LePage’s Race War

In some future history textbook, the chapter describing the political climate that gave rise to the reign of Emperor Trump I will probably have to devote several pages to Paul LePage.

When you go to war, if you know the enemy, the enemy dresses in red and you dress in blue, you shoot at red. … You shoot at the enemy. You try to identify the enemy. And the enemy right now, the overwhelming majority of people coming in are people of color or people of Hispanic origin.

Observing the horror that is Paul LePage, I really wonder what color the sky is on the planet inhabited by the “end the two party DUOPOLY” crowd, at least on the left.* Maine is, relative to the rest of the country, refreshingly full of forward-thinking, wise people who go to the ballot box relatively unconstrained by brainwashing of the duopoly. In the 2010 gubernatorial election, LePage demonstrated neither an inclination nor an interest in moderating or disguising his cretinous nature, leading to over 62% of Maine voters rejecting him in the biggest Republican wave election in a generation–a rejection far stronger, numerically, than Trump is likely to receive. But that didn’t matter, because Maine voters successfully overcame the Duopoly’s brainwashing, and split the rest of the vote three ways.

The desire, absent significant electoral reforms, for an end to two party dominance must, it seems to me, be premised on at least one of the following wagers: that a candidate of the left who only needed 35-40% support to win is more likely to emerge than a similar candidate of the right, or that a candidate of the left would do more good, if unencumbered from the squishy center, than a candidate of the right would do harm. Neither of these wagers seemed particularly wise to me a year ago, and it looks a lot worse now–if we approached elections nationwide as Maine does, there’s a decent chance Trump’s presidential chances would be orders of magnitude greater. A glance at the recent history of other FPTP democracies that aren’t limited to two parties hardly gives any reason for optimism here either. I don’t know which of these wagers the anti-duopoly crowd presumes to be a good one, and I don’t know why, but it sure would be nice to see someone actually try to defend either or both of them on the merits.

Meanwhile, let’s turn from a sitting Governor’s calls for a race war and pay a visit to the New York Times, where esteemed Yale economist Robert Shiller brings us some extremely troubling and alarming news–economic inequality is substantial and increasing, and it might get worse. He’s concerned that this trend may have some negative consequences:

Truly extreme gaps in income and wealth could arise from many causes. Consider just a few: Innovations in robotics and artificial intelligence, which are already making many jobs uncompetitive, could lead us into a world in which basic work with decent pay becomes impossible to find. An environmental disaster like global warming, pollution or disease could sharply reduce the ability of people of ordinary means to live in specific regions or entire countries.

Future wars using ever more highly destructive technology, including chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, could devastate vast populations. And it’s not out of the question that dire political changes, like the rise of racist or otherwise exclusionary social structures, could have terribly damaging consequences for less privileged people.

Of course, I dearly hope none of these things ever happen. But even if they are unlikely, as part of our progress to a better world, we should be thinking now of how we might address them.

Has anyone been to New Haven lately? Just how tall are they building those Ivory Towers?

*Memo to Gregor: if things were different, they’d be different.