Why Are There So Many Help Wanted Signs?

One of the more perplexing questions facing the US Economy today is, Why are there so many help wanted signs?

Today I will address that question, debunk a common misconception, dissect the make-up of the problem, reveal a strange paradox, and finally, point to the obvious solution.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Clearly, Covid Changed Everything

During March and April of 2020, the US economy lost 22 million jobs.

That Spring President Trump signed the Bipartisan CARES Act which significantly changed the nation’s approach to unemployment benefits.

It was extended multiple times but combined the effort sought to accomplish three things.

Expand Coverage

Increase duration

Improve adequacy

For the first time, coverage was expanded to include part-time workers, the self-employed, and gig workers such as your local Uber driver.

Most states provide up to 26 weeks of Unemployment benefits while some offer as few as 12–20 weeks. The Cares Act increased the duration of coverage to 49 weeks.

Even the most generous states offered the unemployed about 40% of lost wages with many being significantly stingier. The Cares Act as signed by Trump added an additional $600 a week to the state benefit. The extension under Biden cut this to $300.

The Benefits Made a Difference

Combined with other stimulus efforts, the preservation of consumer buying power via these unemployment benefits helped prevent the entire economy from free falling into a major recession.

JP Morgan Chase concluded that the benefits not only helped the unemployed but stabilized aggregate demand in the overall economy.

But Were They Too Generous?

In the Spring of last year, various Governors began to question whether the benefits were discouraging workers from accepting available work & thereby hampering the economic recovery that was clearly already underway.

26 states opted out of the program starting in June of 2021.

There have been many studies that looked at the question of whether or not the opt-out states did better than those who did not.

With one partial exception, the overwhelming number of studies agreed that they did not. Among the most authoritative I found was one by the Economic Policy Institute.

The 26 States who cut benefits saw an average 0.9% increase in job growth while those who did not actually gained a 1.6% in the same period.

Those who cut had a decrease of 0.2% in their unemployment rates, while those who did experienced a 0.4% decrease.

This seems to suggest that the benefits were not keeping people from seeking work.

Now, these are average numbers across many different states. Those that cut benefits tended to be in the South and more rural areas as opposed to the more urbanized states that did not cut benefits. Other factors such as a better mix of job opportunities may have also been at play.

During the height of the epidemic there probably were people who were better off due to the benefits than had they taken the first job they could have found in the depressed labor market.

But the evidence suggests that such benefits are not the answer to the current issue of Why There Are So Many Help Wanted Signs.

Besides, the program ended in all states 8 months ago — last September.

Some Sectors Do Better Than Others

The US Chamber of Commerce adds some clarity to the question by looking at which sectors of the economy are most impacted by labor shortages.

They note that the most affected sector, the Leisure and Hospitality group lost 1 million workers in November of last year, yet they hired 1.2 million — the highest hiring rate of all sectors.

The transportation, health care, social assistance, and the accommodation and food sectors have the highest number of current job openings.

Yet with the exception of Accommodations and Food, these have low quit rates.

Labor force participation varies by sector, some have a shortage while others a surplus.

For example, the Chamber reports that Durable Goods Manufacturing, Wholesale and Retail Trade, Education, and Health Services have a Labor Shortage with more job openings than people with the required skills and experience needed to fill them.

Conversely, transportation, construction, and mining have a labor surplus, with more experienced unemployed workers than job openings.

Now to the Strange Paradox

The Civilian Labor Participation Rate measures the percentage of all Americans aged 16 and over who are working.

Covid caused a sharp drop in the participation rate, which has rebounded significantly but not quite to pre covid levels.

Now here is the weird part.

While the overall Labor force participation rate has declined and has been doing so since 2010, when you break it down by age cohort including 16–19 teenagers, 20–64 adult working age, 65–74 Retirement age, and 75+ Elders, the labor force participation rates in each age cohort are at their highest levels in generations.

How can that be?

Today in America we have fewer people aged 16–19 than we used to, and the same is especially true of the primary workforce the 20–64 cohort that makes up the vast bulk of our workforce.

The Baby Boom has aged, and while a greater percentage of their age cohort are still working than ever before, the total American workforce has shrunk significantly.

The answer, Immigration

Every significant period of economic growth in American History from the 1800’s on was bolstered by major influxes of people from overseas.

Today, if we are to remain a dominant player economically in the world and hold our own vs the China of today and the India of tomorrow, we need to dramatically increase our immigration rate.

In my lifetime, in the 1950’s we benefited from not only German scientists like Werner Von Braun but hundreds of thousands of displaced people fleeing the devastation of post-war Europe.

Our GNP growth was also boosted by the baby boom bulge and the entry in previously unknown numbers of women in the workforce in the 1960s, 70s, and beyond.

Today we are in a baby-bust era and need new blood to build the future of America. And as an aside, we also need new faces and paychecks to pay into our Social Security fund.

There is much more to say about the need for immigration, but the answer to the question of why there are so many help wanted signs is at least in part because we have run out of people. Particularly those of working age.

1

The above article was previously posted to my Medium account https://enetwal.medium.com/

with the specific article link of https://enetwal.medium.com/why-are-there-so-many-help-wanted-signs-7a5bc2abfced

And was based on a speech I prepared for my Toastmaster Group, Realtors 2512 based in Edina MN

1

Veterans Day 2021

When I was a boy of 11 or 12, I heard the president ask me, to ask not what my country could do for me, but what I could do for my country.

A decade later I found myself in a combat zone, like many others in my age cohort as well as millions who served before and after my time.

Some gave all, and all gave some.

Today on this Veterans Day, in an era where the meaning of patriotism seems confused, I say look not to those who shirked their duty, but wrap themselves in the flag, calling those who served suckers, but instead look to those who have rolled up their sleeves,

… and gotten vaccinated, not just for themselves but in defense of the nation and humanity itself. This second group are today’s true patriots.

War A Hyper-Condensed History with a Possible Escape Hatch

War!

War and the threat of war affects everyone. No exceptions. Even in peace we cannot escape its impact. One that goes far beyond taxes.

Perniciously it requires a paradigm of “We vs. Them,” that gets in the way of human progress.

War is our universal inheritance as humans whether we like it or not.

However, since war is human produced it must also be within human means to control, perhaps even irradicate.

This issue of war affects everyone, worldwide. Including all of those on the other side of … we.

I postulate that there are two types of wars.

Territorial & Ideological, which includes religious.

The granddaddy of religious wars – The Crusades started in the 1100’s and ran in surges over 250 years.

