Social Conservatism After Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Response to Sohrab Ahmari

Solrab Ahmari’s piece in Commentary Magazine caught my attention.  In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Jack Phillips, the owner and devout Christian.  Ahmari’s piece raises some interesting questions, particularly for Social Conservatives. In one part he says

Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, which asserted a constitutional right to gay marriage, social conservatives have fought a rearguard action to preserve freedom of conscience and the right to dissent from the latest sexual orthodoxies in the public square. “OK, you got your gay marriage,” the religious right in effect told victorious secular progressives. “But don’t force us to assent to it in violation of our faith.”

Freedom of Conscience seems to be mostly “I believe what you are doing is a sin and I cannot contribute to it.”  For Jack Phillips, it was that his making a wedding cake for a gay couple whom he believed was sinning would cause him to sin.  In some respects, I can appreciate that.  A Kosher deli will not serve pork nor mayonnaise on a corned beef sandwich, violating Jewish law, so why should Jack Phillips have to act against his religious beliefs and make a wedding cake for a gay couple?

However, we seem to be faced with a dilemma.  Jack Phillips believes that baking a wedding cake for a gay couple violates his religious freedom.  But what about the gay couple?  Is the fact that they are a gay couple planning to marry inherently not an expression of their religious freedom?  I do not know about the couple involved but many churches today officiate gay weddings and many gays are religious, although disagreeing with their church on sexual orientation.  Conservatives view things like gay marriage as Secular Progressivism and considered in the eyes of many religious conservatives as anti-religion.  As Ahmari states

But as the Phillips case showed, the inner logic of today’s secular progressivism puts the movement continually on the offensive. A philosophy that rejects all traditional barriers to individual autonomy and self-expression won’t rest until all “thou shalts” are defeated, and those who voice them marginalized. For a transgender woman to fully exercise autonomy, for example, the devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew must recognize her as a woman. People of faith and others who cling to traditional views must publicly assent to what they don’t believe.

Traditional views.  The problem with traditional views is that they tend to restrict the rights of others.  Let’s rephrase Ahmari’s last sentence above.

For a black person to fully exercise autonomy, for example, the devout white separatist Christian must recognize them as a person. People of faith and others who cling to traditional views must publicly assent to what they don’t believe.

Or

For a woman to fully exercise autonomy, for example, the devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew must recognize her as a full citizen and allow her to vote. People of faith and others who cling to traditional views must publicly assent to what they don’t believe.

Traditional views saw interracial marriage as immoral (and in many states illegal).  Then along came Loving v. Virginia.  However, I am sure many people continue to view interracial marriage as immoral.  My best friend growing up faced the demand of his parents, born in Italy, that he must marry an Italian girl.  They were so adamant that they threatened to disown him if he did not.  He acquiesced. That was a traditional view.

Ahmari concludes with

Defending traditional morality on the basis of religious liberty alone, in other words, risks cornering religious conservatives in the long-term. The alternative, of course, isn’t to give up on religious freedom. That defensive battle must continue to be fought. But religious conservatives should also go on the offensive and once more formulate a substantive politics of the common good. We live in an age of great moral and ideological ferment and rethinking. Even the left is in flux, as evidenced, for example, by the #MeToo phenomenon, which at heart involves a secular rediscovery of the fundamental differences between men and women. (my italics)

Religious conservatives have answers to these dilemmas. They can’t afford to retreat, and they shouldn’t.

While this is an interesting argument, we must not tie ourselves too closely to traditional morality.  The reason Madison included religious freedom in the First Amendment was because it formed much of the reason for the colonies in the first place.  You had the Puritans founding Massachusetts, the Quakers founding Pennsylvania, and the Catholics founding Maryland.  They all violated the traditional morality of the Church of England and came to the new world to practice their faith freely.  They also agreed to let others practice their faith (at least to a degree).  Don’t forget that slavery was justified by moral tradition.

I believe the answer lies with the understanding that a person is free to practice his or her religious faith, even if their faith is no faith.  The separation of church and state allows couples to marry without the approval of a religious authority.  Transgender is relatively new in our history, but many churches have declared it immoral because it violates traditional norms.  They key is if you believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, then don’t marry someone of the same sex.  If you believe changing your sexual identification is immoral, then don’t do it.  But why interfere with the rights of others?

