President Biden's Infrastructure Bill—"A Bridge Too Far"

 

There is scarcely anything in President Biden’s proposed infrastructure plan I don’t agree with, even though, as many Republicans and some Democrats and economists are properly pointing out, some elements go well beyond any traditional definition of infrastructure.

 

But almost without exception, they are needed:  refurbished bridges, roads, tunnels.  Improved airline terminals.  All needed to bring us up to where China, for example, already is. 

 

And I agree there should be some incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles and funding to provide an electrical charging grid across the nation, just as the federal government contributed to the building of the nation's railroads and highways in decades past. 

 

And no one could believe more than I do in the importance of preschool education being available to all families who seek it as well as improved child care. 

 

My problem with this proposal is not what it’s proposing to fund—it is all strategically important--but how it is proposing to fund it.  I have long felt, for example, that preschool education should be funded in part at the federal level but even more at the state and local levels. There needs to be joint ownership at every level including the community because only there can one bring the tailored leadership needed for the programs to be effective and learn over time.   The same line of reasoning applies to improved child care. 

 

I worked closely with President Obama’s first Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, trying to persuade him and the Obama administration to change their proposal for universal preschool education—not to have it rest entirely on the federal government but rather have it be a shared funding and implementation responsibility at federal, state and local community levels. 

 

The Biden administration should pull back on this infrastructure bill to get bipartisan agreement to the essential elements of it and ensure careful thought is given to the apportionment of costs among the federal, state and local governments as well as private industry.

 

There is an undue rush about advancing this legislation based on the feeling that there is an opening to make it happen. The proposed legislation is sweeping together a disparate group of initiatives under one umbrella (infrastructure) without careful and prudent thought on how they should be funded and how much money should be spent.  This nation’s capacity to assume more debt is not infinite.  My advice to the administration is “Slow down.  Get committees together to study this. Achieve a bi-partisan outcome.”  I hope the Biden administration follows this course of action. 

 

 

  

How Many Lives Have to Be Lost Before We—Finally—Pass Common Sense Gun Legislation

 

I first posted this blog almost three years ago. I do so today after the murder of ten more people in a single incident in Boulder, Colorado. Surely, we can act now!

As many as 50 people—50 men, women and children—might still be alive today if the common-sense gun policies supported by 80% of the American public were in place.  

That’s right.  Fifty people today, 50 more tomorrow, 50 every day after that, might still be alive if  we were acting  on what we know to be true.  

For someone of my age, this fight for life through the adoption of responsible gun policies recalls other fights for life through common-sense regulations. Fights including automobiles and tobacco.

Take automobiles. Today, about 35,000 people die annually as a result of automobile-related accidents.  That’s tragic, but consider that if automobile fatalities per mile were occurring at the same rate today as they were in the year I was born, those 35,000 deaths would not be 50,000, not 100,000, not 200,000, and not even 300,000.  They would be closer to 400,000 people each year. 

Back then, seeing this carnage, nobody talked about banning cars.  But they did come to demand common-sense 

regulations. Seat belts became required; so did airbags.  You were required to pass a driver’s test.  (How, I ask, do you justify requiring a test to drive a car and not a test to shoot a gun?)  You have to get your license renewed every five years.  There are fines for traffic violations and sometimes suspension of your license. 

Make no mistake.  These common sensed regulations didn’t come easily.  Car manufacturers complained about the cost of some of the safety devices. Drivers complained about being "forced" to use seat belts.  But the evidence prevailed.  So did common sense. So did public will.  

  

Or  take tobacco.

What if people were smoking today  at the same rate as when I was a teenager in the mid-1950s?  Almost half the population  smoked then, compared to 15% smoking today.  If that rate of smoking still prevailed, and if the linkage of smoking to mortality remained about the same, up to one million more people might have died last year from smoke-related diseases.  Instead of what is still a tragedy of almost 500,000 people dying from smoke-related illnesses, the death toll could be closer to 1,500,000.  

Believe me, getting common-sense regulations for cigarette smoking was a decades-long battle.  If you think the NRA is a strong lobby today, you should have seen the tobacco lobby.  It supported politicians committed to the industry.  It supported medical conventions and encouraged doctors to recommend cigarettes; I’m serious.  It lobbied against research to establish the linkage of smoking and cancer.  But we kept getting more data linking smoking to cancer, just as we are today on the linkage of guns to gun-related deaths.  