During these wars, if not sooner, the alliance between church and state was forged.

The Church anointed Royalty as Kings, recognizing their aristocracy, while giving the peasants an opportunity to escape their subsistence lifestyles, seek adventure and die for God winning a one-way ticket to Heaven.

I understand the guys on the other side they were promised 7 vestal virgins, but it was the same thing.

The Kings in return became the sword of the Church and insured domestic religious homogeneity as Defender of the Faith at home as well as abroad.   

Despite their failures during the Crusades, the more successful kings applied the lessons of war in the following centuries by consolidating their neighborhoods in territorial wars. An ongoing European tradition which continues to this day. Most recently with the taking of Crimea by Russia.

Punctuating this post crusade period was a second set of religious wars.

Starting in the 1500’s, the Reformation undercut papal authority and let loose a flood of new “heresies” – and a multitude of new ideas – all seeking the truth.

Wars followed.

Both religious and hybrid quasi-religious wars for around 150 years, here and there.

Among the worst: the 30 Years War. It left 1 in 3 people in Germany dead.

1 in 3 over 30 years. Devastating.

Many other religious wars followed resulting in massive persecution, turmoil, and exodus to the new world.

Today millions of German Catholics and German Lutherans owe their current faith to those long ago battles and which side of the lines their ancestors lived. They are not alone.

With the blossoming of new religions came the blossoming of new ideas, in what has come to be known as the Age of Enlightenment.

With Papal authority broken, the legitimacy of the Monarchy came into question. Grist for the mill of the Enlightenment’s best minds.

Among the fruit of those new ideas was the Democracy we call the United States.               

That Democracy in turn captured the quintessential truth of the era, that religious wars made no sense and that there was but one possible solution. Freedom of Religion. They then enshrined that remarkable concept in the Constitution of the United States.

It is our democracy and our commitment to Freedom of Religion that makes our nation the shining beacon on the hill. Not our geography, – our principles. The separation of church from state, with power flowing up from the people rather than down from above.

There is no other solution in the final analysis to avoiding religious wars than to build a world in which religious freedom is universal, it should be so here at home and abroad. It is in our human interest that our nation export that idea world-wide as an essential part of our foreign policy.

This is what good governments do.

The above speech was prepared for presentation as a 5-7 minute speech for my Toastmaster Club. Covers a lot of territory in a short period of time.

On the Personal Front Facing 2020

https://medium.com/@enetwal/my-struggles-and-break-throughs-with-new-years-resolutions-94c795efa1f4

This post jointly published on Medium

My Struggles and Break Throughs with New Years Resolutions

**This post contains affiliate links and I will be compensated if you make a purchase after clicking on my links.

I have a love-hate relationship with New Year’s resolutions, a trait I suspect I share with many.

As a child, my annual resolution to brush my teeth every morning and night seldom made it past noon on the 7th day. These resolutions, of course, were made to fill in the blank. To answer parent’s or teachers’ inquiries and not self-motivated. And that was their fatal flaw.

https://noom.8utb.net/4jzP1

As an adult I have made a number of similar resolutions, most notably to lose weight or to quit cigarettes. Again these tended to fail at least in part because the goals were as much to meet my spouse’s desires as my own. Plus in the case of losing weight, they suffered from the lack of a concrete measurable goal and a specific timeline. Qualities most goal-setting gurus suggest are imperative.

The Failure Syndrome

The net result of years of failure of such resolutions to survive more than a few days or weeks at most was the development of what I came to see as my resolution failure syndrome.

This syndrome was most pronounced in my stop smoking efforts. I had resolved and then failed so many times, I began to see myself rationalizing that I should just light up now, and skip the withdrawal agony as I knew I would eventually fail again.

Each new failure added to that reality. New years resolution after new years resolution combined with more than a handful of interim midyear resolutions proved the point.

It wasn’t until I decided not to quit, but to abstain for a full year that I was able to break that chain. By adding that simple specific goal and timeline, I was able to successfully quit. Now as an aside, I had severe anxiety as I approached the year anniversary wondering if I would then relapse. Thankfully, I did not and have remained cigarette free since.

https://noom.8utb.net/4jzP1
Lose Weight For Good With Noom
http://noom.pxf.io/c/mpid}/507145/8591

It’s Hard to Stop Eating

It was one thing to give up cigarettes, another to lose weight. You can stop smoking, it is far more difficult to stop eating.

Like many people, I tried many different approaches from Weight Watchers to the Veteran’s Affair’s Move program to a dozen and a half diet plans. Generally speaking, I was successful with most — until I wasn’t.

Having quit smoking and with a sit behind the computer lifestyle, I had ballooned to over 280 pounds. On my journey to that awful level of obesity, I would lose weight on one or another diet effort only to gain it back and usually a bit more than when I had started. If this rings a bell with you, I have some hope to offer.

The Point of Maximum Pain

The point of maximum pain occurred for me, when I needed to buy a new suit for my son’s wedding, I just wasn’t comfortable being seen bulging out of my old one. (Yes, I am a one-suit, worn for weddings and funerals, sort of guy.)

In hindsight, I think it was how I would look that mattered to me most, more than the fact that I was a mini-blimp. It may well have been that pain that ultimately propelled me forward.

After the wedding, I started exploring options. A friend had success with a meal program from one of the national vendors, but he cautioned me, that while it had worked for him, he was single and thought it would be more difficult for a couple.

Exploring Noom

I had been hearing ads on public radio about Noom and went to their website. I was immediately attracted to two things. First and foremost was the chance to do a free 14-day trial. The second was that after I took the intake questionnaire they have on their site, they seemed to promise I could lose 40 pounds in four months. To go from 280 to well under 250 mark by a full additional 10 pounds excited me. Could it be true? Well, I could find out for free for a “look-see.” And so I did. The price was right.

Try Noom’s 14 Day Trial!
http://noom.pxf.io/c/1962728/599639/8591

Quick Success

The pain was mine, and so was the motivation to get started and I jumped in and followed the program to the T, especially at first. In my case that meant sticking to a 1400 calorie a day budget, and accurately logging in each meal and snack. I was pleased to learn that there were no forbidden foods. I could eat what I wanted when I wanted. However, there were also some daily readings, mini-quizzes, and suggestions. Foods were labeled Red, Yellow and Green and daily steps goals were established using my cell phone as a pedometer.

I had been something of a cell phone troglodyte, often forgetting to charge it, often leaving it at home when out and about. Noom changed that. I was daily reading the lessons, logging my meals on the phone and it became a more meaningful part of my life. If you are already married to your phone you will find the Noom ap second nature.

