Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in November 2024

So, what now?

November 30, 2024

The news is full of Trump's declared planning, and the commentators from everywhere are beside themselves with dire predictions. I am at sixes and sevens on whether to be overly concerned here. On one hand, I am well hunkered down being fully retired with a  completely protected judicial pension. I am an observer, not a doer, and am no longer involved in anything that is going to be affected at all by Trump's shenanigans.

On the other hand, my household budget is still subject to the general economy, and if Trump carries out even a few of his main proposals, the resultant impact on the economy could be disastrous. The direst of the predictions are for runaway inflation coupled  with a deep depression, but even if lesser results occur, it would still be more than just uncomfortable. Here are three examples:

First, Trump's plan to use import duties as revenue raising devices, imposing general tariffs of up to 20% on all imports, is going to result is a disaster if he cannot be talked out of it. Generally, tariffs are an administrative device and do not require  congressional approval. The Trump administration could impose them at any time, unilaterally.  It has been explained over and over that tariffs are not paid by the foreign entity manufacturing or selling the goods but are taxes paid by the consumers paying  higher prices for the goods in the receiving country – meaning us in all of Trump's plans.

General import tariffs would hit the bottom of the economy the worst, with estimates of the increase in costs for at typical family in the bottom quartile exceeding $4,000 per year. The last time the U.S. imposed general import tariffs was in 1929, just ahead  of the great depression. Most economists agree that the implementation of general import duties significantly contributed to the depth and length of the depression.

Trump's only reaction to these comments is to wink and nod, and then repeat without comment the entirety of his ill-conceived plans without change.

Second, Trump's plan for tax relief calls for significant tax cuts to those in the top earnings brackets and miniscule cuts for those in the lowest. If the government is going to step in, this plan is the exact reverse of what might be helpful. The idea that  increasing the amount of earnings retained by the top will result in a "trickle down" to increase the earnings for those below has been demonstrated over and over to be a complete myth. In fact, increasing the amounts retained by those at the top tend to stay  at the top, either in savings or reinvestment.

Wages of those below the top are not affected until other aspects of the economy influence the change – increased demand, increases in technology, and shortages in the labor force to meet requirements.  Increases in wages are usually the last element to respond in an increasing economy. Lowering the taxes on the lowest categories has little impact because, in our graduated income tax scheme, the lowest categories already pay the least amount in taxes and benefit from what plans have been enacted for the relief of

the very lowest category among us. Further, lowering the tax rate when the existing level of government spending already exceeds income results in increased debt, thereby pushing the obligations on to future generations. In an overheated economy, when lowering the tax rates on the wealthy result in increasing the debt level, the expected result is not an increase in resources to the lower classes but rather an even greater increase in the levels or rates of inflation.

There is  no indication that Trump understands the basic economics involved, and his cabinet picks in this area so far do not give any promise of being better at it than he is.

Finally, Trump's plan to round up all the undocumented aliens and return them to their country of origin is woefully incomplete. Nowhere does Trump explain how the economy will pay for the cost of rounding up, litigating and deporting the 11 million or so undocumented aliens in this country. Nor does he explain what to do with or care for the children of the undocumented aliens who are born in the U.S. and therefore are automatically citizens from birth. Finally, Trump has no answer of who will replace the deported immigrants at the menial jobs many of them currently occupy – jobs even the lower class of U.S. citizen considers to be beneath their level of income and achievement.

There is no argument that a problem exists in this area, but as every expert that has addressed the problem insists, the country must first fix the problem of processing immigrants into the country before, or at least at the same time as, taking on any wholesale  program of deportation out.

To sum up, from the appointments made so far, it appears Trump will be surrounding himself with sycophants to him personally rather than seeking out executives with actual experience in the fields to be managed. There is not one person in the bunch named so far that give any indication that they might even understand the problems let alone take on the task of explaining to Trump the underlying issues discussed above.

