Think About It with Michael Leppert

With football season upon us, I must confess one of my favorite things about it. I love yelling at the refs. It's a silly thing to do, since after decades of doing it, I can count the times a football referee has distinctly heard my complaints on one hand. It's hard to be heard from the upper deck at Lucas Oil Stadium, or my preferred spot, the recliner in my living room.

Let me introduce you to the American voter.

I was scrolling social media over the weekend and came across a post by pollster Nate Silver. He had attached a graph from Federal Reserve Economic Data, or FRED, that details consumer spending. The graph is familiar looking to wonks. It shows a steady increase until an abrupt and extreme decrease in March of 2020. By February of 2021, the graph had picked up where it left off and has continued to rise since.

So? Silver's observation is consistent with what many of us have been saying for some time now. Americans are behaving as if times are great, while also saying the economy is bad.

In April of this year, Pew Research Center published "Americans take a dim view of the nation's future, look more positively at the past." The center routinely measures the nation's optimism, and currently, it's running low. As has been consistent with other polling data, the pessimism has apparently set in. Just before the pandemic, 57% of Americans had a positive outlook on the state of the economy. Today, that number has plummeted to 19%, even though all economic indicators show conditions to be similar to pre-pandemic measures.

What conclusions can be drawn from data that shows a populace that is experiencing a similar economy, but nearly 40% more of us now view it negatively?

My conclusion is that we have simply become angrier. Just in general, across the board, our pessimism seems to have engulfed our collective psyche. If that is correct, how will messaging to such an angry crowd change?

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert

Over the weekend, a racially motivated mass shooting occurred, this time in Jacksonville, Florida. Three black people were murdered before the white gunman turned one of his guns on himself. The 21-year-old legally purchased both the handgun and AR-15 style rifle he used.

It's these regularly horrific events that bring out statements from local leaders, advocacy groups of all kinds, governors and presidents. Those statements are then followed by media scrutiny until the next horrific shooting occurs. It's a feature of America's policies on guns, not a bug. It is predictable and no matter what words are used in the heartfelt statements given in response, it will continue.

What is missing from the cycle is important: we don't ever talk about what it all costs. No, in most circles, it doesn't get a mention. An accounting of the cost of guns is rarely undertaken, and when it is, the numbers are so shocking and enormous, the study usually falls victim to the post-truth era in which we live.

In March of 2022, Indiana passed its law eliminating the need for a gun permit. The year before, the Indiana General Assembly had made the permit free of charge. The policy reasoning behind these moves in consecutive years is grounded in the mantra of "why should people have to pay for something that is a constitutional right?"

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert

It was one of countless interviews given by a gaggle of presidential candidates that could have gone largely unnoticed. How does describing a specific sect of GOP voters as "listless vessels" compare to one of the greatest hits of the 2016 campaign, "a basket of deplorables?"

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, speaking to the Florida Standard last week, specifically said this: "If all we are is listless vessels that's just supposed to follow, you know, whatever happens to come down the pike on Truth Social every morning, that's not going to be a durable movement."

Now, I'm no fan of his politics, but in that moment, he was absolutely correct. The Trump campaign and others have jumped on the comment as synonymous with Hillary Clinton's 2016 insult. The faux outrage about the term, once again, conveniently overshadows the important part: cults of personality don't make for successful governing philosophies.

There were two polls released last week that back up the sad truth of the controversial comment, though data rarely moves any listless vessel.

First, AP/NORC released a poll that showed many things, but none more important than one particularly hard truth. 53% of Americans are saying they "definitely won't" vote for Donald Trump next year, and another 11% say they "probably won't" vote for him either.

Uh, that's 64% of Americans who aren't listless. They aren't aimlessly floating along waiting for the next absurdity. Their vessel has docked, they have disembarked, and have moved on. It's that other 36% that almost all of the GOP is courting with their campaigns.

Second, in a CBS/YouGov poll, disturbing data showed how listless the bulk of that deep minority has become.

Among Trump voters, the question was asked who is it that you "feel what they tell you is true?" The answers here are stunning.

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert

What a difference a year makes in the American debate on abortion. In the summer of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Dobbs ruling, ending the nearly half a century old precedent established by Roe v. Wade that protected a woman's right to choose.

That ruling empowered states to establish their own laws on the matter. Many did. None were faster than Indiana. Dobbs was issued on June 24, 2022, forty-two days later on August 5, Indiana passed a near total abortion ban.

Every other state in the region is now moving in the opposite direction.

Michigan started it. Immediately after the Dobbs ruling, two things happened to Indiana's north. First, a court blocked that state's 1931 abortion law which became effective briefly last summer. Next, more than 750,000 voters signed a petition to have abortion rights enshrined in the state's constitution. It appeared on the ballot last November and was approved on a 57-43 vote. The issue contributed to a Democratic sweep of state politics there. In April, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a law repealing the 1931 law entirely.

In Wisconsin, Dobbs reactivated a law that made abortion illegal that was passed in 1849. No that is not a typo. The law there was only used for prosecution seventeen times between its passage and the Roe ruling in 1973, resulting in only five convictions. But the Dobbs ruling made that law effective again, so, as expected, lawsuits there were understandably initiated to challenge it. As a result, the state supreme court and its political makeup became the arena for the fight.

A vacancy was created by a retirement on the Wisconsin court requiring a statewide election there in April. The court had been controlled by conservatives 4-3, but the retirement made the ideological split even, and the election quickly became a proxy vote on abortion and the lawsuit over the 1849 law. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz, the liberal candidate, won by eleven points, flipping the court. The margin of victory is the real shocker here. Wisconsin is known for their evenly split electorate, but apparently not so much when the issue is abortion.

