Think About It with Michael Leppert

Combine the adjectives of anger, fear and apathy to describe any audience, and it predictably equates to trouble. Those descriptors are the features of the American electorate today.

Imagine any organization of people, of any kind, that makes its decisions while grounded in those emotions. What could that collective mindset possibly accomplish? While I'm sure there are some things, they would be few, and for those few, I expect the value of these accomplishments would be minimal, or simply the result of dumb luck. Really dumb luck.

This year's election, the latest in a string of the most important election of our lifetimes, delivered a litany of results featuring contradictions and just plain thoughtlessness. But that's what happens when decision makers are mad, scared and don't care about productive outcomes.

Donald Trump returns to the White House in January for his second, and last, presidential term. He will be inaugurated two weeks after the four-year anniversary of the coup he inspired at the scene of the crime. I'm sorry, I meant crimes, plural. I'm sure the crowd on January 20, 2025, will be an interesting one. There will almost certainly be people in attendance who are on parole because of what they did the last time they were there.

The January 6, 2021, crowd was angry. With rage and denial over their candidate's defeat, they exploded. No surprise, really. It was and continues to be a coalition united by shared grievances.

It's remarkable how committed that coalition is to the bit. But what we are learning about the bit, albeit the hard way, is that those who are fueled by grievance will never be satisfied. To satisfy its grievance-based mindset is to eliminate its purpose, its usefulness and its energy. After all these years of watching the MAGA cult, this truth has become abundantly clear.

So, the anger, and all of the things that come with it, is the cult's most valuable feature.

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

Several weeks ago, two board members from the Pre-Law Association at IU came to my office and asked if I could prepare a workshop for the group in late October. I generally say yes to these kinds of things, and I had done one last year for the group about building and maintaining personal networks. Yea, I know that sounds boring, but I deliver it with a great deal of charisma.

This year though, they had a real challenge for me. They wanted me to help them prepare for the inevitable and uncomfortable conversations they were predicting this Thanksgiving. Yes, they know. These are juniors and seniors in college, which means they were primarily juniors and seniors in high school four years ago. Most of them weren't old enough to vote in 2020, but they remember Thanksgiving that year.

I don't talk politics with my students. I teach speech, writing and advocacy. Politics is not part of the curriculum of any of my classes and it wouldn't endear me with students who agree with my viewpoint any way. Further, I wouldn't want to lose credibility with the students who disagree with my perspective, because contrary to popular belief, I want to teach them advanced communication skills just as much.

That clarification intensifies the request for me. What they needed was help having difficult conversations. Most do. But in my academic work, I am concerned that we aren't connecting enough at all. This concern comes from my belief that there is no better way to come to know a person than by having a real conversation with them.

Zara Abrams wrote about the research being done in the arena for the American Psychological Association last year. The opening of her article says it well: "Conversations hold immense power. They help us form new connections and deepen existing ones." That may not inspire a loud, "Amen!" from you, but it does from me.

And being a "loud" listener is one of the keys to a better conversation. Yes, I mean throwing out the occasional "amen" or "preach" to let your conversation partner know you're listening. But a simple and thoughtful "hmm," or an encouraging "mm-hmm," can be just as productive. Those gestures send valuable messages to your talking partner.

Listening, and showing that you are listening, is the key. And while being a loud listener is helpful, asking questions is gold. Nothing leads to conversational connections better than asking questions.

The problem with questions is that all questions aren't created equally.

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

Every so often, the "beat" I cover treats me to a trip down memory lane to the time when I was a public servant. I was a much younger man when I left the government to become a consultant in 2002. And though the details surrounding my old stomping grounds are different, the regulatory compact remains unchanged.

On October 10th, U.S. Senator Mike Braun sent a letter to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission expressing his concern about AES Indiana's petition to transition its two remaining coal-fired generating units to natural gas. It's the kind of letter I used to receive every week as the executive director of the agency, although this one is a bit more awkward than usual.

I could numb Hoosier brains with all the ways the IURC works, but I won't. The important thing to know about the agency is that it is in the bad news business. It regulates utility rates. That's right, when rates go up, the commission is responsible. Luckily, it also approves all of the times rates go down, but I'm having a hard time remembering when that ever happened.