Where are the answers going to come from?  My head hurts. I think I will take a nap.

 

Maybe saved, thankfully

Maybe saved, thankfully

November 29, 2024

If you’re in favor of higher education - and today that includes some but clearly not all voters - then the general election had one definite bright spot in the Idaho Panhandle: The voters’ choices to fill three seats on the North Idaho College board.

Count it as something in the Gem State to be thankful for this season.

The college has been teetering on the edge of losing accreditation, which could mean in effect the end of the college. This is not a subtle threat or much in dispute, or unimportant. The college’s future was hanging in the balance with the choices voters made to fill three critical spots on what normally, in most years until recently, has been an obscure governing body. Community college boards are quiet and publicly obscure - like a lot of offices in government - as long as they stay out of trouble.

North Idaho College has no inherent massive problems. There’s nothing about its teachers or students or administrators or facilities or the other people (vendors, community partners) raising any red flags. It long has operated like a normal community college, offering some collegiate courses and some aimed at vocational and technical training. Not terribly contentious there.

Until the Kootenai County Republican organization decided a few years ago to turn the non-partisan board into a culture war battlefield (and in campaigns, vivid apocalyptic imagery). With the support of that organization, which for a couple of decades has been politically dominant in Kootenai, new members were elected to shake things up at the college.

Shake them they did. Their tenure of control, which has extended over not all but most of the last four years - since voters in November 2020 elected a majority which set about demolishing normal practices at the college - has been a time of chaos and uproar at the college, with fired presidents and attorneys and others and a wider mix of key players, some evidently quite capable and others evidently not. The college was in endless uproar for years, and the reason was easy to point to: The elected board.

Finally the regional organization that accredits colleges stepped in and warned that the college’s credentials, which translates to the usefulness and recognition by the outside world of its education program, was at imminent risk of being lost.

That finally seems to have gotten the attention of Kootenai County voters. Not all of them, and far from enough to constitute a landslide at the polls, but enough to change the membership of the board in a direction aimed at restoring the college’s conventional role as a community college.

The stakes were public enough in the last couple of elections, but this year they finally moved front and center, ahead and in front of the bogus culture war topics that dominated so much local attention in previous cycles.

The slate of candidates trying to save the college ran under “Save NIC Now,” and the campaign language was blunt: “They aren’t here to play games; they’re here to clean up the board and get NIC back on track. If you care about NIC and the future of this community, these are the folks you need to vote for.”

It worked.

On November 20, the newly-elected board members, Rick Durbin, Eve Knudtsen and Mary Havercroft, were sworn in amid applause and no doubt deep relief. And they got to work right away on starting to repair the damage from the last few years.

This isn’t the end of the story. Word on ensuring accreditation continues will go on for months, as the accreditors move toward their final decisions. But the odds of success have improved.

What happened politically in Kootenai County could blunt efforts in other parts of the state to take other colleges down the same road NIC traveled. Attempts in southern Idaho were turned back a couple of years ago; thanks to the voters at Kootenai, they may have a harder time gaining traction in future. Maybe some broader lessons will sink in too.

Something to be thankful for, we can hope.

 

Thanks

Thanks

November 28, 2024

I want to express my thanks to you.

Martha, my wife makes us all hold hands around the Thanksgiving table and say just what exactly we are thankful for. She warns us beforehand, so we think about it.

I’m going to ask the same of you right now. Stop reading this, look up at the ceiling and think about what exactly you should give thanks for. Then say it aloud. If there’s someone else in the room, please explain this exercise.

It’s easy these days to grouse. Some bemoan the planet warming while others are up in arms that transgender people might be considered as they wish.

Maybe you can’t get to the thankful part without the grousing. Then you need to take a deep breath and do better. You’re alive, aren’t you? That’s a start.

This season darkens in these northern latitudes. Some may be looking at the end of their life. I have attended many in such circumstances. Death comes to us all. I have learned, maybe you have to, most of us die just about the same way we have lived. Some are angry and bitter, some peaceful and thankful. I’m pressing you now to move toward the latter.

