Aside from the fact that my vote doesn’t count, I refuse to get excited about the Hillary v. Trump contest because it seems to me that the laws with the biggest effect on Americans’ lives are local and/or state. I’m wondering if the Internet, the Death of Print, and the Death of Local is responsible for Americans over-focusing on national elections. My friends on Facebook treat the Hillary v. Trump choice as a life-or-death decision. Yet if asked “What bad thing might happen to you if Trump were elected?” the best that they can come up with is that Trump would start a nuclear war (why would someone with extensive real estate interests in the U.S. want a nuclear war?).
Absent that forecast nuclear war, I cling to my belief that local/state laws are more relevant to citizens. Let’s work through a few Massachusetts examples.
State legislative level: our Legislature recently considered a bill to suggest (but not require) that family court judges assign children to shared parenting in the event that biological parents are divorced and/or were never married. I wrote about this in “Men in Massachusetts should simply not show up to defend restraining orders, divorces, and other family law matters?” Note that “shared parenting” might be simply every-other-weekend plus a few extra days here and there as opposed to every-other-weekend. State Senator Will Brownsberger, however, managed to kill the bill in committee (story) by expressing concerns about what happens when there is “high conflict” between the parties. As explained in our Massachusetts chapter, this means that any plaintiff wishing to win sole custody of a child can simply manufacture conflict by starting fights with the defendant (women have a 97-percent statistical chance of winning custody in Massachusetts, according to Census data from 2014; one lawyer noted that “This is a good state in which to work your mind and education, but it is a great state in which to work your body and child.”).
What were the stakes? Suppose that judges interpreted the new law to encourage actual 50/50 shared parenting like they have in some other states (e.g., Arizona). Assume two parents who each earn $125,000 per year and have a single joint child. Neither has been previously sued for alimony or child support. Assume that the mother sues the father (a 75-percent probability, according to our statistical study of a Massachusetts courthouse) and wins the current standard 70/30 schedule with the child. Under the Massachusetts guidelines, as the winner parent she gets $20,072/year tax-free plus perhaps the child’s actual expenses paid by the loser parent. Had the new law passed and had a judge been influenced by the new statute’s language, she would take care of the child 50 percent of the time and get… nothing. Over 23 years, she is approximately $461,656 poorer in after-tax dollars (her real estate costs will be the same whether the child lives with her 70 percent or 50 percent of the time; any reduction in food expenses will be minimal). All of this plays out regardless of who is in the White House. [Imagine the dislocation if Massachusetts adopted a German-style system! A plaintiff could have sex with the richest person in the state and collect only $6,000 per year in child support. There would be no alimony for the able-bodied. Legal fees would be a percentage of the amount in dispute. This would shut down one of the state’s largest industries and it wouldn’t matter what anyone in Washington, D.C. said.]
Thus, from a successful plaintiff’s point of view, the reelection of Will Brownsberger to the state legislature is much more important than who wins the White House.
Local laws and decisions in Massachusetts can also be more significant than the typical federal law. Do you care about your child’s education? The quality of that education is mostly determined at the town level here. Want your child to go to a charter school? There is apparently a state law that caps the number of charter schools and a current ballot question that seeks to work around the cap (the union for public school teachers opposes the ballot initiative). This fight goes on independent of who is giving speeches from the White House.
Would you prefer to go through life being totally stoned 24/7? Question 4 on our ballot will make that legal (Barney Frank supports this). Stoned versus straight makes a bigger difference to most people than most Supreme Court decisions, as does “imprisoned for smoking weed” versus “not being arrested in the first place.” (Note: If you are passionate about marijuana, vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson. New Yorker says that he was formerly CEO of ” Cannabis Sativa, Inc., a marijuana-branding company that hopes to benefit as legalization spreads.”)
Consider simpler pleasures. What if an American city were to build Copenhagen-style bicycle infrastructure? That would change the day-to-day experience for hundreds of thousands of people, possibly have a huge impact on public health, improve the environment, etc., and it could be done regardless of whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump was President.
There are, of course, federal programs that matter even if federal individuals may not. If you’re one of the 10+ million Americans collecting SSDI, for example, you would care about what happens in D.C. But the program dates back to 1956 (history) and it doesn’t seem likely that a new President will persuade Congress to drop it.
Readers: What do you think? Are your friends overinvolved with national elections that have little relevance to their personal situations?
Many of the people who don’t like Trump probably didn’t like DIck Cheney either. They managed to live through Cheney (most of them at least) even though Cheney knew how to work the levers of government to get what he wanted. Trump seems to have had problems with ventures which required complex organizations. It seems unlikely he’ll have the skills or focus needed to get things done as President. Forget about the constitutional checks and balances, the bureaucracy will stop him cold. However, what the President says matters, and I don’t want my President saying some of the things which Trump says.
