Immigration has become a strong winning issue for right-wing parties around the world and an organizing issue for extreme right-wing parties. Why? What should centrist and left-wing parties do?
Accelerants
There are more immigrants. Economic, religious, social and political immigrants. More international conflicts, civil wars and gang violence. Continued huge gaps in living standards between countries. Global communications and transportation networks that make migration possible. The demand for in-migration to developed countries is very high.
In a world of rapid change, slowing growth and religious doubt, citizens of advanced nations are insecure.
Politicians have learned that a simplistic polarization of left versus right is much easier to manage than “solving problems” and have increasingly framed all politics as “us versus them”.
In a world of skepticism and loss of certainty caused by the undermining of religion, progress, science, socialism, fascism, or nationalism as a definite answer we increasingly turn to “identity” as our rock. Blame Rene Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” insight or Martin Luther’s religious individualism or libertarian economic individualism or countercultural social individualism or the “therapeutic society” triggered by Sigmund Freud.
We all need a basis for our cognitive consistency. Today, our personal identity is raised as a mini-God of great importance. We merge political, cultural and personal identities. We look to national, cultural, racial, class, professional, fraternal, social, alumni or corporate identities for meaning. Identity is MUCH more important today. It is subject to political and media influence and manipulation.
Moral Foundations Framework
Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues sought to define the core, inherent, inherited moral, political and religious frameworks that we all have. They contrasted traditional and modern moral beliefs. They noted that “modern” beliefs are extraordinary and WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic. They combined social science testing, statistics and evolutionary psychology to determine 5-8 widely held moral beliefs that “make sense” based on their interpretation of human and cultural evolution. They noted that liberals emphasize just the two values of care and fairness, while conservatives add the values of loyalty, authority, purity/sanctity, proportionality, ownership and liberty.
I’m insecure, framing politics in simple left versus right, “us versus them” terms and insecure in my identity. I’m sensitive to all of the moral flavors, including loyalty, authority and purity. Immigration is increasing. Illegal immigration is uncontrolled.
What do I see?
Economic threats to jobs, assets and privilege.
Unfair claims on public welfare programs.
Risk of increased crime, disease, drugs and social dysfunction.
Further dilution of and threats against traditional culture by unfamiliar “others”. Different birthplace, nationality, race, religion, class, language and expectations.
Opposition to the “rule of law”, unfairly proposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.
A feeling of personal and social violation or invasion by “others”. A loss of control.
A threat to the symbolic nation and national security.
Reasonable people take this perspective. They look at “liberals” who emphasize “immigrant rights” above this reality as insane.
Academic research generally supports the “Moral Foundations Theory” view.
Acknowledge those who feel this threat. Don’t dismiss, discount, demonize or rationalize them or the politicians that support them. Recognize their legitimate concerns.
Focus on the issue of illegal immigration. Solve it. Invest in border controls.
Implement a national ID system that prevents illegal employment.
Enhance the agricultural guest worker program.
Focus on the issue of unlimited asylum seekers. Solve it. Revise standards to be reasonable. Resolve cases within a year. Set a limit. Find ways to “share the love” with other countries.
Support a “points system” that prioritizes “value added” immigrants.
Propose a way like Reagan’s “path to citizenship” for existing illegal immigrants.
Support expulsion of all convicted felony criminals.
Ignore the extremist rhetoric about illegal immigrants.
Highlight Trump’s unwillingness to even discuss a bipartisan solution.
Highlight the much greater importance of national economic success, affordable prices, the rule of law, sustainable democracy and American global interests.
Highlight a political platform of personal and economic opportunity rather than individual “rights”.
Promote immigrant success stories at the working, middle, professional and upper-class levels. Leverage visible sports, arts, media and political figures.
Highlight diverse successful assimilation communities across the United States.
Fine-tune welfare programs to clearly exclude illegal immigrants.
Summary
Leftists often believe that their views are obvious, logical and historically “true”. Caring and Fairness are clearly the ultimate values in modern times. The other values are seen as remnants of the unenlightened past. I believe that the moral values of loyalty, authority and purity are also valid. Principled conservatism is a valid perspective.
It is easy to take an enlightened, universal, abstract, economically disinterested view when someone has the assets and talents valued by our society (standing “privilege” on its head). When an individual is unsure of his prospects (standing John Rawls on his head) in the real world, he is rooted in the familiar world of family, caste, class, neighborhood, culture, social groups and self-interest. Insecurity and threats matter. Politicians in a democratic system should listen and respond.
Immigration is a real threat to a majority of our citizens. We should manage it accordingly.
Only by managing the threat can we invest in the proper care for immigrants as a society.
I addressed this topic 4 years ago. I was less willing to fully accept the right-wing perspective.
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat says he began crafting this 2020/2021 book in 2014. He argues that we are stuck in a stagnant society that has lost its ability to reach for the future. Technological, space, business, economics, politics, ideologies, and cultural achievements in the arts, film and music have lost their dynamism. We are pictured as a weak shadow of 1945, 1965 or 1975.
He argues that stagnation eventually leads to decline or disaster. His preferred future contains “growth, innovation, aesthetic reinvention and religious ferment”. Any solution must contain “zeal, coherence, mysticism and futurism”. He outlines several possible paths to decline and further stagnation.