So, practice.

My thanks I offer is that you read this. I rarely hear from anybody about the words I write. I often use the phrase “We should talk.” But I’m in my shop and I don’t do Facebook or Reddit or X or Truth Social, so I don’t get the social media feedback. And I’m not asking that you send me a postcard. I’m just thanking you for your time to read and consider.

Thanks.

I hope you by now have thought about the things that you consider worthy of thanks.

Maybe it was a neighbor. Maybe they plowed your drive or waved “hi” to you as you sped off on an errand. Maybe they have just lived there for 20 years, providing stability to your neighborhood.

Maybe none of that you consider worthy of your thanks. Be careful. You may die like that someday.

If you want to get big picture, look out the window. That big spruce on the south side of your house that shades you all summer may deserve your thanks. Does it need a trim, some fertilizer? Or maybe it’s reached it’s time and it needs a chainsaw. How we give thanks can come in many forms.

Big picture thanks can often lead to the spiritual and with that comes the religious. Thanking God is almost a given at the Thanksgiving table. This wonderful mysterious world brings me awe and I give thanks.

You might have detected a bit of a moral quandary here. You might be thinking I am saying we should give thanks to ease our passage into the beyond.

Not so. There is no benefit expected from the honest thanks. It is just a gift, freely given.

So what lesson is there in this for an Idaho Democrat and all you other Republicans out there? A pretty big one really.

We are just small players in the big scheme. This state, this nation, this planet will survive us. We are just dust motes in the big picture.

But what we call each other, what we say about each other, how we envision each other just gets in the way of our being thankful for ourselves and each other and this big, beautiful world.

So, I will cook my turkey and I will prepare my spoken thanks as my wife, Martha, asks us to. I will express thanks that we can talk with each other about our fears, our needs. And thankfully, we can listen.

 

Risch on Trump

November 27, 2024

Those in my line of work who are covering the transition zoo in Washington would do well not to stick a microphone under Sen. Jim Risch’s chin.

He’s not going to give great sound bites on President-elect Trump’s Cabinet selections – even the ones he might like. Here’s what he says about Rep. Elisa Stefanik of New York, Trump’s pick for United Nations ambassador: “She’ll be fine.”

Risch is more vocal about his support for Sen. Marco Rubio, a longtime friend and colleague on foreign relations, for secretary of state. Risch says he’s working with the leading Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to get Rubio confirmed on Day 1 of Trump’s second term.

“Next to (Sen.) Mike Crapo, Marco is the best friend I have here,” Risch says. “We know each other well and I know his thought process. He influences me in that regard, and I influence him.”

So, it’s a nice path forward for Risch, who soon will chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Risch, who was the committee chair during Trump’s first term, has a long-standing working relationship with the president and one of his best friends on Capitol Hill will be the secretary of state.

But don’t expect him to comment about more controversial Cabinet selections – such as Pete Hegseth (defense), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (health and human services), or Linda McMahon (education). Risch has indicated that he will vote for all of the above, and more, if those nominations come to the floor. Until then, he’ll leave the vetting, fighting and mike drops to others.

“I have my hands full on my committee,” Risch says. Rubio and Stefanik are two high-profile confirmations before his committee, but there also are numerous confirmations through the state department and ambassadorships to almost 200 countries. Risch wants to see appointments in place early and immediately focus on the business at hand.

“It’s hard to put into words how much better I feel about (the new administration),” Risch says. “I watched what the (Biden) administration has done, and they fell so short in so many areas. The most obvious one was the disastrous way they handled the end of the Afghanistan war – clearly, clearly encouraging others to take advantage of that.”

Trump’s second presidency, Risch says, will be much like the first – with some twists. “It’s a foregone conclusion that Trump will seal off the border immediately and I think the burst of spending that Democrats did that caused the inflation – that’s going to stop, obviously. And you are going to see a more stable world because Trump is a strong leader and others are not willing to challenge us, or him.”

