A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

The Second Impeachment

by 5 Comments

“President Trump may not know a lot about the framers, but they certainly knew a lot about him.”

— Rep. Jamie Raskin, House Impeachment Manager.

That’s probably the quote that sticks with me the most through this second impeachment of Donald Trump. We don’t live in unprecedented times. History abounds with precedent. The Framers of our Constitution were smart guys who knew a lot of history. A would-be ruler riling up the mob to attack his opponents is Despot 101. The issue here is not whether Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors or whether he intended to negate an election. He did. His place in history is secure. He’ll occupy a position of disgrace with the likes of Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan.

The question is how the Senate will be remembered — and, let’s be candid — how the Republicans in the Senate will be remembered. Will they, at long last, have a sense of honor? Or do they, like so many of Trump’s followers, hate liberals more than they love America? Trump hates everyone, not just liberals. And he clearly doesn’t give a shit about America. But, he’s more than willing to take advantage of a reflexive hatred of liberals to hold on to power. Hell, he didn’t think twice about putting Mike Pence’s life in danger. We saw today just how close Mitt Romney came to Trump’s howling mob. At least one Capitol Police officer died and many others were injured defending these Senators.

How will the Senators respond — will they grovel before the wannabe strongman and ask for seconds? Or will they remember their pride, maybe show some respect for themselves, for the Senate, for the Framers and for the country? I mean, I suspect I know. There will probably be something like 56 votes for conviction with most of the Republican Senators finding a way to tell themselves that this was o.k. In our state, Sen. Braun is obviously a lost cause. His obsequious subservience to Trump knows no limits. I don’t hold out much hope for Sen. Young, but I think he does have a somewhat stronger sense of honor than does Sen. Braun. In the likely event that he votes to acquit, his conscience might at least bother him a bit.

This fealty by a major political party to a man who embodies malice, ignorance, and self-aggrandizement is unsustainable. Our country depends on having two healthy, viable political parties, divided by policy differences, but united by a love of our country and its people. What we have now is not the way.

 

 

 

The Road Goes Ever On

by 7 Comments

At last they rode over the downs and took the East Road, and then Merry and Pippin rode on to Buckland; and already they were singing again as they went. But Sam turned to Bywater, and so came back up the Hill as day was ending once more. And he went on, and there was yellow light, and fire within; and the evening meal was ready, and he was expected. And Rose drew him in, and set him in his chair, and put little Elanor upon his lap.

He drew a deep breath. ‘Well, I’m back,’ he said.”

I’m not exactly sure why the Biden inauguration has me in a Tolkien state of mind. I suppose it’s something about that ending where Sam takes a deep breath and takes comfort in the danger having passed. However, that comfort and relief is in the context of a world that is diminished and scarred from the evil that has been forced to depart.

I’m not one given to alarm or hyperbole, but I truly do shudder at the thought of what might have come to pass if the election had gone the other way; or if it had been closer; or if the leadership of the House or Senate had been different. Democracy lives to fight another day, but it felt a little closer than I anticipated. The durability of our country’s institutions feel a little less inevitable than they did a few years ago. Which, upon reflection, is a valuable education for me. Ultimately, we can be absolutely confident that, one day, our democratic institutions and our country will fall. Entropy always wins. I’m currently reading a book about Bronze Age civilizations — civilizations which lasted centuries and about which I — a bit of a history nerd — have barely any conception. Given enough time, civilizations always fall.

But that’s no reason for nihilism or despair. We can’t worry too much about what’s going to happen 100 years from now, let alone 1,000 years from now. One day entropy will win, but that’s all the more reason to fight it — to delay that day & preserve our little bubble of comfort and order in the broad expanse of time and space that’s largely chaotic and uncaring. Perhaps knowing that, if we’re not careful, a lot of the institutions we take for granted could disappear will cause us to take more care to appreciate what we have. Our resentments can make smashing the existing order seem appealing. But I think the universe of scenarios in which the smashed machinery is re-assembled into something more desirable is far smaller than the universe of scenarios in which the smashed machinery is broken beyond repair or is assembled into something far worse than what we have now. Joe Biden seems like a reasonable choice for trying to fix what we have and making it more sustainable. I mean, who knows — his approach might not work for long; but it seems like a better choice than someone who wants to stoke our resentments, smash the existing machinery, and rebuild from scratch (or just loot the wreckage.)

Or hell, things might even get better. Maybe we’re not a Fallen people doomed to looking back on past greatness or condemned to wearing hair shirts to repent for our sins. Maybe we’re a capable people who can test everything, hold fast to what is good, and make better what is not. Guess we’ll find out.

