Living Democracy, Feeding Hope

by Frances Moore Lappé and Hannah Stokes-Ramos, July 10, 2024 (Photo credit: Tim Mossholder/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , July 10, 2024 In the presidential debate Donald Trump cast himself as our great protector against dangerous immigrants including the “insane” and “terrorists” who take our jobs and commit crimes. A top advisor reports that Trump plans to increase deportation 10-fold . Such charges aren’t new. The terms “threat” and “immigration” have together soared through our media since the ‘90s. To many Americans it’s seemed self-evident that “others” are robbing us of opportunity, draining our resources, and even inflicting immediate harm. But these charges are wrong, completely wrong. Immigration is being used by economic elites as a powerful tool to shift our attention away from the real roots of crises, both economic and political. Plus, casting immigration as a crisis blinds us to the multiple ways immigrants contribute to our national well-being. First, the basics. Immigrants—more than half of which are naturalized citizens—make up about 14 percent of our population. And they are an even bigger share of our civilian labor force— 19 percent . Thus, they do a lot to keep our economy going—generating $1.6 trillion in spending power. Immigrants also contribute to the public good, paying $579 billion in federal, state, and local taxes. That’s a lot! It is over three-quarters of what we spend each year on defense , which is among our largest national expenditures. Of course, millions more Americans are children and grandchildren of earlier immigrants—as am I—which has been a source of America’s pride. Yes, our foreign-born population has been increasing, but barely. Between 2020 and 2022 the percent of foreign-born grew one point, reports the U.S. Census Bureau . According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) , between 2019 and 2023, our immigrant labor force grew yearly on average 2.3 percent; yet there’s no evidence of harm to the native-born, as our economy has also been growing. In fact, EPI also found that for U.S.-born workers, 2022-2023 was a time of “very low unemployment—and strong employment growth.” Robust growth continues to exceed expectations. And what about the claim that immigrants are “taking” jobs, especially of the less-educated? This, too, is misleading, as immigrants without a high school diploma fill very different jobs than comparable native-born Americans. Immigrants typically take jobs as maids and house cleaners, cooks, and agricultural workers. In California, for example, 69 percent of farmworkers are migrants. By contrast, native-born Americans with no high school education are apt to be cashiers, truck drivers, janitors, and building cleaners. Among undocumented workers, the largest share of work is in agriculture, construction, administrative support, and tourism, hospitality, and food service. In rural Ohio, I once had the opportunity to speak with such workers, and my heart broke as one woman expressed bewilderment at how she was treated. “Why don’t people here respect us?” she asked me. “We bring you your food.” Some worry also that immigrants increase crime, but data doesn’t confirm this fear: From 1990 to 2013 unauthorized immigration tripled while the U.S. crime rates fell by almost half. Furthermore, over decades unauthorized immigrants have proven to be less likely to commit crimes than the native-born, reports Northwestern University. And their incarceration rates are also lower. Among young, less-educated men from Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador—who are a large share of undocumented immigrants—incarceration rates are at most about a quarter that of the native-born. Some studies also find delinquency rates of immigrant youth to be lower than their native peers. Trump has charged repeatedly that immigrants drain Social Security, when the opposite is true. Almost all undocumented immigrants work and pay taxes into Social Security and Medicare. From 2004 to 2014, they paid over $100 billion into Social Security alone. Yet, immigrants are not allowed to access the Social Security into which they’ve paid. Note, too, that most immigrants by far are documented. In 2022, the undocumented were only a bit over one-fifth of all immigrants and added no more than 3 percent of our population. Yet, they contributed over $35 billion in taxes. Refugees make up an even smaller segment of the population and pay over $30 billion in taxes each year. Trump’s proposed mass deportation of undocumented workers would strike a huge blow to the American economy. Our GDP would shrink by about $1.6 trillion, triggering a 5.7 percent decline in the economy while costing the U.S. government about $400 billion. Moreover, offering current undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship would add $116 billion in federal tax revenue, $68 billion in state and local tax revenue. GDP would grow by $1.7 trillion over the next decade. Plus, it’s false to assume that jobs vacated by deported immigrants would be filled by the native-born. After Arizona passed its restrictive SB 1070 law in 2008, the overall number of jobs shrank by 2.5 percent by 2015, and only 10 percent of vacated jobs had been filled by the native-born. So, let’s spread the word that many Americans are struggling not because of immigrants taking their jobs and using up their resources. The real threat is the worsening and highly alarming concentrations of wealth and income in our country—more extreme here than in over 100 nations. The top 1 percent of Americans control 30.4 percent of the wealth. Just 806 billionaires hold more wealth than the entire bottom half of all Americans. Such concentration continues because of our corrupt political system allowing big donors and private-interest lobbyists way too much power. Here, too, we are an outlier among our peer nations. Blaming immigrants is thus a dangerous distraction. It harms not only them but virtually all of us. It distracts us from digging to the root causes of illegal immigration—extreme poverty, gang violence, and autocratic governments. So let us redirect attention from false blame to face the truly critical challenges of fixing our democracy—via initiatives such as Equal Citizens —and to assume leadership internationally to address the root causes of poverty driving immigration.

