E Pluribus Unum

Today it appears that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been elected as President and Vice President of the United States. They will have a difficult time governing in a country which has expressed such hostility towards inclusive government. In the long term, however, Biden and Harris need to govern for the future: an America which is plural in all ways, with no majority–white or otherwise. This is the future which America declared as a promise: a union whose strength is its plurality.

California has not had any demographic majority since the beginning of the century. Since 2014, the largest single group has been Latinx (now 39.4%), so the Census classifies California as an “Hispanic plurality state,” based on the largest group in the state. White non-Latinx constitute 36.3%, and are an aging population with a lower birth rate. Anglos continue to hold a preponderance of political and economic power in the state, as a legacy of greater opportunities than other groups. The moral and political hazard which California faces is that it might become a “White-minority government,” which is a term we used to use for Rhodeisa and Apartheid-era South Africa. Such a fate would be disastrous and permanently destructive.

Political logic immediately changes in a plural society. First: there is no majority. So the concerns about majoritarian/minoritarian democratic conflicts are replaced with concerns about representation of multiple interests. Second: none of these demographic distinctions align consistently with political interests. Latinx are not a unitary bloc in any way: not racially, not culturally, not politically. This is also true of the 14.8% of Californians who are Asian-Americans: large proportions are of Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, and Pacific Islander ancestry. Even the Anglos are not unitary: San Franciscans and the “Hollywood Left” contrast sharply with rural and suburban Whites, and we include Italian-Americans (like me), Armenian-Americans like George Deukmejian, and Austrian-Americans like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

What sets us apart as a country is especially apparent in California: we are not a nation insofar as “nation” means a country associated with one race, one culture, one religion, one history. Most countries are nation-states, but we are not. We are held together only by the political agreement on the Constitution and its promises: equal treatment under the law, tolerance of disagreement and real difference, no inherited elite class. How does such a society function together? We do not have a lot of comparative lessons to learn from, not in the past nor even today: Cyrus’ religious tolerance, the late Roman Republic, the Inka Empire, the Ottomans, and Hindustan under Mughal Emperor Akbar. In most of these cases, plurality was possible because government was extremely autocratic. In recent decades South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have made major strides, some of which Americans can really learn from. So we are not completely unique, but we are part of a very rare fellowship of countries committed to strength through plurality.

True plurality means Whites need to find our place again as members of a society in which we do not dominate. Joe Biden understands this: he explicitly credited Black Americans in South Carolina with propelling him towards candidacy in 2020, and it appears that non-Whites made the difference in getting him elected. So the fact that he is White does matter, but at least as important is the fact that his political success is based on a very new, truly plural political logic.

Time to rename my birthplace

How the political tide shifts in a week! On June 6, I reflected on what it means to be Southern-born and to reject the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy. That seemed to match the general zeitgeist: only a few days later, Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed changing the names of U.S. military bases named after C.S.A. commanders. The resolution was passed in the Senate Armed Services Committee, and was backed by Senator (and decorated veteran) Tammy Duckworth. Secretary of Defense Mike Esper has voiced support for this change as well.

My birthplace, Fort Bragg, was named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg. I understand the conciliatory attitude of the Union when they allowed state governments to choose the names of new military bases within their respective jurisdictions. Unfortunately, some indignant white supremacists chose to name this vast base after a commander who was not only a Confederate, but also incompetent.

There are many American soldiers who trained and served at the base, and fought bravely for the United States. There are many Medal of Honor recipients associated with the base, who better deserve to be memorialized by our military, such as Army Sergeant First Class Bennie Gene Adkins. However, I agree with War on the Rocks commentators Quinn and Fritz that probably the most appropriate choice would be to rename the base for General Roscoe Robinson Jr. In addition to his great service record, he served at the base itself as commander the 82nd Airborne Division. My dad was serving in the 82nd when I was born on the base, so I have a special affinity for the 82nd.

I would be honored to re-state that I was born at Camp Robinson.

Which lives matter?

Some well-intentioned Americans are still wondering why the term “All Lives Matter” is being criticized at this moment.

It might seem that the expression “Black Lives Matter” is an argument for special treatment of African-Americans. Out-of-context, this call for the recognition of the worth of only one group’s lives might seem like a rejection of the American ideal of equal treatment under the law. Context, in this case, matters very much.

Since I teach students from a wide variety of backgrounds, for years I had to explain the United States as a split-screen experience. For many Americans, police are the public servants who keep the peace and enforce the rule of law. For many other Americans, police are instigators of violence. That seems like a contradiction, but both perceptions are true and accurate. The fact that some people were surprised at the “Police-as-threat” perception is a really clear indicator of how segregated our society has become.

Segregated? Didn’t we ban segregation with the Shelley v. Kramer (1948) and Brown v. Board (1954) Supreme Court decisions? Didn’t we reinforce de-segregation with the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977? Unfortunately, no. Massey & Denton (1993) used U.S. Census data beginning in 1900 to show that residential racial segregation steadily increased over the 20th century. In the 27 years since they published, scholars have found that the trend of increasing segregation continues. So if you are not black, the chances that you have a black neighbor are lower today than ever before. The chance that you will hear an African-American viewpoint from someone whom you personally know are consequentially extremely low.

The rise of the internet does not compensate for direct interpersonal circles of trust. The current structure of internet-based social media tends to amplify extreme points of view. We find the answers we want to find and reinforce the narratives that we want to hear, rather than expand our understanding of the world from sources that we do not personally trust. The information may be out there, but there is no automatic mechanism to translate information into understanding, much less compassion. There is, however, a natural human preference to reinforce the narratives we know, in order to make sense of the world. That preference is recognized by for-profit media who sell us the stories we want to hear.

Improvements to the internet have not helped. Smartphones are the newest technology to transform cyberspace. In 1991, the video-capture of LAPD’s beating of Rodney King was fortuitous–not because beatings were rare, but because video-capture devices were rare. What smartphone video-capture reveals is actual events that might defy the story we tell ourselves about the character of our society. Unfortunately raw footage is not sufficient to overcome the mistrust of unfamiliar “others” in a highly-segregated society, as we see in non-prosecutions and acquittals in cases from Rodney King to Eric Garner.