Still, we cannot co-exist without finding some common beliefs and norms.  But those norms change over time.  It wasn’t that long ago that society accepted girls as young as 16 (or even 14) could be married.  Now we accept this as being too young an age.  Women are becoming increasingly accepted in the workplace, although as the #MeToo movement shows, there is still much work to do.  But no one today would say that women be denied the right to vote, even without the 19^th Amendment.  As we evolve as a society and nation, we must keep an open mind and heart.

Thoughts on the Parkland Students and the March for Life

Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post began her recent (Sunday, March 25, 2018) Right Turn blog with this:

“By the hundreds of thousands, they came. They gave impassioned and articulate speeches. The shared their experiences in Chicago, South Los Angeles and Florida. They gave one TV interview after another, displaying remarkable poise and heart-breaking sincerity. Adults decades older watched with awe. These are teenagers. How did these kids learn to do this?”

The March for Life was impressive as teenagers took to the streets and made speeches.  Many adults were amazed although some sought to undermine their accomplishment by accusing these kids of being manipulated.  Ha!  When more students are being shot at, it inspires them to speak up, like it did for the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

But how could these students be so prepared and articulate.  The Washington Monthly nailed it.  They were taught Civics in middle school.

A program promoted by former Democratic Senator Bob Graham and former Republican Congressman Lou Frey through their joint Florida Center for Citizenship led to Florida passing the Sandra Day O’Connor Civic Education Act, named after the former Supreme Court Justice.  Students began to learn Civics and debate.  Now when it counted, they were prepared.

The fact that the Stoneman Douglas students inspired so many others from across the country and the world speaks volumes about the one missing need in our schools; the teaching of Civics. I had Civics courses in my elementary and high school days in the 1960s.  I firmly believe good citizenship requires a good education and especially in learning more about how our government works.  We need schools to do more to educate students on citizenship.

The Economic Impact of the Senate Healthcare Reform Bill

One notable complaint about both the House and senate healthcare reform bills is the fact that there would be significant cuts in Medicaid offset by major tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy.  Focusing only on the senate version, only 5 or 6 of the 52 Republican senators oppose the senate bill.  Senators such as Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Portman of Ohio, and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia oppose the bill because the Medicaid cuts would severely hurt their states.  One question not being asked is “What states will benefit from this bill?”

The Medicaid cuts will affect primarily rural states and rural areas of major states such as New York and Pennsylvania.  These states and areas tend to be more conservative and represented by Republicans.  They have been the most vociferous supporters of the repeal and replace Obamacare movement.  For example, Kentucky, the state represented in the senate by Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and Rand Paul, is an interesting example.  Senator McConnell is the primary driver of the senate bill, known as the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BRCA).  Senator Paul opposes it not because of the Medicaid cuts and tax cuts, but because it does not go far enough in repealing Obamacare.

However, the same can be said for New York.  Both New York and Kentucky accepted expanded Medicaid dollars, so both will lose from BCRA.  According to a Business Insider article, New York will lose 17% in Medicaid funding and Kentucky will lose 20%.  The two Democratic senators for New York, Charles Schumer, the minority leader, and Kirstin Gillibrand, oppose BCRA for the same reasons.  They don’t want Medicaid cuts so the wealth can receive tax cuts.

This does not answer the question I posed above.  What states will benefit from BCRA?  However, the answer is in where the wealthy live.  According to Fortune magazine, the number 1 metropolitan area where the wealthy live is New York City.  There is no area in Kentucky that falls within the top 10 areas where the wealthy live.  This means that even though both New York and Kentucky lose on the Medicaid side, New York gains from the redistribution of dollars from Kentucky (and other rural states) to New York (and other urban regions).  From an economics perspective, the economic stimulus from dollars in tax breaks for New York can offset the de-stimulus effect of the Medicaid losses.  Kentucky just loses, as does West Virginia, Ohio, and other primarily rural states.

Let’s do some rough calculations.  According to a Brookings Institution article, about 11.5% of households making $200k or more live in the New York Metropolitan area.  For Kentucky, it is less than 1%.  According to the Healthcare consulting firm, Avalere, New York loses $40.880 billion and Kentucky loses $7.894 billion.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the tax cuts at $772 billion.  If we apply our household percentages, it roughly means that New York will get about $62 billion of the tax cuts while Kentucky gets only about $5 billion.  That means New York nets a gain of about $21 billion while Kentucky loses a net $2 billion.  New York wins!  The table below gives the rough estimates.