by Frances Moore Lappé, August 2, 2024 (Photo credit: Natilyn Photography/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , August 2, 2024 In the presidential race, Democrats and Republicans remain neck and neck. But how could this be? Afterall, free-market mythology, politically popular since the 1980s, has led us to believe that humans are essentially selfish creatures, eager to put ourselves first. Yet, Trump’s many policies that harm the vast majority of us do not seem to diminish his appeal. Before puzzling over “why,” here are a just a few examples of party differences that one might think would have brought the truly self-interested to abandon Trump and jump on the Democratic bandwagon. On Social Security. Trump remains ambiguous, failing to provide any specific measures on how he would protect Social Security. In contrast, Democrats promise not only to protect but to strengthen benefits, including—if needed to cover the cost—raising taxes on those earning more than $400,000. They have also expressed support for raising benefits for low-income recipients and improving Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment formula. On taxes. The 2017 Republican tax reform was skewed to benefit the rich and Trump now proposes reducing taxes on capital gains. Democrats, however, seek to expand tax credits for workers and families and to increase tax rates on wealth for corporations and individuals. On the minimum wage. Trump says he would consider raising it but prefers to leave the decision to states. The Democrats pledge an increase , underscoring that the minimum wage has not risen since President Obama and still only brings the worker to the poverty line . On abortion. Trump promised in 2016 to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade . He also appointed abortion opponents to the federal judiciary, including three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn the federal right to abortion. However, Democrats support women’s right to choose, as do two-thirds of Americans. On education. As president, Trump called for eliminating the Public Service Loan Forgiveness initiative and ended loan forgiveness for students defrauded by their schools. In contrast, President Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan—the largest one-time investment in education— helped schools reopen and regain ground faster. On healthcare. Trump calls Medicare “ socialism ” and supports appealing or overturning the Affordable Care Act in favor of a private market. He also supports spending caps and work requirements on Medicaid. With these changes, certain low-income populations, pregnant women, and people with disabilities would lose Medicaid coverage . Democrats support the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid as a federal program. On climate. Trump has promised to roll back regulation of the fossil fuel industry in exchange for $1 billion in campaign contributions . Under Biden’s presidency, carbon emissions fell by 2 percent even as the economy grew, and his administration is devoting $2 billion to encourage electric vehicles. On immigration. Trump declared an “illegal immigrant invasion, the worst that’s ever been seen anywhere in world.” Yet, between 2020 and 2022 the percent of foreign-born grew just one point, reports the U.S. Census Bureau . Between 2019 and 2023, our immigrant-labor force grew yearly on average 2.3 percent; yet there’s no evidence of harm to the native-born, as our economy has also been growing. Thus, for U.S.-born workers, 2022-2023 was a time of “very low unemployment—and strong employment growth,” notes the Economic Policy Institute . Plus, job growth continues to exceed expectations . Hmm. If on policy questions, direct self-interest seems to take a back seat, what is shaping today’s highly charged political divergence that might be less obvious? Our free-market mythology teaches us that anyone worth their salt can make it if they try. So, those who don’t are, well, either too lazy or too stupid. From that root myth, it is easy to grasp why those at the lower rungs of the economic ladder can feel shame . I know I’d be vulnerable, too. But we also know enough about our nature to realize that shame is perhaps the most painful of human emotions. We can cope with loss, anger, and embarrassment…but shame? Hmm, it hits hard. So, what can we do to evade that terrible feeling? Well, there seems to be one easy, effective way: Blame . As long as we can blame “the other,” we can find some solace. Feeling oneself to be a victim isn’t great, of course, but it’s definitely preferable to shame. For one, we can enjoy self-righteousness and create bonds with others based on common grievances. Another plus? We don’t have to be troubled by coming up with solutions ourselves, including how to tackle profound economic inequality . Note that worldwide in income inequality, the U.S. is ranked more extreme than 115 countries, while most of our peers come in far above us in the top 50. Acknowledging our standing and coming up with solutions is hard. Blaming “them”—immigrants, LGBTQ+, welfare recipients—is easy. Recognizing that blaming is an all-too-human pitfall, let’s strive to replace its simple satisfaction with those enriching, positive emotions that emerge through mutual empowerment as we shape and offer solutions through interaction with others. Millions of Americans are now building that courage through groups such as those in the broad network Declaration for American Democracy . Among the deepest of human needs is power—from the Latin posse , meaning “to be able.” It is not power over others, but rather a sense of agency that only democracy can offer. Yet, for most of us, action requires courage—risking the new by reaching out, asking tough questions, and doing something we’ve never done before. Courage, however, is also a human need. Its root lies in “coeur,” meaning “heart” in French. With the courage to step out comes the joy of bonding, not from shared finger-pointing but through acting together in shared problem-solving. And… in all, it is vastly more satisfying than blaming.

by Frances Moore Lappé and Hannah Stokes-Ramos, August 18, 2024 (photo credit: Alejo Reinoso/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , August 18, 2024 For most of us a “near miss”—whether a car wreck or a marriage breakup—calls on us to ask, “Why” and to seek answers. So, certainly the near assassination of former U.S. President Donald Trump calls for similar digging into root causes we can address. Nearly two-thirds of Americans agree that crime is a big, national problem, and no doubt this near tragedy reinforces our worry. But what many of us may not grasp is how much more serious our crime challenge is relative to nations we assume to be our peers. In assassinations alone, we are one of just three countries sharing top place for the number of presidents killed between 1875 and 2004. The U.S. by far leads the world in gun ownership per capita, with a rate of 121 guns per 100 people. With under 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. has 40% of the world’s civilian-owned guns. Among our peer countries, Canada is second with 35 guns per 100 people, or roughly one-third our rate. But note this big difference: Canada suffers just over two gun-related deaths per 100,000 while our rate is 11 deaths . Closely following Canada in number of guns owned are Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. All have fewer than three gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. That’s almost a quarter of our rate. Our country is also plagued by mass shootings—defined as the killing or injuring of four or more. By this measure, in 2023 America experienced almost two a day—totaling more than 650 such shootings. Among the young in America—those 1 to 17—more now die from firearms than by any other type of injury or illness; and this death rate doubled in just eight years, from 2013 to 2021. And Black, Latino, and Indigenous people in the U.S. are more than 10 times, more than two times, and nearly 3.5 times (respectively) to die of homicide by firearms compared with whites. So, what are possible solutions? We can start by seeking lessons from our peer countries. In Canada stricter gun control includes a ban on civilian ownership of automatic weapons. Handguns require a permit that is issued only on a temporary basis, and only for gun-club members and gun collectors and anyone demonstrating a need for self-defense purposes. Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds. Purchase of rifles and shotguns requires an official certificate and involves a 28-day waiting period. Purchase is denied to people with certain criminal histories or who have mental-health disorders associated with violence. Canada also has “ red flag ” laws, where an emergency prohibition can be issued for anyone judged to be a danger to themselves or others. In Finland, gun ownership requires a license and registration, an aptitude test for the license, and a minimum age of 20. Guns can only be carried for a specific purpose, and gun owners bear the responsibility for ensuring that the gun and ammunition don’t end up in the wrong hands. In Norway, semiautomatic weapons are banned , a license is required by the police, as well as a “valid” reason for obtaining it—such as membership in a gun club or use for hunting. Self-defense isn’t considered a valid reason. An applicant also must pass an exam after extensive firearm training , and firearms must be securely stored in an approved safe. With a 48-hour notice, police are allowed to enter to inspect the safe. In the U.S., domestic abusers can now be barred from owning a firearm, as well as felons , fugitives, drug users, those involuntarily hospitalized for mental health, and those dishonorably discharged from the military. Youth under 18 cannot possess a handgun, but they can still own a rifle or shotgun in the majority of states. Prohibited firearms include those with serial numbers erased, machine guns produced after 1986, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, and silencers. Federal law doesn’t require licenses or permits to own firearms, but 10 states do require them, dependent on completing background checks. Note that federal law now requires background checks only on purchases from a federally licensed gun dealer. So, more background checks could help. The problem? Only 40% of gun sales in the U.S. are through such a federally licensed dealer. Note that the 17 states that now do require prior universal background checks also require all sales of firearms to go through a licensed dealer who can perform such checks prior to sale. Additional protection could come from expanding bans on the most dangerous weapons. For example, approximately two-thirds of U.S. states allow civilian ownership of machine guns. Note that, overall, gun laws vary widely by state —with California being the strongest with a score of 89.5 out of 100 while most southern states receive a score of 20 and below. Might gun violence ultimately be a mental health problem, as Republicans like to claim ? It’s true that Finland and Norway, among the happiest nations, have a low rate of gun violence. On the other hand, Canada—ranking lower than the U.S. in mental health—has much lower rates of gun-related deaths despite having among the world’s highest rates of gun ownership. Of course when it comes to suicide, the link between mental health and gun violence is undeniable. As evidence, Greenland has a high suicide rate and gun-related deaths ( 18 deaths per 100,000 people) despite its low gun-ownership rate. And if poor mental health is one root of the problem, all the more reason to pass laws requiring tougher mental health screenings for gun ownership. Currently, a person can be barred if declared mentally incompetent by a court or government body. And if Republicans truly believe gun violence is a mental health problem, they need to actually vote for government support for mental health initiatives rather than defunding them. Plus, if better mental health is foundational to reducing gun violence, all of us should also be backing policies to alleviate stress created by low wages and high-housing costs, for example—precisely the changes that Republicans resist. Since the solution to gun violence goes well beyond addressing mental health, let’s begin with the most basic gun reforms advocated by the Democratic Party: strengthening background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of those with a history of violent crime or posing a danger to themselves or others, such as domestic abusers. Our upcoming national election offers a great opportunity to highlight these crucial steps for public safety, as the Democratic candidate for vice-president—Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz—became a gun-control advocate in response to the 2018 Parkland high-school shooting. Commonsense gun reforms are the least we can do as a nation to protect ourselves—especially children in schools, the minority members of our population, and our own politicians—while still protecting our right to bear arms.