It might seem that the people you disagree with “should know better.” But in practice, residential segregation has reinforced a segregation of communities into increasingly disconnected conversations–a process I call discursive segmentation. Understanding does not cross these barriers very easily. A video of an unarmed, cooperative black ban being murdered by a police officer with other officers complicitly standing by might be a shocking surprise, if you live in a community where you don’t spend social time with African-Americans. It might still seem implausible that police-murders are so frequent that they can only be described as a systemic pattern of behavior. Long lists of names of African-Americans murdered by police may seem abstract, if this has not happened to anyone you personally know. At a distance, it might feel like the appropriate response is to invoke the American ideal of equal treatment under the law. Yes, all lives should matter equally under American law. “Should” is the important verb-tense here, because the gap between an ideal-condition expressed by “should” and the practices that “are” is too large to be considered legitimate by an increasing number of Americans.

During the 1990s the Italian scholar Giorgio Agamben studied the modern political logic of genocide. He exhumed an ancient Roman concept which helped explain the process: the concept of Homo sacer. In Roman law, a person could be condemned to an exceptional (“sacred”, or set-apart) category. Such a de-personalized person could be killed, with no consequences to the killer: no prosecution, not even social disapproval. In law and in practice, the life of a person designated Homo sacer did not matter. Agamben found a parallel in the way that the Third Reich dehumanized Jews, homosexuals, Roma, and disabled people. These exceptional groups were set apart in order to reinforce political and identity-solidarity among Germans. It was the promotion of violent partisanship as a core process of modern democratic politics.

Americans tend to portray “the Nazis” in almost cartoonish fashion, such as in Hogan’s Heroes (1965-1971) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981). Italian scholars like Agamben have a more sober view. Not only did Italians embrace facismo nazionalismo before Germans, but Benito Mussolini’s granddaughter Alessandra entered Italian politics, and the Lega party is an openly nationalist political party. The American caricature of Nazis as a monstrous group of foreign villains does not hold up for Italians, who see the Third Reich as very close to home. Agamben argues that the concept of Homo sacer helps explain modern politics more generally: it is a cautionary tale for all of us.

In practice, American police officers frequently murder unarmed African-Americans with (1) no legal consequences (2) no harm to their career and (3) no social condemnation. In actual practice, this pattern sends the signal that black lives do not matter. Therefore, declaring that black lives do matter is an argument that African-Americans should be treated the same way under U.S. law as any other Americans. It is also an argument that, at the moment, the lives of African-Americans are not treated equally. Likewise, the use of “All Lives Matter” as a counter-argument sounds like a defense of the status-quo. In this status-quo, equal-protection remains an un-realized ideal, and police murders persist with impunity.

Beyond a grudging acceptance of Black Lives Matter

Police officers are quick to use deadly force in the United States because many police officers have been killed by citizens in our heavily-armed society. In California, the Highway Patrol asked for military-grade weapons because they encountered military-grade weapons among drug smugglers. These may have been the white cannabis-growers in rural northern California, but through the American lens the image of “drug dealer” has a specific skin color. If that seems unfair, consider how the people you know would interpret these two headlines:

Armed protesters disrupt the Wisconsin legislature
Armed black protesters disrupt the Wisconsin legislature

One of these statements is true, but the fictional statement is far more feared. That fear, the depth of that phobos, is the depth to which racism is embedded in us.

Yet even as we expose deep-seated racism in the U.S., it is also true that we should ensure the safety of police officers, since we expect police to operate under very dangerous conditions. How to improve their safety and well-being? (1) Serious gun-law reform, (2) expansion of public social services including mental healthcare, and (3) psychological support and deeper training for the officers themselves. Unfortunately, the same conservatives who argue that “Blue lives matter” also oppose precisely these three reforms. Police officers, therefore, are left feeling paranoid about enforcing law in a heavily-armed, de-regulated society with pitifully poor emotional support. The stressful conditions of policing cause many police officers to become exceptionally unsuitable to perform the jobs they are required to do.

Which brings me to a concluding point. Since I returned from Afghanistan to teach in American universities in 2018, I have been getting an increasing sense among students from all backgrounds: that all the significant events which shape America today are crimes. No student has actually said this to me, perhaps because I am seen as part of an older, 20th-century Generation-X. But if the acquisition of all territory in the U.S. was criminal, if the origins of police as slave-patrols were criminal, if the status quo of any year from 1789 to 2020 is criminal, then it seems that my students regard the American ideals of equality and justice not just as infeasible, not just as unfulfilled, but rather as a distraction that justifies a criminal enterprise only addressed to the people who benefit from it. And the fraction of the American population that actually benefits from living in the United States is shrinking. This may not be immediately apparent to the beneficiaries, who live in social and spatial segregation from the rest of the country. Can this status-quo be maintained? Should it be maintained? What will be the cost?

Leaving the Confederacy behind

I was born on Fort Bragg, adjacent to Fayetteville, North Carolina. My brother, who was born in New York City, would taunt me that his side won the Civil War, and my side lost. So I had a early resentment to a Unionist viewpoint. Then we moved to Connecticut, where my 5th-grade Social Studies teacher made clear that the Union did not engage in warfare with the Confederacy in order to free the slaves; but rather to maintain a strategic advantage in a global competition with the British Empire–which sided with the C.S.A. despite the ostensible abolitionist position of the Brits advocated by Prince Albert. I know that is a lot of obscure history, but now we have the internet so I feel more at liberty to cite some less-known linkages. Perhaps if Albert had not died in 1861, British frigates would not have tried to run the Union blockades to access slave-picked cotton.

But back to the first-person direct experience: I was appalled to hear from Yankees themselves that the Union did not enter the war to free the slaves, which is the shaming-narrative used as a weapon against Southerners. I think that since it was a suburban Connecticut classroom, the teacher assumed this critique was being shared among Northerners who would not question the rightness of the Civil War due to a ret-conned perspective that it was justified, post-facto, because it did end (official) slavery. Meanwhile it left me with the sense that the state I was born in was blasted flat by the Union and forcibly annexed (back?) into the United States. Kind of a double-standard since Vermont had been allowed to secede from both New York and the Continental Confederacy in 1777 (Yeah, more obscure references; but easily verifiable online). The whole ‘but…we ended slavery!’ might hold up as a post-facto justification for this double-standard, but that end-justifies-any-means is a poor way to interpret history.