	New York	Kentucky
Tax Cuts	$62.215	$5.410
Medicaid Cuts	$40.880	$7.894
Net Impact	$21.335	$(2.484)
In  billions of dollars

(Perhaps senators Schumer and Gillibrand should reconsider and support the bill.)

Seriously, if the senators from New York and Kentucky were only interested in the economic impact to their states, Senators McConnell and Paul would oppose the Medicaid cut/tax cut aspects of BCRA and senators Schumer and Gillibrand would support BCRA.  Why is the opposite true?  Senators Schumer and Gillibrand are adhering to the Democratic Party principle of supporting working families.  So even though on one hand there is an economic interest to support the provisions above for their state, Schumer and Gillibrand recognize that the loss to working families (both in and out of New York) outweigh the economic gains to New York.

For residents of red states, you have to ask yourself “Are my congressmen and senators working in my interest or in the interest of wealthy New Yorkers?”

Mr. Trump, Pittsburgh, and Climate

I was particularly amused when President Trump, in his speech withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, stated “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” because he once again demonstrated his ignorance of history.  I grew up in Pittsburgh.  My father worked for US Steel.  I know about the impact of pollution on an economy such as Pittsburgh.

Here is a picture of Pittsburgh at noontime 1940, at the corner of Liberty and Fifth Avenues (source: http://digital.library.pitt.edu).

The smog was so dense that it was more like night than day.  The streetlamps and car headlights had to be on.  I don’t know if even Beijing can compare to Pittsburgh before World War II.  Like in Beijing, people wore surgical masks because of the soot and smoke.

One consequence of World War II was the rise of new powerhouse businesses such as Westinghouse, ALCOA, Gulf Oil, Rockwell International, just to name a few.  Along with existing businesses like H.J. Heinz, these businesses ran into a major problem.  They found it hard to recruit new managers to their corporate headquarters because the pollution was so bad.  As a result, in 1949 Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh is located) passed a smoke control ordinance, pushed by these companies.  This began the trend for improvement in air quality.  Pittsburgh’s success was so highly regarded that The U.S. State Department made a film documenting Pittsburgh’s achievement and presented it in London.  Since pollution from coal-fired plants are a major source of greenhouse gases, the new laws reducing pollution contributed to the slowing of the growth of these gases.

Contrary to President Trump’s assertion about negative economic impacts, Pittsburgh and the Steel industry continued to prosper.  By the 1960s, Pittsburgh was the third largest corporate headquarter city after New York and Chicago.  Today, Liberty and Fifth Avenues look like this (source: Google Maps).

No streetlights on and beautiful sunshine brightens the intersection.  As for the steel industry, it’s decline was not due to pollution control (they changed technology away from coal), but to other economic factors and foreign competition.

One of the problems we have is that we see what exists today as always having been that way.  Many of the anti-vaccine activists never experienced life when measles, mumps, whooping cough, and many other diseases, especially polio, harmed and killed millions.  Most Americans born after 1960 grew up with much cleaner air and water.  This was all due to government actions taken to prevent pandemics and reduce the health costs associated with pollution.  However, we face the threat of global warming.  It is a fact that the average planetary temperature is rising, that the ice is melting at the poles, that the ocean levels are rising threatening coastal areas. 

In addition, people tend to discount the future.  In recent years, we have seen changes in our weather and I leave it to the climatologists to explain it, but as an economist, I know that there are growing economic costs associated with these trends.  Homeowners on the coasts are facing flood conditions they had never experienced before, necessitating spending more on insurance and prevention.  Think about our major cities on the coasts.  Rising ocean levels will require them spending hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars on infrastructure to protect themselves.  The heartland is not immune.  They too face increasing environmental costs.  We see that already.  We worry about the costs of entitlements on our children, but ignore the costs of global warming.

President Trump’s decision to withdrawal from the Paris Accords is short-sighted and ultimately hurts Americans.  Even Pittsburghers will agree with that.

Liberal Elites Hate Middle America. Really?