@Neal
While I agree with you that what the president says matters, I also agree with Philg that whomever (can I use whoever?) is elected, it still won’t make a difference in my day-to-day life. It doesn’t _really_ matter, except on an emotional level. Note: I live in CT from which companies flee to “low tax” Massachusetts. http://www.courant.com/business/hc-boston-ge-moving-20160113-story.html
Those of us who never married or had any kids are more concerned about the space program, which is all federal level but no candidate supports. National debt owed by future generations, education, child custody laws have no impact on us, except for the amount of taxes we pay to subsidize the married people.
+1
John Oliver has a brilliant piece on how state legislators are spoon-fed bills by private interests. Many of those legislators don’t have to worry about elections because they run for office with no opponents.
Participating in local politics is hard work. In my experience (e.g., fixing outdated zoning regulations) it meant a year of one or two trips a month to planning commission and board meetings that often ran for hours. But blow it off and you’ll find yourself living next to a three story apartment building instead of a small cottage.
I think you’re being too complacent about the prospect of a Trump presidency. The US has had presidents who were Democrats, and presidents who were Republicans, but Trump isn’t really a Republican candidate. He’s more like a demagogue who’s succeeded in hijacking the Republican party.
Masha Gessen:
A comparison of Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, from a Hungarian perspective.
I’ve often heard it suggested that D/liberals want to increase the relative strength of the federal government (latest example: federalize the police), and sometimes even the UN or other treaty orgs. Don’t federal employees have more-guaranteed pensions and higher pay, and wouldn’t they naturally favor D? Look at how strongly Trump is opposed by whoever lives in the DC area.
Personally, I enjoy the idea of some experimentation/diversity in local policy and would want to preserve that.
But short term, it would seem you’re right.
Americans worry way too much about the presidency and often require candidates to answer questions about things they can do very little about anyways.
Gary Johnson was asked about his ideas on tax reform by Chris Wallace the other day. Johnson replied that he was not a dictator or king. Wallace took this as an opportunity to suggest that Johnson was not serious.
A realistic candidate stands very little chance getting beyond the stupidity of a media who wants them to answer questions as if they were going to be king.
@J. Peterson: Participating in local politics is hard work. In my experience (e.g., fixing outdated zoning regulations) it meant a year of one or two trips a month to planning commission and board meetings that often ran for hours.
Thirty years ago, as a first year law student, I wanted to gain some public service experience and make some local connections, so I got myself appointed to the local planning commission. After the second relentless, 4-hour Tuesday night meeting I resigned from the commission. Two months later I dropped out of New England School of Law and gladly carried on with my career in software development. Now as I’m planning early retirement, I’m wondering how to pay for health insurance and am considering a run for my local city council – $8000 per year and gold-plated health insurance for two meetings per month.
“What bad thing might happen to you if Trump were elected?”
My father was recently complaining about Pres. Obama. I responded how has he hurt you? Aaahhh…errr…uumm…sputter…obamacare!
A couple of days ago at work, I made the mistake of quoting Donald Trump from a recent speech he gave outside of Lansing, MI on Aug. 19th – to black voters Trump asked, “What the hell do you have to lose?” A female coworker got pretty riled up, worried that Trump has no foreign policy or diplomatic skill and would get us into a war. I responded, “we’re in a war, and have been for 14 years.”
Back during the ’08 and ’12 Presidential elections, I made the mistake of engaging with a black female acquaintance, an Obama supporter that believed that Obama would make life great for black people. I advised her that Obama has 100% of the black vote regardless; he need not do anything for black people. Obama needs White votes and will need to win those votes.
I was taught in civics class that the Republic was constructed in such a way that you could have a scoundrel or two in office without serious harm. The increasing size and scope of government makes that a risky proposition, but I think that argues more against the increased size and scope than it does for the search for virtuous politicians.
I don’t like muslims. Trump says he will stop muslim immigration. I think this is a great idea. Also many of my friends work in construction. I hope they can find work building the wall. Finally I want America to be great again. Trump is the only one promising this at the moment. No local politician has promised to make America great again.
Toucan,
If you’re not being sarcastic that’s the stupidest comment ever posted here. If you are, this is the stupidest. I honestly don’t know.
No, I think that prize goes to comment #13 by Neal on the maternity leave for pilots thread. That one was a dilly.
Please see comment #18 on the maternity leave for pilots thread for a response to comment #12 by @The Practical Conservative