I started to increase my activity level and pretty religiously stayed within my daily calorie budgets which included bonus calories for exercise. Bottom line, by the 11th week I lost 35 pounds and was so proud of myself I wrote an article on Medium about my success.

The Glide Path

One of the things that made Noom work for me, was what I call the glide path. Every day I would weigh myself and enter the result into the Noom Ap. There I could see not only a graph showing where I had been but one that projected out into the future my long term goal and an estimate as to when I would get there. It showed not only my progress, but also the promise. If I kept at it.

When I think about past resolutions, particularly New Years’ ones the initial motivation was often there. What ultimately was lacking was the motivation to continue. The daily logging, the daily lessons, the input from Noom coaches and the ability to see my progress all aided in my efforts to learn to eat mindfully and within my budget.

Now at the six-month mark I have lost a total of over 60 pounds. My next target is 9 pounds away and will represent a loss of 25% of my starting body weight. That is significant. And is why I am writing this post. Noom has worked for me. In large part, because I was ready to take action, and essential ingredient. But also importantly, because it has helped me keep on keeping on.

If you are ready to make a commitment to yourself, I recommend you take advantage of the 14-day trial and see for yourself whether Noom will be as useful to you as it was to me.

Affiliate Disclosure

I have become an evangelist, because of my success and am now also an affiliate promoting Noom. Should you try the program and then stay on it, I will earn a little commission. More important to me is knowing that someone else has benefited from my experience.

Try Noom’s 14 Day Trial!

Why Klobuchar’s Calm Competency is the Answer to the Challenge Facing America

Today December 19th is one of the darkest days in the year, and after yesterday’s impeachment vote, one of the darkest days in American history. The good news is that things will be getting brighter soon — at least in terms of the length of the day, although a question remains about the political future.

The best takeaway I can offer for the impeachment is that it is quite clear that we as Americans need to take a bit more care in who we elect to lead us.

I do not expect Trump to be removed from office, although I believe he should be. I do expect him to be defeated next November though. The question is by whom.

latimes.com image

My predisposition has been to support Joe Biden, who clearly is the most capable of stepping into the office and ramping up to its chores and duties without skipping a beat.

However, as a Minnesotan, I have also had a soft spot in my heart for our “favorite daughter” Amy Klobuchar. I know her and the quality of her work, and I respect her good sense. I believe she would return to the office of President, the calm competency it so badly needs.

As the still large field of candidates has begun to shrink, I have also grown in my conviction that she may in fact be the best candidate to — as her campaign wants us to see- the ablest to “Win Big.”

In contrast to a few of the candidates who offer us Santa Claus presents all to be paid for by the wealthy, she is far more realistic in her promises. In contrast to the well-spoken mayor, she has a depth of experience as a state legislator, county attorney, and is now in her third term in the Senate. Frankly, we have suffered enough by the current incumbent’s lack of relevant experience.

There are four main reasons I now see her as our best choice going forward as a champion to return the bright light of Liberty’s Torch to America at large.

She is/has…

  • a worker bee
  • moderate
  • a sense of humor
  • grit
usnews.com image

Worker Bee

Some politicians are media stars, some show horses and some workhorses. Amy is the last.

According to govtrack.us, Klobuchar has sponsored or co-sponsored 111 bills in the current 116th Congress, more than any other Senator.

In the prior congress 65 of the 92 bills, she sponsored had Republican co-sponsors — demonstrating her ability to work across the aisle.

And not just sponsored — she had the second-highest percentage of her bills to get out of Committee of all the Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate, and the third most overall to actually pass.

Among all Senators, she had the 5th most bicameral support — meaning that there was also a companion bill in the House demonstrating her ability to work with both houses of congress.

Moderate

Her ability to work across the aisle is proof enough of her ability to work with people with whom she disagrees. Some on the far left of the party sees this as her weakness. I see it as her strength.

Several candidates from what I call the “Santa Claus” wing of the party promise a ton of freebies all to be paid for by the wealthy. Even should they win, the question is will they be able to get their proposals through a Congress lead by the likes of Mitch McConnell.

This is where Klobuchar’s appeal to “Win Big” matters most. Our presidential candidate to be successful must not only win but win big enough to carry both the Senate and the House. Failure to do so condemns us to another period of stalemated malaise.

In her last Senatorial race, Klobuchar carried 42 counties that Trump won in Minnesota, 39 of which were rural. She is intent upon not just representing her base but representing the entire nation, urban and rural, liberal and conservative while plainly forwarding a progressive agenda.

Her ability to relate to rural America is our best hope to win Senate and House seats.

Humor

I continue to regret the resignation of Minnesota Senator Al Franken, but even though a professional comedian, I have often thought that Amy, not Al was the funnier of the two.

This personal human trait is more important that one may at first think. The ability to laugh and especially to laugh at oneself is an important one. Can you think of a time when Donald Trump told a joke? (Not counting the times he claimed one or more of his outrageous statements were jokes.)

Grit

The woman has spunk. While most often mentioned is her presidential announcement during a Minnesota snowstorm, the real proof has been her stature in the debates to date. Any Minnesotan worth their salt can withstand a blizzard, we are a hearty breed. Her depth of experience and skills as a prosecutor have shown brightly during Senate committee hearings over and over, be it her exchanges with Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court hearings, or those of Barr during his Attorney General hearings, or in the debates to date.

She can stand up to the bully in chief and will take him down.

The bottom line

Amy Klobuchar has the best shot at winning not just the presidency, but also of bringing the nation together again. Her goal is not to lead the left in a continuing futile war with the right, but to become America’s president.

Her goal is not just to defeat Trump, but to renew America both here at home and to return us to our prior role as a leader of the free and democratic nations of the world. To restore our alliances and return us to our traditional role as the world leader.

And perhaps most importantly of all to return to the white house a leader with calm competence.

https://medium.com/@enetwal/why-klobuchars-calm-competency-is-the-answer-to-the-challenge-facing-america-3140b2b5a492?sk=ab7a21d1c66e157d828913bb73116805

The Minneapolis Gay Rights Ordinance — A Personal Story By One Who Was There

I admit it. I was committed but also afraid.

Gays and lesbians have won the right to marry and are widely accepted in America today, but this most certainly was not always the case.

I played a role in that transformation many years ago. The following is my account of how Minneapolis became one of the first major cities in the US to adopt a Gay Rights Ordinance.