by Frances Moore Lappé, December 23, 2024 (Photo Credit: Hartano Creative Studio/Unsplash) Originally published  in Common Dreams , December 23, 2024 It’s a crisis. America is now among 11 nations deemed most threatened by both mis-and disinformation . Little wonder that almost 90% of us fear our country is on the “ wrong track. ” And, President-elect Trump has led the way with 492 suspect claims in just the first hundred days of his first presidency. Then, before the 2020 vote, in a single day he made 503 false or misleading claims. By term’s end he’d uttered 30,573 lies , reports The   Washington Post . Now, he is joined by his promoter Elon Musk who is flooding his own platform X with disinformation—for example, about the bipartisan end-of-year funding deal. Some play down our current “mis-and-disinformation” crisis as nothing new. Referring to the Vietnam War era, the Heritage Foundation says “Trump is not guilty of any lie, falsehood, fabrication, false claim, or toxic exaggeration that equals the lies of one past president [Lyndon Johnson] whose Alamo-sized ego caused the deaths of thousands of Americans.” In 2018, Heritage dismissed Trump’s lies as insignificant embellishment about “his wealth, his girlfriends of decades ago, or the size of his inaugural crowd.” Yet, his more recent lies have had deadly consequences. Playing down the severity of Covid-19, Trump described it as “like the flu,” “under control,” and “already disappearing.” His casting doubt about protective measures likely contributed to “tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths,” reported health scientists . After losing the presidential race in 2020, he repeatedly reinforced unsubstantiated questioning of electoral integrity. “Trump’s big lie ”—sparking a violent insurrection on January 6—caused multiple deaths and helped trigger stricter voter-registration laws . Trump’s actions may have taken us into a new era some call “post-truth” politics. So, what might this mean? And how might we learn from democracies standing up against mis- and disinformation? Lies are about a particular event—as in former President Bill Clinton’s denial of an extramarital affair; whereas “post -truth” refers to a “shift to another reality” in which facts don’t matter anymore, observes Irish philosopher Vittorio Bufacchi . The stakes are high as “post-truth is pre-fascism,” warns Yale history professor Timothy Synder in On Tyranny . Pretty grim. But to step up most of us need to sense the possibility of success, or at least movement in the direction of well-being. So, where might we find grounds for honest hope? Let’s look at what courageous peer nations are doing. Between 2011 and 2022, 78 countries passed misinformation and disinformation laws covering social media, including Germany’s “ anti-hate-speech law. ” Yes, some measures have been criticized for unintended consequences . In authoritarian states and those with weak guardrails against misuse, they can cause harm. As in the monarchy Bahrain . It used fake news laws to control content and threaten journalists with arrest . Some critics note that Germany’s anti-hate-speech risks “ over-blocking ” content. But we cannot afford to give up. Fact-checking news websites such as PolitiFact and Snopes—flagging content on social media—are valiant efforts. So far they’ve been only moderately helpful , but we can learn from their experience to create a holistic, long-term approach to countering mis-and-disinformation. One key will be more independent and public journalism , including PBS and NPR , driven not by narrow profit or partisan agendas. As local journalism—perhaps easiest to hold accountable—has suffered a sharp decline in the past decades, state and local governments can step up with financial support and incentives . Here, many peer nations can inspire us. Several have much to teach us about addressing disinformation with public news media . One exemplar is New Zealand with a unique approach. Since 1989, its Broadcast Standards Authority has offered an easily accessible, transparent online platform for any citizen to call out disinformation. The authority is tasked with investigating and requiring removal of what is both false and harmful material. The BSA seems to have been both cautious and effective. In the early years, complaints were upheld in 30% of cases. But by 2021-22, those upheld had shrunk to just under 5%. That’s a big change. And, a possible implication? Knowing one can be exposed for harmful lies can discourage perpetrators. “BSA has, over more than three decades, overseen a standards system that has been a game changer in delivering on a vision of freedom in broadcasting without harm,” says its chief executive Stacey Wood . Want to know more? See our exploration in Crisis of Trust: How Can Democracies Protect Against Dangerous Lies? Another key? Strengthening media literacy . Sadly, as of 2023 only three states required media literacy classes. So let us quickly spread this opportunity to strengthen our ability not only to critically assess information but also identify motives behind the lies . The News Literacy Project provides helpful resources and programs. Finally, we can encourage public debate and action to transform social media platforms into fact-based public discourse, functioning without harm . “At the end of the day,” observes Cornell psychologist Gordon Pennycook , “you cannot use psychological interventions to resolve this problem. There are structural, systematic, underlying problems that need to be dealt with.” Platforms such as X systemically spread disinformation. So, what can we do? Initiatives around the world are calling for public-or-user-owned platforms, such as the Platform Cooperativism Consortium . We can strengthen emerging alternatives like Bluesky or Mastodon , as we simultaneously urge for public regulation, such as the European Union’s Digital Services Act . There’s no “silver bullet,” of course. But the good news is that many Americans are awakening to the disinformation crisis after experiencing tragically unnecessary Covid-19 deaths and facing today’s unprecedented lies from our president-elect. For sure, deep change requires courage. So, with pounding hearts let us jump into this contentious arena. We can spark discussion-and-action commitments within our own families, friendship circles, schools at all levels, and workplaces. We can fortify our determination by exploring and sharing the innovations of others. Together, we can make history as we help save our democracy from today’s deadly disinformation plague.