He also describes some potential routes to a renaissance. Modified Islam. African Christianity. Expanded Chinese influence. Massive African migration and impact on Europe. Illiberal democracies like Russia gain favor. Populism governs pragmatically. Local communities flourish in the communitarian model promoted by Patrick Deneen. Nationalism recovers its power. A revised global socialism. Pure scientism. Updated paganism or polytheism. A paradigm shift that makes religion a real option for educated elites, displacing the “materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature”. A religious “great awakening” or new delivery mechanism. A merger of scientific and religious sensibilities that recognize our unique position as self-aware humans on planet earth.
Our columnist and critic evaluates the modern world much too negatively in my view. Despite challenges, the US and global economy is doing very well. It overcame the Great Recession and the Covid Pandemic. It is adjusting to Trump’s “tariff wars”. Growth is solid, trade is growing, employment is up. The business cycle is effectively managed. Productivity growth continues. These economies are resilient, reflected in stock market values. There are greater inequality and rent-seeking, which can be addressed politically.
Europe and other US allies are adjusting to Trump’s “America first” approach. They are adjusting to Russia’s threats and invasion of Ukraine.
Science progresses. Covid solutions. Weight control. Driverless cars. Smart phone capabilities. Artificial intelligence. Robotics. Modern satellite communications. Medicines. Fracking. Nanotechnologies. Green power. Electric cars. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies.
The ongoing integration of race, class, region and immigrants in the US continues. It’s not perfect but a solid majority embraces the multicultural US. Young Americans only know this positive world.
Many critics agree with Mr. Douthat that the arts and culture have stagnated. I’m not sure that marks “the end of civilization”. Today I have quick access to everything that has been offered for 100 years. We are culturally blessed.
The author invests several pages in analyzing Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 “end of history” claim. He agrees that the Western liberal democracies have fended off the BIG challenges of fascism and communism but notes that new and old critics have returned. He gives Fukuyama a fair treatment and notes his more recent focus on the role of “identity” in shaping political views.
Unfortunately, Mr. Douthat is not interested in refining “liberal democracy” as a solution to our alleged stagnation. He is critical of managerialism, technocracy and modern meritocracy. He sees it as inherently self-interested and narrow. I think that we have no choice but to invest in improving our historical “liberal democracy” framework.
I think the gap between science and the humanities remains even wider than it was in 1959 when CP Snow called out his educated colleagues. We need a way to connect science and religion, politics and people. The “structural” advantages of strong political, social and economic systems are not inherently opposed to human values. We should invest in closing this gap in our universities.
My followers know that I have become a “true believer” in the potential of “civility” to become formally defined and promoted as a shared cultural norm to support our political, social and economic institutions.
I wholeheartedly agree with his two real religious solutions. The default paradigm today is “science versus religion” and “science alone is real”. There is significant scientific and philosophical evidence to overturn this current worldview.
Many of our current challenges exist because we have not revised our laws and political structures to adapt to modern wealth, amoral political actors and media capabilities.
We could choose to invest in economic and breakthrough scientific progress by making political choices.
We could choose to support the modern “therapeutic society” approach of encouraging every child to “live a great life today” in pursuit of their self-actualizing possibilities.
We could invest in improving the productivity of our lagging economic sectors: government, education, health care and not for profits.
We could revise our goals to emphasize quality as equal to quantity.
We could invest in promoting communities of all kinds, not just those local, total communities suggested by Patrick Deneen.
We could do a better job of outlining. defining and communicating to everyone our 5-part political spectrum of left, center-left, independent, center-right and right. Individuals rarely change. We are stuck with each other. How do we effectively structure our political, social and economic systems to accommodate these different views?
Douthat argues that we have stagnated on all dimensions. We need to find a way forward. I agree with 2 of his options and offer a few more possibilities.
The national Republican Party was radicalized or very extreme by 2012. It is MUCH worse today.
Barrels of ink have been spilled describing and analyzing the “Trump phenomenon”. We were collectively shocked in 2016 when he won the presidency. The changes toward extremism, radicalism and the loss of our democratic system have continued. Like the proverbial frogs, we have become accustomed to the onslaught of change. I’ll try to outline and make sense of the mind-boggling transformation of the “party of Lincoln” in my lifetime from Dwight Eisenhower, Dick Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes to Newt Gingrich, Arthur Laffer, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson, Steve Wynn, Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk and Donald Trump. 😦
Context
Pundits blamed the Trump 2016 election on a variety of false or half-true causes. Trump’s brand image and magnetic personality. His direct approach and truthfulness. A victory for the “Tea Party” after the slow Obama economic recovery. Renewed racism triggered by Obama in the White House. A normal left to right political swing. Hillary Clinton’s poor campaign and connecting skills. Clinton karma. The lure of the “authoritarian personality” in American culture.
I generally agree with the 2022 authors of American Psychosis. There have always been extreme groups attracted to and allied with the Republican Party. The party tolerated them, used them and then welcomed them. Their numbers and influence grew compared with that of the Main Street, Wall Street, moderate and New England wings of the party. They completed the hostile takeover of the party with Trump in 2016. [There have also been extreme groups affiliated with the Democratic Party].
I also agree with Edmund Fawcett’s long-term analysis. Conservatism was founded as a political perspective in opposition to ALL of the changes of modernity.