I will discuss the political circumstances of the time, a bit about me, and then the process as best I recall.

The Times Were A-Changing

In the fall of 1973, Richard Nixon was still president, having defeated anti-war candidate George McGovern by a landslide nationally and in Minnesota. The Watergate scandal had already broken, and the leading cohorts of the Baby Boom were beginning to take their positions in society, including local politics. I was one of them.

Upon returning to Minnesota as a Vietnam veteran, I had made a personal commitment to work for peace from the grassroots level up. I became involved in the Minneapolis Model Cities Program. I also got a job working as paid staff coordinating the McGovern campaigns voter registration efforts in the Fifth Congressional district, encompassing Minneapolis and some adjacent suburbs.

Those credentials were enough to win a DFL (Democratic) party endorsement for Sixth Ward Alderman. On the back of that endorsement, plus that of Hubert H Humphrey and a lot of door-knocking, I eked out a 134-vote margin of victory to join what turned out to be an 11 Democrat, 1 Independent, and 1 Republican city council landslide. That year’s municipal election permanently reversed long-standing Republican domination of Minneapolis politics and included the election of a Democratic mayor, Al Hofstede.

The turn of events was significant enough to merit a story by the Voice of America, not because of the change of party control, but due to the overall age of the mayor and city council. I turned 25 the day after the election, and the average age for the Council was around 33. We did have a few older, but by and large, ours was a baby boom council bursting with new ideas.

Homophobia 90 Victims 10

Young folks entering politics today cannot appreciate the pervasiveness of homophobia just decades ago, just as they cannot fully understand the improbability of reaching the moon pre-1969. For them, gay rights, like space travel, are not a fantasy but merely history. In the early 1970s, homophobia was virtually universal among men, if not the entire population, to one extent or another.

The exception being gays themselves, and maybe a smattering of others. Most gays were closeted. It was national news when the University of Minnesota professor and state senator Allan Spear, representing a liberal Minneapolis district with the University at its heart, came out in 1974.

His coming out was preceded by the activism of Jack Baker, who ran for and was elected student body president at the University of Minnesota in 1971. Baker and his partner Michael McConnel had earlier applied for a marriage license, been denied, then opted for McConnel to adopt Baker legally, and ultimately became the first gay marriage in Minnesota and the nation on Sept 3, 1971. Their activity attracted national attention and brought the gay rights issue to the surface locally.

Lunatic Fringe

It is interesting to note that Allan Spear is quoted by reporters at the time, as referring to them and their marriage effort as being part of the “lunatic fringe.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McConnell_and_Jack_Baker

Two camps emerged. One, led in part by local gay activist Tim Campbell, was decidedly “in your face,” to the point of planting cream pies in various people’s faces as part of their campaign to advance the cause of gay rights.

From my perspective, such antics detracted from progress rather than advanced the cause. However, there is no doubt that these efforts brought the issues in the public eye and served to rally gays to become more active.

My journey

Growing up, I was oblivious to gays and the gay lifestyle. During the Summer of 1967, while on a Midshipmen cruise aboard the USS Benner DD803, I had a personal encounter while in port in San Francisco, which frankly left me traumatized and shaken.

Five years later, after separation from the Navy, I returned to Minneapolis to complete my BA at the University of Minnesota. Shortly after locating my off-campus housing, I discovered I had moved into what had become the Minneapolis Model City area. I soon found they were going to have an election to get people involved and that so far, no one had signed up from my precinct.

It was time to mount my white charger and plow into the weeds of grassroots politics. Three of us filed for the two spots the final week before the deadline. With some actual campaigning, I won one of the two slots — and in doing so, my first election. The third candidate who did not prevail was Jim Anderson, who lived across the street from me.

One evening I was visiting with Jim to get to know him. We smoked a joint together and were breezily discussing and resolving the political issues of the day. I liked the guy, and it seems he liked me as well. When he propositioned me, I was shocked. He demurred, but still, we talked. I was curious, and he was willing to talk about himself and how he had always known that he was gay from an early age.

That private conversation was the most important single factor in my transition regarding gay rights.

The Sandbox

The Model Cities experience was also pivotal. I won an election to its Planning and Policy Board in what was, in essence, a mini legislature on the neighborhood level. We had money, and the authority to spend it courtesy of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society efforts. While most of us were anti-war activists at one level or another, we had a big sandbox that had us focusing on the practical issues of improving a large, poor inner-city area.

At weekly meetings, we would hash out the issues of the day in terms of inner-city housing, recreation needs, economic development, and social services. I was a member of the Income Core, which focused on economic development, jobs, and job training.

My participation in the income core led to an appointment to the Board of Directors of the Concentrated Employment Program (CEP) as a community representative. I learned a lot.

Still, a student, I lived on the $20 meeting stipends paid to Planning and Policy Board Members and my $175 a month GI Bill subsidy. I devoted myself to university studies and to understand the needs of the community and how to meld it into a Greater Society.

I came to believe that an appropriate goal of the government was to create the circumstances in which every person had the greatest possible opportunity to maximize their talents, no matter their background.

I believe that to this day. That philosophy extended to people like Jim Anderson, who happened to be born gay.

Your socks don’t match.

On January 2, 1974, I was sworn in as Sixth Ward Alderman.

Days into my new role, I faced my first neighborhood dispute regarding a half-way house in the Whittier neighborhood.

I worked with the organization and its neighbors to restore neighborhood peace. In the process, I met Bob Knight and his nearby neighbor’s Merry and Duane Elg, who together would become my closest friends and advisors during my city council days.

Bob was gay, and while it may be trite to say so far more sensitive to style than me. I’ve tended to be sartorially challenged or perhaps more correctly, oblivious. One day early in my term, he was in my office and upon parting, confided his dislike for my choice of socks. I don’t remember exactly why — probably they didn’t match my outfit, possibly each other.

I liked that. When each council member was allocated funds to pay for a staff person, I asked Bob to fill that role on the theory that he would speak the truth to me.

Steve Endean, the Persistent Charm Offensive

I do not remember how I first met Steve Endean, whether it was through Bob or that Steve just made an appointment to see me. However, it occurred, it was during those heady first few weeks in office. Steve argued there was a need for Minneapolis to pass a gay rights ordinance, and I quickly committed myself to support an effort to do so.

Born in Iowa, Steve Endean was a recently graduated political science major from the University of Minnesota. A stocky, handsome man with a cleft lip scar that added to his rugged looks. He chose to wear a sport coat and ties and courted support for his cause with persistence and respect.