Second Impeachment of Donald Trump

by 8 Comments

Donald Trump has become the first President to be impeached twice. As I write this, the vote appears to be 231 votes in favor of impeachment, including 10 Republicans versus 197 against (all Republican) and 5 not voting. Following is the text of the Impeachment Resolution:

Resolved, the Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE 1: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment, for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] and office … under the United States.’ In his conduct while President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, provide, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:

President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

It’s clear that the facts stated in bold are true and that they are impeachable offenses. Trump intentionally incited a mob, and it was entirely foreseeable that they would act violently.

 

Trumpist Mob Attempts to Subvert Democracy

by 2 Comments

Just saw a CNN report (I’m sure it’s everywhere) that a Trumpist mob in D.C. has stormed the Capitol Building to try to prevent Congressional acceptance of the electoral vote. This is appalling and should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner. I’m not a fan of violence in the ordinary course of things or in the course of protests. (I’m not one to embrace the idea that “violence is the language of the oppressed” or similar apologies.) But regardless of how you feel about violence in those contexts, this is about as bad as it gets. If you want to enjoy the benefits of law, you have to acquiesce to the political machinery that legitimizes it. For all the happy talk about “natural rights,” without law, there are no rights. There are just a series of opinions about who gets to do what to whom, the persuasive effect of which rests on the ability of the opinion-holder to deploy violence in support of that opinion.

We’ve had an election where, fevered and fantastic claims to the contrary, there is no doubt about the outcome. These people who have brought weapons to Capitol Hill are doing so in the hopes that they can prevent Congress from doing its duty and formalizing the transfer of power from one elected President to the next. These people stand for the principle that their personal preferences should take priority regardless of the election outcome. Not to put too fine a point on it, that’s fucking dangerous.

People who know better are endlessly shitting on the value of government. This is a logical consequence.

Sen. Braun wants to challenge the Presidential election because he didn’t like the outcome

by 5 Comments

The story goes like this – Biden won the election by a lot. Trump who is famous for not liking losers is a very sore one. So, he and his supporters make baseless allegations of widespread fraud. Now Trump’s supporters like Sen. Braun want to overturn the election results on account of there being allegations of fraud (which, if you were following along earlier, were made simply because Trump and his supporters didn’t like the outcome.)Braun cites “unprecedented allegations of voter fraud.” They’re unprecedented because in the past, when there was no evidence of voter fraud, United States Senators by and large decided to go along with the rule of law and acquiesce to the will of the people even if their guy didn’t win rather than making up stories about voter fraud.

I don’t expect that Braun will suffer any negative consequences for his bold stand against the democratic process under which our Republic has operated for the last couple of centuries, but I thought I’d at least make a note of his position.

Election Day 2020

by 11 Comments

I haven’t posted much other than School Board stuff in a long time, and I suppose this will touch on that as well. But I’m not exactly “focused” this election day morning. So I thought I’d just write a little bit and see what comes up. The big ticket item today is obviously Biden v. Trump. The available indicators look good for Biden, but the folks who recognize Trump for the absolute shit-show of a President that he has been for the last four years are jumpy. We’ve been hurt before.

A thought that caught my attention was a Biden campaign ad that focused on America as an “idea.” There are probably a lot of variations on exactly what that idea might be, but at the end of the day, it allows inclusion of people who buy into that idea. I’ve spent a lot of time over the years writing about how so much hinges on “us” versus “them,” who falls into those categories, and how one goes about moving between those categories. If Biden is correct that America is an idea, then the only thing that’s really required is (to paraphrase the Captain from Cool Hand Luke) that a person get their mind right. Trump’s vision of America has more to do with what the Nazis called blood and soil. It’s a place and a people. Those people are American by virtue of their ancestory and where they were born, not their belief in an idea. In fact, if they are from the right place or have the right parents, their ideas can be completely antithetical to what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Declaration and the Constitution, and still be deemed more American than those who have kept faith with our Founding. Every election seems more consequential than the last – like we keep playing a game of double or nothing. I’m not sure if the stakes have always been as high as what I perceive, but this time it seems real enough. I think 1996 was the last time I wasn’t wound up very tightly during a Presidential election.