I did not examine this history closely, partly because so many of the texts on it are toxic. The resentment of the pro-Confederacy “Lost Cause” side, the fascination with minutiae of warfare historians, and the grim triumphalism of the Union perspective are all off-putting. But then Katy Perry came out with a song (California Gurls, 2010) in which she referred to “Daisy Dukes.” These are denim short-shorts worn by the character Daisy Duke in the 1970s-1980s television show that Perry was referencing: the Dukes of Hazzard. I enjoyed the show as a child, but I thought it had been lost to cultural history. Perhaps it would have been, if Perry had not referenced it. In the show, Southern affinity with the C.S.A. and the “Lost Cause” was treated as camp: the frequently-airborne car was the General [Robert E.] Lee, and the corrupt plutocrat of Hazzard County was Jefferson Davis “Boss” Hogg.

Before criticizing the role of the show in 21st-century politics, one thing to consider: yes, The Dukes of Hazzard did not address problems of racism in the South. But when you try to portray a South without African-Americans, what you get is a portrayal of the extreme class-inequality. The erasure of blacks from the whole setting is a form of media violence, yes. But at the end of the 1970s there was also an uncomfortable awareness of widespread violence against black in Northern and Western cities as well. But in the South, racism had been developed and promoted strategically by white elites to justify their property-claims over humans, and to defuse insurrection by poor whites against the elite planter class. Take away the race issues, and the extreme inequality of the planters against poor whites becomes quickly apparent. As Eric Williams pointed out in 1944, the specific form of chattel slavery developed in the Americas after 1600 was shaped by–and gave shape to–capitalism as we know it. It might have started as an acute labor shortage, but coerced labor made cotton and tobacco crops especially at the expense of whites, who might have demanded humane pay and labor conditions. Ensuring that poor whites despised even-poorer blacks was a divide-and-conquer strategy ensured stable profits. If there had been no African slave trade, perhaps the extreme inequalities among whites themselves would have been more apparent and a place like Hazzard County, Georgia is a reasonable piece of speculative fiction.

However in the 21st century, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy has been revived to justify very contemporary racist violence. In this century, Warner Brothers’ campy portrayal of Hazzard County no longer appears corny. It looks like an apologia for a Southern way of life that dodges the most important issue of race. At exactly that moment (1979-1985), Ronald Reagan and his supporters insisted “let’s not talk about race” as if making racism a taboo topic would somehow solve the issue.

And in this 21st century, Adam Serwer of The Atlantic finally clarified an issue where I had been misdirected decades ago. In his dismantling of the myth that Robert E. Lee was a “kindly gentleman,” Serwer points out that all of the Confederate states mentioned the continuation of slavery, at least indirectly, as a justification for leaving the Union. Serwer also points out that the Union did not initially decide to wage war against the C.S.A. to abolish slavery. So both are true. The fact that the C.S.A. was formed to perpetuate slavery did not mean that the U.S.A. invaded and conquered it in order to abolish slavery.  Only about 5% of Northerners truly believed in abolition; but it made great propaganda after Gettysburg.

Unfortunately the ‘conquering liberators’ rhetoric also contributed to a global conversation about justified Liberal wars of conquest. King Leopold of Belgium used the protection-of-Africans-from-enslavement as a justification for colonizing the central plateau of Africa. In a propaganda-move comparable with Leif Erikson’s naming of “Greenland,” Leopold named his new personal royal colony “Congo Free State.” Adam Hochschild estimates that about 10 million Congolese died in the efforts of Leopold to enrich himself by extracting ivory and rubber from his colony. The same rhetoric emerged in the justification for invading Iraq in 2003; Americans would ‘spread democracy’ by knocking out a tyrant and hastily setting up a winner-takes-all style of democracy in a country that was 60% Shi’ite and otherwise divided among Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, Turkmen, Chaldean Christians, and Yazidis (yes, more obscure references; but they are not hidden and not secret. A few keystrokes and you can verify).

Going Forward

I have a few specific points I want to draw from this global perambulation through modern history:

  • Don’t shame a people you have conquered and annexed into your country as a way to justify warfare. For 150 years, Southerners have weaponized that resentment and now non-Southern white supremacists are embracing the Stars and Bars as a way to threaten African-Americans. 
  • Don’t walk away with a “Job Well Done!” attitude, leaving African-Americans vulnerable to predation from 1865 onward, and Iraqis subject to extremists from the moment L.Paul Bremer left his role as Viceroy of Iraq. Rumsfeld called the spread of democracy “messy.” I would like him to look a Yazidi in the eye and say that.
  • Don’t assume that slavery was actually abolished. The 13th Amendment has a “weasel clause” in it that has never been addressed: convicts can be treated as slaves. This weasel clause is widely abused here in California, where we need to do massive prison reform. In addition, the anti-immigration movement effectively enables widespread human trafficking. So if you actually believe in abolition, we have a lot of work to do, planet-wide, in this 21st century.
  • Track and challenge the way your rhetoric might be reinterpreted through time and across the world. ‘Wars of liberation’ have used the Unionist position to justify all sorts of invasions, occupations, and colonizations.
  • Keep back-checking history to clarify efforts at actual liberation. I often paraphrase Yoda’s epimethean brother, Da-yo, who says: “always in motion the past is.” Though it is not just passive motion, but rather the active cultural warfare over how to understand our past in order to forge a better future.

Beautiful Civics Lessons

Today is June 4, the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which an authoritarian regime violently cracked down on peaceful (if boisterous) protesters calling for democracy. One of the protesters at today’s march in Oakland reminded me with his sign, and emphasized how important it is to remember the struggles for democracy, rule of law, and justice at this moment. Rights-struggles have a global context we must remember.

On Tuesday, June 2, I blacked out my Facebook photo to honor Blackout Tuesday. This precipitated a quick lesson in globalization: one of my Afghan friends called me from Los Angeles, and two called from Afghanistan to ask whether we had experienced a family tragedy. I explained that we were honoring George Floyd (and Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery). They understood, but were wondering because a terrorist attack had just killed one of the most respected religious leaders in Kabul: Mullah Mohammed Ayaz Niazi. Again, this is a reminder that many peoples around the world are struggling and suffering. They respect why we are protesting, and they watch our successes and failures very closely because it can impact them directly. Authoritarian leaders across the world are greatly emboldened by our current president’s tone and behavior. Conversely, they may feel worry at the civil pushback against him.