Risch, who has made some comprehensive recommendations for dealing with China, should have a friendly audience with President Trump.

“I don’t think so, I know so,” Risch says. “Biden was not interested in my views on that. The first thing we need to do (toward China) is to show strength. We also need to convince, not only the American people, but China, that we understand the challenges – whether it’s militarily, economically or culturally – and that we are up to meeting those challenges.”

Risch, an advocate for supporting Ukraine’s efforts against Russia, says that Trump may have the ultimate solution for ending that conflict.

“I saw him in the debate when he said he would end it on Day 1,” Risch says. “This is a man who has a habit of doing what he says and he’s probably one of the few people on the planet who has a relationship with the leaders of those countries. I’ve seen him use the most powerful weapon, the telephone, and he’s very effective. He feels that he can end this war, and I say give him the space to do it.”

There will be many other hot global issues coming before Risch’s committee, including continued support to Israel, which the senator enthusiastically supports. Iran, NATO and ongoing issues with Russia also will be part of more than a few high-level discussions.

This time, Risch – as the committee chair – will be working with a president that he supports, opposed to sending out releases and commentaries blasting the administration. So, let’s party like it’s … 2017.

“It’s déjà vu all over again,” says Risch.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

S-E-X

November 26, 2024

Those three letters have recently become shorthand for stories defining some of the Trump administration's cabinet wannabees.

Hedseth at DOD.   McMahon at DOE.  Gaetz at DOJ.

All have been caught up in stories involving s-e-x activities, of one sort or another, somewhere in their backgrounds.  The details of which are emerging as all have been put in the spotlight to join a future Trump cabinet.

One has withdrawn, while more stories have proliferated.

Somewhere along the line, I seem to remember a Trump video wherein he said he would be appointing "only the best people."  If these three are the best that he can do, we're in more trouble than previously thought.

These three - Hedseth, McMahon and Gaetz - have risen to political and/or business prominence and all seem to have a personal or business relationship with DJT.

Will they - or he - withdraw the nominations, knowing they face public Senate confirmation hearings?  Doubtful.  Will Trump back off and pull the names?  Probably not.

It would seem there's a question to be asked about these folks.  And, that is, "Out of more than three hundred million citizens in this country, are these three the best we can do?"

There's a theme running through this particular nomination process.  All of the candidates, so far, are people Trump knows.  People he likes.  Their names haven't been put forward because they have the requisite educational backgrounds or appropriate skills for these positions.  They've been selected because Trump is familiar with them and he likes them.  Period.

Putting civilians into government positions is not new.  It occurs all the time.  Everywhere.  What's different with these three is they all are just flat inappropriate for the jobs that need filling.  They bring no professional or political skills to the appointments.

If they stay in the running, there's those Senate confirmation hearings in the weeks ahead.  Each of the three will have to decide whether the appointments are worth the public scrutiny and the extensive public examinations that lie ahead.

Sen Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) co-chairs the committee that will do the examining and he's promised that process will be thorough.

We're gonna have to send out for more popcorn.

 

Misreading the tea leaves

Misreading the tea leaves

November 25, 2024

The extremist branch of Idaho’s Republican Party, presided over by Dorothy Moon, has been feeling its oats after the 2024 elections. They defeated a number of reasonable, problem-solving Republicans in the May primary and made a few gains in the general election, but they may be misreading the tea leaves. Those leaves point to a growing dissatisfaction with fake culture-war issues amongst a large swath of Idaho voters, including many traditional Republicans. American history demonstrates that extremism loses its luster with the passage of time. A number of factors point to a return to reason.