I haven’t been paying much attention to the House of Representatives races. On the national level, it looks like the Democrats have the House in the bag. On the state level, it’s been awhile since Indiana’s Congressional districts seemed competitive. I suppose that’s part of a red-shift in state politics and partly gerrymandering that followed the 2010 census. Indiana’s 1st (Lake County) and 7th (Marion County) districts will be Democratic. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 9th will be Republican. And the 5th looks to be the only one that’s up in the air. It’s a fight for the seat being given up by Susan Brooks. Republican Victoria Spartz and Democrat Christina Hale seem to be pretty close. If I had to guess, Hale will pull it out. The suburban vote has been breaking against Trump lately and I think that will pull Hale across the finish line. But I’m horrible at these predictions.  Indiana doesn’t have any Senate races. Nationally, it looks like the Democrats have a decent chance of taking control.  The incumbent Democratic Senators most at risk look to be Doug Jones (Alabama) and to a lesser extent, Gary Peters (Michigan.) The Republicans seem to be at risk of losing seats in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia (x2), Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kansas, and Texas.

On the State level, I assume the General Assembly is still firmly under Republican control. The House Democrats can hope to deprive the Republicans of a supermajority, but I expect that’s about it. (Although, it looks like Todd Huston — the current Speaker — is in an exciting race that could shake up the House leadership.) The Democratic Caucus in the Indiana Senate will, I predict, continue to be a relatively lonely place. I haven’t heard too much about our local races – I assume the various incumbents will keep their seats. The Governor’s race could have been interesting if Woody Myers had gotten off to a smoother start. The roll out was fairly rocky and, at the time, Gov. Holcomb looked more or less untouchable. However, his support on the right wing of his party began to deteriorate due to his relatively sane COVID response — the masks-are-tyranny crowd are defecting to Rainwater. I tend to believe that defection is mostly illusory — if the Myers campaign had looked more threatening, the Rainwater Republicans would return to the Holcomb fold.

For me, the big state-wide race is Weinzapfel v. Rokita for Attorney General. I’ve never much cared for Rokita in any of his positions. He doesn’t seem to be well-liked among other Republicans, let alone Democrats. But he took advantage of Hill’s groping scandal and Holcomb’s somewhat tenuous control of the State party to win the Republican nomination. Meanwhile, Weinzapfel is a serious candidate who would likely do a good job as Attorney General. However, the fact remains that this is a pretty red state, so it’s going to be an uphill climb for any Democrat — even in a generally favorable year for Democrats. I’m crossing my fingers on this one.

And then there is my school board race. Fifteen people running for four spots. I’m hopeful, and I’m a competitive person, so I’d really like to win. Losing will sting for a bit. But, in the bigger picture, my life won’t change much one way or the other. I’d like to think enough of myself that I think the school will be worse off if I don’t pull this out. But the reality is that the schools will probably be fine whatever happens. Either way — and I know this is a cliche — but the good wishes of folks in the community have really meant a lot to me. The enthusiasm of friends has been gratifying and a little surprising (in a good way!) My wife is simply a juggernaut. Give her a solid project, and she’ll organize the hell out of it. My campaign would be a shambles but for her. The kids seem to be getting a kick out of their friends mentioning seeing my ad on YouTube.

Crossing my fingers and hoping for good things all across the board.

Iowa and the Political Media

by Leave a Comment

Everyone is forever accusing the media of bias, usually incorrectly. For my part, I see that bias as toward profit. More than convincing you of a political point of view, for example, the television news media’s primary job is to keep you watching through the commercial. The petulance of the political press has been on full display as their receipt of the Iowa caucus product they were promised has been delayed. That creates cascading production delays. Now their stories about “momentum” and “what it all means going into New Hampshire” will have to wait.

Iowa isn’t important because of the delegates it produces. It’s important because it’s the season premiere of Presidential Election. Rather than reporting on the news, with Iowa, the political media creates its own weather. The media isn’t reporting on Iowa because it’s significant. Iowa is important because of the reporting. Here we have a 538 story with the headline: “Iowa Might Have Screwed Up the Whole Nomination Process.”Nate Silver notes that Iowa accounts for 41 of the 3,990 Democratic pledged delegates. That’s one percent. But, he calculates that, because of the media coverage surrounding it, it’s worth more like 20%. He calls “the failure to release timely results” “a colossal shitshow.” Keep in mind what we mean by “timely” here. That was written approximately 8 hours after the caucuses started. Eight hours — in a process that will drag on until mid-July. Listening to CNN and MSNBC last night, there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth as they’d failed to get the “wins” and “losses” they so desperately wanted to feed into the narrative machine.