If Kennedy really wants to "Make America Healthy Again," he could instead start by addressing the dangers of red and processed meats, a concern grounded in science. by Frances Moore Lappé (Photo Credit: Dyana Wing So/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams, January 28, 2025 Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr . to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has triggered controversy. Many have rightly criticized his ongoing anti-vaccine messaging . He’s also erroneously claimed that antidepressants were linked to school shootings, among other falsities. Despite this all, his confirmation seems likely. So, let us prepare. Kennedy promises to take on ultra-processed foods. He has alerted Americans that their over-consumption is linked to multiple maladies, from diabetes to heart disease. He also advocates banning them from school lunches . On this, I say, “Right on, Bobby!” The American diet poses great risks, including its heavy reliance on ultra-processed foods. They are one reason for our shockingly low international health and health-system ranking —way down at 69th. Unfortunately, RFK’s tendency to mislead carries over to this issue. It’s already clear that his campaign against ultra-processed food is not evidence-based. For example, he falsely claims seed oils (sunflower and canola) are harmful. If confirmed, RFK Jr. will oversee the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), giving him power to regulate our food industry as well as a much-broader mandate : “to safeguard the food supply.” If Kennedy really wants to “Make America Healthy Again,” he could instead start by addressing the dangers of red and processed meats, a concern grounded in science. The World Health Organization identifies red meat as a probable carcinogen and processed meat a carcinogen. Likewise, a meta-analysis of 148 studies reveals that red meat—especially processed meat—contributes to higher risks for a range of cancers. Crucially, today’s definition of “ food-borne illnesses ” contains a serious oversight: the deadly diseases linked to red meat and processed meats. We have a right to be outraged that the FDA still fails to require warning labels or otherwise alert the public to this serious harm. The recently proposed front-of-package labels for saturated fats, sodium, and sugar would be a first step, but we cannot stop there. Perhaps most troubling, the agency has enabled ultra-processed meats—hot dogs or bologna—to be fed to our children at our schools . Loose guidelines also allow mega-food corporations like Kraft Heinz to introduce ultra-processed products like Lunchables in school cafeterias. Sadly, for many children, school meals are their main source of nutrition. We need to do better by them. This crisis also reflects the political power of the meat industry. Therefore, RFK Jr. must stand up to this pernicious interest group, which “spent more than $10 million on political contributions and lobbying efforts in 2023,” which for some, “was an all-time high,” reports the Missouri Independent . Over more than 50 years, a number of my books, starting with Diet for a Small Planet , have focused on the needless waste, ecological destruction, and hunger built into our grain-fed-meat-centered diets—all driven by the highly concentrated power of corporate agribusiness. I have stressed the health benefits of plant-based diets. The great news is that diets rich in whole grains, legumes, fish, fruits, vegetables, and nuts—with little or no red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, and refined grains—can lengthen our lives. A much-cited 2001 National Institute of Health study predicted that avoiding meat contributes to lifestyles that could add ten years to one’s life. Even if one began this healthier diet as late as age 60, life-expectancy increases over eight years for women and almost nine years for men. To enable access to wholesome diets, Kennedy must also do his part to tackle the growing crisis of “food deserts”—low-income, urban areas where at least a third of residents live a mile or more from a supermarket. This barrier to healthy diets affects over 40 millions of us. The HHS will oversee the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans , which inform key programs such as SNAP and the National School Lunch Program . Here, we must urge RFK Jr. to focus on the science: processed meats are dangerous. In all this, we must remain vigilant in holding Kennedy and the broader Trump administration accountable. We must also work for political reforms to ensure our elected officials are no longer corrupted by private interests. Our fight to protect our community’s health goes hand-in-hand with our fight for democracy. Every bite we eat is a choice for the world we want. So, let’s push the incoming head of the HHS to ensure that all Americans are able to take healthy, wholesome bites.

We Americans have an obligation to each other and future generations to take on the root causes behind our suffering. by Frances Moore Lappé and Corinna Rhum (Photo Credit Jose M/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , February 10, 2025 How often do I hear friends and political commentators lamenting America’s polarized culture. “Polarization” is so commonplace that it was Merriam Webster’s 2024 word of the year . Whether it’s Democrats v. Republican, Conservative v. Liberal, Right v. Left, or Red v. Blue, the feeling conveyed is that we’re simply stuck in opposing camps, sharing little common ground. Yes, of course, these labels capture real differences. But thinking that our opposing “poles” are our real problem can deter us from seeing solutions or even believing positive change is possible. The truth is, we’re less divided than we imagine ourselves to be. Plus, “polarization” feels fixed—discouraging us from probing deeply the forces that underlie our differences—forces that we can indeed address. When we dig in, our hunch is that much of today’s painful divide arises from economic forces and realities that aren’t front-and-center in Americans’ view of our nation. Exposing this reality could release energy for much-needed action. The truth is, we’re less divided than we imagine ourselves to be. Of course, Americans are aware of class differences, but we assume that they are more-or-less static—just the way it’s long been—and at least close to the norm in other democracies. Few of us likely appreciate that we are a global outlier in the depth of our economic disparity—coming in more extreme than roughly 120 nations and far below our peers. Consider this: Three Americans control more wealth than bottom half of us which together hold only 2 percent. Deep inequality threatens democracy itself. History suggests that if wealth is concentrated at the top, the moneyed elite will infect and distort the political process in its favor, thus undermining democracy. Combine these realities: First, the inherent hardships—daily stress, lack of leisure as well as the real deprivations of so many Americans, including our low-minimum wage, the dangerously poor-quality of our most-affordable diets, and our failure to assure access to healthcare for everyone. Then add to all that the long-sung tune that anyone with drive and decent character can “make it” in our free market system. And what do you get? Painful self-blame and fear…and, yes, exhaustion. Understandably, then, we seek someone to blame—a tragic pattern that has been repeated throughout history. Take the 1863 New York City "draft" riots , during which poor, white (mostly Irish) workers feeling the pressure of exploitation and poverty took their anger out against New York’s Black population in the one of the most significant insurrections in U.S. history. The draft riots are a grave warning of what can happen when two disenfranchised groups are pitted against each other. Division is sowed where unity and solidarity are most needed. Hitler’s rise to power is another terrifying tale of how scapegoating minority groups can be a potent—and devastating—political strategy, especially during times when citizens are struggling to make ends meet and a country is in a period of unrest. Today, the president of our nation is successfully casting himself as a big, angry man who names our oppressors and will fight against the bad guys for the rest of us. Trump has targeted immigrants, spreading dangerous lies and authorizing deeply damaging policies. Likewise, he has taken swift action to disenfranchise transgender people, justifying it through harmful rhetoric. Donald J. Trump’s core demeanor is anger . So, it’s understandable that many believe he’ll use his loudmouth to fight for them. Casting himself as an outsider is brilliant. Of course, his policies belie his pose. They hurt the most vulnerable and reward the most powerful. Beyond his attacks on immigrants and trans people, here are just a few: Trump's attempted federal funding freeze could severely impede early childhood education, infrastructure projects, and social-benefit organizations. He has also promised to limit SNAP benefits and cut healthcare spending —all while expanding tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthiest. In addition, he’s rolled back environmental protections. Sadly, Trump’s posturing and scapegoating effectively engage many Americans. But, getting stuck on what feels like an insurmountable chasm does not serve us. Progress comes when we focus on our common ground and go from there. So what can we do? Remember: We are all influencers. Each of us can share what we know with family, friends, and colleagues. They are likely to do the same. Hey, we never know the ripples of our own courage to speak out. We can fight destructive disinformation on social media that the president and his now right-hand man Elon Musk have weaponized. We can reach out to our representatives in government, helping them find the courage to take on the painful realities of extreme inequity and the false messaging pitting us against each other. Blaming “polarization” is a dangerous distraction. It is a symptom of our real problems. We Americans have an obligation to each other and future generations to take on the root causes behind our suffering. It’s still a new year. Let’s make it a new beginning as well.