1500. New religion. New economics. Urbanization. Industrialization. Trade. Property rights. Individual rights. Skepticism. Science. Change. Loss of authority. Loss of history and tradition. Cultural challenges.
For most people, modernity was a very scary set of changes. For more than 1,000 years the rules of life were fixed. They were consistent in all dimensions. The religious, political, military, social and economic dimensions were aligned. Then changes occurred. A new paradigm called “liberalism” arose in opposition. Change is good. The individual is supreme and has rights. The dimensions of life can/must be separated. Certainty is gone. Social power is flexible. Competition and meritocracy are welcomed. Rationality and scientific proof are valued. Innovation and commercial success matter. “Anything goes”!
Conservatism emerged to provide a needed counterweight. History, tradition, community, values, virtues, nobility, safety, family, familiarity, neighbors, culture, language, experience, religion, race, stability, trust, and property.
Opposition to rapid change is a core conservative value. The emergence of a capitalist, commercial, scientific, university, secular class in competition with the landholding nobility and its religious and political allies was a founding perspective of conservatism. Today, we think of the Republican Party as the party of “big business”, capitalism, laissez faire, competition, social Darwinism, libertarianism and meritocracy. Yet, conservatism looks back to culture, community, religion, institutions, family, and morality. Economic and social conservatism are not fully or easily aligned.
The Republican Party has slowly, increasingly and then overwhelmingly become the party of social conservatism end economic populism. The trend was growing. Trump saw it and formalized it. The US experience is not unique. Other western countries have had the same recent experience. We have seen these tensions for two centuries or more.
A Slippery Slope
Many American conservatives have never truly embraced modernity, urbanization, industrialization, cosmopolitanism, equal rights, racial equality, trade, capitalism, global trade, international alliances, international treaties, religious denominations, ecumenicism, tolerance, immigration, etc. A secure life based upon familiar experience and community is great. The opportunities of progress are small, risky and filled with temptations and unintended consequences.
Successful politicians have two main talents. They deeply understand human nature, and they communicate very well. Conservative leaning politicians have mined the fear dimension of human nature for centuries. With the emergence of the mass media and modern advertising and persuasion tools circa 1920 they have become increasingly more powerful.
They set out to capitalize on the lack of deep political knowledge, skills and interests of the populace. The have moved down the slippery slope of skepticism, cynicism, fear, distrust and victimhood to hate.
They discovered that humans are naturally attracted to the Manichaean opposites of good and evil. They learned to define issues as yes and no, right and wrong, us versus them. Polarization is a very effective communications technique. Newt Gingrich demonstrated its value in 1992.
They learned to frame, highlight, emphasize and communicate effectively. Both parties’ leaders and supporters have always thought that they were morally right, and their opponents mistaken, misguided or much worse.
The Democrats have mainly been stuck in the 1800’s forward class wars occasioned by capitalism and the rise of manufacturing. Labor versus capital. Poor versus rich. Exploited versus exploiters. Rural farmers and laborers versus bankers and cities. Their issues and messaging matched.
Since 1960, the Democrats have adjusted to also become the party of “human rights” on a legal basis. Civil, women’s, disabled, LGBTQ, environmental, global, animal and earth rights on top of economic rights. The messaging has mostly remained the same, contrasting the exploited with the exploiters.
The Republican Party has offered a much more diverse, richer and expanded set of political messages. The messages are all about fear. The ideas, people and threats to fear have diversified and accelerated. THE IDEAS, PEOPLE AND THREATS TO FEAR HAVE DIVERSIFIED AND ACCELERATED. This very negatively biased view threatens our democracy.
Defense and Security
The Cold War. Reds under the bed. Pinko commies.
Korean War. “The loss of China”.
Vietnam War. The domino theory. All or nothing.
Hawks versus doves. Patriots.
Cuba.
Middle east “Arabs” versus Israel.
War on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Isis.
Axis of Evil.
Bomb, baby, bomb.
China.
Trump has added Venezuela, narcoterrorists, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Greenland, Panama, Africa and Europe to those who cannot be trusted.
Eisenhower warned us about the “military-industrial complex”. It has managed to ensure that we are always at war with someone. Republicans have been the main hawks.
International Affairs
The US unilaterally defined the postwar rules at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire and joined the United Nations in San Francisco. The “America First” protectionists and unilateralists never really agreed. However, both parties supported the international system that cost-effectively protected American interests for more than 80 years.
Opposition to “foreign aid” was the first crack in the united front with politicians greatly exaggerating the amount of money invested and its ineffective usage. Foreign aid and health support levels fluctuated through time. Bush II was a proponent.
Historically, opposition to “free trade” was mostly a Democratic position. Alleged unfair power, rules, labor and environmental regulations. Republican global corporations were “all in”. Japanese, Asian, European and other third world competition offered higher quality and lower price goods to Americans who bought them in the 1970’s forward. Manufacturing job losses became a Republican issue as working-class Americans moved to the Republican Party from 1970-2020.
The US rejected the League of Nations. It tolerated the United Nations. The UN added a wide variety of international organizations. Republicans positioned the UN and these agencies as a waste of money supporting individuals, countries and organizations opposed to America. Trump defunded these organizations even as the World Health Organization played a key role in resolving the Covid pandemic.
The Paris Accords on climate change were another international agreement rejected by Trump, like the multilateral Iran nuclear proliferation limits.