Ed Kilgore in a recent post makes some good points ("Do Coastal Elites Hate Middle America").  There is a narrative among conservative circles that the liberal elites care more about minorities and the environment, etc., than working class people.  Is this really true?

I can go into a long essay on the subject but how about a few factoids?  Let's go with the new Trump budget.  This budget calls for major cuts in programs that affect the heartland.  Included are eliminating the Rural and Business Cooperative Service that helps rural business in Trump states, the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program, and the Rural Economic Development Program, all suported by urban liberal elites.

Then there is the elimination of Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern Border Regional Commission, all serving the heartland, Trump country, and all supported by the liberal elites.

The fact is that the liberals in the coastal states looked upon in such disdain by the heartland tend to be the groups fighting to keep the programs that help them.  None more so than Medicaid and funding for opiod addiction, a major problem in Trump country.  It is Trump and the conservative Republicans that want to cut or eliminate this aid.

Let us not forget that the liberal coastal states like New York and California pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.  If we liberal elites were more self-interested, we would support the Trump budget since our taxes would go down more.  That we think the Trump budget is an abomination should say something about our "disdain" for Middle America.

Ryan: Obamacare in a 'death spiral' because healthy people are forced to pay for sicker people
Source: Washington Post

This is a video with House Speaker explaining how Obamacare is in a "death spiral" because healthy people are being forced to pay for the health care of sick people.  It sounds grim except for one problem, that is the definition of insurance.

Insurance is about risk, the probability of an event occurring.  In the case of health care, it is the probability of a significant health event.  Think about yourself.  How likely is it you will have a heart attack?  Young? Maybe the likelihood is small.  Older?  The likelihood is greater.  But the likelihood is not zero for either group.  A young person can have a heart attack.  Many do.  If both sign up for insurance, the risk is spread and the cost is lower for all.

The cost of the event is high.  Heart surgery, therapy, medication; all of these costs are significant.  Spreading the risk means a relatively small potential cost for everyone.  Consider company provided health care insurance.  The premiums are lower because the insured are not determined by their health condition but by their employment with the company.  So the healthy workers essentially pay for the sick workers, but since no one knows who will be sick or healthy, all are covered.  Is Paul Ryan saying company provided health care insurance is in a death spiral?  No.

With health care, the risk may be low but the cost is high.  Spreading the risk lowers the potential cost for everyone which is why insurance is valuable.  The mandate that everyone sign up means that everyone is covered so the potential cost of a health event is lower.  It's like car insurance.  You may never need it, but when you do, your covered.

Paul Ryan is making a political argument.  He is trying to pit one group against another.  The Congressional Budget Office projected that the new Republican health care plan will mean about 24 million people will lose their health insurance.  They will not be able to afford normal medical treatment, so they will wait until it is a crisis and go to the emergency room for care.  That is much more expensive and will be paid for by those who do have health care insurance, raising their costs.  Not smart!

Advice for Democrats: “All Politics is Local”

While the current trials and tribulations of the Trump White House are entertaining and concerning, Democrats must not let this distract them from the essential goals of the party.  The Democratic party lost in 2016 and it is important to understand why and rebuild the foundations of the party.  I think we can but we must simplify opposition to Republican leadership at all levels of government.

The Democratic Party chose a new party chair. Meanwhile, Republicans at the state level are acting, as a recent New York Times Headline tells it “State G.O.P. Leaders Move Swiftly as Party Bickers in Congress.”  The facts are clear, Republicans control the governorship in 33 states, complete control of legislatures in 32 states, and partial control in 6 states.  These are not good statistics.  Yet the Democrats seem to be dwelling only on national issues and issues not resonating with voters.

One problem is conservative Republicans have consistent and clear policies on many issues, smaller government with lower taxes, less regulations, and family values.  They promise less government and job growth, particularly through business-friendly policies.  This is a message that resonates, particularly in states that were traditionally democratic, like Michigan and Wisconsin.  The Carrier Corp. agreement to keep 1,250 jobs in Indiana is due more to the state giving tax breaks than President Trump’s verbal pressure.  Even in New York, with a Democratic governor and assembly, similar policies are used.  But ask voters and I don’t think they will view the Democratic party that way.

