Republican Justice Anthony Kennedy, already a swing vote, retires. He will be 80 next year.

We recently reported that if Clinton wins the presidency, her majority liberal court could stay in power at least until 2050.

Sunday Funnies

by digby

New York Times:

Via Daily Kos:

Is LaPierre going soft?

by digby

The NRA’s malevolent leader was on Face the Nation and reiterated his usual claptrap about guns being beside the point whenever we have a mass shooting ad backed the ridiculous Cornyn bill which would require the police to present a full-blown trial in three days if they wanted to stop a possible terrorist from buying a semi-automatic killing machine. But he did say something I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say before.  I may have missed it but this seems new:

Trying to fight terrorism with gun control legislation is like “trying to stop a freight train with a piece of Kleenex,” LaPierre said, arguing that terrorists in California and Paris used firearms to kills dozens of people in places with strict gun laws. He called for armed security in vulnerable targets like malls, churches and schools but stopped short of suggesting that people in bars and nightclubs, like the one where 49 people were shot in Orlando, should be carrying guns

“I don’t think we should have firearms where people are drinking,” he told Dickerson.

I didn’t think the NRA believed guns were inappropriate anywhere. In fact, he’s the one popularized the fatuous bumper sticker, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” I didn’t think it mattered whether the bad guys and the good guys are boozing.

In the past the NRA has helped with legislation in various states to allow guns in bars. I don’t know if they have decided not to do it anymore. But it’s the wording that makes me think something may have changed. In the past, they have simply said that if you carry a gun into abar you should not drink alcohol. In that statement, LaPierre said he didn’t think there should be firearms where people are drinking. That’s not the same thing.

It’s hard to believe we’re even talking about this. Carrying guns in bars is completely daft, needless to say. And LaPierre may have just been speaking off the cuff and the NRA’s position hasn’t really changed. But he’s usually pretty careful with his words so it’s at least possible. It’s not much but maybe the pressure is starting to make them budge a little bit.

.

The coming political violence

by digby

According to wingnut emails, the left is getting ready to rumble:

The intolerant violence of the radical left has already succeeded in occasionally silencing Donald Trump, as when it forced the cancelation of his March 11 rally in Chicago.

Now the threat of violence may be reaching a new high with an article by Huffington Post blogger Jesse Benn defending and commending the use of violence against Trump. To hear Benn tell it, any violence should be blamed entirely on Trump for challenging leftist dogmas. Furthermore, violence should be recognized as the proper and most effective way of silencing Trump and those who are unwilling to meekly accept the left’s agenda. Anything less than violent resistance to Trump is to be seen as giving in to American fascism.

The appearance of such an article on a mainstream liberal website marks the crossing of an important line. Until now, American liberals have usually at least gone through the motions of denouncing violence and calling for peaceful forms of conflict. Advice such as Benn’s could turn the Republican National Convention – and every Trump campaign appearance – into a warzone.

Such violence (and incitement to violence) is a threat to the American political system. It should be one of the biggest topics in the news media. Instead, it has joined Hillary Clinton’s email scandal as something to be mentioned only when unavoidable, then quickly dropped while moving on to the next attack on Trump, Republicans, and conservatives.

The left may believe that violence is its “secret weapon” against Trump. However, they could soon discover that American law enforcement is still capable of defending political freedom. Despite poorly-informed criticism of police officers, and the well-documented “Ferguson effect”, it is likely that Donald Trump will receive the protection he needs to make his case to the American people.

Violence aimed at Trump and other Republicans may even turn the voters against the rioters, as it did in 1968. Americans tend to have little patience with such tactics. Violence could give Trump the extra support he needs to reach the White House.

It’s a good thing that Trump voters are the types to be armed to the teeth or ginning this up could be lethal.

.

Politics and Reality Radio: Dayen on the Continuing Foreclosure Crisis; What About the Muslim Left?