As a result, warning labels were mandated on cigarette packages.  Age limits were imposed on the purchase of tobacco; advertising was regulated to shield children from its influence; excise taxes were increased. 

What drove these changes in automobile and tobacco regulation?  There was increasingly compelling data and research. Above all, this research showed that automobile and tobacco related fatalities werematters of public health.  

We came to recognize that whether a person smokes is not just a private issue.  It's a public health issue.We learned the damaging impact of secondhand smoke.  

We recognized that how a person drives a car is not just a private issue.  It affects others.  It can kill others.  So we insisted that you had to have a license  and demonstrate you were able to drive.

Just as with tobacco and automobiles, owning a gun is not only a private matter. It is also a matter of public health. Tragically, we witness that every day.  So just as with tobacco and automobiles, use of guns must be regulated responsibly.

Importantly, changes in behavior resulting from the regulation of tobacco and automobiles also changed the “culture.”  It is no longer “cool” to smoke.   When I joined Procter & Gamble, there was an ashtray in front of every board seat.   You would walk into a store or restaurant and it could be “cool” to be smoking.  Movie stars were portrayed smoking; men and women. No longer.

It’s no longer “cool” to drive without a seatbelt.  It’s stupid.  That’s what strong social movements can do.  

Culture changes impact everything.  Including business.  Businesses stepped up to forbid smoking on their premises and encourage safe driving habits. 

We’re seeing businesses step up on the gun issue.  Walmart has banned the sale of assault weapons and now has increased the age to 21 at which one might buy a rifle.  Dick’s has done the same thing.  Rental car companies and airlines like Delta have stopped giving preferred discounts to members of the NRA.  Kroger has banned the sale of large magazines. 

 Businesses are getting the message. 

I urge you support businesses which are adopting responsible gun policies.  Let them know that’s why you’re shopping there.  And let those which aren’t adopting similar policies know you’re going to support their competitors.

Focus on electing candidates who support responsible gun policies and rejecting those who don’t.  Nothing counts as much as your vote. Demand to know exactly where a candidate stands on universal background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of people who have been involved in domestic violence and banning assault weapons and large magazines. 

The wind is at our back on this, but it’s going to be a continuing battle.I’m inspired how young people are taking the field.  Let us be worthy of their commitment.   

As I said at the outset, as many as 50 men, women and children might still be alive today if we had adopted responsible gun regulations.  This estimate is not a matter of sheer speculation.  Nineteen state already require background checks for ALL gun sales. In these states,  we are seeing up to a 40-50% lower incidence of gun deaths linked to domestic abuse, suicide and involving law enforcement officers.

These facts don’t call for banning guns. They don't call into question the practices of millions of responsible gun owners.  They don’t deny any reasonably interpreted right conferred by the Second Amendment.  They do call  for common-sense regulations of the kind we have applied to automobiles  and tobacco. Regulations that recognize that having a gun today is not only a private matter; it is a matter of public health.  Let’s act on what we know to be true.  Let’s demand that legislators, business leaders, everyone do the same.  Let’s start saving lives. We can do this.

*This an edited transcript of a talk I gave to a rally of "Moms Demand Action" in Cincinnati, Ohio on March 25  2018

"'Equity' Works as a Mandate to Discriminate"

 So reads the provocative and mistaken headline to an opinion piece posted in The Wall Street Journal on March 5, authored by Professor Emeritus Lipson of the University of Chicago.

 

He states the issue this way:  “There is a big difference between equal treatment and equal outcomes.  Equality means equal treatment, unbiased competition and impartially judged outcomes.  Equity means equal outcomes, achieved if necessary by unequal treatment, biased competition and preferential judging.”

 

Professor Lipson founds his opinion piece on a fundamental error.  “Equity” does not mean “equal outcomes” not, at least, for me.  What equity means and requires is equal opportunity.

 

And, yes, to test whether equal opportunities actually are being provided, we must measure how outcomes compare.

 

For example, if one finds, as we have, that African-Americans entering a corporation do so with every available test measure and interviews showing comparable likelihood to succeed, and if we find African-Americans are advancing at a significantly lower rate than their white peers, one has to ask, have they been provided equal opportunity?  Have they received the mentoring support, the advocacy, the placement in positions which offer the best opportunities to enhance growth and provide visibility of superior performance?