If the present strategy of voter suppression by the Republican Party is not stopped, the results of the midterms in two years and the 2028 presidential election are already decided. by Frances Moore Lappé and Bruce Boccardy (Photo Credit Element 5 Digital/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , March 1, 2025 The past few weeks have seen a deluge of devastation from the second Trump administration, which in less than a month has broken many democratic norms and customs and even ignored the Constitution in several ways. During these head-spinning times, it's more vital than ever to zero in on the threats to our democracy. Today, one of the worst challenges we're up against is increasingly widespread voter suppression — a peril accelerating under President. Donald Trump and easy to lose sight of amid the chaos. As we write, Congress is trying to pass the SAVE Act, which would require all citizens to produce a document such as a passport or birth certificate when they register to vote. It would apply even when they re-register after a move or, as many do, between elections. This new and unprecedented national requirement would severely limit online, mail-in, and automatic registration and has the potential to block millions of eligible Americans from casting ballots. Universal suffrage is the heart of democracy but deeply threatened today. The now almost-official Trump doctrine, Project 2025, also promises potentially disastrous consequences related to suffrage. The Department of Justice's Criminal Division would become responsible for investigating voting offenses, likely leading to bogus prosecutions of voters and election officials. The government would also gain access to voter lists that could facilitate purges of minority voters. Project 2025 also proposes restricting or abolishing programs that encourage voter registration . We need to acutely oppose these potential dangers. To do that, it's helpful to understand the history of suffrage in our country. America began its democratic experiment in the 1700s with a small demographic of eligible voters: white, male landowners. Voting rights were not directly in the text of the Constitution, but instead left to the states to decide. While Americans no doubt rightly lament that voting was so restricted, it's worth recognizing that the very idea of suffrage was an audacious departure in and of itself—a profoundly progressive advancement that pivoted away from predatory monarchy with aristocracy that dominated the European continent. Indeed, some of the Founders expressed remarkably enlightened views on voting. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776 that "the influence over government must be shared among all the people." Even though our democracy was—and still is—deeply flawed, suffrage has always been its bedrock. Throughout our history advocates have fought to expand and enshrine suffrage, and today most state constitutions protect the right to vote. After the Civil War, several constitutional amendments codified and extended voting rights and since then legislation, such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act, has added further protections. Sadly, however, voices from our country's Founders ring hollow when looking at our recent presidential election, which saw unprecedented organized voter suppression by the Republican Party. Consider a report released this month by Greg Palast, acclaimed investigative reporter, forensic economist, and statistician. Using data from the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, he found that voter suppression led to 14.1 million voters being deemed ineligible or having their ballots disqualified. Note that Trump won by a margin of only 2 million votes. Almost 5 million voters were purged from voter rolls without credible evidence, and another 2 million mail-in ballots were disqualified for minor clerical errors, e.g. postage due. Almost another 800,000 ballots were disqualified or rejected for other, non-credible reasons, and over 3.24 million new registrations were rejected without credible evidence. Palast points out that historically organized voter suppression was overwhelmingly directed at Black and Latino voters such as Jim Crow Era literacy tests and poll taxes. How did we get here? In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court changed course from its history of protecting voter rights when it debilitated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, removing the requirement that jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination obtain federal approval for new voting procedures. The result is a pernicious plethora of conservative state laws undermining or restricting voters. A 2024 Brennan Center for Justice report found voter suppression has dramatically increased in the last 20 years. Many conservative states created obstacles by imposing unreasonable voter ID laws, and decreasing early voting times. Unsurprisingly, voter suppression laws disproportionately impact communities of Black and Latino voters. For example, a 2022 Washington state audit reported that Black voters were 400% more likely than white voters to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Universal suffrage is the heart of democracy but deeply threatened today. What then is to be done to end this scourge of voter suppression by Mr. Trump's neofascist's advocates? Amid the chaos of the first hundred days of the second Trump administration, let us focus on defending these rights. If the present strategy of voter suppression by the Republican Party is not stopped, the results of the midterms in two years and the 2028 presidential election are already decided. We are heading down a dark path reminiscent of a troublesome past. But we can be motivated by really great successes made possible by people's movements: The right of Blacks to vote was driven by inspiring and hard-won action, and women's suffrage struggles were also achieved through grassroots organizing. The time is now. It will take all of us, joining in mass demonstrations and pushing our elected leaders to withstand the pressure and do everything in their power to block legislation and eliminate existing voter suppression regulation when—and wherever possible—before it's too late.