NATO prospered for 70 years. Trump has questioned the rationale and his commitment to supporting our allies. He has badgered NATO and other allies to pay a greater amount for their defense. Trump renegotiated NAFTA with marginal changes. He has unilaterally applied tariffs to our neighbors and threatened to disband his own agreement.
Trump has threatened to invade Venezuela, Panama and Greenland because they allegedly threaten our security. He has removed many career foreign service staff members and politicized this vital national function.
The Economy
All politicians have criticized the opposition because inflation and unemployment are too high. Republicans claim that they are “the party of business” and more effective in managing the economy although the data says the opposite.
Republicans have claimed that Democrats wish to “socialize” the economy with the government owning and controlling all industries. No nationalization has occurred for more than a century. Deregulation of transportation in the 1970’s was a bipartisan initiative.
Republicans have exaggerated the size, scale, impact, employment and percentage of federal government activities for more than a century. Federal government activities DID increase very significantly during the Great Depression, WWII and the 1960’s Great Society initiatives. They have roughly remained at the same percentage of GDP since 1980.
Republicans have emphasized the “common sense” need to balance the federal budget and bemoaned the growing federal debt and its impact on future generations and “crowding out” of productive borrowing and investing. Their criticism rises when Democrats control the government and quiets when Republicans are in control as we have learned that 1-2-3% budget deficits seem to have no short or long-term deleterious effects. President Trump has no problem with running record budget deficits.
Republicans claimed that tax cuts would spur economic growth to offset the loss of revenue. The theoretical “Laffer Curve” has never been demonstrated to hold for the US. Republicans claimed that very high marginal income tax rates disincentivized highly productive Americans from working. Top marginal tax rates were cut from WWII 90% to 70% in 1965. Then lowered to 50% in 1981 and 37% or lower from 1986 forward. Grover Norquist and others after 1986 tried to “drown government in the bathtub” because “taxation is theft”. Bush I lost his reelection bid because of his “read my lips” reneged promise to not raise taxes.
Republicans claim that government regulations strangle businesses, cost money, reduce employment, stifle innovation, reduce R&D, and reduce investments. This is mostly a distraction. Regulations do require compliance costs for administration and reduced commercial activities. Corporations benefit from most drafted laws which provide opportunities for evasion and negotiation rather than strict compliance. If “clean” regulations were better they would ensure they were/are enacted.
Culture Wars / Wedge Issues
Civil rights legislation was supported by Democrats and Republicans. LBJ said “we may have lost the south for a generation”. He was right. The American South struggled with the aftermath of the Civil War, reconstruction and civil rights legislation. The belief that African-Americans should not mix with Whites died very slowly. New private schools were built to “solve the problem”. Court ordered busing to ensure equal racial opportunities in northern cities antagonized other Whites. Affirmative action court rulings divided the country, moving many Democrats to the Republican side.
Republicans made crime and drugs national issues. Directly and indirectly focusing on African-American communities.
Republicans made welfare a racial issue instead of a class, age or fairness issue.
The 1965 immigration act opened the door for poor immigrants from around the world.
President Reagan and congress agreed upon an amnesty and enforcement bill in 1986.
Bipartisan efforts to control migration were unsuccessful for the next 30 years. Trump pressured Congress to not approve a compromise bill in 2024. Trump has made immigration the center of his politics.
Education became a national political issue after the passage of the civil rights bills. Republicans advocated for “states’ rights” and the elimination of the federal “Department of Education”. The enforcement of equal racial access to public education drove these changes. The establishment of private Christian schools and the use of vouchers to fund them became a political issue.
Institutions
Historically, Republicans controlled all of the major institutions of the US. After “Brown vs. Board of Education”, they decided that institutions were not always perfect. The move of southerners from the “solid South” of Democrats to the Republican Party was a huge swing. Federal courts might not be trusted. Federal DOE might not be trusted.
The federal government was generally viewed as a positive entity based upon its activities during the Great Depression and WWII. Post-war investments in infrastructure were welcomed. The growth of federal employment, funding and power led to opposition by Republicans, claiming waste and inefficiency. Opposition to all federal staff and functions grew during the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Reagan framed it as “I think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” In 1996, President Clinton said “the era of big government is over”.
Support for American institutions began to decline after Nixon’s presidency. His acts showed that it was possible that previously trusted institutions were no longer definitely trustworthy.
Republicans positioned “government versus business”. Business was trustworthy, subject to the iron laws of the market. Government was subject to the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats.
Entrepreneurs were positioned as wealth and job-creators. They were crafted as makers versus takers. Obama’s claim in 2012 for an equal role for the public sector sparked much political debate.
Republicans applied this negative theory to everyone. Bureaucrats were subject to the incentives of lobbying, influence, bribery and career advancement. Inherently untrustworthy. Regulators were subject to regulatory capture. Teachers were self-absorbed and union captured. Same with police and fire fighters.
Spiro Agnew began the attack on the broader cultural elites as the “nattering nabobs of negativism”. The attack on the supposed cultural elites in the university, arts, media, communications and not for profit space has continued.
Trump and his acolytes have used DEI as a wedge to force organizations to comply with his political wishes.
Republicans use the term “elites” to drive fear. Political officials, bureaucrats, professors, journalists, commentators, executives, bankers, media influencers, actors, musicians, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and public health officials. Where does this end? What about the Republican elites?