 

There is, to be sure, a challenging question as to what represents equal opportunity and how should it be applied.  There are tough choices here.  There is no dismissing that fact.

 

One emerges in college admissions.  On average, the SAT or ACT scores of African-Americans are lower than whites or Asian-Americans.  If admissions were based entirely or very heavily on SAT scores, the percentage of African-Americans being admitted to so-called premiere schools would be lower than they are today.  Does the assessment of what is “equal opportunity” allow for the admission of an African-American student qualified highly in every respect than perhaps his or her SAT score relative to a white or Asian-American applicant justify admitting the African-American?

 

My answer to this is yes.

 

Does my reaching this conclusion take into account the multitude of challenges faced by African-Americans over time which in fact amount to a lack of equal opportunity?

 

Again, yes.

 

To deny that this is a balancing act would be to deny reality.  But it is a balancing act we are called on to make in order to provide equal opportunity to the best of our ability.

 

 

The Criteria for Assessing the Rightness of An Organization Design

 Neil McElroy, a former CEO of P&G and who also served as Secretary of Defense for President Eisenhower, once  described the two basic tests of the rightness of any organization design this way:  to what extent does it 1) advance the growth of leadership brands and 2) provide an environment where women and men can grow in their abilities and satisfaction from the work they do. 

John Gardner in his magisterial book, "Self-Renewal" captures the timeless essence of the second test. 

"We shall discover that what counts is not the size of the organization but the patterns of organizations.  It is possible to continue achieving economies of scale and still give attention to human needs.  Too often in the past we have designed systems to meet all kinds of exacting requirements except the most important requirement of all—that they contribute to the fulfillment and growth of the participants.  We must discover how to design organizations and technological systems in such a way that individual talents are used to the maximum and human satisfaction and dignity are preserved.  We must learn to make technology serve man not only in the end product but in the doing".

 

Twenty Years Later—The Debate About "Political Correctness" Continues, As Well It Should

 If I needed any further evidence that few things are new, I gained it as I went through some of my wife, Francie’s old files.  One is on the subject of political correctness, with various clippings from 1991.  I could be reading them today.

 

The Wall Street Journal carries an editorial:  “Political Correct Newsrooms" which tells the story of how Juan Williams, a black journalist, still present today on Fox News, had “been taken hostage by the Washington Post”  because he was “saying nice things about Clarence Thomas” who, at the time, was being considered for the Supreme Court.  He was being accused of sexual harassment by Professor Anita Hill.

We see Thomas Gephardt, a conservative columnist on the Cincinnati Enquirer, lamenting “political correctness at UC.”  One professor at the university had recently written a guest column “about the effort of academic/afro-centrists to turn history upside-down to get across their point of view.”

 

Describing what is going on in university campuses, Gephardt wrote that, “taken together, they reflect a profound change in the tradition of free, open civil discourse.  How ironic that the once enslaved universities of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are rejoicing to see their intellectual shackles loosened.  Who would have imagined that new, politically correct shackles would one day be visited upon by their American counterparts?”

 

There was this poem entitled “The Politically Correct Christmas.” 

 

            No welcoming crash in the village squares; 

            It went the way of the school-day prayer.

            A multi-cultural spending spree

            Is what Christmas is turning out to be.

 

Followed by:

 

            Santa’s features are pictured in a bright rosy hue,

            But minorities require black or brown too.

            That stump of a pipe in his teeth has to go;

            It’s offensive to all non-smokers below.

 

Finally, here is the conservative national columnist, James J. Kilpatrick.

 

He writes, “There is something fundamentally ridiculous in the new orthodoxy of the politically correct.  In today’s academic world, words do summersaults.  ‘Diversity’ means ‘sameness.’  Free speech carries a heavy cost.

 

The general idea in these intellectual zoos is that all cultures are equal.  There is no longer such a value as ‘merit.’  The rule applies to language.  It also applies to music, with the result that Mozart is no better than rap.”

 

And still from Kilpatrick, "On many campuses, students risk suspension or expulsion if they are heard voicing any ‘discriminatory’ or ‘disparaging’ remarks about another student’s race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age. Maybe the process of corruption will soon run its course, but don’t bet on it.  Those who love our Western inheritanceness had better get off their rumps and fight.”

All of this twenty years ago. 