Firsthand experience

This afternoon, I participated in a protest honoring George Floyd. Our family discussed the risks of COVID-19 infection beforehand. This is not a new discussion for us. When I returned from Kabul in 2006 and promptly broke into a very high fever, I was appalled to think that I might have contracted multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis (which had been spreading from Russian prisons). Turns out it was only pneumonia from when I was caught outside in a dust storm in Kabul without a mask, so intravenous antibiotics knocked that out. But it put us on notice in a way that persists to this day.

Some of the only people my age in Frank Ogawa Plaza, Oakland.

 

 

At the plaza

The protest, however, was beautiful. At one point, the folks at the podium led a centering-calm chant:

I’m sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you. I love you.

Almost everyone was wearing masks and maintaining social distance. Medical students from the Berkeley/UCSF program showed up in greens with white jackets. As we headed out of the plaza to march around the downtown, someone parked, opened their hatchback, and handed out scores of lightweight plastic face shields.

“White Coats for Black Lives” med school students.

We then marched through streets with verry little traffic. However, many people leaning out of windows, cheering us on. And then under the freeway and past the huge tent-settlement of unhoused people. Four disasters represented in one location: auto-dependency causing climate change; failed housing policies; a global pandemic; and a failed response to systemic racist violence.

The only awkward moment was when we were heading back towards Frank Ogawa Plaza. We had to cross over Interstate 980, and apparently the California Highway Patrol have jurisdiction on the city street that passes over the highway. They showed up in riot gear. One had a shotgun, perhaps with rubber bullets? Another had an M16. Might have been an AR-15 (I cannot tell them apart), but given the high per-capita rate of police killings in California, I think it was the former.

CHP in riot gear choosing to block a city street.

Not only is this CHP officer sporting a military assault rifle, he is also not wearing a mask. And he is blocking the bicycle lane that we planners have been advocating! Contrast with OPD officer at upper left.

Oakland police also showed up, not in riot gear, and talked with the protesters.

OPD behaving in a reasonable manner, unlike CHP.

Within a minute of arriving at this blockade, most of us knelt.

Kneeling in standoff with CHP

After about 15 minutes, the CHP backed off and we proceeded cheerfully back to Oakland City Hall.

Giving peace sign to the police as we crossed 14th Street Bridge.

Once we gathered back at Frank Ogawa Plaza, one of the speakers reflected on the promises enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We need to think very hard about who is most likely to argue for American ideals. In this case, a young Asian-American man. Consistent with their policy of allowing many voices, he handed the bullhorn to an older African-American man who stepped forward from the crowd and asked us all to support veterans. He described his three tours in Iraq, and said ‘We did what we were asked to do. We served our country.’ The crowd gave him a standing ovation.

Some civics lessons

Who faces danger on a daily basis, in a living struggle to get the United States to fulfill its promises?
Who is best suited to teach us civics? Those who have experienced official violation of civil behavior, and yet still argue that we must embrace civility and confer citizenship on those committed to the ideals enshrined in the American Declaration and Constitution.
We glimpse the promise of our future below:

Life and dignity are more important than property damage right now.

Our Lady of Ferguson by Mark Dukes (2015).

On Sunday night, rioters set fire to part of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. Those rioters are working to undermine the message of the protesters. The protesters grieve at the murder of George Floyd and all other people of color who have been harassed, intimidated, beaten, humiliated, tortured, and murdered by police and white mobs. We call for justice; for equal treatment and protection under the law; for treating humans with decency. We actually call for the United States to at least try to fulfill the principles that are the basis for governing legitimacy.

It does not matter whether the rioters are extreme-left or ‘false flag’ extreme-right agitators. Either way, they are seeking to undermine legitimate public grief at illegitimate police behavior. What does matter is that any citizen or public official who tries to conflate rioters with protesters is using that violence as an excuse to reinforce white privilege, institutional racism, and a grotesquely unjust government. By only acknowledging the rioters, those officials are adopting the same belief in terrorist violence as the rioters, rather than engage in the hard work of implementing justice and public accountability.

Community support for justice. Flower shop in our neighborhood.

I teach planning and public policy and San Francisco State University. My students represent the diversity which is increasingly the United States as a whole: Latinx, Anglo, Asian, African-American, Native American. Furthermore, as a state university, we serve many veterans and I have had at least one veteran or active-duty serviceperson in all of my classes. Like many of my students, I am a public servant: as a teacher, as an employee of the State of California, and as an advocate of the planning profession.

Planners serve whole cities: not just the people we like, nor just the people we agree with. Like park rangers, astronauts, soldiers, pandemic researchers, and police officers, we are part of the ‘deep state’—which is another way of saying that we are public servants.

A central principle of our profession is E Pluribus Unum. Unity, in this public sense, cannot be coerced. It can only be earned through recognizing and respecting the pluribus—the plurality of our people in all aspects of race, class, gender, and gender preference. This is the practice of soft power that enables urban policies to be implemented effectively.

I grieve for the people who have been harmed by abusive police violence, especially when that harm has been made permanent by officials and agencies who do not acknowledge that violence, and who do not hold themselves answerable for abuses. Truly, I cannot image what it is like to live with daily reminders of that poisonous official contempt of you as a human being. What I can understand is the shared threat we all face when public officials act with arrogant impunity. An unjust government lacks credibility, and therefore loses the broad-based support of a society which might otherwise help enforce laws and policies.

Several of my colleagues teach in the Criminal Justice program at SF State. Their students often pursue careers as police officers, and the faculty often work with police. They point out that in communities with a bad history of suffering abusive police behavior, officers cannot get witnesses to give evidence and testimony to prosecute violent crimes. This is toxic on both sides: honest officers cannot actually enforce the law, because prior abusive officers have undermined community trust. For residents of these cities, they have no one to call during emergencies, because the police historically have been the instigators of harm and violence, not the protectors from it. What this also means is that abusive behavior breeds long-term resentment towards police, and therefore endangers future police officers. Abusive police behavior is a uniquely heinous crime: it is a betrayal of the public trust, and a betrayal of your fellow officers in the most profound way.