Trump has undercut any faith in institutions. DOJ and FBI politicized. All federal agencies politicized.
We no longer rely upon trust or principles. Everything is based on power and transactions. The conservative economic view seems to Trump the conservative social view in the end.
Individuals
Republicans have positioned the political world to help voters see themselves as victims or potential victims of the opposition. The evil opposition is ready to take away your: guns, religion, parental rights, language, teams, history, culture, music, voting power, flag, patriotism, money, house, medical care and rights. They have demonized the opposition as “radical leftists”. Democrats have responded with the same level of name calling. Republican leaders have chased the RINOS (Republicans in Name Only) out of the party.
Summary
Republicans have increasingly chosen fear to build and maintain their political support for 70 years. It appeals to the lowest common denominator of those motivated by fear alone. It is unsustainable. We will either have a major breakdown of our society/culture or a rejection of this negative worldview very soon.
Former Indiana governor and Purdue University president Mitch Daniels provides us with a model of civility in his public life, as we have seen from many American political leaders.
I wrote many posts during the Biden administration to counteract the recurring false claims about “runaway inflation”. Biden was certainly guilty of spending too much taxpayers’ money for economic recovery, infrastructure, green projects and student loan forgiveness. This aggravated the inflation rate, made it slower to fall and established expectations of higher long-term inflation. However, the primary drivers of inflation were the pandemic driven demand for physical goods after factories closed, loose monetary policy and bipartisan government spending to offset the pandemic. We all enjoyed 20 years of price stability before this. A little bumpiness after a pandemic driven global shutdown was not surprising.
The climbing inflation rate broke in June, 2022 more than 3 years ago. It has not slowed under Trump’s stewardship.
The inflation rate has been in the 3% +/- range for the last 2 years. That means that prices, on average, continue to increase each year. 2% inflation was the normal rate for the prior 20 years. It (3%) seems to be a rate that is “non-accelerating”. Economic agents, including consumers, are able to ignore 2% inflation. It is immaterial, too small to really notice. 3% inflation is on the border of being “concerning”. Inflation can more easily accelerate from 3% to a concerning 5% or higher. President Trump can claim that he has maintained the Biden inflation reduction from 9% to 3% but he cannot claim that he has reduced prices, reduced inflation or made the cost of living more affordable.
The core inflation rate, excluding the more volatile food and energy prices, has shown the same pattern. It peaked at 6.5% and declined to “about 3%” by June, 2024. It has moved down by one-quarter percent since then. Unfortunately, it seems to be flat. Trump has not moved it down.
President Trump has pursued 2 of these 12 areas but worked in the opposite way to increase inflation on most. He has pressured drug prices down. He has encouraged increased supply of traditional fossil fuels energy.
Fiscal Policy
Federal budget deficit remains at an unsustainable $1.7T per year. Too much demand, not enough supply.
Monetary Policy
President Trump has been harassing Fed Chair Jerome Powell (who he appointed) to cut interest rates. The real, inflation adjusted, interest rate is currently 1%. Monetary policy is neutral or a little tight. President Trump encourages looser monetary policy which increases inflation. Not an inflation fighter.
US Dollar
The US dollar has declined in value since Trump took office, making foreign purchases more expensive.
Housing Costs
Housing prices peaked in 2022, drifted down by 5% in 2022 and have remained flat for the last two and a half years. Trump policies have no impact here.
Health Care
3% medical inflation continues despite efforts to reduce drug prices.
Food prices are more volatile than most. Inflation reached 11% in 2022. It approached 2% in 2024 but has since increased to 3% annually.
Energy
Energy prices jumped in the first 2 years of recovery from the pandemic. They have been flat since then. Trump has cancelled $8B worth of previously authorized energy projects.
Gas prices averaged $2.50/gallon before the pandemic, spiked up to $4.50/gallon during the recovery and settled back to $3.00/gallon for the last 3 years.
Tariffs
US consumers enjoyed immaterial average import tariff rates for the last 50 years. Trump has levied an 18% tax on imports, increasing costs for American consumers of the 14% of their consumption that is imported. The inflationary impact of the Trump tariffs has not yet been passed along to consumers. The frequent changes in tariff rates have led businesses to absorb costs in the short run. This will not continue.
This recent tax change benefits individuals with enough income to pay federal income taxes, so improves affordability for an estimated 4 million people.
This provision of OBBA benefits low to moderate income households aged 65 and older. Many experts criticize its structure, but it clearly makes life more affordable for those who benefit from the change.
Higher Limit for State and Local Tax (SALT) Deductions
Higher income taxpayers who itemize deductions received a significant federal tax reduction. This change does not benefit most low to moderate income households.
Increased Cost and Reduced Availability of Child Care
The OBBBA increased tax credits to partially offset childcare costs. Critics considered these changes to be inadequate, noting that a “pro-family” political party should do better.
Greatly reduced net immigration will tighten the labor supply in some industries, leading to higher compensation for some workers and higher prices for consumers. Economists have not reached a consensus on the net impact to the typical American.