The agency exists and is organized the way it is so that politicians like governors and senators don't have to deliver this specific type of bad news. Trust me, I spent several years giving ratepayers bad utility news, and the elected officials in the statehouse back then appreciated my work. They would beat me up in public over my insensitive quips to their constituents, then afterward, they would whisper in my ear, "thank you."

So, when elected officials begin staking out positions on what will ultimately be the decision of the appointed utility commissioners, pay attention. It's dangerous political territory.

Leslie Bonilla Mũniz wrote how "Braun weighs in on utility's coal plant conversion ask" for the Indiana Capital Chronicle last week. Is an entire article necessary to explain an ambitious politician's letter to some sleepy state agency? Actually, it's worthy of two.

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

Election Day is only three weeks away, and as Donald Trump's third full campaign comes to a close, American voters have a pretty good idea who he is. Imagine having a conversation with a voter anywhere and hearing them say, "I wonder what this Trump fellow is really like."

One could just listen to the tunes that surround him. It's not a long playlist.

Vice President Kamala Harris was oddly playing a little bit of catch up when she entered the race as the Democrats presumptive nominee in July. Those of us in the political class knew her well, but apparently some voters needed to learn about or adjust to this late entry to the contest. It's hard for me to accept something as absurd as that, but I'm working through it.

While large numbers of voters didn't know enough about Harris, I have to admit that I didn't know much about her campaign's theme song, Beyoncé's "Freedom." Yea, I'd heard it, but I never really listened to it. It's played at the places I go. The restaurants, stores and the gyms where I spend time have had it in rotation since it came out in 2016.

"Hey! I'ma keep runnin' cause a winner don't quit on themselves," is the last line of the chorus that hits the hardest for me. Put those words with the power of Beyoncé's sound, look and aura, and you get a walk up, and a mic drop song all wrapped up into one. It's been used both ways for many causes over the years because of it.

At the other party's events, in some other swing state, the song being played is, gasp, "God Bless the U.S.A." by Lee Greenwood. I've kept it to myself for a long time now, but that ends today. It is simply an awful song. Admittedly, it's simply not my genre, but I don't know whose it is. I won't hear it anywhere I go, and if I did, I would immediately leave. It's a rip off of "God Bless America," another song that never comes up in anyone's shuffle.

My favorite line from it is, "'Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away." Aah, the generic "they." That's who we need to unite against, whoever "they" are. We need to wrap ourselves in the flag and then get out there and bless something. And the music? It sounds like the kind of stuff that was sold late at night on a 1980's infomercial. It's just not cool.

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

I watched the first Indiana gubernatorial debate with great interest on October 2nd. The hour long event featuring Jennifer McCormick (D) and Mike Braun (R) was only a few minutes in when I could tell this was likely going to be a good night for Democrats. Only a few minutes later, I found myself disappointed because I knew this important moment was not going to be seen by as many Hoosier voters as it should have been.

Americans expect more from political debates than we often get. This year is quite an exception. Both presidential debates delivered, at a minimum, a clear contrast between the participants that should drive decision making for voters. President Joe Biden's awful debate performance in late June led to a rallying cry from many in his own party for him to drop out of the race. The performance illustrated his greatest vulnerability; that he was just too old for the job.

Importantly though, polling data after that bad night didn't move all that much. One could conclude it didn't matter as much to voters as it did to the political class. More likely though, it confirmed pessimism about Biden's ability to inspire movement in his already sagging position. His eventual and historic withdrawal from the race, and the rallying around Kamala Harris drastically changed everything.

Debates can do that, though they rarely do. Usually, the contests are exercises in bias confirmation. Dr. Conor Dawling, professor of political science at the University of Buffalo wrote, "Debates can help solidify, or reinforce, choices for folks who are already fairly to very certain which candidate they intend to support." Yes, this is what we normally get out of them.

However, this year's battles have delivered more than that several times now.

The McCormick/Braun debate last week is one of them. Any objective viewer should have been able to see several things. McCormick had a better grasp of the details of the job. She was better prepared for the predictable questions, and she was confident in her delivery from start to finish.

Braun gave, at best, a lackluster performance that raised more questions than it answered. I first wrote that the Republicans were running a campaign about nothing in its quest for the governor's office last October. This is the third time I will remind Hoosiers of that sad truth.