The Moon faction of the GOP has partnered with dark money groups, like the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Idaho Family Policy Center, to drive Idaho politics to the farthest rightward fringes. Moderate Republicans, who are actually interested in addressing serious problems, are primaried by extremists who win votes by stoking fear and outrage over non-existent culture war problems—CRT, DEI, ESG, harmful books, gun control, sex change surgery at schools, you name it. They have succeeded in purging a number of Republicans dedicated to serving the public interest.

The Moon faction has been emboldened to the extent that it has engineered the defeat of a reasonable Republican, even when it resulted in a Democratic victory. IFF operatives have been chortling at their recent success in defeating Laurie Lickley, a conservative Republican candidate from Jerome.  IFF supported an “independent” spoiler candidate, who drew enough GOP votes to defeat Lickley. That resulted in the re-election of Senator Ron Taylor, a well-regarded Democrat. Moon’s radicals won’t hesitate to purge those who refuse to strictly comply with their extremist dictates.

The next extremist target is Hyrum Erickson, a Republican precinct committeeman from Rexburg. Hyrum is a remarkable young man–an accomplished lawyer, a legislative assistant to former Senator Larry Craig, a current Commissioner on the Idaho Human Rights Commission and an engaged member of his community. Hyrum became an effective spokesman for Prop. 1, which threatened the stranglehold that Moon and her cronies have maintained over the Republican Party with the closed GOP primary.

Bryan Smith, IFF’s vice chair and the Idaho GOP’s National Committeeman, is demanding that Erickson be censured for speaking out in favor of Prop. 1. He claims Erickson must be disciplined “for aiding and abetting Democrats, leftists, liberals, socialists, communists and the like in their efforts to destroy” the Republican Party. Smith seems to believe that only communists could support ranked choice voting, despite the fact that his and Moon’s party used a variety of ranked choice methodology earlier this year in its presidential preference caucus.

A caucus works by conducting multiple rounds of voting where the candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round is eliminated until one candidate receives a majority of the vote. The ranked voting method was also used by the U.S. Senate Republicans in choosing their new majority leader earlier this month. It’s hard to see this as creeping communism. In fact, communists are well known for eliminating party members who fail to scrupulously follow the party line. It would appear Smith wishes to adopt the purge mentality favored by the communists. Any rational political party would welcome an articulate and energetic person like Erickson into its ranks, instead of purging him.

Now to the tea leaves that I mentioned earlier. Despite extremist efforts to purge GOP ranks of Party members who like to think for themselves, there has been a growing resistance to that type of bossism. Senator-elect Jim Woodward courageously challenged an extremist clone in the GOP primary and won by reason, honesty and hard work. Extremist candidates bent on destroying North Idaho College were tossed out on their ears by the concerted effort of local citizens in Kootenai County. Stehanie Mickelsen employed courage and hard work in winning reelection against two extremists after telling Smith and his hard-right pals to take a hike when they tried to censure her. A number of other reasonable Republicans in eastern Idaho won their races by standing tall for their constituents, instead of caving in to the extremists.

There are definite signs that the tide is turning against extremists who have nothing to offer except meaningless culture war issues designed to win votes by stoking fear, anger and division. The people want public officials who will work to solve societal problems, instead of creating them.

[image]

The battle ahead

The battle ahead

November 24, 2024

During the just-concluded campaign for attorney general, Republican Will Lathrop dodged a question about whether he supported his party’s presidential candidate by saying he was “laser focused” on public safety issues in Oregon and not on national politics. National issues, he suggested, were not a major part of the job for an Oregon attorney general.

He was wrong.

What’s become obvious in the days since the election of Donald Trump as president is that the line between Oregon’s and national issues could be erased, and that courtrooms — and specifically those likely to be frequented by Oregon’s attorney general — will be a primary battleground over the broader subjects of safety and security.

Oregon’s next Democratic attorney general, Dan Rayfield, reflected as much immediately after his race was called. In some of his first remarks post-election, he said, “In light of this week’s election, our work to defend Oregon’s values and the rule of law against national attacks will be front and center like never before. As the last line of defense for the rights and freedoms of Oregonians, we will be prepared to stand firm against the unconstitutional and unlawful threats President-elect Trump promised on the campaign trail.”