Inflation continues at 3% annually. Real wages are keeping up with inflation. The memory of large price increases in 2022 that were never reversed seems to have reset inflation expectations from 1-2% to 3-4% per year. Some tax law changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill meaningfully cut taxes. Fiscal policy remains very loose and drives inflation. Monetary policy is considered neutral by most economists, but Trump is trying to loosen it, which risks further inflation. Trump’s “on/off” tariff negotiations have not yet driven large consumer price increases but have slowed business investments. Trump’s claims to have improved “affordability” rest on his specific actions that point in that direction, not on the economy wide statistics or large-scale policies that might significantly improve affordability for the “average” family.
Cultures exist because individuals need to be combined into communities. Without cultural norms, expectations, education, rewards, penalties and taboos there wouldn’t be any culture, community or civilization. Modern “civility” is a set of values, skills and behaviors required to hold together a diverse, multicultural society like the United States. With the growing breakdown of historic western Christian culture, the US needs to actively embrace the values subset of “civility” in order to make our political, social and economic worlds function effectively. This requires society – and its leaders and influencers – to clearly define select important aspirational values AND to define what is TABOO, poison, shunned, beyond the pale, unacceptable, and rejected by all. We focus on the 8 civility values.
MODERN TABOOS FOR EVERYONE
Angry outbursts and yelling.
Attacking ideas, opinions and proposals without reason.
Raising personal opinions, values or interests above professional responsibility.
Ignoring uncivil actions.
Allowing high value-added performers to ignore civility standards.
Ignoring or neglecting others; individuals or local groups.
Addressing individuals with disrespect.
Treating individuals as a means, a class member, rather than a human being, an infinitely valuable end [Immanuel Kant].
Gaslighting.
Ignoring questions of race, nationality, gender, sexuality, disabilities or mental health.
Arbitrarily rejecting personal choices about personal fashion, modesty or body image.
Arbitrarily rejecting proposed reparations for historical group damages.
Failing to recognize that policies that benefit minorities might unfairly harm majorities.
Embracing victimhood.
Abdicating responsibility for making personal choices.
Failing to use logic to make choices; following will, desire or emotion alone.
Failing to define and pursue personal goals.
Failing to consider the consequences of one’s personal actions.
Allowing others to strictly determine one’s choices (family, groups, ideologies, professionals, experts, science, leaders, political parties, public opinion).
Blaming others, making excuses, hiding mistakes.
Avoiding personal responsibility by distracting others.
Lying, being dishonest.
Betraying a group that you should be loyal to.
Supporting an individual or group whose legitimacy you question.
Strictly promoting personal self-interest above the needs of the community.
Ignoring civic participation duties.
Failing to trust others and groups after they have trusted you.
Ignoring community interests.
Allowing others to transgress shared community norms.
Ignoring others on a day to day basis.
Not listening; interrupting, undermining.
Failing to participate in group activities.
Ignoring, discounting or undermining others’ attempts to contribute to group decision making.
Dominating conversations, especially after being placed on notice.
Constant negativity, challenges and skepticism.
Summary
Taboos are a critical dimension of a deeply held moral framework. Civility is based upon society agreeing that some values and their implications are “rock solid”. A few of the taboos above are mainly embraced by the left, but ALL 45 (!!!!!!) are embraced by a supermajority of citizens.
The “liberal” virtue of tolerance can be interpreted as THE value, an allegedly supreme value more important than all/any others. It must not be elevated to this dominant role. Tolerance is important but it is not controlling.
Hence, the underlying civility values of human dignity, respect, acceptance, responsibility, public spiritedness, intentionality, interaction and positivity combine to form a successful common framework for all.
Taboos provide the negative (unacceptable) side of values. Civil people, irrespective of their political opinions, must reject these beliefs, opinions, actions and communications. TRUTH is the ultimate standard. We must all reject beliefs that conflict with the truth.
Avoiding/rejecting these taboos is not easy. We humans are still imperfect. We have to work and work and work to reach for the positive dimensions of the proposed subset of civility virtues, and avoid the taboos.
It’s difficult to describe the complete revolution in the behavioral sciences that occurred around 1956 as practitioners began to experience a “paradigm shift” 6 years before Thomas Kuhn’s wildly influential “philosophy of science” description of this phenomenon.
Psychology was dominated by the behaviorist approach of BF Skinner. Only observable scientific results mattered. In second place were Freud’s insights into the differences between the conscious mind and the unconscious struggles between the id, ego and superego. Psychologists, social psychologists, communications theorists, philosophers, linguists, and computer scientists rejected BOTH the philosophy-free behaviorist approach and the philosophy-entangled Freudian approaches. The “cognitive scientists” recognized that the mind, mental, consciousness, rationality, perception, memory, attention, will, drives, social influences, choice, morality, feelings, fears, instincts and many other constructs were “real” in some sense. Non-material concepts and structures were important complements to the material and observable world.
They embraced the scientific method to investigate these concepts. They began to combine experimental psychology, information theory and biology. Their work led to many breakthroughs in theory and in practical advice for how humans behave, where they fail/struggle and what they can do to improve. These scientifically based theories have accumulated to the great benefit of mankind in the last 70 years.
I want to highlight the key cognitive science / behavioral science breakthroughs that are relevant to practicing civility. I will limit references to a single work for each category.
This above list only scratches the surface. Consider corporate organizational development, counseling, cognitive behavioral theory, college residential life, community development, neutral DEI programs, listening, peer counseling, couples counseling, co-dependency, adult children of alcoholics, anxiety, negotiating, facilitation skills, strategic planning, game theory, risk management, project management, influence, thinking hats, personality styles, talents, etc. The list is almost endless.