 

*****

 

So what, as we are hearing almost the same issues today, twenty years later, do I view as a correct position on this issue?

In a word, the issue is complex. 

White privilege is a reality. Racial bias, at least for the majority of us including me, is a reality. And as we have seen more clearly than ever during the past year, racial injustice is a reality.  

Yet, we are making a major error—moral and intellectual—if we allow these realities to justify allowing an unexamined assertion by a minority that he or she has been the victim of racial bias to lead to conclusions and actions which impugn and deny the value and rights of another person, including the right to free speech. 

We have seen that recently at Smith College where an unfounded and on examination false accusation that a couple of people were racist has resulted in harm to them in their employability and state of mind. As has been true on many other campuses, discussion on the merits of the case is being inhibited by an inappropriately morally tinged sense of "political correctness" which is impeding getting at the truth. As a Smith Professor said (as reported by the "New York Times"-2/25/2021), "My impression is that if you're on the wrong side of issues of identity politics, you're not just mistaken, you're evil". 

I fear "political correctness" is running off the rails. We hear discussion of whether statues memorializing Thomas Jefferson should be taken down because he owned slaves. Reading Shakespeare is questioned just a reading Huckleberry Finn was generations ago. Consciousness extends to the laughable as we read that Hasbro toys will be rebranding Mr. Potato Head as a "gender-neutral" head. What comes next? Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse being conflated to a gender-neutral mouse? 

There is great danger in all this. It can leave us feeling that we are doing something substantive to address genuine racial and gender inequities when we are in fact dealing with superficial tokens of progress. 

Even worse, it delegitimizes the existence of  the very real, genuine racial and gender biases and thus inhibits broad and sustained action to confront them. 

*******************************************

 

I want to turn back briefly to an issue raised by James Kilpatrick in his previously cited column and the related issue being debated today on the importance of highlighting awareness of  the contribution of African-Americans  to our Nations history and culture. 

I deeply believe we have to be very intent in gaining a deep understanding of the history and the cultures of other people, importantly African-Americans whose history we have so long ignored.  Knowing this   history is vital if we are to understand what brought us to where we are today. Above all in recognizing the vestiges of slavery.  But there is more than that. Years ago, we didn’t recognize the role of music originating in Africa to current-day music. We did not recognize the role of the spirituals which lifted enslaved men and women.  We didn’t know of, let alone appreciate, the insights and inspiration to be gained from far too-long uncelebrated and unrecognized Black writers and novelists.

 

I say all of that,  believing there is such a thing as “merit.”  Some writing is richer and more meaningful than others. However, this quality of "merit" is not inexorably differentiated by race or nationality.  Some writing is better than other writing in describing human nature and the challenge and rewards of life.  One thing we have discovered over the past 20 years is that “merit” has many origins and smany sources and it carries greater or lesser meaning for different audiences. 

 

To conclude, I am increasing concerned that our urgently needed and deeper appreciation of the reality of racial and social inequities is too often leading to a premature, unexamined, and morally self-satisfying responses to  alleged incidents of  racial bias.  We must remain open to other points of view as we search for "truth" in how to confront the existential issues of racial and social justice. 

 

At the same time, we should never allow the pejorative labeling of exposing the reality of "white privilege"by some as "political correctness" to dissuade us from revealing the "truth”of this reality.

 

How History Will Look Back—The Senate Impeachment Trial

 The trial ended about as one would have anticipated in that there was less than a two-thirds majority of the Senators who voted to convict.  The vote was 57-43 in favor of conviction, with seven brave Republicans crossing the line to join all of the Democrats.  A few reflections:

 

1. The Senate—more precisely 43 Senate Republicans—abandoned their responsibility to play the role that only the Senate could, in upholding the Constitution of the United States and making it clear that no one, not even a President, could violate his Oath of Office by seeking to overthrow the established principles of our Constitutional government, in this case, honoring elections and securing a peaceful transition of power.

 

Yes, the Republican leader, Sen. McConnell, explicitly underscored the availability of criminal procedures against President Trump as a private citizen, but no criminal or civil action can, even if successful, take the place of what only the conviction of impeachment would have, in explicitly upholding the Constitution of the United States.  That is what was at stake here.  

 

2.     The fact that this was the strongest bipartisan support of impeachment of any president in the nation’s history stands as a stark fact that will not be forgotten.

 

The names of the seven Republicans who stood up will be forever recognized and I believe celebrated by almost all.