Even Kentucky has been a surprise. The Bluegrass State also passed a law in 2019, modeled after the Mississippi law that was the subject of the Dobbs ruling, and became effective last year. But the Republican legislature attempted to make their statutory total-ban even more safe by adding language to their state constitution to clarify that it did not protect abortion rights. That constitutional amendment was surprisingly defeated in November, 52-47 percent.

Which brings me to Ohio.

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert

There is something that has been bothering me more as I have gotten older. No, it's not typical old man stuff like electric scooters on the sidewalks, or those mobile bass machines disguised as cars that vibrate everything within fifty yards of them. And I no longer keep a lawn that gives me a chance to yell at the neighborhood kids to get the hell off of it.

This one is important, and come to find out, it matters to plenty of people.

About five years ago, during an innocent what-are-we-having-for-dinner conversation with my wife, I became aware of the most disturbing thing. She believes chili, the food, the American staple, has a season. What!? Does that mean there is an off-season? Come to find out, in my house, after being married for several years, the apparent ridiculous answer to that ridiculous question is "yes."

Since becoming aware of her oppressive perspective, I have noticed a tension, an unexplainable sadness in the household every year. It begins in mid-spring and lasts until September. Until she confessed to covertly enforcing a season I didn't know existed, I couldn't identify the problem.

It is a disagreement that is immune to my renowned Aristotelian talent of persuasiveness.

So, I decided to take my plight to the streets. Surely, I could find people to back me up here. I asked the question, "Is there a chili season?" on a couple of the social platforms, and the answers surprised me.

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert

If the average American were to learn about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training through its discussion in the political arena alone, suspicion of it should be expected, and hostility toward it would be understandable. Duh. That applies to just about everything these days.

On July 21st, Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to Jacksonville, Florida to object to that state's newly approved standards for how black history is taught. The new instruction will teach "how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

The objection to the "benefit" of slavery in the standard led to Gov. Ron DeSantis initially claiming it was the Florida Department of Education who wrote it, not him. But that only lasted for a moment before he realized there was an opportunity for a fight here. DeSantis quickly pivoted to defend the controversial language and attack anyone who didn't like it.

That predictable, and disgusting position got more complicated when the highest profile, black, Republican elected officials sided with Harris. Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, the state's only black member of congress, objected first, followed by other black members of the House, Rep. John James of Michigan and Rep. Wesley Hunt of Texas. Even presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, joined the objectors.

Again, duh. The language in the Florida standards is racist. Plain and simple. It is so clearly racist it is silly to even debate it. Delete it. Apologize for it. Learn from it. Move on.

The Florida DOE could use some training in DEI.

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert

"Barbie" had one hell of a weekend! I've never seen so many groups of women out and about, proudly wearing similar pink dresses. What normally would have been wardrobe warfare, was the happiest weekend in America. It was as if Easter, Prom, and an abundance of weddings with way too many bridemaids were all occurring simultaneously.

The event the movie's opening created was fun, just like the doll, its accessories, its comics, and other small scale cinema events have been for generations. And it's make-believe. America truly loves its make-believe.

Even larger groups of Americans are living in a land of make-believe that isn't fun at all. They are pretending it is, but the story will end badly.

Donald Trump is running away with the Republican nomination for president in 2024. That's real. His supporters' fantasy is that somehow their preferred candidate's legal woes will somehow resolve so that he can actually be elected and hold office for a second time.

That is a fantasy less believable than the land of Barbie.

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert

On November 30, 1996, Ole Miss lost to Mississippi State, 17-0, in one of the oldest football rivalry games in America. It was a home game for Ole Miss, in Oxford, in a game known as the Egg Bowl. The chancellor of Ole Miss at the time, Robert Khayat, went to visit the team's coaching staff the Sunday morning after that loss to offer some encouragement.

Khayat writes in his book, "Education of a Lifetime," about noticing that the coaching staff was "morose" about the situation that morning, with the head coach offering to the chancellor that the team "can't recruit against the confederate flag." The coach was taking issue with the student body's tradition of waving the confederate flag in the stands at games, and that the racist stigma attached to it was making it difficult to attract top talent to the school and team. Yep, I imagine it would, coach.

Who was that coach? Tommy Tuberville. Yes, the same man who is now U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville, a now retired football coach and novice politician from Alabama.

Why would an Indiana editorial writer take the time and space to share that story? Hang with me for a moment.

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert

What do people want, really want, from social media platforms? I know what many people say they want, but as is often the case with the content on any given platform, people are often unreliable.

Meta's launch of "Threads" late last week has served as the latest disruption to the world of social media that, if nothing else, is forcing a conversation that can seem complicated but often isn't.

I am and always have been a true believer in markets. Wherever there can be a market, I hope there is one. When a platform designed to compete with Twitter is launched, it makes me feel like a market exists in the world of social media. If it feels like a market, then it must be one, right?

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert

The U.S. Supreme Court really outdid themselves at the end of their session this year. For the top cadre of the American judicial branch, one experiencing its lowest level of public confidence in the history of measuring it, one would think they would try harder. And now that the ink is dry on some of the court's lowlights from last week, the white folks celebrating them should be sober enough to give these awful rulings a little thought.

It is always fascinating to see the reactions to SCOTUS rulings. They often say more about the celebrators than they do about the decisions, and this week is a prime example. In the expected decisions ending affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Americans rejoicing were largely white, largely male, and largely Republican. It will take some time, but time will show how that bunch is largely wrong.

Segments of our culture continue to display infinite smallness, and those supporting the decisions in Students for Fair Admissions ("SFFA") v Harvard/UNC-Chapel Hill, do so by claiming these are victories for fairness. "Merit-based" standards for college admission is the only way for the process to truly be fair, right? The problem with this shallow perspective primarily is its smallness.

Connect with Michael Leppert

Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned.

Twitter @michaelleppert

Facebook at Michael Leppert