I have seen gubernatorial campaigns, and the governing strategies that followed, which seemed to be designed around a "don't make any mistakes" sort of game plan. Former Governor Evan Bayh was committed to the strategy, and it served him well. Former Governor Mike Pence was also committed to it, though he did make a few large, damaging mistakes during his one term in office.

Braun's biggest mistake last week, on admittedly a much smaller scale, was comparable to Biden's June failure. He appeared unprepared for the predictable questions, and his lack of sharpness made him appear old, a critique that he has largely avoided so far. His non-answers to one specific item made it abundantly clear to me that he would not be defending recent comments made by his running mate, Republican lieutenant governor nominee, Micah Beckwith.

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 is the market rate for a governor? Well, it depends on the market of course. In New York, the rate is $250,000 a year. In Maine, it's $70,000. That makes perfect sense, doesn't it? These two states might as well be on two different planets after all. It takes five whole hours to drive from Albany to Augusta, a lovely drive that weaves around Boston, where the Massachusetts governor makes $185,000, before the path follows a stretch along the Atlantic coast.

The real answer is there is no "market," and therefore, there is no "market rate."

Whitney Downard reported last week for the Indiana Capital Chronicle the details on the new salaries of several Hoosier statewide elected officials. They are hefty raises, featuring the new salary of the governor, of $221,024, making it one of the highest paid in the nation. One market-based argument as to why that is outrageously high could be that the Indiana governor is constitutionally weak and should therefore be compensated weakly.

But let's be serious. The new salary is still pretty low when considering the demands of the job. So is New York's. And Maine's? That salary is absurd.

However, and if I could scream that word I would, being elected to a high-profile position absolutely creates opportunity. It's just difficult to quantify. These jobs aren't really jobs. Yes, if done even remotely well, they are work, and a lot of it. But in a market sense, they are more aptly described as "platforms," not occupations. And so, the salary matters far less than it otherwise would.

Governor Eric Holcomb will end his second term at the end of the year, never receiving the new salary. Tough break, guv. But there will be opportunity for him when his political career is over, assuming this is the end of that. I predict he will do quite well, probably through some sort of "job," coupled with other income-generating ventures that are minimally reported but highly profitable. After a long career of low and modestly paid political positions, he knows people, he has skills and value, and this is America. Following his post-governor life would be important to Hoosiers, if for no other reason, to contextualize what serving as governor is truly worth.

These salaries, while they are specifically what taxpayers finance, don't mean much in the end.

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

Polling data takes up more space in my world than campaign ads do. It's truly remarkable. In any presidential election year, I am normally exhausted by every candidate's pitch on TV by now. Thirty seconds at a time, the sound bites should have already eroded a precious sliver of my soul, and possibly yours as well.

Not this year. Not even on my chosen social platforms am I overwhelmed with the ads, barring a few odd, out-of-state exceptions. Nope. Polling data updates, some reliable and some absurd, is what I see most. Maybe it's just my algorithm. Maybe I've been identified as an unpersuadable, data wonk.

Or maybe the red-state-message in this red state is the problem.

A poll released last week by Destiny Wells, the Democrat nominee for attorney general, was the first public one showing details of two statewide races. The pollster, Lake Research Partners, is reputable. The sampling was appropriate, made up of 51% Republican voters and 36% Democrat. Wells only trails incumbent AG, Todd Rokita, 44-41%. Name identification for the incumbent is understandably twice as high as it is for Wells, which leads me to conclude that the more people know Rokita, the more people don't like him.

Rokita's low numbers are easy to explain. He is primarily known for performative antics that deliver nothing of value to Hoosiers, led by his unhinged attack on Dr. Caitlin Bernard for doing her job as an obstetrician. He has solicited complaints against state government, otherwise known as his own client. He has never seen a pro-Trump lawsuit he didn't volunteer to join. And his law license has been regularly in jeopardy for unlawyerly behavior.

He's simply unpopular. Go figure.

The Indiana governor's race was also included in the poll, and not surprisingly, it too shows a dead heat. Republican Mike Braun's 41% to Democrat Jennifer McCormick's 39% is inside the margin of error. Libertarian Donald Rainwater's 9% support matters too.