 

3.     The incontrovertible evidence that Trump was singularly responsible for spreading the lies, the mythical conspiracy theories, and the vitriolic rhetoric without which this crowd would not have attacked the Capitol, was denied by almost none.  The linkage of this to the deaths of five people and the injury of over 100 people, many seriously, will not be forgotten.  The conclusion of the final commentary by Republican leader Mitch McConnell, even if it followed his “not guilty” verdict, based on a controversial and flawed view of the Constitutional right of the Senate to convict Trump now that he is out of office, will serve as a ringing affirmation of the case which the House prosecutors so ably presented.

 

The defense which Trump’s legal team tried to mount was feeble and not taken seriously by just about anyone, Republicans included.

 

4.     Grassroots support for Trump will not go away.  Nor will he.  He will continue to fan his base with his victim mentality, both for him and for them.  It is hard to say how many of the 74 million people who voted for him in 2020 would do so again.  We will get polls on this.  My guess is the number might drop by up to 20-25% in the intermediate future as the criminal and civil charges against him play out. 

 

The Republican Party faces a huge challenge, with no clear outcome in sight.  What will the Republican Party stand for?  It can’t be for what Trump stands for.  In fact, he doesn’t really stand for anything outside of himself and his spread of victim mentality and his appeal to the baser instincts of division and hate.  Pursuing that as a party would in the end be a fool’s errand, not only bad for the party, but for the country--for the country really does need a viable two-party system.

 

There are leaders whose character, instinct and temperament could play a leadership role.  Who will emerge is anybody’s guess at this point.  Romney will certainly be a senior statesman of the best sort.  Whether he has the will or the means to rally the party around him is very much in doubt.  Many if not most will see him as too liberal.

 

On one thing I do feel sure now.  History will look back on the Trump presidency as a dangerous aberration that carried with it great risk for the country.

 

While having carried far more danger because he occupied the presidency and because of his broad appeal, I believe he will fit into the same type of bucket as Joe McCarthy, Fr. Coughlin and Huey Long.

 

How he is viewed, however, will depend in no small measure on how the Republican Party evolves from here; whether it can find a new purpose and set of principles which continue to rally many of the people who support President Trump, but brings together others who in the past would have been part of the Republican Party.  Who will lead this? I believe someone who is probably still relatively young who will come to see this as their mission in life.  Let's  hope this happens sooner rather than later.

 

 

Maintain Focus—Keep the Faith—Act

The last few days have dashed any hope I had that having seen what Trump incited on January 6—on top of all of the other insults to character and civility he has exhibited over the past four years—that this would persuade large segments of the Republican Party to finally abandon what he stands for. 

 

Only six Senate Republicans joined the Democrats in indicating that an impeachment trial was justified.  The final vote won’t be much different from that.  

 

It is disheartening to see this, to put it mildly.  But it should not stop us from focusing on what has been clear from the beginning as the only path forward to gain a semblance of unity in the country.  

 

We have taken the first step in electing Joe Biden.  His tone from the start has been the best one possible to lay the foundation for beginning to unify the country.  However, it is clear that tone alone won’t do it, especially because he is and should be taking actions that will be quickly labeled by the Republicans as partisan.  I refer to the number of Executive Orders he has issued, most of them turning back Orders which Trump had taken to turn back what President Obama had done.   

 

What will be needed now beyond tone are actions.  Actions that are seen by the great majority of the country as being right for them.  Actions that will get COVID-19 under control.  Actions that will bring the economy back.  Actions which will create jobs, hopefully through an infrastructure bill that can be passed soon.

 

It will only be actions seen to benefit the majority of the country, including millions who voted for Trump, including in rural areas and small towns where special help is needed.  Only actions like this will change the tide.  This is what had to happen after the Great Depression.  Large segments of the population hated (and that is the only word that applies) President Roosevelt’s plan.  But the tide was turned as the majority of Americans saw a decisive and capable president and an administration that was attacking the problems at hand and making life somewhat better for them.

 

That is what we need to focus on now.  Passing legislation that does those things. And insofar as possible, make it bi-partisan. 

 

Let’s stop the gnashing of teeth about how the Republican Party hasn’t reformed itself, as disappointing as that is.  Let’s dial down the rhetoric.  Let’s stay focused on what needs to happen for the improvement of people’s lives.