Those of us who are citizens are the most protected. So, it’s up to us to do all in our power to sound the alarm bells before it’s too late. (Photo Credit Gayatri Malhotra/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , April 26, 2025 U.S. President Donald Trump has made “ cracking down ” on illegal immigration and “securing our border” his primary political aim. He has baselessly blamed immigrants for a range of social ills: taking jobs, causing economic strain, and committing crimes—all stoking fear and outrage. This messaging proved highly effective, with many Americans identifying immigration as the most important issue during the election. On his first day in office, Trump hit the ground running with 10 executive orders challenging and reforming our immigration system, from rolling back birthright citizenship to expanding military presence at the border, where he ended the right to seek asylum . That was just the start. Each of these moves is concerning and worthy of deeper analysis. But there is a broader story to tell about the stakes—one highlighting that our democracy itself is on the line. Indeed, a few of these actions—from expanding expedited removal and using the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds without evidence or trial to revoking visas and legal status for many international students to legitimizing the idea that opposing Trump can be construed as an act of terrorism—are evidence that we are already far down the terrifying slippery slope into fascism. In this deluge we can trace a dark arc bending toward an America where dissent—the mere exercise of First Amendment rights—is punishable by deportation without due process. Let’s take a closer look at this chain of actions. The message? If even as a legal immigrant, you exercise your first amendment rights but disagree with Trump’s agenda, you may lose your status and be detained without due process. Typically, expedited removal —deportation without a hearing—has been used against undocumented immigrants arrested within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entering the country (unless they are seeking asylum). But on Day 1, the Trump administration vastly expanded its enforcement area to the whole country and all migrants unable to prove they have been in the U.S. for at least two continuous years, including those admitted via parole programs. This huge expansion means many more undocumented immigrants will not be afforded due process—i.e. a hearing with evidence—before being deported. Moreover, for the first time except in war, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (1798) to deport and detain hundreds of Venezuelan migrants whom he claimed had gang ties. The act similarly allows for expedited removal so, despite a lack of evidence against most of those arrested, they were still removed from the U.S. and have been detained in a “mega prison” in El Salvador without a hearing. It’s worth noting here that the Trump administration also blatantly defied a judge’s order to turn around the plane to El Salvador. These are clear attempts to supersede legal norms and procedures and make expulsion from the U.S. even easier. We should already be sounding the alarm. Instead, we’ve slid even further down this awful slippery slope as seen in the detainment of—or visa revocation for—around 800 students in the U.S. Let’s look at the case of Alireza Doroudi , a student at the University of Alabama whose visa was revoked before he was then arrested and detained at a remote facility in Louisiana. Here, the absence of due process is coupled with the abrupt disruption to one’s legal status—blurring the lines between legal and “illegal” immigration. Unfortunately, many such cases feature a third troubling element: the stifling of free speech. The case of Mahmoud Khalil has rightly received significant attention. Khalil, a U.S. green card holder, was a student leader in Columbia University’s pro-Palestine protests. Without evidence of any criminal act, he was stripped of legal status and detained. Here, the Trump administration yet again stretched the law, this time citing “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” as the rationale . The threat? Speaking out in favor of a cause contrary to Trump’s agenda. The message? If even as a legal immigrant, you exercise your first amendment rights but disagree with Trump’s agenda, you may lose your status and be detained without due process. We have traced this dark arc: from increasing removals without due process—first by expanding and invoking obscure laws and then by blurring citizenship status—to threatening First Amendment rights by using a person’s speech to deprive them of vital legal protections and ultimately detain and deport them. And here’s the final step: Trump and his cadre are doing everything they can to expand what speech can be deemed dangerous. Elon Musk has called largely peaceful protests against his company Tesla—including a few acts of vandalism—“wide-scale domestic terrorism.” The increasingly pervasive use of “terrorism” to describe speech critical of Trump’s agenda suggests that the already-dark actions against immigrants will likely be applied even more broadly. On April 14, Trump told El Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele “homegrowns are next” and encouraged him to build five more prisons to house future citizen deportees. As historian Timothy Snyder, author of On Tyranny , warns : “If you accept that non-citizens have no right to due process, you are accepting that citizens have no right to due process. All the government has to do is claim that you are not a citizen; without due process you have no chance to prove the contrary.” The stakes are incredibly high, and the risks are very real, but we cannot be scared into silence. Those of us who are citizens are the most protected. So, it’s up to us to do all in our power to sound the alarm bells before it’s too late. We can join pro-democracy efforts led by organizations such as Indivisible and the American Civil Liberties Union , support independent journalism that speaks out, and organize in our communities. The famous poem “First they came for…” by German pastor Martin Niemöller reminds us that those of us who still can, must speak out now before no one left to speak out for us.

Democracy requires our determination to create a more widely shared understanding of the dangers we face. (Photo Credit Joseph Chan/Unsplash) Originally Published in Common Dreams , June 3rd, 2025. I have a story to tell that feels eerily relevant to our dire political moment. It’s 1953, and I’m 9 years old in Fort Worth, Texas. I hear a knock at the door, and I rush to say hello. A stern man looks down at me: “I’m from the FBI, and I need to speak with your parents.” Hmmm… must be important, I thought, calling out: “Mommy, daddy, someone’s come to see us!” Yes, indeed, it was grave—totally unexpected and life changing. “I’m with the FBI,” he said. My dad invited him in, and they sat talking. I had no idea what was going on. But later my folks explained that the FBI was investigating us because my parents had co-founded the first Unitarian Church in our city. Somehow that made us suspect—as communists or sympathizers. My parents were not arrested. But word spread quickly of the FBI probe, and some of my best friends’ dads lost their jobs solely by virtue of association with it. The trauma in our community was great. Our family escaped the harm others suffered likely because my dad’s work as a forecaster in the U.S. Weather Bureau was essential. He soon accepted a two-year “hardship” post on a tiny island in the Pacific, which later I came to assume was an attempt to evade this suppression. For most of my life, I have assumed our church was targeted because the FBI believed Unitarians were atheists, which at the time was associated with communism. Only many decades later when I gained access to FBI archival material did I discover that I was wrong. Our church was targeted because it was integrated when Fort Worth was strictly segregated. This awful time came to be called “McCarthyism” —triggered by the leadership of the junior senator from Wisconsin—Joseph R. McCarthy who in 1950 alleged that he had a list of 205 suspected communists who were working in the government. Eventually, it led to a period of fear, limiting freedom of speech and thought. As happened in Fort Worth, many were blacklisted, lost jobs, or faced persecution. And many more hesitated to express dissenting opinions for fear of being labeled a communist. Such self-censoring no doubt led to stifling intellectual and artistic life. Now in our current moment, I find myself asking: Are Donald Trump’s tactics just as dangerous to democracy? For one, both rest on false premises. About 10 months ago, NPR produced an analysis called “162 Lies and Distortions in a News Conference: NPR Fact-Checks Former President Trump.” It found that he uttered “more than two a minute.” Late last year New York Times columnist Peter Baker decried that “Trump’s Wild Claims, Conspiracies, and Falsehoods Redefine Presidential Bounds.” Perhaps most destructive to democracy was his lie that he was the real winner of the 2020 election. Yet, today lies continue to undermine democracy, and, just as in the McCarthy era, they are not without consequence. Immigration has been one of the clearest areas where lies abound . Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans, and they complement rather than compete in jobs while adding to our GDP and taxes. Yet, Trump has cracked down on the border. In an opinion piece published in late April, I argued that the removal of migrants without due-process—and particularly the targeting of those who had been advocates for causes contrary to Trump’s agenda—posed a deep threat to key democratic principles including free speech. It hasn’t stopped with migrants: Without constitutional power, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.). Charged with a crime for going to an ICE facility to oversee its action, which she described as “my job and my lawful right as a member of Congress.” When ICE moved to arrest Mayor Baraka, colleagues encircled him, but ICE pushed through and arrested the mayor. Many of us have heard the refrain that “democracy dies in darkness,” the slogan officially adopted by The   Washington Post (now ironically owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos). It feels right. Fact-based exchange is democracy’s life blood. I began with my memories of the lives devastated by lies in the 1950s. And, as the cliché goes, those who do not learn from history will repeat its errors. Today, most of us would likely agree that democracy cannot survive without fact-based interchange, as history offers strong evidence —from Hitler to Stalin to Mao Zedong whose lies divided their people. And, since none of today’s mighty challenges—from climate chaos to virtually unprecedented economic inequity—can be addressed without democracy, our calling is clear. Democracy requires our determination to create a more widely shared understanding of the dangers we face. Remember every one of us is an influencer. So, we can fact-check the many charges so dividing our nation and speak up in conversations with friends, family, and coworkers. We can support citizen organizations such as Democracy Forward “using legal strategies to challenge anti-democratic actions and advance democratic values” and Protect Democracy working to “defend elections, the rule of law, and fact-based political debate against authoritarian threat.” Another is Common Cause fighting for “the democracy we deserve” via transparency, accountability, and campaign finance reform. When so much is at stake, democracy itself is our moral calling.