Public officials who excuse abusive behavior are direct accomplices to this heinous public crime. Even worse, elected officials claim to speak for the whole society; so when they remain silent about abuse, and only condemn protesters, they essentially argue that ‘white people only object if there is threatening social unrest’, but not when a human being is murdered by abusive police officers. This is grossly malicious towards all Americans—the many who are directly harmed, and the whites who DO NOT accept this contemptuous impunity.

Which brings me back to St John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. A Fox News report portrayed the church and its community as crime victims. Fox did not differentiate rioters from protesters. At the end of the interview, Rob Fisher, the rector of St. John’s, said that this unrest will persist until racism in America is addressed. The Fox News correspondent did not even acknowledge his comment, because it does not fit the conservative narrative. Conservatives would like to presume that all Christians are white-supremacist Evangelical Fundamentalists. In fact, the dominant Christian view is that racism is sinful, and police violence is unjustified both as a provocation and as revenge. Mariann Budde, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, was appalled that Trump presumed to visit St. John’s church in a violent way:

I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call that they would be clearing with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop, holding a Bible, one that declares that God is love and when everything he has said and done is to enflame violence.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/500590-bishop-says-she-found-out-trump-visited-historic-dc-church-by

It is difficult to evaluate this president in terms other than the malice and hatred that he espouses and promotes. A compassionate response seems like it will only invite sneering derision from both Trump and his supporters. However, this raises some important questions. For those who support sneering contempt and disparagement of anyone who disagrees with Trumpism, do you feel that you support a unified republic? The Constitution was intended “to form a more perfect union.” Do you oppose the Constitution and the principles within it? Anyone arguing for justice and rights-recognition at this moment is arguing in favor of the principles and promise of the Constitution. If you oppose calls for justice, what are you advocating?

The Floyd family asks us to grieve, to protest, to call for justice. They oppose the violence of extremists, and I agree: including extremists who command troops and helicopters.

We need to implement public healthcare right now.

One hundred years ago we implemented universal, mandatory primary and secondary education. In many ways, that is the model we need to use to build public healthcare.

For decades, Americans have been debating healthcare at the national level. Our current partisan stalemate means we still have no public healthcare. However we do not need to accept this partisan stalemate as defeat. The national debate rests on the assumption that public healthcare must be enacted at the national level, as one policy. That is not how universal public education was implemented. Public schools started at the local and state level, and only became universal because of a sustained popular movement.

Healthcare systems are also run, largely, at the local level. Reaction to the coronavirus outbreak shows a great example of how this can work. The Bay Area is a Pacific Rim metropolis, so we were worried about the coronavirus a little earlier than other parts of the country. The first large-area lockdown was requested by the health-department directors of the Bay Area counties on March 16, 2020. Then the state of California followed suit. We did not need to wait for direction from the federal government. In practice, we implemented health policy first at the metropolitan level. As of March 26, the federal government is still sending conflicting messages, including a suggestion that we get back to work after only a two-week self-quarantine.

This outbreak also shows why we need a public healthcare system. We should not be trying to figure out the medical-insurance status of someone who needs to be put on a ventilator, let alone their citizenship status. A person with severe COVID-19 symptoms is in imminent danger of death, and is also a serious contagion threat. For both reasons they need immediate care and isolation from the population. Once under care, there is time for questions; but questions they need to be about contact history, travel history, and prior medical conditions of the patient, not about which insurance policy covers them or what deductible they have.

As for bureaucracy? Somehow we keep missing the elephant in the room: insurance companies are private, and yet they generate reams of paperwork. The thick “health care benefits” packets we get from insurers include a lot of fine print about what they do not cover. Their bureaucratic, excessive-busywork practices are part of their profit model. If bureaucracy is profitable, then private-sector bureaucracy can and does greatly exceed public bureaucracy. Use your own evidence: recall the paperwork-hassles you have had with a private medical insurer, compared to the paperwork-hassles you have had getting your child into a public school. Public school operations and regulations are actually extremely complex, but for the vast majority of parents and their children the process of enrollment is incredibly easy.

We now assume that free, public education from K through 12 is both a right and an obligation. But that did not exist 120 years ago. No one is alive to remember that fundamental shift in public expectations and policy change. Nor is there any Constitutional Amendment declaring universal national K-12 public education. It built up locally, by popular demand.

Public education does provide one cautionary tale: unequal implementation. Because it grew from local roots (and pre-dated income tax), education was funded locally. Unfortunately that means per-student school funding corresponds to the relative wealth or poverty of each jurisdiction. As we build our public healthcare system, we need to maintain equitable funding at every step of the way. That means adjusting the sources of taxation in order to maintain equitable funding, if necessary. One under-funded healthcare district can be a source of accelerated contagion for us all. We literally cannot afford that risk.

Funding public healthcare will require policy changes, yes. But clearly, we need a more robust emergency-response infrastructure as a standing asset. We also need more continuous health-maintenance, and we have plenty of data to show the robust economic payback for maintaining a healthier working population. This parallels public education: a massive, tax-funded, labor-intensive process of teaching literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking to the entire American public since 1910. The result? Unparalleled economic growth, innovation, and improvement of everyday life. There is no question that public education is a huge expense, and there is no question that it has been very worthwhile.

This crisis is a decision-point where we can choose to go in very different future directions. It is not just an economic downturn; it is a shock that will permanently alter our political economy. We should not wait for national leadership to respond to this. We do not need to wait for top-down policies to start this shift. It began with county health-directors in the San Francisco Bay Area. We can begin to make a public healthcare system at the county and regional level. Successful practices will not only shift expectations and demands on governors, but also provide models for how to actually do it.

Call your local representatives now. Public healthcare is a right, and we need it now.

The president committed attempted extortion

November 14, 2019

It appears that the president of the United States committed the crime of attempted extortion on July 25, 2019, during his call to Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelensky.

During public testimony in the House of Representatives yesterday, Congressman Joaquin Castro asked Ambassador Taylor, “Is attempted extortion and bribery a crime?” Taylor had already pointed out that he is not a lawyer, and that he was testifying only to report what he knew, not to give opinions and speculations. He stuck to that position and answered: “I don’t know.”