Compare how strident the complaints are about the delay in Iowa results to the relative indifference when, say, a politician stonewalls an investigation or fails to respond to a question. To me, that underscores where the biases really are.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

by 5 Comments

In case you hadn’t heard, President Trump joins the ranks of Presidents Johnson and Clinton as having been impeached by the House of Representatives. As the matter has progressed to the Senate for trial, his supporters have made any number of arguments in his defense, most of them in bad faith. The one that’s currently making my teeth itch, however, is the pseudo-legal argument that the Senate can only remove the President for a crime or “crime-like” behavior. Article II, §4 states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The “conviction” in that passage refers to a proceeding under Article I, §3, Clause 6 which provides:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

So, treason and bribery are a subset of “high crimes and misdemeanors” but the Framers’ use of the word “other” indicates that there are more. When the Framers wrote the document, the phrase had a long history in parliament:

[A]t the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, the composite term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a well-established, familiar legal term of art that the framers consciously borrowed from longstanding English practice and usage dating back four centuries. That meaning was not so much “vague” as simply broad: a sweeping delegation of power and responsibility to the legislative bodies entrusted with the impeachment power. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” had a broad meaning in English practice and in the American understanding, confiding to the two houses of the national legislature (under the U.S. Constitution, the House and the Senate, exercising their respective roles in the impeachment process) a sweeping range of power to punish what those political bodies determined to be misconduct or abuse of power by executive and judicial officers of a wide variety of types.

The meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was, so to speak, its own distinct thing. It was not a combination of “crimes” and “misdemeanors” as understood in today’s criminal-law sense. It was instead a unique legal term with its own meaning. The framers of the Constitution understood and used the phrase in that specialized sense, consciously adopting a known English-practice term of art in preference to other proposed formulations of the impeachment standard. And the ratification debates uniformly reflect that same broad understanding.

. . .

By the time the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia in 1787, the term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” had been employed in the English practice of impeachment for more than four centuries. Historians, researchers, and constitutional scholars have plumbed the depths of English practice, discussing and debating the specifics of charges in impeachments dating back as early as 1386. For purposes of understanding the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, however, those details are perhaps less important than the broad observation that impeachment specifically for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” – and frequently employing that very phrase – was a familiar political practice under the English constitution with a broad range of meaning marked by 400 years of experience and practice. [1]

Over the years, the English Parliament had developed and deployed the power of impeachment in its historic struggles to check the powers of the King and his ministers. The House of Commons had impeached and brought before the House of Lords for trial officers of the crown, including ministers and judges, that they believed had violated the constitution or laws; subverted the rights of Parliament or the system of government; abused or misused power; failed to perform the duties of office faithfully and competently; engaged in self-dealing behavior or misuse of funds; or were guilty of oppression, corruption, or other misbehavior or “mal-administration.”

Reflect on those categories for a moment. They describe a broad array of misconduct, not at all limited to criminality, as we today understand it. Not all persons impeached for the described offenses were convicted, of course. But the range of usage and practice – what was considered to lie within the scope of the power of impeachment for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” – was unquestionably broad. That range plainly embraced “political” offenses: offenses against the constitution, laws, system of government, prerogatives of other institutions, or the rights and liberties of the people – as well as common law offences that might be punishable by ordinary criminal law.

. . .

As a matter of English practice and authoritative commentary by the mid eighteenth century, impeachment embraced offenses involving official misconduct not necessarily punishable by the ordinary criminal law.

That’s the legal backdrop. The practical effect is that “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever the Congress says it means. Impeachment and removal is a political process and was always meant to be. The Framers undoubtedly hoped that members of Congress would use sound judgment about what constitutes good government when making this determination and hoped that citizens would punish members of Congress soundly at the ballot box when they did not use such judgment; but ultimately there is no legal mechanism for gainsaying what Congress determines is a removable offense. Just don’t let Trump’s supporters confuse you with bafflegab about how removal isn’t Constitutionally permissible. If, as the House has charged, Trump withheld Congressionally approved financial aid to pressure Ukraine into meddling in our domestic elections for Trump’s benefit, such behavior falls squarely within the Constitutional definition of “high crime and misdemeanor.” If Senators don’t vote for removal, it’s not because the Constitution does not sanction the removal, it’s simply because they don’t want to.

Elizabeth Warren and Charter Schools

by Leave a Comment

I made a Facebook post that seemed like it would be reasonable to turn into a blog post, so here we go. Chalkbeat has an article about Elizabeth Warren’s meeting with charter school activists. Per the article:

Warren’s education plan, which she released last month, proposes limiting charter schools in a number of ways. It promises to ban for-profit charter schools and eliminate federal funding for new charters. Warren’s plan also seeks to limit who could authorize charters — the kind of change that could threaten existing schools, though one that it’s unclear whether a president could pull off.