Almost daily throughout the first months of 1974, Endean would come to my office, if only to drop off his coat, and would then, as the opportunity presented itself, engage my fellow Aldermen in quiet conversation.

He became a common fixture for several weeks among the crowd that made up the hubbub of political energy that infused the council chambers. Always in coat and tie, always respectfully.

His first task was to breakthrough residual bias and, more importantly, fears consciously or unconsciously affecting people’s perceptions. Here was a polite, positive person who was gay and not a threat. Today, the importance of that underlying reality may be hard to appreciate, but it was an essential first step.

Once that base of trust was built, the more significant issue of explaining the need for an ordinance was next. Was this really an employment issue or just occasional bad behavior by bullies and drunks targeting people they did not understand? Not that that wasn’t bad enough in its own right.

Just how many people were gay? While the Kinsey Report suggested as many as 10% of the population are gay, most of my colleagues and I probably were aware of few, if any, besides Steve Endean and a handful of others in the media. In my case, I knew Bob and his partner Dave and perhaps one or two others.

The bulk of the gay community was closeted, the outs that were visible tended to the flamboyant or obnoxious side. There weren’t that many of them either. Locally, Alan Spear was the singular face of gay respectability. Many others would eventually emerge from their closets as time passed, and public acceptance grew. But they were few in 1974.

In the final analysis, Steve’s effort was the most important single factor in the ultimate successful passing of Minneapolis’ ordinance. His respectful individual effort reached out to each member of the council on a personal level and made clear the need and desirability of taking action.

After the successful passage of the ordinance, Steve would be appointed the city’s Civil Rights Commission in August of 1974 by Mayor Al Hofstede.

By late February, Steve became confident the votes were there. The main debating points revolving around whether or not the city’s existing ordinances already covered gays against discrimination?”

At least one member was a sure no vote. Others weren’t sure this was a topic they wanted to go on record about.

Notice of Intent

On March 14, 1974, a formal notice of intent to introduce an ordinance was read into the proceedings of the Council sponsored by myself, and Aldermen Keith Ford, Tom Johnson, Lee Munnich, and Walter Rockenstein. This constituted the first reading of the ordinance, which was then referred to the Council’s permanent committee on Health and Social Services.

While it was one thing to be in favor of an ordinance, it was another actually to write one. Keith Ford volunteered to work with Tom Johnson, on the task of drafting the new ordinance. In addition to Steve Endean, Jack Baker involved himself in the discussions, leading to a tussle over the choice of wording. Keith Ford remembers it being the breakthrough when the language “Affectional or Sexual Preference” was agreed upon and then added to each portion of the existing ordinance as a protected class.

Just what that term meant was not spelled out. That would come later and is where Minneapolis has a claim to being the first in the nation, although we may not have realized it at the time.

As the buzz grew around city hall, that the ordinance was in the works, some closeted city staff drew lots to choose which one would lobby the council’s lone Republican, Walther Rockenstein. Rocky remembers that they were afraid of being outed and risking their jobs. Their fear was a testimony to the need for the ordinance.

That brave lobbyist was happy to discover that Rocky was a long-time advocate for civil rights, coming from what I call the Lincolnian branch of the Republican Party. Too bad its numbers have decreased so significantly.

Eddy Felien remembers Baker lobbying his support for the ordinance in a city hall elevator encounter, which led to the committee hearing before the Health and Human Services Committee, which he chaired. Felien recalls, “It was a lively hearing with fundamentalist ministers ranting about the devil.” My recollections of that meeting have faded, I think, because there wasn’t an earth-shaking public reaction one way or the other.

The final passage

After the committee hearing, a decision was made at the DFL caucus meeting to schedule the eventual final passage on a day when Russ Green would be absent. Mostly out of respect for him, as our most senior member and a sure no vote. Keith Ford would also miss that council meeting, but we were by then confident of the majority, although there were more than a few members nervous about the potential political repercussions.

On the day of the vote, March 29th, 1974, I remember lobbying Dick Miller, the other single male on the council, with a public opinion poll that showed majority support for “gay rights.”

Alderman Sam Sivanich (Ward 1) was among the more nervous, and when the ordinance came up on the agenda, he moved to refer it back to committee for additional public hearings. That motion was seconded but failed.

The final vote was ten ayes, no nays, with Sivanich not voting and two absent.

Upon passage, Council President DeMars’s suggested we all be listed as sponsors of the ordinance. I was a bit taken back as I had all along considered this to be my baby, but let that ride, and besides, it was a case where we would all either hang together or take credit down the road. And while that to passed, it was not officially recorded in the council’s official proceedings, which do not always list authors of ordinances.

The ordinance was approved by Mayor Al Hofstede on April 4th, making Minneapolis one of the first major cities in the nation to take similar action.

Aftermath

It was some weeks later that I received one of the few thankyous I got as a result of the ordinance passing. It came in the form of a letter from a man in Duluth, Minnesota. It seemed that he had been hired as a telephone installer in Duluth as a result of our ordinance. Northwestern Bell, the then local phone company, headquarter within spitting distance of City Hall, had changed its personnel policy as a result of the law, not just for the city of Minneapolis, but its entire operating area, including Duluth. Their prior policy would not allow the hiring of gays for any position that put them into people’s homes.

It was gratifying to know that our effort had reached beyond our borders.

But wait there is more.

The original solution of adding the language “affectional or sexual preference” was a short term breakthrough. It did the trick and got the ordinance passed, but just what did the phrase mean and who was covered and who was not.

Increasingly other council members and I were approached by transgender and transvestite people who wanted assurances that they too were included.

Here my memory of events fades a bit. But in September of 1975, the official proceedings of the City Council report that Alderman Rockenstien, DeMars, Johnson, and Quillan introduced another amendment to the ordinance which was referred to the council’s Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Tom Johnson.

I was not on that committee and cannot speak to details, but the proposed change added a new paragraph X to the ordinance defining the phrase ‘Affectional Preference.’

(X) Affectional Preference. ‘Affectional Preference’ means having or manifesting an emotional or physical attachment to another consenting person or persons, or having or projecting a self-image not associated with one’s biological Maleness or one’s biological Femaleness.

This amendment was passed unanimously by the city council at the final meeting of our two-year council term on December 30, 1975.