Fair point. So I looked it up. Attempted extortion is definitely a crime under state laws in California and Massachusetts. It also seems to be a federal crime, under U.S. Code Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part 1 (Crimes), Chapter 41 (Extortion and Threats), Section 878 (Threats and Extortion Against Foreign Officials). Both the threat and the fulfillment of extortion are treated as crimes in this chapter. However, the statute focuses specifically on threats to physically harm the foreign official, rather than trying to coerce them to provide a personal favor.

The reason I bring this up is that I think impeachment hinges on discovery of the president committing of an actual crime. It is irrelevant whether the president acted unethically. People who support him wanted someone who was rude and disruptive to force change in the culture and tenor of national leadership. Yes, one could argue that there is deep hypocrisy in ‘moving the goalposts’ from condemning Bill Clinton for (a) having an affair with a subordinate and (b) lying about it, to the known acts of the current president: (a) having multiple affairs (b) raping and sexually assaulting multiple women (c) bragging about this behavior (d) lying about it repeatedly (e) paying off a prostitute on condition of a non-disclosure agreement. Based on the impeachment of Bill Clinton, conservatives have established that infidelity and lying under oath qualify as High Crimes and Misdemeanors as indicated in the Constitution. Since his inauguration, the current president has been under oath to defend the Constitution; so he has been lying under oath ever since that day. But I think that both the Republican officials, who are breaching their oath to defend the Constitution, and the citizens who are ready to vote for them again, are fully aware of this double standard.

One of the proponents of anti-immigration policy here in California was interviewed about the consequences of Prop 187, which mobilized many Latinx voters and leaders here to change the political climate of the state. When asked about our current president, Barbara Kiley said “I don’t have to like Trump, but I like what he does. We needed a junkyard dog. We needed someone who could repo your car and not even think about it the next day.” Electing a disruptive thug makes sense, especially if you are fundamentally unhappy with the direction of national policy. And it is far less violent than forcing a collapse of the government.

The great value of competitive elections is to permit revolutionary change to happen incrementally, without trashing the credibility of the government. On the one hand, incrementalism is deeply unsatisfying to the people (and peoples) who want justice now and have wanted it for decades. On the other hand, a quick review of regime-collapse in other countries shows that the poor and vulnerable die first and suffer most in those conflicts; so violent overthrow tends to harm the very people who deserve justice the most. Over the years I have noticed that advocates of government overthrow tend to be very privileged people. They miss the part about the disproportionate suffering of the poor during government overthrows, because it does not apply to them.

But I don’t think that voting based on fear and self-constructed victimhood is healthy, either. If you feel like elites have limited your ability to earn a dignified living through hard work, then why would you support the policies of Nixon and Reagan? Their policies began the process of undermining working-class earnings starting in 1973. Reagan promoted union-busting. How could you logically conclude that the weakening of unions, and the decrease of working-class wages are unrelated? Why would you try to elect a vulture-capitalist millionaire (Romney) and then actually elect a billionaire? Even now, as official statistics declare that unemployment is low, are you financially secure? Can you pay off your debts with your current income? If Obamacare is repealed, will you be able to afford medical insurance for yourself and your children?

American voters have achieved great things when voting for positive projects and aspirations. When voting with courage, Americans have extended rights at home and resisted tyranny abroad; we have welcomed refugees; we have opened up opportunities both for ourselves and for strangers and immigrants. The list of immigrants who have benefited our country is long, including John Muir, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Madeleine Albright, Sergey Brin, and Rita Moreno. If ‘great again’ means restoring America to conditions in which waves of refugees are welcome, and wages and benefits for workers are ensured by high rates of unionization (highest in 1954), then yes, we need very different leadership. Certainly not a privileged bully who insists on complete executive impunity.

Christian Ethics and Immigration

Both Democratic and Republican American political leaders have taken a ‘tough on immigration’ stance over the past 20 years. In part they are responding to constituents. Both voters and leaders are engaged in a misguided attempt to prevent terrorism in the U.S through increased immigration restriction. One reason that it is misguided is that most terrorist attacks in the U.S. are committed by American citizens. Anti-immigration practices would not identify these people at all. Second: we have a ‘rich man’s window’ in our immigration system called the EB-5 Visa. If you can invest $500,000 in the U.S., you can get a Green Card and onto the path to citizenship. The Bin Laden family are billionaires. Tightening immigration restrictions against the poor would not have identified the 9/11 attackers, either.

There is no valid national-security argument for increased immigration enforcement. In fact the funding for border patrols, detention centers, and deportation processes would be better spent on…actually funding research and intelligence-coordination about terrorist threats. If you need intel, then fund foreign-language instruction at universities. Require foreign-language proficiency for all undergraduates. Encourage Americans to study and travel to other parts of the world. And let immigrants inform you about conditions and attitudes across the world. At minimum, Donald Rumsfeld should have heeded what Iraqi immigrants were warning about the invasion of Iraq as they protested–every weekend for months–in 2002 and 2003. As immigrants they had chosen the U.S. over Iraq; but that also meant they knew both countries well enough to make a better strategic assessment than a sheltered, privileged German-American.

There are other dimensions to the immigration debate. The economic pros and cons are complex, but in fairness, all of us whose ancestors immigrated from other continents over the past 500 years need to apply all those arguments to ourselves. In fact, the ethical question of fairness overrides all considerations other than security. Fairness and ethics are the basis of rights in the U.S., and rights overrule any more particular consideration.

Here I want to focus specifically on the ethics of the Christian tradition, because I am surprised to find that some Americans who regard themselves as Christian seek to restrict immigration.

The cautionary lesson of the Fate of Sodom

In popular American culture, Sodom is usually characterized as a place that was destroyed because ‘unnatural acts’ were permitted and encouraged there. However the prophet Ezekiel states that God explains the condemnation of Sodom very specifically:

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

We could get distracted trying to imagine the ‘detestable acts’ of the Sodomite women. Or we could focus on the one practice that was unambiguously declared to be objectionable: they did not help the poor and needy. In other passages, the explanation for the damnation of Sodom and Gomorrah is that they were unrepentant for their sins (Isaiah, ch.3 and Amos, ch.4). When they harmed others, intentionally or not, they did not apologize.