By Frances Moore Lappé / October 22, 2018 Originally published on Common Dreams, September 17, 2018 This is the 6th of Frances' Thought Sparks Video Series as she opens her heart about what fortifies her in this scary time & shares her often-surprising takes on themes of hope, democracy, and courage. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Elsewhere I’ve made the case that democracy isn’t a choice. It’s our only pathway forward, but my claim can provoke some pretty charged challenges. I can hear the fears of the discouraged asking, “Is democracy even possible? Do we humans actually come equipped for it?” With democratic norms of civility and transparency shattering, it’s no surprise that many of us question whether humans are up to the challenge. To doubters, I can say with some confidence that indeed we are capable: both because we evolved to be emotionally wired for democracy’s key requirements and because we’ve already proven ourselves capable of manifesting democracy…even if imperfectly. So—first, let’s explore what democracy demands of us: Certainly, the capacity for empathy and cooperation, as well as a sensitivity to fairness are required. And, both the human experience and science now confirm that most of us do come equipped. First, empathy? It shows up early in our species. Newborns cry at the sound of another baby crying. By the age of 12 months, babies begin to comfort those in distress and children as young as 14 months spontaneously display helping behaviors. Cooperation? When we cooperate, our brain’s reward system lights up in ways not unlike eating chocolate . What great evidence that evolutionary selection has long rewarded cooperation, as it helps us to survive. In fact, humans are the most cooperative species . What makes us different from our nearest relatives, according to scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, is our capacity for “ shared intentionally ,” by which they mean the “ability of humans to learn through other persons and their artifacts, and to collaborate with others in collective activities.” The Institute’s Michael Tomasello reports that “even very young children have a natural tendency to help other persons solve their problems, even when the other is a stranger and they receive no benefit at all.” He adds that “there is very little evidence . . . that children’s altruism is created by parents or any other form of socialization.” On fairness? Adam Smith , whose views have for two centuries been mis-appropriated to reduce our character to narrow self-interest, in fact wrote poignantly about human feelings for each other. In his Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith observed that we are “in a peculiar manner tied, bound and obliged to the observation of justice.” Even capuchin monkeys are sensitive to fairness. Really. In one experiment they happily accepted a snack of cucumbers as long as their nearby capuchin buddies were getting the same. But on seeing a neighbor monkey getting grapes while they still had to settle for cucumbers, some said, effectively, “Hell, no,” throwing their cucumber treats right back at their caretaker. Fairness runs deep through our genetic roots. Alright, so most of us come equipped with empathy, and cooperation and a sense of fairness, but where’s proof that we can put these characteristics to work for democracy? Certainly, the fact that more than fifty democracies now score higher than ours in “ electoral integrity ”—covering everything from gerrymandering to voting rights—offers evidence that indeed these constructive dimensions of the human character can be put to work in shaping effective rules defining democracy. I’d argue also we draw on these three traits every time any society works to create fairer rules governing the creation of wealth and opportunity. Here in America, from 1933 to 1938 , for example, citizens backed the creation of Social Security, the right of workers to organize, and the establishment of a minimum wage. All dramatically narrowed the gap between most of us and a tiny minority at the top. More specifically, from the early 1960s to the early 1970s, we cut the US poverty rate in half . It makes sense to me that our sense of fairness and empathy helped make all these advances possible. Or take Scandinavian countries , among Europe’s most unequal societies a century ago. Then, citizen movements challenged a thousand years of oppression and built thriving democracies . Now, voter turnout there is about 80 percent or more, way higher than our 56 percent . And, citizens in these countries have used their voices to diminish the income gap between rich and poor to among the world’s lowest . An interesting irony is that Americans dismiss lessons from Scandinavia because they see it as “socialist;” but the gap between CEO pay and worker pay there is considerably closer (but still much greater) to what Americans say they would prefer. Their societies’ greater participation and fairness seems to make them happy, too. Today four of the top five of the world’s happiest countries are Scandinavian. My conclusion? Not only is it clear that humans come equipped with key emotional requirements for democracy, there’s also evidence that—if we trust and act on them—it can work. Warning! In a future blog I declare that while we evolved with traits that serve democracy well; we humans come with an Achilles heel. It is our tendency to skirt responsibility by pointing a finger at those we perceive as different. This dangerous trait also appears to be deeply engrained, scientists find. But we can take heart, for evidence shows that, with enough courage, humans can tap the three positive capacities celebrated here to keep us out of its trap. Bottom line, we have no excuses. We can’t blame human nature for our predicament. Rather, our species’ challenge is to build on our strengths and keep the negative in check on the journey of democracy described What is Democracy, Anyway? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Note: Don’t miss watching the companion video to this article - one of Frances Moore Lappé’s Thought Sparks Video Series in which she opens her heart about what fortifies her in this scary time. Each week for nine weeks or more, her Small Planet Institute will release an informal 2-to-5-minute video in which Frances shares her often-surprising, liberating takes on hope, democracy, and courage.