We now understand how humans behave. We are imperfect and amazing. We have the ability to balance the individual and the other, the individual and the community, the individual and spirit/God.
Civility is based upon the human dignity of each individual. The modern “cognitive science” approach embraces this insight. It offers tools to make our lives more effective, meaningful and satisfying. Civil individuals should invest time to master these subjects.
As Civility begins to be embraced as a vital answer to our challenges, we’re starting to hear from the skeptics, the professional critics, the haters, the perpetually ironic, special interests, politicians, media interests, fundraisers, political consultants, the powerful, influencers, extremists, technologists, literalists, nativists, nationalists, environmentalists, talking heads, artists, postmodernists, materialists, therapists and humanists. Some struggle with Civility’s claim to represent everyone in addressing core human challenges. Instead, they say that the modern Civility project is really for elites only, too soft and emotional, too far left, too righteous, too far right, too simple/surface or too impractical/abstract.
Civility attempts to define a set of values, skills and behaviors that are “fully adequate” to support the required economic, social, religious and political needs of our society. Civility addresses the eternal conflict between the individual and “the other”; between the individual and communities considering the “common good”. It provides a subset of moral values adequate to support these dimensions of life while allowing individuals and groups to debate and negotiate the remaining political, social, personal, religious and economic options. As such, it is a “classical liberal” approach, embracing individual freedom while necessarily tolerating others and their opinions.
Just for Elites?
Civility has a long history in America of being embraced by all. City and country. North and South. East and West. Religious diversity was a key driver historically. The Catholic versus Protestant wars in Europe were seen as ridiculous for modern people. The great diversity of Protestant denominations promoted religious tolerance.
Civility applies to all domains. Family, neighbors, unions, civic clubs, not-for-profits, schools, universities, professions, religious organizations, interest groups, small businesses, big businesses, cooperatives, political parties, candidates and community groups. There is no “elite” preference here.
Civility begins at the local level. Family, neighbors, friends, local commerce, HOA’s, block watches, parishes, local schools, local sports, civic organizations, libraries, community centers, social welfare services, third meeting places, pubs, porching, volunteering, block parties, volunteer fire fighters and emergency services. Rural, agricultural, expanding America was founded on these voluntary organizations. It was re-founded around 1900 with political reforms, social services, scouts, civic organizations, YMCA’s, Chautauqua institutes, civil rights, labor unions, temperance, public libraries, public secondary education, etc.
Civility is an eternal challenge. The individual faces other individuals and other groups, communities and society. We’re each wired to be fully individual oriented. “It takes a village” to civilize us and make us productive members of society. Civility applies to all social classes and geographies.
Civility focuses on human dignity, respect and empathy. These are universal human values and experiences. They represent a radical view of human equality, indifferent to rank. These values are anti-elite and countercultural. They support the needs of all and constrain the [alleged] tendency of elites to construct exploitative structures and philosophies.
Civility focuses on practical skills for interacting with others, communicating and making good decisions. It is applicable for everyone.
The Civility Project is purposely taking a “bottoms up” approach to recapturing our institutions as responsible to the people.
The current social, political and economic institutions [often] primarily serve the interests of the privileged (the 1% and the 20% professional classes). The “tea party” was founded to challenge this situation. This wise populist insight has been captured by one political party for its sole benefit. Civility attempts to make clear the benefits to any political group of effective institutional structures.
Civility’s focus on human dignity ensures that individual freedom will be preserved. It is a “classical liberal” approach that recognizes that humans are imperfect and that many will attempt to capture political, social and economic institutions for strictly personal benefits. [In modern America, this is considered a “conservative” insight]. It accepts that some constraints must be placed upon individual “rights” to preserve the “common good”. There is often no obvious solution to these competing interests. Every society must find “reasonable” ways to protect both individual rights AND the common good, while allowing representative democracy to wrestle with the issues in the middle. We’re stuck with an uncomfortable “both/and” rather than a more satisfying “either/or”.
Civility is a “public good” which benefits everyone. The more that civility is practiced, the more that everyone benefits. Non-elites, who have lesser assets, benefit disproportionately from increased civility.
Investments in improving civility create a “virtuous cycle” which benefits everyone.
Elites have a much greater share of assets, so they have a greater interest in establishing and maintaining civility in any society. They need a supermajority of society to buy into “the rules of the game”. They could once rely upon ideas like divine providence, tradition, kings’ rights, land rights, the ancient regime, property rights, class rights, papal infallibility, social Darwinism, eugenics, racial supremacy, national rights, etc. Modern history and communications undermine these crude approaches. Elites need Civility to underpin support for representative democracy, regulated capitalism and international trade.
Too Soft?
Critics argue that “Civility” is based solely on feelings, weakness and conflict avoidance.
Civility encourages individuals to be “dead serious” about their political and religious views. It does not take a position. It encourages individuals to engage in the political process and to develop deeply felt religious beliefs and practices [without becoming righteous and rejecting others’ rights].
Civility requires the “hard” virtues of respect and responsibility.
Civility requires the development of mature character in adults.
Civility promotes positive and constructive approaches to interpersonal relations and problem solving.
Civility is focused on results, not just ideas.