McCormick is polling seven points better than the 2020 Democratic candidate performed. The other two parties are lagging last election's finish. That's a meaningful turn.

But Indiana's still red right? Trump is still the favorite here for president, right? Yes. But his polling strength is also weakening here. He won Indiana by 19 points in 2016, by 16 in 2020, and is polling only 10 points ahead of Kamala Harris in this poll, 52%-42%. Again, this is a meaningful turn.

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

Bill Murray once said, "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win one with a stupid person." For the objective viewer, whoever that is, I expect Tuesday night's debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump to feel like this. Afterward, those tuning in to root for their chosen candidate will likely declare victory.

Harris supporters know her and will likely not be surprised by the things she says or the demeanor she displays. Even if she stumbles a little or fails to land the knockout punches Democrats are hoping for, it is unlikely she will lose anyone already on the Harris for President campaign train.

Oh, and she will make her case with the facts. That should matter, plenty, but we'll just have to wait and see about that.

The contrast Tuesday night's argument will display most distinctly will be exactly that: fact versus fiction.

Trump will likely try to make his case with hopes of exposing some damaging weakness in Harris. Can he make her seem weak? Can he make her seem unintelligent? Whether he's having one of his high energy days or another one of the growing number of low ones, it's unlikely he will make her anything at all.

Most of all though, this debate will be between two people so different in sharpness, age and ability, they won't appear to be even speaking the same language.

My wife took me to the beach this weekend to celebrate my birthday. On Saturday, an average size boat approached the area where we were camped and dropped its anchor. It had two oversized flags flying from the back of it. One was an old, faded U.S. Marines flag, and the other was a "Trump 2024" flag, that looked fresh out of the box. I couldn't help wondering what he paid for that one, and how many other versions he had previously bought.

I go to the beach to daydream, so after I cycled through the economics of buying the junk his candidate peddles so shamelessly, I started focusing on the old flag.

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

Who is credited with founding the holiday we celebrated Monday? According to History.com, some say it was a man named Peter McGuire, of the American Federation of Labor. Others say it was a man named Matthew Maguire, of the Central Labor Union who proposed it first. If spoken with an average gait, it's safe to speak either name and still safely sound correct.

Unions have been on a winning streak recently, a trend I expect to continue for the foreseeable future. The trend is good for America, even when it's inconvenient.

I rolled my eyes a little, OK, a lot, when the Hollywood writers and actors went on strike last year. It was the first time I had a personal stake in a walkout. I had done some, and hoped to do more, consulting on a film that was set to begin shooting in August. The strike caused the project to be shelved, ending my irrational fantasies of fame and fortune. That movie would have been bigger than "Barbie," according to me.

What could these people who have already "made it" possibly have to strike about? Does Brad Pitt really need better terms? No. But the Writers Guild of America, followed by the Screen Actors Guild, are filled with creators and workers similar to every other industry. And just like industries whose labor struggles have been historically familiar, Hollywood's impasse was also existential. These strikes became important because they have broadened the discussion.

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's the most wonderful time of the year! The fall semester starts this week, and I might be a little too excited. I need to remember to have a little sympathy for my new students, particularly those in my 8:00 am class on Tuesdays and Thursdays. For the rest of their lives, when they hear the term, "morning person," they will immediately think of me.

Even when my professional world revolved around legislation in the Statehouse, I rarely had business in the realm of education policy. Over the years, I only watched that stuff as a citizen. My sons went to Catholic school, so I felt a little detached from the annual wrangling over what the next moves from the Indiana General Assembly and the Indiana Department of Education would be.

Lately though, the biggest two moves seem to have a common theme: aiming lower.

Last year, Senate Bill 202 was a headline-maker that had folks in the realm of higher education all worked up. Conservative lawmakers were trying to address the reality that college professors tend to be more ideologically liberal or progressive than they prefer. You know, leftists like me are "indoctrinating" young people, not teaching them. It's a "problem" worthy of an eye roll.

From the perspective of a public university faculty member, I only cared a little about the bill in a practical sense. It never appeared to be impactful on what or how I teach. I already make space for diverse ideological viewpoints when appropriate, and honestly, it matters only in the rarest of circumstances. The "problem" the legislature is trying to solve here is incredibly overblown, and their solution is, in fact, not one. More importantly, that non-solution is expensive.

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