Originally published on Common Dreams, March 12, 2019 Here’s my question for you. If your child were dying of a disease that only a costly drug could cure, would you not go to any lengths to get it? Of course, you would. And that’s exactly what we face today, as our children’s future is dying, not to mention a habitable planet for all. Inaction is not a choice. This realization changes everything: With a do-or-die mindset, suddenly we begin to see possibilities that before we’d totally missed. It’s a shift that now seems to be galvanizing – with remarkable speed – diverse forces behind Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s and Senator Ed Markey’s ambitious Green New Deal. With Justice Democrats and the youthful Sunrise Movement , they’ve tailored a bill (H.R. 109) to address a crisis that almost 60 percent of Americans consider a “ significant threat to our country .” Though nonbinding, the Green New Deal calls us to a ten-year mobilization to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, generating millions of new jobs in clean energy and putting us on the road to 100 percent renewable power. Unfortunately, this existential threat isn’t opening everyone’s eyes. Despite 89 House and 11 Senate co-sponsors and over 80 percent support among registered voters , Republicans mock the Green New Deal as “radical” and “socialist” . Some key Democrats dismiss it as well. Senator Dianne Feinstein admonished child environmental activists that “there’s no way to pay for the [Green New Deal].” (My granddaughters watched that scold five times!) West Virginia’s Senator Joseph Manchin also derided the bill as the “Green New Deal is a dream. I have to work with reality.” But what’s seen unrealistic is shifting fast for many Americans. Instead of being turned off by the resolution because it is multi-faceted and ambitious, many embrace it for precisely these reasons. Our entire economy and its infrastructure are implicated in the climate crisis; so, of course, the challenge can only be addressed holistically and in ways that engage us all. Thus, the Green New Deal would create good jobs for those most excluded; and with infrastructure investment would meet the basic human right to clean air and water. On this, note that nearly in 4,000 neighborhoods nationwide, childhood lead-poisoning rates have been found to be at least double those in Flint, Michigan, during the peak of its contamination. Holistic economic transformation is not only essential but well underway, both abroad and here at home. The E.U.’s record is proof of what’s possible. Its per capita greenhouse gas emissions are approximately half of ours, and a handful of E.U. countries, including France and Italy, are only about one-third. Here at home, too, we’ve seen striking evidence of possibility. Take oil-rich Texas. If it were a country, Texas would rank as the world’s sixth largest wind-energy producer, and ten states already get a fifth of their electricity from solar and wind. In Iowa, make that 37 percent; and in Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, the share is 30 percent. A premise of the Green New Deal is that economic equity is essential to environmental health, so what do we know about the jobs’ potential for good jobs as we leave carbon behind? With little national leadership or mobilization, already roughly 3.2 million Americans work in the clean energy sector, outnumbering fossil fuel jobs about 3-to 1. These jobs typically pay very well, too—with energy-efficiency workers earning about $5,000 more than the national medium, and solar workers averaging above our $17 national hourly median. Another positive? These jobs are being created across the whole country, from the coasts to rural communities, and in the Rust Belt, too. Note also that in some states, energized (and worried) citizens have already pushed legislators to act boldly, showing the way. Take Illinois. After two years of citizen advocacy, that state passed Solar for All just a month after Trump’s election. It aims to massively expand solar installations, prioritizing low-cost energy for low-income families. The legislation also includes funds for solar-installation job training, particularly for formerly incarcerated people and foster care alumni. Doubling down on efficiency investments in Illinois could create more than 7,000 jobs per year, reports the Natural Resources Defense Council. In fact, the state’s existing energy-efficiency programs are the foremost reason why Illinois has the lowest electricity bills in the Midwest. This bill will redouble those investments, yielding billions in energy-cost savings by 2030 New York is also moving forward to show the country what’s possible. Its Climate and Community Protection Act is backed by NYRENEWS – a coalition of 150-organizations. Not only does the bill mandate a fossil-free New York state by 2050, but it ensures that resources for the state’s green transition are invested in historically disadvantaged communities, potentially producing thousands of new, high-paying jobs for New Yorkers who need them most. Across the country “Buy Clean California” is taking the offensive against climate change. In 2017, California became the first state (although the Army was already there) to mandate a simple rule: Materials, such as glass and steel, used in the state’s billions infrastructure projects, like bridges, must be purchased from sources using low-carbon-impact production processes; and organized labor is behind the scheme. Overall, the US achieved a 14 percent drop in carbon emissions over the eleven years after 2005, taking us halfway to our 2025 emissions goals set in the Paris Agreement. My point is simple. Even without national leadership focusing us on the crisis, we’re making strides, and now we’re getting serious: Youth are jumping in via the Sunrise Movement and twenty-one young people have brought a lawsuit to force the federal government to act. So the Green New Deal and the Sunrise Movement deserve our gratitude not our gripes. We know that throughout human history it is not the magnitude of a challenge that has crushed the human spirit, it’s feeling futile that does us in. Please don’t let the naysayers dim our confidence in our power to step up in this do-or-die moment. UPDATE April 17, 2019 : Check out this inspiring video launched by The Intercept “ A Message From the Future With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ,” a seven-minute film narrated by the Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a nd illustrated by Molly Crabapple.

by Frances Moore Lappé & Graham Backman, Aug 09, 2023 To right the wrongs of the Supreme Court decision, let us rethink access to higher-ed from the bottom up. (Photo Credit: Joshua Hoehne/Unsplash) Originally Published on Common Dreams , Aug 09, 2023 Could the death of affirmative action stir us to face the many barriers to educational equity hiding in plain sight? Among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries we rank sixth , just behind the U.K., in “most educated population.” Not bad, but we can do better. Standing in our way is the daunting cost of higher education combined with income inequality more extreme than in 110 nations . Such inequality most harms Americans of color: a group whose poverty rate in 2019 was more than double that of non-Hispanic white Americans. Even our public universities require a family to come up with over $100,000 for a child’s four-year education . From 2010 to 2020 the yearly average tuition and fees at public universities grew from $7,132 to $9,349 and at private universities from $22,677 to $32,769. Of course, families must cover housing and living expenses as well. We need to ensure more Americans can access the socioeconomic springboard that is higher-level education. We can do this by building more public universities; but without the exclusivity found today at many top-class public institutions. One reason the cost is so high is that for years our colleges and universities have not kept up with growing demand. Over a decade, 2010 to 2020 , our population grew by 23 million while the number of degree-granting institutions fell almost 15%, from 4,599 to 3,931. The number of undergraduates dropped by about 3 million. Yet, earning an undergraduate degree, compared to only a high school diploma, has huge, life-long impacts: Without that degree you are twice as likely to be unemployed. Plus, lifelong earnings are 75% lower without a bachelor’s degree. Overall, despite the burden of college debt, the return on investment associated with getting a degree is 14% —double that of investing in stocks. These forces have created a squeeze on upper-level education, as more potential students face fewer and fewer opportunities at universities. As competition tightens it should be no surprise that in 2017 38 top U.S. institutions of higher education had more students from the top 1% of earners than from the entire bottom 60% of earners. Children with stronger financial footing no doubt feel more parental pressure to go to college and are more likely to have impressive applications. Colleges are 1.5 times more likely to give wealthier students higher scores for extracurriculars than their lower-class peers. Of course, many differences give them an edge: Better-funded schools—due to their towns’ higher property values—no doubt offer superior learning opportunities. Additionally, instead of having to rush to an after-school job, children in wealthier families can pursue their hobbies and academic interests. More than half of students with 1500+ SAT scores have parents in the top 25% of earners, and one-fifth of top SAT scorers come from the top 1%. True, 80% of schools don’t require these standardized tests. Nonetheless, a good score still gives one an advantage. Finally, from a purely fiscal perspective, a university would rather admit a kid paying full tuition than one admitted with reduced tuition and loans. With the number of total undergraduates falling and the share of better-prepared wealthy applicants growing, potentially outstanding students are left behind as opportunities disappear. They are disproportionately Hispanic and African American. Driving this injustice in college admissions is the overall shortage of opportunities in higher-ed. Students suffering the most are not those who would’ve, could’ve, should’ve gone to Harvard, but because affirmative action died, will have to “settle” for Boston University. Those suffering the most are those denied the chance to go to college at all. We need to ensure more Americans can access the socioeconomic springboard that is higher-level education. We can do this by building more public universities; but without the exclusivity found today at many top-class public institutions. Those applying to the upper echelon of schools don’t need more options. Instead, our goal must be making higher-level education available to those now choosing the workforce when, in their hearts, they want education. We need more UMass Bostons (accepting 79% of applicants) and UC Merceds (accepting 87%)—schools that create the diversity in universities that was long the goal of affirmative action. To achieve racial and economic justice, let us seize the sad death of affirmative action to motivate enlarging educational opportunities for all. We will then no longer fail the poorest Americans of all races.