Oregon statewide officials overall have been less strident than those in some other blue states with their responses to the incoming federal administration, but their comments have included warnings that offensive federal policies wouldn’t go unchallenged. Gov. Tina Kotek, for example, said, “While I seek to work with the incoming administration, I will not stand idly by as abortion access, environmental standards, civil liberties or other priorities come under attack from national partisan politics.”

Rayfield seems likely to ask the Oregon Legislature in coming weeks for more money to do battle with the Trump administration. And he’s likely to get it.

That would mirror most of the blue state attorneys general. Washington state, for example, situated much like Oregon, also has just elected a new AG with the incumbent, Bob Ferguson, a veteran of many battles with the prior Trump administration, moving up to governor.

A number of California-Oregon-Washington legal initiatives may be on the way.

Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, said, “If Trump attacks your rights, I’ll be there.”

Washington’s incoming AG, Nick Brown, remarked that, “We will be prepared for whatever comes and do everything in our power to defend the rights of Washingtonians, the people of this great state, and to make sure that when there is an illegal action, that we look very closely to see if we can bring a case.”

Where might the battles be located?

You can start with some of the topics Trump emphasized in his campaign. Oregon’s protections for immigrants and transgender people are two likely targets. Education policy may shift dramatically, since there’s discussion of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education, though its reach is not as broad as some critics appear to think. The Affordable Care Act is again, as during the first Trump term, very much at risk.

Trump’s discussion of election fraud has faded since his win, but Oregon’s vote-by-mail process may become a target anyway.

But the meaningful list of battlefields is much longer.

In 2017 the Trump administration proposed to decrease the size of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which had been expanded by President Barack Obama. The effort failed. But the effort did not happen because Trump made a personal push for it; the proposal came from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. In all presidencies, many administration proposals come from officials other than the president, and the list of those initiatives could be extensive.

Taken together, many changes in environmental rules and management could happen.

On the campaign trail, Trump indicated that California’s water woes could be solved by draining water from the Columbia River: “So you have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north with the snow caps in Canada and all pouring down. And they have essentially a very large faucet. And you turn the faucet and it takes one day to turn it. It’s massive.”

This may have been nonsensical, but if Trump did decide to follow up, the legal battles over water could be heated.

Different approaches to policy, even when not outright or obvious reversals, could matter. Native American tribes have expressed concern about this, noting unwelcome changes in policy during the first Trump administration.

Policy clashes are likely, too, in areas like housing, where the state has begun efforts to ease housing shortages and pricing — but the next Trump administration is likely to push very different approaches.

The battle begins on Jan. 20. It will not end quickly.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

On feeling sorry

November 23, 2024

I was feeling sorry for myself the other day over some new inconvenience that I ran into, a common occurrence at age 85. I am on borrowed time and, as I paused to reassemble, I thought of my mother. She was a wonderful person to me, as I suppose all mothers are, being the source of constant attention to every twist and turn of my life.

Although not heavy on church going, her belief in God was strong. She believed that God watched over every detail of our lives, and never gave us an unpleasant task or result without intending there to be a lesson in the circumstance. "Look for the silver lining," she would remind us. "There always is one. Find it and figure out how you can turn this to your advantage."

Her teachings on the vagaries of life were always by example, never by instruction or demand. It was never "Do as I say, not as I do," and she seldom stepped in to take over. Although she constantly kept me pointed into what she considered to be the right direction, she left it to me to figure out all the lessons that life handed out along the way. Unless the subject was particularly in her area, like cooking or a specific method of home care, she answered most questions with a question, "What should I do?" was invariably answered with, "What do you think you should to?"

From her I learned the importance of preparation. She took the simple "look before you leap" jingo into every issue that one might face in growing up. She insisted that nothing should happen without proper preparation. Her belief was that proper planning aways included the means for identifying how to quit or get out if things did not turn out as expected. This meant to expect the best in my choices but to look for the worst, and to strive to prevent that which could be prevented.