An MSNBC article by Emma Margolin from June 3, 2016, noted that this established Minneapolis as the first city in the country to pass protections for transsexuals. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-minneapolis-became-the-first-city-the-country-pass-trans-protections?fbclid=IwAR1ewcA15PHJaVK1XEZnFeYE1R22vXMr4nay_7tkRLuO01lQggpdjlRpJ7w

The Unspoken Fear

As a politician, there was always a fear that supporting a Gay Rights ordinance might backfire electorally. This is the standard stuff of everyday life for elected officials — the balancing act that informs the democratic process. Some only act when they are confident of support; others will pursue ideas, passions, and ideologies until they crash and burn. Most of my colleagues seemed to strive for the middle course. To progress without getting derailed. Preferring a half loaf and the chance to continue to serve versus purity and potential political death.

This tempered approach gives politicians a bad name among zealots interested in any given issue. A politico’s caution is seen as a lack of commitment, if not outright sabotage. Often, even the valiant are seen as merely doing what they should be doing, with little credit for the bravery required.

But on the issue of Gay Rights, there was a second layer of fear. A personal one, the fear of being thought of as gay. This fear may have been particularly acute for myself and another council member who was also unmarried at the time.

I was championing a cause but did so as quietly as I could in the background. Continually monitoring and cheering Endean’s efforts, comparing notes but not playing an obvious role in lobbying colleagues. I suspect that fear was shared to some degree by the entire council (all male by the way.) The times may have been changing, but just barely.

In hindsight, while I am proud of many other endeavors pursued during my two terms in office, this particular effort is the one of which I am most proud, maybe mostly because it required taking a stand while afraid. That I understand is known as courage.

This article was first published on Medium:

My Recent Post in Medium about my early experience with downzoning in the interests of preserving the Single Family nature of Minneapolis’ neighborhoods.

A Zoning Lesson Remembered

The city of Minneapolis has passed a 2040 plan that includes making triplexes permitted housing in every residential area in the city which were previously mostly single-family homes with a mix of duplexes in some areas. This change has many arguments for it and a few against it.

I recently wrote a reflection on my past efforts many years ago dealing with an effort to reduce – not increase zoning density in an effort to preserve the strength and vitality of single-family neighborhoods. It was published in the South Side Pride.  https://southsidepride.com/2019/12/02/up-zoning-remembered/

Before being elected to the city council in 1973 at age 24, I was an elected and active member of the Minneapolis Model City Planning and Policy Board, which was made up of citizen representatives elected by precincts within the Model City area. This included a broad area roughly between Cedar and Lyndale and I-94 to around 38th Street – a large chunk of the city just south of the downtown central business district.

We had independent funding courtesy of Uncle Sam and split into four major cores, Housing, Social Services, Recreation and Public Safety, and Income. While I served on the Income core, with a personal focus on developing employment training programs, I became fully apprised of the issues determined as important in each of the other cores at our every two-week meetings.

Housing was a big deal. The Model City area was home to some of the oldest properties in the city, and rental demand was high as the leading edge of the baby boom was flooding the area due to its proximity to downtown jobs and for students the university. Rents were relatively low although increasing in the face of the burgeoning demand. The downside was that much of the housing was clearly substandard with most dating back to the 1800s and pre WWI era.

As would be expected much of the attention was on ideas to upgrade the housing stock with loan and grant programs aimed at housing rehab, to political support for ideas like rent control, and tenants’ rights and ending redlining. New housing utilizing defensible space for security, and innovative ownership structures were investigated. Less flashy was an examination of just how the area slipped into decline.

People tend to like to find villains, and two were identified: Absentee landlords and two and a half story walkups.

While a significant majority of the entire area was already converted into rental properties, there were still sections of the neighborhoods I represented once elected to the city council that had a core of owner-occupied single-family homes and owner-occupied duplexes. These residents were concerned about their neighborhood and its short and long term prospects. They tended to fall into two groups: long term survivors and young urban pioneers, demographically the old and the young.

The young within the model city effort looked to the old to explain what had happened and why. They heard tales of one, and then another owner-occupied home on their block selling to investors as urban flight and the suburban life lured people away, not to be replaced by homeowners. Tales of tall grass and peeling paint diminishing the overall look of the neighborhood. And a cycle began, as one homeowner after another escaped before their property values declined further, except for those who could not or would not.

They told stories of developers acquiring two or three adjacent properties and then informing the adjoining neighbors that they would be building an apartment building and to either sell now or suffer the increase in traffic and unknown new neighbors next door. The process was called blockbusting, and it occurred throughout the area.

At that time, the entire residential area of my ward was zoned R-6 under the then in effect zoning. That was the highest possible density level and was the same as was required for the Cedar Square West high rise complex, also in my ward.

In essence, it was as if there were no zoning restrictions at all. The result was that many many blocks of previously all single-family or duplex housing were host to at least one apartment building — typically a two and a half story walk-up. This added to street congestion, increased mobility rates, and coincidental crime issues and a transformation of the neighborhood from being family-oriented to one less so.

Within my ward, the area with the strongest residual base of homeownership was in the Whittier neighborhood. Together with activists from the community, we began what was called a 40-acre study. This process was required because courts have ruled that a city cannot reduce the zoning on a property “capriciously.” Doing so would be limit the potential uses for a property, and fewer and less dense alternatives would make the underlying land less valuable.

Changing the zoning category and lowering its potential uses from high rise densities to that of single-family homes constituted an illegal taking of property rights from the property owners without compensation. The courts recognized the rights of cities to lower zoning as long as it was part of an overall reexamination of zoning over a sizable area rather than on a parcel by parcel basis. They settled on 40 acres as the minimum size needed to justify a city exercising its “police” powers in the form of restricting people’s rights to do what they will with their property.

This study required extensive community hearings and an in-depth look on a parcel by parcel basis at actual existing uses. Several well-attended neighborhood meetings ensured that the stakeholders in the community were informed and demonstrated support for the changes. By and large, community sentiment was to lower the area’s zoning to the dominant existing uses. The city council eventually passed the proposed changes.

The success of the first effort, lead to its replication throughout the rest of my ward and elsewhere in south Minneapolis.

The resulting zoning changes made homeownership a less risky endeavor in the “inner city” and may have indirectly assisted in improving the availability of mortgages in the area. As importantly, the process allowed citizens an active role in claiming and defending their neighborhoods. It is my belief these actions helped preserve the livability and quality of the areas housing stock and made the city a safer and more secure area in which to live.

In hindsight, if I were to go back and make a change to the results, it would have been to allow more density along arterial streets, while protecting the interior blocks. In the past, blanket higher zoning led to the disruption in the character of the neighborhood and led to disinvestment by owner-occupants. This, in turn, leads to an eventual decline in the quality of the housing stock. That is the lesson we learned back in the Model City days and remains true today.