Regarding the depravity and the destruction of Sodom, many Christians fundamentally miss the point. Conservative Christians in the 1990s remarked that if the year 2000 marked the End Times, God would destroy San Francisco because of its tolerance for homosexuality and the rights of gay people. There is a shocking gap between what conservative Christians say, and what is actually written in the Bible. If San Francisco—and other American cities—are to be condemned, it will be for the collective preference of homeowners who enjoyed massive capital-gains on their home-values, at the expense of thousands of families being driven into homelessness. ‘Knowingly doing nothing to help the poor and needy’ is a really clear case of unrepentant cruelty.

But back to the question of immigration. Who are the people trying to cross the border from Mexico into the U.S. without papers? Are they an invading army? If yes, that means that the governments of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador have declared war on the United States, and are seeking some military objective. We have dealt with enough actual war to know this is not the case. Calling migrants ‘illegals’ and ‘invaders’ is a way to dehumanize them and make it easier for us not to think about their actual circumstances.

Is there some other way we should understand these migrants? What reasons do they give for risking so much to come to the United States? (1) Grinding poverty in their home communities. (2) Gang violence and the threat of forcible recruitment of their sons into the gangs. (3) Government-backed vigilante groups terrorizing ethnic minorities.

In other words, migrants are refugees.

Some argue that they should be helped by their own governments. But is that what scripture says about foreigners?

The Lesson of the Good Samaritan

Do we have any ethical obligation to help foreigners? Two thousand years ago, foreigners were even more despised than they are now. Not only did they speak other languages; they also committed sacrilege by worshiping differently and eating differently. Foreigners were not just unclean; they were corrupting. You had to re-do ritual cleansing if they touched you.

For Judeans and Nazarenes, the Samaritans were a well-known example of impure foreigners. One of the most overt messages Jesus relayed was that anyone who follows his teachings must regard all peoples as worthy of compassion—and sometimes as better examples of good behavior than his fellow Jews in good social standing.

The Vision of Peter (Acts, chapter 10)

Ah, my namesake. The stubborn, hard-headed Apostle who governed the Church in its earliest days. Initially, Simon Peter shared the prevailing view that Gentiles are unclean. Furthermore, the most blatantly unclean Gentiles were the occupying Romans, with their unclean foods, idol-worship, and pantheism. But Peter had a vision in which a vessel containing ritually unclean foods was lowered from heaven three times, and he was commanded to partake of this heavenly-but-unkosher feast.

Peter did not know what to make of this vision until he had to respond to another vision—that of Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian cohort. Cornelius is described as God-fearing and pious, but still a Gentile. Cornelius’ vision was that he had to seek out Simon Peter in Jaffa. Peter responds to Cornelius’ invitation without hesitation. Peter even knowingly breaks Jewish law to do so:

“You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?” (Acts 10:28-29)

Peter’s sense that he must abandon rigid exclusionism is soon confirmed. The Romans ask him to testify. As he testifies,

The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:45-47)

Scriptural Ethics About Migrating Refugees

Some lessons from scripture are difficult to interpret. This message is not:
1. Welcome strangers.
2. Treat foreigners with respect and compassion.
3. Help the poor and needy.
This message is consistent in both the Old and New Testaments. Muslims use different examples, but the same ethic is clear in the Qur’an and the Hadith. Believers in Odin and Zeus are also commanded to welcome and honor the stranger. Humanist atheists have an equally strong ethic of mutual accountability of humans towards humans.

This essay is addressed to all those who practice some form of religious faith, but especially to those of us who take up the challenge of following Christian teachings. We must welcome foreigners into our community, even when that goes against our sense of comfort or tradition. We must challenge any elected leader who claims to be Christian but also opposes immigration. Not only do they harm the most vulnerable people in our world, but such leaders also poison the public understanding of Christianity.

Is Christian faith a belief in hatred, intolerance, and racial supremacy? No; but to challenge such cruelty among your fellow believers means risking your membership in your worship-community. This requires extreme courage and devotion to the lessons of the New Testament. You risk alienating your parents, your brothers and sisters. Does Jesus call for such radical action in his teachings? Are we called to follow the harder road, through the narrower gate? Are we called to challenge prevailing beliefs and practices, even as the elders and respected leaders condemn us for violating convention and custom?

This is not easy. But then again, neither is smuggling yourself from Honduras to Tijuana. Anyone tough enough to make that journey will be an asset to American society.

Thinking Through Access to Healthcare

My my parents are retired healthcare practitioners, who have long opposed a universal healthcare system. So I am familiar with the doctors’ side of the story on healthcare, which is reflected in the American Medical Association’s longstanding opposition to the idea of healthcare as a basic right. However, the policy of the AMA is beginning to change. In June of 2018, the medical student caucus of the AMA revolted against older physicians and forced the AMA to begin deliberating universal healthcare:

When the American Medical Association — one of the nation’s most powerful health care groups — met in Chicago this June, its medical student caucus seized an opportunity for change.
Though they had tried for years to advance a resolution calling on the organization to drop its decades-long opposition to single-payer health care, this was the first time it got a full hearing. The debate grew heated — older physicians warned their pay would decrease, calling younger advocates naïve to single-payer’s consequences. But this time, by the meeting’s end, the AMA’s older members had agreed to at least study the possibility of changing its stance.
“We believe health care is a human right, maybe more so than past generations,” said Dr. Brad Zehr, a 29-year-old pathology resident at Ohio State University, who was part of the debate. “There’s a generational shift happening, where we see universal health care as a requirement.”

In contrast to what young physicians and many Americans want, my parents’ position is closer to the current official position of the AMA:

The AMA has long advocated for health insurance coverage for all Americans, as well as pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice and universal access for patients.

Which sounds like a wonderful set of ideals:
(1) freedom of choice: consistent with the ideal of liberty for all Americans.
(2) freedom of practice: doctors retain the right to decide the best medical care.
(3) universal access: no-one is turned away from emergency rooms or the care of physicians who choose to disregard ability-to-pay.
(4) health insurance for all Americans: if you can’t pay fee-for-service, then you have the right to have insurers cover your costs.