"What's Plan B?" she would ask anytime I told her what my next adventure was going to be. This is a question I still ask myself whenever choosing an option or setting out on a different course in life's plan.

In the last few years, I have begun to feel that I have become an observer of life rather than a participant in it. Suddenly, I have encountered many twists and turns, requiring that I face all measure of novel issues. My age, health matters, hospitals, my wheelchair, no driving, and the forced retirement have piled on a whole raft of issues to decide or alternatives to choose.

Then I think of my mother, and say to myself, "Oh yeah? And just what is your plan B now?"

But then, at my age, I do not like the obvious answer.

 

The few

The few

November 22, 2024

Transgender people have been big in politics this year, in Idaho and nationally.

They became a top battleground focus of the winning presidential campaign (especially in television ads from the Trump campaign in battleground states), and in the most recent Idaho legislative session they seldom went unremarked for long in heated debate. Transgender people have become a culture-war centerpiece in the state.

Idaho’s congressional delegation joined in the fray this month, “sending a letter today urging the Mountain West Conference to ban biological males from competing in women’s sports and protect biological female student-athletes.” This being such an obvious federal issue and all.

In September, Attorney General Raul Labrador joined in a letter from attorneys general around the country blasting the American Academy of Pediatrics (these are the leading professionals in health care for younger people) for their policy “Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents.” A decision by a professional association so obviously meriting the use of state tax dollars …

From all that, a visitor from afar understandably might think a massive crisis on this subject has suddenly arisen.

They would be wrong.

Before going further, answer in your own mind this question: How many transgender people - what share of the population - do you think there are in Idaho, and in the nation?

Compare what you just thought to these results in a survey of American adults by the polling firm YouGov: “The average response was 21%, or 1 in 5 Americans. This overestimate was not an outlier, as respondents consistently overestimated the size of other minority groups, guessing that 27% of people are Muslim (the reality is 1%), or that 41% of Americans are Black (the reality is 12% to 13%).”

Okay: So what are the real numbers?

According to the Williams Institute in California, which has most thoroughly researched the subject, the nationwide number is about 1.6 million, well under one percent of the population.

In Idaho, the transgender number was about 7,000, or .52% - that’s just about half of one percent - of Idahoans. That’s in a state of two million people.  The numbers in Idaho are well below the national stats, which are not massive to begin with.

The numbers are generally reported as skewing somewhat higher for younger people; attitudes toward gender issues may be a factor in how some people see and act on their gender identity.

Presumably, one hardball political calculation is that if you want to Otherize a group of people for rile-up-the-base purposes, this is a group of people who are too small in size to cast many votes or exert much social influence. Of course, what would that say about beating up on people who can’t easily fight back?

It’s true that there are some legitimate subjects for discussion here. The issue of who should participate in gender-specific athletics is real and legitimate. I’ll not weigh in here specifically on whether the athletes complaining about transgender participation in their ranks have a case; maybe they do. But that ought to be qualified by individual cases. Every one of these transgender people are stories unto themselves. The changes they go through as well as the results are different, on varying time frames and involving different physical realities. A transgender person in one case might in no way reasonably belong on a particular gendered team or group, while another might. Wouldn’t that suggest the smarter way to go would involve addressing these issues case by case, with the specific facts at hand, rather than in making a sweeping judgment?

If the numbers involved were really large, you might argue that broad rules are needed. But, well, the numbers aren’t all that large. The Williams Institute and others have estimated that about 1,000 Idaho teens are transgender.

In general, a case by case approach probably is going to yield the best and fairest results. Doing it that way would, of course, result in less raw meat for the political and anger/fear social media grinders, but … wouldn’t that be a good thing?

There’s no cause for panic here, however extreme an emotional response political ads, and some politicians, might try to induce.