My Newest Post on Medium

Yesterday I published an article on Medium arguing that the focus on who should be president is missing a key question. Who will end up controlling the Senate and House as well as the Presidency?

The Democrats selection process needs to consider which candidates will help it to not only win the presidency but also win for that president a congress that will support and not obstruct the plans and ambitions of their presidential choice.

The article is below in full and may also be viewed here: https://medium.com/@enetwal/why-democrats-need-to-pick-a-moderate-despite-the-appeal-of-sanders-and-warren-and-their-fdbd11720f39

While many on the far left would love to see a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as the nominee, pragmatists interested in both winning the election, stopping Trump and actually getting something done are a bit more reserved. Remember that Obama Care was passed in that brief interlude when Obama had control of both houses of Congress.

Why Democrats Need to Pick A Moderate — Despite The Appeal of Sanders and Warren and Their Platforms.

Go Boldly.

Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.

W. H. Murray

Bernie Sanders demonstrated that a bold agenda appealed to many on the left of the Democratic Party during the last presidential election cycle.

Not only did he establish a strong following, but he also managed to build a base of support that remains active in the party. These newly engaged forces have made their mark throughout the nation, and in many cases, they have displaced long-serving Democratic officeholders.

Even more fundamentally, many of the ideas and promises of his campaign have reprised themselves this cycle not only in Bernie’s campaign but also Warren’s and others.

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., gives a speech on his “Medicare for All” proposal, Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at George Washington University in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

And why not? There is a lot of appeal to dramatic reform on behalf of everyday people. Especially so, when the proposed costs are paid for by the undertaxed privileged. God knows the tax policies of the current administration have been designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the everyday working stiff.

If the rich can have Uncle Santa gift them with trillions in benefits, why shouldn’t you and I expect similar benefits once we have control?

The fact that the wealthiest folks in the nation pay less percentage-wise than the average worker is a recipe for mass action on behalf of the majority. The level of economic disparity is unsustainable and will disrupt the nation’s domestic tranquility unless addressed.

The nation’s economic growth and prosperity are an essential element of national policy and will always be an inherent part of the quad annual political debate. The relevant question being which is the best measuring stick for the economy.

Today’s administration believes the essential measure is economic growth, often measured by the gross national product. Thus its promise that GNP would grow as a result of the massive corporate tax cuts championed by Trump. Instead, at best, the economy on Trump’s watch has barely met Obama’s best numbers, and the national debt has mushroomed.

Economic growth is essential, but more so, is the overall wellbeing of the people as a whole. To be fair, participation in the workforce has improved.

Now, we Democrats will point out that that growth is continuing at the general pace of improvement that started during Obama’s terms and is at least partially a continuation of that pre-established trend.

Despite the improved job picture, the primary benefits of economic growth are not going to the workers but mostly to the wealthy.

So why not go for the gold? Why not demand revolutionary changes to the economy and to who benefits from the nation’s output? We owe it to each other and our posterity that we make changes that will return a more significant share of the nation’s wealth to all of us.

And yet, that does not mean we should support Sanders or Warren in their quest to move the needle this year dramatically. Not because their proposals are without good intentions, they have a solid case to be made in terms of economic equity.

It is hard to argue we should accept half a loaf rather than going for the prize, but I suggest at least two reasons why we should demur.

These two reasons are for lack of better terms, Policy Shock, and Winning.

Policy Shock

For those of us who have found President Trump’s radical policy shifts on International Alliances, The Climate Accord, The Iran Deal, Trade Wars, and so many other moral calamities upsetting. We need to consider the whiplash the general public will feel once we regain control of the government again. It is idealistic to think our best ideas will be implemented smoothly, no matter the administrative skill of our next Democratic president. Complex systems like our complicated health care system will not quickly transform itself overnight or even in four years. As President Trump discovered, health care is complicated. As surprised as he was, I wonder if those advocating a one payer system imagine they will be more successful. Hasn’t anyone told you that health care is complicated?

I mention health care because this one issue is the most significant single issue-defining camps within the party. Most other issues such as women’s, climate, international relations, minority, gays, minimum wage, etc. are subject to minor variations from candidate to candidate. Each of these is important. Important enough to be part of our platform, and should we be successful with them, we can count on the American people’s support this election and the next.

After years of do-nothing Congressional action, Americans will relish and reward a political party that brings back rational thought, honesty, and progress. Setting the stage for future modifications that may be more aggressive than those we may hope for today. But of course, that depends on whether we can win the coming election.

Winning

And here is the main point of this little screed. Victory is not about winning the presidency, although that is required. It is also about keeping control of the House and winning the Senate.

A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren with Mitch McConnel in charge of the Senate is a dismal prescription guaranteeing frustration for the American people and a continuing decline in America’s posture in the world. And even if we can defeat Mitch personally, lacking a majority in both the Senate and the House is a fate I do not relish.

The strategy we as a party need to be focused on is not just who is our next president, but how we can best retake control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency. Anything less is not acceptable.

And so as I look at the practical realities of the situation, I reflect on the last congressional elections. Yes, well-motivated people on the left did succeed in replacing centrist Democrats, yeah for your team, but those gains did not move the needle in terms of the party passing legislation.

Our success in the House came from swing districts. Districts can revert in the coming year. Be it due to our underestimating Trump’s ability to get re-elected or continued Russian success meddling on his behalf.

The Senate is still an uphill battle. To prevail on any of our issues, we need to win it as well as the Presidency. It may not seem fair or right, but smaller red states still get their two votes in the Senate. We need to elect candidates in those states and cannot do that if their citizens are afraid of our party’s most progressive ideas. Heck, they are hard-pressed to agree and support the moderate portion of our party.

With luck, however, we can win this year, even in red states. That is thanks to Donald Trump and his rude, ignorant, and undisciplined behavior.

The best long term strategy is to support a moderate candidate for president this year. Be it Biden or my personal favorite Amy Klobuchar or even a Mayor Pete. Let’s get them elected and win for them a House and Senate that can finally get some robust Democratic policies implemented.

Amy Klobuchar

A successful Democratic term making real progress will be amply rewarded in future elections when a more progressive strategy may become possible. But that will only happen once we prove to the American people that we can govern pragmatically and gain their trust and support.

Winning is not about electing the next president; it is about winning control of the government, both houses and the presidency. Anything less will be a failure, and America cannot afford another failure.