What is not mentioned explicitly in the AMA’s position, however, is:
(1) …their opposition to healthcare as a universal right. Opposition to a national healthcare program implies a preferred ideal: fee-for-service. Since the vast majority of Americans cannot afford fee-for-service, most people end up paying for health insurance. Those who cannot afford insurance (a) remain at risk of financial ruin, (b) under-utilize preventive care and health maintenance, (c) over-use emergency rooms at great public cost, and (d) die early from preventable conditions.
(2) …that doctors are extremely irritated by the fact that insurers—who are not qualified physicians—decide what gets covered, and what reimbursement-rates are.
(3) …that doctors might be charitable enough to treat any patient regardless of their ability to pay, but that does not mean that the poor can actually access care. Hospitals, pharmacies, and laboratories do not share this charitable policy of physicians, and those costs are often much larger than the actual doctor’s fees.

The trouble with normative idealism

Unstated support for fee-for-service among doctors is a normative position that distorts actual policy. It is normative because it is a strong belief in what should be; but since only a tiny fraction of Americans can afford medical costs out-of-pocket, the actual policy is that most Americans pay via private insurance. Doctors suffer an unintended consequence of their own normative ideal: a lot of medical decisions are made by for-profit insurers. Patients are also deeply aggrieved by denial-of-coverage, shocking unexpected co-pays, and unilateral cancellation of their policies. However, patients are not the ones who direct the AMA to block the recognition of healthcare as a fundamental right.

Sticking to a normative position has also blocked another possibility: doctors could have been the ones who shaped and governed health-insurance policy. The ideal of ‘fee for service’ and the deference to ‘freedom of choice’ has meant that doctors stayed out of governing insurance policies. Such involvement would have been interventionist and socialist—precisely what the doctors have opposed, as they have shown for decades through their AMA lobbying positions.

Furthermore, since doctors have recused themselves from governing the system of health insurance, the insurers, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and labs share a perverse incentive to raise fees well beyond reasonable costs. The structure of private medical care is non-competitive. In Adam Smith’s words, is a market-failure. In fact, there may be no feasible way to set up a healthy, competitive marketplace for healthcare. Some services cannot be delivered effectively through the market mechanism, and healthcare might be one such service.

Re-examining healthcare through a planning lens

As a city planner, I think more about the long term well-being of whole populations, and the public fights necessary to promote that well-being. Through this lens, the question of healthcare looks very different from ‘healthcare as a right versus healthcare for those who can pay.’ Instead, we look at collective benefit of outcomes. Sometimes societies create markets where firms can compete and deliver excellent goods, services, and innovations at low costs. Sometimes societies need an asset which cannot be delivered by any effective profit model, such as roads and comprehensive education. Initially we tried both private and hybrid public/private agencies to build infrastructure and education. Some private and semi-private agencies still exist; but by the early 20th century Americans decided to fund most of these goods through taxation.

Public K-12 education might be the closest analogy to healthcare. We collectively decided that we needed all Americans to be well-educated both for an informed democracy and a productive, innovative economy. In fact we decided that we cannot afford to have Americans who are not educated. Therefore, primary and secondary education in America are not only universally funded; they are also compulsory.

The planning lens makes clear that we also cannot afford to have some Americans remain chronically uncared for, nor allow Americans to avoid medical care. One example of avoidance is the anti-vaxxers; their behavior makes a strong case for compulsory vaccination, just as we have compulsory education. Another, less-known example is the outbreak of Hepatitis-A among the homeless population in San Diego in 2018. At minimum—that being enlightened self-interest—we need to keep whole populations healthy, because diseases like Hep-A and the measles are highly contagious.

There are also several economic reasons to implement universal healthcare. First is to maintain the health of the working population. Fewer sick-days and fewer premature, preventable deaths is actually more profitable for employers. Second: if individuals do not have to worry about losing their healthcare when a business fails, they will be more willing to take business risks. This is precisely the behavior we need to maintain an innovative economy.

Furthermore, a government healthcare system can push back against profiteering by labs, pharma, hospitals, and doctors in a way that insurance companies clearly do not do. I think we all have seen the astounding costs that we don’t have to pay (whew!) when we do have insurance, and the insurer pays most of the various fees. Americans pay more per capita for medical care than any other wealthy country—all of which have universal healthcare systems. There are flaws in any complex system; certainly public systems have gone awry many times, as have private corporations. The question here is about basic structure: the for-profit healthcare system has perverse incentives which seem incorrigible. And since any complex system can go awry, it helps when that system is publicly accountable, as a fundamental mechanism for correcting errors. Trust the private sector? Three words: Wall Street banks. Or two more: petroleum industry. Or just one word: tobacco.

In today’s private, for-profit system, part of what we pay for is the excessive labor of paperwork generated by private insurers. Supposedly only governments create paperwork and red tape; and yet private health insurance paperwork exceeds any other paperwork I have had to deal with. Yes, public agencies can also get bureaucratic. But if healthcare is accepted as a right, then the whole process of determining eligibility for treatment, restricted enrollment periods, and scrambling to deal with denial of service—all of that goes away. Struggles over healthcare shift entirely into the public realm, such as fighting the malicious efforts of leaders in Georgia, Alabama, and Ohio to harm women. The public sphere is the proper realm in which to oppose harmful policies.

I call on physicians to reverse course from your libertarian absenteeism and actually engage in the management, design, and refining of a universal system. This is where your Hippocratic oath and your obligations as citizens overlap. Government administrators are no better qualified than for-profit insurance administrators for determining the structure of appropriate care. Don’t recuse yourselves this time; engage in governing health policy.

Private insurance is useful for spreading risks related to investments in property. It has a valuable role in the economy, when used as it was originally intended. Managing the health of an entire society, as we have seen in America over the past 70 years, should not be done through the profit model.Economies are social creations, and the health of the society comes first. Human health is foundational; it is a precondition for a healthy economy. In this respect, a comprehensive public healthcare system is essential infrastructure.

One of the great distortions in modern political debate is the assumption that capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. In practice, political economies have always had a mix. In the U.S., public streets, public schools, police, the courts, firefighters, and the military are all tax-funded, socialist organizations that have actually supported and promoted capitalism in other sectors of the political economy. The normative, idealist either/or presumption is a hazardous distraction. The relevant question is: what combination of capitalism and socialism works best?