This prompted push back from charter activists. Warren promised to go back and look at her plan to make sure that charter schools are on an even playing field with traditional public schools. Charter schools like to claim that they are on an even playing field — maybe it’s even tougher for them. Traditional public school advocates strongly disagree. My thoughts in that Facebook post I mentioned:

1) The profit/non-profit distinction for charters favored by some candidates (not sure about Warren) doesn’t mean a lot unless we have some clarity on whether the management companies hired by the charters are themselves for-profit or not; and

2) There seems to be some evidence that charters can produce positive outcomes under the sorts of tight regulation Massachusetts has. Indiana is absolutely not going to impose that kind of close regulation and I’m guessing the charter advocates aren’t going to be supportive of that sort of regulation going nationwide.

From a previous blog post of mine, quoting a piece from the Harvard Political Review:

“It appears that Massachusetts’ charter laws are responsible, at least in large part, for the superior performance of the state’s charter schools. Indeed, Massachusetts prohibits for-profit Education Management Organizations (EMOs), and its process for authorizing charter schools is particularly rigorous. According to Alison Bagg, director of charter schools and school redesign at the Massachusetts Department of Education, Massachusetts is one of the few states in which the Department of Education serves as the sole authorizer of charter schools. “You have some states that have hundreds and hundreds of charters schools, all authorized by these districts or non-profits,” Bagg explained to the HPR. In Massachusetts, by contrast, “it has been historically very difficult to get a charter,” and the state has been recognized by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers as “one of the leaders in charter school authorizing nationwide.”

The charter renewal process is also quite rigorous, according to Bagg. The state monitors charter schools closely and has the ability to close charter schools that have achieved poor results—a practice that is not universal across states.”

In Indiana, by contrast, we get a school corporation like Daleville sponsoring the Indiana Virtual School charter which then takes state money for kids who are dead or have long since moved out of state.

Five years after two students moved to Florida, they reappeared on enrollment records for Indiana Virtual School and its sister school.

And nearly every one of the more than 900 students kicked out of Indiana Virtual School and its sister school in the 2017-18 school year for being inactive were re-enrolled the next school year, included in per-pupil funding calculations that netted the two online schools more than $34 million in public dollars last year.

These were among the ways that Indiana Virtual School and Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy allegedly inflated their enrollment to at least twice its actual size, according to the findings of a state examiner’s investigation[.]

Under Indiana’s charter system, Daleville was allowed to receive 3% of the state tuition dollars directed to the charter schools it authorized. In the case of IVS and IVPA, that amounted to $1 million. It’s not clear that a whole lot of oversight was being done.

Pete Buttigieg is smart, but if you like him you won’t dwell on it

by 7 Comments

Mayor Pete is gaining some momentum in the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary. As a mayor from a mid-sized city in Indiana, he has to be considered a very long shot, but I’ve enjoyed seeing his profile raising a bit. His auto-biography has been well-received and he made effective use of a town hall slot on CNN. However, I cringed a bit when I saw a tweet making the rounds talking about how he’d learned Norwegian to read more books by a Norwegian author for whom he could not find translations. I mean, that’s obviously very impressive, but talking about how smart he is doesn’t do him any political favors.

In a blog post about him I wrote about nine years ago when he was running for Treasurer, I mentioned, “we have an anti-intellectual streak a mile wide in this country where we want politicians to go with their gut and not any silly book-learnin’.” At the time, I believe I was still irritated a bit about Jill Long-Thompson’s campaign against Mitch Daniels for governor where she seemed to mention that she had a Ph.D. about every fifth sentence. That stuff does not impress American voters (and probably impresses Hoosier voters even less). We prefer “common sense” and “street smarts.” (Obligatory Einstein quote: “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”) I think our ambivalence about education has something to do with discomfort about the class system we like to ignore having in the U.S.

We don’t have titled nobility, and class warfare is for Communists. This is America where all men are created equal, and you rise and fall on your own merit. This cherished belief creates a blind spot which makes us ill-equipped to explain the success of mediocrities like George W. Bush or Donald Trump. Blue collar workers are resentful of the out-sized influence the professional classes like lawyers, doctors, and accountants seem to have on their personal lives — they feel keenly that these white collar types are looking down their noses at them. But, because we pretend to live in a classless meritocracy, we lack the vocabulary to talk about structural impediments to people rising or falling based on individual merit. So, to some extent, I think the unspoken resentments over social class gets translated into a distrust of highly educated, intellectual types.

Anyway, that’s a long way to go to say that I don’t think Pete’s self-teaching himself Norwegian will win him many votes. I suppose it’s some sort of progress that I think his educational achievements are likely to cost him more votes than the fact that he’s gay. (We’re maybe getting better at talking about social justice issues than we are about social class issues).