This wasn’t always the case.  Democrats were successful in the industrial north because they promoted a jobs agenda, supporting unions and seeking better pay and benefits for workers.  The Democratic party was the party of the immigrant working class, like the Irish in the 1880s and as they ran for office and became city council members, mayors, state legislators and governors, the party’s strength rose.  The Republican party was seen as the party of business interests.  There was a friction between the two at the state level and local level, but there was a balance as well.  But both parties recognized that good jobs meant attracting business.  In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Pittsburgh, PA, faced a collapsing steel industry, its primary industry at the time.  The then mayor, Democrat Richard Caliguiri, helped create a new renaissance for the city by changing the tax laws and encouraging development.   New business and new building appeared and Pittsburgh became a city known for technology and health care.  So, while the decline of steel hurt, Pittsburgh was able to recover and is currently thriving.  Companies like Apple, Google, and Uber operating there.  Uber is testing its driverless cars in Pittsburgh.

These are the type of policies Democrats need to build on at the state and local level.  Republican policies like what was executed in Kansas led to a fiscal crisis, loss of jobs, and sluggish economy.  Democrats can do better.  However, the Democratic party needs a consistent message.  That message must be focused first on economics, particularly developing business that creates jobs.  Even Democrats disagree on cultural and social issues.  Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania are both conservative democrats.  They and other conservative Democrats participation in the party can help maintain balance and focus on essential principles of the party.

Promoting low taxes and fiscal responsibility at the local level is sound policy for Democrats.  At the state level, promoting that and policies for maintaining public works, jobs and businesses, and protecting voter rights are also important. 

One example is technology.  Broadband is ubiquitous in urban and suburban areas.  That is because of population density.  In small towns and rural areas, there is not enough density (customers) for telecoms to invest.  These are the same communities that lost manufacturing.  By investing in broadband in small towns and rural areas, these communities can participate in the new technological age.  I worked for a technology company that was located in Los Angeles but had employees all over the country.  I had a colleague who found it was great to work in a small town in West Virginia, but connect with coworkers and clients around the country using Skype and Go-to-Meeting.

But it is especially at the national level, Democrats need to clarify their message.  Support for working-class Americans remains a primary principle of the party.  Secretary Clinton lost in part because that message did not come across.  Too many working-class Americans felt the country needed a change.  They believed they were being ignored, particularly by the Democrats.  They believed that Donald Trump would bring changed that helped them.  Now we hear that many Trump voters did not really expect Obamacare would be repealed even though Democrats warned them.  Now they are worried and protesting at Republican town halls.  The Democratic party message must resonate to these voters.  Fiscal responsibility, equal opportunity, promoting growth especially in small towns that lost business and jobs overseas are what Democrats need to speak loudly and clearly about.  Remember as Tip O’Neill liked to say “All politics is local.”  White working-class American will worry less about illegal immigrants and Muslims if they know that government is helping them.

The Democratic party is choosing a new party chair.  That person must insure that every level of government has a focus.  The principles of the party he or she must promote include:

·         Jobs and growth. 

·         Fiscal responsibility.  One of the successes of Obamacare was that it paid for itself.  Indeed, the CBO analysis concluded it would reduce the budget deficit.  Also, don’t forget Democratic policies led by the Clinton administration gave us budget surpluses by 2000.

·         Equal rights and opportunity.  Too often Republicans at the state level used dodgy tactics to promote the conservative agenda.  The recent election of a Democratic governor is an example.

·         True religious freedom, including the freedom to not be religious.  When a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, remember the days when Jews were refused service for being Jews.  Providing a service promote nothing more than promoting your business not undermining your beliefs.

My final suggestion is to take a page from the conservatives.  They have the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).  ALEC provides template for conservative legislation.  It has been wildly successful at the state and local level.  Democrats need something similar, tied to the party and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  The DNC should not only raise money but become a resource and clearinghouse for ideas that state and local Democrats can rely upon.  If a good idea is implemented in New York, that idea should be shared with Democrats in Georgia or Mississippi, helping the party to be a greater force everywhere.

A consistent message from the local level to the national level must be implemented, particularly at the local and state level.  The Democratic party has been lax in promoting Democratic policies regarding the working-class (no matter what the race) and its message to local audiences.  That means Republicans are favored locally, so they have a better opportunity to succeed nationally.  It is time for Democrats to reverse this trend.