Project Civility is focused on actionable steps, not just a belief system.
Too Left?
Civility embraces the “little platoons” of classic and modern conservative thought. High commitment local organizations are essential for social life and forming moral character.
Civility is actively non-partisan. It requires no position on the historical debates. Central/decentral. Tradition/innovation. Risk/safety. Religious/secular. Individual/community.
Civility requires a limited moral foundation to support society. It rejects a purely individualistic basis for society. It rejects a purely community, organic, spiritual, religious basis for society.
Civility embraces the role of institutions, trust, productivity and growth in society.
The 8 civility values are nonpartisan. Respect, acceptance, public spiritedness and interactive lean left. Responsibility, intentionality and constructiveness lean right. Human dignity is equally left and right.
Too Right?
Human dignity is a radical idea opposed to domination by elites and structures.
Civility is inherently open, liberal and tolerant.
Civility does not embrace any dominant religious or cultural view.
Civility embraces positivity. It does not prioritize “no”.
Civility acknowledges conflict as an inherent part of life and embraces modern technologies.
Civility acknowledges power as a real force in life. It believes that personal and community beliefs are equally important.
Too Righteous?
Civility attempts to find the “common ground” of political debate. It tries to find the “least common denominator” or values, practices, beliefs and habits necessary for society to succeed, or at least muddle through.
Like all political, social, religious or philosophical belief systems, it tries to find the essence, the most important beliefs or assumptions needed for success.
It focuses on communications and interpersonal skills that are neutral.
It focuses on conflict resolution skills.
It promotes organizations like the “braver angels” that encourage interaction between individuals with different views.
It embraces the problem solving and personal growth results of cognitive behavioral therapy and modern organizational development.
Civility promoters believe that tolerance is essential.
Too Simple?
Critics say that civility is too simple, too surface, too obvious. Civility is an approach based upon 500 years of the Western modern era.
Civility accepts the complex validity of modern politics and religion.
Civility embraces a required subset of values in the Western religious, philosophical, economic and social traditions. It requires respect, human dignity, acceptance, responsibility, public spirit, intention, interactivity and constructiveness.
Civility requires thinking, feeling and doing.
Civility accepts that individuals have deeply felt individual perspectives that do not align easily.
Civility promotes the development of individual character based upon philosophical, religious and political perspectives.
Civility combines a set of values with a set of practical skills to be applied in all domains of life.
Civility actively rejects oversimplified versions that are just politeness, magic wands to end disagreement, purely emotional, utopian, partisan, overreaching or merely supporting the status quo.
Too Impractical?
One definition is that “civility is a set of behaviors that recognize differences and build mutual respect.”
Behaviors are the primary focus, even though they are based upon widely agreed-upon values.
Individuals recognize differences between individuals and groups, and seek to understand and bridge them. This is a level-headed approach to recognizing and managing reality.
Individuals constructively take actions to build mutual respect. They work in the right direction, even though the steps don’t always work to resolve differences, solve problems or build relationships. They take steps forward because this is hard, necessary work, not because it is destined to succeed.
The communications, problem-solving, interpersonal, change and personal management tools used in implementing civility are practical insights, techniques and habits that can be taught to everyone.
The Civility Project roll-out strategy is “bottoms-up”, relying upon a broad cross-section of our nation learning, perfecting, applying and sharing these tools and values.
The Civility Project emphasizes actionable steps: education, interactions, commitments, teaching, porching, greeting, encouraging, joining, volunteering and engaging politically.
Civility offers personal benefits such as conflict management, stress reduction, self-management, better relationships, improved image, influence, acceptance and productivity.
Civility undermines the attraction of extreme individualism by emphasizing the shared humanity of all individuals and the necessity of constructive interactions. It helps individuals to find a balanced perspective that includes others, communities and values as complements to the individual alone.
Civility is similar to approaches like the “golden mean” and the “golden rule”. It attempts to combine a small number of values and skills into a practical tool kit that can be used and improved.
Summary
Civility is easy to caricature and dismiss. Simplistic “straw man” versions are easy to attack. They are inadequate to be helpful or embraced as a shared community asset. But Civility defined as a set of behaviors that combines values and tools and strives to both build relationships and manage differences is not simplistic or ineffective. It is a critical set of habits needed to promote effective interactions, engagement, trust and results in a complex society.
It is a moderate and moderating approach, so some might call it conservative. It values interactions, feedback, process, learning and growth, so some might label it liberal. We think that the Civility values are nonpartisan and that the tools are clearly neutral ones that can be used to be more effective in all walks of life, irrespective of politics or values.
Civility can overpromise and become righteous. We think that these values and tools are a solid combination for delivering personal, interpersonal, process and community results. But they don’t work miracles. We have different sets of values, perspectives, experiences, habits, talents, personalities and expectations. We can learn to listen, empathize, seek the common good and compromise effectively. This will help, but it won’t make any of us perfect people or negotiators.
Our goal in the Civility Project is to re-establish community expectations that promote these kinds of interactions and personal growth. We are confident that creating new norms of expected and taboo behaviors will help individual lives and our communities. In the modern world of complexity, uncertainty, insecurity and skepticism we need some help. Civility offers a nonpartisan common framework to rebuild a constructive, trusting, productive background for all of our interactions. Imperfect, but very powerful.
Good News 