My letter To Representative Ilhan Omar

I recently received email 11,232 asking for campaign contributions, this time from Ilhan Omar, my Congressional Representative.

She Wrote:


Earl,
 
Thank you for joining me in our movement for progress. I want to take this time to tell you a little bit more about myself and why I decided to run for Congress to represent the people of Minnesota’s 5th:
 
At the age of 8, my family and I fled Somalia’s civil war where we then lived in a refugee camp in Kenya for four years before coming to the United States. In 1997, we settled in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis.
 
My interest in politics began at the age of 14 when I was as an interpreter for my grandfather at local Minnesota-DFL caucuses. Watching neighbors come together to advocate for change at the grassroots level made me both appreciate and fall in love with the democratic process. This experience is what sparked my pursuit of working toward justice through progressive politics.
 
In 2016, I became the first Somali-American, Muslim legislator in the United States. With the help of my committed campaign team, we increased voter turnout by 37% and I was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in District 60B.
 
Then in 2018, I decided to run for U.S. Congress to represent my community and was elected this last November. I am honored and proud to serve Minnesota’s 5th District in Congress —we are a diverse community that believes in peace, respect, and equality for all.
 
My work in Congress is focused on fighting for progress and working to get real results for the people who elected me. I believe that healthcare is a human right, that we must take bold action now to address the climate crisis. I believe in economic justice, human rights centered foreign policy, and that we must address the institutional racism and misogyny that exists in our country.

from fundraising email dated 7/11/2019 from Ilhan Omar

I responded to this email as follows:

I appreciate that you wish to represent those who supported you, but you also represent me. And I ask that you take a moment to reflect on that.

You may see yourself as a leader of a cause, but I also want a leader whose grasp includes the entire community you represent. To do otherwise is to resemble Donald Trump who only cares about his base.

What are you doing to reach out to people who are not your base? 

I had the privilege to represent a significant portion of your constituency in the ancient past. I tried to reflect not only on those who attended caucuses and helped in my campaigns, but to also keep in mind “Joe/Jill Six pack” as I envisioned them at the time. Folks who didn’t pay attention to politics, who may well have disagreed with me on issues. And even as I was voting against an issue he or she may have taken – I tried to understand why they were opposed and who they were and what could perhaps mitigate their opinion and or situation.


Now some may say that is trying to be all things to all people, but it’s not really. It is being representative of the whole. Now it’s true that I believe it will over time temper your judgement a bit and I think that is just what is needed in today’s politics. 


Yes I am a radical moderate, one who seeks not only to advance the common good, but to so so in a manner that brings along the vast majority on issues and not just eke out a narrow electoral victory. That is no better than the Republicans who are asserting their will via sheer power politics on items such as the supreme court appointments, etc. 

Staking out the left (or the right) may seem like a strategy to nudge the consensus closer to your point of view, but it misses the true spirit of democratic representation by not focusing on advancing a common vision of America that the vast majority of Americans can not only accept – but champion as part of their self image as Americans. 

I encourage you to reconsider your role as a fighter. Yes we need to fight intolerance and social injustice, but let’s consider doing that as a leader. As a healer. As an organizer, as a coalition builder, as a trans formative agent that reaches out across the political divide and becomes a community builder.

We need more community builders, more consensus builders, and a more civil discourse.

I hope to see evidence of that in you in the coming months.


Earl Netwal

Former Minneapolis City Council Member

Former Senate District 62 DFL Chair

Dare To Understand!

In his most recent book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Steven Pinker titles his first chapter “Dare to Understand!”

This “Dare,” dates back to the 1784 essay by Immanuel Kant who was a major force within the evolution of a period historians refer to as The Age of Enlightenment.

The Age of Enlightenment has come to mean many different things to many different people and often used to argue completely opposite positions. (See Avi Lifschiftz’ article in History Today: The Enlightenment: Those Who Dare to Know.)

Historians will disagree on how best to date the era, but to give some general perspective it is helpful to me to accept the range of 1685 to 1810, in essence giving credit to a enlarged 18th century.

For Americans perhaps the greatest fruit of the age may be found in the words of the Declaration of Independence.  “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal

The key thought was that the rights are of the Individual and not the King or Church. This was a departure, and a profound one that may be somewhat lost in appreciation today. It is also part of the classic differences between Republicans and Democrats, pitting the individual against the group. The relevant distinction is that in the current case – the group is not an authority but rather coalition, but this is an aside.

300 years ago, wealth and power were held by very few – the secular nobility and the Church. 97%+ of all people worldwide were dirt poor with no prospects outside of plunder or the priesthood to advance. The average man and women believed in spirits, demons, omens, magic, curses and divine intervention. The world, while no longer universally seen as flat, was heliocentric. Blood letting was cutting edge medicine.

The Nobility relied on their God given right to rule and Church in return on the Nobility’s arms (as well as their own in some cases.) And everyone else was beholden to the Word of God as interpreted by those in authority.

French philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu advocated that men were born free and equal and clearly set the stage for Jefferson’s declaration.

During this era many new ideas were developed based on Daring to Understand the world around us and how it worked. But daring to do so met opposition.

Copernicus dispelled the Ptolemaic concept of the Earth circling the sun, but Galileo was declared a heretic for believing so.

James Hutton (the Father of Geology) dared to use his keen observation. In the 1750’s he formulated a theory on the Great Age of the Earth based on his observations in Scotland of layers in the cliffs and reasoned how and why they formed over the ages. Ages far in excess of the prevailing concept of the Earth’s age of around a then incomprehensible 6000 years. Which was based on backdating the Bible.

Hutton’s findings influenced Darwin, who later developed his theory of evolution.

Adam Smith invented not only the concept of Capitalism, but more fundamentally a theory on the creation of wealth. No longer just gold, silver and precious gems, but the fruits of cooperative action by and between specialist who enhanced each others efforts to in essence create 1 + 1 = 3.

These innovations turned on its head the dogma’s of the day, based on daring to understand the world around them and how it worked. And pointedly, not accepting at face values articles of faith.

But what is clear, is that The Age of Enlightenment set off a tremendous change in the world at large, one that continues to this day, although Pinker cites many challenges from thought leaders on both the right and the left throughout the book.

We will explore in some detail, evidence that this Age of Enlightenment has and continues to bring the world many benefits, and that those benefits continue to accumulate, but not without challenges.

We hope to change the focus of faith in various stripes of political fiction and recenter that debate on the worthy principles that sprung out of the era and still remain vibrant today and will into the future.